# Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists (Sig Op, Lineman and LCIS Amalgamation)



## JBP

Figured I'd start a new thread as the start of this was in my previous "Cease of Training" rumour mill thread...

Today (4 Jun 08) I attended the Lecture on our Trade Amalgamation... It was quite a dump of info with some answers and more questions towards the end... Lecture started about 13H00 sharp and ended 16H30ish... 

New trade will (tentatively) be called: Communication and Information Systems Technologist (CIST). They're wanting to drop the Technologist part of it and put something else in there but for the time being we were told (by the Master Sig) that's what the name is for now.  There was a lot to absorb so I'll do my best to blurt it out for you all...

General info given in Introduction: 3 out of 5 trades covered in C&E Branch are army owned+run now, LCIS, Sig Op, Lineman... Approx 4000 pers across C&E Branch of CF with approx 50% spread out all across entire CF and others posted to "traditional" positions for each trade respectively. Manpower shortages by trade: Sig Op - 220-300pers (I give this range b/c the Master Sig gave both figures during the lecture), 100 LCIS, 0 Lineman. So it seems the Lineman aren't having recruiting problems. They said part of this problem (no kidding) might be because the Aptitude Qualification for Lineman is 18 where for Sig and LCIS it's 30. This obviously disqualifies some people. We'll cover that more later...

1.) The Amalgamation stems from project MOSART originating in 1999, whose purpose it was to examine the  CF Trades and determine if there was a way to cut-down how many Trades were. The reason they wanted to cut down the amount of trades is because someone thought we didn't need as many seeing as our legal manpower was cut from 90,000 to 60,000 ASAP back then etc... This project stopped dead in it's tracks approx April 2006. When the new CWO (now our Master Sig) CWO Helmann(sp?), he was told to get the ball rolling once again on Amalgamation. 

2.) Program now called MES, I scribbled that note unfortunately and have only gotten Mes- Military E???? Structure. Basically MES has the same purpose in mind but is actively enforcing change as we stay Operational and keep a high tempo. No cease of training anywhere or operations to accomodate the new changes.

3.) Without posting a bunch of the technical yabber, I'll give it to you straight...

BMQ+SQ for everyone (no surprise) then a common CIST course which will have components of all the 3 trades... The idea of this course is to have a CIST be able to perform Line 1 repairs on equipment in a rad van etc... That's the whole purpose, use and maintain/repair the equipment. He (Master Sig) said that the idea is to have field expedient fixes for everything from line breaks to troubleshooting the TCCCS system in the back of a CP van...

After this common core training, you would be posted to HQ+Sigs of each respective Brigade as is now for most Sig Ops, learning the ropes of Brigade life and that whole back of worms. The Corporals/Specialists would be moved on to other postings etc... Yes, I said Specialists. So after you're "Core" CIST training, you would be evaluated by you're Chain of Command at you're unit, consulted (asked what you'd like to do) and given the option to "Specialize" in one of the 3 old trades. Kind of... LCIS, Sig Op, Lineman. So then you get more specific training pertaining to that job. All this training will be conducted mostly at CFSCE. They are trying to find a way to make the training unit-doable so they can get people trained faster and keep them up to date. Weather that's hiring civilian instructors locally or sending people to local educational institutions Master Sig did not specify. Onward...

So you've been at you're unit for a year or two, you've got some dirt behind you're ears, you're asked what you want to specialize in, you say Sig Op (of course the best Trade...   ) you do you're first specialist training (Which might be called QL4). You go back to unit, work for a few more years, get course loaded on a QL5A... This is where it gets interesting...

QL5+QL6 will be COMMON for the trade. So all CIST trades people, even though you've now "specialized" in you're respective field, will go to a 5A/6A etc, and do a common course mixed back in with other Lineman, Operator and LCIS types... This is to ensure we're all on the same page, we use the same lingo, we all have the same training to a degree and can communicate effectively. So that when a Sig Op is talking about a CEOI, an LCIS tech will know exactly what's he's yammering on about. And so that when you call a "tech" in to fix the stupid NAU in the back of you're rad van, he understands what you're saying and how it doesn't work from an operator's point of view. Interoperability.  I'm giving the exact examples Master Sig gave BTW...

Grandfathering us who are already in and trade qualified? Sort of. They haven't worked out the details yet on what rank they'll cut that off from. Example: Tel ops being amalgamated in the past, simply told to get out or remuster? Nope, not this time. Apparently we'll be given a choice if we're under the rank cutoff, say for example it's MCpl, to pick our specialty, according to our current employment/unit and work experience and training, with education being included in the deciding factor.

Another interesting point. Since we will ALWAYS be considered a CIST, no matter what and will be technically under the same trade, no remustering. If you've been a Sig Op  Sub trade for the past 3 years, you can switch to lineman without having to perform a remuster. And they want this to be able to be completed and decided at the unit level. So obviously they're expecting the unit to know their troops! 

Manning issues: Since the Sig Op trade in particular is so short on people, they're also looking at changing the style of recruiting. Currently, it takes an Aptitude score of 30 or higher to be able to apply for Sig Op or LCIS tech, but only 18 for a Lineman. They have studied this and found that partially this is the reason that the Lineman trade isn't really short. They think the bar is set a little too high for Sigs and LCIS and that otherwise would-be CIST's are getting turned away or going to another trade. They're going to put further study into this and see if they can lower the Aptitude requirement to something more reasonable. Because to them, a Lineman is just as intelligent as a Sig Op as a LCIS tech... We Sigs know better of course!  ^-^  Furthermore, they're going to make it very easy for other trades to remuster into Sig Op/CIST, at the moment there is a standing order CF wide that if a combat arms soldier wants to remuster to Sigs, his CO cannot decline, he has to approve and pass it up. The Master Sig said this program was implemented and advertised about 4 years ago by unit CO's (or was suppose to have been advertised, I could see how that got brushed by...) but said they will look at revisiting this idea and refreshing it.

*SPEC PAY*

So, obviously I bet you were wondering what was said about this... Well guess what! Nothing definitive. He said that the whole purpose of amalgamation is NOT about Spec pay, it's about manning and making us more effective. He said amalgamation will address approx 80% of our manning issues and problems currently. It's not perfect, but it'll work and it's definitely better than our current situation. So what about Spec pay you say? As of now, nothing changes, they're looking at it continuously and trying to sort of "qualify" the new trade for it. He said that's up to the Treasury to decide who deserves it or not. He said they look at similar civilian occupations and their pay levels and determine if they need to issue Spec pay to that trade of troops. He said that it will not be a deciding factor at all in the upcoming changes but they will do their best. He did sound hopeful about it though and said that they'll receive feedback from the Treasury on what to work on to "qualify". 

Trade Amalgamation is aimed to be completely implemented by Spring 2011. New "CIST" type courses and training being updated at CFSCE by Sept' 08. 

So, that just about sums it up, I'm sure there's something I'm forgetting but that's what I was able to scribble down as important points and get to you people here. 

Thoughts? Gripes? Complaints? Release forms? What new Sub-trade do you want?


----------



## meni0n

Uhh, so people under the cut off rank going to have to do the common course?


----------



## MikeL

Hopefully the rank level is Cpl, or even grant exceptions/waivers for experianced(ie, time in unit, tour, etc) Ptes. If they made everyone under MCpl redo a QL3 course I'd be pretty choked. Hopefully having a couple years in a Infantry Battalion(posted there straight off my QL3) and a tour will be good enough to not have to go back an do a QL3 course all over again.


----------



## JBP

Actually nobody under the cutoff, as it seems so far, will have to be doing the new training. They said it would be impossible. They're going to take time in, tours, postings etc and qualify you based on experience primarily, and maybe just give some background training to accomodate/upgrade as needed. That's the idea from my understanding of what the Master Sig said. He said it would be rediculous to try and retrain everyone! They're also trying to lower the training time to below 100 days, seeing as right now the training timem for a Sig Op is 105 days and for the other trades even longer...


----------



## Sigger

Sig Joe...

Thank you! Much appreciated for the sitrep.

Out


----------



## Jager

I sketched down the graph thing he had going for the QLx's, here's the vague info (if I got it right)

Basically Spring 2009 New CIST QL3
Spring 2011 New CIST QL5 (giving all the guys who finished there 3's before spring 09 a chance I guess)
Spring 2011 New CIST QL6..... all the way to QL7(?)


----------



## Bintheredunthat

Wow - lots of info.  But I anticipate lots of changes before the polished version is delivered.

The Master of Signals is CWO Hohmann by the way.....not that I could ever name the MOS during my younger days.

Some things I read are surprising.  Lowering the aptitude for Sig Op/LCIS.......yuck.  Lower standards on aptitude to make up numbers is such a friggen bad thing for the trade it's not funny.  I'd rather be a man short than have an extra man requiring constant supervision.  I'd be willing to bet that if Aptitude minimums changed that we'd either see *A)* more failures on QL3 which causes even more strain on the system when you end up with people awaiting training and losing motivation or *B)* the standards of CFSCE following suit and tailoring ECs/PCs to match.  Not good either way.  

On another note - although I'm not a big advocate of Spec Pay for "Rad Ops" (I am 215 FTR)
, perhaps it's time to make the trade more appealling to others.  I have friends in various other trades and have never heard anyone say they'd EVER want to be a Sig Op.  I've even found over the years that remusters were often rare - not unheard of.  We'd get the occasional Ex-031er going to the dark side......but very rare.  Maybe spec pay is not the right way to do things, but it would in my opinion be better than lowering standards.  Signing bonus anyone?  I know of a few people who've made the jump from Res to Reg taking full advantage of the ever changing Sig Op 20G bonus.  Whatever works.

I was surprised that there was no mention of a separate trade or division of IT type operators.  I don't think that someone is looking at the whole picture and the evolution of equipment if they think they're going to continue to use the common Sig Op for highly skilled IT positions.  Sure some people are doing just fine now, but is it just me or does the same thing happen every posting season where there is a refresh and fresh meat goes through the grinder all over again in order to turn out competent IT people?  I'm not talking about Help Desk but rather of troops using COTS equipment in the field units.  I understand the need of cross training someone when you are talking about something like moving dets - I just think the learning curve and training requirements have demonstrated quite clearly that another trade is required.  There has to be a few canvass slingers out there who agree at least a bit.  Bueller?  Bueller?

Anyway, informative but still very cloudy.  How was moral after your briefing?  What was the overall mood or opinion about the future as delivered by the Master of Signals?  If I know my fellow 215s, I'd say there was a whole lotta bitchin'. 

Bin


----------



## Jager

I'll try to answer a few of the questions:



> On another note - although I'm not a big advocate of Spec Pay for "Rad Ops" (I am 215 FTR)



Specifically spec pay would be awarded to bring certain 'sub speciality's' up to par with civi employment, as in the same way spec pay is used now.



> I was surprised that there was no mention of a separate trade or division of IT type operators



I guess Sig Joe missed this part. The CIST trade will be broken down into several (read 4) sub trades. 

The main CIST which will be operators, from what I jotted down during the meeting they will be responsible for the Rad truck, and basic trouble shooting, 1st line Com's including line (FOCA, etc) including road crossings, splices, etc

CS - Basically LCIS, responsible for the actually repair etc...

Line - Line, responsible for the majority of line, both black and red

IT- And the IT side of things, such as help desk, computer repair, etc

Now this is all subject to change, and I might of got a few things wrong or written in the wrong spot.. 



> Anyway, informative but still very cloudy.  How was moral after your briefing?  What was the overall mood or opinion about the future as delivered by the Master of Signals?  If I know my fellow 215s, I'd say there was a whole Lotta bitchin'.



The moral was OK afterwards, a lot of confusion though. I'd have to say the overall mood and opinion isn't all to great at this exact moment. A lot of grey areas exist at this exact moment, and will come to affect us all once the plan goes thru. Some are wondering about what courses they are going to end up having to do, etc... And yea, there was a good amount of bitchin'

[edit]guess I need to learn how to spell  ;D


----------



## chrisf

Parts of this make sense to me, at least the the LCIS-Sig Op bridge...

I've had problems (And some extremely good experiences, they're not all terrible) in the past with LCIS techs conducting 1st line repairs, one particular pair in Kingston comes to mind, who spent a full 10 hours "diganosing" my truck, before finally at a conclusion which matched exactly what I had told them was wrong and what to repair from the very beginning, a little bit of experience operating the equipment you're going to fix is going to be huge asset in the long run...

Other benefit, having the operators able to perform first line maintenance would be a huge boon as well. Doesn't take a great deal of skill or training to teach somone to conduct basic soldering repairs of connectors, to swap out cards, or replace a HUB.

The major DOWNSIDE I see to this? Skill fade. Train people too broadly, they'll forget whatever they don't use on a regular basis, and they'll loose it, but that's a forces wide problem anyway, training up to our necks, and not enough opportunity to get skilled.


----------



## Sigger

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The major DOWNSIDE I see to this? Skill fade. Train people too broadly, they'll forget whatever they don't use on a regular basis...



IMO the Amalgamation would improve this.. as you would become a 'specialist' in one area - with a general base of knowledge in everything.


----------



## chrisf

Sigger said:
			
		

> IMO the Amalgamation would improve this.. as you would become a 'specialist' in one area - with a general base of knowledge in everything.



Not even close. The way I read it, you start out as somone loosely trained in all three jobs, then get "specialized" into one job, all three of the jobs already each cover a very large area of expertise (Example, I brought some busted TCCCS cables into our STIS guys the other day, because as the only techs, they've got to sign off on the NS tags... they all became rather excited, because it was the first "green" kit they'd seen in a long time...)


----------



## aesop081

Sigger said:
			
		

> IMO the Amalgamation would improve this.. as you would become a 'specialist' in one area - with a general base of knowledge in everything.



LMFAO.......

I dont understand how people can buy that argument. I know you army types ar allergic to anything air force but maybe you should come and see how our amalgamations worked out. The "super tech" things didnt exactly work out. In fact, the process has started to undo some of it.

"Jacks of all trades, masters of none"


----------



## Sigger

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> they all became rather excited, because it was the first "green" kit they'd seen in a long time...)



And unless I am way out to lunch, this would be resolved with the separation of the IT and the repair trades of LCIS.... No?


----------



## Bintheredunthat

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Not even close. The way I read it, you start out as somone loosely trained in all three jobs, then get "specialized" into one job, all three of the jobs already each cover a very large area of expertise (Example, I brought some busted TCCCS cables into our STIS guys the other day, because as the only techs, they've got to sign off on the NS tags... they all became rather excited, because it was the first "green" kit they'd seen in a long time...)



Like I mentioned before, looks like there'll be some requirement for some polish on the plan.  Making a someone into an operator in 100 days is tough enough (from what I've seen) - but then saying they'll also be responsible for 1st line maintenance on gear is another story.  First line maint in the old days was A) check your settings B) check your cables C) give it a boot D) perform drop test E) replace it with one of the other several spares that were at your immediate disposal.  Not a lot of spare RT-5121s to go around though so now operators will be responsible for their own gear?  What a novel idea.

Guess this means the pyramid builders will not be allowed to continually hoard hold up batteries as replacing a HUB will no longer be a "tech only" job (ok - so this was an encounter I had once).

Finally, a part of the plan that makes perfect sense though.

Bin


----------



## chrisf

Bintheredunthat-Muzzled said:
			
		

> First line maint in the old days was A) check your settings B) check your cables C) give it a boot D) perform drop test E) replace it with one of the other several spares that were at your immediate disposal.  Not a lot of spare RT-5121s to go around though so now operators will be responsible for their own gear?  What a novel idea.
> 
> Guess this means the pyramid builders will not be allowed to continually hoard hold up batteries as replacing a HUB will no longer be a "tech only" job (ok - so this was an encounter I had once).



There's a great many things I do/have done that are supposed to be "tech only", but of course, we have no techs... so...

Like I said, doesn't take long to teach somone to solder/use a a fluke meter.

Another downside, I see this as just one more nail in the coffin of the line trade...


----------



## Sigger

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Another downside, I see this as just one more nail in the coffin of the line trade...



Linemen will always be needed to splice FOCA. Plus its for the greater good.


----------



## chrisf

The problem with linemen is, 90% of what they do can easily be replaced by contractors... unfortunately, by replacing them with contractors, we loose the other 10% of what they do....


----------



## Sigger

Dont Sigs do that other 10% anyways?


----------



## chrisf

No.


----------



## NCRCrow

Out of my lane story, but my trade (NESOP) amalgamated EW Operator & Fire Controller (two separate completely different trades) in 1985

we still haven't recovered? (as CDN Avaitor can attest to EW is easily a trade by itself)

My question is what happens if somebody can't climb or is afraid of heights. Are they remustred as they do not meet the OC Specs of this new super trade?


----------



## chrisf

Great question, particularly if they make pole-climbing part of the CIST portion...

I know sig-ops who had originally planned on being linemen, but courtesy of a fear of heights..


----------



## X-mo-1979

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The problem with linemen is, 90% of what they do can easily be replaced by contractors... unfortunately, by replacing them with contractors, we loose the other 10% of what they do....



Really?That guy crawling with the wires around the defensive position could be a civilian from chalk river?


----------



## chrisf

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Really?That guy crawling with the wires around the defensive position could be a civilian from chalk river?



Preferably not, and that's why I said we'd loose the other 10%.

No need to be sarcastic, I'm in favor of keeping the line men


----------



## canadianmak

So for someone just going into SIG OPS, already passed my CFAT so there will be no falling standards from me! This means I’ll still be trained,  probably in a more round-about but hopefully quicker way. However once trained the SIG OPS job and duties will remain the same correct? Just making sure I’m still applying for the same job! Thanks


----------



## adaminc

I am joining up in about a month, hopefully to the LCIS Trade, I already have a college education in Electronics Engineering Technology(3yr program), and the recruiter told me that more than likely I will get to skip POET and go straight to OJT after BMQ/SQ, so what do you think would happen for someone like me?


----------



## meni0n

So, for the IT side of the trade then, what would the postings be like? All static ASG units? It's confusing,  there will be 4 seperate QL4 then?


----------



## Bintheredunthat

Here we go with the Q and no A.

Guys, it was a casual info session.  Things are still in the developing stages and there is no way to answer all the "what ifs" at this point.  Especially concerning individual cases.

I don't see where you are drawing info as to withdrawing the Line trade.  If anything, by the sounds of this - the Line trade is secure for at least the next 10-15 years.  Theres something about Operators that makes them think they can do a Line or LCIS job.  "I can lay wire", "I can change a stupid card".  Yeah - and anyone can talk on the friggen radio so get over yourself.  Again, I'm an operator sick of hearing other operators say these types of things.

I'm thinking the title of this thread may have been a bit misleading.  And now we'll get people pop in thinking they'll be able to get info on something that's not really decided yet.  

As for the many other questions I'm sure will pop up here by the merely curious onlookers.....here are some words to live by......

_"Wait Out"_

Bin


----------



## canadianmak

probably good advise, thanks anyways


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> LMFAO.......
> 
> I dont understand how people can buy that argument. I know you army types ar allergic to anything air force but maybe you should come and see how our amalgamations worked out. The "super tech" things didnt exactly work out. In fact, the process has started to undo some of it.
> 
> "Jacks of all trades, masters of none"



You mean the 500 series and ATIS too?  'Cause the ATIS trade isn't exactly all that well sorted out IMO.  Way to broad for one MOC.


----------



## aesop081

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You mean the 500 series



Yes, i was talking about the 500 series. I dont know much about ATIS though.


----------



## Bintheredunthat

I don't see the same similarities in these 2 imalgamations that are being discussed.

The way I see it, you join the Signals Corps as a CSIT (Sig Op or whatever you want to call it).  Your basic trades training (QL3) will consist of some VERY basic introduction into the other trades.  We're talking theory here people - Sig Ops will not be climbing pole, splicing fibre, swapping cards, or troubleshooting networks on a 100+/- day course when you consider the end state is an det operator.  For all you operators who disagree - think back to your QL3.  Rad theory, Antenna theory, Electricity theory, Basic EW, log books - now for some basic computer training, typing, voice procedure - what about Iris, the CI, PLGR/DAGR, SAS, LAN/LDN - don't forget another week (or so) each for setting up antennas, genny, det drills.....I'm going just from what I think is being taught at the school here - maybe I'm forgetting something.  Oh - field Ex?  I suppose that one is big.  Anyway, it's impossible with the timeline given for this 3's course - no matter what way you look at it that an operator would leave with anything more than "some" exposure to what a test set does - and how fibre really works.  

I think some people got the wrong idea with the idea that CSIT will be able to do more - it's not THAT much more.  I think you can factor in that QL3 for every other trade (Jimmy cap badge) will probably be scrapped and it'll be more of a QL4 so to speak.  That's where you would branch off or stay the course as an operator, learning your basic skills for that path/trade/whatever.

I don't think the imalgamation should be thought of like the old Tel Op changeover - which it seems to me that this was what the Air Force did with their big move.  But I can't say for sure, I haven't really looked at the other imalgamation you guys are speaking of.

I dunno - just a hunch.

Bin


----------



## LCISTech227

First off, First-line maintenance does not mean you open radios up.  so if you suspect a radio is N/S you replace it and send it back to be repaired.  2nd line would be replacing cards etc.  I know the reserve supply/repair system is a little messed up, but the only person who should be opening a radio is the person sitting in front of a test bench (read IFR).  Otherwise you risk breaking the device further, argue all you want, if I caught someone opening a radio who shouldn't be, I'd have their...

Second, if this amalgamation goes off, the lineman will get the PBX as a responsibility, thus increasing their arcs of responsibility not diminishing them.

At this point it's a lot of hearsay anyway.  I got the same brief here in Kingston... and at that point nothing definitive was in place, nor a concrete timeline.  My advice don't get to wrapped around the axle over what you hear, just wait it out, for now there is no point worrying about it now.

As a personal aside, I think the trade amalgamation idea has a lot of merit, though I do have some major concerns about career progression, but those I will keep to myself, as this is neither the right place or the right forum to discuss my personal opinions on the matter.


----------



## Bintheredunthat

LCISTech227 said:
			
		

> First off, First-line maintenance does not mean you open radios up.  so if you suspect a radio is N/S you replace it and send it back to be repaired.  2nd line would be replacing cards etc.  I know the reserve supply/repair system is a little messed up, but the only person who should be opening a radio is the person sitting in front of a test bench (read IFR).  Otherwise you risk breaking the device further, argue all you want, if I caught someone opening a radio who shouldn't be, I'd have their...



Seriously, is this nothing more than protecting the empire?  Nobody is trying to steal your job nor your spec pay.  The Army will always need 227s, but for the record, I've been on two courses for operators within the last couple of years whereby we dared to delve into the 227 world.  On the first, we were shown how to use a Spectrum Analyzer and the second, we were shown how to change cards of a newer radio WHILE being given a qualification to change the card (LCMM approved).  Granted a couple of briefs on how to do this and that doesn't completely eliminate a trade in one quick sweep.  But perhaps the ever changing systems will no longer require the work force behind them to maintain equipment serviceability.  More and more equipment is coming with complex BITs that narrow down the error enough that a test bench required in the past.  I won't argue your training and skill, but I think the line may move a bit in the future as to what is done by who not because of people - but because of equipment and how "dummy proof" it is becoming.  Just my opinion of course.



			
				LCISTech227 said:
			
		

> At this point it's a lot of hearsay anyway.  I got the same brief here in Kingston... and at that point nothing definitive was in place, nor a concrete timeline.  My advice don't get to wrapped around the axle over what you hear, just wait it out, for now there is no point worrying about it now.



I was thinking the same thing - that's why I've already said something along the same lines.

Bin


----------



## LCISTech227

I'm not trying to protect the 'empire' and when the trades amalgamate, the only people that will be allowed to open the radios will be the ones sitting in front of a bench.  The same way it is now.  It's just not practical to allow this to happen in other avenues.  You said you had qualifications that allowed you to change cards, I have no problems with qualified people doing their job.  My issue is with people opening stuff up that they shouldn't be, when they lack the qualifications, training, and test equipment to do the job properly.

Don't view this as a Tech versus Op thing, it was not the intent, I was clarifying a few misconceptions that were stated earlier by others.

As a side note, the MES QS writing board commences on 23 Jun, for the CS(Radios) sub trade.  I'm sure the others will ramp up shortly.


----------



## Xcalibar

I think this is a bad idea that will come and bite is in the a$$ soon after it is implemented.  They say they want to run a "super" QL3 (sigs, Line, LCIS) in one course yet they want to make the course take less time?  What will be dropped?  Or is it, like I suspect, just a Sig Op course that briefly touches on the other trades and just gives the opportunity to go to the two other trades?  It seems to be that they want to get the number of people Sig Op qualified at the the expense of the other green C&E trades.

I can understand why the Linemen are unhappy.  There was a breifing a few months back for the Sig Ops and Linemen in Esquimalt and from what I heard, it seems that they wante to give all the garrison linemen task to outside contractors and keep the linemen in the field.  Most felt that it would lead to a loss of skills that would lbe crucial for linemen setting up or maintaining line in camps overseas.  None of them were happy with the prospect of the amalgamation or losing their cushy postings, and who can blame them?

The CF is hell bent on going though with this merger, so any complaints will be too little, too late.  Once they figure out the logistics, it will happen.  Then, I suspect there may be a few VRs from Linemen who'd rather look for work civvie side (pehaps in the very position that were taken from them.)  Then, we will still be short numbers and nothing and they will try something else


----------



## Sigger

Linemen, will not be in the field.

They will be in Brigades working on the heavy stuff. The Line specific stuff.


----------



## Xcalibar

That is what I meant.  I'll be more specific next time.  Sorry.


----------



## Sigger

Seen.


----------



## LCISTech227

From my understanding (which is basically from the briefing, and mutterings going on), the QL3 will be common for all trades.  Some period after your 3's you will be tapped for either of the sub-trades or to remain as an Op.  It was unclear if people were going to have the choice or whether they would be told where they were going.  After you were selected for your sub-trade, you would then commence a 4's package for that specific trade.  Then everyone would be back together again for the 5's, with the subs continuing on with a sub component.  At any rate, that's how it was explained to me.

I also heard that the linemen will be taking over the PBX from the techs... but I'm not sure if that's true or not.


----------



## Sigger

As far as what I understand, you will be selected for a specialty based on past experience/training from your 'OJT' and personal preferance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

...with the overriding factor likely being 'needs of the Service' thrown in there...

 ;D


----------



## meni0n

So does the split for SigOps between radio and IT has been confirmed yet? And when will existing members be able to put in their preferences?


----------



## Sigger

Yes, the split is confirmed.
As for the second question, I am not 100% on that. Personal preference and past experience is considered though.


----------



## meni0n

What kind of postings are available for IT? Just D troop?


----------



## Sigger

meni0n said:
			
		

> What kind of postings are available for IT? Just D troop?



You lost me there..


----------



## PteBloggins

Well ... PteBloggins here ... just thought it was time to chime in ... 

One thing I think everyone is overlooking is the amount of recuits who will not sign up based on the merger.... I have a 10year background in Computers(networking/repair stuff) and I guarantee that if my recruiter told me I had to be an operator first, I would have either up and left or gone AVS. 

Also I assure you that as a private LCIS currently I will VR if they want me to retrain as an OP... it's not what I signed my contract for... this may sound kind of sandbox behaviour, but its the facts, I signed up for a career as a tech and then I got to basic and heard the 'soldier first' motto.

This old story where recruiters promise all these great things and soon as you sign "POOF" it all changes is getting old fast. 

ok end of vent session...


----------



## PuckChaser

My college diploma in the same field comes in quite handy for me as an Operator. I think it was stated before that if you're already trained, you get grandfathered in, unless you want to OT.


----------



## aesop081

PteBloggins said:
			
		

> I signed up for a career as a tech and then I got to basic and heard the 'soldier first' motto.



So what ?


----------



## GAP

There is not an Armed Force out there where personnel are not "Soldier First". The likelyhood of some having to use the basic skills taught are unlikely in a lot of cases, but it still applies to everybody...why is this such a revelation at this point?


----------



## oinkoink69

Comment removed as it was purely trolling.

This is a warning to cease and desist comments like this one.  Three rebuttals below this one also removed as they were simply troll food.

*Harris - Milnet Staff*


----------



## Snafu-Bar

As a civvy on the outside still awaiting my thumbs up on BMQ at St Jean, I am looking at the prospect of being herded into the Sig Op field simply due to understaffing and attrition. But with the sounds of the changes going on and people already in training are the chances of getting placed in Sig Op still high for someone like me yet to hit BMQ ?


----------



## meni0n

Well it's happening. Had someone posted in, WO called him into the office asked if he wanted to go line, guy says yes. Off he goes to the line det awaiting next lineman course. He was a sigop btw.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Wow, hold that spot i'll there in ummm close to a year...  ;D


----------



## radop215

I just read some paperwork on this, and they are looking at turning the static positions into civvi contractors (commcens, line, pbx .....) and moving those pers into field units as  the sig ops and lcis are undermanned.   this would bolster the field force for deployments and the like.  dont know what they plan on doing on maintaining skill sets though...


----------



## Snafu-Bar

radop215 said:
			
		

> I just read some paperwork on this, and they are looking at turning the static positions into civvi contractors (commcens, line, pbx .....) and moving those pers into field units as  the sig ops and lcis are undermanned.   this would bolster the field force for deployments and the like.  dont know what they plan on doing on maintaining skill sets though...




 I'm still civvy awaiting thumbs up for BMQ, but was offered SigOp, how will or does this affect me or will i notice anything by the time i get through to the end job?


Cheers.


----------



## radop215

you wont notice anything, its still pretty uncommon for a private to go static off his 3s.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

radop215 said:
			
		

> I just read some paperwork on this, and they are looking at turning the static positions into civvi contractors (commcens, line, pbx .....) and moving those pers into field units as  the sig ops and lcis are undermanned.   this would bolster the field force for deployments and the like.  dont know what they plan on doing on maintaining skill sets though...



Just what we need...more civies running the show.  If you don't think it f**ks it up, try a posting to MARLANT N6...you'll see.


----------



## 211RadOp

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> I'm still civvy awaiting thumbs up for BMQ, but was offered SigOp, how will or does this affect me or will i notice anything by the time i get through to the end job?
> 
> 
> Cheers.



You won't notice anything different, as it will all be different to you. You will probably (most likely) be posted to a Sig Sqn or the Regt. The only difference is the carreer path that will be open to you that was not available to us that joined years ago.


----------



## 052

radop215 said:
			
		

> I just read some paperwork on this, and they are looking at turning the static positions into civvi contractors (commcens, line, pbx .....) and moving those pers into field units as  the sig ops and lcis are undermanned.   this would bolster the field force for deployments and the like.  dont know what they plan on doing on maintaining skill sets though...



we had an information group with the trade brass and he said it was in the works. at work we are getting surveys on different stuff (if we would stay in, why, if) things like that. the wheels are moving and everyone in field units soon. i wonder why because im in a field unit and work with static when were not on exercise. but overseas its all static work... so wont I be losing so much experience considering i would not be working with equipment i have seen since my 3's or 5's?


----------



## Jimmy67

I have a funny feeling this is going to come back and bite the C&E branch in the a**...

Guess who is going to apply for all these shiny new DND public service jobs? It will be the uniformed incumbents, who are already fully trained and security cleared. And they will get them, as they are the most qualified, and have the inside track on the hiring process. It is already happening where I work. It will cause a huge bleed-off of experience when 45 year old Sgt Bloggins gets told "sorry about your luck (and your house, and your spouse's job, etc), you are going back to Pet again", and he looks at his CM and replies "actually no, I just won the PS competition for my present job as a civvy, so here is my release. Have a nice life..." Multiply this by hundreds of cases, ranging in rank from Cpl to CWO and it will make FRP look like a small blip... 

And until the issues of spec pay and mobility between sub trades are clarified, it will be very difficult to get bodies to stay in the non-tech side of the house.

If this branch wants to retain people, it is going to have to start holding out some carrot, instead of stick... Anyone's thoughts on this?


----------



## 211RadOp

Jimmy67 said:
			
		

> I have a funny feeling this is going to come back and bite the C&E branch in the a**...
> 
> Guess who is going to apply for all these shiny new DND public service jobs? It will be the uniformed incumbents, who are already fully trained and security cleared. And they will get them, as they are the most qualified, and have the inside track on the hiring process. It is already happening where I work.



YES!! I might move higher on the merit list!! There is hope for me  ;D


----------



## Jimmy67

Hope it's worth it when you end up as IC of a 1-man det... ;D

All kidding aside, I think what concerns me most is this whole amalgamation plan was bulldozed through so fast, and with so little input from the people it affects. For the new kids, it will be business as usual, and the "new normal". How it will affect those of us with 10+ years of service is not being discussed at all... Why the secrecy?

As previous posters have mentioned, shouldn't the Air Force's experiences with trade amalgamation tell us something (not to mention the Radop/Telop and Fin/Admin fiascoes)? And as far as replacing a lot of IM Gp pers with civilian PS employees or contracters, it is nothing but ASD in sheep's clothing, and we know how well it has worked in other parts of the mil organization...   :


----------



## pstrois

Alright, I have a few mindsets on this topic , and a few questions aswell. 
Im a Lineman On OJT right now doing Line maintnance on Base borden

The amalgamation will probably bump the climbing portion of the course, since it is not very much used anymore.. the currently trained lineman will be able to perform the task if needed,  (altho we will get caught with our pants down if all the lineman civi out)  Right. 
The priority is not climbing poles tho. At least I think

Secondly, If My Lineman 3's start in January 09.. Probly the last  Lineman course.. What will happen to us? Will we simply be grandfathered, and get the Lcis, Sig training on our 4's and be glad we are lineman's

I would like to know, What makes me wanna stay in and not VR right now or OT..

Thanks!


----------



## 052

stay in. it will be good for you if your part of the last course

as for climbing, im at a HQ&Sigs sqn and i climb alot. theres poles all around the sector. i just got back from wainwright and we recabled the whole thing. that was massive climbing and so many 'static' things to be done.


----------



## pstrois

Exellent thanks for the advise,


----------



## Maraduer

Im glad I retired when I did, It was bad enough being redesignated a Sig Op 215 and loosing our MOC211. we werent able to make cop jokes anymore. Now being redesignated again.  This is modern progress for you. Next they will amalgamate Infantry into our trade or something along that line, or maybe techs will be joined with ops to be one trade ;D


----------



## JBP

Maraduer said:
			
		

> Im glad I retired when I did, It was bad enough being redesignated a Sig Op 215 and loosing our MOC211. we werent able to make cop jokes anymore. Now being redesignated again.  This is modern progress for you. Next they will amalgamate Infantry into our trade or something along that line, or maybe techs will be joined with ops to be one trade ;D



Yeah, that's the funny part. Techs and Ops are being amalgamated as I stated in the original post. LCIS Techs, Sig Ops and Lineman will basically be the same trade eventually. Where you will specialize in a given field depending on you're training after you're 3's and any previous knowledge or natural aptitude for a given field like IS/IT or fixing things or climbing poles.


----------



## Bintheredunthat

Jimmy67 said:
			
		

> I have a funny feeling this is going to come back and bite the C&E branch in the a**...
> 
> Guess who is going to apply for all these shiny new DND public service jobs? It will be the uniformed incumbents, who are already fully trained and security cleared. And they will get them, as they are the most qualified, and have the inside track on the hiring process. It is already happening where I work. It will cause a huge bleed-off of experience when 45 year old Sgt Bloggins gets told "sorry about your luck (and your house, and your spouse's job, etc), you are going back to Pet again", and he looks at his CM and replies "actually no, I just won the PS competition for my present job as a civvy, so here is my release. Have a nice life..." Multiply this by hundreds of cases, ranging in rank from Cpl to CWO and it will make FRP look like a small blip...
> 
> And until the issues of spec pay and mobility between sub trades are clarified, it will be very difficult to get bodies to stay in the non-tech side of the house.
> 
> If this branch wants to retain people, it is going to have to start holding out some carrot, instead of stick... Anyone's thoughts on this?



Yup - I'd be willing to bet that Calian is ironing out a plan as we speak to iron out how they'll lock down such a huge bid for pers with such qualifications.  

Listen up ladies and gents, get yourself into Resume class and dig out that UER for some content.  The grass on the other side could be looking pretty green very soon.

P.S. - I'm enjoying the color of the grass on the other side right now.   ;D

Bin


----------



## Niteshade

I was chatting it up with a sigop Cpl. at my local CFRC who said that this amalgamation stuff was news to him. His thought is this is not going to happen.

Just food for thought...

Nites


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I saw the letter from the CLS directing it will happen a year ago.  Its happening.  That was during a Branch brief from the Col and Branch CWO.


----------



## mp_ada

Would this have any effect on those of us trying to get in as a SIG Officer?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

No, it will not directly affect the Sig O trade itself.

It will affect those who you are in charge of though.  Morale issues are sure to spin out of this...IMO.  As I am not Green sigs I won't comment on the working aspects of it (capabilities increase/decrease, etc).


----------



## Snafu-Bar

I'm curious if this is mainly to concentrate on the training aspects(amalgamating) or the end jobs themselves?


Cheers


----------



## mp_ada

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As I am not Green sigs I won't comment on the working aspects of it (capabilities increase/decrease, etc).



Can you tell me what this means?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ada said:
			
		

> Can you tell me what this means?



When they amalgamate the trades, the way business is done will change somewhat.  I am not sure what will be the positive and negative changes, as I am Air Force C & E right now, not army C & E.  Current capabilities could be improved in some areas, and diminished in other areas (in terms of skill sets, capabilities, man power, ORBATs, etc).


----------



## mp_ada

Ok thanks....makes total sense now   Do you work with any CELE Officers?  That's my second choice...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ada said:
			
		

> Ok thanks....makes total sense now   Do you work with any CELE Officers?  That's my second choice...



Yes, I do.  On the Wing, the WTISSO is a CELE Capt, and we have several CELEs waiting for the CELE crse at 1 Sqn doing OJT here as well.


----------



## mp_ada

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yes, I do.  On the Wing, the WTISSO is a CELE Capt, and we have several CELEs waiting for the CELE crse at 1 Sqn doing OJT here as well.



Awesome...I'll have to keep you in mind if I need any info on that side of things (if you don't mind)   I'll leave this thread back on topic now...


----------



## Sig_Des

Niteshade said:
			
		

> I was chatting it up with a sigop Cpl. at my local CFRC who said that this amalgamation stuff was news to him. His thought is this is not going to happen.
> 
> Just food for thought...
> 
> Nites



Funny. Had an O group point passed down that we'll see the first amalgamated QL3's come through before the end of 2009.


----------



## Jimmy67

According to my chief, and the CWO of IM Group, it's happening... We had a briefing ref this and they made no bones about it. I figure this is pretty solid since IM Gp will be the most affected by all this (the majority of the non-field postings on the block for replacement by civilians belong to them). I say this because I see the replacement of these positions by civvies and the pending trade amalgamation as as closely linked, and part of the same plan (to transform green sigs pers into a field only trade).

  The feeling in the higher levels is that it will be easier to plug in pers to the areas most short of personnel (we all know which one that is  if they can be "streamed" upon recruitment, probably regardless of the member's wishes. Once the member has completed basic training, it will be very difficult to leave if they do not like where they are "streamed"...

As in "abracadabra, you joined to be a tech, but you're now a sig op!"...

What you will have in effect is one "super-trade", but not everyone will get the same benefits (ie spec pay). Not on, in my book, and sounds like moving deck chairs to me. You might as well just leave things as they are, with 3 separate trades. This move will do nothing but p**** people off IMHO...

I repeat, this my opinion only. Your mileage may differ ;D


----------



## meni0n

From what I heard yesterday it will be a while until they start to replace all the static postings with civilians, not for another couple of years. Did anyone hear anything else about sig ops split between field and IT?


----------



## Shoto

Hey guys, EXCELLENT post. Thanks for your effort in writting it.

I has a question. I just graduated from BMQ this week (hooray), my trade is LCIS tech. Now, I LOVE computers, that was the part of joining the army I signed up for. I wanted to work on computer systems and repair them, maybe get in to the GPS and such. I wanted "LCIS" tech. 

Now I find out, that there is a good chance I'll be a Sigs Op? That sucks, I really really really don't want to go Sig or Line.

I guess my question is, what exactly will happen to me? I'm sort of in the middle of all this and heard so much different stuff!


----------



## PuckChaser

First courses are supposed to be run for the ACCIS in 2009, so if you finish your courses before then, you'll be grandfathered. Keep in mind though, the new trade may have SigOps doing a lot of the tech support end, leaving LCIS trades at 2nd line working on circuit boards. It's all really up in the air, I wouldn't worry about it too much. There will always be the opportunity for you to switch into the right subtrade if you get stuck in the trap.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

meni0n said:
			
		

> From what I heard yesterday it will be a while until they start to replace all the static postings with civilians, not for another couple of years. Did anyone hear anything else about sig ops split between field and IT?



IIRC, this initiative is called Replace The Soldier.  The email I have at work states it will start this coming APS (2009).  Not a few years from now.  The email was written by one of the Sn Officers behind this, a Sig O, LCol who's lastname initials are V V.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

That don't sound too promising for someone headed into Sig's to get replaced by civvies before even getting through BMQ :/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The intent of the program is to replace Sig's folks that are in static, non-field positions to field positions, not to reduce the # of Sigs pers.


----------



## Sig_Des

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> That don't sound too promising for someone headed into Sig's to get replaced by civvies before even getting through BMQ :/



It's good and bad. What it means is that the static positions, jobs such as running base servers, setting up cell phones, etc, that you have at the base Comm Sqns, will be filled by civillians, allowing the Sigs to go to more field oriented positions.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Ok that makes sense, those with combat training are better put to use and those with the tech xp get the static positions as civvy contracts.

 Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers.


----------



## meni0n

Coming from a briefing from a Col of an ASG, they put in memo to a General, voicing concerns about how it's done. Basically having misgivings about people on category, IR, compassionate and people in critical positions. People who are fit and due for postings will be posted to field positions but a lot of things are still left to hammer out. With the amalgamation coming, not a lot of things are clear. Will have career manager briefing soon and a meeting and will try to find out more. But from what I heard in Kingston while on course is that JSR will be the main IT place and the brigades be more Tac Rad. New QL5s for Sig Ops are coming as well, more focus on CP setup. Many things are still in the air and haven't been cleared up yet.


----------



## Bintheredunthat

FYI - anyone on the way out.....the Coast Guard is hiring.   ;D  True story.

PM for details if anyone is interested in taking their pension to another gov't gig.

Bin


----------



## buzgo

Career managers are saying not to hold your breath on this happening anytime soon. Looks like its sliding to the right...


----------



## PuckChaser

From the Master of Signals, the CLS wants the first Common QL3 course run April 2010.


----------



## meni0n

signalsguy, do you mean the amalgamation or the movement and replacement of personnel from static to field? Career manager told me the amalgamation will be happening soon.


----------



## buzgo

The impression I got was that the amalgamation was going to happen on sched, everything else won't. I am not holding my breath on this one. I went to one of the briefings and CWO Symes and CWO Hohmann didn't have any realistic answers - they don't know how to make it work. Its easy to throw up some slides and make pie in the sky statements...

Besides, if you've seen the latest numbers we've got way bigger problems - they can't recruit for LCIS and Sig Op.

And moving people from static to field, thats been going on for the past few years. IM Group has been giving up positions to other orgs and elements since at least 06. Theres been a lot of talk about stopping 'accomodation' of injured folk but what I'm seeing now is that they need to hang on to anyone with a pulse to fill all of the static jobs that aren't easily civilianized.

meni0n, do you think JSR is still a viable org at this time? I know a few pri 1 places that are gagging for people. Scale JSR down (recreate 79 Comm Regt?) and increase the size of the brigade units, maybe make them into Bn size elements with tactical, satcom and IT companies. Redistribute the rest of the positions to other orgs - CANSOFCOM for example.


----------



## meni0n

For the static positions being eliminated, right now it's on hold because there is no plan and a lot of issues to be resolved. As for JSR, I couldn't tell you as I've never been posted there, but from the presentation we got on our fives this summer and from talking to people who are from JSR, they are short people as well. Those guys deploy frequently, some for longer times some for shorter but it seems that the sig op trade is really short of personnel everywhere and with the talk of a split between rad op and IS it will make it more confusing. There are just a lot more questions than answers out there right now.


----------



## muffin

I can tell you for sure JSR is short on people.
My hubby is due to return from a TAV in Afghanistan next week. He only got back from tour in June, and is already slated for 3/09.
They recently had on guy (brand new father of 2 weeks) go over on a 2 month TAV and had to ask him to stay because one guy for the next roto dagged red the last minute, and they don't have any backups.

Part of the trouble with the LCIS shortage there (as I understand it) is that they alway had LCIS and ATIS techs there, but since JSR went back to the army, all the ATIS are being posted out, and only LCIS are being posted in. 

I think JSR is PRI 2 for postings.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Recently I attended the CM briefs for ATIS/LCIS/Sig Op/Linemen and the word from the respective "green" C & E CMs was that the amalgamation was put off a year but would be going forward.

FWIW...all of the above mentioned MOCs are red and, according to the CMs...not looking good in the next few years, with the exceptiono of Linemen.  The Linemen CM said he is going to be "green +" WRT to TES/PML and there will be NO retention offers after the APS.

Just what I heard from the Herd.


----------



## Open Circuit

I recently attended the MES briefing and I think this is a great initiative. There are so many reasons our current trade structures are not working. Recruiting, retention, job satisfaction etc. Let's face it, what we have now is not working out very well. To quote Doc Phil, "how is it working for you"? Well it isn't. The current Op Tempo is burning out our Signallers. I think this new structure will allow us to evolve, as technology is evolving. Having a single entry point to the Signals trades will make the decision at the recruiting centers that much more easy. Sure, it may take a couple of years before you will be a lineman or technician if that is what you want, but so what! Nothing wrong with being a Soldier/Signaller when you first start out, gives you a good base for the rest of your career. Be thankful we are not the British Army, you would be in the infantry for 3 years before being considered for Signals. For the record, it is my understanding the new trade will be called;

ACISS - Army Communications and Information Systems Specialist. 

The sub occupations for Cpl - Sgt;

CST- Communication System Technologist
IST - Information Systems Technologist
LST - Line Systems Technologist

The sub occupation for Sgt -WO

CITSM - Communications and Information Technology Systems Manager.


----------



## PuckChaser

MES isn't helping our recruiting. The Master of Signals was recently told by new PATs waiting their QL3 that some were told Lineman won't exist in a few years, SigOp is closed, etc etc. The recruiting system needs to be pushing our trades and get some people in the door. Maybe MES will help, but right now it seems like a whole lot of ideas that don't have a solid implementation plan.


----------



## meni0n

The CST and IST are confusing me, which one is the sigop and which one is the lcis? Another question, how is the POET going to work for people selected for the lcis positions? Is that going to be the QL4 ? Open Circuit, are the rumours also true about the sigop trade branching out as well, between IT and radio?


----------



## Open Circuit

meni0n, as I understand it the during the 1st phase of the restructure the current LCIS will be placed in either the CST or IST. As well the currrent Sigops will either be placed in the ACISS core or the IST. The ACISS core will be your typical Sigop duties while IST is the IS support and maintenance. I think they are looking at providing POET to all the sub trades, CST, IST and LST. Not sure how it will be incorporated but I would think it would be like a TQ4 or an entry level course once selected for one of the sub trades.


----------



## meni0n

So current sigops looking to go IST will have to take POET then. I wonder what kind of postings will be available for that subtrade.


----------



## Open Circuit

Postings should be no differernt then they are now, the jobs are being done now by Sigops and LCIS and will continue to be done by IST. Nothing changes.


----------



## Swingline1984

Open Circuit said:
			
		

> I recently attended the MES briefing and I think this is a great initiative.



Great how?  By turning a bunch of specialists into Mediocre tradesmen?  The only trade this is good for is the Sig Ops and leaves those who like their current trade nothing to look forward to past Sgt, some retention strategy.  Become a Sigs Tp WO?  Run a CP?  Blah!  MES is nothing more that an initiative to save the sinking ship that is the Sig Op trade by stealing troops from those of us who are healthy.

Cheers,


----------



## Open Circuit

I think you need to educate yourself more on the new structure. The sub occupations of CST, IST and LST (for definitions see previous thread) will train to the same level or higher that they are currently being trained. At the WO/MWO rank (Technology Managers) the same opportunities will exist, linked to their sub occupations. Yes, if you desire you may be considered for a Tp WO position, could be a Tp of CST, IST or LST. I am sure you have WOs employed in your occupation now, may or may not call them Tp WOs but the supervisory role remains the same. As a tradesman, you should appreciate the ability to operate the equipment you are maintaining, be it radios, telephones or computers. A little bit more education and experience never hurt anyone. 

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, or the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to Change. 
Charles Darwin


----------



## PuckChaser

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Great how?  By turning a bunch of specialists into Mediocre tradesmen?  The only trade this is good for is the Sig Ops and leaves those who like their current trade nothing to look forward to past Sgt, some retention strategy.  Become a Sigs Tp WO?  Run a CP?  Blah!  MES is nothing more that an initiative to save the sinking ship that is the Sig Op trade by stealing troops from those of us who are healthy.
> 
> Cheers,



You could always get your trade to opt out of MES and therefore opt yourself out of the possibility of spec pay. I won't even get into the ridiculousness of the rest of your statement, as I prefer to respect other trades based on the unique skills they bring to the battlefield, and not call out a trade as a "sinking ship".


----------



## Swingline1984

I wish I lived in the same rose coloured world that Open Cct occupies, we will still be slaves to the Mangler's shop, since when did you ever have a choice?  As for the "sinking ship" comment, it refers to manning not skill sets or personalities, don't get all bent out of shape by reading ill will into this.  Nobody asked us what we wanted and I am entitled to my opinion, I enjoy my job as it is, why would the chance of Spec Pay make me love a dumb idea?  Ask the Air force how trade amalgamation worked for them.  Since this is a done deal, I will just have to wait and see how it all works out, doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.  I hope I'm wrong and it turns out to be the best thing since sliced bread, but, somehow I doubt that will be the case.


----------



## buzgo

Swingline, FWIW I think you're spot on. This is going to be very bad. I'm pretty sure its being driven forward because certain people have invested too much into it... they don't want to fail. When it all fails anyway, they'll be long gone...


----------



## Open Circuit

All the more reason to get informed. I suspect you were not involved in the survey, there was one. During the briefing I had, it was mentioned we could send up our concerns and recommendations through the chain of command. We have an opportunity to influence the process. Simply complaining will not help. We have all been taught if you have a problem, propose a solution! You can either be part of the solution or you can be part of the problem - your choice!


----------



## Swingline1984

Are you in the marketing department for this project (you're not doing a very good job)?  It is hard to be as "informed" as you would like me to be if the info is not readily available to everyone.  As for the CoC they know even less, as I have already engaged them on this issue.  I would really like to know what part/level of the military you are in where project managers actually listen to your specific recommendations, or ask for your input, on these types of high level projects that get poured out on us like so much boiling oil from the ramparts of the Ivory tower.  I'm glad you're so invested, it gives me someone to blame when it all comes crashing down.   

Cheers,


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

I think it is just a job save project for the Sig Ops too. 
At the MES brief I went to, there was a CWO representing LCIS, Line and Sig Ops....
Who did all of the talking....The Sig Op Chief....
The LCIS and Line Chiefs never said a word.
It just made me feel that perhaps they were not in agreement with what was being implemented (My personal opinion).

I do hope it all works out in the end, and I will do my job regardless, I just hope that we LCIS and Line guys do not get hosed.

I take a lot of pride in being an LCIS Tech and I know the Line guys and Sigs do too.

Was it like this when they did away with Teletype ops/techs?


----------



## Open Circuit

BigDaddyFatback - as an LCIS Tech myself, I too enjoy being a technician. Our trade by the way is identified as a distressed trade. So to say the MES initiative is only meant to save the Sig Ops is not entirely accurate, this will also help save the our trade. We will be called something different but at the end of the day we will continue to be techncians. I also lived through the several amalgamations we have had in the past, like when the Tel Techs became LCIS Techs. I can tell you this plan seems to be more viable then the plan they had back then. I am sure they have learned form previous experiences in order to adopt them to this new structure. I need to stress here, this is not an amalgamation but a restructure. There will continue to be Operators, Techncians and lineman, although they will be called something different (ACISS, CST, IST, LST) and will belong to a corp occupation. I am curious, what would you propose to ensure we have a strong, techncially viable trade in the future? How would you deal with the lack of recruiting and retention? How would you deal with an overlap of responsibilies (Operators and techncians doing the same IS function) while being paid differently. I hear a lot of nay-sayers about this restructure but have not heard of any brilliant ideas on how to address our current problems! Do you think we should keep the status quo? Can we continue to put bandaids on our ability to sustain ourselves? Technology is evolving, time to change to remain relevant or get out of the way for someone or somthing that will be.


----------



## PuckChaser

The whole restructure is going to be FUBAR for the next few years, it is with any large change initiative. Long term? Probably will sort out some of the major issues including getting boots on the ground where they are needed. I can see the Linemen side of view, heck I'd be up in arms if my trade was 100% manned, why rock the boat when its obviously working for your end? I really can't forsee the Line trade changing in anything but name when MES finally goes through, or at least from the briefings I've been given. LCIS and SigOp are the real trades affected by the restructure, and it will take us a lot of time to get things right. OC is right when he (my apologies if you are a she, profile doesn't state) says there is a lot of duplication of effort going on in the technical side and we need to sort that out. Giving us more trade options can probably assist in retention, especially if troops are given a choice based not just on technical ability but what they want to do. I have a college diploma for computer networking, but I love working in TacRad. Placing people into jobs they do not want to do (within reason, some people just whine) is what can kill a trade very easily.


----------



## MOOXE

Its hard to see anyone getting hosed in this deal. I have never seen very much esprit du corps within sigs for anyone in any of the trades to be particularly disturbed about whats happening. The jobs that we are doing right now are still the jobs we need getting done year after year. Its really just another way to train the new folks and send them off to thier respective postings. I am not even sure its worth debating for us.


----------



## Xcalibar

So, can someone tell me if I'm a ACISS OP yet, or still just a Sig Op?  From the briefing I had back in December, this was supposed to go in effect in April 09.  Out here on the Left Coast, I hear precious little of what is going on in the C&E world.


----------



## JSR OP

Your still a Sig Op.


----------



## aesop081

Xcalibar said:
			
		

> Out here on the Left Coast, I hear precious little of what is going on in the C&E world.



Even out on the left coast, you have access to EMAA and all your trade information.


----------



## Xcalibar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Even out on the left coast, you have access to EMAA and all your trade information.



I figured as much.  I just wanted to be sure.  Thanks.


----------



## PuckChaser

We should start a pool to see if there will be an announcement that the MES project is going to be stopped, or if it'll just fade to prevent some hurt feelings...


----------



## meni0n

I got 5$ that it will eventually be implemented but be a huge headache.


----------



## Feelix

I'd like to know if we have new informations about this amalgamation... When the first troop will start ???


----------



## Jammer

The details still being worked out at the Army level. The CLS has yet to formally sign off on it, however we at CFSCE are anticipating the first crse to begin some time in FY 2010.


----------



## HeadLamp

So does that mean all the 3's courses that got pushed back to December 4th are still only the 5(6?) month variants of the course? We had a few guys that had October 09-10 on their course loading sheets and we figured it meant the course got lengthened for this amalgamation. Unfortunately no real info is passed our way so we're just hearing rumours right now.


----------



## Jammer

Read my previous post again.
Are you reg or reserve?
No changes to Reg Sig Op Apprentice crses until summer 2010 at the earliest.
You have to have SQ and Dvr wheel before showing up for your crse here, that would explain the change in training time.


----------



## Feelix

my QL3 are supposed to start on november 2... (french course) if they don't change the date again and again lol...

Do i still expecting those date with the old system... or they will push the date and wait till the almagation will be ready ???


----------



## HeadLamp

Jammer said:
			
		

> Read my previous post again.
> Are you reg or reserve?
> No changes to Reg Sig Op Apprentice crses until summer 2010 at the earliest.
> You have to have SQ and Dvr wheel before showing up for your crse here, that would explain the change in training time.



 Good to know. I'm Reg force and am already SQ and Dvr wheel qualified. Our understanding is we're going to be going to Kingston for PAT and just wait around for a few months until the Dec. 4th course.  

 It must have just been an error in the systems here when the other guys got the year long course printed on their list. Either way a lot of people were unhappy with the push back and "supposed" extension of the course, so this information that it hasn't been approved yet will be well received I'm sure.


----------



## Feelix

as long as i know about the Kingston PAT Plattoon... everyone from PRETC are supposed to take their way to Kingston on October 2... but like army still army... this have time to chance so many time before it will happen... but i'd like to hear from you guy who maybe have more up to date information about all this...


----------



## Jammer

You'll find out when you get here.


----------



## Wright

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Parts of this make sense to me, at least the the LCIS-Sig Op bridge...
> 
> I've had problems (And some extremely good experiences, they're not all terrible) in the past with LCIS techs conducting 1st line repairs, one particular pair in Kingston comes to mind, who spent a full 10 hours "diganosing" my truck, before finally at a conclusion which matched exactly what I had told them was wrong and what to repair from the very beginning, a little bit of experience operating the equipment you're going to fix is going to be huge asset in the long run...
> 
> Other benefit, having the operators able to perform first line maintenance would be a huge boon as well. Doesn't take a great deal of skill or training to teach somone to conduct basic soldering repairs of connectors, to swap out cards, or replace a HUB.
> 
> The major DOWNSIDE I see to this? Skill fade. Train people too broadly, they'll forget whatever they don't use on a regular basis, and they'll loose it, but that's a forces wide problem anyway, training up to our necks, and not enough opportunity to get skilled.



Changing a hub, card etc is not first line. i am consistently seeing this in alot of threads on here. First line is finding out what specific piece of kit is not working, and swapping it for one that does. the tech or QM should have access to a replacment item for that setup.

repairing that particular kit is second line, the tech, or QM should have access to the spare radios and equipment needed, it is more likely that they will bring a full NAU or RAU into an ex/op before they bring a static bag sealed card or a crap load of cards that are sealed.
third line, component level, 

currently now, majority of what i see( not saying this is CF wide at all) is with green kit(yes i rarely see it no longer in a tac rad shop) but, when i did see it, the operators knew what kit was causing the trouble, or they suspected. and brought that kit to us for a serv test. we would test it, 9/10 times they were right. 
 back on track, 
as for this MES, we were told (around june) that anyone 5's qualified would not be affected (tech side), and yes there was no definitive answers on Spec, Although they did hint at they were trying to get it for all trades, however it was up to some other government agency to grant it, and that there would be possibly more training required to justify it to that agency.


----------



## Open Circuit

Just to clarify, levels of maint are outlined in the permissive repair schedules. You should read them. There is a difference between levels of maint and lines of maint. For example a first line unit  can conduct 1st and 2nd level maint on a specific type of equipment. Second and third line units typically conduct 2nd and 3rd levels of  maint.

Just thought you should know.....


----------



## Mojo Magnum

I normally try to stay upbeat and positive with my posts online, but I was subjected to the atrocity that was the Mes brief the other day.  
I can get past the Frenglish (even when they make up words by jamming two similar words together to make a new one, and then use said attempt at a new word as the headline for their slide as was witnessed at the career managers brief), and I can get past the strange recurring nightmare that has two perfectly literate and well spoken English pers standing back while the "barely able to speak English" pers attempts to carry the entire brief on their own.  
It was difficult however to ignore how many senior members in the audience were equally annoyed by the complete lack of usefull information.  Big points to the presenter for thinking on his feet and laying down a good rap about his intent, not that it resembles what is and what will be.  I'm pretty sure we all came away with no new info whatsoever, aside from the clearly stated response to the question, "Will we earn spec pay?",  that was a definite "I don't know, it's not my job to decide that."  

My little anglophone pitty party aside, I was moved by the endorsement of the CO that he had known the man for fifteen years and that he really DID know what he was doing.

But I digress...


----------



## LCIS-Tech

I am going to weigh in here, since there appears to be a lot of inaccurate and misleading info floating around on this and other threads.

First and foremost: This IS happening. on 1 Jan 2011 all Linemen, Sig Ops and LCIS Techs will become part of the ACISS Trade (ARMY Communications and Information Systems Specialist). There are no if, ands, or buts about it. So we had best put on a brave face, and learn to smile with a mouth full of it if we don;t like it. All C&E Trades (with the sole exception of the Linemen) are hurting, number-wise. This is a fact. Talking with a Chief from recruiting, he says that part of our problem is that (from my Trade perspective: LCIS) the job is boring. While I disagree to a certain extent, I admit that the job does not have the "macho, glorious, and tough-guy" image that a trade like Infantry has (which, by coincidence is about 600 pers over strength). The MES (Military Employment Structure) or as some have called it: The Son of MOSART, is an opportunity to directly deal with those manning shortfalls, and ensure that we all have a common framework and information background. It will allow us to all do our respective jobs BETTER.

As far as Spec Pay goes (since I know that this is something that is near and dear to the hearts of the LCIS Techs out there: While it is ultimately up to Treasury Board to determine who gets what, it is hoped that the ENTIRE Trade (including sub-occupations) will recieve Spec Pay. Furthermore, those of us who are WO and above will actually be called Army Communications Technology Managers. Rumor has it that they are going to approach Treasury Board and try to get THOSE pers Spec TWO.

I have some other information as well, but I would suggest that you all meet up with and ask your Senior NCOs for some more detailed information regarding this subject. The Army Foreman sent out a Powerpoint presentation to the Area Foremen just before the start of Christmas Leave, and there is a little bit of new information in there. Ask about it, and remember: It IS going to happen. This is a done deal. Lets all make the best of it, and hope that we avoid the problems that were created when they amalgamated the Radar, Tel, Rad, and TE Tech Trades back in 1996.


----------



## tsokman

Can you digress some more on the role of the technology manager...is it suppose to be synthetic...

Would the LCIS Tech be more reoriented to second line maintenance if the sig op takes over basic first op maintenance...is there alot of outsourcing to civie companies in the 3rd line and overhauling-static repair area in the LCIS tech's "world"...

thanks


----------



## meni0n

It would interesting to see how that plays out, as it seems they want to have a general Manager sub occupation that can be put into any of the three roles. But, if the person was more exposed to let`s say sigop side of the job and then goes to this general manager, I don`t see how he`ll be able to fill a SME spot at a organization that focuses more on 2nd line maintenance. Perhaps these Army Communications Technology Managers will have their own sub occupations as well?


----------



## tsokman

Apparently there's suppose to be "common phase" training in both QL3 and QL5 before the MOC's begin to branch off...but Im not sure how it would work at the manager level...unless they have some interface concept  connecting all the sub-occupations upward and downward continuously into the technology manager role...


----------



## meni0n

I know there are common phases but they also want people to specialize in one of the three sub occupations. So even though a person is going to have a decent knowledge of the three trades, he is still going to be a SME in the sub occupation he specialized.


----------



## PuckChaser

At the Sgt level, the sub-occupations are supposed to merge back together, and said Sgt can be employed to supervise in any of the 4 sub-occupations. The courses become common again at that point.


----------



## meni0n

Puck, that seems logical but will that person be able to fill in as a SME for all three sub occupations? What if he specialized in Line but has to fill in a Chief Comm Op position. Will he have enough knowledge to do the job well.


----------



## PuckChaser

That's a training issue at the QL6a and QL7 level. As a Sgt Supervisor, you need to know less about the minute details and more how to manage people. As of right now, SigOps don't even have a specialized course on how to be a CCO, we just learn how to write CEOIs on the 6A and jump into a posting position as a WO/MWO.


----------



## Swingline1984

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> At the Sgt level, the sub-occupations are supposed to merge back together, and said Sgt can be employed to supervise in any of the 4 sub-occupations. The courses become common again at that point.



The 3 sub occupations (Line, Tech, IS guy) don't merge into CISTM until WO.  WARNING!!! PERSONAL OPINION ONLY:  I would have to believe that until the "super" Sigs start making their way up to that level that the wise men positions would be grandfathered to the sub occupation stream upon which they are based (w/ exceptions I'm sure).



			
				meni0n said:
			
		

> Puck, that seems logical but will that person be able to fill in as a SME for all three sub occupations? What if he specialized in Line but has to fill in a Chief Comm Op position. Will he have enough knowledge to do the job well.



The position of CCO is tied to the ACISS core occupation and is not a role of the CISTM.


----------



## tsokman

What if your not chosen for tech(even if youre enrolling as an LCIS Tech) and you dont want to be a sig op or lineman...


----------



## PMedMoe

tsokman said:
			
		

> What if your not chosen for tech(even if youre enrolling as an LCIS Tech) and you dont want to be a sig op or lineman...


Then you don't put down any other trade choices besides LCIS Tech.  If you're not chosen, then I guess you don't get in.

You really need to get yourself to a recruiting centre.   :


----------



## Occam

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Then you don't put down any other trade choices besides LCIS Tech.  If you're not chosen, then I guess you don't get in.
> 
> You really need to get yourself to a recruiting centre.   :



He means under the new trade structure, Moe....not under the old.


----------



## PMedMoe

Occam said:
			
		

> He means under the new trade structure, Moe....not under the old.


Oops, my bad.    :-\   Don't join then.  Seems like this is the way the trade is going.


----------



## Jammer

Just so we're clear on this
The initial writing board has finished. There is another one happening in the near future. The TP isn't even written yet either, so NO ONE has any idea yet how this whole ACCIS scheme will look in it's final form.


----------



## PuckChaser

tsokman said:
			
		

> What if your not chosen for tech(even if youre enrolling as an LCIS Tech) and you dont want to be a sig op or lineman...



You can Occupational Transfer between the elements. Keep in mind that if you're going to be slotted based on your abilities and the needs of the trade. I hardly see you having a problem with being a Tech, they're in as bad shape as SigOp is. All the new folks will end up streamed that way I bet.


----------



## tsokman

LCIS Tech was the only trade I interviewed for and found suitable...but im entering unskilled with no electronics background...how difficult would it be to CT to Comm Research Operator if one is not chosen as a tech or completely OT to another branch...Considering the timelines I may be among the first batch of ACISS NCM's; but I dont want to be enrolling as an LCIS Tech and end up as something else....That would suck....would they force you to stay in the C and E branch...Or if I wasnt chosen for LCIS tech I would rather OT right out of the C and E branch into some other tech or engineering trade...

Will there be an ACISS officer as well or will it remain Sig Officer...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Aside from any School/Branch directives or policies, doing an Occupational transfer in your case would likely go as follows:

1.  You fail the MOC trg and would likely go to see a PSO (Personnel Selection Officer) and have to pick from a list of trades that have opening from the Reassignment List (published monthly IIRC), of course your CFAT scores would affect what ones you might qualify for.

2.  You haven't completed your QL3 yet and are somewhere between BMQ-QL3 qualified.  You would submit a request for MOC reassignment BEFORE you were QL3 qualified and submit if up your CoC.  It would be reviewed by the proper authorities (PSO, DMCA, Career Manager shop, etc) and be approved/denied.  This would be in accordance with CFA0 11-12 Occupation Transfer of NCM - Regular Force.

3.  You complete 48 months of service, have a QL5 qualficiation level, and apply for one of the Occupation Transfer programs (COTP, VOT) again IAW CFA0 11-12.

4.  You don't like any of those options, and do not enrol, or put in a VR before completing trg, again it would go thru your CoC and a decision would be made.

I'll say this...you are making a judgement on the work of an LCIS Tech and SigOP without having done, or even *seen*, that work at this point in time.  Both those trades, to some extent, work together to achieve a common goal; communications for the unit(s) they support.

Keep an open mind.  You may find that if you ended up on the *tech* side, you wish you were on the Operator side.  But you'll never know until you get there.  I thought I was going to like my last MOC ( a tech trade) and I didn't once I got there.  I wasted mine and the CFs time and money.

Don't shut your eyes to any aspects of the C & E branch, thats my advice.  Something drew you to it in the first place, right?


----------



## tsokman

Yes I was drawn by LCIS Tech..but if the whole C and E branch is undergoind osmosis it makes it all the more fascinating...but thats why I asked if the technology manager was a synthetic position...Would it be possible for one to move between tech and operator under the new ACISS framework or would one have to wait until the tech manager position...


----------



## Jammer

As I said before, it remains to be seen how ACCIS will develop. No one can say with any accuracy how the selections for what trade will be determined. 
 The timeline for this has been pushed way the the right. 
Before you commit to any trade, make sure its what you want...really want, because if you change your mind during any point in your training you will most likely find yourself rotting on PAT platoon for quite some time before any change in your status is processed


----------



## Occam

tsokman said:
			
		

> Yes I was drawn by LCIS Tech..but if the whole C and E branch is undergoind osmosis



It's not the whole C&E branch.  ATIS Tech and Comm Research are not involved with MES.  

(Some might add in a "Thank %deity%!" after that statement)


----------



## tsokman

ok thanks...I know I want LCIS tech...I have spent some time researching almost every aspect of the trade and Im fascinated by it as a profession in the CF...It had all the mixes I wanted in a trade...Hopefully, I wont encounter any problems during training.


----------



## Dean22

When will this take place?

For example will Sig Ops/Linemen/LCIS techs be effected by this now or in 1 year or 2?

Or will this transition take place in as little as a few months.

Also, will this amalgamation happen in the regulars more so in the reserves? I can imagine how the reserves might have a problem combining all three especially with the current budget issues across Canada and the lack of instruction/experience to make all three trades into one viable.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Dean22 said:
			
		

> When will this take place?
> 
> For example will Sig Ops/Linemen/LCIS techs be effected by this now or in 1 year or 2?
> 
> Or will this transition take place in as little as a few months.
> 
> Also, will this amalgamation happen in the regulars more so in the reserves? I can imagine how the reserves might have a problem combining all three especially with the current budget issues across Canada and the lack of instruction/experience to make all three trades into one viable.



It would appear from Reply #144 that the details are still being worked out:



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> Just so we're clear on this
> The initial writing board has finished. There is another one happening in the near future. The TP isn't even written yet either, so NO ONE has any idea yet how this whole ACCIS scheme will look in it's final form.



It may be some time before anyone can answer your questions with certainty.


----------



## Swingline1984

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It may be some time before anyone can answer your questions with certainty.



I certainly hope not  .  The school starts teaching ACCIS this summer, and with the amalgamation happening 1 Jan 11, someone must have a clue as to how it will be implemented (the CoC has been terrible at getting the info out; the MES briefings left more questions than answers).


----------



## PuckChaser

I have a feeling once the TP is hammered out, then we'll find out the implementation plan. There's no sense in building a plan to put people places, unless they know exactly what each course and each sub occ is going to learn at the school. You'd be putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## Swingline1984

Puckchaser is right of course.  I am looking forward to see what will be done for conversion training etc., especially for those of us who are not as well rounded as should be required to be a CISTM.  I'm still not convinced that this is the right solution, and I am still trying to figure out how it will solve retention issues, but have resigned myself to see how it will pan out (not like I have a choice  ;D).  This grasshopper has realized he will need to put on a brave face and have patience to survive the process.  Deep...slow...breathes...


----------



## Jammer

Swing:
So far there are no firm timelines that CFSCE will initially be switching to ACCIS. Like I said before the TP hasn't een been written yet. CTC hasn't blessed it, and I would say it's a very safe bet that ACCIS will not be implimented until late fall/winter of this year.


----------



## Brasidas

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Also, will this amalgamation happen in the regulars more so in the reserves?



The 73 Comm Gp CO stated that the timeline, as of 3 months ago, was for MES to be implemented one year after the reg force had done so. While the reg force timeline has been pushed to the right, this may still be a valid guideline.

In any event, amalgamation will come to the reserves.



> I can imagine how the reserves might have a problem combining all three especially with the current budget issues across Canada and the lack of instruction/experience to make all three trades into one viable.



There are reservists, linemen, and even a handful of techs in the reserves, though that's an area where CFSCE would need to draw on reg force and Calian. I do know a fully-reserve-trained LCIS MCpl still on the books in my unit collecting spec pay. There certainly are reservist sig ops who've done IS work on class B.

The potential instructor pool exists.


----------



## Dean22

Brasidas said:
			
		

> The 73 Comm Gp CO stated that the timeline, as of 3 months ago, was for MES to be implemented one year after the reg force had done so. While the reg force timeline has been pushed to the right, this may still be a valid guideline.
> 
> In any event, amalgamation will come to the reserves.
> 
> There are reservists, linemen, and even a handful of techs in the reserves, though that's an area where CFSCE would need to draw on reg force and Calian. I do know a fully-reserve-trained LCIS MCpl still on the books in my unit collecting spec pay. There certainly are reservist sig ops who've done IS work on class B.
> 
> The potential instructor pool exists.



Thanks for the reply. Hopefully, I like the LCIS/lineman part of the job.


----------



## tsokman

Would you have to do linemans work as part of the common phase like climbing poles and things like that...Do current LCIS Techs repair line at all....


----------



## PuckChaser

tsokman said:
			
		

> Would you have to do linemans work as part of the common phase like climbing poles and things like that...Do current LCIS Techs repair line at all....



There's 11 pages of information just in this thread. There are people who are in the effected trade's who don't know whats completely going to happen yet, but you want to know before you've even been enrolled? I'm sure you've been told already, but I'll mention it again. Set your mind to "Receive" instead of "Transmit". You'll find its a lot easier to pick up information about the trade you want to join when you're not asking the same questions over and over and over.


----------



## tsokman

Well I liked to know if Im gonna have to do linemans work because Im not too keen on climbing poles...


----------



## Swingline1984

tsokman said:
			
		

> Well I liked to know if Im gonna have to do linemans work because Im not too keen on climbing poles...



Then you won't.  The amalgamation does not get rid of the primary occupations it only makes them sub-occupations of one larger trade.  I can tell you for certain that you won't climb anything (if they made it a qualification to be an ACCIS then they would lose 20% of candidates on the first day the climbing portion started).  As you've already stated you are not interested in it (which the MWOs at the MES brief said would be one factor considered when putting you in your stream) and based on an apparent fear of heights are obviously unsuited for it.  Being a danger to yourself and others while working aloft does not a Lineman make.


----------



## tsokman

im not afraid of heights i used to work in the roofing industry i just dont want to climb poles..


----------



## aesop081

tsokman said:
			
		

> i just dont want to climb poles..



If you are straight, thats not usualy an issue.


----------



## Rigger052

Not really an issue, trying to force an unwilling candidate to climb would be dangerous at best.


----------



## Swingline1984

tsokman said:
			
		

> im not afraid of heights i used to work in the roofing industry i just dont want to climb poles..



 :-\????????  What an odd thing to say.  Seeing as "climbing poles" is only about 2% of the workload and the other 98% has nothing at all to do with them I would suggest that perhaps you don't actually know what a Lineman in the Canadian Forces does.  I've spent plenty of my career not climbing poles, in fact I didn't even see a telephone pole today (most likely because I wasn't looking).  Go be a gizmo guy if you will, for my part, I will continue to enjoy building your infrastructure.


----------



## LineJumper

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> :-\????????  What an odd thing to say.  Seeing as "climbing poles" is only about 2% of the workload and the other 98% has nothing at all to do with them I would suggest that perhaps you don't actually know what a Lineman in the Canadian Forces does.  I've spent plenty of my career not climbing poles, in fact I didn't even see a telephone pole today (most likely because I wasn't looking).  Go be a gizmo guy if you will, for my part, I will continue to enjoy building your infrastructure.



Not entirely correct, a few years in Gagenam brought that "2%" substantially higher, but I digress. At least in Wx, tracks aren't rolling 'back' guys consistantly (with the new poleline) but I suppose the training isn't the same as the cold war standard coupled with the stance on ecology (damn tracks :rage. It shall be interesting to see the implementation of the amalgamation, I even heard a rumour that the PRes was going to be the lead out (not a very good test bed IMO, due to the irregularity of training value that will need to be monitored after the fact). At least I'll continue with "Once a Lineman, always a Lineman" :warstory:


----------



## Brasidas

LineJumper said:
			
		

> It shall be interesting to see the implementation of the amalgamation, I even heard a rumour that the PRes was going to be the lead out (not a very good test bed IMO, due to the irregularity of training value that will need to be monitored after the fact).



Ouch.

Is that rumour from after the 73 Comm Gp CO and RSM dropped by 745 and were commenting on it? (October-ish?) Last I heard was we were supposed to be following their lead one summer after regforce did it.


----------



## LineJumper

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Is that rumour from after the 73 Comm Gp CO and RSM dropped by 745 and were commenting on it? (October-ish?) Last I heard was we were supposed to be following their lead one summer after regforce did it.



I'm not sure about the units but isn't 73  the one that was supposed to try the OSG route?(and the CO..... wouldn't that be Comd?) It looks as if there are many changes happening on the militia side of the house.


----------



## Rigger052

From what I hear there are supposed to be many changes, but there are a lot of concerns about how the new trg is going to impact the comm reserve wrt retention. The progression from basic private to qualified tradesman is going to take a lot longer than what it once did, but to be fair, this is only based on conversations I've had with old friends in 72.

Pole line hasn't slowed much here in Gage either.  ;D


----------



## Swingline1984

LineJumper said:
			
		

> Not entirely correct, a few years in Gagenam brought that "2%" substantially higher, but I digress.



Not to get all "mathy", but over an average 20 yr career where you spend (give or take) 10 yrs as a Jr NCO (worker bee) you would need to spend 4 (40%) of that 10 up a telephone pole to achieve the aforementioned 2%, thus it is hard to believe that you could possibly exceed that and still have working knees especially taking into account tower work, ladders and (for those qualified) the occasional fall out of a plane/helo (not to mention the sub-standard line boots we were issued for years)....but I digress, as this is the part where you roll your eyes  : and throw rocks at my head  ;D.

Cheers,


----------



## meni0n

Saw the new course on CFSCE course calendar starting in 2011, it looks like it's about 3 and a half months.


----------



## tsokman

Is there a "threshold of knowledge" exam before an LCIS Tech begins his-her basic MOC training in order to see whether the individual can proceed...


----------



## Occam

tsokman said:
			
		

> Is there a "threshold of knowledge" exam before an LCIS Tech begins his-her basic MOC training in order to see whether the individual can proceed...



Yes.  It's called CFAT.  Is there something you've read to make you believe there's something else?


----------



## REDinstaller

Tsokman, i thought that you would have learned. As i've told you in another post, don't sweat what you haven't got to yet. If you are in St.Jean and have been enroled as an LCIS Tech then don't worry about your QL3, just your POET.  If you haven't made it out of the CFRC and have written your CFAT then just concentrate on what you are qualified to proceed with. Other wise just read what is posted and forget about typing, it is just getting you in trouble.


----------



## tsokman

I read there were such tests for other trades I was wondering if that was the case for LCIS Tech...thanks...


----------



## MikeL

If you qualify for LCIS on the CFAT an you are enrolled as an LCIS Tech than you just have to pass your courses.. BMQ, SQ, POET and QL3.  There are no special tests in the recruiting process for LCIS Tech like there is for other trades ie Pilot, MP, etc.

Are you currently in the recruiting process? If so don't you ask them any questions or just save them all for us?


----------



## Brasidas

LineJumper said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about the units but isn't 73  the one that was supposed to try the OSG route?



Yes, which was what the initial spiel was about when he addressed us. He asked for questions, and iirc, nearly all of the questions pertained to the amalgamation.



> (and the CO..... wouldn't that be Comd?)



Probably. About the only person I've ever interacted with from 73 Comm GP outside of that discussion is MCpl Barnes.



> It looks as if there are many changes happening on the militia side of the house.



And I'm pretty damned skeptical about them being thought-through for the reserves. I'm hoping that somebody has a coherent plan for how it's going to work for the reserves, rather than just implement it as some sort of afterthought.

With things not panning out to plan with reg force and their amalgamation timeline, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the reservist school's on top of things, is ready to implement first, and things go relatively smoothly.

If that means the only reservist trade is going to be sig op, so be it. But expecting a reservist lineman to effectively become a 3's-qualified sig op over the course of two 2-month courses before getting any substantial lineman training along the lines of the current trade course series seems pretty ridiculous to me. And that's the impression that I'm getting.


----------



## tsokman

Yes I finished the recruiting process just waiting for a decision for LCIS Tech.  Actually it was recommended to me that I try to connect with LCIS Techs on Army forums by my recruiter as hes not an LCIS Tech specialist. So apparently there are no such pre-course testing for LCIS Tech like there are for other trades.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

tsokman said:
			
		

> Yes I finished the recruiting process just waiting for a decision for LCIS Tech.  Actually it was recommended to me that I try to connect with LCIS Techs on Army forums by my recruiter as hes not an LCIS Tech specialist. So apparently there are no such pre-course testing for LCIS Tech like there are for other trades.



You are getting dangerously close to being muted.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Dean22

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And I'm pretty damned skeptical about them being thought-through for the reserves. I'm hoping that somebody has a coherent plan for how it's going to work for the reserves, rather than just implement it as some sort of afterthought.
> 
> With things not panning out to plan with reg force and their amalgamation timeline, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the reservist school's on top of things, is ready to implement first, and things go relatively smoothly.
> 
> If that means the only reservist trade is going to be sig op, so be it. But expecting a reservist lineman to effectively become a 3's-qualified sig op over the course of two 2-month courses before getting any substantial lineman training along the lines of the current trade course series seems pretty ridiculous to me. And that's the impression that I'm getting.



In our Reserve comm unit this is the last year to get your Mod 1 and Mod 2 under the old system otherwise it will be the new course next year.

Course material for the new course is currently being written in our unit I have been told.


----------



## Cooldevil789

Hello, 

I am currently in Gagetown and sitting on a holding troop. I am currently looking at a Occupational transfer to Sigs(Lineman) I have a few years background experience in the CATV working as a Cable Technician for Rogers Cable. I am currently unhappy with my original choice due to ignorance on my part. I was unaware the duties my current postion would entail. 

I am looking for knowledgeable advice on how one would go about doing a proper occupational transfer and the steps needed to do so.

Feel free to send me a PM with the information, or reply here.


----------



## MikeL

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,44.0.html


----------



## LineJumper

Cooldevil789 said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I am currently in Gagetown and sitting on a holding troop. I am currently looking at a Occupational transfer to Sigs(Lineman) I have a few years background experience in the CATV working as a Cable Technician for Rogers Cable. I am currently unhappy with my original choice due to ignorance on my part. I was unaware the duties my current postion would entail.
> 
> I am looking for knowledgeable advice on how one would go about doing a proper occupational transfer and the steps needed to do so.
> 
> Feel free to send me a PM with the information, or reply here.



You best be quick about it, lest the 'Amalgamutt' catch you, then no choice for occupation.


----------



## Swingline1984

LineJumper said:
			
		

> You best be quick about it, lest the 'Amalgamutt' catch you, then no choice for occupation.



Last I heard that was one of the issues they were still trying to sort out due to the whole "qualified to the same level in 18 mos" deal.


----------



## LineJumper

Bah! It's easy to train these fresh young minds to find themselves and the betterment of the Signals world in 18 months. The operator attrition will never figure in to ensuring the 'best' go into their respective discipline.


----------



## tsokman

And what would the terms of service be under ACISS if you're being enrolled with the old system..would it be specifically for LCIS Tech or for Signals Branch in general...


----------



## LineJumper

At this time it doesn't seem ACISS is ready to go. Once the terms have been identified and outlined, I'm sure a new thread on this subject will surface. Right now it's still being worked out, so if you are entering the training system in the near future you will likely get to hear more of the scuttlebutt while at the school.


----------



## tsokman

LineJumper said:
			
		

> You best be quick about it, lest the 'Amalgamutt' catch you, then no choice for occupation.



You mean even if you score very high on POET you could still end up as a Sig Op...


----------



## LineJumper

Yep, Sig Op is an exceptionally high attrition rate trade (no idea why). That is the primary misgiving viewed by the other trades affected. Line stays green due to the high number of CA trades remustering into it, so getting fresh off the street troops doesn't seem very likely. Due to the entry requirments for LCIS and the need for that trade, I'm sure those with the high end apptitude will find their way into POET and such.


----------



## Brasidas

LineJumper said:
			
		

> .... Due to the entry requirments for LCIS and the need for that trade, I'm sure those with the high end apptitude will find their way into POET and such.



Except for the fact that those who would otherwise be interested in LCIS will be taking a long, hard look at ATIS before agreeing to be trained as a Sig Op on their 3's, with lip service to technician training, before they even have the _possibility_ of getting some decent OJT in their field of interest.

LCIS may not be getting a great deal out of the cookiecutter either.


----------



## PuckChaser

The whole amalgamation is a stupid idea, designed to halfheartedly address the manning issues with LCIS and SigOp. I'm sure there are far better and easier ways to make both of those trades attractive. Just as much as someone doesn't want to be pushed into a SubOcc, I don't want to have to lead troops that don't want to be there. This is going to further divide the C&E trades along party lines, instead of unifying them. Oh well, I bet someone got a promotion for this in Ottawa.


----------



## LineJumper

Agreed, look at CFJSR. A good thing for all involved minus 1 Line Troop.


----------



## tsokman

What are the chances of transferring after completing POET to another POET based trade if one doesn't get LCIS Tech...


----------



## PuckChaser

Ok, for the last time, I'll offer this advice: Wait until you're done your basic. You aren't in yet, you won't be in anytime soon, or even close to CFSCE to start working about the Amalgamation.

I really hope you don't get posted to my unit.


----------



## tsokman

Why should I not worry and be forced to be in a trade I don't want to be in for 5 years of my initial armed forces career.....I can hear the toilet flushing.....I hope I get posted to combat arms support..Is that your unit...


----------



## MikeL

You are alienating yourself on this site you do know that right?

If you get recruited in as a LCIS Tech, you may get to stay, but guess what no one can give you hard info as to what is going to happen as none of us know, an ACISS hasn't happened yet.  If you are so worried about it, go ATIS Tech(Air Force).   What is Combat Arms support? You mean you want to be posted to a Combat Arms unit?   Also, I second PuckChaser, I hope you don't end up getting posted to my unit.


----------



## Occam

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> If you are so worried about it, go ATIS Tech(Air Force).



Ah, no....sorry, they're closed.  Too many people...wayyyyy too many people.  They're stacking them like firewood.  They had a spot but it filled this morning...yeah, that's it.


----------



## tsokman

If its possible I would got boxed in, Id prefer enrolling as a different trade so I want to know before hand what my options are.   If I'm not posted to your unit you'll be kicking less ass.  This will be the last post on this topic from me until an ACISS thread is started. Thanks.


----------



## Sig_Des

tsokman said:
			
		

> What are the chances of transferring after completing POET to another POET based trade if one doesn't get LCIS Tech...



What are the chances you realize how irritating your constant Woe is me if I don't get LCIS/ what's going on with techs/ blah blah blah ???

You've been told.

The trade is changing. Not everyone has all the details, and as of now, a lot of the specifics are hazy. Deal with it.

If tech is the route you want to go, fine. Follow the established process, and once a new process is finalized, follow that one. However, be aware, that yes, you may not get that specific sub-occupation, specialty, whatever they're calling it.

Most of us already IN the signals world don't have all the answers, so how can we answer yours? Talk to your bloody recruiters.

And sorry you have to learn this the hard way, but things change, and we don't all get what we want.

As far as postings, hopes and dreams are nice, but you'll get posted where you get posted, and that's a long ways off.

I realize the whole "this is my future, and I want to know" argument is there, but once again, if it's that important to you, talk to your bloody recruiters.

If you don't get the answers you want, or can't accept the uncertainty with your chosen career path, then once again....talk to your bloody recruiters... this time about other trade options.

And unlike the others, I can't wait for you to get to my unit  >


----------



## Jammer

Let's give him a new name..."Red Herring" seems to be appropriate.


----------



## PuckChaser

On a more related note, the new School RSM is posted in from Ottawa. Did a little Outlook intelligence gathering, he's currently the ACISS SME.... sounds like someone at least has the right idea, send the people that know what the double u tee f is going on to start the new "trade" off right. Or at least right in Ottawa's eyes.


----------



## Swingline1984

tsokman said:
			
		

> If its possible I would got boxed in, Id prefer enrolling as a different trade so I want to know before hand what my options are.   If I'm not posted to your unit you'll be kicking less ***.  This will be the last post on this topic from me until an ACISS thread is started. Thanks.



You should go Int.  You'd make a fantastic PsyOps weapon.


----------



## PMedMoe

tsokman, if you want to know in the future how your life is going to be every second of every day, don't join the CF.


----------



## tsokman

haha I do eventually see Int as a possible future trade.  Ive wanted to be a professional soldier since I was a little kid so I wont get dissuaded by anything...Just that if I didnt get LCIS Tech I'd be dissapointed.

I can't wait to get to your unit either are you part of the welcoming committee...


----------



## MikeL

tsokman, one thing you should remember about the Military, especially as you will be a Pte Recuit sometime in the future.. start learning to follow direction and keep your mouth shut.  You don't have to post/say every little thought that pops up in your head and get all worked up over small details. And you've been told a number of times not to sweat the small things and to post less and read more.

And yea, Beadwindow is part of the welcome commitee, he will smother you with hugs and kissers and cuddle you in the field.


----------



## Sig_Des

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> And yea, Beadwindow is part of the welcome commitee, he will smother you with hugs and kissers and cuddle you in the field.



Yeah, that's me...I'll hand you your welcome wagon basket with jams and cookies, hold your hand as you clear in. It's because I'm all sunshine, rainbows, and puppies....


----------



## Jimmy67

I was chatting with the CFSCE RSM in the smoke pit yesterday, and heard an interesting tidbit...

Apparently there are plans in the works to OT approximately 1200 combat arms into the Sigs branch, as there is a glut of combat arms in the recruiting system. I guess it might count as "rumor mill", but I would consider the source fairly reliable ;D

Anyone else hear anything about this? Opinions?


----------



## PuckChaser

SVOT Program just opened up via CANFORGEN, allowing Infanteers with certain experiences levels transfer to about 10 or so Red trades without competition or OUTCAPs. LCIS and SigOp were on the list. Perhaps thats what the RSM was referring to.


----------



## Sig_Des

Jimmy67 said:
			
		

> I was chatting with the CFSCE RSM in the smoke pit yesterday, and heard an interesting tidbit...
> 
> Apparently there are plans in the works to OT approximately 1200 combat arms into the Sigs branch, as there is a glut of combat arms in the recruiting system. I guess it might count as "rumor mill", but I would consider the source fairly reliable ;D
> 
> Anyone else hear anything about this? Opinions?



CANFORGEN 060/10 CMP 026/10 051349Z MAR 10
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY OCCUPATION TRANSFER PROGRAM (SVOTP) FOR 00010 INFMN

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92450/post-914977.html#msg914977

One of the lines in the CANFORGEN ;


> CONCURRENT WITH THE SVOTP, THE ARMY SIGNALS ATTRACTION TEAM (ASAT) WILL VISIT INFANTRY UNITS TO PROMOTE THE OCCUPATIONS OPEN WITHIN THIS BRANCH



I didn't know we had an "Army Signals Attraction Team", but I also hadn't heard any target numbers how many we were hoping to get out of the SVOTP


----------



## Old and Tired

I've seen and read that canforgen.  I, too, did not realise we had such a group as the ASAT running around.  The Sig Op / Rad Op trade needs all the it can get, however, having been following this thread in particular and listening closely to the jungle drums around work the the C & E branch I do not believe for a minute that this amalgamation is going to solve any of our manning issues. 





			
				Jimmy67 said:
			
		

> I was chatting with the CFSCE RSM in the smoke pit yesterday, and heard an interesting tidbit...
> 
> Apparently there are plans in the works to OT approximately 1200 combat arms into the Sigs branch, as there is a glut of combat arms in the recruiting system. I guess it might count as "rumor mill", but I would consider the source fairly reliable ;D
> 
> Anyone else hear anything about this? Opinions?


While having 1,200 new troops in the trade would be nice, again, it won't solve the problem.  Who's going to train them? comes to mind.  I wish I had the answer but I don't. Not right now anyway.  I can see attrition outstriping recruitment and training when folks get stuck in a trade / employment that they hadn't bargained for, and pull pin at the end of their first BE and leave with a very bitter feeling thinking they were misled or outright lied to by recruiters. (I don't believe that our recruiters would do this by the way, they do the best they can with the info and resources that they have).

Some ones Paisley Sky dream world is going to take a huge hit when it runs smack dab into reality when this thingshacks out in the next 1 - 3 years.

But that's just my Opinion, I could (very well may) be wrong.


----------



## chrisf

So despite the impending doom of the trade amalgamation, no one seems to know what's happening... at least in my chain of command...

I'm fed up with being a sig-op (reserve) and am looking into changing my trade to line. It will however be at least a year and a half before I have time to do a apprentice course...

So any thoughts on my best bet now? I'm open to wild speculation... do I request the OT, change to line, and wait? Do I wait till the trade amalgamation and hope I can move over to the line training stream (Can't see them agreeing to that, I'm already QL5)? If I do change to line, and they decide to turf the reserve line trade, will they honour my former sig op quals? Doing a QL3 course in the new combine trade is NOT an option, unless it will lead  to specializing in line, and even then, not overly interested in that route.

Remaining as sig-op permanently is not an option, I'm no longer interested in being a sig op, though in the short term, I'm willing to to sit tight. Just looking for thoughts.


----------



## PuckChaser

I believe technical skills have an "expiry" date of 5 years, so if you were to revert to SigOp in that time period, you wouldn't have to do the courses over again.


----------



## Sig_Des

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm fed up with being a sig-op (reserve) and am looking into changing my trade to line.



You neither get stupid-drunk enough, nor are you dirty enough, to qualify to be a lineman. In addition to that, your spelling is too good.


----------



## Old and Tired

I think "a sig op" just proved one of my points. 





			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> So despite the impending doom of the trade amalgamation, no one seems to know what's happening... at least in my chain of command...
> 
> I'm fed up with being a sig-op (reserve) and am looking into changing my trade to line.
> 
> Remaining as sig-op permanently is not an option, I'm no longer interested in being a sig op, though in the short term, I'm willing to to sit tight. Just looking for thoughts.



Until the powers that be look for the underling reasons / causes for this type of outlook, in a few years the infection will spread to the other two trades getting sucked into this vortex.

I'm too far gone to worry about it anymore.  I will be staying in the nice little world or Tac Rad that I'm in.  The one nice thing about knowing that any career I may have had has reached its peak.


----------



## chrisf

Flat out lies from our recruiter did it for me... I was told if I spent a few years as a sig-op, I could transfer to LCIS tech... this may have been true at some point, but unfortunately, I joined very shortly after the LCIS trade was removed from the reserves... I don't even mind some aspects of the trade, but spending too much time in a CP complex has done me in...

And Beadwindow 7 you're quite right, nor do my knuckles reach the ground when standing upright, and if it weren't for the fact I like my unit, and I like the people I work with, I'd be exploring much wider trade options (MESO is an option, but but I'm allergic to sea men), but I get along quite well with the guys in the line shack, plus climbing, pole construction, confined space entry, etc, are handy skills in my line civillian employment.


----------



## PuckChaser

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I don't even mind some aspects of the trade, but spending too much time in a CP complex has done me in...



You're in a reserve unit.... thats what they do. In the fulltime world, there's a heck of a lot more stuff to do. Still could be an LCIS tech, this ACCIS thing might be your ticket to that world in the CommRes.


----------



## chrisf

I just wrote a rather lengthy letter in response to what I felt was an insult, however, I've deleted it after realising you probably didn't mean it as an insult.

I've worked with the reg force, I'm well aware of the extent of our trade. It's all still operator level work. It doesn't interest me. Particularly, spending the last two years in a rather sprawing CP complex has made me feel like little more then a kitchen attendent.

I'm done with being a signals operator. I also have no further interest in being an LCIS tech. So if anyone has any thoughts on how to best go about switching to line, given the impending trade change, would be happy to hear.


----------



## Rigger052

To Sig op

   You can try switching over to line on the PRES side of the house, although to be fair you will face obstacles there. As you are in a comm res unit you should inquire as to the state of the QL3 package, as I'm not sure if it takes two years or three now to get your full QL3 trg complete. Also the line sect in your unit will have to have a vacant spot that you can fill, so check there as well. While pole line construction and antenna rigging are taught on your course, as a class A reservist you might not have any opportunity to do so. 

   Hopefully your investigations go well, if you have any concerns contact the LCF (senior lineman) in your unit, I can give you some info but all my time in trade has been in the reg's. Good luck.


----------



## chrisf

I'm already intimately familiar with the trade, and our local line section, that's not a problem, but no one locally seems to know where the line trade is headed, reserve side, with the amalgamation.

Then only real obstacle now is whether or not the CO will accept my OT. However, his options are accept my OT or accept the fact I will be finding a new unit, so I imagine it will result in me leaving the sig op trade regardless.


----------



## Rigger052

The writing boards for the courses themselves are still in progress so everything is still on a watch and shoot basis. Good luck with your OT


----------



## Jimmy67

Interesting to hear the ideas about what we should be teaching this new, twenty-five hat wearing, happy family of super-communicators... I am sure some will be offended by what is below, but oh well...

We are being fished for opinons and input as I speak, to try and make some sense of this mess, but I don't hold much hope... Despite the fact that a large majority of those I am on course with (6A) come from backgrounds other than tac rad (including myself), CFSCE seems to still think we are in 1981, sitting in the woods of Germany, getting ready to fight Ivan. I see little change in ideas from my TQ3 so many moons ago, but technology and the battlefield has changed beyond all recognition. The only ideas we seem to have adopted are more and more crushing, corporate-style paperwork. The training and recruiting side of the house has seen the new technology coming for years but done nothing. Why?

If anything, we are becoming MORE specialized, not less, and we should be creating new trades, not shoving trades together to try and solve manning problems. Until we fix the perceived issues that keep people from wanting to be sig ops, no amount of deck chair shifting, verbal semantics, or negative incentives will solve the problem.

Until those of us who do other work besides sitting in green trucks, or working in CPs are taken seriously and valued as tradesmen, nothing will change, and meeting PML will be a pipe dream...


----------



## PuckChaser

The SigOp 6A course is fairly useless, unless you're just looking for a check in the box. I took mine last year, and we were told they weren't touching it until the new trade came in. A month of briefings from SMEs (some read a canned powerpoint) from units and technologies we may not ever see, with a final field ex to site a Bde CP does not a Sgt make. Shoving linemen and LCIS kicking and screaming with us won't solve anything. I think you hit the nail on the head, when you said we need to specialize. Make sub-trades of SigOp that you don't have to OT to move between if you don't want to be a CP Guy/IT Tech/Etc anymore. 

"You can do a lot of stuff" just isn't a great recruiting tagline.


----------



## JBP

So, I must admit, and doubly apologize that shortly after I wrote the first post in this thread, I went AWOL from army.ca basically...  :-[

Nonetheless, I've been doing some catching up reading through bits and pieces on here of the 15 pages... 

I have no new info... All I've heard/known first hand, is that some Sig Op Sgt's, MCpl's etc, from my unit (1 Sigs CFB Edmonton) and other units in LFWA have been going to Kingston at different intervals to put thier .5Cent into the new 'trade' training, specifically the 3's and 5's. I'm also loaded onto my 5's coming this June, and apparently it's a 'new and improved' 5's with a distance learning package etc... Will report on how new and improved it might be... Haven't heard rave reviews, but I need to get the course under my belt no matter what obviously! So off to the centre of excellence for me.

Keep any 1st hand knowledge of the amalgamutt coming folks!


----------



## Mikhail

This amalgamation makes researching careers very interesting. In the civvie world I have a lot of time-in doing roughly equivalent Lineman, LCIS, and Sig Ops stuff as well as project and department management. Over the last 25 years in Tech I have had a chance do a lot of cool stuff, and now hope to bring these skills to the CF. I am already finding it 'interesting' to pick one of these 3 career paths, based on prior civilian experience( a recruiter should be able to help here)... and now there is more choices in the works?.... hmm... I suppose that may make it easier.  :-\

Has any of the new trades 'sub classes' info gotten to recruitment centers yet? Would I be wasting recruitment's time by asking? Or should I just put off CT'ing to Reg Force till this is resolved. I am currently Res Force, and wanting to CT/OT NOW but do not wish to waste the CFs time with making a bad initial career choice based on changing info, and/or CTing to Reg, and being in some way disappointed with the choices available upon amalgamation resolution.

If this question is better served in a recruitment forum, my bad... please relocate it as the MODs see fit.

I have been lurking and reading till my eyes have dried up, and now thought I would try a first post.

Thank you.


----------



## PuckChaser

The F of S just gave us a PowerPoint printout of the tentative MES structure and career paths for each of the Sub Occ.'s and DP levels. What it looks like to me, is that LCIS got split between fixing army kit/radars/satcom (CST) and administrating/installing/troubleshooting computer networks (IST). LST is just a renamed Lineman trade. Core ACCIS looks like what SigOps do now, minus working with "computer" stuff (including NCCIS), which has been given to the IST sub occupation.

During a discussion between the Sigs we had on ground (SigOps and LCIS), bunfights were already starting to develop. This MES thing is going to be far easier for the new Ptes in the system to digest, than to the old hats who are of the mind that when it comes to the results we produce "if it ain't broke, why fix it".


----------



## meni0n

Puck, so for anyone who would want to go the IST route, they'll have to do POET?


----------



## Swingline1984

The last power point I saw (which was just sent this week from the MES Manager ahead of a briefing we will receive in June) stated that the Sig Op trade will be roughly divided in half to fill both the core ACCIS and IST positions.  Also, I don't remember that any of the slides which illustrated the core skills required/Development Periods (DPs) included POET, even for CST...I will, however, confirm that when I get back to work on Monday.


----------



## PuckChaser

I didn't see POET on the slides, and I think Swingline and I both have the same set. If there was a POET component, and its not on the slides, it'll be watered down and place into the ACCIS core DP1 course, so wherever you get streamed, you have an electronics theory base.

SigOp split in half makes sense, since JSR is mostly NCCIS and that job skillset is moving to IST. So as it looks now, if you don't want to go to JSR below the rank of Sgt/WO, stay ACCIS Core.  >


----------



## bang

Puckchaser,

Would you be willing to pass the ppt to anyone granted through the dwan?


----------



## PuckChaser

Yep, only for the next day or so. I'm on Op Cadence and won't be in the office. If you send me a PM with your DWAN today, I'll get it to you when I'm in the office tomorrow morning. Open to anyone else that wants a copy as well, just send me a PM.


----------



## Alpheus

For what it's worth, but some friends of mine in Kingston have told me that all Sig Op and LCIS QL3's for the rest of the year have been canceled and the new ACCIS courses will only start in Jan next year.  They didn't mention POET.

Still RumInt, so take with plenty of salt.


----------



## Swingline1984

One of the key efforts of MES was to reduce combined training days to create Sigs faster.  One of the earliest briefings I had on it discussed reducing initial training to 72 days total (doesn't leave much room for POET).  If the briefing I have at the end of the month bears any different fruit I will post it here.


----------



## REDinstaller

POET on its own is over 100 Trg days, so I can't see that being part of the QL3 ACCIS ever.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The Last MES brief I heard they were adamant that POET would be reduced in training days, or scraped for QL3. I remember a thorough discussion going on in which the Army F of S stated something along the lines of "We need to stop training Sgt's at the Pte(B) level. Technical skills are developed, not rammed down the throat in a hundred training days."


----------



## Occam

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> The Last MES brief I heard they were adamant that POET would be reduced in training days, or scraped for QL3. I remember a thorough discussion going on in which the Army F of S stated something along the lines of "We need to stop training Sgt's at the Pte(B) level. Technical skills are developed, not rammed down the throat in a hundred training days."



The Army F of S had better tell the dozens of community colleges that are teaching electronics technician/technologist programs that they've been doing it all wrong, then.

A tech needs a core set of skills, and they aren't going to acquire it in under 100 training days.


----------



## Jammer

I'll pass it on.


----------



## PMedMoe

Occam said:
			
		

> A tech needs a core set of skills, and they aren't going to acquire it in under 100 training days.



Most days I've been up near CFSCE, students are getting out for lunch at 1130, going back after 1300 and sometimes getting off before 1500.  Of course, I have no way of knowing if they're POET students or not.

I have always found that _most_ military courses have added days for whatever reason and this usually results in the course being longer than it needs to be.  However, most schools will not give up those days because it's too hard to get them back when they really do need them.


----------



## Jammer

POET/ATIS guys start early...(0700).


----------



## PuckChaser

Isn't training days to qualify one of the marks the Treasury Board uses to determine who gets spec pay? If they're going to cut the ACISS training time down, we're basically killing one surefire way to attract recruits/OTs into the trade(s).


----------



## REDinstaller

As far as I know the length of training has very little to do with Spec pay. Entry requirements, civilian equivalent pay scales, and retention seem to be some of the prerequisites for a trade to gain spec pay. As for the fine LCIS techs already drawing Spec, we will retain it until retirement.


----------



## Swingline1984

Don't worry about Spec Pay I'm sure they'll give it freely after taking a look at all the poor kids with swollen heads stumbling out of CFSCE on day 73 after having 4 trades jammed into their brains.  I hope supply is ready for the sudden demand for size 8 + hats.


----------



## REDinstaller

Hey Swingline, I think the Sig Ops have a storeroom full of 8+ over at CFJSR. Alot of overinflated egos hag out there.  >


----------



## Swingline1984

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Hey Swingline, I think the Sig Ops have a storeroom full of 8+ over at CFJSR. Alot of overinflated egos hag out there.  >



Now you've done it!  The eggheads have pinged your IP, narrowed down your location, and are focusing all their energies on disrupting your cell service and creating snow on your TV.  How dare you speak ill of the Mothership and it's Minions!   ;D


----------



## Jammer

Rgr that!


----------



## REDinstaller

Bring on the egg heads, I still use something confusing to them...a land line. ;D


----------



## Neolithium

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Bring on the egg heads, I still use something confusing to them...a land line. ;D


Land......line?  I better hit google to figure out what that is exactly  :rofl:  From what I've been reading in the thread I suppose I can expect my head to explode before I'm done at CFSCE.  Oh well, I love a challenge.


----------



## REDinstaller

For those adverse to the taste of blueing, a packet of mustard will do nicely. >


----------



## Swingline1984

Neolithium said:
			
		

> Land......line?  I better hit google to figure out what that is exactly  :rofl:



sigh...yet another nail in my coffin.  But, I take heart in the fact that even wireless has wires (backbone).


----------



## Alpheus

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Most days I've been up near CFSCE, students are getting out for lunch at 1130, going back after 1300 and sometimes getting off before 1500.  Of course, I have no way of knowing if they're POET students or not.



Sincerely doubt they were POET, that sounds a lot like a typical day when I was on PAT in Kingston not long ago.

One question.  I know Sig Op is still a red trade.  When this mess of an amalgamation goes ahead, will the new super-trade be red?  I know quite a few Sig Ops who really don't want to wait a year before they start their QL3's.  Will they be able to OT out or will the sub-occupations have their own red/green status?


----------



## Swingline1984

Alpheus said:
			
		

> One question.  I know Sig Op is still a red trade.  When this mess of an amalgamation goes ahead, will the new super-trade be red?  I know quite a few Sig Ops who really don't want to wait a year before they start their QL3's.  Will they be able to OT out or will the sub-occupations have their own red/green status?



My guess is there will not be much change in status over the next while with the the trades looking pretty much the same on 1 Jan 11.  With Sig Ops supposedly going to be split 50/50 across ACISS and IST I imagine both core and sub-occupation will remain red.  I also think CST will still be less than healthy and LST will be green as per normal.  Once things settle and we are a few years in with new applicants being equally fed into the core and sub-occupations things may slowly level out and we will all only be sick vice dead.  But with the Army Signals Attraction Team roaming the country and the potential of seeing many combat arms OT's after things settle down in the ATO, we may just weather the storm.  The sub-occupations are also supposed to move slower (career wise) than the core group and I imagine this is to retain key skills for longer periods and hopefully flush out the rank and file.  The amalgamation is supposed to make lateral movement between occupations easier but I wouldn't  opt out just yet, things are just starting to get interesting.


----------



## Alpheus

This is screwed up.  I've been loaded onto a POET course starting in July!  WTF, over!?!  :


----------



## Swingline1984

Alpheus said:
			
		

> This is screwed up.  I've been loaded onto a POET course starting in July!  WTF, over!?!  :



Makes perfect sense since the new trade and sub-occupations don't exist yet.


----------



## Sig_Des

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Makes perfect sense since the new trade and sub-occupations don't exist yet.



Yup. Not 'til 1 Jan



			
				Alpheus said:
			
		

> This is screwed up.  I've been loaded onto a POET course starting in July!  WTF, over!?!  :



I'd suggest you be go with it. You're getting paid to learn something either way.

Best Case scenario: You complete POET. By the time you complete POET, there's still an LCIS 3's being run, you get into that, and once the whole shuffle happens, congrats, you're a CST (Tech Sub-Occ)

Second Best Case scenario: You complete POET, but by that time , there is no longer an LCIS 3's package. So you start your ACISS training, but due to being POET Qualified, you get put right into the CST stream, maybe get a PLAR on wherever applicable, and congrats, you're a CST

Second Worst Case scenario: You complete POET, but by that time, there is no longer an LCIS 3's package. So you start your ACISS training, and go through all those portions, and due to being POET qualified, you will be highly considered for the CST Stream...Congrats, you MAY be a CST.

Worst Case scenario: You get pulled off POET part-way through, as there is no longer a LCIS 3's package. You start your ACISS training, and go into whatever stream they decide. Congrats, you're in the Army.


----------



## Alpheus

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Makes perfect sense since the new trade and sub-occupations don't exist yet.



It would, but I had buddies dropped from courses starting around the same time.  And others loaded onto Reserve QL3s as well.


----------



## Sig_Des

Alpheus said:
			
		

> It would, but I had buddies dropped from courses starting around the same time.  And others loaded onto Reserve QL3s as well.



Really? Especially considering that there hasn't been any reserve LCIS training in years?


----------



## REDinstaller

Nor will there ever be PRes LCIS Trg ever again. The units never had their nominees return except to clear out as part of a CT, they were scooped up at the termination of the QL3.


----------



## Alpheus

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Really? Especially considering that there hasn't been any reserve LCIS training in years?



Whoops, I forgot to mention they are Sig Op Reserve courses.

It just seems that one hand at CFSCE doesn't know what the other is doing.


----------



## REDinstaller

That has been the case for many many moons.


----------



## Swingline1984

Alpheus said:
			
		

> It just seems that one hand at CFSCE doesn't know what the other is doing.



They know exactly what they are doing.  A complete stoppage of training would create an even bigger bottleneck and people like you would have to wait even longer to be trained.  While we sit around on our computers, drink coffee and postulate, the folks at CFCSE are living with the amalgamation every day.  In a very short time they have had to figure out how to move from teaching the legacy Qualification Levels to the new Development Periods, meanwhile trying to balance that with the inflow of personnel, and still try to produce viable signallers for the use of the CF.  I do not envy them.


----------



## Sig_Des

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> They know exactly what they are doing.  A complete stoppage of training would create an even bigger bottleneck and people like you would have to wait even longer to be trained.  While we sit around on our computers, drink coffee and postulate, the folks at CFCSE are living with the amalgamation every day.  In a very short time they have had to figure out how to move from teaching the legacy Qualification Levels to the new Development Periods, meanwhile trying to balance that with the inflow of personnel, and still try to produce viable signallers for the use of the CF.  I do not envy them.



Yup. I just finished the ACISS DP 2.1 Writing Board, and it definitely has been a balancing act for the staff at CFSCE, capturing the different levels. It isn't just a matter of Stop this training, and start that one the the next day.


----------



## emmsmama

I've read through quite a bit of this thread and am trying to understand something.  Dh was offered an LCIS position - he will be sworn in at the beginning of July, leaving end of July for BMQ.  Does this amalgamation mean that when he is done his BMQ they might not be loading him onto the rest of his courses for LCIS training?  My understanding is that after BMQ he's to go to somewhere (Borden maybe) for 10 wks. (SQ is maybe what it is called, sorry a lot of acronyms to remember) and then he'd be going to Kingston for POET.  So if he signs on the dotted line for LCIS does that mean he's for sure going to get training and job assigment as LCIS, or will all the changes change up those who are already on course for LCIS or who are already qualified in that trade?  Thanks for any help clarifying it all for me.


----------



## Sig_Des

babnaw said:
			
		

> I've read through quite a bit of this thread and am trying to understand something.  Dh was offered an LCIS position - he will be sworn in at the beginning of July, leaving end of July for BMQ.  Does this amalgamation mean that when he is done his BMQ they might not be loading him onto the rest of his courses for LCIS training?  My understanding is that after BMQ he's to go to somewhere (Borden maybe) for 10 wks. (SQ is maybe what it is called, sorry a lot of acronyms to remember) and then he'd be going to Kingston for POET.  So if he signs on the dotted line for LCIS does that mean he's for sure going to get training and job assigment as LCIS, or will all the changes change up those who are already on course for LCIS or who are already qualified in that trade?  Thanks for any help clarifying it all for me.



Once again, as of 1 Jan 2011, there is NO LCIS trade. Those who are LCIS techs will become ACISS CST's. It's up in the air what's going to happen to people who are currently in training, maybe some of their training for the new trade and sub-occupation will be written off.

Your husband, if he has yet to leave for BMQ, as the timeline will be tight, will most likely have to go through all of the ACISS training program before he enters the Tech sub-occupation stream.


----------



## Sorcerer-tech

I'm not sure if this link has been posted or not, but it does have some valuable information for the new amalgamation that helped me see it a little more clearly.  I have been following this thread for a long time since I originally accepted the offer of LCIS while waiting for ATIS to re-open.  However since I was offered ATIS a little while ago and accepted that, this doesn't really pertain to me anymore.  It is still interesting however and I hope it helps shed some more light on the subject.
http://www.commelec.forces.gc.ca/inf/new-bul/vol51/article-08-eng.asp


----------



## bang

Thank you for that link


----------



## emmsmama

Sorcerer-tech said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if this link has been posted or not, but it does have some valuable information for the new amalgamation that helped me see it a little more clearly.  I have been following this thread for a long time since I originally accepted the offer of LCIS while waiting for ATIS to re-open.  However since I was offered ATIS a little while ago and accepted that, this doesn't really pertain to me anymore.  It is still interesting however and I hope it helps shed some more light on the subject.
> http://www.commelec.forces.gc.ca/inf/new-bul/vol51/article-08-eng.asp



Thanks for the link.  What is going to happen to all the guys and gals who are LCIS right now (as in fully trained and working in the field)?


----------



## Swingline1984

babnaw said:
			
		

> What is going to happen to all the guys and gals who are LCIS right now (as in fully trained and working in the field)?



That question has already been answered.



			
				Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Once again, as of 1 Jan 2011, there is NO LCIS trade. Those who are LCIS techs will become ACISS CST's.


----------



## emmsmama

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> That question has already been answered.



My bad.  So the guys who are currently LCIS, are they going to get to pick which branch/sub-trade area they want to do or will they just be told what direction they are going to go?


----------



## REDinstaller

The state of positions is being hashed out right now. Look for most Cbt Arms units to be quite heavy CST


----------



## Logan_Chisholm

Sorcerer-tech said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if this link has been posted or not, but it does have some valuable information for the new amalgamation that helped me see it a little more clearly.  I have been following this thread for a long time since I originally accepted the offer of LCIS while waiting for ATIS to re-open.  However since I was offered ATIS a little while ago and accepted that, this doesn't really pertain to me anymore.  It is still interesting however and I hope it helps shed some more light on the subject.
> http://www.commelec.forces.gc.ca/inf/new-bul/vol51/article-08-eng.asp



Thank you for the link. It made everything much easier to understand.


----------



## MilitantAtheist

So was just choosen to be a LCIS Tech and will complete BMQ some time in the spring. My question is how does this effect me and other people going into the communications branch if not at all?


----------



## Swingline1984

MilitantAtheist said:
			
		

> So was just choosen to be a LCIS Tech and will complete BMQ some time in the spring. My question is how does this effect me and other people going into the communications branch if not at all?



Most of us currently serving in Sigs trades do not have the whole picture yet; or even know if we will be in the same trade box (related sub-occupation) when we come out the other side of the meat grinder.  How the system will manage the inflow of personnel recruited within the legacy trades, or where they put them after their initial training is anyone's guess.  Good luck!

Cheers,


----------



## MilitantAtheist

"Most of us currently serving in Sigs trades do not have the whole picture yet; or even know if we will be in the same trade box (related sub-occupation) when we come out the other side of the meat grinder.  How the system will manage the inflow of personnel recruited within the legacy trades, or where they put them after their initial training is anyone's guess.  Good luck!

Cheers,"

Thanks

Also I really doesn't matter to me. The extra training would be good and im not worried about where I go either. I know will be in good hands.


----------



## PuckChaser

For those that are looking for more information, the CFSCE DWAN site has quite a bit of powerpoints/briefing notes right from the first idea of MES. Go to the CFSCE site, then click on "CFSCE Sharepoint sites". On that page, there will be a MES labelled link with a green padlock. Should be able to access and read everything. The MES Managers will have a Sharepoint site up in the "near future" that will allow all C&E trade members effected by MES to input and justify their choice in trade (sub occ, or core).

One interesting thing I found was that the number of LSTs (aka Linemen) is pretty close to the same number of the current 052 trade. Anyone in the Line stream can request to move to another sub occupation if they feel they have the courses to fit in the new occupation.

Also stated (these are rough numbers) that 60% of LCIS will move to CST, and 40% to IST. Which means 60% of SigOps will stay ACISS Core, and 40% move to IST to populate the new sub occupation.

Spec pay is up in the air, no one knows if we will even get it, but any new members to the trades will not receive it until its approved by Treasury Board.


----------



## REDinstaller

Just had the MEZ brief yesterday in Edmonton. The IST sub-occ will be the last one formed due to the challenge of selections out of the LCIS and Sig Op trades. The sharepoint will be unlocked on 7 Sep 10, with a special e-mail sent through the DWAN to all known affected pers. Spec pay will remain the domain of LCIS Techs until TB decision on what group will receive it. It could be all, which is the wish of the Sub-occ directors, it could be only select sub-occs or no one. In the case of the latter, what will happen is all former LCIS QL5+ mbrs will continue to receive their current pay until promotion or IPCs take them past it.


----------



## Sig_Des

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Just had the MEZ brief yesterday in Edmonton. The IST sub-occ will be the last one formed due to the challenge of selections out of the LCIS and Sig Op trades. The sharepoint will be unlocked on 7 Sep 10, with a special e-mail sent through the DWAN to all known affected pers. Spec pay will remain the domain of LCIS Techs until TB decision on what group will receive it. It could be all, which is the wish of the Sub-occ directors, it could be only select sub-occs or no one. In the case of the latter, what will happen is all former LCIS QL5+ mbrs will continue to receive their current pay until promotion or IPCs take them past it.



Yeah...fun brief, bit of a headshaker on some points.


----------



## REDinstaller

Makes you wonder what they were thinking.


----------



## Sig_Des

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Makes you wonder what they were thinking.



Yup. I'm of the personal opinion that the same end-state could have been achieved by taking the Sig Op trade, splitting it between Operators and IS Specialists, and opening the new trade to members of the other C & E trades that would be interested.


----------



## PuckChaser

Sometimes the good idea train ends with the rails running off a cliff. The way we were explained it, MES was born from MOSART. When MOSART died, some civvies lost their jobs and some staff officers retired because they staked their careers on it. The ones that stayed in, created MES to do the same thing.

We're just shuffling people around, and not fixing the underlying retention/recruiting problems and the old material in the training system.


----------



## LineJumper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sometimes the good idea train ends with the rails running off a cliff. The way we were explained it, MES was born from MOSART. When MOSART died, some civvies lost their jobs and some staff officers retired because they staked their careers on it. The ones that stayed in, created MES to do the same thing.
> 
> We're just shuffling people around, and not fixing the underlying retention/recruiting problems and the old material in the training system.


and a whole lot more that can't be said that I agree with....


----------



## Swingline1984

I've heard plenty of people who are in the zone talk about retiring over this initiative.  It will be interesting to see if they are true to their word.  I've heard retention used as one of the reasons for the amalgamation; does anyone know exactly what part of this gong show is actually attractive?


----------



## PuckChaser

There isn't much that's super attractive to the people that are already serving. There also isn't much that's attractive to potential recruits: Everyone wants to make that extra few dollars that Spec Pay gives, and we won't be getting it for the foreseeable future. Apparently, since we're all going to be super-signallers, sub occupation pers can move over and do the job of a core ACISS person. This might be alright for a section commander and up, but if I'm in a TacRad det overseas, I don't want some Cpl who's been sitting in a server farm for 5 years who did a watered down DP1. According to CFSCE, SigOps have the longest QL3 package (if you don't add POET to LCIS). How can you possibly teach someone to be a SigOp, Lineman, and LCIS Tech in 75 training days?

We're about to create a trade of people who require maximum supervision to do Pte level tasks until they get their DP2 course, which is at least 3 years into their careers. The strain and stress won't be on the MES managers and Career Managers, it will be borne by the MCpl and Sgt supervisors.


----------



## REDinstaller

And according to the presenter on Thursday the timeline for a new recruit will run like this. DP1 75 trg days then off to a CMBG Sigs Sqn for a 1-2 yr OJT period followed by the 25 day DP2 common course. Then they will be sent out to the Cbt Arms units as ACISS, but will not have completed any specialty trg. Which would be fine if you are just looking at filling CP posns, but if you require CST's then you get a warm body and nothing more. CST posns need to be filled at the lowest lvl by pers that can be employable at Cbt Arms units without resorting to micromanagement.


----------



## PiperDown

Tango18A said:
			
		

> . In the case of the latter, what will happen is all former LCIS QL5+ mbrs will continue to receive their current pay until promotion or IPCs take them past it.



So a LCIS tech Cpl (spec 1) , incentive 4 at $5362 a month who looses spec pay will have to wait until he is promoted WO (standard) at $5728 to receive his first pay raise....  ( A Sgt IPC 4 in the standard pay bracket receives $5351)

NICE !


----------



## Sig_Des

Tango18A said:
			
		

> And according to the presenter on Thursday the timeline for a new recruit will run like this. DP1 75 trg days then off to a CMBG Sigs Sqn for a 1-2 yr OJT period followed by the 25 day DP2 common course. Then they will be sent out to the Cbt Arms units as ACISS, but will not have completed any specialty trg. Which would be fine if you are just looking at filling CP posns, but if you require CST's then you get a warm body and nothing more. CST posns need to be filled at the lowest lvl by pers that can be employable at Cbt Arms units without resorting to micromanagement.



Not to mention without changing the manning at out-unit levels. So now, when you currently have people double-hatting as CP Operators as well as handling low-unit IS helpdesk, how are you going to seperate sub-trade differences in the APS position filling?


----------



## REDinstaller

PiperDown said:
			
		

> So a LCIS tech Cpl (spec 1) , incentive 4 at $5362 a month who looses spec pay will have to wait until he is promoted WO (standard) at $5728 to receive his first pay raise....  ( A Sgt IPC 4 in the standard pay bracket receives $5351)
> 
> NICE !



I know Rob, its quite the kick in the ass, but that is worst case scenario. Best case we continue to keep getting promoted with it.


----------



## bradinsudbury

Hey everyone,

I apologize for the "Newbie-ness" (is that a word? if not, I think it should be!!) of this post, but this thread caught my attention since SigOp is my first trade choice and Lineman is my second choice as I look ahead to FY11.

I am just wondering if someone could "dumb this down"  a bit and give me, in a nutshell, what this trade amalgamation will mean to a new recruit going forward? 

1) How will this affect the first training out of BMQ
2) Will this lead to more or less opportunities in the trade
and
3) What kind of affect will the trade amalgamation have on career progression/postings?

I recognize from reading the posts on this thread that there seem to be a lot of unknowns, so feel free to speculate and postulate for me! (just go easy one the acronyms and abbreviations! I haven't had "Military Abbreviations 101" yet!   )

Thanks a lot.
 :yellow:


----------



## PuckChaser

bradinsudbury said:
			
		

> 1) How will this affect the first training out of BMQ



No new QL3 courses will start at CFSCE after 17 Dec 2010. If you get on a course before that, you will be qualified and grandfathered in the old trades. If you don't, then you'll be loaded on the new trade DP1 starting sometime after 3 Jan 2011.



			
				bradinsudbury said:
			
		

> 2) Will this lead to more or less opportunities in the trade



No one has any idea at the "people being effected" level. I'm sure there's a small idea somewhere at the MES implementation team level, but it doesn't make sense to the rest of us.



			
				bradinsudbury said:
			
		

> 3) What kind of affect will the trade amalgamation have on career progression/postings?



ACISS Core is said to be able to progress faster through the ranks as there are numerically more positions available. Postings will happen regardless. Everything else is really up in the air, however it will be easier for a new recruit such as yourself to jump into the new trade and figure it out. Those of us that have been in for close to a decade or longer, have a lot of the structure to unlearn.


----------



## zzyzx723

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No new QL3 courses will start at CFSCE after 17 Dec 2010. If you get on a course before that, you will be qualified and grandfathered in the old trades. If you don't, then you'll be loaded on the new trade DP1 starting sometime after 3 Jan 2011.



According to the course calendar on CFSCE's website, all Sig OP QL3 courses have been cancelled for the rest of the year - unless they are "un-cancelled" or new ones are created, it looks like the course that started two weeks ago is the last true SigOp course that will be run.

Again, this is according to the course calendar on the CFSCE site, but it has been very wrong in the past so don't take it as gospel truth, just passing along the info.


----------



## PuckChaser

The date I got was from the CFSCE FoS. There's at least 150 SigOps and 150 LCIS on PAT right now, not including the LCIS students who have started POET. If they've stopped training, we're going to be in a hurt locker for new blood in the C&E Branch for years to come.


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The date I got was from the CFSCE FoS. There's at least 150 SigOps and 150 LCIS on PAT right now, not including the LCIS students who have started POET. If they've stopped training, we're going to be in a hurt locker for new blood in the C&E Branch for years to come.



I know they were talking up retention, but think of numbers of members who release after their VIE under the current system. I see that number increasing...what with "They will be working in those jobs, but not qualified for those jobs".

Seems to me that a big bottleneck will be OJT. The plan is pretty much going to push the HQ & Sig Sqns into an extension of the training establishment, which is going to suck, as Op Tempo isn't going to take a break so we can train some basic skillsets.


----------



## PuckChaser

Well, if we don't go anywhere past 2011, the Branch assumes we have all sorts of time to hand hold DP1 pers.

Nowhere in the brief did they discuss skillfade. Apparently we're all supposed to be smart enough to memorize everything from the DP1, and retain it after working in a IST position.


----------



## REDinstaller

This will be even truer for the Cbt Arms units who require fully trained personell to allow for mission specifc tailored tasks. Sending plain vanilla ACISS out to a unit hurting for CSTs is not a solution, its a hinderance.


----------



## REDinstaller

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Well, if we don't go anywhere past 2011, the Branch assumes we have all sorts of time to hand hold DP1 pers.
> 
> Nowhere in the brief did they discuss skillfade. Apparently we're all supposed to be smart enough to memorize everything from the DP1, and retain it after working in a IST position.



Maybe its time to leave the branch concept behind, and reactivate the RC Sigs Corps as an Army led, trained and administered entity. Give the ATIS back to the AF, and Half the Comms Research to the Navy. The Army 291ers can form the core of the IST sub occ, and give us mission tailored ECM/ESM capability without too much skill fade happening to the rest of the ACISS trade


----------



## PuckChaser

That's a pretty excellent idea, but CFIOG would never let that happen. Its the only way they get boots on the ground.  I've always maintained that Army EW should be done by SigOps (or ACISS core now). Give the strategic stuff to the Air Force and Navy.


----------



## REDinstaller

The AF ECM/ESM role could be provided by the AES Ops that currently man the back end of the Aurora. I'm sure CDNAviator would attest to that. CFIOG is a big of a lumbering beast as well. The new 21 EW Regt doesn't belong to them, only Lietrim and the remote dets belong to CFIOG. Not much of a deployment capability there.


----------



## Schütze

Random question, will this have any effect on Sig O?

 :yellow:


----------



## PuckChaser

Panzerschütze said:
			
		

> Random question, will this have any effect on Sig O?
> 
> :yellow:



Sig Os will be challenged to lead some troops that will be very disheartened by the new trades. This is a NCM change only.

Tango: Completely agree. AF 291ers don't do an AF role, leaving just Navy and Army as the only ones who work in their element. There's also probably quite a bit more Navy 291ers than there are positions on ship. The trade is purple by choice. The EW Regt should be manned by the best and brightest field signals troops in the Army, not forcing shift workers into the back of a Bison and expect them to be able to function.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> AF 291ers don't do an AF role,



Some do indeed IIRC :

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/cu170/specs-eng.asp


----------



## PuckChaser

Isn't the EWA from a hard blue trade? I don't want to get too far into details, as I'm sure most of the Heron mission specs beyond providing "ISR" are classified.


----------



## Swingline1984

I heard recently in a MES brief that the EW guys are thinking of coming online with this program.  Any 291'ers out there, what is your perspective?


----------



## meni0n

As in 291 becoming part of the ACISS trade?


----------



## PuckChaser

CFIOG would never let that happen. They're stuck in their own little world over there, and only a handful have actually moved into the 21st century conflict.


----------



## REDinstaller

Then maybe CFIOG should be the sole home for 291'ers, one common focal point and one common tasking agency.


----------



## Swingline1984

The MES managers mentioned that the rubber heads were showing interest in the amalgamation because the basic DP1 guys could potentially feed them with new blood as the overall trade requirement for ACISS is a lvl III clearance.  Apparently their biggest hurdle is just that, getting guys cleared.


----------



## PuckChaser

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Apparently their biggest hurdle is just that, getting guys cleared.



Yep, 2 years is the average. If someone doesn't sign a CE after their BE4, the 291 trade gets about 1 year of trade-related employment out of a person.


----------



## meni0n

So where will the new ACISS guys be employable without a clearance though? Is the requirement to get on DP1 for ACISS to have lvl 3 or to have it in progress like we have it for the sig op trade right now? 

Wouldn't it make it just easier to remove the SA requirement then join the amalgamation or have the same clearance requirements as the ACISS DP1?


----------



## PuckChaser

Are you talking about the SA requirement for the 291ers? Their job specifically requires Special Access, and are not employable without it.


----------



## meni0n

So I don't see how joining ACISS would solve any of the existing problems then.


----------



## PuckChaser

The only thing I can see is that they would be getting soldiers with field skills before putting them on their 291 courses. Its not a bonus to that trade, but to the CF in that they would be able to employ these people gainfully until their clearance came in.


----------



## Swingline1984

meni0n said:
			
		

> So I don't see how joining ACISS would solve any of the existing problems then.



All ACISS are expected (so the plan goes) to be employed in a brigade first qualified as a basic CP Op.  These folks then do their OJT/trade intros and by the time they have fullfilled all their basic checks in the box they will have their clearances.  This group is now ready to move into one of the three sub-occupations or progress into the parent occupation, basically a huge manpower pool.  I believe it is this pre-cleared pool that is attractive to them.


----------



## meni0n

Yes, but they also said that people are going to be evaluated on how they do all three positions before being assigned a sub occupation. How are they going to evaluate guys for the comm rsch when they don't have their clearance and can't touch any equipment or even be exposed to any aspect of the trade itself.


----------



## chrisf

How is that any different then taking comm-researchers recruits from off the street?


----------



## meni0n

As an ACISS you can get assigned a different sub occupation while off the street you're already in that occupation.

The recruiting pitch would be interesting, " Hey, want to be  comm rsch? Well you can join a ACISS trade, do a common course
and get evaluated in all sub occupations, but not in the comm rsch one because you won't have the clearance for that. And if you do a great job you might get assigned a totally different sub occupation. Feel lucky enough to roll the dice?"


----------



## Swingline1984

meni0n said:
			
		

> How are they going to evaluate guys for the comm rsch when they don't have their clearance and can't touch any equipment or even be exposed to any aspect of the trade itself.



I don't know, we never delved that deep into the issue.  How do they do it now?  The Managers did say that because everything is a sub-occupation it would be very easy to add and adjust for a new trade being tossed into the process as everything is internal to the core occupation and managed at that level.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> How is that any different then taking comm-researchers recruits from off the street?



Say EW becomes part of the process.  Qty x 10 291'ers release and Qty x 10 291'ers are now required to meet PML.  Would it be easier to dip into a pool of basic qualified, level III cleared Signallers, or hire a guy off the street put him through the system and hope his clearance comes through?  Which is more timely?

**Just a reminder of what I originally stated, the MES Managers said EW was looking at it, not that it was a done deal or how they would do it.  We/I have started down the garden path on this one and I don't want to muddle fact and pure conjecture.


----------



## Swingline1984

meni0n said:
			
		

> ...but not in the comm rsch one because you won't have the clearance for that.



Don't forget, the clearance requirement for all of ACISS is going to be Level III.


----------



## meni0n

Comm Rsch need SA to get qualified or touch any of the equipment. If you're wondering on the time line to get a SA added onto a level III. I got level III and I've been waiting for 6 months for it.


----------



## Swingline1984

It's just an Indoc for SA isn't it?  I do believe the list is prioritized with operational/deploying personnel being the first in line.


----------



## REDinstaller

Nope, another full background. Expect about 1 yr.


----------



## George Wallace

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> It's just an Indoc for SA isn't it?  I do believe the list is prioritized with operational/deploying personnel being the first in line.



No.  There is still a further "clearance", and then an Indoc.




.......................Not fast enough.......... :-[    Tango18A beat me to it.....


----------



## REDinstaller

Sorry George, I guess that what age does to typing speed. >


----------



## Swingline1984

Thanks...learn something new everyday  

I've only ever been on the periphery of such happenings.  There isn't much call for super secret Linemen.


----------



## Occam

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Nope, another full background. Expect about 1 yr.



I wish.  I've been waiting over two for SA....and that's with having level III for the last oh...say.....25 years?  

If I hear "Uncleared personnel on the floor!" one more time, I'm going postal.


----------



## REDinstaller

It only took 1 yr at CFCMU, but that was back in 04/05. Not too many clearances being processed back then compare to now.


----------



## PuckChaser

meni0n said:
			
		

> Comm Rsch need SA to get qualified or touch any of the equipment. If you're wondering on the time line to get a SA added onto a level III. I got level III and I've been waiting for 6 months for it.



Not all of their equipment is SA. Some requires a lower clearance, but a clearance altogether.

Occam: The ASIC overseas has a bright red flashing light when TS and below pers are in the Ops area. I never envied the people that had to walk in with that thing going off.


----------



## meni0n

Two years of waiting for SA? You're starting to scare me Occam.


