Author Topic: Transport Canada wont recognize any Naval training to get a civilian BWK ticket  (Read 29739 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jewalsh

  • Guest
  • *
  • 11,933
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 24
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 ??? :P" 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.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 16:58:38 by milnews.ca »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,815
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
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.     

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,356
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,366
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
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.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 472,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,898
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?

Offline airmich

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 402,202
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,159
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.
So I'll raise a glass, not the first nor last, Come join me in this toast...Because the old black rum's got a hold on me ~ Great Big Sea

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,496
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,935
So which is it?

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

Offline Antoine

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 352
  • Achieving singularity and paradigm shifts
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.

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

Can anyone else confirm that ?
The Future Is Coming Sooner Then You Think - 2007 U.S. Congress study by the Joint Economic Committee
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom - Isaac Asimov
We risk continuing to fight a 21st-century conflict with 20th-century rules - John Reid, British secretary of state for defence
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Offline Jolly Roger

  • Guest
  • *
  • 500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
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!

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 426,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,386
  • Crewman
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.
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 Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
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....
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Kat Stevens

    beth am dyrnu braf yn y gwddf?

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 194,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,363
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
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.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Veovius

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,846
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
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.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 240,572
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,502
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
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
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 897
  • Jackwagon
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!
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,837
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,729
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
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...
Remember troops, the minimum acceptable standard is still an acceptable standard.

Offline Retired FDO

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 11,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 553
  • Swallowing the anchor after 32 years.
So why not take your superior training and skills and challenge the exams? That will show those TC weenies!!   :nod:
A Veteran-whether active duty, retired or Reserve- is someone who at one point in their life, wrote a blank cheque made payable to "The Country of Canada" for an amount of "up to and including my life"   Author Unknown

Attitude is the difference between an ordeal and an adventure

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 897
  • Jackwagon
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.
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 897
  • Jackwagon
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!!!!
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,837
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,729
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
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...
Remember troops, the minimum acceptable standard is still an acceptable standard.

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,537
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.
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 171,251
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,705
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Pusser,

You sound like you might have some insight....how's the sea day counting going???

Mildly curious...

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 730,512
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,519
  • Arctic SME
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 you can get some of the MED wrote off with your navy training.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Retired FDO

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 11,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 553
  • Swallowing the anchor after 32 years.
When I was working at Sea Div in Halifax it did come down that the Sea Div Commander could sign a waiver stating that you were up to date on all your Emergency at sea drills. This was accepted by TC. Mind you that was about 6 years ago.
A Veteran-whether active duty, retired or Reserve- is someone who at one point in their life, wrote a blank cheque made payable to "The Country of Canada" for an amount of "up to and including my life"   Author Unknown

Attitude is the difference between an ordeal and an adventure

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,537
Pusser,

You sound like you might have some insight....how's the sea day counting going???

Mildly curious...

NS

The last I heard, it was not going well.  I gather a team is being formed to search ships' logs held in the National Archives.  However, this will only reveal when ships were at sea.  Ships' logs don't record who was onboard at the time.  Thus, anyone posted to a ship at that time could receive credit for sea days they didn't actually do.  Even worse, people who were on board, but for a variety of administrative reasons (and there are several) aren't able to prove it will lose out.  How is this better than using SDA records, which are much more readily available and accurate?
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline knuckle dragger

  • Guest
  • *
  • 610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1
From the UCTE web site 27 Feb 12

“What are they thinking?” said President Collins.  “In no way is a Naval Officer Certificate equivalent to the Transport Canada Watchkeeping Mate certificate.  SAR Coordinators are put through a series of rigorous testing that demonstrates an ability that is unparalleled.  Naval Officer Certification is an inappropriate equivalent.  It’s like saying just because I go kayaking, I’m a qualified mariner.”
http://www.ucte.com/index.php?q=en/node/1178

I know unions are trying to keep jobs and will say anything they feel they have to.  I'm fine with that.  I just want my pusser kayak.