Any Engineer Officers on here in the Halifax area?

[IslandMac]

Hello, this is my first post on here.
I am an NCSE in training in Halifax currently. Like so many others I took this trade when my other choices were closed during the recruitment process. I just met with FPSO regarding Occupational Reassignment to my original first choice, Engineer Officer. I'd really like to have some contact with an Engineer Officer who could provide a little guidance and first hand experience in the MOC. It is a big step to reassign so I am doing the due diligence before taking the leap. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

 

[Pusser]

I think you need to be more specific.  You ARE an engineer officer (under training).  Do you meant that you would rather be in Marine Systems vice Combat Systems or do you want to be a Combat Engineer, an Electrical and Mechanical Engineer or what?

 

[IslandMac]

My Apologies, that was a little vague. I'd like to be a Combat Engineer Officer.

 

[Tank Troll]

Why not just go down to the armouries on Tuesday night and talk to some Engineers in person and with the actual unit

 

[aesop081]

Like so many others I took this trade when my other choices were closed during the recruitment process.

Yet another example of what happens when people take anything at the CFRC........*sigh*

Good luck.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Why not just go down to the armouries on Tuesday night and talk to some Engineers in person and with the actual unit

I didn't think there was any Res Engineer units in Halifax.  45 FES is Cape Breton, which is the FES that is in 36 CBG (NS/PEI).

Having said that, I'm sure there are some over at LFAA or FCE.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I didn't think there was any Res Engineer units in Halifax.  45 FES is Cape Breton, which is the FES that is in 36 CBG (NS/PEI).

Having said that, I'm sure there are some over at LFAA or FCE.

20 ES is in Halifax, part of 36 CER.

36 CER is 45 ES (Cape Breton) and 20 ES (Halifax) just like 37 CER is 56 ES (St. John's) and 1 ES (Fredericton)

 

[McG]

I think you need to be more specific.  You ARE an engineer officer (under training).  Do you meant that you would rather be in Marine Systems vice Combat Systems or do you want to be a Combat Engineer, an Electrical and Mechanical Engineer or what?

Pusser,
He was specific and accurate in his question.  You have misguided him.  He is an engineering officer, but he is not an Engineer.  There is no such occupation as "Combat Engineer Officer" - the only occupation to which the phrase "Combat Engineer" is applied is the NCM occupation.  There are plenty of people who (either through ignorance or colloquial use) refer to Engineers as "Combat Engineer Officers" but it is not correct.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

20 ES is in Halifax, part of 36 CER.

36 CER is 45 ES (Cape Breton) and 20 ES (Halifax) just like 37 CER is 56 ES (St. John's) and 1 ES (Fredericton)

Learns something new everyday.  I even take a look at the LFAA Internet site and its not updated.  I'm shocked!

 

[cupper]

20 ES is in Halifax, part of 36 CER.

36 CER is 45 ES (Cape Breton) and 20 ES (Halifax) just like 37 CER is 56 ES (St. John's) and 1 ES (Fredericton)

It figures. For years they taunted us with rumors of an Engineer unit being created in Halifax. I leave and then they bring it in.

 

[Pusser]

Pusser,
He was specific and accurate in his question.  You have misguided him.  He is an engineering officer, but he is not an Engineer.  There is no such occupation as "Combat Engineer Officer" - the only occupation to which the phrase "Combat Engineer" is applied is the NCM occupation.  There are plenty of people who (either through ignorance or colloquial use) refer to Engineers as "Combat Engineer Officers" but it is not correct.

I disagree.  He said he was a Naval Combat Systems Engineer (NCSE) in Halifax under training and that he wanted to be an "Engineer Officer."  In the Navy (where he currently is),  the Marine Systems Engineering Officer in a ship is routinely and correctly referred to as the "Engineer," the "Engineering Officer," the "EO," or "Engines."  This is different from the "Combat Systems Engineer," or "CSE," which he is currently training to be.  Both the EO and the CSE are "Naval Technical Officers" or "NTOs," but in separate career paths (which converge later on).  The way his question was worded, he could very well have been asking about switching from Combat Systems to Marine Systems.  In other words, to switch from the CSE career path to the "Engineering Officer" career path.  Suspecting that there was more to the story, I asked him to clarify it, which he did.

 

[McG]

I disagree. 

You can disagree all you want - in the end, you told him off for using the proper name of the occupation that he wants to join.  You told him to the occupation is "Combat Engineer Officer" but that is false.  He used the proper name of the occupation that he want to join.

 

[Pusser]

You can disagree all you want - in the end, you told him off for using the proper name of the occupation that he wants to join.  You told him to the occupation is "Combat Engineer Officer" but that is false.  He used the proper name of the occupation that he want to join.