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Occam: The ASIC overseas has a bright red flashing light when TS and below pers are in the Ops area. I never envied the people that had to walk in with that thing going off.



Yep, I run into it mostly at CFEWC and JIIFC Det, where they announce your presence like you're wearing the scarlet letter.  Other places, the beacon seems to be sufficient.  Oh well.  They'll get around to processing me sometime.  Hopefully before my references have developed Alzheimer's.


----------



## chrisf

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Say EW becomes part of the process.  Qty x 10 291'ers release and Qty x 10 291'ers are now required to meet PML.  Would it be easier to dip into a pool of basic qualified, level III cleared Signallers, or hire a guy off the street put him through the system and hope his clearance comes through?  Which is more timely?



Just for clarification, I think it's a great idea.

Not only would they already have the security clearance, but they'd already have a practical knowledge of communications, and any keen sig-op has at least some idea of what a 291er does.


----------



## PuckChaser

After speaking with a few of my course mates, we've come to the conclusion that not even the MES Managers know what ACISS is. Someone's pet project to get leading change marks on a PER is going to screw the C&E Branch up for the next decade, and thats not what we need to breathe new life into the Branch. I really hope that the rumour I heard wasn't true, in that the CDS only just found out what was happening to the Jimmy trades on Op Nanook when a junior NCM asked him what was going on with it. Actually, scratch that. Hopefully the rumour is true, and the CDS will start kicking people around to either can this whole business, or turn it into something worthwhile.


----------



## Swingline1984

I have to agree with PC, I am not looking forward to the transition period.  This thing was planned in a vacuum and once it touches real world conditions we're in for a bit of a gong show IMHO.  While skeptical in my own mind it is fascinating to witness the almost religious fervor with which some of the organizers approach this and then to see the tired resignation on the MES managers faces as they have to answer the spec pay question for the millionth time.  Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!


----------



## buzgo

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> I have to agree with PC, I am not looking forward to the transition period.  This thing was planned in a vacuum and once it touches real world conditions we're in for a bit of a gong show IMHO.  While skeptical in my own mind it is fascinating to witness the almost religious fervor with which some of the organizers approach this and then to see the tired resignation on the MES managers faces as they have to answer the spec pay question for the millionth time.  Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!



I have witnessed this fervor as well. I found it pretty disturbing - they can't answer the questions, don't seem to HEAR the questions, and insist that although there will be growing pains "it will all work out in the end".... 

I agree that something has to be done, but is this it? I'm not sure.


----------



## REDinstaller

If anyone has ever shot themselves in the foot... I think thats how all of us will feel 1 Jan 2011. Except it will be both feet with shotgun slugs.


----------



## PuckChaser

This is one of those times that I hope someone from the CoC is reading this forum. Anything I've said here I'd have no problem saying to the staff officer who designed this MES shenanigans.


----------



## Swingline1984

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This is one of those times that I hope someone from the CoC is reading this forum. Anything I've said here I'd have no problem saying to the staff officer who designed this MES shenanigans.



I've actually been in a room with him and all this and more was thrown at him (I don't remember his name but he came out of the failed MOSART program).  Nothing can sway his line of thinking and his eyes shine like he is talking about his new born baby.  LSD in the water me thinks.


----------



## MikeL

Anyone else get the email about doing the ACISS survey where you pick what occupation you want for first and second choice then write why you should be in that occupation?   Just got it wednesday, wonder how much say we really do have in what we want or if it's going to come down to your current trade and position/job you're in now.


----------



## PuckChaser

I got it through my chain, and had to pass it out to members of the course I was just on because they've never heard of it. I think the survey is going to give them base numbers for the new "trades", though I'd love to read what is written in some of those text boxes. 5 bucks says 90% of them mentioned either a retention bonus or spec pay.


----------



## REDinstaller

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Anyone else get the email about doing the ACISS survey where you pick what occupation you want for first and second choice then write why you should be in that occupation?   Just got it wednesday, wonder how much say we really do have in what we want or if it's going to come down to your current trade and position/job you're in now.



We all got it out west. I has to be completed by 15 Oct 10.


----------



## Old and Tired

When was this survey sent and by who, I have yet to see it.  Not that I have any faith in any system that created this monstrosity.  I know I have said it before in this thread but I still maintain that is is going to be a disaster of epic proportions.  The Titanic will look mild by comparison.

I received the PPT that tried to show the career and training progression.  I have yet to figure out where I or my troops will fit into the grand scheme of things.  I am not holding by breathe as to the outcome.


----------



## PuckChaser

My TP WO got it from the FoS of my unit.


----------



## REDinstaller

I think i still have the email at work. I will check tommorow.


----------



## Swingline1984

For those future ACISS who have not received the link to the MES 'Choose Your Own Adventure' site:

http://aws.kingston.mil.ca/Projects/ACISS/Communication/default.aspx


----------



## PuckChaser

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> For those future ACISS who have not received the link to the MES 'Choose Your Own Adventure' site:
> 
> http://aws.kingston.mil.ca/Projects/ACISS/Communication/default.aspx



I tried to choose Page 23 which was "Abandon ACISS and remuster" and ended up trapped in a COMCEN in Ottawa for 5 years.  :-[


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I tried to choose Page 23 which was "Abandon ACISS and remuster" and ended up trapped in a COMCEN in Ottawa for 5 years.  :-[



How's the night life?    >


----------



## Altair

As  a Sig,uh...ACISS just out of basic in june and doing OJT in petawawa while waiting for this ACISS program to begin, I have a few questions.

After completing my DP1, am I allowed to take a DP 1.1 for all three sub occupations for the 3 year period before I have to pick one?

Also, since I joined as a Sig Op, would it be possible to be fast tracked through my additional training relevant to the ACISS branch rather than bounce around for 3 years?


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> After completing my DP1, am I allowed to take a DP 1.1 for all three sub occupations for the 3 year period before I have to pick one?



Very doubtful.

As well, the ACISS core occupation has no extra training after the DP1 course. We're going to start creating SigOps that can barely work radio equipment and will need maximum supervision. My suggestion to you is to just sit back and enjoy the ride. Nobody but the guy pushing this knows whats going on, and even that's debatable.


----------



## Swingline1984

Not to be the anti-recruiter, but right now joining the Sigs branch is right up there with taking candy from strangers.  If you just have to have a taste, be prepared for a sound rogering in the back of the grey over blue painted pedo van.


----------



## Occam

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Not to be the anti-recruiter, but right now joining the Sigs branch is right up there with taking candy from strangers.  If you just have to have a taste, be prepared for a sound rogering in the back of the grey over blue painted pedo van.



That has to be just about the best analogy I've ever read.  Well done!


----------



## REDinstaller

Nice. And 2 years from now, the future will be just as bleak when the cheap canex lawn chair folds up on us and we go back to the way it is now.


----------



## Altair

I give it 20 years. 

Ottawa looks like it can be somewhat stubborn when it thinks it has a good idea.


----------



## PuckChaser

I was just on the CFSCE Sharepoint today for the ACISS implementation. All that wonderful background information is now disappeared. My FoS just stated that the branch is short at least 700 responses to the survey, which is a huge number considering the new trade is supposed to have 3200 positions.


----------



## REDinstaller

The new deadline to complete the survey is now 31 Oct 2010. Maybe now the implementation can slip to the right as well. :nod:


----------



## Swingline1984

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I was just on the CFSCE Sharepoint today for the ACISS implementation. All that wonderful background information is now disappeared. My FoS just stated that the branch is short at least 700 responses to the survey, which is a huge number considering the new trade is supposed to have 3200 positions.



They pulled the plug on that one when they migrated all the info to the MES site.  I know...I know, you miss all the nifty MS projects docs and the working group minutes.


----------



## PuckChaser

I didn't even know there was a MES website now. Marketing fail...


----------



## Swingline1984

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> For those future ACISS who have not received the link to the MES 'Choose Your Own Adventure' site:
> 
> http://aws.kingston.mil.ca/Projects/ACISS/Communication/default.aspx



I've re-posted it just for you PC.  ;D

It has a FAQ and contains all the presentations and such.  It's not just the survey.


----------



## Brother Blue Steel

Hey everyone, 

Just looking for a bit of info here. I'm done bmq in two weeks, I was enrolled as an lcis tech, and have my posting message to Kingston already. I know the amalgamation is happening in the new year. I was just wondering what the hell is going to happen? Will I get thrown on PAT? What training will I do when it is time? am I going to even be a tech? I've read through a good portion of this thread and it has left me with more questions then answers. Should I try to get out of the trade?


----------



## Occam

Try reading through the entire thread, and you should have your answers.


----------



## PuckChaser

Brother Blue Steel said:
			
		

> Hey everyone,
> 
> Just looking for a bit of info here. I'm done bmq in two weeks, I was enrolled as an lcis tech, and have my posting message to Kingston already. I know the amalgamation is happening in the new year. I was just wondering what the hell is going to happen? Will I get thrown on PAT? What training will I do when it is time? am I going to even be a tech? I've read through a good portion of this thread and it has left me with more questions then answers. Should I try to get out of the trade?



You won't seem the cataclysm that the rest of us that are trained already will see. Just worry about your BMQ, and you were already going to sit on PAT for a while. If you're enrolled, your number has already been counted against a position.


----------



## Sig_Des

Brother Blue Steel said:
			
		

> I was just wondering what the hell is going to happen? Will I get thrown on PAT? What training will I do when it is time? am I going to even be a tech? I've read through a good portion of this thread and it has left me with more questions then answers. Should I try to get out of the trade?



As of Jan 1, you won't even have a trade to get out of.

Expect to show up on PAT and be prepared to wait. Maybe they'll throw you on a drivers course.

From my understanding, you will start at the very beginning of the ACISS stream, do the common DP1 (QL3) and be posted to a Signal Sqn.

Seeing as you originally joined as a tech, that may earmark you into the CST stream after your posting, but according to the training timelines shown, it'd be about 3 years before you see yourself qualified.

Like PuckChaser advised, worry about your BMQ, and you'll figure things out as they happen, much like the rest of us.


----------



## Brother Blue Steel

Alright, thanks guys.


----------



## IBM

Just putting in my 2 cents on this whole new ACISS trade as someone from the Res side of the house.

Our unit was briefed a couple months ago that the new common QL3/DP1 phase training will now take at least 2 summers instead of one. This means that new folks can potentially take up to 3, maybe 4 years to get fully trades qualified instead of the 1 or 2 years with the old trades. I can see this really hurting the Comms Res units a few years into the future if there are not enough experienced people at the MCpl & senior Cpl level to provide the mentoring and leadership necessary for a unit's success. This is compounded by the fact that you have people releasing (we seem to have higher turn around than Reg, should not surprising since being in Res means we have other priorities to consider in our lives), and you have a recipe for... well, maybe not disaster, but sucky-ness for sure.

IMO if the senior leadership wants to maintain the whole "Total force" concept, they really need to rethink the whole training process for us, unless they are ok with turning Comm Res units into what will essentially be just PAT platoons. Now that's only assuming if people have to patience to stick around being paid janitors in green uniforms for at least 2~3 years. I honestly think you'll have a significant number of new recruits applying releasing before then, or trying to go Reg cause they'd rather get paid being on PAT. Either way Res units will just lose head count.

Another way they can go is abandon Total force and let Res unit stay with the old trades, but somehow I doubt they would got for that consider how many people have already staked their career on this change.

Conclusion: In the future, it's gonna suck big time being a new Reserve ACISS until you get trade quals. Also, whoever thought of the acronym obviously didn't thought of the fact that you're gonna  have a bunch of RACISS in the new year. You look me in the eye and tell me it doesn't sound bad.  :-\


----------



## Sig_Des

IBM said:
			
		

> Just putting in my 2 cents on this whole new ACISS trade as someone from the Res side of the house.
> 
> Our unit was briefed a couple months ago that the new common QL3/DP1 phase training will now take at least 2 summers instead of one.



Hasn't the Res QL3 been separated into 2 mods for the last couple years anyway?


----------



## chrisf

It has, typical time for a QL5 qualified res sig op now is 4-5 years.


----------



## PuckChaser

I really don't see a way to reduce the 2 summers training time for a reservist and still keep the course material covering most of what's covered on RegF courses for equivalency. Yeah, the reservist may not see half the kit they're being taught, but if they ever go to a RegF unit, it easier to teach someone that's been taught and forgot, then someone who's never seen it before.

In all the briefings I've got, not once have the ever mentioned Reserve ACISS. I thought they just forgot about you guys.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I really don't see a way to reduce the 2 summers training time for a reservist and still keep the course material covering most of what's covered on RegF courses for equivalency. Yeah, the reservist may not see half the kit they're being taught, but if they ever go to a RegF unit, it easier to teach someone that's been taught and forgot, then someone who's never seen it before.
> 
> In all the briefings I've got, not once have the ever mentioned Reserve ACISS. I thought they just forgot about you guys.



Very good points.  

Hopefully this doesn't turn into a case where the Reg F and PRes Trades start to develop too large a Training Delta as to make the Reservists for the most part unemployable in a Class C posn, as what happened to the Armd Corps.  

I am involved in trg PRes to the same standard as Reg F and it does take longer, and can be quite frustrating at times.  The end result often sees fifty per cent of our graduates doing a CT and fifty per cent of the remainder going on Tour.  Maintaining a solid base of experienced and knowledgeable pers in the unit is difficult, but in reality we are doing what we are mandated to do: augment the Reg F.  We are desperately trying to recruit people who will be committed and have a strong tie to the city, hoping that we will keep them for several years and maintain our knowledge and experience, at the same time grow.  It is a difficult task, but must be done.


----------



## Sig_Des

Last I heard with the DP1, it was 73 training days.

When I was on the DP2. Writing board, while we were concentrating on Reg F, when it came to learning packages, we were told specifically to keep it modular so as to make it easier for Reserve training. That was the extent of it for the Res side


----------



## chrisf

I know there'd be a lot of grumblings, but given budget contraints, and more importantly, time constraints, I don't see anything wrong with including a few weekends in those training days... even if it were say every second saturday...  73 training days is what? Three an a half months approximately? Maybe a little less?


----------



## PuckChaser

73 Training days is almost 4 months, without including stat holidays (which one is in the middle of the summer). Definitely a 2x 2 month course to get it close to completed.

Don't worry, the reservists aren't the only ones getting screwed with training time. The RegF DP1 course now has to combine SigOp QL3, Basic Line, Basic Technician training all into a schedule which is less training days than the current SigOp QL3. If the goal was to create soldiers that need max supervision when they come out of CFSCE, they're certainly going to achieve it.


----------



## REDinstaller

Now the base of knowledge within the C and E branch will be sinking into the mud. Much like some of the buildings at Kingston.


----------



## PuckChaser

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Much like some of the buildings at Kingston.



Spent all the money on a Battleview lab instead of buying quarters for troops that don't have 50 year old carpet in them.


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Spent all the money on a Battleview lab instead of buying quarters for troops that don't have 50 year old carpet in them.



Who needs comfy quarters when you can learn Battleview!!


----------



## chrisf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 73 Training days is almost 4 months, without including stat holidays (which one is in the middle of the summer). Definitely a 2x 2 month course to get it close to completed.



How do you figure?

Assume an average of 28 days per month, minus 8 weekend days gives us an average of 22 training days per month. 

73 Trg Days/22 Trg Days = 3.31 Months.

Work two saturdays per month, brings us down to almost 3 months exactly.

I wouldn't advocate working weekends for reg force courses, and I feel dirty advocating it for reserve courses, but we're there to work, and budgets and time are tight...


----------



## PuckChaser

5 training days a week, times 4 weeks a month = 3.7 months and change.

Your math is flawed, Reserve training is April till End August, 3 of those months have 31 days and 2 have 30 days. Where are you going to find the time to get high school students for 3 whole months? Their break goes from 26 Jun to 31 Aug. 

I don't want to argue math and semantics, I just think shoving Reservists through a 1 summer course that should be 2 is ridiculous. You can't employ people solid for 3 months with no weekends, your turnover would be huge. Its the Reserve exercise syndrome. "We have you here on paysheet, so we're going to cram everything we can into every minute of your time because we can". I saw the same thing on Op Cadence. So much useless training shoved into 2 weeks in order to burn out the troops before the damn Op even started.


----------



## George Wallace

You do what we do.  We have three Mods, where we teach Mods 1 and 2 sometime between Sep to Jun (part-time) at the Unit, and then send the students off for full-time training during (End of Jun) Jul and Aug.


----------



## chrisf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 5 training days a week, times 4 weeks a month = 3.7 months and change.
> 
> Your math is flawed, Reserve training is April till End August, 3 of those months have 31 days and 2 have 30 days. Where are you going to find the time to get high school students for 3 whole months? Their break goes from 26 Jun to 31 Aug.
> 
> I don't want to argue math and semantics, I just think shoving Reservists through a 1 summer course that should be 2 is ridiculous. You can't employ people solid for 3 months with no weekends, your turnover would be huge. Its the Reserve exercise syndrome. "We have you here on paysheet, so we're going to cram everything we can into every minute of your time because we can". I saw the same thing on Op Cadence. So much useless training shoved into 2 weeks in order to burn out the troops before the damn Op even started.



You're right, not sure how I got 22 days... should have been 20.  Totally out to lunch there.

Either way, wasn't referring to running it as one straight course, was thinking two 1.5 month mods would be easier for people to attend then two 2 month mods.

Even if we split four months into two mods, it still pretty much excludes anyone other then students from joining the trade, and I don't know what it's like for other reserve squadrons, but for us, we're not even coming close to filling our numbers chasing the student demographic. Students also have an automatic turn over of typically 4-5 years, so it doesn't produce much other then corprorals.


----------



## PuckChaser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You do what we do.  We have three Mods, where we teach Mods 1 and 2 sometime between Sep to Jun (part-time) at the Unit, and then send the students off for full-time training during (End of Jun) Jul and Aug.



That would work, but a lot of our teaching requires equipment or labs that only CFSCE or large RegF units have. There is a possibility to kill off some of the theory portions at the unit level as a DL package, but I don't see that being a significant time savings.


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That would work, but a lot of our teaching requires equipment or labs that only CFSCE or large RegF units have. There is a possibility to kill off some of the theory portions at the unit level as a DL package, but I don't see that being a significant time savings.



From what I have seen of the TP, there isn't nearly enough Theory only to justify a DL for the DP1 portion


----------



## REDinstaller

I think DL is starting to be a hassle. What ever happened to the Distance being the length of a pace stick? We lose much of our ability to mentor young troops by replacing instructors with computers.


----------



## Sig_Des

Tango18A said:
			
		

> I think DL is starting to be a hassle. What ever happened to the Distance being the length of a pace stick? We lose much of our ability to mentor young troops by replacing instructors with computers.



I don't mind DL in a theory driven, more advanced level course, but at basic trade level courses there shouldn't be a DL


----------



## chrisf

For the old res sig op QL3, there was a pre-apprentice portion, mostly VP... which in theory was completed by students when they arrived in kingston... whether they had actually completed it, and to what standard, was an entirely different matter...


----------



## PuckChaser

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> For the old res sig op QL3, there was a pre-apprentice portion, mostly VP... which in theory was completed by students when they arrived in kingston... whether they had actually completed it, and to what standard, was an entirely different matter...



Yep. I can see this same thing happening with the RegF for the continuation training. My unit doesn't have linemen, how am I supposed to get up to DP3a ACISS level of line knowledge/skill without linemen? Guys are going to be showing up for their next ACISS core DP level, and have no clue about the other 2 trades because CFSCE has washed their hands of everyone except PATs. Or they'll be given wrong information and hopefully someone won't end up hurt.


----------



## Sigger

Apologies if this was answered.. Could not find anything in regards to this.

I am SigOp QL3 trained. 
I released a tad shy of 3 years ago(family reasons) after completing my contract.
I am rejoining.
I was advised by recruiters all trades are closed, however they just rx a message stating ACISS will have 20 positions open 1 Jan.

Any ideas how reentry will work as far as postings/trg go? I would really like to stay in Kingston(where I released) as my children are here, and am hoping JSR(or wherever) would be able to take me in. Any thoughts on possibilities for being posted to JSR?

Also, is there a DP breakdown of equivalencies for the old QL3 trg?


----------



## chrisf

There's no direct conversion from QL to DP per say...

The idea is they broke your career into "development phases", if I remember right there's 5 (6?). I'm sure it's covered elsewhere in the forum....


----------



## JSR OP

Sigger, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you will most likely be treated as though there was no joining of the trades, and that you will be brought back in based on the qualifications that you have already gained.  grandfathered if you will.

I was going to say that CFJSR may be able to take you in, but I got thinking about it and since you released completely and (I'm making an assumption here) you didn't join the PRes, that you are not going to be considered "green" when it comes to being deployable, and as far I remember, pers have to be green to be posted here.


----------



## chrisf

Would 2 EW have posistions?


----------



## JSR OP

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Would 2 EW have posistions?



They do have Sig Op positions, but I don't know what their "readiness" status would be at.  As far I know, Sig Ops there are more like training aids and don't deploy that much. 

Oh, BTW, its 21 EW Regt now, not 2 EW Sqn


----------



## PuckChaser

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Would 2 EW have posistions?



I would not recommend this posting to a worst enemy of mine.

There are 13 positions at this unit for SigOps currently (none available) and I have no idea how they'll be broken down after ACISS.


----------



## chrisf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I would not recommend this posting to a worst enemy of mine.



Bad enough that somone would be better off at JSR? That must be bad....

Walking towards JSR reminds me of that scene in Quest for the Holy Grail when they arrive at Camelot...

"Behold! The joint signals regiment!"
"JSR!"
"JSR!"
[brief song and dance number featuring sig ops tap dancing on a large sat dish]
"On second thought, let's not go to JSR. Tis a silly place."

(Though in fairness, I only spent a month there, twas a silly place)


----------



## JSR OP

Ok, now that was funny!


----------



## 211RadOp

JSR OP said:
			
		

> I was going to say that CFJSR may be able to take you in, but I got thinking about it and since you released completely and (I'm making an assumption here) you didn't join the PRes, that you are not going to be considered "green" when it comes to being deployable, and as far I remember, pers have to be green to be posted here.



Not for the last three posting cycles.  They trialed it APS '08 and have continued it since.


----------



## JSR OP

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Not for the last three posting cycles.  They trialed it APS '08 and have continued it since.



I stand corrected.


----------



## Sigger

I appreciate the reply.
I did confirm with a friend in JSR who advised being green is not required. When I was posted frm CMTC to JSR the only Green I had was BFT.


----------



## greydak

I'm in the process of doing a component transfer to Line Technician and I just got an email from the Component Transfer Section in Ottawa saying that I have to go for an interview at my local recruiting centre to start the process for “MOSID 00110 LCIS TECH - TEC SICT” 

   Does anyone know if the sig trade amalgamation has anything to do with this seeing as I didn't choose LCIS Tech as a trade, I asked for Line Tech. 

Also assuming this is due to the amalgamation, what are my chances if I do transfer to LCIS Tech, that I will still end up a lineman? 

Thanks


----------



## PuckChaser

Lineman is full up, and has been for a while. You're being offered LCIS because its undermanned, but is in the C&E Branch.

Your chances are pretty slim that you'll end up a LST (the new Lineman name) if you join ACISS, as LST will be filled with members already trained or waiting to be trained.


----------



## greydak

I asked the Wo in Ottawa and he said to "Check out the job descriptions on the CF recruiting web site" but im pretty sure the recruiting web site isn't up to date?


----------



## JSR OP

The screening process for pers posted to CFJSR may be reinstated for this APS


----------



## greydak

So PuckChaser & JSR OP, since you seem to have a clue as to whats going on.. What would the process be like once I show up in Kingston?


----------



## JSR OP

greydak said:
			
		

> So PuckChaser & JSR OP, since you seem to have a clue as to whats going on.. What would the process be like once I show up in Kingston?



Well, I can tell you that when I showed up here, I had already talked to the Career Manager, who informed me where I'd be going.  

If you do get posted here, you'll most likely show up in Dress of the day (CadPat), with posting message in hand.  You may or may not have a contact within the regiment who will meet you and show you were to go.  If you don't, you may stumble around blindly until someone sees that your lost, or you may walk up to someone and ask where the Regimental Orderly Room is.  If you do have a contact here, (s)he'll meet you at some predetermined location, and bring you to the ROR, you'll get a clearance card, maybe do some paper work there, then head down to the troop room and meet your part of your CoC, and the rest of the troop, then continue with the clearing in.

To be honest, its been some time since I've been in the troops, so I'm not really up to date on what happens when new pers arrive at the regiment.  Maybe someone who had recently dealt with new pers arriving could provide more info?  Anyone?  Was I close?


----------



## Swingline1984

I'm pretty sure he'll go to CFSCE before he ever has to worry about being sucked up into the mothership.


----------



## PuckChaser

greydak said:
			
		

> So PuckChaser & JSR OP, since you seem to have a clue as to whats going on.. What would the process be like once I show up in Kingston?



Since you're an OT you'll end up on PAT Platoon for a while. They'll put you in line for an ACISS DP1 course. If you've been preselected for a suboccupation, you'll go do DP1.1 right after. Otherwise after your DP1 you'll end up with a posting message somewhere, most likely HQ and Sigs. From there, your aptitude for various things and your work ethic could get you selected for a sub occupation if you want it. Otherwise you'll come back to CFSCE in 2 years or so and do DP2. In between DP1 and DP2, your unit will send you on courses if they need you qualified on specific kit.

Its gonna suck, but expect to show up on PAT Platoon and be bored. Real bored. There's guys who've been waiting for 6 months for courses. Use the time to get some OPMEs done, or take a course at the College downtown. Either that, or try to get tasked out to a unit as OJT.


----------



## JSR OP

Sigger said:
			
		

> I am SigOp QL3 trained.
> I released a tad shy of 3 years ago(family reasons) after completing my contract.
> I am rejoining.
> I was advised by recruiters all trades are closed, however they just rx a message stating ACISS will have 20 positions open 1 Jan.



Because he is already QL3 trained, and has only been out for three years, I think that he'll be grandfathered, put into a new ACISS position, and not have to worry about going back to the school.  He very well could end up at the JSR.
But I could be wrong.


----------



## Baywop

If you want the latest and greatest info on ACISS check out this link.
you must be logged into a DWAN computer to view the link.


http://aws.kingston.mil.ca/Projects/ACISS/Communication/Selection%20Process/Home.aspx

some real good info there...enjoy


----------



## Swingline1984

JSR OP said:
			
		

> Because he is already QL3 trained, and has only been out for three years, I think that he'll be grandfathered, put into a new ACISS position, and not have to worry about going back to the school.  He very well could end up at the JSR.
> But I could be wrong.



You do realize your response was based on a post from Greydak correct?  Sigger is a different animal.


----------



## zzyzx723

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its gonna suck, but expect to show up on PAT Platoon and be bored. Real bored. There's guys who've been waiting for 6 months for courses.



There are people there who have been waiting MUCH longer than that, as far as Sig Ops go. And that's even without mentioning the 291ers.


----------



## JSR OP

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> You do realize your response was based on a post from Greydak correct?  Sigger is a different animal.



No, I did not.  So much for my attention to detail.  Maybe I should go back to reading posts only...Once again, I digress.


----------



## Swingline1984

Baywop said:
			
		

> If you want the latest and greatest info on ACISS check out this link.
> you must be logged into a DWAN computer to view the link.
> 
> 
> http://aws.kingston.mil.ca/Projects/ACISS/Communication/Selection%20Process/Home.aspx
> 
> some real good info there...enjoy



...aaannnnd it's the third time the link has been posted, so it's super redundant too!  :nod:


----------



## PMedMoe

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> ...aaannnnd it's the third time the link has been posted, so it's super redundant too!  :nod:



Well, we all know people don't want to go through 28 pages of a thread looking for the info they need.


----------



## PuckChaser

For the reservists following this thread, I've received credible word (from someone working in the training development) that the res DP1 course will be 1 summer. They've cut material, taking a chance that the cut material can be taught either OJT at the units, generating useful Cl A training, or at the units if reservists are selected for deployment.


----------



## IBM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> For the reservists following this thread, I've received credible word (from someone working in the training development) that the res DP1 course will be 1 summer. They've cut material, taking a chance that the cut material can be taught either OJT at the units, generating useful Cl A training, or at the units if reservists are selected for deployment.



Well, that will definitely help with pumping out more troops with trade quals faster, at least on paper. Still need experienced NCM's to do more hand-holding though than with the old trades; don't see how that can be avoided.

"Welcome back Pte, and good job on completing your QL3's. Now come over and help me get that LS setup for tommorow's tasking."

"Er, what's an LS, MCpl?"  

You just know something like that will eventually happen.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> For the reservists following this thread, I've received credible word (from someone working in the training development) that the res DP1 course will be 1 summer. They've cut material, taking a chance that the cut material can be taught either OJT at the units, generating useful Cl A training, or at the units if reservists are selected for deployment.



One summer as in two, three, or four months? I remember QL3 being two months, then doubled to four.

Colour me skeptical as to whether teaching a full six month reg force course in three summers would have been an effective alternative.

I'm presuming the whateveryoucallit LCIS tech equivalent remains unavailable to the reserves? Has someone made the call that reserve line's going to be officially killed by amalgamation?


----------



## PuckChaser

Figure 8-9 weeks. One summer as in time for High School students to complete their DP1 between 26 June and Labour Day.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Figure 8-9 weeks. One summer as in time for High School students to complete their DP1 between 26 June and Labour Day.



Excellent. Not having to train a new guy for three years of summers (at two months for BMQ/SQ, QL3 mod 1, QL3 mod 2) if his boss (or his wife) can't spare him for four months straight'll be a help.


----------



## PuckChaser

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Excellent. Not having to train a new guy for three years of summers (at two months for BMQ/SQ, QL3 mod 1, QL3 mod 2) if his boss (or his wife) can't spare him for four months straight'll be a help.



It'll help the reserves for sure, but if said reservist wants a tour or a Cl B callout in a Reg F signals unit, they may have a steep learning curve to cover the missing material.


----------



## IBM

Brasidas said:
			
		

> I'm presuming the whateveryoucallit LCIS tech equivalent remains unavailable to the reserves? Has someone made the call that reserve line's going to be officially killed by amalgamation?



What I heard was that reserves will keep existing Sig Op & Line, and the equivalent whateveryoucallit names.


----------



## PuckChaser

IBM said:
			
		

> What I heard was that reserves will keep existing Sig Op & Line, and the equivalent whateveryoucallit names.



SigOp = ACISS
Line = LST
LCIS = CST
Computer Nerd = IST

 >


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SigOp = ACISS
> Line = LST
> LCIS = CST
> Computer Nerd = IST
> 
> >



And which specialties, or whatever name you call these un-trades, are available to the reserves?

Reserve line survives, but they get to be trained as a QL3 sig op, with some sort of basic familiarization with line during their first summer of trades training? Pretty damned curious what that'll look like. I'd think that the timeline for training a lineman's going to be extended even more than it already is.

I appreciate the info, btw.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm not quite sure, but I'll ask my source next time I see them. If they're only planning the training for ACIS and LST, then its a good bet IST and CST won't be available.

You won't get DP1 linemen in one summer. There will be a DP1.1 course they they would have to attend the following summer, or OJT at the unit (note these are just my speculations).


----------



## IBM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SigOp = ACISS
> Line = LST
> LCIS = CST
> Computer Nerd = IST
> 
> >



Yeah, thanks for the names Puck. Just to clarify Res would have only ACISS and LST under the new naming convention, existing fully qualified Line will automatically become LST's and SigOp's have a choice of ACISS core or one of the other specializations. Existing Line can also sort of "remuster within the same trade" if you will be taking conversion training to other specializations, but this is left up to individual member choice.

Anyway, that's the word I got from my CoC, no idea if any of that is set in stone or still subject to future changes.


----------



## IBM

Sorry, adding to my last, it's my understanding that Res doesn't have the choice of CST, just like LCIS wasn't a trade available to Res.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure, but I'll ask my source next time I see them. If they're only planning the training for ACIS and LST, then its a good bet IST and CST won't be available.
> 
> You won't get DP1 linemen in one summer. There will be a DP1.1 course they they would have to attend the following summer, or OJT at the unit (note these are just my speculations).



Thanks, I'm interested.


----------



## PiperDown

IBM said:
			
		

> Yeah, thanks for the names Puck. Just to clarify Res would have only ACISS and LST under the new naming convention, existing fully qualified Line will automatically become LST's and SigOp's have a choice of ACISS core or one of the other specializations. Existing Line can also sort of "remuster within the same trade" if you will be taking conversion training to other specializations, but this is left up to individual member choice.
> 
> Anyway, that's the word I got from my CoC, no idea if any of that is set in stone or still subject to future changes.



To clarify your clarification.  SigOps will not have a choice of ACISS core or one of the other specializations as you imply.  SigOps will not be transferred into CST or LST.   SigOps will be transferred into the ACISS core, or IST.   

To add more clarification.... Current lineman will be transfered to LST, and some may go to IST.
Current LCIS techs will go to CST or IST


----------



## IBM

PiperDown said:
			
		

> To clarify your clarification.  SigOps will not have a choice of ACISS core or one of the other specializations as you imply.  SigOps will not be transferred into CST or LST.   SigOps will be transferred into the ACISS core, or IST.
> 
> To add more clarification.... Current lineman will be transfered to LST, and some may go to IST.
> Current LCIS techs will go to CST or IST



I stand corrected. Thanks Piper.


----------



## PiperDown

no probs.

Not looking forward to Jan 1 2011.   It will take some time for the dust to settle on this one.

Cheers,


----------



## PuckChaser

The draft TPs from the TP Writing Boards for the IST, CST and LST sub occupation DP3A courses all have a Reserve MOSID on the cover page which indicates to me that all of these sub occs are available to the PRes. Still haven't been able to confirm 100% from my inside friend, but looks promising.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ...but looks promising.



Indeed.


----------



## jacobite30

Oh wow.  Where to start. Yikes would be a good word.  

So want to take bets on when Spec pay will go poof! after the treasury board takes another look at the trades.  Eliminate the core electronics training and you are taking that risk.  Try to convince them that the trade is technical enough to keep it.  Hopefully we can....

And to feed underborne trades with pers from another underborne trade.  How exactly does that work? The concept didn't work with the old SIS Tech trade.  

Who gets to decide who goes into what sub occ? If a recruit joins and goes ACCIS with the ultimate goal of going CST and gets told when he/she applies that that trade is full or ACCIS is too underborne then what options do they have?

Just a side note.  The very first briefing that I heard on this was in Ottawa over a year ago.  The MWO giving the briefing started off with "First of all, this is going to happen so you better get on board with it ." He looked pissed off right from the start. Nobody had said anything yet, we were waiting for him to start.  Came out beligerent right away.  He was a SIG OP. No barbs intended just pointing it out for info.  Who has the most to gain from this evolution?  History will be the judge I guess. Maybe those who didn't have spec pay to begin with.  Who knows.


----------



## PuckChaser

That MWO was right. The people that dreamed this up don't take input from the troops that this change will affect. All they see is a "new capability" that they can tout to Combat Arms commanders, even though its gonna be the same damn operators, with the same damn skills just pigeonholed into specific jobs instead of being good at everything. We won't see if this is gonna work until a decade from now, and by then any of us that had a problem with it will be RSMs or retired, and someone will have shiny new bars because of it.


----------



## REDinstaller

And all of those pushing this needless change will be looking for an M in the Leading Change bubble. On that premis we should all receive the same points for changing our socks and undergarments once a day.


----------



## jacobite30

LOL.  I was actually told once when I was a MCpl that "nobody will get an M in ethics unless they are are the news the night before you give it to them!"  
So I told them great, get my M ready.  I'm going to rob a liquor store and call the cops on myself while i'm in the parking lot afterwards.  That should get me on the news.


----------



## Mojo Magnum

Always the optimist, I had high hopes for the spec.  Mainly because I was hearing realistic expectation from some old seasoned types.  However it seems it's not to be.   No poet for Siggy means no spec for Siggy.  And so, I have a new name, the same pay and the same job.  It is a struggle for me to believe that the next time I find myself employed at location A where there are no new pers,  I wiil not be expected to do some jobs because of my "new name" but expected to other jobs.   I have strong suspicions that what I will see at location A is the same people, with the same skills doing the same jobs.  With a shiny new name and a possible survey annually on how I like my new career.  

At least they didn't call us Cist.  I don't think I could face a Monday knowing I shared a name with an undesireable growth.  But despite all our cranky jabbering, this is still the best job I've ever had.  I love it, but damn the spec would've been nice.

Merry Christmas!!


----------



## wiking

Anymore info on the ACISS amalgamation...Im at BMQ right now and am going LCIS TECH....Thanks for your help....


----------



## Sig_Des

wiking said:
			
		

> Anymore info on the ACISS amalgamation...Im at BMQ right now and am going LCIS TECH....Thanks for your help....



Sorry if it bursts your bubble, but way things are looking, you'll never actually be an LCIS Tech. As far as new information, this thread is pretty much all of the combined knowledge any of us have up to this point.


----------



## wiking

OK thank you Sir.


----------



## Sig_Des

/best of luck in your training, and hopefully in short time you, as well as all of us, will get more answers


----------



## REDinstaller

If my crystal ball reads correctly, which i'm sure it will, in the short term we will hear alot of "we don't know" or "it hasn't happened yet"s. The only statement we could hope for in the long term is " We were WRONG, and it will go back to the way it was" But knowing how the Branch works, that statement will never be uttered, and the failure will fall on the shoulders of the soldiers. Just my  :2c:


----------



## wiking

Well, I should be off to SQ right after BMQ here, so Im assuming I would be starting my trades training at the beginning of summer. Apparently, ACISS begins implementation in January????


----------



## PuckChaser

Don't count on either. I've seen guys at the school still waiting for their SQ, and they were QL3 qualified SigOps.


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't count on either. I've seen guys at the school still waiting for their SQ, and they were QL3 qualified SigOps.



And if it's still anything like in May, not to mention the metric ton's worth of PATs waiting training


----------



## PuckChaser

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> And if it's still anything like in May, not to mention the metric ton's worth of PATs waiting training



After block leave they're getting scattered like leaves, won't be anyone around. From what I've heard they'll get pulled back for courses.


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> After block leave they're getting scattered like leaves, won't be anyone around. From what I've heard they'll get pulled back for courses.



S'good to hear. maybe now there'll actually be space to park


----------



## REDinstaller

Des,

Are you going on course again?


----------



## Sig_Des

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Des,
> 
> Are you going on course again?



Not to K-town, but maybe doing something there this summer. Though I'd much rather go to CFSAC again


----------



## REDinstaller

Sounds like work avoidance to me. See you tommorow


----------



## muffin

The COT selection board results are up in the Sharepoint site on the DWAN.


----------



## C/S 0

Point 1:  DP1 is 75 Training Days
Point 2: LST, CST, IST and CISTM are sub Ocps, everybody (Line, Sig Op and LCIS) will be ACISS.  After the common DP1, if you are either ACISS Core or move into DP1.1 for LST, CST and IST.  However all do DP2.  After that there is a DP2.1 for ACISS Core, LST, CST and IST.  Then everybody comes back and does a common DP3.  When you are promoted to WO, if you are LST, CST or IST you leave those sub ocps and come back to the ACISS Core trade unless you qual for CISTM.

-Army, Navy and Airforce joined together in 1969....It's not going to work.......CF still here and working
-RCSC disbanded and trades join together with Air and Navy to form C&E Branch.....It's not going to work.......C&E Branch has 5000 pers and is one of the most important branchs in the CF.
-numerious tech trades joined together to form LCIS........It's not going to work........It did work.
-Rad Ops and Tel Ops amalga........It's not going to work..........It worked.
-ACISS.......It's not going to work........It will work.


----------



## Occam

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> -Army, Navy and Airforce joined together in 1969....It's not going to work.......CF still here and working



After many command reorganizations and creations, and a return to distinctive environmental uniforms, you mean...



> -RCSC disbanded and trades join to gether with Air and Navy to form C&E Branch.....It's not going to work.......C&E Branch has 5000 pers and is one of the most important branchs in the CF.



Navy formed a part of C&E Branch?  News to me...NRadOps and Nav Sigs (now NavComm) as well as Naval Electronics Techs have no part in the C&E Branch.  ATIS Techs are members of the C&E Branch, but are akin to the red-headed step-child.



> -numerious tech trades joined together to form LCIS........It's not going to work........It did work.



That depends on whether you're asking an LCIS Tech, or someone who got forced back to one of the operator trades.   ;D



> -Rad Ops and Tel Ops amalga........It's not going to work..........It worked.



I can't comment on that one as I have no personal experience in the matter.



> -ACISS.......It's not going to work........It will work.



That remains to be seen...


----------



## C/S 0

Point 3, PAT Troop at CFSCE may soon be getting smaller.

Future plan in new year if approved - PATS posted to their units on OJT.  The unit loads them on SQ, Driver Training, etc.  Then they come back to CFSCE for their trade training.


----------



## C/S 0

Your first point, all new organiziations, formations, units have growing pains, so will ACISS but that will pass.

Your second point, the Comm Research Trade is a purple trade with Navy pers.  The C&E Branch has members from all three services.

Your third point, most LCIS techs I know love being techs and have high morale and pride in their trade, (lol) they love to give it to the Sig Ops.

Your fourth point, Sig Op trade, works, I can speak first hand.

Your last point, ACISS after some growing pains, improvements, will work.  The officers and Snr NCMs will come up with the plan and in big letters THE TROOPS will make it work.


----------



## Occam

C/S 0, forgive me for asking, but can you elaborate somewhat on your background in the subject?  Your profile is empty - while it's not essential that you put anything in it, it does help a bit...


----------



## Old and Tired

I have to agree with Occom on this one.  As for the Rad Op / Tel Op amalgamation.  Having dealt with some of the fall out, it hasn't worked quite the way that was planned.  First question I have to ask a great many folks is what side of the trade did they start in and when (IF AT ALL) did they do any Tac Rad training.   If the answer to the first question is Tel Op, then the answer to the second becomes critical as to where I'll put them to work.

I can't say that I know a whole lot of techs that are happy with what happened during their amalgamation, either.  That might be sour grapes from some that got shifted to a place that they weren't unprepared/trained for, but I leave it up to the LCIS folks to explain.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this whole thing, but so far no one has offered anything even resembling a coherent plan as to where we're going or how this will change anything other than increase the common manpower pool that can be thrown at a problem in the hopes that it will go away.

As for the PAT idea.  That has the potential to be another train wreck in the making.  We're going to send a bunch of troops to units to get OJT when we can't even employ them because they lack certain qualifications.  Why does that strike me as the Branch or CFSCE shifting the problem out of their back yard into some one Else's to get rid of problem.  I realise that CFSCE is short staffed, but this isn't going to fix the problem either.  I can't see 1, 2, or 5 Sigs Sqn having the time or resources to train these troops.  Like wise I can see the ASG Sigs Sqn picking up the slack because they can barely keep up with the demands on their time and skills as it is.


----------



## George Wallace

Aren't the ASG Sqns going to disappear?


----------



## Old and Tired

RumInt has it happening but I have yet to hear anything even quasi offical, and there didn't seem to be any hint of hit as the ISSO COnf / Training session that was held last week.

Watch and shoot I guess.


----------



## C/S 0

I'm a SNR NCM at CFSCE and have been involed with the planning for the training of ACISS.  It's my job to make it work, I want to make it work and believe it will work.  I'll either find a way or make one.


----------



## C/S 0

******As for the PAT idea.  That has the potential to be another train wreck in the making.  We're going to send a bunch of troops to units to get OJT when we can't even employ them because they lack certain qualifications.  Why does that strike me as the Branch or CFSCE shifting the problem out of their back yard into some one Else's to get rid of problem.  I realise that CFSCE is short staffed, but this isn't going to fix the problem either.  I can't see 1, 2, or 5 Sigs Sqn having the time or resources to train these troops.  Like wise I can see the ASG Sigs Sqn picking up the slack because they can barely keep up with the demands on their time and skills as it is.********

It's funny how earlier in this thread that posters were complaining that the training wait time is long and there are to many PATS.  We have a plan that we are going to try and once again it's the .....it's not going to work..... When these PATS are posted to their units they always wont be there but hopefully loaded on their courses.

I have an example.....two students that didn't pass there QL3 training were send to Petawawa for 4 months OJT.  When they came back they finished in the top third of their course.

These pers are posted to that unit.  So after they do finish DP1 they are going back to that unit.  I hope the units takes the time to develop and look after these troops because in the end it's their soldiers.


----------



## Old and Tired

I whole heartily agree that the units need to look after their people.  My main concern is that it's not going to happen because we won't be able to train them effectively.  The units don't have the time or people to dedicate to them the way that will be needed.  IF current employment restrictions on NON-SQ qualified troops are not relaxed or altered then a big part of what's needed for OJT will be missed.  For driver training, that might be different depending on how many driver instructors a given unit has and what the training schedule says.


----------



## Occam

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> I'm a SNR NCM at CFSCE and have been involed with the planning for the training of ACISS.  It's my job to make it work, I want to make it work and believe it will work.  I'll either find a way or make one.



That's an admirable attitude, but I hope you're not trying to bail out a sinking ship.  I, on the other hand, am extremely glad that I'm enjoying observer status for this shuffle.


----------



## Brasidas

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> Point 1:  DP1 is 75 Training Days
> Point 2: LST, CST, IST and CISTM are sub Ocps, everybody (Line, Sig Op and LCIS) will be ACISS.  After the common DP1, if you are either ACISS Core or move into DP1.1 for LST, CST and IST.  However all do DP2.  After that there is a DP2.1 for ACISS Core, LST, CST and IST.  Then everybody comes back and does a common DP3.  When you are promoted to WO, if you are LST, CST or IST you leave those sub ocps and come back to the ACISS Core trade unless you qual for CISTM.



What's the objective for a common DP2? 

Is a lineman supposed to be able to be a det commander for a couple sig ops and a dual-install?


----------



## C/S 0

If you are a linemen now, you may still get to do a Linemen QL5 depending on how long you been in and where you are in your career.

The common ACISS DP2 now is based on a Signals Detachment.  However remember there is a DP2.1.  So a LST that comes off the common DP2 (he/she already had Core training on DP1, then LST DP1.1) will then go on the LST DP2.1 which is all about linemen quals.  The same for the ACISS Core, CST and IST, they have their own DP2.1.

On the Sig Op side there are 3 Sig QL5 course left to run.  One in Jan and two in Feb that will match up with the last Sig Op QL3 legacy crses.  The first two crses of ACISS DP1 start on 5 Jan 11.  The first two ACISS DP2 courses will match up with these DP1s in Apr/May.


----------



## PuckChaser

C/S 0, you must be one of the cherished few in the CF that have an intimate knowledge of how ACISS is going to work. A HUGE problem with this amalgamation is the total lack of information coming down the chain to the troops, which is just turning people off the process. The career shop doesn't even know whats going on, and you would think they'd be the first people with the info.

Yeah, ACISS might work - in 10 years. Right now and for the next 5-10 years it will be a gong show and force a whole lot of extra work onto the shoulders of the MCpls and Sgts in the trades (who are already working hard because we're under PML).


----------



## C/S 0

That's why I decided to post - alot of misinformation, misunderstanding and misconception on this thread.  You are right that the chain-of-command should of done a better job with the passing of information and keeping the troops updated.  Call it fear of the unknown.

For the new pers coming in it will be easier to adapted to ACISS, they have no bagaged as those of us already in the trades.  Really for the DP1 and 1.1 it will be training as per norm at the School.  DP1 a common QL3 for the Sig Ops, Linemen and LCIS techs now call ACISS Core.  Then followed by DP1.1 for the IST, LST and CST which is basicily the info the LST and CST need to know to go down that career path of what was a Linemen, LCIS Tech or for the IST now a Sig Op/LCIS Tech that is working in a Server Det or IS Service/Help Desk.

The DP2 may be more of a challenge to get the balance right for CORE training when the ACISS/LST/CST/IST are thrown back together.  In DP2.1 they will divide again and will conduct their sub Ocp training.

For those that are Cpls/MCpls now on 1 Jan if your a Linemen you are now ACISS Sub Ocp LST doing the same thing you were doing on 31 Dec, no change.  The same for the ACISS Core guy (ex sig op) and the CST guy (ex LCIS).  IST is a little different because you are joning Sig Ops and LCIS Techs into the same Sub Ocp.

For Sgt, this the SME rank in the ACISS Core, IST/LST/CST sub Ocps.  For WO's they are now back to ACISS CORE unless they go CISTM which may be about 10% to 20% of that rank level.  Sgt's are the SMEs that will solve the line, radio, svr problems, etc.  WO's are man management.  In Theory an ex LST Sgt can be the Tp WO for A Tp CFJSR because he had the Core training in DP1, DP2 and DP3.  This will help in the future with some of the shortages in the PML.

There may be some rough water ahead but we are not going to sink.  Will it take 10 years I don't thing so, depends on the leadership in the Branch, The School, The Field Force and some of the people reading this thread on the forum now.


----------



## C/S 0

REF Reserve Training

DP1 will be one summer only for the reserves IIRC about 49 training days.  Some training will be done before hand by DL or at the unit level.  The TP is slightly different from the Regular Force.  For example the Reserve Comms don't have the SAM/SAS equipment like the Regular Force so that part of the TP does not apply to the reserve training.


----------



## Jammer

Just to reiterate, ACCIS will not be a success if the the feild force doesn't do thier part when they recieve the DP-1s. My concern is that not enough liason between CFSCE and the rest of the Army has been done. I have spoken to some in the Bdes and they are totally out of the lop when it comes to what they will be responsible for when it comes to preparing DP-1s to return for further trg. Ack, there will be growing pains, but resistance is futile. The can't do attitude is only going to be to the detiriment of the new soldiers going through the process.
I think it's time to drop the what ifs and get on with what has to be done to make it successful. It's now out of our hands.


----------



## C/S 0

Just so there is no misuderstanding CFSCE does not control ACISS.  ACISS is part of the MES project in some directorite in Ottawa.  What CFSCE is in control of is the training part of ACISS Dp1, 1.1, 2. 2.1, 3, etc.

What the field force will be receiving from CFSCE in the DP1 Qual Pte is basicily a Sig Op minus.   It is my understanding that between the Pte's choices, apatitude test at CFRC, his performance on DP1, the OJT he does at the unit and the needs of the service will be the factors when his name goes to a merit style board (at unit level maybe, career shop maybe?) will decide if that per stays at ACISS Core or goes to LST/CST/IST.


----------



## FreeFloat

I'm watching this thread with piqued interest as I currently have a CT request in for "LCIS."   (Fully cognizant of the fact it'll be ACIS - or is that ACISS? - that I'll be offered once the dust settles).  My question:  What about POET training?  Where will it fall into the scheme of things, or are they somehow planning to do away with it altogether?


----------



## C/S 0

ACISS Op

I'm not a tech but it is my understanding that there still will be a POET but it has a new name.  Also the COAs being looked at is if to have POET before or after DP1.


----------



## PuckChaser

The POET will be a shorter course of 66(?) days called FET or Fundamental Electronics Training. Once a person has been selected for CST Sub Occ, they have to go on FET and pass to do the CST DP1.1


----------



## Swingline1984

Looking back through the thread I don't see any "mis-information" only a bunch of info starved troops frightened of the Cepacol to fix a gaping flesh wound senario.  Perhaps the marketing team should have been dispatched a little earlier.  I also can't wait to add "making it work" to my PER brag sheet (I can see the T-shirts now "MES making it work since 2011"), that and a pocket full of broken promises should set me on the fast track.


----------



## Sig_Des

I'm trying to look at this whole thing optimistically, and having helped write the core DP2.1 TP, I don't want to see it fail. However, here's my personal take.

Pro's:

- seperation of operator and IS specialist
- basic background on a little of everything (can flip side to a con as well)

Cons

-  a training environment that creates people with a little bit of knowledge on a lot, as opposed to a lot on less. Basically, max supervision required.
- The training establishment pushing more training responsibility out to operational units (Maybe a little easier post-Afghanistan, but with the current op tempo of 1 Sqn deployed, one in the chamber and one coming back, plus Bde support, I'm expecting to see a lot of difficulty wrt monitoring & managing OJT)

One big one I see is lack of reflection on the MES change at out-unit establishments.

For the most part, several sig ops in a Sigs Pl/Tp at a first-line field unit will wear multiple hats. Your Alt CP Commander may also be your IS supervisor. Back in garisson, your RRB det member could work IS helpdesk. It's not an environment where you want someone who's fresh out of the grinder and requires max supervision. Now we're getting into an environment where it's going to take someone at least 3 years before they're qualified in IS, and can move into the say, the 1 IST position of an Armoured Regt. Did the field force get asked "What is your unit going to need? How many ACISS core/IST/CST?" What level was the input, if any? Who decided who gets how many of what?

Another Con I'm seeing is retention. How many guys in the last few years are getting out after their VIE because they've spent it sitting around. Now we're getting into a situation where someone who wants to be a tech is being told "well, you MIGHT become a tech, but it's probably going to be at least 2.5/3 years before we actually decide you will be and send you on your training. But no guarantees". For something that's supposed to help fill the ranks, I'm expecting to see a lot of young new Sigs get real jaded, real fast.

Once again, I'm optimistic, and hopeful, because the train is already rolling. I just hope all the tracks are laid before we hit the next station, or things'll get ugly.


----------



## PuckChaser

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Looking back through the thread I don't see any "mis-information" only a bunch of info starved troops frightened of the Cepacol to fix a gaping flesh wound senario.  Perhaps the marketing team should have been dispatched a little earlier.  I also can't wait to add "making it work" to my PER brag sheet (I can see the T-shirts now "MES making it work since 2011"), that and a pocket full of broken promises should set me on the fast track.



Could add: "Designed and ran continuation training with no CFSCE input" as well. Individual units are going to be left holding the ball to get all the old pers up to speed so they don't fail their next career course because CFSCE has washed its hands of any of that. Then again, you're going to need a good brag sheet to have to fight through the hundreds of people now going to be merit listed right along side of you in the Snr NCO stream.


----------



## Rheostatic

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> For example the Reserve Comms don't have the SAM/SAS equipment like the Regular Force so that part of the TP does not apply to the reserve training.


Do you mean they don't have the equipment at all, or that they don't have the same equipment? If you mean the former, it's news to me and I'm disappointed to hear that the Res might lose access to this training.


----------



## George Wallace

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Do you mean they don't have the equipment at all, or that they don't have the same equipment? If you mean the former, it's news to me and I'm disappointed to hear that the Res might lose access to this training.



Since the change over to TCCS and the loss of all that Legacy Comms equipment, all Trades of the Reserves have been doing without, or with very little.  Training deltas are growing between Res and Reg trg on all fronts.


----------



## Sig_Des

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Do you mean they don't have the equipment at all, or that they don't have the same equipment? If you mean the former, it's news to me and I'm disappointed to hear that the Res might lose access to this training.



I imagine it's due to SAM/SAS changing again, and I'm doubtful the res will see the MCR/EPLRS system in the near future. I expect you'll see augmentee's getting trained on it as the need arises.


----------



## Jammer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Could add: "Designed and ran continuation training with no CFSCE input" as well. Individual units are going to be left holding the ball to get all the old pers up to speed so they don't fail their next career course because CFSCE has washed its hands of any of that. Then again, you're going to need a good brag sheet to have to fight through the hundreds of people now going to be merit listed right along side of you in the Snr NCO stream.



Up to speed on what? The info in the TP hasn't changed, and if people are worried about failing career crses it's not the Unit who has to bend over backwards to make sure they are ready. It's the individual that has to take a good portion of the responsibility to make sure THEY are ready for a career crse. It's not like it's going to be a surprise to them. 
Maybe some should be less concerned about what they think is "owed" to them in the way of a handout, and spend a little more time being part of the solution, and not part of the problem. OMFG I hate ladder climbers...


----------



## chrisf

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Do you mean they don't have the equipment at all, or that they don't have the same equipment? If you mean the former, it's news to me and I'm disappointed to hear that the Res might lose access to this training.



For the average res sig op who did QL3 in the brief period where SAS was taught, it was a waste, they're never going to see it again (I say average, if you do a tour, or transfer to the regs, or somthing else, sure, you'll see it again, but again for the average operator, what they learned and haven't used will be gone courtesy of skill fade). I've never been trained on it (Tinkered a bit with sending LOC via a CI, but that's the max we can do with the kit we've got)

As much as I hate to see a gap between the regs and the res as far as trade courses go, if the res units don't hold it, and aren't likely to hold it in the near future, they shouldn't train on it. Time saved on stuff they're not likely to see can either be spent on somthing else, or used to cut the length of the course... utimately, for the reserves, the shorter we can make the course, the wider we open ourselves to for a recruiting pool.

Take the mechanic trade for example, there are a lot of unqualified reserve mechanics, with just an EME common course, because so few can manage to make time for the 9 months or so it takes for the trades course.

Conversely, if it were up to me, there'd be a good week on the QL5 course on cimic, and interoperation of communications with civillian agencies. That would be useful to a reserve sig-op.


----------



## C/S 0

What I mean as misinformation is that there are posters on here throwing around their opinion based on assumption, attitude and no knowledge of the facts.  IE reserve training will be two summers in DP1 and the ACISS course is 70 days, etc.  Although that may not be their fault, the chain of command did a bad job passing on info.

As for this

Could add: "Designed and ran continuation training with no CFSCE input" as well. Individual units are going to be left holding the ball to get all the old pers up to speed so they don't fail their next career course because CFSCE has washed its hands of any of that. Then again, you're going to need a good brag sheet to have to fight through the hundreds of people now going to be merit listed right along side of you in the Snr NCO stream.

How has CFSCE become responsible for unit training and how is CFSCE responsible for people currently in their trades for failing when they come back.  If you are a Sig Op, Linemen, LCIS tech there is no change except the name, your still doing the same thing.  

As for the comment on the marketing team, I don't need to market ACISS, it will be here on 1 Jan, like it or not.  Time to stop crying about it, show a bit of leadership and lead change (for those of you worried about your PER) and carry on.

For those that are worried about merit list for this year it will be based on the old trades.


----------



## Sig_Des

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> What I mean as misinformation is that there are posters on here throwing around their opinion based on assumption, attitude and no knowledge of the facts.  IE reserve training will be two summers in DP1 and the ACISS course is 70 days, etc.  Although that may not be their fault, the chain of command did a bad job passing on info.
> 
> As for the comment on the marketing team, I don't need to market ACISS, it will be here on 1 Jan, like it or not.  Time to stop crying about it, show a bit of leadership and lead change (for those of you worried about your PER) and carry on.



Well, that's the thing isn't it? I've passed on the information I've gotten to my guys in the dribs and drabs that I've received it in, and more in depth once I got more details. Yet here we are, 2 weeks before the event, and people still have these questions.

Granted, this may be a passage of information issue somewhere, but there's a disconnect somewhere between the lofty greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread cloud, and the bitter "This smacks of previous f'ed up amalgamations"

I'm just gonna wait and see with optimistic bated breath.


----------



## C/S 0

For sure there will be a transition period - but it won't be 10 years.  For most qualified QL3 pers now they will get onto a legacy QL5.  For those Sig Ops that don't there is hardly any change in the TP.  For the Linmen and LCIS guys that miss out on the last few QL5's yes they may have to do some Sig Op style training.  We will Cross that bridge when we get there and if there is no bridge we will build one.  May be something along the lines of the old QL4 package.

For these new courses of DP1, 1.1, 2, etc - the TPs are not written in stone.  This is a new trade with new TPs and master lesson plans.  If after the first ACISS course there are more days required or training we want to emphasize more we can do that.  CTC Gagetown knows this.

Anyway gents this will be my last post, come Jan it will all be academic anyway, ACISS will be here.  There is a lot of gloom out there but if you are already qualified in your trade I'll bet you won't even notice the change except your called something else.

Merry Christmas.


----------



## dan7108

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> REF Reserve Training
> 
> DP1 will be one summer only for the reserves IIRC about 49 training days.  Some training will be done before hand by DL or at the unit level.  The TP is slightly different from the Regular Force.  For example the Reserve Comms don't have the SAM/SAS equipment like the Regular Force so that part of the TP does not apply to the reserve training.



Since when? Every CPIC/VIC configuration truck now has CI and DAGR mounts with all the appropriate cabling in our Res unit and has for more than two years. After that all you need is a terminal (CF-30), CI-terminal cable, and appropriate software (SAM5/SAS) all of which we acquired with relative ease. 

I'm pretty sure all Res units are equipped with the same capabilities. The reason it never gets used is because most of the senior members are ignorant of the capability. This ignorance will now be perpetuated with the new DP1 and this expensive equipment will go unused. Shame.


----------



## MikeL

dan7108

I doubt that, I've worked with some Reservists and they didnt know how to program a freq into a 522 since all their unit did was HF and not Tac Rad.


As for the SAM/SAS thing, my impression was that it was on it's way out, last time I used it in Canada was 07, and we really didn't use it overseas, and haven't since we returned.


----------



## PuckChaser

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> Anyway gents this will be my last post, come Jan it will all be academic anyway, ACISS will be here.  There is a lot of gloom out there but if you are already qualified in your trade I'll bet you won't even notice the change except your called something else.



Its probably a good thing, since you weren't here for a discussion anyways.



			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> As for the SAM/SAS thing, my impression was that it was on it's way out, last time I used it in Canada was 07, and we really didn't use it overseas, and haven't since we returned.



I believe the move is to Battleview, but SAM/SAS did just get a facelift onto a Windows platform to make it easier to use for the operators. The stuff is out there, getting it is another story. Its almost getting fun to answer the Ops O's question of "Isn't there a way you guys can plot the vehicle's position on a map and put it on a projector?" with "You mean SAS? Yeah, that would be easier than the map bird table.".


----------



## MikeL

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> but SAM/SAS did just get a facelift onto a Windows platform to make it easier to use for the operators. The stuff is out there, getting it is another story.



Yea forgot about that, heard about it awhile ago, and I remember the SAM/SAS kit being taken out of all the vehicles, but that was all we were at, dunno if things have changed in the last while and the new kit is at the Battalion or not.


----------



## NavyShooter

The past couple of pages are sounding eerily familiar to me....we're doing the Weapons Engineering Technician rollover next year.....I'm seeing that there's a LOT of equipment/OJT training being pushed away from the school (current QL3 applications/equipment trg is 60-90 days, new is planned to be 42) with increased OJT requirements, while we're about to lose almost half our platforms for the CPF FELEX program.  

It sounds like there's interesting times ahead for you guys too.....I'm tagged into this one for interest's sake.

NS


----------



## PuckChaser

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Yea forgot about that, heard about it awhile ago, and I remember the SAM/SAS kit being taken out of all the vehicles, but that was all we were at, dunno if things have changed in the last while and the new kit is at the Battalion or not.



That was the PDT-D and PDT Printer mounts I believe. I'd rather the desk space in my radvan anyways, only PDT I've ever seen was in the crypto vault and that's getting replaced with a CF30 shortly.


----------



## dan7108

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> dan7108
> 
> I doubt that, I've worked with some Reservists and they didnt know how to program a freq into a 522 since all their unit did was HF and not Tac Rad.
> 
> 
> As for the SAM/SAS thing, my impression was that it was on it's way out, last time I used it in Canada was 07, and we really didn't use it overseas, and haven't since we returned.



You doubt what? The FACT that I just told you Reserve units have the capability? Or that most reservists don't know how to use the equipment because it hasn't been part of their trades courses (save for the last few years)? I don't know what you are getting at. 

Your comment about some reservists not knowing TCCCS is just anecdotal and only reflects a couple of people who probably used the "My unit only does HF" as a poor excuse for their lack of trades skills. I hear the same thing every summer I teach in Kingston. Fact is, every Res unit has VHF TCCCS capabilities. 

I used SAS overseas in 2008, and the Bn's are now using SAM5/Battleview. Either way, its just a change in the software. The hardware remains the same: CI, Radio, DAGR, Terminal and appropriate cabling. All of which reserve units have, and have had for a while. 

My point is, we have kit at our units which our new soldiers will not be trained on. It seems like a waste to me.


----------



## chrisf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That was the PDT-D and PDT Printer mounts I believe. I'd rather the desk space in my radvan anyways, only PDT I've ever seen was in the crypto vault and that's getting replaced with a CF30 shortly.



We had 5 printers.... only 2 vehicles with mounts... never a PDT though....

On the subject of terminals for SAS, I can assure you, we don't have one, despite asking for one. (Now I have no idea who said "no", but I know the materials have been requested)


----------



## Swingline1984

Jesus and Mary in a bucket.  If you guys are going to be talking all bits and bytes in the combined DPs I've got my work cut out for me.  Especially considering I'm only concerned with my PER (have to work on my sarcasm, did everybody catch it this time   ).  Where are all the Linemen so I can have an incomprehensible argument about tension specs on the 89J or an online drinking contest?  ;D


----------



## Jammer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its probably a good thing, since you weren't here for a discussion anyways.
> You might want to watch who you are directing your smartass remarks to...I don't recall ever seeing you at any of the implementation meetings.
> 
> 
> I believe the move is to Battleview, but SAM/SAS did just get a facelift onto a Windows platform to make it easier to use for the operators. The stuff is out there, getting it is another story. Its almost getting fun to answer the Ops O's question of "Isn't there a way you guys can plot the vehicle's position on a map and put it on a projector?" with "You mean SAS? Yeah, that would be easier than the map bird table.".


----------



## chrisf

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> or an online drinking contest?  ;D



Do you really think any of us would be opposed to that? Perhaps a discussion of the rules in the Radio Chatter forum is in order...


----------



## PuckChaser

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Where are all the Linemen so I can have an incomprehensible argument about tension specs on the 89J or an online drinking contest?  ;D



I'm not a Lineman, but I will accept your drinking contest challenge.  ;D


----------



## Swingline1984

Jammer said:
			
		

> You might want to watch who you are directing your smart ass comments to...I don't recall ever seeing you at any of the implementation meetings.



I have to agree with PC...some nameless big head who deigns to grace us with his presence for a quick one way conversation does not win my respect either.  This is a forum and all topics are open for debate...just because we come here to vent (something we wouldn't have to do if the Branch opened up a proper dialogue) does not mean we go back to work and face the troops with anything other than solidarity and support for the CoC.  It would help if the answers weren't locked away in some sanctimonious guys head but were readily available on...oh...I don't know...a share point site.


----------



## Swingline1984

...and with that...TO THE BEER FRIDGE BATMAN !!

Only 1 rule:  last guy to fall down wins.  :blotto:


----------



## George Wallace

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> ...and with that...TO THE BEER FRIDGE BATMAN !!
> 
> Only 1 rule:  last guy to fall down wins.  :blotto:



I thought (s)he bought the next round?


----------



## chrisf

That seems unreasonable, we can clearly continue to drink after falling down. Perhaps the last one to fall off the floor?


----------



## C/S 0

********I have to agree with PC...some nameless big head who deigns to grace us with his presence for a quick one way conversation does not win my respect either.  This is a forum and all topics are open for debate...just because we come here to vent (something we wouldn't have to do if the Branch opened up a proper dialogue) does not mean we go back to work and face the troops with anything other than solidarity and support for the CoC.  It would help if the answers weren't locked away in some sanctimonious guys head but were readily available on...oh...I don't know...a share point site.********

"some nameless.."
You guys are all nameless to me, isn't that why we have forum names?

"big head"
I do have a big head, sometimes I have to turn sideways to get into my office

"one way conversation"
I don't believe the conversation on this forum is one way, we just don't agree with each other

"vent'
go ahead and vent but remember there may be younger members reading this that may take away the wrong idea

"support the CoC"
glad to hear it

"the Branch opened up a proper dialogue"
That's something we do agree upon

"answers weren't locked away"
I don't have all the answers and my position is not important

"sanctimonious"
I must admit I had to look that one up, though anyone who knows me would tell you I am far from a saint.  Not bad for a linemen.

We all see ACISS in a different way, that's fine, no point in arguing.

Does it have to be beer why not Rye?


----------



## Swingline1984

C/S 0,

Glad to see you're back.  Please continue to enlighten us...who knows, you could be the one to swing the tide of opinion in your favour, and the masses of mushed together tradesmen (ACISS) will rise up and supplant the statue of Mercury at the Vimy gate with one of you.  ;D

You have some catching up to do, better make those rye doubles.

P.S.  I even read a book once...imagine that.


----------



## C/S 0

Challenges

Sig Ops, LCIS Techs and Linemen all have their own identies and espirt de corps.  I think ACISS is a bigger deal to the LCIS and Linemen.  

For the Sig Op not that much of a change.  A chance for those that like the IS world to move into IST.  For me I am going to be ACISS Core.

For the LCIS Tech it is about the big question of spec pay.  If spec pay ends at the Sgt rank and you go back to the ACISS Core as a WO, there is no pay raise, unless you are one of the few that go CISTM.  So two career options - stay a tech for your career or move into the SNR leaderhip ranks if you want to be a SSM, RSM etc.

For the linemen I think it is about their identity.  Your an LST up to the rank of Sgt.  When you move to WO you could be in charge of a Radio Troop or a Base/Station TIS department.  We have WO', MWO's and CWO's that are linemen now but in the future when they are ACISS who will look after the traditions of the line trade?  It is the SNR NCO's job to ensure traditions don't die.


----------



## chrisf

Traditions are one thing, but there are a great many of us who see this as an attempt to kill both tech trades and line trades period, and a cheap and dirty trick by the army to make more sig ops... from a paper perspective, both techs and linemen can be replaced by contractors... which in turn of course leads to a serious loss of capability, but looks good on a budget line...


----------



## NavyShooter

Wellll......as of yesterday's meeting with the Career Mangler, I'm no longer an Acoustic/Sonar tech, I'm now a Radar tech.....I'm still thinking about that....18 years of being a Sonar guy, and now that's all gone....


----------



## Occam

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Wellll......as of yesterday's meeting with the Career Mangler, I'm no longer an Acoustic/Sonar tech, I'm now a Radar tech.....I'm still thinking about that....18 years of being a Sonar guy, and now that's all gone....



Meh, it's all the same.  Ping, pong, divide by two.   ;D

Kidding aside, the navy went through this back in the early '80s with MORPS and the operator/tech trades...and it didn't work.  Took decades to sort it all out, and now they're screwing with something that works again by bringing in this Weapons Engineering Technician silliness.  The Sig Op, Linemen and LCIS Techs are doing the same thing now.

The appropriate phrase here is:

_Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results._


----------



## NavyShooter

Occam....

I concur with your assessment.  I got in after MORPS, so I missed that schmozzle.  This looks like it may end up being similar...

NS


----------



## Brasidas

dan7108 said:
			
		

> Your comment about some reservists not knowing TCCCS is just anecdotal and only reflects a couple of people who probably used the "My unit only does HF" as a poor excuse for their lack of trades skills. I hear the same thing every summer I teach in Kingston. Fact is, every Res unit has VHF TCCCS capabilities.



Not true, Dan.

Every reserve sig op is trained on TCCCS, sure. But up until this year, my unit literally had no VHF assets beyond three manpacks. 

It was a pure HF unit, with no VHF training at the unit level. There were rare opportunities to apply Kingston-learned VHF skills on taskings if they sought them out, but that's hasn't been something the unit could plan training around.  Dedicated, deployable VHF assets have finally become available in just the last couple months.

Personnel are now assigned to a det and don't cross-train on equipment (VHF vs HF) other than on a "hey, that det's only got one guy this week, you give him a hand".

VHF skills can bleed in that scenario, though more along the lines of weak troubleshooting skills rather than not even being able to program the freqs above channel 1.


----------



## Swingline1984

Happy new trade everyone!    :'(


----------



## Swingline1984

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Happy new trade everyone!    :'(



Eastern time anyways.   ;D


----------



## REDinstaller

And RIP to the LCIS, Line and Sig Op trades.


----------



## PuckChaser

Tango18A said:
			
		

> And RIP to the LCIS, Line and Sig Op trades.



Hear hear!

Maybe if we just don't use the new trade names in common speech, we can wish the transfer away. I'll always be a 215!!


----------



## REDinstaller

Well I will tell you how it goes at the First ever CM brief in the new order :-X. They will be here in Edmonton 11-14 Jan 11. It should be interesting.


----------



## PuckChaser

Mine was 14 December.... they had no information and would entertain no questions on MES. Postings/Promotions as usual. Seems like the good idea factory for MES is even keeping the CMs in the dark.


----------



## REDinstaller

Well of course they would. But when it fails, it will be our faults for not putting enough behind it. You think the CM's would have more input as to the implementation.


----------



## BenFG

Allthough my last topic was closed I did get usefull information, so here I am again. I will try my best to avoid sounding self righteous but please dont comment saying to use the search function. If I have overlooked a post that answers my question i apologize, please link it below. This is a discussion board not a library right?

I know there have been lots of topics lately about this position.(probably do to with it being "in-demand" on the forces website) And I am aware that now under this new name (ACISS) there are 3 branches.
The only branch that interest me would be the "Operator" one. ( what used to be signal operator I guess )
Are you a "boot on the ground" in this job? ie: the guy with the radio on his/her back?
I know that they get soldier training after BMQ, but if I apply for ACISS could i get stuck behind a desk?

thanks in advance


----------



## PuckChaser

ACISS core occupation is the new SigOp minus computer stuff. Yes, you can be that guy with the radio, but you can also be working in a Coy/Sqn Command Post. If you want ACISS core, I don't forsee you being put into any other occupation, as its going to be the hardest one to fill up. Everyone wants to be a computer guy or technician, so there will be lots of spots open at HQ+Sigs for field-oriented soldiers.


----------



## George Wallace

Topic LOCKED

Please go to the existing topic on ACISS so as not to be asking the same questions over and over again.


----------



## Danke

Before anyone suggests it, I have used the search and scoured the forums for posts. Unfortunately, most of what I found is full of acronyms and initialisms I am not familiar with so I'm hoping to get some simplified information.

I spoke with a recruiter yesterday about joining, and he mentioned that LCIS and SigOp had openings. Both interest me, with some preference for SigOp. He didn't, however, mention anything about the amalgamation of the two with Linesmen. So, for anyone that knows more than me: will choosing LCIS or SigOp have any effect on my career at this point, or will I be placed in the same pool of recruits?

Background info: HS diploma; Grade 11/12 Physics, Chemistry, Math; HS Computer Science; College Physics / Chem / Bio / Math; HS and College English.


----------



## PuckChaser

SigOp and LCIS are recruiting because we're so undermanned. The amalgamation is supposed to help that manning level. If you want to be a SigOp, you'll join ACISS and tell your supervisor after your DP1 that you want to stay ACISS Core. Voila, you're a SigOp with just a different name.


----------



## REDinstaller

As of right now it desn't appear that anyone outside of the trades affected has a clue about our plight. I'm sure that if you apply for either, that in the end when you get to CFSCE, the route you take will depend on what QL3 course is running. Right now the ACCIS QL3 is spooled up. But you have quite a while to reach that.


----------



## Danke

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SigOp and LCIS are recruiting because we're so undermanned. The amalgamation is supposed to help that manning level. If you want to be a SigOp, you'll join ACISS and tell your supervisor after your DP1 that you want to stay ACISS Core. Voila, you're a SigOp with just a different name.



Thanks very much. 

Are there courses to learn more of the tech stuff if I specialize in SigOp? I like the idea of "being able to take apart, fix, and put back together everything" (in the words of the recruiter), but I would prefer deployment to Computer Administrator duties.

Also, how often can I complete supplementary courses? I am hoping to learn a few languages as well; would I be using private language courses or are there CF-specific language courses?


----------



## Danke

Tango18A said:
			
		

> As of right now it desn't appear that anyone outside of the trades affected has a clue about our plight. I'm sure that if you apply for either, that in the end when you get to CFSCE, the route you take will depend on what QL3 course is running. Right now the ACCIS QL3 is spooled up. But you have quite a while to reach that.



Thanks, it's reassuring knowing I won't be too constrained by my choice.

EDIT: (Sorry for the double-post, he replied while I was replying to the other post)


----------



## PuckChaser

Danke said:
			
		

> Thanks very much.
> 
> Are there courses to learn more of the tech stuff if I specialize in SigOp? I like the idea of "being able to take apart, fix, and put back together everything" (in the words of the recruiter), but I would prefer deployment to Computer Administrator duties.
> 
> Also, how often can I complete supplementary courses? I am hoping to learn a few languages as well; would I be using private language courses or are there CF-specific language courses?



If you want to be a computer admin, you want to be an IST which is a subtrade of ACISS. You'll get some tech training on your DP1, us old SigOps learned to do it through experience. French courses are offered, you'd be hard pressed to learn anything else through DND unless you're getting an embassy posting where you'll need it (few and far between).


----------



## Rheostatic

How long until the Sig Op QL6 transitions? Anyone have any insight on the pros and cons of doing QL6A now or later?


----------



## PuckChaser

New DP3A is shorter, but is supposed to be tougher. I'd take the one now. A month of sitting through lectures that the guest speaker doesn't even know what they're talking about, and a handful of assignments that are done in a group. Only difficult part for the SigOp 6A was the recce and siting portion, but I had someone get lost on their PC and still get 100%.

I don't know if they're even running anymore old QL6A courses, everything was supposed to be ACISS as of 1 Jan.


----------



## Danke

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you want to be a computer admin, you want to be an IST which is a subtrade of ACISS. You'll get some tech training on your DP1, us old SigOps learned to do it through experience. French courses are offered, you'd be hard pressed to learn anything else through DND unless you're getting an embassy posting where you'll need it (few and far between).



Sorry, when I said I "preferred deployment to Computer Administration duties", I meant that I prefer to be deployed instead of getting Computer Admin duties. It sounded right in my head, but the "to" kind of made it ambiguous.

Glad I'll be fluent in French. Guess I'll stick to private courses for everything else.


----------



## PuckChaser

Gotcha, now you know what sub occupation not to go to.  ;D


----------



## Danke

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Gotcha, now you know what sub occupation not to go to.  ;D



From earlier in the thread:
CST- Communication System Technologist
IST - Information Systems Technologist
LST - Line Systems Technologist

So IST is the LCIS spec, LST is the Linseman spec, and CST is the equivalent of SigOp?

Also, why is SigOp having such trouble with recruitment? Is it a matter of pay, or high demand in the Private sector stealing away recruits, or is it the job itself? EDIT: I ask because I really have no desire to return to the private sector, and don't care about the pay. I've always felt money was a poor way to judge personal worth.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## PuckChaser

CST = LCIS to fix everything but computers
LST = Linemen
IST = New idea, computer jobs of sigop and LCIS combined
ACISS Core = SigOp

SigOp has been undermanned for quite some time, as has LCIS. LCIS guys get private sector/public sector jobs fairly easily. SigOps have to be trained to do damn near everything, but don't get paid that way. Half the guys are qualified CISCO admins but can't get spec pay. Line is also moving into a more technical areas and would have need a look at spec to keep them competitive with the private sector in a few years, but they're attractive to Combat Arms remusters that want physical work but have a truck to take them everywhere. You could debate for hours why the SigOp trade isn't attractive to recruits (the total lack of accurate information in the recruiting system is my bet).


----------



## chrisf

I can't see them making spec pay for LST, IST, or ACISS Core... don't get me wrong, if they did, that would be great, but, while an CST (LCIS) tech can leave the forces and easily make as much or more than they make in the forces, telecom linemen don't make great money civi side, neither does your computer tinkering type (There's far too many of them floating around as a result of the tech boom in the 90s). 

There's also very little employability civi side for the skills of an ACISS Core.

Like I pointed out in another thread, spec pay has very little to do with specialization (No matter how much "they" may claim otherwise). If you can quit your job tommorow and easily make as much or more than you do in the forces, then you get spec pay.


----------



## LineJumper

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> telecom linemen don't make great money civi side,



You are consistently inaccurate. Civi side for line is quite lucrative. I have had no offers below $35/hr in all areas CF Lineman are trained. Coupled with my RCDD, it would be damn near impossible to not demand 6 figures. The only pain was taking my BICSI quals in Vegas and Florida, Oh FML.  ;D


----------



## chrisf

LineJumper said:
			
		

> You are consistently inaccurate. Civi side for line is quite lucrative. I have had no offers below $35/hr in all areas CF Lineman are trained. Coupled with my RCDD, it would be damn near impossible to not demand 6 figures. The only pain was taking my BICSI quals in Vegas and Florida, Oh FML.  ;D



I always stand to be corrected. That being said, the majority of civi telecom linemen I know are making $13-15 per hour.

I had to look up RCDD, wasn't familiar with the acronym, is that about a technologist level designation?


----------



## Sigger

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Where else can you find a guy/girl that builds towers and antenna, maintains them, designs and constructs heavy cable infrastructure (pole line, buried & underground), as well as does multi-pair copper splicing, fibre optic splicing and termination and to top it off does PBX frame work, coaxial install/testing and horizontal structure wiring design, install and QA?  I do understand that just one of those jobs may not be high paying (RCDD or design qualified individuals actually can pull down a bit of coin), but when you lump them together with the aforementioned increasing responsibilities you get something completely different.



Tell that to my boss... All that is exactly what I do now.. all for $14/hr.

I have not yet met a civvi Telecom lineman who makes anywhere near $35.


----------



## Sigger

Point taken. As I am in Ontario, and only know a few civvy linemen in other parts of Canada.

However, it was not my objective to discuss job options, or what I do as a civvy lineman(a job I am not fond of[SigOp at heart]).


----------



## Rheostatic

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't know if they're even running anymore old QL6A courses, everything was supposed to be ACISS as of 1 Jan.


The CFSCE calendar for FY 10/11 shows two more intakes this spring.


----------



## REDinstaller

The CMs also said it would be 3-5 years until all changes are implemented. So stand by to stand by.


----------



## C/S 0

Today the CFSCE Comdt briefed the first two ACISS DP1 courses on ACISS and took questions.

Points of Interest:

1. The proposal for Spec pay that went to the Treasury Board was for the three sub-trades: LST, IST and CST.  ACISS Core was not recommended for Spec Pay.

2.  As far as the comdt knows that when a member of the sub-trades are promoted to WO and go back to the Core Trade they keep their Spec Pay.  The Comdt is going to look into it.

A earlier poster was asking about the wait for DP1 (ie old QL3).  The wait will now be shorter.  We are going to Run 16 ACISS DP1 courses this year with a total of 24 per a course. That's 384 openings.  So things should go a little bit faster.


----------



## REDinstaller

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> Today the CFSCE Comdt briefed the first two ACISS DP1 courses on ACISS and took questions.
> 
> Points of Interest:
> 
> 1. The proposal for Spec pay that went to the Treasury Board was for the three sub-trades: LCT, IST and CST.  ACISS Core was not recommended for Spec Pay.
> 
> 2.  As far as the comdt knows that when a member of the sub-trades are promoted to WO and go back to the Core Trade they keep their Spec Pay.  The Comdt is going to look into it.



1. What a surprise....not. The core trade has no specialised training at this point. Until it can prove that spec pay is required, Treasury Board will always say NO.

2. This is a no brainer, the member once promoted to WO hasn't become brain dead. His training to gain Spec pay is still relevant.


----------



## Sig_Des

Tango18A said:
			
		

> 1. What a surprise....not. The core trade has no specialised training at this point. Until it can prove that spec pay is required, Treasury Board will always say NO.



Now I really hope you guys lose yours


----------



## C/S 0

"1. What a surprise....not"

- Of Course but this is the first time that someone high in the chail command I have heard said no spec pay for ACISS Core.

Spec pay for the three sub trades has NOT YET been approved.

The list for ACISS is out for who is suppose to be IST and ACISS Core with a link to have the decision made on you reviewed.


----------



## PuckChaser

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Now I really hope you guys lose yours



Seconded, with all of the extra courses that need to be taken for Core persons to be relevant in the trade that aren't included in the DP packages, everyone should be getting spec. My OT will be the first in the pile if LST gets spec pay along with CST and IST but not Core occupation.


----------



## C/S 0

"2. This is a no brainer, the member once promoted to WO hasn't become brain dead. His training to gain Spec pay is still relevant."

I think the problem with above is that yes if a CST/LST/IST moves on into a CISTM position then by all means he is doing a tech job and should get tech pay.  However lets say for an example that Sgt ACISS and Sgt IST both get promoted to WO. They both are in charge of Sigs Troops, one with RCDs and one with RCRs.  They are both doing the same job and are the SME to the Sig O and Battalion/Regiment Commander.  Except the IST WO has Spec pay and the ACISS Core WO doesn't.

WE are back to the same problem we have now with Sigs Ops that are in LAN Dets and IS positions that don't get Spec pay and the LCIS in the same positions, doing the same job do.

As Puck Chaser just said, I think you are going to see a lot of remusters and review tabs hit.


----------



## Swingline1984

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> My OT will be the first in the pile if LST gets spec pay along with CST and IST but not Core occupation.



Come on over boys, be happy to have you...beers in the fridge!


----------



## C/S 0

Well, seeing that you may be getting Spec pay you should buy.  Get a bottle of Rye too.


----------



## PuckChaser

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> I think the problem with above is that yes if a CST/LST/IST moves on into a CISTM position then by all means he is doing a tech job and should get tech pay.  However lets say for an example that Sgt ACISS and Sgt IST both get promoted to WO. They both are in charge of Sigs Troops, one with RCDs and one with RCRs.  They are both doing the same job and are the SME to the Sig O and Battalion/Regiment Commander.  Except the IST WO has Spec pay and the ACISS Core WO doesn't.
> 
> WE are back to the same problem we have now with Sigs Ops that are in LAN Dets and IS positions that don't get Spec pay and the LCIS in the same positions, doing the same job do.



C/S 0: I really thought you were just here to sell us the company line earlier, but I definitely agree with your above post and can tell you're concerned (like the rest of us) about how ACISS core will be treated by those of us that don't want to sit behind a computer terminal in an office.

The simple solution to this is Spec 1 for Core and Spec 2 for LST/IST/CST. Without Core gaining spec, there will be absolutely no attraction to have members want to stay in Core. The "faster promotion" gimmick doesn't sell it either, as numerous briefings have told us that CISTMs can move into Core leadership positions if need be. Why bother staying Core if you can just the same jobs a little bit later on but make more money in the process?

Then again, we're gonna be waiting 5 years for Spec Pay to even hit the Treasury Board radar. This might have all crashed and burned by then.


----------



## Occam

Spec 2 is a very exclusive club, and I think you can pretty much forget about any additions to the membership.


----------



## PuckChaser

Solves that problem then.... either give everyone Spec 1, or give it to no one. People will still want to do the Sub Occupations, its the Core trade we're having problems recruiting and retaining for.


----------



## meni0n

Isn't the catch is that people won't have a choice now, being core or one of the sub occupations?


----------



## REDinstaller

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> "As Puck Chaser just said, I think you are going to see a lot of remusters and review tabs hit.



So why wasn't this considered when the whole MES was dreamt up? If all this is going to do is create issues between trades, then we haven't moved forward at all. And the MES was supposedly designed to fix the issues the Army had with the employability of the C&E trades.


----------



## PuckChaser

The good idea train didn't get that far down the track...


----------



## REDinstaller

Then the train should go back to the station until it has somewhere to go.


----------



## Sig_Des

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> 2.  As far as the comdt knows that when a member of the sub-trades are promoted to WO and go back to the Core Trade they keep their Spec Pay.  The Comdt is going to look into it.



I find it interesting that this little tidbit hadn't been brought out until _after_ the ACISS sub-trade selection survey.

From what I remember of the ACISS brief, they were pushing for spec-pay for the entire super-trade. Wonder how many people will now be looking for reassessment now.


----------



## BrandonSharp

I'm just gunna jump in and throw in my  :2c:....



I think that they could easily settle this matter by leaving the ACISS core at base pay and giving LST, CST and IST their appropriate Spec. Pay. At that point, you ARE specializing in a field, which means you should be getting specialist pay.

But like I said, that's just my  :2c:


----------



## REDinstaller

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that this little tidbit hadn't been brought out until _after_ the ACISS sub-trade selection survey.



Funny how this whole process is using hindsight instead of forsight. Its always too late to change your mind once you take the first step off a cliff.


----------



## Occam

It's time for a refresher course on Spec pay.  The article below is stolen from a 2005 edition of "Matelot", a Navy publication - though the policy applies equally to the Army and Air Force.  Any errors in it are probably a result of my converting it from a PDF to a text format...

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, theca 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 forth 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 only25% of the members of an occupation performed a job that scored high enough to achieve Specialist (or Spec) Pay, whether or not the whole occupation would receive Spec 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 Spec Pay Trade Group you were paid Spec Pay, whether you were qualified to do the job or not. The administration of Spec Pay was challenged in the 2003 Chief of Review Services Report on the basis that personnel who were not qualified were in receipt of Spec 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 Spec 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 Spec 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 1Pay 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 Spec 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.

All that to say - ACISS core will likely never qualify for Spec pay.  In my opinion, I personally doubt IST and LST will qualify for it either...as civvie street is not poaching linemen and IT-employed personnel from the CF in large numbers.  My $0.02...


----------



## PuckChaser

Occam, are you in a ACISS trade? Or the Signals branch altogether? Its easy to say "You shouldn't get spec pay." without having done the jobs. I really doubt they're going to let one Sub Occupation get Spec Pay, and 2 others+core not get it. If that happens, why the hell did we amalgamate in the first place?

Spec for everyone, or spec for no one. My  :2c:.


----------



## PiperDown

I think its odd that current Sig Ops are up in arms with the "apparent" announcement that the Core branch will not receive Spec pay.  
I mean, you didn't get spec pay Dec 31.. what magically happened (other than a name change) on Jan 1st?  Did your micro market courses suddenly become national qualifications?    I don't buy the argument that Sig Ops are network admins.   ( last time I checked.... the networks we use in DND are administered in Ottawa, by civilians ! )  and... the network admin band wagon is over saturated on civie street.. those guys are a dime a dozen and are paid as such. (Senior admins are another story.)
 I don't have a hate on for Sig Ops.  There are a lot of outstanding and smart guys in that trade. But, we have to look at the bigger picture and the old trade as a whole... and what the new core occupation will be qualified and required to do.
I think there would be a bigger problem IF the core received the same pay as the sub occupations.    I mean, why would you want to go into a slower moving sub occupation with more training time, less promotions and make the same pay ?   

I think instead of waiting for someone to hand you spec pay at the snap of a finger, those complaining should OT.
I started out as an operator... thought that I knew everything and deserved Spec pay.  So, I put in for an OT.  Went back to CFSCE for 1.5 years ( POET and LCIS 3s then 204 / 208)

I am not a supporter of the MES program in the slightest.  It's a big mess that is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I really doubt they're going to let one Sub Occupation get Spec Pay, and 2 others+core not get it.



Why not ?

Take a look at the AC Op trade. AC Ops who are PAR controllers get spec 1 while the core trade does not.


----------



## jacobite30

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Occam, are you in a ACISS trade? Or the Signals branch altogether? Its easy to say "You shouldn't get spec pay." without having done the jobs. I really doubt they're going to let one Sub Occupation get Spec Pay, and 2 others+core not get it. If that happens, why the hell did we amalgamate in the first place?
> 
> Spec for everyone, or spec for no one. My  :2c:.



If you read further back, the spec pay issue had nothing to do with the re org of the trades.  It was to address manning issues, training shortfalls and overall readiness of the core trade and the sub occs.  Spec pay is in the mix because the LCIS trade brings it with them.  You aren't going to be successful at managing the LCIS / CST trade if you take spec away from them at the WO rank.  The spec 1 Sgt 4th incentive makes more than a standard pay WO 4th incentive.  Unless of course you are trying to reduce the numbers in the LCIS / CST trade then you would be successful.


----------



## REDinstaller

PiperDown said:
			
		

> I think its odd that current Sig Ops are up in arms with the "apparent" announcement that the Core branch will not receive Spec pay.
> I mean, you didn't get spec pay Dec 31.. what magically happened (other than a name change) on Jan 1st?  Did your micro market courses suddenly become national qualifications?    I don't buy the argument that Sig Ops are network admins.   ( last time I checked.... the networks we use in DND are administered in Ottawa, by civilians ! )  and... the network admin band wagon is over saturated on civie street.. those guys are a dime a dozen and are paid as such. (Senior admins are another story.)
> I don't have a hate on for Sig Ops.  There are a lot of outstanding and smart guys in that trade. But, we have to look at the bigger picture and the old trade as a whole... and what the new core occupation will be qualified and required to do.
> I think there would be a bigger problem IF the core received the same pay as the sub occupations.    I mean, why would you want to go into a slower moving sub occupation with more training time, less promotions and make the same pay ?
> 
> I think instead of waiting for someone to hand you spec pay at the snap of a finger, those complaining should OT.
> I started out as an operator... thought that I knew everything and deserved Spec pay.  So, I put in for an OT.  Went back to CFSCE for 1.5 years ( POET and LCIS 3s then 204 / 208)
> 
> I am not a supporter of the MES program in the slightest.  It's a big mess that is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.



I think most of us Techs and the Linemen don't buy into the smoke and mirrors concepts as some of our Operator peers do. Rad Ops were the only Sigs trade that had a hostage retention policy of you can OT out, But we won't let you. ACCIS appears to set the same rule.


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Occam, are you in a ACISS trade? Or the Signals branch altogether? Its easy to say "You shouldn't get spec pay." without having done the jobs. I really doubt they're going to let one Sub Occupation get Spec Pay, and 2 others+core not get it. If that happens, why the hell did we amalgamate in the first place?
> 
> Spec for everyone, or spec for no one. My  :2c:.



I'm not in an ACISS trade, but I am in the C&E Branch and stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!    ;D

I'm smack dab in the middle of a bunch of LCIS techs and Sig Ops (hell, my entire CoC is Sig Ops), and I know their pain.  It's not personal - my belief that ISTs and ACISS core aren't going to get Spec Pay is based on the battle that Nav Comms have been waging for years.  A bunch of one week Microsoft/Cisco/Novell courses does not a specialist make.  The Sig Ops who are overseas supporting deployed networks don't even get local logon privileges on the servers - they're managed back here.  They're relegated to user maintenance in AD, connectivity issues, and blowing the dust out of the fans.  That's not Spec Pay material.

As far as the LSTs go, my guesstimate that they're not going to get Spec Pay either is based on the fact that they weren't getting it before, and the fact that retention hasn't been an issue for them.  The job occasionally calls for a higher level of technical skills, but not on an every day basis.

Hell, if they pare back technical training any more, the CSTs aren't likely to get Spec Pay either!


----------



## PuckChaser

Thanks for the background, Occam.

I personally feel that all of this talk that all Sub Occs will get spec is what is putting the 215s up in arms. If LST and IST don't end up with Spec, I think its completely fair that Core doesn't get spec. From the training I saw recent RC(S) helpdesk pers get, then getting spec just makes no sense. Its the MES machine that's fueling the in-fighting, by either not answering questions, or giving information like "All sub occs will get spec". If the whole goal was retention for the SigOp and LCIS trade, they're really screwing it up by not giving a financial incentive.

Tango: What smoke and mirrors? It sounds like you have a personal hate for Operators that want the same piece of the pie 227s have been enjoying for a few years. You get spec for POET. POET was great when radios and equipment was built with tubes, but you don't need 15 months of electronics training to change a card in a radio. The 052s want it as well. Won't be special anymore if everyone gets spec 1, will you?


----------



## emmsmama

Something I don't understand right now is hubby went in for LCIS, finished BMQ last year and we knew the amalgamation was coming, but my understanding is that LCIS was undermanned, so why are they having him sit for 6+ mths. in Kingston doing nothing.  I'd think they'd want to push him through quicker since he is LCIS (CST with the amalgamtion now according to my understanding).  I'm not going to sit and gripe about it, but I'd think they'd want to get the people who are subspecializing in CST through first.  I'm just the wife at home though, so I'm not up on all the acronymns and logistics and everything, just trying to think logically about it all.  I know there are a lot of people that have been sitting in Kingston for quite some time, but there are quite a few people who he graduated with that are getting all their training dates and he's just been told there is absolutely nothing going on for him for the next 6+ months.


----------



## Occam

The MES Machine can promise Spec Pay across the board until the cows come home, but as you can see from the article that I posted, the decision ultimately is not in their hands.  Treasury Board will crunch the numbers according to the procedure, and it may fly or it may not, or it may fly for some and not others.  The Nav Comms (Naval Communicators, also the ship's IS Administrators) have been shot down twice for Spec Pay now in recent memory.  If I'm not mistaken, there has to be a certain time period between attempts, so if the Army is going to try to get Spec Pay for ACISS & subtrades, they'd better have their sales pitch slicker than snot with numbers which will make the grade using the TB formula.


----------



## REDinstaller

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Tango: What smoke and mirrors? It sounds like you have a personal hate for Operators that want the same piece of the pie 227s have been enjoying for a few years. You get spec for POET. POET was great when radios and equipment was built with tubes, but you don't need 15 months of electronics training to change a card in a radio. The 052s want it as well. Won't be special anymore if everyone gets spec 1, will you?



I hate to disappoint you, but i don't have a hate on for the individual operators. I do have issues with a trade that thinks they are all that and a bag of chips within our branch. We are all equals, ands its about time that the Sig Op Trade makes this realization. POET is still relevant, but I guess you must be under the impression that all we repair is 522s. The Linemen are welcome to spec pay, they understand what hoops they have to jump through to gain it. And they know exactly why their bid failed on their last attempt.


----------



## PiperDown

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> POET was great when radios and equipment was built with tubes, but you don't need 15 months of electronics training to change a card in a radio. The 052s want it as well. Won't be special anymore if everyone gets spec 1, will you?



I cannot tell you how many times in my career I have been handed a piece of kit to figure out/administer/troubleshoot/fix.  The skills and troubleshooting methodology learned in POET are called upon CONSTANTLY.  

I have to tell you, I also HATE the "change cards in a radio" definition of LCIS techs.  Well, I guess Operators don't deserve Spec Pay for making coffee in a CP either. 

I realize that the spec pay issue is the hottest topic in the MES and it gets us all a little hot under the collar. But at the end of the day its not anyone in the branches decision.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm not going to get into a huge pissing match over who has the harder job. We all have specialities, but POET isn't an absolute must. I cannot count how many times I've been handed a piece of kit that's either mine or someone elses, and told to fix it. I didn't need POET to figure it out, just a little common sense and the ability to logically look at a problem. POET would have let me use some neat machines to figure it out, but that takes too much time, things need to be fixed yesterday.

Tango: Its a shame you've drawn all the jaded, lazy operators to work with over your career. I can assure you they're not all like that, at least not the ones I supervise. I do think its funny you say that we're all equals, yet you state that its just the Operators causing the problem. Issues normally have two sides, I bet there's another you're not seeing.

Just to note, I make a damn good cup of coffee, that maybe some take a little for granted in the field. However, if I wanted to be a coffee specialist, I'd work at Starbucks. There's far more to my job than that, as there is to technicians just fixing the magic green boxes that talk.


----------



## chrisf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get into a huge pissing match over who has the harder job. We all have specialities, but POET isn't an absolute must. I cannot count how many times I've been handed a piece of kit that's either mine or someone elses, and told to fix it. I didn't need POET to figure it out, just a little common sense and the ability to logically look at a problem. POET would have let me use some neat machines to figure it out, but that takes too much time, things need to be fixed yesterday.



So are you saying because you occasionally fix somthing minor that justifies spec pay? Or are you saying you think that's what LCIS techs do? Because either way, I hate to be the one to point it out, but it sounds a lot like infanteers who claim they're just as good or better than sig ops after they do an ATCIS course, or they know everything a sup tech knows and more after they do a combat storesman course.

Speaking as somone who's trained as an operator via the CF, and has electrical/electronics training civi side, if it's a problem you need "neat machines" for, it's not going to be fixed yesterday, no matter what you do, that's why most field repairs of kit are limited to "replace and remove for second line repair". 

A tinfoil, bubble gum, and duct-tape fix is not full repair.


----------



## PuckChaser

I was using it as a reference that POET isn't the end all and be all of how to troubleshoot.


----------



## chrisf

In a couple of hours, I can take anyone and teach them enough theory and give them enough hands on training to troubleshoot, and make quick dirty field repairs. 

There's a huge leap from field expedient repairs to what LCIS techs do.

Actually, the fact that sig ops aren't trained/allowed to do minor field repairs such as soldering is a mistake on the part of the army.


----------



## REDinstaller

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Tango: Its a shame you've drawn all the jaded, lazy operators to work with over your career. I can assure you they're not all like that, at least not the ones I supervise. I do think its funny you say that we're all equals, yet you state that its just the Operators causing the problem. Issues normally have two sides, I bet there's another you're not seeing.
> 
> There's far more to my job than that, as there is to technicians just fixing the magic green boxes that talk.



I'm sure that Beadwindow 7 would take exception to your comment. I have worked with some great operators over my many years. As for the equality, spend a bit more time in our branch and open your eyes. I have been a tech for 18 yrs was an Op for 3. So I have seen first hand both sides of the fence. The big issue right now is that my pay is still the same, the issue for the Ops is that the empty promise with money attached to it can't be deposited in the bank. And remember not all of the boxes you use are green, but they are supported by a tech, and the infrastructure that connects them is installed by a linemen or a tech.


----------



## Jammer

I'll weigh in here with the latest statement from the ivory tower that is CFSCE HQ.

CST Spec Pay no change

LST Spec Pay...being fought for...it could take up to 12 months to get a decision

IST Spec Pay....still being defined...24-36 months...not looking likely 

ACCIS Core Spec Pay... no chance.

Keep in mind folks the ARMY/DND does not abitrarily dole our spec pay on a whim. 

It is the Treasury Board that gets the FINAL say based on justification from DND at all levels IAW what a comparitive job either performed within the public service or the private sector are compensated for.

You, me, or anyone else here cannot and won't be able to influence that process in the slightest. In short, if you believe you or your trade deserve Spec Pay, staff it up thru the CoC with all your relavent documents, crse reports, crayon drawings or whatever in care of DSigs or the CFCCO and best of luck to you.

Don't complain too much though, I think that the 74 students that started ACCIS DP-1 Core last week who were originally recruited as LMN or LCIS six months ago and now are being told they have to compete for those jobs AFTER they are posted to units that supposedly are going to rotate them through the various shops (yeah, like THATS going to happen), to see who has the aptitude to perform in the trade/sub-occupation on DP1.1 which they had originally selected many months prior 2011 have a legit gripe that trumps anything in this thread.
Just a thought though.


----------



## REDinstaller

And ultimately, those candidates are the first to be disadvantaged by this new strategy. When the time comes for resigning, i am willing to bet that over 50 percent will become civilians again. Just due to the uncertain future they will be experiencing as the first few.


----------



## C/S 0

I was at the same brief as Jammer. 

I went and saw the three wisemen yesterday to confirm.  It is their plan that these students be loaded on the DP 1.1 courses IAW what they joined as.  So those that joined as LCIS will be loaded on CST, those that joined as linemen will be loaded on LST and those that are Sig Ops after their DP1 will be posted to their units.  Furthermore for the wantabe CSTs LSTs about 18 of them wont leave CFSCE but be loaded on 1.1 rightway and the others will also be posted but brought back to do their 1.1s.

So any young soldiers on their ACISS course that were in that brief, don't panic.


----------



## meni0n

Recruting offices are still enrolling people as Sig ops, LCIS etc, what will happen with those people given that they are being enrolled in the old trades after Jan 1.


----------



## C/S 0

I must admit that when I heard that we all mite not get spec pay I was a little ticked off.  I thought of maybe submitting a memo to go from ACISS Core to IST.  Then I though about it - how much do I really know about servers, routers,switches, networkgates with the career path I had have.  I know their are Ex Sig Ops that have all those quals and deserve their IST position and spec pay.  I also thought I have at least 7 to 12 years left if I want to go 20 to 25, do I want to be a IST computer guy when I'm more of a operator/field type guy.

So I'm ACISS Core, I'm going to stay the course and hope for the best.  And I hope that everybody eventually gets Spec Pay.


----------



## Sigger

It will be interesting to see what they do to me when I re-enroll.. QL3 SigOp trained.

The recruiters still recruit for SigOp, Lineman or LCIS. I inquired as to why, and they said it is because they have not been given orders to mention ACCIS, just to mention the trades are changing.. Their CoC have not decided on how to go about recruiting for ACCIS yet.


----------



## Danke

meni0n said:
			
		

> Recruting offices are still enrolling people as Sig ops, LCIS etc, what will happen with those people given that they are being enrolled in the old trades after Jan 1.



I asked the recruiter on Tuesday, since he hadn't mentioned it when I first went there. He told me that, depending on the timing, I'd either be put into ACISS directly, or into one of the trades and then into ACISS.

On a related note, handing in my application later today.


----------



## Sigger

Danke said:
			
		

> I asked the recruiter on Tuesday, since he hadn't mentioned it when I first went there. He told me that, depending on the timing, I'd either be put into ACISS directly, or into one of the trades and then into ACISS.


Interesting.. This is the second inconsistent situation I have heard of with my recruiters in one week.



			
				Danke said:
			
		

> On a related note, handing in my application later today.


Good


----------



## Jammer

The Branch has done less than a stellar job of getting the word out about ACCIS to the recruiting centers.


----------



## PuckChaser

Sigger said:
			
		

> Their CoC have not decided on how to go about recruiting for ACCIS yet.



They couldn't figure out how to recruit for SigOp in the first place, that's why we're in this mess. If SigOp and LCIS weren't constant Red Trades, we wouldn't have the good idea train running on how to fix it, which created MES.


----------



## Occam

What I would do if I were you?

Tell them you enrolled as an LCIS Tech, and to honour the terms under which you enrolled.  If they can't do that, and it appears that you're going to be employed as a PAT for a ridiculous period of time and not be able to move your family to your current location, they should be offering you ATIS Tech or something like that.  They should never have dicked around people who had no idea what they were getting into.


----------



## Old and Tired

And this is large part of the reason we are where we are in the C & E Branch in general and Army Sigs more specifically.  We treat people like and they are as expendable as D Cell batteries.  From what I gather in the very limited information that I`ve been able to get about the ACISS process, it`s only going to get worse.  No one that I`ve spoken with is willing to talk about the underlying problems we have.

I think we will see a spike in VOT`s and or RV`s as this sorts it`s self out.  They are a large number of people that are in Kingston right now who have been waiting for training in the trade they signed for, and now that trade doesn`t exist anymore.  Some of these people are going to be spending up to a year (if not more) waiting on a course for which they may or may not be what they wanted/signed for.  How much is this going to affect their out look on the CF.

I'm still trying to keep an open mind but it's becoming more difficult.  I'm in St-Jean on ILQ right now and their are a couple of folks from Ottawa in the Sigs world and they haven't got any better an idea of what is going to happen over the medium to long term.

For me it doesn't matter.  I wanted to be TAC RAD guy from day one.  I to old and stupid to move into any of the sub-specialities so I'm Happy that I'm ACISS Core, but for the young troops coming in who thought they would be LCIS or line it's going to be a whole lot different.  I don't know that they are going to stay around that long.

my :2c: from the peanut gallery.


----------



## REDinstaller

I can't agree more. The CMs have even less of a clue about how the fallout is going to affect the trades. I just wanted to keep being a tech without all the BS of being amalgamated. This is my second one now, and the most bitter. Rad Tech to LCIS Tech, now to CST and then CISTM shortly.


----------



## Lare

As one who may be entering as a Sig Op, I haven't really seen a large amount of complaints regarding the Sig's. For a fresh recruit, who is expecting ACISS core, will this new training system have any frustrations attached? From what I'm reading here it seems as though it will remain the same, except that we will be taking a little more varied DP1. Will there be a huge wait on PAT as now 3 trades, previously with their own course, are now bottle-necked into one? 

As an aside, I sincerely hope the recruiting centres get some information quick for the LCIS/Linemen. I would hate to think of the guy applying for either of those trades now, without knowing about this site. Same situation as those who applied before all of this amalgamation stuff came to light though I guess.


----------



## PuckChaser

Line will be closed to recruiting for quite sometime I bet, it's always been a very healthy trade.

As a new recruit into ACISS, you won't see anything, its just very different for us that are already a decade or more into the C&E Branch.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

Maybe someone here has an answer on this...

Right now I am the 2IC of a TE Section...(Base Phone switch and DSL Installs) LCIS Tech....I think I still am...I applied for IST as all my college and military training up till this point is IS centric.
If I become an IST tech, will I be posted out of this position to be employed properly as an IST tech somewhere? We have been told LST will take over the base phone switches...which makes sense to me.


----------



## Occam

BigDaddyFatback said:
			
		

> If I become an IST tech, will I be posted out of this position to be employed properly as an IST tech somewhere? We have been told LST will take over the base phone switches...which makes sense to me.



Since that solution is logical and makes sense, and is an effective use of human resources, the answer is most undoubtably and unequivocally no.    ;D


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

But what if what you said made sense......Oh man we are stuck in a logic loop....


----------



## C/S 0

Today at CFSCE the two new ACISS Courses, Sig QL3s and Sig Op QL5s and a LCIS crse were brief by the MES Manager MWO Buffett on ACISS.

Interesting Points
1. The date we official beome ACISS is actually 1 Apr 11
2. Recruting Centers are still recruting Sig Ops, Linemen and LCIS until 1 Apr when the new trade stands up.
3. Spec pay has gone to treasure board for the hold trade - EVERYBODY.
4. Anybody who was recruited as LCIS, Linemen The MES team will honour their choice and fast track them through DP1, DP1.1 and DP2.0
5. Lateral movement across the core and sub occups possible. If you have the quals and interest you can move across the trades esp at rank of Pte to Cpl.  For Mcpls that want to change they will drop their rank BUT KEEP THIER PAY while doing the courses and quals required.
6. All new DP1s will be posted to Bde Sigs Sqns with a small minority posted to JSR.
7. The MES project is developing DL packages on DND learn that ACISS pers can take to help them move laterally across the board.  IE if we have 33 positions avaliable for IST and say 48 pers apply for OT the most qual 33 pers will be taken.  The others that did not get the OT can still apply again and the MES managers will brief those pers on why they were not picked and what course, quals they need to get.


----------



## REDinstaller

Worst April's Fools joke ever. :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser

C/S 0: Thanks for the up to date information.

Anyone else find it hilarious they've moved ACISS stand up another 4 months to the right? We're we supposed to be stood up a year ago and DP1 courses started last summer? The good idea train has something on the tracks slowing it down called common sense.


----------



## C/S 0

Here is the DWAN link for the Official Site for ACISS

http://aws.kingston.mil.ca/Projects/ACISS/Communication/ACISS%20Structure%20Overview1/Home.aspx

On here are the survey results for who is what
Also a FAQ Page
And contact emails ref questions on ACISS.  You will not get a reply but each week they take the questions and put them on the FAQ.


----------



## FiZZiKaL

As myself being one of the people whom got this briefing was absolutely outraged that they were doing this to us. A little bit of information I was recruited as an LCIS Tech and have completed my POET which was a requirement to QL3's prior to the big change. So what their idea of the new training system is all trades get the ACISS common course DP1. Then you are posted to a unit doing technically what a sig op does and in their terms was, "Drive the truck, man the radio". Untill you are 5's qualified which then you are put into a subcategory(LST, CST and IST) Generally the one matching your trade because it saves their behind from offering you a voluntary occupational reassignment. Now obviously being poet qualified and along with other people the question was asked, what does this mean for us? Basically he said that you would be lined up right after to take your DP1.1 course. Which still yet has nothing to do with the trade i chose and won't happen until I'm finished DP2 and DP2.1 CST from what I understand. So basically I've wasted 6+ months completing the POET course to be for the lack of better terms 'screwed'. So now a year here being in the kingston training system I have accomplished no further training towards the trade I chose and may not see the light at the end of the tunnel for the next 3 years while they sort all this out. Also from what he said after DP1.0 apparently for the new people recruited their will be a 6-18 month wait for the DP1.1 course i believe, which is a 25 training day course.

So I sit here and ask myself, What the heck am I doing here? I will technically drive the truck and man the radio as they said today leaving Kingston once my DP1 is complete and a useless POET certificate. I really don't see how their change is improving anything or making things easier for the sigs. As the MES Managers said we will be back logged for the next 2-3 years.


----------



## C/S 0

Hello FIZZiKal 

I think you have misunderstood what was being said in the brief

First
"So basically I've wasted 6+ months completing the POET course to be for the lack of better terms 'screwed'."  You are actually ahead because to be a CIS (old LCIS) you still need to do POET or what ever the new name of POET is.  After your DP1 you will be fast tracked to DP1.1 which is the beginning of the career path for you. 

Second
"Then you are posted to a unit doing technically what a sig op does and in their terms was, "Drive the truck, man the radio".   The CCO said that everybody is posted to their unit right after DP1, however the first 12 DP1.1 for CIS and LST will be brought back for 1.1 CIS and LST.  And then the next course and then the next course, etc.  Would you rather stay in CFSCE in PAT Platoon.

Third
If you are slated to be CIS the chances - seeing the MES Manger said they will honour your choice for CIS - when you get to your unit you will be put in a LCIS?CST position.

Fourth
"Even more individuals who walk through the door and promise them pipe dreams and just get them in to fix their sig op problems". This is the ironic thing - with ACISS right now we have actually have lessen the numbers of what were Sig Ops (ACISS CORE) by creating the IST sub occ.  

Fifth
" know its bitter and I haven't experienced anything outside the training system yet but I'm sure the ones with experience can sort of understand where I am coming from."  The Field Force is totally different then CFSCE.

Sixth
"for the DP1.1 course i believe, which is a 25 training day course. ' I believe the MES Manager and the CCO were talking about the DP2.0.

However once you do the common 2.0 then you will do the CIS 2.1 course.  It's the same as it is now.  LCIS techs don't get Spec pay till they are QL5 qual which is what the 2.0/2.1 level is now under ACISS.


----------



## FiZZiKaL

It's CST and technically DP1.1 is not specific to the CST sub-occ. So yes you will fill the role of a sig-op till you are CST 2.0 and 2.1 qualified 2+ years down the road.

edit: to add to that if you noticed on the diagram with ranks and the sub-occ chart.. Untill corporal you are ACISS op. He said that us LCIS would be pushed through. Yes I, understand that but there is no definite answer when you will be able  to complete the DP2/2.1 CST training to become what we wanted. Yes we technically will be pushed through to do the DP1.1 but that does not make us CST.


----------



## C/S 0

Well think of it this way, CST begins at 1.1 while ACISS Op is DP1.  There is no ACISS Op 1.1.  In the Trade Diagram everybody starts at DP1, to the left side ACISS Op Core goes up to DP 2.0.  Then there are three pipes to the right that are the Sub Ocps - CST, IST, LST.  So you begin to get your speicalist training that those in the core training do not.

Who do you think are going to fill the IST and CST Pte positions in the HQ and Sig Sqns and CFJSR - ACISS Core or guys that have the 1.1 qual?


----------



## FiZZiKaL

Yes you are correct. That makes complete sense but you still fill the boots of a Signal Operator untill DP 2.1 CST/IST/LST whatever you choose to be. As the MES Manager described it. I hope it works for the best. Although I, guess nobody likes changes to a working system. That is where all the bitterness comes in. Specially when you are told one thing and you set your mind on that and then they change your career plan and set you up it on a detour.


----------



## C/S 0

Change is something that is going to blow your mind.  I have been a Reserve Radio-Teletype Operator 215, then in the Regular Force a Radio Operator 211 and then a Signals Operator 214 and now a ACISS Operator.

When I first joined we had analog radios that were voice and low data with a LTACS System that used low grade micro wave signals to extend telephone systems by Radio Relay.  Long range communications were by HF and you had to cut the antenna to the freq you were using.  With VHF not everything was encrypted and you could only speak for about 30 secs.

Now we have Digital Radios that pass both voice and data that hops freqs and is encrypted.  Instead of HF for Long Range now we have SAT Comms and instead of LTACS extending local Teelphone networks we have HCLOS that extends LAN Information Systems for data.

In the command post we had maps on boards and we used markers to draw on the map where everybody is.  Now we have Battleview and SAM/SAS which updates your position every few minutes on the 50 inch screen TV in the TOC.  We use to use map and compass to nav now we have GPS with build in waypoints to nav.

Just wait for twenty years down the road when you are a WO/MWO and the changes you are going to see.


----------



## C/S 0

And everybody in the Troop had to wait their turn to use something call a 'Typewriter' to do their weekend leave pass.


----------



## PuckChaser

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> There is no ACISS Op 1.1.



This is a MAJOR flaw in the MES plan. As it is, you have pers needing max supevision in a rad det. Now you're keeping them in the Core trade and not training them up to the standard of a current SigOp.


----------



## C/S 0

"This is a MAJOR flaw in the MES plan. As it is, you have pers needing max supevision in a rad det. Now you're keeping them in the Core trade and not training them up to the standard of a current SigOp."

This is how I think it is suppose to work.  In The MES brief they called the DP 2.0 Crse a Det 2IC Crse.  Right now the QL5 is a Det Comdrs Crse.  There is no ACISS Core 1.1 but after 2.0 there is a ACISS Core 2.1 IIRC is along the lines of the old FCC crse.  They are calling the Det Comdrs qual the PLQ.

Although they are calling the DP 2.0 Crse a 2IC crse for my part when journeymen show up to do this crse at CFSCE they are still going to be in command of a Det with 2 x apprentices.

What I got from the brief is they were stressing the new DL courses that they are developing for ACISS that Ptes/Cpls can do on DND learn.  Also the OSQs such as NCISS, HCLOS, EPERS, etc.

If this is going to work I think the chain of command is going to have to buy into letting their people have the time to go on OSQs and doing DL.


----------



## Rheostatic

Just saw the new CFSCE Calendar. On the reserve side, are QL3 mod 1 & 2 structured the same way as the DP1 mods? 

Specifically, is a member who has completed  the old mod 1 eligible for the new mod 2?


----------



## Cobrajr

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> 4. Anybody who was recruited as LCIS, Linemen The MES team will honour their choice and fast track them through DP1, DP1.1 and DP2.0



I joined as an LCIS Tech back in August 2008 on the Subsidized Education Entry Plan. I have been in school taking Electrical Engineering Technology since then, I am in my last year now. Each summer I have done OJT at 3ASG sigs, so I have had time to work as an LCIS for a while and love it, I do not want to lose it :/

Do you know if this fast track program apply to me?


----------



## C/S 0

Hello Cobrajr

I don't know how it would work for as being part of the Sub Edu Entry Plan.  Your best bet is to email the MES Manager on the link above and ask him if will have to do DP1.0, etc.

Hello Rheostatic
Yes the reserves will fall under the same Dp1 and DP2 quals like the Regular Force.  The only difference is that for the res some of the PO's you won't get like SAM/SAS.


----------



## Jammer

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> Change is something that is going to blow your mind.  I have been a Reserve Radio-Teletype Operator 215, then in the Regular Force a Radio Operator 211 and then a Signals Operator 214 and now a ACISS Operator.
> 
> When I first joined we had analog radios that were voice and low data with a LTACS System that used low grade micro wave signals to extend telephone systems by Radio Relay.  Long range communications were by HF and you had to cut the antenna to the freq you were using.  With VHF not everything was encrypted and you could only speak for about 30 secs.
> 
> Now we have Digital Radios that pass both voice and data that hops freqs and is encrypted.  Instead of HF for Long Range now we have SAT Comms and instead of LTACS extending local Teelphone networks we have HCLOS that extends LAN Information Systems for data.
> 
> In the command post we had maps on boards and we used markers to draw on the map where everybody is.  Now we have Battleview and SAM/SAS which updates your position every few minutes on the 50 inch screen TV in the TOC.  We use to use map and compass to nav now we have GPS with build in waypoints to nav.
> 
> Just wait for twenty years down the road when you are a WO/MWO and the changes you are going to see.



Satcom is great as long as the birds are there. GPS is great as long as the birds are there. SAM/SAS is great as long as the bandwidth is available to quickly and accurately update your OSPR. In Afghanistan it took up to 20mins to poll from my veh to the TOC, by which time i had already travelled as much as 5 km. Nothing beats "locstat xxxxxxxx moving west along xxxxx". 

HF will always work, you can pass data through it, encrypt it, and nobody turns off the RF spectrum. It's a waning skillset that is slowly making it's way back into relavence. Stay tuned on that one. MTF.

The Comm Rsch folks are also relearning an old lesson. Morse Code is soon going to be re-introduced into thier trade. Everything old is new again.
Technology is great, but as anyone knows it will collapse on you at the most critical time. If a soldier cannot fall back on some basic skills, the fight will be lost.


----------



## George Wallace

Jammer said:
			
		

> Technology is great, but as anyone knows it will collapse on you at the most critical time. If a soldier cannot fall back on some basic skills, the fight will be lost.



Been there.  Murphy's Law seems to pick the most inopportune times to come into effect.


----------



## Jammer

...yeah like when the helo is supposed to come in and lift you back for HLTA...oh sorry, it broke you have to take an ass puckering CLP instead...wait, the truck is overheating and you have to overnight at a FOB....wait, the Herc broke in Mirage and your going to be delayed...


----------



## C/S 0

Two skill sets seem to be dying in the CF: HF Comms and Winter Warfare.


----------



## REDinstaller

There is presently a resurgance for Winter Warfare in the West. And HF Comms experience seems to be only with the old Rad Ops, and not so much the new Sig Ops.


----------



## aesop081

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> Two skill sets seem to be dying in the CF: HF Comms and Winter Warfare.



HF may be dying in the *army*...............not so everywhere else.


----------



## REDinstaller

I don't think the Navy or Air Force are using field expedient antennas, might be a bit rough changing freqs in flight if you did.


----------



## aesop081

Tango18A said:
			
		

> I don't think the Navy or Air Force are using field expedient antennas, might be a bit rough changing freqs in flight if you did.



Yeah, i would need way better safety gear.


----------



## Brasidas

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yeah, i would need way better safety gear.



A fall-arrest system?


----------



## REDinstaller

The monkey tail would be very long. It would make a good practical joke on the ground crew though. >


----------



## Rheostatic

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> Yes the reserves will fall under the same Dp1 and DP2 quals like the Regular Force.  The only difference is that for the res some of the PO's you won't get like SAM/SAS.


That's not what I'm asking about. I understand that the res and reg courses are equivalent, but are the old and new mods equivalent?

The reserve QL3 was delivered in 2 mods since a couple years ago, and it looks like that will be the case for the reserve DP1 as well. There are members who have only completed the first half of QL3.

I have seen a chart floating around illustrating the planned reserve DP1 career progression and it mentions that those who have completed only QL3 mod 1 will have to do a "28-day ACISS(-)" course (I don't know the source of the chart). I'm wondering if these 28 days are in lieu of a mod 2, or an added prerequisite.


----------



## PuckChaser

The new ACISS DP1 Res will not be equivalent to the Reg DP1 ACISS. I don't think they'll be making you guys redo both mods, but wierder things have happened. It'll come down to a PLAR for the POs you've already completed.


----------



## GrilledLincoln

This may have been answered but I can't seem to find it after using the search feature.  I'm a reservist currently waiting my summer training in Kingston and was wondering if anyone know's how long the ACISS DP 1 is going to be and if they are breaking into mods?  And if the schedule is allowing for both those mods to be done in one summer? I understand that ACISS is still a working progress and this information may still be up in the air like the rest of the program any help would be appreciated.


----------



## PuckChaser

2 summers, 1 mod each summer as it stands right now.


----------



## Brasidas

So I finally got hold of that briefing powerpoint off of the sharepoint site. These questions concern the sig op trade or ACISS core sub-occupation or whathaveyou.

I'm familiar with the QL/2, 3, 5, 6A sequence.  I've got a rough grasp of the DP1-DP2 sequence.

DP1 includes recruit school, an initial trades course, and OJT. Like QL/2 or BMQ+SQ through QL/3 and QL/4 for those trades that had an OJT QL/4.

DP2 would include my 5's, PLQ, and some time as an acting det commander.

DP3A is... what? Assignment as a det commander I got. But DP3A common ACISS training?

DP3B I'd expect to include the Sig Op 6A's.

So what extra checks in the box does this ask for a Sig Op who's got his 5's and PLQ right now?


----------



## GrilledLincoln

Thanks PuckChaser, are both mods 2 months? and are we able to do them both in a summer? (for reservists)


----------



## PuckChaser

I believe they are 8 weeks each, but the firm numbers haven't come out yet. I aws just told it was 2 summers, one mod each summer.


----------



## Swingline1984

Brasidas said:
			
		

> DP1 includes recruit school, an initial trades course, and OJT. Like QL/2 or BMQ+SQ through QL/3 and QL/4 for those trades that had an OJT QL/4.



DP 1.0 is the common point of entry it is the equivalent to a QL3.  All driver wheel and SQ etc will be done prior to entering the DP 1.0 course.  The DP 1.0 qualified ACISS will proceed to a HQ & Sigs (some special few to CFJSR) for OJT and intro to the sub-occupations.  Those interested/chosen can then proceed on DP 1.1 or basic sub-occupation training (not common but sub-occ specific) to become a "Specialist".



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> DP2 would include my 5's, PLQ, and some time as an acting det commander.



DP 2.0 is the common QL 5 equivalent for ACCIS; all ACCIS core and sub-occupations will have to do this course.  DP 2.1 (not common but occupation specific) for the sub-occupations is their Journeyman's training and is required to become a "Technologist", they will also have to do a PLQ (L) to be promoted MCpl.  The PLQ (L) is considered to be the DP 2.1 for ACISS core. 



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> DP3A is... what? Assignment as a det commander I got. But DP3A common ACISS training?
> DP3B I'd expect to include the Sig Op 6A's.



DP 3.0 is common ACISS 6As/Bs.  DP 3.1 is (not common but occupation specific) 6As/Bs.  Then normal progression ILQ, ALQ and CQ.

I've heard talk of a potential common 4.0 and 4.1 with similarities to the Army Sig Planners (ASP) course but they haven't sat the writing boards yet.



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> So what extra checks in the box does this ask for a Sig Op who's got his 5's and PLQ right now?



DP 3.0 and 3.1 whatever comes after that (if anything) and then normal Army qual's

There is a bunch of DL thrown in the mix as well.

Oh ya...there is a CISTM course in there somewhere too.  Lots of school ahead for Army Sigs.

**Note:  I'm a bit waffly on the 4's stuff so don't quote me.


----------



## Sig_Des

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> The PLQ (L) is considered to be the DP 2.1 for ACISS core.



Pretty good except for this point. There will be an ACISS core DP 2.1, basically a updated FC course, for managing voice and data radio networks.

PLQ (L) remains a career course, rather than a trade course.


----------



## Swingline1984

Ack.  Never got that from the most recent brief by the School.  Was a bit of a snore so I might have missed that part.


----------



## Sig_Des

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Ack.  Never got that from the most recent brief by the School.  Was a bit of a snore so I might have missed that part.



I don't think it's been to widely talked about it. I'm only familiar with it because I was on the writing board


----------



## Mojo Magnum

I know it's an impossible question, but your chances of winning the lottery are better if you buy a ticket......   Eta on treasury board decision?   Anyone?  Beuller?


----------



## PuckChaser

Numbers thrown around for TB decisions is 2-3 years. RUMINT says they can auth backpay to all pers gaining spec 1 if the decision is favourable since we applied before trade stand up.


----------



## REDinstaller

They can authorize back pay, BUT then the Army has to pony up the dough. Good luck with that.


----------



## Rheostatic

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The new ACISS DP1 Res will not be equivalent to the Reg DP1 ACISS. I don't think they'll be making you guys redo both mods, but wierder things have happened. It'll come down to a PLAR for the POs you've already completed.


Got an answer the old-fashioned way; if anyone's interested, this summmer they'll run QL3 Mod 2 for the last time, as well as DP1 Mod 1. Makes sense, but the draft calendar had me concerned.


----------



## jacobite30

Ahh, the results of the new training.  My bold prediction.


----------



## GrilledLincoln

Just got the reservist course schedule from my CoC last night and I've got my name in for DP1 9 May- 8 July than a DP2 Distance Learning from 13 July- 22 July and my residency DP2 27 July - 19 August hopefully another tasking to follow my DP2


----------



## Rheostatic

GrilledLincoln said:
			
		

> Just got the reservist course schedule from my CoC last night and I've got my name in for DP1 9 May- 8 July than a DP2 Distance Learning from 13 July- 22 July and my residency DP2 27 July - 19 August hopefully another tasking to follow my DP2


An ambitious plan, but "DP1 9 May- 8 July" is only mod 1 (the first half of DP1). You need to do DP1 mod 2 before DP2, and it's not on the calendar yet. Or request a reg DP1 (but I'm guessing you're a student and those dates probably won't work for you).

I suggest looking for other courses/tasks for after 8 Jul.


----------



## Brasidas

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> An ambitious plan, but "DP1 9 May- 8 July" is only mod 1 (the first half of DP1). You need to do DP1 mod 2 before DP2, and it's not on the calendar yet. Or request a reg DP1 (but I'm guessing you're a student and those dates probably won't work for you).
> 
> I suggest looking for other courses/tasks for after 8 Jul.



There has been a four-month QL3 mods 1&2 course running for the reserves for the last four summers. I don't see why the reserve wouldn't be running such a beast for DP1 this summer.

I'd suggest that buddy keep an eye out and pounce on it if his availability is May-August, and his training NCO should be able to find it when its announced and get him loaded.


----------



## Rheostatic

Brasidas said:
			
		

> There has been a four-month QL3 mods 1&2 course running for the reserves for the last four summers. I don't see why the reserve wouldn't be running such a beast for DP1 this summer.


That has been true in the past and I hope that will be available in the future. But apparently they're running the new DP1 mod 1 (from the CFSCE calendar) and the old QL3 mod 2 (from my CoC) this summer. Seems like it would take a lot of resources to run the old and new courses complete. 

Anyway I won't speculate beyond the few bits of info I have, since there are people on this forum with better info than I (though they haven't had much to say on the reserve side).



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that buddy keep an eye out and pounce on it if his availability is May-August, and his training NCO should be able to find it when its announced and get him loaded.


Also good advice.


----------



## GrilledLincoln

Rheostatic, I'm actually not a student and I have applied for Reg Force DP1 courses and they all came back with a big ol no.  We are no longer allowed to put names forward for those courses.  My plan is ambitous but when they put the Calender out there was only DP1 didn't mention anything about mod 1 or mod 2 and if they were running it in two mod's why would they run DP2 at all this summer? nobody will be qualified to take it since everyone taking DP1 would have to do a second mod and those who did QL3 mod 1 are able to take QL3 Mod 2 for the last time this summer it wouldn't mak any sense to run DP2 until 2012, this is purely speculation.


----------



## Brasidas

GrilledLincoln said:
			
		

> Rheostatic, I'm actually not a student and I have applied for Reg Force DP1 courses and they all came back with a big ol no.  We are no longer allowed to put names forward for those courses.  My plan is ambitous but when they put the Calender out there was only DP1 didn't mention anything about mod 1 or mod 2 and if they were running it in two mod's why would they run DP2 at all this summer? nobody will be qualified to take it since everyone taking DP1 would have to do a second mod and those who did QL3 mod 1 are able to take QL3 Mod 2 for the last time this summer it wouldn't mak any sense to run DP2 until 2012, this is purely speculation.



They'd run a DP2 for those who've already picked up QL3. QL3 is an equivalent to DP1, and there's a large number of folks in line for their next course.


----------



## chillytech

Hi everyone,

I'm currently in my ninth week of BMQ and I've been monitoring this thread with a lot of interest. My application for LCIS technician was completed in March 2010 without any problems. 

My current understanding is that from here I will attend BMQ(Land), Driver Course, and then QL3 training. At this point I will be an ACISS, which is a trade that combines elements of the sig ops, lineman and LCIS tech trades. I would then spend time doing this until eventually specializing into the LCIS equivelant sub trade. 

If my understanding thus far is correct then that means I won't necessarily be doing what I applied for until taking the sub trade training probably 2-3 years from now. 

Is my understanding somewhat reasonable? I'm really looking to be employed in as heavy a tech trade as I can. A big thanks for all of the knowledge shared so far!


----------



## PuckChaser

I didn't think LCIS had to do a drivers course. Otherwise you're pretty much on the mark from the info we've all gotten.


----------



## GrilledLincoln

LCIS might have to take the Driver Wheel now since they are trained to do the basic work of a Sig Op and Lineman.


----------



## Baywop

chillytech said:
			
		

> Hi everyone,
> 
> If my understanding thus far is correct then that means I won't necessarily be doing what I applied for until taking the sub trade training probably 2-3 years from now.
> 
> Is my understanding somewhat reasonable? I'm really looking to be employed in as heavy a tech trade as I can. A big thanks for all of the knowledge shared so far!



Once you complete your DP1 you will be fast tracked to the DP1.1 CST Sub Occupation.


----------



## Swingline1984

Baywop said:
			
		

> Once you complete your DP1 you will be fast tracked to the DP1.1 CST Sub Occupation.



With one fine detail lacking.  You are not officially in a sub-occupation until you are approved by the board and qualified DP 2.1.


----------



## Sig_Des

Baywop said:
			
		

> Once you complete your DP1 you will be fast tracked to the DP1.1 CST Sub Occupation.



Is that guaranteed for the new kids coming in? And what kind of time-frame is "fast-tracked"? Will they be staying in Kingston to immediately begin their 1.1, or will they still be pushed out to the OJT units?


----------



## PuckChaser

2 pages back, C/S 0 posted some notes from a recent briefing by the MES Manager of ACISS about the fast track process. They're gonna honour the trade choices of individuals as they are being recruited now, or are in the system. No details, but I'm sure they'll have a 1.1 course start right after the first ACISS DP1 to qualify all these pers.


