• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists (Sig Op, Lineman and LCIS Amalgamation)

Food - you will be fed..  food is alright at CFLRS and Kingston.

PT at CFSCE - on Sig Op QL3 we did PT 5 days a week(Monday-Friday),  running,  spin class, circuits, sports.  I would expect it do be the

For classes,  expect a mixture of powerpoint,  and hands on/practical.  I would assume there is still a field portion of the course as well.  I don't really have any detailed info as I went through the Signal Operator courses(QL3/5) not ACISS.  Read the two threads I posted earlier on ACISS,  lots of info in there.
 
...and December comes and goes......*shakes head*......At least the DWAN ACISS site is nicely updated........ :brickwall:

If only there was a branch in the CF that could maintaing a website.  LOL.....
 
Radop said:
A lot of the complaints about the amalgamation in these threads are simply BS.  Quit posting half truths and start stating what is true or state that it is your opinion.

One of my favorite quotes today is one from Colin Powell.  This is not a word for word quote but it goes something like this:

"If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even more!"

One person stated that the LST trade was having 30% failures.  The Linemen instructors use to brag about failing half their course.  That would be 50%!  Great, we increased our training retention by 20%.

No one has talked about the fact that we may have training recognized through a college soon.  We could have our apprentice, journeyman and red seals all recognized outside of the military as well.

So now I challenge you to look at what the positives are for this "change".  Tell us what you would do differently!  Lots of people ***** and never come up with an alternative.  People researched this, briefed the country including most of you on this thread and implemented it.  Most of the briefings I attended, almost no one stood up and complained about it, asked questions or said boo.  Now that it is done, you complain.

Those in the LCIS Trade that had their pay frozen, I certainly hope that the spec pay issue is resolved sooner rather than later.  I know that when I did my CISTM course, it was a hot topic as that is when the announcement came out on the freeze.  This trade has always made the impossible work, kept it working and passed on to others how to make it work. 

ACISS may not work but it will not be because of me.  I want it to succeed and I want our people to be doing relevant work with adequate compensation for the knowledge and expertise they need to acquire that expertise.

GDay WO

I don't know about the rest of them, but my grumbles about the amalgamation is that it was all sunshine and rainbows at the briefings with very little actual content to discuss. It seemed like a lot of fluff cheer leading for a system that hadn't even been built yet.

What were we supposed to do, stand up in these meetings, of little substance, and say "These sure are pretty power points and it all looks good but us NCMs have deep seated feelings of dread that this is going to get ballsed up badly" I'm sure they would have been "Oh, well Pte in that case we'll just call the whole thing off. Take an early day Gents!". No actually I think that would have gone over like a fart in church and for good reason.

Saying after the fact that we should have complained in the meetings is a little obtuse. There was nothing to complain about and any objections we raised would have been irrelevant, ACISS was already coming at that point and nothing short of the CLS or higher could have stopped it.

So, now that I'm trying to work with the tools given to me, I'm not happy with the progress that has been made.

EMMA's posting preferences are useless at this point.

We were told the MEMS app in Monitor Mass was going to be a great tool for planning our career progression; As an IST I can't move up in rank according to the app unless I drop out of IST and go into ACISS Core first. This is for every rank level within IST. This seems rather odd to me.

The continued delays in finding out if we're getting spec pay or not I realize is out of the trade's hands at the moment, however in the middle of a recession is really not a good time to be asking for money, the extra 3 years of delay in implementing MES is what has put us in that situation.

Promotion Ranking this year for IST puts me at a disadvantage because my peers were considered Sig Ops last year and managed to get promoted, now even though my overall score is much higher, and I'm higher on the list for my trade, now that I have 3 MOIs. It is looking like I have a snowball's chance in hell of getting promoted when it was almost a certainty up until this according to my supervisor.

The fact that the career managers are possibly not visiting Gagetown and Halifax this year and are not releasing information about the promotion forecast is also troubling.

