No longer an OT Trade

[RTaylor]

I agree with your point 100%, but I still think there should be a bit more of a process to allow people into certain trades from civvie street.

And in my previous post 'any' should be 'most'

 

[George Wallace]

The training need not be watered down. It certainly will need adjusting so that a new "direct entry" INT Op is just as effective as a "OT" INT OP. Theres is no reason, IMHO that we cannot accomplish this.

I can think of two good reasons:  Money and Time.  More time necessary to train someone without experience, and the money required to lengthen Crse Schedules to do so.

Considering that i have to deal with INT Ops in order to do my job on every operational flight, i'm certain i understand and know quite well what they do.

And vise versa.  They should have a very intimate understanding of what your job is, as you are one of the many "Sources" they would task out for information gathering in their Collection Plan.

 

[medaid]

One year is nothing for an OT... Mine took freaking 2 yrs...

 

[aesop081]

I can think of two good reasons:  Money and Time.  More time necessary to train someone without experience, and the money required to lengthen Crse Schedules to do so.

IMHO, these concerns, while vallid, are small when compared to the stress of the manning shortgaes we are facing.

 

[aesop081]

I

And vise versa.  They should have a very intimate understanding of what your job is, as you are one of the many "Sources" they would task out for information gathering in their Collection Plan.

Exactly my point. For all their previous experience, they have no clue as to the product i provide until they get here. A civilian arriving as a new INT Op at a maritime patrol wing wouldnt be at much of a disadvantage.

 

[NCRCrow]

I had an IO on ship give me a Janes print-off as a response to RFI.

Need I say more!

Useless!

 

[George Wallace]

Exactly my point. For all their previous experience, they have no clue as to the product i provide until they get here. A civilian arriving as a new INT Op at a maritime patrol wing wouldnt be at much of a disadvantage.

OK.  You lost me.  A civilian arriving as a new INT Op having a fairly good idea of what you and all the other "Sources", and their capabilities, available to him/her is a bit of a stretch.  Someone with previous service, has a lot of corporate knowledge that is not available to civilians off the street. 

I don't agree with your premise that opening the Trade up to people off the street, vis OT is a good thing.  I do admit that there are some rare cases where someone off the street could/has worked out, but I find them to be exceptionally rare cases.  I am sure more often the case, you will find that many of theses cases would only have you stand in their briefing and going : as I am sure HGXCrow did when handed a printout from Janes (Although Janes is one of the most highest regarded of Open Source used by the CF.).

 

[aesop081]

OK.  You lost me.  A civilian arriving as a new INT Op having a fairly good idea of what you and all the other "Sources", and their capabilities, available to him/her is a bit of a stretch.  Someone with previous service, has a lot of corporate knowledge that is not available to civilians off the street. 

What i meant to say is that INT Ops with previous CF experience have no idea what we do and how we do it when they arrive here. A "direct entry" INT Op would find himself in the same situation on his arrival here, following his course at the school. See the similarities ? Neither of them is at an advantage or disadvantage.

I am sure more often the case, you will find that many of theses cases would only have you stand in their briefing and going :

It happens with INT Ops who have been in the CF for years. I have that reaction on occasion when briefed by INT Ops who have been in that trade for years.

 

[zorro]

I don't agree with your premise that opening the Trade up to people off the street, vis OT is a good thing.  I do admit that there are some rare cases where someone off the street could/has worked out, but I find them to be exceptionally rare cases.  I am sure more often the case, you will find that many of theses cases would only have you stand in their briefing and going : as I am sure HGXCrow did when handed a printout from Janes (Although Janes is one of the most highest regarded of Open Source used by the CF.).

I think he was referring to opning the trade to civilians as a way to fill undermanning issues. Similar to the CEOTP program, I think that openning such a trade to direct entry for limited periods as well as continuing to allow for remusters in order to address the "red" code for such trades is not a bad way to go. Granted there is no subsitute for experience, but with good instructors and insightful mentors in the CoC I would bet that we would still end up with an effective "finished product". Doesn't it boil down to finding the RIGHT person for the job?

[quote author=CDN Aviator]
Making selection faster would certainly not help trades like FE, AES Op or SAR TECH. Those trades only have the capacity to train a small number of new members per year. There are only so many instructors and so many aircrafts available.
[/quote]

My point still remains the same. If it is not the OT process itself that is the issue, address what is. In these cases, the training capacity. I know its easier said then done, but if the CF wants to be realistics in maintaining/achieving its target manning/recruiting levels, then do these issues not need to be remedied at some point? All this it seems weighs heavily upon funding, which is not always (or ever?) under our control...

