Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists (Sig Op, Lineman and LCIS Amalgamation)
- Thread starter JBP
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I personally can't see them justifying all these other military tech trades getting spec pay, yet the army techs don't....
It's a real pisser for those of us who have alot of previous (pre military) tech education and experience, who went into this trade partially because of spec pay. They knew this was coming when we enrolled and when people like me asked about this ACISS thing, I was told by the recruiters, don't listen to rumors, BLAH BLAH... Why should ATIS still get it yet we don't. Doesn't give me much motivation to stay in this trade...
It's a real pisser for those of us who have alot of previous (pre military) tech education and experience, who went into this trade partially because of spec pay. They knew this was coming when we enrolled and when people like me asked about this ACISS thing, I was told by the recruiters, don't listen to rumors, BLAH BLAH... Why should ATIS still get it yet we don't. Doesn't give me much motivation to stay in this trade...
A
aesop081
Guest
Daywalker said:
So leave then.
- Reaction score
- 4,712
- Points
- 1,160
Daywalker said:
They didn't try to fix what wasn't broken with their trade. Unfortunately, I think there's going to be a lot of people (not just techs, but mostly so) with the same lack of motivation as you. I know I'd be pretty pissed if I was a technician and they came back after all this restructure and took away spec.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CDN Aviator said:
I see the "great" cdn aviator has poked his nose in another thread, gracing us with an ounce of his one sentence " tough love" .
I understand Daywalker's frustration. This entire amalgamation has been a mess from the start. We have been told to embarrass change, and make it work with not even the Mes managers knowing what that " change" was going to look like.
The school is scrambling to find a common ground, and units ( including operational ones ) are Pat platoons for multitudes of untrained Ptes.
Don't get me started on the pay.
A
aesop081
Guest
PiperDown said:
As do i. If i wasn't happy with my current MOC, i would leave.
No ?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CDN Aviator is correct - if you are unhappy with the way things are playing out, then do an OT to another trade.
The reason that ATIS and other tech trades are going to keep spec pay is becasue they are keeping POET. ACISS and the CST sub-occ are eliminating POET and going to a modular training model.
Look at it this way, NAV COMMs do similar training and have similar jobs to the IST sub-occ. They tried a couple of times to get spec pay based on their extensive civilian IT training. They failed.
I will be surprised if any part of the ACISS occupation gets it - do you really thing that a core ACISS should get it?
The best bet would be an overhaul of the spec pay system to tie the pay to specific jobs... IMHO.
The reason that ATIS and other tech trades are going to keep spec pay is becasue they are keeping POET. ACISS and the CST sub-occ are eliminating POET and going to a modular training model.
Look at it this way, NAV COMMs do similar training and have similar jobs to the IST sub-occ. They tried a couple of times to get spec pay based on their extensive civilian IT training. They failed.
I will be surprised if any part of the ACISS occupation gets it - do you really thing that a core ACISS should get it?
The best bet would be an overhaul of the spec pay system to tie the pay to specific jobs... IMHO.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
This may be a timely occasion to repost an explanation of who gets spec pay and why. I'm going to put a couple of pertinent points in yellow and bold them.
I think the main reason that the Nav Comms have been unsuccessful at getting spec pay is that while IT is somewhat technical, it's not proving to be something that is draining skilled members from the CF so is not a retention problem. You can't swing a stick at a job fair without hitting someone with systems administration experience, so is there really any need for Nav Comms to be getting spec pay? That may hurt a few feelings, but it's the truth. It's too soon to tell if the IST sub-occ of ACISS will suffer the same fate, but I know where my bet is going...
From http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/specpay_article_e.asp?sidesection=3
Specialist Pay - How Does it Work?
Recently at the Directorate of Pay Policy and Development (DPPD) we have received a lot of questions about Specialist pay, how it works and why it is paid. This article will help to answer some of those questions.
Historical Context- With the integration of the Army, Navy and Air Force into the Canadian Armed Forces in the late 1960s, trades were combined and their numbers drastically reduced. There were, however, numerous pay fields, which meant that members working side by side, in similar environmental conditions, sometimes with the same skill sets, were being paid differently. This caused great morale problems and led to the 1972-73 review and job evaluation process called the Canadian Forces Trade Evaluation Plan (CFTEP). As a result of this review, the CF adopted an “institutional” pay system, meaning that everyone at the same rank, regardless of occupation, generally receives the same rate of pay. This is called the rank-based, team concept. In 1975, the team concept grouped the majority of all trades into one pay field: the Standard Trade Group. Nevertheless, given the market reality that certain trades require highly technical training and are therefore attractive to the private sector, two additional pay fields were added for the purpose of attraction and retention: Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 Trade Groups. Roughly one-quarter of NCM trades fall into the latter two categories.
How are occupations (MOCS) assigned to a pay group?-The CFTEP is a Treasury Board approved methodology similar to that used in the Public Service, that is used to evaluate an occupation’s predominant jobs (the descriptions of these predominant jobs are referred to as PJDs) for the purposes of assignment to a pay group. The CFTEP is a point score system. Nine factors are evaluated: Comprehension and Judgement, Trade Training and Experience, Responsibility sub-divided into resources, services and safety of others, Effort sub-divided into mental and physical effort and Working Conditions again sub-divided into environmental and hazards.
The Technical Stuff- Job evaluations are completed by a board that usually consists of at least three members usually military officers who are trained in classification jobs and job evaluation who review the PJDs for an occupation based on the factors identified above and assign points. The PJDs are provided to the Directorate of Pay, Policy and Development (DPPD) by the occupation’s Branch Advisor and Managing Authority. An occupation’s predominant jobs are those that an experienced Cpl (normally a Cpl IPC 4, that is a Cpl with at least 8 years of military experience from enrolment) or MCpl is expected to complete on a regular basis within the occupation. When all predominant jobs within an occupation are evaluated, an overall occupation score is determined by calculating a weighted average for all corporals employed in the predominant jobs. For example, if only 25% of the members of an occupation performed a job that scored high enough to achieve Specialist Pay, whether or not the whole occupation would receive Specialist Pay would be determined by the resulting mathematical score.
Occupationally Qualified- Until recently, technological limitations in the CF pay system did not allow a means of differentiating between “occupation qualified” IAW occupation specifications and “non-occupation-qualified” members for the purposes of pay. Therefore, if you became a Cpl in an occupation that was assigned to a Specialist Pay Trade Group you were paid Spec pay, whether you were qualified to do the job or not. The administration of Specialist Pay was challenged in the 2003 Chief of Review Services Report on the basis that personnel who were not qualified were in receipt of Specialist pay. Consequently, changes to the CF pay system , and the introduction of the Occupation Structure Implementation Plan (OSIP) in Aug 04, have now afforded us the opportunity to rectify this situation in ensuring that Specialist Pay is administered appropriately. As of 1 Aug 04, if you are not qualified to do the job in accordance with the occupation requirements and specifications provided by your branch’s Managing Authority, then you are not be entitled to receive Specialist Pay,
Burning Questions- Here are some of the burning questions we often receive at DPPD:
“Although we are different occupations, right now I am doing the same job as another Cpl, how come my occupation is in the Standard Pay Group while his gets Spec pay?”
Based on the Treasury Board approved methodology of how we do job evaluations and the whole concept of the weighted average you can see that in the CF we do not pay members based on individual qualifications, but on the requirements of the occupation. In this case, although some tasks may be similar in different occupations, in order to receive Specialist pay, the majority of members of a Spec pay occupation must be doing jobs that score in the Spec pay range in accordance with the CFTEP methodology.
“I know that my job requires more skills than another occupation’s jobs, how come we both get Spec 1 Pay, shouldn’t my occupation get Spec 2 instead?”
Another important point to note is that it doesn’t matter whether an occupation just barely makes the score for Specialist 1 pay or scores almost but not quite high enough to achieve Specialist 2 pay, they both receive Specialist 1 pay. This follows the lines of high school grading in that a 79% is a B, as is a 71%.
“I used to be in the Reg F and my occupation received Spec pay. Now I am in the Res F why don’t I get Spec pay, I still hold the same qualifications?”
There are two sides to the answer to this question. First, as mentioned earlier, the CF does not pay members based on individual qualifications, but on the requirements of the occupation. Although similar to those in the Reg F, Res F occupation requirements are not always exactly the same and therefore may not evaluate at the Specialist Pay Trade Group. Second, in order for an occupation to receive Specialist pay, it must have scored in the Specialist pay range, and, it must be assigned to the Specialist Pay Trade Group by the CDS. In order for this to occur, the Branch Advisor or Managing Authority must have submitted it for evaluation. There are only seven Reserve occupations that have successfully undergone the process and been assigned to a Specialist Pay Trade Group.