He also used the proper name for something entirely different.  Therein lies the confusion, especially considering that in his current context (i.e. in the Navy), a Marine Systems Engineer is the logical assumption.  If you ask 100 sailors what an Engineering Officer does, 99 of them will tell you about marine propulsion.  The 100th will be confused, and might mention combat systems,  but none of them will tell you about a guy building bridges in the forest.  The term "Combat Engineering Officer" may not be strictly correct, but is there any confusion as to what I meant?

 

[AmmoTech90]

He also used the proper name for something entirely different.  Therein lies the confusion, especially considering that in his current context (i.e. in the Navy), a Marine Systems Engineer is the logical assumption.  If you ask 100 sailors what an Engineering Officer does, 99 of them will tell you about marine propulsion.  The 100th will be confused, and might mention combat systems,  but none of them will tell you about a guy building bridges in the forest.  The term "Combat Engineering Officer" may not be strictly correct, but is there any confusion as to what I meant?

Considering he capitalized and therefore made it a proper noun and thus the title of a Officer Classification, and used it in conjuction with discussion with the BPSO who works on putting people into Classifications when when needed I think we could have assumed that when he said Engineering Officer, he meant Engineering Officer in the context of what he was talking about and not something else.

Oh, and he also posting it in: The Combat Arms » Engineers

 

[McG]

He also used the proper name for something entirely different. 

Did he though?  A quick check of HMCS Fredericton, HMCS Algonquin, and HMCS Athabaskan shows that none of them to have an "Engineer Officer" nor a "Engineer".  All have both of a WSEO and a MESO1.  So, he in fact did not use the proper name for something entirely different.  It may be that the MESO is routinely (and within accepted practice) called the engineer, and it may even be acceptable within Navy circles to use that colloquialism with a capital "E" - in the end, the ship engineer's proper/official title is the "Marine Systems Engineering Officer."

He properly referred to the occupation of Engineer within the appropriate section of the boards (Army.ca » The Combat Arms » Engineers) and clearly identified that he was talking about occupations and not positions.  You should not have become confused, and you definitely should not have come in directing him against using the proper name of an occupation for the sake of avoiding confusion with the colloquial (but accepted) name given to a post on a ship.  Instead, you might try instructing your counterparts in the RCN to use the proper name for the position of MESO to avoid confusion with the occupation of Engineer.


... and (hopefully) there ends this silly tangent.



1.  You can confirm in the office here:  http://dhrim04.desc.mil.ca/engraph/dynamic/poslist/page1_e.asp?Rep_Type=1

 

[Privateer]

There should be a forum section called "Bun Fights", to which these tangents can be moved, and preserved for future enjoyment, without derailing other threads.

 

[aesop081]

Pusser......

Army.ca Forums » Army.ca » The Combat Arms » Engineers » Topic:  Any Engineer Officers on here in the Halifax area?

:facepalm:

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Alright if you got nothing to add please don't post or take it to PM's


MILNET.CA MENTOR

 

[Pusser]

He properly referred to the occupation of Engineer within the appropriate section of the boards (Army.ca » The Combat Arms » Engineers) and clearly identified that he was talking about occupations and not positions.  You should not have become confused, and you definitely should not have come in directing him against using the proper name of an occupation for the sake of avoiding confusion with the colloquial (but accepted) name given to a post on a ship.  Instead, you might try instructing your counterparts in the RCN to use the proper name for the position of MESO to avoid confusion with the occupation of Engineer.


... and (hopefully) there ends this silly tangent.

But tangents are what make this entertaining!  ;D

OK.  I concede that I missed the fact that this was on a Combat Arms/Engineers Board.  In my defence though, I never sign on to Army.ca, but always Navy.ca.  I missed the fine print at the top of the page, for which I award myself one :facepalm:.

However, I can assure you that my last 29 years in the Navy (including a few years in the Marine Engineering community) are not a figment of my imagination (I checked - it's on file) and  "Engineering Officer" is  a common and correct term in the RCN and has been from the very beginning (even longer in the RN - since ships first started carrying engines).  The expanded term "Marine Systems Engineer" (MSEO - not MESO, which is a Reserve NCM occupation) came later when it was coined to differentiate it from the newfangled "Combat Systems Engineering Officer" (CSEO).  Nevertheless, no one ever calls the MSEO anything, but the EO, the Engineering Officer, the Engineer or Engines, websites notwithstanding.  Surely the Army and Air Force have similar quirks (e.g. the rank of "bombardier," despite the fact that the NDA says no such thing)?

On that note:  :whiteflag:

 

[aesop081]

Air Force have similar quirks

Yes. We have first names.