I think most of the grumbling, at least on my part, is there is little information coming down the pipe. What is given to us is broken or incomplete. Any time we ask for clarification and reassurances we get told: "Don't worry it'll all work out fine" and have been told this for years.

I'm feeling a bit like a mushroom here and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
 
C_Canuk,

While you bring up a lot of valid point that I agree with.....the one about the promotion forcast is answered if you go into EMAA and download the CM brief. Its no secret. ISTs are seeing like 7 to MCpl this year. (Not at work, so I can confirm, but I know the number is close to that). Regardless, you are absolutely correct. I was an instructor at CFSCE when the MES briefings fired up. And EVERY one of them, I was one of the ones saying "hey what about this....and this....AND THIS".......and all they did was blow smoke up our collective a$$es.

Long story short, if they hope to retain members, this really isn't the way.......Its like a kidnapper asking his hostage for a date afterwards........
 
Good day

I just flipped through the PPT Deck on EMMA and there is no promotion forecast.

My Supervisor inquired through the foreman channels back channels and was told 3.

I'm told through rumor mill that the PPT Deck shown at CM General brief includes the forecast, but that portion is not included on the deck on EMMA.

Cheers
 
c_canuk said:
Good day

I just flipped through the PPT Deck on EMMA and there is no promotion forecast.

My Supervisor inquired through the foreman channels back channels and was told 3.

I'm told through rumor mill that the PPT Deck shown at CM General brief includes the forecast, but that portion is not included on the deck on EMMA.

Cheers

weird.....I know I saw it there because where I am currently posted we wont see the CM.....ever, so I went and checked it the other day. I am back at work tomorrow and will see WTF I was looking at.
 
Radop said:
No one has talked about the fact that we may have training recognized through a college soon.  We could have our apprentice, journeyman and red seals all recognized outside of the military as well.

This is the first time I noticed this post, and I have to comment on it.

What training is going to be recognized by what college?  Recognized in what way?

What apprentice, journeymen and red seal trades could be recognized by what entity/organization?

Knowing the history behind the struggle that the Naval Electronics Technician trade went through to receive accreditation, I'm extremely skeptical of the above claims.  The Canadian Technology Accreditation Board (CTAB), a committee of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT), closely examined the CF's training curriculum of the NE Tech trades in the mid '80s.  Recommendations were made to bring the curriculum in line with the requirements for certification (mostly dealing with the number of hours of instruction in electronics principles), and as a result the NE Tech training at QL5 was accredited at the Technician level.  NE Techs who attained QL5 since then have been able to apply to one of the provincial associations for certification as Certified Technicians (C.Tech).  The C.Tech designation (like CET, P.Eng, etc.) is trademarked and controlled under legislation in each province.

I'm familiar with the electronics training that LCIS Techs have been taking over the years, as well as the types of training available to Sig Ops/LCIS Techs in the IT field.  Knowing that the level of their formal training was never sufficient to meet the requirements for certification in either electronics or computer technology, and that in fact the level of technical training has been progressively pared down over the years, I'm keenly interested in knowing what formal college (or otherwise) recognition is about to be granted to the ACISS trade at various qualification levels.  I can't speak to whether the Linemen training would or wouldn't qualify for certification because I'm not familiar with the level/quantity of their training in the CF, or the civilian certification process in that trade.
 
Occam said:
This is the first time I noticed this post, and I have to comment on it.

What training is going to be recognized by what college?  Recognized in what way?

What apprentice, journeymen and red seal trades could be recognized by what entity/organization?

Knowing the history behind the struggle that the Naval Electronics Technician trade went through to receive accreditation, I'm extremely skeptical of the above claims.  The Canadian Technology Accreditation Board (CTAB), a committee of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT), closely examined the CF's training curriculum of the NE Tech trades in the mid '80s.  Recommendations were made to bring the curriculum in line with the requirements for certification (mostly dealing with the number of hours of instruction in electronics principles), and as a result the NE Tech training at QL5 was accredited at the Technician level.  NE Techs who attained QL5 since then have been able to apply to one of the provincial associations for certification as Certified Technicians (C.Tech).  The C.Tech designation (like CET, P.Eng, etc.) is trademarked and controlled under legislation in each province.

