New Name requred for the CSE Branch

[medicineman]

Target Acquisition, Surveillance and Engagement Systems pretty much covers what you're looking at - could add Air/Surface and Sub-surface for the sub-speciality areas (radar vs sonar) - and pretty much describes the dept.  Mind you, Naval Weapons Tech sounds a bit cooler than Naval Target Engagement Systems Operator (though the latter has today's typical "I don't want to sound like a janitor" kinda ring to it).

MM

 

[Neill McKay]

Second, the  described trades are not nor have they ever been part of the Naval Ops Branch.

I have to admit that I've never heard of a separate Combat Systems Engineering Branch.  Is this a recent split from another branch?

Third, the words engineer and engineering are not a copywrite of any of the the P. Eng Associations.

To confirm and add to what others have said, the controls on the use of the word "engineer" in a person's job title come from provincial and territorial legislation governing the engineering profession.  The form is along the lines of "nobody may use the title 'engineer' unless he is registered as a Professional Engineer with the Association of Professional Engineers...".  It's up to that Association, which is a regulatory body for the engineering profession in its province, to prosecute anyone who improperly includes "engineer" in his job title or who holds himself out to be an engineer without being registered.

In practice somebody who works in the Forces in any capacity is not likely to be prosecuted.  The legislation is aimed more at somebody who offers his services as a consulting engineer but who does not meet the requirements to practice (e.g. short of the educational or experience requirements).  In New Brunswick -- and I strongly suspect it's true everywhere in Canada -- CF members in engineering trades are free from any trouble.  Nobody is worried that MCpl Bloggins, the Combat Engineer, is going to offer his services to all and sundry to design structural steel for buildings.  Similarly, nobody minds train engineers or stationary engineers calling themselves such.

The future vision of the present CSE Branch will be a single entry level trade, that will branch off into five or six occupations. The entry level technician will be responsible for the maintenance of  a variety of the simpler equipment from each of the existing trades. They will then feed into 5 - 6 trades. The trades will be responsible for:

    a. Internal Communications (includes IT)
    b. External Communications
    c. Sensors
    d. Radar
    e. Armament
    f. Fire Control

These trades will then feed back into a single supervisor / manager trade at the PO1 Level.

The names they have been given for working puposes are

1. Entry Level = Weapons Engineering Technician

2.  a. Weapons Engineering Specialist Internal Communications
    b. Weapons Engineering Specialist External Communications
    c. Weapons Engineering Specialist Sensors
    d. Weapons Engineering Specialist Radar
    e. Weapons Engineering Specialist Armament
    f. Weapons Engineering Specialist Fire Control

3. Supervisor/ Manager = Weapons Engineering Specialist

I hope this leads to some constructive suggestions.

As these are maintainer trades (vice operators) my thought is to keep "technician" in the title of the specialist trades in 2 (e.g. "Weapons Engineering Technician [Sensors]").

I'm not sure that "weapons" is appropriate in all trades, since only two of the six trades appear to be principally involved with weapons.  Combat systems seems to be a pretty good catch-all for the group.  If that's felt to be a poor choice for recruiting purposes then combat by itself might be worth a look: "Combat Technician (Sensors)" etc.  (I'm not wild about the sound of it, but I'm not part of the target audience here either.)

Looking into history, as the navy is wont to do, I think some thought should be given to using "gunner".

 

[Donaill]

Perhaps I am behind in the latest trade talk but I had heard that the idea of splitting the Comm techs into two groups was scrapped because they decided to not bring the NavComms into the trade for the Internal Commications.

I digress from the topic. I have no issue with the current name for the trade, NET or CSE D. I enlisted because i was already a tech and wanted to be on in the military. I don't know if a name change will attract people or not but it is worth a try. I think that it will require selling the trade as exciting and challenging. I love being a tech, and love to troubleshoot and test equipment.

 However the NET trade does not evoke the same excitment among people as would some of the other trades. People have to have a genuine interest in the trade or they may not stay or may not be that great of a tech to work with.