----------



## Rheostatic

Thought this might provoke discussion; from the Winter edition of the Branch newletter:


			
				http://www.commelec.forces.gc.ca/inf/new-bul/vol54/article-07-eng.asp said:
			
		

> Welcome to the Future! - ACISS Training Begins in January 2011
> Written by Major M. Coyle, Chief Instructor, CFSCE
> 
> In 2007, General Hillier as Chief of the Defence Staff officially closed the Military Occupational Structure Analysis, Redesign and Tailoring (MOSART) project. This failed undertaking was initiated in 2002 and sought to modernize the CF’s Military Occupation Structures from top to bottom. It simply turned out to be too much, too soon.
> 
> We want to do it; we have to do it, the question is just how we do it. The solution is to continue the work in ‘chunks’—manageable pieces that won’t place too much pressure on the CF. - General R. Hillier
> 
> In the months that followed, Army Signals harnessed the good from that effort, and received approval from the Chief of Land Staff to transform the Sigs NCM occupations. The plan was to move from three silo structures into one integrated occupation called the Army Communications and Information Systems Specialist (ACISS). While billions of dollars were invested digitizing the CF / Army and developing a network-enabled capability over two decades, the Army Sigs NCM occupations and the supporting training had not kept pace.
> 
> After a two-year DLCI led effort to complete the macro design and layout the national transformation effort, Army Signals were set to embark on the critical task of developing the supporting training. Faced with this challenge (and an incredible opportunity!), DAT, CTC, and CFSCE worked collaboratively to fill in the new ACISS straw-man.
> 
> 2009 / 2010 involved focused concept development to ensure that the jobs within ACISS and the supporting training were both relevant and future focused, not simply a re-shuffling of the deck. The result is a robust and flexible occupation where the “the network” truly is the common thread. Within the sub-occupations, a Computer Network Defence employment stream was formalized owing to the increasing importance of that domain. System Management is fully integrated and we re-invest heavily in the training of WOs and MWOs. These are but a few of the highlights…
> 
> This effort was reinforced by an unprecedented number of Qualification Standard (Requirements Phase) and Training Plan (Design Phase) Writing Boards. These boards assembled subject matter experts from across the Army Signals and beyond (Academia, Industry, Other Government Departments, …) to inform the development of training at every stage. In some cases, we made mistakes or otherwise learned something that made us challenge what we had done in a previous step. In all cases, our reflex was to go back and get it right.
> 
> The critical issue in getting to implementation was the need to define and seek approval for the additional resources – ACISS came with a bill. After a series of high level briefings from mid-September to early November 2010, CFSCE received approval from both Commander LFDTS and A/CLS to proceed with the implementation of training beginning with DP 1.0 in January 2011. From January 2011 to January 2012, ACISS training will be progressively phased in while legacy training is phased out by May 2011. To accommodate the increased training demand and address major gaps throughout the unit, CFSCE will grow substantially over a two-year period. Additional investments will also be in equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure over the same period.
> 
> While significant challenges lie ahead, both Army Signals and the C & E Community writ-large has reached a major milestone we can all be proud of. This trade transformation is also inspiring great professional discussion and debate in other areas of the C & E Branch, and we’re all stronger for it.
> 
> VVV


----------



## JBP

So it's been awhile since I posted in this thread, I've been awful busy being a Sig Op, now probable -IST.  Or so I've been named on the magic list of people on the ACISS website... I kept an eye on this though and gained some insight from it. But we were all mostly told the same, from across the country. That's kind of a shocker actually! 

A career manager's brief in Edmonton a couple weeks ago was pretty funny though... When we asked the current Career Manager's what's going to happen in regards to postings for the new trades. They said, literally, and I quote, "We have no idea!"... They said PER/Merit Boards/Postings will not even be taking into account the new trade issues until next year. So for this APS, you'll be posted and/or promoted/career managed as you are, a Sig Op, Linemen or LCIS. They also had no idea what's going to happen TO current postings next year when all of this has to be taken into account...

For example... I'm currently a system administrator (Cpl, old QL5 qual'd with many IT courses). Originally I'm a Sig Op, now I'm apparently going to be an IST. Going on tour (yay!), going to do my tactical system admin job (TacC2IS), come back... If I want to get posted to say, LFCA, Ontario, say JSR or Ottawa, something IST-like..... What if there's a very limited number of IST positions? Does that mean I'm deadlocked in my current posting (LFWA) until an IST from LFCA wants to be posted here??.... What about for the other sub-trades? Line is basically full and has been for some time, same with LCIS. In fact, LCIS career manager said they're over staffed and won't have a problem switching some to IST etc... 

I'm just afraid for awhile the trade in general will become deadlocked and stagnated while they figure out what and how to do with all of us! 

It's my singular opinion (NOT WORTH much) they've done well (generally speaking) so far with the amalgamation, a year later than they originally planned BUT, better than expected... But what about the real meat and bones? What about 1 year from now when I come back from tour and this new trade is apparently full on? Am I going to be required to do some kind of odd conversion trng or is all my qualifications going to "grandfather" me into the -IST unquestioned?.... 

Still a lot of questions out there we can collectively dig for and keep our eyes and ears out for... 

Oh and for the guys who think they don't have the money to post Sig Ops, you're wrong... From the mouth of the career manager, they have like 240 cost-approved moves for this APS alone. Doesn't mean they'll even move that many he said, but he wanted to kill that rumour. You'll still be posted according to the army's needs, then yours. But postings are available!


----------



## Baywop

Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Am I going to be required to do some kind of odd conversion trng or is all my qualifications going to "grandfather" me into the -IST unquestioned?....



Make sure you submit a PLAR before you head out on tour.


----------



## 211RadOp

Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> What about 1 year from now when I come back from tour and this new trade is apparently full on? Am I going to be required to do some kind of odd conversion trng or is all my qualifications going to "grandfather" me into the -IST unquestioned?....



When you look at the ACISS site and look at what they gave you (I'm still "Pending Decision") it will tell you if you need to submit a PLAR or not.  If you do, do it now or you could be reverted back to the core trade.


----------



## Rheostatic

GrilledLincoln said:
			
		

> We are no longer allowed to put names forward for those courses.


I'd be interested to know when/if this change actually took place. I've seen several reserve mbrs on reg QL3 and QL5 courses in the past couple of years. No one I've talked to is aware of such a restriction (but reg mbrs will of course have priority).





			
				GrilledLincoln said:
			
		

> when they put the Calender out there was only DP1 didn't mention anything about mod 1 or mod 2


I think you should take another look at the course calendar. Note the competency code for mod 1 (*"Nil"*; it's only half of a course).

Those in the know, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## GrilledLincoln

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to know when/if this change actually took place. I've seen several reserve mbrs on reg QL3 and QL5 courses in the past couple of years. No one I've talked to is aware of such a restriction (but reg mbrs will of course have priority).I think you should take another look at the course calendar. Note the competency code for mod 1 (*"Nil"*; it's only half of a course).
> 
> Those in the know, correct me if I'm wrong.




I'm just stating what I was told that my unit in particular is no longer able to put names up for the Reg Force ACISS, probably has something to do with the backlog of people in the Reg Force trying to get trained.

I will double check the course calender tomorrow at work but from what I can remember it doesn't say anything about mod 1 or mod 2, I also asked my unit and they told me the course i'm slated for is the full thing.  Does anyone know the full length of BOTH Mod 1 and Mod 2 as I would like to get fully trained by the end of the summer.  If I knew that information I would be able to tell if i'm slated for both mods or just the first one.


----------



## 211RadOp

According to the CFSCE Trg Calendar, the PRes ACCIS DP1 Mod1 is either 46 days or 30 days, dependant on which serial you get loaded on this summer.  There are currenlty no PRes DP1 Mod2 courses slated for the next FY.  The Reg Force DP1 is 75 days.  DP2 is broken into two mods also, a DL and a residency for both Reg and PRes.  The DL portion is 8 days and the residency is 17 Days.

Here is the DWAN link to the CFSCE Crse Calendar 
http://cfsce.kingston.mil.ca/Catalogue/CFSCE%20FY%2011-12%20Course%20Calendar.xls

*Edit to add link


----------



## Swingline1984

For those in the Reserves who wish to become LST, the projected training time to accomplish this is 4 yrs from point of entry.


----------



## SevenSixTwo

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> For those in the Reserves who wish to become LST, the projected training time to accomplish this is 4 yrs from point of entry.



Source?

This sounds a bit ridiculous. Four summers to become a Pte(T)?


----------



## PuckChaser

Sounds reasonable if LST DP1.1 is 2 summers long. First summer: BMQ/BMQ-L, Second Summer: ACISS DP1, Third Summer: DP1.1 LST Mod 1, Fourth Summer DP1.1 LST Mod 2.


----------



## Swingline1984

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Source?
> This sounds a bit ridiculous. Four summers to become a Pte(T)?



Straight from CFSCE my friend.  Don't get wrapped in traditional monikers.  You are not a sub-occ (a true LST) until you have completed your DP 2.1.  The 1.1 only gives you the "Specialist" qual, which basically means you are trained to be employed as a Lineman's helper.  Everyone, I say again EVERYONE will be ACISS.  What this means is you (read; a potential LST) will have to become, and train as an ACISS Operator before being "selected" to move into the LST sub-occ based on aptitude and interest.  Your pers (or you) will be Pte (T) at the completion of ACISS 1.0.


----------



## GrilledLincoln

211RadOp said:
			
		

> According to the CFSCE Trg Calendar, the PRes ACCIS DP1 Mod1 is either 46 days or 30 days, dependant on which serial you get loaded on this summer.  There are currenlty no PRes DP1 Mod2 courses slated for the next FY.  The Reg Force DP1 is 75 days.  DP2 is broken into two mods also, a DL and a residency for both Reg and PRes.  The DL portion is 8 days and the residency is 17 Days.
> 
> Here is the DWAN link to the CFSCE Crse Calendar
> http://cfsce.kingston.mil.ca/Catalogue/CFSCE%20FY%2011-12%20Course%20Calendar.xls
> 
> *Edit to add link





Thanks for the info 211RadOp.  Sucks that they aren't running both mods this summer, I suppose the attempts made by the Trg NCO to get us on DP1 and DP2 will be wasted time.  My unit staff must have been misinformed at some point.


----------



## 211RadOp

My _*guess*_ is that they will run the DP1 Mod2 next summer to complete the remaining 30/45 days.  To run the full DP1 (75 days) will take 15 weeks (based on a 5 day/week schedule).  As most PRes pers at the DP1 level will be students, there is not enough time in the summer to run both Mods for them in the Jul/Aug timeframe.


----------



## PteCamp

DP 1 Mod 2 will not be a summer course, if you read the QS in full detail it explains how it will be a home unit responsibility. There are 2 competency codes that are given with DP 1, the first for rank qualification and the second for job qualification. When these pers return this summer from DP 1, they will get the first, and with time in rank, be able to be promoted to Cpl before getting the job qual. Because of the equipment that needs to be taught in mod 2 most units don't have there will be a few different options for getting the qual. Every unit is going to have to look at there specific options and make those decisions themselves. 
Trying to figure out this course in whole is very confusing, and every unit is going to interpret parts differently. I know for the past few weeks straight now I have been dealing with this course and making sure my pers are ready and have all the pre-reqs required before they go. Its going to be interesting to see how this works out in the reserve world, its going to be a lot of changes, with no money to support to changes....


----------



## GrilledLincoln

Do you happen to know these Pre-reqs, my unit is apparently very slack and I haven't been told anything about pre-reqs, and since im going on taskings in march right until I go for my DP1 in May i'd like to get these things cleared away.


----------



## PteCamp

Yes, they are: BMQ and BMQ (L). You must have DDC and Driver wheel for LSVW and Milcot, have successfully completed a BFT within 365 days (or as a reservist a PT test), also must have a level 2 security clearance or atleast in process of getting one, and PO 001.


----------



## PuckChaser

LFCA requires reservists have a BFT before they go on Cl B.


----------



## Brasidas

GypsyPronto said:
			
		

> Yes, they are: BMQ and BMQ (L). You must have DDC and Driver wheel for LSVW and Milcot, have successfully completed a BFT within 365 days (or as a reservist a PT test), also must have a level 2 security clearance or atleast in process of getting one, and PO 001.



I was told driver wheel was required for my 3's. Still had 7 who didn't have it. 

Likewise, a VP course. Until that PO got tossed out due to a couple of the first guys to get checked for competence royally flunked. Had a MCpl sig on an ex last week who didn't know what "fetch sunray" meant, after having gone on tour.

Milcot hasn't been run at my unit in the last four years, and we've got ten guys going for DP1 this summer.

Those may be the pre-reqs, but I'd suggest there will be folks showing up in Kingston without them.


----------



## SevenSixTwo

Milcot isn't a pre-req for DP1.

LSVW, DDC and SB course are.

However, you can be exempt from LSVW, DDC and SB if your unit says it was impossible for you to do the course before the summer.


Ex) Bob joins in September. He does BMQ and SQ (BMQ-L) on the weekends all the way up to the summer. He get's to go on the DP1 in the summer because he didn't have time to do the driver's wheeled course.




If you COULD HAVE done the driver's wheeled course before your DP1 then no you can't go because your unit can't apply for an exempt for you.


----------



## Rheostatic

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Milcot isn't a pre-req for DP1.


It appears to say otherwise in the QS. I was surprised too. Anyway, I have seen this requirement for driver quals waived for plenty of candidates.


----------



## blacktriangle

Sorry to cut into this riveting discussion, but it seemed like the best place. 

Who here that is currently serving has been selected to go IST? Any one here have a lot of experience on the IT side of the house that would be willing to answer a quick couple questions via PM?

Thanks.


----------



## Brasidas

GypsyPronto said:
			
		

> Yes, they are: BMQ and BMQ (L). You must have DDC and Driver wheel for LSVW and Milcot, have successfully completed a BFT within 365 days (or as a reservist a PT test), also must have a level 2 security clearance or atleast in process of getting one, and PO 001.



According to a brief last week (reserves):

ACISS core DP1 mod2 is taken first. It's 47 days, with a pre-req of driver wheeled. BMQ(L) is potentially waivable. 

Consensus of class B pers at the brief was that it'd be a trainwreck to plan on having a wave of weekend BMQ/SQ types going straight into a DP1 with the expectation of them having driver wheeled. They're training on the weekends from fall through to summer. Are all units supposed to run a driver course in the two weeks prior to the course start date? If it's a pre-req and the plan is to schedule the course on that timeframe (count ten weeks backwards from August 25), then plan on running a driver course at CFSCE right before the course start date.

Mod1 is taken at the unit, after taking mod2 in the summer. 6 days, including topics such as HF.

DP2 is 15 days at CFSCE, 8 days DL.

For line, you've got about five summers worth of training (excluding BMQ/SQ), effectively killing the trade for the reserves. They will be expected to register in regforce course serials for DP1.1 and DP2.1. They will be at a deliberately lower standard than the existing 3's at the end of DP1.1.


----------



## wson

Hey guys I found out yesterday that the basic occupational training for ACISS is only 18 weeks long, whereas Sig ops is 6 months and LCIS is 32 weeks, any idea how the time frame for the 3 sub occupation are? The recruiter had no idea, just wondering if anyone had any new information on this or not.


----------



## MikeL

Check out the ACISS thread in the Communications sub-forum.. might be a good place to look.


----------



## wson

Skimmed through it , didn't notice anything, i will take another look tho.


----------



## JBP

Anyone gone through yet and submitted themselves and their MPRR's for PLAR into a different sub-trade? Shortly I hope to be writing mine up and sending it in...


----------



## chrisf

Brasidas said:
			
		

> ....it'd be a trainwreck to plan on having a wave of weekend BMQ/SQ...



Come on resurrection of the "COMM RES BATTLE SCHOOL"! (Sarcastic names or jokes aside, the glasses have been tinted rose, and I always had a blast working there)


----------



## PuckChaser

I had a blast being there. I really did like Shilo in the summer, the mess food was always top notch (box lunches another story). The year I did my PLQ they brought in a PRes Arty Major to be the school Cmdt. Things ran very smoothly, gave us enough rope to hang ourselves with instead of treating us like children. We lost 2 weekends in a 9 week course, one was due to field ex and the other for field ex prep.


----------



## Brasidas

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Come on resurrection of the "COMM RES BATTLE SCHOOL"! (Sarcastic names or jokes aside, the glasses have been tinted rose, and I always had a blast working there)



Meh. Give me a driver-instructor qual and I'd do the "COMM RES DRIVING SCHOOL". Even when Shilo was running, CFSCE did a less than stellar job with getting info passed down about what the actual pre-reqs were for 3's. Now there's a bigger time crunch to get them done in, and I doubt it's going to help.

Folks'd finish their BMQ/SQ at Shilo, have plenty of time to get their VP and 404's done, then show up at CFSCE without that little T1 tag on their 404's. Hello extracurricular trailer quals course run by instructors so that there'd be more than 7 QL3's qualified to be drivers on Mercury Storm.

Same thing happened again last summer, and I expect it to be even worse in the future. Organizing a damned driver wheeled course at Kingston as a formal part of the program would be a step up from the ad hoc garbage.


----------



## 211RadOp

They do run driver training at the school.  I have two members of my Troop on course there right now.  The problem with running it prior to DP1 for PRes Signallers is that the course run at CFSCE is 14 training days.  Adding this 14 days onto DP1 would not work for Reservists as there are just not enough training days in the summer to do it all.


----------



## chrisf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I had a blast being there. I really did like Shilo in the summer, the mess food was always top notch (box lunches another story). The year I did my PLQ they brought in a PRes Arty Major to be the school Cmdt. Things ran very smoothly, gave us enough rope to hang ourselves with instead of treating us like children. We lost 2 weekends in a 9 week course, one was due to field ex and the other for field ex prep.



Things ran smoothly despite him, not because of him, I can assure you.


----------



## PuckChaser

Got another brief today during the Ex Comm Player PD session. MES Manager specifically mentioned this forum, so perhaps they're following in their spare time.

Trade standup date is pushed to the right again, tentatively end April. They're waiting on approval of the IP (no idea what that means) document to stand up the trade.

After hearing the brief right from the horses mouth so to speak, and hearing his experiences in the CF, I'm slightly more warm and fuzzy to the idea. There are a lot of plans to deal with the concerns the members are bringing up, its just a matter of getting them completed before we start ourselves down this road which will end in ruin if we don't kill the concerns right away. The brief we got is supposed to be up on the ACISS sharepoint sometime this week.

As for the reservists on here: 3 separate questions were asked about them, and all got the same answer. When the PRes restructure is done, then they'll know whether we'll have PRes CST and IST members. The training is also going to completely mirror the RegF courses, so expect quite a few summers to qualify someone as an Apprentice.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Got another brief today during the Ex Comm Player PD session. MES Manager specifically mentioned this forum, so perhaps they're following in their spare time.
> 
> Trade standup date is pushed to the right again, tentatively end April. They're waiting on approval of the IP (no idea what that means) document to stand up the trade.
> 
> After hearing the brief right from the horses mouth so to speak, and hearing his experiences in the CF, I'm slightly more warm and fuzzy to the idea. There are a lot of plans to deal with the concerns the members are bringing up, its just a matter of getting them completed before we start ourselves down this road which will end in ruin if we don't kill the concerns right away. The brief we got is supposed to be up on the ACISS sharepoint sometime this week.
> 
> As for the reservists on here: 3 separate questions were asked about them, and all got the same answer. When the PRes restructure is done, then they'll know whether we'll have PRes CST and IST members. The training is also going to completely mirror the RegF courses, so expect quite a few summers to qualify someone as an Apprentice.



Reserve line looks like a nightmare as it is. It'd be nice to normalize the already trained LCIS guys though (Eg ex- reg LCIS/CST with QL3/DP1.1 joins reserve unit, then completes DP2 as a reservist on reg force courses).


----------



## Rheostatic

> Brasidas:
> The training is also going to completely mirror the RegF courses


Except for the ACISS core 2.1, 3.1 etc that won't be available will be "supplemental" to the reserves.

In fact the consensus at the briefing was that this will be a move away from reg/res equivalency, with unfortunate consequences for reserve employabality.


----------



## PuckChaser

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Reserve line looks like a nightmare as it is. It'd be nice to normalize the already trained LCIS guys though (Eg ex- reg LCIS/CST with QL3/DP1.1 joins reserve unit, then completes DP2 as a reservist on reg force courses).



That's up in the air until the restructure is done. The impression I got is that if they do not create CST/IST positions, those ex-RegF LCIS techs will still have all of their quals, just not gain any new CST DPx.1 courses. Nothing stopping you from employing them as CSTs, however their career progression would be that of ACISS Core, and would only be able to do the General Signals Knowledge DL courses if they want to stay current in the tech world. More to follow though, MES is waiting on external agencies for the PRes stuff.


----------



## Fizzik

It has come to my attention from what i see on the forces website just recently updated. But  the amalgamation of trades (ACISS) is not on the site but the three trades are considered hotjobs(Linemen, Sig Op, LCIS). So are they continuing to recruit as the initial trade and sending these people through the ACISS program and honoring their subtrade choice? Or is the site just not correctly updated? Considering ACISS is suppose to be in full effect as of April .1st correct?


----------



## PuckChaser

You can only apply for ACISS Core. You do not get a subtrade choice at recruitment, only once you finish BMQ and hit the HQ and Sigs Sqn. Anyone recruited previously as LCIS, Line or SigOp will get fastracked to that subtrade, but anyone else without an offer now gets to test the system out by being purely ACISS first.

Trade date has been pushed right from 1 Apr 11 as they are waiting for paperwork to be approved to stand the trade up.


----------



## Sigger

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can only apply for ACISS Core. You do not get a subtrade choice at recruitment, only once you finish BMQ and hit the HQ and Sigs Sqn. Anyone recruited previously as LCIS, Line or SigOp will get fastracked to that subtrade, but anyone else without an offer now gets to test the system out by being purely ACISS first.
> 
> Trade date has been pushed right from 1 Apr 11 as they are waiting for paperwork to be approved to stand the trade up.



In theory.. Not necessarily in practice.


----------



## PuckChaser

Sigger said:
			
		

> In theory.. Not necessarily in practice.



We'll have to roll the dice and see if it all works out I guess.


----------



## Fizzik

Yea I, guess so eh.. Considering im one of the ones who signed for LCIS and done my POET and currently on the ACISS DP1.0 Pilot courses. I'm trying to keep positive


----------



## JB 11 11

Funny... I applied last July and will be Merit listed for my trade as of April 22nd. (My application's pending until then due to LASIK wait times), and every time I've been in contact with the RC, they have referred to my trade as "Sig Op" and not ACISS. I've even slipped a few ACISS references in Emails, but its still "Sig Op" with them.

Its all a bit confusing this. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens if I make it into this intake.


----------



## George Wallace

JB 11 11 said:
			
		

> Funny... I applied last July and will be Merit listed for my trade as of April 22nd. (My application's pending until then due to LASIK wait times), and every time I've been in contact with the RC, they have referred to my trade as "Sig Op" and not ACISS. I've even slipped a few ACISS references in Emails, but its still "Sig Op" with them.
> 
> Its all a bit confusing this. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens if I make it into this intake.



You will find that throughout your military career.  Just because someone has had a sudden flash of brilliance and changed the name of something, doesn't automatically change that name.  There are many instances where many of us use a name for something that is now called something else.  Take our mechanics for instance.  In the Army many of us still refer to them as RCEME (the "C" is silent), when they have gone through numerous name changes from RCEME to LORE to LEME to EME, etc.  Today the first leadership course for NCMs is a PLQ, but you will hear people calling it a CLC or a Jr NCO Crse, or even a CF Jr NCO Crse.  It happens.


----------



## PuckChaser

ACISS is not approved yet so the RC has to use SigOp. When it officially stands up as a trade, then they will use ACISS.


----------



## JB 11 11

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You will find that throughout your military career.  Just because someone has had a sudden flash of brilliance and changed the name of something, doesn't automatically change that name.  There are many instances where many of us use a name for something that is now called something else.  Take our mechanics for instance.  In the Army many of us still refer to them as RCEME (the "C" is silent), when they have gone through numerous name changes from RCEME to LORE to LEME to EME, etc.  Today the first leadership course for NCMs is a PLQ, but you will hear people calling it a CLC or a Jr NCO Crse, or even a CF Jr NCO Crse.  It happens.



LOL!,   :  Duly noted.  :nod:


----------



## Fizzik

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ACISS is not approved yet so the RC has to use SigOp. When it officially stands up as a trade, then they will use ACISS.



Does one know how far they pushed this to the right? Wasn't this suppose to happen April. 1st?


----------



## PuckChaser

Fizzik said:
			
		

> Does one know how far they pushed this to the right? Wasn't this suppose to happen April. 1st?



Tentatively end April, but they've stopped giving firm dates. The implementation plan is in final draft and needs to be approved by someone I forget before the final plan is printed and signed off officially. Then we become a trade. I guess its just a matter of crossing some Ts and dotting some Is. This info is current as of March 30th.


----------



## Sigger

The CO at my CFRC told me yesterday that they had a meeting that day about this. He advised they will start using the new MOC and name this week.


----------



## Mojo Magnum

I am thankful to the people who keep this site running.  It is a tremendous resource to those of us who have a high GAF factor. 

So here's todays questions,
Does QL5 completion exempt me from DP 2.0?

Is DP 1.1 the same as the CSN course?  
(As I can recall seeing the "IST 3's Course" sign on the door when I did it just before Christmas)

Will the DP 1.1 be a traditional 3's course with all the lovely trappings? 
(I'm guessing no since it's all Cpl's on board)


----------



## Rheostatic

Mojo Magnum said:
			
		

> Does QL5 completion exempt me from DP 2.0?


Only the residetial portion. You will still have to complete the distance learning portion.


			
				Mojo Magnum said:
			
		

> Will the DP 1.1 be a traditional 3's course with all the lovely trappings?
> (I'm guessing no since it's all Cpl's on board)


DP1.0 will be closer to the former Sig Op QL3.


----------



## Swingline1984

Anyone heard anything lately?  Lots of dead air from the managers and nothing but shrugs from the chain of command.


----------



## PuckChaser

Fingers crossed someone with some sense got a hold of this and killed it? I think they're waiting on paperwork, though.


----------



## Rheostatic

Just waiting to find out when the DL portion of DP2.0 will be available, since everyone needs to take it now.


----------



## Sigs Pig

Back in Jan or Feb we (reserve unit) were asked to pick a date for the DP2.0 (DL) and I selected a date in Aug of this year. Two weeks ago we were informed that QL5 qualified did not have to do the DL portion.

??? ???
ME


----------



## Rheostatic

We were told that everyone QL5 qualified *and up* has to do it.


----------



## Baywop

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> We were told that everyone QL5 qualified *and up* has to do it.



We were told everyone QL5 and up will have to do a modernization DL package not the DP2 DL which is tied to the residency piece.


----------



## LineJumper

Me thinks it's time to re badge. I detect a basket full of flames on the horizon.


----------



## Jammer

If you are selected for DP 2.0 you will rcv a DNDLearn PW and login to complete the DL. For you aspiring DP 2s...RTFQ on the DL and take your time doing it. For the Reg guys...it is a career crse and if you calf on the DL you will not go for the Resedency portion and your file will go to a CRB.

For the Reservists....if you only have a portion of the legacy Journeyman of QL-5...you WILL be required to complete the ACISS DP 2...no questions of exemptions.

LJ: The 052s are doing pretty well with the DP2 despite the changes in the branch...I didn't say they were happy about though...lol.


----------



## PuckChaser

Anyone else notice the results for the PLARs is not on the Sharepoint anymore?


----------



## JSR OP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice the results for the PLARs is not on the Sharepoint anymore?



Yup.  Noticed that on Wednesday or Thursday last week.


----------



## Sigger

Any new rumors of Spec Pay?


----------



## Jammer

Not going to happen.


----------



## Occam

Jammer said:
			
		

> Not going to happen.



Are you referring to those pers who didn't have Spec 1 before, or to the entire ACISS trade?

The CSTs losing Spec would go over like the proverbial lead balloon.


----------



## PuckChaser

Sigger said:
			
		

> Any new rumors of Spec Pay?



Can of worms. If part of the trade gets it and part doesn't, no one will want to stay in the part that doesn't and we'll be in the same place as we were before with manning levels. The paperwork is in, we're in watch and shoot mode.


----------



## REDinstaller

If only we could watch and SHOOT. The last brief in Edmonton was a gong show of no answers to questions that were posed. ACISS should be a dance move for how many times he danced around the question and went off on another tangent. Sticking your head in the sand is not providing info. I think we have been sent in the wrong direction, creation of the IS Tech trade would have been a much simpler solution, instead of reinventing the Signals world.


----------



## Sigger

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Can of worms. If part of the trade gets it and part doesn't, no one will want to stay in the part that doesn't and we'll be in the same place as we were before with manning levels. The paperwork is in, we're in watch and shoot mode.



Understood.


----------



## Swingline1984

The whole thing is a disaster; a complete and utter cockup.  The powers that be cannot answer simple questions.  No one knows what they are anymore and 70 PYs diverted to the school when the line units are struggling without enough Signallers.  Nothing to do but soldier on until someone sends me my new hat in the mail with instructions on how to wear it.


----------



## Lare

Anyone know what a fresh off BMQ Sigop can expect at this time? I understand there is quite a long wait time and the last few sigs to graduate here a couple weeks back were sent to Pet and Gage for OJT. 

Are they currently running any QL3's (or DP1.0's) at the moment? And if they are having they in fact flipped to the 3 month course, or still running the 6 month course?

I must admit its a little daunting coming in to this trade where theres no real solid info on whats happening. Even our Sigs Mcpl can't get a straight answer from anyone!

As aside, before someone says it, I'm not regretting my choice here at all, just would like even a general idea of whats happening, sucks when our entire platoon is all excited with their posting messages and being and to plan their next 2-4 years, when we Sigs still don't even know what province we'll be in! 

Hopefully they can figure out what to do with us before we grad in a week heh...


----------



## Rheostatic

So do you have to be loaded on a course to access the DL material? And if the DL is supposed to take X days to complete, do you have to wait until X days before the residency to start working on it?

I ask because the DL mods seem to be scheduled on the CFSCE calendar with start and end dates. Really I'd prefer to self-enrol and complete the trg on my own schedule, if possible.


----------



## Lare

Got my answer: PAT Plt. in Wainwright for an unknown duration.


----------



## JBP

Wow, so that won't make people want to quit. 

I've submitted my PLAR awhile back and I've heard absolutely nothing at all as of yet. My name has sat unchanged on the dreaded ACISS DIN website, only to have been deleted a few times and re-added.

I highly doubt with the current fiscal goals (to find savings of 5%-10% in DND alone) that any of our new 'trades' will be receiving spec pay either. Wasn't counting on it, won't count it but, but I'll hold out a tiny piece of hope that we still might. -IST subtrade that is. 

Hopefully by Jan-Feb we'll know something. If I get my placement I'll post on here what I ended up being pegged as. Seeing as I've been in an IST job since I joined, I'd be shocked if I was put into anything else.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I'm in the same boat as you Joe.

Hoping that the Writing boards finally finish up soon for these DP courses so I can find out what I've already done and can sleep through. I will be thrilled if I have to re do Intro to Mircocomputers  :.


----------



## JSR OP

Well son of a B....

I was going to go on as to how all the info was there now, but that would have been for not!

The info was posted there two weeks ago.  I checked it out and found out everything.  What I was granted, what trg I had to do to be fully quallified, my next DP core level, my next DP level specialty.....

All the info less the "PLAR Reviewed" was deleted five days ago by DLCI.

good thing I printed it out!


----------



## JBP

Setup an 'alert' for yourself on that site so that it emails you the moment anything is actually changed. That's how I seen that info your talking about on myself before it was axed... Strange though why they would go through all the work of putting it in and then deleting it.

Who knows, maybe it was a database malfunction! 

They should call an IST to the rescue!!! Oh... Wait.... Nvm....  :facepalm:

iper:


----------



## JSR OP

I did inquire about data being deleted and here is the answer I got from CLS DLCI:

"We have 2 systems to manage this data - The one you see is a subset of the data with the rest intentionally stripped out to conform to requirements necessary for general consumption. The rest of the data is still being tracked, but on a closed system for use by MES managers and LFDTS to assist in carreer development efforts. 

All of the relevant data for each soldier will still be displayed on the public site which you have listed below. The stripped information is mostly that which was sent to DAT in support of PLARs, and was removed from public view for the sake of privacy. More information should be available on Monitor MASS where the viewers authenication is easier to process. 
The results of PLARs should be communicated back to the units using a more formal process of notification through the chain of command. "


----------



## JBP

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the info! 

So it appears that the site will still be updated but I'm going to say that the response from them basically says the website is on the backburner and they're doing the real meat and bones work behind the scenes.

UPDATE:
I just so happened to check my MPRR yesterday and noticed a big update. All the courses I challenged for I received the qualifications! It still doesn't have a new MOSID and it still says SIG OP for my trade, but my PLAR for IST obviously went through the system and has been approved. So, those of you whom have submitted for IST, check your MPRR / Monitor mass!



			
				JSR OP said:
			
		

> I did inquire about data being deleted and here is the answer I got from CLS DLCI:
> 
> "We have 2 systems to manage this data - The one you see is a subset of the data with the rest intentionally stripped out to conform to requirements necessary for general consumption. The rest of the data is still being tracked, but on a closed system for use by MES managers and LFDTS to assist in carreer development efforts.
> 
> All of the relevant data for each soldier will still be displayed on the public site which you have listed below. The stripped information is mostly that which was sent to DAT in support of PLARs, and was removed from public view for the sake of privacy. More information should be available on Monitor MASS where the viewers authenication is easier to process.
> The results of PLARs should be communicated back to the units using a more formal process of notification through the chain of command. "


----------



## Cobrajr

Hey guys, 
I have been playing the waiting in the dark game for too long and need some answers on this. Hopefully somebody here can clear the mud a little bit.

I joined a little over 3 years ago and signed as an LCIS NCN-SEP. 
I went to school, got my fancy piece of paper, did BMQ and many months of OJT as an LCIS.

Now I am sitting on PAT in kingston about to go on LSVW and SQ courses but LCIS courses do not exist.
I have been told that I am still going to be LCIS, but I am watching others around me get changed over to ACISS and get put on the ACISS course.

- How are courses going to work for me? Do I still have to do all the sigop and lineman stuff or do i get shunted straight to the LCIS stuff?
- What will my POET equivalent civi schooling count for now?

This is becoming a real headace and I am considing just OTing to ATIS, but that means sitting on PAT for many more months >_>


----------



## PuckChaser

Basically you're going to be streamlined into the CST occupation, which means you'll do the common DP1 and then the CST DP1.1 and get posted to your unit.


----------



## JBP

Cobrajr said:
			
		

> Hey guys,
> I have been playing the waiting in the dark game for too long and need some answers on this. Hopefully somebody here can clear the mud a little bit.
> 
> I joined a little over 3 years ago and signed as an LCIS NCN-SEP.
> I went to school, got my fancy piece of paper, did BMQ and many months of OJT as an LCIS.
> 
> Now I am sitting on PAT in kingston about to go on LSVW and SQ courses but LCIS courses do not exist.
> I have been told that I am still going to be LCIS, but I am watching others around me get changed over to ACISS and get put on the ACISS course.
> 
> - How are courses going to work for me? Do I still have to do all the sigop and lineman stuff or do i get shunted straight to the LCIS stuff?
> - What will my POET equivalent civi schooling count for now?
> 
> This is becoming a real headace and I am considing just OTing to ATIS, but that means sitting on PAT for many more months >_>



PuckChaser is right, but to clarify and specify, everyone is getting punted into the common DP1, the 'ACISS' course, then you'll be shoved off to a unit and put into the LCIS section/shop. You're already branded cattle where new people joining are NOT.

Don't worry too much, enjoy your SQ, I had fun on it! LSVW offroading is alright too, you're at the start of your career, take it all in, good and the bad =)


----------



## JBP

Another update, checked the ACISS COTS website today, shows now that I have been given the green thumbs up to being listed as an IST.

Everyone in my section who put in for IST received the stamp! 

I cannot click on myself anymore and see what equivalency level I've been placed or what training they require me to take next though. I'm going to assume that will all come down through the trusty chain of command eventually...


----------



## Occam

Conspicuously absent:  any reference to Specialist Pay.



P R 201455Z SEP 11
FM NDHQ DGMP OTTAWA//DPGR//

UNCLAS DPGR 012/11
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJ: (ACISS) ARMY COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
OCCUPATION MILITARY EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MES 
IP)
1. THIS MES IP WILL COME INTO EFFECT 01 OCT 11
2. WHEN IMPLEMENTED, THIS MES IP WILL AMALGAMATE THE LEGACY 
OCCUPATIONS OF LCIS TECH - 00110, SIG OP - 00329 AND LMN - 00015 TO 
FORM THE NEW ACISS, MOSID 00362, OCCUPATION. UPON COMPULSORY 
OCCUPATION TRANSFER FROM THE LEGACY OCCUPATIONS, MEMBERS WILL BE 
ASSIGNED TO THE ACISS PARENT OCCUPATION OR ONE OF ITS THREE 
TECHNOLOGIST SUB-OCCUPATIONS OF:  COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIST 
(CST), INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIST (IST) OR LINE SYSTEMS 
TECHNOLOGIST (LST), OR IN THE FOURTH CAPPING SUB-OCCUPATION OF: 
COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY MANAGER (CISTM)
3. THE EXECUTION OF THIS MES IP WILL BEGIN THE SHIFT AWAY FROM USING 
THE TRADITIONAL INTEGRATED OCCUPATIONAL SPECIFICATION (IOS) BY 
MOVING TO A NEW JOB BASED SPECIFICATION (JBS) THAT FOCUSES ON 
DESCRIBING THE WORK PERFORMED IN EACH OF THE JOBS ASSOCIATED WITH AN 
OCCUPATION. THESE JOB DESCRIPTIONS CAN THEN BE USED TO ACCURATELY 
DEFINE REQUIREMENTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND 
QUALIFICATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACISS OCCUPATION HAS BEEN DEVELOPED 
BY BUILDING A HIERARCHICAL FRAMEWORK OF JOBS THAT DEFINE ALL OF THE 
EMPLOYMENT QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OCCUPATION
4. JOB BASED SPECIFICATION (JBS). THE NEW ACISS JBS WILL BE POSTED 
TO THE DPGR WEBSITE UPON APPROVAL AND TRANSLATION
5. JOB DESCRIPTIONS. THERE ARE 161 JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE ACISS 
OCCUPATION AND ITS SUB-OCCUPATIONS AND THEY ARE INCORPORATED INTO 
THE JBS. COPIES OF THESE JDS WILL BE AVAILABLE THROUGH DPGR 7 UPON 
REQUEST
6. EMPLOYMENT QUALIFICATIONS. FOUR RANK QUALIFICATIONS AND 67 UNIQUE 
SPECIALTY QUALIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN CREATED IN SUPPORT OF THE ACISS 
OCCUPATION.  QUALIFICATION CODES WILL BE CREATED TO TRACK THE 
EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW ACISS OCCUPATION WITHIN HRMS. 
THE CURRENT LIST OF SPECIALTY SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED AND 
UPDATED AS PART OF THE MES IP
7. OCCUPATION GROUPS. NEW OCCUPATION GROUPS WILL BE CREATED FOR THE 
NEW ACISS OCCUPATION.  IN ADDITION, REFERENCE TO THE LCIS TECH, LMN 
AND SIG OP OCCUPATIONS WILL BE REMOVED FROM ALL EXISTING OCC GRPS
8. ESTABLISHMENT. AS A RESULT OF MOVING TO A JOB BASED SYSTEM EVERY 
POSITION IN THE THREE LEGACY OCCUPATIONS WILL BE LINKED TO A 
SPECIFIC JOB IN THE NEW ACISS OCCUPATION AND THE MES IP WILL 
DOCUMENT THOSE LINKAGES
9. MANNING. THE OCCUPATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE MANNED THROUGH THE 
ENROLMENT OF RECRUITS AND OTHER INTAKE SOURCES AS REQUIRED. THE 
RANGE IN RANK WILL BE FROM PTE TO CWO
10. PRIMARY RESERVE (P RES). MEMBERS OF THE P RES COMPONENT OF THE 
LEGACY OCCUPATIONS WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE P RES 
ACISS STRUCTURE. THEY WILL FOLLOW THE TRAINING AND PROGRESSION 
STREAMS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED FOR THE RES F MEMBERS IN THE ACISS 
JBS AND IAW THEIR EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS. OCCUPATIONAL MANNING WILL 
BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS AND QUOTAS. THE RANGE 
IN RANK WILL BE FROM PTE TO CWO
11. CAREER MANAGEMENT. PERSONNEL IN THE ACISS OCCUPATION WILL 
CONTINUE TO BE MANAGED BY D MIL C 5
12. TRAINING. CLS WILL REMAIN THE TRAINING AUTHORITY FOR THE NEW 
OCCUPATION. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING TRG WILL BE NEEDED TO 
IMPLEMENT THE NEW ACISS JBS WHICH WILL TRANSITION THE OCCUPATION 
FROM THE TRADITIONAL OCCUPATIONALLY BASED QUALIFICATIONS TO THE NEW 
JOB BASED STRUCTURE AND ITS ASSOCIATED EMPLOYMENT QUALIFICATIONS. 
ACISS TRAINING COMMENCED 04 JAN 11 THROUGH CFSCE KINGSTON
13. ENROLMENT REQUIREMENTS. THE ACISS OCCUPATION WILL DRAW ITS 
PERSONNEL FROM THE RECRUIT POPULATION AND OTHER INTAKE SOURCES. THE 
ENROLMENT CRITERIA WILL BE COMMON TO THE ENTIRE OCCUPATION IAW CFAO 
49-4 AND DAOD 5002-1
14. MEDICAL CATEGORY. THE MIN MEDICAL STANDARD FOR ENTRY INTO ACISS 
AND FOR CONTINUED PROGRESSION WITHIN THE OCC WILL BE 423225
15. SECURITY CLEARANCE. SECURITY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 
ACISS OCCUPATION WILL BE LEVEL III. SOME JOBS MAY REQUIRE A HIGHER 
LEVEL IN ORDER TO SUPPORT SPECIFIC JOB REQUIREMENTS OR THE LOCATION 
WHERE THE WORK IS BEING PERFORMED
16. BRANCH AFFILIATION AND DEU. THE ACISS OCCUPATION WILL BE 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMUNICATION AND ELECTRONICS BRANCH AND CLS 
WILL BE THE OCC AUTH. DEU FOR ALL PERSONNEL WILL BE ARMY 
ENVIRONMENTAL
17. RECORDS/HRMS. BOTH AUTOMATED AND HARD COPY OF PERSONNEL RECORDS 
WILL REQUIRE UPDATING AS A RESULT OF THIS IP
18. SUMMARY OF COSTS. THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MES IP WILL BE 
ABSORBED WITHIN EXISTING ANNUAL BUDGETS. RECRUITING SUPPORT PRODUCTS 
WILL BE FUNDED BY ADM(PA)/DGM/DMA
19. PUBLICATION AMENDMENTS. PUBLICATION AMENDMENTS WILL BE CARRIED 
OUT DURING REGULAR PERIODIC UPDATES


----------



## PuckChaser

Only 2 years after they originally wanted to stand it up they finally have an official date. By the time they make a decision on spec pay I'll either be promoted high enough that I won't get it, or I'll be retired.


----------



## Mojo Magnum

Hmmm, so PLD and LDA are on the chopping block and spec is proving ellusive at best.  I'm thinking I may have to revive my Pizza Delivery skills.


----------



## Sig_Des

I heard there's a message out confirming no spec pay for anyone, including techs from my CoC, but I haven't seen the message.

Can anyone confirm?


----------



## FreeFloat

There was nothing new on the CANFORGEN front when I looked today, but I can check again tomorrow.


----------



## Sig_Des

FreeFloat said:
			
		

> There was nothing new on the CANFORGEN front when I looked today, but I can check again tomorrow.



I don't think it would be a CANFORGEN. the MES IP Message wasn't


----------



## REDinstaller

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I heard there's a message out confirming no spec pay for anyone, including techs from my CoC, but I haven't seen the message.
> 
> Can anyone confirm?



HMMMMM, thats odd. YOU have no Techs in your CoC. They are all in mine. And from DCLI Spec will remain the domain of LCIS trained Techs. I have seen all the traffic as the Senior Tech within the Regt. Enjoy your DL.

PM inbound


----------



## Sig_Des

Tango18A said:
			
		

> HMMMMM, thats odd. YOU have no Techs in your CoC. They are all in mine.



True, s'why I asked here.



			
				Tango18A said:
			
		

> Enjoy your DL.



DL's...irritating...


----------



## REDinstaller

If only the DLs were Drill Cane/Pace Stick length again. Then there would be a positive learning environment again.


----------



## HItorMiss

you just wont stop whining huh BW....

A good NCO accepts the bad when told to, so how about you just get on with it eh  ;D


----------



## Swingline1984

The pay review is not taking place until sometime in November according to the Mess errrrrr...MES Manager.


----------



## REDinstaller

The Email from the Occupation Mgr has stated LCIS trained techs will not lose Spec pay.


----------



## Swingline1984

Tango18A said:
			
		

> The Email from the Occupation Mgr has stated LCIS trained techs will not lose Spec pay.



It would be a terrible retention strategy if they did.


----------



## REDinstaller

The entire ACISS program is a terible retention plan. Look at the branch website. How many Sig Ops jumped ship this year? Lots. So retention has never been part of the plan.


----------



## PuckChaser

Tango18A said:
			
		

> The entire ACISS program is a terible retention plan. Look at the branch website. How many Sig Ops jumped ship this year? Lots. So retention has never been part of the plan.



This isn't a plan for the ACISS Core. Everything I've heard makes it sound like SigOps are now second-class citizens compared to all the super-elite sub occs. I'm of the mind to wait and see how this works out, but the information coming down the pipe really makes me question why I wanted to do TacRad. At least if things crash and burn, my VIE is up in 2013 and I'm not on the hook for $20,000 if I want out of the C&E Branch. As you pointed out a lot of guys jumped early so they won't get sucked down by the ship.


----------



## REDinstaller

And many of those pers were the senior people, its not your granddaddy's TacRad anymore.


----------



## Swingline1984

Tango18A said:
			
		

> And many of those pers were the senior people, its not your granddaddy's TacRad anymore.



Nope...not at all.  Have you seen the new headset?


----------



## chrisf

Resistance to the ACISS transition is futile...


----------



## Rheostatic

Your occupation's distinctiveness will be added to our own.

(Couldn't resist.)


----------



## REDinstaller

It's a mind over matter issue. I don't mind being a LCIS Tech, so ACISS doesn't matter.   >


----------



## Occam

Another "wooops!"...



R 261851Z OCT 11
FM NDHQ CLS OTTAWA//DLCI//
TO AIG 1703
AIG 1764
AIG 1840
INFO ZEN/NDHQ DGMP OTTAWA//DPGR//
ZEN/NDHQ DGMC OTTAWA
ZEN/NDHQ ASST CMP//DHRIM//
ZEN/NDHQ DG FIN OPS OTTAWA//DMPAPA//
BT
UNCLAS CLS 058/11
SUBJ: ARMY COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALIST (ACISS)
OCCUPATION - PAY ISSUE
REFS: A.  5555-31-00362 (DPGR 2-7) 30 JUNE 11
B.  DPGR 012/11 201455Z SEP 11
C.  CFAO 11-12
D.  CBI 204.03
1. ON 1 OCT 11, THE LCIS TECH - 00110, SIG OP - 00329 AND LMN - 
00015 OCCUPATIONS WERE DISBANDED AND THE NEW ARMY COMMUNICATION AND 
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALIST (ACISS) - 00362 OCCUPATION WAS STOOD 
UP. ON THE SAME DATE, MEMBERS OF THE LEGACY OCCUPATIONS WERE 
COMPULSORY OCCUPATION TRANSFERRED (COT) TO THE ACISS OCCUPATION OR 
ONE OF ITS SUB-OCCUPATIONS IAW REFS C AND D. UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, 
THE PAY ENTITLEMENT IS BASED ON THE RATE OF PAY THE MEMBER WAS 
RECEIVING ON THE DAY IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE MEMBER S TRANSFER
2. THE ARMY HQ HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT A TECHNICAL ERROR OCCURRED 
DURING THE TRANSFER OF THE AFFECTED PERSONNEL THAT NEGATIVELY 
IMPACTED THE PAY OF FORMER MEMBERS OF THE LCIS TECH OCCUPATION CPL 
TO MWO IN BOTH REG F AND P RES F. WE ARE LOOKING INTO THE ISSUE AND 
ARE IN CONTACT WITH CONCERNED OFFICES OF PRIMARY INTEREST (OPI) TO 
HAVE THE SITUATION RECTIFIED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND ENSURE THAT ALL 
MEMBERS ARE IN RECEIPT OF THEIR FULL PAY ENTITLEMENT.
3. UNTIL THE SITUATION IS CORRECTED IN THE CENTRAL COMPUTERIZED PAY 
SYSTEM (CCPS), DIRECTOR MILITARY PAY AND ACCOUNTS PROCESSING (DMPAP) 
ISSUED AN ADVISORY TO ACCOUNTING OFFICERS AND CHIEF CLERKS TO THE 
EFFECT THAT UNITS ARE TO PROTECT THE PAY OF AFFECTED MEMBERS.


----------



## buzgo

The techs I know are shaking their heads... this is yet another indication that the people in charge of this are out to lunch.


----------



## Occam

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The techs I know are shaking their heads... this is yet another indication that the people in charge of this are out to lunch.



"Let's drop their spec pay, and see if they notice.  If they do, we'll blame it on a technical glitch".

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## IBM

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The techs I know are shaking their heads... this is yet another indication that the people in charge of this are out to lunch.



Wait, there were actually PEOPLE in charge of this? And all this time I thought they delegated the work to some hamster on a wheel somewhere in a basement at NDHQ. Although, with the amount of fubar so far, they might as well have.


----------



## REDinstaller

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The techs I know are shaking their heads... this is yet another indication that the people in charge of this are out to lunch.



Your first clue should have been all the side stepping and avoidance of questions at every briefing by the MES team. Those of us that have some common dog all knew the only requirement was to stand up trade #4 and designate it to be the Information Systems Administrators. There done, no muss, no fuss, no releases and confusion by the boat load. MES Tm effectiveness LEFT JUSTIFIED.


----------



## Sig_Des

Tango18A said:
			
		

> MES Tm effectiveness LEFT JUSTIFIED.



But leading change is all the way to the Right!!


----------



## REDinstaller

As they take the final step off the cliff edge.


----------



## Swingline1984

4 MORE YEARS!!!...4 MORE YEARS!!!...(until retirement)


----------



## REDinstaller

2017 can't come soon enough. OH to be ACISS free.....can you get pills to cure it?


----------



## ayo23

So is SQ for ACISS definitely 10 weeks now? I remember back when LCIS Tech was listed SQ was only 21 days.


----------



## lcis00110

So, my pay was supposed to be protected.... well guess what, IT WASN'T!!!  I'm sick of this dungheep!!!  The big giant heads that be who made up this so called ACISS crap outta have their heads examined.  Oh yeah, they only did it to score points so they can make their way out of a staff position and have their own frickin' office in NDHQ!!!  Bonetards!!!  (sorry, just venting)


----------



## PiperDown

Units are protecting members pay.

IE.  JSR in kingston is depositing the missing amount as a misc deposit directly into to members bank account until such a time as the clerical error is sorted out.

So, before deciding Christmas is cancelled this year. See your CoC, or clerk ( as applicable ) .


----------



## LordSnow

they should have just created a new trade IST and let sig ops and techs re-muster into it, but we need more operators so they made this. 
Oh well we can cry and bitch about it all we want but it's not going to change. Not any time soon anyways, not till we get all the dinosaurs 
that were around for Cyprus out and retired. We need to just accept it and make the best of it. 
The Sig ops and future ACISS that do tac rad with Cbt arms units will call themselves rad ops and be proud of it, the Linemen will save the "V", 
and as far as the techs goes; the only things they ever cared for is their spec pay and pretending they are smarter then then everybody else.


----------



## Swingline1984

Pte Cherry said:
			
		

> they should have just created a new trade IST etc, etc...



Thank-you Pte Cherry for weighing in with your extensive experience within the Branch and summarizing so eloquently some of the main points already articulated within this thread.  I've been around since Cyprus does that make me a dinosaur?  In fact, last I checked the map Cyprus was still on it, and *GASP* we still had personnel there.  Plenty of Senior Tradesmen do not support this initiative (ME, ME...LOOK AT ME!!) so rein it in a little bit.  As for this chestnut:



			
				Pte Cherry said:
			
		

> The Sig ops and future ACISS that do tac rad with Cbt arms units will call themselves rad ops and be proud of it, the Linemen will save the "V",  and as far as the techs goes; the only things they ever cared for is their spec pay and pretending they are smarter then then everybody else.



1.  The new folks being fed into the sausage grinder won't even know what those animals are let alone refer to themselves as one.

2.  I will make you proud and do my part to "save the V" whatever that means.  Velox?  Versutus?  Vigilans?  Five?  Is the letter V endangered?

3.  I've met plenty of Techs who care far too much and ARE smarter than everybody else so I guess I can kind of relate.


----------



## REDinstaller

Pte Cherry,

You must be right off your rocker to think that the LCIS Techs are only concerned about our pay. If the Sig Ops would sit down and learn more about TCCCS so they would become proficient, we Techs wouldn't give them such a hard time of it. So this should be an opportunity for you to go on listening watch, and learn what the Army Signals do. Don't bother riding the Sig Op high horse, because you don't have the first clue on how to do it.


----------



## Jammer

:facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Don't bother riding the Sig Op high horse, because you don't have the first clue on how to do it.



As opposed to the LCIS Tech high horse? Let's not play the us vs them game because I've seen some techs that don't have a clue how to troubleshoot TCCCS, just as you've seen SigOps without a lot of TCCCS knowledge.


----------



## Swingline1984

All right children...time to tweak the programming.  Now altogether repeat after me:

"We are ACISS. Existence, as you know it, is over. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."


----------



## PMedMoe

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> 2.  I will make you proud and do my part to "save the V" whatever that means.  Velox?  Versutus?  Vigilans?  Five?  Is the letter V endangered?



Velociraptor.    ;D


----------



## LordSnow

Ok, I will admit dinosaurs was harsh. I am just upset with the lack of information and planning going on with the branch as well as OP Abortion
As far as Cyprus goes yes we still have all of, oh yeah, 1 officer there. That doesn't include Medics and MPs that run decompression of course.


----------



## Lare

ayo23 said:
			
		

> So is SQ for ACISS definitely 10 weeks now? I remember back when LCIS Tech was listed SQ was only 21 days.



Myself and a few other Sig.... ACISS (both people recruited as SigOps and LCIS) just went through SQ... BMQ (L), and it was indeed 21 training days (1 month). Not sure where this 10 weeks business is coming from, we we're told it used to be 5 weeks, but they had recently cut it back to 4 weeks (don't let the 21 training days thing fool you, we had 1 full day off). In fact, ours was the first to run the 4 week course as we had people from the same PAT plt's leave a week or two earlier than us running the 5 week course.


----------



## Swingline1984

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Velociraptor.    ;D


----------



## PiperDown

We has a Mes managers briefing last week.  Still a lot of unanswered questions.  Although they seem to have figured out how to top off the electronics training missed by not doing a full POET. 
They are going to purchase CDs ( at $1500 a lisence  ) that members can do on their spare time at work.  
 Pure Genius ! 

One small light for the LCIS techs who were tricked into choosing IST.  If your PLAR is not complete, don't finish it before Dec 31st, and you will be automatically moved to CST.  
Unless of course, if you prefer to answer the phone with " help desk" .


----------



## REDinstaller

Nice, Thanks for that info Rob. Funny how alot of the ISTs want to jump ship already.


----------



## MikeL

Lare said:
			
		

> Not sure where this 10 weeks business is coming from,



Easy answer... the info hasn't been updated to reflect the changes in training days.  It's was listed as 10 weeks for years,  was never updated for when SQ was 7 weeks(when I did it) and it still hasn't been changed now that the course is BMQ-Land and only a month long.

It's been updated now though, well kind of.. still using the old course name.
http://www.forces.ca/en/job/signaloperator-16#education-2



> Soldier Qualification
> 
> On successful completion of BMQ, Signal Operators go to a Military Training Centre for the Soldier Qualification (SQ) course, which lasts 20 training days and covers the following topics:
> • Army physical fitness;
> • dismounted offensive and defensive operations;
> • reconnaissance patrolling;
> • advanced weapons-handling (working with grenades, machine-guns and anti tank weapons); and
> • individual field-craft.


----------



## GreenIsGood

The ACISS Fact Sheet ( http://www.forces.ca/en/job/armycommunicationandinformationsystemsspecialist-171#education-2 ) still states that SQ is 10 weeks long.


----------



## PuckChaser

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Nice, Thanks for that info Rob. Funny how alot of the ISTs want to jump ship already.



Jump ship to CST or to ACISS core? From everything I've heard, I have no idea why anyone would want to be ACISS core, MES is designed to give Linemen and helpdesk people specpay, thats it.


----------



## Swingline1984

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Jump ship to CST or to ACISS core? From everything I've heard, I have no idea why anyone would want to be ACISS core, MES is designed to give Linemen and helpdesk people specpay, thats it.



Now we've definitely flipped this on it's head.  This thread has run the gamut; from people (like me) saying this was a save the Rad Op effort to you now saying it is only designed to give Linemen and IS guys spec pay.  To tell you the truth, with Chief Comm Op now being a CISTM occupation I'm not exactly sure what the core occupation is for.  I think the only solution to this mess is to amalgamate ACISS core with IST and then double hat them (we'll call it Phase I).  Once this is complete we should split off the sub-occupations (Phase II) into separate stand alone, silo structured occupations.  We can call the whole effort the Wider Telecommunications (re-) Formulation or WTF.


----------



## REDinstaller

Very nice Swingline. I fully agree with you on the fact this is turning into a gong show. There is no info on anything trade related that is any firmer than jello. Will the CISTMs be able to go back and forth between core ACISS job and sub Traded CISTM jobs? I think they should as all the implementation team has been spouting is "you must be qualified the core job to be in a sub-occupation". To me this says that CISTM are twice as employable than the core ACISS. Picking and choosing our postings very well in relation to what is available.


----------



## JBP

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Nice, Thanks for that info Rob. Funny how alot of the ISTs want to jump ship already.



I think the only people trying to claw they're way out of IST are the people whom thought they could jump on the 'gravy' boat that would be getting Spec pay (I don't think anyone will be myself) and now that they realize it hasn't materialized, they want they're 'old' job back. Whatever the reason, I don't care, if they don't want to be an IST, I don't want  them in my new trade... The only good IST's will be the ones whom want to do that type of job, those who want to be techno-geeks and challenged in that fashion.

It's unfortunate we don't have any further info from higher but maybe this is it, no real game-changing strategy, just continue on. The only other difference is that all our newly minted 'IST' guys are being placed into the same troop at the Sqn. That surprisingly seems like common sense!

Oh, and I suppose we'll see the first big difference when the brand new ACISS dudes from the school show up. We'll see how useful or not they are.


----------



## 211RadOp

CFJSR has 16 showing up next week and one of the Sgts in my Tp has been tasked to manage them while they go through thier "OJT" (contact training , whatever) so in essence they belong to my Tp.  I will let you know how it goes.


----------



## PiperDown

Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> I think the only people trying to claw they're way out of IST are the people whom thought they could jump on the 'gravy' boat that would be getting Spec pay



I cant recall any of the former Sig OPs who were assigned IST that are bugging to switch to core.

I do however, know more than just a few LCIS techs who either were assigned IST or who wanted IST ( and have to submit a plar) who have now changed their minds for one reason or another.   I suspect it has something to do with the small chance IST guys will actually be working on networks, ( and I  mean beyond the current local admin guys who come over and re-baseline your computer )  and the greater chance they will be working at CFNOC or their local help desk.

I just feel that the sub occupation with the most smoke and mirrors in their trade specs is the IST sub.  That great unknown is what has a lot of the former LCIS techs who were exploring the IST route re-evaluating their decision.


----------



## GreenIsGood

PiperDown said:
			
		

> I suspect it has something to do with the small chance IST guys will actually be working on networks, ( and I  mean beyond the current local admin guys who come over and re-baseline your computer )  and the greater chance they will be working at CFNOC or their local help desk.



So which trade or sub-occupation of ACCISS will be working on the networks (design, operation and maintenance ) ?


----------



## Occam

GreenIsGood said:
			
		

> So which trade or sub-occupation of ACCISS will be working on the networks (design, operation and maintenance ) ?



IST...but I don't know where you got "design" from.  They won't be doing any designing, either before the trade amalgamation or after.  Operation and maintenance, sure.


----------



## REDinstaller

Someone needs to polish the Help Desk.  > That will probably be it for the maint portion.


----------



## Swingline1984

Occam said:
			
		

> IST...but I don't know where you got "design" from.  They won't be doing any designing, either before the trade amalgamation or after.  Operation and maintenance, sure.



And hopefully Shared Services doesn't take too big a bite out of their (IST) lunch either.


----------



## Occam

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> And hopefully Shared Services doesn't take too big a bite out of their (IST) lunch either.



I think it's a foregone conclusion that they (SSC) will.  I really don't know how military personnel will be loaned out to be employed in a separate gov't department to work on DWAN and part of SABNS.  I think those positions will go the way of the dodo - and that's simply my opinion, based on watching things in the IT world of DND in Ottawa for the last few years.


----------



## GreenIsGood

Occam said:
			
		

> IST...but I don't know where you got "design" from.


I got it from the ACCISS promo video ( http://www.forces.ca/en/job/armycommunicationandinformationsystemsspecialist-171 ) which states "...we design, install and maintain satellite, wireless and cable networks...".


----------



## Swingline1984

GreenIsGood said:
			
		

> I got it from the ACCISS promo video ( http://www.forces.ca/en/job/armycommunicationandinformationsystemsspecialist-171 ) which states "...we design, install and maintain satellite, wireless and cable networks...".



That was an overarching statement which encompassed the entire ACISS occupation.  Red/black infrastructure and network design will more than likely remain the realm of IM Group and more specifically DGIMT (parts of which are splitting off with Shared Services) with input from the technical Warrant Officers and above (and to some extent the Sgts) i.e. CISTM sub-occ.


----------



## Occam

GreenIsGood said:
			
		

> I got it from the ACCISS promo video ( http://www.forces.ca/en/job/armycommunicationandinformationsystemsspecialist-171 ) which states "...we design, install and maintain satellite, wireless and cable networks...".



I think someone may have taken a little artistic licence with the design aspect.  Certainly not design in the same sense that civvie street would use the term.  Even in the field, the ACISS folks are going to "hook up" to an existing network using portable gear in a predetermined configuration - no designing involved.


----------



## PiperDown

Any one remember SIS tech ?

I thinnk that in a couple years we may be saying " anyone remember that IST trade ? "


----------



## JBP

Highly improbable that the IST trade will ever go away now. The amalgamation might disappear over time, but I think the IST trade is here to stay. It was only a matter of time before the army finally had a recognized IT trade. The Brits, Aussies and Americans, Germans, any modern military has the equivalent of a dedicated IT soldier. 

For my entire reg force career I've been a TacNet system admin, and finally,  now I have a true 'home' and I'm not just considered another dumb-ass Sig Op. For years some people thought I and most of the people in my section were 'techs' - of the LCIS type. We have had techs in our section and do currently! But we're not LCIS. 

With all the different DND networks out there and the continuing complexity of even radios and satellite comms, IST is already a trade, now it's just finally recognized. It's always been there, regardless of the guy working at a helpdesk, TacNet, DWAN, Titan as it used to be, CSNI and the list goes on... 

I'm unsure why so many people keep saying IST's will just be 'helpdesk' workers. It almost seems to me that it's the people who say that that would also say computers are stupid, difficult and shouldn't be in the army. The same people who would say LCIS techs are fing 'nerds' because they're jealous of they're attained Spec Pay. I don't know what their trying to compensate for, but if you're trying to convince yourself that the IST trade will be relegated to just 'helpdesk' to make yourself feel better, enjoy. But the reality of the matter is there is a lot of work done in different positions that most of you never see that will be IST guys doing it. Sure there will be hundreds of helpdesk positions of course, we need them to keep it all going! But there will always be a tactical field deployable network (TacNet) along with all the other goodies like the newly re-minted tactically field deployable TLAN (Deployable DWAN) kits. These all take server administrators and network administrators. 

Designing networks? I've done it. So have others in my section. It used to be a few years ago, that the chain would tell us (Corporals) to 'come up with an IP plan'... They'd also be asking US how to make Visio look like a mesh topology or star topology. We would have to be the ones to explain how TCP/IP networking works or doesn't work and why the plan that the Brigade IMO came up with is an epic failure. 

These days, it's less of that and more of it controlled from higher as someone else mentioned. Which actually makes our job easier! We shouldn't be planning an entire excercises network(s). Corporals are not making a Major's salary or being saluted right? You will still sometimes get the opportunity to 'make things work' though. I have while I've been overseas here, building things, sending them back home and having it implemented. Also 'made things work' before tour as well. No we may not design networks very often, but if you're going to be a real IST you'd better damn well know how to 'make things  work' and use some of those skillsets you've left on the shelf for awhile! I had to pull out some interesting solutions for not only Tacnet but also DWAN while I was here...

Furthermore, cyber-warfare is the next generation's true wars. There are elements of the government and military whom are just now forming the basis and foundation of our defenses and guess where the military side of those NCM and NCO personnel will be drawn from? .... IST! One of the job descriptions for the new trade is "Network Penetration Tester". Hint hint? As time goes on, there will only be a need for more IST and technically inclined personnel. Not less.

My rant is done now. 

 :2c:


----------



## GreenIsGood

Occam said:
			
		

> I think someone may have taken a little artistic licence with the design aspect.  Certainly not design in the same sense that civvie street would use the term.  Even in the field, the ACISS folks are going to "hook up" to an existing network using portable gear in a predetermined configuration - no designing involved.



Oh. That's definitely not as interesting as the video makes it sound. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## aesop081

Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> guess where the military side of those NCM and NCO personnel will be drawn from? .... IST!



It will not only be IST.


----------



## Occam

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It will not only be IST.



That's right....ATIS Techs will be there to ensure the job gets done right.   ;D


----------



## Swingline1984

Occam said:
			
		

> That's right....ATIS Techs will be there to  speak Klingon and eat all your donuts.



There, fixed that for you!   ;D


----------



## REDinstaller

Just like pigeons in the park.  >


----------



## Occam

Ah, you're all just jealous because we were smart enough to see these MES shenanigans coming and ran like hell to steer clear.


----------



## REDinstaller

Just to get swallowed up by the Air Ops albatross and scattered like dust in the wind.


----------



## Swingline1984

MES is coming to a trade near you, it's not just an Army Sigs issue.  It is being implemented forces wide, we were just the test bed.  According to our MES managers it will soon spread like the plague, in fact there was just a CANFORGEN released talking about job based occupational codes and the death of the QL.


----------



## merk102

So I'm supposed to report to CFSCE on the 6th. I've re-enrolled on the 17th of Jan. Seeing as I don't have any kit when it was turned in when I VR'd (Stupidest mistake of my LIFE  :facepalm: ) I called the school and spoke with the Tp WO. Couldn't find me in the system. Surprise surprise. He said that there was a possibility of me being loaded in DP1.0, 1.1, 2.0 or DL. It would be great if you guys have links to posts that provide a general overview of what I should expect to do on these courses. I was originally Sig Op and heard that a lot has changed over the past 3 years since I left.

Any input would be great. I know a lot of people aren't fond of the ACISS amalgamation but I'm excited to see how this has changed and if any improvements to the general day to day operations have resulted due to it. 

On a side note, I was re-enrolled as Pte (b). Out of curiosity, where does that figure in the Pay Scale they provide on the forces.ca? Pte 1,2,3?


----------



## Sig_Des

32 Pages on the amalgamation here, good start:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77029.0.html

In the C&E Forum, lot's of topics.

If you have access to the DIN, here:

http://aws.kingston.mil.ca/Projects/ACISS/Communication/ACISS%20Structure%20Overview1/Home.aspx

As far as the Training, unless you were credited any QL Training, expect to do your DP1.0 (common to all) and be posted to one of the Sig Sqn's or JSR for OJT. Following that, unless you go to one of the sub-occ's, you won't likely have a 1.1, as there isn't one for ACISS core. Following that, DP2.0, also common, and reminiscent of QL5. The DL portions is prior to DP2.

So basically, wait and see.


----------



## Robert0288

merk102 said:
			
		

> On a side note, I was re-enrolled as Pte (b). Out of curiosity, where does that figure in the Pay Scale they provide on the forces.ca? Pte 1,2,3?



Pte r,b,t is independent of the pay scale which works through time in.  Not 100% sure but you should be credited your previous service time toward your pay level.


----------



## PMedMoe

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> Not 100% sure but you should be credited your previous service time toward your pay level.



Not always and not always commensurate with the actual previous time.  I lost about a year's previous service when I got back in.


----------



## JBP

So it appears not much else has come out on this issue other than... Your now a ACISS-whatever... 

Except, I was told by the career manager himself that he has the power to post us in any ACISS position. So, even though I'm an IST, they COULD, per needs of the army etc... Post me into a ACISS CORE position like a CP Operator or HCLOS Det member etc... Interesting. He said obviously the idea of the entire trade amalgamation was to streamline everyone after a certain point, but that they planned to be able to plug & play us as needed.

How do we like them apples? 

In any case. It's all said and done with! Only other change is that all the -IST types in my Sqn are now in 1 Troop, our IT troop. 

Anyone else notice any changes? Any other final news floated around about it all?

 :2c:


----------



## Swingline1984

Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> So it appears not much else has come out on this issue other than... Your now a ACISS-whatever...
> 
> Except, I was told by the career manager himself that he has the power to post us in any ACISS position. So, even though I'm an IST, they COULD, per needs of the army etc... Post me into a ACISS CORE position like a CP Operator or HCLOS Det member etc... Interesting. He said obviously the idea of the entire trade amalgamation was to streamline everyone after a certain point, but that they planned to be able to plug & play us as needed.
> 
> How do we like them apples?
> 
> In any case. It's all said and done with! Only other change is that all the -IST types in my Sqn are now in 1 Troop, our IT troop.
> 
> Anyone else notice any changes? Any other final news floated around about it all?
> 
> :2c:



The Manglers are people.  People are fallible.  Therefore the Manglers are fallible.  Don't believe half of what those folks tell you as they know as much about MES as the marketing department for New Coke knew about brand loyalty.  While there is flexibility built into the system, it is supposed to be at the DP1 and 1.1 levels.  If you leave IST to fill an ACISS hole it is paramount to an OT as once you are successfully boarded and selected for the DP2.1 level your MOSID changes.  They have to backfill your empty billet and then you may not be able to go back if another empty position that fits your career profile isn't available.  This does not mean you won't be available for TEMPORARY employment outside your sub-occ should the need arise.  The brief on ACISS says it gives "Commanders mission tailoring ability", it says nothing about Manglers playing bored General with a sand table.  This doesn't mean it won't happen, it just means your particular Mangler is rolling his PERs and smoking them.


----------



## jmlane

Extremely eloquent response, Swingline1984. 

Perhaps this is slightly off-topic here however it is related to the ACISS amalgamation: is it reasonable to assume you will have a choice of your DP2 training and specialization within the ACISS trade? Can you be "held back" at the core level until an opening for your choice of DP2 course/posting is available? Ultimately, e.g., how possible is that an ACISS with interest specifically in IST gets stuck with CST or LST?


----------



## Sig_Des

jmlane said:
			
		

> Extremely eloquent response, Swingline1984.
> 
> Perhaps this is slightly off-topic here however it is related to the ACISS amalgamation: is it reasonable to assume you will have a choice of your DP2 training and specialization within the ACISS trade? Can you be "held back" at the core level until an opening for your choice of DP2 course/posting is available? Ultimately, e.g., how possible is that an ACISS with interest specifically in IST gets stuck with CST or LST?



I don't see any likelyhood of being "stuck" with CST or LST. I can foresee someone being with an interest in sub-trades being "stuck" in the Core trade.

As far as choice, you'll identify your interest in a sub-trade, should you wish, but it won't be automatic that you get into it.


----------



## jmlane

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I don't see any likelyhood of being "stuck" with CST or LST. I can foresee someone being with an interest in sub-trades being "stuck" in the Core trade.


Thanks Beadwindow 7. That is somewhat better in my mind than the alternative. Perhaps someone with personal experience or whom is better informed will correct me on my assumption. 



			
				Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> As far as choice, you'll identify your interest in a sub-trade, should you wish, but it won't be automatic that you get into it.


Sure, as per everything else in the CF. My question was in response to Sig Joeschmo's following allusion:


			
				Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> [...]
> Except, I was told by the career manager himself that he has the power to post us in any ACISS position. So, even though I'm an IST, they COULD, per needs of the army etc... Post me into a ACISS CORE position like a CP Operator or HCLOS Det member etc...
> [...]


Just a minor concern that any ACISS could be trained/posted in a sub-MOC that they have little to no interest in, due to "operational requirements" at the time.

Thanks for entertaining my questions.


----------



## Sig_Des

jmlane said:
			
		

> Just a minor concern that any ACISS could be trained/posted in a sub-MOC that they have little to no interest in, due to "operational requirements" at the time.



It can go one way, and not the other. In all the Management training I've received for the amalgamation, the MES Manager has been quite clear in that unless you're trained in one of the sub-occ's, you should not be employed in one of the positions.

The crux here is, as everyone to the DP 2 level is considered ACISS Core, even if you receive a specific DP2.1 and fall into that sub-occ stream, you have still been qualified to that core level DP 2, and can therefore be employed as such.


----------



## jmlane

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Swingline1984

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> The crux here is, as everyone to the DP 2 level is considered ACISS Core, even if you receive a specific DP2.1 and fall into that sub-occ stream, you have still been qualified to that core level DP 2, and can therefore be employed as such.



Yup...definitely has all the hallmarks of a Sigs driven initiative.  The equivalent of trying to fill a 10L bucket with 20L of water and then blaming the bucket when it overflows.  What was Einstein's definition of insanity again?


----------



## Bart905

I'm thinking of choosing Army Communication & Information System Specialist as my 3rd option . I was wondering if you guys get any infantry action once deployed ? Because it caught my attention after BMQ you attend SQ .


----------



## REDinstaller

As an ACISS DP1.0 (Very Basic Trade Trained) your first posting according to the MES Heads is a HQ and Sigs Sqn. So if you want infantry action.....Join the Infantry.


----------



## Bart905

Its not that I want infantry action its the fact on the site it says fight as infantry if required. That why I asked and I'm Applied for Infantry , combat engineer and ACISS . I'm interested in all fields. I have some experience to set up servers and what not just wanted to ask you guys that are already enrolled


----------



## PuckChaser

If you're lucky and switched on you could end up as an Infantry Coy Sig. Keep in mind your job is to provide communications, so if that entails rucking up you do it, but most of our work is back from the pointy end types.


----------



## REDinstaller

We all fight the enemy when required. Don't believe everything the trade site tells you. Most of the info does get sugar coated to sex it up. HQ and Sigs used to have a D & S Pl (Defence and Security) that was manned by infanteers. Presently they don't, ACISS are employed at most units and tasks vary.


----------



## PuckChaser

Still waiting for the Eryx missile the recruiting video promised I'd get to fire.  :


----------



## REDinstaller

Well the dancing girls will never show up to the CP, They found more exciting things to do with the Techs and Linemen.  >


----------



## LordSnow

If you are just getting in now I don't think you will have enough time go through the training system and work up and deployment before we pull out of the sandbox. There is always next time I guess but we don't really know when/where that will be so don't hold your breath.
The dancing girls only ever made it as far as KAF before, now its to Camp Cupcake.


----------



## PuckChaser

Tango18A said:
			
		

> They found more exciting things to do with the Techs and Linemen.  >



Dungeons and Dragons tournaments and headbutting wall contests respectively?  >


----------



## REDinstaller

Hey, I've seen those things before...in a CP. And the last time I looked the rest of the Branch concentrated on drinking the coffee, not making it.  >


----------



## REDinstaller

When is your kevlar spoon arriving in Edmonton?


----------



## REDinstaller

So sooner than the promises of the core ACISS guys getting spec then.  >


----------



## Sig_Des

I don't care if we get it, I just hope they take yours away. But then I like that kind of spiteful humor ;D


----------



## REDinstaller

Good luck with that.


----------



## MikeL

Bart905 said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of choosing Army Communication & Information System Specialist as my 3rd option . I was wondering if you guys get any infantry action once deployed ? Because it caught my attention after BMQ you attend SQ .



Everyone in the Army and some Air Force and Navy types in certain trades(Medics, etc) take BMQ-Land(formally known as SQ)

As for Signallers in Infantry units,  I have a lot of experience with that, as all my time has been with the Infantry, 0 time in a Sigs unit.  Think up any questions you have and I'll do my best to sort you out.  But like others said,  your main job is still to provide comms, but you can still get out an go out with the Infantry.  Also with the way the trade(ACISS) is set up now,  Sigs will no longer be posted straight to a Combat Arms unit like they did with the old Sig Op, LCIS and Line trades.  All newly trained pers will do time in HQ&Sigs before going to another unit *edit* according to "The Plan" still possibility of going straight to a Combat Arms unit.


----------



## Sig_Des

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> For Sigs will no longer be posted straight to a Combat Arms unit like they did with the old Sig Op, LCIS and Line trades.  All newly trained pers will do time in HQ&Sigs before going to another unit.



Sure, according to the MES managers. Tell that to the FIVE DP1's I have at a first line Sigs Tp. HQ and Sigs doesn't want to give up experience, so I get 5 guys who don't even know how to set up cam net, much less troubleshoot an LDN.

Sure, for the most part they're eager to learn, but first line isn't the place for it.


----------



## PiperDown

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Sure, for the most part they're eager to learn, but first line isn't the place for it.



And second line is ? 


I am going to earn a right justified bubble for "leading change" and suggest that a new Pte should stay at CFSCE until they are qualified to actually perform trade tasks.


----------



## Sig_Des

PiperDown said:
			
		

> And second line is ?



It shouldn't be either, but there's more sigs resources and personnel available for OJT. 




> I am going to earn a right justified bubble for "leading change" and suggest that a new Pte should stay at CFSCE until they are qualified to actually perform trade tasks.



Makes too much sense. Plus it seems the school has spent so much effort pushing off responsibility I don't think they'll ever take it back.


----------



## Swingline1984

Don't worry.  The 8 billion hours of DL will solve all our problems.  It's supposed to be available end March (along with the results of the pay review).


----------



## Swingline1984

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Don't worry.  The 8 billion hours of DL will solve all our problems.  It's supposed to be available end March (along with the results of the pay review).



That was meant as :sarcasm: by the way.


----------



## REDinstaller

I think an overhaul of CFSCE is what was needed vice the trades being F***ED up. All this has done is to demonstrate how ineffective the school is at training. How many courses have we all been on that had filler that wasn't required? The first Athena (210) maint courses were a perfect example. 1/2 a day taking it apart and the following 1/2 day putting it back together. Otherwise the course could be taught localy to the Units benefit.


----------



## 211RadOp

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Everyone in the Army and some Air Force and Navy types in certain trades(Medics, etc) take BMQ-Land(formally known as SQ)
> 
> As for Signallers in Infantry units,  I have a lot of experience with that, as all my time has been with the Infantry, 0 time in a Sigs unit.  Think up any questions you have and I'll do my best to sort you out.  But like others said,  your main job is still to provide comms, but you can still get out an go out with the Infantry.  Also with the way the trade(ACISS) is set up now,  Sigs will no longer be posted straight to a Combat Arms unit like they did with the old Sig Op, LCIS and Line trades.  All newly trained pers will do time in HQ&Sigs before going to another unit *edit* according to "The Plan" still possibility of going straight to a Combat Arms unit.



Wish that were true, however, on Friday I was at the Grad Parade for 0019 (F) and 0020.  At least two are going to Infantry Units (Shilo and Pet) according to the program.  The bulk are going to HQ & Sigs or CFJSR.


----------



## Gulruthina

Is it hard getting into the ACISS trade?


----------



## REDinstaller

No I don't think so, it will be hard to get out of ACISS if you find you don't like it.  >


----------



## Gulruthina

Tango18A said:
			
		

> No I don't think so, it will be hard to get out of ACISS if you find you don't like it.  >



Where you an ACISS when you first joined the Canadian Forces?


----------



## REDinstaller

The ACISS trade was only stood up on 1 Oct 11. I've been a Rad Tech from 1993-1995, LCIS 1995-2011, and ACISS since 1 Oct 11. But the old Rad Op trade was notorious for come on in, if you don't like it you can remuster to something else..... until you tried. The Sig Ops were the same, so I see situation no change due to low numbers within the new trade.


----------



## Gulruthina

Tango18A said:
			
		

> The ACISS trade was only stood up on 1 Oct 11. I've been a Rad Tech from 1993-1995, LCIS 1995-2011, and ACISS since 1 Oct 11. But the old Rad Op trade was notorious for come on in, if you don't like it you can remuster to something else..... until you tried. The Sig Ops were the same, so I see situation no change due to low numbers within the new trade.



Thanks for the info! I writing my CFAT on Feb 28th for the ACISS and Combat Engineer!


----------



## REDinstaller

Good luck.


----------



## Gulruthina

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Good luck.



Do you need a really high score in the CFAT to qualify as a ACISS?


----------



## REDinstaller

I have no clue as I wrote my CFAT back in 1990. The CFRC will be able to tell you what you qualify for based upon your results. You might be surprised by what you are able to apply for.


----------



## JBP

Gulruthina said:
			
		

> Do you need a really high score in the CFAT to qualify as a ACISS?



You USED to need a high score, it used to be higher for Sig Op than even LCIS and they said that was a mistake... Surprise!!! But now it's been re-adjusted to reflect the requirements properly. I doubt it's harder to get into ACISS than it is to be a Steward or Cook (lol)... Kidding aside, they said it's been brought to a more 'realistic' level. They being MESS managers and Career Managers throughout the briefings the last 2-3 years. If you qualify for Infantry, you'll qualify for us.


----------



## PiperDown

Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> it used to be higher for Sig Op than even LCIS and they said that was a mistake... Surprise!!!



let me be the first to call BULLSH** on that one


----------



## PMedMoe

PiperDown said:
			
		

> let me be the first to call BULLSH** on that one



Nope, completely true.


----------



## Gulruthina

What do you guys love about being an Army Communication and Information System Specialist?


----------



## Gulruthina

I wrote my CFAT and qualify as an ACISS and the other 2 trades I applied for. Actually the Military counselor told me I am very qualified. 

Interview on March 15 for ACISS!


----------



## Occam

This ought to be good....

op:


----------



## Gulruthina

Occam said:
			
		

> This ought to be good....
> 
> op:



Helloo!


----------



## ringo598

uhhh.  Hmmm.  As an ACISS...the part I like is...
Well darn, I don't have much, radio's are fun I guess?  Putting masts up and then taking them down...and then putting them up...and taking them down...good PT at least!  The worst part is when I got told I'm not allowed to use "interrogative" over the net


----------



## Robert0288

Not ACISS, but I hear the hours are good... :


----------



## PuckChaser

Loved being a SigOp, jury is still out on ACISS...


----------



## 211RadOp

Same job, new name.


----------



## Sig_Des

ringo598 said:
			
		

> The worst part is when I got told I'm not allowed to use "interrogative" over the net



Why? because it sounds cool to talk like an American from Generation Kill on the nets?

Thing I used to love about being a Sig Op was how widespread the trade was, covering such a huge training spectrum. Overseas, i could be troubleshooting the IP scheme on a tactical satellite link one morning, and that evening be out on a 10k dismounted patrol. With the new trade, I'll probably do the same ****, I just won't be "qualified" by the MES to do half of it.

Another aspect is gaining true expertise on a technical system. And I just don't mean programming it really fast, but operating it to it's max potential, and being the expert on it.

As well as being the hub of information. When working in a command post, everything flows and ebbs through you. If you pay the proper attention, you have a grasp of everything that's going on over your waves, loosely connected to everything. To the guys on the ground, you're that voice through the box that either makes their lives suck, or helps them out.

Things that suck. CFSCE and modernization packages.


----------



## PuckChaser

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> As well as being the hub of information. When working in a command post, everything flows and ebbs through you. If you pay the proper attention, you have a grasp of everything that's going on over your waves, loosely connected to everything. To the guys on the ground, you're that voice through the box that either makes their lives suck, or helps them out.



Hit the nail on the head here. You're the go-to guy for the commander to link to his troops. Not as far down as we used to be now that there are more Inf Platoon Sigs, but still awesome to basically know everything thats going on outside.


----------



## Gulruthina

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Why? because it sounds cool to talk like an American from Generation Kill on the nets?
> 
> Thing I used to love about being a Sig Op was how widespread the trade was, covering such a huge training spectrum. Overseas, i could be troubleshooting the IP scheme on a tactical satellite link one morning, and that evening be out on a 10k dismounted patrol. With the new trade, I'll probably do the same ****, I just won't be "qualified" by the MES to do half of it.
> 
> Another aspect is gaining true expertise on a technical system. And I just don't mean programming it really fast, but operating it to it's max potential, and being the expert on it.
> 
> As well as being the hub of information. When working in a command post, everything flows and ebbs through you. If you pay the proper attention, you have a grasp of everything that's going on over your waves, loosely connected to everything. To the guys on the ground, you're that voice through the box that either makes their lives suck, or helps them out.
> 
> Things that suck. CFSCE and modernization packages.



Oh wow that's sounds really cool. Btw what do you mean by "I just won't be "qualified" by the MES to do half of it." ?


----------



## Deelo

Sarcasm/irony at their finest.  :facepalm: Being historically able to do a job competently, but being told by management that you aren't able to do do it.


----------



## Brasidas

Deelo said:
			
		

> Sarcasm/irony at their finest.  :facepalm: Being historically able to do a job competently, but being told by management that you aren't able to do do it.



"You can't do that"
"Umm, I've been doing it for 4 years"
"Then you should have sent a request up to become an IST during the MES"
"I'm reserve, IS doesn't exist"


----------



## Gulruthina

Is the 10 week soldier qualification held at the same place where the BMQ took place?


----------



## MikeL

The SQ info is old.  SQ hasn't been 10 weeks in years; was 7 weeks when I did in in 06.  Also, SQ is now called BMQ-Land and it is around a month in length?  And no, it is not in the same location as BMQ, it is in Wainwright, Ab, Meaford, On, Gagetown, Nb, and in ??, Qc. Maybe some other locations as well, I know in the past LFWA Det Shilo, Mb has run it, not sure if they still do.

As for where you will do it, depends on when you finish BMQ and where the next avail course is being run.  You could go to any of the above locations, except Qc if you aren't a francophone.


----------



## 211RadOp

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Also, SQ is now called BMQ-Land and it is around a month in length?



Five weeks now.


----------



## Gulruthina

Hows life as an ACISS? Whats your typical day like? How do you like your posting? How often are you out of the country for training? What do you like the most about the trade? What do you like the least?


----------



## MikeL

Dude,  Sigs/ACISS are employed in a variety of positions and units, as well ACISS is broken into different sub-occupations.  Each of our days will vary and may be vastly different then the next person.  As for how often you leave the country, depends on the unit you are in and your position.  Typical day varies, from stitting around bored, to being very busy getting ready to go on excercise or deployment.  I haven't left the country much for training, it's all been mostly in Canada either at the base I'm posted at or going to Wainwright and Suffield.  I've installed radios in vehicles, sorted out comms issues in other people's vehicle, live fire and movement, worked in a TOC, worked out of a Bison doing RRB and gone out on patrol with the OMLT humping a radio.  As well as verifying serial numbers on computers, and done some basic IS trouble shooting in the unit lines.  Been with the Infantry since I finished my QL3 Sig Op course, and I've done quite a few different aspects of the trade in my time as a Signaller.


----------



## Rheostatic

Baywop said:
			
		

> We were told everyone QL5 and up will have to do a modernization DL package not the DP2 DL which is tied to the residency piece.


Almost a year later and still no word on this DL package which is supposed to be a prerequisite for future career courses. Why do I get the feeling I'm going to get stuck with 8 days' worth of DL on the day before my next course (which, of course will have its own DL package)?


----------



## 211RadOp

I received an e-mail from my SSM a few weeks back on this subj.  For me any (6B qual), my DL will be avail in March.


----------



## MikeL

The DP2 Modernization is on DND Learn,  there was no official email about it, our QL5 guys in the unit only found out about it from buddy who happened to see it there and forwarded that info to us.  Not much to it, just some Tac Rad/TCCS stuff, IS, and a little Line and I think Tech stuff.  Also the test is a soup sandwich with them trying to cram english/french into it and the A B C D blocks weren't properly aligned with the answers.  Take your time with the test and make sure you are picking the right letter for the answer you want.  Some other guys and myself emailed them about that and they are aware of the problem,  not sure if it's been resolved or not yet.


----------



## REDinstaller

211RadOp said:
			
		

> I received an e-mail from my SSM a few weeks back on this subj.  For me any (6B qual), my DL will be avail in March.



This is March, isn't it???


----------



## 211RadOp

Got to love leave.  I loose all track of time   :-[


----------



## PiperDown

Hmm.. Wasn't something else regarding the trade(s) supposed to be announced in march? 

I know a few guys who were promoted or moved up an IPC who are yet to be paid for it.


----------



## PuckChaser

Judging from the somewhat credible info (IE the source) from this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104911.0.html, the cynic in me wants to say the renouncement is delayed because they're scrambling on how to spin the answer TB gave to us into something other than utter failure of their proposal.


----------



## PiperDown

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Judging from the somewhat credible info (IE the source) from this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104911.0.html, the cynic in me wants to say the renouncement is delayed because they're scrambling on how to spin the answer TB gave to us into something other than utter failure of their proposal.



"they" asked for spec pay for the entire trade, I am not surprised ( and that's what I assume was mentioned in your linked thread) that the ACISS core is staying at the standard rate. 

Still, no official word either way down. Core or sub-ocs.


----------



## PuckChaser

PiperDown said:
			
		

> "they" asked for spec pay for the entire trade, I am not surprised ( and that's what I assume was mentioned in your linked thread) that the ACISS core is staying at the standard rate.
> 
> Still, no official word either way down. Core or sub-ocs.



Yep, you caught the part I was referring to, but added the core part yourself. The quote was a direct quote (I had the email forwarded to me, its a plausible source of info) that said the new ACISS occupation (not core, not IST, not LST) which reads as all of us aren't getting it, or to be more pessimistic that CSTs will be pay frozen with vested rights at their current rates.


----------



## PiperDown

If we were speculating sub-ocs, then I would assume there to be 4 decisions. ( 1 core, 3 subs) and not just a blanket decision.

Regardless...officially, still nothing in print.


----------



## RedMan

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...


----------



## aesop081

Daywalker said:
			
		

> Doesn't give me much motivation to stay in this trade...



So leave then.


----------



## PuckChaser

Daywalker said:
			
		

> Why should ATIS still get it yet we don't. Doesn't give me much motivation to stay in this trade...



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.


----------



## PiperDown

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So leave then.



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.


----------



## aesop081

PiperDown said:
			
		

> I understand Daywalker's frustration.



As do i. If i wasn't happy with my current MOC, i would leave.

No ?


----------



## buzgo

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.


----------



## Occam

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.


----------



## Sig_Des

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The best bet would be an overhaul of the spec pay system to tie the pay to specific jobs... IMHO.



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.


----------



## PuckChaser

Beadwindow 7 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.



And good luck posting people out of spec pay positions. If you thought it was bad posting them out of field units now....


----------



## PiperDown

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.


----------



## RedMan

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.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Daywalker said:
			
		

> 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!



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:


----------



## C/S 0

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.


----------



## C/S 0

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


----------



## PuckChaser

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.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 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.



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.


----------



## Gulruthina

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Dude,  Sigs/ACISS are employed in a variety of positions and units, as well ACISS is broken into different sub-occupations.  Each of our days will vary and may be vastly different then the next person.  As for how often you leave the country, depends on the unit you are in and your position.  Typical day varies, from stitting around bored, to being very busy getting ready to go on excercise or deployment.  I haven't left the country much for training, it's all been mostly in Canada either at the base I'm posted at or going to Wainwright and Suffield.  I've installed radios in vehicles, sorted out comms issues in other people's vehicle, live fire and movement, worked in a TOC, worked out of a Bison doing RRB and gone out on patrol with the OMLT humping a radio.  As well as verifying serial numbers on computers, and done some basic IS trouble shooting in the unit lines.  Been with the Infantry since I finished my QL3 Sig Op course, and I've done quite a few different aspects of the trade in my time as a Signaller.



Thanks for the input! My interview went really well!


----------



## m6

I've just been told that the PRes is currently only authorized to train and recruit ACISS with the intent of training them as LST or staying ACISS Core. Has anyone else heard this?


----------



## Brasidas

m6 said:
			
		

> I've just been told that the PRes is currently only authorized to train and recruit ACISS with the intent of training them as LST or staying ACISS Core. Has anyone else heard this?



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.


----------



## m6

Brasidas 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.



Yes, I understand that. This is simply what was passed on to me.

Edit: There can easily be IST/CST types on the Reserve side via PLAR of the DP1.1


----------



## Brasidas

m6 said:
			
		

> Yes, I understand that. This is simply what was passed on to me.
> 
> Edit: There can easily be IST/CST types on the Reserve side via PLAR of the DP1.1



In theory. The system isn't going to expect to accommodate that, any more than it has been to accept CT's of ex-regforce LCIS. I'm in a reserve unit that has an LCIS as the SSM, and a tech attempting to CT to my unit was told up the chain that he wasn't allowed to do so without OT'ing to sig op.

Regardless of the letter of what's right, fringe situations are likely to get short shrift.

Suppose they do get a PLAR for DP1.1, and DP 1.1 only. They'll be invited to take DP 2.0 core. Do they then try to get another PLAR for DP 2.1?


----------



## m6

Trying to PLAR the 2.1 would probably be pointless. My understanding is that if you PLAR the 1.1 you can remain Core but participate in deployments in the sub-occ of the 1.1.


----------



## alucky

Hello! I have an interview coming up for this trade and while I have read up on it/watched the video, I was hoping to find someone who presently works in this field that I could get some feedback from - what your average day is like and how you feel about the job. This trade is entirely different from any career experience that I have previously had.

Any experiences you could share with me would be greatly appreciated. I just want to be as knowledgeable and prepared as I can.


----------



## PuckChaser

Whole topic on the trade here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77029/post-1128109.html#new. I'm sure it will answer all your questions.


----------



## m6

I have scoured the forums looking for a relatively detailed description of the ACISS DP1.0 and it's content and haven't found anything of much use. I will be starting this course in May and would like a heads up, I have the basic ATCIS OP course already so I figure that should help, if only a little.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## ringo598

Well..as someone who graduated from that course about a week ago I can probably help...though with the point that the course is changing pretty rapidly and your mileage may vary as some friends of mine are on a course about a month behind and its different already.

-Typing (If you can do 30ish wpm you get exempt)
-Radio Theory
-Crypto and COMSEC
-Electrical Theory (Reallllly basic)
-The MS office suite (PP, Excel, Word, Outlook)
-Basic lines, CAT-5e/field line
-CI's & the 522
-You do some computer tacnet stuff (SAS/Blue on Blue/etc)..this one seems to be all over the place, some courses got in depth with this, others didn't
-Counter IED
-A few random classes here and there such as field antennas that they never come back on and you never get to actually do any hands on in (a shame really  )
-A couple other radios and systems

Then you go to the field for a month or so, lots of tasty boxed lunches
-Putting the 40ft mast up and down a lot
-Setting up an LSVW comms det
-Setting up the Generator

(You seriously spend almost a month doing the above three) 

Then a field EX...(not really an EX, its like a few days and most courses slept in their shacks at night)
You do some IST/CST/LST and some core, most of it introductory and not graded

Any other questions just ask.


----------



## m6

Thanks for the info, Ringo! Looks like I've done almost everything there previously.


----------



## ayo23

I heard a while back that those in ACISS currently are unable to remuster because the trade's in the red and that it'd be easier to just VR and re-apply. Anyone know if that's changed?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eye In The Sky 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:


----------



## ayo23

Thanks. Not sure how i missed that post.  :-[


----------



## SigPig84

Can anyone confirm the next selection date for ACISS, I'm currently
merit listed, and coming in as a skilled applicant as I only got out in 2011.

Thanks
Cpl Burns


----------



## PuckChaser

You're not in anymore, I wouldn't go around using your rank without Former or Ret'd (which has rules for its use) around it.

Its also the second time you've asked for selection board timings, and obviously no one here has them. So be patient.


----------



## PMedMoe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its also the second time you've asked for selection board timings, and obviously no one here has them. So be patient.



Agreed.  No need to start a new thread.  Mods, might I suggest a merge?


----------



## mmmjon

April 27th.


----------



## JBP

So having finally had a bit of time with some of these new ACISS 'trained' personnel...

ACISS 1.0 FNG: "So, I signed up as an LCIS tech..." - 3/4 of the one's we got were 'suppose' to originally be LCIS...
Me: "What did they teach you in CFSCE/what are you qualified on?"
FNG: "I can setup a mast and generator pretty quick and I can run 3 radios..."
Me: "CJ#$(J#&(RSCFSCE@&$*@($ ..... So you don't know anything about computers, electronics or generally how to fix anything but you'd be great in a Rad det?".
FNG: "Well they said I'd learn most of that here at my unit and when I go do my 2.0 course back at CFSCE."
Me: "Do you have a notepad, a big one...?"

 :-\


----------



## REDinstaller

Welcome to failure.....C & E style.


----------



## JSR OP

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Welcome to failure.....C & E style.




Speaking of failure, has anyone completed their "Modernization" package on DNDlearn yet?  What a horrible experience that was.  I would have rather completed the TCCCS 103 CBT again than do that over.  It was full of typos, incoherent or incomplete sentences, overlapping text.

I completed the first module and no quiz, completed the second module and then was to do a quiz that turned out to be the course exam. I completed it then went to the 3ed module, and it was a repeat of part of the second module.

It was horrible!


----------



## MikeL

Yea it is pretty horrible,  I did it in February? As well as some other guys from my unit and most of us emailed Kingston regarding it, got a response saying they know about the problem and will correct it.. apparently that didn't happen if you recently did it and saw the same errors.


----------



## PuckChaser

Wow, I thought SigOps just weren't getting the modernization package yet, guess its just me. Time to send out an email, I've got time to kill in Kabul.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Wow, I thought SigOps just weren't getting the modernization package yet, guess its just me. Time to send out an email, I've got time to kill in Kabul.



Course enrolment seems piecemeal. I'm the second guy to get it in my unit; it showed up in my inbox on Friday.


----------



## REDinstaller

I completed mine yesterday. What a total lump of BS. Sig Op indoc is all it is. :facepalm:


----------



## JSR OP

Just Rx'd this email WRT ACISS Modernization Training:


To the Signal Community

1.	As most of you already know, the modernization trg has been released in DND Learn for DP 2.0, 3B.0 and 4A.0. Signals personnel have already begun to receive DND Learn accounts which have caused several e-mails to be sent to the Occupational Managers. Although the time limit to complete the Modernization packages are a member/Unit coordination and set for 12 month from the date of the received e-mail, it is imperative that members/Units work on it's completion ASAP.

2.	This trg is a pre-requisite (see "Exert from the QS") to the next level and members who do not complete the required trg, risk being delayed from their next Occupational Career Trg Event. Exceptions can be made on a case by case basis with substantiations from the COC to the Occupational Managers.  All personnel must complete the Modernization trg that is pertinent to them according to the criteria below (see" Exert from MWO Dulude CFSCE - for members level of required trg") . The leadership and members must be forthcoming in identifying themselves or their members if they have NOT received an e-mail from DND learn for the Modernization trg event they are deficient in.

Exert from the QS
3B.0 prerequisites
The prerequisites for selection to attend the training described in this QS are as follows:
Be qualified DP2 ACISS;
Be PLQ(L) qualified;
Be the minimum rank of MCpl; and
	d.	Have a minimum level II security clearance

4A.0 prerequisites
Personnel must meet the following requirements to be selected for this specialty:
Be qualified DP3B ACISS;
Be the minimum rank of sergeant; and
	c.	Have a minimum level II security clearance



Exert from MWO Dulude CFSCE - for members level of required trg 
If you are a Cpl/MCpl not qualified QL5A  - you have to go on your DP2.0 common
If you are a Cpl/MCpl qualified QL5A - you have to do the Mod package DP2.0 
*** You also need to do the Mod package if you did the DP2.1 ***
Note:	1. DP 2.0 modernization package is available on DND learn. Members should be receiving or received an email soon, with their login and password.
	2. Upon reception on the login and password, the package will be available for approx 12 months.
	3. 5 days from the unit should be allocated to the member to complete this Mod trg package

If you are a MCpl/Sgt not qualified QL6A - you have to go on your DP3B.0
If you are a MCpl/Sgt qualified QL6A - you have to do the Mod Trg DP3B.0 
*** You also need to do the Mod package if you did the DP3B.1 ***
Note:	1. DP 3B.0 modernization package is available on DND learn. Members should be receiving or received an email soon with their login and password.
	2. Upon reception on the login and password, the package will be available for approx 12 months.
	3. 7 days from the unit should be allocated to the member to complete this Mod trg package

If you are a Sgt/WO not qualified QL6AB  - you have to go on your DP4A.0
If you are a Sgt/WO qualified QL6B - you have to do the Mod Trg DP4A.0 
Note:	1. DP 4A.0 modernization package is available on DND learn. Members should be receiving or received an email soon with their login and password.
	2. Upon reception on the login and password, the package will be available for approx 12 months.
	3. 7 days from the unit should be allocated to the member to complete this Mod trg package


----------



## buzgo

I did the DP4A.0 test cold without looking at the package. Who decided that it would take 7 days of at home study to pass this thing? I would be shocked and amazed to find that any of the units can afford to let people go for this amount of time... but if you can swing it - do it.


----------



## RedKarma

When's the next one after April 27th? I'm applying right now.


----------



## PuckChaser

If they filled all the positions for the year on April 27th (assuming that it was a correct date), you could be waiting a full year for next year's positions.


----------



## Donny

Do they only do one selection for all the positions or do they brake it down and do few selections?


----------



## PuckChaser

Thats going to depend on how many recruits they need and when. If they need 50 ACISS this year, and they have 300 applicants on April 1st, and want to be able to run an ACISS DP1 course in the Fall with those 50 people, you bet they'll fill the spots right now.


----------



## JBP

I'm sure everyone's already heard now that we're waiting apparently until at LEAST July for an answer about Spec pay. I'm going to hazard a guess (that's all it is) that we won't hear a peep until Sept-Oct and then it will be something to the tune that it's now just in front of the treasury board as they're active review project and it will be another month or so until a decision is rendered. 

By that point, end of the yearish... I'm sure no changes will take effect until the next 'fiscal' year. I expect the decision to be 'no' across the board. I'll be violently shocked if spec pay does happen for any of the sub occ's nevermind the entire trade but if it does and they back-pay it. I'm having a spec pay party at my house in the name of vanity and capitalism, all Sigs invited...  >

Anyone else hear of have any higher sources of more firm dates/timings about the review?


----------



## Brasidas

JSR OP said:
			
		

> Exert from MWO Dulude CFSCE - for members level of required trg
> If you are a Cpl/MCpl not qualified QL5A  - you have to go on your DP2.0 common
> If you are a Cpl/MCpl qualified QL5A - you have to do the Mod package DP2.0
> *** You also need to do the Mod package if you did the DP2.1 ***
> Note:	1. DP 2.0 modernization package is available on DND learn. Members should be receiving or received an email soon, with their login and password.
> 2. Upon reception on the login and password, the package will be available for approx 12 months.
> 3. 5 days from the unit should be allocated to the member to complete this Mod trg package



I've been offered a total of two days to complete my 2.0 package. Is there a more formal reference to the 5 days figure for the 2.0 package?


----------



## PuckChaser

They got rid of the ridiculous figure to complete the mod packages. 2 days sounds more reasonable than 5 or 7. I finished the 3B.0 package in a couple hours, it was more difficult to read through the spelling mistakes and obvious copy/paste than it was to comprehend the material.


----------



## LineJumper

I'm curious of the ramifications of not completing DP4A.0 in a timely fashion?  ;D


----------



## buzgo

Endless email harassment by the MES guys?


----------



## Rheostatic

For the modernization package, your chain should support a few days' effort to complete the package (not necessarily consecutive days); according to the MES Manager, failure to complete it within a year is grounds for administrative action.


----------



## Rheostatic

Brasidas said:
			
		

> I've been offered a total of two days to complete my 2.0 package. Is there a more formal reference to the 5 days figure for the 2.0 package?


It's in the "learning contract" on the ACISS sharepoint:


> 	(AKOX) ACISS DP2.0 (M) DL   2 Days
> 	(AKOY) ACISS DP3.0 (M) DL   3 Days
> 	(AKOZ) ACISS DP4.0 (M) DL   4 Days





> Recent TP Changes have affected the number of training days associated with each module. Please refer to the learning contract for additional details and changes affecting you.


----------



## Sizzle709

Any new information on the ACISS selection dates?


----------



## FreeFloat

Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> ACISS 1.0 FNG: "So, I signed up as an LCIS tech..." - 3/4 of the one's we got were 'suppose' to originally be LCIS...
> Me: "What did they teach you in CFSCE/what are you qualified on?"
> FNG: "I can setup a mast and generator pretty quick and I can run 3 radios..."
> Me: "CJ#$(J#&(RSCFSCE@&$*@($ ..... So you don't know anything about computers, electronics or generally how to fix anything but you'd be great in a Rad det?".
> FNG: "Well they said I'd learn most of that here at my unit and when I go do my 2.0 course back at CFSCE."
> Me: "Do you have a notepad, a big one...?"



Yeppers, I can see that one coming.  I'm currently just at the beginning of my DP 1.0 here at CFSCE, and several times the topic of ACISS Core versus sub-occs has come up.  The most recent conversation ended with the admission that basically what the DP 1.0 turns out is a very, very basic Sig Op with next to no exposure to any of the other sub-occupations.  "You'll get all that once you get posted to the Brigades for OJT," everyone keeps saying.


----------



## Fizzik

FreeFloat said:
			
		

> Yeppers, I can see that one coming.  I'm currently just at the beginning of my DP 1.0 here at CFSCE, and several times the topic of ACISS Core versus sub-occs has come up.  The most recent conversation ended with the admission that basically what the DP 1.0 turns out is a very, very basic Sig Op with next to no exposure to any of the other sub-occupations.  "You'll get all that once you get posted to the Brigades for OJT," everyone keeps saying.



That is pretty much 100% correct in the theory behind the newly developed training. You will see the the problems this has created and will continue to create  problems at places such as the Brigades being full of semi-trained no hook privates. It becomes an administration problem among many other imaginative scenarios. From my experience alot of individuals once arriving at Brigade HQ&Sigs are then farmed out to other units in support which is a step in the right direction(more hands-on). Time will allow adjustments and configurations to the trade which will hopefully smooth out the next big recruiting problem. For example the new recruits being recruited as ACISS how is it determined what Sub-Occ stream they will go and their eligibility.


----------



## Sig_Des

Fizzik said:
			
		

> You will see the the problems this has created and will continue to create  problems at places such as the Brigades being full of semi-trained no hook privates. It becomes an administration problem among many other imaginative scenarios. From my experience a lot of individuals once arriving at Brigade HQ&Sigs are then farmed out to other units in support *which is a step in the right direction(more hands-on)*.



The hell it is. Maybe for the individuals themselves, sure. They'll be exposed to a lot. For the good of the service and units? Not a chance in hell. When you're a tradesman at a first-line unit, you're supposed to be the SME.

When this first originally rolled out, we were told an ACISS DP1 would be able to function out of the school as a basic CP Operator, with exposure to elements of the other specialties so that they would be familiar with the basics, to a point where they could receive OJT.

What I have found is distinctly different

Voice Procedure - atrocious. And I don't mean needs practice, I mean a complete unfamiliarity with proper procedure on nets, from the basics of a NCS initiated Radio Check, to no knowledge of Radio Reports and Returns.

Troubleshooting skills - almost nonexistent. Beyond recognition of brainfarts of "forgot to plug in the coax", the training they seem to have directs them as soon as they see error codes or something doesn't work, instead of using logical problem-solving process to at least isolate the issue, Find a Tech! When the techs ask what's wrong with it, the invariable answer is "It doesn't work". That or blank N/S tags.

Unfamiliarity with Equipment - I'm not talking about the kids showing up not knowing how to program new stuff, or how to set up DAMA with a 117. I'm talking about a kid not knowing how to attach the amp to the Radio. I'm talking about them not being able to setup an LDN to save their lives. I'm talking about them having never seen a Sputnik Antenna element before.

I brought this up during a town hall with the CFSCE Commandant a couple months ago when he came to visit us in the field. Brought up the fact that it's great that you spend 2 weeks at the school teaching them EPLRS and ECM, even though half of them don't do the training because they don't have the Sec Clearance, and nevermind the fact that EPLRS has not nearly been implemented in the field force, and they won't touch ECM. So instead of wasting time, why not focus on more of the basics. Answer I got "We've gotten that feedback. Which is why they'll get more line training".

I don't want to take away from the guys, they work hard, and they are eager to learn. It's not their fault that the School is pushing the Onus of training the basics onto the HQ & Sigs. It's not their fault that the HQ & Sigs are pushing these kids to first-line units. But that's what's happening, and it's bullshit. Virtualization of training + OJT + DL's is NOT the answer as a REPLACEMENT for proper training, but it's the answer we're getting in the trade, and it's going to bite us in the *** very, very hard. Like skin-grafting hard.

Want to decentralize training? Fine. Send out some standards to the Bdes, setup training troops, and run courses there. Unfortunately, Op Tempo and manning being what it is, we can't afford to do that.

What's the answer? My initial answer apparently isn't acceptable (I was NOT a proponent of amalgamation).  So here goes. First off, the DP1 has to be rewritten. We've been told that the army won't allow any days added onto the training. Fine, then the time available has to be managed better, with the main focus being on the BASICS, taught to a sufficient standard.

To catch the stuff that these guys aren't learning, some sort of STANDARD OJT package has to be pushed out, much like the old QL4. And DP1's should NOT be pushed out to First-line units until they have at least completed that package.

Until then, we're going to get a lot of people falling through the cracks, and the trade is seriously going to suffer for it.


----------



## buzgo

Amen.

And stop sending DP1 troops to CFJSR. The absolute worst place to send a Pte.


----------



## FreeFloat

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Amen.
> 
> And stop sending DP1 troops to CFJSR. The absolute worst place to send a Pte.



Why's that?


----------



## PuckChaser

FreeFloat said:
			
		

> Why's that?



To get real field experience and exposure to Bde comms right from the get go? JSR built itself a very specialized role in TLAN and MT dets and is only now trying to break out of that mold. Taking a Cpl who spent the first 5 years of his career in a TLAN det and put them into 2 Sigs and they're gonna be treading water trying to catch up.


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> To get real field experience and exposure to Bde comms right from the get go? JSR built itself a very specialized role in TLAN and MT dets and is only now trying to break out of that mold. Taking a Cpl who spent the first 5 years of his career in a TLAN det and put them into 2 Sigs and they're gonna be treading water trying to catch up.



I don't think it's so much an issue going from JSR to a Bde Sigs Sqn if they go into the IS Tp or even Extension Dets, the switch from TLAN to using WAN kits is pretty minimal. Networks pretty much a network, especially with the use of the TSL-Heavy's.

I think the biggest issue is taking someone with no network experience and throwing them into a network heavy Det like TLAN. It's a lot of training time and investment right off the hop.


----------



## PuckChaser

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I think the biggest issue is taking someone with no network experience and throwing them into a network heavy Det like TLAN. It's a lot of training time and investment right off the hop.



Especially for someone they're going to make into a Core guy.


----------



## buzgo

I think that there should be no privates at JSR, and soldiers should be DP2.1 qualified Cpls prior to posting there. There is a minimal need for CNR at the unit, they will end up bored and disgruntled.

Privates from the school should ALL go to the 3 Brigades, this will give them the exposure to the Army that they need, and allow them the time (first BE) to decide that they like it or not. Teach them the basics, get them in the field, give them an adventure. Sending them to JSR gives them a skewed sense of what the military is all about... There are only so many spots in A troop....

If they insist on continuing to take them from CFSCE, then the unit really needs to get its act together, maybe even going so far as standing up a training Sqn (imagine that?!). Roaming the halls, I have seen a lot of young privates sitting around doing nothing (staring at smartphones). Aren't they supposed to be training?


----------



## Sig_Des

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I think that there should be no privates at JSR, and soldiers should be DP2.1 qualified Cpls prior to posting there. There is a minimal need for CNR at the unit, they will end up bored and disgruntled.



I have a feeling that most guys getting in will become bored and disgruntled by the time they hit the 2.1 level, regardless of where they are.

I'll agree that guys shouldn't be hitting JSR right out the gate, but you won't see that happen. Trade's just filling positions right now, even if it's a square peg in a round hole.


----------



## RedMan

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that most guys getting in will become bored and disgruntled by the time they hit the 2.1 level, regardless of where they are.
> 
> I'll agree that guys shouldn't be hitting JSR right out the gate, but you won't see that happen. Trade's just filling positions right now, even if it's a square peg in a round hole.



As someone who is in the middle of all this ACISS mess, I can tell you that this is happening for alot of people... maybe not intentionally, but it is happening. The idea of farming DP1.0's to different units is good as being stuck at HQ & SIGS with very little (tech-related) OJT is very similar to PAT platoon at CFSCE.... it = suck!

Some of the DP1.0 techs are getting great tech-related OJT, while others... not so much. Myself I am happy where I am at right now as I am getting ALOT of exposure to all the different military vehicles, and I am getting to know the comm suites very well... especially as we are getting ready to begin the phase 2 comm suite upgrades.

I just finished DP1.1 not long ago and instead of being farmed out to another unit again, my current unit asked to keep me here to help out for the phase 2 upgrades. It's nice going to work where you are wanted as opposed to being somewhere where you are just an administrative burden and taking up space.

I am an older guy with alot of pre-military tech experience so my mentality is different... I'm not looking for the adventure, I just want to get on course (DP 2.1 mod 2) without having to wait forever to do a 2.0 common course first. 

The one thing I have seen ACISS do right however is see poeple who were originally signed as one signals trade, be able to switch to another sub-occ if they found they didn't like the one they were in. We had one guy fail his DP1.1 CSS tech course, but now he has the chance to try being LST which is the trade he originally wanted.


----------



## Fizzik

Now it's just waiting to hear about CST's reinstatement of Spec Pay. It's suppose to be announced this month. Although I can see it getting delayed yet once again. Spec pay for all Sub-Occs would be a neat tactic. I can tell you though all the former LCIS will either not be staying or re-mustering and will definitely be very bitter towards the MESS.


----------



## PuckChaser

Fizzik said:
			
		

> all the former LCIS will either not be staying or re-mustering and will definitely be very bitter towards the MESS.



And thats different from now, how?


----------



## REDinstaller

This restructure is a poison to all that are forced to drink it. We all know what the proper plan should have been.


----------



## buzgo

Clean slate!


----------



## max1441

I'm new on the forum and I'm french as well so excuse my english! 

I just sign 4 years for ACISS and after reading this post, I must say that I'm worried about my choice. I didn't know that the trade have been changed or anything about the "amalgamation". So if I understand well, I signed 4 years in a new trade with a bad formation and long wait on pat plt? ...nice :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser

max1441 said:
			
		

> So if I understand well, I signed 4 years in a new trade with a bad formation and long wait on pat plt? ...nice :facepalm:



That's pretty much how we were before the ACISS thing. The wait on PAT was insane regardless.


----------



## RedKarma

I was told today they were looking to recruit roughly 300 ACISS techs this year so looks like there is a better chance of me getting in, thank god!  crossing my fingers!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This years SIP has approx. 335 ACISS for 'external' intake, aka off the street recruiting (largest # of external intakes in the CF IIRC).  Its now end July so unknown how many have been filled.


----------



## PuckChaser

RedKarma said:
			
		

> ACISS techs



Its not ACISS Techs. Its ACISS: Army Communications and Information Systems Specialist.


----------



## Sizzle709

I was told there are selection dates in both August and November. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## Melanie Jane

I was wondering if when you get a job offer they tell you which part of aciss you will being doing lineman, tech, sig op... or do you choose after basic and when your on your course??? please help! lol


----------



## MikeL

On the job offer it will be for ACISS-Core not for a sub occupation.  AFAIK somewhere along the way at CFSCE or the unit you get to say what you would like,  and eventually going by your skill level,  needs of the unit, etc you will either stay ACISS Core or go into a sub occupation like LST or CST.  Start reading in the Signals/C&E sub forum,  there is a large thread with all kinds of info about ACISS.

*edit
Just noticed your other thread,  you said you got your job offer.  So you should already know the answer to that question.


----------



## Melanie Jane

Thank you!n and yes I should know the answer but I told my friend (whoalso in the mil) and he asked what sub section was in and I didn't think the said any thing about it but I started second guessing if they did or not because I was excited to get the call.


----------



## PuckChaser

You only know where you're going if you were recruited into and signed an offer in one of the 3 legacy trades: Line, LCIS, Sigop. If you signed as ACISS, you're in the Core and follow the process Skeletor outlined.


----------



## Melanie Jane

Ok yes I got everything figured out and it is ACISS-core. And they said that it will take a couple years until you/they figure out which sub-occupation you will be branched out on... I really want line-man! 
Thanks guys
I love how everyone is so informative, military seems like it has a good support group!


----------



## Big Red Kaboom

Sizzle709 said:
			
		

> I was told there are selection dates in both August and November. Can anyone confirm this?



I can confirm that.  August 7th and one in November.  Not sure the exact date in November.  I'll ask after my interview today.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

Has anyone heard anything else in regards to the spec pay decision that was supposed to come by end of July?


----------



## REDinstaller

Nothing at all, I think the July decision was another MES pipedream. TB will give a decision when they feel like, regardless of the timelines set by another department.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Nothing at all, I think the July decision was another MES pipedream. TB will give a decision when they feel like, regardless of the timelines set by another department.



Thanks, 

Yeah, pipedream is a good way to describe this situation.


----------



## RedKarma

I was wondering if someone could tell me a bit about the ACISS Stovepipes? (IST, LST, CST) I'm trying to get prepared for my interview. I'm looking for Timelines such as how long I'd be in the forces before I got offered my first Stovepipe (and are they called stovepipes? I heard a ACISS Reserve Cpl call them that)

Thank you.


----------



## PuckChaser

RedKarma said:
			
		

> I was wondering if someone could tell me a bit about the ACISS Stovepipes? (IST, LST, CST) I'm trying to get prepared for my interview. I'm looking for Timelines such as how long I'd be in the forces before I got offered my first Stovepipe (and are they called stovepipes? I heard a ACISS Reserve Cpl call them that)
> 
> Thank you.



If you ask the implementation team, there are no stovepipes. They got rid of them with the legacy trades to make one big stovepipe with 4 smaller stovepipes inside it.  :  You're chosen for a subocc based on technical ability, CF need and personal preference once you've completed your DP1 and do some OJT at your unit. Then you go back to CFSCE for 1.1 in your subocc.


----------



## Hermes

the frequency radiation


----------



## RedKarma

Ok, so what are the differences between LST, CST, and IST? Also, what are the prerequisites needed before being offered a stovepipe?


----------



## PuckChaser

There's no prereqs. Like computers? IST. Like climbing things and setting up line in buildings/field? LST. Like fixing stuff? CST. All the info you need is in this topic.


----------



## V_I_Lenin

Hmmm...
Refractive Region/Refractive Layer exercises...set up the CP and CRTTZ dets, send dits and dahs and Baudot code back and forth from Shilo to Victoria and everywhere in between, just using  knowledge of the D E F1 and F2 layers...and 400 watts of RF power, baby!

Setting up that stinking, steerable log-periodic. A bag-drive from beginning to end, but  was there a more potent symbol of Jimmy expertise?

Fallex.

CFSCE when it used to be fun. 

Regular tours/posting to miserable places like the Golan, Cyprus, Sinai, Germany...rumour has it that occasional alcoholic beverages may have been consumed...

...and while we're at it, wet messes on exercise! Made those 2.5 months on Waincon a little easier to bear.

Then again, I may be looking back through rose-tinted R214/211/215 glasses....


----------



## Sizzle709

Just finished a career diploma in Computer Programming and I am interested in the ACISS trade (again). Will this diploma help me out in regaining my trade and making my application more competitive within the selection process? Any of you Sigs guys help me with this one?


----------



## Occam

It would likely make you a little more competitive as a result of post-secondary education, but I don't think it's going to get you anywhere trade-related.  ACISS-IST are workstation/system/network admins, and won't be using computer programming skills at all.


----------



## Sizzle709

Oh. Well, kind of disappointing.. I figured it could of at least helped me within the trade.


----------



## ringo598

Well, I will chime in on this one, I'm ACISS, I'm working in an IST post even though I don't have my IST 1.1 training, probably because of my post secondary education in software engineering.  I can say that I program, a lot.  Not in the traditional languages, ie C/C++, (The system admins don't like you making your own exe's on their secure network) but a lot of web based stuff, HTML/XML/Java/CSS/PHP.  So it is possible, but I'm one of two here in Kingston doing that so its pretty rare.  The folks here at least are really good with getting you into stuff you want to do within reason, so if you want to join and program its possible.


----------



## Occam

Are there opportunities to do web-based programming as ringo598 has mentioned?  Yes, they're few and far between.  Is it a part of the job description?  Not a chance.

I used to work second line on one of the networks, and some of the best one-way conversations I've heard were when it was discovered that the guys out in the field were doing unauthorized "programming".


----------



## ringo598

Heh, that actually came up on Ex a few months ago in Pet.  I also nearly caused a heart attack for the sir when he overheard me and another guy talking about programming because he thought we had installed an IDE on the network.  Sizzle, Occam is correct though, it might help you a bit because I'd assume you've got your math and problem solving skills sharpened a bit by post secondary, but in the new trade everyone is trained as an operator before a tech and in our basic trades training there wasn't much of that required.  That should help with your aptitude testing and such, so don't discount your extra education.  

That being said, if you are actually interested in the trade itself, once your done and into your first posting its actually pretty good, lots of good geek stuff.  From field antenna's to satellites, and lots of computers.


----------



## Sizzle709

Those responses make me feel much better about the situation now. Thank you guys, I guess I just have to explain my reasoning to the recruiter and hope for the best. 

Thanks again,

Sean


----------



## MeatheadMick

V_I_Lenin said:
			
		

> (snip)
> *CFSCE when it used to be fun. *
> (snip



CFSCE fun? Good god!

This ACISS thing seems almost identical to the RMS merger. Wonder if it will lead to the same problems? Being Jack of all Trades, (Sig Op, Lineman, LCIS) master of none? Wonder how many of today's muck ups with pay or leave, or other admin related issues would be easier resolved if there were still dedicated admin/fin clerks?

I was a res Sig Op from Jun '05 - Feb '10... just barely skimmed out of the ACISS Merger. Been in the field with some relatively fresh ACISS guys, and being a former jimmy, (still always the guy to get tagged to set up rads when no Sigs are attached) I was interested to see what I dodged. missed out on. How is it going for you guys that signed up for one trade, just to be f**ked nudged over to another one?  >

Are you all mostly grand-fathered over to the same stream within ACISS or has anyone really taken a bite and have had to completely switch streams? Seems like there could be some serious growing pains with any trade that has to almagamate. 

It would be very interesting to get posted to Kingston now that I'm a meathead lol... I fondly remember my weekends at CFSCE where I'm surprised the MP's weren't called in.  Just remember folks, the grass ain't always greener on the other side


----------



## PuckChaser

MPMick said:
			
		

> It would be very interesting to get posted to Kingston now that I'm a meathead lol... I fondly remember my weekends at CFSCE where I'm surprised the MP's weren't called in.



Friend of mine is a MP here, most of his fun stories are involving CFSCE students in the shacks. He's definitely not bored.


----------



## Sturm0vik

Hi, I am starting my BMQ on Oct 1st for ACISS, and I have a few questions about the trade, and about the Sig Op sub occupation. However, I would first like to point out that I have done alot of research on this already, both on this site and on the Army website, and if you tell me to use the search function, Or anything similar, I will ignore you, because I already did that. I just want to make that clear.

So: 
For ACISS, how often are you working in the field? I don't mean in combat or on the frontline, I see alot of people asking that, I just mean outside or on excercise doing hands on type stuff.

What is your day to day life like? I've seen this asked before but I wasn't really satisfied with the answer, sorry to sound picky 

How does getting into the sub occupations work, and is it difficult to get your choice of one?

For Sig Op, what is the trade like? Is it the same or similar to the original trade before ACISS, or is it really changed. To my understanding, sig op is more of a field operator, and works with radios and such closer to the line then the other aspects of the ACISS trade. But I could be completely wrong.

I'm really curious to what the trade is going to be like, and I'm really looking into trying to get into the sig op aspect of it, thanks for any help you can offer guys!


----------



## Journeyman

Sturm0vik said:
			
		

> .... if you tell me to use the search function, Or anything similar, I will ignore you...


Use the search function!


Ignore away; it's OK, I'll still sleep nights.   :nod:


----------



## Sturm0vik

Haha jerk


----------



## PuckChaser

Anything ACISS is really going to depend on your unit and what Bde you're posted to. You could be in the field for 2 months straight a couple times a year, or you could barely ever go to the field. Day to day life is similarly varied in that regard, because we're so broad in scope you can literally move into a building across the street in the same base and have totally different hours/schedule/work load.

Sub occ choices are something that isn't super worked out, but this whole ordeal sounded like a great way to force people to be Core (SigOp). My day to day job hasn't changed other than the work load, as ACISS gutted my section and set positions to the wind as they were reclassed as IST.

You'll get a broad overview of everything on your DP1, and will start learning some of the jobs then. Even after CFSCE, you may end up in a unit where you need lots of extra training as there's no possible way to teach every job an ACISS can encounter in the period of time allotted to produce DP1 soldiers. You'd spend 4 years at CFSCE, and no one wants that.  ;D


----------



## chrisf

Sig op make magic box talk!


----------



## Sturm0vik

OK, so do you have any control of which direction your career goes, as far as field to not field goes? If that's the area you were interested in, would you be able to work towards it?

Also, It was my understanding that 'core' was ACISS, but just an advanced generalization of all the trades, but you mention SigOp is the core?

One more thing, I heard before that the parachutist course was available to Sigs, is that true, or completely wrong?

Thanks for the info man! Much appreciated


----------



## MikeL

All trades can go on the Para course,  it just comes down to requirement(do you need the course for the job),  unit,  open slots, etc   You aren't in yet,  don't even worry about B Para.

Yes,  essentially the Sig Op trade is now the ACISS Core.  CST would be LCIS,  LST would be Lineman and IST is a mix of what some Sig Ops and LCIS Techs did.


----------



## Ludoc

Sturm0vik said:
			
		

> For ACISS, how often are you working in the field? I don't mean in combat or on the frontline, I see alot of people asking that, I just mean outside or on excercise doing hands on type stuff.


It depends where you are posted. In the last twelve months my unit has been to Wainwright for exercise twice (totaling about a month and a half), spent a moth in the sub-arctic and to Dundurn for a couple weeks. The twelve months prior to that we spent almost two months in Wainwright (again on two separate exercises), over a month in Suffield and about a week in Winnipeg fighting the floods. That is all in addition to the time we spend on base practicing ups and downs/ maintaining kit. So there is the opportunity for a lot of hands on activity in the trade. 

However, you could just as easily be posted down the road to an ASG and work 8-4 never deploying to the field. Or you may be posted to JSR whose experience may be totally different.



> What is your day to day life like? I've seen this asked before but I wasn't really satisfied with the answer, sorry to sound picky


Once again it depends where you end up. Generally the day will begin with PT and then move into whatever needs to be done around the unit. Usually getting equipment ready for ex, confirming it works and repairing it after returning from ex. Keeping vehicles serviceable takes up a lot of our time as does cleaning everything between exercises. 

Additionally there are are always tasking that need to be filled. Personnel need to be loaned out to support courses as drivers, signals experts or enemy force. Not to mention the the time people will spend on course or teaching courses.



> How does getting into the sub occupations work, and is it difficult to get your choice of one?


The unit asks what you want to be, then they place you where they need you. Being switched on and hard working helps but in the end if your unit is full of x sub-oc and short of y sub-oc you are going to end up a y.



> For Sig Op, what is the trade like? Is it the same or similar to the original trade before ACISS, or is it really changed. To my understanding, sig op is more of a field operator, and works with radios and such closer to the line then the other aspects of the ACISS trade. But I could be completely wrong.


Sig Op No longer exists, it has been replaced by ACISS core. Core guys are the radio operators but that isn't to say they are the only ones that do so or the only ones that go to the field. In the last exercise we were on my CP consisted of 11 Sigs including 2 ISTs, 1 LST and 1 CST.  And every one of them pulled radio shifts. 

We are a networked army, higher leverl CPs are full of networked computers and going forward that connectivity will be pushed to lower and lower levels. Someone needs to set up all those computers and the servers to feed them. Someone needs to run all the line from the servers to the computers. Someone needs to fix all the radio equipment us ACISS core guys break. So there are still a lot of non-core personnel that deploy with us. Those that are not directly part of our detachments are usually a tactical hop or two behind us in their own shop. Either fixing equipment that can't be repaired on the front line, administering servers to push data forward/providing a field help desk or laying all kinds of line to connect everyone to everyone else.

TL;DR: Every unit is different so it is hard to give you any concrete answers. You could end up any sub trade. All the sub trades go to the field and may end up "close to the line."


----------



## Sturm0vik

Alright thanks a load guys, ill let you know if i have any more questions. Looking forward to starting in October!!!!!


----------



## MeatheadMick

I can definitely imagine. My shacks were on the McNaughton side of the base, wedged between the JR's and the MP Det... fun times.


----------



## TSpoon

Are the communications trades in the PRes merged into one like ACISS in the RegF ? (I've been accepted for a job with 700 comm sqn) i.e. would I be doing just comms/radio type work or would I also be doing the same stuff linemen do/ IT and computer work ? I was hoping to be assigned to a combat arms unit after training but I wasn't sure if this was always the case, does anyone know ? Thanks for any info  

(and I did search around a fair bit but couldn't find any clear answers)


----------



## MikeL

ACISS is for both Reg Force and Reserve Army Signallers.

In the past Sig Ops and Lineman were both open for Reservists,  LCIS Tech at one point was also,  but not for awhile now.  So I would assume you could still be able to do line work in the Reserves.  As for the IST,  you would have to ask around your unit,  I am unsure if there is much call for IST in the Reserves,  and if there was I am not sure what they would do.  




			
				TSpoon said:
			
		

> I was hoping to be assigned to a combat arms unit after training but I wasn't sure if this was always the case, does anyone know ?



If you joined a Reserve Signals unit you would stay with that unit.  I don't believe there are any Sig positions within the Reserve Combat Arms units.  You could be able to work with a Combat Arms unit on excercise depending on what is going on and if they request it.


----------



## TSpoon

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> ACISS is for both Reg Force and Reserve Army Signallers.
> 
> In the past Sig Ops and Lineman were both open for Reservists,  LCIS Tech at one point was also,  but not for awhile now.  So yes, you would be able to do line work in the Reserves.  As for the IST,  you would have to ask around your unit,  I am unsure if there is much call for IST in the Reserves,  and if there was I am not sure what they would do.
> 
> 
> If you joined a Reserve Signals unit you would stay with that unit.  I don't believe there are any Sig positions within the Reserve Combat Arms units.  You could be able to work with a Combat Arms unit on excercise depending on what is going on and if they request it.



Oh okay I guess I was under the impression that Sig Op was still a stand alone trade in the reserves.Thanks a lot for the info Skeletor !!!


----------



## MikeL

As far as I know,  there would be positions for LST in the Reserve(not sure how long it would take someone to be trained as such though).  When you get into the unit,  ask around and they would be able to give you a solid answer.  I'm sure someone who is a Reserve ACISS will be along here eventually and give you some more information.


----------



## TSpoon

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> As far as I know,  there would be positions for LST in the Reserve(not sure how long it would take someone to be trained as such though).  When you get into the unit,  ask around and they would be able to give you a solid answer.  I'm sure someone who is a Reserve ACISS will be along here eventually and give you some more information.



Awesome.Thanks again


----------



## MeatheadMick

Ah 700 CS. Was a Sig there for 4 and a half years before going reg MP. Good times, some good people. Have fun, and tell Capt Caron I said Hi.

The Res world is also ACISS however I'm not certain how the trg goes as I got out before the merger. In either case you will still do BMQ/SQ and ACISS core before any venture into other strands. as for the combat arms, you'll be a mbr of a brigade and have the opportunity to provide Sigs support to the Grey abd Simcoe Forresters, the Queen's York Rangers and many of the other units located in the York  Armoury. You will also participate in exes and ranges with the surrounding res sig units in Ontario.  If you have any questions feel free to PM me and I will ask around. I'm still in regular contact with most of the Sr. NCO's and MCpls.


----------



## TSpoon

MPMick said:
			
		

> Ah 700 CS. Was a Sig there for 4 and a half years before going reg MP. Good times, some good people. Have fun, and tell Capt Caron I said Hi.
> 
> The Res world is also ACISS however I'm not certain how the trg goes as I got out before the merger. In either case you will still do BMQ/SQ and ACISS core before any venture into other strands. as for the combat arms, you'll be a mbr of a brigade and have the opportunity to provide Sigs support to the Grey abd Simcoe Forresters, the Queen's York Rangers and many of the other units located in the York  Armoury. You will also participate in exes and ranges with the surrounding res sig units in Ontario.  If you have any questions feel free to PM me and I will ask around. I'm still in regular contact with most of the Sr. NCO's and MCpls.




Thanks a lot for the  info man,if I see the Capt you mentioned I'll be sure to say hi.Cheers


----------



## LCIS227

Still nothing on the Spec Pay front?

I checked out the ACISS sharepoint and it's seen virtually no updates in the past 2 months ...  :facepalm:


----------



## Dyolfknip

Shocking.........


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

Dyolfknip said:
			
		

> Shocking.........



LOL....I can see October becoming end of March...

As a former LCIS TECH, I hope I made the right choice when I basically rolled the dice with my pay and went IST....


----------



## Dyolfknip

BigDaddyFatback said:
			
		

> LOL....I can see October becoming end of March...
> 
> As a former LCIS TECH, I hope I made the right choice when I basically rolled the dice with my pay and went IST....



Ya I did the same thing, based on the CM telling me that my current posting was an IST position, turns out it is a CST spot, but I still got it....lol.....OUTCAN.....if it wastn for this posting, I would be beating my chest a lot harder for sure.....

I am not confident that ANYONE in the trade will get Spec now. Not with the budget cuts that are going on....


----------



## LCISindenial

Last I heard the treasury board will release its decision after merit board sits. Of course this is rumor mill sourced.... However it does seem like a fair indicator of an unfavorable ruling if this is true. 

Fingers crossed but not holding my breath. Retention will become an issue.... Ha. It already is.


----------



## Dyolfknip

LCISindenial said:
			
		

> Last I heard the treasury board will release its decision after merit board sits. Of course this is rumor mill sourced.... However it does seem like a fair indicator of an unfavorable ruling if this is true.
> 
> Fingers crossed but not holding my breath. Retention will become an issue.... Ha. It already is.



What would merit boards have to do with Spec Pay?


----------



## LCISindenial

Nothing. Unless you wanted to turn down a promotion because you knew your pay was frozen....  

And as I said before, it was a rumor I heard


----------



## Dyolfknip

LCISindenial said:
			
		

> Nothing. Unless you wanted to turn down a promotion because you knew your pay was frozen....
> 
> And as I said before, it was a rumor I heard



Doubtful, but seeing as they announced the IR cuts right after APS, anything is possible I guess. Regardless,they fucked us.


----------



## Dyolfknip

LCISindenial said:
			
		

> Nothing. Unless you wanted to turn down a promotion because you knew your pay was frozen....
> 
> And as I said before, it was a rumor I heard



Interestingly enough, I got an email at work today stating the decision is coming this December.  :facepalm:


----------



## Occam

Dyolfknip said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, I got an email at work today stating the decision is coming this December.  :facepalm:



Was this e-mail that you got at work from someone involved in the process and able to speak authoritatively, or from a local Tarot card reader?


----------



## Dyolfknip

Occam said:
			
		

> Was this e-mail that you got at work from someone involved in the process and able to speak authoritatively, or from a local Tarot card reader?



Yes. Although CMs have been tarot readers in the past. Feel free to pm your DWAN details and I will fwd it to you tomorrow.


----------



## LCIS227

I received the email as well. All the regular MWO's and above, including the Branch CWO are involved and was distributed to the units last week. 




> Voici la réponse que j’ai obtenue de DPPD:
> 
> I estimated to be finished those evaluations by mid-December.  We will keep you info.



If anyone wants the email, just PM me and I'll send it to you on DWAN.

I have 2x ACISS-CST Cpls and a 1x ACISS-CST Pte in my shop all looking at OT'ing ATIS Tech. The Cpls are sick of waiting and feel undervalued by the Army since they are doing the exact same job as the other 2x ATIS Tech Cpls in the shop but earning 6000$ less.


----------



## Dyolfknip

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> I received the email as well. All the regular MWO's and above, including the Branch CWO are involved and was distributed to the units last week.
> 
> 
> If anyone wants the email, just PM me and I'll send it to you on DWAN.
> 
> I have 2x ACISS-CST Cpls and a 1x ACISS-CST Pte in my shop all looking at OT'ing ATIS Tech. The Cpls are sick of waiting and feel undervalued by the Army since they are doing the exact same job as the other 2x ATIS Tech Cpls in the shop but earning 6000$ less.



And rightly so. If I was a LCIS Cpl right now, my paperwork would have been in months ago. The fact I am an OT from the infantry and my current posting is what stopped me, even at my current rank.


----------



## Occam

Dyolfknip said:
			
		

> Yes. Although CMs have been tarot readers in the past. Feel free to pm your DWAN details and I will fwd it to you tomorrow.



I'll take your word for it - my point is that saying there's an e-mail going around is pointless unless you give some frame of reference as to its authenticity, and whether it's from someone who actually knows something, as opposed to rumour recycling.


----------



## PiperDown

The Board expects to be finished the evaluations in Mid-dec.

"An answer on specialist pay for the ACISS and sub skill set is expected in Dec 2012."


----------



## Dyolfknip

Occam said:
			
		

> I'll take your word for it - my point is that saying there's an e-mail going around is pointless unless you give some frame of reference as to its authenticity, and whether it's from someone who actually knows something, as opposed to rumour recycling.



You mean like was posted after I said it came out? I certainly wasn't posting names or what not on an open forum. Like I said, feel free to PM your details.


----------



## Occam

Dyolfknip said:
			
		

> You mean like was posted after I said it came out? I certainly wasn't posting names or what not on an open forum. Like I said, feel free to PM your details.



I'm sure positions would have sufficed to provide veracity.  I don't need to see the e-mail, thanks...I was one of the C&E Trades that'll still get Spec pay rate when all the dust settles, and now as a civvie, I don't need to worry about it.  My interest in this is solely to see how long this evolution goes on before someone realizes how bad an idea it was, and decides to undo it.


----------



## PuckChaser

Decided to update my posting preferences today... only to find out that instead of deleting the SigOp/LCIS/Lineman trades out of the trade search on EMAA after they change all the positions to ACISS, they delete it first. Now in all of Ontario there are only 37 ACISS (all sub occs) Sgt positions. Shouldn't have expected anything better...


----------



## kevincanada

Can someone give me a break down on what is going on with the ACISS?  All I have left is medical and interview,  My original trade choices are closed for the season,  ACISS is wide open, and every time a recruiter is see's my I.T. Diploma they think heyyyyy! with a big grin.  

I understand the Spec pay problem and why you would be upset.  Now I am seeing people are trying to leave the field altogether?  Administrative reasoning for pay freeze's and the likes, is one reason to be upset.   Seeking to completely leave the trade and start fresh in another one?  I can't help but to think more is going on than just money problems.

My main interests are combat and or building roles and related jobs (all closing up fast for the year),  Secondary were the high-tech jobs like ACISS

Thanks


----------



## Brasidas

kevincanada said:
			
		

> ...Now I am seeing people are trying to leave the field altogether?  Administrative reasoning for pay freeze's and the likes, is one reason to be upset.   Seeking to completely leave the trade and start fresh in another one?  I can't help but to think more is going on than just money problems.



There have been problems with the sig op trade from well before amalgamation. Amalgamation didn't fix those problems.

Meet sig ops, learn about the trade, get an idea of what you'd be doing. Don't expect to be anything other than the "core" stream of the amalgamated trade.


----------



## RedKarma

Interview tomorrow! Hope I get in! I asked over the phone how many slots still open and was told approx 130 so still decent chances of getting in I'd say!


----------



## MMSS

RedKarma said:
			
		

> Interview tomorrow! Hope I get in! I asked over the phone how many slots still open and was told approx 130 so still decent chances of getting in I'd say!



Good luck! Go over the practice questions and be positive.


----------



## Wilder

So Jealous! Best of luck on your interview!  I'm currently waiting on my medical file to come back from where ever they hide those things away. Fingers crossed it doesn't take too long.


----------



## Sizzle709

Had an interview tomorrow, should be merit listed this week and then here is to hoping for a selection date within November! Good luck to all others.


----------



## Decon

Sizzle said:
			
		

> Had an interview tomorrow, should be merit listed this week and then here is to hoping for a selection date within November! Good luck to all others.



When I had my interview on October 16th there were still 129 ACISS positions open. I know this because ATIS is my second choice and the recruiter tried to convince me to choose ACISS as a third. AVS is my primary choice and where my heart is, so I left ACISS off my application. This was because recruiter informed me that had I put ACISS as my third choice I would have likely been hired within days but lose my chance at AVS. 

My point is: recruiting detachments in my region seem to be under a lot of pressure to find ACISS recruits. 

Good luck!


----------



## GrilledLincoln

Brasidas said:
			
		

> There have been problems with the sig op trade from well before amalgamation. Amalgamation didn't fix those problems.
> 
> Meet sig ops, learn about the trade, get an idea of what you'd be doing. Don't expect to be anything other than the "core" stream of the amalgamated trade.




In regards to this some of the guys out at 1 HQ&Sigs who are fresh off their DP1 in summer are getting OJT's with the linemen and being nominated for 1.1, whether it happens is another story I guess.


----------



## Swingline1984

GrilledLincoln said:
			
		

> In regards to this some of the guys out at 1 HQ&Sigs who are fresh off their DP1 in summer are getting OJT's with the linemen and being nominated for 1.1, whether it happens is another story I guess.



Yup...and there is a 30% failure rate once they get to CFSCE because there is no official measurement tool prior to going on course to determine fear of heights (or fitness to climb).  This leaves the courses running short and is a colossal waste of time and money ensuring that uptake won't meet the level of attrition.  Some are even being forced on 1.1 with absolutely no aptitude or desire and are asking to be removed from training once in Kingston.  The system is already broken...Go MES!!!  :


----------



## Occam

1984 said:
			
		

> Yup...and there is a 30% failure rate once they get to CFSCE because there is no official measurement tool prior to going on course to determine fear of heights (or fitness to climb).



Yeah, I was wondering how they were going to deal with that issue.  If you joined as a lineman, you knew you were going to be climbing and as such, should not have joined that trade if you can't climb.  Now, with someone arbitrarily saying "Guess what, you're now a LST", what the hell do they do now?  If it were me, you couldn't get me up one of those towers at gunpoint, you're going to have to shoot me.


----------



## blacktriangle

Sort off topic...feel free to PM me as to not derail...but how often are Lineman at 1 Line etc on the road/tour? I know a few guys and they seem to be getting good amounts of TD and some deployments. 

Is there a demand civvy side for what Lineman do? Or not so much?


----------



## PiperDown

200 days a year approx.


----------



## Swingline1984

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Sort off topic...feel free to PM me as to not derail...but how often are Lineman at 1 Line etc on the road/tour? I know a few guys and they seem to be getting good amounts of TD and some deployments.



140 days domestically without a waiver from the CO and often more depending on operational requirements.  My personal record was in the neighborhood of 280 days with a mix of domestic and international deployments.



			
				Spectrum said:
			
		

> Is there a demand civvy side for what Lineman do? Or not so much?



Depends on where you are seeking employment.  Not so much of a demand as there used to be in Ontario but opportunities exist with most averaging a fair rate of pay.  I can't really speak about other provinces, however, most guys I know that have retired and sought employment in related fields don't have much trouble finding work.


----------



## RedKarma

Hey I just got in! they told me on Nov 15, and I get sworn in on Jan 16, 2013 and leave for BMQ on the 19th of Jan. hope this info helps. Im also an ACISS


----------



## merk102

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you ask the implementation team, there are no stovepipes. They got rid of them with the legacy trades to make one big stovepipe with 4 smaller stovepipes inside it.  :  You're chosen for a subocc based on technical ability, CF need and personal preference once you've completed your DP1 and do some OJT at your unit. Then you go back to CFSCE for 1.1 in your subocc.



So I have a quick question relating to sub occs. I'm going on my DP2.0 and classified as ACISS core. I'm looking to go the CST or IST route. where the hell do I go from here to get where i want to be? Haven't done DP1.1 as I was granted my QL3 that I did x years ago. Any clarification on this would be great on how to proceed.


----------



## merk102

So I have a quick question relating to sub occs. I'm going on my DP2.0 and classified as ACISS core. I'm looking to go the CST or IST route. where the hell do I go from here to get where i want to be? Haven't done DP1.1 as I was granted my QL3 that I did x years ago. Any clarification on this would be great on how to proceed.


----------



## PuckChaser

You need to talk to your Chief Comm Op/Tp WO and state where you want to go as soon as you can. They can get the ball rolling with careers and find out the process, as its been changed or rumoured to have changed half a dozen times. I would recommend a well written memo that states why you want to be CST or IST and what personal skillsets you think would make you a good fit in one of those trades.


----------



## Walker_ACISS

I just accepted my job offer for ACISS; my BMQ starts on the 28 of January 2013.  Any other 'forum viewers' heading to St. Jean for that date?


----------



## Sizzle709

Got my offer on October 29th, Swear in on December 19th and I leave for BMQ January 5th for the course on the 7th.


----------



## Radop

A lot of the complaints about the amalgamation in these threads are simply BS.  Quit posting half truths and start stating what is true or state that it is your opinion.

One of my favorite quotes today is one from Colin Powell.  This is not a word for word quote but it goes something like this:

"If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even more!"

One person stated that the LST trade was having 30% failures.  The Linemen instructors use to brag about failing half their course.  That would be 50%!  Great, we increased our training retention by 20%.

No one has talked about the fact that we may have training recognized through a college soon.  We could have our apprentice, journeyman and red seals all recognized outside of the military as well.

So now I challenge you to look at what the positives are for this "change".  Tell us what you would do differently!  Lots of people bitch and never come up with an alternative.  People researched this, briefed the country including most of you on this thread and implemented it.  Most of the briefings I attended, almost no one stood up and complained about it, asked questions or said boo.  Now that it is done, you complain.

Those in the LCIS Trade that had their pay frozen, I certainly hope that the spec pay issue is resolved sooner rather than later.  I know that when I did my CISTM course, it was a hot topic as that is when the announcement came out on the freeze.  This trade has always made the impossible work, kept it working and passed on to others how to make it work.  

ACISS may not work but it will not be because of me.  I want it to succeed and I want our people to be doing relevant work with adequate compensation for the knowledge and expertise they need to acquire that expertise.


----------



## NRobichaud

Just wondering what to expect after BMQ, do I go directly to BMQ-L, and if so what does that involve (what types of weapons, is there any vehicle training), and I believe afterward I head to CFSCE? what does that consist of?


----------



## dangerboy

I will start of by saying I am not ACISS, but I see a bunch of stuff to do with training.  Most likely you will have some kind of waiting period before you go on your BMQ Land.  During that time frame you will be put in a PAT (personnel awaiting training) Pl.  As Kingston can't handle all the troops you might get sent to another base.  In Wainwright they have a PAT Pl which has a number of ACISS pers.  Part of the deal is the training centre in Wainwright will get you on your driver wheel course and BMQ Land prior to you reporting for your ACISS course.

For what weapons you learn on BMQ Land, you cover C9, C6, M72 SRAAW(L) and grenades.  Depending on your staff you might do a refresher on C7 also.


----------



## MikeL

In addition to dangerboy's reply.

For driver wheel you would be getting qualified on the LSVW.  I know in the past some Sig Ops did their QL3 course before doing BMQ-Land; they would end up doing it after arriving at the unit.  Not sure if that still happens or not.  I believe some ACISS pers that are waiting their DP1 have done some OJT at a HQ&Sigs Sqn.

As for what happens at CFSCE are you referring to their PAT Platoon or being on course(DP1)?

For info on ACISS check out the following threads on the trade
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104818.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77029.900.html


----------



## NRobichaud

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> As for what happens at CFSCE are you referring to their PAT Platoon or being on course(DP1)?


Either one, I don't know if I will be on PAT at CFSCE or elsewhere, or at all, but I guess I am more curious as to what the ACISS course at CFSCE consists of, i know its a lot of in class, Im more curious about the hands on training and PT, also if anyone can offer me some insight on food, at CFLRS, CFSCE or anywhere, my BMQ date is 4 weeks away and I'm super excited to get going, so I''m just trying to soak in as much knowledge as I can about my training and trade! Thanks for the info so far, you guys have given me the most direct andhelpful answers yet.


----------



## MikeL

Food - you will be fed..  food is alright at CFLRS and Kingston.

PT at CFSCE - on Sig Op QL3 we did PT 5 days a week(Monday-Friday),  running,  spin class, circuits, sports.  I would expect it do be the 

For classes,  expect a mixture of powerpoint,  and hands on/practical.  I would assume there is still a field portion of the course as well.  I don't really have any detailed info as I went through the Signal Operator courses(QL3/5) not ACISS.  Read the two threads I posted earlier on ACISS,  lots of info in there.


----------



## Dyolfknip

...and December comes and goes......*shakes head*......At least the DWAN ACISS site is nicely updated........ :brickwall:

If only there was a branch in the CF that could maintaing a website.  LOL.....


----------



## c_canuk

Radop said:
			
		

> A lot of the complaints about the amalgamation in these threads are simply BS.  Quit posting half truths and start stating what is true or state that it is your opinion.
> 
> One of my favorite quotes today is one from Colin Powell.  This is not a word for word quote but it goes something like this:
> 
> "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even more!"
> 
> One person stated that the LST trade was having 30% failures.  The Linemen instructors use to brag about failing half their course.  That would be 50%!  Great, we increased our training retention by 20%.
> 
> No one has talked about the fact that we may have training recognized through a college soon.  We could have our apprentice, journeyman and red seals all recognized outside of the military as well.
> 
> So now I challenge you to look at what the positives are for this "change".  Tell us what you would do differently!  Lots of people ***** and never come up with an alternative.  People researched this, briefed the country including most of you on this thread and implemented it.  Most of the briefings I attended, almost no one stood up and complained about it, asked questions or said boo.  Now that it is done, you complain.
> 
> Those in the LCIS Trade that had their pay frozen, I certainly hope that the spec pay issue is resolved sooner rather than later.  I know that when I did my CISTM course, it was a hot topic as that is when the announcement came out on the freeze.  This trade has always made the impossible work, kept it working and passed on to others how to make it work.
> 
> ACISS may not work but it will not be because of me.  I want it to succeed and I want our people to be doing relevant work with adequate compensation for the knowledge and expertise they need to acquire that expertise.



GDay WO

I don't know about the rest of them, but my grumbles about the amalgamation is that it was all sunshine and rainbows at the briefings with very little actual content to discuss. It seemed like a lot of fluff cheer leading for a system that hadn't even been built yet. 

What were we supposed to do, stand up in these meetings, of little substance, and say "These sure are pretty power points and it all looks good but us NCMs have deep seated feelings of dread that this is going to get ballsed up badly" I'm sure they would have been "Oh, well Pte in that case we'll just call the whole thing off. Take an early day Gents!". No actually I think that would have gone over like a fart in church and for good reason.

Saying after the fact that we should have complained in the meetings is a little obtuse. There was nothing to complain about and any objections we raised would have been irrelevant, ACISS was already coming at that point and nothing short of the CLS or higher could have stopped it.

So, now that I'm trying to work with the tools given to me, I'm not happy with the progress that has been made.

EMMA's posting preferences are useless at this point.

We were told the MEMS app in Monitor Mass was going to be a great tool for planning our career progression; As an IST I can't move up in rank according to the app unless I drop out of IST and go into ACISS Core first. This is for every rank level within IST. This seems rather odd to me.

The continued delays in finding out if we're getting spec pay or not I realize is out of the trade's hands at the moment, however in the middle of a recession is really not a good time to be asking for money, the extra 3 years of delay in implementing MES is what has put us in that situation.

Promotion Ranking this year for IST puts me at a disadvantage because my peers were considered Sig Ops last year and managed to get promoted, now even though my overall score is much higher, and I'm higher on the list for my trade, now that I have 3 MOIs. It is looking like I have a snowball's chance in hell of getting promoted when it was almost a certainty up until this according to my supervisor.

The fact that the career managers are possibly not visiting Gagetown and Halifax this year and are not releasing information about the promotion forecast is also troubling.

I think most of the grumbling, at least on my part, is there is little information coming down the pipe. What is given to us is broken or incomplete. Any time we ask for clarification and reassurances we get told: "Don't worry it'll all work out fine" and have been told this for years.

I'm feeling a bit like a mushroom here and I'm sure I'm not the only one.


----------



## Dyolfknip

C_Canuk,

While you bring up a lot of valid point that I agree with.....the one about the promotion forcast is answered if you go into EMAA and download the CM brief. Its no secret. ISTs are seeing like 7 to MCpl this year. (Not at work, so I can confirm, but I know the number is close to that). Regardless, you are absolutely correct. I was an instructor at CFSCE when the MES briefings fired up. And EVERY one of them, I was one of the ones saying "hey what about this....and this....AND THIS".......and all they did was blow smoke up our collective a$$es. 

Long story short, if they hope to retain members, this really isn't the way.......Its like a kidnapper asking his hostage for a date afterwards........


----------



## c_canuk

Good day

I just flipped through the PPT Deck on EMMA and there is no promotion forecast.

My Supervisor inquired through the foreman channels back channels and was told 3.

I'm told through rumor mill that the PPT Deck shown at CM General brief includes the forecast, but that portion is not included on the deck on EMMA.

Cheers


----------



## Dyolfknip

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Good day
> 
> I just flipped through the PPT Deck on EMMA and there is no promotion forecast.
> 
> My Supervisor inquired through the foreman channels back channels and was told 3.
> 
> I'm told through rumor mill that the PPT Deck shown at CM General brief includes the forecast, but that portion is not included on the deck on EMMA.
> 
> Cheers



weird.....I know I saw it there because where I am currently posted we wont see the CM.....ever, so I went and checked it the other day. I am back at work tomorrow and will see WTF I was looking at.


----------



## Occam

Radop said:
			
		

> No one has talked about the fact that we may have training recognized through a college soon.  We could have our apprentice, journeyman and red seals all recognized outside of the military as well.



This is the first time I noticed this post, and I have to comment on it.

What training is going to be recognized by what college?  Recognized in what way?

What apprentice, journeymen and red seal trades could be recognized by what entity/organization?

Knowing the history behind the struggle that the Naval Electronics Technician trade went through to receive accreditation, I'm extremely skeptical of the above claims.  The Canadian Technology Accreditation Board (CTAB), a committee of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT), closely examined the CF's training curriculum of the NE Tech trades in the mid '80s.  Recommendations were made to bring the curriculum in line with the requirements for certification (mostly dealing with the number of hours of instruction in electronics principles), and as a result the NE Tech training at QL5 was accredited at the Technician level.  NE Techs who attained QL5 since then have been able to apply to one of the provincial associations for certification as Certified Technicians (C.Tech).  The C.Tech designation (like CET, P.Eng, etc.) is trademarked and controlled under legislation in each province.

I'm familiar with the electronics training that LCIS Techs have been taking over the years, as well as the types of training available to Sig Ops/LCIS Techs in the IT field.  Knowing that the level of their formal training was never sufficient to meet the requirements for certification in either electronics or computer technology, and that in fact the level of technical training has been progressively pared down over the years, I'm keenly interested in knowing what formal college (or otherwise) recognition is about to be granted to the ACISS trade at various qualification levels.  I can't speak to whether the Linemen training would or wouldn't qualify for certification because I'm not familiar with the level/quantity of their training in the CF, or the civilian certification process in that trade.


----------



## Dyolfknip

Occam said:
			
		

> This is the first time I noticed this post, and I have to comment on it.
> 
> What training is going to be recognized by what college?  Recognized in what way?
> 
> What apprentice, journeymen and red seal trades could be recognized by what entity/organization?
> 
> Knowing the history behind the struggle that the Naval Electronics Technician trade went through to receive accreditation, I'm extremely skeptical of the above claims.  The Canadian Technology Accreditation Board (CTAB), a committee of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT), closely examined the CF's training curriculum of the NE Tech trades in the mid '80s.  Recommendations were made to bring the curriculum in line with the requirements for certification (mostly dealing with the number of hours of instruction in electronics principles), and as a result the NE Tech training at QL5 was accredited at the Technician level.  NE Techs who attained QL5 since then have been able to apply to one of the provincial associations for certification as Certified Technicians (C.Tech).  The C.Tech designation (like CET, P.Eng, etc.) is trademarked and controlled under legislation in each province.
> 
> I'm familiar with the electronics training that LCIS Techs have been taking over the years, as well as the types of training available to Sig Ops/LCIS Techs in the IT field.  Knowing that the level of their formal training was never sufficient to meet the requirements for certification in either electronics or computer technology, and that in fact the level of technical training has been progressively pared down over the years, I'm keenly interested in knowing what formal college (or otherwise) recognition is about to be granted to the ACISS trade at various qualification levels.  I can't speak to whether the Linemen training would or wouldn't qualify for certification because I'm not familiar with the level/quantity of their training in the CF, or the civilian certification process in that trade.



Ya I have to agree, al lI have ever seen is Athabasca offering credits for stuff. And not even that much....http://www.athabascau.ca/contact/askau/index.php?question=How+do+I+transfer+military+credits+to+Athabasca+University?&type=related


----------



## PuckChaser

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Good day
> 
> I just flipped through the PPT Deck on EMMA and there is no promotion forecast.
> 
> My Supervisor inquired through the foreman channels back channels and was told 3.
> 
> I'm told through rumor mill that the PPT Deck shown at CM General brief includes the forecast, but that portion is not included on the deck on EMMA.
> 
> Cheers



That PPT is not uploaded to the site until every base has had their interviews with the CM. I've already had mine, but can't remember the IST numbers as Christmas leave is blocking the memory. You'd be right to have a low estimate, I do not believe it was a double digit number.


----------



## ringo598

Dyolfknip,

I'll grab one of my buddies in the tech shop here in Kingston who's doing the accreditation program (They have been advised they're a 'pilot' test of this training), they actual have a written document they had to sign about their obligations and what they are getting out of it, currently for them its for guys going through the CST stream, they have quite a bit of online learning which they've been getting 2-3 days a week to do for the last several months.  (mostly technical theory like parallel/series circuits, wave theory, AC/DC, ohms law, etc.  Which I presume would have been taught in the old POET).  I've seen the home learning stuff their doing first hand as I'm tutoring a couple of them since I went to school for computer eng) I'm almost positive the accreditation was a technologist diploma via George Brown college but I'll get a copy this evening and post the details.


----------



## Occam

ringo598 said:
			
		

> Dyolfknip,
> 
> I'll grab one of my buddies in the tech shop here in Kingston who's doing the accreditation program (They have been advised they're a 'pilot' test of this training), they actual have a written document they had to sign about their obligations and what they are getting out of it, currently for them its for guys going through the CST stream, they have quite a bit of online learning which they've been getting 2-3 days a week to do for the last several months.  (mostly technical theory like parallel/series circuits, wave theory, AC/DC, ohms law, etc.  Which I presume would have been taught in the old POET).  I've seen the home learning stuff their doing first hand as I'm tutoring a couple of them since I went to school for computer eng) I'm almost positive the accreditation was a technologist diploma via George Brown college but I'll get a copy this evening and post the details.



Impossible.  

It's certainly not a technologist (typically three years of full time study) or technician (typically two years of full time study) diploma.  George Brown offers a distance learning *certificate* program, where the credits can be applied towards the Electronics Engineering Technician diploma program at another institution, but the certificate by itself and a $1.75 will get you a coffee at Timmy's.


----------



## ringo598

@Occam,

You are correct, its a good thing I used that 'almost positive' line in my last post so that my foots not too far in my mouth.  My buddy forwarded me the link to the ACIMS site that has the CST training pilot info, and here's the scoop:

2.	Students that successfully complete all modules of the George Brown distance education program including lab projects, review exercises and tests will be granted an Electronics Technician Certificate from that institution.  On successful completion of DP1.1 CSS and DP2.1 CST, students will be granted National Qualification Codes AKOI and AKOR.

So, no technologist for them.  Well...at least they get 'technician' in there somewhere  :-\


----------



## Occam

Well, they can call themselves an electronics technician, but they won't be able to be a Certified Technician (C.Tech).  More often than not, employers are looking for people who are able to be certified by the provinicial licensing body (in Ontario, OACETT).  A electronics technician certificate program certainly won't be getting you any jobs much more than minimum wage.

A Certified Engineering Technologist (CET) is usually a three year full time program, and gets into the design world.  There aren't any trades in the CF that will put you anywhere close to those qualifications.


----------



## JBP

Occam said:
			
		

> Well, they can call themselves an electronics technician, but they won't be able to be a Certified Technician (C.Tech).  More often than not, employers are looking for people who are able to be certified by the provinicial licensing body (in Ontario, OACETT).  A electronics technician certificate program certainly won't be getting you any jobs much more than minimum wage.
> 
> A Certified Engineering Technologist (CET) is usually a three year full time program, and gets into the design world.  There aren't any trades in the CF that will put you anywhere close to those qualifications.



Although you're basically 95% correct, I would beg to differ a little on the C.Tech from OACETT. I think for someone whom is in my position it's attainable. I'm waiting for dust to settle (posting message and move) but I plan to apply for the designation and/or challenge for it. Again, I think for most of the IST pers, it's not really an option as they don't have enough in-depth experience but for a few of us, it's possible. Day-to-day active directory password resets does not, a C.Tech make! Those of us in system administrator/manager positions on classified systems for the past few years, through evolutions of said systems and tens of thousands of dollars in civvy IT courses plus CFSCE/army IT courses plus operational tours as classified system admins etc... I've got to have a shot at it anyways. I'm already hired as a IT sub-contractor on the side (with an approved memo from my unit CO!) and make anywhere from $38-$55/Hr depending on the job plus extras!

For those of you fellow IST's who wonder why you should even bother trying to attain C.Tech status... Think of jobs in places like Ottawa for example, that require Top Secret and/or higher, plus a provincial tech certification. For someone like me without formal college/university, the C.Tech qualifies me for those fancy IT jobs. It makes an arguement for spec pay at the very least. Furthermore, if you attain provincial certification, it gives you PER points and extra points on the yearly board! So if you're going in the for the long haul... Or not, either way it's worth it.


----------



## Occam

You can apply, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.  OACETT and the other provincial bodies are exceptionally stringent when it comes to meeting the academic requirements for the certification level you're seeking, though they do have a PLAR process you can utilize.  You have to remember, though, that the C.Tech certification is meant to recognize completion of a full, 2-year post secondary engineering technician or applied science diploma program or equivalent.  To give you some context of exactly what that is, take a look at the Information Technology program at NSCC.  I've probably taken many of the training programs you have, including MCSE, CCNA, etc., etc., and they still don't add up to anything remotely close to the number of hours of instruction and scope of curriculum taken in a full-time program.

I don't want to discourage you from applying, but don't have overly high hopes either.  They'll tell you exactly what core competencies you're missing if you don't meet the requirements.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pay review update: Credible email on DWAN received today, DPPD screwed the pooch and didn't start in December 2012 like they were supposed to, review is now slated to start NLT 1 Mar 13 and conclude NLT 1 May 13. So in other words, we'll know in July 2014.


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> review is now slated to start NLT 1 Mar 13 and conclude NLT 1 May 13. So in other words, we'll know in July 2014.



We all know how that went the last 3 times...

Do they not get how much this continuous shit show is obliterating morale?


----------



## PuckChaser

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Do they not get how much this continuous crap show is obliterating morale?



ACISS in general started obliterating morale, but I can see a lot of troops losing trust in the senior leadership of the branch. That's going to be a huge hill for them to climb to gain that trust back.


----------



## LCISindenial

"Directorate of Pay Policy and Development

DPPD is responsible for the strategic advancement of Canadian Forces compensation policy, within the guidelines provided by Treasury Board, in such a way as to enhance the Forces' ability to attract, retain and motivate its most valuable resource - its members."

Hmmm. Not really motivating too many folks as far as I've seen...


----------



## technophile

décennie de noirceur, deuxième manche !!


take away spec pay, no significant pay raises, very little promotions.


----------



## buzgo

I will be shocked if the spec pay issue is approved. By combined the trades into the ACISS occupation they have diluted the spec occupations enough that there isn't a critical mass of pers in spec pay qualifying jobs...


----------



## PuckChaser

But didn't you hear, all sub occ WOs and above are going to get Spec 2! Because they will be doing so much specialist work as a LCMM....  :


----------



## 211RadOp

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But didn't you hear, all sub occ WOs and above are going to get Spec 2! Because they will be doing so much specialist work as a LCMM....  :



Not this cat!! They will not be able to drag me into one of those jobs!!

(And yes I noted your sarcasm, but I still don't want that job)


----------



## PuckChaser

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Not this cat!! They will not be able to drag me into one of those jobs!!
> 
> (And yes I noted your sarcasm, but I still don't want that job)



Here, here! Canvas monkeys unite.  ;D


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here, here! Canvas monkeys unite.  ;D



It's cool to be core!


----------



## Jammer

Hear, Hear!!!


----------



## c_canuk

LCISindenial said:
			
		

> "Directorate of Pay Policy and Development
> 
> DPPD is responsible for the strategic advancement of Canadian Forces compensation policy, within the guidelines provided by Treasury Board, in such a way as to enhance the Forces' ability to attract, retain and motivate its most valuable resource - its members."
> 
> Hmmm. Not really motivating too many folks as far as I've seen...



Typical doublespeak that you find everywhere.

The public face statement is always about how a dept gets orgasms from doing the best job they can, putting everyone else above themselves and working ceaselessly towards constant improvement because they are perfect team players.

In reality depts are always staffed with overworked and burned out people, who are only concerned with toe'ing the party line and not getting hassled.

Since no one figuratively lost their heads over the previous delays, processing the spec pay request is low on their priority list and will not have a firm deadline until there are consequences for failure to meet them.

This is not as much a reflection on those that should be working on it, but a reflection on how many hats everyone has to wear these days. The items with the lowest repercussions for failure, and thus those with the lowest priority, are the cans that get constantly kicked down the road.

The question is, how do we get the priority raised and who in our organization should be raising hell...


----------



## PuckChaser

c_canuk said:
			
		

> The question is, how do we get the priority raised and who in our organization should be raising hell...



D Sigs should be, as the very livelihood of his trades are at stake here. But time will tell.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> D Sigs should be, as the very livelihood of his trades are at stake here. But time will tell.



Ha! Seeing as most of the upper echelons of the D Sigs shop has been pushing ye olde "Embrace change and quit bitching" line for the past 5 years makes me very skeptical that they have a vested interest in the livelihood of the trades.

For a pessimist, I'm pretty optimistic about MES. However my realist tendancies are pushing me to believe Spec Pay is the opiate ofthe ACISS trade.


----------



## c_canuk

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Ha! Seeing as most of the upper echelons of the D Sigs shop has been pushing ye olde "Embrace change and quit bitching" line for the past 5 years makes me very skeptical that they have a vested interest in the livelihood of the trades.
> 
> For a pessimist, I'm pretty optimistic about MES. However my realist tendancies are pushing me to believe Spec Pay is the opiate ofthe ACISS trade.



You know my tin foil hat wants to suggest the possibility that one of the points of ACISS was to provide the opportunity to revoke spec pay from the trade.

I mean they've already come out to say that they intend to hijack whole waves of ACISS Core students and push them into sub occupations for short term needs, then when the need is over let them apply to go to other sub occs. The example given was the Olympics.

The reason for this, they stated, is to make sigs more agile, but they gloss over what a clusterfrig that would be to your career if you were shoved into line and intended to go tech, ist or core. it'd be at least a 2 year delay on your projected path. You'd probably deal with the consequences for 5 years or more when you compare time lines for promotions compared to those that didn't get force tasked out of their normal career progression path.


The tin foil hat also wants to suggest that maybe the reason this can keeps getting kicked down the road is so that those getting ready to retire don't have to deal with their pension being mucked with if spec pay gets revoked... although I would assume any collecting it would get grandfathered, not just loose it.

It feels to me that we're not seen as individual soldiers anymore, but interchangeable plug and play things that have no career aspirations. 

I think if spec pay doesn't come about, there are going to be a lot of people looking to change MOC or release if they don't start realizing the negative impact this stuff will have on people's careers.

I mean they already expect us to volunteer in the community, take career and trade courses, do OPMEs (defunct now), and second language trg on our own time, Then you add in workup trg and missions... 

At some point they need to wake up and realize there are only so many hours in the day and this kind of workload is burning people out. People need time to relax and look after their families as well. And they need to be able to tell their families what is going to happen for the next year or so.


----------



## c_canuk

Friendly tip to anyone who wants to make it past MCpl in IST at least but probably the whole trade.

Don't wait for the CF to Offer second language training, it's pretty much senior Sgt and WO only, but you're going to need it if you want to get that far.

Don't say I didn't warn ya.


----------



## PuckChaser

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Friendly tip to anyone who wants to make it past MCpl in IST at least but probably the whole trade.
> 
> Don't wait for the CF to Offer second language training, it's pretty much senior Sgt and WO only, but you're going to need it if you want to get that far.
> 
> Don't say I didn't warn ya.



They cut French SLT in half this year for budget cuts, only being offered to merited MWOs from what I've heard. I believe there was only 2 year-long spots for the whole trade last year, and I'd expect the same this year.


----------



## 211RadOp

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They cut French SLT in half this year for budget cuts, only being offered to merited MWOs from what I've heard. I believe there was only 2 year-long spots for the whole trade last year, and I'd expect the same this year.


 Then I know both (Sgts) and they are both in Kingston doing the course.  I'm fairly certain there were more than two this (last) year.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

So, I heard a rumor...

The rumor goes like this, IST could be removed as a sub occ. 

IST's who were techs will go back to CST and IST Sig Ops will go to ACISS core.

Just a rumor, but if spec pay is proving to be difficult to get for all sub occ's, I could see this coming to fruition.

It would be basically the same trade setup as it was before, with CST getting/keeping spec pay.

Anyone else hear this?

Remember...just a rumor!


----------



## PuckChaser

If they get rid of IST, which is one of the big reasons we did this gongshow, then we better roll back everything. IST was going to become obsolete soon anyways, Core pers would have needed the same networking training to run all the new IP-based green kit.


----------



## REDinstaller

I've heard the rumour of going back to the future, evidently the grown ups at the NCR have realized that the implosion wasn't worth the grief


----------



## buzgo

I'm not too sure about obsolescence for IST, right now there is a lot of dependence on FSRs and other contractors to keep things running - these jobs could and should be done by mil pers but your average ACISS core soldier is not qualified to do the task, and quite honestly there is enough to learn with HCLOS, TSL, NCCIS, EPLRS, CNR-E etc etc etc. Having a dedicated sub-occ (or trade) specifically for IT allows the development of a capability that we otherwise have had difficulty managing. 

I think the main reason we 'did this gongshow' was to create a pool of personnel that can be used as radio operators, no matter what their sub occupations ultimately become.

By the way, the network task (programming routers, switches, crypto) should be a CST job, with the ACISS core running the first line help desk and the ISTs locked up in the server room managing servers.


----------



## Occam

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I'm not too sure about obsolescence for IST, right now there is a lot of dependence on FSRs and other contractors to keep things running - these jobs could and should be done by mil pers but your average ACISS core soldier is not qualified to do the task, and quite honestly there is enough to learn with HCLOS, TSL, NCCIS, EPLRS, CNR-E etc etc etc. Having a dedicated sub-occ (or trade) specifically for IT allows the development of a capability that we otherwise have had difficulty managing.
> 
> I think the main reason we 'did this gongshow' was to create a pool of personnel that can be used as radio operators, no matter what their sub occupations ultimately become.
> 
> By the way, the network task (programming routers, switches, crypto) should be a CST job, with the ACISS core running the first line help desk and the ISTs locked up in the server room managing servers.



The dreams of ACISS (and ATIS Techs, and several other trades) creating a hard IT trade will never happen.  The amount of server/network administration being done by uniformed personnel will continue to decline, and more will be done by civilians.  There's just too much to learn, and the military environment barely permits someone to get really good at one role before they're promoted or simply posted away into a different role.  There's no continuity.


----------



## PuckChaser

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I think the main reason we 'did this gongshow' was to create a pool of personnel that can be used as radio operators, no matter what their sub occupations ultimately become.



Good luck taking someone who's been in a helpdesk or server farm for 5-10 years and having them run a radio shift competently without maximum supervision. Either you want IST to be a trade, or you want network tasks to be with CSTs. I really don't see room for both. Why the heck would you train one trade to set up the servers, and one to manage them, and one to run helpdesk? That's the biggest waste of resources since NDHQ.

Occam is absolutely right. Deployed networks are relatively simple compared to the DWAN if you have any sort of IT skills. If you're got a Core operator, that can already program HCLOS, TSL, EPLRS, he has the base skillsets to maintain that deployed server and set up user accounts. This isn't the 1980s where some recruits have never seen a computer before. You've got kids being recruited that already have an IT background, and will get even more of it with the newer green kit that gets deployed. Managing those servers running Active Directory is not rocket surgery.

Heck, the ISTs at my unit can't even fix the simplest problems without telling us to call 7777, or I can just fix them myself. They're doing more CST backfill work than computer work, and quite frankly if I could trade them for 2 more Core operators I would in a heartbeat.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

So is the Spec Pay decision still coming out on 1 May 13?


----------



## JBP

BigDaddyFatback said:
			
		

> So is the Spec Pay decision still coming out on 1 May 13?



Now that Sir, is an effective troll!

 >

Hillarious!
 :facepalm:


----------



## Occam

I was trying to figure out how to work BigDaddyFatback's comment into a "Carnac the Magnificent" joke, but I don't think I had enough coffee this morning to pull it off.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

I think we all love our job enough to stay no matter what we are paid, or when our next pay raise will be....2 Promotions for me.

Also, we are now implementing a 28 hour day....


----------



## George Wallace

BigDaddyFatback said:
			
		

> Also, we are now implementing a 28 hour day....



Damn!  I was just getting used to the 10 day week.


----------



## JBP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Damn!  I was just getting used to the 10 day week.



Heh, funny thing, we at 1 Sigs have been working insane days/nights/hours/shifts like that for months now. I have personally had 4 weekends since Christmas leave... 2 of those were on flights to/from Kingston for Ex Cyber Challenge (My choice, I applied for it so I accept it!). 1 of those was used with the Tp OC and Warrant calling us in to recount everything we have in our entire inventory on the 1 weekend between ex's we had on 3 different skas... 1 weekend actually left of personal time.

To say that most people at 1 Sigs are burnt out is a bad understatement. To say those in my Tp specifically are burnt out is not needed. Out of all the pers in my troop, only 2 have resigned contracts... Some of us are posted, some VR'd, some are finishing contracts and some are OTing to different trades. It's literally going to be a ghost town here come Nov.

I'm OTing and posted! So far....


----------



## Sig_Des

Sig Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Heh, funny thing, we at 1 Sigs have been working insane days/nights/hours/shifts like that for months now. I have personally had 4 weekends since Christmas leave... 2 of those were on flights to/from Kingston for Ex Cyber Challenge (My choice, I applied for it so I accept it!). 1 of those was used with the Tp OC and Warrant calling us in to recount everything we have in our entire inventory on the 1 weekend between ex's we had on 3 different skas... 1 weekend actually left of personal time.
> 
> To say that most people at 1 Sigs are burnt out is a bad understatement. To say those in my Tp specifically are burnt out is not needed. Out of all the pers in my troop, only 2 have resigned contracts... Some of us are posted, some VR'd, some are finishing contracts and some are OTing to different trades. It's literally going to be a ghost town here come Nov.
> 
> I'm OTing and posted! So far....



And yet, somewhere, someone is pumping rainbows out of a bellows making some highers in that particular place think that everyone loves being there. I find it hard to miss the heads hanging down whenever I visit.


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Good luck taking someone who's been in a helpdesk or server farm for 5-10 years and having them run a radio shift competently without maximum supervision. Either you want IST to be a trade, or you want network tasks to be with CSTs. I really don't see room for both. Why the heck would you train one trade to set up the servers, and one to manage them, and one to run helpdesk? That's the biggest waste of resources since NDHQ.
> 
> Occam is absolutely right. Deployed networks are relatively simple compared to the DWAN if you have any sort of IT skills. If you're got a Core operator, that can already program HCLOS, TSL, EPLRS, he has the base skillsets to maintain that deployed server and set up user accounts. This isn't the 1980s where some recruits have never seen a computer before. You've got kids being recruited that already have an IT background, and will get even more of it with the newer green kit that gets deployed. Managing those servers running Active Directory is not rocket surgery.
> 
> Heck, the ISTs at my unit can't even fix the simplest problems without telling us to call 7777, or I can just fix them myself. They're doing more CST backfill work than computer work, and quite frankly if I could trade them for 2 more Core operators I would in a heartbeat.



IMO the DWAN is not complicated, it's just unstable and has too many chefs that don't talk to eachother.

and as far as ISTs not being able to fix things, I don't know about where you are, but here it's because I'm not allowed to and/or cannot get the required privileges. There has never been a problem I couldn't fix, but because of how the local IT has tied everyone's hands, I can't do anything.


----------



## PuckChaser

c_canuk said:
			
		

> and as far as ISTs not being able to fix things, I don't know about where you are, but here it's because I'm not allowed to and/or cannot get the required privileges. There has never been a problem I couldn't fix, but because of how the local IT has tied everyone's hands, I can't do anything.



That's what I meant. They don't lack the required skills, they're just not enabled to do their jobs.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

I am an IST coming from being a tech and like everyone says, we are hand tied when it comes to accessing things on the network like routers/switches etc...
In the last 12 years, I have taken the CCNA bootcamp 3 times/Voip, etc... But then I come back to the unit and we are not granted access to any kit to keep our skills up due to National/DND/SSC policies. Even though I am a Network/Infrastructure Admin by title.

Say a router craps out, it will then be up to me to configure it so Ottawa can push what it needs to. But I have not been afforded the opportunity to work with the kit since my course 2 years ago. And if it takes me a while to refresh myself while the network is down, people start freaking out.

It is a funny cycle of training and then no work/live network experience due to strict control practices (which is necessary sometimes), unless deployed on Ops or Ex. 

Also, the breadth of what we are expected to know has ballooned out of control (MES is supposed to rein that in), but again, we are not given the opportunity to use the training on a daily basis and skill fade comes into play very quickly when it comes to ios commands etc...


----------



## thatistguy

May 1st has come and gone and yet, no definite answer on the spec pay, how surprising! Any rumblings?


----------



## Swingline1984

thatistguy said:
			
		

> May 1st has come and gone and yet, no definite answer on the spec pay, how surprising! Any rumblings?



1 Apr - 1 May was the the review period for DPPD to be able to make a recommendation.  Whatever that recommendation is (if they didn't delay the review again) still has to go to TB.  Wait and shoot!


----------



## technophile

received this today via message from DLCI ( unclas DLCI 197, 031839Z Jun 13 )

aside from the blah, blah, blah " we are committed to our members and the review process "  The real meat is 

 " due to circumstances beyond our control, the pay review is taking longer than expected - At this time we cannot speculate on an expected date of completion "


----------



## rmc_wannabe

technophile said:
			
		

> received this today via message from DLCI ( unclas DLCI 197, 031839Z Jun 13 )
> 
> aside from the blah, blah, blah " we are committed to our members and the review process "  The real meat is
> 
> " due to circumstances beyond our control, the pay review is taking longer than expected - At this time we cannot speculate on an expected date of completion "



Sounds like they copy pasted the last message and changed the date. Great to aee they're really fighting hard for us over there . :


----------



## thatistguy

I do wonder if all those delays will actually lead to something or if we'll just end up getting a negative answer in the end.   :-\

Hasn't been too many replies in this topic lately! Anyone heard of rumors that the networking part of the IST trade was going to be given to the CSTs and that their trade was going back to being the same it used to be before (LCIS)? I know a lot of LCIS techs that went IST because of that and I am wondering if there is any truth to those rumors or not as I think it would really be a deal breaker for me and a lot of other people in the trade who would feel betrayed in the end if that is what would happen, especially since it would make the IST trade even less relevant I think.  :facepalm:


----------



## 211RadOp

I don't how it is done at all units, but at CFJSR networking, particularly on field deployments, is done by IST pers.


----------



## upandatom

Just recieved this first thing this morning, 
RE Spec pay, end of summer I presume, but this is dragging on a bit too long, 

                         UNCLAS                    7200-1 (DLCI)

01  04  031839Z JUN  13  PP      UUUU                 DLCI 197



            NDHQ DLCI OTTAWA

            AIG 1703

            AIG 1817

            AIG 2657

            AIG 2658

UNCLAS DLCI 197

BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE

SUBJ: ACISS PAY EVALUATION - UPDATE TWO

REFS: A. ANNEX I TO 55555-31-MOSID 00362 (DPGR 2-7), 30 JUN 11

B. NDHQ DLCI 005 301611Z JAN 13



1.  IAW THE ACISS OCCUPATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AT REF A THE 

DIRECTORATE OF PAY POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT (DPPD) WAS MANDATED TO 

CONDUCT AND COMPLETE A PAY EVALUATION OF THE ACISS OCCUPATION BY 01 

JAN 13.  IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY DLCI AT REF B THAT THE INITIAL 

DEADLINE COULD NOT BE MET AND A NEW COMPLETION DATE OF 01 MAY 13 WAS 

SET BY DPPD



2.  IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FORMAL COMMENCEMENT OF THE EVALUATION, 

DLCI STAFF CARRIED OUT ADDITIONAL SYNCHRONIZATION WORK WITH DPPD 

THROUGHOUT THE FEB TO MAR TIMEFRAME TO ENSURE THE EVALUATION WOULD 

BE PERFORMED IAW  THE APPROVED CANADIAN FORCES TRADE EVALUATION PLAN 

(CFTEP) GUIDELINES



3.  AS ALWAYS, WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE EVALUATION PROCESS THROUGH 

THE MANY COMPLEXITIES OF EVALUATING THE ACISS TRADE WITHIN ITS NEW 

JOB BASED SYSTEM (JBS). HOWEVER, DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE OF OUR 

CONTROL, THE PAY REVIEW IS TAKING LONGER THAN ORIGINALLY FORECASTED 

TO COMPLETE.  DLCI REMAINS COMMITTED TO THE PROCESS AND WE ARE 

WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH DPPD TO ENSURE THAT THE ACCURACY OF 

INFORMATION AND THE EFFORT PUT FORWARD CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS ACHIEVING 

THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME



4.  AT THIS TIME WE CAN NOT SPECULATE ON AN EXPECTED DATE OF 

COMPLETION. HOWEVER, MEMBERS NEED TO REALIZE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION 

MADE BY DPPD FOLLOWING THEIR EVALUATION WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED AND 

IMPLEMENTED UNTIL APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CDS.  THIS 

TYPICALLY ADDS A MONTH OR TWO TO THE PROCESS.  ADDITIONAL 

INFORMATION AND UPDATES WILL BE PROVIDED AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.



EVALUATION DE LA SOLDE SSICA – DEUXIEME MISE A JOUR



RÉFS: A. ANNEXE I A 55555-31-ID SGPM 00362 (DBPP 2-7), 30 JUIN 11

B. NDHQ DLCI 005 301611Z JAN 13



1. TEL QUE MENTIONNÉ À LA RÉF A DANS LE PLAN DE MISE EN OEUVRE DU 

GPM SSICA, LE DIRECTEUR - POLITIQUE ET DÉVELOPPEMENT (SOLDE) (DPDS) 

SE DEVAIT D EFFECTUER UNE ÉVALUATION DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION POUR LE GPM 

SSICA APTL 1 JAN 13.  IL A ÉTÉ RECONNU PAR DCIT À LA RÉF B QUE LE 

DÉLAI INITIAL NE POURRAIT ÊTRE RENCONTRÉ ET UNE NOUVELLE DATE FINALE 

DES TRAVAUX A ÉTÉ FIXÉE AU 1 MAI 13 PAR DPDS



2. EN PRÉPARATION À L ÉVALUATION OFFICIELLE, LE PERS DE DCIT A 

EFFECTUÉ DES TRAVAUX DE SYNCHRONISATION SUPPLÉMENTAIRES AVEC DPDS 

DURANT LA PÉRIODE DE FÉVRIER À MARS AFIN DE S ASSURER QUE  L 

ÉVALUATION SERAIT EFFECTUÉE EN CONFORMITÉ AVEC LES PARAMÈTRES DU 

PLAN D ÉVALUATION DES MÉTIERS DES FORCES CANADIENNES (PEEFC)



3. COMME TOUJOURS, NOUS CONTINUONS DE SOUTENIR LE PROCESSUS D 

ÉVALUATION DU GPM SSICA DANS LE CONTEXTE PLUS COMPLEXE D UN SYSTÈME 

BASÉ SUR LE TRAVAIL. (SBT).  CEPENDANT, POUR DES RAISONS HORS DE 

NOTRE CONTRÔLE, L ÉVALUATION DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION EST PLUS LONGUE QUE 

PRÉVU QU À L ORIGINE. DICT RESTE ENGAGÉ DANS LE PROCESSUS ET NOUS 

TRAVAILLONS ÉTROITEMENT AVEC DPDS AFIN QUE L EXACTITUDE DES 

INFORMATIONS ET QUE LES EFFORTS MIS DE L AVANT CONTRIBUENT À L 

OBTENTION DU MEILLEUR RÉSULTAT POSSIBLE



4.  EN CE MOMENT NOUS NE POUVONS SPÉCULER SUR UNE DATE PRÉVUE 

FINALE. TOUTEFOIS, LES MEMBRES DOIVENT COMPRENDRE QUE LA 

RECOMMANDATION FAITE PAR DPDS SUITE À LEUR ÉVALUATION NE SERA PAS 

PUBLIÉE ET MISE EN OEUVRE AVANT D EN AVOIR OBTENU L APPROBATION DU 

CEMD. CELA AJOUTE GÉNÉRALEMENT UN MOIS OU DEUX AU PROCESSUS.  DES 

INFORMATIONS COMPLÉMENTAIRES ET MISES À JOUR SERONT FOURNIS DES QU 

ILS SERONT DISPONIBLE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                     

                                                                     

                                                                     

DC. MCLELLAN, LCOL, DLCI-1, 613-971-7396                             

SW. HALL, COL, DLCI, 613-971-7415                                    

                                           UNCLAS


----------



## Occam

upandatom said:
			
		

> Just recieved this first thing this morning,
> RE Spec pay, end of summer I presume, but this is dragging on a bit too long,



Where do you see "end of summer" in there?


----------



## upandatom

Occam said:
			
		

> Where do you see "end of summer" in there?



Well, as a best case I see that. They state that it goes to the CDS, 1-2 months after that, they should hopefully be near a decision now on it.

End of summer is being an optimist.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Are they talking about giving these guys spec pay or taking it away?


----------



## Sig_Des

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Are they talking about giving these guys spec pay or taking it away?



Either or.

Until Amalgamation of the 3 Army Signals trades (Sig Op, Lineman, and LCIS Tech) only LCIS received Spec Pay.

After amalgamation, and the creation of the new Computer Weiner sub-trade (IST) there began a process for review spec pay (Will all get it, will some get it, will those who have it lose it, will none get it). Currently techs who were in receipt of it are pretty much pay frozen pending review.

The review is taking longer than expected/was promised.


----------



## upandatom

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Are they talking about giving these guys spec pay or taking it away?



Just making a decision on who gets it, is there justification for it. 

What it means is, Will the CST (for the most part LCIS), LST and the IST (some LCIS and mostly Sig Ops) get it, from last brief I had is that they were requesting it all across the board. We shall see though, I think that is going to be a bit difficult when comparing the trades to the civilian equivalent and the civilian college/degree etc.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> the new Computer *Weiner* sub-trade (IST)



That's Computer _Wiener_ to you  . Do you need an IST to show you the spell check function? We're here to help after all. ;D


----------



## Sig_Des

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> That's Computer _Wiener_ to you  . Do you need an IST to show you the spell check function? We're here to help after all. ;D



And there's the difference. The message got across. Now back to your 1's and 0's cave.


----------



## technophile

Deleted


----------



## JBP

I hate to be a pessimist but that message seems like an official way of saying, "BACK BURNER"... 

I don't think we'll here about spec pay anytime soon to be honest and I expect that's the plan. They won't officially say 'No' because it would crush morale for some pers and cause a further mass exodus. Especially of IST. I say further because it's already started if some of you didn't know!!!

Reading between the lines I say it's all Back burner now...


----------



## upandatom

"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 result of the ACISS pay review will be promulgated as soon as it is available through official channels."


Remember this????

 ;D


----------



## RedMan

All I can say is that I know of a good number of people (former LCIS) that are tired of this, and want to OT or just want out when their contract is up. Seeing that ACISS is in the yellow, it's probably going to be real tough to OT to those lovely Air Force tech trades with the numbers probably not in our favor. As a result you are left with a lot of regrettably bitter people.

Kind of hard to plan for the "future of your career" in your trade when you don't know what to expect in that trade.

A shame, as most of the people I talked to before I joined used to consider LCIS to be a great trade...


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The really shameful thing about this is a lot of the higher ups that pushed and supported this are out now and are not going to see the full effects of Pandora's box.


----------



## upandatom

Daywalker said:
			
		

> All I can say is that I know of a good number of people (former LCIS) that are tired of this, and want to OT or just want out when their contract is up. Seeing that ACISS is in the yellow, it's probably going to be real tough to OT to those lovely Air Force tech trades with the numbers probably not in our favor. As a result you are left with a lot of regrettably bitter people.
> 
> Kind of hard to plan for the "future of your career" in your trade when you don't know what to expect in that trade.
> 
> A shame, as most of the people I talked to before I joined used to consider LCIS to be a great trade...



I enjoyed it, I am still kind of curious as to what will be the backlash if they say "No spec Pay." I know that is a huge deciding factor for alot of people. Just about that ten year mark, get kind of a pension.
When you force people to make a decision without giving them "the IST does this, CST this, LST this, Core this." You have to expect people will be pissed off, frustrated, disgruntled. From my position, I have ISTs and CSTs swinging around doing eachothers jobs due to their courses they recieved. The only thing I remember from who does what is a picture, with some kit, and "pretty sure this is how its going to work" 

I am curious, maybe they should start a poll on here asking 
With the almagamation, if no spec pay is given what will you choose, 
1. Stay
2. OT
3. Release
4. Bitch and moan for years and years. 

This whole thing has kinda donkey kicked morale for alot of Sigs out there, people are confused, the new ACISS people are hearing about ten different explanations for each job, dont know what way they should go, and its all just short of 110 years too.


----------



## Pat.Sim

Okay so this thread hasn't been touched in a little while but I just want to double check what i think I am seeing. ACISS CORE guys are pretty much the "radio operators" that deploy with the infantry, engineers and so forth? I understand that there will be other guys going out to the field to set up all the other coms equipment. If this is way out to lunch let me know, just trying to get all the info I can! 

Thanks in advance,
Patrick S.


----------



## MikeL

There are ACISS Core, IST, LST, and CST in Combat Arms units and they can all go overseas/deploy.

Using a Infantry Battalion as an example,  ACISS Core, IST, LST and CST can be found in the Signals Platoon.  Core and IST pers can be within a Rifle Company Head Quarters(usually it will 1 Sig, but on tour it can go to 3).  Infantrymen will be the Platoon Signallers, etc.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pat.Sim said:
			
		

> Okay so this thread hasn't been touched in a little while but I just want to double check what i think I am seeing. ACISS CORE guys are pretty much the "radio operators" that deploy with the infantry, engineers and so forth? I understand that there will be other guys going out to the field to set up all the other coms equipment. If this is way out to lunch let me know, just trying to get all the info I can!
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Patrick S.



Traditional tactical radio work is done by ACISS (Core) yes, however you'll find that a lot of combat arms units have their own members train as Signallers as our trade will never have the manning to fill every sigs role the Army has.


----------



## Pat.Sim

Okay thanks! Would you be able to give me a breakdown on those? I understand IST=Information System Tech, LST=Line System Tech, and CST=Communication System Tech. Apart from that I can't really find any specific info. 

[Edit] I'm pretty sure LST's are the one that run all the lines? (obviously)

Thanks PuckChaser, that helped!

Thanks in advance,
Patrick S


----------



## MikeL

Pat.Sim said:
			
		

> Okay thanks! Would you be able to give me a breakdown on those? I understand IST=Information System Tech, LST=Line System Tech, and CST=Communication System Tech. Apart from that I can't really find any specific info.



Here is a very basic run down of what each one does. Again, this is very basic and is missing a lot.

ACISS Core - radio operators, set up antennas, and radios plus drive CP/RRB vehicles, can do some IT stuff - this is what Sig Ops are now called
ACISS IST - help desk stuff, and do ACISS Core stuff as required. - stuff Sig Ops and some LCIS Techs did
ACISS CST - broken kit comes to them, they will either fix it, or have it sent off for repairs, make coax cables, inspections, etc - this is what LCIS Techs are now called
ACISS LST - run phone lines, climb polls, do inspections and set up various services in garrison - this is what Linemen are now called

I'm sure if you look in the other ACISS threads you can get a more detailed break down.

Your posting will also determine what you will do in each role, as it really can vary depending on the unit you are in.


----------



## PuckChaser

Your first post was better.


----------



## Pat.Sim

That is actually exactly what i was looking for! Thanks! As far as postings, I read somewhere that "1 place can go to the field all the time whereas the building across the road works 9-4 mon-fri with no ex's" (this is not an exact quote but a mere generalization of what had been said)


Patrick S.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pat.Sim said:
			
		

> That is actually exactly what i was looking for! Thanks! As far as postings, I read somewhere that "1 place can go to the field all the time whereas the building across the road works 9-4 mon-fri with no ex's" (this is not an exact quote but a mere generalization of what had been said)



That can be absolutely true, because ACISS is so diverse someone in a field unit working directly across the street at a Base Sig Sqn will have completely different hours.


----------



## Pat.Sim

And that is what makes me kind of nervous about this trade.. I don't want to be stuck "inside" all day never going to the field. Nonetheless the experience itself i'm sure would be worth it.


----------



## PuckChaser

You'll be going to a HQ and Sig Sqn immediately before and after your DP1 (first trade course). Trust me, you'll get your fair share of field time. Core is where you'll typically stay in field units.


----------



## Pat.Sim

I knew about going before the DP1 but I didn't know about after but i guess it would make sense. I guess as long as I get a the "sub-trade" I want then it would all be okay.


----------



## PuckChaser

And that's the problem we've run into with amalgamated sub-trades. No one can guarantee you get what you want, unless what you want is Core or CST which are very under manned.


----------



## Pat.Sim

Well core seems to be what I was looking for in the trade, so I think/hope ill be in pretty good shape. I guess all I can do for now is hurry and wait for some phone calls!


----------



## DAA

Pat.Sim said:
			
		

> Well core seems to be what I was looking for in the trade, so I think/hope ill be in pretty good shape. I guess all I can do for now is hurry and wait for some phone calls!



You're putting the cart before the horse but looking for information and preparing is never a bad thing.  My question is, "Has your CFRC even contacted you yet?"   ACCIS I believe is an "in demand" occupation, so the onus is now on you to get the ball rolling, you don't want to miss the bus!


----------



## Pat.Sim

No they haven't, waiting about a week before I give them a call. I just want to make sure I am actually applying for what I "think" I am applying for. I have posted and asked questions in all my trade selections. (if I couldn't find answers already)  ;D


----------



## DAA

Pat.Sim said:
			
		

> No they haven't, waiting about a week before I give them a call. I just want to make sure I am actually applying for what I "think" I am applying for. I have posted and asked questions in all my trade selections. (if I couldn't find answers already)  ;D



Call your local CFRC who has your application!

From my view, if you have to ask the question , "I just want to make sure I am actually applying for what I "think" I am applying for."..............

Something is not quite right...


----------



## PuckChaser

DAA said:
			
		

> Call your local CFRC who has your application!
> 
> From my view, if you have to ask the question , "I just want to make sure I am actually applying for what I "think" I am applying for."..............
> 
> Something is not quite right...



ACISS has terrible literature and people in the trade don't even know what it is half the time, can't expect a recruiter to know. I'm still waiting for the Eyrx missile that the recruiting video promised I'd fire.


----------



## Pat.Sim

The reason I said I "think" is from what iv watched/read/heard, I wasn't sure if there was even really a need for a "tactical radio operator" anymore considering it seems like all the coms are part of your headgear. With that being said, I really do not know much (if really anything) about military coms. So that is why I am asking questions!  ;D


----------



## ixium

The main problem I see happening is if Spec Pay is implemented and back paid to Oct 1st (like it should be) will the core trade people get that if they worked in positions of IST/CST? Likely not.
Want to piss a bunch of Sigs off? FORCE them into computer help/IST positions and then label them on paper as core and half the room gets back pay and the other side doesn't.

IF one line of the trade does get spec pay or gets it back, I know there are going to be a lot of Sigs refusing to do the job that is usually filled by the spec trade.
Oh, you need help with a laptop/dwan machine? Call IST
Oh, your radio needs more trouble shooting then general button mashing on the front plate? Call CST
Oh, there needs to be a 100% check on all 25 LAVs of the engineer squadron done in 2 days? Call the CST

I have no problem looking like a dick when it comes to the guy beside me, doing the exact same job, but getting more pay. I can't even believe how there are Cpl tech's making spec pay still while the Cpl beside him, who got in a month behind, is doing the EXACT same job is getting 550+ more money a month.

Boggles my mind this whole system.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

ixium said:
			
		

> The main problem I see happening is if Spec Pay is implemented and back paid to Oct 1st (like it should be) will the core trade people get that if they worked in positions of IST/CST? Likely not.
> Want to piss a bunch of Sigs off? FORCE them into computer help/IST positions and then label them on paper as core and half the room gets back pay and the other side doesn't.
> 
> IF one line of the trade does get spec pay or gets it back, I know there are going to be a lot of Sigs refusing to do the job that is usually filled by the spec trade.
> Oh, you need help with a laptop/dwan machine? Call IST
> Oh, your radio needs more trouble shooting then general button mashing on the front plate? Call CST
> Oh, there needs to be a 100% check on all 25 LAVs of the engineer squadron done in 2 days? Call the CST
> 
> I have no problem looking like a dick when it comes to the guy beside me, doing the exact same job, but getting more pay. I can't even believe how there are Cpl tech's making spec pay still while the Cpl beside him, who got in a month behind, is doing the EXACT same job is getting 550+ more money a month.
> 
> Boggles my mind this whole system.



No imagine how pissed off that tech is seeing the core guy being promoted at a far faster rate and receiving incentives that way?

I can work my ass off as an IST and get 4 MOIs and not stand a snowball's chance in hell to get ahead to the next level. It would be nice if they put the spec pay in place like they said they would to offset the fact that techs were not going to see the same rate of promotion as core would.

No one likes working for nothing.


----------



## MikeL

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> No imagine how pissed off that tech is seeing the core guy being promoted at a far faster rate and receiving incentives that way?
> 
> I can work my *** off as an IST and get 4 MOIs and not stand a snowball's chance in hell to get ahead to the next level.



Yea, that pissed off a lot of people; wasn't it only a small number ISTs even getting promoted last year?



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> IF one line of the trade does get spec pay or gets it back, I know there are going to be a lot of Sigs refusing to do the job that is usually filled by the spec trade.
> Oh, you need help with a laptop/dwan machine? Call IST
> Oh, your radio needs more trouble shooting then general button mashing on the front plate? Call CST
> Oh, there needs to be a 100% check on all 25 LAVs of the engineer squadron done in 2 days? Call the CST
> 
> I have no problem looking like a dick when it comes to the guy beside me, doing the exact same job, but getting more pay.



Would you actually do that?  At the places I've worked, that attitude wouldn't last long if someone acted like that; especially in positions where you could be the only Signaller in the Coy/Sqn or tasking.


----------



## ixium

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Yea, that pissed off a lot of people; wasn't it only a small number ISTs even getting promoted last year?
> 
> Would you actually do that?  At the places I've worked, that attitude wouldn't last long if someone acted like that; especially in positions where you could be the only Signaller in the Coy/Sqn or tasking.



Why the lack of promotion in the IST side? I'd assume its because a lot of Sigs choose that when the option came up a while ago thinking they were getting spec pay right away. People not leaving the trade kind of hinders promotion as well. Seems core Sigs go onto different things instead of staying in the CF/ACISS.

Of course I would. At least in garrison. If there was a time sensitive thing in the middle of the field/ops...well I'm not stupid.
Do you go and do other trades jobs that you aren't officially qualified to do?

Can I, as Core, go and take radios apart and replace a board (which is extremely easy)? No. it's not my job. And not allowed.
Can I, as Core, go and add an account onto a tacnet server at night when the shift guys are sleeping? Again, no.

Just like I'm not going to go do the mechanics jobs, any officers jobs, ATIS job or any other job out there. I'm not properly trained and it's not my job.

Like rmc_wannabe said, no one likes working for nothing.


----------



## MikeL

ixium said:
			
		

> Of course I would. At least in garrison. If there was a time sensitive thing in the middle of the field/ops...well I'm not stupid.



So, if someone asked you to help them connect to a printer on DWAN, you'd walk away and tell them to call help desk?



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> Do you go and do other trades jobs that you aren't officially qualified to do?
> Just like I'm not going to go do the mechanics jobs, any officers jobs, ATIS job or any other job out there. I'm not properly trained and it's not my job.



When it comes do doing things that I can do, I'm going to do it.  Obviously I'm not going to go around doing things thinking I'm a jack of all trades and try to do everyones job that I'm not qualified for.



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> Can I, as Core, go and take radios apart and replace a board (which is extremely easy)? No. it's not my job. And not allowed.
> Can I, as Core, go and add an account onto a tacnet server at night when the shift guys are sleeping? Again, no.



If someone asks for help, and you know what to do why not help them out instead of blowing them off and tell them to call someone else. Just because a Core person isn't IST doesn't mean they can't do some basic stuff on DWAN(if they know how to), or set up a work station, record asset numbers, etc. Plus there will be times when a Core person may be required to help out IST, CST, LST or vice versa.


----------



## Jammer

You will do exactly as you are directed if it's within your scope of trg and is not going to constitute a safety hazard. If you do not have the requisite qualifications, you will seek out a qualified soldier to assist, without delay.

You signed an initial PDR and you will adhere to the desciption of your duties....period.

The Army is not a union, nor is a fair all the time. If you don't like it...get out.

I've dealt with attitude cases like this before...they don't last long.


----------



## ixium

Exactly. I signed the part ones. I know what my job description is.  If it's not in there then I shouldn't be doing it, especially when I'm not officially trained and it isn't part of my job AND there is a spec trade guy sitting in a shop who's job it actually is.



			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> So, if someone asked you to help them connect to a printer on DWAN, you'd walk away and tell them to call help desk?



Yes, I would. You're not supposed to be hooking printers up to DWAN willy nilly.
Field printers are the only printers that units will have that haven't been installed into the buildings DWAN access by contractors.
The field printers are not allowed to be hooked up unless they are in the field.

Quick Edit: My experience is with 1 Bde, maybe the others have random printer hook ups allowed


----------



## MikeL

ixium said:
			
		

> Yes, I would. You're not supposed to be hooking printers up to DWAN willy nilly.
> Field printers are the only printers that units will have that haven't been installed into the buildings DWAN access by contractors.
> The field printers are not allowed to be hooked up unless they are in the field.



What I meant was, user type stuff.  My example was someone needing help on their DWAN account to select a printer that is already on the network, etc.

I am aware that you can't just randomly plug a printer into the network, etc unless it's been OK'd. Also, a civvie may get things ready at ASG but a Sig can do the actual physical install in the building.  Setting up a printer and workstation isn't exactly rocket science.. even as a Sig Op/ACISS Core, I managed to figure it out


----------



## PuckChaser

ixium said:
			
		

> Can I, as Core, go and take radios apart and replace a board (which is extremely easy)? No. it's not my job. And not allowed.
> Can I, as Core, go and add an account onto a tacnet server at night when the shift guys are sleeping? Again, no.



I've changed HUBs before, and that's a "CST" job. All MES did was create "This is my job, not yours" again, when we're supposed to be working together. Day before MES, Sig Op adds tacnet accounts without any issue. Day after MES, same mbr, now ACISS Core, is no longer allowed to do that because "that's an IST's job". Absolute BS.


----------



## Sig_Des

Maybe It's just me, but I think Puckchaser and -Skeletor- are showcasing the difference between signals close support and those who live in a "signals" centric word without thinking of WHO we support.

If I can do it to help out someone, I don't give a Kentucky fried frig if its in my part one. I don't care if some dude in an office across the building gets more money. If I can get results without actually breaking the rules or doing something unsafe, I'm gonna do it.

You think the crewman with a broken headset cares I'm not a tech? If I know how, I'll fix the *******.

Battle captain messed up the Fiber to his NIC? I'm not a lineman, but I got a terminating kit and some knowhow, I'll set it up.

Yeah, I'm a mod-monkey rad fingerer, but I know how to image systems and join them to networks, so I'll even help out the ISTs.

People who say "it's not part of my job description" are the same kinda people as the supply guy who won't give you something you need because they only have two left, and if they give you one they'll only have one left.

That's the kinda person who gives their trades a bad name, and they can go fornicate themselves with a giant cactus.

Yeah, the whole spec pay thing sucks. No promotions for ISTs sucks, but don't use that crap to come up with excuses to not help people out. Find solutions. You'll feel better about yourself, and you won't be a complete dick.


----------



## 211RadOp

Pat.Sim said:
			
		

> The reason I said I "think" is from what iv watched/read/heard, I wasn't sure if there was even really a need for a "tactical radio operator" anymore considering it seems like all the coms are part of your headgear. With that being said, I really do not know much (if really anything) about military coms. So that is why I am asking questions!  ;D



I've been doing this a long time, and the comms are not part of your headgear. There are some small systems that "resemble" a headset for a computer with a small boom mic, but in a majority of cases this in not true.


----------



## aahenry

I fully understand what you are saying but there has to be a point where as an individual you draw the line. Since I have been in the Military, it has been a "make it work" attitude and when you complain about lake of resources weather it is man power or resources you get the "don't like it , get out" People need to feel valued instead of being taken for granted all the time. Pay raises and promotions is a why of valuing a persons work and abilities. I am being paid as spec Cpl maxed out a lvl 4. I have been promoted to MCpl but my pay is frozen. If they decided to stop spec pay, I will not see a pay raise until I reach the rank of WO. Do you think that is fair, that I take on the extra responsibility without a pay raise. There is no other business that I could think of where the work force would accept that. I feel the reason that people have the attitude of "its not my job" in the ACISS trade is because they are in the same position as I am and feel screwed over. If TB decides not to give us spec pay, it would be based on our job description and AOR. I would really like to know how my AOR has changed from LCIS to ACISS that would deny me spec. I guarantee that I will still be expected to do all the things I did as an LCIS tech regardless of what they call me now.


----------



## PuckChaser

"It's not my job" has been around since well before ACISS. ACISS just didn't do anything to fix it.

Yep, your pay is frozen. Is that fair? Nope. Unfortunately we don't get to make that call. However, whenever you have your next townhall, bring it up to your CO and RSM. And every townhall after that. Heck, call the ombudsman. Work within the system to change said system. Stomping your foot and saying this sucks doesn't accomplish much.

Sigs is a special trade, in which people could care-less how and why we make things work, they just want them running 24/7. We don't get awards for accomplishing our work, but we sure here about it when something fails, even if its completely out of our control. To get the whole "value a persons work/abilities", you're going to have to change an entire culture in the CF, not just within the Branch. The reason you're going to here "don't like it, get out then" is because bad attitudes destroy morale and unit effectiveness. If you're constantly complaining about how you're hard-done-by, well maybe you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and see if the Branch is really the place for your skills. I personally would rather have a slightly less qualified person with lots of initiative and a positive attitude than someone with every course under the sun but is an absolute pain to deal with. Sometimes you need to "get the job done" and leave the complaining for the mess after work.


----------



## Dukereuchre

Hi everyone,

 I was in this trade a while ago back in 2012 but I had to leave due to family issues and I didn't even finish BMQ. Now I'm looking at reapplying and I want to make sure I know enough for my interview. Now I read this post:



> ACISS Core - radio operators, set up antennas, and radios plus drive CP/RRB vehicles, can do some IT stuff - this is what Sig Ops are now called
> ACISS IST - help desk stuff, and do ACISS Core stuff as required. - stuff Sig Ops and some LCIS Techs did
> ACISS CST - broken kit comes to them, they will either fix it, or have it sent off for repairs, make coax cables, inspections, etc - this is what LCIS Techs are now called
> ACISS LST - run phone lines, climb polls, do inspections and set up various services in garrison - this is what Linemen are now called



I love the idea of ACISS Core, this is what I want out of this trade. I currently work at a help desk and could do IST but It's not my first choice (I realize in the end we don't have a choice and we need to do what our unit needs). Generally I would like to stay as a ACISS Core but I doubt that will ever happen as my potential unit would need me to specialize into one of the three specialization. I would also think that with Specializing would also come a pay increase that I would miss if I even could stay as a ACISS Core.

So I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Is it even possible to stay as an ACISS core and if so are you penalized for not specializing? However I say this now and my natural progression through the trade I will probably want to specialize by the time it is available to me. However at this moment ACISS Core seems the most appealing to me by far.

Thank you for reading my post I look forward to your answer


----------



## PuckChaser

If you want Core, you'll probably get it.

No one knows whether you're penalized for not specializing, as we've been waiting 2 years on a spec pay decision. Core is "supposed" to be promoted faster, but I feel the only reason that's happening now is its so far undermanned while IST/LST are at or over manning capacity, slowing promotions.


----------



## Dukereuchre

> If you want Core, you'll probably get it.
> 
> No one knows whether you're penalized for not specializing, as we've been waiting 2 years on a spec pay decision. Core is "supposed" to be promoted faster, but I feel the only reason that's happening now is its so far undermanned while IST/LST are at or over manning capacity, slowing promotions.



That's exactly the information I wanted,

Thank you very much for your quick response


----------



## PuckChaser

Dukereuchre said:
			
		

> That's exactly the information I wanted,
> 
> Thank you very much for your quick response



There's a few ACISS floating around the boards, and also a very large thread with a lot of information. Read through there, and if you have more questions that arent covered don't hesitate to ask. I'd rather someone join the trade with eyes-wide-open, than seeing maybe only a fraction of what we do from a recruiting pamphlet.


----------



## upandatom

aahenry said:
			
		

> I fully understand what you are saying but there has to be a point where as an individual you draw the line. Since I have been in the Military, it has been a "make it work" attitude and when you complain about lake of resources weather it is man power or resources you get the "don't like it , get out" People need to feel valued instead of being taken for granted all the time. Pay raises and promotions is a why of valuing a persons work and abilities. I am being paid as spec Cpl maxed out a lvl 4. I have been promoted to MCpl but my pay is frozen. If they decided to stop spec pay, I will not see a pay raise until I reach the rank of WO. Do you think that is fair, that I take on the extra responsibility without a pay raise. There is no other business that I could think of where the work force would accept that. I feel the reason that people have the attitude of "its not my job" in the ACISS trade is because they are in the same position as I am and feel screwed over. If TB decides not to give us spec pay, it would be based on our job description and AOR. I would really like to know how my AOR has changed from LCIS to ACISS that would deny me spec. I guarantee that I will still be expected to do all the things I did as an LCIS tech regardless of what they call me now.



I am kind of in the same boat, currently a MCpl with Cpl 2 Spec 1 pay with more then a few Cpl 4 spec 1s working for me. I know its frustrating, pretty much all the techs from my old unit promoted and posted out, into new units where they have a few Cpl 4 lifers, and its ok they want to stay that way, its not their fault they make more, the system is out of wack, and from where I sit, I am not hearing any updates at all. I check this thread every few weeks because if I dont, I wont hear anything about the trade or what is going on. To me that is more frustrating then actually having pay frozen. Its one thing to freeze a persons pay because paperwork has to be done, however to freeze that pay, and just a) avoid the question at Sigs town halls, b) "we dont know yet, minute we do you will" or my favorite c) "Spec pay will not be discussed at this time" 

The last update I recieved was in April or so, I posted it here, saying that the TB was looking at it that month, Apr or May, its now end of Oct, and I have not heard of any update. 

Was there anything said at the Sigs Birthday week in Kingston? 

and Beadwindow, the minute you see the ppwk that actually says what each of our respective AORS are for this amalg, I would be interested to see it. If anything, I have easily started doing all three within a month long period, going from pulling cable one day, fixing radios/routers/switches and network management a week later.  Agreed, yeah if ya can fix something, do it, have a look at least to point that person/member looking for help in the right direction. aahenry is right from another point of view, whats the point of having three trades, three types of "specialists" if they arent being utilized properly with regards to their training.


----------



## Swingline1984

upandatom said:
			
		

> ...I am not hearing any updates at all. I check this thread every few weeks because if I dont, I wont hear anything about the trade or what is going on. To me that is more frustrating then actually having pay frozen. Its one thing to freeze a persons pay because paperwork has to be done, however to freeze that pay, and just a) avoid the question at Sigs town halls, b) "we dont know yet, minute we do you will" or my favorite c) "Spec pay will not be discussed at this time"
> 
> The last update I recieved was in April or so, I posted it here, saying that the TB was looking at it that month, Apr or May, its now end of Oct, and I have not heard of any update...



No one is keeping anything from anyone.

Spec pay for the occupations is in review.  It is still at DPPD subject to TB and CDS approval.  That is all the info we have.  The Branch has no more power to affect the decisions or timelines of the review then you or I do (they just don't know).

Until such time as a recommendation is made to TB and the CDS approves we will be in the dark.  It's frustrating to wait when you're in a hurry but we'll just have to have patience.  Unfortunately the Gov't moves at a glacial pace (but at least they are conducting a comprehensive review) and the Branch is all over the issue.  Anything you'll need to know will be pushed down by the CoC and will be immediately smeared all over this board I'm sure.


----------



## George Wallace

>

Eventually when all Trades have attained Spec Pay, it will become a mote point.


----------



## Swingline1984

In my case it's hard to miss what you never had, but I feel for the folks that took a pay deduction (yes I did say deduction) with promotion due to the freeze.


----------



## owa

Something I've noticed in the last two years are more people switching to IST within the brigade (or at least attempting to) because 1.1's were readily available and because they looked at some of the things going on with the mod monkeys and on the LRC side of things and went, "Fuck that."  The same has definitely happened on the Line side of the house as well.  It isn't too hard to be put in an OJT position for a job you want because of ACISS so a lot of guys who went in as strictly sig ops or core are seeing things they don't like and are swapping over to any of the other options available.

I disagree with the sentiment because I like what I do (HCLOS and TSS) but it seems like a small trend to me.

I did take the IST 1.1 because I wanted a better understanding of what happened behind the scenes with the kit I use but I was pretty disappointed in the end because the course didn't really go outside anything you could learn networking wise on a TSS course.


----------



## c_canuk

I haven't seen too much of that myself, however I do know personally that if you were in a position that was tied to IT; anyone with anything to do with career management and/or ACISS implementation was blathering on that you'd be a fool not to go IST because IST was going to be the high speed low drag trade that was going places and would definitely rolling in the spec pay.

I started out saying no thanks, I'll stay core.

But after the 10th WO-CWO or Major told me I was a fool, I figured, well I'm just a MCpl they ought to know better than me, they are supposed to be mentoring me right?

So I bought the BS that I could go back to Core any time I wanted if IST didn't work out. 

I'm now 5 MOIs with no promotion, while my peers that stayed core are going to be on their 2nd PER as a Sgt. DPPD still hasn't submitted the spec pay request to higher yet, and probably never will.

So I'm kicking myself now for not trusting my own intuition, I'd be very surprised to hear that others are transferring to this purgatory as well at this late date.

Yeah yeah, I know, I'm responsible for my own career, but I feel I should still be allowed to be a bit bitter about the horrible advice given to me by a whole hell of a lot of people that should have known better.

Oh, and the Career managers couldn't spare the TD budget to visit Atlantic Canada again this year, so the local Sigs Sqn CO offered to pay for it out of his budget, then just a little while ago they cancelled, not rescheduled, cancelled because of some other conference.

Way to show the troops you give a shit about their welfare.


----------



## dapaterson

With very few exceptions, career managers aren't travelling anywhere this year.  Visits will be done by VTC, with the CMs in their cubicles in Ottawa.  That will become the new normal, as a way to reduce TD expenditures.

Note that the change is for everyone, not only ACISS.


----------



## upandatom

dapaterson said:
			
		

> With very few exceptions, career managers aren't travelling anywhere this year.  Visits will be done by VTC, with the CMs in their cubicles in Ottawa.  That will become the new normal, as a way to reduce TD expenditures.
> 
> Note that the change is for everyone, not only ACISS.



for the most part that is supposed to only be OUTCANS.  
I have always believed you should have that facetime with the person that can send you where ever they can. Either by taking a CFR to Valcartier like the EO Techs are doing this year, could of easily been done for a day anywhere else. 


My bad, I misread the CANFORGEN, I still think it should be Facetime when it affects family, (within cost effective reasons) Send the CM to the respective AO, have them centered and bring people to them, when possible. 

ie. NCR, can handle Ottawa, Montreal, Pet, Kingston,


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> ie. NCR, can handle Ottawa, Montreal, Pet, Kingston,



How many staff cars to bring every Sigs guy that wants an interview to Ottawa from Kingston, Pet and Montreal? I think VTC is a lot cheaper than that ball of wax. Not to mention meal claims...


----------



## MJP

upandatom said:
			
		

> for the most part that is supposed to only be OUTCANS.
> 
> My bad, I misread the CANFORGEN, I still think it should be Facetime when it affects family, (within cost effective reasons) Send the CM to the respective AO, have them centered and bring people to them, when possible.
> 
> ie. NCR, can handle Ottawa, Montreal, Pet, Kingston,



CMs very rarely make moves in isolation.  CoC especially CSMs & RSMs (or equivalents in other units) are very much part of the whole process and have a good grasp on where the posting plot effects their soldiers.  They are very actively involved in the whole process and it makes sense.  The career shop isn't that big and they just know what they need to staff and the skillsets they need in those positions.  Individual CoC know their soldiers and what they need for career progression and what they are capable of doing.    They are the ones that in many cases make suggestions for postings and should be the face of their soldier's career and be the one that tell people where they are for the most part.  The career manager interview is usually a confirmation of information and a look to the future.  Do one offs and surprise postings happen; yup they do but they are in my experience the exception not the norm.  



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many staff cars to bring every Sigs guy that wants an interview to Ottawa from Kingston, Pet and Montreal? I think VTC is a lot cheaper than that ball of wax. Not to mention meal claims...



So fiscally irresponsible....buses man buses.


----------



## c_canuk

dapaterson said:
			
		

> With very few exceptions, career managers aren't travelling anywhere this year.  Visits will be done by VTC, with the CMs in their cubicles in Ottawa.  That will become the new normal, as a way to reduce TD expenditures.
> 
> Note that the change is for everyone, not only ACISS.



Fair enough, except that it was being paid for by the local Sig Sqn CO's budget, not their budget. 

The cancellation rather than rescheduling, imo, is a reflection of the fact they don't want to take a free trip to do face to face. I don't believe it's a matter of available time slots, since it's going to take just as long if not longer to arrange the VTC time assuming no connection/hardware issues, otherwise it's going to take longer.


----------



## Swingline1984

These folks are busy.  There are 3 of them for approx 4K pers.  The forcasts have been terrible in the last 2 years (read 0 promos) only to have 6 or more CWOs release (SURPRISE!!) and a mad scramble to find enough people to fill holes (and MES has been like a hole making machine) and everybody has an excuse as to why they can't move.  Filling holes.  At the end of the day that is all they do (it should be thier motto), so don't take it personally if not everyone of your postings can be Club Med.

At the end of the day, start watching your EMAA the first week of Dec (around the time the General signs off the merit list) and plan accordingly.  If something is bugging you and you want to discuss your career then set up an appointment; face to face, VTC, telephone or frigging snail mail.  If you don't have a plan, or you have not bothered to articulate that plan to the Career Managers do not expect them to know what you want or need (other than as MJP said; "through your CoC").


----------



## c_canuk

I assume you aren't replying to my last.

as for "Make sure the CM knows your plan" 

That's a little difficult to do outside of the comments box in EMMA's My Career section. The CoC has the CF's interests to look after, and the CM seems to change yearly so good luck on continuity that your 15 minutes of face time from last year's meeting.

As you say, there are 3 of them for 4k pers, exactly how and when are they going to be able to familiarize themselves with each and every file at their disposal, especially considering the high turn over as of late?

Also, I may have missed it, but no one seems to be worried about where they are being posted in the last several posts. It's all questions how we are going to be managed and expressing frustration in regards to the new realities of MES and the lack of clear direction.

Your post is one of the problems I see in the CF. Legitimate feed back on a system that appears to be broken is met with reply that boils down to:

_fuck off they're busy stop asking for special consideration _(that no one asked for)_ you entitled pricks!_


----------



## PuckChaser

c_canuk said:
			
		

> That's a little difficult to do outside of the comments box in EMMA's My Career section. The CoC has the CF's interests to look after, and the CM seems to change yearly so good luck on continuity that your 15 minutes of face time from last year's meeting.
> 
> As you say, there are 3 of them for 4k pers, exactly how and when are they going to be able to familiarize themselves with each and every file at their disposal, especially considering the high turn over as of late?



They can put notes on your file, mine did last year and even wrote them on there while I watched in the interview.


----------



## Swingline1984

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I assume you aren't replying to my last.



Nope.  Just commenting in general.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> as for "Make sure the CM knows your plan"
> 
> That's a little difficult to do outside of the comments box in EMMA's My Career section. The CoC has the CF's interests to look after, and the CM seems to change yearly so good luck on continuity that your 15 minutes of face time from last year's meeting.
> 
> As you say, there are 3 of them for 4k pers, exactly how and when are they going to be able to familiarize themselves with each and every file at their disposal, especially considering the high turn over as of late?



You can talk to your CM anytime you want, anytime of year.  You just need to ask and your supervisor will set up a teleconv.  They also have these magical devices called pencils i.e. they can write sh*t down.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> I may have missed it, but no one seems to be worried about where they are being posted in the last several posts. It's all questions how we are going to be managed and expressing frustration in regards to the new realities of MES and the lack of clear direction.



Kind of goes hand in hand with a conversation on CM's don't you think?



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Your post is one of the problems I see in the CF. Legitimate feed back on a system that appears to be broken is met with reply that boils down to:
> 
> _fuck off they're busy stop asking for special consideration _(that no one asked for)_ you entitled pricks!_



Legitimate feedback happens via a legitimate system like let's say...ummmm...what was it now...oh ya...speaking with your CM.  Not by bitching on an anonymous forum....and seriously wow, you really read a lot into what I was saying which really only "boils down to" be patient and communicate.  If good advice is a "problem" than what is your solution?  Beat them with hammers?

Let us dwell a bit on the "communicate" part of my advice for a minute.  If you don't have a real plan (wanting to stay a Cpl for life and remain in Shilo for example, is not a plan although I know many who think it is) and you fail at having any meaningful discourse with your CoC or CM then it is YOU who are failing yourself; it's not the system failing you.

As for "patience" and they are "busy".  They are busy.  The boards only finished Friday, now they have to finish up the posting plot and deal with all the weird Harolds that come with APS.  At the end of the day if you don't articulate your issues and hide in the corner sulking then you may get run over by thier primary purpose which is to (let's say it together) FILL HOLES.


----------



## c_canuk

I had a long winded rant in response to this, but I'll keep it short

You posted a rant about people bitching about not getting the posting they wanted and it's your fault if you didn't communicate a plan to the career manager.

I pointed out that this has absolutely nothing to do with current conversation and is similar to the responses we get from higher when pointing out issues with the trade or requesting clarification: rebukes about demands no one made and instruction to be patient and some unrelated issue will solve itself.



I would like to pose a question to you, however:

You stress patience. I will concede that patience can be a virtue, however...

Do you have a time frame in mind for which it is acceptable to be unimpressed with what the patience has bought us, or is patience a Zen state that is open ended?


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They can put notes on your file, mine did last year and even wrote them on there while I watched in the interview.



Mine's done that every year too, however, the question I'm posing is when and how much time to they get to devote to each member's file. 

I'm assuming very little since if split evenly they each have to look at 1250 files, in under 210 days, while still attending all their meetings and fulfilling all their other requirements and obligations. I also assume the difficulty in this is compounded by the lack of continuity in each sub occs manager.

Things are going to have to be prioritised by CF needs, therefore it is a definite advantage to all parties for the member to have a face to face  for a mutual Q&A, rather than be limited to only the 250 characters afforded on EMMA.

We can't all get a specially scheduled tele/vid conference and they can't spend all their time reading general info memos from the members, and we can't answer questions we don't know are being posed.


----------



## Swingline1984

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I had a long winded rant in response to this, but I'll keep it short
> 
> You posted a rant about people bitching about not getting the posting they wanted and it's your fault if you didn't communicate a plan to the career manager.
> 
> I pointed out that this has absolutely nothing to do with current conversation and is similar to the responses we get from higher when pointing out issues with the trade or requesting clarification: rebukes about demands no one made and instruction to be patient and some unrelated issue will solve itself.



I'm not tracking exactly what words and emotions you put between the lines I wrote, however it was a comment in general as the conv had steered towards careers (as an organization) with MES in the periphery.  And of course it was similar from what you'd get from higher because it makes sense.  I apologize if it doesn't sooth your hurt feelings though.

Here, I'll post it again so you can point out exactly where I say "quit bitching" or where I drag out a long protracted argument about postings other than a small blurb in passing:

These folks are busy.  There are 3 of them for approx 4K pers.  The forcasts have been terrible in the last 2 years (read 0 promos) only to have 6 or more CWOs release (SURPRISE!!) and a mad scramble to find enough people to fill holes (and MES has been like a hole making machine) and everybody has an excuse as to why they can't move.  Filling holes.  At the end of the day that is all they do (it should be thier motto), so don't take it personally if not everyone of your postings can be Club Med.

At the end of the day, start watching your EMAA the first week of Dec (around the time the General signs off the merit list) and plan accordingly.  If something is bugging you and you want to discuss your career then set up an appointment; face to face, VTC, telephone or frigging snail mail.  If you don't have a plan, or you have not bothered to articulate that plan to the Career Managers do not expect them to know what you want or need (other than as MJP said; "through your CoC").

I don't exactly know what in the above statement needs defending but if you need to take this opportunity to feel better by tilting at windmills, go nuts.  I would ask that you take a couple of breathes and read it again in your calm and measured voice and assume for a moment that I am only offering advice and not talking down to you.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> I would like to pose a question to you, however:
> 
> You stress patience. I will concede that patience can be a virtue, however...
> 
> Do you have a time frame in mind for which it is acceptable to be unimpressed with what the patience has bought us, or is patience a Zen state that is open ended?



That really all depends on what it is that has put a bee in your bonnet.  You can engage them all year long so specific issues that they cannot forecast should be addressed prior to the board and the posting plot (so if something is REALLY bothering you than you may already be too late although they have been known to be flexible).

I'll give you a quick rundown of how this works so you can see why they don't have much time and why I keep harping on continued engagement (some people think it is best to hide from the CM and that is just not true).

Our boards are (unfortunately) a little late in the year as they occur the last week of Oct and first week of Nov.  The forecasts for the last few years have been very low so it is hard for them to develop an accurate forward looking assessment to put in a briefing.

They can't release the results of the boards until they are official (signed off after a review) which usually occurs end Nov/first week of Dec when people will start to see their EMAA populated.

Then it's silly week and Christmas holidays and no one is engaging them during that period and they are more than likely on a beach somewhere.

Then it's Jan and they start to engage personnel (bare in mind the posting plot is already done at this point and any changes you try to inject cause significant pain).

Messages have to be out by mid April to ensure they meet the 90 day deadline so their isn't much time to do thier engagements, fix the weird Harolds and fill all the holes that suddenly appear due to unforcasted retirements (people tend to keep this close to thier chests [retirement] until they see how things pan out).

So if you wait until Jan/Feb to engage then you are are asking to change a plan that is pretty much a done deal.

If you don't know what is happening to you because you never engaged than you need to be "patient" and wait for the boards to be signed off.  So short answer long....December is the cut off in that regard.

As for MES it was forced upon us by the system (whether that be the Branch or higher I cannot say) and we were not ready for it.  The training system was not ready to train these new animals and the line units were not ready to house or feed them.  Is that a problem?  Hell yes it is and I'm not a fan of MES just read back in this thread and you will see that.  It will take years to untangle this mess we are in, but I have faith that eventually the smart folks coming up beneath the dinosaurs that imposed it will find the solution if only the training bill gets sorted.

If these explanations are not good enough for you than I don't know what else to say and I'd preface any follow on conversation with the fact that you seem to be angry which has destroyed your ability to be pragmatic.


----------



## Swingline1984

...my timelines for CM engagement may be little off and they may start speaking with folks earlier than Jan, however you get the gist.


----------



## c_canuk

*Sigh*

The reason I got a bit of a Bee in my bonnet is because in general 41 pages of text was about how the trade is in a huge mess while it's finding it's new normal, that is causing those of us in the lower ranks concern since we don't know what to plan for, what's expected of us, where the trade is headed, and what this is going to do to our careers while noting that some sub occs have been jammed up for years now.

None of that is within the AOR of the career managers.

Then you post your comment which contains these sentences:


> These folks are busy.  There are 3 of them for approx 4K pers.





> don't take it personally if not everyone of your postings can be Club Med.





> If you don't have a plan, or you have not bothered to articulate that plan to the Career Managers do not expect them to know what you want or need (other than as MJP said; "through your CoC").



So I read it as a rebuke to us for complaining about career manager stuff, when we're talking about something completely different.

I can't understand why you'd bring this up in this conversation, of course it's good advice, but it doesn't apply to anything we've been discussing.

Then you go on again at length about how to engage the CM to fix personal issues, ignoring that the discussion at hand is trade related issues that cannot be solved via CM.



> As for MES it was forced upon us by the system (whether that be the Branch or higher I cannot say) and we were not ready for it.  The training system was not ready to train these new animals and the line units were not ready to house or feed them.  Is that a problem?  Hell yes it is and I'm not a fan of MES just read back in this thread and you will see that.  It will take years to untangle this mess we are in, but I have faith that eventually the smart folks coming up beneath the dinosaurs that imposed it will find the solution if only the training bill gets sorted.
> 
> If these explanations are not good enough for you than I don't know what else to say and I'd preface any follow on conversation with the fact that you seem to be angry which has destroyed your ability to be pragmatic.



I am also dissatisfied with the mess that is MES, I'm frustrated that general information and directives that should have been issued day one, over 3 years later are still absent. Moral is in the shitter trade wide because of this crap, and the only concrete thing we get back is "we're working on it, things are gonna get better real soon, be patient" year after year.

I'm concerned that pers who got in at the start of MES are coming up on the end of their VIE, that these basic issues are not solved is big problem. I feel that If we intend to maintain the health of the trade through the transition we have to ensure the people entering the bottom have confidence in the trade to stay in for the long haul. Vague promises and mis information are not going to do that.


----------



## Swingline1984

c_canuk said:
			
		

> *Sigh*



I echo that; *sigh*.  We are obviously in different places on this.  We can obviously both agree that MES is a mess, but I'm past it and in the "making it work" phase.  You can take my advice or leave it, doesn't bother me one bit.  One thing for certain is that I've seen a lot of change in my career and the only thing you can be positive of is that more will come.  You can either accept it and try to make the best out of a difficult situation or you can point fingers and scream in righteous indignation.  The CAF is a big faceless machine and it will grind you up and spit you out with the best of them and you may never get the answers you seek.

Time for some PD.  Have you heard of an OODA loop?  It is a concept developed by Col John Boyd of the USAF.  It is a simple way to graph out the decision making process and stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.  We are past the Observe, Orient, and Decide phases of MES and are in Act.  All the chances we ever had to change this are past and now that the decision has been made it is our job as NCO's to all start pulling in the same direction, to make the impossible possible.  If you want to change policy become an officer, until then you get what you pay for and no amount of complaining will solve the problem.

I'm looking forward to whatever nefarious spin you can add to what I've just said.  It's becoming quite entertaining.


----------



## Old and Tired

While I still think that this whole ACISS amalgamation is an incredibly stupid and badly implemented plan, we should remember one important thing that I have recently learned in a conversation with several current and former serving personal from Fort Ridiculous on the Rideau. This plan was forced on the Signals world from OUTSIDE the branch, because we, all ranks and occupations, IN the branch umm'd and haw'd for so long about moderising and changing the way we do things that a decision has to be made one way or the other. Because we were navel gazing for so long over things like "Spec" pay and any number of other B***S*** details, some one else forced reform upon us.

Now it is our job to sort things out now that we have our marching orders. Whine and Complain all you want, shout "Well we're different and deserve X, Y or Z', the simple fact of the matter is we will do our jobs to the best of our ability, learn from our mistakes and move on.


----------



## c_canuk

1984 said:
			
		

> I echo that; *sigh*.  We are obviously in different places on this.  We can obviously both agree that MES is a mess, but I'm past it and in the "making it work" phase.  You can take my advice or leave it, doesn't bother me one bit.  One thing for certain is that I've seen a lot of change in my career and the only thing you can be positive of is that more will come.  You can either accept it and try to make the best out of a difficult situation or you can point fingers and scream in righteous indignation.  The CAF is a big faceless machine and it will grind you up and spit you out with the best of them and you may never get the answers you seek.
> 
> Time for some PD.  Have you heard of an OODA loop?  It is a concept developed by Col John Boyd of the USAF.  It is a simple way to graph out the decision making process and stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.  We are past the Observe, Orient, and Decide phases of MES and are in Act.  All the chances we ever had to change this are past and now that the decision has been made it is our job as NCO's to all start pulling in the same direction, to make the impossible possible.  If you want to change policy become an officer, until then you get what you pay for and no amount of complaining will solve the problem.
> 
> I'm looking forward to whatever nefarious spin you can add to what I've just said.  It's becoming quite entertaining.



I have no issue with the content of your post, I have issue that it doesn't apply to the conversation. There's nothing wrong with the advice you gave, in fact much of it is excellent advice. I just don't understand how you think the problems being discussed can be solved via CM who has no control over the issues being discussed.


----------



## Swingline1984

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I have no issue with the content of your post, I have issue that it doesn't apply to the conversation. There's nothing wrong with the advice you gave, in fact much of it is excellent advice. I just don't understand how you think the problems being discussed can be solved via CM who has no control over the issues being discussed.



Jesus Mary and Joseph Son!  You brought it up, others commented, I provided context.  That's it.  Peace brother...I'm out.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many staff cars to bring every Sigs guy that wants an interview to Ottawa from Kingston, Pet and Montreal? I think VTC is a lot cheaper than that ball of wax. Not to mention meal claims...



Last time I checked, Most Bases have Shacks, and Messes, and buses. Agreed VTC would be cheaper, I see money literally wasted on a day to day basis on things we dont use or need, why not put it to a decent use instead of the "its march 31st SPEND ALL THE MONEYZ"

The options and possibilities are there, it just means a little bit of organization. You could even turn it into a Signals PD, Info Sessions etc. Briefs on what is new and upcomming, Just like Comm Player (without having the purpose of drinking our faces off and playing some puck)


----------



## Swingline1984

upandatom said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, Most Bases have Shacks, and Messes, and buses. Agreed VTC would be cheaper, I see money literally wasted on a day to day basis on things we dont use or need, why not put it to a decent use instead of the "its march 31st SPEND ALL THE MONEYZ"



That  pretty much ended with the dawn of proper quarterly business planning (BP).  The end year buys are usually things on the wish list that were chopped from the BP at the beginning of the year as "Mission Enhancing" vice "Mission Critical".  These buys come online because the procurement process is so bloody slow that most RC Managers have to deal with a host of "Off Ramps" (planned purchases that don't go off) and then either have to re-adjust and procure off their wish list or return money to the center.



			
				upandatom said:
			
		

> The options and possibilities are there, it just means a little bit of organization. You could even turn it into a Signals PD, Info Sessions etc. Briefs on what is new and upcomming, Just like Comm Player (without having the purpose of drinking our faces off and playing some puck)



OR;  they filter the forecast and briefing down through the CoC who brief it to their pers who in turn push their broader scope questions back at the CoC for answers and leave the individual questions for the face to face with the CM.  What exactly is it that everyone is burning up to ask about?  Is it MES?  The answer to that is SNAFU and political blah, blah, blah; and if it's Spec pay then look up about 20 posts to see the never changing status.


----------



## c_canuk

1984 said:
			
		

> Jesus Mary and Joseph Son!  You brought it up, others commented, I provided context.  That's it.  Peace brother...I'm out.



So you're saying :

your 3 paragraphs centred around communicating your personal career plan to the CM 

was in response to: 

my comment that they cancelled a free trip out, rather than rescheduled, and pointed out that I think it's not a lack of time/scheduling issue since VTC coord for this many people will take a lot more time than actually coming out, never mind if there are technical issues, after complaining about how IST has been pushed into limbo and a lot of the gold we were sold about it has evaporated.

and you don't understand why I think the two things are unrelated and think I'm the one with comprehension problems?  :facepalm:


----------



## Swingline1984

c_canuk said:
			
		

> So you're saying :
> 
> your 3 paragraphs centred around communicating your personal career plan to the CM
> 
> was in response to:
> 
> my comment that they cancelled a free trip out, rather than rescheduled, and pointed out that I think it's not a lack of time/scheduling issue since VTC coord for this many people will take a lot more time than actually coming out, never mind if there are technical issues, after complaining about how IST has been pushed into limbo and a lot of the gold we were sold about it has evaporated.
> 
> and you don't understand why I think the two things are unrelated and think I'm the one with comprehension problems?  :facepalm:



I really should know better than to respond and continue to derail this any further with your constant need to dwell on the trivial, however you need to do me a favor and go look up what the word "context" means and then go back and reread the last bit of the thread and realize you were not the only person speaking about the CMs and then maybe, just maybe you might understand where I'm coming from.  Probably too much to hope as you apparently suffer from a debilitating mental blockage and an insufferable need to have the last word.  Well try as you might you won't get any satisfaction from me as this exercise in futility is finally over and you're going straight to ignore (la, la, la...I can't hear you).  Cheers.


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, Most Bases have Shacks, and Messes, and buses. Agreed VTC would be cheaper, I see money literally wasted on a day to day basis on things we dont use or need, why not put it to a decent use instead of the "its march 31st SPEND ALL THE MONEYZ"



So instead of flying 3 people around, we fly around the whole Signals Corps? If we're going to move people from base to base, even if its to every base, its cheaper than IBB/Shacks/Mess food for 3800 people.


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So instead of flying 3 people around, we fly around the whole Signals Corps? If we're going to move people from base to base, even if its to every base, its cheaper than IBB/Shacks/Mess food for 3800 people.



I think he meant buses... as in send the CMs to a reduced set of locations and bus everyone within a reasonable distance away in for the general brief and their interview, but I don't see setting things up like that will help much anyway.

I think the best suggestion so far was to just get the local CoCs to do the general brief and interviews simultaneously across the country, then leave VTCs for things only the CM can address. 

I know in my neck of the woods there are already reps that are tasked to direct the flow to the CM already so it seems to be a logical progression to me.


----------



## c_canuk

1984 said:
			
		

> I really should know better than to respond and continue to derail this any further with your constant need to dwell on the trivial, however you need to do me a favor and go look up what the word "context" means and then go back and reread the last bit of the thread and realize you were not the only person speaking about the CMs and then maybe, just maybe you might understand where I'm coming from.  Probably too much to hope as you apparently suffer from a debilitating mental blockage and an insufferable need to have the last word.  Well try as you might you won't get any satisfaction from me as this exercise in futility is finally over and you're going straight to ignore (la, la, la...I can't hear you).  Cheers.



I didn't want to give him any satisfaction by responding, but since I'm on ignore and he won't see it regardless

all I heard was "I just realized I was caught out posting a general rant, but don't want to admit it. so now I'll ignore everything from you from the future rather than illustrate what I'm talking about after liberally questioning the content of your character"

Am I fucked here? I didn't see any posts that would have had anything to do with what he posted, can someone show me the light?

I have a very large distrust of absolutes, there is always some doubt so I will not say I know I'm right, because there is a very real possibility I am ****ed here. I just want to know what I'm missing."

I imaging everyone else is just as sick as I am of this, so I'll just shut up about it.


----------



## upandatom

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think he meant buses... as in send the CMs to a reduced set of locations and bus everyone within a reasonable distance away in for the general brief and their interview, but I don't see setting things up like that will help much anyway.
> 
> I think the best suggestion so far was to just get the local CoCs to do the general brief and interviews simultaneously across the country, then leave VTCs for things only the CM can address.
> 
> I know in my neck of the woods there are already reps that are tasked to direct the flow to the CM already so it seems to be a logical progression to me.



Thats understandable, that I can see and deal with. Yet, some places, that sig or sigs will get lost and forgotten about. There will have to be more definitive answers and people held accountable for not relaying information. This will become a "Game of Thrones", (even more so then it is) and the whole "puppet master" routine better get dropped. 

Even though we got off topic, Here we are, over 3 years after I was told to pick a sub occ. Still have not had a definitive reply as to what is going on (spec Pay, job requirements, courses, difference between IST and CST, FYI, the only thing I have noticed is that IST refuse to touch green shit) . It is getting a bit frustrating regardless, and I legitimately hope for the Sake of the Sigs World, this gets sorted out and Fast, I have done nothing but see Good Signals Community Members say F@#$ this shit, Im out, many have already, and others currently are on their way out. 

Many of you can, will and have said Spec Pay is Mute and shouldnt matter, But it Does. 

for example;
ATIS Tech-Pretty damn close to the same trade as LCIS, Completes POET, does more with Radar, Gets Spec Pay
EO Tech- Does POET, (no AM or FM), spends a multitude of months in the EME school Learning Technical repairs and Fault Finding of equipment-Gets Spec Pay
AVS Tech-Completes POET, spends forever at CFSATE learning to fix equipment on Planes-Gets Spec Pay


Even under this new system, CST still does a Mini POET, I have gone through my guys I have put through books, is pretty much the same course. 

Still expected to have the same knowledge, skillset, experience and ability. I do not see a difference with exception of an acronym and a number. 

So instead now you have members doing the exact same job for less pay, or no pay increases along with increased responsibility. Expect frustration, anger and resentment. 

That is why you will see the frustrated technicians, and good ones at that walk out the door to equivalent or better paying Civilian Jobs.


----------



## corp47

When I did my application I put reserves, now I want to do it full time. Is there anyway when I get contacted be able to change from Reserves to Full-time?

I am still waiting for first contact.

When or if I do get accepted, would their be a big difference in courses? Some people tell me reserves finish their ACISS courses before full-time.


----------



## PuckChaser

corp47 said:
			
		

> When or if I do get accepted, would their be a big difference in courses? Some people tell me reserves finish their ACISS courses before full-time.



Reserve ACISS courses are no longer the exact same course as the RegF ones AFAIK.

If you want to go the RegF route, call the recruiting center and change your application. The PRes will have limited spots, and will happily move your file so you can go full-time so they can recruit someone else.


----------



## ringo598

So its been a couple of months since the last post, anyone heard anything?  Any interesting rumours?


----------



## c_canuk

ringo598 said:
			
		

> So its been a couple of months since the last post, anyone heard anything?  Any interesting rumours?


----------



## JBP

The only thing I've heard on the IST end is the estimated promotion forecast... Which was a lot higher than I thought it would be... Must be due to all the positions that were originally not identified... Or the releases, but I'm being hopeful it was just positions!

IST is going to be a very 'tight' trade I think like the original LCIS trade... Almost everyone in the top 20 knows who each other are or have met and trained or toured together at some point!


----------



## Sig_Des

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> IST is going to be a very 'tight' trade I think like the original LCIS trade... Almost everyone in the top 20 knows who each other are or have met and trained or toured together at some point!



You mean all you guys don't already play World of Warcraft together?


----------



## JBP

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> You mean all you guys don't already play World of Warcraft together?



You don't even have to know how to use a computer to play WOW, it's for total n00bs! 

For real men (ISTs) it's Day Z or Battlefield 4 on a PC, NOT console! Treachery among the IST ranks will be unaccepted. PC gaming only!

 :bullet:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

upandatom said:
			
		

> ATIS Tech-Pretty damn close to the same trade as LCIS, Completes POET, does more with Radar, Gets Spec Pay



I realize this is a few months old but I just caught it now.

I'm pretty sure the ATIS Tech JTARs include more than "RADAR".  That's like saying "infantry march with rucksacks".


----------



## upandatom

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I realize this is a few months old but I just caught it now.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the ATIS Tech JTARs include more than "RADAR".  That's like saying "infantry march with rucksacks".



Na Eye, I understand that. Yes the radar, and certain Air Field Specific equipment has its own training. I wasnt at all trying to just say they are Blueberry LCIS Techs at all. Each one had their own special portions of the courses. But, it all boils down the base knowledge, ability and the very basic fault finding skills gained in the old POET that made the difference. Spec pay is based on the knowledge, Job requirements and day to day "job" or skillset required to do the job in the civilian side of the house (even though me writing that is probably insanely repetitive in this thread). Im still doing the same thing. ATIS techs are still doing the same thing. IST/SIG op are kind of doing the same dependant on where they were sent. 

Certain Units you even have ATIS and ACISS-CST and IST working right beside eachother doing the exact same job.

What does that say the to the members of the ACISS trades?


----------



## RedMan

The damage is already done. I know many newer trained LCIS techs that want out or want to OT... simple as that. So much for solving your manning issues for signal operators.


----------



## PuckChaser

I RX'd an email the other day with a few interesting points:

1. CISTM is so futuristic we won't need it for 10-15 years, so they're now going to stovepipe all the sub-occs to MWO.
2. There was a decision/information about specpay that DSigs didn't like last summer, so he put a team on it and made it his "top priority". We should see some "positive results" soon.

The way I see it, stovepiping the sub-occs means we're one small step away from going back to 3 separate trades.


----------



## technophile

We received the same email. And the DSigs himself was just here for a briefing.

What he didn't like was the following:
Only one of the sub occupations was approved for spec pay ( he didn't say which, but I am sure we can all guess ) And the big kicker was that Spec pay was not approved for CISTM.  Meaning if you were a spec pay Sgt, when you get promoted to WO ( and become CISTM ) you would lose spec pay. 
Seems to me this is the rationale in increasing the "stove pipe " up another rank. 

Now, he did mention that they are working on getting all three sub ocs spec pay along with CISTM.  But, we all know how that story is playing out so far.


----------



## upandatom

Daywalker said:
			
		

> The damage is already done. I know many newer trained LCIS techs that want out or want to OT... simple as that. So much for solving your manning issues for signal operators.


*Cough* 
Line forms up over to the left
*cough*

I am not so sure if its the newer trained, I think the newer trained are being thrust ahead way to fast for their own good. Id say its legacy techs with 6-9 years in right now, that are between senior Cpl to that new Sgt that are saying, yeah no. 

I agree damage is done, Morale Killer. As harsh as it sounds,  the quality of technicians since the amalg has dropped significantly. I find that point is being brought up more often then naught. They arent getting the exposure anymore.

Direct example, I have one, a Cpl with me, when he joined in 2010, was LCIS in basic when this all started. He had never seen the inside of a NAU, CI, or 5121.... he had only ran the tests until last week when he was working OJT with me and I took him step by step.


----------



## PuckChaser

technophile said:
			
		

> Now, he did mention that they are working on getting all three sub ocs spec pay along with CISTM.  But, we all know how that story is playing out so far.



And we thought you had a SigOp retention issue BEFORE this whole thing....

If DSigs is only pushing for the sub-occs to get spec pay, he has no idea how to encourage recruitment and retain soldiers and we now have 4 trades with issues instead of 3.


----------



## 211RadOp

I'm going to preface my next comment by saying I am core.

It should be either the whole trade gets spec pay, or none of us do.  It's like saying an RMS Clerk who has a Fin background gets spec pay but the one who was an Adm Clk doesn't (and yes I know that neither do, but it is an example).  Why should 1 sub-occupation be treated any different than another?  Will it happen, probably not.  And if it does, I will probably be retired by then and they will not back date it anyway.


----------



## upandatom

211RadOp said:
			
		

> I'm going to preface my next comment by saying I am core.
> 
> It should be either the whole trade gets spec pay, or none of us do.  It's like saying an RMS Clerk who has a Fin background gets spec pay but the one who was an Adm Clk doesn't (and yes I know that neither do, but it is an example).  Why should 1 sub-occupation be treated any different than another?  Will it happen, probably not.  And if it does, I will probably be retired by then and they will not back date it anyway.



Why?
Job Knowledge, Skills, Training, Aptitude and ability. Im not saying All ACISS Core are unintelligent thudfu@ks, some are, not all. They chose to stick to that path, or their CoC directed them into it. Thats From what I understand, ACISS core is not a sub occ, its the parent occupation.

The word TECHNICIAN, on the end of the sub occs makes a difference. Civilian side, someone doing the same job as a CST, makes around $70k a year, makes sense. The person that uses that equipment that that civilian fixes, makes less. Its the extra mile that the training went/was supposed to go for the sub occs that allowed for spec pay. To go that extra step, and learn not only how to operate, but fix and fault find the quipment is deserving of that spec pay. 

Before ACISS the line was very clear, now not so much. Yet CSTs, are still expected to do the same job. LSTs do the same job but never had spec pay. You can see why so many highly trained techs, are GTFO.

The All or None thinking, that thinking is why some of the best are leaving the trade for greener pastures.


----------



## technophile

upandatom said:
			
		

> The All or None thinking, that thinking is why some of the best are leaving the trade for greener pastures.



not "greener" pastures.  " Bluer" pastures.


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> Why?
> Job Knowledge, Skills, Training, Aptitude and ability. Im not saying All ACISS Core are unintelligent thudfu@ks, some are, not all. They chose to stick to that path, or their CoC directed them into it. Thats From what I understand, ACISS core is not a sub occ, its the parent occupation.
> 
> The word TECHNICIAN, on the end of the sub occs makes a difference. Civilian side, someone doing the same job as a CST, makes around $70k a year, makes sense. The person that uses that equipment that that civilian fixes, makes less. Its the extra mile that the training went/was supposed to go for the sub occs that allowed for spec pay. To go that extra step, and learn not only how to operate, but fix and fault find the quipment is deserving of that spec pay.
> 
> Before ACISS the line was very clear, now not so much. Yet CSTs, are still expected to do the same job. LSTs do the same job but never had spec pay. You can see why so many highly trained techs, are GTFO.
> 
> The All or None thinking, that thinking is why some of the best are leaving the trade for greener pastures.



And yet the word SPECIALIST at the end of all our trades regardless of sub-occ shouldn't mean spec pay?

Someone can get out and make more money as a tech? Sounds great, release. Firefighters don't make spec pay and they probably would end up with double their take home pay in a civilian firefighter position.

Why can't ACISS make spec? You've stated no reasons why they shouldn't, other than CSTs are so cool. ACISS Core training is complex enough to justify it, just the same as you can justify IST/LST/CST. We could spend 12 training months qualifying an ACISS(Core) pers, but our courses got hacked and slashed and turned into a "Common DPX.0" to fit the MES thinking that it's simple push-button talkie box work. 

Guess what? I fault find, troubleshoot equipment all the time. You're not special in that regard. Should I stop doing that and just throw it at a CST? Not if I want to keep my unit running.


----------



## Brasidas

211RadOp said:
			
		

> I'm going to preface my next comment by saying I am core.
> 
> It should be either the whole trade gets spec pay, or none of us do.  It's like saying an RMS Clerk who has a Fin background gets spec pay but the one who was an Adm Clk doesn't (and yes I know that neither do, but it is an example).  Why should 1 sub-occupation be treated any different than another?  Will it happen, probably not.  And if it does, I will probably be retired by then and they will not back date it anyway.



It should not be a single trade; the sub-occs should be trades unto themselves, and this is a case where they are being (appropriately) treated as such.

I've run line and I've done IT-related taskings; so what? I don't see newer sig ops coming off course being renaissance men who can do everything and anything, and the sub-occs do not seemlessly blend. A lineman who's a qualified sig op det commander is exactly that. An electronics tech who's had sig op trades training shoved into his schedule isn't just a sig op.

You shove everybody through a common 3's and all you're doing is discouraging the guys who were motivated for the other trades to look elsewhere, rather than solve the problems of the sig op trade.

Yes, the new "trade" is a done deal, but continuing to expect it to deliver the ridiculous promises its salesmen made is foolish. A final answer on what many of us expected, either LCIS being the only ones to keep spec pay or no one getting it, will actually make things better rather than unconvincing promises of "we could all get spec pay".


----------



## ixium

IF the the spec pay was linked to the position that the person held then whatever. 

But there are IST/CST guys doing the exact same job as a core. And there are core guys that are forced into IST jobs in regiments and even do IST courses.


----------



## PuckChaser

ixium said:
			
		

> IF the the spec pay was linked to the position that the person held then whatever.
> 
> But there are IST/CST guys doing the exact same job as a core. And there are core guys that are forced into IST jobs in regiments and even do IST courses.



I'm pretty sure you can't do that. I remember from the MES briefings its all or nothing.


----------



## Bucky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure you can't do that. I remember from the MES briefings its all or nothing.



Au contraire, mon frere: 

They're expecting most of us nowadays to know a bit of everything. Hence the return to the common "core" trade for the DP2.0 and 3.0. Do you really think that an infantry officer asking the nearest sig he can find why his radio/computer doesn't work, gives a rats ass what sub occupation that member belongs to? This has caused many of us in the core trade to be labelled as knowledgeable in IS or even (god forbid) line things, simply because we have a rudimentary understanding of how those sub-occupations work. I get how they sold the "super-sig" ACISS plan, and understand how great that might look on paper, but given the way that training (both OJT and courses) is experienced, the sad truth is that most ACISS('s?) will enter the sub occupation of their choice (or someone elses) regardless of what they're best at.

Hence the problem. They're trying to make a "jack of all trades" trade, to a point. I wish them all the best with it, and am personally endeavouring to be "that guy", but I doubt it will work for enough soldiers to make it worth the work it's caused the branch.

</rant>


----------



## PuckChaser

I meant they can't apply spec pay to a position number, it has to be a whole MOSID/sub MOSID or no one.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And yet the word SPECIALIST at the end of all our trades regardless of sub-occ shouldn't mean spec pay?
> 
> Someone can get out and make more money as a tech? Sounds great, release. Firefighters don't make spec pay and they probably would end up with double their take home pay in a civilian firefighter position.
> 
> Why can't ACISS make spec? You've stated no reasons why they shouldn't, other than CSTs are so cool. ACISS Core training is complex enough to justify it, just the same as you can justify IST/LST/CST. We could spend 12 training months qualifying an ACISS(Core) pers, but our courses got hacked and slashed and turned into a "Common DPX.0" to fit the MES thinking that it's simple push-button talkie box work.
> 
> Guess what? I fault find, troubleshoot equipment all the time. You're not special in that regard. Should I stop doing that and just throw it at a CST? Not if I want to keep my unit running.



Releasing, and OTing is exactly what people are doing. The trade is losing some of its best people because of that fact. 

As for fault find and/or trouble shoot. How far are you fault finding? Are you really going down to card level? even component in some units? if so and you have that understanding of electronic theory, then yes you deserve spec pay. 

Im sorry but I just dont see Core getting spec. unless they become alot more independent, which is opposite of what this whole thing was about. Its one thing to use the equipment, its another to repair it (by repair I do not mean turn in that NAU/CI/RAU whatever piece of kit and say, hey this is not working, its screwing things up for us. As in repair, open that kit up, know what the cards do, be able to repair/replace them).

Higher up I can see them getting it, but at that point they become Chief Comm Ops, they become alot more technical. 

I do believe that IST deserves Spec, Especially if they take over more of the deployed infrastructure, (Shared services is killing that hope of maintaining those skills without constant exercises and deployments)

LST, not so much, sorry, but when they turned down or found that it wasnt feasible to train them to program the phone switch, routers, switches (this came from a linemans mouth at the school) kind of threw that option out of there. Civi side, someone pulling comm cable, is maybe making 35-40k a year.


----------



## upandatom

Brasidas said:
			
		

> It should not be a single trade; the sub-occs should be trades unto themselves, and this is a case where they are being (appropriately) treated as such.
> 
> I've run line and I've done IT-related taskings; so what? I don't see newer sig ops coming off course being renaissance men who can do everything and anything, and the sub-occs do not seemlessly blend. A lineman who's a qualified sig op det commander is exactly that. An electronics tech who's had sig op trades training shoved into his schedule isn't just a sig op.
> 
> You shove everybody through a common 3's and all you're doing is discouraging the guys who were motivated for the other trades to look elsewhere, rather than solve the problems of the sig op trade.
> 
> Yes, the new "trade" is a done deal, but continuing to expect it to deliver the ridiculous promises its salesmen made is foolish. A final answer on what many of us expected, either LCIS being the only ones to keep spec pay or no one getting it, will actually make things better rather than unconvincing promises of "we could all get spec pay".



 :nod: :nod: :nod:

Could not agree more,


----------



## LCIS227

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And yet the word SPECIALIST at the end of all our trades regardless of sub-occ shouldn't mean spec pay?
> 
> Someone can get out and make more money as a tech? Sounds great, release.



So by your logic, a jealous CORE ACISS wants spec pay? Sounds great, release and join as a tech.

Your all or nothing attitude is exactly what got the branch in such a mess. You're part of the problem, not the solution.


----------



## PuckChaser

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> So by your logic, a jealous CORE ACISS wants spec pay? Sounds great, release and join as a tech.
> 
> Your all or nothing attitude is exactly what got the branch in such a mess. You're part of the problem, not the solution.



Back up the hate train here, buddy. I think LCIS (now CST) got a giant shaft on this deal, especially since I've heard a rumour the pay review came back as them getting spec returned and DSigs delaying it for a "better" solution. The perfect way to empty out a trade is freeze their pay. You know what though? CST promotions are very low this year due to being close to PML. So obviously there's not this mass exodus of people to ATIS or civvie street. I never did disagree with LCIS getting spec, but what I don't get is the bad vibes being pushed out towards all the other Sigs trades re: specpay. Do you guys feel like you won't be the cool kids on the block if we all got it? Why don't you focus on your own trade, and simply happy when the wronging MES has done to your pay scale gets fixed?

I'd go so far as your attitude here LCIS227 is the issue with the C&E Branch as a whole. We're all on the same team, and trying to throw blades at each other makes us look like a joke. The Branch is a mess because no one treats it as a Branch. Its a collection of trades trying to get themselves things to spite everyone else. I've never had spec pay, and by the time there's a decision I'll be sufficiently along in rank that an extra hundred bucks a month won't matter. Quite frankly I'd rather LDA not get messed with.

You keep on your high-horse, however. It won't do you any good in the future, when you have to leave your shop and actually work with other trades. Or, heaven forbid, do an ACISS(Core) job that seems so far beneath you because MES thinks you can pull someone from a line crew/help desk/TM shop and they're instantly a competent Rad Op.  :facepalm:


----------



## Swingline1984

upandatom said:
			
		

> LST, not so much, sorry, but when they turned down or found that it wasnt feasible to train them to program the phone switch, routers, switches (this came from a linemans mouth at the school) kind of threw that option out of there. Civi side, someone pulling comm cable, is maybe making 35-40k a year.



Does it hurt?  I mean seriously, having your head that far up your ass has got to be painful.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Back up the hate train here, buddy. I think LCIS (now CST) got a giant shaft on this deal, especially since I've heard a rumour the pay review came back as them getting spec returned and DSigs delaying it for a "better" solution. The perfect way to empty out a trade is freeze their pay. You know what though? CST promotions are very low this year due to being close to PML. So obviously there's not this mass exodus of people to ATIS or civvie street. I never did disagree with LCIS getting spec, but what I don't get is the bad vibes being pushed out towards all the other Sigs trades re: specpay. Do you guys feel like you won't be the cool kids on the block if we all got it? Why don't you focus on your own trade, and simply happy when the wronging MES has done to your pay scale gets fixed?



I'm not agreeing with LCIS227's post here, but I'm curious about how the current situation has CST's at PML. Anecdotal LCIS acquaintances releasing aside, I don't have data, but I'd like to know who they're counting. DP1.1 grads?



> I'd go so far as your attitude here LCIS227 is the issue with the C&E Branch as a whole. We're all on the same team, and trying to throw blades at each other makes us look like a joke. The Branch is a mess because no one treats it as a Branch. Its a collection of trades trying to get themselves things to spite everyone else. I've never had spec pay, and by the time there's a decision I'll be sufficiently along in rank that an extra hundred bucks a month won't matter. Quite frankly I'd rather LDA not get messed with.



I think there's more institutionally wrong with the branch than that, and that there's plenty of problems within the old sig op trade, particularly with the blade throwing. There's always been a reason for it being an "in demand" trade, and that's not attrition due to incredible job opportunities outside of the military.



> You keep on your high-horse, however. It won't do you any good in the future, when you have to leave your shop and actually work with other trades. Or, heaven forbid, do an ACISS(Core) job that seems so far beneath you because MES thinks you can pull someone from a line crew/help desk/TM shop and they're instantly a competent Rad Op.  :facepalm:



I've had great experiences working with ATIS and LCIS techs. One of the dumbest, though, was when one got sent on a two-day tasking, got stranded for a month, and effectively became a QL2 det member of mine for the duration. I taught him VP and had him acting as a relief operator. I'm not putting our trade down at all when I say that I think that it was a waste of the guy's time, and a waste of his unit's resources. He handled a no-duff 9-liner just fine, but so would a switched-on supply tech or clerk if I was training them as long as I did with him.

You take a guy, put him through POET lite, OJT, and other tech training courses, and you have an effective technician. Why the heck would you train him to be a sig op det commander? Familiarization with the end user's needs, sure, but disrupting the technician training track by a year+ of sig op 3's and bouncing around as a det member does not make sense to me, nor does sending him on a sig op 5's. If its what I wanted to do, I wouldn't accept anything but ATIS.

Specialization makes sense, and drinking the MES koolaid and a two years' forgotten QL5 course don't mean that a lineman in a permanent lineman position is going to be an effective sig op det commander for an exercise when he gets CFTPO'd out of the blue.

The branch is a mess because the branch and particularly our trade has been a mess, and MES and spec pay are just symptoms that exacerbate the problem.


----------



## PuckChaser

Brasidas said:
			
		

> I'm not agreeing with LCIS227's post here, but I'm curious about how the current situation has CST's at PML. Anecdotal LCIS acquaintances releasing aside, I don't have data, but I'd like to know who they're counting. DP1.1 grads?



Unfortunately they count everyone in the training system, DP1 or just on their BMQ, or so I've heard. It artificially inflates it, but post-Afghanistan I think we're finally catching up.



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> The branch is a mess because the branch and particularly our trade has been a mess, and MES and spec pay are just symptoms that exacerbate the problem.



I absolutely agree here. There's not one issue that's destroying the branch. There's a deep rooted disease somewhere we have to find, instead of treating symptoms all the time.


----------



## upandatom

1984 said:
			
		

> Does it hurt?  I mean seriously, having your head that far up your *** has got to be painful.



Not really, because its not up there. Thats the truth. I know people that do that Job Civi Side. same qualifications. I know some good and smart lineman. Pretty switched on, but they agree their job does not deserve spec pay. 



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> You take a guy, put him through POET lite, OJT, and other tech training courses, and you have an effective technician. Why the heck would you train him to be a sig op det commander? Familiarization with the end user's needs, sure, but disrupting the technician training track by a year+ of sig op 3's and bouncing around as a det member does not make sense to me, nor does sending him on a sig op 5's. If its what I wanted to do, I wouldn't accept anything but ATIS.
> 
> Specialization makes sense, and drinking the MES koolaid and a two years' forgotten QL5 course don't mean that a lineman in a permanent lineman position is going to be an effective sig op det commander for an exercise when he gets CFTPO'd out of the blue.
> 
> The branch is a mess because the branch and particularly our trade has been a mess, and MES and spec pay are just symptoms that exacerbate the problem.



Agreed, from what I have seen thus far, the ability/skills/knowledge of those techs has also dropped. 

As for the CST at PML? I also think that because a huge amount of positions were removed from the CST pool, and placed into the IST. As well as ATIS (having a hay day with all the new gucci positions) Which makes sense, as well with counting the people that are already slated in the training system to go to CST. 

I dont see how that is possible though, due to the member was supposed to show the drive, initiative, skills and potential to become a CST/LST/IST while cycling through on the OJT bicycle and on the 1.0 course itself. (of course with input from "where we need you, where you wanna go, where your CoC thinks you should be")

As for the spec pay, with the cutbacks announced the other day, I think those are fast becoming a pipe dream.


----------



## Swingline1984

upandatom said:
			
		

> Not really, because its not up there. Thats the truth. I know people that do that Job Civi Side. same qualifications. I know some good and smart lineman. Pretty switched on, but they agree their job does not deserve spec pay.



Really?  You "know SOME good and smart Linemen"; which means what?  Are the rest morons?  Thank-you for your informed opinion.  I know guys who went to Fort Mac "just pulling cable" for 160K;  I myself got offered a job for 60K 2 weeks ago as an installation foreman at a small tech company in TO; a public service / SSC job ranges from 50 - 70K; a tower painting job for an independent contractor can net you 5 - 10K per structure.  I know several who have gone to the US or overseas for far more.  You forget or are perhaps ignorant of the fact that we bring far more to the table than Joe "I just pull cable with my grade 3 education" labourer.  But please continue with your vague and perceived notions of what we do.


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> As for the CST at PML? I also think that because a huge amount of positions were removed from the CST pool, and placed into the IST.



SigOp and LCIS had the same thing happen. They artificially brought the PML numbers up by shifting positions to CST and IST. Now ACISS is yellow, not red so they can pretend nothing is wrong again with retention and recruitment.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SigOp and LCIS had the same thing happen. They artificially brought the PML numbers up by shifting positions to CST and IST. Now ACISS is yellow, not red so they can pretend nothing is wrong again with retention and recruitment.



I Was told it was Red in the fall, and now Yellow as of last week. Red was to try to deter people from the AVOT option. With it being yellow now, Gates have opened. 

ATIS is green, so going from a yellow to Green is a tough go. Have to score high during the process.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Just an FYI, the gates are always "open" for VOT out, just the percentage of the TES allowed out changes; 0.5% for red, 1% for amber, 2% for green.

Not sure what the OFP for ACISS is, but if they've lowered it, suddenly a bunch of folks who weren't part of the TES are and _"ta-da"_ you look healthier.  Our trade changed the OFP a few years back from MOAT/OTU to QL5, which changed the TES a lot quicker.

Cheers


----------



## c_canuk

upandatom said:
			
		

> Not really, because its not up there. Thats the truth. I know people that do that Job Civi Side. same qualifications. I know some good and smart lineman. Pretty switched on, but they agree their job does not deserve spec pay.



As much as I think 1984 is a ignorant blowhard, he's right.

Linemen civy side make what a sgt makes starting, and that's before the vast amounts of overtime and on call bonuses they can get.

Spec pay's only purpose is to stop the CAF from bleeding troops to identical trades civy side due to vastly higher pay. That is the only consideration (on paper) for spec pay. How specialized you feel your trade is not. Training and skill set is not a consideration, only what the civy job market will pay for the worker.

Based on that, the line trade had as good or even a better claim to spec pay than LCIS did.


----------



## Old EO Tech

c_canuk said:
			
		

> As much as I think 1984 is a ignorant blowhard, he's right.
> 
> Linemen civy side make what a sgt makes starting, and that's before the vast amounts of overtime and on call bonuses they can get.
> 
> Spec pay's only purpose is to stop the CAF from bleeding troops to identical trades civy side due to vastly higher pay. That is the only consideration (on paper) for spec pay. How specialized you feel your trade is not. Training and skill set is not a consideration, only what the civy job market will pay for the worker.
> 
> Based on that, the line trade had as good or even a better claim to spec pay than LCIS did.



I certainly agree that what is happening in Civy street certainly effects retention.  I disagree with what you have stated about Spec Pay, it is an entirely wrong statement.  Spec Pay is based on a points system, trades get points for every unique skill/competency that it has.  A trade either has enough points to make Spec 1 or not.  Spec 2 has a higher points threshold and on top of that requires an element of danger/risk that you are in charge of entire systems or have high risk jobs.  That is why only a few trades get spec 2, Mar Eng Art, Flight engineers are both in-charge of entire systems either a ship or aircraft, SAR Tech's get Spec 2 due to their often dangerous tasks and skill sets they have to maintain to do the job.

So the problem with the Sigs trades changes is you have watered down each trade by spreading the finite skills across more trades, and just creating new trades means they all have to be reassessed.  I have no idea if the CST or IST trades have enough points let alone LST.  But that is what I imagine has been going on since the change, and mix in TB politics and you have the mess that is today.


----------



## BorisK

Sorry for the hijack but could someone please tell me what the acronyms 'CST' & 'PML' stand for? (I'm trying to following along even though I'm just in the application process.)

Thanks


----------



## Ludoc

BorisK said:
			
		

> Sorry for the hijack but could someone please tell me what the acronyms 'CST' & 'PML' stand for? (I'm trying to following along even though I'm just in the application process.)
> 
> Thanks



That is complicated, in broad terms:
The ACISS trade is split into 4 sub trades (5 really but CISTM doesn't count and just confuses things):
Core - Radio Operators - Operate the Army's radios, if it is painted green we use it to communicate with someone else.
IST - Computer Geeks - Service all the computer/network infrastructure we have.
LST - Linemen - Lay and service all the cat 5, fiber optic, line used by the Army.
CST - Radio Technicians - Fix all the stuff we core guys break.

None of these divisions are hard and fast, in different units responsibilities bleed from one sub-trade to another. Additionally, each trade is evolving and there are already a bunch of exceptions. 

PML is the Prefered Manning Level. How many people the trade would like to, and is authorized to have.


----------



## BorisK

Thank you.


----------



## upandatom

c_canuk said:
			
		

> As much as I think 1984 is a ignorant blowhard, he's right.
> 
> Linemen civy side make what a sgt makes starting, and that's before the vast amounts of overtime and on call bonuses they can get.
> 
> Spec pay's only purpose is to stop the CAF from bleeding troops to identical trades civy side due to vastly higher pay. That is the only consideration (on paper) for spec pay. How specialized you feel your trade is not. Training and skill set is not a consideration, only what the civy job market will pay for the worker.
> 
> Based on that, the line trade had as good or even a better claim to spec pay than LCIS did.



I understand what you are saying, but is that a Hydro Ontario, Hydro Quebec or Direct Energy Lineman you are talking about? then Yes they make a SH#t tonne more. Ill fully agree there. I know some of them even pull 80k or more a year add in bonus and OT. 

I am sorry but if you are talking about pulling and terminating Fiber, Copper, any number of pairing in bundles, in Manholes, confined spaces, business, commercial, residential, etc. Pole Standing, trench digging for cablage, installing tray, cable racks, cable management, records management, terminating BICS panels, then you are wrong, I know people and have done this job (WITH the qualifications), For a very reputable company,that has government contracts. ( a good year, with working 5 days a week, inclduing travel time and a fair amount of OT looking at max 40-45k a year gross) Maybe for the planners and "management" they would get paid as much as a Cpl-Sgt Lineman Serving. I joined because the pay was not enough civi side,

Working with Bell etc is a different story, their job is streamlined and does not get the broad training the military does. Their termination guys are just that, they know how to pull, they know how to plan, but they do just what is in their scope.


----------



## Swingline1984

upandatom said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, but...



Time in the military gives a guy a more global perspective and the flexibility to move beyond Ontario and Quebec although you don't need an electrical background to do high angle construction.  But then again what do I know...I'm just an ignorant blowhard (have you been talking to my wife?) trying to bring some context  to a thread that has turned into a giant "poor me".  Although I must admit my last point was an attempt to market the LST as something more than a laborer.  I apologize if it came off a little harsh as I've been involved in ACISS quite a bit lately and the constant finger pointing, crocodile tears, constant whining and lack of solutions has rubbed me raw.


----------



## upandatom

1984 said:
			
		

> Time in the military gives a guy a more global perspective and the flexibility to move beyond Ontario and Quebec although you don't need an electrical background to do high angle construction.  But then again what do I know...I'm just an ignorant blowhard (have you been talking to my wife?) trying to bring some context  to a thread that has turned into a giant "poor me".  Although I must admit my last point was an attempt to market the LST as something more than a laborer.  I apologize if it came off a little harsh as I've been involved in ACISS quite a bit lately and the constant finger pointing, crocodile tears, constant whining and lack of solutions has rubbed me raw.



I think everyone is getting a bit Raw, more with the Sigs Branch, and how most would just like to see it go back to the way it was. I am all for someone coming up with a solution, or even answers to questions. Throw in the towel and return to the old system or as close as you can, or get rid of the SUB OCC nightmare. Make CST, LST, IST, and core seperate trades. EME and Air force, and the Navy do a Core training, and they are not all sub occs of eachother. The idea is good, it is. There is just too many grey areas. 

You cant even figure out what damn posting you can shoot for nowadays because it all says ACISS, or Communications Systems Technician, Which is funny, As a CST you ask for a Communications Systems Technician position, you get turned down because its in actual fact an IST position.


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> You cant even figure out what damn posting you can shoot for nowadays because it all says ACISS, or Communications Systems Technician, Which is funny, As a CST you ask for a Communications Systems Technician position, you get turned down because its in actual fact an IST position.



Yep. I'm finding out that all the open positions I want to fill with Core guys, are in fact IST because someone threw a set of darts at a board. So an undermanned section gets even further undermanned, because posted out pers can't be replaced with Core. MES is the definition of:  :facepalm:


----------



## REDinstaller

And positions that say ACCIS-CSTM are a crap shoot as well. Sorry it's a core job, but we can offer you the same position at the same type of unit in Valcartier. WTF???


----------



## PuckChaser

Tango18A said:
			
		

> And positions that say ACCIS-CSTM are a crap shoot as well. Sorry it's a core job, but we can offer you the same position at the same type of unit in Valcartier. WTF???



I'm curious as to what is going to happen now that CISTM is on hold gone. Is someone going to have to go through all the positions and reclassify to the individual sub-occs? What a waste of effort...


----------



## REDinstaller

That's what I thought and still think of the whole process of MES. It could have bought or paid for a lot of other projects that we truly need. Not what is has promised and never delivered on


----------



## PuckChaser

CNR(E) and the CI/NAU replacement comes to mind.


----------



## REDinstaller

Along with more spares in the system


----------



## RedMan

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> CNR(E) and the CI/NAU replacement comes to mind.



If you are referring to E-LAN (which gets rid of the CI,NAU,RAU,PDU,Driver Box and replaces it with the new CSB and smaller pdu), that is supposed to start being installed in vehicles come April according to my sources... we shall see.

No one is using all of the SR2 equipment I spent forever installing/testing/repairing because they don't know how to use it, and its just going to get replaced soon enough anyway.


----------



## PuckChaser

Daywalker said:
			
		

> If you are referring to E-LAN (which gets rid of the CI,NAU,RAU,PDU,Driver Box and replaces it with the new CSB and smaller pdu), that is supposed to start being installed in vehicles come April according to my sources... we shall see.



That's the one. From the powerpoints I've seen, CNR(E) is delayed almost a year. So if we get E-LAN before CNR(E), they won't have to worry about coding stuff to trick the NAU into thinking certain modes (FH for one) are still available.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yep. I'm finding out that all the open positions I want to fill with Core guys, are in fact IST because someone threw a set of darts at a board. So an undermanned section gets even further undermanned, because posted out pers can't be replaced with Core. MES is the definition of:  :facepalm:



Add on top of that being qualified, recommended, and asked for by name for a position, more then the member receiving and or filling the position. It gets super tedious, and frustrating.


----------



## LCIS227

The ACISS CMs were supposed to come to Leitrim on Monday for our brief/interviews but we got an email on Friday afternoon telling us they are cancelling their appearance (this is the 2nd time they don't show up). 

We weren't given any reason and we don't know when/if they'll come.

Any other units out there haven't spoken to the ACISS CMs yet?


----------



## PuckChaser

Wierd that they wouldn't get Ottawa, but anyone thats getting a face to face meeting this year is lucky. Rumour is G6 from Edmonton used their budget to bring them out.


----------



## REDinstaller

I don't know whose budget, but they did come first week of December


----------



## Old EO Tech

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Wierd that they wouldn't get Ottawa, but anyone thats getting a face to face meeting this year is lucky. Rumour is G6 from Edmonton used their budget to bring them out.



That is how the RCEME CM team is coming to Edmonton, Bde/Svc Bn is paying for it.  But I can't see Letrium being a budget issue....unless they are so anal that they want gas money to drive from 101 :-/


----------



## upandatom

WE only had the phone call, 

And then just to find out it was a phone call to Ottawa, and that they were here a day later.....but yet still couldnt meet face to face.


----------



## LCIS227

My CoC contacted the CM and they were informed their posting budget was cut deeper than they had anticipated.

They will spend the next few days going through all the priority postings and determine how many cost moves they can actually afford. 

They basically had to redo their posting plot ... 

As the case for many things in the Signals branch / ACISS trade it's another "wait and shoot" situation.


----------



## c_canuk

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> As the case for many things in the Signals branch / ACISS trade it's another "wait and shoot" situation.



I've made 3 attempts to write something concise about the state of the trade in reply to this. 

I've abandoned that effort as I have nothing constructive to say, so I'll just leave it at the phrase "Wait and shoot" makes my eye lid twitch.


----------



## upandatom

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I've made 3 attempts to write something concise about the state of the trade in reply to this.
> 
> I've abandoned that effort as I have nothing constructive to say, so I'll just leave it at the phrase "Wait and shoot" makes my eye lid twitch.



THREE YEARS OF WAIT AND SHOOT.


----------



## LCIS-Tech

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to what is going to happen now that CISTM is on hold gone. Is someone going to have to go through all the positions and reclassify to the individual sub-occs? What a waste of effort...



The CISTM Sub-occ is not "gone", but the determination was that it will take upwards of 15 years + to build an ACISS trained person to be able to be an "all-singing, all-dancing" CISTM that can go into "any job" at the CISTM level. Therefore, while the CISTM sub-occ will continue as a sub-occ, they current CISTMs will be promoted according to their IST, CST, and Line sub-occs into jobs at the CISTM level IAW their previous sub-occ. Don't fool yourself: We are not going back to silos. It is a Job Based Specification, and you need specific job backgrounds in order to actually DO certain jobs as a CISTM. This will alleviate the problem that can arise when/if a Lineman is #1 to be promoted, but the only position available for a CISTM is as a Foreman or CCO. It's also not a matter of reclassifying positions: They are "job based". Line go to LCF/LCS positions, CST go to Foreman positions, and most LCMM jobs. Look deeper into what the actual position is, and it will tell you what the job/specification for it is.

As a former LCIS Tech, I can say without too much difficulty that I could "probably" fill into a CCO job with only a little bit of frequency management and spectrum management trg required. I am sure that a capable CCO could probably do the same for a Foreman with a bit of extra training. The same can NOT be said about the LCS job, since nobody other than other Linemen actually knows or understands what the heck they actually do anyways....(From what I can tell, they basically just spend all of their time on TD to Ottawa at "meetings"....)


----------



## DAA

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> My CoC contacted the CM and they were informed their posting budget was cut deeper than they had anticipated.
> They will spend the next few days going through all the priority postings and determine how many cost moves they can actually afford.
> They basically had to redo their posting plot ...
> As the case for many things in the Signals branch / ACISS trade it's another "wait and shoot" situation.



I get the feeling that this is not going to be a "limited" activity and most likely universal right across all occupations/branches.  I sat in on a briefing about a month ago where the subject of Postings/Moves came up and some of the ideas/concepts and numbers spewing forth even had me thinking, doing a double take and trying to crunch numbers in my head.

Led me to believe that postings this coming year, will be "few" and in the future "far" apart.  Your post seems to validate this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

upandatom said:
			
		

> THREE YEARS OF WAIT WATCH AND SHOOT.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

DAA said:
			
		

> I get the feeling that this is not going to be a "limited" activity and most likely universal right across all occupations/branches.  I sat in on a briefing about a month ago where the subject of Postings/Moves came up and some of the ideas/concepts and numbers spewing forth even had me thinking, doing a double take and trying to crunch numbers in my head.
> 
> Led me to believe that postings this coming year, will be "few" and in the future "far" apart.  Your post seems to validate this.



We've had comm's from the CM via the trade CofC that posting will be reduced/limited this year and that this might also affect promotions, etc.  Sounds like a common theme across the board.


----------



## upandatom

Just read the very first post in this thread, 

Jun 4 08

WOW, its 44 pages of people going "Dafuq is going on," "Hey this could work" "Where is my spec pay" "Whats the latest rumour"


----------



## LCIS227

upandatom said:
			
		

> Just read the very first post in this thread,
> 
> Jun 4 08
> 
> WOW, its 44 pages of people going "Dafuq is going on," "Hey this could work" "Where is my spec pay" "Whats the latest rumour"



And 5 years later we're mostly exactly where we were then. Except today we have techs with their promotion incentives frozen due to spec pay being ripped away. 

On another note I found out Friday that the CM held a brief downtown for all but our CoC was either not aware or did not notify us. Looks like the forecast for Sgt to WO promotions have doubled to 16 for CST


----------



## CDNmilMBR

upandatom said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, but is that a Hydro Ontario, Hydro Quebec or Direct Energy Lineman you are talking about? then Yes they make a SH#t tonne more. Ill fully agree there. I know some of them even pull 80k or more a year add in bonus and OT.
> 
> I am sorry but if you are talking about pulling and terminating Fiber, Copper, any number of pairing in bundles, in Manholes, confined spaces, business, commercial, residential, etc. Pole Standing, trench digging for cablage, installing tray, cable racks, cable management, records management, terminating BICS panels, then you are wrong, I know people and have done this job (WITH the qualifications), For a very reputable company,that has government contracts. ( a good year, with working 5 days a week, inclduing travel time and a fair amount of OT looking at max 40-45k a year gross) Maybe for the planners and "management" they would get paid as much as a Cpl-Sgt Lineman Serving. I joined because the pay was not enough civi side,
> 
> Working with Bell etc is a different story, their job is streamlined and does not get the broad training the military does. Their termination guys are just that, they know how to pull, they know how to plan, but they do just what is in their scope.



You're out to lunch. I am lineman Cpl. I am out very soon. I was offered a job that pays $30/hr with very little travel required - all in Ottawa. I was offered a job in Fort Mac that was $55/hr for 50 hours a week. etc. etc. And no - not powerline. These jobs are based on skills I learned as a lineman.

There are always jobs that pay less. You can work for Bell Technical Solutions and make $15/hr. OR you can make the effort, join a trade association, make a good impression, and get offered jobs that pay fantastic money.

And if you aren't actually out to lunch and just got some bad info - do a job search online. No luck? PM me and I can send you some links. Just gear down before you hurt yourself.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Has it been decided whether or not ACISS techs will get spec pay yet? If so do they get Spec 1 or 2?

Where does an ACISS do their training?

Would someone going to be an ACISS tech do their trade course first or their SQ course first?


----------



## MikeL

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Has it been decided whether or not ACISS techs will get spec pay yet? If so do they get Spec 1 or 2?



No decision made yet. If you look back through this thread, you will see numerous posts about the updates/lack of with regards to Spec Pay. Before ACISS came out, LCIS Techs were getting Spec 1(After getting their QL5 I believe).

When you say ACISS Tech, are you being generic to everyone that is ACISS, or a sub occupation like CST?



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Where does an ACISS do their training?



Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics(CFSCE), CFB Kingston.



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Would someone going to be an ACISS tech do their trade course first or their SQ course first?



They are supposed to do BMQ-Land(formerly SQ) before doing on DP1.


----------



## LCIS-Tech

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> And 5 years later we're mostly exactly where we were then. Except today we have techs with their promotion incentives frozen due to spec pay being ripped away.
> 
> On another note I found out Friday that the CM held a brief downtown for all but our CoC was either not aware or did not notify us. Looks like the forecast for Sgt to WO promotions have doubled to 16 for CST



Correct: The forecast is 16 new WOs and 16 new Sgts, and 35 new MCpl in the CST sub-occ


----------



## upandatom

LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> Correct: The forecast is 16 new WOs and 16 new Sgts, and 35 new MCpl in the CST sub-occ



Could this be because the last group to do LCIS 3s and possibly 5s is about/near hitting that promotion range?

This could be a way of ensuring that they have the ability/authority/opportunity/means to pass on knowledge they have gained from those courses, and how they have used it thus far despite the 1.0/1 2.0/1 training?

I find that if we keep going this way, we are going to become a top heavy sub occ.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Hoplite- said:
			
		

> No decision made yet. If you look back through this thread, you will see numerous posts about the updates/lack of with regards to Spec Pay. Before ACISS came out, LCIS Techs were getting Spec 1(After getting their QL5 I believe).
> 
> When you say ACISS Tech, are you being generic to everyone that is ACISS, or a sub occupation like CST?



I meant generic ACISS, I have a friend going through who had no idea what spec pay was let alone possibly being in a position to receive it.



> They are supposed to do BMQ-Land(formally SQ) before doing on DP1.


Thats what I was thinking except theres some talk of my friend being sent to ACISS school before SQ, as well there's a supply tech I know who took her supply tech course before her SQ (she's a cpl and still no SQ yet).


Thanks for the responses.


----------



## PuckChaser

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I meant generic ACISS, I have a friend going through who had no idea what spec pay was let alone possibly being in a position to receive it.
> Thats what I was thinking except theres some talk of my friend being sent to ACISS school before SQ, as well there's a supply tech I know who took her supply tech course before her SQ (she's a cpl and still no SQ yet).



Previously ACISS (SigOp) had to complete SQ prior to being posted away from PAT platoon at CFSCE, which surprised the hell out of me when I got a QL3 operator from a group of PATs we asked for to do GD work. Now that ACISS pers are sent to Bde for OJT prior to DP1, out of sequence training is happening more and more.


----------



## darkskye

Hello,

I will be hopefully working as an ACISS for the next little bit and I was wondering if anyone could give me some insight on the trade, ie. the day to day taskings that's not explain on the forces.gc.ca website.

Thank you.


----------



## LCISindenial

Read the other posts in this forum.


----------



## PuckChaser

darkskye said:
			
		

> I will be hopefully working as an ACISS for the next little bit and I was wondering if anyone could give me some insight on the trade, ie. the day to day taskings that's not explain on the forces.gc.ca website.
> 
> Note: I am a Nav Comm going into a ACISS billet.



The trade is so vast, you literally could be doing anything. Without knowing what unit, troop, section, position and having intimate knowledge of what that unit is doing on a day to day basis, everyone here would be guessing. If you have the position number, look that position up on My Careers from EMAA and see who's there now, then email them. Fastest way to find out exactly what you can expect to do.


----------



## darkskye

Thanks for the response.


----------



## AgentSmith

I'm pretty excited to start my career as a reserve ACISS. It sounds like it will be a good change from my old trade.


----------



## upandatom

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I meant generic ACISS, I have a friend going through who had no idea what spec pay was let alone possibly being in a position to receive it.
> Thats what I was thinking except theres some talk of my friend being sent to ACISS school before SQ, as well there's a supply tech I know who took her supply tech course before her SQ (she's a cpl and still no SQ yet).
> 
> 
> Thanks for the responses.



It is commonly passed by, most of it is covered now on the new BMQ is it not? If so what explains the 15 week long basics?  I was in the weird zone where we went from 9 weeks to 13 weeks, but mine was 11 as a time filler until they could sort out the 13 week one. That was when SQ went from 8 weeks to 4 weeks.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Anyone heard any new on any possible decision yet?


----------



## JBP

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Anyone heard any new on any possible decision yet?



It was kind of like this... Career Management team as of this past APS: "So there's a new update on the spec pay issue... It's been deferred until further notice..." US: "UUuhhh... Isn't that what you said last time?".... THEM: "Not exactly... It passed an initial review after being denied 34324x already and has now been put under review pending the board (treasury) finishing up with the reviews they're already behind on etc... etc... Blah blah blah for 3 minutes..." US: "So, what your really saying professionally, this is 'on the backburner' until further notice'"... THEM: "Well... There's a lot of red tape involved in these sorts of things.. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH..."... 

That's the last 'official' word I've heard other than high RUMINT from random officers (Capt's, Majors) which, honestly, doesn't hold much weight as they are not involved in the treasury board or anything even to do with our trade level management. We haven't even heard anything from our own RSM/SSM. I would assume they are keeping a close watch on these issues...

It's my PERSONAL opinion, they will not issue a "NO" to us as that would cause a loss of personnel. We are already loosing a lot of people as we always have but I think a solid "NO" on spec pay would be the perfect catalyst for a true mass exodus for the IST sub trade anyway. Just stating from personal experience what I've seen with some of my own buddies popping smoke. Both in LFWA and LFCA.


----------



## PuckChaser

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> It's my PERSONAL opinion, they will not issue a "NO" to us as that would cause a loss of personnel. We are already loosing a lot of people as we always have but I think a solid "NO" on spec pay would be the perfect catalyst for a true mass exodus for the IST sub trade anyway. Just stating from personal experience what I've seen with some of my own buddies popping smoke. Both in LFWA and LFCA.



Not to mention CSTs who are pay frozen and are getting far more screwed than anyone else by MES.

If there are people who went IST solely for the promise of spec pay, you bought the MES crap hook, line and sinker. As soon as I heard them talking about Spec 2 for CISTMs, I knew it was going to crash and burn.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not to mention CSTs who are pay frozen and are getting far more screwed than anyone else by MES.
> 
> If there are people who went IST solely for the promise of spec pay, you bought the MES crap hook, line and sinker. As soon as I heard them talking about Spec 2 for CISTMs, I knew it was going to crash and burn.



Well LCIS kind of split between CST and IST, so yeah, alot of ISTs are getting screwed in that way as well. Being a former Sig Op, I went IST because I wanted to have some sort of applicable skill at the end of my career, plus I figured if anyone was going to get the spec pay it would be CST then IST. I figured it would be a no, but I'd rather be in the group with a 3/10 chance than ACISS Core which has no chance of getting it.

In any case, from what I've seen the redivision of the sub occs has been really beneficial. There was a huge reinvestment in the training of ISTs in the two IST heavy units I've been posted. 

Now they need to sort out this whole Networking portion. 3 years into the trade and everyone still seems confused on who is responsible for the networking portions of systems (hint: it should be the same people responsible for the servers)


----------



## JBP

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Well LCIS kind of split between CST and IST, so yeah, alot of ISTs are getting screwed in that way as well. Being a former Sig Op, I went IST because I wanted to have some sort of applicable skill at the end of my career, plus I figured if anyone was going to get the spec pay it would be CST then IST. I figured it would be a no, but I'd rather be in the group with a 3/10 chance than ACISS Core which has no chance of getting it.
> 
> In any case, from what I've seen the redivision of the sub occs has been really beneficial. There was a huge reinvestment in the training of ISTs in the two IST heavy units I've been posted.
> 
> Now they need to sort out this whole Networking portion. 3 years into the trade and everyone still seems confused on who is responsible for the networking portions of systems (hint: it should be the same people responsible for the servers)



Couldn't agree more. IST may be the only group that benefitted from the change but that's because we were the most neglected or screwed over generally. CST, don't even say anything, you lost spec before the MES happened! 

And yes, at the 2 units I've been in so far (1 Sigs, CFJSR) and the many I've worked with, it's been the guys whom operate the servers that also do the networking or, a dedicated det/section of networking pers. I have met a few CST's whom are 'connectivity' techs both in the past at 1 Sigs (There aren't anymore there) and recently at CFJSR but they are few and far between. Dying out as we continue to takeover most of that stuff... Maybe it's not so in the smaller units and the CST still do a lot of networking?


----------



## PuckChaser

So does an IST now jump in the back of a truck/LAV to program the ELPRS, or CNR(E) when its ready, or is it still going to be that Core guy who is a platoon Sig?

I still see 0 point to having ISTs, instead of network-trained SigOps. We're already short pers, and we cut the heart out of the Techs and SigOps to create network admins who's jobs are being replaced by Shared Services (unless its classified networks).


----------



## Brasidas

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> CST, don't even say anything, you lost spec before the MES happened!



Say what now? I know LCIS, I mean CST's, who continue to be paid spec. They're just remaining at the same pay rate, and don't get a pay increase when they otherwise would (eg. MCpl IPC4 Spec 1 vs Sgt basic).

My understanding is that TB has not rejected them from (retaining) spec pay, and that they'll receive backpay if and when its decided that they receive it. Since they already qualified for it, I'd think they've got a shot at getting it vs the other (sub-)trades.

Tell me about it being taken away prior to MES.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So does an IST now jump in the back of a truck/LAV to program the ELPRS, or CNR(E) when its ready, or is it still going to be that Core guy who is a platoon Sig?
> 
> I still see 0 point to having ISTs, instead of network-trained SigOps. We're already short pers, and we cut the heart out of the Techs and SigOps to create network admins who's jobs are being replaced by Shared Services (unless its classified networks).



Shared Services haven't taken over any deployed systems. LCSS, NGRI, TLAN, all of CSNI and int networks. 

No, the EPLRS and CNR(E) probably remain Core. Network trained SigOps trying to run the entire show is a bad idea. The scope of knowledge more than merits it's own speciality, and it's getting more intensive, not less. I'm not saying Core doesn't need IP, everyone does, it's the language of love now for ACISS. However, moving into customized networks for operations and VoIP phone systems, and making it all jive with national systems is not a part-time side job. 

ACISS job scope is lightyears from where it was when SigOp was formed. We need the different specialties. I see my job on the server and networking side as being complicated enough, it's ridiculous to think I can do that well enough, and learn all the Satcomm, EPLRS, HCLOS and all of that as well. There's too much to master, and jacks of all trades quickly hit the wall (of knowledge) when things get more and more complex.

There's growing pains in ACISS, but this trade is better for it.


----------



## Brasidas

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> ACISS job scope is lightyears from where it was when SigOp was formed. We need the different specialties. I see my job on the server and networking side as being complicated enough, it's ridiculous to think I can do that well enough, and learn all the Satcomm, EPLRS, HCLOS and all of that as well. There's too much to master, and jacks of all trades quickly hit the wall (of knowledge) when things get more and more complex.



And yet all members of the trade are expected to be trained as sig op det commanders. Tell me again how this makes a lineman a better lineman or a tech a better tech.



> There's growing pains in ACISS, but this trade is better for it.



Really not seeing it.

Adding IST as a trade, maybe. Following what Puckchaser was saying, 742 at least has gotten a lot more civilians vice military positions compared to years past, and there was already position-based specialization in the old trades.

The new system overall is dysfunctional, not experiencing growing pains.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And yet all members of the trade are expected to be trained as sig op det commanders. Tell me again how this makes a lineman a better lineman or a tech a better tech.
> 
> Really not seeing it.
> 
> Adding IST as a trade, maybe. Following what Puckchaser was saying, 742 at least has gotten a lot more civilians vice military positions compared to years past, and there was already position-based specialization in the old trades.
> 
> The new system overall is dysfunctional, not experiencing growing pains.



Probably ACISS is a step in the direction of a complete trade split. I do see the arguement of why a LST requires sigs training, but on the other side, I think other ACISS specialities will benefit greatly from Line training (at very least, techniques to avoid what I like to call server spaghetti).

I see the need for a ACISS Core speciality, I see the need for a LST speciality, I definately see the need for a IST speciality. CST's still confuse me, maybe I don't know enough about what they do, but I personally their purpose as a little muddled.

Maybe a couple of years down the road they might split IST, LST and ACISS Core into distinct trades. Maybe CSTs too, or maybe they might be a speciality divided among IST (IT and Networking) and Core (TSIT/TCI and replacing cards or whatever it is they do in their workshops)


----------



## Brasidas

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Probably ACISS is a step in the direction of a complete trade split. I do see the arguement of why a LST requires sigs training, but on the other side, I think other ACISS specialities will benefit greatly from Line training (at very least, techniques to avoid what I like to call server spaghetti).
> 
> I see the need for a ACISS Core speciality, I see the need for a LST speciality, I definately see the need for a IST speciality. CST's still confuse me, maybe I don't know enough about what they do, but I personally their purpose as a little muddled.
> 
> Maybe a couple of years down the road they might split IST, LST and ACISS Core into distinct trades. Maybe CSTs too, or maybe they might be a speciality divided among IST (IT and Networking) and Core (TSIT/TCI and replacing cards or whatever it is they do in their workshops)



Why would any LCIS be left lumped together with Sig Ops while splitting off linemen and IST?  They were and remain specialists with training and taskings quite different from "core".

Split off an IST trade, sure.



> Probably ACISS is a step in the direction of a complete trade split. I do see the arguement of why a LST requires sigs training, but on the other side, I think other ACISS specialities will benefit greatly from Line training (at very least, techniques to avoid what I like to call server spaghetti).


If you want to have better line practices followed by other trades, hold them to standards. There was a lineman training us in how to use line on my QL3.

ACISS is literally the antithesis of a trade split. Everybody became a sig op and they got a specialty designation on top.


----------



## PuckChaser

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Shared Services haven't taken over any deployed systems. LCSS, NGRI, TLAN, all of CSNI and int networks.
> 
> No, the EPLRS and CNR(E) probably remain Core. Network trained SigOps trying to run the entire show is a bad idea. The scope of knowledge more than merits it's own speciality, and it's getting more intensive, not less. I'm not saying Core doesn't need IP, everyone does, it's the language of love now for ACISS. However, moving into customized networks for operations and VoIP phone systems, and making it all jive with national systems is not a part-time side job.
> 
> ACISS job scope is lightyears from where it was when SigOp was formed. We need the different specialties. I see my job on the server and networking side as being complicated enough, it's ridiculous to think I can do that well enough, and learn all the Satcomm, EPLRS, HCLOS and all of that as well. There's too much to master, and jacks of all trades quickly hit the wall (of knowledge) when things get more and more complex.
> 
> There's growing pains in ACISS, but this trade is better for it.



Here's the thing, where's all this Satcom, ELPRS, HCLOS going in the future? IP-based networks. Core is going to need those same skillsets for subnetting, and network design that an IST gets, and won't get a "special" trade for it. Either you're selling yourself and all the other ISTs short that they wouldn't be able to know how to run networks while keeping Core field skills, or you've just made a case why Core is specialized enough to be Spec 1 that IST is demanding.  Those jacks of all trades hit a wall called promotion before they top out of knowledge, or they simply stay below the rank of Sgt for their whole careers. At which point, they're no longer doing the daily nuts and bolts and are now planners.

The trades are already stepping back to the original configuration, after the 4A.1 was canned for the CISTMs. All we've done is change everyone's trade in JSR to IST and pretend its good for the Corps as a whole. Networking as an OSQ like HCLOS, sure. But we sure as heck didn't need a whole trade of them. It dilutes the pool of resources we have to provide the Close Support thats more important than some staff officer's DWAN at Div HQ.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Why would any LCIS be left lumped together with Sig Ops while splitting off linemen and IST?  They were and remain specialists with training and taskings quite different from "core".
> 
> Split off an IST trade, sure.
> If you want to have better line practices followed by other trades, hold them to standards. There was a lineman training us in how to use line on my QL3.
> 
> ACISS is literally the antithesis of a trade split. Everybody became a sig op and they got a specialty designation on top.



a week of running WD doesn't show someone how to properly run cabling in a server room or in a workspace.


----------



## Brasidas

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> a week of running WD doesn't show someone how to properly run cabling in a server room or in a workspace.



And the common DP1 provides what training that couldn't have been provided on a sig op QL3?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And the common DP1 provides what training that couldn't have been provided on a sig op QL3?



No idea. I'm just saying it would be nice, you know, to not be tripping over haphazzard cabling all the time.


----------



## Brasidas

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> No idea. I'm just saying it would be nice, you know, to not be tripping over haphazzard cabling all the time.



Which dovetails neatly into what I said: if you want trades other than linemen to achieve certain standards of tradecraft, set them, train them, and confirm the skill. That's irrelevant to MES.

The other trades getting "line training" receive DP1, which is designed around everybody being trained to be a QL3 sig op. There's line, sure, but there was line in the old QL3 sig op too. Nothing I've heard or seen from the troops I've seen since the change indicates otherwise.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Which dovetails neatly into what I said: if you want trades other than linemen to achieve certain standards of tradecraft, set them, train them, and confirm the skill. That's irrelevant to MES.
> 
> The other trades getting "line training" receive DP1, which is designed around everybody being trained to be a QL3 sig op. There's line, sure, but there was line in the old QL3 sig op too. Nothing I've heard or seen from the troops I've seen since the change indicates otherwise.



The point I'm trying to make is that while the change to ACISS wasn't perfect, some good did come of it. Those professing it's the apocolyptic destruction of the trade are both ignoring the positive reality of the situation and sabotaging the opportunity to make the most of it.

I get that Puckchaser doesn't think we should have split IST from the Sig Op trade, but I don't think he saw either the skills gap that existed on IT training and skills and what is needed, or how ridiculously inflated the training would need to be to cover everything that ACISS does. 

There exists a definate need for a dedicated IST sub-occ (or possibly a IST occupation) just as there needs to be a sub-occ or trade to ACISS Core. I don't think I could do what he does, or vice versa, and maintain the same level of expertise required, there's too much.


----------



## PuckChaser

Then we had a training problem, not a trade structure problem. There's nothing wrong with giving the people that require extensive networking skills a 2 month course to cover it. Heck, CRCIED is at least 6 weeks, not including any practical training done at units, so there's a precedent already.

What we needed to do was rationalize the SigOp training to come into the 21st Century, and teach basic networking right at the DP1 level. DP2 with more advanced knowledge, but still have an OSQ to fill the gaps for specific networks.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Then we had a training problem, not a trade structure problem. There's nothing wrong with giving the people that require extensive networking skills a 2 month course to cover it. Heck, CRCIED is at least 6 weeks, not including any practical training done at units, so there's a precedent already.
> 
> What we needed to do was rationalize the SigOp training to come into the 21st Century, and teach basic networking right at the DP1 level. DP2 with more advanced knowledge, but still have an OSQ to fill the gaps for specific networks.



So add a 2 month networking course. then MS Server courses, a few exchange courses, SCOM, SCCM, throw in some Cisco VoIP manager courses, VMware Vsphere. Some Systems analysis and ITIL courses and finish it all off with Network Security and Computer forensics.
Couple that with the huge amount of specialized systems, radio and satellite equipment and then good to go. Of course the trade would be so broad that by the time you actually got hands on any of that you'd have totally forgotten it. Do a posting as a Sat Comm guy and you'd completely forget all the server admin (not to mention you'd be a couple of revisions behind on the OS) and then they'd throw you into a LCSS networking det and you wouldn't know if a config-t is fit to eat.

There is a reasonable limit to how much you can expect one person to know. You can have a wide scope or a deep understanding but not both.


----------



## Brasidas

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> There is a reasonable limit to how much you can expect one person to know. You can have a wide scope or a deep understanding but not both.



And the new system has IST do both.

They get trained as a Sig Op with common DP1 and DP2 courses. We throw in additional 1.1 and 2.1 trades courses and OJT. Or have I missed something?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And the new system has IST do both.
> 
> They get trained as a Sig Op with common DP1 and DP2 courses. We throw in additional 1.1 and 2.1 trades courses and OJT. Or have I missed something?



They get the basics on being a radio det member, they don't get the same level of training that a Core member does on everything they do. That's my understanding, but I didn't go through the training so I could be wrong.


----------



## C/S 0

ACISS training scheme is not working, therefore a new plan:

Ptes comes off basic goes to CFSCE and completes DP1.0 Common and is granted XXXX qual which states VHF Det Mbr under supervision.

They go to their new units, strong recommendation that it is a HQ & Sigs Sqn, there they complete the new ACISS Common 1.1, yes once again ACISS Common 1.1

ACISS Common 1.1 is divided into MODs. MODs 1-6 Essential that all members (future Core, IST, LST, CST) must do, part DL part OJT.  These Essential Mods will have their own XXXX qual which is required before going on the DP2.  Don't remember what all the mods are but included are basic skills that Battleview, Understanding crypto devices, etc.

Then there are Mods 7 - 13 which are considered supplemental, however everybody can do them for PD, but if you want to be ACISS CORE (fuck ya) you have to complete these Mods.  These mods will also have their own XXXX qual and are a pre-req for going on the ACISS CORE 2.1.  Once again some are hands on and some are DL.  For some of the older guys remember the old QL4.  Some of thre Mods are HF, Multiband Radio, HPW, intro to SAT Comms, etc.

Now you also have Mods 14,15,16 which will be pre-reqs for IST/CST/LST 1.1.

So, if you want to be an IST you can do Mod 14 (or what ever it is) 'Helpdesk', pass it you are on the road to IST
So, if you want to be an CST you can do Mod 15 (or what ever it is) 'AC/DC Math', pass it you are on the road to CST
So, if you want to be a kick *** 052 you can do Mod 16 (or what ever it is) Not afraid of heights, pass it you are on the road to LST.

There is still a 2.0 Common but here is the thing.  The above plan comes from writing boards that were conducted in the spring.  IST/CST/LST also had writing boards.  The result of these writing boards was that training for sub-ocups/Core will start sooner.  So stuff that was taught at the 2.1 is being push down to the 1.1 level.  So although you may have to do a 'Sig Op Det Comdr Refresher' ie 2.0, once people complete their 1.1 they are going to be stovepipe into their sub-ocup IST/CST/LST/CORE. 

These writing boards are complete and now the results and TPs authorization is in the hands of CTC Gagetown.  Time line is the fall.

ACISS CORE 2.1 was also redesigned.

Here is the way I think it is going to go

Pte A, B, C complete their DP1 Common posted to HQ & Sigs.

They are place in the DP1.1 Common training pool, they all complete their 1.1 Common essential.
Pte A likes computers so he decides to do the Help Desk Mod, natural at it.
Pte B not sure what he/she wants so they do a few Supplemental Mods, doesn't like the radio stuff but wants to try the line side of the house, does the pre-qual mod and can climb a pole without fear of heights, wants to be a linemen.
Pte C likes being in a Radio/Sig Crew, does the supplemental mods to have the qual to go on the 2.1.

No problem for Pte C but what about Pte A and B how do they become IST/Line.

Where I see the selection process going
-Mbrs complete 1.1 Essential
-For those that want to go to the sub-ocups they do the pre-reqs, if they pass they are candidates.
-A selection board is conducted and the following is considered: Their desire trade, the results from the DP 1.0 and DP 1.1 essential, How they did on the pre-reqs, if working in that section doing OJT how they did, recommendations by supr and of course THE RQUIREMENTS AND GOOD OF THE SERVICE.  You signed the dotted line for three years 'Harden the fuck Up'.

The most important factor and responsibilities lies with the leadership MCPL and up.  We need to re-establish that MCpl Rank as a real leadership rank and stress that the devolpment of their det mbrs starts with them.  It is a great responsibility.  The MCpls have to be supported  and developed into leaders by the SNR NCOs.  Some hard decisions are going to have to be made on who goes where and who becomes what, there has to be a process that is fair, review when necessary and even sometimes a gut decision has to be made.

On a another note it looks like CISTM will be place on hold for ten years until the real first ACISS ptes get up to the rank for Sgts/WOs.  In the mean time those pers that progress to positions like FOS, LMF, CCO will be loaded on courses like ASP and ATWOC.

This fall there is a plan for review to look at and rewrite TPs for the DP 3.0, 3.1 and 4A.0

Yes when ACISS started it did not work out how it was envision on the drawing board.  The leadership has come to the realization (hard realization for some people I am sure) that it is not working.  This is an attempt to improve things, is it the 100% solution?  I don't know, is it going to work, I don't know.  i hope though that those in positions of responsibility and authority will buy-in and try to make it work.  If it works great, if not then we will try and fix again and hopefully keep on speaking up and making it better.

cheers


----------



## upandatom

So basically, here's a run down

They rewrote the TP and Job Specs, 

Which, in turn will kill the Spec pay once again..... Therefore it will have to go before the board again. 

How is that expected to improve retention and or make people happy? Once again, you are taking money that was Earned from people that worked and studied for it. Yes the Job name changed, They are still doing the same thing, regardless if you call CST, LCIS or Plug and Play tech. They spent time learning the ins and outs, doing POET, 3s and 5s. They do the exact same thing, no change from before the MES hammer came down. 

The LCIS techs, they signed with the confirmation that upon completion of BASIC, SQ, POET, QL3 and QL5 that they would be receiving Spec pay, that is the agreement, the contract, and in some cases the reason why they signed under that occupation. Pay scales, rates, should not of been touched for those with those qualifications and skills. 

What is this three years now???


And the LST case?? 

I have worked with MANY Lineman, some great lineman, some absolute bag of hammers. majority are good people, good hard workers, even harder drinkers. Some, don't know their own trade and why standards exist. (its the same on both ends, so it will work...yes that has happened, or they cant even understand the BICs Panels numbering, that has happened as well)

You can teach basic line capability to people, but don't expect them to be geniuses at it. The way some have posted here is the fact that an ACISS member should be able to do any job. Wrong. they can do a bare minimum and have a general idea of what each sub occ does, and the number to call that sub occ det in and have it sorted. 

As for the Server room comment, 
I see IST/Sig ops doing that more then lineman, its laziness if the lines are all newfied and tangled in there. That is a personell problem, not an installation problem. 

The only thing I have seen change is the name of the trade,


----------



## Jom

> They rewrote the TP and Job Specs,
> 
> Which, in turn will kill the Spec pay once again..... Therefore it will have to go before the board again.



TP is teaching points? for the school?

did the the Job Specs change much? do you think this is going to help or hinder spec pay? I've seen a lot of rejections for spec pay over the last 3 years...................


----------



## Brasidas

Jom said:
			
		

> TP is teaching points? for the school?



TP = training plan


----------



## upandatom

Jom said:
			
		

> did the the Job Specs change much? do you think this is going to help or hinder spec pay? I've seen a lot of rejections for spec pay over the last 3 years...................



As an LCIS that went CST and now to ATIS, 

No the job required of an LCIS that should of been funnelled into the CST Sub occ, job hasnt changed at all. 

The techs are still expected to do the same, and in turn, the new CSTs coming in, are expected to know and do the same- with less training, alot less. In turn the new CSTs are looking like shit pumps, and the more senior CST are having to babysit. 

I was still expected to know Server Admin, Router and witch Programming, PC repair, VoIP, Satcomm, Radar, Radio theory, component level fault finding, infrastructure and TCCCs install, testing fault finding. Dependant on where I was in my unit I would have to do any one of those.

if you read farther up the thread, you have CST with no spec pay, working beside ATIS techs with Spec Pay.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

upandatom said:
			
		

> So basically, here's a run down
> 
> They rewrote the TP and Job Specs,
> 
> Which, in turn will kill the Spec pay once again..... Therefore it will have to go before the board again.
> 
> How is that expected to improve retention and or make people happy? Once again, you are taking money that was Earned from people that worked and studied for it. Yes the Job name changed, They are still doing the same thing, regardless if you call CST, LCIS or Plug and Play tech. They spent time learning the ins and outs, doing POET, 3s and 5s. They do the exact same thing, no change from before the MES hammer came down.
> 
> The LCIS techs, they signed with the confirmation that upon completion of BASIC, SQ, POET, QL3 and QL5 that they would be receiving Spec pay, that is the agreement, the contract, and in some cases the reason why they signed under that occupation. Pay scales, rates, should not of been touched for those with those qualifications and skills.
> 
> What is this three years now???
> 
> 
> And the LST case??
> 
> I have worked with MANY Lineman, some great lineman, some absolute bag of hammers. majority are good people, good hard workers, even harder drinkers. Some, don't know their own trade and why standards exist. (its the same on both ends, so it will work...yes that has happened, or they cant even understand the BICs Panels numbering, that has happened as well)
> 
> You can teach basic line capability to people, but don't expect them to be geniuses at it. The way some have posted here is the fact that an ACISS member should be able to do any job. Wrong. they can do a bare minimum and have a general idea of what each sub occ does, and the number to call that sub occ det in and have it sorted.
> 
> As for the Server room comment,
> I see IST/Sig ops doing that more then lineman, its laziness if the lines are all newfied and tangled in there. That is a personell problem, not an installation problem.
> 
> The only thing I have seen change is the name of the trade,



What is this, the new news on spec pay? So basically the word is, no word for another 2 years?


----------



## PuckChaser

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> What is this, the new news on spec pay? So basically the word is, no word for another 2 years?



He's ATIS now, and out of the MES loop. I would count everything as just rants or outdated information. There's been nothing officially stated yay/nay/wait out in months.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's ATIS now, and out of the MES loop. I would count everything as just rants or outdated information. There's been nothing officially stated yay/nay/wait out in months.



In his defence, I don't think many are "in the MES loop". I'm ex Sig Op so it's not a big effect to me, but I have former LCIS that are waiting around looking for an answer for the past 3 years and we've got nothing out of those in the know. It's disgraceful. At least 2 years ago they would pick an abitrary time (answer in July) and then when July came around they'd set another arbitrary time. Gave the semblence that they are doing something. Now it just seems like it's forgotten about since it won't benefit the 10 MWOs and CWOs that are the only ones who have any idea what is going on.


----------



## PuckChaser

I completely agree, the Branch has handled this whole mess in a disgusting manner, and has destroyed the trust a lot of Signallers have in their senior Branch leaders to look out for them. Nobody is looking for a weekly update, but every couple months someone important to say this is where the process is, would be awesome.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's ATIS now, and out of the MES loop. I would count everything as just rants or outdated information. There's been nothing officially stated yay/nay/wait out in months.




I may be atis now, but still very in the loop. If they think because I changed trades I'm not getting my spec pay for 2.5 years in that rank they are severely mistaken.


----------



## Jom

Is there anywhere online or on the DIN that we can get information about what's currently going on? I'm tired of being in the dark about everything. this forum shouldn't be the ONLY place i can get information


----------



## JBP

Jom-IST said:
			
		

> Is there anywhere online or on the DIN that we can get information about what's currently going on? I'm tired of being in the dark about everything. this forum shouldn't be the ONLY place i can get information



There was a site that showed the decision of PLARs and reviews etc but I haven't checked on it in some time... I'll see if I can dig up the link for it. It's just a sharepoint site that was originally announced when the trade change first happened.


----------



## PiperDown

That sharepoint site has not been updated in a couple years.  This entire thing is a train wreck.


----------



## c_canuk

It's not a train wreck from the army's point of view.

Think of it from their perspective, as we gradually spiral into the ground to eventually crash down with all hands lost, the rest of the CF will learn how to do business without us.

All the sub occs will be done by contractors, and the core will be handled in house.

Sure the CF's Comms capabilities will be severely reduced to the bare minimum required to function, but it will happen so gradually that no one will notice enough to care.

Through our own organizations actions and self licking icecream cone syndrome, Sigs will eventually disappear without even a whimper and no one will care as the sheer amount of red tape and bureaucracy we bring to the table will be gone.

We'll still have a Signals branch, but it will be staffed with Officers exclusively because they will need to direct the contractors and have O Groups to be ignored at by those they are supposed to be advising.

Hopefully I'll all be out by the time this transformation is complete.


----------



## C/S 0

_It's not a train wreck from the army's point of view.

Think of it from their perspective, as we gradually spiral into the ground to eventually crash down with all hands lost, the rest of the CF will learn how to do business without us._

All the sub occs will be done by contractors, and the core will be handled in house.

_Sure the CF's Comms capabilities will be severely reduced to the bare minimum required to function, but it will happen so gradually that no one will notice enough to care.
__
Through our own organizations actions and self licking icecream cone syndrome, Sigs will eventually disappear without even a whimper and no one will care as the sheer amount of red tape and bureaucracy we bring to the table will be gone.

We'll still have a Signals branch, but it will be staffed with Officers exclusively because they will need to direct the contractors and have O Groups to be ignored at by those they are supposed to be advising.

Hopefully I'll all be out by the time this transformation is complete_

Over my ******* dead body


----------



## JBP

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> ACISS training scheme is not working, therefore a new plan:
> 
> Ptes comes off basic goes to CFSCE and completes DP1.0 Common and is granted XXXX qual which states VHF Det Mbr under supervision.
> 
> They go to their new units, strong recommendation that it is a HQ & Sigs Sqn, there they complete the new ACISS Common 1.1, yes once again ACISS Common 1.1
> 
> ACISS Common 1.1 is divided into MODs. MODs 1-6 Essential that all members (future Core, IST, LST, CST) must do, part DL part OJT.  These Essential Mods will have their own XXXX qual which is required before going on the DP2.  Don't remember what all the mods are but included are basic skills that Battleview, Understanding crypto devices, etc.
> 
> Then there are Mods 7 - 13 which are considered supplemental, however everybody can do them for PD, but if you want to be ACISS CORE (frig ya) you have to complete these Mods.  These mods will also have their own XXXX qual and are a pre-req for going on the ACISS CORE 2.1.  Once again some are hands on and some are DL.  For some of the older guys remember the old QL4.  Some of thre Mods are HF, Multiband Radio, HPW, intro to SAT Comms, etc.
> 
> Now you also have Mods 14,15,16 which will be pre-reqs for IST/CST/LST 1.1.
> 
> So, if you want to be an IST you can do Mod 14 (or what ever it is) 'Helpdesk', pass it you are on the road to IST
> So, if you want to be an CST you can do Mod 15 (or what ever it is) 'AC/DC Math', pass it you are on the road to CST
> So, if you want to be a kick *** 052 you can do Mod 16 (or what ever it is) Not afraid of heights, pass it you are on the road to LST.
> 
> There is still a 2.0 Common but here is the thing.  The above plan comes from writing boards that were conducted in the spring.  IST/CST/LST also had writing boards.  The result of these writing boards was that training for sub-ocups/Core will start sooner.  So stuff that was taught at the 2.1 is being push down to the 1.1 level.  So although you may have to do a 'Sig Op Det Comdr Refresher' ie 2.0, once people complete their 1.1 they are going to be stovepipe into their sub-ocup IST/CST/LST/CORE.
> 
> These writing boards are complete and now the results and TPs authorization is in the hands of CTC Gagetown.  Time line is the fall.
> 
> ACISS CORE 2.1 was also redesigned.
> 
> Here is the way I think it is going to go
> 
> Pte A, B, C complete their DP1 Common posted to HQ & Sigs.
> 
> They are place in the DP1.1 Common training pool, they all complete their 1.1 Common essential.
> Pte A likes computers so he decides to do the Help Desk Mod, natural at it.
> Pte B not sure what he/she wants so they do a few Supplemental Mods, doesn't like the radio stuff but wants to try the line side of the house, does the pre-qual mod and can climb a pole without fear of heights, wants to be a linemen.
> Pte C likes being in a Radio/Sig Crew, does the supplemental mods to have the qual to go on the 2.1.
> 
> No problem for Pte C but what about Pte A and B how do they become IST/Line.
> 
> Where I see the selection process going
> -Mbrs complete 1.1 Essential
> -For those that want to go to the sub-ocups they do the pre-reqs, if they pass they are candidates.
> -A selection board is conducted and the following is considered: Their desire trade, the results from the DP 1.0 and DP 1.1 essential, How they did on the pre-reqs, if working in that section doing OJT how they did, recommendations by supr and of course THE RQUIREMENTS AND GOOD OF THE SERVICE.  You signed the dotted line for three years 'Harden the frig Up'.
> 
> The most important factor and responsibilities lies with the leadership MCPL and up.  We need to re-establish that MCpl Rank as a real leadership rank and stress that the devolpment of their det mbrs starts with them.  It is a great responsibility.  The MCpls have to be supported  and developed into leaders by the SNR NCOs.  Some hard decisions are going to have to be made on who goes where and who becomes what, there has to be a process that is fair, review when necessary and even sometimes a gut decision has to be made.
> 
> On a another note it looks like CISTM will be place on hold for ten years until the real first ACISS ptes get up to the rank for Sgts/WOs.  In the mean time those pers that progress to positions like FOS, LMF, CCO will be loaded on courses like ASP and ATWOC.
> 
> This fall there is a plan for review to look at and rewrite TPs for the DP 3.0, 3.1 and 4A.0
> 
> Yes when ACISS started it did not work out how it was envision on the drawing board.  The leadership has come to the realization (hard realization for some people I am sure) that it is not working.  This is an attempt to improve things, is it the 100% solution?  I don't know, is it going to work, I don't know.  i hope though that those in positions of responsibility and authority will buy-in and try to make it work.  If it works great, if not then we will try and fix again and hopefully keep on speaking up and making it better.
> 
> cheers



I was very glad when I read this for one reason... Higher is at least aware there is a problem! It's good something is being done about it also. I think it's a step in the right direction at least from an IST stand point. Over the past and current APS I've watched IST or those in IST jobs roll out of the Forces at 2 different units at a not-slow rate and the replacement pers we're getting are... Well, either brand-new and unskilled or, we don't get a replacement as is the case right now. 

At my unit and even in my section, we're critically down in numbers. We've lost people from postings and releases and have only had 1 backfill. The army makes do, we can deal with missing hands - more work for those left. The only problem I see with the new plan (units train pers directly) is that we don't have time and/or resources. I'm at a large unit (the CFJSR) so I'm sure resources won't be too much of an issue but time sure as hell will be! We have an extremely busy fall and even busier new year coming and people are literally going to have to hit the ground running with keyboards and servers under arm! Never mind training on top of that... I've been told apparently this is the way things were back in the day before my time in the military... Did it work out then?! I'm guessing they changed it to a centralized training location (CFSCE) for standardization and quality control so why screw with it now?

Furthermore, does anyone know what we're suppose to do with that MEMS portion in Monitor Mass? I know position numbers/names are all messed up hence people stopped even looking at it. For example, I'm an ACISS-IST MCpl but I'm listed in Monitor Mass in a MCpl Core position so I cannot 'career plan' the way ahead as it's stuck all in Core jobs/roles. Is this being fixed/addressed? I've heard that this is partially the reason a lot of people haven't been getting courses etc... Anyone in the know on the MEMS/Monitor Mass issues?


----------



## PuckChaser

From what I've seen the MEMS part of MonitorMass is pretty useless. The position number you have has little bearing on where you're employed currently, especially in a big unit like JSR where lots of lateral moves are possible. Your position might not have even been converted to ACISS-speak yet, and they just renamed an old SigOp position as ACISS-Core and dumped you in there just to get a warm body in the unit.


----------



## Jom

any updates?


----------



## JBP

Jom-IST said:
			
		

> any updates?



There hasn't been an 'official' update since last year when the career managers made their rounds... Probably won't be an update until the career managers come back around again in Dec 14 / Jan 15? 

And it will probably be very similar to the last update... Trust me, I'll post an update here as soon as I hear something. Especially if it's worth mentioning!


----------



## c_canuk

C/S 0 said:
			
		

> Over my ******* dead body



If sigs doesn't get its act together, the army isn't going to wait for us; they will figure out how to do business without and around us. No one is irreplaceable. The rest of the CF doesn’t care about our internal problems, all they care about is can we deliver X by Y date, if the answer is no, they’ll find a solution. If the answer is no too often, they’ll find an alternate source.

That's a simple fact of life with the CF. The longer we flounder around trying to figure out how we're going to do business, the less relevant we'll be to the rest of the CF as they adapt to overcome our current short comings. 

They will move forward regardless of if we keep up or not. Sigs as an organization has been seen as a speed bump long before MES, I cringe at the thought of what they think of it now.


----------



## yesican

I am an OT, this seemed the most relevant there to post my question.
Where can I get course information; ie dates. If you know pm me the answer, else please disregard.

Thank you.


----------



## PuckChaser

CFSCE has a course calendar on DWAN, you'll find every course with dates and min/max load there.  cfsce.kingston.mil.ca


----------



## yesican

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> CFSCE has a course calendar on DWAN, you'll find every course with dates and min/max load there.  cfsce.kingston.mil.ca


Thank you


----------



## JBP

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> There hasn't been an 'official' update since last year when the career managers made their rounds... Probably won't be an update until the career managers come back around again in Dec 14 / Jan 15?
> 
> And it will probably be very similar to the last update... Trust me, I'll post an update here as soon as I hear something. Especially if it's worth mentioning!



Sticking true to my word... It's not much of an update but it's something... No, this was not written or has not come from ME, it came from a CWO in Ottawa in regards to a Signal Corps update email. Sort of a 'state of the Corps' vice state of the Nation... 

This was directly copied & pasted out of an email I received on DWAN vice names/recipients, no pack drill!



> a.	Dress:
> 
> (1)	 The new DEU RCCS pins should be in stock at your local supply (SC 20-008-3651	INS. SHOULDER STRAP, RCCS, GOLD PLATED METAL, PAIR and 20-008-3653 for CTRC).   If your local supply does not have them in stock, please pass these SC to them as they should be at the depot;
> 
> (2)	The high visibility CADPAT rank will come with Canada on them; however the supply system should have the RCCS/CTRC tabs which can be sewn over them (my apologies for
> any confusion this may have caused);
> 
> (3)	NCM DEU slips on with RCCS/CTRC must be purchased at the museum ($5.50).  I would recommend kit shops to contact Mr Postill for a bulk order.  In addition, he has additional RCCS/CTRC brass shoulder pins at a cost of $13.50 a pair;
> 
> (4)	Officer DEU slip  ons have been ordered with a suspected delivery date of 17 Oct 14; and
> 
> (5)	No one is to utilize the RCCS/CTRC (less the 5 who received their pins directly from HRH) until further notice.  Intent is to start wearing RCCS/CTRC at the same time as the Signal Officers adopt the pips and crowns.
> 
> 
> b.	CISTM – we are still moving forward with the stove piping for sub-occs to the rank of MWO.  This process will take some time to resolve so in the meantime we will hold merit boards in the fol manner:
> 
> (1)	ACISS – Pte to CWO;
> 
> (2)	CST –Pte to Sgt;
> 
> (3)	IST – Pte to Sgt;
> 
> (4)	LST – Pte to MWO; and
> 
> (5)	CST/IST WO to MWO (we are working on defining positions by sub-occ which will eliminate a combined board in the future).
> 
> (6)	A/CCO –as this trade currently falls under CISTM, we are mandated to run a separate board.  If CISTM is removed, CCO will fall under ACISS Core.
> 
> (7)	 IAW ref, if you do not have a valid physical fitness or medical excusal, your file will be removed from the board.
> 
> c.	Spec Pay – We are confident that decisions on spec pay will be forthcoming over the next couple of months.
> 
> d.	Back Pay – The decision on back pay will be made once the assignment of the ACCIS sub-occupations to trade groups is complete.  Dir RCCS, the MES team and I are working with CMP and other stakeholders to argue the case in support of those who have been affected most by the pay freeze and to ensure that the senior leaders making the decisions have all of the relevant facts with which to make them.
> 
> e.	Succession Planning – In November, the RSCWO and I will gather to review all MWO files.  I am hoping by now that you have all been contacted.   If you have not, please contact your RSCWO.  If you do not have a valid physical fitness or medical excusal, your file will be removed from the board.
> 
> 
> 2.	Finalement, j’espère que ce message vous rejoigne tous et je vous souhaite une agréable semaine.



I, in all honestly still do not believe anyone in the Sigs branch will receive Spec pay. That's just my personal opinion and I hope to be wrong... Some people may be able to figure out the source of this message but it's from much much higher than anyone at my rank level...


----------



## PuckChaser

I just love the fact that the amalgamation of the trades designed to remove stovepiping, has now resigned itself to stovepiping as CISTM was a stupid idea in the first place...

All we've done is create a new trade, and destroy any training value that ACISS-Core (SigOp) had it its previous DP1/2 courses.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I just love the fact that the amalgamation of the trades designed to remove stovepiping, has now resigned itself to stovepiping as CISTM was a stupid idea in the first place...
> 
> All we've done is create a new trade, and destroy any training value that ACISS-Core (SigOp) had it its previous DP1/2 courses.



And undermined the line and tech trades by forcing them to be sig ops in addition to their "core" trade.


----------



## upandatom

c_canuk said:
			
		

> If sigs doesn't get its act together, the army isn't going to wait for us; they will figure out how to do business without and around us. No one is irreplaceable. The rest of the CF doesn’t care about our internal problems, all they care about is can we deliver X by Y date, if the answer is no, they’ll find a solution. If the answer is no too often, they’ll find an alternate source.
> 
> That's a simple fact of life with the CF. The longer we flounder around trying to figure out how we're going to do business, the less relevant we'll be to the rest of the CF as they adapt to overcome our current short comings.
> 
> They will move forward regardless of if we keep up or not. Sigs as an organization has been seen as a speed bump long before MES, I cringe at the thought of what they think of it now.



BINGO- I have already seen them starting to adapt, etc, mainly because ACISS is lacking in numbers, and not able to fill required positions. (which I find funny because the trade was listed as green not too long ago)

This is the first I have read this thread in several months, and I was actually surprised there was not ANY kind of update (The only one I have seen is the new RCCS epaulets and "High visibility" bullshit). I am interested to see where it goes in the next year. The amount of civilian job opportunities that are opening up with better pay are becoming abundant and these companies are looking for qualified, mature people with the skillset the Military provides, instead of the kids fresh out of school and college. 

I have my money on a mass exodus of the Army signals starting this year, and continuing on for the next 5 years or so, which will kill it. People now are researching before joining, and one of the first places that pops up on google when they type in "ACISS" or CAF signals, etc is this site, they join it, they read it, they get scared off. They find something else. 

The way its being treated is disgusting. Noone gives a rats ass anymore. They say they are fixing it, its been 4/5 years since this started. If we took 4/5 years to fix something we'd be in deep shit.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Does the branch/D RCCS have any idea how little faith this affords them from their troops? Even a "Wait, Out" at least every quarter is better than leaving us in the dark. 

This kind of shady behaviour does not bode well of the media get hold of this.


----------



## Brasidas

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Does the branch/D RCCS have any idea how little faith this affords them from their troops? Even a "Wait, Out" at least every quarter is better than leaving us in the dark.
> 
> This kind of shady behaviour does not bode well of the media get hold of this.



Why would the media care?

A couple decades back, there was a brilliant batch of leading change bubbles that saw the Dental Corps downsized. Along with gutting the support trades, DO positions were replaced with civilian contractors and early retirement offers abounded. It would be more cost-effective. They couldn't maintain an effective staff with the budget on offer, and they weren't deployable. So folks who got bonuses to leave were given bonuses to come back. One that I knew had managed to go bankrupt between running a private practice into the ground and learning about maxing out credit cards. Many did fine and there wasn't enough incentive to come back.

Backtracking and paying lump sums twice to rehire is publicly embarrassing, at least if the people making decisions in power. Politicians can have fingers pointed at.

When a foolish amalgamation compromises real signals support capability, lassos trades in to bolter a distressed trade without addressing why its distressed, and guts morale with the mushroom technique, its not news.

The best solution to all of this is not to carry on training linemen and electronics technicians to be not just radio operators, but signals detachment commanders. I'm not sure if or when that solution is going to be reached, but it will not happen through an embarrassing news story.


----------



## ixium

Wait until IST gets spec pay, and the guy beside you in your job gets 3 years back pay and you get jack squat simply because they checked a box.

You do the same job, but one gets paid differently.
That is going to be exciting. And my VR will be in the hands of my supervisor the next day.

Our trade is filled with people from the old days that like to live in the past, nothing will change until that does.
I work in a place that has way to much overhead already, simply because "A Sgt can't report to a MWO/officer!" mentality. Understaffed in the wrong places, and overstaffed in the worst places. Yet no one cares.


----------



## ixium

June 05, 2008

Btw, that is this threads start date. At this rate I'd expect the LSVW replacements to be all around Canada before any useful information comes out.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

ixium said:
			
		

> Wait until IST gets spec pay, and the guy beside you in your job gets 3 years back pay and you get jack squat simply because they checked a box.
> 
> You do the same job, but one gets paid differently.
> That is going to be exciting. And my VR will be in the hands of my supervisor the next day.
> 
> Our trade is filled with people from the old days that like to live in the past, nothing will change until that does.
> I work in a place that has way to much overhead already, simply because "A Sgt can't report to a MWO/officer!" mentality. Understaffed in the wrong places, and overstaffed in the worst places. Yet no one cares.



Firstly, The IST sub occupation  was created because of the inequity between LCIS and Sig Ops working side by side in a Server room ,with one making 600 dollars a month more. Same skill sets, same training, different pay rates. Also, most NATO/5 Eyes armies had evolved and created specific IS trades within their Signals Corps in order to develop and maintain a specific IS capability  for the modern digital battlespace. We had Operators doing this job as a stop gap solution because the CAF came to the IT party late. Just because it was the way we had always done it doesn't mean its the optimal solution.

Secondly, I cannot see ISTs getting back paid unless they transferred from the old LCIS trade simply because of the cost and bureaucracy. I can see an spec pay implementation date for IST and that is all.

As for the releases, that is part of what is wrong with the Signals Branch as a whole. The attrition rate of skilled people has a close to 4 year turn around for replacement. At which time, a 2.1 qualified member will be done their contract and out the door with those skills. They will be bringing them to organizations that are willing to pay 70 - 80K a year, unlike the CAF. Having internal squabbling and sour grapes only exacerbates the problem. The worst thing they did was dangle this Spec pay carrot for everyone. It solidified the "Us and Them" attitudes and we're worse off for it.

Whatever the outcome, I think this will take at least 20 years before its all as the MES briefing said it would be in 2008.


----------



## upandatom

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Firstly, The IST sub occupation  was created because of the inequity between LCIS and Sig Ops working side by side in a Server room ,with one making 600 dollars a month more. Same skill sets, same training, different pay rates. Also, most NATO/5 Eyes armies had evolved and created specific IS trades within their Signals Corps in order to develop and maintain a specific IS capability  for the modern digital battlespace. We had Operators doing this job as a stop gap solution because the CAF came to the IT party late. Just because it was the way we had always done it doesn't mean its the optimal solution.
> 
> Secondly, I cannot see ISTs getting back paid unless they transferred from the old LCIS trade simply because of the cost and bureaucracy. I can see an spec pay implementation date for IST and that is all.
> 
> As for the releases, that is part of what is wrong with the Signals Branch as a whole. The attrition rate of skilled people has a close to 4 year turn around for replacement. At which time, a 2.1 qualified member will be done their contract and out the door with those skills. They will be bringing them to organizations that are willing to pay 70 - 80K a year, unlike the CAF. Having internal squabbling and sour grapes only exacerbates the problem. The worst thing they did was dangle this Spec pay carrot for everyone. It solidified the "Us and Them" attitudes and we're worse off for it.
> 
> Whatever the outcome, I think this will take at least 20 years before its all as the MES briefing said it would be in 2008.



Thats a whole lot of PEW PEW PEW that makes too much sense for Army Signals. 



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> Wait until IST gets spec pay, and the guy beside you in your job gets 3 years back pay and you get jack squat simply because they checked a box.
> 
> You do the same job, but one gets paid differently.
> That is going to be exciting. And my VR will be in the hands of my supervisor the next day.



Hate to break it to you but its already happening in units. JSR, Base Side units, NOCs where a CST or IST can fill the position with the right courses and skills and sits across from an ATIS tech. Same Job, Different Pay scales.

I am not talking Legacy LCIS that has become IST/CST, I am talking a recruited and trained ACISS member. 



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> Why would the media care?
> 
> *A couple decades back*,



Google was founded in 1998, before many homes had a regular internet connection. Social media was non existant. Now adays you can access your FB and read about a news story in France on a BBC Link while sitting on the crapper at work, before you hear it on the radio, or see it on TV here. Its the nature of our society and how it has moved with rapid exchange of information. More and more stories come out about the ridiculous spending (Digitizing of med files for VA, and even then it still is taking 6 months to transfer files). The books are opened up about how much was spent on this, only to end up with less qualified people that are recieving a skillset and walking out the door 4 years later(add in a PAID move at end of contract), it could be a media frenzy. Times have changed, Media can put out 1000 BS stories a day on there webpages and have it syndicated world wide and it takes one person to dig deeper.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

upandatom said:
			
		

> Thats a whole lot of PEW PEW PEW that makes too much sense for Army Signals.



Perhaps you're right. Regardless, the train was built as it left the station, regardless of if they had even a rough picture of what a train looked like. Those who pushed for this are no longer in uniform and thus have no idea  or care for the hailstorm they set off. We get to bear the brunt of all this.


----------



## Brasidas

upandatom said:
			
		

> Google was founded in 1998, before many homes had a regular internet connection. Social media was non existant. Now adays you can access your FB and read about a news story in France on a BBC Link while sitting on the crapper at work, before you hear it on the radio, or see it on TV here. Its the nature of our society and how it has moved with rapid exchange of information. More and more stories come out about the ridiculous spending (Digitizing of med files for VA, and even then it still is taking 6 months to transfer files). The books are opened up about how much was spent on this, only to end up with less qualified people that are recieving a skillset and walking out the door 4 years later(add in a PAID move at end of contract), it could be a media frenzy. Times have changed, Media can put out 1000 BS stories a day on there webpages and have it syndicated world wide and it takes one person to dig deeper.



And while the pay to go, pay to come back story might have had legs today, this one doesn't.

The branch is screwed up, MES screwed it up further, but its not concrete enough for anyone to care. A combat arms guy might give a damn if his sigs support is compromised, but making a tech have to be a sig op, undermining morale three ways from sunday, and throwing retention under the bus isn't "I'm a Cpl with two kids and I have to go to the foodbank to make ends meet". The important metrics on this are qualitative - how does it affect the capability of the CF? The quantitative points on retention are important, but are symptoms rather than the big problem.

The problem isn't with politicians or the TB, it isn't something clear enough for the public to understand, and the media isn't going to pick up the story. This is a problem that needs to be broadly recognized within the CF, particularly by way higher, and someone needs to say "Stop. Wind back the clock, rationalize the trades, and be honest with the troops."

If life as a sig op is less than appealing to everybody, ok. Do the best you can with it,  and don't string troops along with false promises of spec pay. Bring back the QL5 CT signing bonus if needbe.


----------



## upandatom

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And while the pay to go, pay to come back story might have had legs today, this one doesn't.
> 
> The branch is screwed up, MES screwed it up further, but its not concrete enough for anyone to care. A combat arms guy might give a damn if his sigs support is compromised, but making a tech have to be a sig op, undermining morale three ways from sunday, and throwing retention under the bus isn't "I'm a Cpl with two kids and I have to go to the foodbank to make ends meet". The important metrics on this are qualitative - how does it affect the capability of the CF? The quantitative points on retention are important, but are symptoms rather than the big problem.
> 
> The problem isn't with politicians or the TB, it isn't something clear enough for the public to understand, and the media isn't going to pick up the story. This is a problem that needs to be broadly recognized within the CF, particularly by way higher, and someone needs to say "Stop. Wind back the clock, rationalize the trades, and be honest with the troops."
> 
> If life as a sig op is less than appealing to everybody, ok. Do the best you can with it,  and don't string troops along with false promises of spec pay. Bring back the QL5 CT signing bonus if needbe.



I dont think the Sigs Branch was screwed up before MES. Yes, It needed a new trade, but the branch had adapted and put people into the right position to handle the new requirements. 

The Branch need a tweeking, not a sledge hammer. There were always people that asked to be a Sig Op, some people oddly did enjoy it. The problem with the high attrition in Sig Op Land was the mentality of "My instructor was an asshole to me, so I am now instructing I will be too."  I saw very little mentoring on the Sig Op side of the house, it was a very dog eat dog. Call me a Sig Op basher and hater all you want, I dont really care, but when you see peers set up other peers for failure intentionally, even staff setting up their members for failure you get the same view as I have gotten. 

The TB doesnt leave their office, and only speaks to the officers and higher ups that write the "Job Specs" which are way off from what pers do daily. Thats a problem. They write in a perfect world.


----------



## Brasidas

upandatom said:
			
		

> I dont think the Sigs Branch was screwed up before MES.



There are degrees of screwed up. Its much worse than it was.

Sickness in the sig op trade did not help either tac comms or strategic comms at the end of the day, and that was an issue. MES broke LCIS and lineman without fixing that at all.




> Yes, It needed a new trade, but the branch had adapted and put people into the right position to handle the new requirements.



Agreed.



> The Branch need a tweeking, not a sledge hammer. There were always people that asked to be a Sig Op, some people oddly did enjoy it. The problem with the high attrition in Sig Op Land was the mentality of "My instructor was an ******* to me, so I am now instructing I will be too."  I saw very little mentoring on the Sig Op side of the house, it was a very dog eat dog. Call me a Sig Op basher and hater all you want, I dont really care, but when you see peers set up other peers for failure intentionally, even staff setting up their members for failure you get the same view as I have gotten.
> 
> The TB doesnt leave their office, and only speaks to the officers and higher ups that write the "Job Specs" which are way off from what pers do daily. Thats a problem. They write in a perfect world.



It was not just the school. 1 HQ & Sigs, in particular, generated a lot of its own sig op-hating sig ops.


----------



## JBP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> There are degrees of screwed up. Its much worse than it was.
> 
> Sickness in the sig op trade did not help either tac comms or strategic comms at the end of the day, and that was an issue. MES broke LCIS and lineman without fixing that at all.
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> It was not just the school. 1 HQ & Sigs, in particular, generated a lot of its own sig op-hating sig ops.



That's the understatement of the year! Last year and this one... 1 Sigs showed me the absolute worst in the Sigs world and how to crush the souls of those who were the best in the Sigs world. I was there for 7 years and had I been told I was staying there for another year, I would have released as my contract was up... Thank the career manager for getting me out of there!!! 1 Sigs destroyed people at all levels of the chain from Pte to Col! Not kidding...

Not to turn this into a 1 Sigs bashing contest but in the signals world as a whole, I've seen the most terrible examples of leadership I could imagine... I had better examples of leadership in the reserve infantry! Some of the people we've promoted in the Sigs corps is the very fault in our entire branch. I think it's one of the critical factors that has made Sigs terrible for years. 

I've had leadership that has outright lied to my face about simple and complex things. Leadership that was so ignorant of the work we do or what even needed to be done that their very orders were setting us up for a grand cascading failure. Multiple times. I've seen leadership at many levels whom outright dismissed dire warnings about personnel issues and blatantly stated they do not care for the welfare of that or those troops... Just 'get the f**king job done I don't give a s*it what it takes or who breaks over it!"... I've also gotten a lot of training and experience out of 1 Sigs I'll say. It formed the basis for my career and helped build me into a 1st generation IST in the 'old school' way and I've moved on and modernized.

That is what has made the Signal branch so bad for years... Finally, our generation of 'new' leadership is emerging and is starting to influence the chain and support the subordinates. I've noticed a change already in a few places...

If the Jr leaders can shield the boys and influence the chain to our advantage, things should start to get better.


----------



## PuckChaser

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> That is what has made the Signal branch so bad for years... Finally, our generation of 'new' leadership is emerging and is starting to influence the chain and support the subordinates. I've noticed a change already in a few places...
> 
> If the Jr leaders can shield the boys and influence the chain to our advantage, things should start to get better.



I think you hit the nail on the head here. There's 2 types of things a leader can show "What to do" and "What not to do". Unfortunately with a lot of Sigs units, our junior leaders are getting "What not to do" more often than not. The trick here is to keep those good young leaders engaged and promoted into positions to actually affect change in our system like you said.

I'm not going to name my current unit, but a lot of what you said about 1 Sigs resonates with me. Our (Sigs) officer corps seems so willfully ignorant of basic leadership principles we're setting tasks up for failure before they even start. "Make it happen" has become a crutch for our piss poor planning, and the troops can see it regardless of how much you try to shelter them (and show loyalty to the CoC).


----------



## PiperDown

I wonder what happened to " I'm confident we will hear a decision on spec pay in the next couple of months" that an email received from the branch back in September indicated ?
After years and years of waiting for an answer, why doesn't anyone in the leadership have the balls to say " spec pay is dead. We fucked up " instead all we get fluff and BS. A "NO" answer at his point would give more credibility than the constant " a decision is forthcoming...we are working very hard.....it's our number one priority "  garbage we have been fed for over 3 years.

Last year I personally asked the CFCWO what was happening with ACISS and he was under the impression everything was already sorted out. Now, that's gotta make ya feel special right ?


----------



## JBP

PiperDown said:
			
		

> I wonder what happened to " I'm confident we will hear a decision on spec pay in the next couple of months" that an email received from the branch back in September indicated ?
> After years and years of waiting for an answer, why doesn't anyone in the leadership have the balls to say " spec pay is dead. We ****ed up " instead all we get fluff and BS. A "NO" answer at his point would give more credibility than the constant " a decision is forthcoming...we are working very hard.....it's our number one priority "  garbage we have been fed for over 3 years.
> 
> Last year I personally asked the CFCWO what was happening with ACISS and he was under the impression everything was already sorted out. Now, that's gotta make ya feel special right ?



So please tell me you sorted him out on our trade?!? I almost got to go to a lunch/brunch thing with him and some others from my unit as a 'pat on the back' kind of thing (More of whoever was left around or just back from tasking IMO) but it was cancelled day of. I was ready to fill his boots with an informative digest of the current signals branch...


----------



## PiperDown

LOL I did.  He seemed quite surprised we have been strung along as long as we have.
He promised to look into it and get back to me within a month.
To his credit, he did email me ( through the CoC) but his email said the branch advised him spec pay was their number one priority and a decision would be coming down very soon.

This was a year ago.  It seems the branch is as good at bluffing the CFCWO as it is the rest of us.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think you hit the nail on the head here. There's 2 types of things a leader can show "What to do" and "What not to do". Unfortunately with a lot of Sigs units, our junior leaders are getting "What not to do" more often than not. The trick here is to keep those good young leaders engaged and promoted into positions to actually affect change in our system like you said.
> 
> I'm not going to name my current unit, but a lot of what you said about 1 Sigs resonates with me. Our (Sigs) officer corps seems so willfully ignorant of basic leadership principles we're setting tasks up for failure before they even start. "Make it happen" has become a crutch for our piss poor planning, and the troops can see it regardless of how much you try to shelter them (and show loyalty to the CoC).



Ha! No way any signals leadership can be worse then EME leadership. Try being a SIG in a fully EME unit. When you have EME telling you how to fix radios, or what your doing wrong.


----------



## Old EO Tech

upandatom said:
			
		

> Ha! No way any signals leadership can be worse then EME leadership. Try being a SIG in a fully EME unit. When you have EME telling you how to fix radios, or what your doing wrong.



You have had a very different experience from myself and many LCIS tech's I know and have supervised.  I have never told them how to fix radios.....but I do tell them how to sort out their DRMIS Work Orders that most LCIS/ACISS CST are not terribly good at.  And not to order ECL items on a WO :-/

And not to derail the current discussion but most LCIS tech's here in 1 CMBG would rather work for Maint Pl(RCEME) as they do in a couple units like Svc Bn and LdSH, than work in Sigs Pl's.  It makes co-odinating vehicle inspections and EMO's much simply when all maintainers work for the same boss.


----------



## upandatom

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> You have had a very different experience from myself and many LCIS tech's I know and have supervised.  I have never told them how to fix radios.....but I do tell them how to sort out their DRMIS Work Orders that most LCIS/ACISS CST are not terribly good at.  And not to order ECL items on a WO :-/
> 
> And not to derail the current discussion but most LCIS tech's here in 1 CMBG would rather work for Maint Pl(RCEME) as they do in a couple units like Svc Bn and LdSH, than work in Sigs Pl's.  It makes co-odinating vehicle inspections and EMO's much simply when all maintainers work for the same boss.



I have dealt with DRMIS alot, and have the Army Maintenance Supervisor course for it. I will admit, when dealing with full vehicles, it works great, (swapping parts of the System for others,) however, when you pull that piece of kit apart for 2nd and or 3rd line it falls apart. Sigs world had already spent a fortune on TACIS, and a tonne of work went into its database, and nowhere near the amount of work went into the DRMIS side of the Database and quickly became a sloppy mess. 

Strayed off topic there a bit.....


----------



## LCIS-Tech

Spec Pay is/was approved by Treasury Board for the CST Sub-Occ, is being held back until the appeal for IST, LST, and Core can be completed.




			
				PiperDown said:
			
		

> I wonder what happened to " I'm confident we will hear a decision on spec pay in the next couple of months" that an email received from the branch back in September indicated ?
> After years and years of waiting for an answer, why doesn't anyone in the leadership have the balls to say " spec pay is dead. We ****ed up " instead all we get fluff and BS. A "NO" answer at his point would give more credibility than the constant " a decision is forthcoming...we are working very hard.....it's our number one priority "  garbage we have been fed for over 3 years.
> 
> Last year I personally asked the CFCWO what was happening with ACISS and he was under the impression everything was already sorted out. Now, that's gotta make ya feel special right ?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> Spec Pay is/was approved by Treasury Board for the CST Sub-Occ, is being held back until the appeal for IST, LST, and Core can be completed.



Not to sound rude, but, source? Is there a message or is this word of mouth?  ???


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> Spec Pay is/was approved by Treasury Board for the CST Sub-Occ, is being held back until the appeal for IST, LST, and Core can be completed.



Interesting rumor, but I've heard the same story told about 4 different ways with no one getting it, then CST getting it and then CST and IST getting it with the branch still fighting for the whole trade and I've heard that the branch gave up on LST and Core and now are just pushing CST and IST. Which version you get typically depends on who's telling the story 

It's all just rumor until an official message gets cut.


----------



## upandatom

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Some of the people we've promoted in the Sigs corps is the very fault in our entire branch. I think it's one of the critical factors that has made Sigs terrible for years.
> 
> I've had leadership that has outright lied to my face about simple and complex things. Leadership that was so ignorant of the work we do or what even needed to be done that their very orders were setting us up for a grand cascading failure. Multiple times. I've seen leadership at many levels whom outright dismissed dire warnings about personnel issues and blatantly stated they do not care for the welfare of that or those troops... Just 'get the f**king job done I don't give a s*it what it takes or who breaks over it!"... I've also gotten a lot of training and experience out of 1 Sigs I'll say. It formed the basis for my career and helped build me into a 1st generation IST in the 'old school' way and I've moved on and modernized.
> 
> That is what has made the Signal branch so bad for years... Finally, our generation of 'new' leadership is emerging and is starting to influence the chain and support the subordinates. I've noticed a change already in a few places...
> 
> If the Jr leaders can shield the boys and influence the chain to our advantage, things should start to get better.



I dont see this happening. I know a few that have been promoted in the past two years, some techs, and some operators. No way these people would of been promoted pre MES. 



			
				LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> Spec Pay is/was approved by Treasury Board for the CST Sub-Occ, is being held back until the appeal for IST, LST, and Core can be completed.


I heard this as well, which is absolute BS.


----------



## 211RadOp

PiperDown said:
			
		

> I wonder what happened to " I'm confident we will hear a decision on spec pay in the next couple of months" that an email received from the branch back in September indicated ?
> After years and years of waiting for an answer, why doesn't anyone in the leadership have the balls to say " spec pay is dead. We ****ed up " instead all we get fluff and BS. A "NO" answer at his point would give more credibility than the constant " a decision is forthcoming...we are working very hard.....it's our number one priority "  garbage we have been fed for over 3 years.
> 
> Last year I personally asked the CFCWO what was happening with ACISS and he was under the impression everything was already sorted out. Now, that's gotta make ya feel special right ?



Tell you what Piper, next time I see the RCCS CWO in the elevator, I will ask him.  Knowing CWO MacIsaac, he won't sugar coat it.


----------



## PuckChaser

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Interesting rumor, but I've heard the same story told about 4 different ways with no one getting it, then CST getting it and then CST and IST getting it with the branch still fighting for the whole trade and I've heard that the branch gave up on LST and Core and now are just pushing CST and IST. Which version you get typically depends on who's telling the story
> 
> It's all just rumor until an official message gets cut.



Whatever the actual story is, the delivered truth was that a decision came back, D Sigs (D RCCS now??) said this is unacceptable, resubmit. Considering it took years to get the first answer, I'm sure I'll be a WO before we get the next one.


----------



## PiperDown

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Tell you what Piper, next time I see the RCCS CWO in the elevator, I will ask him.  Knowing CWO MacIsaac, he won't sugar coat it.



Please do !


----------



## JBP

I was going to write the same reaction as the previous posters to the 'CST has been approved for spec pay"... Heard that before... No offence... And I've heard it about IST as well... And Line.... I've said it before and I'll say it again... I honestly (personal opinion) do not believe IST will get it. And I do not think any of the ACISS trades will get it at all. If anyone cares I'll do up an entire post of why I think those things but it's my opinion. So I'm not even waiting to hear an answer on the subject; it's decided in my mind. Moving on.

STATE OF THE TRADE: BUDGET CUTS GALORE. No one has funds. CF Wide, no surprise there. Even dental appointments are being pushed back due to lack of funding!

WTF: I and 11 other pers from CFJSR have been lucky enough to be loaded onto a very last minute Data Comms course at CFSCE across the street. Why all from the local area you ask? COST. Units outside the area didn't have the funding to send pers to attend trg @ CFSCE for this serial and said serial was actually cancelled before Christmas leave... Arrangements were attempted to recover training (CFSCE) thought of maybe covering costs of rations and pp&s etc... Can't afford it. 

A bright officer who works at CFJSR approached myself and some of my peers and asked how valuable Data Comms is to our personnel and if we should try and send people on the training at 0 cost. One of my esteemed colleagues literally said he would run an excercise by himself and not sleep if it meant more training for the troops and anyone whom could attend! That's the short of it. We pushed from our end, putting up nominations to our chains etc... Our regimental trg talked to CFSCE and worked out that we would fill all 12 spots on course at 0 cost essentially...

Why am I telling everyone this? So they know that it's not directly their units' fault that training isn't happening or your name isn't 'being nominated'. It's a funding issue mostly... Are we spoiled and lucky at CFJSR right now because we're across the street; hell yes. Do we know that... YES! That's just one issue... 

WTF1: DP1.1 for IST... Apparently the 'legacy' DP1.1 is now obsolete and the new DP1.1 IST is to be given to all new pers. Great, they revamped almost everything about it. Terrible: They disqualified pers whom took the OLD DP1.1 IST! We had a newly minted Cpl whom was taken off said Data Comms to go back on the 'new' DP1.1 IST course as he is forced to re-qual before going any further in his trade/career. Stupid, absolutely stupid but workable decision? Yes. Is an experienced jr IST who works daily with our equip going to gain anything from the new DP1.1? Maybe... 

WTF2! Here is the real kicker for our "State of the Trade"... Another guy whom I work with was slated to attend said DP1.1 IST course as he's always been 'core' and finally had all the paperwork to go through and officially be minted an IST. He's been doing the job for years and is a det commander, has operational experience etc... Etc... Knows his stuff to say the least. Whatever, we jump through the hoops and do our duty. Today, the day the course was supposed to start he was told he's been kicked off an not allowed to attend because he doesn't meet the pre-reqs for IST DP1.1... SAID F&CK WHAT?!? I needed to hear that another time before my brain would accept the BS I was hearing. He apparently didn't have the 'help desk' portion of OJT or training somewhere in his file to substantiate going on IST DP1.1... Best part, they said he can't PLAR this Helpdesk qual/DP1.0 type thing because it's non-existent now/defunct/obsolete. WHAAAAATTT?..... Where is the logic?!?! Trying to make ISTs is about as difficult right now as trying to start a fire under water!!!

&$#*$#@)@#*&: Who in hells half acre is making these retarded decisions? All I can say is W-O-W, you guys are really trying to get rid of people fast. Or killing everything in them that makes them want to excel at their jobs. *Slow clap* I have never seen people's morale destroyed so rapidly and effectively. Your KILLING the IST trade before it gets off the ground. At least the 2nd generation of it. I'm one of the 'first gen' who PLAR'd or were chosen into it because of doing the job for my entire career already.

If this was a range shoot, I'm pretty sure we'd be having a no duff, or I'd be kicking someone off the range at the very least.

If someone of substantial rank/position is reading this forum and can stop people from making terribad decisions for our entire trade, please for the love of ACISS (if there's any left) do something!!! You're going to loose people so fast you won't know what to do very soon if this type of thing keeps up.

I'm usually a really REALLY positive person but today when I found all this out it pissed me right off...

State of the Trade address over. 

Thoughts? Opinions?

 :facepalm:


----------



## upandatom

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> STATE OF THE TRADE: BUDGET CUTS GALORE. No one has funds. CF Wide, no surprise there. Even dental appointments are being pushed back due to lack of funding!



Noone has funds. Then why are we paying for forein nationals to train at our bases, take our courses (Pilots from singapore, Jamaicans on Datacomms to name a few), why are we paying for a brand new CIS system being installed into Some vehicles?? 

Why do we waste time with units like 202 DA?? that civilians rape and pillage OT on the communications side of the unit? because they can get away with it with an EME CoC that listens to all the bullshit that the civilians spew out of the mouths to keep jobs and keep the EME COC guessing? The highest Signals position there is a WO, and he isnt even in charge of the other sigs, he is an OPS WO with no pwer to say "hey thats not right, thats a lie" (i understand this is ADM MAT funding, but if we waste money in one spot, it means it cant go elsewhere, or be used for training, develop, new kit, deployment, health and safety, medical, dental)


The fact that someone completed a course and wasnt grandfathered to the next course is bullshit. Ill call it. RCCS is wasting huge amounts retraining members, when those members already have some TI and have the skills that they are being taught. LCIS QL5 was a joke and waste of 6 weeks, The ACISS 1.0 and 2.0 was just a cock fest for angry MCpl overcompensating for something. I sent several of my guys on that course and they came back angry frustrated and lost as to what the actual point of the course was (and these were top 1/3 candidates, not shit pumps) they understood they had to learn how to run a Radio Det, they didnt learn that, they learned how to take care of people that didnt give a shit for fear of getting extras. Even watched MCpl instructors set them up for failure, and laugh about it. 

Signals wastes money all over, thats the problem.


----------



## LCIS-Tech

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Not to sound rude, but, source? Is there a message or is this word of mouth?  ???



No need to be concerned about sounding rude. Yes, this is word of mouth, but it is word of mouth from those who DO know. You can blame them sending the files back to Treasury Board for further review on a certain Sigs Colonel who wanted "all or nothing" (again, no names, no pack drill...)


----------



## rmc_wannabe

LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> No need to be concerned about sounding rude. Yes, this is word of mouth, but it is word of mouth from those who DO know. You can blame them sending the files back to Treasury Board for further review on a certain Sigs Colonel who wanted "all or nothing" (again, no names, no pack drill...)



I hope he falls hard on his sword when it gets sent back, again.


----------



## upandatom

LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> No need to be concerned about sounding rude. Yes, this is word of mouth, but it is word of mouth from those who DO know. You can blame them sending the files back to Treasury Board for further review on a certain Sigs Colonel who wanted "all or nothing" (again, no names, no pack drill...)



This all or nothing will never happen. If he thinks its justifiable he might not fully understand the job scope of each trade......then its back at square one, and puts forward a larger problem.


----------



## PiperDown

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Tell you what Piper, next time I see the RCCS CWO in the elevator, I will ask him.  Knowing CWO MacIsaac, he won't sugar coat it.



and...  whats the good word?  If you are going to do some name dropping, of who you chat with in the elevators , I am interested in the result.


----------



## 211RadOp

I have not seen him yet.  But I am always on the look out for him.


----------



## Dancing Bison

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> I was going to write the same reaction as the previous posters to the 'CST has been approved for spec pay"... Heard that before... No offence... And I've heard it about IST as well... And Line.... I've said it before and I'll say it again... I honestly (personal opinion) do not believe IST will get it. And I do not think any of the ACISS trades will get it at all. If anyone cares I'll do up an entire post of why I think those things but it's my opinion. So I'm not even waiting to hear an answer on the subject; it's decided in my mind. Moving on.
> 
> STATE OF THE TRADE: BUDGET CUTS GALORE. No one has funds. CF Wide, no surprise there. Even dental appointments are being pushed back due to lack of funding!
> 
> WTF: I and 11 other pers from CFJSR have been lucky enough to be loaded onto a very last minute Data Comms course at CFSCE across the street. Why all from the local area you ask? COST. Units outside the area didn't have the funding to send pers to attend trg @ CFSCE for this serial and said serial was actually cancelled before Christmas leave... Arrangements were attempted to recover training (CFSCE) thought of maybe covering costs of rations and pp&s etc... Can't afford it.
> 
> A bright officer who works at CFJSR approached myself and some of my peers and asked how valuable Data Comms is to our personnel and if we should try and send people on the training at 0 cost. One of my esteemed colleagues literally said he would run an excercise by himself and not sleep if it meant more training for the troops and anyone whom could attend! That's the short of it. We pushed from our end, putting up nominations to our chains etc... Our regimental trg talked to CFSCE and worked out that we would fill all 12 spots on course at 0 cost essentially...
> 
> Why am I telling everyone this? So they know that it's not directly their units' fault that training isn't happening or your name isn't 'being nominated'. It's a funding issue mostly... Are we spoiled and lucky at CFJSR right now because we're across the street; hell yes. Do we know that... YES! That's just one issue...
> 
> WTF1: DP1.1 for IST... Apparently the 'legacy' DP1.1 is now obsolete and the new DP1.1 IST is to be given to all new pers. Great, they revamped almost everything about it. Terrible: They disqualified pers whom took the OLD DP1.1 IST! We had a newly minted Cpl whom was taken off said Data Comms to go back on the 'new' DP1.1 IST course as he is forced to re-qual before going any further in his trade/career. Stupid, absolutely stupid but workable decision? Yes. Is an experienced jr IST who works daily with our equip going to gain anything from the new DP1.1? Maybe...
> 
> WTF2! Here is the real kicker for our "State of the Trade"... Another guy whom I work with was slated to attend said DP1.1 IST course as he's always been 'core' and finally had all the paperwork to go through and officially be minted an IST. He's been doing the job for years and is a det commander, has operational experience etc... Etc... Knows his stuff to say the least. Whatever, we jump through the hoops and do our duty. Today, the day the course was supposed to start he was told he's been kicked off an not allowed to attend because he doesn't meet the pre-reqs for IST DP1.1... SAID F&CK WHAT?!? I needed to hear that another time before my brain would accept the BS I was hearing. He apparently didn't have the 'help desk' portion of OJT or training somewhere in his file to substantiate going on IST DP1.1... Best part, they said he can't PLAR this Helpdesk qual/DP1.0 type thing because it's non-existent now/defunct/obsolete. WHAAAAATTT?..... Where is the logic?!?! Trying to make ISTs is about as difficult right now as trying to start a fire under water!!!
> 
> 
> 
> &$#*$#@)@#*&: Who in hells half acre is making these retarded decisions? All I can say is W-O-W, you guys are really trying to get rid of people fast. Or killing everything in them that makes them want to excel at their jobs. *Slow clap* I have never seen people's morale destroyed so rapidly and effectively. Your KILLING the IST trade before it gets off the ground. At least the 2nd generation of it. I'm one of the 'first gen' who PLAR'd or were chosen into it because of doing the job for my entire career already.
> 
> If this was a range shoot, I'm pretty sure we'd be having a no duff, or I'd be kicking someone off the range at the very least.
> 
> If someone of substantial rank/position is reading this forum and can stop people from making terribad decisions for our entire trade, please for the love of ACISS (if there's any left) do something!!! You're going to loose people so fast you won't know what to do very soon if this type of thing keeps up.
> 
> I'm usually a really REALLY positive person but today when I found all this out it pissed me right off...
> 
> State of the Trade address over.
> 
> Thoughts? Opinions?
> 
> :facepalm:



WOW! for a positive person you are sur sour about the state of the trade.  Like a great WO said to me once, "you have great ideas, bring them forward"  guess what i did and it was recognized by my higher up.  Have you brought these pout up with your boss?  Doubt it.  Oh ya by the way I'm at 1 Sigs the unit that you mentioned that was all out of waco... ;D  Ask yourself a question! was the problem really at the leadership level? and what level was that.  I a soldier who got posted at 1 Sigs 3 years ago and I can honestly say that they have been the best one so far...perhaps because the present leadership is doing very well at all level.  Everyone is involved in every issues and problems (technical, operational) are solved as a team.  Now for the state of the trade I agree that not everything is up to snuff, however I get involved in order to change things, and so far progress has been made.  I agree with you at 100% about MES, that cell does not fully fonction with the best of engine. Example, we have proposed that the MES manager be a point of presence at the school (CFSCE) in order to educate the new siggies about choice of sub-occ, instead of wasting 1 full year on trade trial when one knows already what he/she wants to do...


----------



## ixium

Everyone has great ideas about the trade, and chances are if you've mentioned it recently it has been brought up many, many times before. Now if your CoC actually did something than that is another story.

1Sigs when Joeschmo (if he is who I think he is...) was awful(2008-2012ish). No RSM even wanted to work with the CO, an Engineer had to come and do it. The CO and CoC openly admitted to keeping good people off tour because they wanted exercises to run smoothly. A LOT of people VR or didn't resign. A job that pays double what you get in the military with less retardedness (that a word?) was a phone call away. Remember the cyber warriors speech?

What it is now I have no idea. But it has been a couple posting seasons since so the CoC has likely had a complete overhaul.

Which is a problem with our trade. People that are bad a promoted and posted until they get to the highest level of their incompetence. I have a WO now that won't even trust Sgt's on medical appointments, that micromanages everyone all the way down to the Pte's, that dictates how to park into a parking spot without it actually being a base SOP. I don't know anyone that works under him that would actually want to do a tour with him. And everyone knows it. Other units, other bases, other land areas. It doesn't matter. The majority of the trade knows he isn't good to work for, and laugh at you when you tell them you do.

Maybe it is a trade issue, maybe it is a military as a whole issue, but I seem to work for "out to lunch" CoC more often than not and it didn't seem that way when I worked with other trades.

/rant


----------



## upandatom

Dancing Bison said:
			
		

> WOW! for a positive person you are sur sour about the state of the trade.  Like a great WO said to me once, "you have great ideas, bring them forward"  guess what i did and it was recognized by my higher up.  Have you brought these pout up with your boss?  Doubt it.  Oh ya by the way I'm at 1 Sigs the unit that you mentioned that was all out of waco... ;D  Ask yourself a question! was the problem really at the leadership level? and what level was that.  I a soldier who got posted at 1 Sigs 3 years ago and I can honestly say that they have been the best one so far...perhaps because the present leadership is doing very well at all level.  Everyone is involved in every issues and problems (technical, operational) are solved as a team.  Now for the state of the trade I agree that not everything is up to snuff, however I get involved in order to change things, and so far progress has been made.  I agree with you at 100% about MES, that cell does not fully fonction with the best of engine. Example, we have proposed that the MES manager be a point of presence at the school (CFSCE) in order to educate the new siggies about choice of sub-occ, instead of wasting 1 full year on trade trial when one knows already what he/she wants to do...



Many of us have brought up possible changes. I have been part of several dozen threads, questionnaires, surveys, AARs you name it with various thoughts and ideas put forward about how to fix it. The general response received is, That doesn't work, or that the system is not broken. 

When you are in one system that has adapted to work. that goes to another that affects your finances (Spec Pay) you are not going to be optimistic after 4 years of "we are not going to answer that". 
a complete restructure was not needed. ONE singular trade was required to complete what they were after.  

Rushing with a broken system, the Sigs are now limping, there is a very large chunk of experience, knowledge and know how leaving the trades. All because no one could give them an answer. That loss of manpower is going to create a vacuum, you may end up with some rising stars out of it, some great sigs members that had some civi experience before hand, but those members in the 7-13 year range that are releasing/OTing, that junior leadership from a Senior Cpl to the Sgts is not going to stick around unless they are in a gucci spot, and not many are left. Many positions are being pushed to the Air Force side of the house, postings are on the downslide, promotions unless no cost moves, or necessity promotions within units are not coming. 

Don't get me wrong, I am happy about majority of the time I had in. However in my short time in (compared to others, 9 years), I have seen morale in the Signals community plummet like a rock in water with no one trying keep it up. From my 3s there are 3 people left in, from my 5s, the same 3, and I know two of those have approached me about the release process already. 

It will stay this way until people get answers. One way or the other. At least then they have a direction to go. 

There are people happy still. not trying to take that away from them. Good on them.


----------



## JBP

Dancing Bison said:
			
		

> WOW! for a positive person you are sur sour about the state of the trade.  Like a great WO said to me once, "you have great ideas, bring them forward"  guess what i did and it was recognized by my higher up.  Have you brought these pout up with your boss?  Doubt it.  Oh ya by the way I'm at 1 Sigs the unit that you mentioned that was all out of waco... ;D  Ask yourself a question! was the problem really at the leadership level? and what level was that.  I a soldier who got posted at 1 Sigs 3 years ago and I can honestly say that they have been the best one so far...perhaps because the present leadership is doing very well at all level.  Everyone is involved in every issues and problems (technical, operational) are solved as a team.  Now for the state of the trade I agree that not everything is up to snuff, however I get involved in order to change things, and so far progress has been made.  I agree with you at 100% about MES, that cell does not fully fonction with the best of engine. Example, we have proposed that the MES manager be a point of presence at the school (CFSCE) in order to educate the new siggies about choice of sub-occ, instead of wasting 1 full year on trade trial when one knows already what he/she wants to do...



You're right. Normally I am a very positive person even through a heavy amount of adversity or difficult conditions. However, what really pissed me off lately is the effects that dumb decisions are having on people. Career implications. It's one thing to dangle spec pay or not, I never believed it would or will happen; it's another to drastically alter people's careers with horrible decisions. It's effecting great people I work with on a daily basis who are fantastic professionals whom are putting up with all this shit and shinning like great examples to the rest of the trade. 

It's getting old, fast. 

Also, as others have mentioned (thanks, and yes, some of you have me pegged on who I am IRL, no biggey! I talk the talk there too) I was at 1 Sigs during a crazy time. Just as I was leaving in 2013 it was starting to turn around but it started a little earlier for A and B Tp, not C unfortunately... Thank god that now it's waaaayyy better. I've spoken with some pers whom work there now and it's night and day compare to when I was there...

Furthermore, I have brought all of these things up the chain of command every... single... Chance I got. The last OC I served under at 1 Sigs was female. She (fantastic individual) retired after her post there, no doubt her boots full of the madness inherent of 1 Sigs at the time. I had her ear, that's an understatement, we had several private and public conversations about the trade, 1 Sigs and all the terrible things our chains did. I also took the opportunity to professionally blast the head of Signals at the time, a Col and his Chief when they visited us behind the LTF on a wintery ex. They asked my opinion and I very carefully explained my point of view and that of the subordinates I had at the time. They literally wrote things down... I wasn't the only one either. 

Red tape only knows what's happened with all the hot air I and many others have blown up the chain. It really didn't fall on deaf ears with my last OC; she drastically tried to implement change and I think she and the engineer RSM who worked with her were the catalyst for the change at 1 Sigs. I think it's where it IS right now because of them and I only hope the rest of the chain followed.

Another thing... I know a lot of people have read this thread and keep track of it... All I can say, is I voice my opinion for everyone else. I've been lucky. I do not represent everyone in the Signals community nor do I presume to think I know what's best. Again: I don't promote the idea of spec pay. _*What I mean to say is*_, I've actually had a good career in the Signals world and the Canadian Army. I've gotten everything I was told I may get and I honestly have gotten almost every single goddamn thing I asked for. Curse and blessing that is can I tell you! I've gotten literally tens of thousands of dollars worth of IT training both in-house (CFSCE, 1 Sigs etc...) and outside (paid civilian courses)... I've gotten incredible training and operational experiences (Op Athena, TAV's, TLD Staff, European ex's) and had experiences I'll never forget in my career so far. I know I've gotten lucky and had it good... ESPECIALLY compare to some people, _*hence I cannot IMAGINE how people feel who haven't had it good*_. That's what makes me so damn mad when I see things go downhill like a freight train on fire without any brakes because of stupidity and ignorance! I'm still at a very low level (MCpl) and obviously don't have the view of things from somewhere in NDHQ where the Col of Signals sits but from MY perspective, almost everything wrong with our trade can be fixed... That's what's so horrible about it all. It's the dinosaurs and 'great idea fairies' who stagnate everything by not allowing change or forcing through really bad changes.

So yes, I've become a little bitter since 2008 when I created this thread. That being said, I'm going to keep trying to do things the best I can, where I am at this time, and make things better for the ISTs and personnel I work with. I implore everyone else to attempt to do the same!!!

PS> Somehow, logic somewhere prevailed and the guy whom wasn't allowed to go on his 'new' DP1.1 IST course because he didn't meet the pre-req's was allowed on it the day the course started! So, although he's face ANOTHER setback, he's now getting it done. Jumping through yet another hoop...

PPS> Leaving on a positive note: Due to budget cuts, a lot of departments ran out of funding for the end of the year (entire Q4 actually it seems)... This left us in my shop without much support, our direct instructions from my chain of command was to 'make it work then'... In a good way. If they can't give us a solution (Ottawa/engineering etc) then we'll work out our own. How is that positive you ask? FREEDOM. Before, it would be "NO GOD DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING! CALL OTTAWA, YOU CAN'T CHANGE ONE BIT!!!!".... Now it's... "Well we're screwed if this doesn't get fixed... We're literally N/S... . So yeah, kick ass, take names and make it work!"... The guys I work with and I are planning some awesome technical things for our net. Maybe for once we get to be the 'good idea fairies' and make things actually work better. Or maybe we'll break shit. Either way, I'm in uniform, it's all our gear, it's in our hands, the gloves are off! 

That's the one thing that seems to stay the same in our trade, we're the 'make it work' people. When the chain of command fails us, when people fail us, when the institution we signed our lives too fails us in some aspect, we still make it work. Somebody save the army when we don't!


----------



## DigitalCurrents

ixium said:
			
		

> IF the the spec pay was linked to the position that the person held then whatever.
> 
> But there are IST/CST guys doing the exact same job as a core. And there are core guys that are forced into IST jobs in regiments and even do IST courses.



I work in a desktop tech support shop.  We have people in our shop (ATIS & Core) who simply should not be in a tech shop.  They're 'doing' IST jobs - very poorly; they spend most of their time playing minesweeper or texting on their phone.   I think spec pay should be linked to goals and incentives for a shop/unit.  That way our CoC would have incentive to replace dead weight instead of keeping them around for general labour.


----------



## PuckChaser

DigitalCurrents said:
			
		

> I think spec pay should be linked to goals and incentives for a shop/unit.  That way our CoC would have incentive to replace dead weight instead of keeping them around for general labour.



Where does that "dead weight" go? Its all well and good if you're talking about a civilianized workforce, but how do you fire someone from the CAF if they do their job, albeit poorly?


----------



## ixium

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where does that "dead weight" go? Its all well and good if you're talking about a civilianized workforce, but how do you fire someone from the CAF if they do their job, albeit poorly?



Post and promote seems to be the the answer they've gone with for the last while.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

DigitalCurrents said:
			
		

> I work in a desktop tech support shop.  We have people in our shop (ATIS & Core) who simply should not be in a tech shop.  They're 'doing' IST jobs - very poorly; they spend most of their time playing minesweeper or texting on their phone.   I think spec pay should be linked to goals and incentives for a shop/unit.  That way our CoC would have incentive to replace dead weight instead of keeping them around for general labour.



That's a leadership issue, not a spec pay issue.


----------



## Jager

IST Joeschmo, you dam Slacker. Going to have to meet up for a coffee this summer as I'll be coming through on my way to my next posting.


----------



## DigitalCurrents

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where does that "dead weight" go? Its all well and good if you're talking about a civilianized workforce, but how do you fire someone from the CAF if they do their job, albeit poorly?



Members shouldn't get to keep their favorite postings if they can't do their jobs.  Send the deadweight to aciss core dets / stick them in sub-units.  Dets that support a Div or Bde should get the most skilled (spec pay) people.  Sub-units with small signals dets should have aciss-core individuals.


----------



## PuckChaser

DigitalCurrents said:
			
		

> Members shouldn't get to keep their favorite postings if they can't do their jobs.  Send the deadweight to aciss core dets / stick them in sub-units.  Dets that support a Div or Bde should get the most skilled (spec pay) people.  Sub-units with small signals dets should have aciss-core individuals.



IST isn't above having sub-standard soldiers, you're not the special forces (or Cyber Warriors?). You also have no idea if you're even going to get spec pay, so get off your high horse.

Your proposal would be the most ridiculous admin nightmare figuring out who gets spec pay and where.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where does that "dead weight" go? Its all well and good if you're talking about a civilianized workforce, but how do you fire someone from the CAF if they do their job, albeit poorly?


  

A longggggggg process that has to start using this tool to deal with these types of problems.  If the RMs, etc don't sort the dufus out, then you can try to initiate one of these.  It is possible for recommendation for release/release to be the outcome but trade health and Careers opinion factor in to unit recommendations obviously.

And of course, proper and detailed use of CFPAS to support the member's performance deficiency.  Unfortunately, it is far more easier to make the poor performer the 'Safety Committee Rep', give them the easy stuff to do and hope they get posted even if only locally or 'out of your shop'.

By the time you did the PDR review/adverse PDR-PERs, RMs etc etc and all the way to the AR machine, the member would likely have sorted themselves out OR be posted anyways...while it is not the best thing to do, the easier thing to do is administered the Big D PERs and hope they are posted.   >


----------



## JBP

So the new IST career manager seemed like a decent guy. VTC worked out ok. 

Although he said it's 'a good time to be an IST' , there is still no further information on spec pay lol...

But the good news is promotions are happening for people and there's no budget cut career show stoppers!


----------



## Sig_Des

I hadn't really checked this thread in a long time. Some of my thoughts:

*Branch/Corps Communication *- It's pretty horrible. The C&E branch website doesn't seem to have been updated since August of last year, and if there's a RCCS weblink, I haven't found it. The most recent newsletter is over a year old, and the advisors' corners were mostly a lot of fluff and self pleasuring statements about what a great success celebration 2013 was. That and a small statement about no answer on  pay. The occupation page on D Mil C hasn't had the Career Manager's briefing up since 2012. Lot's of questions and very little answers. Not much filtering down. It's a lot like a mushroom farm right now. Which is horrible, because it has created an information void very much proven by this thread. Speculation and a lot of "well, this is what I heard", "I have it on good authority", "this is what this guys told me".

*The Spec Pay Beast*- I honestly have no dog in this fight. I have never, will probably never, nor should I ever receive spec pay. I do a job that I was trained to do, working hard to the best of my abilities, to support others, and receive a fair wage for it, especially considering that any training I have ever had was provided by the military. I'll never say no to extra money, but I'm not pining and whining for it. I feel bad for the techs who are in limbo, and those who joined as LCIS with the understanding that they would get it, but never reached the level where they could before it was frozen. Thems the breaks. But either push for answers, or remuster to ATIS if it's that big a deal at this point. Bitching in the shop or on army.ca hasn't given you any answers for 3 years, so try something new. My personal opinion (and I know it would be an administrative nightmare, but in my perfect world) is that spec pay should be positional. As in, you do the work which requires special training, you get paid for it. You get that jammy posting at a recruiting center in Vancouver, then you don't get paid extra.

*Spec Pay for the Ner....IST's* -  (had to get it in there) Not to take away from you guys, but I honestly (not facetiously, not jealously, not humorously) do not believe that you deserve spec pay either. There is no entry requirement for previous education, there is no DEP, all training is provided. And for those of you who say that you can make way more money doing this civvy side, I want to see a paystub for someone with 4 years experience (4 years including training, the training provided to you that does not currently give you an equivalent certification). So a VIE, DP 2.1 IST, end contract and go out to civvy street. Because this is what I found for computer network technicians:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/qc/job_futures/statistics/2281.shtml#stats



> Average Annual Employment Income
> (Full-Time, Full-Year)	Unit Group 2281	 All occupations
> Full-time, full-year	74.5%	         53.2%
> Average income	        50,919	         45,157
> 0-19999$	                4.9%	                 16.5%
> 20000-49999$	        50.1%	         52.4%
> 50000$ and over  	45.0%	         31.1%



And to confirm it up, the median wages from payscale.com for *Computer / Network Support Technician* Salary and *System Administrator, Computer / Network* Salary in Canada are 43,621$ and 53,828$ respectively. Hell, the high end for Sys Admin is 73,254$ and I was pushing that at MCpl in Edmonton. Yes, I was in a field unit, so I got LDA, but guess what, I joined the goddamned Army. If I wanted to do what I do in an office, I would have gone to work for Nortel back in the day. Because they offered WAY more job security than a career in the Armed Forces   .

I stand by my statement wrt IST here :

http://army.ca/forums/threads/114975/post-1309978.html#msg1309978



			
				Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Because of the long training periods for members to become technically proficient and deployable, specialists (for better lack of a non-spec pay deserving term) needed to be protected and have the time invested into them to make them valuable to the organization (in a value added way, not as in we need you more than Linemen, Techs or Operators). If a sub-trade was the only way to protect these members from being posted immediately following the point where they are truly the experts on their system, then so be it, *but I believe it was ultimately a solution to the problem of poor man-management*.



*1 Sigs* - Personally, as much as I joke about it, I had a very good experience when I was at 1 Sigs, albeit a little before you Joeschmo, but we crossed over. And you were there at the same time rmc_wannabe. I was there for almost 3 years, was on the parade for the embarrassing "Cyber-Warriors" speech (though just back from tour and on my way to a first-line unit). The Gary/Rej command team years were actually really good. I saw the circle turn, and it got ridiculous, but I was gone at that point. Who knows, the wheel may turn again. I actually had a great section, had some great training, and we had a very successful tour. And no, none of us bladed each other. And we actually had pretty good leadership (for the most part).

I don't know the whole background on the Engineer RSM story, so I won't make excuses for how embarrassing it was, but I definitely don't believe it was right when CWO's (who were succession planned) were able to turn it down when Cpl's were being told by CM's to "take the posting they were given or release". An example should have been made from the top.



			
				DigitalCurrents said:
			
		

> Members shouldn't get to keep their favorite postings if they can't do their jobs.  Send the deadweight to aciss core dets / stick them in sub-units.  Dets that support a Div or Bde should get the most skilled (spec pay) people.  Sub-units with small signals dets should have aciss-core individuals.



The frustration of others here is understandable, but they don't debase themselves to subtle trade bashing. Your attitude however, pisses me off. The whole purpose of the support trades in the Army is to support the combat arms, or support others who support them in their mission. And you want to reward those who sit on their duffs, while sending the junk to the dets and out-units that provide that immediate first-line support? You may need to rethink your position, or go find yourself a union job.


----------



## PuckChaser

Beadwindow for RCCS CWO!  ;D


----------



## Brasidas

Did the RCCS CWO say something he shouldn't have?


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Beadwindow for RCCS CWO!  ;D



Not likely. No Kingston check in the box, and there won't be any if I can help it.


----------



## PuckChaser

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Not likely. No Kingston check in the box, and there won't be any if I can help it.



Its a blackhole, I can't leave fast enough. Although, its like complaining about only being in a 4-star hotel for the city....  >


----------



## JBP

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I hadn't really checked this thread in a long time. Some of my thoughts:
> 
> *Branch/Corps Communication *- It's pretty horrible. The C&E branch website doesn't seem to have been updated since August of last year, and if there's a RCCS weblink, I haven't found it. The most recent newsletter is over a year old, and the advisors' corners were mostly a lot of fluff and self pleasuring statements about what a great success celebration 2013 was. That and a small statement about no answer on  pay. The occupation page on D Mil C hasn't had the Career Manager's briefing up since 2012. Lot's of questions and very little answers. Not much filtering down. It's a lot like a mushroom farm right now. Which is horrible, because it has created an information void very much proven by this thread. Speculation and a lot of "well, this is what I heard", "I have it on good authority", "this is what this guys told me".
> 
> *The Spec Pay Beast*- I honestly have no dog in this fight. I have never, will probably never, nor should I ever receive spec pay. I do a job that I was trained to do, working hard to the best of my abilities, to support others, and receive a fair wage for it, especially considering that any training I have ever had was provided by the military. I'll never say no to extra money, but I'm not pining and whining for it. I feel bad for the techs who are in limbo, and those who joined as LCIS with the understanding that they would get it, but never reached the level where they could before it was frozen. Thems the breaks. But either push for answers, or remuster to ATIS if it's that big a deal at this point. Bitching in the shop or on army.ca hasn't given you any answers for 3 years, so try something new. My personal opinion (and I know it would be an administrative nightmare, but in my perfect world) is that spec pay should be positional. As in, you do the work which requires special training, you get paid for it. You get that jammy posting at a recruiting center in Vancouver, then you don't get paid extra.
> 
> *Spec Pay for the Ner....IST's* -  (had to get it in there) Not to take away from you guys, but I honestly (not facetiously, not jealously, not humorously) do not believe that you deserve spec pay either. There is no entry requirement for previous education, there is no DEP, all training is provided. And for those of you who say that you can make way more money doing this civvy side, I want to see a paystub for someone with 4 years experience (4 years including training, the training provided to you that does not currently give you an equivalent certification). So a VIE, DP 2.1 IST, end contract and go out to civvy street. Because this is what I found for computer network technicians:
> 
> http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/qc/job_futures/statistics/2281.shtml#stats
> 
> And to confirm it up, the median wages from payscale.com for *Computer / Network Support Technician* Salary and *System Administrator, Computer / Network* Salary in Canada are 43,621$ and 53,828$ respectively. Hell, the high end for Sys Admin is 73,254$ and I was pushing that at MCpl in Edmonton. Yes, I was in a field unit, so I got LDA, but guess what, I joined the goddamned Army. If I wanted to do what I do in an office, I would have gone to work for Nortel back in the day. Because they offered WAY more job security than a career in the Armed Forces   .
> 
> I stand by my statement wrt IST here :
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/114975/post-1309978.html#msg1309978
> 
> *1 Sigs* - Personally, as much as I joke about it, I had a very good experience when I was at 1 Sigs, albeit a little before you Joeschmo, but we crossed over. And you were there at the same time rmc_wannabe. I was there for almost 3 years, was on the parade for the embarrassing "Cyber-Warriors" speech (though just back from tour and on my way to a first-line unit). The Gary/Rej command team years were actually really good. I saw the circle turn, and it got ridiculous, but I was gone at that point. Who knows, the wheel may turn again. I actually had a great section, had some great training, and we had a very successful tour. And no, none of us bladed each other. And we actually had pretty good leadership (for the most part).
> 
> I don't know the whole background on the Engineer RSM story, so I won't make excuses for how embarrassing it was, but I definitely don't believe it was right when CWO's (who were succession planned) were able to turn it down when Cpl's were being told by CM's to "take the posting they were given or release". An example should have been made from the top.
> 
> The frustration of others here is understandable, but they don't debase themselves to subtle trade bashing. Your attitude however, pisses me off. The whole purpose of the support trades in the Army is to support the combat arms, or support others who support them in their mission. And you want to reward those who sit on their duffs, while sending the junk to the dets and out-units that provide that immediate first-line support? You may need to rethink your position, or go find yourself a union job.



Absolutely, all of it. Hence why I myself never thought IST would get spec pay. Not that I would mind it... Of course. That being said, 2/4 ISTs I know whom have released recently are making *far* over what they were making as MCpl's and Cpl 4's, 2 in Edmonton and 2 in Kingston. But I'm sure if you take a handful of any trades almost every guy will have extremely different outcomes after release.

PS> Why no love for K-Town?! JSR has been great (for me) so far! I'm just hungry for another deployment. The taxes in Ontario and this city specifically, SUCK badly though I must admit! There's got to be some new PLD rumors kicking around I can hope for...


----------



## PuckChaser

So not to pump up the rumour mill, but a Sigs CO in KTown recently had a townhall, and D Sigs understands the lack of communication up to this point, and is developing a clear and concise "this is where we are" communique for the RCCS. Timeline was "2 weeks" before it was issued, but those might be 2 Ottawa weeks.


----------



## PiperDown

I heard the same thing.

I am sure the Coles notes version of the "update" will be. 

" the pay review has encountered a number of administrative obstacles along the way.  We expect a full answer in the coming months ... This is our number one priority "

Sorry if that sounds familiar. 

One of the MES managers briefed the 6a course at CFSCE recently that the pay review made it all the way to the CDS's desk in Dec. but for some unknown reason was not signed. Then, the treasury board changed some "policy" as of Jan 1st that makes the unsigned pay review null and void. So, it's back through the process again.

Seems like some smoke and mirrors to me.  No worries though, I am sure the fellow in my shop that has been promoted twice, but still makes the exact same pay as he did in Oct 2011 ( technically 2009, which is when he topped out as a Cpl4) s just happy he still has a job.


----------



## Swingline1984

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> I heard the same thing.
> 
> I am sure the Coles notes version of the "update" will be.
> 
> " the pay review has encountered a number of administrative obstacles along the way.  We expect a full answer in the coming months ... This is our number one priority "
> 
> Sorry if that sounds familiar.
> 
> One of the MES managers briefed the 6a course at CFSCE recently that the pay review made it all the way to the CDS's desk in Dec. but for some unknown reason was not signed. Then, the treasury board changed some "policy" as of Jan 1st that makes the unsigned pay review null and void. So, it's back through the process again.
> 
> Seems like some smoke and mirrors to me.  No worries though, I am sure the fellow in my shop that has been promoted twice, but still makes the exact same pay as he did in Oct 2011 ( technically 2009, which is when he topped out as a Cpl4) s just happy he still has a job.



The pay review has never made it past DPPD that is the last word we ever had from DSigs and MES and that is the only word that counts.  Lots of rumour and conjecture in this thread along with understandable, but misplaced anger.  The process is the process it's not the Branch's fault.


----------



## PiperDown

1984 said:
			
		

> Lots of rumour and conjecture in this thread along with understandable, but misplaced anger.  The process is the process it's not the Branch's fault.



So it's "the process" that has given only 3 official updates in 3.5 years ( and each update promises a final answer in a couple months) 

Or it's "the process" that started a SharePoint site as a repository of information.... That's last upload was 2011 ? 

If "the process"  gives repeated vague and inaccurate updates, the rumour, conjecture and misplaced anger is sure to take its place.


----------



## PuckChaser

The process is not the Branch's fault. Communicating where we are in the process is.


----------



## ixium

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The process is not the Branch's fault. Communicating where we are in the process is.



If only there was a magical place that existed that everyone *world wide* had access to. It could be like a *web* that connects millions of people!

Ah, but that is just a dream off in the distance I guess.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

ixium said:
			
		

> If only there was a magical place that existed that everyone *world wide* had access to. It could be like a *web* that connects millions of people!
> 
> Ah, but that is just a dream off in the distance I guess.



Like I said earlier, communication is our job, not out policy ;D


----------



## Swingline1984

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> So it's "the process" that has given only 3 official updates in 3.5 years ( and each update promises a final answer in a couple months)
> 
> Or it's "the process" that started a SharePoint site as a repository of information.... That's last upload was 2011 ?
> 
> If "the process"  gives repeated vague and inaccurate updates, the rumour, conjecture and misplaced anger is sure to take its place.



How are rumours that came out of the vacuum the Branch's fault?  Don't get me wrong...I too am unhappy with the lack of updates, but then on the flip side I also don't see how constantly sending out bulletins that say "nothing yet" would have helped anybody.  I think they were pretty up front when they originally stated and then continued to state, "as soon as we have any new info we'll pass it on".  No news is just that...no news.  If it's blame that you wish to assign then hang it on a certain member of the Liberal International Affairs Council of Advisors "providing advice on foreign and defence issues" (who had a personal hate on for Sigs) for pushing MES down our throats before we were ready for it...blah blah blah...building a plane in flight...blah blah blah...

We're all tired and need some good news or at least just an end to the waiting I understand that and I hope the upcoming update from DSigs is a rosy one, but somehow I doubt it.  Again a fault of the process not necessarily the people.  Hang in there...it can't get worse.


----------



## PuckChaser

1984 said:
			
		

> If it's blame that you wish to assign then hang it on a certain member of the Liberal International Affairs Council of Advisors "providing advice on foreign and defence issues" (who had a personal hate on for Sigs) for pushing MES down our throats before we were ready for it...blah blah blah...building a plane in flight...blah blah blah...



That makes a little bit more sense, but wasn't the whole MES system Sigs-led? It seemed like a terrible idea to start with, we're already seeing the damage cutting apart the DP1 training is doing. We could have rationalized what was being taught without pretending we could create an all-singing, all-dancing Signaller.


----------



## Swingline1984

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That makes a little bit more sense, but wasn't the whole MES system Sigs-led? It seemed like a terrible idea to start with, we're already seeing the damage cutting apart the DP1 training is doing. We could have rationalized what was being taught without pretending we could create an all-singing, all-dancing Signaller.



MES was the son of MOSART (which was another bad idea along the same lines that died) and no one took it seriously until it was imposed on us along with an implementation date (it's coming to the rest of the military eventually if it hasn't already started).  I've been in some high level discussions and it may not seem like it, but while the troops have been getting rogered with a red hot poker, there was a lot of effort on all fronts to re-align and re-vamp training (from the bottom up) to produce a better product than what we have been getting (a disservice to both the member and the line units that receive them).  Trust me (if you feel you can trust a random guy on the interwebz) that things will get better rather than worse (there is still a bill in both time and sweat that we each have to pay to make it work).  If only we could put the whole pay review behind us it would allow us to get on with the healing process.


----------



## PuckChaser

Well, I've seen a rough outline of fixing the DP1 training (downloading stuff from the 1.1s and 2.1s, and it does look a lot better. I just sincerely hope they don't try to keep the DP1 at 50 training days, while shoehorning more crap into it. I fear we've backed ourselves into this short training cycle corner, and trying to increase the time it takes to create a DP1 ACISS member might not go over well in an era of budget cuts; even if its desperately required.

I absolutely trust that there's people out there trying to fix what was so recently broken, I just hope they outnumber those who think how things are done now is just fine.


----------



## 227_LCIS

Is the ACISS SharePoint still active, if so does anyone have the link? Would like to get the PLAR scorecards off of it for the IST courses so I can actually show something for all the civi courses I have taken in Ottawa.


----------



## JSR OP

Here is a link to the site I think you're looking for:
     http://acims.mil.ca/capdev/ACISS/default.aspx

There is a link to PLAR stuff there, but it's not functional.


----------



## 227_LCIS

If the PLAR stuff in N/S I might have to go find an IST that still has their score cards and go from there. Thanks for the link though.


----------



## Sig_Des

227_LCIS said:
			
		

> If the PLAR stuff in N/S I might have to go find an IST that still has their score cards and go from there. Thanks for the link though.



I don't know if they have one at your unit, but I remember out west someone was assigned as a Bde MES manager. You could ask through your FofS to see if they have any input.


----------



## JSR OP

227_LCSS, PM sent


----------



## upandatom

Recently heard from the school, 
(I know I am not still in, but I do have friends still in)

LST dropped the Spec Pay chase?
CST is good to go and ready for it?(Apparently the Sub Occupation has been approved all the way up)
IST is still waiting to get their ppwk in order for approval?

Typical disclaimer, the person that told me about it is not a member of this site, but let me know what is going on with it because I was one affected by it (and chances are, had MES not happened, I would still be in the CAF), and as always, this is word of mouth. Could be a rumor mill going as it was passed down his CoC.


----------



## PuckChaser

Its funny that your friend is fanning the rumour mill, because two weeks ago the CFSCE Cmdt and RSM refused to say anything about the issue, only that DSigs would be providing an update "soon" as he was aware of the lack of information. They even went so far as to say they have an idea what is going on, but wouldn't fan the rumour flames with info that's not directly released from higher.

The reason we're in this gongshow is because everyone has a "friend" who "knows whats up" or was "passed this from his CoC". None of it is true, and probably none of it is from the actual people who are working on the file.

Misinformation is worse than no information.


----------



## REDinstaller

It's too bad that the misinformation seed was planted by the MES team right from the get go.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its funny that your friend is fanning the rumour mill, because two weeks ago the CFSCE Cmdt and RSM refused to say anything about the issue, only that DSigs would be providing an update "soon" as he was aware of the lack of information. They even went so far as to say they have an idea what is going on, but wouldn't fan the rumour flames with info that's not directly released from higher.
> 
> The reason we're in this gongshow is because everyone has a "friend" who "knows whats up" or was "passed this from his CoC". None of it is true, and probably none of it is from the actual people who are working on the file.
> 
> Misinformation is worse than no information.



You mean all of the signals world is saying this? What do you expect, I am not doubting what you say, even with a Cmdt and RSM saying we arent saying about it there are other channels that information gets passed down from. I have been at a brief where the Cmdt says one thing and then 20 minutes later other information is passed down. Putting a No comment out there, is not the same as there is no answer or information. They are probably just as sick as everyone else hearing and discussing this and just want effin answers.


----------



## Brasidas

Tango18A said:
			
		

> It's too bad that the misinformation seed was planted by the MES team right from the get go.



Exactly.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The reason we're in this gongshow is because everyone has a "friend" who "knows whats up" or was "passed this from his CoC". None of it is true, and probably none of it is from the actual people who are working on the file.
> 
> Misinformation is worse than no information.





The reason we're in this gongshow is because MES was oversold by the people overseeing MES, and the original misinformation came from them.  It did come from the people working on the file. The "we haven't heard about spec pay, but a decision is coming soon" started there and was perpetuated by others after the fact.  The second-hand rumours aren't helpful, but they certainly aren't surprising with how the mess was conducted.


----------



## JBP

On a different note... It seems that it's becoming very prevalent and obvious to many that we're short pers again. And we're short ISTs like crazy! But I heard that we're short roughly 500 Sigs all trades considered.

I think it took a couple years for the positions to get sorted out and is still shaking out but a lot of new positions have been identified as IST and there's no people to fill them. Just at JSR apparently we're short like 40-50 IST! That's a massive backlog to fill. How short are we at the brigades? All I know when I left Edmonton was that on paper we were close to having the ISTs needed but in reality we seriously could have used 5 more decent guys. 

I suppose this could be a good thing for IST or a bad thing. Either a promotion vacuum or stagnation issue. It seems that's why we've been promoting 90+ Sigs or ACISS-Core since I've got in, attrition alone is causing it. But if we don't have enough people joining the ranks with fresh blood wouldn't (Shouldn't?) that cause stagnation and NOT as many promotions?


----------



## upandatom

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> On a different note... It seems that it's becoming very prevalent and obvious to many that we're short pers again. And we're short ISTs like crazy! But I heard that we're short roughly 500 Sigs all trades considered.
> 
> I think it took a couple years for the positions to get sorted out and is still shaking out but a lot of new positions have been identified as IST and there's no people to fill them. Just at JSR apparently we're short like 40-50 IST! That's a massive backlog to fill. How short are we at the brigades? All I know when I left Edmonton was that on paper we were close to having the ISTs needed but in reality we seriously could have used 5 more decent guys.
> 
> I suppose this could be a good thing for IST or a bad thing. Either a promotion vacuum or stagnation issue. It seems that's why we've been promoting 90+ Sigs or ACISS-Core since I've got in, attrition alone is causing it. But if we don't have enough people joining the ranks with fresh blood wouldn't (Shouldn't?) that cause stagnation and NOT as many promotions?



Dealt and seen that a bit. A CST jumping ship to IST created a lot of open spaces for members to get promoted. There were and are a lot of people being promoted that shouldn't of been. (Im not saying everyone didnt deserve it) The maturity level was just not there, and they weren't quite ready yet. They were great CSTs don't get me wrong, I know a couple that have been promoted in the last year that its a little bit mind boggling how far down the merit list they had to go. That will hurt those members later in their careers.

I think I have IST Joeschmo figured  out as to who they are, and they can attest to the extreme lack of TI and experience from the CST at JSR. 

Sidenote- Are there any MCpls that have been a CST or IST the whole way through yet? or just Forced OTs?


----------



## Jager

upandatom said:
			
		

> Sidenote- Are there any MCpls that have been a CST or IST the whole way through yet? or just Forced OTs?




If you include Cpl's that started as CST or IST when the sub occs started, then yes I know several


----------



## upandatom

Jager said:
			
		

> If you include Cpl's that started as CST or IST when the sub occs started, then yes I know several


I mean more of those that were recruited as an ACISS


----------



## JBP

upandatom said:
			
		

> I mean more of those that were recruited as an ACISS



Pretty sure there are some ACISS-Core who have already been promoted to MCpl since 1 Oct 2011 when the official trade change happened... If not yet, there will be come this APS! Core is still promoting an absolutely retarded number of people post-Afghanistan somehow. Good thing for them I suppose! Terrible for the trade as a whole. 

I've been DOING an IST job since I got in, but that was before this whole transmogrification took place! 

Now that I think about it... There's a guy whom showed up in Edmonton in 2010, and is now a Jack who has been doing IST things the whole time, so he'd be one of the newer generation I guess but even still. Not truly through the entire new training system and all that, he still did do a Sig Op QL3 I believe.


----------



## Brasidas

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Pretty sure there are some ACISS-Core who have already been promoted to MCpl since 1 Oct 2011 when the official trade change happened... If not yet, there will be come this APS! Core is still promoting an absolutely retarded number of people post-Afghanistan somehow. Good thing for them I suppose! Terrible for the trade as a whole.



Please explain your comment about how this is terrible for the trade.


----------



## JBP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Please explain your comment about how this is terrible for the trade.



Maybe terrible isn't the right word... But, unhealthy. How you ask? Simple... What happens when you have a Master Corporal actually in charge of troops that isn't even a half decent leader, never mind a natural leader. Or even worse, he's had his entire career screamed at him and he's been treated like a child for most of his career and then BAM! 5-6 years after going through basic, he's a MCpl now! BAD. BAD scoobies! He's setup to be a terrible leader, unless he's a super switched on, decent human being who realized the horrible examples of 'leadership' he's seen in his career are just that. Examples to steer clear of... 

I've seen a ton of MCpl's in our trades that are absolute pieces of crap and really shouldn't be trusted to be let out the back of an LS with a Y shaped stick and told to find water never mind actually be in charge of people... That's what I mean. 

Promoting 80-100 a year shows how many QUIT and how fast the turnover is. It's a meat grinder. Of course there is always good and bad examples of leadership but, as I just learned on PLQ, apparently the army and your chain is suppose to pick the few, awesome, truly amazing Cpl's to bring to the next level. Not... Everyone. Just because they lasted the longest in the waiting game. 

Am I saying no one should be a 5 year Master Corporal? No. There absolutely should be some. You know, the ones who actually deserve and earned it. Ones who actually obtained a mastered, outstanding, immediate PER review for a couple years on actual merit and job knowledge & skill vice playing hockey really good and yelling at people.

With all that being said. What happens when you have a dipstick for a leader? Throw morale down the toilet instantly. Or, any faith in the chain of command and respect. It starts right at the MCpl level. If they don't respect that person... Well... Shit rolls downhill but faith shoots upwards it seems! And how can you respect your 'leader' if you know how to do everything trade related far better then them and all they ca do is fill out a leave pass for you and correct memos? What happens if that error code on the radio isn't being rectified the way you know how, what if you need him to be the SME and he just says, "Oh that's a senior Cpl's job now! FIGURE IT OUT!"... Having horrible leadership promotes an excellently TOXIC work environment. Promoting the wrong people propagates the chances of many crappy leaders. Promoting a ton of people all over the place just exacerbates the chances of said issues occuring. Yeah, I'm sure maybe it's 50/50 in the ACISS core that some guys are actually awesome Sig Ops and some others are good in other ways. But the other 50%?... One has to wonder.