I'm familiar with the electronics training that LCIS Techs have been taking over the years, as well as the types of training available to Sig Ops/LCIS Techs in the IT field.  Knowing that the level of their formal training was never sufficient to meet the requirements for certification in either electronics or computer technology, and that in fact the level of technical training has been progressively pared down over the years, I'm keenly interested in knowing what formal college (or otherwise) recognition is about to be granted to the ACISS trade at various qualification levels.  I can't speak to whether the Linemen training would or wouldn't qualify for certification because I'm not familiar with the level/quantity of their training in the CF, or the civilian certification process in that trade.

Ya I have to agree, al lI have ever seen is Athabasca offering credits for stuff. And not even that much....http://www.athabascau.ca/contact/askau/index.php?question=How+do+I+transfer+military+credits+to+Athabasca+University?&type=related
 
c_canuk said:
Good day

I just flipped through the PPT Deck on EMMA and there is no promotion forecast.

My Supervisor inquired through the foreman channels back channels and was told 3.

I'm told through rumor mill that the PPT Deck shown at CM General brief includes the forecast, but that portion is not included on the deck on EMMA.

Cheers

That PPT is not uploaded to the site until every base has had their interviews with the CM. I've already had mine, but can't remember the IST numbers as Christmas leave is blocking the memory. You'd be right to have a low estimate, I do not believe it was a double digit number.
 
Dyolfknip,

I'll grab one of my buddies in the tech shop here in Kingston who's doing the accreditation program (They have been advised they're a 'pilot' test of this training), they actual have a written document they had to sign about their obligations and what they are getting out of it, currently for them its for guys going through the CST stream, they have quite a bit of online learning which they've been getting 2-3 days a week to do for the last several months.  (mostly technical theory like parallel/series circuits, wave theory, AC/DC, ohms law, etc.  Which I presume would have been taught in the old POET).  I've seen the home learning stuff their doing first hand as I'm tutoring a couple of them since I went to school for computer eng) I'm almost positive the accreditation was a technologist diploma via George Brown college but I'll get a copy this evening and post the details.
 
ringo598 said:
Dyolfknip,

I'll grab one of my buddies in the tech shop here in Kingston who's doing the accreditation program (They have been advised they're a 'pilot' test of this training), they actual have a written document they had to sign about their obligations and what they are getting out of it, currently for them its for guys going through the CST stream, they have quite a bit of online learning which they've been getting 2-3 days a week to do for the last several months.  (mostly technical theory like parallel/series circuits, wave theory, AC/DC, ohms law, etc.  Which I presume would have been taught in the old POET).  I've seen the home learning stuff their doing first hand as I'm tutoring a couple of them since I went to school for computer eng) I'm almost positive the accreditation was a technologist diploma via George Brown college but I'll get a copy this evening and post the details.

Impossible. 

It's certainly not a technologist (typically three years of full time study) or technician (typically two years of full time study) diploma.  George Brown offers a distance learning certificate program, where the credits can be applied towards the Electronics Engineering Technician diploma program at another institution, but the certificate by itself and a $1.75 will get you a coffee at Timmy's.
 
@Occam,

You are correct, its a good thing I used that 'almost positive' line in my last post so that my foots not too far in my mouth.  My buddy forwarded me the link to the ACIMS site that has the CST training pilot info, and here's the scoop:

2. Students that successfully complete all modules of the George Brown distance education program including lab projects, review exercises and tests will be granted an Electronics Technician Certificate from that institution.  On successful completion of DP1.1 CSS and DP2.1 CST, students will be granted National Qualification Codes AKOI and AKOR.

So, no technologist for them.  Well...at least they get 'technician' in there somewhere  :-\
 
Well, they can call themselves an electronics technician, but they won't be able to be a Certified Technician (C.Tech).  More often than not, employers are looking for people who are able to be certified by the provinicial licensing body (in Ontario, OACETT).  A electronics technician certificate program certainly won't be getting you any jobs much more than minimum wage.