I think someone mentioned this already, the name N.E.E.T (E) (W). Naval Electronics Engineering Technician  (Electronics) (Weapons). Then again that does not totally reflect what a NWT does, or learns.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[RickDevlieger]

First of all, I would like to introduce myself as the next Career manager for the NE Tech Trades which will soon morph into CM for all "CSE Trades". I am encouraged by the discussion I am seeing here and am glad that there is interest in the future of our trade.

I would like to respond to a couple of points and provide some clarification. One was the point that using the term weapons is inaccurate because it would only apply to one of the six branches. Actually five of those branches, with proposed equipment distribution would be working on weapon delivery or directing equipment, The exception being External Communications. Even internal comms will be working on systems which directly control what would be considered a weapon.

The second point is that the name isn't important. According to the recruiting experts, the name is important because at present people are not selecting our trade as their primary choice, those choosing SEP or NCSTTP excepted. This is definitely aimed at the recruit who may not meet the entrance requirements for College or University programs which would permit them to come in via the SEP or NCSTTP routes. Surveys have indicated that certain words have more impact than others. "Weapons", "engineering" and "comunications" are examples of these words.  A bad example is NE Tech Acoustics (I once was one BTW), which meant something to us, but when heard by person with no Naval experience, associated those terms with a sound technician who looked after microphones, amplifiers and speaker systems.

In conclusion, I encourage you to keep your ideas and discussion going. The "Trade" is going to have to pull the trigger on a new name in the next few weeks. So the more ideas we have, the better for us to come up with something that reflects what we do, now and into the future.

 

[TCBF]

.... The biggest one is that the name "Engineer" can't be legally included unless everyone is going to be a P. Eng. There might be equivalent rules on the "Engineering Technician" or "Technologist" names too...

- I would have thought the Army's "Combat Engineers" had solved that problem years ago:

http://www.forces.ca/v3/engraph/jobs/jobs.aspx?id=043

"Soldier Qualification

On successful completion of BMQ,Combat Engineers go to a MilitaryTraining Centre for the 10-weekSoldier Qualification (SQ) course, which covers the following topics: ..."

 

[McG]

We really don't need to be chasing down the rights to the term "Engineer."  While I cannot find a reference, I do recall reading that the provincial associations will not be going after the military for use of the term.  Here are a few bits that I did find:

http://www.peo.on.ca/enforcement/proper_use_titles.html
http://www.peo.on.ca/enforcement/callmeengineer.htm#se

Note that there is a contact point listed on the first page, so Chief Gunner can go right to the appropriate source (for Ontario) and ask any questions that need to be asked.  In the name of good relations, it might not be a bad idea conform to at least one P Eng Association's preferences for use of the word.  I do find it interesting that Ontarion feels that "Engineering Specialist" is not acceptable and that this is the exact term used in the temp working names.

 

[Chief Gunner]

    I appreciate the concern expressed by those members about the 'fair use' of the words engineer, engineering, technician and technologist. I also understand that your concerns are valid and expressed with the best of intentions.

    With out becoming argumentative and/or sounding like a messdeck lawyer; the purpose of the provincial legislation is not intended to preclude the 'fair use' of those words in the english language by any persons, groups or organisations. It is rightly intended to prevent the misuse of those words by a person or persons attempting to misrepresent themselves or their qualifications to design, make or cause to be made various artifacts, descisions, or certifications which that person or persons lack the credentials to do. IE. commit fraud. It is by extension a protection for both consumers and members of those professions against fraud, unecessary risk, credibility and liability.

    All of the occupations in the present CSE Branch are accredited by the various national and provincial engineering and technology associations and are graduates of an accredited certifying body. That Includes CFNES (Canadian Forces Naval Engineering School) which has been accredited for sometime now. The military organizations of the world have used the word engineer in context for at least a thousand years without encountering any legal challenge. Why, because military organizations only employ those people within their area of competency and like the P.Eng Community, they adhere to a code of professional ethics.

    I do not intend to address this issue any further and suggest that if you would like to discuss it further, you start a thread for that purpose.

    On the topic of my bona fides - I am a Chief Petty Officer, Naval Weapons Technician. I am a voting member of the CSE Occupation Advisory Group, and have been authorized by that group to seek your valued opinions on this or any other subject related to the CSE Branch.