TBH, so far in my career the best leadership I've seen has come from:

1.) Combat Arms trades (although they also have some SUPER bad examples too)
2.) LCIS - Far better old school leaders than 'Sig Op' old school leaders...
3.) Lineman - From everything I've seen, the junior leaders seem to have a much closer relationship with their boys due to the nature of the work than the other trades.
4.) IST - NEW, brand new, along with most of our junior leaders. Even still, I've seen some pretty awesome examples of dudes already.
5.) Sig Ops - Most brutal, horrible, terrible examples I've seen of poisonous, toxic leaders and chain gagging on ahhh... the Chain! Repeatedly. I think it's finally getting a little better because most of the old dinosaurs are retiring / broken / done and the junior leaders I've seen so far are mostly better. But there are still some that I wouldn't rely on to properly squat on a toilet. 

Anyway, just my opinion, doesn't mean crap and that... Really... But promoting 38292843948234 people each year isn't healthy at the least. Ask the ACISS Core career manager what he thinks about it. The previous one for the Pte-Cpl ranks specifically mentioned he even thought the trade was 'sick' and promoting too fast, almost like bleeding out in a way. Survivors cling on and go up just because. And he's well known to not be the nicest guy but I think he was right about that...


----------



## upandatom

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Maybe terrible isn't the right word... But, unhealthy. How you ask? Simple... What happens when you have a Master Corporal actually in charge of troops that isn't even a half decent leader, never mind a natural leader. Or even worse, he's had his entire career screamed at him and he's been treated like a child for most of his career and then BAM! 5-6 years after going through basic, he's a MCpl now! BAD. BAD scoobies! He's setup to be a terrible leader, unless he's a super switched on, decent human being who realized the horrible examples of 'leadership' he's seen in his career are just that. Examples to steer clear of...
> 
> I've seen a ton of MCpl's in our trades that are absolute pieces of crap and really shouldn't be trusted to be let out the back of an LS with a Y shaped stick and told to find water never mind actually be in charge of people... That's what I mean.
> 
> Promoting 80-100 a year shows how many QUIT and how fast the turnover is. It's a meat grinder. Of course there is always good and bad examples of leadership but, as I just learned on PLQ, apparently the army and your chain is suppose to pick the few, awesome, truly amazing Cpl's to bring to the next level. Not... Everyone. Just because they lasted the longest in the waiting game.
> 
> Am I saying no one should be a 5 year Master Corporal? No. There absolutely should be some. You know, the ones who actually deserve and earned it. Ones who actually obtained a mastered, outstanding, immediate PER review for a couple years on actual merit and job knowledge & skill vice playing hockey really good and yelling at people.
> 
> With all that being said. What happens when you have a dipstick for a leader? Throw morale down the toilet instantly. Or, any faith in the chain of command and respect. It starts right at the MCpl level. If they don't respect that person... Well... crap rolls downhill but faith shoots upwards it seems! And how can you respect your 'leader' if you know how to do everything trade related far better then them and all they ca do is fill out a leave pass for you and correct memos? What happens if that error code on the radio isn't being rectified the way you know how, what if you need him to be the SME and he just says, "Oh that's a senior Cpl's job now! FIGURE IT OUT!"... Having horrible leadership promotes an excellently TOXIC work environment. Promoting the wrong people propagates the chances of many crappy leaders. Promoting a ton of people all over the place just exacerbates the chances of said issues occuring. Yeah, I'm sure maybe it's 50/50 in the ACISS core that some guys are actually awesome Sig Ops and some others are good in other ways. But the other 50%?... One has to wonder.
> 
> TBH, so far in my career the best leadership I've seen has come from:
> 
> 1.) Combat Arms trades (although they also have some SUPER bad examples too)
> 2.) LCIS - Far better old school leaders than 'Sig Op' old school leaders...
> 3.) Lineman - From everything I've seen, the junior leaders seem to have a much closer relationship with their boys due to the nature of the work than the other trades.
> 4.) IST - NEW, brand new, along with most of our junior leaders. Even still, I've seen some pretty awesome examples of dudes already.
> 5.) Sig Ops - Most brutal, horrible, terrible examples I've seen of poisonous, toxic leaders and chain gagging on ahhh... the Chain! Repeatedly. I think it's finally getting a little better because most of the old dinosaurs are retiring / broken / done and the junior leaders I've seen so far are mostly better. But there are still some that I wouldn't rely on to properly squat on a toilet.
> 
> Anyway, just my opinion, doesn't mean crap and that... Really... But promoting 38292843948234 people each year isn't healthy at the least. Ask the ACISS Core career manager what he thinks about it. The previous one for the Pte-Cpl ranks specifically mentioned he even thought the trade was 'sick' and promoting too fast, almost like bleeding out in a way. Survivors cling on and go up just because. And he's well known to not be the nicest guy but I think he was right about that...



I have to agree on I know of a few MCpls now, that shouldn't be, and i was more then shocked to read in on the FB feed that they had received their leaf. That is from the LCIS side, the sig op side scares me. 
And yes, to have someone that is in 5 years and a leaf is alot to ask of them, but they do have to have that natural leadership ability. We start talking about natural leadership ability. I have seen some people with 10+ years in get their leaf and then crumble when a Cpl lets them know about an MIR appointment, or goes into super spin mode. 

I do fully agree that Post Afghanistan they are promoting way too many people in the ACISS world. ID be interested to see the attrition rate, the real one, not the one they make pretty at the CM briefs. I think that with the mass promotions during Afghanistan, some were well deserved, and others were done because there was no one else left to promote. So why is it happening now? Look at what has happened- 

1. Decade war, CAF swells up in numbers and budget, 
2. ACISS comes along, huge waste of money, an "amputation for a papercut" solution
3. Afghanistan comes to an end, ACISS is standing there !@# in its hands when the wallets close. 
4. ACISS hits panic mode, doesn't give people answers, those people wait for a year or two patiently for answers. 
5. Those people leave, the ones from PRE ACISS era, the skills, the leadership and the experience ACISS needs to succeed because they don't provide the same skills in courses they did before. 
6. You are left with nothing left to do but mass promotions to fill the void, lacking leadership.

The people that could fix it are either on their way out the door or just don't care.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

upandatom said:
			
		

> You mean all of the signals world is saying this? What do you expect, I am not doubting what you say, even with a Cmdt and RSM saying we arent saying about it there are other channels that information gets passed down from. I have been at a brief where the Cmdt says one thing and then 20 minutes later other information is passed down. Putting a No comment out there, is not the same as there is no answer or information. They are probably just as sick as everyone else hearing and discussing this and just want effin answers.



If they would publish official updates from DSigs every month or so it would go a long, long way to quashing rumors that some people have been acting on. Explaining specifically the steps the process has to go through to get a decision and then saying every so often "Currently the pay review is at this step in the process". Even if there is no change, just providing frequent quick updates saying there is no change will fill the vacuum that seems to be packed with various rumors. I'm sure the branch or Corps or whatever they are calling themselves now understands that the lack of information is having a serious impact on morale.
The black box that is our leadership needs to start showing some transparency.


----------



## kylepenn

When I had my interview on February 5th they said they needed 35 weapon techs, 435 ACISS and 55 Weapon engineering techs for the new fiscal year.


----------



## JBP

kylepenn said:
			
		

> When I had my interview on February 5th they said they needed 35 weapon techs, 435 ACISS and 55 Weapon engineering techs for the new fiscal year.



Oh, so welcome to the trade then kylepenn! Hahaha... J/K but if you'd like to earn specialist pay then go in as a weapons tech. I think they still get spec pay? If you do join as ACISS, you shouldn't be too bored for the first 5 years that's for sure!


----------



## upandatom

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Oh, so welcome to the trade then kylepenn! Hahaha... J/K but if you'd like to earn specialist pay then go in as a weapons tech. I think they still get spec pay? If you do join as ACISS, you shouldn't be too bored for the first 5 years that's for sure!



Weapons Tech don't receive Spec Pay last I have heard. Only EME trade that did was EOTech, I know there was a push for Weapons to recieve it, due to being "Millwrights" to an extent,


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

upandatom said:
			
		

> Weapons Tech don't receive Spec Pay last I have heard. Only EME trade that did was EOTech, I know there was a push for Weapons to recieve it, due to being "Millwrights" to an extent,



If EOtechs are millwrights than I'm an Intel computer engineer.

My father is/was a millwright and literally works on everything from electrical to construction to pumps to aircraft engines.


----------



## upandatom

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> If EOtechs are millwrights than I'm an Intel computer engineer.
> 
> My father is/was a millwright and literally works on everything from electrical to construction to pumps to aircraft engines.



EO Techs and weapons techs are two different things. 
EO Techs work on sighting/visual aid/targeting electronics. 

"I  know there was a push for Weapons to receive it, due to being "Millwrights" to an extent"

The reference was towards weapons techs, not EO. 

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

upandatom said:
			
		

> EO Techs and weapons techs are two different things.
> EO Techs work on sighting/visual aid/targeting electronics.
> 
> "I  know there was a push for Weapons to receive it, due to being "Millwrights" to an extent"
> 
> The reference was towards weapons techs, not EO.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.



Doesn't change my point at all.


----------



## winterstorm35

So did anyone hear any more tidbits regarding tech pay? Or is it more like wishful thinking this year?


----------



## PuckChaser

winterstorm35 said:
			
		

> So did anyone hear any more tidbits regarding tech pay? Or is it more like wishful thinking this year?



There's 50 pages of talk about it before this one, and every single page is filled with rumour. Rest assured D Sigs will push something out immediately if there's a decision made, everything else is rumint.


----------



## REDinstaller

Most of us go to the crapper to push something out, the MES implementation, development and execution directives seen to have come from it. Why did this not get though through!!!


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's 50 pages of talk about it before this one, and every single page is filled with rumour. Rest assured D Sigs will push something out immediately if there's a decision made, everything else is rumint.



I heard we're all getting spec 0 and Lamborghinis. ACISS Core gets Hurricans while CST/IST get Aventadors.


----------



## PuckChaser

I thought it was spec 2 with a $50,000 signing bonus for every CE.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I thought it was spec 2 with a $50,000 signing bonus for every CE.



could just be waiting until the last legacy LCIS, SIG Op and Lineman retire or OT out of ACISS, then they will come out with a No for an answer and the justification 
"you never had it so you don't know what its like"


----------



## ixium

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> 5.) Sig Ops - Most brutal, horrible, terrible examples I've seen of poisonous, toxic leaders and chain gagging on ahhh... the Chain! Repeatedly. I think it's finally getting a little better because most of the old dinosaurs are retiring / broken / done and the junior leaders I've seen so far are mostly better. But there are still some that I wouldn't rely on to properly squat on a toilet.



I have LOTS to say about our command structure. The amount of times I've heard "it's done this way because I said so" is inexcusable. And until things change higher up in our command, those new MCpls are going to be shit. Leadership starts from the top, not the bottom. When I was at 1 Sigs MCpls actually got in trouble, and yelled at in front of the troops, for helping with setups/tear downs.

Until the dinos leave, the ones that are actually scared of technology and have no understanding of it, things in this trade are just going to get worse. Especially with no combat mission.

Anyone remember having to re-run fiber so that it was 2 feet away from power cables because it was a security breach that could be used to get into our systems? I know I do, because I've done it a few too many times.

How bluetooth headsets are bad, but keyfobs and other devices that put off radio frequencies are fine?

Throwing around no cell phone signs in places they aren't needed.

Reversing into parking because it is safer, like we are about be bombed by USSR(Not Russia, because we're talking about dinos)

I can only imagine what kind of retarded things will come over the next few years.


----------



## PiperDown

ixium said:
			
		

> Until the dinos leave, the ones that are actually scared of technology and have no understanding of it, things in this trade are just going to get worse. Especially with no combat mission.
> 
> Anyone remember having to re-run fiber so that it was 2 feet away from power cables because it was a security breach that could be used to get into our systems? I know I do, because I've done it a few too many times.
> 
> How bluetooth headsets are bad, but keyfobs and other devices that put off radio frequencies are fine?
> 
> Throwing around no cell phone signs in places they aren't needed.
> 
> Reversing into parking because it is safer, like we are about be bombed by USSR(Not Russia, because we're talking about dinos)
> 
> I can only imagine what kind of retarded things will come over the next few years.



Based solely on your comments above, the Sigs world would be a better place if people with attitudes like you leave.  Your comments indicate a complete lack of knowledge.


----------



## PuckChaser

ixium said:
			
		

> Anyone remember having to re-run fiber so that it was 2 feet away from power cables because it was a security breach that could be used to get into our systems? I know I do, because I've done it a few too many times.
> 
> How bluetooth headsets are bad, but keyfobs and other devices that put off radio frequencies are fine?
> 
> Throwing around no cell phone signs in places they aren't needed.
> 
> Reversing into parking because it is safer, like we are about be bombed by USSR(Not Russia, because we're talking about dinos)
> 
> I can only imagine what kind of retarded things will come over the next few years.



How you went from issues with TCI protocols and backing into parking spots boggles my mind. You lost all credibility by whining about having to back into parking spots, and that you can't have your iPhone wherever you want it.

Equating bluetooth devices to a garage door opener is also a massive stretch, maybe you could extrapolate that comment without being condescending?


----------



## ixium

@Tarlouth
That very well be true. How ever it isn't likely to happen, I'm too lazy to work in the civilian world.  Luckily for me there are lots of ACISS leaving and I'll get promoted.

@PuckChaser
Yeah, it is a bit of a stretch, but there are things done the old ways just because that is how they were always done, sometimes people don't even know why they are doing them, it is just the way it has always been done and it is in the SOPs that haven't been updated in a long while.

Anything that transmits is potential for a man in the middle kind of attack, keyfobs (and even smart cards) included.

And yes, I understand people not being on their phones is something that should happen(how'd you guess I had an iphone...spy!). But to try and give someone crap for an EMSEC violation just because there is a sticker up is just silly. Give them heck for being on their phone during work hours sure, but not made up rules/scare tactics.

EDIT: Just for the record, I doubt there is anyone I've worked for/with/above that would argue against me being lazy/relaxed, however none would ever say that I don't know my job extremely well and very capable in doing it.


----------



## PuckChaser

ixium said:
			
		

> @PuckChaser
> Yeah, it is a bit of a stretch, but there are things done the old ways just because that is how they were always done, sometimes people don't even know why they are doing them, it is just the way it has always been done and it is in the SOPs that haven't been updated in a long while.
> 
> Anything that transmits is potential for a man in the middle kind of attack, keyfobs (and even smart cards) included.
> 
> And yes, I understand people not being on their phones is something that should happen(how'd you guess I had an iphone...spy!). But to try and give someone crap for an EMSEC violation just because there is a sticker up is just silly. Give them heck for being on their phone during work hours sure, but not made up rules/scare tactics.



I've seen units have cell busters installed, creating a massive EMSEC zone for the whole building, only to turn them down to almost no sensitivity (and they don't detect a fairly prevalent frequency band so they're basically useless. 

I think we could do a lot more research and risk assessments to allow more wireless technologies. We're never going to create a perfectly safe system, but sometimes we're sacrificing efficiency and money for very little gain. 

I personally think TCI is the biggest scam going, so much wasted time and manpower to verify that someone placed a laptop exactly X metres away from something.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've seen units have cell busters installed, creating a massive EMSEC zone for the whole building, only to turn them down to almost no sensitivity (and they don't detect a fairly prevalent frequency band so they're basically useless.
> 
> I think we could do a lot more research and risk assessments to allow more wireless technologies. We're never going to create a perfectly safe system, but sometimes we're sacrificing efficiency and money for very little gain.
> 
> I personally think TCI is the biggest scam going, so much wasted time and manpower to verify that someone placed a laptop exactly X metres away from something.



I am in agreeance. I have seen in units that they have their own custom built PCs that are sold to the unit by an employees private business, those PCs have wireless cards installed, they light up like christmas trees with the LEDS, and WIFI networks all over the shops, (a Raw cut wifi, that is used for "testing") meanwhile you can hear the Clash of Clans login every twenty minutes and people watching netflix on tablets. The same unit is trying to get the ability to open up Crypto cards on radios, and when the TCI happens they just turn off the wifi, unplug the PCs. 
For TCIs to be effective, you have to be able to randomly inspect the area. 

Unless people are actually held accountable for not following TCI then what's the point, all your doing is continuous pee pee slapping one another with no repercussions.
The minute the person leaves that completed the inspection, that unsecure phone line will be put beside that CSNI machine, and that KVM will have CSNI and DWAN hooked back up to it. 
Dont say it doesn't happen because it does, I watched a Sig O, hook up SIPR, NIPR, CSNI and DWAN into the same KVM and think nothing was wrong with that.


----------



## Brasidas

The fiber thing's driven me nuts.

Run the sealed glass tube at 90 degrees to the power and ethernet. I've attempted to explain the difference in how fiber works, but its impossible to deviate from rote learning


----------



## upandatom

Brasidas said:
			
		

> The fiber thing's driven me nuts.
> 
> Run the sealed glass tube at 90 degrees to the power and ethernet. I've attempted to explain the difference in how fiber works, but its impossible to deviate from rote learning


Its the best when people find out you are terminating it, give you crap for not having a mask on, and leave right away because "we dont want cancer from the glass getting into our lungs


----------



## PiperDown

double post


----------



## c_canuk

Just read a newsletter that's being emailed... going to sit back and watch with popcorn.


----------



## upandatom

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Just read a newsletter that's being emailed... going to sit back and watch with popcorn.



Holy Pot Stirring.


----------



## PiperDown

Well,

it has finally come out.


The word is MES is cancelled ( by sorts ) 

CST are grandfathered Spec Pay.
IST who were LCIS will get spec pay, those who either came from the SIG OP side, or new ISTs will be given the chance to take POET to receive spec pay.
LST are going to be screwed over once again.
ACCIS core will be screwed
stove piping will remain until CWO
of course, this is all just a cruel April fools joke, and if you didnt take the time to read this entire email before smashing your computers, dont blame me  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> of course, this is all just a cruel April fools joke, and if you didnt take the time to read this entire email before smashing your computers, dont blame me  ;D



Too easy of a prank to pull, its almost expected!

If you really wanted to mess with people, should have put it into message format to make it look legitimate for a minute.  >


----------



## c_canuk

oh my...


----------



## upandatom

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> Well,
> 
> it has finally come out.
> 
> 
> The word is MES is cancelled ( by sorts )
> 
> CST are grandfathered Spec Pay.
> IST who were LCIS will get spec pay, those who either came from the SIG OP side, or new ISTs will be given the chance to take POET to receive spec pay.
> LST are going to be screwed over once again.
> ACCIS core will be screwed
> stove piping will remain until CWO
> of course, this is all just a cruel April fools joke, and if you didnt take the time to read this entire email before smashing your computers, dont blame me  ;D



How were LST ever screwed over, let again? did they sober up enough to realise they were in ACISS?


----------



## Brasidas

upandatom said:
			
		

> How were LST ever screwed over, let again? did they sober up enough to realise they were in ACISS?



By being required to become Sig Op det commanders as a part of their new training scheme?


----------



## JBP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> By being required to become Sig Op det commanders as a part of their new training scheme?



Hahahaha that's just fun torture... 

I think we've figured it out folks... That letter was interesting. They just can't say 'no' definitively eh? I don't think they're willing to say "NO" to spec pay. It keeps being dangled as a possibility! That's all it is and all it will be. Carrot ~ Stick. Abandon all hope (about spec pay) and just do your job as a professional to the best of your ability. Or change trades! Or get out... Do whatever will make you happy in the end. 

That said, who wants a posting to JSR? Holy crapper are we short on ISTs!!! We're so busy it's thoroughly ridiculous!


----------



## upandatom

Brasidas said:
			
		

> By being required to become Sig Op det commanders as a part of their new training scheme?




Touche

"We cant get people into our trade anymore so lets cock others"


----------



## PuckChaser

Is there finally word from D Sigs? If so, someone kind enough to post it here so I don't have to wait until Tuesday to wait for my CoC to pass it down in 2 weeks?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

ixium said:
			
		

> I have LOTS to say about our command structure. The amount of times I've heard "it's done this way because I said so" is inexcusable. And until things change higher up in our command, those new MCpls are going to be crap. Leadership starts from the top, not the bottom. When I was at 1 Sigs MCpls actually got in trouble, and yelled at in front of the troops, for helping with setups/tear downs.
> 
> Until the dinos leave, the ones that are actually scared of technology and have no understanding of it, things in this trade are just going to get worse. Especially with no combat mission.
> 
> Anyone remember having to re-run fiber so that it was 2 feet away from power cables because it was a security breach that could be used to get into our systems? I know I do, because I've done it a few too many times.
> 
> How bluetooth headsets are bad, but keyfobs and other devices that put off radio frequencies are fine?
> 
> Throwing around no cell phone signs in places they aren't needed.
> 
> Reversing into parking because it is safer, like we are about be bombed by USSR(Not Russia, because we're talking about dinos)
> 
> I can only imagine what kind of retarded things will come over the next few years.



Part of it is a mentality thing. We pay Cpls and MCpls between $50k and $60k, they receive what I would call excellent training, on par with that in the private sector (speaking as an IST). Yet MWOs and WOs and to a less extent, Sgts refuse to allow them to use professional judgement. Like what you were saying about fibre and power. The pub hasn't been rewritten in a long time, so there needs to be room for professional judgment. Corners are cut everywhere they shouldn't be while foolish rules dating back 30 years are still relentlessly enforced.

We are paranoid about EMSEC, yet everyone is so lax when it comes to network security, they buy junk from every far flung questionable corner of the world and put it on the network. What do we think is more likely, Boris standing outside the gate with a parabolic antenna trying to capture floating emanations, or the company in China that everyone knows bakes in spy software directly into the firmware and sells it to us as the lowest bidder.

I completely agree that when we have the soldiers we are getting now rise to senior NCO ranks, or new officers take command positions, that things will be better.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

ixium said:
			
		

> @Tarlouth
> That very well be true. How ever it isn't likely to happen, I'm too lazy to work in the civilian world.  Luckily for me there are lots of ACISS leaving and I'll get promoted.
> 
> @PuckChaser
> Yeah, it is a bit of a stretch, but there are things done the old ways just because that is how they were always done, sometimes people don't even know why they are doing them, it is just the way it has always been done and it is in the SOPs that haven't been updated in a long while.
> 
> Anything that transmits is potential for a man in the middle kind of attack, keyfobs (and even smart cards) included.
> 
> And yes, I understand people not being on their phones is something that should happen(how'd you guess I had an iphone...spy!). But to try and give someone crap for an EMSEC violation just because there is a sticker up is just silly. Give them heck for being on their phone during work hours sure, but not made up rules/scare tactics.
> 
> EDIT: Just for the record, I doubt there is anyone I've worked for/with/above that would argue against me being lazy/relaxed, however none would ever say that I don't know my job extremely well and very capable in doing it.




My favorite is creating a giant EMSEC zone and instituting a blanket ban for cellphones, then saying work blackberries and those Motorola duty flipphones are exempted.


----------



## upandatom

Seen the note about Spec Pay in the letter.

Sooo how can they say that they are trying to remove the restriction of Spec Pay for those members that were receiving it. They don't have the power to grant raises, or adjust pay. Thats why so many people are frustrated as is. Removing a restriction is adjusting the pay, changing pay, but now they know a way to not have it restricted? If so then why wasn't this looked at earlier, really could have prevented members jumping ship for greener pastures, many angry and disgruntled members. 

This letter will kill Army Signals. Good to see a Rumour killer letter none the least, but it still did not answer peoples biggest problems. Given a "We are working on it, but its not our fault"

Another 8 month delay for those involved. Sorry Guys


----------



## upandatom

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> My favorite is creating a giant EMSEC zone and instituting a blanket ban for cellphones, then saying work blackberries and those Motorola duty flipphones are exempted.



Yeah I would laugh at seeing that too. Or the best "I can snap a pic of the inside of this radio/crypto/tacnet box and email it too myself because its a work blackberry and ETHAR/ITAR does count because its a work phone."


----------



## Swingline1984

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I completely agree that when we have the soldiers we are getting now rise to senior NCO ranks, or new officers take command positions, that things will be better.



Every new generation thinks they hold the Rosetta Stone when it comes to how things should be done.  By the time those "people we are getting now" are in positions to do anything they will be the dinosaurs for the new crop.  Once you're high enough in rank you'll realize that your fighting an institution, that change is glacial, that we are beholden to people whom, and policies that, we cannot change (the proverbial brick wall), that many are trying to push the yard sticks forward but you will never hear their songs sung in our mead halls because the change they brought about is boring, and that when all is FUBAR it is better to present a united front than flail around in disarray.  Until we adopt AI as our overlord we will continue to be mired in the red tape of justification and governance foisted upon us by fallible human beings and that we need only look in the mirror to see their doppelgangers.

The "letter" was not meant for distribution, but as a catalyst for discussion between ACISS personnel and their individual chains of command.  Obviously our problems are compounded by those who cannot follow simple direction.  I myself hate this initiative with every fiber of my being, but I am attempting to lead change none the less.  It can only get better.


----------



## c_canuk

upandatom said:
			
		

> Seen the note about Spec Pay in the letter.
> 
> Sooo how can they say that they are trying to remove the restriction of Spec Pay for those members that were receiving it. They don't have the power to grant raises, or adjust pay. Thats why so many people are frustrated as is. Removing a restriction is adjusting the pay, changing pay, but now they know a way to not have it restricted? If so then why wasn't this looked at earlier, really could have prevented members jumping ship for greener pastures, many angry and disgruntled members.
> 
> This letter will kill Army Signals. Good to see a Rumour killer letter none the least, but it still did not answer peoples biggest problems. Given a "We are working on it, but its not our fault"
> 
> Another 8 month delay for those involved. Sorry Guys



This is just my speculation here, but I think the bit about removing restriction is the begining of a shift in direction; to abandon new spec pay efforts and just put it back the way it was. If that happens I wonder if ISTs without poet would be granted the opportunity to get it, in order to gain spec pay. I also would wonder if non-grandfathered LCTs would get it.

I feel that because none of this has made it to the CDS in the years they've been working on it, due to an inability to satisfy DPPD on describing what we do, the matter may warrant discussion external to our branch.

There is much content in the letter, I feel, that is very damaging to the moral and confidence of the trade. 

I suspect this is as close as we're going to get, to the bad news we've been waiting for to rip the bandaid off.

I'd be happy if we could just get the sub occs defined logically, the positions audited and the right sub occs posted into them.



> The "letter" was not meant for distribution, but as a catalyst for discussion between ACISS personnel and their individual chains of command.  Obviously our problems are compounded by those who cannot follow simple direction.  I myself hate this initiative with every fiber of my being, but I am attempting to lead change none the less.  It can only get better.



Can you explain this please? the letter was addressed to "Members of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals". 

I fail to see what the member's CoC can do about anything in this letter other than say, "we know, we've passed this up, we have no control over this, it's out of our AOR". 

What sort of discussions do you feel will be had in regards to the content of the letter, with member's CoCs that will result in positive change?


----------



## Swingline1984

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Can you explain this please? the letter was addressed to "Members of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals".
> 
> I fail to see what the member's CoC can do about anything in this letter other than say, "we know, we've passed this up, we have no control over this, it's out of our AOR".
> 
> What sort of discussions do you feel will be had in regards to the content of the letter, with member's CoCs that will result in positive change?



The letter came with explicit instructions from DSigs on how the information was to be released, including not forwarding it for dissemination.


----------



## upandatom

c_canuk said:
			
		

> This is just my speculation here, but I think the bit about removing restriction is the begining of a shift in direction; to abandon new spec pay efforts and just put it back the way it was. If that happens I wonder if ISTs without poet would be granted the opportunity to get it, in order to gain spec pay. I also would wonder if non-grandfathered LCTs would get it.
> 
> I feel that because none of this has made it to the CDS in the years they've been working on it, due to an inability to satisfy DPPD on describing what we do, the matter may warrant discussion external to our branch.
> 
> There is much content in the letter, I feel, that is very damaging to the moral and confidence of the trade.
> 
> I suspect this is as close as we're going to get, to the bad news we've been waiting for to rip the bandaid off.
> 
> I'd be happy if we could just get the sub occs defined logically, the positions audited and the right sub occs posted into them.
> 
> Can you explain this please? the letter was addressed to "Members of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals".
> 
> I fail to see what the member's CoC can do about anything in this letter other than say, "we know, we've passed this up, we have no control over this, it's out of our AOR".
> 
> What sort of discussions do you feel will be had in regards to the content of the letter, with member's CoCs that will result in positive change?



Adding to that- What can be discussed that hasn't already been discussed that can change the direction of this? Realistically. 4 years later, of all the town halls, of all the PD sessions, of everything that has been brought up in emails, smoke pit and discussions at the messes, they haven't said we screwed up, how can the sigs world work together and fix it. Not to mention, calling the signals world "narrow minded" and unable to see long with the adding an IST like occupation would of been short sighted. What bigger or longer term picture is there besides providing stable, reliable, secure tactical, and strategical communications to support the CAF and the GOC in its endeavors at home and abroad.  

"Spec Pay for CST was likely" but they pulled it back because the job descriptions for the others didn't fit the bill or didn't have enough information. There is no reason at all why CST could of been put forward and another application for other trades done later. All or none as has been brought up already.


----------



## Swingline1984

Without putting words in the mouth of "the man".  I'm sure he is sensitive to the morale issues and wanted the information presented in a forum in which members could voice their concerns and frustrations while enveloped in a warm hug of positive re-enforcement.  Going to your contact list and spamming an entire Regt, Sqn, etc is a impersonal way to present info of this gravity.  It is 'situation unchanged' for the most part and there is a lot of emotion out there and people should have their catharsis.  When presented with the same importance and in the same fashion as a CANFORGEN on Presiding Officer Training it tends to lose it's edge.


----------



## winterstorm35

Is spec pay off the table for lineman? Most are on vacation this week so not able to read any email.


----------



## Swingline1984

winterstorm35 said:
			
		

> Is spec pay off the table for lineman? Most are on vacation this week so not able to read any email.



The answer is that there is no answer.


----------



## upandatom

1984 said:
			
		

> Without putting words in the mouth of "the man".  I'm sure he is sensitive to the morale issues and wanted the information presented in a forum in which members could voice their concerns and frustrations while enveloped in a warm hug of positive re-enforcement.  Going to your contact list and spamming an entire Regt, Sqn, etc is a impersonal way to present info of this gravity.  It is 'situation unchanged' for the most part and there is a lot of emotion out there and people should have their catharsis.  When presented with the same importance and in the same fashion as a CANFORGEN on Presiding Officer Training it tends to lose it's edge.



Sensitive to Morale issues or not, if you bring this forward in a town hall, from a CO, or they read it in an email or get informed by Troop WO in an O group in the shop. People are going to be upset, and angry over this. The Dinos can say you signed the dotted line as much as they want. The changes should not of been implemented until every aspect was ironed out. 

Many people signed the dotted line with the "If you can pass this course, and reach this level you will receive this pay."

Where is the accountability for that? Nowhere. Anyone receiving spec pay should not have had their pay frozen. They reached the level the CAF required them to to earn that monthly extra money. 
Call it how it is, the job and day to day aspect has not changed for those that received spec pay.


----------



## c_canuk

1984 said:
			
		

> Without putting words in the mouth of "the man".  I'm sure he is sensitive to the morale issues and wanted the information presented *in a forum in which members could voice their concerns *  and frustrations while enveloped in a warm hug of positive re-enforcement.  Going to your contact list and spamming an entire Regt, Sqn, etc is a impersonal way to present info of this gravity.  It is 'situation unchanged' for the most part and there is a lot of emotion out there and people should have their catharsis.  When presented with the same importance and in the same fashion as a CANFORGEN on Presiding Officer Training it tends to lose it's edge.



I understand the sentiment that this bit of news needed to be handled better, but what effect would voicing our concerns have? 

Every town hall on MES I ever attended was a non-stop "here are issues you may have missed based on what you've told us" from members, and all we've gotten back is "we know what we're doing, we won't blue falcon you guys! Stop resisting change!" 

Here we are 8 years later with our job functions not even explained properly to DPPD. 

From my viewpoint it seems like the issues that were brought forward by the rank and file that were dismissed by those that were apparently in the know, are currently the problems that are ripping us to shreds. Our input seems to be not wanted, and our priorities don’t seem to be their priorities. I can’t quite figure out what their priorities are.

From what I've heard from outside the branch, the only discernable difference between pre and post MES, is that we’ve become less flexible and timely with support and our apparent skill levels have dropped. Now that’s opinion not data and I’ve seen a lot of switched on people enter the trade, however in some cases I can see evidence of what they are talking about.


----------



## upandatom

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I understand the sentiment that this bit of news needed to be handled better, but what effect would voicing our concerns have?
> 
> Every town hall on MES I ever attended was a non-stop "here are issues you may have missed based on what you've told us" from members, and all we've gotten back is "we know what we're doing, we won't blue falcon you guys! Stop resisting change!"
> 
> Here we are 8 years later with our job functions not even explained properly to DPPD.
> 
> From my viewpoint it seems like the issues that were brought forward by the rank and file that were dismissed by those that were apparently in the know, are currently the problems that are ripping us to shreds. Our input seems to be not wanted, and our priorities don’t seem to be their priorities. I can’t quite figure out what their priorities are.
> 
> From what I've heard from outside the branch, the only discernable difference between pre and post MES, is that we’ve become less flexible and timely with support and our apparent skill levels have dropped. Now that’s opinion not data and I’ve seen a lot of switched on people enter the trade, however in some cases I can see evidence of what they are talking about.



1. For those that voiced them it hasn't at all
2. MY town halls always started with "We dont know about spec and this isnt a bitch session about MES not working, In fact it is working and we are training people to a higher standard then before"
3. Cant even explain the Job to the people doing it let alone DPPD
4. GAF and the need to fill that bullet for "implementing change" And the priorities of Army Sigs seemed to have been lost, affecting the people in it. 
5. Heard and witness the same thing. Some units arent sure of what to do with the pers they receive, technicians take longer to get qualified and are less skilled then legacy. May have a larger knowledge base about comms in general, but its really become the Jack of all trades, master of none.


----------



## c_canuk

upandatom said:
			
		

> 3. Cant even explain the Job to the people doing it let alone DPPD



This is something that might be worth looking at.

Should they be describing the job to those doing it, or should those doing the job be describing it to them?


----------



## upandatom

c_canuk said:
			
		

> This is something that might be worth looking at.
> 
> Should they be describing the job to those doing it, or should those doing the job be describing it to them?



You would think, and they should by all means. In my time they didnt once ask, they told us what it was "supposed" to be, and after that it became the same as it was before the change.

Sig Op Det commanders-sorry ACISS Core Det Commanders and CISTM Troop WO still expected the same capability of those members. WITHOUT THE training.


----------



## Avail

upandatom said:
			
		

> Sig Op Det commanders-sorry ACISS Core Det Commanders and CISTM Troop WO still expected the same capability of those members. WITHOUT THE training.



A slight tangent here -

If the Troop WO/CISTM is a "Manager", what is the Troop O? Maybe it's just semantics, but I had always linked that title to the officer.


----------



## upandatom

Neso said:
			
		

> A slight tangent here -
> 
> If the Troop WO/CISTM is a "Manager", what is the Troop O? Maybe it's just semantics, but I had always linked that title to the officer.



From what I have seen- The Troop Commander (Troop O) is the one that gets babysat and the Troop WO tells the Troop Commander how things work.


----------



## PuckChaser

Saw the letter today, was forwarded in an email. Kinda gave me the warm and fuzzy about what my unit thinks about its ACISS members. Surprised me that I didn't get it 2 weeks from now, actually, so there's that.


----------



## Swingline1984

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Saw the letter today, was forwarded in an email. Kinda gave me the warm and fuzzy about what my unit thinks about its ACISS members. Surprised me that I didn't get it 2 weeks from now, actually, so there's that.



*sigh*...glad you got a "warm and fuzzy" because I just lost mine (along with my patience).  If we (the leadership) can't even show we're vested, even a little bit, how can we expect the troops to buy in, or care.   :facepalm:



			
				Neso said:
			
		

> If the Troop WO/CISTM is a "Manager", what is the Troop O? Maybe it's just semantics, but I had always linked that title to the officer.



...the situation that PC explains above is a good example of a "Manager", however it is a horrible example of a Leader.


----------



## PuckChaser

1984 said:
			
		

> *sigh*...glad you got a "warm and fuzzy" because I just lost mine (along with my patience).



I don't think my intent made it through, I was attempting internet sarcasm. Totally agree with your post, however.


----------



## Swingline1984

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think my intent made it through, I was attempting internet sarcasm. Totally agree with your post, however.



oh I got it...just ignored the sarcasm in a lazy attempt at making my point.


----------



## c_canuk

Discussed the letter that was emailed to me, with my subordinates today now that I was provided approval from my CoC to disseminate it.

As much as I tried to protray it in positive light and get them thinking in a "where do we go from here to make progress" frame of mind, they don't care anymore and see my trying to collect feedback as a joke. 

There were no questions asked.

“The day the soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.” 

― Colin Powell


----------



## ixium

That last quote sums up a lot about how most Cpl/Ptes feel about leadership now adays.

I doubt that letter will even make it around to where I am at now, the CoC already knows how most of us feel.


----------



## c_canuk

To be fair, Ptes and Cpls generally feel that way regardless. This because they don't have perspective of what is and is not normal inefficiencies due to being a small cog, in a wheel, among hundereds of wheels, in a massive machine.

But when the WOs and above are starting to feel like mushrooms...


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

1984 said:
			
		

> *sigh*...glad you got a "warm and fuzzy" because I just lost mine (along with my patience).  If we (the leadership) can't even show we're vested, even a little bit, how can we expect the troops to buy in, or care.   :facepalm:
> 
> ...the situation that PC explains above is a good example of a "Manager", however it is a horrible example of a Leader.



Troop WO isn't really a manager. The Troop WO, to be technically speaking, isn't really in charge of that many people. Section commanders are the supervisors for most of the personnel in the troop, and they report to a platoon commander. The troop or platoon WO is generally the person in charge of discipline, administration and the operations of the troop/platoon. Sort of a troop level CSM, the adjt or troop level Ops cell. 

We all should be familiar with how things works in real life, that the WO often more or less runs the troop, much like many CSMs, adjts and Ops cells run their units.


----------



## Swingline1984

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Troop WO isn't really a manager...



A Platoon Commander's job (among other things) is to interpret higher's intent and issue direction to his subordinate leaders based on that intent to ensure it is realized i.e. to Command.  Yes, that direction is issued directly to the Section Commanders (NCOs), however on top of maintaining discipline etc. a Platoon Warrant Officer's job is to implement and follow up i.e. ensure that the work occurs and that the conduct of the work meets the directed intent, which is by definition management.  The Command Team concept allows for the Warrant Officer to offer advice or solutions based on experience, however the Platoon Commander is not beholden to that advice and can succeed or fail on his own merits; the Warrant Officer presenting a united front all the while.  I have noticed a disturbing trend in the Signals world both for the Officer's to stray too far into the weeds and for Junior Leaders to believe they hold more than the minor authority delegated to them.  But I digress, none of this has anything to do with the 'MES(S)' we're currently discussing.


----------



## winterstorm35

That letter sucked big time.... Harper needs the money.


----------



## Avail

1984 said:
			
		

> A Platoon Commander's job (among other things)...



Thank you for the informative post, 1984. If I can pick your brain a little further...

What else would remain for the Troop/Platoon Commander that isn't handled by the Troop WO/CISTM? 

Also, could the WO not handle the task of interpreting higher's intent? That's probably another discussion altogether, I suppose.


----------



## C/S 0

The Pl Comd (Lt/Capt) depending on the level of formation above him would also be responsible for the FIN side of the house having Section 32 or 34 levels of responsibility for spending money, managing a budget.

However at times WO's may also have FIN responsibilities. 

Traditionally the Pl WO would be responsible for the administration and logistics of the Pl, manage the careers of his/her NCOs, advise the Pl Comd on technical aspects, ensure dress, deportment and discipline, and enable the Pl Comd (thru guidance and advice) to achieve his/her intent.

Before when the term 'Command Team' was used it referred to the partnership between a CO & RSM.  Not sure about the rest of the army but in signals the concept is now being pushed down to the Sqn level (OC & SSM) and the Pl/Tp level (Pl Comd / Pl WO).

The CFSCE course for CIS Tp WO now actually has a PO/discussion group as part of the formal course for the Command Team Concept.  

cheers


----------



## c_canuk

From what I've observed is that the WO works on the immediate, while the Sig O is looking after the future. 

As in the Sig O will be doing the leg work to find out what the upcomming requirements of his AOR will be and plans how to meet those challenges, and passing sitreps on his AORs current ability to fufill future requirements, while the WO carries out and guides the immediate fufillment of present requirements of the AOR.

ie the Sig O's focus is outside the AOR looking for what will come in, while the WO's focus is inside the AOR dealing with what's in there now.


----------



## Carbon-14

I'm not sure if I should post this here or in the Recruiting forum

I don't think it'll come as a shock to anyone that there are a lot of Reserve Sig Regts that are hurting for people but I'm sure there are some doing well.  I'm wondering if anyone has some success stories or suggestions for recruiting/attractions specifically for PRes ACISS.  Where are most units finding their recruits?


----------



## mariomike

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if anyone has some success stories or suggestions for recruiting/attractions specifically for PRes ACISS.  Where are most units finding their recruits?



Four pages of Recruiting Event ideas and suggestions here. Perhaps you could have an ACISS Recruiting Event?

Recruiting Event Ideas  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25372.0/nowap.html

Shopping malls and high schools would seem likely places to recruit ( with permission ).

"We are also attempting to post a person at CFRC -------."

I see the CAF Recruiting booth at the CNE every summer. Perhaps your area has something similar?

Also effective, but require a big budget:

Recruiting Posters, Slogans and Commercials [Merged]
http://army.ca/forums/threads/2276.0/nowap.html


----------



## Carbon-14

Mariomike,

Hugely appreciate the link to those threads.  High schools are a no-go for us right now.  A couple of the full time recruiters have told me you must be a qualified recruiter (or have a qualified recruiter present) on high school visits.  We've tried to get people on high profile events without success (ie In Edmonton we tried to send people to K-days but the event was being managed by Div and they only wanted LER's weapon display).  There is an opening on CFRC in Edmonton, but we're a small unit without anyone to send.

I've been contacting Computer Science / Engineering clubs at the local university with mixed results.  I'm not sure if a targeted approach is a good idea or not.


----------



## mariomike

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> I've been contacting Computer Science / Engineering clubs at the local university with mixed results.  I'm not sure if a targeted approach is a good idea or not.



You might also consider any colleges offering Emergency Telecommunications programs in your area. I am sure Army Communication and Information Systems Specialist would look very good on their resumes.


----------



## Robert0288

Technical colleges might be an idea as well.  Civy linemen, IT people, cellphone/telecoms guys.


----------



## faivious

If you are able to, certain Universities/College's have a strip of street/area where different clubs/groups/companies lay out a table for quick info sessions for bypassing students.
If you have the permission to partake in those, I think you might raise the eyebrow of a lot of uni/college students.

I'll be in the PRes ACISS 32 Sig Regt hopefully by the end of this year!


----------



## Carbon-14

Mariomike, Robert0288

Again, thanks for the recommendations.  I've started looking into your suggestions

Faivious,

Good luck!  ACISS has so many opportunities.  How did you found out about ACISS in the reserves?


----------



## faivious

I was researching some information on a trade I was interested in, and stumbled across ACISS job postings and read up on it from there.


----------



## ixium

faivious said:
			
		

> I was researching some information on a trade I was interested in, and stumbled across ACISS job postings and read up on it from there.



I think that is the issue as well. Those types of people that are already on that career path like to look up information and know that the internet is the better source than anything "officially" posted.

When they stumble onto forums that have 50 pages in a thread about how the trade as a whole doesn't know its job it doesn't give them confidence. 

I know if I personally saw that stuff I would turn the other way from this trade.


----------



## FreeFloat

Just catching up on this thread now, and I'm seeing references to a letter. Although I check my email daily, i haven't seen anything, despite the references to the letter being almost a month old now.

Background (gripe):  I'm  ACISS Core at the moment - I CTd over from Clerk but because I retained my rank of Cpl, no one has ever offered me any of the sub-occs and frankly, I'm not sure which I'd pick as there's aspects of each (including Core) which appeal to me, but I've never actually performed an OJT in any of them.


----------



## 211RadOp

FreeFloat said:
			
		

> Just catching up on this thread now, and I'm seeing references to a letter. Although I check my email daily, i haven't seen anything, despite the references to the letter being almost a month old now.



PM me your DWAN e-mail address and I will forward it to you.


----------



## PuckChaser

FreeFloat said:
			
		

> Unit:
> CFJSR Kingston



Please tell me that you're hiding somewhere and that the Regt did pass this on to its troops....


----------



## Old and Tired

Some one will have to send me this Infamous letter, I keep hearing about it, but being as I'm currently employed outside the Sigs world (thank god) I haven't seen it.


----------



## FreeFloat

To be fair, I'm away from home atm on exercise - but as I do have some access to DWAN I would've expected to see it before now. My fault for not staying current in the army.ca forums.

P.S. 211RadOp pm sent & reply ack.


----------



## PuckChaser

FreeFloat said:
			
		

> To be fair, I'm away from home atm on exercise - but as I do have some access to DWAN I would've expected to see it before now. My fault for not staying current in the army.ca forums.



I didn't mean it was your fault for not knowing, I was just really hoping JSR didn't forget someone with critical information like that. It wasn't supposed to be passed via email, only by briefing from senior leadership.


----------



## ixium

If it is supposed to be passed on anyways, can there be a quick write up about it?

I know where I am it wasn't passed down at all or even mentioned, unless the information is JSR specific.


----------



## PuckChaser

PM me your DWAN and I'll forward it on to you. That stands for anyone else outside the Sigs world that may have been forgotten.


----------



## Old and Tired

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> PM me your DWAN and I'll forward it on to you. That stands for anyone else outside the Sigs world that may have been forgotten.



Can you send it to me as well.  I'm not on DWAN, which is the problem in receiving and branch info. PM sent as well.


----------



## PuckChaser

No worries. I had your PM here, but for some reason its gone now.... I'm back on DWAN Friday, if you resend I'll get it to you then.


----------



## mike02

Hey guys, I just got an offer for ACISS tech, I haven't accepted yet because I keep reading bad bad things about the trade. I am not worried about the spec pay, I'm more worried about career progression and quality leadership. All I've been reading is horror stories of bad leadership, being setup for failure and the likes. I don't know how true it is but I'd love to hear some good stories about the trade, or reasons why you guys aren't going to release the first chance you get. Any help is appreciated.


----------



## ixium

Career progression is going to be based a lot on what subtrade you get into. ACISS core seems to have promoted A LOT of people this year, but from what I heard the CST/IST guys there weren't as many.
As well obviously how well you know and do you job, as well as how you play the political game. It won't matter for the first 7? 8? years anyways since Cpl is a for sure thing.

Bad leadership exists, and sometimes you get put in a position under them and it sucks for the time being, but eventually they or you move onto a different place. If you end up working for someone like that you just put your head down, do any legal orders they have (bitch only to people that you trust too...) and hope that someone else distracts them by fucking up some how. That is honestly the easiest way.

I'm about half and half with good leadership vs bad. Sometimes it is your direct supervisor, sometimes it is a couple people up the chain. I've worked with more supervisors that I'd follow anywhere than ones that I wouldn't follow into Walmart, so there is that. The good ones can be stifled by higher ups though.

As for why I don't leave...It is a great paying job in most of the country, great benefits for family, etc. I'd change trades if the trade wasn't red when I was seriously looking into it, but now that I have had some good positions it isn't as bad. Mostly won't OT because I don't want to do a year of training again to be honest.
You'll run into people in this trade and say "wow, I know why they stick around" because if they were at any other job civilian side (or even military) they would have been kicked out/fired a long time ago. We seem to keep a fair amount of those types.


----------



## mike02

I think what's got me freaked out is the question of why the trade is so desperate for people, I don't want to become that guy who OTs as soon as possible or VR's and re enlists to get the trade he really wanted. What's something youwish you would have known or done before coming into the ACISS trade?


----------



## ixium

ACISS has a huge variety of jobs. If you like one aspect of it, you may never actually do it.

In 7 years I have done brigade HQ, RRB det, server dets, regimental HQ, squadron signaler, crypto custodian, air-ground-air operator.
Then I know people that have done only one of those, or something completely different for the last 8 years. All the same trade(ACISS Core).

If a recruiter asks if you want to hump a radio on your back in a section with infantry doing patrols, they are right.
If a recruiter asks if you are a complete geek type that only wants to work on computers and servers, they are right.
If a recruiter asks if you're looking for a desk type job that doesn't involve much field time, they are right.

Don't join ACISS unless you are prepared to do any of the jobs, because you really don't have much of a choice. You can voice your opinion to your chain of command, but it ultimately isn't up to you.

If you want another trade, or just want to join fast, then I highly suggest you just wait it out. It is hard to OT out of our trade and I only imagine it to get worse.


----------



## mike02

ixium said:
			
		

> ACISS has a huge variety of jobs. If you like one aspect of it, you may never actually do it.
> 
> In 7 years I have done brigade HQ, RRB det, server dets, regimental HQ, squadron signaler, crypto custodian, air-ground-air operator.
> Then I know people that have done only one of those, or something completely different for the last 8 years. All the same trade(ACISS Core).
> 
> If a recruiter asks if you want to hump a radio on your back in a section with infantry doing patrols, they are right.
> If a recruiter asks if you are a complete geek type that only wants to work on computers and servers, they are right.
> If a recruiter asks if you're looking for a desk type job that doesn't involve much field time, they are right.
> 
> Don't join ACISS unless you are prepared to do any of the jobs, because you really don't have much of a choice. You can voice your opinion to your chain of command, but it ultimately isn't up to you.
> 
> If you want another trade, or just want to join fast, then I highly suggest you just wait it out. It is hard to OT out of our trade and I only imagine it to get worse.


Well, I have a lot to think about. I don't think I'm prepared to do every aspect of the trade. I'm gonna go back to the recruiters on Monday and see what my options are. You're right no point jumping at the first offer just so I can get in a month early and be stuck 4 years in something I'm not comfortable with.


----------



## RedMan

ixium said:
			
		

> ACISS has a huge variety of jobs. If you like one aspect of it, you may never actually do it.
> 
> In 7 years I have done brigade HQ, RRB det, server dets, regimental HQ, squadron signaler, crypto custodian, air-ground-air operator.
> Then I know people that have done only one of those, or something completely different for the last 8 years. All the same trade(ACISS Core).
> 
> If a recruiter asks if you want to hump a radio on your back in a section with infantry doing patrols, they are right.
> If a recruiter asks if you are a complete geek type that only wants to work on computers and servers, they are right.
> If a recruiter asks if you're looking for a desk type job that doesn't involve much field time, they are right.
> 
> Don't join ACISS unless you are prepared to do any of the jobs, because you really don't have much of a choice. You can voice your opinion to your chain of command, but it ultimately isn't up to you.
> 
> If you want another trade, or just want to join fast, then I highly suggest you just wait it out. It is hard to OT out of our trade and I only imagine it to get worse.



Sound advice. I joined as LCIS, though I literally asked the recruiters of the time about ACISS, and they told me it was BS.  After BMQ, I arrived at Kingston only to be told I was no longer LCIS, I was ACISS. Had I would have been given sound, accurate information on ACISS before joining, I would have chosen differently.

ACISS is very diverse... not just for the ACISS Core (which used to be Signal Operator) as mentioned above, but you have Techs and Lineman and IST thrown in the mix. Its a big trade that is still (years later) trying to define itself. I have worked with new ACISS DP1 guys that had no idea that there were techs or lineman in the trade, and that they would have to do OJT in all sub-occs and chose what they wanted to be in ACISS (Core, or sub-occ) afterward.

As was mentioned...you won't necessarily get to be what you want...and that is part of the problem. To this day, I can't tell those guys for sure what the process is... I thought I finally had it all figured out, but its getting mixed up again.

If you want to only work as a Tech or IST and you hate being on radios, it doesn't matter. If they need a radio operator, they will use a tech or lineman or IST to fill the job. However, the problem is they can't do it the other way around. They can't have an ACISS Core do a sub-occ job even if they want to because they aren't qualified.... and now they are finding they are getting low on techs which is another issue. It's getting to the point where they may start having ACISS Core guys having to become Techs weather they want to or not.

The bottom line is ACISS has become an over-complicated trade. A shame, really.

Yes, keep in mind that you will be going into a red trade, which means it will be difficult to get out of if it's not want you wanted. I got pulled into a trade (ACISS) I didn't sign up for, and I made it clear that I didn't want it. I had to wait 5 years, but I am now OT'd to another trade that I wanted from the beginning. I was lucky to be able to (with the trade being red) because of my background and training and how it related to my new trade choices.


----------



## PuckChaser

We were low on techs to start with, creating another trade or "subocc" only made that problem worse. 

The advice holds true for anyone, don't join a trade just to get in and want to OT right away. You'll just end up angry at the world being stuck doing something you don't like and the CAF doesn't owe anyone an OT.


----------



## mike02

Thanks for the advice guys. I turned down the offer and am awaiting word on my other choices. It's a shame really, I was totally gung ho for certain sub occs. But as said earlier I was not ready to do all 4 sub occs. I appreciate all the help and hope this whole mess gets sorted out soon.


----------



## c_canuk

Heard a rumour certain people are spreading information up their CoC that installing, programming and maintaining routers and switches is a hard CST job, and not in the AOR of IST.

This puzzles me since this material is covered in depth in the IST TPs. 

Is this person wrong? Is there overlap between the sub occs?

It seems to me, that if the hardware itself does not require physical repairs, it would be network infrastructure and therefore an IST responsiblity.


----------



## PuckChaser

Maybe they're talking about the LES? We have so much overlap in our trades, I don't know why there is always saying "you can't do that, it's only for x trade". At the end of the day, if you know how to get the message through, do it. That's our job.


----------



## RedMan

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Heard a rumour certain people are spreading information up their CoC that installing, programming and maintaining routers and switches is a hard CST job, and not in the AOR of IST.
> 
> This puzzles me since this material is covered in depth in the IST TPs.
> 
> Is this person wrong? Is there overlap between the sub occs?
> 
> It seems to me, that if the hardware itself does not require physical repairs, it would be network infrastructure and therefore an IST responsiblity.



This used to be the case with LCIS before ACISS. I haven't met an IST that actually does this, though that doesn't mean there aren't other IST out there who have.

ACISS CST is still trained in Data Comms just like LCIS used to be, and I know a few that do this kind of work.

The problem is, this is another one of those blurred lines...or grey areas that, 4 years later has yet to be clearly be defined and sorted out. The way it seems is that by default, this is an ACISS CST job (like it used to be for LCIS), but it can also be an ATIS job, and maybe an IST job depending on the unit.

E-Lan is all Ethernet based, and relies on Routers and Switches (LES) and laptops to run, yet you will probably never see an IST go anywhere near it.

The bottom line... we still don't clearly know who is "supposed" to do what in this area. Lots of overlap across the board. One of the "perks" of ACISS I suppose....


----------



## c_canuk

If CST is still being trained in datacomms, it's an overlap, because datacomms is in the IST DP 1.1.

This frustrates me because for the life of me I can't figure out why it's still an CST Job.

From what I understand CST was supposed to be the portion of LCIS that was hard LCIS that required POET etc and was hardware centric, while IST was supposed to be a splitting off of the IT Infrastructure Firmware/Software. 

Programming a switch or router, setting up a server etc seems to me to be the bread and butter of ISTs TP.

The only reason I can see that ISTs aren't doing this job more often because the IST sub occ is too new, so the LCIS incumbents that are now CSTs are still in those positions.  That, and incumbents are claiming this it is a CST only job.

It's my opinion that if it doesn't involve troubleshooting/repair/engineering hardware, it's not a CST job.

The sensible breakdown of AORs as I see it goes

LCT - Transmission Medium from point to point, terminating connections, DVOs, power?, 
ACISS - Setup and Operate End point equipment, basic operator troubleshooting, forwarding N/S Kit for repair/replace.
CST - Equipment Troubleshooting/Repair/Engineering, TCIs, EMSEC
IST - Network Backbone - switches, routers, servers, tunneling, data crypto?

If ISTs don't look after switches, routers, servers, what the hell are we for then? 

I do know several ISTs that are indeed programming switches and routers, I met them on my DP2.1 Delta trg last year.

If the powers that be want IST to survive, we'd better get an IST wiseman to stand up and define our AOR soonish.


----------



## Swingline1984

c_canuk said:
			
		

> If the powers that be want IST to survive, we'd better get an IST wiseman to stand up and define our AOR soonish.



You are getting one in the school this summer to champion your cause.

Most of these issues are due to the fact that the Job Based Specifications for each sub-occupation were not hammered out prior to the implementation date for the new all-encompassing occupation (an explanation, not an excuse).


----------



## JBP

c_canuk said:
			
		

> If CST is still being trained in datacomms, it's an overlap, because datacomms is in the IST DP 1.1.
> 
> This frustrates me because for the life of me I can't figure out why it's still an CST Job.
> 
> From what I understand CST was supposed to be the portion of LCIS that was hard LCIS that required POET etc and was hardware centric, while IST was supposed to be a splitting off of the IT Infrastructure Firmware/Software.
> 
> Programming a switch or router, setting up a server etc seems to me to be the bread and butter of ISTs TP.
> 
> The only reason I can see that ISTs aren't doing this job more often because the IST sub occ is too new, so the LCIS incumbents that are now CSTs are still in those positions.  That, and incumbents are claiming this it is a CST only job.
> 
> It's my opinion that if it doesn't involve troubleshooting/repair/engineering hardware, it's not a CST job.
> 
> The sensible breakdown of AORs as I see it goes
> 
> LCT - Transmission Medium from point to point, terminating connections, DVOs, power?,
> ACISS - Setup and Operate End point equipment, basic operator troubleshooting, forwarding N/S Kit for repair/replace.
> CST - Equipment Troubleshooting/Repair/Engineering, TCIs, EMSEC
> IST - Network Backbone - switches, routers, servers, tunneling, data crypto?
> 
> If ISTs don't look after switches, routers, servers, what the hell are we for then?
> 
> I do know several ISTs that are indeed programming switches and routers, I met them on my DP2.1 Delta trg last year.
> 
> If the powers that be want IST to survive, we'd better get an IST wiseman to stand up and define our AOR soonish.



So, from my experience at two completely different units (1 Sigs, CFJSR) and two very different operations (OP ATHENA, OP IMPACT) never mind the various international ex's and other things I've done, I've barely seen CST's do a whole lot of programming switches and routers. Or touching servers... Or doing anything in an IST way for that matter. In 2008, we had a 'Connectivity' tech who was a QL5 Qualified LCIS in 1 Sigs who did actually do a lot of programming. One. Guy. Then he was posted in end of 2008 I believe. Since then, there were no LCIS in C Tp, it was all "Sig Ops" manning all the routers, switches, servers, you name it. We deployed to OP ATHENA 2011... Again, mid-switch from Sig Op to ACISS-IST. Once again, all Sig Ops running the networks and servers. 

Fast forward 2013 I'm posted to CFJSR... Not a single LCIS tech giving a f$ck except one exceptional MCpl I deployed to Cyprus with who really knew his networking. One. Guy. Again... Fast forward a little more to the present OP IMPACT... We have a few (2-3) ACISS-CST whom work here... Doing very very traditional LCIS roles. Fixing, tagging and bagging NS kit, working a national rear-link sat and... Well... Doing that stuff! They do tinker a little with some networking. Who is running the deployed networks and servers? ACISS-IST. 

All the front line field units I've dealt with from 2008-now have all been guys whom were Sig Ops at the time or are now ACISS-IST running networks and serves. I think maybe the time period before me LCIS used to do more of our type of job. 

Also just finished the last (literally) serial of Data Comms before I came here. 1/2 the class of 12 was ATIS & ACISS-CST, other half was ACISS-IST. They course staff advised us this was the very very last serial and wasn't even supposed to run, as all the relevant portions of Data Comms have been pushed to ACISS-IST 1.1 and ATIS QL5. 

Point being: ACISS-CST aren't supposed to be doing networking anymore. Not unless specifically required by their individual position. I think over the past couple years someone wised up and realized they were sleeping too long in the back of the LCIS shop while everyone watched satellite TV and now they noticed they gave away too much of their jobs. Our own ACISS-CST in CFJSR joke that they have become the "GD Tp" because they don't have anything better to do usually. 

I don't know what people's experience has been in places like CFNOC, ANOC / other positions in Ottawa but I know quite a few ACISS-IST's that are manning national service desks, critical networks and nobody knows where CST's are or what they do anymore.

We also now (brand new) have a 4th wiseman. CFJSR has made a position for a WO ACISS-IST to be the fabled 4th wiseman! So, FOS, CCO and LCF + ... I don't know what the new acronym is... IST guy! From MY limited perspective it appears that ACISS-CST has been almost obsoleted, more so than a lot of people thought ACISS-Core even would be. They do a whole lot of setting up camp and tearing it down god-bless, but they're 1/2 obsolete but I think radios will always be around so they have a saving grace. 

Lastly, ACISS-ISTs also now get a 'tech stamp' to inspect information systems related equipment and tag it as they feel appropriate. Big changes folks! Massive... If I have time (Hahaha!) I'll try and dig up the job specification from DIN and paste it here. It literally breaks down what each sub-occ is supposed to do. 

I want to meet these LCIS guys who are doing IST jobs! We have some that switched from legacy LCIS- ACISS-IST!
 :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser

4th wiseman should be called the FIST.


----------



## RedMan

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> So, from my experience at two completely different units (1 Sigs, CFJSR) and two very different operations (OP ATHENA, OP IMPACT) never mind the various international ex's and other things I've done, I've barely seen CST's do a whole lot of programming switches and routers. Or touching servers... Or doing anything in an IST way for that matter. In 2008, we had a 'Connectivity' tech who was a QL5 Qualified LCIS in 1 Sigs who did actually do a lot of programming. One. Guy. Then he was posted in end of 2008 I believe. Since then, there were no LCIS in C Tp, it was all "Sig Ops" manning all the routers, switches, servers, you name it. We deployed to OP ATHENA 2011... Again, mid-switch from Sig Op to ACISS-IST. Once again, all Sig Ops running the networks and servers.
> 
> Fast forward 2013 I'm posted to CFJSR... Not a single LCIS tech giving a f$ck except one exceptional MCpl I deployed to Cyprus with who really knew his networking. One. Guy. Again... Fast forward a little more to the present OP IMPACT... We have a few (2-3) ACISS-CST whom work here... Doing very very traditional LCIS roles. Fixing, tagging and bagging NS kit, working a national rear-link sat and... Well... Doing that stuff! They do tinker a little with some networking. Who is running the deployed networks and servers? ACISS-IST.
> 
> All the front line field units I've dealt with from 2008-now have all been guys whom were Sig Ops at the time or are now ACISS-IST running networks and serves. I think maybe the time period before me LCIS used to do more of our type of job.
> 
> Also just finished the last (literally) serial of Data Comms before I came here. 1/2 the class of 12 was ATIS & ACISS-CST, other half was ACISS-IST. They course staff advised us this was the very very last serial and wasn't even supposed to run, as all the relevant portions of Data Comms have been pushed to ACISS-IST 1.1 and ATIS QL5.
> 
> Point being: ACISS-CST aren't supposed to be doing networking anymore. Not unless specifically required by their individual position. I think over the past couple years someone wised up and realized they were sleeping too long in the back of the LCIS shop while everyone watched satellite TV and now they noticed they gave away too much of their jobs. Our own ACISS-CST in CFJSR joke that they have become the "GD Tp" because they don't have anything better to do usually.
> 
> I don't know what people's experience has been in places like CFNOC, ANOC / other positions in Ottawa but I know quite a few ACISS-IST's that are manning national service desks, critical networks and nobody knows where CST's are or what they do anymore.
> 
> We also now (brand new) have a 4th wiseman. CFJSR has made a position for a WO ACISS-IST to be the fabled 4th wiseman! So, FOS, CCO and LCF + ... I don't know what the new acronym is... IST guy! From MY limited perspective it appears that ACISS-CST has been almost obsoleted, more so than a lot of people thought ACISS-Core even would be. They do a whole lot of setting up camp and tearing it down god-bless, but they're 1/2 obsolete but I think radios will always be around so they have a saving grace.
> 
> Lastly, ACISS-ISTs also now get a 'tech stamp' to inspect information systems related equipment and tag it as they feel appropriate. Big changes folks! Massive... If I have time (Hahaha!) I'll try and dig up the job specification from DIN and paste it here. It literally breaks down what each sub-occ is supposed to do.
> 
> I want to meet these LCIS guys who are doing IST jobs! We have some that switched from legacy LCIS- ACISS-IST!
> :2c:



There are places and positions where ACISS CST guys do full-time IS work. I know some in Ottawa, Halifax, CFSCE and even in Petawawa...

That said, a lot of what you said is true, though I think it heavily depends on the unit you are talking about. I was one of the CST guys who did give a f*** about IS work. I became an LCIS tech because I wanted to do IS work. I've done many years of radio repairs before the military and wanted something more as I am a computer / IS guy. I didn't join as LCIS just to only work on green kit. However, the units I have worked at do no IS work outside of a LES and E-lan. (Even our own IST did mostly setup of desktops and IS stores,etc. Not his fault. That's the only work he had available to him) That being said, the places I worked at, we were always VERY busy doing OUR job. 

I think you would see more people go IST if ACISS could make up its mind about what its going to be, and what each sub-occs job ACTUALLY is.  IST is starved for people right now, and so is CST. So even the CSTs who want to go IST probably won't have that option. People don't want to change sub-occs without some accurate information on what their roles will be (as well as a final answer on spec pay).... and given how the last 4 years have played out, I don't think a lot of people will. If IST guys are not happy at the idea of ACISS CST doing networking, imagine how those who joined as LCIS feel with the changes forced upon them with ACISS.... and you wonder why no one wants to go CST and why so many legacy LCIS are jumping ship.

I've since moved on to ATIS, and hope for the best. I'm sure, that depending on my unit I may still run into similar issues with IS type work (shared services getting the IS work while ATIS techs only working with deployable kit), but all the LCIS / ACISS CSTs that I personally know that have gone ATIS are very happy with their decision.

I truly do hope ACISS can work itself out. There are a lot of switched on skilled people in the trade...they just need the right place in the trade to shine.


----------



## Pronto215

Last rumour I hear was the fourth wisemen was going to be called the FISM (Forman Information Systems Manager) but I believe they are dropping the Forman part so its just the ISM. As for the IST trade, it is on the right track but as stated needs to be pulled completely from the grips of all the CST CoC and be independent. It would be interesting to see the trade go purple in the sense that it would give IST's some pretty good working options and maybe (and i know this is a hard one for the CAF) build continuity.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

From what I can see the sub occs are falling into general roles. The Tacrad world is quickly falling out of favor instead of computers computers computers. 

ACISS-Core seems to be filling mostly the 1st line help desk, CP work and setting up sat comm. ACISS-LST is doing what Linemen always did but what's coming out of the school isn't the same standard as linemen used to be. ACISS-CST seem to be falling into the role of tagging stuff, fixing basic problems and essentially making all the sat comm stuff work (ie configuring MUX, setting up rear link routing). ACISS-IST seem to cover everything on the inside of networks, from the switches, red routers, to the servers, the workstations.

Frankly I see the job of CSTs eventually being absorbed into ISTs.


----------



## PuckChaser

Isn't that just what we had? LCIS guys doing networks and fixing stuff?

Tacrad will never fall out of favour. At the end of the day we enable C2, and if that means humping a radio or running an austere CP, we need to be able to do that and do it well. I think in 5-10 years you're going to either see ISTs being pushed closer to the FEBA to support all the network/manpack capable radios coming, or we'll be back with Core guys getting network training so they can do their jobs.

Slow return to what we had before, if we don't crush the Branch with infighting and empire building first.


----------



## Pronto215

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Isn't that just what we had? LCIS guys doing networks and fixing stuff?
> 
> Tacrad will never fall out of favour. At the end of the day we enable C2, and if that means humping a radio or running an austere CP, we need to be able to do that and do it well. I think in 5-10 years you're going to either see ISTs being pushed closer to the FEBA to support all the network/manpack capable radios coming, or we'll be back with Core guys getting network training so they can do their jobs.
> 
> Slow return to what we had before, if we don't crush the Branch with infighting and empire building first.



The only way tacrad won't is if guys start learning more about computers as all the radios are moving to an IP based platform. Setting up masts and dishes is something you can train anyone to do as it is not overly complicated. But, i will agree 100% with the empire building statement. Too many people thing they are too smart and thus won't accept others ideas or will change them to make themselves look good.


----------



## LCIS227

:deadhorse:

Well looks like their strategy of drawn out warfare paid off. The last official update we got is several months past and it's been over a month since the last person posted a comment in this thread. Seems that we finally gave up.

Every PD session, email, memo, conversation with branch managers and in the end what do we have to show for it? 2 Bde CST manning for Cpl and MCpl is approx 50-60% and no relief in sight. Recruitment is down the drain, training is in shambles and retention is non-existant   :facepalm:


----------



## MJP

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> :deadhorse:
> 
> Well looks like their strategy of drawn out warfare paid off. The last official update we got is several months past and it's been over a month since the last person posted a comment in this thread. Seems that we finally gave up.
> 
> Every PD session, email, memo, conversation with branch managers and in the end what do we have to show for it? 2 Bde CST manning for Cpl and MCpl is approx 50-60% and no relief in sight. Recruitment is down the drain, training is in shambles and retention is non-existant   :facepalm:



It would be interesting to see how the other Bdes are stacking up.  I know out in 1 CMBG they lost a number of the guys that got stuck in the transition period but numbers seem stable overall.


----------



## c_canuk

It seems the only way this will be fixed is if attention outside the branch can be brought to bear on the MES shortcomings.

Other than that I predict a glacially slow return to the way things were before; except no spec pay for anyone and a diminished ROI for the CF's expenditure on Sigs.


----------



## JBP

Very true it seems... 

I can say for the IST side of things we're pooched. At CFJSR we're at 30% for actual, qualified ISTs. That's.... UBER bad. I seen the staggering numbers and it's shocking but I'm not posting exact manning numbers on an open internet forum. 

1 Sigs, well, just talked to a buddy out there who works in what used to be or is supposed to be the IST shop and he said they're roughly 55-60% for the whole unit. He said they are hurting extremely bad in the IST dept. They lost many to postings and attrition with no back fill. 

The 'numbers' for ACISS as a whole look great. Trained effective sub-occ's are just dying. Especially IST/CST it seems.

I've been told from a WO that apparently this has been brought up to the attention of National level pers. I don't know if said WO meant specifically the critical manning shortages of IST in CFJSR or the entire IST field.

Somebody won in all this, I'm just not sure who but it definitely wasn't Sigs!


----------



## c_canuk

I don't know about anyone winning, but we've been rendered ineffective due to staggering incompetence, hubris, arrogance and apathy.

Hopefully someone outside our branch realizes the damage that is done and sets up a task force to take the necessary drastic steps to reverse or fix it and puts a framework in place to make the timeline short and crucify anyone who resists the repair efforts.

I think a reason our woes are not yet seen as a huge problem for the CAF as a whole, is because despite being broken, we are still managing to meet our obligations. Until we start failing to meet our obligations to the CAF I don't think it will be looked at seriously... but if things continue the way they are going... I hope it's nothing critical that gets compromised.


----------



## PuckChaser

Its a Catch 22. We're too proud and professional as a general rule to let these tasks fail despite the burnout rate and poor morale, but the only way to bring some attention to improve the burnout and morale is to fail at tasks.

Our officer corps is short ~60 Captains, and they are having issues fixing that problem. We're going to be in a world of hurt when that FRP cliff reaches CRA, and we lose 20% of the trade in very short order.


----------



## JBP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its a Catch 22. We're too proud and professional as a general rule to let these tasks fail despite the burnout rate and poor morale, but the only way to bring some attention to improve the burnout and morale is to fail at tasks.
> 
> Our officer corps is short ~60 Captains, and they are having issues fixing that problem. We're going to be in a world of hurt when that FRP cliff reaches CRA, and we lose 20% of the trade in very short order.



When is that supposed to happen roughly? Another 5-10 years or less? Like 2-5? 

Maybe it wouldn't be so hard to fill the Officer ranks if they weren't so brutal with the UTPNCM program. I'm not talking about standards. I'm talking about numbers! If you only allow 3 UTPNCM intakes a year for the Sigs officer trade.... When there could potentially be 20+ applicants...? Is the whole point of that low number so they don't reap the best from the ranks in a way? Or just reap the ranks in general? Or is it more because they've already spent a bunch of time/money/effort into you at the level you're at and it's more costly to re-train altogether than get a 18/19yr old to sign up and go to RMC? Is it just the money aspect?

Anyway... I can tell you folks that a lot of people at CFJSR in the IST world are starting to burn out now and those of us coming OFF tour may be expected to go right back after a year of stipulated down time. Or less. I'm not signing any waivers I can say that for sure. 

Some people at the unit are single/no kids and don't mind it though and will do hand-over-fist deployments I'm sure. Soak up the cash and medals while you can!


----------



## PuckChaser

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> When is that supposed to happen roughly? Another 5-10 years or less? Like 2-5?



I think its getting around 2-5 years. FRP was 92-96, so anyone that joined before and stayed in after would be at 25 years in 2016. The issue is going to be that we're going to lose a lot of CWOs, MWOs and some WOs that have hit that magic number. It'll cause the upward push for promotions again (although Core is totally unsustainable at 100+ to MCpl every year IMO, leaving further gaps in the Pte-MCpl ranks.

We may be short PML by 60 Captains, but do we need those 60 Captains? Bde units are getting their Sig Os, and so are HQ+Sigs. Those 60 Captains are in projects somewhere in Ottawa, and I'm willing to bet we don't need half of them.

The issue with taking all these people in via UTPNCM is (as I see it) 1. You're correct, it raids the ranks. 2. You dilute the candidates, so its no longer the best leaders with Officer Like Qualities, you end up with the middle third Cpl/MCpl who just wants to run the show (with or without any leadership skills), 3. We lose a qualified Core/IST/CST/LST for 4 years, which is extremely damaging especially for those red numbered sub-occs.


----------



## LCIS227

I was listening to the C&E briefs this morning and Col Sullivan gave a quick update on the state of Spec Pay.

Essentially DCBA (Director Compensation Pay Admin) is almost done their revamp of the method in which they analyze the requirement for Spec Pay. This was the reason the file was put on hold last winter if you recall the letter Col Sullivan sent out last March.  He expects DCBA to be done reviewing their process by end-November and the ACISS file will be the first one to be reviewed. Keep in mind that this will be a new process and we’ll be the guinea pigs…

He hopes that DCBA will render their recommendation by early next year, followed by the CDS’s decision shortly after that.

Not sure if he’ll be sending out anything official.

TLDR; Don't expect anything for another 6 months  :


----------



## PiperDown

I see that the DSigs assurances that he was going to get old LCIS techs grandfathered (vice frozen)  until the trade review was done has quietly slipped under the radar ( I seem to recall in the spring, his word was that by the summer, qualified LCIS techs spec pay would be put back inline with their rank and IPC)

ah well. whats another 6 months. LOL  ( and another 6, and another 6 etc )


----------



## rmc_wannabe

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> I was listening to the C&E briefs this morning and Col Sullivan gave a quick update on the state of Spec Pay.
> 
> Essentially DCBA (Director Compensation Pay Admin) is almost done their revamp of the method in which they analyze the requirement for Spec Pay. This was the reason the file was put on hold last winter if you recall the letter Col Sullivan sent out last March.  He expects DCBA to be done reviewing their process by end-November and the ACISS file will be the first one to be reviewed. Keep in mind that this will be a new process and we’ll be the guinea pigs…
> 
> He hopes that DCBA will render their recommendation by early next year, followed by the CDS’s decision shortly after that.
> 
> Not sure if he’ll be sending out anything official.
> 
> TLDR; Don't expect anything for another 6 months  :




But we can do math and deserve Royal Blue berets ;D


----------



## c_canuk

Time keeps on slipping slipping slipping, into the fuuuuuuturrreeee!


----------



## Sig_Des

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Time keeps on slipping slipping slipping, into the fuuuuuuturrreeee!



Yeah. I'm not holding my breath on anything from the Branch/Corps anymore. Last Branch newsletter was Winter 2014, and other than the DSigs letter, I haven't heard or seen anything from the Corps leadership.


----------



## LCIS227

There was a Branch newsletter sent out by DSigs last week; seeing as many people did not receive it here it is:



> We write to you to provide an update on a number of topics in which we are sure you are interested. However, before we do, we wish to formally acknowledge the change of RCCS CWO appointment. As CWO MacIsaac steps down, it is fitting that we recognise his untiring efforts over the past two plus years. Not only has he supported Dir RCCS by providing advice on a number of topics, he has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure our Corps was well represented in a variety of forums, not the least of which was Canadian Army and other L1 Succession boards. On your behalf, we thank him for his service to all of us in his capacity as the RCCS CWO. As a Corps we welcome CWO Pat Richer as the new RCCS CWO.
> 
> Specialist Pay.  In our last update we informed you that Chief Military Personnel (CMP) had stopped work on any pay analysis in order to “re-tool” and modernize their process to conduct pay reviews. We therefore intended to seek removal of the current pay protection with a view to re-instating Spec Pay to those who had been receiving it prior to MES IP. The good news is that CMP is still on track to complete their work by the end of Nov 15 and will commence pay reviews shortly thereafter. Better news is that currently the ACCIS file is first on the “To Do” list. The MES team continues to work closely with the staff in the Director of Pay Policy and Development, to ensure we provide them the best possible information with which to conduct the review. Upon completion of the review, Chief Military Personnel will pass the recommendation to the Chief of Defence Staff for decision. The bad news is that there is no policy mechanism to have Pay Protection removed. As soon as we have the targeted completion date for the ACISS Pay Review we will share it with you.
> 
> Communication Information System Technology Manager (CISTM). In our last communique, we informed you that that we would be taking a hard look at the CISTM sub-occupation and taking a look at the available options. This analysis has been conducted. Based on the assessment, the current construct of having CISTM as a sub-occupation into which CST, IST and LST automatically transfer upon promotion to WO and into which ACISS-Core can transfer, is not working. Nor is it likely to work in the short to midterm within the current CMP Personnel Management policy framework. To that end we will be requesting that CMP remove CISTM as a sub-occupation of the ACISS trade with the intent that sub-occupations of LST, CST and IST continue to the rank of MWO. While we wait for this to take effect, we will again conduct merit boards for CISTMs by previous sub-occupation and continue to handle CISTM career management (posting, promotion etc) by the previous sub-occupations; essentially as if the sub-occupations of LST, CST and IST extended through to the rank of MWO.
> 
> Notwithstanding the intent to remove CISTM as a sub-occupation, the concept of having our senior non-commissioned members regardless of sub-occupation develop into technology managers is sound and remains extant. The WOs and MWOs of today and more so into the future, must “think system”. Further, they must be capable of leading the soldiers of the RCCS who will be the subject matter experts on the technologies inherent in the command support capabilities we bring to the battlefield. Therefore, we will assess the professional development requirements in due course. Further, we will ensure that our soldiers begin to “think system” at the earliest stages of their professional development.
> 
> Miscellaneous.  You may have already heard, but I am happy to officially announce that the RCCS has been approved to re-adopt Begone Dull Care as our Corps March. Although this March was formally the official march of the 1st Cdn Sig Regt and 1st Cdn Div HQ and Sig Regt this linkage broke upon the formation of the Joint Signal Regiment and it was removed from the official listing of Marches in the Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces - CFP 200. Now we have it back for the entirety of the RCCS.
> 
> At the request of a few of our members, we have also been authorized as a Corps to wear spurs as an option with Mess Dress. Details will be promulgated in future versions of the CF Dress Instructions.
> 
> Within the Canadian Army there is some discussion about re-adopting the Royal Blue beret for those Corps and Regiments that formally wore it; specifically the RCCS, RCEME, RCE and RCA. From a RCCS perspective, should the CA decide that this is the way forward, we are supportive and will use this initiative to also look at the adoption of our former collar dogs as well. There are some who believe that we should equally adopt the former cap badge of the RCCS. However, the RCCS remains a component of the Communication and Electronic Branch and it is our common cap badge that is the sole uniform identifier that unites the CA, the RCAF and the Communication Research Operators as members of the Branch.
> 
> *Sub-occupation Selection and Training*
> 
> The collaborative work continues between the MES team and CFSCE to provide the necessary learning environment for DP 1.1 and beyond. This will allow for the multi-faceted manner by which soldiers will be selected (including the possibility for self-selection) for sub-occupations.
> 
> More details on training and career/employment management will be promulgated in the coming months.
> 
> Lastly, let us take the opportunity to highlight an individual accomplishment by one of our soldiers. Cpl Marc-André Gosselin, ACISS-CST currently stationed at CFS Leitrim successfully defended his title finish from last year at the 2CMBG Ironman competition. He again finished first; 15 minutes ahead of his closest competition; an outstanding accomplishment.
> 
> In closing, let us remind ourselves that without change there is no progress. The technology inherent in the command support capability delivered by the members of the RCCS whether they are employed in the field force of the Army, in strategic communication units, or delivering projects in ADM(Mat) or ADM(IM) requires that they be agile, well-educated and well trained. To that end the RCCS must be a workforce comprised of system technologists and technology managers that can regularly adapt to the insertion of new technologies. This is the intent behind the ACISS Military Employment Structure. A structure we are working hard to institutionalize for the future of our Corps.



On a side note Pte/Cpl CORE is standing at 136% PML while CST is at 74% and IST is at 54%. Looks like they fixed the low Sig Op numbers from past  :'(


----------



## RocketRichard

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> There was a Branch newsletter sent out by DSigs last week; seeing as many people did not receive it here it is:
> 
> On a side note Pte/Cpl CORE is standing at 136% PML while CST is at 74% and IST is at 54%. Looks like they fixed the low Sig Op numbers from past  :'(



Thanks for posting this.


----------



## c_canuk

thanks!

some glimmerings of a light at the end of the tunnel... still glacially slow, and why is it the Communications Branch fails at communication consistently? I know it's a tired cliche, but damn it, what will it take until someone starts stomping on nuts to fix this problem?

Is it just because we're doing too much work spread over too few people to keep up with anything that isn't critical? I'd buy that I guess.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I think its just a matter of people have lost interest. 

Its now at the point where spec pay is a unicorn people talk about, but no one actually believes in good conscience exists.

Apathetic people don't take the boss to task on issues he has oversight of.


----------



## technophile

4 years and counting for a pay review. 

But good news ! We have a new march past, Spurs and maybe a blue beret. 
Bravo. Great work.


----------



## PuckChaser

technophile said:
			
		

> 4 years and counting for a pay review.
> 
> But good news ! We have a new march past, Spurs and maybe a blue beret.
> Bravo. Great work.



They're stuck by a process review by CMP. What do you want them to do, stamp their feet and demand they get the process finished quicker? The decision to seek LCIS to have their pay frozen is long overdue, but that may fall on the shoulders of the old DSigs. We're first on the list, because CMP knows we have people stuck between a rock and a hard place. You also might be surprised to know that people are capable of working on multiple tasks at the same time. Strange concept, I'm sure.


----------



## MJP

technophile said:
			
		

> But good news ! We have a new march past, Spurs and maybe a blue beret.
> Bravo. Great work.



So you guys are in lock step with the rest of the Army.


----------



## Sig_Des

In case anyone isn't aware, the Board Rankings and CM briefing .ppt is up on the Career page through EMAA.

Not really any change to the .ppt, except for the promotion forecast numbers.


----------



## technophile

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They're stuck by a process review by CMP. What do you want them to do, stamp their feet and demand they get the process finished quicker?. I'm sure you ( and everyone else) know(s)s the CMP process review didn't start until the spring 2015. So, what's your excuse for the branch pooching the dog from October 2011 to spring 2015 timeframe ?  Some foot stomping would have come in handy then. We're first on the list, because CMP knows we have people stuck between a rock and a hard place. You also might be surprised to know that people are capable of working on multiple tasks at the same time. Strange concept, I'm sure.    If you believe this latest " the answer is coming soon" story, I have a bridge to sell you. Real cheap too


----------



## PuckChaser

There was a different command group between those dates. I've served under Col. Sullivan, and I absolutely trust that if something he says is a priority, it will be. I also trust that he's passing on all the info he has, so if he's being lied to, that's not on the Branch leadership. 

What none of us have is how long it took to actually submit to TB, and that's on MES IP Team. I think most of those guys are retired now too, so it was a fire and forget.

Also, as a technophile you probably have a good idea on how PHPBB works, and know how to properly quote a post so its not a dog's breakfast, like what you just posted.


----------



## technophile

Well,  I guess we will all "watch and shoot" .  I'm not holding my breath, but I will give your man the benefit of the doubt.  Getting promoted twice with zero pay raise and 10x the headache takes it tole on the best of us. I listened to a video from the CFCWO who talked about the decade of darkness, and a key contributor to many institutional problems in the CF was the pay freeze .  Well, we have a few hundred living through just that right now. But no heat and light because the percentage is small. Even an answer saying no would be better than the party line BS we have been fed for over 4 years. 

As for my knowledge of PHP, I can code with the best of them.  Although, my issued BB is a challenge for even the most technically savvy folks.


----------



## PuckChaser

I've said in previous posts here the LCIS guys who went CST and got pay frozen have been done a disservice by the CAF, and I would even argue its grieveable. You guys have been jerked around and although not in your shoes, completely understand your frustration.

The whole non-answer on pay is just one of the many things befalling the trade right now. I see it as the icing on the cake of many institutional issues.


----------



## upandatom

Soooo....

Still not fixed?


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> Soooo....
> 
> Still not fixed?



I'm not sure about you, but the rest of the CAF has been on leave for 27 calendar days.... As per the briefing from D Sigs, CMP was to finish by End Nov 15 and commence reviews after that. Which means they finished maybe by silly week and won't start anything until likely next week, as this one is usually a write-off. But then again, you'd know that if you read the posts and applied logic, instead of attempting to troll...


----------



## c_canuk

for those hoping that ACISS will be sorted out during our careers...


----------



## LCIS227

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've said in previous posts here the LCIS guys who went CST and got pay frozen have been done a disservice by the CAF, and I would even argue its grieveable. You guys have been jerked around and although not in your shoes, completely understand your frustration.
> 
> The whole non-answer on pay is just one of the many things befalling the trade right now. I see it as the icing on the cake of many institutional issues.



The time limit for grievance has past by for all of us. I'm positive it would not be entertained since it was frozen years ago (Oct 2011 if I recall correctly).
As per QR&O 7.06 (para 1) you have 30 days to submit your grievance.



> 7.06 - TIME LIMIT TO SUBMIT GRIEVANCE
> 
> *(1) A grievance shall be submitted within three months after the day on which the grievor knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted.*
> 
> (2) A grievor who submits a grievance after the expiration of the time limit set out in paragraph (1) shall include in the grievance reasons for the delay.
> 
> (3) The initial authority or, in the case of a grievance to which Section 2 does not apply, the final authority may consider a grievance that is submitted after the expiration of the time limit if satisfied it is in the interests of justice to do so. If not satisfied, the grievor shall be provided reasons in writing.
> 
> (4) Despite paragraph (1), if the day on which the grievor knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted is before 1 June 2014, the grievance shall be submitted within six months after the day that the grievor knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted.
> 
> (G) [P.C. 2000-863 effective 15 June 2000; P.C. 2014-0575 effective 1 June 2014]
> 
> NOTE
> 
> If the delay is caused by a circumstance which is unforeseen, unexpected or beyond the grievor's control, the initial authority or, in the case of a grievance to which Section 2 does not apply, the final authority should normally be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to consider the grievance if it is submitted within a reasonable period of time after the circumstance occurs.
> 
> (C) [1 June 2014]



The issue we have now is the lack of interest from CORE to go IST/CST. At my unit they asked Sig Pl for anyone interested in going CST. *ZERO * CORE mbrs volunteered. Their reasonsing was; less oppertunity for career progression, back to CFSCE for more "abuse" with little to nothing in return except more responsibilities when they return (fill the roll of a soldier, operator and tech rather than just soldier and operator), and to top it all off no spec pay. 

The operators aren't stupid, they see how the CST and IST are running around ragged. We hardly never get off work early  :tantrum: If you do let your guys go home on an early Friday stand-down you feel guilty because you're just shooting yourself in the foot since you'll just fall even further behind. We have hundreds of work orders, a long queue of veh CS inspections and maintenance to conduct on a myriad of equipment while simultaneously trying to get ready for EX after EX with not nearly enough time in between to get the gear fixed. When we are on EX the lack of PM bites you in the *** further and you're running around everywhere fixing/band-aid'ing a bunch of broken comms suites. When you do get back from EX there's triwalls of headsets and work-orders waiting labour because people break stuff (which is normal) but you're "too busy" dealing with the rediculous amount of CFTPOs, duties, unit admin, training, parades, IBTS, etc. I know I'm ranting but it's all true.


----------



## Occam

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> The time limit for grievance has past by for all of us. I'm positive it would not be entertained since it was frozen years ago (Oct 2011 if I recall correctly).
> As per QR&O 7.06 (para 1) you have 30 days to submit your grievance.



I'm going to disagree with you; it's not that simple.



> 7.06 - TIME LIMIT TO SUBMIT GRIEVANCE
> 
> (1) A grievance shall be submitted within three months after the day on which the grievor knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted.
> 
> (2) A grievor who submits a grievance after the expiration of the time limit set out in paragraph (1) shall include in the grievance reasons for the delay.
> 
> (3) The initial authority or, in the case of a grievance to which Section 2 does not apply, the final authority may consider a grievance that is submitted after the expiration of the time limit if satisfied it is in the interests of justice to do so. If not satisfied, the grievor shall be provided reasons in writing.



For argument's sake, we'll say that the spec pay was frozen in Oct 2011, as you say.

The spec pay was frozen pending a review.  A reasonable person would expect that a review would be conducted in a reasonable period of time.  At what point does a reasonable person conclude that the review has been inexplicably and unreasonably delayed, and is deserving of an application for redress of grievance?  6 months?  A year?  Two years?

They put provisions in there to allow grievances to be submitted after the arbitrary 30 day limit for a reason.  The ACISS trade has as good a reason as I've ever seen to take advantage of those provisions.


----------



## technophile

There is a new letter coming out very soon. But from what the ASP course at CFSCE was briefed, there has been an unforeseen delay, and we shall wait some more.


----------



## PuckChaser

technophile said:
			
		

> There is a new letter coming out very soon. But from what the ASP course at CFSCE was briefed, there has been an unforeseen delay, and we shall wait some more.



At least this D Sigs is keeping everyone apprised. He can only fight so hard against DPPD/TB. I wonder when its time to get CCA involved and flex some 3-leaf muscle.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> At least this D Sigs is keeping everyone apprised. He can only fight so hard against DPPD/TB. I wonder when its time to get CCA involved and flex some 3-leaf muscle.



Hopefully the new CCA throws some weigh behind this. Previous ones certainly did not.


----------



## Ludoc

technophile said:
			
		

> There is a new letter coming out very soon. But from what the ASP course at CFSCE was briefed, there has been an unforeseen delay, and we shall wait some more.


So, wait out for an update with no additional info?


----------



## JSR OP

Unforeseen delay?  I received it on the 28th  through my CoC.

The email chain said to pass it on, so here it is.
Enjoy!


----------



## technophile

thanks for posting the letter.

My intent above was to say the "delay" wasn't with the release of the letter, it was the review of the pay.

This has been a long and very frustrating road, with every update giving hope a solution is within reach.

It reminds me of the long range forecast.  13 days of -20 but the 14th day +1.
That 14th day is always 2 weeks away !


----------



## PuckChaser

I guess comm rsch is happy, they'll keep spec until 16/17. [emoji2] 

With the demise of CISTM, it appears that 50% of MES was a failure. I'm not completely sold on the utility of IST, but it seems like we're slowly heading back to what we had before, just with a new trade.


----------



## meni0n

What is the Comm Rsch MES IP? First time I hear of this..


----------



## PuckChaser

Same process that created ACISS. I believe every trade may have to go through it in the future. Stands for military employment structure implementation plan.


----------



## meni0n

But since it's already been done and just has to be implemented, you would think the CoC would inform the members of what is happening. I think the only mention we heard about this is when the ssm in 2014 came out and said no more promotions for the next few years because we're cutting positions.


----------



## PuckChaser

You would think that, but my experience is that the signals world has a tough time communicating, comm rsch within that is even worse.


----------



## Jom

> Overall, do you think the new Sigs Amalgamation will end up good or bad in 5 years time from Jan 2011? (Implementation timeframe)
> Great
> 
> 14 (6.7%)Good
> 
> 39 (18.7%)Won't make much of a TRUE difference to the Sigs world, just different names!
> 
> 77 (36.8%)Bad
> 
> 37 (17.7%)Horribad!
> 
> 42 (20.1%)
> Total Members Voted: 205



so i just noticed that it has been 5 years now, does everyone stand by their vote? how do you think the trades are doing now after 5 years? and what's going on with the blue berets?


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You would think that, but my experience is that the signals world has a tough time communicating, comm rsch within that is even worse.



Some business management metrics view a lack of communication as a grave indicator of toxic leadership...


----------



## c_canuk

this comic made me think of ACISS for some reason


----------



## PuckChaser

Almost perfectly relates to the Branch today.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I guess comm rsch is happy, they'll keep spec until 16/17. [emoji2]
> 
> With the demise of CISTM, it appears that 50% of MES was a failure. I'm not completely sold on the utility of IST, but it seems like we're slowly heading back to what we had before, just with a new trade.



Not sold on the utility of IST? 

IST is the one good thing that came out of the whole trade smauzzle. Having one concentrated trade to do all the server and networking is a great thing, and frankly, is where the focus for signals is gravitating to. This whole "IT" thing seems to be more than a fad. Regardless of how "sold" you are on it.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm not sold on needing IST when those networking and IP addressing skills are going to be required by your standard Core "RadOp" in the next 5-10 years. Tactical radios are increasingly just expensive VOIP systems. You're not going to have an IST pushed down to the Coy level, and I'm willing to bet they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the skills from the old Data Comm course only in the IST fold. There's already a massive deficit in the Cpl level of the IST trade, how many people want to sign up to work in a non-spec subocc, with next to no possibility of promotion because it's so top heavy? Those that pick IST are doing it because they want computer work, not field work. You start putting them in rad dets, they start putting VOTs into ATIS.


----------



## buzgo

Interesting.

You are correct, knowledge of TCP/IP and some networking will be required by the ACISS core (the entire ACISS occupation really), much sooner than 5 - 10 years. They will also have to pick us some system management skills because they will likely be responsible for managing the LCSS mobile systems fielding next year. This training is about 5 years late in coming but it is coming and it is a good thing.

IST is a different beast altogether - the level of knowledge and proficiency is not easily transferred to the ACISS core and the level of complexity of the systems ISTs are responsible for is increasing exponentially. You are correct that you won't see an IST normally working at the Coy level but I wouldn't be surprised to see an MRT composed of CST and IST pers working to maintain systems in A fleet vehicles. You will definitely see ISTs working at the BG HQ and of course Bde HQ as well as the 50%+ of the jobs that actually lie outside of the 3 brigades.

Data comms - there is no 'old' data comms course. It is still alive and still kicking. There is no requirement for ACISS core to go on the course - if you want to do that then OT to ATIS or switch to CST. Current generation ISTs are getting the content split between the 1.1 and 2.1 course.

Ref IST being top heavy. I'm not sure where you're getting your info from. The IST positions were not created properly in the lead up to 2011 and there is a process underway to redistribute positions from CST and Core to IST.


----------



## PuckChaser

Top heavy in the sense that MCpl+ is almost 100% PML, while Cpl/Pte is ~50%. Not specifically about the structure, but that's a whole lot of people a new Cpl is going to have to wait in line behind to get promoted.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Top heavy in the sense that MCpl+ is almost 100% PML, while Cpl/Pte is ~50%. Not specifically about the structure, but that's a whole lot of people a new Cpl is going to have to wait in line behind to get promoted.



There's alot of promotions happening in IST this year. With CISTM being canned, IST has no solution other than promoting since it's the only trade that didn't have SNCOs before (CST having LCIS, LST having line and Core having Sig Op). The next few years there will continue to be alot of promotions and short time in rank until they can establish the senior ranks of the sub occ.

And there's alot more to the IST trade than basic level networking. All the national level systems and servers, Data storage/backup and archiving, C2 Gateways, core networking, and LCSS server/workstation management.  

Less than 25% of what the trade does is actually covered in the training, and what the training does cover seems to lag behind what the job requires, though the training has come leaps and bounds from where it started.

The trade itself has alot of fleshing out of responsibilities to do. From my perspective, Core has alot of ground to take that is being covered by mostly IST and CST now. Since the trade implementation the Core has been treated like they went from a Signals expert back to a radio operator. There's alot of the IS/IT world that the Core should be doing, from help desks to 1st line administration to the layer 2 networking.


----------



## PuckChaser

The Branch is the one that created that gap between IST/CST and Core. The prevailing "wisdom" is that everyone can be Core, but Core isn't smart enough to figure everyone else's jobs out, despite the fact that we survived for a full 10 year war with only SigOp and LCIS to cover our IS/IT backhaul links and networks.

I could see covering off helpdesk and "1st line" IS/IT support with Core, but that's going to require PYs from IST to make it happen. I'd like to see IST shoot off of Core later on in the experience chain, at the Snr Cpl/MCpl level. In the civilian world, you'd not going to get a couple months training and get dumped into managing servers and network administration. Use the Cpl/Pte level to build competencies, and then pick your network admins out of that group who have both the aptitude and the desire to work "the farm" that supports every we're going to be doing for NetOps.

Unfortunately, I don't see the training system adapting at anywhere close to fast enough to support IST, let alone ACISS in the future. We're going to have to redefine how we train, and that doesn't mean "dump it onto the units" packages that are starting to be pushed from CFSCE/Branch.


----------



## LCIS227

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I don't see the training system adapting at anywhere close to fast enough to support IST, let alone ACISS in the future. We're going to have to redefine how we train, and that doesn't mean "dump it onto the units" packages that are starting to be pushed from CFSCE/Branch.



I agree with this statement 100%. CFNOC is a good example of how you to weave commercial courses into the fold. Cyber security moves much to quickly for the military training system to keep up. I don't know how many job reviews, TP reviews and whatever else they do to get CST / IST where it needs to be (how many has there been already?!). What I do know is that we're reaching the point where the legacy LCIS techs are no longer in the Cpl/MCpl positions which served as a buffer with regards to the lack of knowledge the incoming CST & IST have. CFIOG (SIGINT) is another good example of how the military training system doesn't serve the purpose and external courses are required in order to employ techs efficiently due to the speed at which technology evolves.

So many of the techs I worked with over the years which I would consider "switched on" and "highly effective" were only so due to I.T. being a passion/hobby of theirs. These were the guys that built server farms in their houses, wired their house like a comms closet, used linux at home, actively worked on their whitehat hacking skills, etc. I don't think any other Army tech trades relies so heavily on these types of people.


----------



## c_canuk

Puckchaser, I get where you are coming from, but we survived it because those members who were covering those duties were being sent on expensive civy courses to bring them up to speed and immersed themselves in the subject on their own time. Also surviving is not always thriving either.

The Cpl/MCpl ranks tend to be the field installers after they apprentice on the setting up of the configs. I don't see ACCISS Core needing the same level of skill/knowledge as they will primarily be setting up end point nodes, not high traffic centers. Nor will they be supporting file and print servers, SCCM, etc. So I don't agree that IST should split off at the Sgt Level.

IST merely formalizes what was already in place, it's not meant to seperate by intellegence, it's supposed to provide a training package for the people who will end up in those orbits. I feel the everyone is core idea is mainly optics. You can't expect someone who hasn't been in the field for years to drop in and man a CP effectively, any more than you can expect someone who's done nothing but CP work to configure exchange server effectively.

Sure we can always throw our energies googling to get it done, but it's not efficient nor effective to constantly throw people into sink or swim situations.

It's not about intellegence, it's about specialization vs jack of all trades master of none.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Branch is the one that created that gap between IST/CST and Core. The prevailing "wisdom" is that everyone can be Core, but Core isn't smart enough to figure everyone else's jobs out, despite the fact that we survived for a full 10 year war with only SigOp and LCIS to cover our IS/IT backhaul links and networks.
> 
> I could see covering off helpdesk and "1st line" IS/IT support with Core, but that's going to require PYs from IST to make it happen. I'd like to see IST shoot off of Core later on in the experience chain, at the Snr Cpl/MCpl level. In the civilian world, you'd not going to get a couple months training and get dumped into managing servers and network administration. Use the Cpl/Pte level to build competencies, and then pick your network admins out of that group who have both the aptitude and the desire to work "the farm" that supports every we're going to be doing for NetOps.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't see the training system adapting at anywhere close to fast enough to support IST, let alone ACISS in the future. We're going to have to redefine how we train, and that doesn't mean "dump it onto the units" packages that are starting to be pushed from CFSCE/Branch.



Yes, I agree with basically everything you've said. The second the trade change hit everyone started pretending that Core pers were retarded and should be relegated to doing radio checks and setting up mod, which is BS. They're some of the same people that designed and built the networks overseas (that said, most of the nerdy Sig Ops became ISTs). I can see a much more expanded IS role for the Core in the future.

The IST being a shoot off for Cpls/MCpls is kind of how the system is intended to work (but doesn't in practice). All these guys should be posted to a brigade after their DP1.0 course and do Core roles, while getting exposure to the sub-occs. After that posting they should have the chance to be directed to a sub-occ when they reach the Cpl level (for logistical reasons it ought to be junior Cpl level rather than senior Cpl level).

As far as the training system for ISTs, I think they are improving the system, but they ought to stick to the basics which don't change as often (ie Networking for the most part is a slower moving field in IS, now taught on the DP1.1) while farming out the quicker moving aspects (Server and software, now taught on the DP2.1) to contract companies that can teach the current industry best practices and the currently used software.


----------



## PuckChaser

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> The IST being a shoot off for Cpls/MCpls is kind of how the system is intended to work (but doesn't in practice). All these guys should be posted to a brigade after their DP1.0 course and do Core roles, while getting exposure to the sub-occs. After that posting they should have the chance to be directed to a sub-occ when they reach the Cpl level (for logistical reasons it ought to be junior Cpl level rather than senior Cpl level).



I think the exposure issue is the problem. If we ramp up a similar effort to Afghanistan again (commitment levels and tempo, not necessarily shooting match), at what point does that young Pte get to make a choice? Pte Bloggins finishes DP1, hits 2 CMBG just as R2HR is ramping up. S/He's pushed into a RRB Det (s/he likes computers and wants IST), and spends 6-8 months doing IBTS and learning the ins/outs of the det. Deploys for 7 months, goes on leave, and its now 2 years after DP1 and s/he's promoted to Cpl without having ever seen the suboccs for more than a cursory look. At this point his CoC is looking to load him/her on DP2, because R2HR is ramping up again in 6 months and they want him/her as RRB 2iC because s/he was a switched on det member.

By luck (or unluck) of the draw, this guy who originally wanted to be an IST, stays in the Core stream because he's moving quick and doesn't want to rock the boat because of the Op Tempo. If we ever kick off on a big mission again, I feel this will happen more and more. That Pte could have spoken up, but maybe s/he loses the tour and sits with rear party learning IST skills, but all of his/her coursemates are deployed. 

We either lose the member because they're not doing what they wanted to do, or have someone doing something they don't want, and being a morale drag because they hate their job.


----------



## buzgo

c_canuk is correct. We haven't made divisions based on intelligence at all, we've just given the people that were already doing the 'IST' job a career path. Back in the day we in the IS jobs were constantly threatened with moves to the RRB or into some other non-IT job. It typically didn't happen, because they needed people to run the increasingly complex systems (FDNet, then ATS, then LCSS).

You also need to remember that our soldiers don't reach their occupational functional point (OFP) until they are DP2 Cpls, and in reality 2.1 qualified. So the DP1.1 ISS is taught networking and then should go and use that knowledge while gaining new skills and knowledge to prepare them to complete their apprentice level training at the 2.1 level. At this point they are qualified and can function more-or-less across the spectrum of the JBS identified IST roles.

The CST comments are interesting - LCIS227 I understand what you are saying about the legacy LCIS techs moving out of the MCpl positions. Here is the thing though - the technology that we are using has changed significantly and the jobs have also changed - we need to get away from comparing apples and oranges and focus on what the actual validated requirements are for CSTs, not just the gut feel that POET produced a better tech.

So - is the ACISS model really valid anymore? Do we really give the DP1 qualified soldier the exposure needed to select a sub-occupation? Could we use a beefed up DP1.0 course to do the same thing and then allow them to identify their preferences while still on course at the school?


----------



## PuckChaser

We tried to remove stovepipes by making stovepipes in stovepipes. If we canned ACISS, and went to SigOp, CST, IST and LST as complete, separate trades (like they are anyways, you need to VOT between), then we could beef up DP1/2 training for all Occs, even if the Branch wanted to ensure commonality in some of the training (modular DP1.0/2.0 for det routine perhaps).


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We tried to remove stovepipes by making stovepipes in stovepipes. If we canned ACISS, and went to SigOp, CST, IST and LST as complete, separate trades (like they are anyways, you need to VOT between), then we could beef up DP1/2 training for all Occs, even if the Branch wanted to ensure commonality in some of the training (modular DP1.0/2.0 for det routine perhaps).



This I like


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We tried to remove stovepipes by making stovepipes in stovepipes. If we canned ACISS, and went to SigOp, CST, IST and LST as complete, separate trades (like they are anyways, you need to VOT between), then we could beef up DP1/2 training for all Occs, even if the Branch wanted to ensure commonality in some of the training (modular DP1.0/2.0 for det routine perhaps).



No longer having to train a tech as a sig op and then a sig op det commander would certainly be a step forward.


----------



## buzgo

How about a common DP1 so everyone wearing a Signals capbadge is able to at least operate/troubleshoot tactical radios, understand the fundamentals of TCP/IP networking and be able to provide 1st level IT helpdesk support. From my experience, the Infantry Capt/MWO doesn't care what sub-occ you are, they just know that you're the Sig and you'd better be able to have some baseline ability to fix their immediate comms issue.

After DP1 the occupations would do their own thing, we need a name for core, I'll use CIS Op. So CIS Op, LST, IST, CST will follow their own career path and DP courses up to 3.1.

The next common course would be DP4.0 Signals Common, to train personnel to work as Troop WO, in any environment they are employed in (Army, Purple, whatever). There would be an Army flavour to it, the Sgts/WOs on this course will have to adapt what they've learned to their own circumstances.

This is followed with an occupation based 4.1 course. Finally a revised ASP that will be for those selected for employment as senior advisors / planners. The Wisemen positions should be competitive and there needs to be a selection mechanism for this.

There is likely room for a senior level program (hmm CISTM?) that involves some higher education - University level courses similar to the UK FoS and FoS (IS) perhaps.


----------



## c_canuk

Are you being sarcastic?

Because that was the intent of MES in the first place. In reality these "sub Occs" are completely different unrelated AORs who's only common thread is that they utilize signalers and technology to communicate. 

I think that attitude you are seeing is a product of the propaganda of ACISS stating that they do create a functional jack of all trades sig.

The reason it doesn't work is because it's the same idea as creating a common Log Course to cross train Adm Clerks, Fin Clerks, Supply Techs and Traffic Techs to a common functional standard cause Infantry Capt doesn't care what sub occ they are, they wear a Log Cap badge and better be able to solve his logistical problem.

There is too much to cover for a common course to create a functional jack of all trades member. So we get someone with a smattering of everything who is functionally useless until the unit trains them themselves. The point of having different trades is to provide a manageable chunk of AOR that can be taught in a manner to provide functional det members. 

MES was the idea that what we do wasn't so hard and we could all cross train to a basic level. Reality met that assumption and smashed it to pieces.

Now we need to accept the lesson learned, adapt, and move on.

You can't expect people to learn how to do basic line, basic comm suite operations, basic hardware maint and basic server/infrastructure config in the time it took to teach people just one of those things.

So we need to pick one of the following COAs:

1) Accept that we're getting people not much more functional than DP 1 grads as "trained" ACISS and fund unit trg to fill the gaps;
2) Separate the trades so that DP 1.1 will actually turn out someone who can start working at a decently functional level; or
3) Make DP1.1 a 4 times longer and accept that 75% of it will be wasted through skills fade once posted to a unit and they fill one of those roles.

In my opinion, MES was an attempt to break this fundamental rule - Good/Fast/Cheap - pick *two*.

This has worked out about as well as could be expected.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Are you being sarcastic?
> 
> Because that was the intent of MES in the first place. In reality these "sub Occs" are completely different unrelated AORs who's only common thread is that they utilize signalers and technology to communicate.
> 
> I think that attitude you are seeing is a product of the propaganda of ACISS stating that they do create a functional jack of all trades sig.
> 
> The reason it doesn't work is because it's the same idea as creating a common Log Course to cross train Adm Clerks, Fin Clerks, Supply Techs and Traffic Techs to a common functional standard cause Infantry Capt doesn't care what sub occ they are, they wear a Log Cap badge and better be able to solve his logistical problem.
> 
> There is too much to cover for a common course to create a functional jack of all trades member. So we get someone with a smattering of everything who is functionally useless until the unit trains them themselves. The point of having different trades is to provide a manageable chunk of AOR that can be taught in a manner to provide functional det members.
> 
> MES was the idea that what we do wasn't so hard and we could all cross train to a basic level. Reality met that assumption and smashed it to pieces.
> 
> Now we need to accept the lesson learned, adapt, and move on.
> 
> You can't expect people to learn how to do basic line, basic comm suite operations, basic hardware maint and basic server/infrastructure config in the time it took to teach people just one of those things.
> 
> So we need to pick one of the following COAs:
> 
> 1) Accept that we're getting people not much more functional than DP 1 grads as "trained" ACISS and fund unit trg to fill the gaps;
> 2) Separate the trades so that DP 1.1 will actually turn out someone who can start working at a decently functional level; or
> 3) Make DP1.1 a 4 times longer and accept that 75% of it will be wasted through skills fade once posted to a unit and they fill one of those roles.
> 
> In my opinion, MES was an attempt to break this fundamental rule - Good/Fast/Cheap - pick *two*.
> 
> This has worked out about as well as could be expected.



I also think splitting the sub-occs back into trades will salvage the good that came of ACISS while solving some of the bad.


----------



## buzgo

Definitely not being sarcastic. We need to redefine what we expect a Signaller to be able to do as a DP1, and they should all be able to do the same things to a basic level. Operate a radio. Troubleshoot a computer or printer in a TOC. Erect a mast. Load crypto.

After that - it becomes too complex to have any common training. We try to tell ourselves that a det commander/section commander common course makes sense. It doesn't - the common part is delivered on the GS courses, we can put a sub-occupation flavour into the .1 courses.

MES tried to sell a system where you would be able to move back and forth throughout your career, and where everyone (except what we call CORE) would be trained as an ACISS first and a specialst second. Initially there were no x.1 courses for Core, and they have since been added which means that Core is also a sub-occupation, right?


----------



## c_canuk

(I've apparently got my DP numbers out of wack, is BMQ/SQ DP0? I was under the impression the X.1s were trade and the X.0s were common army.)

Based on what you're written, you've defined what a basic ACISS pre specialization should be able to do, sure.

But once you put that person into an entry level CST, LST, or IST position, they are useless. Once you've trained an IST, CST, LST to do the first level of specialization, they've been away from basic ACISS work so long that if you put them back, they would also be useless. So basically, it just slows the process of training functional techs, which is the opposite of what MES is supposed to do.

Functionally we're working as 4 separate trades. 

The only difference is that have trades listed as sub occs and have a common intro course. The first is semantics, the second is a waste of resources for those not destined to be ACISS.

Sure pie in the sky we'd be swapping around sub occs at a whim and would need a common core, but in reality, that's not possible. LST, CST and IST do not draw from core principals of ACISS so focusing on ACCIS as the back bone doesn’t make any sense. That time should be used to provide functional skills.


Edit: Spelling


----------



## Brasidas

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Definitely not being sarcastic. We need to redefine what we expect a Signaller to be able to do as a DP1, and they should all be able to do the same things to a basic level. Operate a radio. Troubleshoot a computer or printer in a TOC. Erect a mast. Load crypto.
> 
> After that - it becomes too complex to have any common training. We try to tell ourselves that a det commander/section commander common course makes sense. It doesn't - the common part is delivered on the GS courses, we can put a sub-occupation flavour into the .1 courses.
> 
> MES tried to sell a system where you would be able to move back and forth throughout your career, and where everyone (except what we call CORE) would be trained as an ACISS first and a specialst second. Initially there were no x.1 courses for Core, and they have since been added which means that Core is also a sub-occupation, right?



Explain to me why you would train a tech to be crappy sig op, or a tech sgt to be a crappy sig tp wo? The Infantry MWO or Capt might see the cap badge and make assumptions, but they also don't know a clerk from a driver by cap badge. So what?

When a tech got flown in to set up a piece of kit on a 2 day tasking and someone didn't book his flight home, I ended up with him as a relief operator for a month on ex. Good guy, and he took it well, but he was effectively a well-paid QL2 private for the month. A motivated, hardworking waste of an asset.

I see no more justification here than training clerks as truckers. Set discrete, rational AoRs and be done with it.

MES tried to sell a system that wasn't going to work, period. We still train techs as QL5 Sig Ops, which is ridiculous.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Definitely not being sarcastic. We need to redefine what we expect a Signaller to be able to do as a DP1, and they should all be able to do the same things to a basic level. Operate a radio. Troubleshoot a computer or printer in a TOC. Erect a mast. Load crypto.
> 
> After that - it becomes too complex to have any common training. We try to tell ourselves that a det commander/section commander common course makes sense. It doesn't - the common part is delivered on the GS courses, we can put a sub-occupation flavour into the .1 courses.
> 
> MES tried to sell a system where you would be able to move back and forth throughout your career, and where everyone (except what we call CORE) would be trained as an ACISS first and a specialst second. Initially there were no x.1 courses for Core, and they have since been added which means that Core is also a sub-occupation, right?



They are functionally seperate trades. Yes all of them should know how to use a radio or load crypto, but that's no different from the infantry communicator's course.

The roles and responsibilties need to be better divided (ie, Switches/Routers need to be assigned (IMO, to the ISTs), Help Desk responsibilties need to be assigned (IMO, to the core) CSTs should, IMO, get back to the fundimentals of being a technician, and should do POET once again, it seems they just decieded the army didn't need that skillset anymore. 

Once the arcs of fire are given, make them different trades.


----------



## JBP

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> They are functionally seperate trades. Yes all of them should know how to use a radio or load crypto, but that's no different from the infantry communicator's course.
> 
> The roles and responsibilties need to be better divided (ie, Switches/Routers need to be assigned (IMO, to the ISTs), Help Desk responsibilties need to be assigned (IMO, to the core) CSTs should, IMO, get back to the fundimentals of being a technician, and should do POET once again, it seems they just decieded the army didn't need that skillset anymore.
> 
> Once the arcs of fire are given, make them different trades.



I agree 100%

*Stands on soap box*

The trades should all be separated for some of the aforementioned reasons. Especially due to taking switched-on people and making them do a job they don't even want to do. EG> Guy who wants to be IST and is manning an RRB. As a guy who started off a 1 HQ & Sigs when we were all still separate trades... I can relate as I've lived and suffered and grown through the MES transition. I officially became an "IST" 1 Oct 2011 in KAF. While manning the LCSS installation there and preparing to rip it out at the end of the tour. I was already doing that job since Feb 2008 when I showed up at 1 Sigs. 

I had almost every IT course from CFSCE offered plus civilian training, and I was a switched on nerd as people have mentioned. Had someone told me I would ever go back to manning a radio, I would have put in my release instantly. 

You all know we have a retention problem in general right? Never mind that IST is suffering the most. It's no surprise to all the IST's whom are left why we don't have enough!!! They're stuck! Even all the guys IN my Troop are stuck at the 1.1 level or some other version of training and still labelled as 'Core'. We need to adapt more to the other modern armies around the world and make IT a separate trade altogether. Civilian guy who walks in off the street to college goes in to be a network/server/IT guy... 2 years later, walks out and gets a basic helpdesk job probably or junior system administrator job... He doesn't start applying for jobs like radio dispatcher, 911 operator, call center guy or a plethora of other related comms jobs. If he'd wanted to DO those jobs he would have applied for them, trained for them and gunned for it!

I know several people whom have wanted to transfer from other trades to IST, CST etc... And wouldn't because they know they'll be thrown into the sausage factory of ACISS and know they may not even get the job they want. 

It's broken - end it. Adapt and overcome. 

CFSCE training BTW seems to be adapting VERY quickly in the past couple years, especially with the restrained budget. I so far have been impressed with IST 2.1 level guys once they've gotten trained. The crappy part is how often they DO NOT run the courses... 

All the old war dogs who claim that "Sig Ops" ran the networks before there were ISTs... Open your EYES! Yes, we were Sig Ops... I was one! Do you know the last time I touched a radio? On my QL3... Then QL5 when they booted me OFF the radio as C/S 0 for the ex demanding to know what the hell I did at the Brigade all day! SERVERS AND NETWORKS. Not radios. None of the people who 'ran' the networks back then touched radios either. Sure, ok, maybe a few switched on guys from 2002-2005 were the awesomesauce Sig Op who could do it all if you needed him too. The army has gotten lucky with switched on guys for years... "Strategic" corporals who have kicked ass and ran entire field-deployable networks. 

I'd take it a step further and quell all the BS about Core doing the Helpdesk jobs as well. I think it's just Core's way of attempting job protection. WHY would a guy who is going to man a radio need to work in a helpdesk? Ever? Every core guy I know who has worked in a helpdesk hates it. Or, at the very least thinks it's a joke. I had to SHOVE Pte's/Cpls out the door on Op Impact to get them to do physical troubleshooting on a live network! BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IST. They just wanted the 'cushy' spot on tour. 

Helpdesk should also be IST. It would be where we'd have the 1.1 and would-be IST doing the hands on, dirty work. Figuring out how to help a user backup their mailbox or make a PST, figuring out why the computer suddenly lost a network connection (Cable was connected - but too dusty!), why a COTS *Classified* computer tower was BSOD (Blue screen of death) continuously (Loose RAM DIMM).... Or, why this Officer can't reach the Sharepoint page (Group policies haven't been applied and a corrupt profile!).... There is so much experience that can be gained at that level. It shouldn't be wasted on anyone who isn't going to BE AN IST!

Everyone used to say, "Oh, you're so smart you figured this out... No wonder you're an IST!"... No... I'm not... I'm an idiot. I'm really good at troubleshooting, emulating success (google) and thinking my way around problems. I'll say I guess I'm slightly higher intelligence than normal. Just way better at troubleshooting than most.

The army will ALWAYS need Core people and core type positions. Some Core pers are worth their weight in gold - especially to a Coy on the move! IST doesn't need core. Two different jobs in two different realms. Do you know who sets up the tents for our use on ex where I work? Our own Troop does. Do you know who fixes the broken drash after an ex? Our Troop. That's at CFJSR. In 1 Sigs before I left there a few years ago, who setup and then manned the mobile server LS? Our Troop (At the time C Tp).... I'm sure they still do. We don't need Core to hold our hand and show us how to setup tents, and we would suck HORRIBLY talking on a radio... So let us be separated and delve into our chosen and/or preordained career paths! 

You'll get better people in every trade...

Take that from someone who has been on multiple EX + OP deployments both before (Op Athena) and recently (Op Impact and many others!).

PS> Haters gonna hate - throw cake.
PPS> This is my personal opinion, based on my own experiences since I've been Reg Force. Other salty as f*ck IST may vary!


----------



## rmc_wannabe

*slow clap*  that was beautiful Joe.  :'(  ;D


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> I agree 100%
> 
> *Stands on soap box*
> 
> The trades should all be separated for some of the aforementioned reasons. Especially due to taking switched-on people and making them do a job they don't even want to do. EG> Guy who wants to be IST and is manning an RRB. As a guy who started off a 1 HQ & Sigs when we were all still separate trades... I can relate as I've lived and suffered and grown through the MES transition. I officially became an "IST" 1 Oct 2011 in KAF. While manning the LCSS installation there and preparing to rip it out at the end of the tour. I was already doing that job since Feb 2008 when I showed up at 1 Sigs.
> 
> I had almost every IT course from CFSCE offered plus civilian training, and I was a switched on nerd as people have mentioned. Had someone told me I would ever go back to manning a radio, I would have put in my release instantly.
> 
> You all know we have a retention problem in general right? Never mind that IST is suffering the most. It's no surprise to all the IST's whom are left why we don't have enough!!! They're stuck! Even all the guys IN my Troop are stuck at the 1.1 level or some other version of training and still labelled as 'Core'. We need to adapt more to the other modern armies around the world and make IT a separate trade altogether. Civilian guy who walks in off the street to college goes in to be a network/server/IT guy... 2 years later, walks out and gets a basic helpdesk job probably or junior system administrator job... He doesn't start applying for jobs like radio dispatcher, 911 operator, call center guy or a plethora of other related comms jobs. If he'd wanted to DO those jobs he would have applied for them, trained for them and gunned for it!
> 
> I know several people whom have wanted to transfer from other trades to IST, CST etc... And wouldn't because they know they'll be thrown into the sausage factory of ACISS and know they may not even get the job they want.
> 
> It's broken - end it. Adapt and overcome.
> 
> CFSCE training BTW seems to be adapting VERY quickly in the past couple years, especially with the restrained budget. I so far have been impressed with IST 2.1 level guys once they've gotten trained. The crappy part is how often they DO NOT run the courses...
> 
> All the old war dogs who claim that "Sig Ops" ran the networks before there were ISTs... Open your EYES! Yes, we were Sig Ops... I was one! Do you know the last time I touched a radio? On my QL3... Then QL5 when they booted me OFF the radio as C/S 0 for the ex demanding to know what the hell I did at the Brigade all day! SERVERS AND NETWORKS. Not radios. None of the people who 'ran' the networks back then touched radios either. Sure, ok, maybe a few switched on guys from 2002-2005 were the awesomesauce Sig Op who could do it all if you needed him too. The army has gotten lucky with switched on guys for years... "Strategic" corporals who have kicked *** and ran entire field-deployable networks.
> 
> I'd take it a step further and quell all the BS about Core doing the Helpdesk jobs as well. I think it's just Core's way of attempting job protection. WHY would a guy who is going to man a radio need to work in a helpdesk? Ever? Every core guy I know who has worked in a helpdesk hates it. Or, at the very least thinks it's a joke. I had to SHOVE Pte's/Cpls out the door on Op Impact to get them to do physical troubleshooting on a live network! BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IST. They just wanted the 'cushy' spot on tour.
> 
> Helpdesk should also be IST. It would be where we'd have the 1.1 and would-be IST doing the hands on, dirty work. Figuring out how to help a user backup their mailbox or make a PST, figuring out why the computer suddenly lost a network connection (Cable was connected - but too dusty!), why a COTS *Classified* computer tower was BSOD (Blue screen of death) continuously (Loose RAM DIMM).... Or, why this Officer can't reach the Sharepoint page (Group policies haven't been applied and a corrupt profile!).... There is so much experience that can be gained at that level. It shouldn't be wasted on anyone who isn't going to BE AN IST!
> 
> Everyone used to say, "Oh, you're so smart you figured this out... No wonder you're an IST!"... No... I'm not... I'm an idiot. I'm really good at troubleshooting, emulating success (google) and thinking my way around problems. I'll say I guess I'm slightly higher intelligence than normal. Just way better at troubleshooting than most.
> 
> The army will ALWAYS need Core people and core type positions. Some Core pers are worth their weight in gold - especially to a Coy on the move! IST doesn't need core. Two different jobs in two different realms. Do you know who sets up the tents for our use on ex where I work? Our own Troop does. Do you know who fixes the broken drash after an ex? Our Troop. That's at CFJSR. In 1 Sigs before I left there a few years ago, who setup and then manned the mobile server LS? Our Troop (At the time C Tp).... I'm sure they still do. We don't need Core to hold our hand and show us how to setup tents, and we would suck HORRIBLY talking on a radio... So let us be separated and delve into our chosen and/or preordained career paths!
> 
> You'll get better people in every trade...
> 
> Take that from someone who has been on multiple EX + OP deployments both before (Op Athena) and recently (Op Impact and many others!).
> 
> PS> Haters gonna hate - throw cake.
> PPS> This is my personal opinion, based on my own experiences since I've been Reg Force. Other salty as **** IST may vary!



I agree 90% of what you said. I still think that Core should be handling the help desk. My issue is the lack of ISTs. I could use 2 more ISTs for every 1 we get. Can IST do help desk roles? Yes. Can a Core do 95% or more of the work in a help desk? Yes. For everything else, there's 2nd line. 

Part of the problem is IST have carved out a valuable part of the Army world for themselves, where as Core seems to hold onto the Radio role but are coming to terms with the fact that while Tac Rad is of critical importance, it's not enough to gainfully employ everyone. Unless you want to consider setting up mod, tables, chairs and concertina gainful employment for a 2.0 (or now, a DP2.1) qualified ACISS Core. 

But it's no doubt, IST should have been, and still should be its own trade. Just as Linemen and CST (read LCIS) techs should have stayed as separate trades. 

It might ruffle a few feathers, but honestly the quality of Line Techs has gone down in my opinion. When they had their own trade and were allowed to run themselves as they wanted they were more professional and competent tradesmen. Since the Sig Ops took it over they've done damage to the line trade (I say this as a former Sig Op). 

CST I have less exposure to, but from what I hear and talking to my CST friends, the technicians today aren't up to the same standard that the old LCIS training made them. 

Even Core, which is near and dear to my heart as I started off as a Rad Op and still hold an amateur radio operator's license, their knowledge of radio, electrical and antenna theory isn't the same quality as those coming off the QL3 years ago. Even the Rad CP Det skills aren't the same.


----------



## PuckChaser

By trying to make a jack of all trades, we've dumbed down the training so we've getting max supervision soldiers out of CFSCE. Part of this started happening before MES, when we wanted more and more pumped out of the school, so the quality dropped.

With CISTM's demise, it seems like the current Branch leadership is taking issues to heart and sorting some things out. I think a lot more will get changed within the next 5 years, and a lot more will get changed when those MCpl/Sgt/WOs who went through this whole MES gongshow get into leadership positions and have the pull and "ground truth" experience to sort things out.


----------



## Untamed Spyder

Hey!

I was wondering if I could know if there are any currently employed Army Communication and Information Specialists. I have a few questions and would be great if some of you guys could help me out!

Thank you!


----------



## Sig_Des

Untamed Spyder said:
			
		

> Hey!
> 
> I was wondering if I could know if there are any currently employed Army Communication and Information Specialists. I have a few questions and would be great if some of you guys could help me out!
> 
> Thank you!



Quite a few of us in fact. You may want to peruse some of the threads in the C & E forum here, as someone may have asked the same questions before:

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/board,46.0.html


----------



## lwalters

I had a quick question about the service term for ACISS what is the regular contract length they offer you?

I tried looking on https://army.ca/wiki/index.php/MOSID_and_MOC  and couldn't see it.(unless i'm missing something)

Any help would be much appreciated.


----------



## 211RadOp

The list does not show the new trade, but the legacy trades. VIE is 4 years.


----------



## lwalters

Thank you for the fast reply  :nod:


----------



## mariomike

For future reference, perhaps "Question About the VIE for ACISS" will be merged with "Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists (Sig Op, Lineman and LCIS Amalgamation)"
http://army.ca/forums/threads/77029.1400.html
57 pages.


----------



## mariomike

For reference,

From: "Question About the VIE for ACISS"
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/122682/post-1429098.html#msg1429098



			
				lwalters said:
			
		

> I had a quick question about the service term for ACISS what is the regular contract length they offer you?





			
				211RadOp said:
			
		

> VIE is 4 years.


----------



## ringo598

So its been awhile with no news, I've heard rumours but nothing really concrete.  Wasn't the pay review to have started a month or so ago?  Anyone hear anything yet?

If anyone is interested emma is now showing the promotion forcast/manning numbers, not suprised to see IST so low.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pay reviews take a while, interim solution was to unfreeze legacy LCIS pers pay until there is a decision.


----------



## LCIS227

For those on DWAN, here's some info on what's been going on with Spec Pay:

http://acims.mil.ca/org/DLCI/Documents/Forms/All%20Documents.aspx?RootFolder=%2Forg%2FDLCI%2FDocuments%2FACISS%20Spec%20Pay&FolderCTID=0x012000C214ADC6F17B4A448F769AF7DB8B37C4&View=%7b2B424F24-8B85-4D5F-9F1B-25AFB80845B1%7d

FYI Petawawa has a town hall with Dir RCCS Col Sullivan Thursday afternoon, hopefully there's some interesting info being passed on.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> For those on DWAN, here's some info on what's been going on with Spec Pay:
> 
> http://acims.mil.ca/org/DLCI/Documents/Forms/All%20Documents.aspx?RootFolder=%2Forg%2FDLCI%2FDocuments%2FACISS%20Spec%20Pay&FolderCTID=0x012000C214ADC6F17B4A448F769AF7DB8B37C4&View=%7b2B424F24-8B85-4D5F-9F1B-25AFB80845B1%7d
> 
> FYI Petawawa has a town hall with Dir RCCS Col Sullivan Thursday afternoon, hopefully there's some interesting info being passed on.



Nothing new in there, CISTM is being canned. Spec pay info coming soon (Trademark, 2011)


----------



## LCIS227

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Nothing new in there, CISTM is being canned. Spec pay info coming soon (Trademark, 2011)



You're right, I just thought it was interesting to see the legwork and how high this has been escalated.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> You're right, I just thought it was interesting to see the legwork and how high this has been escalated.



Seems like this has just been bounced around since 2011. Eventually they'll just reject the trade for spec and declare that most people that received spec pay have retired and not many people are losing out on anything.

They pouched the submission, mainly because they didn't properly define the roles in jobs (ie, who owns help desk IST/Core, who owns networking IST/CST, who owns sat comm CST/Core)


----------



## PuckChaser

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Seems like this has just been bounced around since 2011. Eventually they'll just reject the trade for spec and declare that most people that received spec pay have retired and not many people are losing out on anything.



What D RCCS said was that DPPD has a leading change idea to clearly define all compensation and benefits available to CAF members, stack trades up, and if a trade crosses a line, they automatically get spec without a long review. He was very vague on details, but he said its a sound idea in theory. The issue is that DPPD is not processing pay reviews until the CDS makes a decision, which they've spent months developing briefs, etc. He's giving them about a month to pick a direction, before he escalates to CCA to get a temporary resolution for our trades which are stuck in limbo. He made a solid case for unfrozen pay, and retro back pay to CCA who liked the idea. Its getting it actioned that's the issue.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> They pouched the submission, mainly because they didn't properly define the roles in jobs (ie, who owns help desk IST/Core, who owns networking IST/CST, who owns sat comm CST/Core)



This is the problem identified by RCCS CWO and DLCI CWO. ACISS was never designed to function in "pigeonholed jobs" (my term). No one "owns" a task. We all have specialized skills to bring to bear on building parts of the network, and we all have to work together to get it done. The analogy was that a Core, IST, LST, CST should all be able to put their heads together when the network goes down, sort out what the problem is, and fix it. Gone are the days of single-dimensional tradespersons. 

They are going to push for an education-centric, vice training-centric model, so they can create ACISS pers who can think a problem and solve it, vice memorizing solutions to common faults, because the first time you see a fault is likely to be something that was never covered in "training". With that in mind, DP1.0 is moving from 45 training days to 85 training days. Its going to include the CISCO IT Essentials course, as a first step towards possibly getting all IST 2.1 graduates a CCNA Switching and Routing certification. What that will do is give the Core guys the ability to do first-line support to SATCOM OTM, CNR(E) networks, etc in a more forward environment. They are also pushing for a "Continuous Learning Environment" where pers can log into DLN and do DL courses on lots of Sigs-related courses to keep us on top of changing technologies. They want this to further enable someone who may have some skill fade from their DPX.0 to be able to refresh skills based on possible future or current employment.

I think the biggest mistake they made was making the DP1.0 common course so short and quite frankly a joke. With a robust DP1.0 course, we'll create competent operators and be able to determine skillsets that might fit into suboccs more than a 1 week LST package or a "how to turn on a computer" week.


----------



## PiperDown

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What D RCCS said was that DPPD has a leading change idea to clearly define all compensation and benefits available to CAF members, stack trades up, and if a trade crosses a line, they automatically get spec without a long review. He was very vague on details, but he said its a sound idea in theory. The issue is that DPPD is not processing pay reviews until the CDS makes a decision,



This was the same crap briefed 2 ( ? Can't remember the exact dates the 4.5 years this has dragged on is making me fuzzy) years ago. We were told that DPPD was stopping all pay reviews so they could "modernize" the way they do pay reviews.  We were told to wait until sept of 2015 and the modernized system would be ready. Then , in Dec of 2015 we were told the new system is now ready and ACISS would be their first review. 

Now, we are hearing this modern pay review system is still just a proposal that the CDS hasn't even signed off on yet ?  Oh brother. 

I wish someone would grow a pair and give the no bullsh*t truth.  Someone high in the branch f*cked up, and no one really wants to rattle any chains to fix it.

I bet there were a couple of " the troops are our number one priority and we are working as hard as we can".  And my personal favourite.  We are ready to escalate this issue higher..... In another couple months.


----------



## PuckChaser

I've worked for Col. Sullivan. If he says he's working on it, and just as frustrated as us, he is. You're raging against an agency that likely has never led troops. We're numbers on a spreadsheet, not real people with bills and families. Col Sullivan also can't walk into a MGen's office and tell him to f#$%ing sort his shit out. That's a quick way to turn them off to moving at all, its all the NDHQ politics bullshit.

