Why do so many Engineers fail the "HC" course?

[Sapper6]

AEH,

Agreed.  I'm just saying that it wasn't within ENGR control as late as last year.  All things EOD are turning in favour of the ENGRs and I agree that it is a great time to be a Sapper in the CF.

My only concern is that we had better be careful what we ask for.  We will get the EOD mandate but we had better deliver.

I think we can but it will be at the expense of some more traditional Sapper skills (ie. bridging, rafting, horizontal construction, etc.)  Fine in the short term as IEDD is the skill everyone needs right now.  Let's hope UBL and the other insurgents don't start blowing up anymore roads or bridges.

S6

 

[old fart]

Reference LurkingKuna post below.....

Guys,  Heres one for you: I work with former UK Ammo techs and engrs and recent pers who have left the Royal engineers eod and what the open source proposed possible future plan is in the UK is way ahead of what canada is still messing around with

etc....

He is basically out to lunch on this.

LurkingKuna is wrapping up a bunch of rumours that have existed for years and are not reality based. 

While it is true in the UK that there is some realignment ongoing with regard to the location of training facilities coupled with some changes to command structures; from a delineation of responsibilities things are pretty much as they were.  That is the RLC tend to lead on IEDD and the RE's on EOD (their traditional BD role).  However the RE's have IEDD trained pers and the RLC fully trained EOD pers.  There are no moves a foot to create a new EOD Regiment combining capabilities.  The operational commitment of EOD assets takes place under the auspices of the Joint Service EOD group.  In the UK it often comes down to geography in that the closest EOD unit deploys, even though who should do what in the first instance (Army/Navy/Air Force EOD) is clearly defined.

So from the RE perspective, EOD remains a secondary employment stream for UK Sappers pretty much the way it is in Canada, the key difference is while serving with an EOD Regt that is all they do.  The UK Forces have a much larger capability that is true, but we are expanding capabilities adjusting to the operational reality.

Given the lethality of modern weapons I believe that full time teams are the way ahead (in fact they are a must).  An fully equipped capability should remain embedded in each CER, with an enlarged grouping under the auspices of 4 ESR and additional capability grouped/committed as required.  We should continue to select team pers from the mainstream 043 trade but advanced training only given to team members or pers designated to join a team.  So my endstate is full time EOD, but I do not see the need for a separate trade; the US model.

So with that said are we 100 years behind, I think not.

Finally, opening the who does what jar again, and given the fact that Ammo Techs really only have an IEDD and EOD responsibility within Canada, from a deployed operations perspective I think the move of IEDD/EOD trg to CFSME is a good thing if it happens.  Ammo Techs should be continue to be IEDD trained in the short term, but as we do not deploy Ammo Tech EOD platoons are we gaining much by training them at all.  EOD trained Air Weapons Techs is another issue; they survive the cull in the EOD world according to me as the Air Force needs and will continue to need it's own unique EOD capability.  Given an IEDD quota the Air Force they could also provide teams for Domestic ops, the same could be said for the Ammo Tech world.

Next......

 

[043]

I wouldn't say that CFSME is going to be teaching any "H" courses in the near future:

EOD Training.  Although plans to shift CF EOD training from CFSAL to CFFA/CFNBCS appear to have been shelved, CFSTG has expressed little interest to date in pursuing the CFSME delivery option.  I believe this approach to be short sighted.  CF personnel will continue to encounter mines, booby traps, improvised explosive devices and unexploded ordnance on operations.  This reality will inevitably drive the requirement to develop a more effective and comprehensive explosive hazard training program.  Our discussion paper on EOD training argued that transferring the responsibility for EOD training from CFSAL to CFSME represents an excellent opportunity to promote jointness, to improve organizational learning and to expand the existing curriculum in order to support a sustainable, deployable, full spectrum explosive hazard capability for the CF.  We are now working on a follow-on paper that will argue that the current arrangement cannot satisfy the production requirement, and that it will necessitate sizeable PY investment or a significant reduction of the Army's IEDD plans, or both.  Our paper will show that given equivalent resources, transferring EOD training to Gagetown represents a more effective and efficient utilization of equipment and personnel. 