    It is not my intention to offend anyone, I would just  like to keep this thread on topic. Your input, questions and opinions are not only appreciated but valued. If you have off topic concerns, questions or queries directly related to the CSE Branch please post them in the 'Ask the CSE Chief' thread.

Thank-you

CPO2 J.D. Parsons, CD

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  A bad example is NE Tech Acoustics (I once was one BTW), which meant something to us, but when heard by person with no Naval experience, associated those terms with a sound technician who looked after microphones, amplifiers and speaker systems.

Exactly what I would have thought............................

 

[wepstech]

First, I must point out that currently, none of the CSE (Combat Systems Engineering) "trades" have the oh-so venerated and legislatively protected word "Engineer" in the title. Only the HOD of this department may claim that part of that word is in their title, as "Combat Systems Engineering Officer", and unless I'm mistaken, that person must hold an Engineering Degree (have the ability to wear a pinky ring). However, this entire thread is focused on a new name for the CSE Branch, and not on arguing about who is entitled to call themselves Engineers. By the way, just to reiterate, it's the department that uses the word in it's title, not the members.

My questions: Why are we trying to change the name, exactly? Is it to attract new recruits to the CSE trades because our numbers are falling? Are our numbers falling? If so, why?

The above questions aside (pls answer them if you would), here are my suggestions:

Naval Combat Technical Systems Department (instead of the current Combat Systems Engineering Department)

Naval Combat Systems Technician (entry level)
Naval Sensor(s) Technician (for Radar, Sonar, Fire Control/Tactical)
Naval Communication(s) Technician (these folks do a different job from the sensors people, let's face it)
Naval Weapons Technician (keep it, and not just because I am an NWT ;D, but because it really is a separate job from the others)

I firmly believe that the word "Naval" should be employed in the titles. It unquestionably implies the Navy and the sea. For potential recruits initially scanning the web or taking one of the final steps of walking into a recruiting office anywhere in the country, the word "Naval" is distinct. To them it means "I'm going to sail on a warship!".

Regarding the department/branch name, I believe the words "Combat Technical Systems" imply several things: you will become a technician working on combat systems. If you're a potential recruit, you'll likely already have looked at the naval platforms online and discovered what "combat systems" are found onboard (things that go boom, and the things that make them go boom where we want them to go boom).

As far as the specific trade titles, the current use of the word "Electronics" brings to mind (and this is from civilians either related to military members or not at all involved in the military, let alone the navy) circuit boards, soldering irons, and computers. Now, I agree that all of these items may be found on ship, and that techs are indeed in contact with them, but why not eliminate that word in favour of being more specific?

Miriam-Webster defines a techician - a specialist in the technical details of a subject or occupation. Oxford defines a technician as - a person employed to look after technical equipment or do practical work in a laboratory OR an expert in the practical application of a science. Cambridge says a technician is - a worker trained with special skills, especially in science or engineering (oops! there's that taboo word again!). Given these very well respected sources, a potential recruit with even the slightest inclination towards science or engineering sees the word "technician" in a way that suggests to them that they'll become a specialist or an expert, and both of those words put several things in the mind - respect (both the self kind and the social kind) and wealth (financially and educationally). Hmmmm... So, what is it exactly that attracts the recruit nowadays?

What about the word "specialist"? Let's see what the dictionaries say: Miriam-Webster - one who specializes in a particular occupation, practice, or branch of learning OR an enlisted rank in the United States Army corresponding to the grade of corporal; also : any of several former enlisted ranks corresponding to the grades of sergeant through sergeant major (wow! the US Army listed in a dictionary?! scary!). Oxford - a person who is highly skilled or knowledgeable in a particular field. Cambridge - someone who has a lot of experience, knowledge or skill in a particular subject.

So, the word "specialist" implies you have knowledge and skill, whereas the word "technician" implies you use your special knowledge and skill to actually do something. I realize you're all likely saying to yourselves, "Geez! This guy is really beating this to death! We can all look in a dictionary for Pete's sake!!". I'm just providing some details to support my suggestions.

