Transport Canada certification of Naval skills

[jewalsh]

For whatever reason, Transport Canada wont recognize the superior training that the military gives their members for any civilian BWK qualifications.

My experience with these retards (I mean Transport Canada) has shown that these government rejects do not give a crap about the training that the Navy gives their personnel.

You can be a seasoned Bos'n, NCIOp, NAVCOMM, MARS Officer, MESO/MSEO etc. and they still don't give a crap about that.

One excuse that I heard is that our MOU with those dummies was not renewed but I refuse to believe them.

The main guy in Victoria admits that the Naval training is 5 times greater than any civilian training for Damange control and all other forms of training but nothing he can do about it (of course only the "finest ??? " Canadians get the honour to be part of Transport Canada in Ottawa).

I called their office to book a test and the dummies on the other end of the line does not know what a maneuvering board is! What a reject!

Comment if you like but Transport Canada does not care about the service that the Navy provides to the World.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It’s a fine tradition that TC Marine has. I included time served running as a volunteer 40-50’ boats owned by a museum, with letters of support from ship masters and the museum, that my duties included being vessel master, crewing and training, repair and maintenance of the vessel, organizing and carrying out shipyard refits, etc,etc yet that time in their eyes did not count as it was not “commercial” However they were happy to include my time on BC ferries despite my main occupation seemed to be coffee drinking, parking cars and breaking up fights. TC Marine also only took 25 years to figure how to allocate sea time for hovercraft, despite being the biggest operator of such. It was also amusing when the Captains with “Coast Guard tickets” found that their tickets were only valid in Canadian waters and they could not take a CCG ship through the Panama Canal on their tickets. I have no doubt that TC Marine shall have a measured and well thought plan for your situation by the RCN bicentennial.     

 

[Strike]

Easy guys.  My Dad is one of those TC guys in Ottawa of which you speak.

jewalsh: PM me the exact issue and I'll see what the old man suggests.  He might even have some people you can talk to directly.

Now, if you're just talking about not automatically getting a ticket without testing, you're out of luck.  Get the package, study the work and sit the test.  If it's something else, no promises, but I'll see what I can get for you.

Of course, it's amazing that I'm willing to help at all given that you are bashing the very organization that my dad has spent so many happy years with.

 

[Journeyman]

For whatever reason, Transport Canada wont recognize the superior training that the military gives their members for any civilian BWK qualifications.

I too would cut the NAVRES budget by 3 million after seeing the quality of leadership and lack of dedication of the 24 NRDs.

So which is it?

 

[navymich]

For whatever reason, Transport Canada wont recognize the superior training that the military gives their members for any civilian BWK qualifications.

There is a big difference between a BWK and an NCIOP.

I called their office to book a test and the dummies on the other end of the line does not know what a maneuvering board is! What a reject!

Ask a DMech or Cook onboard an MCDV and they probably don't either.  What does that say about them?  Only that it doesn't involve them so why should they know or care.  The same could very well be said for the guy on the other end of the line.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So which is it?

really well trained dudes who are bad leaders with no dedication, where do I sign?

 

[Antoine]

Professional in many fields are tested on regularly basis such as when renewing license. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that a qualified MARS officer might need to pass professional exam. However, I am surprised that the federal doesn't recognize in a way or an other your MARS qualification.

You can be a seasoned .... MARS Officer....and they still don't give a crap about that.

Can anyone else confirm that ?

 

[Jolly Roger]

Professional in many fields are tested on regularly basis such as when renewing license. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that a qualified MARS officer might need to pass professional exam. However, I am surprised that the federal doesn't recognize in a way or an other your MARS qualification.

Can anyone else confirm that ?

There are provisions in "The Examination and Certification of Seafarers - TP 2293 E" published by Transport Canada for equivalencies of MARS Officer training and various NCM courses.

Chapter 2 - sec 7 - Table IV lists the MARS relevant training equivalencies
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp2293-chapter2-77.htm

Chapter 3, under "Ranks and Ratings" has information regarding NCM training.

I am no expert, but I have documented my time and relevant courses. This was the advice given to me by MARS Offices senior to myself.

Jewalsh - I wouldn't take the word of one Transport Canada Official on something this important. There are alot of resources on the Transport Canada site to give you some references to give what you deserve.

Best of luck!

 

[George Wallace]

There are provisions in "The Examination and Certification of Seafarers - TP 2293 E" published by Transport Canada for equivalencies of MARS Officer training and various NCM courses.