If you're really hard up, file a redress of grievance. Maybe if a couple hundred hit NDHQ, someone will notice. Or call the ombudsman. The precedent is there to return legacy LCIS to their old pay group pending the review, it happened to another trade and that's the angle they're using to get it sorted.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've worked for Col. Sullivan. If he says he's working on it, and just as frustrated as us, he is. You're raging against an agency that likely has never led troops. We're numbers on a spreadsheet, not real people with bills and families. Col Sullivan also can't walk into a MGen's office and tell him to f#$%ing sort his crap out. That's a quick way to turn them off to moving at all, its all the NDHQ politics bullshit.
> 
> If you're really hard up, file a redress of grievance. Maybe if a couple hundred hit NDHQ, someone will notice. Or call the ombudsman. The precedent is there to return legacy LCIS to their old pay group pending the review, it happened to another trade and that's the angle they're using to get it sorted.



Maybe you've drank the Koolaid on this, and it sounds like you honestly believe all the "ACISS Ops are all one trade and everyone can do everyone else's job" but not many others are. The amalgamation was something of a failure. The CISTM was so poorly thought out that it's being completely scrapped now. The only decent thing to come of it all was the creation of the IST trade from the Tech savvy LCIS and Sig Ops, and this specialization was and is desperately needed. But the trades should have all been left separate. I don't pretend I can pick up a oscilloscope and do the squiggly amp stuff the CSTs do, nor do I pretend I'm going to properly install a cable plant or install an antenna tower like the Line Techs do. The fact I can do much of the core role is just incidental that I spent my first decade of my career doing radio things.

And as far as the pay issue, it's just a running joke now. No one really thinks that the submission was done properly and I honestly believe that the potential outcomes are going negatively impacted by the amateurish way it was mishandled.


----------



## PiperDown

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've worked for Col. Sullivan. If he says he's working on it, and just as frustrated as us, he is.



I don't doubt he was a great leader when you worked for him. And I am sure he is hard at work at branch business .  But when the party line the DSigs is briefing is on repeat from exactly one year ago, It starts to lose credibility. 

Any word on when the new berets are to be issued ? How about the new branch March ?  These are the pressing issues ! 

I wonder how many DSigs we have gone through since Nov 2011.  Maybe the next one will get it done eh ?


----------



## PuckChaser

That's why we have specialists, to do that cable plant install. But if you are going to cling to your empire that only x trade can do x job, you're one of the dinosaurs that DLCI CWO said dug in and refused to change. I shouldn't need an IST to configure a Coy SatCom OTM or CNR (E) network, and you shouldn't need a Core guy if you ever need to send a sitrep on the radio. Whether your like it or not, networks aren't going to be solely IST's domain (no pun intended), but those ISTs are going to be our subject matter experts for the large enterprise connections that are required now and in the future. 

There's no koolaid to drink, either you can decide to work with the changes and help find a structure that works, or cling to the empire building of the past that screws us going forward.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's why we have specialists, to do that cable plant install. But if you are going to cling to your empire that only x trade can do x job, you're one of the dinosaurs that DLCI CWO said dug in and refused to change. I shouldn't need an IST to configure a Coy SatCom OTM or CNR (E) network, and you shouldn't need a Core guy if you ever need to send a sitrep on the radio. Whether your like it or not, networks aren't going to be solely IST's domain (no pun intended), but those ISTs are going to be our subject matter experts for the large enterprise connections that are required now and in the future.
> 
> There's no koolaid to drink, either you can decide to work with the changes and help find a structure that works, or cling to the empire building of the past that screws us going forward.



I'm hardly a dinosaur or an empire builder, much to the opposite, I've been doing my best to carve out the future role for the IST sub-occ and foster this fledgling profession. 

I absolutely agree with you on a lot of things. I think the roles for the core have essentially been gutted, or are perceived by some in the core occ to have been gutted. I've had a number of arguments with senior core tradespeople that their job encompasses a lot more than setting up satellite terminals, setting up mod, or doing reports and returns on a radio. 

From my perspective all core should receive basic networking since everything is going to require it, from CNR E to MCR to all the TACCOMM side. As well I think the core should inherit the help desk roles. A lot of the radios and TCCS systems that we learned on are replaced with TACNET terminals, and the frontline configuration and support of that should be core roles. 

I'm apprehensive on where they are going with the future training. In my perspective all the sub occs lost a lot of knowledge when they created the initial training packages. The LSTs coming out of CFSCE aren't up to the same standard as the older line techs, nor are the CSTs anywhere up to the same standard as the LCIS techs. Even on the core side, the knowledge of radio theory is nowhere approaching what I and likely you did when we went through QL3 or 5. That said, the senior leaders in those sub occs have good understanding of their trade and as long as they don't get pushed to minimizing the training time like they have in the past I think good improvements will be made.

My concern is that for the IST side, the most senior trades people that make the calls lack the fundamental knowledge of C2IS and IT fundamentals. They never were deep into IT and often don't have industry experience to fill those knowledge gaps. They get pulled in by buzz words and sales pitches. I only see a few at the higher levels that have a fundamental understanding of what it is we have today and where the technology is going. My hope is that we continue to push those with knowledge up into those decision making roles.


----------



## technophile

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> Any word on when the new berets are to be issued ? How about the new branch March ?  These are the pressing issues !
> 
> I wonder how many DSigs we have gone through since Nov 2011.  Maybe the next one will get it done eh ?



agree 100%
op:


----------



## PuckChaser

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I'm hardly a dinosaur or an empire builder, much to the opposite, I've been doing my best to carve out the future role for the IST sub-occ and foster this fledgling profession.
> 
> I absolutely agree with you on a lot of things. I think the roles for the core have essentially been gutted, or are perceived by some in the core occ to have been gutted. I've had a number of arguments with senior core tradespeople that their job encompasses a lot more than setting up satellite terminals, setting up mod, or doing reports and returns on a radio.
> 
> From my perspective all core should receive basic networking since everything is going to require it, from CNR E to MCR to all the TACCOMM side. As well I think the core should inherit the help desk roles. A lot of the radios and TCCS systems that we learned on are replaced with TACNET terminals, and the frontline configuration and support of that should be core roles.
> 
> I'm apprehensive on where they are going with the future training. In my perspective all the sub occs lost a lot of knowledge when they created the initial training packages. The LSTs coming out of CFSCE aren't up to the same standard as the older line techs, nor are the CSTs anywhere up to the same standard as the LCIS techs. Even on the core side, the knowledge of radio theory is nowhere approaching what I and likely you did when we went through QL3 or 5. That said, the senior leaders in those sub occs have good understanding of their trade and as long as they don't get pushed to minimizing the training time like they have in the past I think good improvements will be made.
> 
> My concern is that for the IST side, the most senior trades people that make the calls lack the fundamental knowledge of C2IS and IT fundamentals. They never were deep into IT and often don't have industry experience to fill those knowledge gaps. They get pulled in by buzz words and sales pitches. I only see a few at the higher levels that have a fundamental understanding of what it is we have today and where the technology is going. My hope is that we continue to push those with knowledge up into those decision making roles.



The first thing I said when I heard about ACISS is that we'll never really know if this works for 20 years. Its going to take that long to take our first DP1.0 pure ACISS to CWO, and see if they can function.

I hear you about the IST training, but I think we're going in the right direction. The intent I got from the townhall was that they want a lot more industry engagement/packages, which makes the training far more agile and up to date without having to go through the shitshow that is CTC Standards. The education vice training focus intrigued me, as I have used a similar approach on a daily basis. I have a 2 year College networking diploma, but I can apply those skills as a Core member because instead of memorizing quick fixes for common faults, I view our tacrad systems as a network, and the troubleshooting can follow by looking it at as an IST would, vice memorizing those IAs and Stoppages. 

The only thing I can see with pushing more helpdesk roles down to Core, is that PYs will bleed that way as well, probably cutting into your minimums required to support the larger networks we tend to employ now. This could also be where ACISS could shine, where you have 4 Cpl/Pte Core, and 2 MCpl Core/IST with Sgt IST as a helpdesk section. Those MCpls are interchangeable as really they only need leadership skills, and perhaps one as a pure IST for technical expertise, and the Sgt as pure IST as the final advisor to the Tp Comd. You now have the trade working as intended, where sub occs and Core can be there together, solving issues.

We won't get rid of the older folks without IS/IT skills for another few years. That'll be when the giant FRP bubble hits, and we lose 50% of our CWO/MWOs in a short timespan. We're starting to get computer literate folks into the right spots, which will help situations.

For those trolling about berets and marches: The ask was pushed from the Army, and D RCCS stated that his recommendation was we wear it if all other branches (Sigs, Engineers, 2 others I can't remember), but if not if we're not all going to go to it, it should be killed. You're also implying they can't possibly have 2 tasks at once, which you know in Sigs is completely impossible for a Signaller to be focused on only a single task at a time.


----------



## buzgo

I got a copy of the D/RCCS slide deck that he's been using for the Town Hall presentations.

What exactly is the argument he is making about the ACISS structure not being stovepipes or independant sub-occupations? The slide deck says that "upon implementation many viewed the new occupation this way. They see ACISS Core as Sig Op, CST as LCIS and LST as Lineman." Then goes on to say that we needed to figure out what IST and CISTM means.

Okay - We are all ACISS. Ack. However, the ACISS core is the new Signal Operator - call it whatever you want, but core is the CIS OPERATOR. CST is the new LCIS - ack that LCIS doesn't exist and the LCIS jobs have changed but it is a COMM SYSTEM TECH. LST is a LINEMAN. LINE SYSTEM TECH. IST - the new job - made of the Sig Ops and the Techs that were doing IT jobs combined together into a new sub-occ.

Saying that there is some other magical way to look at this, talking about sub-occs working as a team.... none of this means anything. We have created a new occupation, with sub occupations that function mostly as independant occupations. 

Also, waving away the need for specialist and expert level Sr NCMs is dangerous - we need expert level Sr NCMs. Have a look at the UK Signals, they have both a FoS and a FoS(IS) which have University degrees on top of their extensive technical training and experience.


----------



## PuckChaser

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Also, waving away the need for specialist and expert level Sr NCMs is dangerous - we need expert level Sr NCMs. Have a look at the UK Signals, they have both a FoS and a FoS(IS) which have University degrees on top of their extensive technical training and experience.



Those people are going to get that training by moving through their suboccs. It was absolutely stupid to think you could have a MWO LST now as CISTM as a FoS somewhere. You need that stovepiping to a degree to produce the technical experts. CISTM was a fairy tale idea from the get-go, and poorly designed training killed it. Good.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Those people are going to get that training by moving through their suboccs. It was absolutely stupid to think you could have a MWO LST now as CISTM as a FoS somewhere. You need that stovepiping to a degree to produce the technical experts. CISTM was a fairy tale idea from the get-go, and poorly designed training killed it. Good.



I only see it being something that is practical at the CWO level.


----------



## PuckChaser

Absolutely, at that point they're likely RSM, CM, or working in a non-technical capacity where grouping everyone together makes sense.


----------



## LCIS227

All said and done, I feel it was a waste of everyone's afternoon. Granted he's trying hard to keep us up to date, it was still just a rehash of the February RCCS update. 

Actually learned one thing; looks like they're doing another JBS in June for ACISS and the sub-occs  : Hopefully the attendees can look beyond today's requirements and focus on where we should be in 5-10 years. Mobile / wireless computing will have taken over by then and will affect the way all ACISS are employed.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

LCIS227 said:
			
		

> All said and done, I feel it was a waste of everyone's afternoon. Granted he's trying hard to keep us up to date, it was still just a rehash of the February RCCS update.
> 
> Actually learned one thing; looks like they're doing another JBS in June for ACISS and the sub-occs  : Hopefully the attendees can look beyond today's requirements and focus on where we should be in 5-10 years. Mobile / wireless computing will have taken over by then and will affect the way all ACISS are employed.



It's funny how they think they can predict where the IS will be in 5-10 years. 10 years ago there was no virtualization, no Facebook, no smartphones, no tablets (that is to say, none of these things were mainstream or looked to be that big of a deal) and the plan for the military to push data to the trenchline via VHF radio connections. 

They've so far been hopeless and picking out trends or determining a long term course of action. They've wasted countless hundreds of millions on various IT programs that were delivered DOA or were just vaporware from the start.

Things work better if they adopt industry best practices on the same schedule that industry does. Why try to be extra clever or reinvent the wheel when the smartest people in the world are setting the trends in silicon valley.

Besides, if I were a betting man I'd say 10 years from now our world is about to be turned completely inside out when viable quantum computers destroy any expectation of secure networks or encryption in general. Even radio TEKs could be broken in near real time. From a defense IT perspective it's the IT Security apocalypse.


----------



## ZKC

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you want Core, you'll probably get it.
> 
> No one knows whether you're penalized for not specializing, as we've been waiting 2 years on a spec pay decision. Core is "supposed" to be promoted faster, but I feel the only reason that's happening now is its so far undermanned while IST/LST are at or over manning capacity, slowing promotions.


Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I'm swearing in soon and ACISS Core seems like the most interesting, so I have a few questions :

Is the "specialization" still undermanned? I.e. Would I get it if i choose it? 

What do Reserve ACISS units do on training nights and weekend ex.? Almost all the info I've seen are about the Reg force, I'm just curious if we'll be fixing electronics for days (or nights). 

Someone mentionned a "tactical sig" earlier. Does that still exist? Or is it Core? A sig op doing infantry stuff while communicating through a radio headset sure appeal more to me than sitting behind a desk... 



Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

ZKC said:
			
		

> Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I'm swearing in soon and ACISS Core seems like the most interesting, so I have a few questions :
> 
> Is the "specialization" still undermanned? I.e. Would I get it if i choose it?
> 
> What do Reserve ACISS units do on training nights and weekend ex.? Almost all the info I've seen are about the Reg force, I'm just curious if we'll be fixing electronics for days (or nights).
> 
> Someone mentionned a "tactical sig" earlier. Does that still exist? Or is it Core? A sig op doing infantry stuff while communicating through a radio headset sure appeal more to me than sitting behind a desk...
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk



Core is definitely an available trade, and for reserves I believe it's the only ACCIS option (I don't think IST, CST are with the reserves, and LST may not longer as well but I'm sure someone will correct me). 

A "tactical sig" would be referring to core, it is possible to be imbedded with the infantry, often it is the infanteers that do that at the section or platoon level and signalers at the company level but that does vary, I know many sigs that did foot patrols with the infantry while deployed overseas.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think only ACISS Core and LST are available in the PRes. Too much training and equipment costs to make CST and IST viable.


----------



## ZKC

Thank you RADOP and PuckChaser! I'm borderline acrophobic, i.e. I do fine on a plane but on top of polls isn't exactly where I'd like to be. This is reassuring. 

Would you also happen to have information on what the res aciss units do? The local unit itself is unreachable by phone. 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## mariomike

ZKC said:
			
		

> Would you also happen to have information on what the res aciss units do?



This may help,

ACISS part-time 
http://www.forces.ca/en/job/armycommunicationandinformationsystemsspecialist-171#train

Part-time ACISS is also discussed in the mega-thread, 

Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/77029.1400.html
57 pages.

See also,

ACISS
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca++ACISS&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=U2M3V57RHOeM8Qe0kKXQBQ&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## Carbon-14

I love how much care and attention they've put into "Part-Time" section of the Force.ca army job profiles


> Reserve Force members usually serve part time at an *Air Force Wing* in their community,






			
				ZKC said:
			
		

> Thank you RADOP and PuckChaser! I'm borderline acrophobic, i.e. I do fine on a plane but on top of polls isn't exactly where I'd like to be. This is reassuring.
> 
> Would you also happen to have information on what the res aciss units do? The local unit itself is unreachable by phone.
> 
> Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


ZKC,  Reserve Signal unit will run their own exercises or often provide communications support for other units on their exercises, usually one or more vehicles and crews for the Command Posts.  Reserve ACISS members spend a lot of time on pre- and post-exercise drills.  Signing for and preparing equipment and vehicles, making sure  it all works and they have everything they need for the exercise.  This stuff takes a lot of time.  Washing vehicles, fixing and returning equipment, hanging canvas to dry, and after action reports will follow after the exercise.

Signal units will also run classes, both on communications and weapon/general army topics.  Add in, the occasional drill and inspections, paperwork and administration stuff, cleaning weapons, and briefings fill up the rest of the time.

As for contacting the unit, are you calling during the day?  There's only a small number of people working during normal business hours.  If you call on the training night, you might have better luck.


----------



## ZKC

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> I love how much care and attention they've put into "Part-Time" section of the Force.ca army job profiles
> ZKC,  Reserve Signal unit will run their own exercises or often provide communications support for other units on their exercises, usually one or more vehicles and crews for the Command Posts.  Reserve ACISS members spend a lot of time on pre- and post-exercise drills.  Signing for and preparing equipment and vehicles, making sure  it all works and they have everything they need for the exercise.  This stuff takes a lot of time.  Washing vehicles, fixing and returning equipment, hanging canvas to dry, and after action reports will follow after the exercise.
> 
> Signal units will also run classes, both on communications and weapon/general army topics.  Add in, the occasional drill and inspections, paperwork and administration stuff, cleaning weapons, and briefings fill up the rest of the time.
> 
> As for contacting the unit, are you calling during the day?  There's only a small number of people working during normal business hours.  If you call on the training night, you might have better luck.


Thank you Carbon-14, it's very detailed and finally gave me some insight into what I'm getting involved in! As for calling the unit... I can't believe I haven't thought about calling on training nights...


----------



## runormal

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think only ACISS Core and LST are available in the PRes. Too much training and equipment costs to make CST and IST viable.



They've slowly been digitizing the reserves. That being said AFAIK, you can't get put on dp 1.1 for IST, anyone who is filling these backgrounds is either studying comp-sci or working in IT. Could get some OJT but nothing formal (assuming your unit has the kit).

Lst (Line men) is definitely an options in some units, however some reserve units are broken up into two squadrons. I.E 31 Sigs London and 31 Sigs Hamilton or 35e Trans Beauport et 35e Trans Sherbroke. However I've talked to some friends and the people in the smaller squadrons said they didn't have LST spots... Your mileage may vary.

Ive worked in two different units and both had two TPs. One was more Tac Rad (Attach and supporting other units and anything dismounted) the other troop has the satellites, runs the TBG TOC and the linemen are in that as well. It is more of headquarters type troop. They usually ask you what you want to do and if you are lucky you'll get what you want.  

I've only ever worked in tac rad and I've had a lot of fun with it.  ;D 

Here is a post that I posted elsewhere:


As a reservist ACISS (Army Communication and information Systems Specialist) I love my job. That being said I only do my job, 1 or 2 nights a week and 1 - 3 weekends a month. 

What I like about my job is the variety. While the end goal is always to provide communication support for the army this can be done in a variety of ways. Sometimes I'm dismounted and running around with the infantry (which can be fun when it doesn't rain  ). Other times we will set up a cp sometimes we operate out of the truck, other times it is literally an antenna out of a window. Or I can I be doing 8 on 8 off in the TOC. I even got lucky and managed to get to participate in an amphibious assault which was pretty fucking cool. I've also been on shift while an amphibious assault was happening , not quite as cool as being on the boat, but nevertheless ;D. One other time I was told that if I wasn't out of an area by a certain time I was going to die as they were going to live fire artillery in the area. Sometimes I sit on a hill for the weekend and relay messages while watching movies on tablet.  I've worked with Service, Engineers, Infantry, MPs and the artillery. Throughout my time with the infantry I've had various roles. I've been the  a platoon sig, an OC's sig, a duty sig in an infantry Cp. One time we showed up and they told us they only needed 1 guy to be the OC Sig and the two of us got to be a C6 Gunner for the weekend 8). I've literally experienced every piece in the puzzle and it has made me a better signaler as a result. 

I also like the early opportunity of leadership in the trade. I'm currently a detachment commander and I am responsible for up to three people, thousands of dollars of equipment and I am responsible to liaise with senior officers from other units and at time provides guidance and suggestions with regards to communications. It truly is a lot of a fun.

There some things I hate and sometimes I'm bored (especially on the midnight - 6am shift), but it is what is and the good outweighs the bad otherwise I would of left the reserves. 

I wrote that about 8 months ago and I still feel the same way. 

Since that post, I've got to fire an artillery howitzer, went up to Northern Canada, flew in a twin otter and just missed getting in helicopters. There definitely are some cool options and the more available you are,  the better chance you will get to do some of the really cool stuff. Unfortunately I'm done school now, and I am now working in an office 9-5 as a civvy so I will be more or less restricted to weekends at least for the short term.


----------



## ZKC

Only saw the reply just now, Tapatalk notifications are really unstable...

Wow. Thank you runormal. I didn't know the ACISS trade would be so diverse, and tac rad seems fun as hell. Hope I'll get the chances you got to participate in so many various exercises!


----------



## HaZarD SFD

This thread alone keeps me gearing towards ACISS.  I feel the Merged ACISS Thread is pretty bland and should just avoid being even looked at if you want to go ACISS.  Thank you all for your questions and answers.

I will be in BMQ Aug 8th and I cant wait to be ACISS Core.


----------



## LCIS227




----------



## buzgo

It happened. I don't know that we are any further ahead... I'm surprised nothing has been posted as max sharing was encouraged. 

Consensus was reached on some things: ACISS Core is a sub-occ. It should be called ACISS-Operator. The parent occupation is simply ACISS and the mosid should be 00362.0. 

ISTs own IP networking in the RCCS. That being said, everyone has a part to play, some more than others. 

There was discussion about avoiding a DPGR review and also the counter to that - inviting it. 

No attempts are being made to predict tech trends, but there is ongoing discussion about changing our approaches to the problem. Unfortunately there needs to be some radical changes as CFITES, Occupational Structures and Career Management cannot adapt and change quickly enough to meet our future needs. 

There is supposed to be a brief to D RCCS and then some decisions and direction.


----------



## PuckChaser

I heard some funny stuff that came out of that working group, like LSTs wanting to own Wifi and ISTs thinking they should get 2 sub occs (sub sub occs?) of Servers and Networks....

We've now taken to asking our linemen regularly when they are going to get posted to 1 Wifi Squadron in Kingston.


----------



## buzgo

Yes. All true. 

LST made a case for installing bearer systems. In 5 years maybe they will evolve into a bearer system tech. WiFi installation (structured cabling to the AP) appears to be up their alley, however it is definitely done in partnership with IST network designers. 

The split of IST in to sub-specialities was suggested as a solution to the increasing complexity of Army C2 systems. The LCSS mobile  domain (CP Topaz) is going to make things ... More interesting. The ACISS Op and even the non RCCS pers will have a part to play. There is some merit in creating network experts and server experts but equal merit in having more well rounded ISTs. 

The WG really focussed on DP 1 to 2.1. There remains much to be done. 

Our biggest issue is trying to crack system management ....


----------



## PuckChaser

Yeah, in the whole "network of networks" mentality, splitting the work load out will definitely help some of the over-employed trades, and help trades from becoming extinct when technology passes them by.

Getting DP1 to 2.1 sorted really gets whatever the recommendations are, off on the right foot.

I can see what people were trying to justify with the server/network sub-sub trades, but we're just not big enough to justify that IMHO. It comes down to career management, don't post a guy who's a server specialist for 7-8 years, and drop them into a networks role. That's doing the member, the unit and the trade a disservice, as no matter how many unicorns we pray to, they aren't magically going to be as switched (no pun intended) on about networks as they were about servers for a least a year.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yeah, in the whole "network of networks" mentality, splitting the work load out will definitely help some of the over-employed trades, and help trades from becoming extinct when technology passes them by.
> 
> Getting DP1 to 2.1 sorted really gets whatever the recommendations are, off on the right foot.
> 
> I can see what people were trying to justify with the server/network sub-sub trades, but we're just not big enough to justify that IMHO. It comes down to career management, don't post a guy who's a server specialist for 7-8 years, and drop them into a networks role. That's doing the member, the unit and the trade a disservice, as no matter how many unicorns we pray to, they aren't magically going to be as switched (no pun intended) on about networks as they were about servers for a least a year.



I've never seen cross training on things like that ever done successfully, no matter how much people say it needs to happen. Sometimes you need people to specialize to be truly effective.


----------



## PiperDown

update of sorts from the D RCCS.


---------------------------------------
Good afternoon,

Although I am making the rounds and conducting Town Halls, I thought it important to communicate to you on where the ACISS pay review sits as some of the Town Halls are still a few weeks away and some things have changes since the earlier ones.

Unfortunately, despite the subject of the e-mail, there is no real "update".  The ACISS pay review remains within the Director Pay Policy Development (DPPD) review of the pay analysis protocols linked to the Canadian Forces Job Evaluation System (CFJES). DPPD has briefed Armed Forces Council, but has not yet had Chief of Defence Staff approvals to commence pay evaluations.  Regrettably, we are not being given a date by which DPPD expects to recommence the pay evaluations.

As I informed you in my last RCCS update, the Occupational Authority of the ACISS trade, the Commander of the Canadian Army, has requested that the decision to assign all of ACISS to the standard pay group as of the Military Employment Structure Implementation Plan (1 Oct 2011) be rescinded to at least allow former LCIS technicians to have their Spec Pay reinstated as of 1 Oct 2011.  I have asked the Acting DPPD for a SITREP on where this one stands and have equally asked the Deputy Commander of the Army to engage at his level.  I will provide an update as soon as I get one.

I can also share with you that the CDS and CAF CWO were asked about the ACISS "pay freeze" while conducting a Town Hall during a visit to Op IMPACT.  The details and the letter requesting rescindment of the decision to place all of ACISS in the standard pay group have been provided to CWO West.  I suspect he will engage on this one as well.

I will provide further information as I receive it.  I completely understand the frustration the soldiers of our Corps have over this issue and am working within my sphere of influence to see this progress as quickly as practical.

Please pass this information to the members of the RCCS within your respective organizations/formations or areas of responsibility as an RSSO if applicable.

CWO Richer for dissemination on the CWO and regional Sr CWO net as well.

Colonel Sean Sullivan
----------------------------------


My pay is now 7% lower than "what it should be " .  In my mind, that is not an insignificant amount. 
Lets see if CWO West can get something done.   Again, I find it absolutely unacceptable this has dragged on for 5 years.

In other news. New CANFORGEN out authorizing recruitment allowances for ACISS.  Apparently, its better to invest in people we done have yet, than invest in the people we already have.


----------



## buzgo

The reason that the ACISS occupation is under strength is due to the shortfalls in CST/IST. The recruiting allowance can be used to attract:


Non-Commissioned Members Recruitment Allowance

Acceptable Qualification


Post-Secondary Diploma or Certificate

a diploma or certificate that is awarded by a Canadian post-secondary educational institution in a program of study that corresponds to a significant part of the initial occupation training of the under-strength military occupation


Civilian Trade Qualified

a technical or vocational qualification for which the practical work experience to obtain the qualification is equivalent to the advanced occupation training of the under-strength military occupation


Military Occupation Qualified

the equivalent of the advanced military occupation training currently required for the assigned occupation


So arguably we are looking for category 2 and 3 pers. We don't have a mechanism to take these people, give them basic training / SQ and put them directly into a sub-occupation.

So, good idea, I'm not going to hold my breath.


----------



## PiperDown

and why do we have shortfalls in CST and IST ?

I will speculate.

RETENTION ! 

I know more than a handful of CST who  re-muster to ATIS every year ( this was rare before 2011). of course ATIS takes them with open arms.  These people are not fed up with the CAF or with the branch.  They are fed up with ACISS.
Less ACISS core are entering the CST/IST sub occ. ( why have slower career progression, less opportunity, fewer deployments etc for the same pay )
technicians are leaving for greener pastures. ie industry

I think perhaps a reason CST/IST is undermanned is because we are not investing in their future.   So, instead, we will dangle a carrot in front of civilians who don't yet know better.   Seems like a band-aid to me.


----------



## Brasidas

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> and why do we have shortfalls in CST and IST ?
> 
> I will speculate.
> 
> RETENTION !
> 
> I know more than a handful of CST who  re-muster to ATIS every year ( this was rare before 2011). of course ATIS takes them with open arms.  These people are not fed up with the CAF or with the branch.  They are fed up with ACISS.
> Less ACISS core are entering the CST/IST sub occ. ( why have slower career progression, less opportunity, fewer deployments etc for the same pay )
> technicians are leaving for greener pastures. ie industry
> 
> I think perhaps a reason CST/IST is undermanned is because we are not investing in their future.   So, instead, we will dangle a carrot in front of civilians who don't yet know better.   Seems like a band-aid to me.



Indeed.

Splitting them back off, maybe calling the new trade "LCIS", and giving them spec pay would seem to be a pretty effective option for recruiting and retention.


----------



## PuckChaser

People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.



The issue we have in the branch is that we have people being asked to perform at industry standard without industry level training or industry level compensation. With no one in the branch seeing this as an issue.

There is no selling "Service is it's own reward" to the kind of technical professionals  the CAF wants to attractIf I was just getting in, I certainly would not want to deal with the hassles military life creates and do it for 30 grand less than industry. A 10,000 dollar signing bonus isn't that attractive when head hunters will offer 6 figures to start for IT/Technical professionals.

What needs to happen is that the C&E Branch along with D RCCS need to work to change the way the CAF looks at it's Communications Technologists.

The CST/IST folks are not disposible. We are very expensive: Expensive to train, expensive to attract, and in essence expensive to retain. Industry is always ready to pay higher, so lets not give them any advantages when our trained folks are looking at the door.


----------



## RedMan

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> and why do we have shortfalls in CST and IST ?
> 
> I will speculate.
> 
> RETENTION !
> 
> I know more than a handful of CST who  re-muster to ATIS every year ( this was rare before 2011). of course ATIS takes them with open arms.  These people are not fed up with the CAF or with the branch.  They are fed up with ACISS.
> Less ACISS core are entering the CST/IST sub occ. ( why have slower career progression, less opportunity, fewer deployments etc for the same pay )
> technicians are leaving for greener pastures. ie industry
> 
> I think perhaps a reason CST/IST is undermanned is because we are not investing in their future.   So, instead, we will dangle a carrot in front of civilians who don't yet know better.   Seems like a band-aid to me.



It's been a while since I jumped from LCIS / CST to ATIS, and I'm sad to see that things have not gotten better. When I first meet people outside of Sigs, and  they ask what my old trade was, I tell them LCIS...and right away they instantly say, "Man, they really screwed you guys over!"

From the very first day I stepped into CFSCE, (only to discover I was not going to be LCIS, but instead become ACISS).... to today, all of the LCIS / CST's I've known and worked with have not been happy with ACISS.

I was a civilian electronics tech for many years before joining the military. Taking a trade that was electronics/repair and IT/IS systems (perfect combo for me), and changing it to Sig-Op first / technician "when we feel like letting you" (with less pay, no IS/IT) is NOT what I signed on for. 

Since then, after being told to more or less shut-up because I didn't know what I'm talking about, I played the ACISS game by their rules and did my job.  Everytime I worked under Sigs leadership it was misery... working under CST leadership was better, as long as it was a legacy LCIS who could speak my language. The best experiences were when I worked under maintenance leadership who allowed me to do my actual job, and they were very happy to have me there.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.



I put my heart into ACISS, and in 5 years, never felt valued (except by non-sigs and my LCIS SGTs, who were great!). It's also hard to enjoy a job, and plan your career, when the very people in charge of your trade can't even define/understand what that job and career is supposed to be. There is not one bit of incentive for someone to become a CST. I'd like for anyone to name ONE! I spent 5 years being a guinea pig for ACISS, and had more than enough of the culture issues thrown in my face. When my OT was about to possibly happen, I made it clear (to the CST higher ranks that wanted me to stay) that if I was somehow magically given Spec Pay to stay CST.... that I would still OT.  

Also, picking a job with pay as a primary motivation is not a problem....its called an educated and informed decision... something that the formation of ACISS certainly was not. People are just too damn stubborn and proud to admit it. Perhaps we should have anyone (in ALL trades) who is progressing above CPL have their pay frozen until they are MWO. The fact that they chose a military career with the understanding that there would be pay increments as a result of their training and progression must mean that money is all that matters to them, right?   : 


In one year of being an ATIS OJT, I am happier then I have ever been in the 5 years I was LCIS / ACISS. Why? Perhaps, its because my current leadership actually ASKED about my previous technical skills and training and got to know me, and what I could offer them. As a result, I have done more technical work, and more IT/IS related work than I did as a CST. I'm actually being trained by a senior tech with many years of experience in the trade, and he knows EXACTLY what to train me for, and what my job path will be like. 

I'm treated like an asset with unique skills, and as a result I have been able to do work for this unit that no one else here can offer (and other units have taken notice)...  A far cry from being stuck in a CST shop (after ACISS DP1), with 60 other non tech-trained CSTs, and not being allowed to operate a screw driver. (Despite myself having done 1000's of repairs civvie side)


I hope things eventually work out for you guys.... I really do.


----------



## buzgo

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.



I think this is a big part of the problem. Spec pay promises have created endless problems for us - it was NEVER a good idea and its not a good idea now, using money as a motivator leads to short term gain but long term issues. If we think people should make more money for doing a specific job, then the BASE pay should be raised, not augmented with a specialist pay.

The RCCS needs to have a serious look at what we actually need people to do. Sure, we think we need to have people qualified up to industry standards, but do we really need this? Can we actually achieve this? Do you know how long it takes to make these people? I'm tracking 2 - 3 year college programs for Electronics and IT technologists, 4 years in university for EE / CS degrees. We could put them through SEP or recruit them from the colleges: did you ever work with any of the LCIS techs produced through the St. Lawrence College pipeline? Like everyone else, pretty hit or miss. They all showed up as Cpls with zero experience.

Oh - ATIS. So trust me when I tell you this. ATIS is looking for a way to get rid of POET. They are watching CSS/CST and ISS/IST training very closely and there is starting to be significant overlap in the courseware.

Overall - we need to bust our asses to fix the issues within ACISS, and all options should be on the table including breaking from the MES model. The RCCS has a serious leadership problem from top to bottom - we failed to understand what we were doing 6 years ago, we failed to implement it properly. Those of us in the system at the time failed to get on board, people fought to keep their tribes alive. The people in charge failed to explain how things actually worked (they still don't know how to make it work BTW). We still are failing to communicate how this construct should work and how it could work going ahead. I still encounter former LCIS techs who think that they are going to do board level repairs on the new radios and operators who want to do nothing more than twiddle knobs. Those days are gone, software is eating hardware and IP is the future.


----------



## RedMan

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I think this is a big part of the problem. Spec pay promises have created endless problems for us - it was NEVER a good idea and its not a good idea now, using money as a motivator leads to short term gain but long term issues. If we think people should make more money for doing a specific job, then the BASE pay should be raised, not augmented with a specialist pay.



Spec Pay was not a problem (for LCIS) until ACISS happened and those promises (of all ACISS possibly getting it) came from the mouths of MES during those many briefings. This poisoned an already toxic environment among the branch. It wasn't complex before. "This trade requires this training, and makes this much....that trade doesn't have that training and will only make that much."  Other trades seem to be able to understand this....



			
				signalsguy said:
			
		

> Oh - ATIS. So trust me when I tell you this. ATIS is looking for a way to get rid of POET. They are watching CSS/CST and ISS/IST training very closely and there is starting to be significant overlap in the courseware.



The IST warriors out there seem to think they are the only ones who (should) work with IS/IT in the entire CF and are shocked to hear that anyone else is trained to do similar work.  Yes there is overlap in CST/IST training, but that has nothing to do with ATIS, and is the fault of ACISS.  I don't see loads of IST working at the big Air-Force wings, nor should you. They have their own ATIS techs or SSC guys constantly fighting for that work. Sometimes you will see ATIS/CST/IST working together doing the same job... but that's the exception, not the norm.

Data Comms for ATIS QL5 is taught in Trenton not CFSCE, though, yes they may be making changes to the courses to modernise. However, they stopped "writing off" QL3 / QL5 for techs who OT'd from other tech trades as too many people were failing their QL5s. Watering down ATIS like they did with CST, would seem like the opposite of what they want to do. When ATIS techs deploy, they don't have an on-call IST or SSC chap to do their job for them.

All I'm saying is....leave the techs alone (who want) to be good techs, and let the operators (who like their job) be good operators.

You think an ATC wants me doing their job? Do you think they want anything to do with my job? Yes we work together, but we get along great and respect each others specific roles, and support each other.

Yes, hardware and software does change and evolve (though I still operate / repair / calibrate radios from the 70's)... doesn't mean a tech only does radio and headset repairs.


----------



## PuckChaser

They also said that they would push for CISTMs to get Spec 2, and a unicorn. Anyone who bought the spec pay line, got duped. Only people who have any right to complain about current pay, is legacy LCIS that went CST. That pay freeze was an absolute travesty, and betrayed the trust of the troops.


----------



## buzgo

I haven't talked to very many ISTs who think they should be doing all IT/IS work in the CAF. Not even all of the work in the Army. The IST will become the Army TCP/IP expert but all of ACISS has a significant role to play. Even the end users (combat arms) have a role to play in managing the systems in their platforms. 

ACISS primary function is to provide Signal support to the Army so we need to focus on that. If Army communications equipment is advancing to the point that there is no longer the possibility of component repair then why on earth would we train that? I ack that there are legacy systems out there but from an Army perspective they are not really found in the Brigades. There are still Army pers manning MACS and the HF gateway in NS but the training to work in those jobs is and should continue to be granted by an OSS course. Optionally, these jobs should go to ATIS. 

ATIS has now decided to follow ACISS into the implementation of Cisco Network Academy courseware. This means that CST, IST and ATIS will be receiving many of the same courses. Why should we then run three iterations of those courses? We need to be more efficient. 

What I meant by my comment was that the RCAF is watching the CST efforts very closely. The CSS DP 1.1 QSTP was recently rewritten and they are going to be making some big changes shortly, which appear to be for the better. So if they can figure out a way to create good techs with no POET, I suspect ATIS will take note. 

Anyway, there are a lot of moving pieces out there, a lot of people appear to be getting on board and I think we are going to start making real headway towards solving our issues, one way or the other.


----------



## Kirasy

MikeL said:
			
		

> Here is a very basic run down of what each one does. Again, this is very basic and is missing a lot.
> 
> ACISS Core - radio operators, set up antennas, and radios plus drive CP/RRB vehicles, can do some IT stuff - this is what Sig Ops are now called
> ACISS IST - help desk stuff, and do ACISS Core stuff as required. - stuff Sig Ops and some LCIS Techs did
> ACISS CST - broken kit comes to them, they will either fix it, or have it sent off for repairs, make coax cables, inspections, etc - this is what LCIS Techs are now called
> ACISS LST - run phone lines, climb polls, do inspections and set up various services in garrison - this is what Linemen are now called
> 
> I'm sure if you look in the other ACISS threads you can get a more detailed break down.
> 
> Your posting will also determine what you will do in each role, as it really can vary depending on the unit you are in.



Hi, I am going to BMQ in a few weeks and was hoping to specialize into IST. I was just wondering if the trade had much in term of transferable skills in the civilians world? Also is there any component of the trade that involves working with server, it's a point of interest for me.


----------



## PuckChaser

Yes and yes. A lot of the equipment is civilian standard, so you get those courses of required. There is also lots of deployed servers to maintain, but you might not get to pick what section you go to.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I haven't talked to very many ISTs who think they should be doing all IT/IS work in the CAF. Not even all of the work in the Army. The IST will become the Army TCP/IP expert but all of ACISS has a significant role to play. Even the end users (combat arms) have a role to play in managing the systems in their platforms.
> 
> ACISS primary function is to provide Signal support to the Army so we need to focus on that. If Army communications equipment is advancing to the point that there is no longer the possibility of component repair then why on earth would we train that? I ack that there are legacy systems out there but from an Army perspective they are not really found in the Brigades. There are still Army pers manning MACS and the HF gateway in NS but the training to work in those jobs is and should continue to be granted by an OSS course. Optionally, these jobs should go to ATIS.
> 
> ATIS has now decided to follow ACISS into the implementation of Cisco Network Academy courseware. This means that CST, IST and ATIS will be receiving many of the same courses. Why should we then run three iterations of those courses? We need to be more efficient.
> 
> What I meant by my comment was that the RCAF is watching the CST efforts very closely. The CSS DP 1.1 QSTP was recently rewritten and they are going to be making some big changes shortly, which appear to be for the better. So if they can figure out a way to create good techs with no POET, I suspect ATIS will take note.
> 
> Anyway, there are a lot of moving pieces out there, a lot of people appear to be getting on board and I think we are going to start making real headway towards solving our issues, one way or the other.



Honestly I don't see much point for CSTs to being doing TCP/IP as well for that matter. I get that the original idea was IST would do red side and CST would do black side but that's inane, it's the exact same skillset, it only makes sense for one to do both. TCIs should most likely be done by ISTs as well. There's very little issue with separation now, we've used STP and fibre anywhere there's a lot of red/black crossover.

The Core should be stepping up and doing most of the Satcomm (which now seems to be physically setup by core people and then configured by the CSTs) and things like FOB kits, TacComms etc. The actual CST trade probably should be much smaller than it is now, and focus on repairing green kit and inside of the vehicles. 

The trade needs to get much leaner in how they employ people. The Afghanistan style mission of having a big group of people where you can have multiple crews of people with specific specialties is gone. Theatre commanders now are putting pressure on support trades to lower their numbers. We can't have a crew of core come in and setup a dish, a crew of CSTs to configure it and the black network, a crew of line to do the lines and a crew of ISTs to install the servers and do the red side. Many missions now we get 3-5 positions total. Which means the line techs, the ISTs, the Core all need to be able to help setup all the stuff up and as everyone needs to have a bigger breadth of knowledge. I know that kind of seems contradictory but I'm partially arguing that we need to collapse CST/IST into a single trade, I'm not exactly sure how that'd work but there's too much skillset crossover right now. Possibly the trade should be rejigged with the trade review going on and collapse it back into 3 suboccs. One covering a lot of what Core and CST do (Tac/Sat Comm Tech), one covering what IST/CST do (Computer Tech), and another covering what Line/Core/IST/CST do (Network and Line Tech)


----------



## technophile

Maybe we should have one trade that operates the equipment. Call them, operators of signals equipment. Another trade that does structured wiring, or line. Call it, wire /line people.  And maybe a third trade that fixes stuff and does networks. Like communication and information systems for the land element. ( maybe throw the name tech in there somewhere too )


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.



The culture is caused by people feeling they deserved it, and did not do the extra training to receive it. 

The Spec Pay is an incentive to keep people in the trade, instead of doing their 4 year minimum after POET and taking a civilian Job. 

From my mindset;

I was LCIS, Quickly promoted to MCPL, Minimum time in Rank, Successful. Multiple deployments in a short time, with their own issues for each one, and receiving commendations for both. 
I was posted to Rot in a shithole unit, ran by civies that did not complete the submission of a CF-98 because its not within their Job Title. 
I released, A trade that I was very successful in, progressed quickly, sent me to a unit, that did not give two shits about me, and my experience and abilities. How I could of made it better. Instead I was pushed to a corner for showing the proper way to complete VIs, documentation and fighting for the two Cpls in the unit to get onto courses, neither had been on a course, since their 3s/5s which was 5 years prior, they were on their 5s, when I Was on my 3s, and was promoted past them. In that time, the multiple civilians had gone on military paid courses, including a 6 month college computer science course. Told time and time again there was no money to send my Boys on course. Welcome to 202. 

ACISS is broken. Call me disgruntled, call me a ship Jumper. The way Signals members from all areas are being treated is ridiculous. I do give credit to those sticking it out. Kudos to you. Hopefully you reaching those higher ranks will fix the mess that is now 6 years old. 

The CDS and the RCCS need to understand this one simple fact;
If it does not get resolved, and troops happy, the mass exodus will continue. People will leave. They will continue too, to the point where the quality of technicians, operators and lineman will become a laughable state compared to 2000-2010. Your good technicians will come to realise, less stress Civi side, along with a lot better treatment and recognition of skill sets with appropriate compensation. Then the signals world will become a world of hurt, and continue to fall behind our NATO Allies. I am aware of near 30 people, from various ACISS suboccs that have VRd/released/retired early because they are simply fed up and worn out with excuses.


----------



## Kirasy

Thanks for the response. By section do you mean sub specialty within ACISS? Is IST a difficult section to get into compared to the others?


----------



## buzgo

IST is understrength and we are actively looking for good candidates. 

You will have to qualify as ACISS common first, then be posted to a unit, spend some time working as a detachment member and then identify that you are interested in IST. At this point you should be moved into a first level help desk job, providing user support and you would be nominated for training in Kingston.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

technophile said:
			
		

> Maybe we should have one trade that operates the equipment. Call them, operators of signals equipment. Another trade that does structured wiring, or line. Call it, wire /line people.  And maybe a third trade that fixes stuff and does networks. Like communication and information systems for the land element. ( maybe throw the name tech in there somewhere too )



This is an amazing concept, I'm shocked we haven't tried this before.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

upandatom said:
			
		

> The culture is caused by people feeling they deserved it, and did not do the extra training to receive it.
> 
> The Spec Pay is an incentive to keep people in the trade, instead of doing their 4 year minimum after POET and taking a civilian Job.
> 
> From my mindset;
> 
> I was LCIS, Quickly promoted to MCPL, Minimum time in Rank, Successful. Multiple deployments in a short time, with their own issues for each one, and receiving commendations for both.
> I was posted to Rot in a ******* unit, ran by civies that did not complete the submission of a CF-98 because its not within their Job Title.
> I released, A trade that I was very successful in, progressed quickly, sent me to a unit, that did not give two shits about me, and my experience and abilities. How I could of made it better. Instead I was pushed to a corner for showing the proper way to complete VIs, documentation and fighting for the two Cpls in the unit to get onto courses, neither had been on a course, since their 3s/5s which was 5 years prior, they were on their 5s, when I Was on my 3s, and was promoted past them. In that time, the multiple civilians had gone on military paid courses, including a 6 month college computer science course. Told time and time again there was no money to send my Boys on course. Welcome to 202.
> 
> ACISS is broken. Call me disgruntled, call me a ship Jumper. The way Signals members from all areas are being treated is ridiculous. I do give credit to those sticking it out. Kudos to you. Hopefully you reaching those higher ranks will fix the mess that is now 6 years old.
> 
> The CDS and the RCCS need to understand this one simple fact;
> If it does not get resolved, and troops happy, the mass exodus will continue. People will leave. They will continue too, to the point where the quality of technicians, operators and lineman will become a laughable state compared to 2000-2010. Your good technicians will come to realise, less stress Civi side, along with a lot better treatment and recognition of skill sets with appropriate compensation. Then the signals world will become a world of hurt, and continue to fall behind our NATO Allies. I am aware of near 30 people, from various ACISS suboccs that have VRd/released/retired early because they are simply fed up and worn out with excuses.



I've lost 4 of some of my smartest techs to outside military hires. They were honestly just tired of the foolishness and received much higher paying jobs straight out of releasing (companies that will wait the full 6 months that the CM is permitted to (and is adamant on) holding them to). 

The senior trades people don't realize these aren't Rad Ops from 20 years ago who have no options, these are CISCO and MSCE qualified personnel with significant experience in the industry and working with industry standard enterprise systems. Treating them like fools will not work out for this trade.


----------



## upandatom

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I've lost 4 of some of my smartest techs to outside military hires. They were honestly just tired of the foolishness and received much higher paying jobs straight out of releasing (companies that will wait the full 6 months that the CM is permitted to (and is adamant on) holding them to).
> 
> *The senior trades people don't realize these aren't Rad Ops from 20 years ago who have no options, these are CISCO and MSCE qualified personnel with significant experience in the industry and working with industry standard enterprise systems. Treating them like fools will not work out for this trade.*



$60k a year or $90/100? With the same amount of holidays, comparable if not better pension plans with more option and more control over the financial amount you put in, and where it gets invested, 
RESPECT for your abilities, 

The EXACT people they need to get this ACISS Idea up and running, the experience, knowledge and ability to implement the changes they desire, they are the ones taking their leave and walking away. You have to find ways to make people happy, there are options, technological dependant society, these skill sets are actively looked for via head hunting companies. I am more then happy in my current job being able to work from home 4 days a week(as long as I have an internet connection) and I still get telephone and emails from companies trying to hire me or coax me to moving on with them.


----------



## buzgo

upandatom said:
			
		

> $60k a year or $90/100? With the same amount of holidays, comparable if not better pension plans with more option and more control over the financial amount you put in, and where it gets invested,
> RESPECT for your abilities,
> 
> The EXACT people they need to get this ACISS Idea up and running, the experience, knowledge and ability to implement the changes they desire, they are the ones taking their leave and walking away. You have to find ways to make people happy, there are options, technological dependant society, these skill sets are actively looked for via head hunting companies. I am more then happy in my current job being able to work from home 4 days a week(as long as I have an internet connection) and I still get telephone and emails from companies trying to hire me or coax me to moving on with them.



There are always going to be people that want to be in the military for intangible reasons, whether its answering a calling, patriotism or some altruistic reasons. That being said, you are correct - we are badly failing at coming up with strategies to keep our people engaged and to provide them with interesting and fulfilling career paths.

We really are working on this but it is a constant slog against stovepiped approaches, bureaucracy, training systems and just sheer inertia and malaise within ACISS.


----------



## Sig_Des

signalsguy said:
			
		

> There are always going to be people that want to be in the military for intangible reasons, whether its answering a calling, patriotism or some altruistic reasons. That being said, you are correct - we are badly failing at coming up with strategies to keep our people engaged and to provide them with interesting and fulfilling career paths.
> 
> We really are working on this but it is a constant slog against stovepiped approaches, bureaucracy, training systems and just sheer inertia and malaise within ACISS.



I know we shouldn't use money as an incentive, but it is one of the most tangible ways to appeal to people. Money can equal stability, which can very much be a factor for people when deciding on what they're doing with their life. I prefer job satisfaction and security coupled with a sense of professional pride, but we live in a material world.

ACISS has recently been approved for a recruiting allowance, but I'm not a big fan ( I'll never say no to extra money, and did in fact receive a signing bonus with a skilled transfer to the Reg F). We have 2 issues. Recruiting AND retention. I believe retention is the bigger issue. A recruiting allowance gets people in the door, but does nothing for retention past the 4 year term someone is locked in. We need to look at ways to make people stay in. Making people happy with what they're doing and where they are is obviously the best way to do it.

However, I've personally always liked the idea of the US Military's reenlistment bonus. Interesting read here:

http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=up_workingpapers



> Compensation packages are necessary to recruit and retain workers with the skills
> required to perform an employer’s function. Firms compete within the broader labor market not
> only to recruit new workers, but also to keep their own skilled labor force. To the extent that any
> training provided to employees develops general human capital, a firm must pay to retain the
> talent that it helped to create. These compensation packages may include salaries offered to
> individuals based on their skills, signing bonuses, and performance-based raises and bonuses.



If we're going to start acting like the corporate world when it comes to management and political correctness training, we should also start looking at corporate style retention strategies. Because that's who we're competing with when it comes to hiring and retaining smart, trained and motivated employees.


----------



## upandatom

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The RCCS needs to have a serious look at what we actually need people to do. Sure, we think we need to have people qualified up to industry standards, but do we really need this? Can we actually achieve this? Do you know how long it takes to make these people? I'm tracking 2 - 3 year college programs for Electronics and IT technologists, 4 years in university for EE / CS degrees. We could put them through SEP or recruit them from the colleges: did you ever work with any of the LCIS techs produced through the St. Lawrence College pipeline? Like everyone else, pretty hit or miss. They all showed up as Cpls with zero experience.



Face it, the CAF needs to operate as an international company, the amount of employees, requirement for instant communication in a broad manner of mediums is required. 
Difference is, they have to deal with it with stress, very strict possible life or death timelines. 
Of Course you need industry standard, and no way should you be accepting less like you have been, I can name names, but that is not the purpose of this. If you start selling yourself short, you are going to end up hurting sooner the later. 

The SEP Program was a waste of money and time, members that were not SEP were much better off knowledge and DDD wise then their SEP counterparts, and it showed when it came to Career courses later on.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I know we shouldn't use money as an incentive, but it is one of the most tangible ways to appeal to people. Money can equal stability, which can very much be a factor for people when deciding on what they're doing with their life. I prefer job satisfaction and security coupled with a sense of professional pride, but we live in a material world.



I get this is a go-to feel-good line, and maybe some show up excited every morning to serve queen and country but fact is, in my job I've lost a good few of my smartest people to public service and private contractors mainly due to money and post stability (they had spouses with high paying jobs that wouldn't benefit well from frequent postings to places like Gagetown). 

Extra money and more care and thought by the CM would go a long way to retaining QUALITY people, because I can guarantee you it's not my worst performers that get attractive offers outside the forces.


----------



## PuckChaser

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I get this is a go-to feel-good line, and maybe some show up excited every morning to serve queen and country but fact is, in my job I've lost a good few of my smartest people to public service and private contractors mainly due to money and post stability (they had spouses with high paying jobs that wouldn't benefit well from frequent postings to places like Gagetown).
> 
> Extra money and more care and thought by the CM would go a long way to retaining QUALITY people, because I can guarantee you it's not my worst performers that get attractive offers outside the forces.



Here's the problem: You have to be willing to move. If the member has a spouse with a high paying job, and thinks they can spend 20 years in the same location while being promoted with their peers, that's not the kind of member that's either going to stay in, or worth retaining. There's a fine line to walk between posting someone every 5 years just because you can, to completely unrelated jobs, and keeping someone in the same location for their whole career (same unit in some extreme cases). We absolutely can do a better job at managing pers and their postings; taking MCpl Server Det IC from 2 Sigs and moving them to 1 Sigs in the same job with no promotion is not career progression, you're just wasting money. 

I hear it a lot, "I can't move, my wife makes more money than me." If you're that set on not moving around, release and join the reserves, or go to the private sector. Yeah, you'll lose some good people, but those good people are concerned with only their needs, not supporting the team (CAF/Army/Sigs/etc), so I'd argue they're not the right kind of "good" that we want. Everyone has to take a turn at a crappy posting once and a while, or perhaps the CM shop should start listening to pers who volunteer to go to those "undesirable" places. There are people will to take that Wainwright, Shilo, etc posting, because they have family there or liked the area. Let them. If it slows their succession planning, advise the member and let it happen. Not everyone is going to be a RSM someday, and posting people at the Cpl/MCpl level assuming they'll make it that far is really what screws the whole system up.


----------



## c_canuk

I'm sick of hearing, "They shouldn't be joining for money, they should be joining to serve Queen and country, for Esprit de corps, and to make the world a better place"

It's crap. Those are the people we're losing. All those ideals die the moment the realities of the trade become apparent.

When it's 5 years into the MES roll out and the head shed is still arguing what each sub occ's job AOR is, when things like Berets and Collar dogs are featured as items getting head shed attention while careers and pay have been frozen (optics), when the training system has shit the bed; those ideals die.

If you want a corps of switched on hard chargers who aren't interested in comparable pay, they need a structure to allow them to work efficiently and to have meaningful work with clear objectives and accomplishments. This is a two way street. Hard chargers expect to be lead by other hard chargers, not faceless grey managers who seem to never accomplish anything and speak like politicians.

We don't have what we need to retain large numbers of those people. Based on the people we have running the trade, we'll never have it. So what do we have... Spec pay maybe. To attract those who will work in these conditions.

You want people to work in a situation that kills morale, you'd better find a way to keep them coming in  everyday. If you can't fix the soul crushing inaction on solving high level problems within the trade, you need to face reality and understand that you need to attract someone who can get the job done. When we're less than 50% manned, why they get the job done is pointless navel gazing. We don't have the luxury.

Those willing to tuff it out, and get the job done for good pay are what we can rely on at the moment. Reward them for their loyalty. You fight with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.

But that's just my opinion from working with switched on troops, and watching their morale slowly fade as their frustration ramps up, as they take a posting where their spouse loses their well paying job, and can barely scrape by on a single income, or their family falling apart while on IR.


----------



## PuckChaser

We get paid well, in the standard pay group. If enough positions/tasks align with higher public service/private sector comparables, you move to Specialist Pay. You also can't put a monetary value on ironclad job security, decent pension, leave packages, etc.

You're not going to fix crushing morale by throwing money at people. You're going to fix it by having competent leadership who look out for their troops and take care of them, but also demand a high level of work when required. The infantry is flooded with applications right now, and they're sweeping bay floors when not on MAPLE RESOLVE. 

IR is almost always a personal choice (unless your house can't sell in a depressed market). If someone's family is falling apart because of it, that member needs to request a compassionate posting and sort it out.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here's the problem: You have to be willing to move. If the member has a spouse with a high paying job, and thinks they can spend 20 years in the same location while being promoted with their peers, that's not the kind of member that's either going to stay in, or worth retaining. There's a fine line to walk between posting someone every 5 years just because you can, to completely unrelated jobs, and keeping someone in the same location for their whole career (same unit in some extreme cases). We absolutely can do a better job at managing pers and their postings; taking MCpl Server Det IC from 2 Sigs and moving them to 1 Sigs in the same job with no promotion is not career progression, you're just wasting money.
> 
> I hear it a lot, "I can't move, my wife makes more money than me." If you're that set on not moving around, release and join the reserves, or go to the private sector. Yeah, you'll lose some good people, but those good people are concerned with only their needs, not supporting the team (CAF/Army/Sigs/etc), so I'd argue they're not the right kind of "good" that we want. Everyone has to take a turn at a crappy posting once and a while, or perhaps the CM shop should start listening to pers who volunteer to go to those "undesirable" places. There are people will to take that Wainwright, Shilo, etc posting, because they have family there or liked the area. Let them. If it slows their succession planning, advise the member and let it happen. Not everyone is going to be a RSM someday, and posting people at the Cpl/MCpl level assuming they'll make it that far is really what screws the whole system up.



Shouldn't be too hard to keep people in the same area though. The spouse income issue is something that is only going to get more and more significant as things like dual incomes become a stronger and stronger trend. 
If someone wants to stay in Petawawa or Edmonton, there's no reason why they can't make that happen. We all know our CMs though will purposefully move someone into something distasteful just for suggesting that your family would benefit from something. 
I like my job and think I do it well, but if I were to be posted somewhere like Cold Lake or somewhere out in the middle of nowhere it certainly wouldn't make financial sense for me to stay in and I'd likely leave. That's not me being salty, that's me being rational. It wouldn't be fair to me to force my wife to give up her career unless there's a significant career advantage for me. She'll likely be making more than me in a couple of years.

That's not just an ACISS problem, though we tend to have more movement and weird postings than say, a combat arms that may remain in the same unit for the majority of their career.


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We get paid well, in the standard pay group. If enough positions/tasks align with higher public service/private sector comparables, you move to Specialist Pay. You also can't put a monetary value on ironclad job security, decent pension, leave packages, etc.
> 
> You're not going to fix crushing morale by throwing money at people. You're going to fix it by having competent leadership who look out for their troops and take care of them, but also demand a high level of work when required. The infantry is flooded with applications right now, and they're sweeping bay floors when not on MAPLE RESOLVE.
> 
> IR is almost always a personal choice (unless your house can't sell in a depressed market). If someone's family is falling apart because of it, that member needs to request a compassionate posting and sort it out.



I disagree.

We aren't going to fix our organizational problems by hoping to fill our ranks with hard chargers who will eventually fix our culture issues. They won't stay long enough to get to a position of change. 

So who can we get? Shit pumps who have nothing better or people willing to tuff it out for better pay. Better pay is not meant to fix crushing morale problems, it's meant to keep the good workers when there are better alternatives available. It's a lot easier to work in a job where there are no clear lines of fire, and politics is rampant when you come home to a very well provided for family. Little less when you're a MCpl or Cpl posted in Ottawa, Frozen pay, no PLD, 2 hour round trip commute etc etc. Especially since your civy equivalent is making a lot more in the local area.

In the private sector pay and compensation will attract better employees to a less than ideal situation. Google can pay their techs less than the industry standard because they have an awesome work environment. MS has to pay more because they don't.

Why people, who have the skills we need, come to work for us is an academic thought exercise at best. Why is irrelevant. We need skilled people who will get the job done. Over time, people who consistently get the job done in a professional manner and take pride in their work is what we need. Whether they do it for pay and benefits or for altruistic reasons is irrelevant.

Besides, I think the people joining Comms to feed the orphans and directly defend the flag is a very limited pool. The opportunities for that sort of work in our trade is almost non existent.

As for putting a monetary value on job security/pension/leave packages... you certainly can, and many are hence our distinct lack of retention. People think they can get a better deal in the private sector, and not many are coming back. Seems to me that is a strong indicator that they are correct.

That said, we're very unlikely to get spec pay, so this is all just speculation. You are right, we need to fix our trade's cultural issues. But it's going to be a long hard battle for at least a decade so we have to do something about retention now.. I don't know if our society is going to support something like that either. Look at Phoenix and SSC. We don't seem capable of making large successful changes as a people anymore. We're mired in bureaucracy at all levels of government, and I don't see that improving anytime soon.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We get paid well, in the standard pay group. If enough positions/tasks align with higher public service/private sector comparables, you move to Specialist Pay. You also can't put a monetary value on ironclad job security, decent pension, leave packages, etc.
> 
> You're not going to fix crushing morale by throwing money at people. You're going to fix it by having competent leadership who look out for their troops and take care of them, but also demand a high level of work when required. The infantry is flooded with applications right now, and they're sweeping bay floors when not on MAPLE RESOLVE.
> 
> IR is almost always a personal choice (unless your house can't sell in a depressed market). If someone's family is falling apart because of it, that member needs to request a compassionate posting and sort it out.



You do not get paid well. I will call that out right here.  
Even with Field Pay, I actually just was able to get a Network type Sig Op hired at my company for 15k more a year then they were making, with 15 days off(in reality, I probably run 25-30 days off a year). We have a superior retirement package, that we can access earlier, and we choose how much we put in, and how much we get out. 

The problem is, even with Spec pay, its still not enough for the industry standard. Whoever says that it is, is wrong, or running off 10-15 year old data. Tech jobs, server admin, electronic repair, and infrastructure installation (Lineman) are making 10-15 K a year more at a minimum (I started 10 above, and through a promotion am now 25 above what I was making)

You can no longer use stability as a reference, Stability means you will know what you get or better and for how long, not you know you are getting $X a year, until some one decides to pad their PER with some scheme to reinvent the wheel. 

And last but not least, respect. Troops now are not feeling any respect at all, 
Respect your Subordinates, they will respect their superiors.


----------



## George Wallace

upandatom said:
			
		

> You do not get paid well. I will call that out right here.
> Even with Field Pay, I actually just was able to get a Network type Sig Op hired at my company for 15k more a year then they were making, with 15 days off(in reality, I probably run 25-30 days off a year). We have a superior retirement package, that we can access earlier, and we choose how much we put in, and how much we get out.
> 
> The problem is, even with Spec pay, its still not enough for the industry standard. Whoever says that it is, is wrong, or running off 10-15 year old data. Tech jobs, server admin, electronic repair, and infrastructure installation (Lineman) are making 10-15 K a year more at a minimum (I started 10 above, and through a promotion am now 25 above what I was making)
> 
> You can no longer use stability as a reference, Stability means you will know what you get or better and for how long, not you know you are getting $X a year, until some one decides to pad their PER with some scheme to reinvent the wheel.
> 
> And last but not least, respect. Troops now are not feeling any respect at all,
> Respect your Subordinates, they will respect their superiors.



You do realize that you can apply "your complaint" to every Trade in the CAF that has Journeyman status, or similar, on civilian street.  Compare what a CAF plumber makes with what a plumber makes on civilian street.  What about those Refrigeration Techs, or those various electrical related Trades?  How about what a MP makes compared to a police officer in a civilian job?  Firefighers?  Where would you like to stop these comparisons?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You do realize that you can apply "your complaint" to every Trade in the CAF that has Journeyman status, or similar, on civilian street.  Compare what a CAF plumber makes with what a plumber makes on civilian street.  What about those Refrigeration Techs, or those various electrical related Trades? * How about what a MP makes compared to a police officer in a civilian job?*  Firefighers?  Where would you like to stop these comparisons?



I would like to point out that MPs have an identified retention issue and were given SPEC 1 pay to eleviate the brain drain they were suffering with folks pulling pin after 5 years.

This is what ACISS hopes to accomplish, rather than seeing our best and brightests leave and our trade remain far below PML because its "fair" to other trades in the CAF.


----------



## mariomike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You do realize that you can apply "your complaint" to every Trade in the CAF that has Journeyman status, or similar, on civilian street.



Judging by our 36-page Getting Back In mega-thread, the grass is not always greener on civilian street. 

Thankfully, the CAF lets former members back in. Not all employers do.


----------



## PuckChaser

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I would like to point out that MPs have an identified retention issue and were given SPEC 1 pay to eleviate the brain drain they were suffering with folks pulling pin after 5 years.
> 
> This is what ACISS hopes to accomplish, rather than seeing our best and brightests leave and our trade remain far below PML because its "fair" to other trades in the CAF.


I'm not sure they still have that retention issue, if they can't laterally transfer to RCMP or a civvie force without training, they shouldn't get spec pay. 291ers were also told to not get attached to spec pay, as everyone was going to get pay reviews.

Also keep in mind Sigs has 0 choice in the pay, that's DPPD. All the branch can do is provide the documentation, and let the bean counters sort it out. The problem is, we saturate the trades with so many jobs, the spec jobs become a lower and lower percentage of what's actually expected. Yeah, you got lucky in postings and got a bunch of courses, but if 90% of the other jobs don't need those courses, you're likely not getting paid.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not sure they still have that retention issue, if they can't laterally transfer to RCMP or a civvie force without training, they shouldn't get spec pay. 291ers were also told to not get attached to spec pay, as everyone was going to get pay reviews.



Neighbour is currently serving as an MP. Its apparently enough of a problem to survive a pay review before DPPD stopped the presses. Whether a trade should or shouldn't get spec is a matter of opinion, however bringing mr to your second point:



> Also keep in mind Sigs has 0 choice in the pay, that's DPPD. All the branch can do is provide the documentation, and let the bean counters sort it out. The problem is, we saturate the trades with so many jobs, the spec jobs become a lower and lower percentage of what's actually expected. Yeah, you got lucky in postings and got a bunch of courses, but if 90% of the other jobs don't need those courses, you're likely not getting paid.



The onus is on D RCCS to provide an accurate representation of not merely the tasks performed in each specific job, but the knowledge required to be functional in each trade. There are plenty of trades that get paid spec for what they know versus what they do. DPPD needs to be convinced that a DP 2.1qualified IST's knowledge is Specialised. If that IST is sitting in a Help Desk at the moment, doesn't mean that they won't be in a Server Det down the road. The knowledge is lost the second they leave for someting better.

We have a huge issue in the RCCS of selling ourselves short to the rest of the Army, be it for H&A, Pay, or any other number of issues. The sooner we resolve the chip we have on our shoulder, thw better life will be for Corps.  :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> The onus is on D RCCS to provide an accurate representation of not merely the tasks performed in each specific job, but the knowledge required to be functional in each trade. There are plenty of trades that get paid spec for what they know versus what they do. DPPD needs to be convinced that a DP 2.1qualified IST's knowledge is Specialised. If that IST is sitting in a Help Desk at the moment, doesn't mean that they won't be in a Server Det down the road. The knowledge is lost the second they leave for someting better.



LCIS did all the server jobs (with some Sig Ops cross-trained in) prior to MES, received spec pay, and were still at 75-78% PML. Money isn't going to solve your problems. Taking care of troops (not freezing their pay for 5 years for no reason) is what will retain people.

Anyone buying IST was going to get spec pay should never go buy a used car, you'll get taken, again. 

Also, take a look what a Network Administrator makes civvie side:

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Network_Administrator/Salary/38f77541/Mid-Career

Roughly $38K to 76K based on experience.

Corporal makes $56K on standard pay scale at IPC 0.

You get paid more in the CAF for less experience, and it balances out later career by earning slightly below averages based on that late career experience. Post Warrant Officer (16-20 yrs exp), you're also no longer employed as a technical expert except in very small cases like FoS, or whatever the IST Wiseman is called (FIST?). Spec Pay is just going to widen the gap between the public and private sector at the start, and you'll end up with the same brain drain at 12-15 year experience, because the pay gap merges, and those members are doing less and less actual hands on work.

You're never going to stop the brain drain. I don't see a scenario where we maintain above 90% PML for the highly technical trades in the CAF. Civilian companies have deeper pockets, and can change rapidly to meet emerging pay/benefit trends. A lot of pilots get their wings, do their time, get out and get a civvie job. Same with some RCN trades. The CAF cannot keep up with the Joneses, the best we can do is have an agile training and career management system that allows a "next guy up" mentality to get the job done when someone pulls pin. Treating every technical person as a special flower (polar opposite of what happens now) will just build a sense of entitlement and not fix institutional issues.


----------



## ixium

Everyone get the email about the cap badge/collar dogs/other that they were looking to change?

Pretty sure I got it by accident by ex-CoC because no one in my current unit had a clue about it.

Is there an actual vote that is going to happen, and are the younger troops having a say like the email says?

I also -loved- the strong wording they used through out that made which choices the top want to be very obvious.

(So happy this thread is still alive. Almost has as much time alive as I do military time. The thread creator is also retiring in 2 weeks...if he is who I have thought him to be this whole time...)


----------



## PuckChaser

You can vote here: https://cmcen.ca/2016/07/07/rccs-dark-blue-beret-and-rccs-collar-dogs/
Also found this link on the history of the beret colours: https://cmcen.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/history-of-the-berets.docx

For those who haven't seen it before, cmcen.ca is trying to build an online presence that we've been sorely lacking. Pretty good collection of information about the Branch, but is a work in progress.


----------



## buzgo

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> whatever the IST Wiseman is called (FIST?).



Foreman of Signals (Information Systems) 

FoS (IS) or Foreman IS

;-)


----------



## PuckChaser

FIST is significantly cooler, guess that's why they didn't go with it.


----------



## buzgo

To many inappropriate connotations. Something about FISTing...


----------



## PuckChaser

signalsguy said:
			
		

> To many inappropriate connotations. Something about FISTing...



Appropriate for the state of the Branch, though?  >


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Foreman of Signals (Information Systems)
> 
> FoS (IS) or Foreman IS
> 
> ;-)



It's FISM - Foreman of IS Management. 

They've been stood up in a number of units now.


----------



## buzgo

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> It's FISM - Foreman of IS Management.
> 
> They've been stood up in a number of units now.



Formation Information Systems Manager. It is a job at the MWO level in the JBS, that is performed by a CISTM.

The actual title will be formalized in doctrine as FoS(IS), which is in line with the Royal Signals.


----------



## upandatom

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You do realise that you can apply "your complaint" to every Trade in the CAF that has Journeyman status, or similar, on civilian street.  Compare what a CAF plumber makes with what a plumber makes on civilian street.  What about those Refrigeration Techs, or those various electrical related Trades?  How about what a MP makes compared to a police officer in a civilian job?  Firefighers?  Where would you like to stop these comparisons?



If you read the thread, its not "My complaint" its 95% of the ACISS trades complaint now. With MES more and more and seeing the light,

Other trades do not have such a difference from Military to Civilian counterpart. In addition, the numbers previously pumped in are self reported, and way on the low end. 

If a member can find something they have that can be specialised, then you can pretty much double that salary, or close too. Even more so when the leadership skills, work ethic, and as bad as it sounds-

Battle Procedure comes into play odd enough, the planning tool that it provides has been a remarkable asset civi side.


----------



## TJC

runormal said:
			
		

> Here is a post that I posted elsewhere:
> 
> 
> As a reservist ACISS (Army Communication and information Systems Specialist) I love my job. That being said I only do my job, 1 or 2 nights a week and 1 - 3 weekends a month.
> 
> What I like about my job is the variety. While the end goal is always to provide communication support for the army this can be done in a variety of ways. Sometimes I'm dismounted and running around with the infantry (which can be fun when it doesn't rain  ). Other times we will set up a cp sometimes we operate out of the truck, other times it is literally an antenna out of a window. Or I can I be doing 8 on 8 off in the TOC. I even got lucky and managed to get to participate in an amphibious assault which was pretty ******* cool. I've also been on shift while an amphibious assault was happening , not quite as cool as being on the boat, but nevertheless ;D. One other time I was told that if I wasn't out of an area by a certain time I was going to die as they were going to live fire artillery in the area. Sometimes I sit on a hill for the weekend and relay messages while watching movies on tablet.  I've worked with Service, Engineers, Infantry, MPs and the artillery. Throughout my time with the infantry I've had various roles. I've been the  a platoon sig, an OC's sig, a duty sig in an infantry Cp. One time we showed up and they told us they only needed 1 guy to be the OC Sig and the two of us got to be a C6 Gunner for the weekend 8). I've literally experienced every piece in the puzzle and it has made me a better signaler as a result.
> 
> I also like the early opportunity of leadership in the trade. I'm currently a detachment commander and I am responsible for up to three people, thousands of dollars of equipment and I am responsible to liaise with senior officers from other units and at time provides guidance and suggestions with regards to communications. It truly is a lot of a fun.
> 
> There some things I hate and sometimes I'm bored (especially on the midnight - 6am shift), but it is what is and the good outweighs the bad otherwise I would of left the reserves.
> 
> I wrote that about 8 months ago and I still feel the same way.
> 
> Since that post, I've got to fire an artillery howitzer, went up to Northern Canada, flew in a twin otter and just missed getting in helicopters. There definitely are some cool options and the more available you are,  the better chance you will get to do some of the really cool stuff. Unfortunately I'm done school now, and I am now working in an office 9-5 as a civvy so I will be more or less restricted to weekends at least for the short term.



Damn, a lot of what you experienced sure wasn't portrayed in the ACISS video on the FORCES website.  Makes me more excited for ACISS more than ever now.  Just got sworn in on Tuesday and starting Reserve BMQ on sept 30.  Applied for ACISS to the 32 SIG Regiment at fort York, Toronto.

Seriously though, that video does not seem to do ACISS or at least ACISS Core justice compared to what you just described in your post.


----------



## PuckChaser

The recruiting videos are terrible.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

Heard Legacy LCIS is getting their SPEC pay reinstated (Passed on by CFSCE CoC)?

Can anyone confirm?


----------



## PuckChaser

That was the COA they were pushing as an interim measure, if you're hearing it as a formal brief from CFSCE CoC, I'd say that's a good source.


----------



## PiperDown

So, the only place this breaking information was "heard" was CFSCE ?  ( the center of the universe for Sigs rumours ! )

 :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser

It's not a rumour, D RCCS was pushing to have legacy LCIS be grandfathered in their spec pay until a proper pay review could be conducted. It was a while ago, so a decision on that front now doesn't seem far fetched, especially if it's coming from a Sqn OC brief.


----------



## PiperDown

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's not a rumour, D RCCS was pushing to have legacy LCIS be grandfathered in their spec pay until a proper pay review could be conducted. It was a while ago, so a decision on that front now doesn't seem far fetched, especially if it's coming from a Sqn OC brief.



I know that was what D RCCS had asked for last year.   The rumour I am referring to, is from BdFb (two posts above)  which seems to indicate that the reinstatement of LCIS techs spec pay has been approved.  ( which seems to only be coming from CFSCE apparently )


----------



## PuckChaser

Depends on who in CFSCE is passing the rumour on, I guess.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We get paid well, in the standard pay group. If enough positions/tasks align with higher public service/private sector comparables, you move to Specialist Pay. You also can't put a monetary value on ironclad job security, decent pension, leave packages, etc.
> 
> You're not going to fix crushing morale by throwing money at people. You're going to fix it by having competent leadership who look out for their troops and take care of them, but also demand a high level of work when required. The infantry is flooded with applications right now, and they're sweeping bay floors when not on MAPLE RESOLVE.
> 
> IR is almost always a personal choice (unless your house can't sell in a depressed market). If someone's family is falling apart because of it, that member needs to request a compassionate posting and sort it out.



Compassionate posting? Good Luck with that Joke, those postings are left for buddies of corrupt wanna be politicians. My daughter was severely ill, spent a tonne of time in the hospital. I found and discussed my situation with the local FoS, pretty much sold myself (they said they would gladly take on a MCpl with PERs, quals, etc such as mine, even wrote an email and provided me with a letter for my Memo) and then the CM for whatever knob gobbling reason denied it. In turn I was driving 14 hours a weekend going broke paying for the gas. FYI Low cost move, no HHT, no Travel as it was one day, no need for hotels, I clearly opted out of all of that, All of my stuff would of even fit in a trailer and would only cost mileage. Instead it was handed off to someone else so their spouse could go to Ryerson Poly in Downtown Toronto. 

Compassionate postings are a joke, they get abused and used by people that dont really need it. Good luck at getting one of those.


----------



## 211RadOp

It was stated by the Cmdt after he had a meeting with D RCCS last week.  He said that it would be re-instated to legacy LCIS Techs who were QL5 qualified and back-dated to the day of the freeze.


----------



## PuckChaser

That seems highly credible, glad it's getting sorted for the LCIS pers.


----------



## PiperDown

Im not saying this latest bit of news is true or not.

I find it strange that it is only coming out of CFSCE.   Don't you think that if a major decision like this was received, the D RCCS would immediately send out an update ?
This would be the first bit of favourable news regarding this cluster fu** in 5 years, and the only one the D RCCS told was the Cmdt CFSCE ?

hmmmmm :

call me a pessimist I guess.  OR is a better word jaded.


----------



## 211RadOp

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> Im not saying this latest bit of news is true or not.
> 
> I find it strange that it is only coming out of CFSCE.   Don't you think that if a major decision like this was received, the D RCCS would immediately send out an update ?
> This would be the first bit of favourable news regarding this cluster fu** in 5 years, and the only one the D RCCS told was the Cmdt CFSCE ?
> 
> hmmmmm :
> 
> call me a pessimist I guess.  OR is a better word jaded.



All I can tell you, as this is all I know, is that the Cmdt met with D RCCS on Wed and Thurs of last week.  Who else was there I do not know.  The Cmdt briefed it to the School on Friday, so this is a new development and I am sure that something will come from D RCCS's office soon.


----------



## c_canuk




----------



## buzgo

I'm not sure that many people realize that the CFSCE Commandant is also the Deputy Director RCCS responsible for Doctrine and Training... I'm fairly confident that he passed on accurate information.


----------



## RedMan

I would hope that there would be absolute clarity regarding:

Who will be getting Spec Pay?

-only legacy LCIS who were already getting spec pay (QL5,CPL and higher)  ?
-legacy LCIS who were QL5, but not yet CPL before the freeze?
-legacy LCIS who had POET, QL3, but had to do CST 2.1 Mod 2 (QL5 equivalent)?
-legacy LCIS who had POET, but had to do ACISS CST 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1 Mod 2)? 
-legacy LCIS who were QL5, CPL and higher getting Spec Pay, and became IST?
-what about back pay?

This would sum up all those who joined as LCIS techs and had some legacy training. This doesn't include the rest who joined as LCIS and were sucked into the ACISS storm. They all made what they thought was an educated decision about becoming a land communications and information systems electronics technician that gets Spec Pay (like all other equivalent techs in the CF) for the Army, only to be screwed over and be fed b/s for years.

If there is a decision made, and a statement to be passed on, it needs to be very accurate, and clear with full details. NO MORE hopes and guesses. These guys has been treated like crap for long enough. Stop passing on "fluff" in hopes to hold on to the leftover techs who've had enough and haven't moved on yet...


I'm no longer part of this mess, and I'm still pissed for you guys!


----------



## JSRSith

Only a Canforgen will give the answers we all seek. Only believe it when that Canforgen comes out stating what amount, who gets it, and if there is back pay, if any at all. Right now it's a lot of people saying "I heard it through my chain of command", "I heard it from the school", "They promised me so I know I'm going to get it", etc. This isn't doing any of us any good listening to people that are too low of a rank that have "friends in higher places", and those people that say "they heard from a bunch of people on course", or areleased or retired person that "still have their connections"....all of these people are obviously too far displaced from anyone that makes the final decision, which is the Treasury Board. When the decision is made there will be a Canforgen drafted and approved by a higher chain than any of the people we know, and it will be sent out to every chain of command and disseminated accordingly. No one is going to hear about it before it comes out, so if anyone is skeptical about a rumor then go review the Canforgens for the last couple of months and if you find it, post it here.....and yes, it's Friday night so I don't see anyone racing back to the office to check on this until Monday morning. I personally, am not holding my breath because any approval of spec pay and any back pay means that those whom get it will have to adjust our taxes for just that many years worth of back pay. Then those whom do not get it will either accept it, put in their release, VOT to another trade, go Air force, or try to switch to the trade that gets spec pay.


----------



## armyman7877

Does the spec pay include lineman as well?


----------



## PuckChaser

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> Does the spec pay include lineman as well?



No, this decision is to fix the legacy LCIS pers who got pay frozen and screwed. The longer term is a pay review for all of ACISS.


----------



## JBP

Well... With that all said. I'm too far out of the loop now days to know anything either! 

I'd like to pass on some revelations of some type, but I pulled pin awhile back as someone in the thread alluded too and I'm now a civilian. 

I had a huge post all pre-typed and thought up in my head but, what it comes down too is personal choice... I made mine, I'm out but I'm still working fully in the trenches of the RCCS world, just get to pick what I wear and how long to grow my hair! I'll keep trying to help our sordid mess of a trade, in a new way now. Hopefully in a more effective way. I don't need to lament or rant about all the problems as we mostly all agree on what the problems are. If anyone wants to know why THIS specific ex-IST viewed things and what assisted in my decision to release/retire, PM me.

All I can say for those still in or joining the ranks, keep up the fight! Hold your heads high no matter the challenges of the day and do the best you can. Nobody can ask more of you, so give that while you serve and you'll do just fine!

I'll be seeing some of you around the halls at CFSCE, it's been an 11.6 yr slice, CHEERS!


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Well... With that all said. I'm too far out of the loop now days to know anything either!
> 
> I'd like to pass on some revelations of some type, but I pulled pin awhile back as someone in the thread alluded too and I'm now a civilian.
> 
> I had a huge post all pre-typed and thought up in my head but, what it comes down too is personal choice... I made mine, I'm out but I'm still working fully in the trenches of the RCCS world, just get to pick what I wear and how long to grow my hair! I'll keep trying to help our sordid mess of a trade, in a new way now. Hopefully in a more effective way. I don't need to lament or rant about all the problems as we mostly all agree on what the problems are. If anyone wants to know why THIS specific ex-IST viewed things and what assisted in my decision to release/retire, PM me.
> 
> All I can say for those still in or joining the ranks, keep up the fight! Hold your heads high no matter the challenges of the day and do the best you can. Nobody can ask more of you, so give that while you serve and you'll do just fine!
> 
> I'll be seeing some of you around the halls at CFSCE, it's been an 11.6 yr slice, CHEERS!



So I guess that means in you got your spec pay through alternative means


----------



## c_canuk

Seen some new info, it appears at DRCCS request earlier this year, DPPD is seeking approvals to undo the pay freeze for LCIS QL5, but it still needs approvals. So yeah, big grains of salt and don't expect anything soon.

One sentence in it made me see red for a bit. It's one thing to suspect something based on deductions and rumors, another to see it in writing.

Also apparently none of this has ever made it past DPPD because the file was incomplete and arrived a lot later than normal. Then they were given 4-5 months to fix the problems however DPPD was shut down just as the files came in. Why it took from Jan 2012 to Dec 2014 to provide these files that should have largely been completed well before ACISS was put into practice is something I'd like explained.

This is a positive step forward though, assuming it gets approved.

Hopefully this is only one piece of the effort and the rest of the promised Spec Pay effort is realized.


----------



## Jom

Has everyone seen the new RCCS update?

summary, no change for spec pay, former LCCS spec pay unfrozen when approved, blue berets will be for everyone or no one but no decision yet.

there are a couple other things but it seems this was the important stuff for the forum


----------



## Avail

Jom-IST said:
			
		

> Has everyone seen the new RCCS update?
> 
> summary, no change for spec pay, former LCCS spec pay unfrozen when approved, blue berets will be for everyone or no one but no decision yet.
> 
> there are a couple other things but it seems this was the important stuff for the forum



Don't forget the 20K (two payment) signing/CT bonus.


----------



## PuckChaser

That bonus is only if you have no prior RegF service.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## PiperDown

Just as I suspected. Former LCIS techs are a long way from getting their pay sorted.
The CMP recommendation is the FIRST step ( and that took a year!) 
Now, a file has to be prepared at DPPD for CDS approval. ( ie another year probably) Then, a process to figure out any back pay will take time. 

I realize CMP recommendation is a positive FIRST step, however approval and implementation is a long way away. 
Given the snails pace thus far, I would speculate late 2017 or even mid 2018 for a resolution.


----------



## buzgo

Ref the signing bonus, I gather that it is to attract people that could go into the CST/IST sub-occupations. The thing is, we haven't got a mechanism to fast track them into being CST or IST. They can PLAR the courses but the still have to go through the stages of DP1 common, work as an ACISS in a unit, get streamed into an ISS or CSS job, complete DP2 then they can become a sub occ.

So that works out to 3 or 4 years on average.... right?


----------



## PuckChaser

It could attract anyone from the PRes, we had it in the mid 2000s due to pressures from Afg deployments. Once a trade is sitting at ~78% PML for years without signs of recovery, they do things like this to attract CTs from the PRes.


----------



## buzgo

OK tracking that, but the issue I see is red sub occupation numbers driving the whole occupation to be red. We need to generate more CST, IST and even LST members than we are currently able to. 

Recruiting reservists isn't going to really help out with this as the reserves don't have CST and ISTs. So unless you get a reservist with a tech diploma/degree, you get an ACISS core. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that our recruiting and personnel systems need some tweaking. It would be awesome to be able to recruit candidates into sub occupations.


----------



## PuckChaser

Since when have we needed more LST? They were over 100% PML every CM brief I've ever been to. CST was knocked down a bit because of those who went to IST. Saying that we're red because 2 small sub occs are red ignores the fact that ACISS can't attract regardless of sub occ, and it was an issue for 2 of the 3 pre-amalgamation trades.


----------



## upandatom

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> Just as I suspected. Former LCIS techs are a long way from getting their pay sorted.
> The CMP recommendation is the FIRST step ( and that took a year!)
> Now, a file has to be prepared at DPPD for CDS approval. ( ie another year probably) Then, a process to figure out any back pay will take time.
> 
> I realize CMP recommendation is a positive FIRST step, however approval and implementation is a long way away.
> Given the snails pace thus far, I would speculate late 2017 or even mid 2018 for a resolution.



I do not see this portion taking that long. They have realised an error made, and are correcting it. If they postpone/draw it out any longer, you are going to have even more frustrated personnel. Yes it is alot of work, however they managed to get that severance pay sorted out within a year for most CF members as a whole. This is working with on average 400 personnel? a few hundred still serving, the other half in other trades or jumping ship. 

This will though, cost them a pretty penny, as myself, doing the math for the frozen pay, commensurate with promotions, and pay incentives, adds up pretty quick over a period of 4 ish years, and gets messier with deployments in that timeframe, as that pay now becomes tax free, for in that year.


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> This will though, cost them a pretty penny, as myself, doing the math for the frozen pay, commensurate with promotions, and pay incentives, adds up pretty quick over a period of 4 ish years, and gets messier with deployments in that timeframe, as that pay now becomes tax free, for in that year.



If you still made $8 grand a month or less. Anything more is taxed, making it even more of a mess.


----------



## c_canuk

I figure it will take minimum 6 months, I'd be very surprised if it was less than a year however.


----------



## Avail

signalsguy said:
			
		

> OK tracking that, but the issue I see is red sub occupation numbers driving the whole occupation to be red. We need to generate more CST, IST and even LST members than we are currently able to.
> 
> Recruiting reservists isn't going to really help out with this as the reserves don't have CST and ISTs. So unless you get a reservist with a tech diploma/degree, you get an ACISS core.
> 
> It is becoming increasingly clear that our recruiting and personnel systems need some tweaking. It would be awesome to be able to recruit candidates into sub occupations.



I fall into that category, and it's going to take a lot more than that signing bonus for me to switch sides. If you're a good network or systems admin the standard pay rate just isn't a reasonable offer for your skills and experience. To recruit *good* IST's it's going to take Spec 1.


----------



## Jom

Neso said:
			
		

> Don't forget the 20K (two payment) signing/CT bonus.



glad they are willing to pay people to come in, but won't give the ones already trained any incentive to stay


----------



## c_canuk

It's not so much that, than it is a crippling lack of drive and ability to get things done at a certain rank level.

i.e. This has been ongoing since 2008. It took 6 years to get the paperwork submitted (potentially to be sent back again on review) and 8 to get back to where we started. It only took 6 years to fight WWII.

It's staggering, the level of inaction on what we'd been ensured was a high priority item. The CAF in general, Sigs in particular cannot properly project manage because of crippled leadership. They aren't alone though, Gun Control registry, Phoenix and SSC are other high profile projects that are a nightmare. It's a symptom of our current culture where virtue signalling, claimed effort, and buzz word regurgitation is all that matters, results don't. At least for some at the top end of the spectrum. 

Don't rock the boat, be a team player, don't resist change, these are the current mantras used to shut up people who are problem solvers. They aren't wanted anymore. They bring people down and self esteem is considered the most important aspect of today's society. That good self esteem comes from accomplishment is ignored. Hence the ever rising levels of disenfranchisement and malaise of the younger generations.

but that's just my curmudgeonly rant for the day...


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

c_canuk said:
			
		

> It's not so much that, than it is a crippling lack of drive and ability to get things done at a certain rank level.
> 
> i.e. This has been ongoing since 2008. It took 6 years to get the paperwork submitted (potentially to be sent back again on review) and 8 to get back to where we started. It only took 6 years to fight WWII.
> 
> It's staggering, the level of inaction on what we'd been ensured was a high priority item. The CAF in general, Sigs in particular cannot properly project manage because of crippled leadership. They aren't alone though, Gun Control registry, Phoenix and SSC are other high profile projects that are a nightmare. It's a symptom of our current culture where virtue signalling, claimed effort, and buzz word regurgitation is all that matters, results don't. At least for some at the top end of the spectrum.
> 
> Don't rock the boat, be a team player, don't resist change, these are the current mantras used to shut up people who are problem solvers. They aren't wanted anymore. They bring people down and self esteem is considered the most important aspect of today's society. That good self esteem comes from accomplishment is ignored. Hence the ever rising levels of disenfranchisement and malaise of the younger generations.
> 
> but that's just my curmudgeonly rant for the day...



I wish there was a like button I could click on this post. Well said. Pretty much sums up how I think the rest of the world operates in this day and age. Rant on!


----------



## Drew Grey

Been looking into this trade for awhile now and was wondering if there are any specialists on this site? Is it a interesting job? How do you like it?


----------



## c_canuk

At the Pte - MCpl Level, it's generally very interesting technical work, with lots of opportunity to deploy. Above that and you get mired in bureaucracy and start looking for the exit.


----------



## PiperDown

The latest update ( earlier this month) is that the CDS has rescinded of the decision to put former LCIS techs in the standard pay group. 
No word on when spec pay will resume, or if there will be back pay ( back pay was in the request sent to the CDS just no clarification on the update sent ).


----------



## ringo598

Not sure if anyone outside of JSR has seen it either, but we had some people from Ottawa come and give us a brief.  Apparently there is a "problem" (Their words, there was even a problem paper already completed) with ACISS and the trade setup is being reviewed, they had lots of interesting slides on possible outcomes, such as IST & CST becoming one trade, or the trades being separate instead of sub-ocs and so on.   They have a + box on the GAL for people who want to submit comments to them which I completely forget but I'm sure can be found easily enough.

The Maj & MWO doing the brief advised they'd be going out to the other main signal units and doing the powerpoint presentation there as well.

As well, this was passed to me and its semi recent (May 2016) and is a somewhat interesting read about the official grievance about the pay review (Not sure if already posted but here you go):  http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/rec/145-eng.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bear in mind, there is no time line for the FA to decide on a grievance.   Hopefully this works out IAW the F & R.


----------



## PiperDown

Well folks,

It only took 5+ years, but the end is near !

** Sent on behalf of Col Sullivan **

 CDS Order 050/16 directs that the decision to assign ACISS in its entirety to the Standard Pay Group be rescinded and former LCIS Tech is to be allocated to the Spec 1 Pay Group.   As this is a rescindment of the original decision it in essence has the effect of nullifying the decision, in effect making it as if the decision had not been made.  Therefore the effective date of the pay group assignment is 1 Oct 2011.  This direction only addresses the issue of those former LCIS Techs who essentially had a pay freeze implemented as of 1 Oct 2011.  It does not address the pay evaluation of the current ACISS occupation. The work on the revised pay evaluation process continues inside DPPD.  The formal pay evaluation of the ACISS occupation in its entirety remains linked to the completion of this work.

Director Pay Policy Development (DPPD) advises that the pay adjustments are projected to be complete by the last pay period of January 2017.

This is great news for our soldiers who are former LCIS Techs.

Please disseminate within your areas of responsibility as necessary and appropriate.

**end**


----------



## PuckChaser

Glad it worked out in favour of the technicians. Will have to find another button to grind their gears with now.


----------



## RedMan

Glad it finally got sorted out for those who were QL5 LCIS! About damn time! Co-worker (who falls under this) just told me about this.

I assume this does NOT apply to any who were LCIS, had POET, but got sucked into CST before they were able to do QL5 LCIS by Oct 1 2011 (they had to do ACISS DP2.1, like myself)....?

So the MCPL and above CSTs who were QL5 LCIS are going to be VERY happy......

....but you still have an awful lot of people who joined as LCIS, and got screwed over in every way possible. All the worker bee techs are going to be even more pissed now.


Hopefully, it won't take too long to at least give THEM a final answer, so they can "plan for THEIR future".

Even on the blue side, things move at a slow pace....it's only taken 1.5 years since I OT'd to ATIS for me to get on QL3       Still don't regret my decision.

Congrats on the big pay day guys!


----------



## c_canuk

"Hopefully, it won't take too long to at least give THEM a final answer, so they can "plan for THEIR future"."

Don't count on it; I was at a town hall/study meeting a few weeks ago.

Apparently they can't describe to DPPD what we do based on sub trade yet, and are waiting to figure out what to do with CISTM before resubmitting.

Basic delineations and descriptions of AORs between the trades was presented as a 5 year problem.

This won't be resolved until an outsider forces them to do it. There are too many politics at the deciding level. If an outsider forces the issue I assume it will be DPPD getting sick of waiting and just listing us all as standard pay group.


----------



## mapledonutmouth

Hey guys,

So I have been digging through the forums for anything related to cyber security, and to my disappointment most of them were just filter matches and none of them really in-depth about job opportunities. Onto my question; are there any cyber security related positions in the CF?

I have some IT certifications that focus on cyber security, which I talked about in this thread. I've applied to become an ACISS. It would be great if I could become an IST, _even better_ if I could be placed in some sort of security related position. From doing some searching, I haven't discovered any specific cyber security related positions. Also, from what I understand, the CAF wasn't exactly the most "up-to-date" when it comes to technology until a few years ago.

I'm also aware that the RMC hosts a sort of CTF/Cyber Challenge every year. But do ISTs receive some sort of standard security related training? If they don't, then are the troops that participate self-taught? Or is it possible to dive into a cyber security field once you're an IST?

Also in the thread I listed above, there was a comment about the creation of Cyber Division. Does this mean that cyber security is going to become a "thing"? It's probably always existed, but it sounds like it's become such an elite position.

*TL;DR* I applied to become an ACISS. I have security-related certifications. I'm wondering how cyber-security works in the Forces.


----------



## PuckChaser

Anything involved in how our cyber defenses work would be classified. There is plans moving forward to create a cyber warfare unit, and perhaps a trade, but its no where close to being approved.

Cyber will become a "thing", sometime between now and 20 years from now. Signallers are the pers typically tasked with the defense of DND networks.

Be prepared to wait a while, and keep yourself up to date on skillsets until the trade/unit/group is formed.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Why not go for the big leagues?

https://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/en/careers-carrieres


----------



## mapledonutmouth

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Why not go for the big leagues?
> 
> https://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/en/careers-carrieres



It would be great, but I'm still fresh out of high school and I don't have the education or experience to jump straight into the big leagues.I was just wondering if the opportunity was there because I have some IT certifications that are focused on security.


----------



## mapledonutmouth

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anything involved in how our cyber defenses work would be classified. There is plans moving forward to create a cyber warfare unit, and perhaps a trade, but its no where close to being approved.
> 
> Cyber will become a "thing", sometime between now and 20 years from now. Signallers are the pers typically tasked with the defense of DND networks.
> 
> Be prepared to wait a while, and keep yourself up to date on skillsets until the trade/unit/group is formed.



I understand that cyber defense is probably a well-kept secret for all of its topics, but is there a possibility you could progress from an IST and move towards a security related position? I'm not talking about becoming the next big hacker - anything related, whether it be auditing, pen-testing, developing, etc.


----------



## George Wallace

Jordan Mammoliti said:
			
		

> It would be great, but I'm still fresh out of high school and I don't have the education or experience to jump straight into the big leagues.I was just wondering if the opportunity was there because I have some IT certifications that are focused on security.



OK   ???

First step in any "security related job" is suspicious mind.  You have listed a fairly long list of credentials and now you claim to be fresh out of High School.  

Something does not pass the smell test.


----------



## mapledonutmouth

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK   ???
> 
> First step in any "security related job" is suspicious mind.  You have listed a fairly long list of credentials and now you claim to be fresh out of High School.
> 
> Something does not pass the smell test.



What do you mean "fairly long list" of credentials? All I have are 2 entry level IT certifications I did during the summer, and I am working on completing a more advanced one right now. Even in my other thread, I stated that I have only the certifications with no job experience. And now that you mention it, I don't think "fresh" was a good word to describe my status. It's going to be about a year since I graduated.


----------



## LCISALCpl

I was somewhat in your position 15 years ago when I joined as an LCIS tech with just a high school diploma. Now I am an ACISS-IST with a strong background in networking/cyber security.

I'll try to be as open as possible with you here. You will need to be very patient if you choose to join the CAF as ACISS right now. The kind of work you are looking for is usually only offered to members starting at the rank of Cpl (which may take you between 3-4 years to get to). There is also no guarentee that you will get to make a seamless transition from ACISS Core to ACISS-IST (though this process is getting better). Expect to do a fair bit of training/gruntwork and very little cyber during this time.

Assuming you can put up with all that. There is a Cyber trade that just got approved last year. I have very little information on this but I can guess that it will only accept OTs (occupation transfer) from the ACISS-IST, ATIS, Navv Comm, and Comms Rsch trades to start out. They would most likely be working out of the Canadian Forces Network Operations Centre which google can tell you more about that I can.

So your best bet to become a Cyber security guy with the CAF is to have a 5 year plan involving some mixture of what was described above and have the patience to see if the stars align for you.

Alternatively you could go work for CSE but there is a strong chance they would require you to have a University Degree or equivalent experience before applying. So you are looking at 5 or so years either way .

Good luck!


----------



## mapledonutmouth

LCISALCpl said:
			
		

> I was somewhat in your position 15 years ago when I joined as an LCIS tech with just a high school diploma. Now I am an ACISS-IST with a strong background in networking/cyber security.
> 
> I'll try to be as open as possible with you here. You will need to be very patient if you choose to join the CAF as ACISS right now. The kind of work you are looking for is usually only offered to members starting at the rank of Cpl (which may take you between 3-4 years to get to). There is also no guarentee that you will get to make a seamless transition from ACISS Core to ACISS-IST (though this process is getting better). Expect to do a fair bit of training/gruntwork and very little cyber during this time.
> 
> Assuming you can put up with all that. There is a Cyber trade that just got approved last year. I have very little information on this but I can guess that it will only accept OTs (occupation transfer) from the ACISS-IST, ATIS, Navv Comm, and Comms Rsch trades to start out. They would most likely be working out of the Canadian Forces Network Operations Centre which google can tell you more about that I can.
> 
> So your best bet to become a Cyber security guy with the CAF is to have a 5 year plan involving some mixture of what was described above and have the patience to see if the stars align for you.
> 
> Alternatively you could go work for CSE but there is a strong chance they would require you to have a University Degree or equivalent experience before applying. So you are looking at 5 or so years either way .
> 
> Good luck!



Yeah, I now understand that I'll need to spend some time inside to get an opportunity for a security position. I'm not joining solely to become a cyber security guy though, I was just looking for any ways to improve a transition to one. But for most people who make it into a security role, did they do any sort of training outside the Forces?


----------



## Avail

Have you had a look at Comms Research? That might be what you're looking for. 

http://www.forces.ca/en/job/communicatorresearchoperator-29

_"Collect, process, analyze and report on electromagnetic activity on radio frequency, using highly sophisticated equipment
*Manage and protect computer networks*
*Ensure information technology is secure*
Use and maintain classified publications"_

You should apply to the CSE as a Cybersecurity Analyst as well. What harm would it do?

https://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/en/node/1462


----------



## mapledonutmouth

Neso said:
			
		

> Have you had a look at Comms Research? That might be what you're looking for.
> 
> http://www.forces.ca/en/job/communicatorresearchoperator-29
> 
> _"Collect, process, analyze and report on electromagnetic activity on radio frequency, using highly sophisticated equipment
> *Manage and protect computer networks*
> *Ensure information technology is secure*
> Use and maintain classified publications"_
> 
> You should apply to the CSE as a Cybersecurity Analyst as well. What harm would it do?
> 
> https://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/en/node/1462



Comm. Research Operator seems promising, heck I even qualify for it. I'll speak to a recruiter today about it. As for applying to the CSE, I just graduated high school but I'll definitely keep that in mind.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Jordan Mammoliti said:
			
		

> What do you mean "fairly long list" of credentials? All I have are 2 entry level IT certifications I did during the summer, and I am working on completing a more advanced one right now. Even in my other thread, I stated that I have only the certifications with no job experience. And now that you mention it, I don't think "fresh" was a good word to describe my status. It's going to be about a year since I graduated.



Don't worry about that. Some people pretend to be experts on everything, even if it is well outside their trade or the trade they were when they were in the military a decade ago.


----------



## PuckChaser

Neso said:
			
		

> Thanks for that. It would be nice to see this make its way to the Reserve side of the house, but I have my doubts, since we couldn't even get IST for some reason beyond my comprehension.



How is that beyond your comprehension? What is a PRes IST going to do all day? They don't have TSLs, MTs or classified networks to administer. Massive skillfade. Huge training costs to industry standards with no contract to keep that person in the CAF once they got qualified. There's hundreds of reasons not to do it, and why it made sense that they didn't do it. They even cut pieces out of the ACISS DP1/2 packages for Core to make it shorter. Even R291 is a wasted trade with limited ability to augment the RegF and huge hindrances to equipment and training time.

You're likely to see the exact same thing for Cyber Op. The only Cyber piece the PRes had (which was done well) was the CRIP teams that were SigOps and Techs with personal training and on long term Cl B contracts.


----------



## Avail

Calm down, everything's going to be ok.

1. What are we going to do all day?
 In a Class A sense, training and exercise. I'm sure you could have figured that out on your own without resorting to throwing a tantrum.

2. "They don't have TSLs, MTs or classified networks to administer. Massive skillfade. Huge training costs to industry standards"

We have plenty of members capable of fielding sysadmin and network admin work that have been through College and University already, at a significantly higher standard of qualification than most Regular IST's. There is less skill fade for us in this role, as the principles are the same as a civilian sysadmin or network admin like myself. There aren't so many green radios in the civilian world, plenty of cisco routers, switches, Windows Servers, and Linux though. Almost of of the training can be done at the Unit level. You might be surprised at how many highly skilled IT professionals are in reserve signals 

tl/dr: You are wrong. IST is more viable than ACISS Core.


----------



## PuckChaser

I've run Cl A training plans, thanks. Likely before you even joined the CAF. I know whats involved, and I know what resources a PRes Comms unit has. Racks of servers, and medium/large scale networking devices are not one of them.

There's absolutely plenty of civilian qualified technologies that would make excellent ISTs, in the Regular Force. A PRes trade needs to provide value to the CAF, I'd even argue its more imperative that there's bigger bang for the buck in PRes than RegF due to fiscal and structural realities that exist in the PRes. Are you going to pay for the cisco routers, switches, and servers for the unit to own and train on? How is that equipment going to be employed on exercises with other units, when those Inf Coys and Cmbt Eng Sqns barely have laptops for their CPs? Have you ever seen the infrastructure in a RegF Bde CP and compared it to a Stalwart Guardian (or ARCON) CP? The PRes Signallers do a fantastic job kitting together what they can to make a very functional CP with some IS/IT assets, but its no where close to the complexity and employment concepts of what an IST is going to do a JSR or HQ&Sigs.

I get it, you're upset that you can't do your day job as a night job as well. You also seem to forget the entire point of Army Signals is communications from the Commander to the warfighter on the FEBA. Last I checked, we didn't have laptops with dismounted infantry section commanders sending ICQ messages back looking for direction. Green radios are evolving, and those "less viable" Core guys are catching up with subnetting and creation of wireless IP networks to eat into your empire.


----------



## Avail

You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I. I'm of the opinion that we can add value to the CF through education and skills that already exist. To not leverage that because we can't afford some networking equipment, servers and a few racks is absurd. The equipment required can easily be allowed for in our current budget. It has absolutely nothing to do with "wanting to do my day job as a night job" and everything to do with wanting to add value to the organization where we can. If you think that means subnetting and a WLAN you have some reading to do.

And no, at 32 you weren't doing any of that before I joined the CF, but thanks for the condescending tone. I didn't call the members "not viable" - maybe take a little extra time reading a post before replying. We have fantastic people, which is exactly the point.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Here is the part about the new MOSID and PRes.

7. RES F ESTABLISHMENT.  THERE ARE NO RES F POSITIONS FOR THIS 
OCCUPATION

I know a lot of Pres folks would like to 'do the same stuff' as the Regs but...as mentioned, skill fade and the cost of trg makes this 'bad money spent' a lot of the time.  I've been Pres in a former life, so I'm not saying that with no understanding of the PRes world reality.  I knew/know some of the guys who were the CRIPT folks and they were very rare in terms of abilities and trg.  I''ve got 3 years of college including a post-grad in Information System Tech, 2 handfuls of certs and done the CAF sys admin gig as a PRes and Reg Force (former 226).  

Even the CRIPT guys had the 30 day option on any given day.  There needs to be a return of investment;  I can see a restricted release/OT date coming with the folks who go into this trade, much like we do with aircrew, for that exact reason.   :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser

Neso said:
			
		

> You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I. I'm of the opinion that we can add value to the CF through education and skills that already exist. To not leverage that because we can't afford some networking equipment, servers and a few racks is absurd. The equipment required can easily be allowed for in our current budget. It has absolutely nothing to do with "wanting to do my day job as a night job" and everything to do with wanting to add value to the organization where we can. If you think that means subnetting and a WLAN you have some reading to do.



What are you cutting to get that equipment to every PRes Sigs unit? You can't use O&M money for it, so where do you find the Vote 1 and Vote 5 to build a network system for the PRes to use thats viable as a training nexus to ISTs in the RegF who are administering DWAN, CSNI and a whole host of other networks? 30 laptops running into a Cisco switch and a 3U server isn't nearly close to what a RegF IST is taught and can handle. Its not just lack of equipment, its lack of users, which means lack of user induced faults. How long before your PRes ISTs are bored of their MCpls introducing faults on the system that they know should work perfectly fine? Ask JSR how much fun it is for their pers setting up a Div HQ complex in a parking lot that has nobody working in it, but they have to monitor all the systems anyways as "good training". 



> And no, at 32 you weren't doing any of that before I joined the CF, but thanks for the condescending tone.





			
				Neso said:
			
		

> I'm hoping the collective experience of the members here will have some useful tips for me. I am an ACISS Core Cpl in the P Res and now a first time Det Comd. I am not PLQ qualified and I still have a portion of DP2 remaining to complete.



In September 2014 I had already completed 2 deployments, worked as a Section Commander in both the PRes then RegF and with a CRIPT member as my DC built one of the first deployable standalone network systems (to mimic TacNet) for the PRes and used it on exercise with great success. 

As I'm sure you've seen in the PRes, age can be very deceiving.



> I didn't call the members "not viable" - maybe take a little extra time reading a post before replying.





			
				Neso said:
			
		

> tl/dr: You are wrong. IST is more viable than ACISS Core.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> and those "less viable" Core guys



You clearly didn't read what I wrote.

I get it though, you're an IT guy and see the world through IT lenses. Think about your 18 year old kid heading into university with no IT experience and taking Basket Weaving at university. IST sounds cool, so he takes the training. Ends up with watered down training, barely scratching the surface and not nearly having the experience on equipment as someone like you who does it for a day job as well. Finishes university, decides he wants to deploy. We have reservist quotas, so he's thrown in HQ&Sigs and now its someone's problem to train him up to be a competent IST and fill all those gaps the  PRes couldn't possibly train during an 8 week summer course and 2 weekends a month. He's a huge drain on resources, but it sure looks good that we have another PRes trade to dilute the existing PRes trades that are bleeding people and struggling to recruit.


----------



## Avail

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> In September 2014 I had already completed 2 deployments, worked as a Section Commander in both the PRes then RegF and with a CRIPT member as my DC built one of the first deployable standalone network systems (to mimic TacNet) for the PRes and used it on exercise with great success.



Congratulations. Give yourself a pat on the back for me.

I've administered and architected enterprise networks from the ground up and executed large scale domain and exchange migrations. Ive implemented SCCM, Puppet, and SharePoint projects. Again, those piped into IST should have a similar background, as many of my peers do.

My argument is that the skills are already there and that SUPPLEMENTAL training could be completed on the job. You've done nothing to sway that position. For the 2014-2015 FY the Army Reserve had a $13.5 million surplus. I'm no accountant but it would seem to me that there's at least some wiggle room for equipment.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Think about your 18 year old kid heading into university with no IT experience and taking Basket Weaving



The basics of network administration are no more complex than operating VHF and HF radio. The basket weaver may be in trouble either way if they don't have the aptitude.




			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Looks good that we have another PRes trade to dilute the existing PRes trades that are bleeding people and struggling to recruit.



You're right, we are bleeding people and struggling to recruit - because our members aren't being challenged or utilized as well as they could be.  We are stuck doing the same things over and over with no change on the horizon. I am confident our recruiting efforts, especially in the post secondary demographic, would go up if we had IST. The Army Reserve is hemorrhaging because our training is a joke. Our equipment is a joke. It has and continues to destroy morale, and people leave. Maybe we can't properly train IST members, but I'd argue our current training for ACISS Core isn't any better. We're in rough shape and we have very little in the way of experienced leaders, because many have gone on to greener pastures, largely due to the issues mentioned. Either way, this is getting a bit tangential.

You're right about the end user issue - I'll give you that one.


----------



## Sig_Des

Neso said:
			
		

> Congratulations. Give yourself a pat on the back for me.



Your condescending tone is amusing to me as you were the one who initially started this digital dongle-measuring with your snarky tone. But judging from your posting history, before you had joined the CAF, he DID have more military and branch experience than you did.



> I've administered and architected enterprise networks from the ground up and executed large scale domain and exchange migrations. Ive implemented SCCM, Puppet, and SharePoint projects. Again, those piped into IST should have a similar background, as many of my peers do.



Good for you. That's your experience. And yes, there's a lot of of the same among Res ACISS core, particularly around the big-city units. But it is not a standard throughout. And the fact remains, just because there's a lot of people who do that on their own, does not justify creating a trade just to keep them doing what they do in their civvy lives.

OK. so let's say you get what you want. You get Res IST. What will they do? And let's be honest, first 5 years, you'll have MAYBE 100 people. Sure, 33 Sigs may have a Tp's worth of pers, mostly due to the fact that the guys who have experience are working in the industry or on Class B at LStL. But what about the other units. What is their employment going to be? You complain about the level of leadership now, how many effective Jnr & Snr NCO's will cross over? And I'm not talking about just technologically effective.

DWAN Admin? Good luck breaking into that empire without actually working at a helpdesk. You'll get an A- account from their cold dead hands. 

So what will the IST trade bring to the table? What WILL they do during parade nights and ex? Build and maintain LCSS suites, obviously, because THAT's the ONLY system that would be of any worth. But would it be though? Are you just going to build kits, that no one will use until one of the major Bde Exes? The Res Cmbt arms units aren't going to waste their training time with it on parade nights and weekend exes.

So you want to create a trade, that will build and maintain something that only that trade will want to use. And with the Concept of Employment and time required for Capability Increments, plus the tougher time the Res already has for procurement and maintenance, you think that won't frustrate people?

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe the juice is worth the squeeze.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How is that beyond your comprehension? What is a PRes IST going to do all day? They don't have TSLs, MTs or classified networks to administer. Massive skillfade. Huge training costs to industry standards with no contract to keep that person in the CAF once they got qualified. There's hundreds of reasons not to do it, and why it made sense that they didn't do it. They even cut pieces out of the ACISS DP1/2 packages for Core to make it shorter. Even R291 is a wasted trade with limited ability to augment the RegF and huge hindrances to equipment and training time.
> 
> You're likely to see the exact same thing for Cyber Op. The only Cyber piece the PRes had (which was done well) was the CRIP teams that were SigOps and Techs with personal training and on long term Cl B contracts.



Supposedly they are rolling out LCSS (U) to the reserve units.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What are you cutting to get that equipment to every PRes Sigs unit? You can't use O&M money for it, so where do you find the Vote 1 and Vote 5 to build a network system for the PRes to use thats viable as a training nexus to ISTs in the RegF who are administering DWAN, CSNI and a whole host of other networks? 30 laptops running into a Cisco switch and a 3U server isn't nearly close to what a RegF IST is taught and can handle. Its not just lack of equipment, its lack of users, which means lack of user induced faults. How long before your PRes ISTs are bored of their MCpls introducing faults on the system that they know should work perfectly fine? Ask JSR how much fun it is for their pers setting up a Div HQ complex in a parking lot that has nobody working in it, but they have to monitor all the systems anyways as "good training".
> 
> In September 2014 I had already completed 2 deployments, worked as a Section Commander in both the PRes then RegF and with a CRIPT member as my DC built one of the first deployable standalone network systems (to mimic TacNet) for the PRes and used it on exercise with great success.
> 
> As I'm sure you've seen in the PRes, age can be very deceiving.
> 
> You clearly didn't read what I wrote.
> 
> I get it though, you're an IT guy and see the world through IT lenses. Think about your 18 year old kid heading into university with no IT experience and taking Basket Weaving at university. IST sounds cool, so he takes the training. Ends up with watered down training, barely scratching the surface and not nearly having the experience on equipment as someone like you who does it for a day job as well. Finishes university, decides he wants to deploy. We have reservist quotas, so he's thrown in HQ&Sigs and now its someone's problem to train him up to be a competent IST and fill all those gaps the  PRes couldn't possibly train during an 8 week summer course and 2 weekends a month. He's a huge drain on resources, but it sure looks good that we have another PRes trade to dilute the existing PRes trades that are bleeding people and struggling to recruit.



Honestly it can easily be done on the cheap.

Set up a tiny stack of physical servers and you can virtualize the entire LCSS Bde suite to a pretty reliable degree. Couple in a setup with GNS3 and you can create virtual networks nearly identical as well.

Have the reserve guys play with that and I can guarentee you I can find a use for them in my IST sect. Sure they may not be up to the same level as a Reg F IST but a good chunk of our tasks are repetitive in nature. I'd have them shown how to image a rack of computers and they can do the next few hundred on their own. Show them how to program a VoIP DN and let them do the next couple of hundred.

Argue if you want but I can pretty authoritatively tell you I'd take smart people with minimum training over being understaffed any day of the week.


----------



## buzgo

I'm pretty sure the reserve units have LCSS(U). 

Maybe they don't need ISTs, maybe what they need is a TACNET support course.  They can then send their people who work in these jobs in the real world on the training and learn to support the software and maintain the configurations. Hardware is not a problem. 

I have to agree with some of the other posts, we can barely train ISTs in the reg force and we are not close to achieving the quality or quantity of folks that we need. We can put reservists on the courses but reserve units are better off recruiting kids with diplomas/degrees in IT related fields. 

Reserve signals needs to have a serious look at tasks/requirements/capabilities and figure out what they can actually achieve.  Maybe its all about GATR and some unclass networking/it support and providing some HF capabilities.


----------



## c_canuk

Just got word that any former LCIS who did not complete QL5 prior to the 2011 cut off, will not get spec pay under the old system that's being unfrozen. 

I had more comments regarding this, but I've chosen not to post them since it's not going to change anything. I have a problem with allowing things I can't change to negatively affect my mental health.

I'm working on it.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the reserve units have LCSS(U).
> 
> Maybe they don't need ISTs, maybe what they need is a TACNET support course.  They can then send their people who work in these jobs in the real world on the training and learn to support the software and maintain the configurations. Hardware is not a problem.
> 
> I have to agree with some of the other posts, we can barely train ISTs in the reg force and we are not close to achieving the quality or quantity of folks that we need. We can put reservists on the courses but reserve units are better off recruiting kids with diplomas/degrees in IT related fields.
> 
> Reserve signals needs to have a serious look at tasks/requirements/capabilities and figure out what they can actually achieve.  Maybe its all about GATR and some unclass networking/it support and providing some HF capabilities.



Give me a smart reservist and I'll teach them the basics of first line help desk in a day, or teach them how to reimage pcs. If they have networking experience then we can put them to work right away on any of the systems.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Just got word that any former LCIS who did not complete QL5 prior to the 2011 cut off, will not get spec pay under the old system that's being unfrozen.
> 
> I had more comments regarding this, but I've chosen not to post them since it's not going to change anything. I have a problem with allowing things I can't change to negatively affect my mental health.
> 
> I'm working on it.



While I feel for the ACISS pain imposed on folks...I can't see the problem with this WRT spec pay for those who didn't complete QL5 prior to the 2011 cut off.  Spec pay is granted to people in spec trades that (1) are the min rank of Cpl and (2) have completed a QL5 (or other trade designated) course.  If you weren't receiving spec pay when the 2011 cut off happened...meaning you weren't entitled to spec pay yet...why would you magically be grandfathered into something you weren't entitled to receive before the "comes into effect" date?

Looking at it myopically, it could seem unfair or whatever word people like to use, but if you weren't entitled before a cut off date, I have a hard time understanding why you would be entitled after a cut off date.

 :2c:


----------



## ACISSfail

I have been watching this forum since around the beginning of this whole fiasco.  I joined as LCIS, did POET and then got sucked into the nightmare that is ACISS.  I am happy to see that grievance about the delayed pay review for ACISS, but really I am not confident about seeing a resolution to this ridiculous situation any time soon considering taking this approach to unfreeze LCIS instead.  I am also happy that some of my friends are getting a nice big pay check, well deserved.  

The fact now is that half the section I belong to makes a fair chunk of change more than I for the exact same job.  I think the absolute worst thing was how they even managed to mess up the unfreeze, apparently applying the trade change to ALL former LCIS, as everyone that I know who wasn't QL5 Cpl at the cutoff saw back pay come onto their stub...Yea thanks, just keep rubbing more salt into that wound (all who joined as LCIS but didn't get qualified in time). 

When I joined I had done my research, looked into the trades I was interested in, and between EO and LCIS I went with the latter.  They knew based on all my research that ACISS was happening, so why did they continue to hire LCIS then (don't actually entertain an answer I know why but still misleading none the less).  If I had known I would have definitely gone the other way. 

Anyways, I really hate to have my first post be one of such negativity.  I certainly love my job and while I agree that money is not everything, It certainly helps, especially when you joined a trade with a higher level of training and education and that expectation.  I merely felt the need to finally hop on this forum and vent a bit  [.

Cheers


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> While I feel for the ACISS pain imposed on folks...I can't see the problem with this WRT spec pay for those who didn't complete QL5 prior to the 2011 cut off.  Spec pay is granted to people in spec trades that (1) are the min rank of Cpl and (2) have completed a QL5 (or other trade designated) course.  If you weren't receiving spec pay when the 2011 cut off happened...meaning you weren't entitled to spec pay yet...why would you magically be grandfathered into something you weren't entitled to receive before the "comes into effect" date?
> 
> Looking at it myopically, it could seem unfair or whatever word people like to use, but if you weren't entitled before a cut off date, I have a hard time understanding why you would be entitled after a cut off date.
> 
> :2c:



It makes no sense to me either. Anyone that might have a case is the rare situation where a person was QL5 qualified and only a few days/weeks short of promotion to Cpl. The other side of the coin is that you have to draw a line somewhere, and someone was going to get shafted because of it so trying to walk on eggshells to make everyone in a large trade happy is just not possible.

Anyone who didn't have enough time in trade to complete their QL5 has literally no idea what they were missing. Their complaints are solely now based on money as a motivating factor, instead of actual hardship and are welcome to VOT into a Spec pay trade that will happily pay them extra money to feel entitled.

ACISSFail: You have very little understanding on how this whole process went about. They cannot hire for a new trade that's not approved. At some point they had to make a line in the sand and make an effective date for a trade. You literally have no idea what you're missing WRT spec pay, and have no right to gripe unless you were one of those Techs who were unfairly pay frozen by this gongshow. The pay unfreeze admin screw up sucks, but if you're that salty about not getting spec pay your solution is a AVOTP memo away. You're not any different than any other Signaller just because you did POET, or NCM-SEP. You'll find some folks in IST or Core with one or two college diplomas who happily enjoy their rate of pay, and although would welcome a spec pay boost, aren't butthurt about it. If you needed to vent, I'm sure you can do that all day in the tech shop, but those guys who actually earned their spec pay probably don't want to hear it anymore.


----------



## LCISALCpl

I am not sure how many other former LCIS techs this affected but they actually managed to screw up the pay unfreeze for many of us by applying the difference in our pay as a deduction for all the months/years of missing spec pay vice a credit. When I called the pay office, apparently it was a "known" issue for former LCIS techs on their end-JAN pay statement. Check your EMAA to make sure you are not getting screwed by this if you were looking forward to a payout this month.

Also ref the whole QL5 qualified requirement, some of you may remember there was a period of several years where the LCIS QL5 course was being redesigned and thus did not exist. I am talking around the 2004-2005 timeframe so there are some members who were not offered the opportunity the complete their QL5 yet still received their spec pay since no QL5 existed at the time. This issue affected me and I know of others who are fighting to get their backpay because of it. I was fortunate in that my MCpl insisted that I complete a PLAR for my QL5 just to cover my butt which got processed/approved in 2010 so I guess I dodged that bullet. Good luck to those of you who are facing this dilemma.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That could be a different scenario there.  The proper fix shouldn't have been to give spec pay to people who didn't complete a QL5;  it would have been to continue the old Ql5 until the new one was ready to run.  That is a different fuck-up though.

The regs are clear for spec pay;  min rank Cpl AND QL5 (or course designated in the Spec Pay table.  I know your trade and branch screwed this and other things up horribly over the past decade + but...folks in my trade don't get spec pay until they are entitled to it, period.  It should be that way across the board.  The fact that some were receiving it was wrong in the first place.  Your MCpl was switched on to push you for the PLAR and it paid off for you literally.   :nod:


----------



## LCIS-Tech

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> <snip>The fact that some were receiving it was wrong in the first place.  Your MCpl was switched on to push you for the PLAR and it paid off for you literally.   :nod:



Those "specific LCIS Techs" that were affected were granted a Waiver, since a QL5A course did not exist at that time. Make sure that a copy of the waiver is on your PERS File.


----------



## LCIS-Tech

This particular problem exists for a number of reasons. From what I have been able to ascertain thus far, nobody that I have heard of above the rank of Sgt has had any Spec Pay back-Pay action taken (myself included). In 'My" case, I was a Rad Tech, and had to COT to LCIS Tech in 1996. I did COMET QL5A (Rad Tech QL5A) in 1991 (I think...). Never did an LCIS Tech QL5A. Is this a reason? Who knows.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> Those "specific LCIS Techs" that were affected were granted a Waiver, since a QL5A course did not exist at that time. Make sure that a copy of the waiver is on your PERS File.



If those 'with the waiver' are denied and redress it, it will be interesting to see the F & R and final decision (I'll assume denial at the IA level).  Waiver isn't the same as being granted qual/equivalency via PLAR or similar processes so it would be interesting to see how an unbiased review would look at the whole mess.

I feel for the folks left in the branch going thru this whole mess;  hopefully this is looked after quickly and in favour of the mbrs.  Anyone who is not satisfied in the ACISS world, just keep in the back of your mind that *AES OP *is always taking remuster applications, there is no question on if you get spec pay after QL5, and there is aircrew allowance for anyone in a flying job.  Maritime Helicopter types get the added bonus of PLD and if they are posted to a HMCS AirDet, sea duty allowance.  See your PSO!   ;D


----------



## upandatom

Shouldnt be that Difficult. 

Had spec pay? Yes
Had Spec pay frozen? yes

Did you say yes to both questions above? 
Yes
Here is your money
Thanks

There are alot of nuances out there with the " never did QL5," etc. 
Pay office had to have the ability to grant you Spec, not just someone saying here you go. 
Pay audits and major pay changes like that require signoffs or higher up approval with notes and traceable as to who made the changes. 

Fact is, you were screwed out of your rightfully earned spec pay. 
Here it is back for you.


----------



## c_canuk

To the people pointing out the 2011 deadline, that deadline exists because the original submittion was that CST was a new trade. Therefor spec pay was frozen, and new people who were hired into CST or LCIS but did not complete an LCIS QL5/POET/Cpls, would not get Spec pay since CST was a new trade.

Now keep that in mind that the reason CSTs don't get spec pay, is because CST was decided to be a new trade, not merely a name change of LCIS.

Then we get this message stating that there was a mistake, CST is NOT a new trade, it was merely just a name change.

Still following, therefore by any reasonable interpretation, LCIS is CST, and CST is LCIS. By extension, anyone who is CST Cpl/POET/Cpl course qualified, should be considered an LCIS tech and get spec pay.

Ether it's a new trade or it isn't. Pick one.

Personally as an IST I don't have a bun in the fight other than seeing two very switched on Mbrs working for me where one gets it, and the other doesn't cause he got deployed before he could do his QL5 and missed the arbitrary cut off for the new trade that apparently isn't new.

This is common sense, easy crap to fix and in the grand scheme of things arse wipe money. The right, ethical, prudent decision is the give it to them rather than cause divisions in the ranks.

"Know your men and promote their welfare" it's not just a catchy phrase, we're supposed to live it. So why aren't we?

Edit:Clarity


----------



## Eye In The Sky

upandatom said:
			
		

> Shouldnt be that Difficult.
> 
> Had spec pay? Yes
> Had Spec pay frozen? yes
> Was entitled to that spec pay IAW CAF policy that applies to all spec pay trades?



FTFY  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

c_canuk said:
			
		

> seeing two very switched on Mbrs working for me where one gets it, and the other doesn't cause he got deployed before he could do his QL5 and missed the arbitrary cut off for the new trade that apparently isn't new.
> 
> This is common sense, easy crap to fix and in the grand scheme of things arse wipe money. The right, ethical, prudent decision is the give it to them rather than cause divisions in the ranks.
> 
> "Know your men and promote their welfare" it's not just a catchy phrase, we're supposed to live it. So why aren't we?
> 
> Edit:Clarity



Believe me...I get it.  I work with Avr's who are QL5 qualified but are Avr's, not Cpls yet.  They are on the same aircraft, sitting next to someone else who is QL5 qual'd but they are a Cpl.  Only one of those people get spec pay.  As I said, the regs for spec pay apply to all spec pay trades, and every AES Op who is an Avr goes without spec pay until they are Cpls.  Just the nature of the beast.  The 5s covers the qualification part of specialist pay...the Cpls covers the experience aspect. 

Anyways...I'm probably coming off the wrong way here.  Whoever gets it in this back pay thing, I am glad for them.  I just think the mistake was granting a waiver and granting $ on that.  The direction should have been " get a valid QL5 LCIS course developed, or prepare to lose your spec pay" to the trade.  The folks at the helm then took the easy way, and still today there is a negative affect on people's careers.  Not on.


----------



## DigitalCurrents

I've heard that ACISS is now a 'red trade' so I can't VOT.  Anybody know if that's true?


----------



## buzgo

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Believe me...I get it.  I work with Avr's who are QL5 qualified but are Avr's, not Cpls yet.  They are on the same aircraft, sitting next to someone else who is QL5 qual'd but they are a Cpl.  Only one of those people get spec pay.  As I said, the regs for spec pay apply to all spec pay trades, and every AES Op who is an Avr goes without spec pay until they are Cpls.  Just the nature of the beast.  The 5s covers the qualification part of specialist pay...the Cpls covers the experience aspect.
> 
> Anyways...I'm probably coming off the wrong way here.  Whoever gets it in this back pay thing, I am glad for them.  I just think the mistake was granting a waiver and granting $ on that.  The direction should have been " get a valid QL5 LCIS course developed, or prepare to lose your spec pay" to the trade.  The folks at the helm then took the easy way, and still today there is a negative affect on people's careers.  Not on.



So if they couldn't develop a valid QL5 then maybe they actually have a huge problem and the trade should not have been receiving spec pay at all. Once they scrambled to fix it, they were 'good' until we were all COT'd into ACISS. Then the senior MWOs and the CWOs who were mostly former LCIS, spent the next 5 years trying to manipulate the JBS, task list and QS for the CST sub occ in order to get spec pay. 

I'm so tired of this. I'm glad they are getting the money but let's be done with it. This incessant focus on spec pay has put us 5 - 6 years behind where we could have been.


----------



## PuckChaser

DigitalCurrents said:
			
		

> I've heard that ACISS is now a 'red trade' so I can't VOT.  Anybody know if that's true?


It's always been yellow or red.  Even red trades allow you to VOT, but the cap is lowered. If you have a strong file with good PERs, you shouldn't have an issue.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

True;  the OUTCAP numbers are based on a trades TES (Trained Effective Strength) and 'health'.  Amber (yellow) trades are allowed 1% of their TES to OT and Red trades are allowed o.5% of the TES to OT.


----------



## c_canuk

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Believe me...I get it.  I work with Avr's who are QL5 qualified but are Avr's, not Cpls yet.  They are on the same aircraft, sitting next to someone else who is QL5 qual'd but they are a Cpl.  Only one of those people get spec pay.  As I said, the regs for spec pay apply to all spec pay trades, and every AES Op who is an Avr goes without spec pay until they are Cpls.  Just the nature of the beast.  The 5s covers the qualification part of specialist pay...the Cpls covers the experience aspect.
> 
> Anyways...I'm probably coming off the wrong way here.  Whoever gets it in this back pay thing, I am glad for them.  I just think the mistake was granting a waiver and granting $ on that.  The direction should have been " get a valid QL5 LCIS course developed, or prepare to lose your spec pay" to the trade.  The folks at the helm then took the easy way, and still today there is a negative affect on people's careers.  Not on.



I may be interpreting wrong, but I think you misunderstand the situation. They have all the required documentation/quals, but because back in the day CST was designated a new trade, those that missed the 2011 cut off didn't get spec pay.

Today, I have people with identical quals, one gets spec, the other doesn't because he got deployed and the other went on a 5s earlier.

They are both now Cpls, they both are QL5 or equivalent qualified, and they both have POET.

One gets spec pay because he's got the quals prior to oct 2011 and it's been unfrozen because CST is now considered not a new trade.
The guy sitting next to him with identical quals but got them after 2011, doesn't get spec pay because CST is a new trade.

He won't get spec pay in the future, it's simply not available to him due to some schism in thought about CST.

Based on my interpretation of what you wrote, your Avr will get spec pay once they get promoted. 

My guys have been qualified for years except CST was deemed a new trade and no case for spec pay had been approved for CST, now that CST is not a new trade and merely a name change of LCIS which does have an approved case for spec pay, they should be getting it.

Either it's a new trade, and LCIS spec pay should not have been unfrozen, or it's not a new trade and all CSTs with Cpls, QL5 and POET should be getting spec pay.

the 2011 cut off shouldn't factor into because that was a deadline for the stand up of a new trade and discontinuation of an old one, except we've now been told, it's not a new trade anymore.

you're going to see these divisions end up in paying one troop vastly more over their career for the same work, over another, simply because of a bureaucratic fuck up. CST never should have been listed as a new trade, and spec pay should never have been denied to any LCIS or CSTs. 

Those responsible for submitting the spec pay for the rest of ACCIS should have either gotten it finished within the 12 month deadline for Oct 2012 or admitted inability to perform their task and stepped aside for someone else who was competent to do the job. They apparently still cannot put together a comprehensive description of what each sub trade does, and they've been working on since 2011 or earlier. The DPPD shutdown in 2014 is irrelevant, it's 2 years past the date the original case was supposed to be submitted.

When will someone take responsibility for this and get on with it. Why is this state of affairs being allowed to continue? Why are higher officials above RCCS ok with this project going on for 6 years with no resolution?


----------



## PiperDown

If there was a course loading message ( or a deferral message ) for the deployed guy in 2011 who missed his 5s, and thus never received spec pay,  there may be some good news.
There are a couple guys who redressed this and were granted spec pay with a very hefty cheque.   The caveat is, they were course loaded on a QL5, but deferred because of deployment.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I may be interpreting wrong, but I think you misunderstand the situation. They have all the required documentation/quals, but because back in the day CST was designated a new trade, those that missed the 2011 cut off didn't get spec pay.
> 
> Today, I have people with identical quals, one gets spec, the other doesn't because he got deployed and the other went on a 5s earlier.
> 
> They are both now Cpls, they both are QL5 or equivalent qualified, and they both have POET.
> 
> One gets spec pay because he's got the quals prior to oct 2011 and it's been unfrozen because CST is now considered not a new trade.
> The guy sitting next to him with identical quals but got them after 2011, doesn't get spec pay because CST is a new trade.
> 
> He won't get spec pay in the future, it's simply not available to him due to some schism in thought about CST.
> 
> Based on my interpretation of what you wrote, your Avr will get spec pay once they get promoted.
> 
> My guys have been qualified for years except CST was deemed a new trade and no case for spec pay had been approved for CST, now that CST is not a new trade and merely a name change of LCIS which does have an approved case for spec pay, they should be getting it.
> 
> Either it's a new trade, and LCIS spec pay should not have been unfrozen, or it's not a new trade and all CSTs with Cpls, QL5 and POET should be getting spec pay.



I was leaning more towards stuff like this...



			
				LCISALCpl said:
			
		

> Also ref the whole QL5 qualified requirement, some of you may remember there was a period of several years where the LCIS QL5 course was being redesigned and thus did not exist. I am talking around the 2004-2005 timeframe so there are some members who were not offered the opportunity the complete their QL5 yet still received their spec pay since no QL5 existed at the time. This issue affected me and I know of others who are fighting to get their backpay because of it. I was fortunate in that my MCpl insisted that I complete a PLAR for my QL5 just to cover my butt which got processed/approved in 2010 so I guess I dodged that bullet. Good luck to those of you who are facing this dilemma.