So... What do you say? This isn't a contest where you win an all expense paid trip on a cruise ship if the titles you suggested are chosen (is it?)! Besides, if a person actually joins the navy as a technician or specialist or engineer or whatever and winds up in the CSE department (or whatever it'll be called) they win the trip anyways!

To the folks invloved in choosing the title(s), good luck. And if you choose any of the titles I'm suggesting, let me know if I've won anything, because I never win anything!!

wepstech :skull:

 

[McG]

I firmly believe that the word "Naval" should be employed in the titles. It unquestionably implies the Navy and the sea. For potential recruits initially scanning the web or taking one of the final steps of walking into a recruiting office anywhere in the country, the word "Naval" is distinct. To them it means "I'm going to sail on a warship!".

I fully agree with you here, and it seems so do most who have participated.  As a summary, here are the ideas so far:

	Branch Name		Entry Level Occupation		Officer Occupation
	Naval Combat Systems Engineering (This one is already listed a no-go)		Naval Combat Systems Technician		Naval Combat Systems Engineer
	Naval Electronic & Electromechanical Systems Engineering		Naval Electronic & Electromechanical Systems Technician		Naval Electronic & Electromechanical Systems Engineer
	Weapons Engineering		Weapons Engineering Technician		Weapons Engineer
	Naval Electronics Engineering		Naval Electronics Engineering Technician		Naval Electronics Engineer
	Naval Combat Technical Systems		Naval Combat Systems Technician		Naval Combat Systems Engineer

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

One of my CSEO's was a Physics grad from RRMC. He was also the only one who could've done a techs job as well, for what that's worth.

 

[Chief Gunner]

wepstech

First I appreciate your input. Much as I hate to go back into this the word engineering (adjective that descrides the field of employment) is being used in the working names not engineer (noun that is a name of a profession, or verb that describes an activity.)

As for the names that will finally be used. That is up to you, and your peers. I am just looking for input. So tell your friends, alllies, mess mates etc. Post suggestions here or e-mail me here or on the DIN. Whatever falls out of the process will be taken to the OAG. If there is a close call some sort of poll will be organized.

There is no point in yelling at me, as previously stated the working names are just that. If the OAG wanted those names this thread would not exist. For the purpose of discussion we had to call them something.

Research conducted by recruiters indicates not all the existing trade names are attractive to recruits. There is also a desire to have the names reflect the actual work being done by the trades in simple non CF language. And the natural military tendency to make things uniform (resistance is futile) tends to come into play.

As a personal aside it takes 4-5 years to become an engineer. On average it takes 9 years (minimum is about six years) of training and On the Job Training to become a Journeyman Qualified Naval Weapons Technician. So no I personally do not wish to be called a mere engineer. I' sure that statement won't ruffle any feathers.

Cheers

 

[Shamrock]

Okay, query on nomenclature. 

Why is it "Maritime Surface and Subsurface Officer," "Marine Systems Engineer" (and other Marine-named trades), and "Naval Combat Systems Engineer" (and other Naval-named trades)?  Do maritime/marine/naval fall under specific families?

 

[McG]

As a personal aside it takes 4-5 years to become an engineer. On average it takes 9 years (minimum is about six years) of training and On the Job Training to become a Journeyman Qualified Naval Weapons Technician. So no I personally do not wish to be called a mere engineer. I' sure that statement won't ruffle any feathers.

Actually, 4 to 5 years of university education and then an additional 4 years job experience (ie OJT) in order to become a Professional Engineer.  So, its a minimum of 8 years.

 

[GrumpyCommTech]

Good Morning Chief,

Although I personally see no need to change the names of the CSE department and CSE trades and doubt that this will affect the problems we are facing as a trade group for recruiting, I do feel the need to contribute. Looking at some of the "working" suggestions for the trade names, they do seem a tad long-winded. We in the military like are acronyms, so I propose going simpler, rather that complex and confusing.  I think that the Naval (Section) Technician (i.e. Naval Communications Technician, Naval Radar Technician, Naval Sonar Technician and Naval Weapons Technician) title would clarify things immensely at the recruiting office. We do seem to have less recruiting problems on the Naval Weapons Technician front than on the NET side of the house, and you have to admit that the Section name is pretty straight forward. This would have the added benefit of codifying what we generally call our trades in simple use.