I think the main reason that the Nav Comms have been unsuccessful at getting spec pay is that while IT is somewhat technical, it's not proving to be something that is draining skilled members from the CF so is not a retention problem. You can't swing a stick at a job fair without hitting someone with systems administration experience, so is there really any need for Nav Comms to be getting spec pay? That may hurt a few feelings, but it's the truth. It's too soon to tell if the IST sub-occ of ACISS will suffer the same fate, but I know where my bet is going...
From http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/specpay_article_e.asp?sidesection=3
Specialist Pay - How Does it Work?
Recently at the Directorate of Pay Policy and Development (DPPD) we have received a lot of questions about Specialist pay, how it works and why it is paid. This article will help to answer some of those questions.
Historical Context- With the integration of the Army, Navy and Air Force into the Canadian Armed Forces in the late 1960s, trades were combined and their numbers drastically reduced. There were, however, numerous pay fields, which meant that members working side by side, in similar environmental conditions, sometimes with the same skill sets, were being paid differently. This caused great morale problems and led to the 1972-73 review and job evaluation process called the Canadian Forces Trade Evaluation Plan (CFTEP). As a result of this review, the CF adopted an “institutional” pay system, meaning that everyone at the same rank, regardless of occupation, generally receives the same rate of pay. This is called the rank-based, team concept. In 1975, the team concept grouped the majority of all trades into one pay field: the Standard Trade Group. Nevertheless, given the market reality that certain trades require highly technical training and are therefore attractive to the private sector, two additional pay fields were added for the purpose of attraction and retention: Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 Trade Groups. Roughly one-quarter of NCM trades fall into the latter two categories.
How are occupations (MOCS) assigned to a pay group?-The CFTEP is a Treasury Board approved methodology similar to that used in the Public Service, that is used to evaluate an occupation’s predominant jobs (the descriptions of these predominant jobs are referred to as PJDs) for the purposes of assignment to a pay group. The CFTEP is a point score system. Nine factors are evaluated: Comprehension and Judgement, Trade Training and Experience, Responsibility sub-divided into resources, services and safety of others, Effort sub-divided into mental and physical effort and Working Conditions again sub-divided into environmental and hazards.
The Technical Stuff- Job evaluations are completed by a board that usually consists of at least three members usually military officers who are trained in classification jobs and job evaluation who review the PJDs for an occupation based on the factors identified above and assign points. The PJDs are provided to the Directorate of Pay, Policy and Development (DPPD) by the occupation’s Branch Advisor and Managing Authority. An occupation’s predominant jobs are those that an experienced Cpl (normally a Cpl IPC 4, that is a Cpl with at least 8 years of military experience from enrolment) or MCpl is expected to complete on a regular basis within the occupation. When all predominant jobs within an occupation are evaluated, an overall occupation score is determined by calculating a weighted average for all corporals employed in the predominant jobs. For example, if only 25% of the members of an occupation performed a job that scored high enough to achieve Specialist Pay, whether or not the whole occupation would receive Specialist Pay would be determined by the resulting mathematical score.
Occupationally Qualified- Until recently, technological limitations in the CF pay system did not allow a means of differentiating between “occupation qualified” IAW occupation specifications and “non-occupation-qualified” members for the purposes of pay. Therefore, if you became a Cpl in an occupation that was assigned to a Specialist Pay Trade Group you were paid Spec pay, whether you were qualified to do the job or not. The administration of Specialist Pay was challenged in the 2003 Chief of Review Services Report on the basis that personnel who were not qualified were in receipt of Specialist pay. Consequently, changes to the CF pay system , and the introduction of the Occupation Structure Implementation Plan (OSIP) in Aug 04, have now afforded us the opportunity to rectify this situation in ensuring that Specialist Pay is administered appropriately. As of 1 Aug 04, if you are not qualified to do the job in accordance with the occupation requirements and specifications provided by your branch’s Managing Authority, then you are not be entitled to receive Specialist Pay,
Burning Questions- Here are some of the burning questions we often receive at DPPD:
“Although we are different occupations, right now I am doing the same job as another Cpl, how come my occupation is in the Standard Pay Group while his gets Spec pay?”
Based on the Treasury Board approved methodology of how we do job evaluations and the whole concept of the weighted average you can see that in the CF we do not pay members based on individual qualifications, but on the requirements of the occupation. In this case, although some tasks may be similar in different occupations, in order to receive Specialist pay, the majority of members of a Spec pay occupation must be doing jobs that score in the Spec pay range in accordance with the CFTEP methodology.
“I know that my job requires more skills than another occupation’s jobs, how come we both get Spec 1 Pay, shouldn’t my occupation get Spec 2 instead?”
Another important point to note is that it doesn’t matter whether an occupation just barely makes the score for Specialist 1 pay or scores almost but not quite high enough to achieve Specialist 2 pay, they both receive Specialist 1 pay. This follows the lines of high school grading in that a 79% is a B, as is a 71%.
“I used to be in the Reg F and my occupation received Spec pay. Now I am in the Res F why don’t I get Spec pay, I still hold the same qualifications?”
There are two sides to the answer to this question. First, as mentioned earlier, the CF does not pay members based on individual qualifications, but on the requirements of the occupation. Although similar to those in the Reg F, Res F occupation requirements are not always exactly the same and therefore may not evaluate at the Specialist Pay Trade Group. Second, in order for an occupation to receive Specialist pay, it must have scored in the Specialist pay range, and, it must be assigned to the Specialist Pay Trade Group by the CDS. In order for this to occur, the Branch Advisor or Managing Authority must have submitted it for evaluation. There are only seven Reserve occupations that have successfully undergone the process and been assigned to a Specialist Pay Trade Group.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
signalsguy said:
If you mean as in positional pay (like jump pay..You're in a jump position, you get it, you aren't, you don't) I agree wholeheartedly.
The problem is, it would be such an administrative nightmare, that you won't ever see it.
- Reaction score
- 4,712
- Points
- 1,160
Beadwindow 7 said:
And good luck posting people out of spec pay positions. If you thought it was bad posting them out of field units now....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I just received an email from the Army Foreman.
The pay review for ACISS has not started yet, and no decision has been made with regards to pay group allocation. A decision is not expected until July 2012
The email that surfaced regarding the Naval occupation review decision mentioned ACISS, but was misleading as the ACISS occupation has TEMPORARILY been assigned the standard pay level until a formal decision has been made.
The pay review for ACISS has not started yet, and no decision has been made with regards to pay group allocation. A decision is not expected until July 2012
The email that surfaced regarding the Naval occupation review decision mentioned ACISS, but was misleading as the ACISS occupation has TEMPORARILY been assigned the standard pay level until a formal decision has been made.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Well, to those who think that ACISS CST shouldn't have Spec Pay because of the lack of POET now...what about those who already had POET (or a 2 year college electronics tech diploma or better, or those who went through the SEP program) and got sucked into ACISS part way into the training system. I know a few of them...
As for changing to a different trade... I would love to change to ATIS (as would MANY others I know), in fact ATIS was my first choice, but that option isn't available.... and I imagine there are quite alot of LCIS techs out there who are trying to OT...and we all know just how easy that process is!
Don't get me wrong... I am really happy to be in this trade... but once I arrived at Kingston, everything that I was told that was going to happen with me turned out to be BS, and I sat there in K-town for a long time with no answers. Now that I am finally posted elsewhere and working at a good unit, I can go home to my own house and family again, and you see a big difference in me. Now that I am about to "finally" begin some of my actual trade training (DP1.1), I'm looking forward to returning to K-Town for course.
I can tell you though, that most of the LCIS techs who are stuck in "DP1 PAT" at the units are not a happy bunch...some who are even qualified have been there for a year and have not fixed ONE piece of electronics kit. I guess that's what happens when you cram 50+ techs into a shop that was meant for maybe 8.
I can say that those of us (myself included) who are farmed out to other units are MUCH happier because we get to do some actual tech work.
As for changing to a different trade... I would love to change to ATIS (as would MANY others I know), in fact ATIS was my first choice, but that option isn't available.... and I imagine there are quite alot of LCIS techs out there who are trying to OT...and we all know just how easy that process is!
Don't get me wrong... I am really happy to be in this trade... but once I arrived at Kingston, everything that I was told that was going to happen with me turned out to be BS, and I sat there in K-town for a long time with no answers. Now that I am finally posted elsewhere and working at a good unit, I can go home to my own house and family again, and you see a big difference in me. Now that I am about to "finally" begin some of my actual trade training (DP1.1), I'm looking forward to returning to K-Town for course.
I can tell you though, that most of the LCIS techs who are stuck in "DP1 PAT" at the units are not a happy bunch...some who are even qualified have been there for a year and have not fixed ONE piece of electronics kit. I guess that's what happens when you cram 50+ techs into a shop that was meant for maybe 8.
I can say that those of us (myself included) who are farmed out to other units are MUCH happier because we get to do some actual tech work.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Daywalker said:
The only thing that can stop you from applying for a VOT is not meeting the requirements IAW CFA0 11-12 (48 months service, QL4 qual'd/QL3 qual'd if no QL4 qual in your MOC). If you aren't QL3 qualified yet and haven't started the course, you can request a MOC Reassignment (CFA0 11-12 again), or the BTAGs call it a VOR. If you are between 25% and 75% complete QL3, you can request a MOC Reassignment/VOR. Doesn't mean you will GET it, but if you or anyone is really that unhappy, is it really in the CFs or mb'rs best interest to carry on in the trade??
Even if ACISS is a RED trade, 0.5% of the TES is allowed OT-out. That is not my opinion either, that is published policy.
Forecast TES for 31 Mar 12 is 2,935. That makes the OT-outcap 15.
:2c:
Hello everybody
It has been awhile since I last posted.
To say that the new ACISS trade has not gotten off to a good start would be the understatement of the year.
It is easy to cast stones at CFSCE, however these new core and sub occ crses still require shaping and refinement. And I agree it is hard to do that when some of us at still trying figure out the how ACISS is suppose work seeing it is not working as per the drawing board.
I have since moved from Sig Op / ACISS Training to a Ops job but I can state that at the MCpl/Sgt level the instrs, Crse Suprs and Crse Dirs are doing the best job they can with all the new and constant changes.
Is ACISS here for good, I think so. So how to fix it. Usually change and direction comes from top down. To make ACISS work I think we are going to have to improve it from the mid-level rank level up i.e. MCpl/Sgt/WO.
Also, as for the concept that the training at CFSCE is broken it is not due to a lack of effort for the majority of per who are posted there. ACISS was not dreamed up by CFSCE, however CFSCE was asked to train it. If you look at the names on the TPs from the writing boards for the new courses there are usually two or three names from CFSCE the other are from SMEs from the Field Force, Static units and Ottawa. So any faults or success with the TPs is a shared responsibility.
CFSCE's slogan is 'The Center of Excellence', this is not true. The centre of Excellence is the Field Force Brigades. They are the sharpe end. Yes CFCSE has to instr the courses but the Field Force needs to have more influence and say in how and what training the young troops are getting by CFSCE. More communication between the school and the real world required.
It has been awhile since I last posted.
To say that the new ACISS trade has not gotten off to a good start would be the understatement of the year.
It is easy to cast stones at CFSCE, however these new core and sub occ crses still require shaping and refinement. And I agree it is hard to do that when some of us at still trying figure out the how ACISS is suppose work seeing it is not working as per the drawing board.
I have since moved from Sig Op / ACISS Training to a Ops job but I can state that at the MCpl/Sgt level the instrs, Crse Suprs and Crse Dirs are doing the best job they can with all the new and constant changes.
Is ACISS here for good, I think so. So how to fix it. Usually change and direction comes from top down. To make ACISS work I think we are going to have to improve it from the mid-level rank level up i.e. MCpl/Sgt/WO.
Also, as for the concept that the training at CFSCE is broken it is not due to a lack of effort for the majority of per who are posted there. ACISS was not dreamed up by CFSCE, however CFSCE was asked to train it. If you look at the names on the TPs from the writing boards for the new courses there are usually two or three names from CFSCE the other are from SMEs from the Field Force, Static units and Ottawa. So any faults or success with the TPs is a shared responsibility.
CFSCE's slogan is 'The Center of Excellence', this is not true. The centre of Excellence is the Field Force Brigades. They are the sharpe end. Yes CFCSE has to instr the courses but the Field Force needs to have more influence and say in how and what training the young troops are getting by CFSCE. More communication between the school and the real world required.
I had a conversation with a influential Warrant Officer a while back and his ideas ref ACISS were interesting.
Right now we has a trade with a core element and three sub occs (four counting CISTM).
The idea was still one trade - call it ACISS or what ever - but with no core element but four sub occs - Ops, Techs, Linemen, and IST.
Now these four sub occs would start off with a common crse DP1. What do all four sub occs should be able to do? Be able to use the basic field force radios/comms gear (522s/DAGRs/etc), lay basic field wire, understand signal path and be able to troubleshoot and identify a comms problem (enough to tell the tech what is wrong), understand computers and IS Concepts.