Chapter 2 - sec 7 - Table IV lists the MARS relevant training equivalencies
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp2293-chapter2-77.htm

Chapter 3, under "Ranks and Ratings" has information regarding NCM training.

I am no expert, but I have documented my time and relevant courses. This was the advice given to me by MARS Offices senior to myself. Best of luck!

I think this is the crux of the problem.  Someone who HAS NOT bothered to document their time, relevant courses and qualifications, nor their equivalent Civilian qualifications or done a PLAR or written the Civilian Tests required, will cry foul when there is none; only their not following the laid out rules.

This applies in many CF Trades, where one has to follow the correct procedures and rules to gain a Civilian Certificate or Seal.

 

[a_majoor]

The other reason "may" be by analogy with getting a gun license; if you don't do "their" course, you deprive them of the course and testing fees.

While I actually have no interest in getting a civilian firearms license, I cringe at some to the things I hear about the "saftey" course. there is no way (ever) that I will consider looking down the barrel of a weapon to ensure it is "clear" (even a muzzel loader); yet you must do this to pass their test....

 

[Kat Stevens]

The other reason "may" be by analogy with getting a gun license; if you don't do "their" course, you deprive them of the course and testing fees.

While I actually have no interest in getting a civilian firearms license, I cringe at some to the things I hear about the "saftey" course. there is no way (ever) that I will consider looking down the barrel of a weapon to ensure it is "clear" (even a muzzel loader); yet you must do this to pass their test....

Slight tangent:  on my PAL and RPAL courses, you had to drop a cleaning rod down the muzzle and see it protrude into the breach.

 

[Veovius]

While I actually have no interest in getting a civilian firearms license, I cringe at some to the things I hear about the "saftey" course. there is no way (ever) that I will consider looking down the barrel of a weapon to ensure it is "clear" (even a muzzel loader); yet you must do this to pass their test....

Sorry to keep tangenting....

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to clear chamber, drop mag, then put that 90 degree plexiglass thingie in there to refract the light down the barrel.  This is only to ensure there's no barrel blockage, and since you've just cleared the chamber (and the chamber needs to be clear to insert the light thingie), it should be fine.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The other reason "may" be by analogy with getting a gun license; if you don't do "their" course, you deprive them of the course and testing fees.

While I actually have no interest in getting a civilian firearms license, I cringe at some to the things I hear about the "saftey" course. there is no way (ever) that I will consider looking down the barrel of a weapon to ensure it is "clear" (even a muzzel loader); yet you must do this to pass their test....

Slight tangent:  on my PAL and RPAL courses, you had to drop a cleaning rod down the muzzle and see it protrude into the breach.

Sorry to keep tangenting....

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to clear chamber, drop mag, then put that 90 degree plexiglass thingie in there to refract the light down the barrel.  This is only to ensure there's no barrel blockage, and since you've just cleared the chamber (and the chamber needs to be clear to insert the light thingie), it should be fine.

Ringading ding! And we're off!!! ;D

 

[Pat in Halifax]

One must keep in mind, the Navy trains all it's trades to operate "warships", not Lakers, Oil Rigs or Container ships. The way I look at it, the Navy is refusing to recognize TC regulations as they are inadequate in the environment (physically and mentally) in which we sail. We train to do the job - the best we can; not to go after civilian quals plain and simple.
All this said, each trade has someone to contact for civilian equivalency - Ours (stokers) is done by an ex-stoker who can be contacted through the stoker website and I KNOW there are others.
All I can say....if you want a civilian 'ticket', go that route. The Navy is not here to train future civilian crews; it is here to train crews for short notice deployment in operational combat vehicles.
I'll stop now...I am rambling...and getting antsy!

 

[chrisf]

I've never served on a navy ship, but based on my experience on civillian ships, I'm guessing any training the navy provides is leaps and bounds ahead of civillian training... both in initial training and ongoing skills maintenance... the fact that transport canada doesn't recognize quals is an insult... even basic things, like an MED...