 

[Mineguy]

There are no moves a foot to create a new EOD Regiment combining capabilities

Ok old fart not to sound disrespectful but:

I am sitting on my butt right now in Iraq with 3 guys who both RE Bomb disposal  Officers and an Ammo tech all senior NCOs who just left 33 Regt and the RLC after 22   years each who said this is not common knowledge but it IS the general "proposed plan" to make a combined unit RE and RLC just like i said from the last they heard "to the best of their knowledge".

The plan which is 3 years old and was deseminated to 33 REgt from a General a year or so ago is to amalgamate 11 Regt RLC (ammo techs) and 33 Regt RE (engineers) into one Unit instead of keeping taking them from their units to come out here in iraq and be on the same tour , start to work and train together only then type deal....their experience in Iraq has only strengthened this and the plan is still on paper and may be squashed or may actually happen but is now on paper for 3 years and thus definitly not a rumour. Furthermore we are going to go over to The UK battle group in basra on Friday and we will again confirm the state just for curiosity now...its just like the new "SSR" Specail Recconassiance Regiment..it too was once a rumour, then it was on paper for a while, now it has been stood up!

I would consider them to be a good source   and alot better then i heard from a buddy in borden who heard from a buddy in the uk who knows somebody in an eod regt and remember we also deal with RE EOD daily so we would know in a flash if it had changed. Now like i said its from the best horses mouths I personally know and "if and when" it happens and if it all falls through at the upper levels like anything it still stands as a statement and is not a rumour but it IS the proposed plan at present unless it changed in the last month. So before you make statements like this actually go and check with someone who knows the latest from the Uk side of the house.

 

[old fart]

LK, my comments on UK Forces EOD stand; and for what it is worth they are certainly not second hand, I heard it from a friend etc.

Make what you will of that.

Have a safe contract...

 

[sapperubique]

I've done the HA and CMD. The HA teaches you how to operate the robot and how to install the required tools. When you do the HC you will learn it from scratch. Don't think that CMD is a lower level of training. The CMD course gets more into recces than the HA. You are taught what an engineer needs to know. On the HA you learn how to do a basic charge etc. because there are different trades on the course. They are 2 very good courses with their differences.

 

[SprCForr]

And this applies to the HC failure rate how, exactly?

 

[Kat Stevens]

...and, just when did the HA become a basic demolitions course?  I seem to remember a list of ordnance as long as your arm that we had to identify and know the disposal method for.  Things have slipped THAT much?

 

[sapperubique]

You are right about the ordnance. On the HA you see quite a bit more when it comes to ordnance. Once that is done and you have done your ID exam, you do the ranges. You learn how to do electric and non-electric demolitions. You will BIP

 

[sapperubique]

sorry, didn't finish my last response. You will learn the hazzards, disposal methods, nomenclature, and learn to recognize if the ordnance is armed or not. Same thing as on the CMD course. The HA will teach you how to use the robot as well and it's comming soon for the CMD. CMD and HA also demonstrate how to use EOD tools . The big difference between the two, is that CMD trains their students the same way as on an HB. The same recces. They are taught how to recce basic ordnance. Projectiles, scatterable munitions, grenades etc. They are shown aircraft bombs, but do not do the recces. They are trained for what engineers need to know. The HA trains other trades as well. Again, they are both excellent courses in their own way. Let's not get into a war that this course is better than that course.... As per the failure rate for engineers, this is my opinion. On a course of 12, there are maybe seven or eight engineers on the course. The engineers are sending as many people as they can. The course often graduates only 5 or 6. . The engineers are sending whoever they can, even people who shouldn't be on course.  When only 2 or 3 engineers were on course, we never heard about the failure rate. Personally, i think only the best should pass. It is a dangerous job. BUT, they should send only instructors who have actual experience to teach the HC. No insult intended to anyone.....