A Certified Engineering Technologist (CET) is usually a three year full time program, and gets into the design world.  There aren't any trades in the CF that will put you anywhere close to those qualifications.
 
Occam said:
Well, they can call themselves an electronics technician, but they won't be able to be a Certified Technician (C.Tech).  More often than not, employers are looking for people who are able to be certified by the provinicial licensing body (in Ontario, OACETT).  A electronics technician certificate program certainly won't be getting you any jobs much more than minimum wage.

A Certified Engineering Technologist (CET) is usually a three year full time program, and gets into the design world.  There aren't any trades in the CF that will put you anywhere close to those qualifications.

Although you're basically 95% correct, I would beg to differ a little on the C.Tech from OACETT. I think for someone whom is in my position it's attainable. I'm waiting for dust to settle (posting message and move) but I plan to apply for the designation and/or challenge for it. Again, I think for most of the IST pers, it's not really an option as they don't have enough in-depth experience but for a few of us, it's possible. Day-to-day active directory password resets does not, a C.Tech make! Those of us in system administrator/manager positions on classified systems for the past few years, through evolutions of said systems and tens of thousands of dollars in civvy IT courses plus CFSCE/army IT courses plus operational tours as classified system admins etc... I've got to have a shot at it anyways. I'm already hired as a IT sub-contractor on the side (with an approved memo from my unit CO!) and make anywhere from $38-$55/Hr depending on the job plus extras!

For those of you fellow IST's who wonder why you should even bother trying to attain C.Tech status... Think of jobs in places like Ottawa for example, that require Top Secret and/or higher, plus a provincial tech certification. For someone like me without formal college/university, the C.Tech qualifies me for those fancy IT jobs. It makes an arguement for spec pay at the very least. Furthermore, if you attain provincial certification, it gives you PER points and extra points on the yearly board! So if you're going in the for the long haul... Or not, either way it's worth it.
 
You can apply, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.  OACETT and the other provincial bodies are exceptionally stringent when it comes to meeting the academic requirements for the certification level you're seeking, though they do have a PLAR process you can utilize.  You have to remember, though, that the C.Tech certification is meant to recognize completion of a full, 2-year post secondary engineering technician or applied science diploma program or equivalent.  To give you some context of exactly what that is, take a look at the Information Technology program at NSCC.  I've probably taken many of the training programs you have, including MCSE, CCNA, etc., etc., and they still don't add up to anything remotely close to the number of hours of instruction and scope of curriculum taken in a full-time program.

I don't want to discourage you from applying, but don't have overly high hopes either.  They'll tell you exactly what core competencies you're missing if you don't meet the requirements.
 
Pay review update: Credible email on DWAN received today, DPPD screwed the pooch and didn't start in December 2012 like they were supposed to, review is now slated to start NLT 1 Mar 13 and conclude NLT 1 May 13. So in other words, we'll know in July 2014.
 
PuckChaser said:
review is now slated to start NLT 1 Mar 13 and conclude NLT 1 May 13. So in other words, we'll know in July 2014.

We all know how that went the last 3 times...

Do they not get how much this continuous shit show is obliterating morale?
 
c_canuk said:
Do they not get how much this continuous crap show is obliterating morale?

ACISS in general started obliterating morale, but I can see a lot of troops losing trust in the senior leadership of the branch. That's going to be a huge hill for them to climb to gain that trust back.
 
"Directorate of Pay Policy and Development

DPPD is responsible for the strategic advancement of Canadian Forces compensation policy, within the guidelines provided by Treasury Board, in such a way as to enhance the Forces' ability to attract, retain and motivate its most valuable resource - its members."

Hmmm. Not really motivating too many folks as far as I've seen...
 
décennie de noirceur, deuxième manche !!


take away spec pay, no significant pay raises, very little promotions.

 
Back
Top