Author Topic: Construction Engineers (Formerly Airfield Engineers)  (Read 36824 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Abram Tank

  • Guest
  • *
  • 370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5
Re: AF ENG location
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2008, 19:13:51 »

Correct , we are in fact now Construction Engineers.
postings can be to any base navel, Army, Air.
We have both Land DEU and Air DEU in all the CER Regts, same as for all the Air bases, Land bases, and Navel Construction Troops. 

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AF ENG location
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2008, 19:15:37 »

Correct , we are in fact now Construction Engineers.
postings can be to any base navel, Army, Air.
We have both Land DEU and Air DEU in all the CER Regts, same as for all the Air bases, Land bases, and Navel Construction Troops. 


I knew things were strange in the Navy, but this takes the cake...... :o

Offline PMedMoe

    is now a flat-faced civvy.... :).

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 246,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,006
Re: AF ENG location
« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2008, 19:39:02 »
Maybe they can get posted here.   ;D
"A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
~ Lao Tzu~

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AF ENG location
« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2008, 19:41:53 »
Maybe they can get posted here.   ;D

I've been checking my belly for a construction troop for the last 10 minutes........

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,997
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: AF ENG location
« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2008, 19:44:57 »
I've been checking my belly for a construction troop for the last 10 minutes........

I have lint but no troops....oh wait there is some, nope false alarm, that was a chocolate chip. :D
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Abram Tank

  • Guest
  • *
  • 370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5
Re: AF ENG location
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2008, 20:29:29 »
oops sorry next time must remember to proof read...............

Offline BernDawg

  • Wood Butcher
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 11,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 969
  • Retired... workin' harder than ever!
Re: Construction Engineers (Formerly Airfield Engineers)
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2008, 18:14:37 »
Some CE trades are eligible for embassy postings as well.
"We can't all be heroes... because someone has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by."  Will Rogers
Someone has to be last.  At least if it's me I know where all the assholes are.

Offline capitil

  • Guest
  • *
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1
Construction Engineer Officers?
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2011, 19:46:10 »
Are there any Construction Engineer Officers floating around this forum?

I'm thinking about commissioning when I graduate (civil engineering, 2011). I'm interested in joining the Construction engineers but am unsure about whether or not I'll be able to get my P.Eng in a few years or if that is something worth doing. I'm also wondering if anyone could give me a 'day in the life' of a CE.
Much appreciated
Chimo


Offline EPF

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31
Re: Construction Engineer Officers?
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2011, 17:02:32 »
CE is an air force trade (formerly known as Airfield Engineers), so you might have more success on the air force boards.

What I can tell you since I'm hanging around CEs-in-training all the time, is that you don't need your P.Eng. to be a CE, but it's always a good idea for extra credibility with civilian contractors or for a "plan B" if you leave the Forces. You can use your time in the Forces to get your P.Eng., but it's a bit more of a juggling act since not that many CE officers are accredited. So it's a possibility, but not guarantied. Anyway, if you really want it, you should be able to find a way (I'm working on that myself!).

From what can I see, it's a good trade! There's different types of jobs, one of them being the base CE, which is pretty much the municipal engineer of the base. There are deployable positions as well. Once again, you should talk to air force types.

Chimo!
Even if I do something wrong, at least I'll have done something.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,436
  • Crewman
Re: Construction Engineer Officers?
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2011, 17:45:50 »
CE is an air force trade (formerly known as Airfield Engineers), ........   

This is news to me.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline agc

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 25,441
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
Re: Construction Engineer Officers?
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2011, 18:04:31 »
NAME CHANGE OF AIRFIELD ENGINEERING (AF ENGR)
TO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (CONST ENGR)

Refs: A. 4500-3 (D Air PPD 2) 24 January 2007
B. UNCLASS DGPR 026/07 121519Z December 2007

1. The CF recruiting establishment continues to face challenges in attracting candidates for the Airfield Engineering occupation (AF ENGR - MOSID 00189). Clearly, the current name is not reflective of the jobs performed by members of this occupation, is not aligned with the NCM Construction Engineering occupations, and is not conducive to recruiting.

2. Following considerable analysis and discussions at many different forums, CAS/DG Air Pers submitted a formal request (ref A) to rename MOSID 00189 from the current Airfield Engineering to Construction Engineering (CONST ENGR) and the request was recently approved by CMP/DGMP (ref B) to be effective on 01 January 2008. The new name more appropriately describes the jobs performed by its officers, is better aligned with its NCM Construction Engineering occupations, and will help in the recruitment of quality applicants.

3. In November 2007, renaming MOSID 00189 AF ENGR to CONST ENGR was endorsed by the CME Branch Council and it advised that this name change does not imply a name change for MOSID 00181 ENGR.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,436
  • Crewman
Re: Construction Engineer Officers?
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2011, 18:43:59 »
NAME CHANGE OF AIRFIELD ENGINEERING (AF ENGR)
TO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (CONST ENGR)

Refs: A. 4500-3 (D Air PPD 2) 24 January 2007
B. UNCLASS DGPR 026/07 121519Z December 2007

1. The CF recruiting establishment continues to face challenges in attracting candidates for the Airfield Engineering occupation (AF ENGR - MOSID 00189). Clearly, the current name is not reflective of the jobs performed by members of this occupation, is not aligned with the NCM Construction Engineering occupations, and is not conducive to recruiting.

2. Following considerable analysis and discussions at many different forums, CAS/DG Air Pers submitted a formal request (ref A) to rename MOSID 00189 from the current Airfield Engineering to Construction Engineering (CONST ENGR) and the request was recently approved by CMP/DGMP (ref B) to be effective on 01 January 2008. The new name more appropriately describes the jobs performed by its officers, is better aligned with its NCM Construction Engineering occupations, and will help in the recruitment of quality applicants.

3. In November 2007, renaming MOSID 00189 AF ENGR to CONST ENGR was endorsed by the CME Branch Council and it advised that this name change does not imply a name change for MOSID 00181 ENGR.

Construction Engineer Officers existed well before 2007.  Even with your above quote by MCG, you have failed to follow up with the fol:

Yes

Quote
4. There will be no structural change to the newly named Construction Engineering occupation and career management remains the same as for the Airfield Engineering occupation. In addition, there will be no conversion training required and the training documents will be updated to reflect the new name. Construction Engineers will remain part of the Canadian Military Engineering branch with CAS as the career field/occupation manager and the DEU for all new officers will remain air environmental.

5. In addition to the name change from the current Airfield Engineering to Construction Engineering, several other title and designation changes will be required, mainly within 1 Canadian Air Division HQ but also at the wing/unit level.  As a general rule, the word “Airfield” will be simply replaced by “Construction”.

This is the last text of any value.  There are some charts included in the doc, but I'm not cutting those over.

This states that all NEW "Construction" Engineer Officers will wear the Air DEU.  It does not state that this is an Air Force Trade.  For the most part members of the Canadian Military Engineer Branch wear the Land DEU.  What does this mean?  It means that the CE Officers are not an Air Force Trade, only that they will wear Air DEU.  It is the same as other Trades such as MP or Medic, who may wear different Element DEUs, but it does not mean that their Trade is specific to one Element.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline agc

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 25,441
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
Re: Construction Engineer Officers?
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2011, 19:10:58 »
Seen.  Misunderstood your previous post, sorry.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Construction Engineer Officers?
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2011, 07:02:51 »
It is the same as other Trades such as MP or Medic, who may wear different Element DEUs, but it does not mean that their Trade is specific to one Element.
The MA for Construction Engineers is in the Air Force.  It is an air occupation.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,436
  • Crewman
Re: Construction Engineer Officers?
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2011, 07:30:03 »
The MA for Construction Engineers is in the Air Force.  It is an air occupation.

Once again, I stand corrected. 

(MA = Manning Authority)
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 267
Re: Construction Engineers (Formerly Airfield Engineers)
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2014, 00:07:44 »
Does this mean that the Army Area Construction Troops (not sure if they are now Division Construction Troops) are commanded by RCAF officers or are they commanded by Army Engineer Officers? 

It seems weird that the construction engineer trades are both Army and RCAF, but the construction officers are RCAF only.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Construction Engineers (Formerly Airfield Engineers)
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2014, 00:24:52 »
Construction Troops are commanded by Engineers and not by Construction Engineers.  Officer positions with fleet construction engineering (FCE) is can be either Engineer or Construction Engineer, and the same is true of the positions in 1 CEU.

Most of the construction trades exist in both Army and Air Force, but they are still managed by the RCAF regardless of an individual's uniform colour.  Wearing of the two environmental uniforms by the trades is not odd because they work in organizations that may be commanded by officers of either uniform, and they are employed in support of all three environments.

What is odd is that we maintain separate officer occupations when there is so much interchangeability.  I would have thought us better served by one occupation with two or three sub-occupations.