 

[FDO]

So why not take your superior training and skills and challenge the exams? That will show those TC weenies!!  :nod:

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I cannot say for certain who's training, from a purely trade point of view, is superior as I have never sailled on the civilian side.  We 'train' (and I mean continually) within the trade (stoker) right up to the rank of CPO2 which equates typically to about 20+ years service. I suppose the experience garnered is the kind of stuff that no school could ever teach. We train to the degree that if any piece of equipment were to 'take a bullet', we should be able to make it operational again. Unfortunately, we (figuratively) shoot ourselves in the feet way too often and make the impossible a reality. My personal motto - Everyone in the uniform (Navy) is responsible to ensure those grey things slip quietly in and out of harbour - How we do that is not taught nor is it in any 'rule' book. I might add here-This tends to drive the CM (Configuration Management) and LCMM (Life Cycle Management) people batty! I have been part of many converstions following along something like -...." Q-Why is there a pickle jar being used as a lubricator for the air start on an MWM generator? - A-Because the $1000 part was unavail when we were 300 miles south of Greenland in sea state 6 you f***ing w***!" --- Look....I am getting all 'excited' again!!!
As for TC not accepting the quals - Yes, it is an insult but so are many other things in life I no longer take personal offence to.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Retired FDO:
Many years ago, I did go for my 4th Class motor (diesel) ticket in Ontario. It was quite simple but fortunately (or unfortunately?) I never kept it up - no requirement. What I would really like to see is a TC examiner come to CFNES (or CFFSE) and sit a Cert 3 EOOW Board. This is not a "mine is better than yours" discussion-It is the requirement for the position - it differs dramatically (I suspect).
I will now mention that none of the TC stuff covers DC, daily emergency ex's with about 1 in 5/6 full blown all-ship evolutions, seamanship evolutions involving all personnel (RAS, jackstays, SARs etc). Again, it is something that can't be printed in a book and learned and then examined for. There is actually a move afoot within the trade to do exactly what is done 'outside' - Provide a trainee with a "package", have him/her learn it and then Board them. This WILL NOT work because experience is key to these tickets we get. If 7 gearbox temps come into alarm when the ship is 'prosecuting' "something", trust me-we will NOT be 'stopping to investigate' right away. This is not something we can teach but we can prepare trainees for it through elaborate scenarios. The tempo is on a completely different level and always will be.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents for the time being - I am supposed to be serving wine at the Junior Ranks Christmas dinner!!!!

 

[chrisf]

I cannot say for certain who's training, from a purely trade point of view, is superior as I have never sailled on the civilian side.  We 'train' (and I mean continually) within the trade (stoker) right up to the rank of CPO2 which equates typically to about 20+ years service. I suppose the experience garnered is the kind of stuff that no school could ever teach. We train to the degree that if any piece of equipment were to 'take a bullet', we should be able to make it operational again. Unfortunately, we (figuratively) shoot ourselves in the feet way too often and make the impossible a reality. My personal motto - Everyone in the uniform (Navy) is responsible to ensure those grey things slip quietly in and out of harbour - How we do that is not taught nor is it in any 'rule' book. I might add here-This tends to drive the CM (Configuration Management) and LCMM (Life Cycle Management) people batty! I have been part of many converstions following along something like -...." Q-Why is there a pickle jar being used as a lubricator for the air start on an MWM generator? - A-Because the $1000 part was unavail when we were 300 miles south of Greenland in sea state 6 you f***ing w***!" --- Look....I am getting all 'excited' again!!!
As for TC not accepting the quals - Yes, it is an insult but so are many other things in life I no longer take personal offence to.

I can't speak for all ships, but I know the few ships I've worked on, the "make it work" mentality is the same... if you're at sea, and somthing breaks, it typically has to be fixed... most departments were parts pack-rats whenever possible, if somthing broke, replace it with a new one if you had it, and strip the old part of anything useful to be stored... if you don't have a new part, build a temporary out of old broken parts... if you don't have old broken parts, build it out of somthing else....

Don't know about the actual training, emergency drills and such but I'm assuming the difference is the upkeep of training, and how seriously you run drills... again, I've never served on a navy ship, but I'm assuming it's leaps and bounds ahead of the few civillian ships I've sailed on...

 

[Pusser]

I've never served on a navy ship, but based on my experience on civillian ships, I'm guessing any training the navy provides is leaps and bounds ahead of civillian training... both in initial training and ongoing skills maintenance... the fact that transport canada doesn't recognize quals is an insult... even basic things, like an MED...

Actually, that's not a fact.  I can't speak specifically to actual qualifications, but TC does recognize time spent at sea in the Navy toward the time requirements for tickets.  The Admin world has certainly spent enough time calculating sea days for this purpose!  As for the training issue, there's a significant difference between not recognizing training and requiring someone to write exams.  Just because someone is "trained," doesn't mean he/she shouldn't have to prove him/herself.  There are many examples where fully trained professionals still have to write exams every time they move in order to become accredited in other locations.  Foreign-trained doctors are a good example.