 

[Spr.Earl]

The last week or 2 week's?Is devoted to being a #2 in a IED Team.
My course was 6 week's long.
Is it still the same length?
HA

 

[sapperubique]

a little side note about the people they are sending on the HC course. There are some very intelligent are good sappers not passing the course either. I don't understand why. I omitted this in my last reply. Again, no insult intended to anyone.

 

[SprCForr]

...they should send only instructors who have actual experience to teach the HC...

So where are the Sappers getting hard HC experience and not some bastardized form of it from overseas? Answer is they aren't, and thats a big part of the problem. Hard HC experience comes from a Centre or full time unit. The Regts want pers to deal with Abul and the camel-turd bomb and the HC is much more than that.

...There are some very intelligent are good sappers not passing the course either. I don't understand why.

We are so far behind the eightball WRT HC/IED. We should be suprised at how many are passing! They are competing with people that have prepped, OJT'd, and #2'd on established teams. They are current in all aspects of IED methods and procedures, possibly crosstrained with EDU/police, current on all incidents and the investigations, yadda yadda yadda. That is a big head start over our guys, no?

Until the re-org that AEH and S6 alluded to happens, I don't think you'll see the success rate change. Until then the units will do what we were good at: Send 10 get 5, just like breaching 

Sapperubique: I used quotes from you as they were most current. Please don't think I was picking on you.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Cforr I posted the same question why we need EOD/IED center's again like we once had and like you said "that's were we learn" and stay current.
Also when it comes to EOD it should start with your HA,then the rest of your ticket punch's.
HA as Kat stated is all recogntion of land,air muntions and fuse's with a few odd's and sod's thrown in.

 

[sapper07]

...and, just when did the HA become a basic demolitions course?  I seem to remember a list of ordnance as long as your arm that we had to identify and know the disposal method for.  Things have slipped THAT much?

  If your talking about the basic charge on the HA it's been there since the beginning.  If not then ignore.

 

[devilins]

It is not only the engineers, from the commanders of FDU(P) and FDU(A) every single clearance diver sent on a course not too long ago failed for one reason or another.  As to the specifics of why they failed I was not privy to that information, but I'm under the impression that if so many people fail a course then it is actually not the students fault, but it is in fact the instruction in which they are receiving.  If you have a failure rate of over 50% there must be an issue with the system as the individuals in which we send are generally our more intelligent and switched on individuals.

 

[SprCForr]

I'll agree only to a point (a small point) and only because I'm not up to speed on the current course. I'm assuming it will be safe to say that the standards today are just as rigidly enforced as they were back in the day, and that it would be the individuals performance that resulted in the RTU as opposed to some kind of systemic failure.  What is the failure rate for Air element? Ammo techs? How about members of current EOD teams? Are they suffering the same attrition? If not then, it isn't the system.

"Switched on" individuals were only ever the ones selected for a course like that. There were some course slots open to the Regiments on an occasional basis, but the majority of of Sappers loaded onto an HC came from the EOD teams. Being on an EOD team was where the constant exposure to investigations, incidents, training and gaining operational experience took place, not in a Regiment. It was that background combined with a "switched on" candidate that regularly produced a successful graduate. Compare an EOD 24 candidate vs Regiment (from a unit of today, yesterday or whenever) candidate. Who you going to put money on?

So, think it's still just an instructional issue?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Jeff, remember once upon a time it was SOP for the top 3 students from the 5A to be loaded on the next HA course?  Wasn't a bad way to do business.  The idea of putting a guy in a job and then getting him qualified always seemed arse to face to me.

 

[SprCForr]

It was a good idea. Too bad the grown-ups hated it to the point of killing it. Something along the lines of "G*ddam swan BS! EOD is just a bunch of BS anyway!" I remember that conversation clearly. Too bad the stupid bast*rd isn't still around to be proven completely OTL on that.