As for adjusting the CSE department name, this is a much harder problem, as it is fairly descriptive already covering all four sections. We are all Combat Systems Technicians, irrespective of what we individually look after. I have no suggestions.

Also, has anyone considered that massive amount of documentation that needs to be changed to accommodate what amounts to a cosmetic change? There have to be thousands of Standing Orders, Technical Orders, Administration Orders, Training Documents, PER software and other such militaria that will need to be updated to what ever the new names would be. This is a hidden cost to any change we make and needs to addresed. Anyway, just my two cents worth.

 

[Harley Sailor]

As a personal aside it takes 4-5 years to become an engineer. On average it takes 9 years (minimum is about six years) of training and On the Job Training to become a Journeyman Qualified Naval Weapons Technician. So no I personally do not wish to be called a mere engineer. I' sure that statement won't ruffle any feathers.

AS a current  NW Tech instructor I have to correct your 9 years of training.  Most QL5 NW Techs (Journeyman Qualified) are fully trained on or before the 6 year mark. 

 

[Harley Sailor]

Also, has anyone considered that massive amount of documentation that needs to be changed to accommodate what amounts to a cosmetic change? There have to be thousands of Standing Orders, Technical Orders, Administration Orders, Training Documents, PER software and other such militaria that will need to be updated to what ever the new names would be. This is a hidden cost to any change we make and needs to addresed. Anyway, just my two cents worth.

Well Said, Just why are we changing the name of the department?  Just to please a few people?  Most of the CSE world feel that the name does not need to be changed.  As for changing the sections in the department, the NW Techs the name has worked well for the last ten years.  Maybe it is just the NE Techs who need to change their name.  Which would just finding an entry level name and a section head name.  Naval Combat Technician would work for entry and Naval Combat Administrator should work for the section heads.

On another point, just why do we feel that we have to keep changing things.  Do other navies change their trade names as often as we do. This will be the forth trade name in fifty years for the Gunners.  My dad and his friends joined as Layers, were then changed to Weapons Surface, then Navel Weapons Technicians, and now what ever the new name will be.  And with each change comes the cost of changing all the paper work.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Folks,
  Just a heads up, the Chief is here on his own volition to discuss the trades in question and to improve them. If things get out of hand and disrespectful I will put you on Warning. Consider this your freebie.

Milnet.ca Staff JAFO.

 

[aussiechangover]

i'm not sure how the training goes for the navy here but i'll take a guess that all the members of this branch have some sort of electrical background for the trade (hopefully my guess is somewhat close.) now to my suggestion. make the branch all electrial technicians with streaming for comms, weapons not sure how intensive sonar and radar course is by perhaps merging so basically you"ll have ETC, ETW and ETS electrial technician may sound more catchy and may increase recruiting.

ETC
    LF/MF/HF Receive Systems
    MF/HF Transmit-Receive Systems
    VHF/UHF Radio Systems
    Satellite Communication Systems
    Automated Meteorological Systems
    Tactical Air Navigation Systems
    IT, LAN and WAN Systems

ETW
     b. Weapons Engineering Specialist External Communications
     c. Weapons Engineering Specialist Sensors
     d. Weapons Engineering Specialist Radar
     e. Weapons Engineering Specialist Armament
     f. Weapons Engineering Specialist Fire Control

 

[wepstech]

You know, my wife says "It is what it is". The job still stays the same for most techs, unless you go subs. Then things change drastically (eh, drunknsubmrnr?). As long as the training is not made more difficult or lengthened (especially for the NWTs!), recruits will be attracted to the CSE trades if the recruiters are given the proper tools and information to send people down the path best suited for them.

I stand by my earlier suggestions.

Let me know if I have to start calling myself something new (my colleagues already have some choice names for me!). Lotsa luck!

wepstech (geez! I'll have to change my online nick if my trade name changes!)

PS - Hey drunknsubmrnr! How about Dolphin 19? :skull: