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

[sapper07]

  There is something about the HC crse that makes it particularily harder, for some reason,   for Engineers to pass.   Any suggestions or facts?   Is it that we have our way of doing things that we find it hard to do it "their" way?   Or is it just the Enigineers are sending pers who should'nt be sent in the first place?

 

[Tpr.Orange]

what is an Hc course?

 

[AEH]

What makes you think that engineers fail "H" courses at a greater rate than other MOCs? 
More engineers are being RTUd because the branch is getting more sappers loaded, but I don't believe that proportionately they are doing any better or worse than other other branch.  Stay tuned, as the engineer branch takes over the EOD responsibilities for the CF you will see many more pers loaded.  The EOD school is poised to move to Gagetown and marry up with CFSME.  Great time to be a sapper!!!

 

[sapper07]

  First off, the "HC" course is a course which teaches about Improvised Explosives Devices (IED's).  Now to respond to AEH's statement.  It is a fact that more Engineer's are failing than any other trade, that goes without mention as the EOD conference that was held back a little while ago brought this up along with the Engineer rep's.  Due to this there is some sort of investigation ongoing.  Don't know anything about it so don't ask.  Anyway anymore input?

 

[sapper07]

  Just a little mistake, it's "Improvised Explosive Device Disposal"  (IEDD) sorry about that, been a long day.

 

[SprCForr]

I'd have to say that the "hardest" part of the HC was the methods and procedures to dispose of a device. The steps involved from answering the intial call to arrival on scene and the actions required were very detailed and precise. A checklist was part of everything. Every fault was recorded. The PC practical checklist was brutal! A small IED portion on QL training and an EOD team procedures and equipment part of the HA allowed Sappers to gain a small insight into the EOD/IED world. It was no means complete. You had to join a team to get the rest by joining a team while posted to a Base somewhere (either Range Control/B Ops or Roads and Grounds, remember them positions?) or the School. To succeed on the HC you needed service with EOD or maybe ADR (which was mostly HB stuff for obvious reasons but an IED capability was required) That immersed those selected pers completely into that world and allowed practical experience to be gained prior to attending the course. We've since lost that exposure and you can see it in the failure rate.

We all know our trade has in the last decade concentrated on HB and it was to the detriment of our HC capability for operational and manning level reasons. Summed up simply, a "C" can act as a low level "B" due to the HA prereq, but a "B" cannot be a "C". That was true then and it's true now.

So fellow Ex-24 wankers, am I OTL on this?

...Stay tuned, as the engineer branch takes over the EOD responsibilities for the CF you will see many more pers loaded.   The EOD school is poised to move to Gagetown and marry up with CFSME...

Really? That'd be cool. Hopefully the Ammo Techs will come over too.


*Modified due to poor spelling and crappy sentence structure. Not that it's any better.

 

[old fart]

SprCForr ...reference your post, nail on head....

 

[Mineguy]

What a time to get out,lol...I got out in 03 because getting this stuff was impossible and they gave it to people who would never use it! Now everybody is going on a H everything course!

But at least out here in the Demining EOD world I enjoy going to work again!

 

[McG]

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

I understand that HA includes a little more on the IED side than CMD.   It might help if our pers were to get the full HA trg as part of the sect mbr and 2ic crses.

 

[sapper07]

HA just has an intro to the tools associated with dispossal into IED's.  The school can't get because they don't teach IEDD.  So if you don't teach it, you don't get it.  Basically an entitlement issue.  Also if the school were to teach essentially the same course as the HA, it would be questioned within CFSTG as to why there were two "same" courses being taught.  Of which you can't or are'nt supposed to do.

 

[McG]

Except that CMD is not a course, it is a sub-component of Cbt Engr occupational trg (a PO of the Sect 2ic course).

 

[SprCForr]

... Also if the school were to teach essentially the same course as the HA, it would be questioned within CFSTG as to why there were two "same" courses being taught.   Of which you can't or are'nt supposed to do.

I don't see why CFSME/FETS can't teach the full HA. They did back in the day (pre-Slesse accident) with the full knowledge of CFTS. Those grads were very proficient, and directly fed the old EOD 24, a top team by any measure. Besides, there are lots of places duplicating courses. For example, how many different places are teaching, say, QL3 (Or whatever newspeak equiv.) Infantry? Driver Wheel? etc, etc.

 

[sapper07]

  Well it's simple in today's army CFSTG won't accept two schools under it's control to run two course's that are the same (if you want to get into TP's) under its training regime.  Duplicating course's is a waste of money and there all over that.  Now I do agree with the HA being a better qualification to get when compared to the CMD being taught at CFSME.  I don't think anyone would argue that point. 

 

[Spr.Earl]

  Well it's simple in today's army CFSTG won't accept two schools under it's control to run two course's that are the same (if you want to get into TP's) under its training regime.   Duplicating course's is a waste of money and there all over that.   Now I do agree with the HA being a better qualification to get when compared to the CMD being taught at CFSME.   I don't think anyone would argue that point.  

Re your above post that is the reason why EOD should be a seprate trade and should have its own school
If we want to include our selves in the EOD/IED   world with in STANAG we have too make it all volunteer and a seperate trade that is under the commnad of a new EOD/IED Command
(We are so far behind now it's not funny)

EOD/IED is a A.O.R Asset and not a UNIT asset and this is where we have to start too change our present thinking.
CMD is just another name for battle field disposal which is just bipping and thats all which is fine for the section when they find UXO's.

I have had my H.A. and it was 6 weeks long,the biggest ***** was the sand box with over 60 odd's and sod's and giving recogntion,fuse type,hazards,safety,etc.You failed if you had 3 wrong but got a retest.
Plus trained as #2 for I.E.D.,x.Ray etc

Are our present Sappers trained as #2's for EOD?IED?
I think not and I think it's disguting as our present attitude is going to get our fellow members in the C.F. killed.

On the tube I saw that the Clearnace divers from Halifax have been called in and are supprting the Op. for EOD/IED this Feb.!!!!


Hmmm?

 

[McG]

The clearance divers are required because LFWA cannot fill all the posn reqr an HC.  However, our present attitude will not get our pers killed.  We are training more guys to the standard needed (and they will be available for future ops), and we did not attempt to fill positions with partially qualified pers (hence the attachment of clearance divers).

 

[sapper07]

Re your above post that is the reason why EOD should be a seprate trade and should have its own school
If we want to include our selves in the EOD/IED   world with in STANAG we have too make it all volunteer and a seperate trade that is under the commnad of a new EOD/IED Command
(We are so far behind now it's not funny)

EOD/IED is a A.O.R Asset and not a UNIT asset and this is where we have to start too change our present thinking.
CMD is just another name for battle field disposal which is just bipping and thats all which is fine for the section when they find UXO's.

I have had my H.A. and it was 6 weeks long,the biggest ***** was the sand box with over 60 odd's and sod's and giving recogntion,fuse type,hazards,safety,etc.You failed if you had 3 wrong but got a retest.
Plus trained as #2 for I.E.D.,x.Ray etc

Are our present Sappers trained as #2's for EOD?IED?
I think not and I think it's disguting as our present attitude is going to get our fellow members in the C.F. killed.

On the tube I saw that the Clearnace divers from Halifax have been called in and are supprting the Op. for EOD/IED this Feb.!!!!


Hmmm?

Do you know what the STANAG even states.   We are adhearing to it just like any other country, and accomplishing its aim.   Second point I don't know if you realize this but the Engineers are volunter so if you don't want to do it, it's simple OT!   Yes we are behind the 8 ball but it's better that we realize and are trying to fix it rather than sitting on our thumbs.   To addres the AOR thingy, we are making it a Engineer capeability within the BG of which is in the AOR.   It's not perfect but you know what going off the budget of the CF it's not bad.

  Now within the CMD module, there are at least 60 peices to ID with that you are taught fuze and hazards regarding all parts of the UXO hazards etc.   Pass is 90% if not you fail.   During the HA you did not train as the #2 you were only shown a familiarity phase to intro you to the HC.   You were not able to act as a #2 for an IED Operator.   Let's get that straight.   Our sappers are trained to assist the #1 in HB role, key word or phrase "assist".  

  I'd like to addres the members statement about getting our sappers killed.   You obviously have no idea what the staff try to acheive when a student arrives to learn in the way of skill sets when tasked with teaching CMD.   I'm sure they are taught all they need to know and should when leaving the school to accomplish their aim.   To say that sappers are going to get themselves killed, who are you?   You obviously have no idea of the care and time spent with sappers who train in CMD so that the instr know when they leave they will be safe in dealing with UXO's etc.   If you truly are concerned this perhaps is not the proper forum to voice your ignorant opinion on and maybe the CDS is a more direct forum in dealing with your concern.

  The clearance divers are a great bunch of guys, with that said I'm sure they love the fact they get a chance to go over seas and see real IED's.   In the future with more sappers being crse loaded on HC crse's the need will decrease for Clearance divers to be called in to assist the Eingineers with IED's.

OUT!

[Edited to take the post out of the quote box]
 
 

 

[Spr.Earl]

sapper07,I was on a rant and a few in the jar,all forgive me,yes I miss spoke and admit my faux pas. :-[
But I still stand by that EOD should be a separate trade and have it's own school with it's own instructors so we can stay concurrent .
Not to make a dig,but if you have not noticed of late on all the U.S. T.V. stations IED's have been the topic of the week and what a problem it is with all Arms of the U.S. in Iraq.Also of late U.S. Forces in Afg. are all of a sudden getting hit with IED's?
Do we have a migration?

This is what I care about!

 

[Mineguy]

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. While we are here arguing that eod should be a seperate trade in the cf which is a no brainer that it needs to be, but instead of the bunfight we should be working together with the ammo techs for instance to cut the messeing around and time waste. It of course should be in my opinion after hearing about this and obviously the British armys better to be ready earlier for new threats with our organisation, methods and training then catching up later. I am fully behind spr earl it should be a seperate trade which has been long regognized by OPERATIONAL armies years ago while countering the threat we are now under too in canada whether we want to belive it or not. There is obvious resistance to change and to admit we need to beef up if we want to be operationally ready on par with the uk for example who has alot to teach us, not regognizing that we are not thinking like the rest of the operational armies in the world like the uk and can learn much by following their lead or heeding advice from people who have done this for years for real   to effect change is a bad move and this covers several areas of the cf if we actualy can see when comparing ourselves to other operational armies what we actually have experience doing, and what we are capable of at present in comparison with the UK, i think we have alot to learn.    For example the proposed plan in the uk IF and when it ever actually happens is to combine, or are hoping to detach combine people from two regiments from their respective corps for use abroad as one: which are 33 engr regt RE (eod-battlefield/bomb disposal) and 11 regt RLC (who do the IEDs even in iraq-not the RE) into one regt so its easier from their recent experience in iraq to combine the two to work as one unit together on ops instead of screwing around and trying to mix match the rights pers, then get them to work together. Now how far ahead is this concept for us? 100 years?Maybe in 100 years we will just be getting a seperate eod trade within the engrs or forming real useful combined units to counter a threat fast in a theatre or will the bunfighting still be going on ?

 

[Sapper6]

I believe that there has been a "bunfight" between the Ammo Techs and the Engrs, here in Canada, over the EOD turf.  I too have heard from reliable sources that CFSME is making the case to move all EOD training to its school in Gagetown - but the decision has not been made yet.  MTF.

All that being said, I understand that there has been an olive branch extended to the Engineers from the Sr Ammo Tech in the CF recently.  What was once a very closed community is now starting to open up.  Examples are that a full Ammo Tech Officer (ATO) seat was offered to the Engineers this year from the Log billets - a first.  Secondly, a new posn in the DCDS shop (soon to be CEFCOM HQ) has been established.  It is called J2 EOD and can be filled with either an ATO or an EOD qual ENGR/MARS/MARE officer.  That too is a first.

So, the chill is coming off the Ammo Tech community at the higher levels.  We now need to do our part and support them as we are all on the same team.

Finally, a single EOD/Ammo Tech Regt is probably not on the radar screen right now... but don't rule it out.

S6

 

[AEH]

Just so we are all on the same sheet of music,  J3 engineer is now responsible for EOD within the Armed Forces.  This is the driving force behind the many changes that will take place shortly.  Engineer units will soon have sections that are full time EOD, so it is a greattime to be a sapper.  The responsibility for EOD, including IEDD, will reside with the engineers, the Ammo world does not have the capability to generate the numbers of pers required.