 

[aesop081]

My point still remains the same. If it is not the OT process itself that is the issue, address what is. In these cases, the training capacity. I know its easier said then done, but if the CF wants to be realistics in maintaining/achieving its target manning/recruiting levels, then do these issues not need to be remedied at some point? All this it seems weighs heavily upon funding, which is not always (or ever?) under our control...

These are mostly ( i would even say "all") issues well beyond the scope of recruiting.

Take AES Op for example.

Initial Training is done on the CT-142. The school, CFANS, only has 4 aircraft which must be shared with ANav training. Significantly increasing the output of AES Ops would require buying more aicrafts and simulator capacity. This involves capital projects as millions of dollars are involved. Even after a member completes initial training at CFANS, the problems pile up. On-type training is done on either the CP-140 or CH-124. Both of these being in short supply and operational fleets, it is difficult to have a high output of new trained personel when the operational demand on both fleets is already beyond 100%. Ongoing upgrades have also reduced the availabilty of one fleet and age has also limited the availability of training resources such as the CT-142.

Anyways, i digress but you can see where some of the problems are. In this trade's case, nothing short of major capital spending will increase the output significantly.

 

[Im Not Telling]

     In reference to the Jane's comment I want to know if that was a real INT O or a MARS O. if it was an INT O that's a matter of not having someone to slap him on the wrist and tell him no bad officer.

     I do think it's funny that there has been a focus on INT as the trade, when like CDN Aviator has said what about other trades.  It is a manning issue with OT trades being the smallest ones and personally I see some training as harder then enlistment trades.  I have watched people on my course with military back grounds fail because they couldn't do the work for multiple reasons. 

     I all so agree with the environment comment CDN made, I have 7 years in the green and as off 4 months ago I'm blue, but I'm green trained, all I know about the Air environment is they make a good taxi service (no offence intended) everything is a SAM to them, and they like to discuss things while in briefs (pisses me of).  that being said I'm in a hard army possion despite my uniform this year I'm posted to a different hard army position when I was supposed to be going to Trenton.

     I also agree that yes the CF dose a great job of using 3's and 4's to get people trained.  How ever maturity, ability and a basic back ground and understanding of the needs of a military environment is needed in my trade as there is no 3's or 4's right now, we start at a 5's and go on tour from there.  Do you want a 5's qualified person with 4 months back ground and no previous training working with you?  again restructuring a TP (training plan) to involve a 3's and 4's can be done but it's not there yet.

 

[NCRCrow]

It was an IO! and I showed my Captain. He fell out of his chair.

The Intelligence trade is weak enough, I couldn't imagine having direct entries off the street briefing a Naval Commander or Platoon Commander.

 

[zorro]

Anyways, i digress but you can see where some of the problems are. In this trade's case, nothing short of major capital spending will increase the output significantly.

What about some sort of exchange program with allied nations? I can't find the proper word right now, but something like NFTC in Canada. This may not be feasible for some trades (IE. INT Op), but for AES Op the skills you develop could be applied to most airframes no? This type of approach was effective when we were preparing our transport pilots for the reception of the C-17s.

Point taken with respect to the funding problem. Although I still think that whomever sets the desired manning levels for these given trades should be accounting for the issues we're discussing today. If it is not feasible to train 100 this year, how can they expect to meet their targets? Goals should be measurable AND achievable.

 

[George Wallace]

Im Not Telling

You are in a Trade that once you have your 5's done, you often go into a 'Specialty'.  You may land up being a specialist in Imagery, or Radar Signatures, or whatever.  In Trades that are OT only, you will find that they often deploy as CS to CA units in theatre.  As such, their previous Trade hopefully taught them enough to not be a nuisance to the CA pers they are working with.  If you deploy to a FOB, you will be expected to man a posn if the FOB comes under attack.  That will mean, if you were a former Cbt Arms type, and knew how to use a C6, you would be manning a C6.  This is some of the experience, you would have, but someone off the street would not, as it is not covered on your 5's Crse.  There are numerous instances of where your training in your previous Trade will benefit you, and that someone off the street would have no clues.  

Does this mean that OT's from other Trades are always the best selection?  No.  Sometimes, they are as inexperienced and unknowledgeable as a person off the street.  These are the guys who have OT'ed with only a couple years in the CF and no experience, or people who have been sluffed off on another Trade because they are too thick to be in the Trade they had started in.  It is unfortunate, but the System does make these mistakes, and the Trades suffer for it.



[Posted 10+ minutes later, due to other posters posting.....  ;D ]

 

[aesop081]

How ever maturity,

I used to be a firm beleiver in this argument. Now i think its the biggest load of crap there is. I've seen guys with almost 20 years of service behave like spoiled 5-year olds. In the same breath i have seen guy with 5 years in the CF behave like spoiled 5-year olds. Maturity is an individual factor and, in my experience, is mutualy exclusive from previous service.

and a basic back ground and understanding of the needs of a military environment is needed in my trade

That is something that is necessary in every trade. We teach that in the schools when a member joins.

 
  again restructuring a TP (training plan) to involve a 3's and 4's can be done but it's not there yet.

It most certainly can be done. As i said before, making "direct entry" work will require the current system to be changed. If that means that we must add an aprentice level to the trades then so be it. Standards need not be watered down for it.

I couldn't imagine having direct entries off the street briefing a Naval Commander or Platoon Commander.

IIRC, the INT O trade is already taking in direct entry officers. If the product from the school is not acceptable, it is a leadership fault at the school for letting them through.

You are in a Trade that once you have your 5's done, you often go into a 'Specialty'.  You may land up being a specialist in Imagery, or Radar Signatures, or whatever.  In Trades that are OT only, you will find that they often deploy as CS to CA units in theatre.  As such, their previous Trade hopefully taught them enough to not be a nuisance to the CA pers they are working with.  If you deploy to a FOB, you will be expected to man a posn if the FOB comes under attack.  That will mean, if you were a former Cbt Arms type, and knew how to use a C6, you would be manning a C6.  This is some of the experience, you would have, but someone off the street would not, as it is not covered on your 5's Crse.  There are numerous instances of where your training in your previous Trade will benefit you, and that someone off the street would have no clues.  

George,

An NCI Op with 15 years in the CF likely knows little about combat arms units , let alone how to man a C6. Yet he remusters to INT Op and following your argument , hes good-to-go on an FOB ?

 

[scoutfinch]

Briefing at a tactic level is only one very small part of the trade.  Yes -- people with previous combat arms experience can likely brief a Pl cmdr better than a DEO.  That being said, that same person likely sucks at strategic level intelligence or RSA.

My point is that the trade is broad enough for people with different skill sets. 

 

[George Wallace]

George,

An NCI Op with 15 years in the CF likely knows little about combat arms units , let alone how to man a C6. Yet he remusters to INT Op and following your argument , hes good-to-go on an FOB ?

........  In Trades that are OT only, you will find that they often deploy as CS to CA units in theatre.  As such, their previous Trade hopefully taught them enough to not be a nuisance to the CA pers they are working with.  If you deploy to a FOB, you will be expected to man a posn if the FOB comes under attack.  That will mean, if you were a former Cbt Arms type, and knew how to use a C6, you would be manning a C6.  This is some of the experience, you would have, but someone off the street would not, as it is not covered on your 5's Crse.  There are numerous instances of where your training in your previous Trade will benefit you, and that someone off the street would have no clues.  

A NCI Op would likely land up staying Navy, and "not likely" to land up in a FOB.  On the off chance he did, he would land up as......say.......a 'Stretcher Bearer'.... 

 

[NCRCrow]

I was one of those guys (augmentee) when I was Afghanistan in 2003. A fish out of water!

But you have to embrace the training and immerse yourself in the culture of whom you are providing support.

I feel the Intelligence Trade personnel rarely do that and are content to sit at the TOC and do their job while in Theatre.

Also the Intelligence Trade is the dumping ground for the Navy of our undesirables at all levels.

 

[aesop081]

A NCI Op would likely land up staying Navy, and "not likely" to land up in a FOB. 

Wishful thinking George. You know what we preach around here about purple trades. Everyone gets their turn in the sandbox.  The demands of the war have made sure of that. Heck, we even deployed clearance divers to the desert........

 

[George Wallace]

What about some sort of exchange program with allied nations? I can't find the proper word right now, but something like NFTC in Canada. This may not be feasible for some trades (IE. INT Op), but for AES Op the skills you develop could be applied to most airframes no? This type of approach was effective when we were preparing our transport pilots for the reception of the C-17s.

In some cases that may work, but not in all.  In some Trades the skills would be transferable to those of the same Trade in a foreign military, in other Trades, the only similarity is in name, not job.  In the CF a Veh Mechanic will work on every part of the vehicle.  In the US Army, a Veh Mechanic be specialized as only a Engine Mechanic, or be a Wheel Mechanic, or Track Maintainer, or such.  The names may be similar, but the jobs are vastly different.