Then the troops move to the DP1.1, each sub occ has its own DP1.1 - kinda like a QL3. Ops learn more advance radios, operating in detachments as members. Linemen climb, etc. Techs move to fixing and ISTs to mapping, planning and programming.
Same concept at the DP2.0 level. Ops learn to be det comdrs. Linemen learn to be line crew suprs. Techs Help Desk suprs, etc. IST same concept in their sub occ.
DP2.1 could be OSQs. For a example I will use the Sig Op /ACISS Core side seeing that's what I am: HCLOS, NCCIS, etc.
So now at the DP 3 level we have a return to common tasks: Business Plans, CEOIs, Training Plans, etc.
Sub Occs carry on with their own 3B.1.
The DP 4A.0 is the interesting concept. Right now it his a CIS Tp WO Crse. I believe that the technical expertise level is at the Sgt rank. Being a CIS Tp WO could be done by any of the sub occs. A linemen could be a Tp WO for a HQ and Sigs Tp and a Tech could be the Tp WO in the DP1 Troop in the school, etc. So DP4 will be a common crse.
DP4A.1 is now a common crse for those that are going to be wisemen. I would make it a sub occ crse for each sub occ for those identify, career path, or appointment to the TMO, CCO, LCF and whatever the IST guy/girl will be called.
Interested in what others think and other ideas to improve ACISS.
cheers
C/S 0
Right now we has a trade with a core element and three sub occs (four counting CISTM).
The idea was still one trade - call it ACISS or what ever - but with no core element but four sub occs - Ops, Techs, Linemen, and IST.
Now these four sub occs would start off with a common crse DP1. What do all four sub occs should be able to do? Be able to use the basic field force radios/comms gear (522s/DAGRs/etc), lay basic field wire, understand signal path and be able to troubleshoot and identify a comms problem (enough to tell the tech what is wrong), understand computers and IS Concepts.
Then the troops move to the DP1.1, each sub occ has its own DP1.1 - kinda like a QL3. Ops learn more advance radios, operating in detachments as members. Linemen climb, etc. Techs move to fixing and ISTs to mapping, planning and programming.
Same concept at the DP2.0 level. Ops learn to be det comdrs. Linemen learn to be line crew suprs. Techs Help Desk suprs, etc. IST same concept in their sub occ.
DP2.1 could be OSQs. For a example I will use the Sig Op /ACISS Core side seeing that's what I am: HCLOS, NCCIS, etc.
So now at the DP 3 level we have a return to common tasks: Business Plans, CEOIs, Training Plans, etc.
Sub Occs carry on with their own 3B.1.
The DP 4A.0 is the interesting concept. Right now it his a CIS Tp WO Crse. I believe that the technical expertise level is at the Sgt rank. Being a CIS Tp WO could be done by any of the sub occs. A linemen could be a Tp WO for a HQ and Sigs Tp and a Tech could be the Tp WO in the DP1 Troop in the school, etc. So DP4 will be a common crse.
DP4A.1 is now a common crse for those that are going to be wisemen. I would make it a sub occ crse for each sub occ for those identify, career path, or appointment to the TMO, CCO, LCF and whatever the IST guy/girl will be called.
Interested in what others think and other ideas to improve ACISS.
cheers
C/S 0
- Reaction score
- 4,712
- Points
- 1,160
Maybe you'd be able to answer this better, being from the training establishment: Why would a Cpl IST need to complete both the common DP2.0 and ACISS (Core) 2.1 course before he was allowed to carry on with IST DP2.1? To me that seems like a gross waste of training resources to qualify him DP2 in both ACISS (Core) and IST, and against what I've understood from the training structure from the many presentations.
PuckChaser said:
Exactly. The only effective purpose I can see to having linemen, electronics techs, and IT personnel trained to be Sig Op det commanders is to be able to call any of these guys over and say "here's a truck and a couple of guys, go be a company CP for this ex".
Sure, reorganize the trade(s). But particularly for a 5's package, it's a waste to train somebody to do two disparate jobs.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
-Skeletor- said:
Thanks for the input! My interview went really well!
m6 said:
Show me a viable plan for training reserve LST.
We're talking 5 years of courses to get them trade qualified, much of it not in the summer and not easy for the college crowd.
ACISS is going to be effectively sig op-only for the reserves.
Similar threads