LCISALCpl was granted 5s via PLAR...sounds like most others were not but still received Spec pay because...



			
				LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> Those "specific LCIS Techs" that were affected were granted a Waiver, since a QL5A course did not exist at that time. Make sure that a copy of the waiver is on your PERS File.



The folks who got a waiver should have all HAD to complete QL5 to get spec pay.  I know and understand the difference between quals, currencies and waivers.  Each of those waivered people should have been PLARd like LCISALCpl was (kudos to his MCpl for knowing the importance of this...too bad the entire LCIS senior trade management weren't so switched on) and anyone who did not get a QL5 qual via PLAR/equivalency should have lost their spec pay, and shouldn't be wondering why they don't get spec pay now or then.  Its simple, Cpls and QL5 = spec pay, right?

The snr leadership in the LCIS world took the quick and easy route of a waiver rather than sitting a QSWB and doing the necessary follow on work to get a valid QL5 course stood up.  That is just plain lazy in my books.  Then, of course, the clusterfuck of ACISS and sub-occs...

I feel for you guys; hopefully the sun comes up on the horizon soon.


----------



## LCIS-Tech

The QL5A Exemption Waiver states in para 5 that if they meet the criteria, they will be granted the Journeyman (QL5A) qualification (AIXP). That said, they will have the course code added to their MPRR, so there is no need to PLAR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Right,  okay.  

SO...what training, or OJTP, etc did they actually _complete_ to get this qualification?  None, just a waiver, because the LCIS trade couldn't put the effort into a QL5 course?  If there is no QL5 course, then there are no special skills being taught and/or required...so, no requirement for spec pay.  It has to be one, or other.  

Every other Spec trade in the CAF has an actual course or OJTP that has to be signed off/completed...why would LCIS be special?  My previous trade (226), when I was on my way out the door for my remuster, was just changing from a OJTP QL5 qual to a formal QL course;  the OJTP was moved to post-QL3 ín house trg and was part of the complete QL3 qual IIRC;  you had to have the package signed off before you could be loaded on QL5 (they should have made it a QL4 vice part of the QL3 but..).  So, POET + QL3 in house trg + QL3 Apprentice OJTP before going on QL5, around which time you'd be a Cpl or close and then you'd have your _specialist_ pay.  I think we are talking around the same timeframe;  I left ATIS and the the C & E branch in 2009.  We had an OJTP with signatures required on XXX items before getting spec pay, then moved to the actual QL5 course.

My current trade is also a spec pay and in 2009 moved from a 'remuster only' trade to accepting direct entries.  That meant having Pte's in the ranks and the trade was told it would HAVE to develop a QL3 and new QL5 course (Basic AQC and Intermediate AQC), as up until the direct entry stuff, remusters took a QL5 BAC (Basic AES OP Course).  With no real choice, the trade sat the required QSWBs and did the required follow-on work to get the courses up and running.

I say all this to demonstrate 2 other trades, one of them even from the C & E branch (kind of) who managed to develop and implement QL5 courses...I don't see why LCIS wasn't able to.  IMO, the CAF should have held 227 to the same standard as it did 226 and 081...if you are a spec trade, you need to have a QL5 qualification in your training for your members to qual for spec pay.  Waivers are SUPPOSED to be temporary and "until the actual trg is complete".  Just another indication of the senior leaderships ball-dropping back in that timeframe...

 :2c:


----------



## LCIS-Tech

That very well may be, however when the LCIS Tech QL3 was developed, they did not run it through the ADE process properly. The result was that all of the knowledge that would have been passed along on a QL5A course was actually already included in the QL3; thus the reason why the course was so long. The result of the LCIS QS review removed certain POs from the QL3 package and moved them into the QL5A QS IOT meet Treasury Board requirements that a Journeyman course was required for Spec Pay.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LCIS-Tech said:
			
		

> That very well may be, however when the LCIS Tech QL3 was developed, they did not run it through the ADE process properly. The result was that all of the knowledge that would have been passed along on a QL5A course was actually already included in the QL3; thus the reason why the course was so long. The result of the LCIS QS review removed certain POs from the QL3 package and moved them into the QL5A QS IOT meet Treasury Board requirements that a Journeyman course was required for Spec Pay.



I edited my post above some...as I mentioned, my former trade moved from an OJTP QL5 to a formal course between 2008-09ish.  

I think you, and your present day worker-bee techs got royally screwed by the former LCIS leadership and branch leadership that left LCIS in a lurch and ACISS in a utter mess.  My head shaking isn't directed at folks with waivers getting spec pay, it is at senior folks in trades leaving their people to fend for themselves long after they are retired and enjoying that pension.

I've got a coin you can give to all the MWOs and CWOs in your trade and branch who've fucked over all the people left behind... :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser

Don't worry EITS, a lot of the senior leaders that pushed for the crapshow that ACISS created pulled pin immediately after. At least we're at the point where the Branch leadership is actively engaged in fixing the issue, including doing another full up trade review and solving the pay freeze for the guys that got screwed.


----------



## upandatom

Quick Question, 
Anyone else that is released recieve payment today? I did and want to clarify. 

Cheers


----------



## Zester76

Not me. I was one of those who completed a PLAR as QL5 didn't exist. I released in 2014 and have received no payment or any answers for that matter.



			
				upandatom said:
			
		

> Quick Question,
> Anyone else that is released recieve payment today? I did and want to clarify.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## ixium

A+ Thread. Nice to come read updates every now and then.

Former LCIS getting spec pay unfrozen? Great
...but not all of the ones that qualified got it because of weird cut off dates...sounds about right. 

LCIS guys don't even have test equipment at my unit. They haven't been able to fix a radio in years. Amps? No way.
I don't even know what their jobs are anymore. They sometimes do a very bad job at a comm suite for vehicles going to EFD, but other then that they maybe fix headsets?

Signing bonus for NEW recruits with no previous RegF time?
Awesome idea! Really makes all those ACISS guys that are sticking around feel good about what the military thinks of them. Retention has always been a problem with our trade. It wouldn't be red if after 4 years (or sooner) people leave. The job sucks the majority of the time. the Op tempo is high, the job is underappreciated and (as anyone knows) working with officers fucking sucks.

A heavy CP(2x carfor, 15+ centers) that was setup in December and blessed by everyone who is supposed to bless it all of a sudden isn't big enough. HUGE changes that happen half way through a 2 week exercise while people are on 12h shifts. And what do the people doing the changes get? Nothing but complaints about how the coffee name(yes, they request that we name each pot of coffee) hasn't changed in 4hours.
They ask for additional tents be made, which means heaters have to go into them, which takes away from the main CP. Then complain when it gets slightly cold in the CP. No shit.

Pte/Cpl hate their jobs. Surprise exercises. Unknown exercise requirements. Stretched thin because numbers are low but we are expected to do the job of a trade that is 100%. They will basically do anything in order to either get out of the trade and it is very obvious to anyone that is making things work.

ACISS Core isn't a specialist job. Don't go deluding young people into thinking it is to get the numbers up. 98% of the job we do can be done by a grunt.

/end rant

Seriously though. People are leaving for Wainwright in a month. The kit is getting loaded next week onto 53'. No one knows what the communication requirements for the exercise is. Not how many nets are going to be monitored in the main. Not the amount of laptops we will need. Not the amount of RRBs. Not which units are getting TSS or HCLOS. Not even what kind of capabilities we are supposed to provide. Nothing. It's insane.


----------



## goose67

And yet, you will go to Wainright and do an amazing job whilst being undermanned and ill-equipped. I was going to say that there were worse places to be... but Wainright.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

ixium said:
			
		

> A+ Thread. Nice to come read updates every now and then.
> 
> Former LCIS getting spec pay unfrozen? Great
> ...but not all of the ones that qualified got it because of weird cut off dates...sounds about right.
> 
> LCIS guys don't even have test equipment at my unit. They haven't been able to fix a radio in years. Amps? No way.
> I don't even know what their jobs are anymore. They sometimes do a very bad job at a comm suite for vehicles going to EFD, but other then that they maybe fix headsets?
> 
> Signing bonus for NEW recruits with no previous RegF time?
> Awesome idea! Really makes all those ACISS guys that are sticking around feel good about what the military thinks of them. Retention has always been a problem with our trade. It wouldn't be red if after 4 years (or sooner) people leave. The job sucks the majority of the time. the Op tempo is high, the job is underappreciated and (as anyone knows) working with officers ******* sucks.
> 
> A heavy CP(2x carfor, 15+ centers) that was setup in December and blessed by everyone who is supposed to bless it all of a sudden isn't big enough. HUGE changes that happen half way through a 2 week exercise while people are on 12h shifts. And what do the people doing the changes get? Nothing but complaints about how the coffee name(yes, they request that we name each pot of coffee) hasn't changed in 4hours.
> They ask for additional tents be made, which means heaters have to go into them, which takes away from the main CP. Then complain when it gets slightly cold in the CP. No crap.
> 
> Pte/Cpl hate their jobs. Surprise exercises. Unknown exercise requirements. Stretched thin because numbers are low but we are expected to do the job of a trade that is 100%. They will basically do anything in order to either get out of the trade and it is very obvious to anyone that is making things work.
> 
> ACISS Core isn't a specialist job. Don't go deluding young people into thinking it is to get the numbers up. 98% of the job we do can be done by a grunt.
> 
> /end rant
> 
> Seriously though. People are leaving for Wainwright in a month. The kit is getting loaded next week onto 53'. No one knows what the communication requirements for the exercise is. Not how many nets are going to be monitored in the main. Not the amount of laptops we will need. Not the amount of RRBs. Not which units are getting TSS or HCLOS. Not even what kind of capabilities we are supposed to provide. Nothing. It's insane.



ACISS-Core could very well be a specialist but alot of people in the core part of the trade seem more than willing to give up tasks that rightfully should be theirs to ISTs or CSTs. The vast majority of the help desk roles should be core, same goes for the small executive kits and their maintenance. Most of these jobs were done by Sig Ops before the change and suddenly we pretend that core isn't able to do anything other than make coffee and setup mod, which is completely wrong.


----------



## c_canuk

> Most of these jobs were done by Sig Ops before the change



Most of those Sig Ops transferred over to IST and iirc the new ACISS Core trg does not include UNIX or Win Svr installation and basic administration, etc where the old rad op/sig op ql3 and 5 did.

The point of IST was to take anything not related to supporting green radios out of the grey zone between LCIS and Sig Op. Now we have a bunch of people in IST getting furious that our tasks keep getting pulled to core or CST because LCIS or Core used to do that job. Yeah and it was a dogs breakfast hence IST.

We also have people operating small kits that have no clue how to update the cards, so the entry point maint project I've been pushing has been stalled another couple months. So NO, Core does not have the skills to operate these kits in the field for long periods of time, and we do need ISTs on them.


----------



## PuckChaser

c_canuk said:
			
		

> So NO, Core does not have the skills to operate these kits in the field for long periods of time, and we do need ISTs on them.



That's a training issue, not a skills one. Be careful claiming a trade as not having the "skills" required, if they were never given the training to start with. Remember this whole gongshow started as everyone pretending they could be a SigOp as a secondary duty, and it wasn't that hard.


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's a training issue, not a skills one. Be careful claiming a trade as not having the "skills" required, if they were never given the training to start with. Remember this whole gongshow started as everyone pretending they could be a SigOp as a secondary duty, and it wasn't that hard.



If they have the aptitude and training to be an IST, they should be in the IST trade. That's the point of having an IST Trade. If they elect to stay core, that's the job they should be doing.

If you want to argue for the standing down of the IST trade and merge it back into Core and CST, be my guest, but the current reality is that Core are Operators that are supposed to be running CPs and CNR; possibly deploying end nodes for IT. ISTs are supposed to be administrating the Servers, Switches, Routers to provide IT infrastructure. (For you CSTs who are claiming that's a CST job, you're supposed to be looking after the infrastructure hardware installation/rack management/hvac managment/lifecycle/TCI/Power management/Red & Black separation/emsec/transec/etc, not administrating operating systems regardless of the platform it runs on - imo)

Having previously been a Rad Op I know that there is a particular set of skills that a good Operator needs to exercise. They shouldn't be pulled away from their Core Jobs (punny) to supplement IST. Core shouldn't be taking IST Jobs any more than IST should be taking Core jobs. Most ISTs won't be able to handle 4 nets in a CP, I can... or at least I could 10 years ago the last time I was in a CP, but most ISTs could not so we should not get into the habit of making them CP operators because a handful of us can do it. sure when there is no pressure an IST might be able to fumble through it, but what happens overseas when SHTF? you want a seasoned experienced operator in there. Not an IST. Not when lives are on the line. Anyone who looks down on operators as unskilled needs to get educated. Comms are life.

Are there fringe areas that Core could do? certainly, but not all Core have the skills/aptitude/training to do so. Therefore, it's good practice to use the proper trade. Sure, Core can handle minor helpdesk tasks like password rest, profile debugging, folder/mailbox permissions, but once you start getting to the scales of launching a deployment, no they can't. It's not their AOR anyway. 

We need to lose this "If I wear the Jimmy cap badge" mentality that seems to be prevalent. No other branch does this. You don't see Supply Techs and Fin Clerks swapping roles do you? It's all paperwork revolving around money right? Of course not, the fine details are important because they make or break you.

Attention to detail. Used to be seen as important. It still is.


----------



## billydee

Hello folks,

Thanks for taking the time to look at my thread here. I've got a few questions about how I might be able to serve with my current skill set. 

I've got about a decade of experience in an IT MSP. About 4 of those years have been spent in management. Everything from helpdesk to data-center stuff. I'd like to take those skills and put them to work in the reserves. 

Here's the catch - I work for a family business. 

So, with that (and the whole husband/father hat that I wear separately), I'm more 'anchored' to home than a typical tech might be. I've been reading far and wide about this trade and am more than willing to head to BMQ on weekends and for the required 6 weeks or so for BMQ Land. Currently 30 years old and am in the best shape of my life - would actually be excited to take the above courses!

A more specific question - on the site regarding the trade, it lists a training program that is 18 weeks long. I've seen it spelled out differently online - that the reserves course for ACISS is 8 weeks long or so.

I'm going to head to a recruiter tomorrow to firm up some other questions, but I thought I might connect with an existing reservist here on that note...

- Is the ACISS trade course 18 weeks long?

I'm hoping it's not. The bare fact of the matter is I wouldn't be able to take off from our shop for that duration.


----------



## RocketRichard

billydee said:
			
		

> Hello folks,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to look at my thread here. I've got a few questions about how I might be able to serve with my current skill set.
> 
> I've got about a decade of experience in an IT MSP. About 4 of those years have been spent in management. Everything from helpdesk to data-center stuff. I'd like to take those skills and put them to work in the reserves.
> 
> Here's the catch - I work for a family business.
> 
> So, with that (and the whole husband/father hat that I wear separately), I'm more 'anchored' to home than a typical tech might be. I've been reading far and wide about this trade and am more than willing to head to BMQ on weekends and for the required 6 weeks or so for BMQ Land. Currently 30 years old and am in the best shape of my life - would actually be excited to take the above courses!
> 
> A more specific question - on the site regarding the trade, it lists a training program that is 18 weeks long. I've seen it spelled out differently online - that the reserves course for ACISS is 8 weeks long or so.
> 
> I'm going to head to a recruiter tomorrow to firm up some other questions, but I thought I might connect with an existing reservist here on that note...
> 
> - Is the ACISS trade course 18 weeks long?
> 
> I'm hoping it's not. The bare fact of the matter is I wouldn't be able to take off from our shop for that duration.


PRes ACISS DP1 is 2 months. Shoot me a PM and I can try to answer any questions you have especially if you're in Alberta. In some brigades if you apply now there is a possibility you can get enrolled in a few weeks. 


VVV


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tree hugger

Don't discard other trades right away.  I'm a firm believer that as a reservist, doing a trade that is different from your civi job is the way to go.  For example, my day job is fairly blue collar, jeans and steel toe boots and in the reserves I'm a Public Affairs Officer... It's a good mix for me.


----------



## mariomike

ACISS Reserve 

Not sure if you have seen this discussion, but in case you have not, there is an ACISS super-thread,

Army Communication & Information Systems Specialist
https://army.ca/forums/threads/77029.1575.html
64 pages.

_As always,_  Recruiting is your most trusted source of information.


----------



## Mike5

DO IT.

I'm a civilian senior manager in IT with 20+ years experience.  I joined the Army Reserve four years ago.  Army has been a great experience and I still have my civvy career.  You may find that the ACISS trade will complement your civilian work.  Many of the soldiers in my Regiment have technical civilian roles (i.e. IT support, helpdesk, IT managers, SAP consultants, etc).  We run weekend Exercises about one or two per month September through May.  

Feel free to PM me; especially if you're in Toronto.


----------



## billydee

Mike5 said:
			
		

> Feel free to PM me; especially if you're in Toronto.



PM Sent. Left a message on unit recruiters VM.


----------



## Mike5

Got your PM and responded.  Good luck, be persistent!


----------



## Mike5

By the way, there is a Signals display at Fort York this Saturday.  Good chance to see future colleagues in action, and ask questions, if you don't mind the drive into Toronto.  Check out www.vimyfoundation.ca for more information.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

They really need to slow down this pay review, I don't want them to feel rushed or that they didn't have enough time to iron out details.


----------



## Brasidas

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> They really need to slow down this pay review, I don't want them to feel rushed or that they didn't have enough time to iron out details.



More than that. Maybe they should stop it altogether, ask for some consultation inside and out, then consider considering how to consider having a new one.


----------



## PuckChaser

There's a working group going on this week, to determine what the trade structure going forward will be. I highly doubt there's any pay review ongoing, as 2 of the COAs were pretty heavy restructures.

At least the legacy LCIS got their pay back, so we have the breathing room to get it right this time.


----------



## PiperDown

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> At least the legacy LCIS got their pay back, so we have the breathing room to get it right this time.



NO WE DIDN'T

Even that has been a total screw up.  The order that the CDS signed was riddled with mistakes and misinformation.  ( whomever drafted that order was clearly not properly informed ) Therefore, some that were not affected by the " freeze" in 2011 received a 20k payment. ( apparently they will have to pay it back)  Many former LCIS who went IST have yet to receive backpay, and almost everyone above the rank of Sgt( CISTM) has yet to receive back pay.  In fact, WO's and above received a negative pay balance and a nice  monthly pay cut on top of it.

There is another review and apparent approvals required to " fix" this back pay fiasco.


----------



## technophile

I've got guys who received backpay they were not entitled to.  Guys who were entitled getting too much or too little backpay. Some that were entitled getting nothing and best yet, a couple guys pay actually going down !

We were briefed two months ago to tell pers who received backpay not to spend it.  ( easier said than done )

There was an email sent in Feb from D RCCS acknowledging the screwup.  Apparently the solution is " not easy" ( his words) and they were working on an approval ( however, they will not elaborate on the plan)


----------



## Cobrajr

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> At least the legacy LCIS got their pay back, so we have the breathing room to get it right this time.



Does not change anything for the guys who got POET and then suddenly were ACISS before they qualified for spec, and are now doing the same job as the guys getting spec for less pay - with the same training. Sure is lovely.

There is also 0 incentive to go CST, so now we are hurting for people BADLY.  
Go CST, do extensive extra training, slower promotions, no spec. Stay core, Jack after a few years.


----------



## MOOXE

Plan A was to continue the spec pay freeze and wait for all the original LCIS techs receiving it to retire, then start from scratch. At least that was the joke some of us core fellows were spreading around.

I see a lot of spec pay wasted on techs that don't work a bench anymore. I think the whole system is messed up. I am not even sure its intended purpose is still in effect. Techs be grateful for what you are getting, most of us join with zero incentive.


----------



## Brasidas

MOOXE said:
			
		

> I see a lot of spec pay wasted on techs that don't work a bench anymore. I think the whole system is messed up. I am not even sure its intended purpose is still in effect. Techs be grateful for what you are getting, most of us join with zero incentive.



"The whole system's intended purpose" was to make up for a shortfall of Sig Ops by rebranding Linemen and LCIS as Sig Ops. Its intended purpose succeeded, and now the powers that be are considering how to undo the damage.

Why would anyone choose to go CST when they could go ATIS (about the same training) or Core (where they'd be trained as Sig Op det commanders as well as techs while compromising their ability to advance in their careers)?


----------



## PuckChaser

D RCCS put out a Branch update on Friday. 

- Blue berets are approved by CCA and they're choosing a colour and sourcing to Logistik Unicorp before laying out a issuing timeline. My gut tells me they'll want it done before C&E Week in October.

- 3 COAs on the table for ACISS restructure, status quo not an option: (1) Stay as is but remove CISTM allowing all trades to promote to MWO in their own trade; (2) 4 separate trades (Operator, IST, CST, LST); and (3) Merge CST+IST into one trade with specialties for each, all other trades stay as is.

- An update on legacy LCIS spec pay return, I didn't read it as it didn't apply to me and only had a few minutes to browse.

There was a 4th point in the letter but it must not have been important as it didn't survive first contact with some beers last night.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> D RCCS put out a Branch update on Friday.
> 
> - Blue berets are approved by CCA and they're choosing a colour and sourcing to Logistik Unicorp before laying out a issuing timeline. My gut tells me they'll want it done before C&E Week in October.
> 
> - 3 COAs on the table for ACISS restructure, status quo not an option: (1) Stay as is but remove CISTM allowing all trades to promote to MWO in their own trade; (2) 4 separate trades (Operator, IST, CST, LST); and (3) Merge CST+IST into one trade with specialties for each, all other trades stay as is.
> 
> - An update on legacy LCIS spec pay return, I didn't read it as it didn't apply to me and only had a few minutes to browse.
> 
> There was a 4th point in the letter but it must not have been important as it didn't survive first contact with some beers last night.



Saw the same thing. Two other points were mentioned:

They're starting up the Signals Attraction Tram again to try and get more Army Sigs in place.

Also, talked briefly about the Cisco IT Fundamentals curriculum taking effect at CFSCE for ISTs.


----------



## Ludoc

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Saw the same thing. Two other points were mentioned:
> 
> They're starting up the Signals Attraction Tram again to try and get more Army Sigs in place.
> 
> Also, talked briefly about the Cisco IT Fundamentals curriculum taking effect at CFSCE for ISTs.



The Cisco stuff is being included in the DP 1.0. All new ACISS will learn it, not just the ISTs.

For anyone interested in the update:
https://cmcen.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/bil-ltr-to-rccs-apr-171.pdf


----------



## RedcapCrusader

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> D RCCS put out a Branch update on Friday.
> 
> - Blue berets are approved by CCA and they're choosing a colour and sourcing to Logistik Unicorp before laying out a issuing timeline. My gut tells me they'll want it done before C&E Week in October.



Why!?


----------



## PuckChaser

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Why!?


Beats me, but we'll match signallers from Aus, UK, and I believe NZ so I guess that's a thing?


----------



## PiperDown

Once again, lets make former LCIS techs wait some more while someone tries to figure out how to implement a CDS directive. Whats another year between friends ! 

And, lets come up with a great new idea to mash Infomation Systems Techs and Communication Systems Techs into a new sub occupation.  Lets call it.  IC systems tech.   no wait, Land IC systems tech.   Hmmmm..  C before I.   Land CI systems tech.   OK.. LCIS tech.  DOH !!!!

The lads will sure be happy with the new blue beret !


----------



## meni0n

The blue beret was the best bit. 

"We got the new beret sorted out, that's how awesome we are! But who got times to look at the collar dogs, we got more important things to take care of like spec pay. So don't be asking about no collar dogs."


----------



## PuckChaser

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> Once again, lets make former LCIS techs wait some more while someone tries to figure out how to implement a CDS directive. Whats another year between friends !
> 
> And, lets come up with a great new idea to mash Infomation Systems Techs and Communication Systems Techs into a new sub occupation.  Lets call it.  IC systems tech.   no wait, Land IC systems tech.   Hmmmm..  C before I.   Land CI systems tech.   OK.. LCIS tech.  DOH !!!!
> 
> The lads will sure be happy with the new blue beret !


So what you're saying is you don't like that COA? Maybe you missed the other 2 in there...


----------



## PiperDown

coa 1.  Get rid of CISTM - ACISS core plus 3 sub ocs including MWO 
coa 2.  Dismantle ACISS structure and create 4 seperate occupations up to CWO ( no CISTM)
coa 3 - Dismantile ACISS and 3 occupations up to CWO ( no CISTM)

2 of the COAs kill the current " train everyone to be operators" bull****   ( COA 2 and 3)
COA 3 essentially goes back to the way things were before MES.

COA 1 is essentially what we have now, considering there are no CISTMSs ( on paper perhaps... but, there is no course Qual, and we are still merrited in CST/LST/IST sub occupations  at the WO and MWO level and FoS/LCF positions are still pulled from CST/LST )

I said it in the beginning, and I will say it again.  We will eventually go back to 3 ( not 4 ) seperate occupations.  MES has been an exercise in futility.


----------



## PuckChaser

I believe COA 1 and COA 2 scored the highest, within a few points of each other at the working group. You don't need to indicate no CISTM, as that "trade" is effectively dead. You're also only looking at ACISS from only one side. It was intended to make a well-rounded signaller who could do basic troubleshooting, make some cables, and run a radio. The courseware was poorly designed as the individuals designing it thought working a radio was easy, and gutted that training and only paid lip service to the well-rounding part.

It would be interesting if we did something similar to RCEME and their EME Common course, where DP1 candidates complete a Sigs Common course that covers types of cabling, technician tools and a good grounding (pun not intended) in Radio/Electrical theory before breaking off into their own streams for specialties. Obviously that would only be an option if COA 1 was picked, but I feel that's a better compromise.

COA 3 goes back to the way things were before MES, but the WG also identified that the CST trade could end up dying (as we've traditionally known it) due to advances in technology and less reliance on high-reliability soldering and more on card-based equipment which doesn't need a 6 month POET/FET course to exchange. This COA would provide flexibility in that training system to "follow the technology" instead of being stuck in an archaic structure.


----------



## PiperDown

I would take a cautious approach to the statement that we don't need a 6 month POET to train a technician.

Let me offer this.  POET taught a methodology of troubleshooting that can be ( and goes get) applied to every aspect of  maintenance/diagnosis/repair. 

This is distinctly lacking from MES produced CSTs.   Not every module in POET was put into direct practise after the course, however the building blocks of approaching a problem last a career.  I don't know of any other way this can be taught to the same standard.  Clearly OJT of baby faced CSTs wont/doesn't net the same results.

Its been a fun experiment.  Lets get back to work.


----------



## Cobrajr

Tarlouth said:
			
		

> Let me offer this.  POET taught a methodology of troubleshooting that can be ( and goes get) applied to every aspect of  maintenance/diagnosis/repair.



100% this, the biggest thing I took away from my electronics training is a whole new way of thinking and looking at problems.
Understanding what makes circuits tick (heh) is a BIG part of that, whether you are looking to replace an IC or a whole card.

This foundation makes following specialized equipment courses go by much faster since techs have a better understanding of electronics in general.

While I may not use the component level, telecommunications theory, digital, etc. skills every day, I certainly use the overarching skills gained from taking the whole program daily both in and out of the workplace.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It would be interesting if we did something similar to RCEME and their EME Common course, where DP1 candidates complete a Sigs Common course that covers types of cabling, technician tools and a good grounding (pun not intended) in Radio/Electrical theory before breaking off into their own streams for specialties. Obviously that would only be an option if COA 1 was picked, but I feel that's a better compromise.



We could definitely still do this even if we split up again, EME is all separate trades, not subocs like ACISS. I like the idea, but it would have to be relevant information, and not trying to make operators out of everybody again.


----------



## PuckChaser

Cobrajr said:
			
		

> We could definitely still do this even if we split up again, EME is all separate trades, not subocs like ACISS. I like the idea, but it would have to be relevant information, and not trying to make operators out of everybody again.



We'd have to keep the training as common to all. Would remove the requirement for basic theory in the DP1 phase.

Keep in mind here that the training was never going to make operators out of anyone. It was the idea that the operator job was easy to train and retain was how we started down this gongshow.


----------



## Fishchip

Reading this thread is giving me a sinking feeling -- I'm a reg force nav comm (5B qualified) thinking of downshifting to reserve 00362. Is it really as bad as I'm reading? Am I about to make a huge mistake and jump feet first into a wallowing swamp of misery?


----------



## GnyHwy

You guys should get rid of Sig Op outright. Is that even a skill when matched up against your other tasks/expectations?

Talking on a radio and basic trouble shooting is a skill that any soldier can learn, some learn it very quick... others can be taught numerous times and they never get it.

Sig Op should be an IBTS for all, and Sigs (actual) should only do it as a secondary task, when their bored, or absolutely needed.


----------



## PuckChaser

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> You guys should get rid of Sig Op outright. Is that even a skill when matched up against your other tasks/expectations?
> 
> Talking on a radio and basic trouble shooting is a skill that any soldier can learn, some learn it very quick... others can be taught numerous times and they never get it.
> 
> Sig Op should be an IBTS for all, and Sigs (actual) should only do it as a secondary task, when their bored, or absolutely needed.



I don't tell you how to be a Gunner, so you should probably stop assuming you know anything other than gunline comms. There's a lot more than basic troubleshooting and voice procedure that goes into being a Sig Op, but I wouldn't expect for you to know any of that based off your flippant comments.


----------



## Sig_Des

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> You guys should get rid of Sig Op outright. Is that even a skill when matched up against your other tasks/expectations?
> 
> Talking on a radio and basic trouble shooting is a skill that any soldier can learn, some learn it very quick... others can be taught numerous times and they never get it.
> 
> Sig Op should be an IBTS for all, and Sigs (actual) should only do it as a secondary task, when their bored, or absolutely needed.



 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Absolutely! I also propose that we no longer answer the call for help with anything that has a power cable attached to it. Yup. In fact, take all the Sigs out of the line Coys. We'll centralize and only troubleshoot over the phone.


----------



## MOOXE

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> You guys should get rid of Sig Op outright. Is that even a skill when matched up against your other tasks/expectations?
> 
> Talking on a radio and basic trouble shooting is a skill that any soldier can learn, some learn it very quick... others can be taught numerous times and they never get it.
> 
> Sig Op should be an IBTS for all, and Sigs (actual) should only do it as a secondary task, when their bored, or absolutely needed.



B-GL-383-003/FP-001, Individual Battle Task Standards for Land Operations
Annex B Appendix 4. EMPLOY COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, COMPUTER, AND
INFORMATION REQUIREMENT (CIS) SYSTEMS.

Lets be honest though. Most army jobs ANYONE can do. It goes without saying. We barely need a high school education to be ACISS, and to be a gunner you don't have to be literate!


----------



## GnyHwy

You guys are brutal. How is that flippant? If anything, it was a compliment of the difficult expectations​ you guys are facing. You should be taking advice from Arty guys, we're the ones that truly appreciate your work.

In today's climate, those simpler tasks need to be absorbed by all soldiers, to enable you guys to do the more complex tasks,  which is my point. 

How is that for literate? I can do math too!

You guys are probably just bitter cause we're better on the radio.  :nana:


----------



## GnyHwy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't tell you how to be a Gunner, so you should probably stop assuming you know anything other than gunline comms.



I haven't been on the gunline in years, and those are the least of my worries. Much bigger fish to fry than that.

Editted to remove sarcasm and add: For the record, I would appreciate Sigs input on Gunnery, specifically networking at all levels and automated data processing.


----------



## GnyHwy

MOOXE said:
			
		

> B-GL-383-003/FP-001, Individual Battle Task Standards for Land Operations
> Annex B Appendix 4. EMPLOY COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, COMPUTER, AND
> INFORMATION REQUIREMENT (CIS) SYSTEMS.
> 
> Lets be honest though. Most army jobs ANYONE can do. It goes without saying. We barely need a high school education to be ACISS, and to be a gunner you don't have to be literate!



And how seriously is that taken across the Army? If it was taken as seriously as it should be, it makes my recommendation of relieving you guys of that task even more relevant.


----------



## MOOXE

Well thread is getting a bit hijacked here. I am bored so I'll continue with it.

I left 2RCHA (2011) after five years of being a signaller there. Gunners did their own radio operating generally. The SigOp job I did there was man RRBs, troubleshoot radios and ensure the IFCCS laptops/printers (before IST was around) stayed in good order as well as your regular account/ISSO/workstation stuff. They got the mission done, but I seen room for improvement in every arty CP I was in. So I see somewhat where you're coming from. Prior to 2 RCHA I was at 1 PPCLI. We did their C/S 0, 0A, 8 and the RRBs. Plus we had one signaller in each coy manning permitting.

You can just be a radop with earphones on copying down traffic, doing hourly radio checks and saying what your 9er wants said. When you dive deeper into it you start understanding frequencies, terrain, engineering, providing advice, becoming a reliable troubleshooter and being proactive. That's where SigOps come in. For most combat arms trades it will never be more than a secondary duty, or a short lived primary duty while you're in a CP. These soldiers will without a doubt never become as proficient or as knowledgeable as we are. This goes with any trade and secondary duty.


----------



## GnyHwy

MOOXE said:
			
		

> They got the mission done, but I seen room for improvement in every arty CP I was in.



Ack, the difference between a strong CP and a weak one is night and day, to the point that a weak one is dangerous.

I didn't mean to hyjack the thread or diminish any of the Sig functions, eventhough I see how it could have been taken that way. Quite the contrary, I got a ton of respect for you guys, and realize I can't do my job without good comms.

I was just looking at it from a tasks perspective, given you're not likely getting more people, current equipment is in a constant state of flux, new equipment is in bound, and there are plenty of initiatives coming down the road that will make it more complex.

At some point, something's gotta give, and deciding which tasks could and probably should be delegated is the low hanging fruit.

We also fight with the streaming/specializing. It is not practical to generalize at the lower to mid levels, but it takes good leadership and communication at the higher levels to keep it from coming apart at the seams.

I'll leave you's too it.


----------



## c_canuk

Based on what I've seen about the proposed ways forward, ACISS Core, formally known as operators, will be the "Face" of Sigs. 

They will be the ones that deal with the clients and provide solutions. They would run the service desks and be the primary POC for anyone wanting sig support. At that point it might be seen to make sense to have basic rad op functions be left with the units as their focus will be on supporting those CPs, as well as all other Sig related products.

Personally I think that would be a big mistake. A skilled operator will out perform any other trade treating it as a secondary duty. As much as Arty and Armd like to think they are better at it than us because their VP is faster, what they deal with is only a tip of the iceberg that a skilled operator brings to the field.

Last time I was in the field, the Arty and Inf vehicles were fine on the nets. They got what they needed and were good at it. But it was me and my operators that established the RRB nets, moving the nodes dynamically to follow the flow of the exercise, mapping the shots across terrain and keeping the CP on the right frequency that made it seamless to them. Without us it would have been a shit show comms wise. You start adding tracking and other advanced features, data etc, your secondary duty signaller will be lost.

I can pull on a lanyard, load a shell and hitch a trailer. Doesn't make me a gunner.


----------



## Zarack21

I heard that they were going to make a decision on the ACISS trade as to what structure it will be yesterday.  Has anyone got anything ?


----------



## 7thghoul

Hey Blokes,

I've read back through several pages of this thread and, though I understand very little of your jargon, I can see that the ACISS trade is experiencing a bit of turbulence in general as things are rapidly changing regarding the role of skilled ACISS operators. Though I have a very shallow understanding of what it is you guys really do (aside from the info on forces.ca) I just wanted to know what advice or thoughts you might have for someone currently applying to the Canadian Forces with ACISS as 1st pick for a trade.

I suppose I'd like a first-hand perspective on what it is I am getting myself into. Regardless, I am super excited to join the forces (hopefully!) and am still going to keep ACISS as my first choice because that's just how I roll!

Cheers!


----------



## mariomike

7thghoul said:
			
		

> I've read back through several pages of this thread and, though I understand very little of your jargon,



This may help,

Acronyms & Abbreviations of The CAF  
http://navy.ca/forums/threads/17309.0.html
5 pages.

Canadian Military Slang  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/930.0
14 pages.

Milnet.ca wiki
Canadian Military Acronyms
https://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Canadian_Military_Acronyms


----------



## PuckChaser

7thghoul said:
			
		

> I've read back through several pages of this thread and, though I understand very little of your jargon, I can see that the ACISS trade is experiencing a bit of turbulence in general as things are rapidly changing regarding the role of skilled ACISS operators. Though I have a very shallow understanding of what it is you guys really do (aside from the info on forces.ca) I just wanted to know what advice or thoughts you might have for someone currently applying to the Canadian Forces with ACISS as 1st pick for a trade.



ACISS in whatever form it will take will not change from its core mission: provide communications from the commander down to the warfighter on the ground. You'll slowly be exposed to a lot of different systems, and need to know a little bit of everything because in the field, all someone sees is a "Signaller" and not a sub occupation. A lot of the time you'll end up outside your comfort zone, troubleshooting anything that's electronic (like the morale tent's XBox). Be comfortable taking the brunt of criticism when something doesn't work; as much as tactical/strategic communications is a science, its a complicated science and a lot of our equipment is old/beaten up and prone to failure. People will know your name when something's broken, but you'll get asked who you are when everything is working properly.

Despite the mess that ACISS has become, I still love my job, and if you can live in a job that will go from dead-boredom to high-stress in a heartbeat when something critical is broken, you'll love it too.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That last line...you're going to end up in the next recruiting video now for sure!!


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That last line...you're going to end up in the next recruiting video now for sure!!



There'd be too many F-bombs and non-Op HONOUR approved humour. I'm safe.  ;D


----------



## 7thghoul

Thanks so much puck. Hope to see you around one day hopefully!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There'd be too many F-bombs and non-Op HONOUR approved humour. I'm safe.  ;D



That's what beeps are for


----------



## 211RadOp

Zarack21 said:
			
		

> I heard that they were going to make a decision on the ACISS trade as to what structure it will be yesterday.  Has anyone got anything ?



The decision brief was delivered to Dir RCCS by LCol Cote on 6 Jul 17.  Dir RCCS will deliver it to CCA at some point, not sure when.


----------



## PuckChaser

211RadOp said:
			
		

> The decision brief was delivered to Dir RCCS by LCol Cote on 6 Jul 17.  Dir RCCS will deliver it to CCA at some point, not sure when.



Is the recommended COA still 4 distinct trades? I remember a few months ago that was the one that scored the highest in the working group, right next to combining CST/IST again (basically back to SigOp, Line, Tech).


----------



## MOOXE

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is the recommended COA still 4 distinct trades? I remember a few months ago that was the one that scored the highest in the working group, right next to combining CST/IST again (basically back to SigOp, Line, Tech).



This is a conspiracy concocted at the highest levels to keep baiting ISTs with spec pay.


----------



## PuckChaser

MOOXE said:
			
		

> This is a conspiracy concocted at the highest levels to keep baiting ISTs with spec pay.



The only people baiting ISTs with spec pay is ISTs. If you deserve it, you'll get it. Technicians who lost it because of this gongshow are the only people with a right to complain, if you bought the sales pitch that everyone was getting Spec 1 and CISTMs were going to get Spec 2, I really don't have much sympathy because that was like expecting a unicorn to show up and hand you a cheque.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The only people baiting ISTs with spec pay is ISTs. If you deserve it, you'll get it. Technicians who lost it because of this gongshow are the only people with a right to complain, if you bought the sales pitch that everyone was getting Spec 1 and CISTMs were going to get Spec 2, I really don't have much sympathy because that was like expecting a unicorn to show up and hand you a cheque.



CISTMs getting SPEC 2. HA HA HA HA HA HA .........





HA HA HA....


Ha. 


I started in the trade 6 years ago and I'll leave the trade with them still not sorting anything out. Maybe a couple of years down the road I'll get a big cheque with Spec 1 and Spec 2 written on it


----------



## Cobrajr

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The only people baiting ISTs with spec pay is ISTs. If you deserve it, you'll get it. Technicians who lost it because of this gongshow are the only people with a right to complain



And complain I shall!
I love that my pay has been frozen all year though, nor have I seen the pay raise or back pay, top class.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback

Soooo....anyone get their Spec back pay on the mid sept pay?


----------



## ringo598

And anyone get any confirmation on that trade review that was supposed to happen?  Last thing I saw was that maj giving a brief and he said the results of the trade review and the decision should be out a month or so ago.  My RUMINT was that they picked the COA for 4 distinct trades, anyone have anything concrete?


----------



## PuckChaser

All RUMINT at this point, haven't seen anything official. I know they did push 4 separate trades, but also heard that it went to Comd CA to recombine IST and CST into one trade again with occupational specialties. Throwing darts at a board to guess what the trades will look like in 2 years now....


----------



## MOOXE

Is there an appropriate Dilbert reference for the last 15 years of Signals trade organization?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MOOXE said:
			
		

> Is there an appropriate Dilbert reference for the last 15 years of Signals trade organization?


----------



## MJP

So in CA logic if we get you a new beret color and patch all Sigs reorg problems will solved right?


----------



## PuckChaser

We're getting a patch?

Keep in mind the Sigs vote on beret colour was "we'll do it if everyone else is doing it." So not entirely our fault.


----------



## Ludoc

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're getting a patch?
> 
> Keep in mind the Sigs vote on beret colour was "we'll do it if everyone else is doing it." So not entirely our fault.


Everyone else is not doing it. The Engineers said "That sounds stupid, we don't want any part of it." So, can we skip it?


----------



## MOOXE

Nailed it.


----------



## JBP

Hello everybody!

Well folks, don't worry, in about 2 more years, there will barely be a single (competent) IST to fight about! 

Very very very many I know have already gotten out, are in the middle of getting out or already have OT's and plans in to get out. I would never have thought it would get as bad as it is for manning, but IST is a dead horse. Keep beating it, it'll turn into chunks of meat the dogs can eat soon enough.

From what I'm also told, it's close to that bad for all the Sigs trades, not just IST, but of course, IST is the worst off. I'm very curious to see how they will fill the vacuum. Do the higher chains of command even know how bad it is? As in, the Chief Sig and his Colonel counterpart? Or have they been kept in the dark and that's part of the problem? Is there a complete culture of 'yes' men silently deleting the entire trade by attrition?

PS> Yes, I left a year ago and am a civilian now as well but I'm still supporting the military in my job.
PPS> Going to go change my name now as I'm not 'IST' anymore.


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The only people baiting ISTs with spec pay is ISTs. If you deserve it, you'll get it. Technicians who lost it because of this gongshow are the only people with a right to complain, if you bought the sales pitch that everyone was getting Spec 1 and CISTMs were going to get Spec 2, I really don't have much sympathy because that was like expecting a unicorn to show up and hand you a cheque.



I take slight issue with this...

IST didn't exist when the SNCO and Senior Officers came to the town halls and presented us with the SME who was going to get us spec pay. 

IST's didn't brow beat a lot of us until we accepted the trade change. As a junior MCpl I assumed with so many senior SNCOs telling my I'd be a fool not to take IST, I should accept their advice since they are in those positions because they are supposed to more than me. 

You know they guys who are supposed to be the pinnacle of leadership, who achieved professional competence, appreciate their own strengths and limitations while pursuing self improvement, seek and accept responsibility, lead by example, make sure their followers know their meaning and intent, then lead them to the completion of the mission, know their soldiers and promote their welfare, develop leadership potential of their followers, make sound and timely decisions, train their soldiers as a team and employ them up to their capabilities, and finally, keep their followers informed of the mission, the changing situation and the overall picture.

Yes, currently many ISTs are coddling the last embers of hope; they are in denial that losing 2 years of progress on their careers while AORs expand and numbers shrink, isn't going to pay off. They are partly responsible for keeping the idea alive, because many of us can't stomach that we took that hit for nothing, so some people at the top could get a "leading change - mastered" point on their PERs. 

Unfortunately the architects of this shit show are long gone and won't be held accountable. The current architects won't soldier up and call it a lost battle, they keep kicking the can down the road, feeding that little ember of hope. So no, it's not just ISTs feeding this thing.


----------



## JBP

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I take slight issue with this...
> 
> IST didn't exist when the SNCO and Senior Officers came to the town halls and presented us with the SME who was going to get us spec pay.
> 
> IST's didn't brow beat a lot of us until we accepted the trade change. As a junior MCpl I assumed with so many senior SNCOs telling my I'd be a fool not to take IST, I should accept their advice since they are in those positions because they are supposed to more than me.
> 
> You know they guys who are supposed to be the pinnacle of leadership, who achieved professional competence, appreciate their own strengths and limitations while pursuing self improvement, seek and accept responsibility, lead by example, make sure their followers know their meaning and intent, then lead them to the completion of the mission, know their soldiers and promote their welfare, develop leadership potential of their followers, make sound and timely decisions, train their soldiers as a team and employ them up to their capabilities, and finally, keep their followers informed of the mission, the changing situation and the overall picture.
> 
> Yes, currently many ISTs are coddling the last embers of hope; they are in denial that losing 2 years of progress on their careers while AORs expand and numbers shrink, isn't going to pay off. They are partly responsible for keeping the idea alive, because many of us can't stomach that we took that hit for nothing, so some people at the top could get a "leading change - mastered" point on their PERs.
> 
> Unfortunately the architects of this crap show are long gone and won't be held accountable. The current architects won't soldier up and call it a lost battle, they keep kicking the can down the road, feeding that little ember of hope. So no, it's not just ISTs feeding this thing.



*Extended Slow Clap*

Also, IST's are 'just nerds' who 'don't deserve spec pay' until you ask someone ELSE to do something related to computers.... Oh hey Sig buddy working in the CP, if we give you access to active directory, can you reset passwords for all your users in the CP or the TOC or the HQ? ... 'Oh no way man, I'm not smart enough for that computer sh*t'..... IST is then woken up at 3am because user X lost password for the 3rd time and there are no other IST's around. Or nobody willing. Nobody wanting to pitch in.

I watched other Jr Sigs on my last tour, in the infancy of their careers, shy away from any/all IST related activities b/c they didn't want to have to work that hard. Or that much, or have that level of responsibility on their shoulders... 

Capt: Hey IST, when is the CLASSIFIEDNETWORK going to be back up so, you know, the HQ can do it's job and there's a point to everyone sitting here in the desert.
IST: I'm already working on it Sir, don't worry, we'll just switch to our failover and be back up in a jiffy.
Other Sigs: F-that...


----------



## CSTDan

I don't get this animosity. Any Sig worth his/her weight in salt should recognize the contributions of other trades.
CST and IST alike have technically challenging jobs. Both have merit, so we should not diminish the value of one over the other. It serves no good.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

IT_Dude_Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Haro everybody!
> 
> Well folks, don't worry, in about 2 more years, there will barely be a single (competent) IST to fight about!
> 
> Very very very many I know have already gotten out, are in the middle of getting out or already have OT's and plans in to get out. I would never have thought it would get as bad as it is for manning, but IST is a dead horse. Keep beating it, it'll turn into chunks of meat the dogs can eat soon enough.
> 
> From what I'm also told, it's close to that bad for all the Sigs trades, not just IST, but of course, IST is the worst off. I'm very curious to see how they will fill the vacuum. Do the higher chains of command even know how bad it is? As in, the Chief Sig and his Colonel counterpart? Or have they been kept in the dark and that's part of the problem? Is there a complete culture of 'yes' men silently deleting the entire trade by attrition?
> 
> PS> Yes, I left a year ago and am a civilian now as well but I'm still supporting the military in my job.
> PPS> Going to go change my name now as I'm not 'IST' anymore.



No doubt.

A bunch has left, including me, and I know of at least two others that were on their way out of the trade before they were bribed to pull their applications in exchange for OUTCAN postings. Getting the run around for 7 years is long enough. Honestly I feel kind of stupid for waiting around that long.


----------



## MOOXE

> I reported to you one month ago that after having developed an amended Military Employment Structure Implementation Plan (MESIP) to better reflect the current compensation structure of the ACISS trade, we were working with Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) to guarantee that the implementation of the compensation and benefits component to the amended ACISS MESIP achieved the precise, desired result, and that no member of the ACISS team would be adversely affected. It has already been a turbulent year in respect to remunerating you properly for your excellent service and we needed to guarantee precision moving forward. At that time, I also indicated I would provide a sitrep back to you as soon as it was practical to do so.
> 
> Today, I am pleased to provide such an update. First, DGCB has advised that the aim is for all former qualified LCIS Techs to have their specialist 1 pay reinstated no later than 30 November 17, correcting a departmental error and finally offering the compensation the CAF agreed you deserved one year ago. Your pay accounts will be fully adjusted and debits you accrued due to an error in the CDS Order on ACISS Spec Pay will be corrected. While no further obstacles are anticipated, should you encounter any challenges, I would ask that you use your local chain of command to indicate issues so that we may learn of any difficulties immediately and subsequently address them immediately.
> 
> It should be no secret at this time that Director Royal Canadian Corps of Signals (DRCCS), Colonel Parsons, has also petitioned the Commander of the Canadian Army (CA) and the CDS himself to grant specialist 1 pay to CST and IST retroactive to 2011. While we make no guarantees as to whether it will be approved, we are aware that this request has been perceived favorably and has gained the support of the CA and the leadership of Military Personnel Command (MPC) - who is ultimately responsible for your compensation. I will provide an update on this request in the very near future.
> 
> Of significance, CSTs who were affected by the CDS Order from last year, which resulted in them receiving specialist pay regardless of their eligibility, will not ‎have any corrective actions taken against their pay accounts until a final decision has been rendered on the future of ACISS compensation and specialist pay.
> 
> I appreciate your patience and I fully realize that this has not only been a difficult year; for some, you are entering the 7th year of performing work which is deserving of a higher level of compensation. It is for this reason that senior RCCS leaders have worked tirelessly to negotiate and position a fair deal to ensure you are paid properly for the work you perform. We are not at the finish line yet, but it is in sight. I ask that you continue to trust that the Director is working diligently on your behalf and ensuring that actions to improve compensation for ACISS are proceeding as quickly as possible in light of departmental pressures, the complexity of the task and the need to avoid error.
> 
> You will hear from me again as soon as there is more to report on, but no later than November. In the interim, I ask that you utilize your chain of command for all queries concerning this matter so that the Director will continue to be informed and in the optimal position to advocate on your behalf.
> 
> A translated version of this message will be provided by the end of next week.
> 
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> 
> LCol Ian R Marchand


----------



## renegade

I wonder how many months it will be for a response to this..  :waiting:


----------



## ringo598

Andddd a bit of an update...is there hope?

Sent: December-08-17 1:08 PM
Subject: D/DLCI update: Pay Status as of 8 Dec 2017
**Sent on behalf of LCol Marchand**
** This email has been sent to affected members of the RCCS, all RCCS Senior Officers and Senior NCOs **

The aim of this message is to provide an update on both the reinstatement of specialist pay for former LCIS Techs as well as Commander Canadian Army (CCA) request to assign CST and IST to the specialist pay trade group.
Reinstatement of specialist pay for former LCIS Techs

As articulated in my 1 December message, technical difficulties have delayed the transactions required in the pay system to properly compensate former LCIS Techs. The priority as 2018 approaches is to eliminate all known scenarios that would potentially create hardship or confusion with CRA for individuals for the 2017 reporting period. Consequently, the following actions have been initiated or completed at this time:

1. Individuals in debit situations will have their pay accounts corrected. If any such situation still exist as of 12 December, it should be reported immediately via the individual’s CoC.

2. For CSTs who received specialist pay following the implementation of the erroneous CDS Order in November 2016 and find themselves in a credit situation, we are evaluating options to similarly safeguard against income tax implications. The intent is to avoid credits (taxable income) being included on individuals’ 2017 T4 for pay they technically were not intended to receive. Presently, we are working with Director Military Pay and Allowances Processing (DMPAP) to determine the best course of action. Additional information will be provided next week, but I assure all CSTs in credit situations that any actions taken to protect them will be purely administrative and that their pay accounts will not be negatively impacted.

As applicable, former LCIS Techs who find themselves in neutral or credit situations are authorized to have themselves removed from pre-determined pay (PDP) status. An advisory to this effect has been sent from DMPAP on behalf of the CA to pay offices across the CAF.

Finally, former LCIS Techs who’s pay accounts were not affected but are owed retroactive compensation will see their pay accounts corrected in the new year.
We continue to work with all stakeholders to determine the speed with which this can be executed in 2018.
CCA request to assign CST and IST to the specialist pay trade group

As reported on 13 October, Director Royal Canadian Corps of Signals (DRCCS) has petitioned the Commander of the Canadian Army (CCA) and the CDS himself to grant specialist 1 pay to CST and IST retroactive to 2011. This request has been supported by the Commander Canadian Army and the Commander Military Personnel Command (CMPC), and we believe that a CDS decision is imminent. This situation will be updated as it evolves.
Please continue to forward‎ questions and concerns through the chain of command. I will provide a follow-on update next week.

A translated version will also be provided next week.

LCol Ian R Marchand


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I think the fact that the troops affected by this are still skeptical is testament to how badly the senior leadership have handled this whole mess from day one.

I stopped holding my breath 3 D RCCSs ago.


----------



## Alpheus

Just arrived in my inbox.



> *** Sent on behalf of LCol I.R. Marchand ***
> 
> ** This email has been sent to all affected mil members as well as RCCS Senior Officers and Senior NCOs  - plse re-distribute as required **
> 
> 
> Today, I am happy to announce that the CDS order assigning CST and IST sub-occupations to the Specialist 1 Trade Group has been signed. The CDS order has an effective date of 1 October 2011, the date the ACISS occupation stood-up.
> 
> To say that you have all been patient is a significant understatement. Trust that the leadership of the RCCS has never doubted that this is the outcome that you all deserve for the tremendous work have done and continue to do every day. The Director and the DLCI team will work closely with all stakeholders to ensure that the required corrections in the pay system are performed as soon as possible and correctly reflect the compensation you are entitled to. Please bear in mind that due to the pay system complexity to execute retroactive compensation that reaches back more than six years in certain cases, it may require several months in the new year to address each individual account.
> 
> Your leadership will provide periodic updates in the new year as to progress toward of our objective of 100% of affected members receiving their retroactive compensation.
> 
> For individuals who have received payouts or presently have credits on their pay accounts linked to the implementation of the erroneous CDS Order in November 2016, pay offices have been directed to release these funds (for individuals who did not receive payouts) and remove members from pre-determined pay (PDP).
> 
> As noted, corrections to pay accounts for all other CSTs and ISTs will be dealt with in the new year as expeditiously as possible.
> 
> Please continue to forward‎ questions and concerns through the chain of command.
> 
> Happy Holidays.



I have complete faith that someone, somewhere, somehow will completely eff this up as usual.


----------



## ringo598

IF FINALLY HAPPENED!  MERRY CHRISTMAS FOLKS!  IST/CST Spec Pay approved.  My info says date of your backpay is 2.1 qual date.

Edited as someone posted the message before me


----------



## Alpheus

When is pay inputed into the system?  I'm one of the credit on my pay account, if I don't see the backpay at the end Dec, I still have a tax/EI headache to deal with.


----------



## PuckChaser

Thank God all the bitching will be over and people can get back to being Signallers again.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thank God all the bitching will be over and people can get back to being Signallers again.



I thought that was PO 401.01 on all signals courses.


----------



## ringo598

It'll be interesting to see if they use my 5A qual date, or my 2.1 date for the backpay as they have a 3 year difference.

Eitherway, hopefully this will help retention a bit and help get more guys in the door.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thank God all the bitching will be over and people can get back to being Signallers again.



This has never been about the bitching. Its been a lesson in not letting your mouth write the cheque before anything gets approved. 

I was there when this whole shit show started. I remember numerous high level NCOs and officers dangling this carrot to try and retain a Sigs Corps bleeding skilled workers. 

Cpl Bloggins has a long memory and a loud mouth. The CoC of the CAF would be remiss if they did not take this debacle as a learning opportunity in integrity.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I thought that was PO 401.01 on all signals courses.


 Pretty sure that one is Alcoholism, I'll have to check my course reports.


----------



## sidemount

I thought alcoholism was just one of those things that is on all of them....like safety only more practical.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cobrajr

At least I wont be doing taxes for money I don't have now.
I don't expect to see anything done until the new year on my account since tomorrow is our last day of work at my unit.
But wow its finally happened, the weight is gone, I don't know how to feel.
I seriously hope this helps bring more people to CST/IST, we are hurting BAD. My shop is empty, used to be 10+, it will be down to 2 qualified workers in the new year with an increased workload from when it was over 10. 

Congrats everyone! Spend it wisely!


----------



## RedMan

So glad this crap is finally sorted out for you guys!

Hmmm, does this mean that those of us (being a 2.1 qualified CST CPL) who OT'd to another trade also get our back pay during this time period (up to when we OT'd) ?


----------



## walrath

I'm glad this finally happened for you guys, even though I OT'd 4 years ago.


----------



## armyman7877

Well it looks like the lineman are not getting tech pay. No offense but the lineman  climb poles and do more courses and way more technical stuff and are deserving of tech pay as much as the other trades.  Why in the world are the lst trade being left out?


----------



## PuckChaser

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> Well it looks like the lineman are not getting tech pay. No offense but the lineman  climb poles and do more courses and way more technical stuff and are deserving of tech pay as much as the other trades.  Why in the world are the lst trade being left out?



Cause you guys, like Core, didn't have all the complaining that IST did to sneak themselves into the CDS order assigning pay groups. Too focused on the job I guess. The only thing that should have been fixed was all the former LCIS folks should have had vested rights and kept their spec pay until a decision was reached through the proper process. All the new folks recruited into the new trades didn't know what they were missing.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if LST slowly disappeared in the next 30-40 years with the way technology is moving. Climbing poles is a course, and anyone can be taught to do it. When they did the last big working group, LST advisors were trying to become in charge of HCLOS and WiFi as bearer systems, because they could see the writing on the wall that they cannot just rely on climbing poles anymore. CST might end up dead if they don't evolve either, especially if they're going to keep IST around.


----------



## armyman7877

With due respec,t I totally disagree. We lineman are busy as ever doing work orders. I know most of the lineman can do all your jobs plus our own with no problem. If you really think lineman is not technical the  try  designing a cable plan and do our job. I'm sure most of you  wouldn:t last. It would be great if fellow lineman would fight for fair compensation and tech pay.


----------



## Avail

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> most of the lineman can do all your jobs plus our own with no problem. If you really think lineman is not technical the  try  designing a cable plan and do our job. I'm sure most of you  wouldn:t last. It would be great if fellow lineman would fight for fair compensation and tech pay.



I suppose you can do every job in the CAF?

It's called Spec Pay, and it isn't granted based on how hard you work.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

IMO, the 'we work hard' argument is pale when you think of how hard the folks in the infantry work when they're doing their job.  

If you want spec pay, hey OT to AES Op and get Aircrew Allowance on top of it too!   :nod:  We're always looking for good people.


----------



## armyman7877

Nope I have 15 plus years in the lineman trade. No we can not do every job in the cfs but we can absolutely do every job in the tech side especially us older folks who are around 40. We are  the ones doing your jobs half the time. The lineman trade as a whole are a proud bunch and deserve to be recognized for our training and contributions.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> we can absolutely do every job in the tech side especially us older folks who are around 40.



This tells me you have no idea what ISTs/CSTs do.

In what unit are linemen developing network plans and programming routing configs? In what unit are linemen setting up and configuring TSS or Smart-T systems? In what unit are linemen managing encryption, DGSS or OBD servers?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> Nope I have 15 plus years in the lineman trade. No we can not do every job in the cfs but we can absolutely do every job in the tech side especially us older folks who are around 40. We are  the ones doing your jobs half the time. The lineman trade as a whole are a proud bunch and deserve to be recognized for our training and contributions.



The Signals branch doesn't seem to hold the same opinion on the issue, or the CDS.  I am not slighting your MOSID, okay, I am just saying that a convincing argument for spec 1 for it was apparently not made.  

If you can do every other tech trade job, then why not just book and challenge the CCNA/CCDA exams?  Use that as a starting point for the level of tech knowledge and validation for spec 1.


----------



## armyman7877

My point is lineman is a tech trade and should be given spec pay. Our trade on the civilIan side does offer such pay bonuses and what not. To say lineman is not a skilled tech trade is insulting . I have hope  that we will fight to be payed equally like the rest of the techs. We develop cable plans, and yes most of us lineman  can so most of the tech stuff. They want us to be part of the tech unit do most of the work but get completely  left out of any compensation. I am hopeful our chain of command  will fight on our behalf for spec pay and fair compensation for the lineman.


----------



## PuckChaser

If there were a plethora of high-paying civilian jobs out there for LSTs, your trade wouldn't be the only green trade in ACISS (and even prior to ACISS). Line/LST has never had recruitment/retention issues, so clearly either your training is not up to industry standard, or you're being paid fair wage for the training you have.

Your trade on the civilian side is mostly hourly wages and very bust/boom dependent. I think a lot of trademen would kill to have a guaranteed $60K a year plus benefits for 25 years, instead of having to put in 80 hour weeks and then being laid off a couple months of the year.


----------



## Swingline1984

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> My point is lineman is a tech trade and should be given spec pay. Our trade on the civilIan side does offer such pay bonuses and what not. To say lineman is not a skilled tech trade is insulting . I have hope  that we will fight to be payed equally like the rest of the techs. We develop cable plans, and yes most of us lineman  can so most of the tech stuff. They want us to be part of the tech unit do most of the work but get completely  left out of any compensation. I am hopeful our chain of command  will fight on our behalf for spec pay and fair compensation for the lineman.



Reel your neck in, step back and take a deep breath. You do less now as an LST then the old legacy LMN did and you expect to be paid more for it? Put 100 Linemen in a room and ask what the OSI model is; then watch 3 raise their hands (probably folks who worked in the private sector first). Unfortunately my peers and yours decided not to grab on and wrestle technology to the ground when they had the chance, saying "we do too much already" while making grunting noises and banging their chests. So during MES we dropped the telephone switch which is evolving into VoIP; a technology which actually requires some depth of tech skill beyond climbing a pole (horrible example of what LMN do by the way). The trade/occupation has lost a lot of its skill sets with regards to OSP/ISP design and has ceded much of that responsibility to SSC and other civilians. I retired because I saw ACISS as a whole as a lost cause and got tired of banging my head on a rock. If I was a fortune teller (lucky for you I'm not) I would not see much future for 77 Line Regiment either beyond a lot of PYs all in one basket that can easily be wiped out and replaced with contractors then re-rolled into something more useful in the 21st century like a cyber operator or a drone pilot. I do, however have one recommendation for you if you want spec pay...don't sulk in your office, go out, sit on boards, argue to take on more technological responsibility, then change the system and earn it.


----------



## armyman7877

I have been serving in the military since 1997.  I have been around long enough to see many things over the years but 77 line regiment is running very well and as a whole we are not going anywhere.  My whole point being is that the line man are techs the same as the other trades. It's even in the tittle lineman technicians.  We often feel we get the little stick and by being bypassed on spec pay it feels like the icing on the cake. And yes i fo feel likewe should be compensated and no we do not do less work.


----------



## LightFighter

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> My whole point being is that the line man are techs the same as the other trades. It's even in the tittle lineman technicians.



Did you just add technician to Lineman? I’ve only ever seen the trade name as Lineman, never Lineman Technician. Or are you referring to LST, which is Line Systems Technologist

Also, even if it did have technician in the trade name, that doesn’t mean it should be a spec pay trade, eg Supply Tech, Med Tech(unless you are a PA or have a speciality within the trade).


----------



## Swingline1984

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> I have been serving in the military since 1997.  I have been around long enough to see many things over the years but 77 line regiment is running very well and as a whole we are not going anywhere.  My whole point being is that the line man are techs the same as the other trades. It's even in the tittle lineman technicians.  We often feel we get the little stick and by being bypassed on spec pay it feels like the icing on the cake. And yes i fo feel likewe should be compensated and no we do not do less work.



Just quit while you're behind. If you've been in that long then we probably know all the same people and you should also know I speak the truth. Your argument (if you can call a whiney rant an argument) is ludicrous...and just because I'm recently retired doesn't mean I don't know whats going on and don't talk to the guys still in. But whatever man...you do you...just stomp your feet on the internet, be jealous of your compatriots in arms rather than happy for them for getting a bonus and we'll just see how far it gets you.

To all the CSTs and ISTs out there; I'm happy for you...even if this guy sees your windfall as his soap box. Cheers.


----------



## armyman7877

Yes ' the linemen are every bit a tech trade as any of the  other trades. The reason why our trade has never been in the red is because it is  a technical job and most of the lineman find this trade very rewarding. If you think lineman is not tech and such an easy job then go try designing a Cable plan and go on the road for two plus months..  I'm just here to state the fact that our job is very technical  and deserving of spec pay the same as the other techs.


----------



## PuckChaser

You know you get TD on the road, right? Just because you have to travel doesn't make you a spec trade. You're already compensated for the travel.


----------



## ringo598

From my understanding (info comes from a pow-wow that had both CM's and D-DSigs) LST & Core were not submitted at all.  After the last attempt at spec pay it was seen that _"on paper"_ the two other trades simply didn't have enough _compared to civilian side_ to warrant further review of specialist allowance.  

It wasn't that they didn't work hard, or that they were not skilled.  It was a comparison to civilian compensation as a whole.  In the civilian world lineman make about or less what they do in the CAF. (AGAIN AS A WHOLE, I know someone will say but my line buddy makes 100k splicing single mode with Bell, but that's a one off, not as a whole).  Whereas techs and server admins make MUCH more as a whole in civy land (*Cough*Cough* civy contractors at CFSCE or 765/764 Sqns all make 100k+ and not just a few of them).

Its not a slight at all to lineman, its a comparison to civilian compensation AND retention.  My last look at that access file from CMP that shows the trade mannings showed Core & Line both healthy, while CST (78%) and IST (53%) both critically red was another factor.


----------



## Alpheus

Alpheus said:
			
		

> I have complete faith that someone, somewhere, somehow will completely eff this up as usual.



I hate being right.  Went to my pay clerk today to ask about when I will see my back pay, was told that they have received direction from Ottawa.  Of course, that directive is to only pay to legacy LCIS with the old qual code.  Yay.  Oh, and those of us with f**ked up tax situations will receive a modified T4 in the spring to correct the pay balance issue.  I have complete confidence that this will not happen.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Alpheus said:
			
		

> I hate being right.  Went to my pay clerk today to ask about when I will see my back pay, was told that they have received direction from Ottawa.  Of course, that directive is to only pay to legacy LCIS with the old qual code.  Yay.  Oh, and those of us with f**ked up tax situations will receive a modified T4 in the spring to correct the pay balance issue.  I have complete confidence that this will not happen.



Sounds like they are just trying to figure out how to calculate 6 years of Back Pay for approx 600 people in the range of 30 to 100K on a case by case basis. Easy job, might take a day or so. No big deal...  :facepalm:

Stead on lads, steady on.


----------



## Lumber

You guys need to be less original with your choices of avatars.


----------



## PuckChaser




----------



## JBP

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> With due respec,t I totally disagree. We lineman are busy as ever doing work orders. I know most of the lineman can do all your jobs plus our own with no problem. If you really think lineman is not technical the  try  designing a cable plan and do our job. I'm sure most of you  wouldn:t last. It would be great if fellow lineman would fight for fair compensation and tech pay.



With all due respect... Most lineman can do all your jobs plus our own with no problem? I would actually pay a $100 bet to see ANY lineman in the Forces attempt to do what I do on a daily basis. Just the average stuff, not even anything advanced. Normal ACISS-IST tasks you would see a guy doing at CFJSR or on tour somewhere. You have no idea how far out of range you are with that shot. You don't actually know what you do not know and cannot know it until you've seen it or attempted to do it. ACISS-IST do not simply reset passwords and make user accounts. That's not all of it buds. That's a slice.

Linemen are technical yes, and splicing cable is complicated, but, when I have to instruct the linemen on the differences between a fiber and ethernet-based switch... When I have to explain to ACISS-Core guys that HCLOS is actually passing network traffic via microwave radio frequencies and not simply running as an RRB... 

Anyway, congrats to everyone, I actually, never thought this would happen. Spec pay party for vanity to happen if/when I receive backpay! 

Cheers


----------



## ringo598

Wait..are we supposed to wait for the backpay before spending it? Oh.  I did a bad thing...


----------



## rmc_wannabe

ringo598 said:
			
		

> Wait..are we supposed to wait for the backpay before spending it? Oh.  I did a bad thing...



Why do I feel like I will be having this conversation multiple times on Monday with my troops....  :facepalm:


----------



## ringo598

But but Sirrrr

I needed that new Truck.
And snowblower...
And rifle...
And TV...

By the way sir, can you approve my memo for a pay advance?


----------



## ringo598

For any IST's interested, CDS order is being corrected, but some very good sources state that the pay/backpay/qual is:

"AKOX AND AKOF AND AKOH"

REF is CDS Directive 046/17, which currently has an OR in there, but its being changed to AND.


----------



## PuckChaser

There was a CCPS message go around this week to inform members that any spec pay change for ISTs is being done nationally, not at the unit level, so don't bug your OR asking them to turn on your spec 1.


----------



## c_canuk

ringo598 said:
			
		

> For any IST's interested, CDS order is being corrected, but some very good sources state that the pay/backpay/qual is:
> 
> "AKOX AND AKOF AND AKOH"
> 
> REF is CDS Directive 046/17, which currently has an OR in there, but its being changed to AND.



AKOX - DP2 ACISS Det 2IC 
AKOF - DP2.1 IS Admin Tech 
AKOH - DP2.1 IS Net Admin Tech 

I don't have AKOX on my MPRR (via MM) but I assume it's covered by my QL5 which isn't displayed with a competency on my MPRR for MM either. I wonder if that's going to be an issue.


----------



## buzgo

Hmm. I imagine that there are quite a few ISTs out there that predate the ACISS DP2 qual and will have the Sig Op QL5 qual. Maybe this is a way to save some $$.

I suspect that this is far from over, look at how complicated the LCIS payout became.


----------



## PuckChaser

Looks like they forgot to add the AKwhatever code for ACISS DP2 modernization. Probably easier for all you folks to just submit PLAR docs and get the courses granted.


----------



## c_canuk

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Looks like they forgot to add the AKwhatever code for ACISS DP2 modernization. Probably easier for all you folks to just submit PLAR docs and get the courses granted.



No that's where I got the AKOH Competency, This does mean though, that I probably won't get back pay till 2011 as promised since I got loaded onto DP2.1D much later despite having a complete PLAR.


----------



## Alpheus

Fvcked again.

How is DP2.0 relevant to being a tech?  Its a core course!  But hey, it's only 2.5 years of back pay down the toilet.


----------



## PuckChaser

Because your DP2.0 is part of your course package that makes you a substantive Cpl much like the old QL5 was the spec pay course.

If you've been a Cpl for 2.5 years and didn't mention to your CoC that you needed that course,  you need to shoulder some blame for not getting that back pay.


----------



## c_canuk

Alpheus said:
			
		

> Fvcked again.
> 
> How is DP2.0 relevant to being a tech?  Its a core course!  But hey, it's only 2.5 years of back pay down the toilet.



As Puckchaser mentioned, it's in line with other spec pay that you need the QL5 equivalent to prove you're out of the training stage and actually providing specialist skillsets to the job. As far as I'm aware all spec pay is after DP2.0/QL5.


----------



## c_canuk

ringo598 said:
			
		

> For any IST's interested, CDS order is being corrected, but some very good sources state that the pay/backpay/qual is:
> 
> "AKOX AND AKOF AND AKOH"
> 
> REF is CDS Directive 046/17, which currently has an OR in there, but its being changed to AND.



Do you have a link to this? I'm not seeing enumerated CDS Directives from the DIN, just a handful of directives to staff officers and the search is not helping.


----------



## JBP

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Do you have a link to this? I'm not seeing enumerated CDS Directives from the DIN, just a handful of directives to staff officers and the search is not helping.



Laughably, you may be able to find more information on the ACISS-IST FB group here. It's for IST's only though:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/239432422884449


----------



## ringo598

You can find the updated info here too, the public internet website has been updated with the codes as well:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/specialist-pay-reg-force-ncm-mosids.page


----------



## c_canuk

I found out why I don't have AKOX on my docs, I have AKOY which was the Sgt's Conversion course, as I was 6As qualified at the time.

So my Trg Coord contact says he would assume AKOY being the conversion course for Sgt, it would be a higher level than AKOX which was the MCpl Conversion, should entitle me. 

I figure I'll have to PLAR AKOX if the clerks don't see it that way. We shall see.


----------



## ringo598

FYI:  Not sure what most of this means, clerk speak, but from what I gather they've started getting things sorted out.

Date:  31 Jan 2018

Subject: ACISS ACCOUNT CORRECTIONS

DMPAP has commenced the correction to ACISS members pay accounts.  This is to advise units that they should place a PRZ note on ACISS member’s accounts for the foreseeable future.  Members with a 52D note with January 2018 date attached do not require a PRZ note.  These accounts have already been corrected.  There is no current timeline for completion of this project but DMPAP will remove individual PRZ notes as file corrections are completed.  DMPAP will place a 52D note on the account indicating that corrections have been made.


----------



## PuckChaser

PRZ notes mean you're paid manually instead of letting the system spit out numbers for the 15th and the 30th. I have had one before when my pay was all screwed up after CTing. Looks like they're trying to stop CCPS from compounding any errors already there.


----------



## Alpheus

ringo598 said:
			
		

> FYI:  Not sure what most of this means, clerk speak, but from what I gather they've started getting things sorted out.



Hardly.  Most CSTs have been on manually inputted pay since the spec pay back pay debacle started in March last year.  Didn't stop them from screwing up my end Feb pay, clawed back 7 months of spec pay that I never received, a time period that started AFTER my OT went through.  :facepalm:


----------



## Alpheus

Alpheus said:
			
		

> Oh, and those of us with f**ked up tax situations will receive a modified T4 in the spring to correct the pay balance issue.  I have complete confidence that this will not happen.



Hey look, right again!  I hate it when that happens.  At this rate, I probably won't even be paid mid-month.


----------



## Cobrajr

soooo has anyone seen appropriate back pay clawed back and an updated T4 yet?


----------



## ringo598

I was told by our clerks no new T4, its being paid out this year, so it'll be on this year (2018) T4 that we will get in 2019, so all the backpay will count towards this years income.  Not sure how accurate, but that's what I'm being told at least.


----------



## Alpheus

ringo598 said:
			
		

> I was told by our clerks no new T4, its being paid out this year, so it'll be on this year (2018) T4 that we will get in 2019, so all the backpay will count towards this years income.  Not sure how accurate, but that's what I'm being told at least.



That is the situation for ISTs I think, since they didn't have the backpay balance appear in on their pay account in March last year.

Most, if not all CSTs had the back pay appear on their pay balance in March last year, Revenue Canada thinks they were paid it in 2017.  My 2017 T4 has me earning 107K, that sure as heck did not happen.  My clerks are tracking and working to get an amended one.  And by working, I mean messaging Ottawa about it, since they don't have any control over my pay.

Also, my end Feb pay is also incorrect, to go along with the end Jan screw-up.  I'm seeing a trend here....


----------



## Cobrajr

Alpheus said:
			
		

> That is the situation for ISTs I think, since they didn't have the backpay balance appear in on their pay account in March last year.
> 
> Most, if not all CSTs had the back pay appear on their pay balance in March last year, Revenue Canada thinks they were paid it in 2017.  My 2017 T4 has me earning 107K, that sure as heck did not happen.



Yeah, this is my issue.

With the "unforeseen" change of what qualifies CST for spec pay (AKOR+AKOX?, 2.0+2.1 CST) I owe back ~6 months of spec. If they don't get that figured out before the end of feb I will not receive an updated T4, so I will be paying taxes on the money in the higher bracket that I did not earn, and have the clawed back money taken off my 2018 T4, and get a tax return at a lower rate, thus I would loose money.


----------



## Chad.wiseman

Wondering how long the trade training is for a reaervist in acis?  Thanks.


----------



## runormal

Chad.wiseman said:
			
		

> Wondering how long the trade training is for a reaervist in acis?  Thanks.



Roughly 2 months for your DP 1.0
You should have your drive wheel prior to going on the DP 1.0 which is another month. Your DP 2.0 is 2 weeks (it's a joke). Your 1.1 and 2.1 (linemen) courses are fairly lengthy.


----------



## ringo598

Update:  So...IST/CST not getting spec pay for awhile?

*** Sent on behalf of LCol I.R. Marchand ***

** This email has been sent to affected members of the RCCS, all RCCS Senior Officers and Senior NCOs **


It has been more than two months since our last official communication concerning ACISS specialist pay – although there has been many developments on this file, we assessed that it was best to ensure we had a firm understanding of the way ahead before re engaging with our community and our soldiers. Please disseminate this message to all concerned personnel.

1. FORMER LCIS TECHS

All technical data on former LCIS Techs who are entitled to specialist pay retroactive to 1 October 2011 has been provided to the Director of Human Resources and Information Management (DHRIM). This organization takes that data for every individual ACISS-LCIS Tech and rebuilds their military employment history in the Human Resource Management System (HRMS). While this process is achievable within a relatively reasonable amount of time, it is only part of the process. Once HRMS has been updated, files are then transferred to the pay authority, Director Military Pay and Allowances Processing (DMPAP). They must synchronize the new HRMS data with the member’s pay account, rebuilding the pay history – cycle by cycle (in 2 week intervals) for approximately 7 years. Because this process cannot be scripted, all actions need to be manual inputs and it is very time consuming and vulnerable to error. One file takes approximately 1 hour to synchronize, and that is when there are no complications. To date, several hundred files have been either completed or in the process of being completed. Given the complexity and unpredictability of file processing, DMPAP cannot provide an estimated time for completion. They have dedicated resources to our requirement and will continue to provide feedback as large number of files are completed. We are confident that they are working as fast as reasonably possible and our team will continue to work with them on LCIS files until every last soldier is correctly compensated.

2. CST /IST

IAW CDS Order 046/17, IST and CST were granted specialist pay retroactive to 1 October 2011; for a variety of reasons, the payment and/or corrective actions to pay accounts for these individuals has not commenced. First, we have to process LCIS Techs as a priority and the work cannot be done concurrently - as it is being completed by the same authorities within DHRIM and DMPAP. Secondly, and equally as important, we are currently working on modifying the Military Employment Structure (MES) of ACISS in order to greatly simplify career management and better manage the payment of specialist pay for the future. Unfortunately, but unforeseeable at the time, the revised ACISS MESIP (Aug 31 17) was not structured with CST and IST as specialist trades. Our attempts to establish a structure that could accommodate them being specialist trades in the future was not supported. As such, only once CDS Order 046/17 was approved in December 2017 could we begin the work to amend the structure to reflect IST/CST as specialist pay trades. In short, we need to fix this before we move forward or we would be complicating the career management of these sub occupations. Making this fix is now our main effort. Our objective is that a new MES can be in place shortly after the completion/payment of former LCIS Tech files.

3. CST – AKOR BEFORE AKOX

We sent an advisory in early January warning that any CST member who had received retroactive pay, but, who had qualified AKOR before AKOX, should be very cautious about spending all of their money because it is highly likely that some of it will be recuperated. To reiterate, when CDS Order 050/16 erroneously granted specialist pay to CST in January 2017, the pay authority based the backdated payment on the day the soldier obtained DP 2.1 (not taking into account DP 2.0 – AKOX). This should not have happened and we only discovered this oversight in late 2017 when reviewing the implementation of CDS Order 046/17. We encourage all units to look closely at these situations on an individual basis to mitigate the financial impact on our soldiers. While we have no mechanism to prevent a recuperation of monies paid between the date the soldier achieved AKOR (the date they were paid IAW CDS Order 050/16) and the date they achieved the latest of AKOR and AKOX (the date they should have been paid IAW CDS Order 046/17) – there are various courses open to alleviate the burden. The chain of command may contact us or G1 Personnel Policy to discuss individual cases.

4. CISTM

Recently, we have received many questions concerning CISTM and specialist pay, namely, why we have a structure in which a CST or IST Sgt will be promoted only to lose their specialist pay. This is a valid question, and we want all affected WOs and MWOs to know that we asked the same question to the authority which evaluates specialist pay. CISTM was considered for specialist pay in 2013 and were told by authorities unequivocally that CISTM was not eligible for specialist pay. Subsequent efforts by RCCS to petition for its consideration (2016, 2017) met with a similar inability to persuade the policy holder of our logic. Despite our unwavering assessment that IST and CST WO remains a specialist after promotion from Sgt, based on the Director of Pay Policy Development’s system for specialist pay evaluation, it would not meet the threshold to be assigned to the specialist pay trade group. To be clear, former LCIS Techs who retain specialist pay as CISTMs are receiving it because of their former status as LCIS Techs – and this is the only reason. We are now evaluating the future trade structure of ACISS to ensure that future evolutions of the MOSID address this discrepancy and ensure that for applicable occupations, our ranks from Cpl to MWO are considered for specialist pay assignment. In the interim, we continue to ask for patience, reinforcing that although we may not have been able to have specialist recognition bestowed on WO-MWO ranks of CST and IST at this time, we are laying the groundwork for the long term compensation of deserving ACISS members from Cpl to MWO.

5. REQUESTS FOR PAY REVIEW

We are aware that many of you had already estimated what amount of retroactive pay you should have received – and, have subsequently discovered that you were paid a lesser amount. First, our leadership advises against this practice of self-calculation. Only the analysts in DMPAP are qualified to calculate retroactive pay transactions given the complexity of rebuilding approximately 400-800 separate transactions and taking into account several General Pay Increases (GPI). However, some soldiers have taken the time to do this exercise. If, based on some form of quantifiable evidence they believe that they should have received additional money – then I suggest that (through the chain of command) they request a review of their pay account. I caution, however, that if such a review reveals that a soldier was overpaid rather than underpaid, recovery action will be initiated and there will be nothing that can be done to avoid it.

6. PENDING RELEASES

We have received a number of requests to accelerate the process of addressing pay files of CST and IST members with pending releases. For reasons described in paragraph 2, we are unable to process these requests at this time as much as we would want to. As file data to DHRIM and DMPAP is processed in groupings of 20-40 soldiers, it is extremely difficult to influence when an induvial soldier’s file is treated. That said, we understand that as some soldiers approach release, the uncertainty of not knowing how their pay situation will affect their retirement income is creating justifiable stress. With this in mind, we will be discussing these scenarios with DMPAP in order to issue supplementary information about how a member who is retired will receive the money that they are owed and how this will affect their pension. Any soldier who is releasing should be informed that RCCS leadership remains responsive to them to provide updates on their pay situation until such a time that it resolved.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

The passage of clear and accurate communication is vital to our community in respect to these challenging developments to ensure soldiers receive proper compensation. To this end we have attempted to provide the most accurate information available, trying to balance the need to accurately inform against issues which evolve weekly. However, communication which has originated from the field has been less than helpful at times. With this in mind, I remind all senior leaders of the RCCS to discourage the passage of negative, incomplete or even inflammatory information through official means (DWAN, town halls) and unofficial means (social media). I will be clear – negative communication does not assist our community in achieving our compensation goals and is dangerous to the morale and health of ACISS and the RCCS. We will continue to provide as much information as we responsibly can, as quickly as we can; any soldier who wishes a more timely update is free to request one from us through the chain of command and they will receive a sitrep accordingly. In short, negativity - especially pessimism based on conjecture - will not assist in achieving the end state and is harmful to our community and credibility.

8. NEXT COMMUNIQUE

Keeping with our objective to provide meaningful and informative communications, our next communique will provide information about the payment of releasing members. Following from this, the next major update will come in April and it will outline the overall progress in ACISS-LCIS files as well as progress in re-aligning the ACISS MES to improve the management of IST and CST soldiers for specialist pay purposes.

Interim questions may be sent to the undersigned, or Major J Manley at G1 Personnel Policy (613) 971-7282.

Respectfully,


----------



## PuckChaser

Hshahahaha. Remember when MES told everyone that they wanted CISTMs to get spec 2? What a gongshow of a project.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

This reaffirms my belief that the RCCS Chain of Command no longer has the best interests of its members in mind. This is all a matter of saving face. Especially the gag order on para 7. 

I will most likely be out of the CAF before we see the end of this nightmare.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

So how does this work then, will someone promoted from Sgt to WO go down in pay or do they at least get pay protected at Sgt 4 Spec 1?


----------



## PuckChaser

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> So how does this work then, will someone promoted from Sgt to WO go down in pay or do they at least get pay protected at Sgt 4 Spec 1?



It looks that way, a pay freeze at whatever Sgt Spec 1 IPC you're at when you get promoted to WO, until you hit an IPC of a rank that would net you a pay raise. Another massive fail from the MES group, that will not be rectified until we get the next restructure done or someone convinces the CDS to generate another order moving CISTM into Spec 1 group (which is highly unlikely to happen as LSTs fall under CISTM and do not get Spec 1).


----------



## Halifax Tar

No dog in this fight.  But watching you  guys in the RCCS, while at JSR or now from the extreme outside, I find it hard fathom that other branches are still pursuing this method of combining whole branches into one master trade.  Lesson learned don't exist I guess.


----------



## c_canuk

More like, those pushing for changes based for purely ideological reasons, will ignore the realities of other similar efforts, because they believe the flaw was in previous efforts implementers. They will not accept that the ideology was flawed. Especially if their reputation has a stake in it.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No dog in this fight.  But watching you  guys in the RCCS, while at JSR or now from the extreme outside, I find it hard fathom that other branches are still pursuing this method of combining whole branches into one master trade.  Lesson learned don't exist I guess.



People making the decisions are usually senior MWOs and CWOs who have a pretty good understanding of most of the trades. What they don't really consider is while they may be able to feel they have the knowledge to do the work of most of those trades, they don't really consider that their knowledge comes from 25+ years of experience working side by side those same trades. A new recruit has too much to learn to become effective in all those trades at the beginning of their career. The training required to make them a generalist in all the trades that would previously be separate would be far too long, so they give them a course length of reasonable length. The result is a new tradesperson that doesn't have a functional level of competency in any of the occupations the new trade replaced.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ringo598 said:
			
		

> *** Sent on behalf of LCol I.R. Marchand ***
> 
> ** This email has been sent to affected members of the RCCS, all RCCS Senior Officers and Senior NCOs **



Not only to does your snr leadership not have the ability to manage this pay fiasco, they don't even seem to understand the basic rank structure of the CAF, unless that is, there are no Warrant Officers (WO, MWO, CWO) or Junior Officers in the Signals world.


----------



## Chad.wiseman

Any one doing dp1 in Gagetown in July and have any course details to share?


----------



## ringo598

Wait, you're doing your sigs DP1...in Gagetown?  Not CFSCE in Kingston?  Huh, didn't know they did that.

I have nothing useful to add, my DP1 was years ago and I'm told things are much different now, hopefully someone who did it recently can chime in.


----------



## PuckChaser

The PRes was doing decentralized QL3 courses before the ACISS gongshow. Seems like CFSCE is actively trying to get out of the actually teaching courses game.


----------



## RocketRichard

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The PRes was doing decentralized QL3 courses before the ACISS gongshow. Seems like CFSCE is actively trying to get out of the actually teaching courses game.


Do you know if CFSCE is going to not be teaching BSOC as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Do you know if CFSCE is going to not be teaching BSOC as well?



I haven't seen or heard anything about a decentralized BSOC. It's already run in modular form so that PRes SIGS officers can get the 2 mods they need to reach OFP.


----------



## runormal

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The PRes was doing decentralized QL3 courses before the ACISS gongshow. Seems like CFSCE is actively trying to get out of the actually teaching courses game.



It's a damn shame as the quality and usefulness of a Pte (T) ACISS solider has greatly suffered as a result.


----------



## PuckChaser

runormal said:
			
		

> It's a damn shame as the quality and usefulness of a Pte (T) Aciss tp has greatly suffered as a result.



The quality of the ACISS-Core DP1-qual'd Signaller is a direct result of the ACISS gongshow that thought being a SigOp was a secondary duty. They gutted the TacRad/Core skills, and paid lip service to the sub-occ training to save training time, and created someone who needs maximum supervision at the unit level.


----------



## c_canuk

So I got my pay statement for end of may.

It shows the regular payment going into my account, however there are a bunch of deductions called Compulsory re muster and an equal number of additions for the same amounts with the same heading (checked on a spread sheet, they added then removed a payment for every month since Jul 2014). 

My closing balance is negative almost a grand because I was taxed on the payments but not refunded tax on the deductions.

If the spec payments are taxed after landing on my balance, why isn't the full amount deposited onto my balance? spec pay for a MCpl 4 in 2014 was not 225.23 it was $688. 

Anyone else see the same on their sheet?


----------



## ringo598

Same here, clerks tell me DMPAP is doing stuff and my pay still shows the "in progress" notes and not the completed notes and my pay should be normal regardless of all the notes until the final payout.

I give this a 60% chance of being accurate, a CFSCE pass as it were.


----------



## 211RadOp

ringo598 said:
			
		

> Wait, you're doing your sigs DP1...in Gagetown?  Not CFSCE in Kingston?  Huh, didn't know they did that.
> 
> I have nothing useful to add, my DP1 was years ago and I'm told things are much different now, hopefully someone who did it recently can chime in.



CFSCE has not taught a PRes ACISS DP1.0 in a while.  Having said that, there will be PRes on the DP1.0 starting in June so that it can make Min Load.


----------



## 211RadOp

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... Seems like CFSCE is actively trying to get out of the actually teaching courses game.



I don't know where you go this little tidbit of information.


----------



## ringo598

On Topic Update:

Got paystub today and confirmed with most of the guys at the shop they got it too.  We started getting spec pay as IST's, at least that's what the base amount shows.  The rest of our pay is all messed up, some guys are +thousands and others are -thousands.  I went from 5B-Incentive 4 to 5B-Spec-Incentive 3, not sure if that's correct, but at least the switch has been turned on.


----------



## c_canuk

no new developments for me yet, some of my guys have gotten it though. So far no back pay, other than the digit they probed me with rudely last month.


----------



## Alpheus

So latest RUMINT is the new tech trade will be Sig Tech 000385.  And for the chaser, when the new trade is stood up, it apparently has to be at standard pay rate as per Treasury Board rules.... :-D


----------



## PuckChaser

Not surprising, why would a trade that is brand new with that has not gone through the pay review process be granted spec pay? Would you rather everyone get Spec 1, and TB rule its not a Spec trade so all your troops are forced to pay back thousands of dollars?

Just because LCIS had it, doesn't mean any other incarnation of Technician will get it. You guys get to go through the process like anyone else.


----------



## Alpheus

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Just because LCIS had it, doesn't mean any other incarnation of Technician will get it. You guys get to go through the process like anyone else.



I know why they can't start as spec, same reason CSTs didn't start as spec.  That's not the point.  Everyone's pay is still effed up from the last time we went "through the process", and that took what, 7 years?  This is only going to make things worse.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AC Op is a standard pay group, but when they are quald/employed as PAR (Precision Approach Radar), those folks get Spec 1.  Maybe the new Sig Tech trade can match specific quals to Spec 1 like AC Op does for PAR folks?


----------



## PuckChaser

Alpheus said:
			
		

> I know why they can't start as spec, same reason CSTs didn't start as spec.  That's not the point.  Everyone's pay is still effed up from the last time we went "through the process", and that took what, 7 years?  This is only going to make things worse.



I think you underestimate how fast this trade restructure process will take. Likely 3-5 years is the estimates I've heard. The reason why the CST pay was messed up was because changes were forced through the system before a proper pay review was done (to correct an egregious error that froze legacy LCIS pay after the COT to CST). The pay review took so long because DPPD and TB were working on a new "streamlined" process for pay reviews because of the multitude of MES restructures (The RCN did a major one as well) that were going to bog the system down. This new system would also allow them to periodically review Spec and Non Spec trades to see if the pay groups were still relevant (Comm Rsch was warned they may lose Spec due to this). Because we're going back to literally square one, it'll give DPPD time to sort themselves out and get a process that can be measured in less time than it takes someone to complete an entire terms of service period.

Also, a lot of the folks that screwed us with ACISS are retired/out of their positions so we won't have the same poor leadership ramming changes through.

EITS: It's likely something like that will come into effect. SigOp in certain OSQs won't stay non-spec for long, and there are IST/CST/Sig Tech jobs that likely won't meet the threshold for Spec 1. Line could also be thrown into that mix with some of their high-demand civilian qualifications they can obtain.


----------



## c_canuk

All I have to say is that if I don't get spec pay before they start the next round of this crap, I'm going to be very put out.


----------



## renegade

ringo598 said:
			
		

> On Topic Update:
> 
> Got paystub today and confirmed with most of the guys at the shop they got it too.  We started getting spec pay as IST's, at least that's what the base amount shows.  The rest of our pay is all messed up, some guys are +thousands and others are -thousands.  I went from 5B-Incentive 4 to 5B-Spec-Incentive 3, not sure if that's correct, but at least the switch has been turned on.



I should be a Cpl Pay incentive  4 this month, but because of the aciss project i have been set back to Pte pay incentive 3. The clerks have helped me out a bit but hardly really. I hear this has happened to a lot of people. The clerks at my unit have their hands tide. anyone have any ideas in what i should do? at this point I am ready to call Ottawa myself. This is wrong on so many levels.


----------



## PuckChaser

renegade said:
			
		

> I should be a Cpl Pay incentive  4 this month, but because of the aciss project i have been set back to Pte pay incentive 3. The clerks have helped me out a bit but hardly really. I hear this has happened to a lot of people. The clerks at my unit have their hands tide. anyone have any ideas in what i should do? at this point I am ready to call Ottawa myself. This is wrong on so many levels.



Cpl's calling Ottawa usually works out incredibly well. There's also a lot of information missing here if you are actually looking for guidance. There's no way you should be dropped out of your current rank if you were already being paid at it.


----------



## renegade

Understood, yea i didn't think it would work out to well, just kind of fed up. So what has happened is they have to recreate my career history from the ground up. They put me back to pte 3 and literally left me there, this is the 3rd month i have been paid at this rank. As well as I am supposed to be cpl 4 today and it did not change anything. Pretty much what i was told is to wait out, Ottawa has to fix it.


----------



## Zarack21

Lots of people are in that boat.

Most of the guys I work with got at least their spec pay, though some of them were put into a lower pay level in the same rank(Should have been 4, they are 3)
They were told to wait out until the PRZ note is removed then they will be able to act.

As for me, i saw activity early May, got some cash out, some in, at the end i'm sitting with a balance of -$8000, then nothing else.
Was also told to wait out, and if I end up with no pay, to immediately go see them and they would give me some.

Still no spec pay for me, and I'm sure, a lot more.

I still don't understand why they are stripping the pay file and rebuilding it the way should have been... Why are they just not calculating the difference with both?
Oh well.


----------



## c_canuk

At this point I think they are doing it on purpose, I think they're betting on how high they can drive the attrition rate before it all implodes. Paying some people but not others randomly just before guardian hit, then stopping until Guardian is "fixed" is all part of the machinations. I felt that brief bit of hope that I might be able to plug the leak in my savings that being posted to the NCR caused, just to have it dashed again with no ETA in sight...[/sarcasm]

Somehow, if this was affecting Officer's pay, I don't quite believe this would have gone on so long. I don't like thinking like that, but it is what it is.


----------



## Zarack21

> Sent: July-18-18 2:57 PM
> To: Guardian
> Subject: Re: Specialist Pay Update / Mise à jour - Solde de spécialisté
> English text – French text follows
> Texte anglais – texte français suit
> Specialist Pay Update
> The MPMCT Project and DHRIM staff have identified the underlying causes for the issue related to Specialist Pay. We have developed the solution and are presently testing the solution to confirm that it correctly resolves this issue. We hope to confirm that the problem is resolved by the end of this week (Friday 20 July). The moratorium on the entering of transactions affecting Specialist Pay will be lifted once the solution is confirmed as working. Look for a communication to this effect next week.
> 
> Mise à jour - Solde de spécialisté
> Le projet TCGPM et le personnel du DIRHG ont identifié les causes sous-jacentes de la question liée à la rémunération spécialisté. Nous avons développé la solution et nous validons actuellement la solution pour confirmer qu'elle résout correctement ce problème. Nous espérons confirmer que le problème est résolu d'ici la fin de la semaine (vendredi 20 juillet). Le moratoire sur la saisie des transactions affectant la rémunération spécialisté sera levé une fois que la solution sera confirmée comme fonctionnant. Attendez-vous à une communication à cet effet la semaine prochaine.


So they found an error and testing a solution, sadly i'll be on leave next week to see what they have to say about it!


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Zarack said:
			
		

> So they found an error and testing a solution, sadly i'll be on leave next week to see what they have to say about it!



Excellent. It really feels like they are not lying to us this time!


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Excellent. It really feels like they are not lying to us this time!



Yes.... feels......


----------



## alxthegr8t

Hello,

I am currently in the process of becoming a Specialist in Communication and Information Systems. I am at the stage of making an appointment for my first test. I have 2 questions. First, I would like to have the opinion of a soldier who works / has work in the field to know how a day in this business is. I would like to hear what people on the ground have to say about this job. My second question is related to the fact that the profession is currently in demand by direct enrollment (which I did). To what extent does the CAF actively research trades that are "currently in demand"? I know it's rarely possible to set a wait, but if a trade is in demand, I guess the process has to be relatively faster than normal?

Thank you very much!


----------



## ringo598

Update:

To: +Guardian-Gardien-Communications@CMP MPMCT Proj@Ottawa-Hull <P-OTG.MPMCT-Communic@intern.mil.ca>
Subject: Re: Specialist Pay / Groupe de spécialisté

English text – French text follows

Texte anglais – texte français suit

The issue associated with Specialist Pay has been resolved. The moratorium for entering Specialist Pay is now lifted, and you may resume entering transactions for members in receipt of NCM specialist pay.

All Specialist Pay transactions previously submitted, that were held back from the CCPS to avoid issues with members’ pay, have been successfully processed.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

ringo598 said:
			
		

> Update:
> 
> To: +Guardian-Gardien-Communications@CMP MPMCT Proj@Ottawa-Hull <P-OTG.MPMCT-Communic@intern.mil.ca>
> Subject: Re: Specialist Pay / Groupe de spécialisté
> 
> English text – French text follows
> 
> Texte anglais – texte français suit
> 
> The issue associated with Specialist Pay has been resolved. The moratorium for entering Specialist Pay is now lifted, and you may resume entering transactions for members in receipt of NCM specialist pay.
> 
> All Specialist Pay transactions previously submitted, that were held back from the CCPS to avoid issues with members’ pay, have been successfully processed.



That's a bold strategy, Ringo. Let's see how it works for them. Especially when DMPAP stated all pay reviews were on hold until Fall  2018...


----------



## da1root

alxthegr8t said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I am currently in the process of becoming a Specialist in Communication and Information Systems. I am at the stage of making an appointment for my first test. I have 2 questions. First, I would like to have the opinion of a soldier who works / has work in the field to know how a day in this business is. I would like to hear what people on the ground have to say about this job. My second question is related to the fact that the profession is currently in demand by direct enrollment (which I did). To what extent does the CAF actively research trades that are "currently in demand"? I know it's rarely possible to set a wait, but if a trade is in demand, I guess the process has to be relatively faster than normal?
> 
> Thank you very much!



I am not an ACISS so cannot speak on the day to day work of an ACISS but I believe there are some siggies on here that can comment.

In regards to a "faster" file, short answer is no your file will not get preferential treatment and receive faster processing.  In Demand means that there are currently more openings for an occupation than the CAF has in the training system which creates an "In Demand" requirement.  What can/might happen is that once you reach the Competition List you will receive an offer faster than someone else who is applying for an occupation that is not "In Demand".


----------



## mariomike

alxthegr8t said:
			
		

> I am currently in the process of becoming a Specialist in Communication and Information Systems. I am at the stage of making an appointment for my first test. I have 2 questions. First, I would like to have the opinion of a soldier who works / has work in the field to know how a day in this business is. I would like to hear what people on the ground have to say about this job.





			
				Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> I am not an ACISS so cannot speak on the day to day work of an ACISS but I believe there are some siggies on here that can comment.



See also,

Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists
https://army.ca/forums/threads/77029.850
75 pages.


----------



## ringo598

So, depends on what sub-occ you are interested in.

Remember, currently you join as an ACISS core, and then based on your performance/luck/abilities/desires/luck/whims of the gods, praise be to Hermes (For he is great and naked), you may get picked up into a sub-specialty, or you may not want to be a sub-occ and that's fine too.

Core:  You do radios, this is the 'stereotypical' radio operator.  Nowadays they also do tons of stuff like run CP's, signallers for different units, strategic comms, tactical comms, all kinds of stuff.  They are the versatile jack of all trades.  These are the people who usually get upset if you swear, or say "ack" or "repeat" on the net.

IST:  Uber-Nerd, servers and networks.  They get spec pay.  Sorta.  Kinda.  Long story.  They usually do red (Unencrypted) networks and manage servers, services, and other weird nerd stuff.  Some get into programming and development/project jobs, but its rare.

CST:  Uber-Nerd, they fix stuff, do vehicle installs, wiring, and that kind of thing.  In some places like JSR you'll do lots of black networks, satellites and stuff, in other places you're an electronics fixer-upper.  They are a wider net of stuff, but still very technical.  They also get spec pay.  Sorta.  Kinda.  Long Story.

LST:  These are lineman, they drink from boots.  They have secondary duties such as line work, towers, climbing, wiring.  They are a very physical trade and when not drinking are some of the hardest working people I know.  They are awesome.

That's the basic jist of things.  

Full Disclosure:  I'm an IST, and I have tour/garrison experience and I've only lost like...3 pieces of crypto in my career so far, maybe a radio or two.  Superstar you could say.


----------



## renegade

So much for a next update being in April. It's not like this was announced in Dec. or anything.  :waiting:


----------



## Zarack21

Indoc this week At CFSCE.
Just saw the new trade structures.

Sig Op, Line Tech and Sig Tech, from Pte to MWO.
4th Trade for CWO on top of all that.


----------



## Thecamman

I have BMQ coming up and I signed up for ACISS and I'm pretty eager to start since I've worked in telecom for the past 4 years and Have years of self-taught experience before that. I was going to go to IST specifically after reading what that's like in this thread. Or maybe something else. Who knows. Still too early to make thay decision. 

At the time I did my research I knew there was some rift going on with ACISS but it seems to be worse than I thought. Is all this buggery going to be fixed soon? What are the plans?  How bad are things really? Either way, I'm excited. Ain't nothing gonna break my stride!


----------



## PuckChaser

The way technology is changing, all three trades need computer skills in varying degrees. To stay on the server end, work towards being an IST and when they firm up the new structure, you'll be given a chance to identify what trade you want to move to based on need, your current sub occupation, and your skillsets/preference.


----------



## Thecamman

Thanks! My work in telecom has mostly been all physical. I work for an ISP and do installs for phone, internet, and TV. Dealing with copper and fiber. Taking a second look, CST might be more relevant. I don't want to be a lineman though. Either way though good advice. I will find a sub-trade, stick with that until things get restructured. 

Any other advice for a future sig?


----------



## PuckChaser

There are a lot of sour attitudes in the branch right now because of how ACISS was rolled out. Don't let them destroy your impression of the job. You will be expected to work hard and you will likely be undermanned for a lot of it. You will also not get a chance to do a lot of training where mistakes are easily fixed, as to properly train Signallers, you need a Combat Arm doing stuff with users on the network. They won't come out and just be OPFOR for you, they have their own training objectives and expect comms to work 100% of the time.


----------



## Thecamman

This is all pretty close to what I expected given what I read about the trade from other people. Thanks for the help and advice. Should be an exciting journey.


----------



## armyman7877

It is rumered but not confirmed with our unit that lineman will be recieving
some type of spec pay.


----------



## theprivate

So I just finished the CST 1.1 DL, does anyone know what (unclass) material is in the other mods? I'd like to get a head start if possible.


----------



## 211RadOp

Everything you want to know about CSS 1.1 (DWAN only)

http://acims.mil.ca/trg/AITIS_Signals/120708/default.aspx


----------



## theprivate

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Everything you want to know about CSS 1.1 (DWAN only)
> 
> http://acims.mil.ca/trg/AITIS_Signals/120708/default.aspx



You are a hero, my dude.


----------



## GreatJP

Hi everyone! I have been reading this forum this past few weeks and I still don't understand about ACISS.
I just did my cfat yesterday and I did not get the cut off of medical technician( the trade that I really want to get in CAF). The recruiter talked to me and mentioned to me to apply to this trade called ACISS and I accepted it. So my questions are, Is ACISS is going to be worth it in the future? like when I want to be civillian and find a job that related to ACISS. 
Second question, I have zero experienced about wiring proramming etc. So How long to be a fully trained as ACISS?  Third question, how is being an ACISS?

P.S this is my first time to post here
I really appreciate to all who will respond to my questions. God Bless you guys☺


----------



## mariomike

GreatJP said:
			
		

> Is ACISS is going to be worth it in the future? like when I want to be civillian and find a job that related to ACISS.



Related civilian occupations
•Telecommunications Operator and Manager
•Facility Operations Manager
•Information Systems Analyst
•Electronic Engineering Technician/Technologist
•Line Installer-Repairer Technician
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/caf-jobs/career-options/fields-work/telecommunications/army-systems-specialist.html


----------



## PuckChaser

GreatJP said:
			
		

> So my questions are, Is ACISS is going to be worth it in the future? like when I want to be civillian and find a job that related to ACISS.
> Second question, I have zero experienced about wiring proramming etc. So How long to be a fully trained as ACISS?  Third question, how is being an ACISS?



ACISS, or whatever they call Army Signalers in the future will always be "worth it" or in demand. In fact, the demand is constantly growing with the pace of technology changing in the civilian world. There are so many branches to where you can be employed as an Army Signaler, that there's always a civilian nexus. As for training length, the formal training will only take a few months to complete, but you will be expected to constantly be learning new technologies related to your current job, and future employment. You will never stop learning in the trade, and if you do, you should expect your promotion ability to greatly diminish.


----------



## GreatJP

Thank you guys for answering my questions😁


----------



## poty

Hi everyone 
Has any one done or know any one that has done the dp4 csm infantry course lately ,
If so can you expalain the course material,

1, thé dl part,
    What books , references advices can you provide, any good notes. 

2, thé field part
POWs,Ccps 
Any cheet notes. Again handouts  , advise

I’ve asked plenty of the guys and , the same story. 
Easy, go on dl read and answer questions 
Go to gage town and have a cafe. I  just walk away 
If any one can please help I thank you on advance. 
Sporty!!


----------



## 211RadOp

This is the C&E forum.  Maybe you should ask in the Combat Arms forum.


----------



## HardenedJello

I did some research but never found this out for information, I am PRes and am about to do my DP1 for this summer, does anything run into the weekends training wise (e.g. field portion) or for the most part is my weekend free? My civilian job needs my attention on weekends. Any help would be appreciated!!


----------



## Chad.wiseman

I completed DP1 in ACISS in the summer of 2018.  All of my weekends were free except one.  However the didn't allow us to travel home each weekend.  Depending upon the behavior of the class, and at the course staff discretions, weekend leave passes (i.e. leave away from base) was either granted or denied.  However I do a lot of remote work civi side so that allowed me to catch up.  Hope this helps.


----------



## c_canuk

HardenedJello said:
			
		

> I did some research but never found this out for information, I am PRes and am about to do my DP1 for this summer, does anything run into the weekends training wise (e.g. field portion) or for the most part is my weekend free? My civilian job needs my attention on weekends. Any help would be appreciated!!



Submit a memo with the details of how much time on the weekends you need to accommodate your work requirements. Your home unit can staff this up to the school and ensure it's known to your course staff, that way it can be planned around. Don't surprise the staff with it when you arrive.


----------



## 385

Hey everybody, first post on this site; it has been a treasure trove of information for months now and I am very appreciative of the quality content.

I'm currently waiting to get into basic as a signal technician (completed medical and interview on June 27th, did some fingerprinting on August 20th) but I haven't been able to find much info here or elsewhere on the trade:

- I see on older posts that IST/CST is referred to regularly, are these rough equivalents for signals technician/operator respectively?

- How are the two similar and different? The materials the recruiter gave me make Sig Tech sound more workshop-based and Sig Op more field.

- Is one more competitive/in demand than the other? A recent post in the selection thread (https://army.ca/forums/threads/130459/post-1578380.html#msg1578380) said ACISS NCMs had about 85% vacancy in July, would be interesting to know that breaks down into the three groups.

Thanks in advance for any replies; my CFRC seems optimistic I will start basic in October so wish me luck all : )


----------



## PuckChaser

IST/CST are rolled together into the new (old) Sigs Tech trade. You're right, its going to be predominately more workshop based but will have field positions so if you go that route do not be surprised if you're posted to a field unit and have to do Army things. A lot of folks get misinformed off the get go and assume they're applying for an air conditioned desk job.

They are similar in the fact that Sig Ops, Sig Techs and Line need to work together to get the mission done. Sig Ops will be at the coal-face delivering sigs support to end users (combat arms). Techs will do a lot more background work that enables major networks and equipment to function/keep functioning.

Both trades are highly in demand, and there's a huge shortage in the CAF. That does not sometimes translate into a lot of BMQ spots, as the bottleneck is our training system which is inefficient and cannot mass produce competent Signallers in the quantities the Army needs them. Line is typically full, but there is always spots for new members to join.


----------



## marekbjj

ringo598 said:
			
		

> Core:  You do radios, this is the 'stereotypical' radio operator.  Nowadays they also do tons of stuff like run CP's, signallers for different units, strategic comms, tactical comms, all kinds of stuff.  They are the versatile jack of all trades.  These are the people who usually get upset if you swear, or say "ack" or "repeat" on the net.
> 
> IST:  Uber-Nerd, servers and networks.  They get spec pay.  Sorta.  Kinda.  Long story.  They usually do red (Unencrypted) networks and manage servers, services, and other weird nerd stuff.  Some get into programming and development/project jobs, but its rare.
> 
> CST:  Uber-Nerd, they fix stuff, do vehicle installs, wiring, and that kind of thing.  In some places like JSR you'll do lots of black networks, satellites and stuff, in other places you're an electronics fixer-upper.  They are a wider net of stuff, but still very technical.  They also get spec pay.  Sorta.  Kinda.  Long Story.
> 
> LST:  These are lineman, they drink from boots.  They have secondary duties such as line work, towers, climbing, wiring.  They are a very physical trade and when not drinking are some of the hardest working people I know.  They are awesome.




Thank you for this information! Very insightful.

I am waiting for my medical exam and have been searching for as much information regarding this profession as I can.


----------



## 211RadOp

marekbjj said:
			
		

> Thank you for this information! Very insightful.
> 
> I am waiting for my medical exam and have been searching for as much information regarding this profession as I can.


Marekbjj, note that this will be changing in the extremely near future.


----------



## marekbjj

211RapOp, I was speaking to someone on Facebook the other day, who's in the trade, he let me know it's changing in October.

Not sure if this is 100% accurate, but he said ACISS is going to be broken down into 5 groups.

- Signal Operator: making sure people can hear each other on the radio and working on the radio
- Communications Tech: Fixes the radios and equipment
- Information Tech: Fixes computers and networks
- Line Systems Tech: Installs telephone and internet systems (work underground and on towers/poles)
- Cyber Operator: New trade that has little to no information, but based on what he said sounds like it has to do with hacking. 



I'm still waiting for my medical to get booked, haven't had a chance to speak to a recruiter to confirm this information though!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What are the thoughts on the new way forward for Army Signals MOSIDs for the forum members?  Improvement over the ACISS project?  Better division of duties and training?


----------



## 211RadOp

marekbjj said:
			
		

> 211RapOp, I was speaking to someone on Facebook the other day, who's in the trade, he let me know it's changing in October.
> 
> Not sure if this is 100% accurate, but he said ACISS is going to be broken down into 5 groups.
> 
> - Signal Operator: making sure people can hear each other on the radio and working on the radio
> - Communications Tech: Fixes the radios and equipment
> - Information Tech: Fixes computers and networks
> - Line Systems Tech: Installs telephone and internet systems (work underground and on towers/poles)
> - Cyber Operator: New trade that has little to no information, but based on what he said sounds like it has to do with hacking.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for my medical to get booked, haven't had a chance to speak to a recruiter to confirm this information though!


It will be three trades coming out of the old ACISS trade.  They will be Signal Operator, Line Technician and Signal Technician (Cyber Operator is a new trade that was not part of ACISS although most (all?) came from ACISS).  What is above is the old ACISS trade (less Cyber Op) with it's sub-occupations.  Essentially the only real change will be that the Communication System Techs and the Information System Techs will merge into one occupation (Sig Tech), and the training that ACISS received and what the new trades will receive.  If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What are the thoughts on the new way forward for Army Signals MOSIDs for the forum members?  Improvement over the ACISS project?  Better division of duties and training?



EITS, _I think_ that it is good for the Branch and the Corps.  The training for the Sig Ops and Line Techs will not change substantially, but the Sig Techs will have some (a lot?) of conversion training to go through, depending on what sub-occupation they were as ACISS.


----------



## marekbjj

211RadOp said:
			
		

> It will be three trades coming out of the old ACISS trade.  They will be Signal Operator, Line Technician and Signal Technician (Cyber Operator is a new trade that was not part of ACISS although most (all?) came from ACISS).  What is above is the old ACISS trade (less Cyber Op) with it's sub-occupations.  Essentially the only real change will be that the Communication System Techs and the Information System Techs will merge into one occupation (Sig Tech), and the training that ACISS received and what the new trades will receive.  If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.



That makes things a lot more clear, thank you. 
Coincidentally I got my email to book my medical today!  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

211RadOp said:
			
		

> The training for the Sig Ops and Line Techs will not change substantially



Doomed to fail if that's the case. The ACISS training system created subpar Core members, who needed maximum supervision as CFSCE downloaded tasks to the unit to teach. If the new SigOp course isn't back to the length of the old SigOp QL3 before ACISS, we're just repeating the same mistakes.


----------



## 211RadOp

I know they are working on the new Sig Op QS/TP but I don't know where it is at.  I have been out of the school for over a year now.


----------



## Zarack21

211RadOp said:
			
		

> It will be three trades coming out of the old ACISS trade.  They will be Signal Operator, Line Technician and Signal Technician (Cyber Operator is a new trade that was not part of ACISS although most (all?) came from ACISS).  What is above is the old ACISS trade (less Cyber Op) with it's sub-occupations.  Essentially the only real change will be that the Communication System Techs and the Information System Techs will merge into one occupation (Sig Tech), and the training that ACISS received and what the new trades will receive.  If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
> 
> EITS, _I think_ that it is good for the Branch and the Corps.  The training for the Sig Ops and Line Techs will not change substantially, but the Sig Techs will have some (a lot?) of conversion training to go through, depending on what sub-occupation they were as ACISS.



This is apparently not correct anymore, they are looking at NOT merging IST and CST. Current rumor has it that D Sigs thinks it's not a good idea anymore.
As such, implementation was delayed until Apr 2020.

And as for the QS/TP (at least for dp1 and dp2, for Sig Tech), they are complete, we are currently building the Courseware Dev. Although this might/will change if they actually go with not merging IST/CST.


----------



## PuckChaser

Zarack said:
			
		

> This is apparently not correct anymore, they are looking at NOT merging IST and CST. Current rumor has it that D Sigs thinks it's not a good idea anymore.
> As such, implementation was delayed until Apr 2020.
> 
> And as for the QS/TP (at least for dp1 and dp2, for Sig Tech), they are complete, we are currently building the Courseware Dev. Although this might/will change if they actually go with not merging IST/CST.



Oh god, here we go again. Paralysis by analysis. Branch stuck in limbo for 3 years until we get a new D Sigs. Meanwhile we're stuck at ~75% PML (unsure if that's the exact number right now) and not recovering for going on a decade. Coupled with the fact that the Branch is freezing promotions means top performers are going to get stuck in their current rank and just VOT/release instead of sticking around to see what gets sorted out.

 :facepalm:


----------



## 211RadOp

Letter today from D RCCS says that Sig Op and Line Tech will remain, but the implementation is delayed until 1 Apr 20.  There will be "additional staff work and analysis with a view to creating two separate and distinct trade occupations as opposed to the one Sig Tech occupation."  This will be implemented in Apr 20 as well.


----------



## simzara

I applied for ACISS reserves and have been accepted. I Will start my BMQ soon but I have started my parade nights two months ago. ACISS is not the tradeI had hoped it would be. I want a trade where I can be outside more instead of just doing boring repetitive stuff and have a strong brotherhood. As far as I can see, ACISS will not provide that. In the CFAT and in medical I qualified for armored and infantry. What are my chances to transfer over to either of those trades?
I want a strong brotherhood, I want to be able to volunteer for deployments, and if I do get selected for deployment I want a weapon to defend my self.

25 years old, male, born in Canada.
In BC
multiple certifications, a diploma in an IT field. And, just got accepted into computer science.


----------



## Brasidas

simzara said:
			
		

> I applied for ACISS reserves and have been accepted. I Will start my BMQ soon but I have started my parade nights two months ago. ACISS is not the tradeI had hoped it would be. I want a trade where I can be outside more instead of just doing boring repetitive stuff and have a strong brotherhood. As far as I can see, ACISS will not provide that. In the CFAT and in medical I qualified for armored and infantry. What are my chances to transfer over to either of those trades?
> I want a strong brotherhood, I want to be able to volunteer for deployments, and if I do get selected for deployment I want a weapon to defend my self.
> 
> 25 years old, male, born in Canada.
> In BC
> multiple certifications, a diploma in an IT field. And, just got accepted into computer science.



I'm likely from your unit, and you may have noticed several pers who aren't around much lately. We're deployed and/or deploying overseas on operations.

All pers, regardless of trade, have a weapon whenever the threat level justifies it.

Pers in your trade spend plenty of time outside. Not all the time, but they certainly do with CNR. I sleep in a tent, and I've spent time working GD and escort tasks along with my trade. You might want to talk to pers with more time in your trade. Drop me a PM sometime if you want.

Brotherhood? Sure. I had tight-knit section overseas.

Can you change trades? Sure. I suspect that you're more likely to deploy as a sig than any other trade though, given the proportion of positions offered to reservists across sig, infantry, and armour vs the number of pers in those trades.

Your certifications/diploma *might* be useful for a PLAR. Being a computer science student won't. Your comments make me strongly suspect you're not a candidate for going cyber, but you'd get something out of being a det comd on support ex when you've got your trades course.

Does your Tp WO's name start with a Y, btw? For the field tp, not BTL. He's a pretty good guy for talking about this stuff.

I'm not going to disparage your experience, but two parade nights does not get you much of an idea of how your trade is employed or how you'll enjoy it.


----------



## 211RadOp

Brasidas said:
			
		

> ...I'm not going to disparage your experience, but two parade nights does not get you much of an idea of how your trade is employed or how you'll enjoy it.



And nor will you have an idea of any trade at this point in your career.  Until you complete your BMQ and DP1, you will spend a lot of time sitting around the Armouries.

Once you are DP1 qualified, you will have much more time in the field and it will change your outlook on the trade.


----------



## simzara

Brasidas said:
			
		

> I'm likely from your unit, and you may have noticed several pers who aren't around much lately. We're deployed and/or deploying overseas on operations.
> 
> All pers, regardless of trade, have a weapon whenever the threat level justifies it.
> 
> Pers in your trade spend plenty of time outside. Not all the time, but they certainly do with CNR. I sleep in a tent, and I've spent time working GD and escort tasks along with my trade. You might want to talk to pers with more time in your trade. Drop me a PM sometime if you want.
> 
> Brotherhood? Sure. I had tight-knit section overseas.
> 
> Can you change trades? Sure. I suspect that you're more likely to deploy as a sig than any other trade though, given the proportion of positions offered to reservists across sig, infantry, and armour vs the number of pers in those trades.
> 
> Your certifications/diploma *might* be useful for a PLAR. Being a computer science student won't. Your comments make me strongly suspect you're not a candidate for going cyber, but you'd get something out of being a det comd on support ex when you've got your trades course.
> 
> Does your Tp WO's name start with a Y, btw? For the field tp, not BTL. He's a pretty good guy for talking about this stuff.
> 
> I'm not going to disparage your experience, but two parade nights does not get you much of an idea of how your trade is employed or how you'll enjoy it.



Thank you for taking the time to reply. So just because someone is in a combat trade doesn't mean that they'll get to travel more than someone in ACISS?

If I stay in aciss can they make me do a speciality that I don't enjoy? Such as fixing computers or will they let me decide?

I've heard rumors that someone in aciss can take a course in para. How true is that?

Also, can someone from reg forced aciss take courses listed as "common" here: https://army.ca/forums/threads/114268/post-1591287.html#msg1591287


----------



## 211RadOp

simzara said:
			
		

> Thank you for taking the time to reply. So just because someone is in a combat trade doesn't mean that they'll get to travel more than someone in ACISS?
> 
> If I stay in aciss can they make me do a speciality that I don't enjoy? Such as fixing computers or will they let me decide?
> 
> I've heard rumors that someone in aciss can take a course in para. How true is that?
> 
> Also, can someone from reg forced aciss take courses listed as "common" here: https://army.ca/forums/threads/114268/post-1591287.html#msg1591287



Going from memory, most ResF ACISS are in the core side, meaning they will work in Radio Detachments.  There are some, not many, technicians who will work on repairing/replacing radio and IT components and there are some "geeks" that will look after network administration.  Your sub-occupation will be a combination of your wants and the unit's needs, combined with your competency.  For example, if you can't find the ON/OFF switch on the computer, you will not be put into an IS position.

Yes, as ACISS you can get loaded on the Basic Para course, however don't hold your breath unless you need it for your employment.


----------



## simzara

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Going from memory, most ResF ACISS are in the core side, meaning they will work in Radio Detachments.  There are some, not many, technicians who will work on repairing/replacing radio and IT components and there are some "geeks" that will look after network administration.  Your sub-occupation will be a combination of your wants and the unit's needs, combined with your competency.  For example, if you can't find the ON/OFF switch on the computer, you will not be put into an IS position.
> 
> Yes, as ACISS you can get loaded on the Basic Para course, however don't hold your breath unless you need it for your employment.



Thanks again, have you had the opportunity to travel a lot and build strong friendship while your time in the trade? Also, I assume that they might not let me switch to infantry since aciss is an in demand trade. And I've even heard that reserves infantry have a harder time switching over to reg


----------



## Mike5

The other posts make good points:
1. Two months of parading will not give you much opportunity to appreciate the trade.  
2. We have Signallers with jump wings -- not many but a few -- if the Infantry jump they need Comms in the field.  Not sure if other Regiments are the same.
3. We have opportunities to deploy for trained Signallers.  I haven't been Combat Arms so cannot compare.  For what it's worth, I see comments on this board from Combat Arms trades complaining about a lack of opportunity to deploy.  I rarely see that in Signals -- because when someone puts a hand up we send them out.
4. Everybody in the CAF, without exception, is qualified on the C7.  If you need it, it will be issued.  When you get on BMQ, listen, learn and become an expert on every aspect of the  weapon.  You will need those skills for the rest of your career.

Please consider some unsolicited, constructive advice:
1. Take any complaints about ACISS on this board with a grain of salt.  It's the internet.
2. Make yourself useful to your Master Corporals.  I see some very, very switched on Master Corporals in Signals.  You can learn a lot from them.  (See #3 and #4 for two good methods to make yourself useful).
3. Do BMQ as soon as possible and then put your name forward for every field Ex.  You will see A LOT of camaraderie and time in the field.
4. Get trade qualified as soon as possible.  You will MORE camaraderie and time in the field.


----------



## simzara

Mike5 said:
			
		

> The other posts make good points:
> 1. Two months of parading will not give you much opportunity to appreciate the trade.
> 2. We have Signallers with jump wings -- not many but a few -- if the Infantry jump they need Comms in the field.  Not sure if other Regiments are the same.
> 3. We have opportunities to deploy for trained Signallers.  I haven't been Combat Arms so cannot compare.  For what it's worth, I see comments on this board from Combat Arms trades complaining about a lack of opportunity to deploy.  I rarely see that in Signals -- because when someone puts a hand up we send them out.
> 4. Everybody in the CAF, without exception, is qualified on the C7.  If you need it, it will be issued.  When you get on BMQ, listen, learn and become an expert on every aspect of the  weapon.  You will need those skills for the rest of your career.
> 
> Please consider some unsolicited, constructive advice:
> 1. Take any complaints about ACISS on this board with a grain of salt.  It's the internet.
> 2. Make yourself useful to your Master Corporals.  I see some very, very switched on Master Corporals in Signals.  You can learn a lot from them.  (See #3 and #4 for two good methods to make yourself useful).
> 3. Do BMQ as soon as possible and then put your name forward for every field Ex.  You will see A LOT of camaraderie and time in the field.
> 4. Get trade qualified as soon as possible.  You will MORE camaraderie and time in the field.



Have you seen people who were once in my shoes who have changed their view on the trade later on?

How do infantry view sigs?

Yes, the complaints about being in sigs have what's discouraged me.

So, even infantry get bored on their jobs and and are not always deployed or taking "cool courses?"to


----------



## Brasidas

simzara said:
			
		

> Thank you for taking the time to reply. So just because someone is in a combat trade doesn't mean that they'll get to travel more than someone in ACISS?
> 
> If I stay in aciss can they make me do a speciality that I don't enjoy? Such as fixing computers or will they let me decide?
> 
> I've heard rumors that someone in aciss can take a course in para. How true is that?
> 
> Also, can someone from reg forced aciss take courses listed as "common" here: https://army.ca/forums/threads/114268/post-1591287.html#msg1591287



Quite the opposite. There are often more deployment opportunities for reserve sigs relative to the number of trained reserve sigs.

As has been posted, reserves are almost exclusively "core", soon to be called signal operator again. Sig Ops don't fix radios.

If you want to do something else, it will take you trying to do something else. For instance, it's difficult but possible to be a lineman in the reserves.



			
				simzara said:
			
		

> Thanks again, have you had the opportunity to travel a lot and build strong friendship while your time in the trade? Also, I assume that they might not let me switch to infantry since aciss is an in demand trade. And I've even heard that reserves infantry have a harder time switching over to reg



Travel is more regional than it used to be, but it's there. Your unit will often train in Washington state. I suspect that you'll do BMQ-L in Chilliwack, but it could be in Wainwright or wherever there is room. Your trades course could be in Edmonton, Nanaimo, or some other place that I haven't had SA on since I was last at your unit.

You'll certainly work closely with others, and you're likely to make friends.

You will not be barred from OTing to infantry, and I know members from your unit and trade who have. I know one instance on the island where it was (I believe inappropriately) slow-rolled. That was related to personalities and not policy. "In demand" does not mean you can't OT out in the reserves. Where you run into problems is where you want to join a trade in a unit that's already full. For example, it's usually damned tough to enroll as a Med A on the island, because they've been good at keeping their positions filled.

Infantry CTing from res to reg is affected by training deltas between the two. The reserves do not have mechanized infantry. A reservist may take PLQ-Inf alongside Reg Force pers, but there are likely to be other differences in their experience and training.



			
				simzara said:
			
		

> Have you seen people who were once in my shoes who have changed their view on the trade later on?
> 
> How do infantry view sigs?
> 
> Yes, the complaints about being in sigs have what's discouraged me.
> 
> So, even infantry get bored on their jobs and and are not always deployed or taking "cool courses?"to



Yes.

Experiences vary. In general, combat arms appreciates SMEs that enable their success. For example, some of my guys supporting a patrolling course last year were very much appreciated.

Infantry get bored, yes. A random reserve infanteer's career is not going to be filled with getting cool guy courses and living the life of Riley.


----------



## 211RadOp

simzara said:
			
		

> Thanks again, have you had the opportunity to travel a lot and build strong friendship while your time in the trade?



After 30+ years as a RegF signaller, yes I have.  I also maintain friendships from when I was a PRes Infantryman. Not as much travel then as it was in the 80s.


----------



## simzara

What kind of security clearance is required for ACISS and how long does it take? I have not lived out of Canada, don't have relatives out, and have not done anything wrong but the thought of it makes me nervous.


----------



## 211RadOp

At a minimum to do the job you will require a Secret clearance.  To complete your DP1 you will need Enhanced Reliability.

Clearance times vary from person to person, so it is difficult to determine how long it will take.  I have seen it take up to a year after enrollment.


----------



## marekbjj

Mike5 said:
			
		

> The other posts make good points:
> 1. Two months of parading will not give you much opportunity to appreciate the trade.
> 2. We have Signallers with jump wings -- not many but a few -- if the Infantry jump they need Comms in the field.  Not sure if other Regiments are the same.
> 3. We have opportunities to deploy for trained Signallers.  I haven't been Combat Arms so cannot compare.  For what it's worth, I see comments on this board from Combat Arms trades complaining about a lack of opportunity to deploy.  I rarely see that in Signals -- because when someone puts a hand up we send them out.
> 4. Everybody in the CAF, without exception, is qualified on the C7.  If you need it, it will be issued.  When you get on BMQ, listen, learn and become an expert on every aspect of the  weapon.  You will need those skills for the rest of your career.
> 
> Please consider some unsolicited, constructive advice:
> 1. Take any complaints about ACISS on this board with a grain of salt.  It's the internet.
> 2. Make yourself useful to your Master Corporals.  I see some very, very switched on Master Corporals in Signals.  You can learn a lot from them.  (See #3 and #4 for two good methods to make yourself useful).
> 3. Do BMQ as soon as possible and then put your name forward for every field Ex.  You will see A LOT of camaraderie and time in the field.
> 4. Get trade qualified as soon as possible.  You will MORE camaraderie and time in the field.




I'm on the Final Processing stage of my application for ACISS. 

I am glad that I decided to take complaints about ACISS (on this board, and reddit) with a grain of salt. One thing that makes me really happy is seeing this type of stuff, really puts me at ease. I've been working in IT for 10 or so years, and quite honestly it's easy to forget that fixing computers, managing networks, etc is not for everyone. Personally, I love that kinda work


----------



## Mike5

simzara said:
			
		

> Have you seen people who were once in my shoes who have changed their view on the trade later on?
> 
> How do infantry view sigs?
> 
> Yes, the complaints about being in sigs have what's discouraged me.
> 
> So, even infantry get bored on their jobs and and are not always deployed or taking "cool courses?"to



1. Hard to say -- all our troops seem to enjoy their work and are proud of the trade.
2. I couldn't say it better, Combat Arms appreciate anyone who enables their success.  I've worked with Armored Recce and Artillery, they were very grateful to have Sigs involved.
3. I can't speak for Infantry.  We rarely get bored -- always a new technology to learn.  And one weekend, you can be working with Infantry, the next weekend, Combat Engineers.


----------



## MikeSigs

Happy Holidays everyone. I am a new member of 32 Sig Regt and currently finishing my BMQ course. Do any of you know if 21 Electronic Warfare Regiment is still in existence? and  if so are they still in CFB Kingston? The reason why I ask is because this summer my family will move to Kingston after my BMQ, BMQ-L and Driver Wheel courses are done, and I would like to join that regiment.


----------



## PuckChaser

Yes they're still there.


----------



## macarena

211RadOp said:
			
		

> (...)
> Clearance times vary from person to person, so it is difficult to determine how long it will take.  I have seen it take up to a year after enrollment.



Hi, mates!
I'm new on the forum, and new with all the terminologies, the procedures, etc.
From the words above, It seems to me that one candidate can start, do it, and even complete, the 12 weeks of the Basic Military Officer Qualification (BMOQ) before his clearance check is concluded.
May I ask if it is right?
Cause I was thinking that we only get enroled to the 12 weeks BMOQ, after the clearance check for our trade is concluded.


----------



## macarena

simzara said:
			
		

> I applied for ACISS reserves and have been accepted (...)
> 25 years old, (...)
> multiple certifications, a diploma in an IT field. And, just got accepted into computer science.



Hi, Simzara!
I'm also from IT, 48 y.o., no certs, 2 diplomas, and still depositing my application.
May I ask you, why you chosed to don't try an Officer rank?


----------



## macarena

Hi, Mates!
May I ask about the Army Communication and Information Systems Specialists trade ( https://forces.ca/en/career/army-communication-and-information-systems-specialist/ ), if someone would know in which rank the candidate will be on its BOQT?
I've read somewhere that for some specialized jobs, the candidate is ranked as soldier only in the BMQ.
I would like to confirm it with some veteran, if possible.


----------



## 211RadOp

macarena said:
			
		

> Hi, Mates!
> May I ask about the Army Communication and Information Systems Specialists trade ( https://forces.ca/en/career/army-communication-and-information-systems-specialist/ ), if someone would know in which rank the candidate will be on its BOQT?
> I've read somewhere that for some specialized jobs, the candidate is ranked as soldier only in the BMQ.
> I would like to confirm it with some veteran, if possible.



I am confused on your wording, but I think I know what you are getting at.

ACISS is an NCM trade so you will do BMQ, as such you will be enrolled as a Private.  Some trades (ACISS is not one of them), after BMQ you are promoted to a higher rank.  These trades are very few and far between (I can only think of one).

So, if I understand you question, as ACISS you will be enrolled as a Private and go to BMQ.  Upon completion of BMQ you will go to CFSCE (Sigs school in Kingston) and complete your trade training, still as a Private.  Four years after enrollment you will be promoted to Corporal.


----------



## macarena

211RadOp said:
			
		

> I am confused on your wording, but I think I know what you are getting at. (...)



I beg your pardon for that.  

[quote author=211RadOp]
(...)
So, if I understand you question, as ACISS you will be enrolled as a Private and go to BMQ.  Upon completion of BMQ you will go to CFSCE (Sigs school in Kingston) and complete your trade training, still as a Private.  Four years after enrollment you will be promoted to Corporal.
[/quote]

Thanks a lot for your answer, buddy!
That is exactly what I wanted to confirm.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre

Previous posts make it sound like CST and IST have been combined to make up the Sig Tech trade.  Is this true?
I feel like I am under a rock.  Is there an official resource where I can find out where the trade is at?


----------



## PuckChaser

No, they just took all the sub occ, renamed CST to Sig Tech and made them standalone trades. CISTM died a horrible death in the process.


----------



## Weinie

PuckChaser said:


> No, they just took all the sub occ, renamed CST to Sig Tech and made them standalone trades. CISTM died a horrible death in the process.


A long time ago, in a galaxy far, away, I was a Radio Tech. Glad I am out of this battle.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, away, I was a Radio Tech. Glad I am out of this battle.


That’s right…I remember you telling me how awesome it was when you graduated from vacuum tubes in the PRC-25 to transistors in the PRC-77. 👍🏼


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> That’s right…I remember you telling me how awesome it was when you graduated from vacuum tubes in the PRC-25 to transistors in the PRC-77. 👍🏼


And they were both pricks.


----------

