• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Consolidated Seamanship Training Facility (CSTF) at CFB Halifax

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
268
Points
880
OyrNa3d.jpg


y8zCELx.jpg


y1HJX7y.jpg


88w9Llj.jpg


"I was luckey enought to get a quick peak today of the new #cfbhalifax Consolidated Seamanship Training Facility (CSTF) located by the Stad main gate. So much more than a replacement drill shed, it will incorporate offices, small and large classrooms, a theatre...

a container inspection trainer, reconfigurable 3 deck training area with breaching doors to support NBP training, rapel wall, and so much more. The finishing touches are almost done, and NFS(A) will start to move in soon. Training will take a giant leap forward this summer."

https://twitter.com/WardenNAtlantic/status/1220170927410950145
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,995
Points
1,060
Is this where A-Block was formerly?  I'm sure all folks who work at "the Campus" down by the MWC will love the new facility (if I am interpreting the NFSA part correctly).

Good thing he's carrying those gloves with that rainjacket on!    ;D
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,516
Points
1,090
Eye In The Sky said:
Is this where A-Block was formerly?  I'm sure all folks who work at "the Campus" down by the MWC will love the new facility (if I am interpreting the NFSA part correctly).

It is where A Block used to be. All the warfare schools are located adjacent to the new Sea Div building. Down lower and farther away (as they should be ;D) are the engineering schools.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,995
Points
1,060
FSTO said:
It is where A Block used to be. All the warfare schools are located adjacent to the new Sea Div building.

Those are the ones 'around the big parking lot'?

Down lower and farther away (as they should be ;D) are the engineering schools.
  This must have been where I was this past Oct for a few weeks on course with the NTDC (A) folks;  the building next to the MWC with the Main Sail Café in the basement?

I guess they're all part of NFS(A)?  I heard some grumblings about this whole "campus" concept.  ;D
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,516
Points
1,090
Eye In The Sky said:
Those are the ones 'around the big parking lot'?
Yes
 

Eye In The Sky said:
This must have been where I was this past Oct for a few weeks on course with the NTDC (A) folks;  the building next to the MWC with the Main Sail Café in the basement?

I guess they're all part of NFS(A)?  I heard some grumblings about this whole "campus" concept.  ;D
Yes and Yes again.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,314
Points
1,090
In spring of 2016 when I was on my QL7 and promoted to CPO2, there wasn't much argument from me when the intended position I was to go to shifted from NFS(A) to BLog.  Having been a senior instructor at CFNES (twice), I was able to read the tea leaves fairly well...when told that instructor shortages and backfills would be drawn from the fleet by CFTPO...I was amused...and then dismayed to hear that this was actually expected to work.  The section where I'd once had 12 instructors went down to 5...with no standards cell to back them up anymore.  The Senior Instructor was to be the Standards Cell.  I was...pleased...not to have to deal with the continuing aspects of the 'campus' program.

At one point, I was told by a Senior Leader that the lesson plan delivery to trainees was going to be so well setup that the background of the instructor wouldn't matter....for example, a Gas Turbine instructor could be given a RADAR system lesson plan, and be expected to go and teach the material.  Similarly, a Weapons instructor could deliver a Gas Turbine lesson plan.  The instructor would only need to log in, access the master lesson plan, print off the instructor's notes, and then go to the class to present the materiel.  Having no experience with the equipment they were instructing would have no impact on training delivery.

So....suffice to say, I was pleased to find myself posted out of that scenario and into a logistics support/technical services position.

The 'campus' concept had some merit...I'm not sure many folks are all that happy with how it's turned out though.  On the other hand, it's no longer my concern and I wish them well.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,669
Points
1,040
NavyShooter said:
...
[b]Having no experience with the equipment they were instructing would have no impact on training delivery.[/b]
...

Wow.  That was even before marijuana was legalized.

"I've never actually taught anything, so here's how it's going to work"... ::)

The whole point of having experienced techs as instructors is that they are able to relate real life anecdotes to the students, and give useful advice for all the things that aren't in any lesson plans or equipment user manuals. Wish we treated postings to a school like the Brits did, where it was reserved for the best and brightest on a fastrack (ie they wanted the best teaching others how to do the job).  This kind of quackery is why it's hard to take the whole approach seriously. High quality instruction is resource intensive and difficult. Getting it wrong will have impacts for a whole careers worth of time.

If the senior instructor is the standards 'cell' (lol), who do they expect to update the lesson plans?  They should get refreshed every few years (maybe more often if needed, especially with IT systems). How is one person supposed to know that kind of breadth of system knowledge?
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
NavyShooter said:
At one point, I was told by a Senior Leader that the lesson plan delivery to trainees was going to be so well setup that the background of the instructor wouldn't matter....for example, a Gas Turbine instructor could be given a RADAR system lesson plan, and be expected to go and teach the material.  Similarly, a Weapons instructor could deliver a Gas Turbine lesson plan.  The instructor would only need to log in, access the master lesson plan, print off the instructor's notes, and then go to the class to present the materiel.  Having no experience with the equipment they were instructing would have no impact on training delivery.

Funny.  I was told the same thing by someone when we were updating our lesson plans. The idea is that anyone from any trade should be able to pick up a lesson and deliver it.

My thoughts are why not cut out the middleman and give all the information to the students. They can read it themselves.  Which is what would happen if you had someone delivering a lecture on something they had no experience in, they'd just be standing up there reading from the notes. 

Where do these crap ideas come from??  Better yet, how do they gain traction? 

How can a room full of smart people agree on something so bizarre?  I'll never figure it out.




 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
494
Points
930
It may not be much consolation but we aren't unique in this.  A few years back Australia was advertising for a new head of training for their ATC unit.  Listed qualifications included personnel skills, IT skills, a high degree of knowledge of computer based training techniques and so on and so on.  Almost the last item was the requirement for some degree of understanding into ATC fundamentals.  What is that saying: 'those that know, do and those that don't teach'?
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,606
Points
1,010
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Funny.  I was told the same thing by someone when we were updating our lesson plans. The idea is that anyone from any trade should be able to pick up a lesson and deliver it.

My thoughts are why not cut out the middleman and give all the information to the students. They can read it themselves.  Which is what would happen if you had someone delivering a lecture on something they had no experience in, they'd just be standing up there reading from the notes. 

Where do these crap ideas come from??  Better yet, how do they gain traction? 

How can a room full of smart people agree on something so bizarre?  I'll never figure it out.

If that is the approach many parts of the CAF are taking to Individual Training, we might as well just hand  AB Initio aircrew an Ipad full of info and the keys to the flight line and let them figure how to fly on their own. We could get infanteers or NWOs whom are too broken to deploy to read them lesson plans, if we want the human touch. Since it clearly doesn't matter that you know anything about the subject material, if the lesson plans are any good.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,516
Points
1,090
SeaKingTacco said:
If that is the approach many parts of the CAF are taking to Individual Training, we might as well just hand  AB Initio aircrew an Ipad full of info and the keys to the flight line and let them figure how to fly on their own. We could get infanteers or NWOs whom are too broken to deploy to read them lesson plans, if we want the human touch. Since it clearly doesn't matter that you know anything about the subject material, if the lesson plans are any good.

Remember, the USN tried "SWO on CD" which begat Fitz and McCain (the tip of the iceberg). Why the **** can we not learn from the mistakes of others?????
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,669
Points
1,040
FSTO said:
Remember, the USN tried "SWO on CD" which begat Fitz and McCain (the tip of the iceberg). Why the **** can we not learn from the mistakes of others?????

Because the old system worked, but doesn't give anyone the opportunity to 'lead change' for PER points.

Also, we chronically ignore our training system until it's broken, and then live with it until we can't.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,314
Points
1,090
The people doing the lesson plans are to be the "Training Development Centers" - with (A) taking the Operator side, and (P) doing the Technical side of lesson plan writing/development. 

The plan had been to promote me into the TDC(P) office -supervising work on technical lesson plans, however, because the timeline for the shift to the Campus program was moved up by almost a year, no-one had thought to engage the CM shops - so they had no money for cost moves...so I was going to be posted into a west coast billet, working in a 'satellite' office in Halifax.

Instructors were never to work on lesson plans...only the TDC's. 

Sound like a recipe for success?

 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,669
Points
1,040
NavyShooter said:
The people doing the lesson plans are to be the "Training Development Centers" - with (A) taking the Operator side, and (P) doing the Technical side of lesson plan writing/development. 

The plan had been to promote me into the TDC(P) office -supervising work on technical lesson plans, however, because the timeline for the shift to the Campus program was moved up by almost a year, no-one had thought to engage the CM shops - so they had no money for cost moves...so I was going to be posted into a west coast billet, working in a 'satellite' office in Halifax.

Instructors were never to work on lesson plans...only the TDC's. 

Sound like a recipe for success?

Uh... what?  So they'd be writing lesson plans taught on a different coast?  Why not have a cell supporting the Halifax area training related lesson plans, and another supporting the Pacific area related training plans (with some kind of agreement on who does the lesson plans common to both coasts). The schools are pretty separated by coast, so the technical/operator division seems a bit silly.

I spent about a year working at CFNES as an instructor, and we had to update the lesson plans, course material and lectures because they were so out of date (it was around 2012 and the course manual was still referring to the St. Laurent class as active). Did the required training with the TDOs, and that model you are talking about doesn't seem to mesh with the CF training doctrine. It was pretty easy when we had direct control of the slides/LP to go back and update it right away based on feedback in class from the students.  There was also a pretty good wiki on the go that went from basic system theory to cert 3/phase 6 level that the students really liked (which got killed b/c of CG).  Not sure how the feedback loop and continuous improvement is supposed to work if you are four timezones away from the schools.

I think we'd be better off doing the course as self directed with occasional SME sessions then letting a random get up and read slides; have done that and it's a colossal waste of everyone's time. Fortunately it was a single hour long class on nuclear propulsion so the box was ticked and on we went.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,154
Points
1,090
Navy_Pete said:
I think we'd be better off doing the course as self directed with occasional SME sessions then letting a random get up and read slides; have done that and it's a colossal waste of everyone's time. Fortunately it was a single hour long class on nuclear propulsion so the box was ticked and on we went.

Well, you'll be ready for the '87 White Paper nuclear subs when they eventually show up, so there's that at least...
 

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
268
Points
880
OZaiTKZ.jpg


kf2h4TC.jpg


6fc9H5P.jpg


3s7NbQA.jpg


Cdr Fry, Jennifer Denty (#navalmuseum), DAAG co-chairs and I were honoured to meet with Mi’kmaq community leaders to show them the new Consolidated Seamanship Training Facility. Their input and guidance is a critical part of consulting our local First Nations.

With the support of Dr. (HCol) Julien and Elder CPO2 (retired) Eisan, our goal is to ensure the history of the land, the Mi’kmaq people, and the RCN is captured in this new building. Lots of ideas were discussed - looking forward to continuing the dialogue.

https://twitter.com/WardenNAtlantic/status/1224030949261922304

https://twitter.com/WardenNAtlantic/status/1224030951547842561
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,995
Points
1,060
I'm not really getting what intent was.  Other than the PC aspect....

Input and guidance into...building a naval trg facility that is already built?  ???
 
Top