Engineering Artificers and Engineering Technicians wtf?

#1
As a WEA I passed my CPO PQE, hence qualified picked up the rate but subsequently been rebadged WE(ET). A CPO WE(ET) is a different career structure so how do we differentiate between a CPOWEA (rebadged) and a CPO WE(ET), who gained his chiefs on selection rather than doing a PQE.
The reason I ask is that on my current deployment a PO AET (was a POAEA) had no interest in taking his Chiefs PQE as the benefits did not really motivate him(i.e CPO AETs can be employed as SMRs). But lo and behold he was on the selection board to do CPO AETs course.
So will this happen to our WE legacy Tifs who cant be arsed to do the work involved in taking a PQE and therefore wait on the being selected for Chief. Although personally this is silly as an ex WEM i have expirienced the vagaries of selection and promotion.
I heard a rumour that the Wafus were thinking of reverting all PQE Tifs back to AEAs and selected AEs stay as AETs, is this true, if so would this happen to the other two branches?
 

witsend

MIA
Book Reviewer
#2
We're at the start of a long peroid of branch change. I gave up caring what the hell I'm called a long time ago,,, :rofl: . I was under training until I passed my unit ticket and I believe that any legacy tiffs are still under the old rules for promotion, even after the branch name change.
 
#3
Has the Wafu tiffs board changed and been brought into line with the rest of the RN at last. :thumright:
During my time in the service many PO Wafu tiffs had difficulties in passing the extremely difficult chiefs board. After two or three attempts they usually gave up and remained POs for the rest of their service, something I noticed rarely happened in the general service world.
 
#4
angry_mac said:
As a WEA I passed my CPO PQE, hence qualified picked up the rate but subsequently been rebadged WE(ET). A CPO WE(ET) is a different career structure so how do we differentiate between a CPOWEA (rebadged) and a CPO WE(ET), who gained his chiefs on selection rather than doing a PQE.
Why do we need to differrniate? The career structure from CPO is the same regardless. Promotion by selection to WO2 and then to WO1.

angry_mac said:
The reason I ask is that on my current deployment a PO AET (was a POAEA) had no interest in taking his Chiefs PQE as the benefits did not really motivate him(i.e CPO AETs can be employed as SMRs). But lo and behold he was on the selection board to do CPO AETs course.
So will this happen to our WE legacy Tifs who cant be arsed to do the work involved in taking a PQE and therefore wait on the being selected for Chief.
As far as I'm aware the first POET courses are still running at Collingwood so no POET(WE)s will have been selected yet. Like you I was a WEM and the idea of not taking the board seems ridiculous. Anyone who can't be bothered to put in the work required to pass a board shouldn't be promoted. If I was sat on the board and was presented with a WEA who hadn't taken advantage of his preserved rights I would consider him lacking the drive required of a CPO.

angry_mac said:
I heard a rumour that the Wafus were thinking of reverting all PQE Tifs back to AEAs and selected AEs stay as AETs, is this true, if so would this happen to the other two branches?
Being a submariner I don't hear many rumours about the Wafus and I don't know anything about the way things work in the AE world. From a WE perspective though I can't see the point. A CPOET(WE) will be doing exactly the same job a CPOWEA would be doing. Why call them different things?
 
#5
CWEM(R) does exactly what a CWEA does, but both are different.
CPOWEA does not do a chiefs course but a CPO ET (WE) does. POWEA(GS) was fully qualified upon completing SSMC/SRCC, a PO(ET) WE is still a trainee.
 
#6
angry_mac said:
CWEM(R) does exactly what a CWEA does, but both are different.
True, to a degree. There are differences between GS and SM streams but a lot of common ground too. There are several CWEM(R) in the SM world who are doing a CWEA job, but that's more a case of stiching up the Mechanic rather than them being equals. "Here, we'll give you a career structure and responsibility, but not the HND your opposite number has"

I mean no disrespect to any Senior Rate Mechanics reading this, but they are not trained to the same degree as a WEA. I was a WEM(R), I'm well aware of what professional training they get. Giving someone the PJTs required to maintain a piece of equipment doesn't make them an Artificer/Technician.

angry_mac said:
CPOWEA does not do a chiefs course but a CPO ET (WE) does. POWEA(GS) was fully qualified upon completing SSMC/SRCC, a PO(ET) WE is still a trainee.
I'm not sure there is a CPO(ET) course. If there is then it will probably cover the admin side rather than any technical training. Again, this is a SM perspective, but POETs will be section maintainers and section heads while the CPOET will be the Head Of Group (HOG). This is a change from the current set-up where the section head is a CPO and his No2 can be either a PO or a CPO.

With WEAs the PO was considered to be training. He was working towards his CPO PQE and learning from his section head. If a POET is running a section he can hardly be called a trainee.

Ultimately I think the reason for rebadging WEAs as ETs is to avoid the problems that were seen with the advent of the Warfare branch. We were left with a mish-mash of OMs, and source branch WEMs & operators. Whatever your feelings about the warfare branch, it was badly implemented and doomed to failure for that reason if no other.

The Navy Board has it's reasons for the restructuring of the Engineering branches and I'm sure they don't want to make the same mistakes again.

The way I see it, ETs are effectively all mechs so a CPOET is the same as me, a CPOWEA who started out as a WEM. So why not have us in the same branch.
 
#7
Which is fair pompey but us mechs augmented the apprentices, there was more true tifs than there were mechs. Which does not bode well for the future, I can see a shortage of Senior Rates in the future especially at PO level, it took 5 yrs to grow a POWEA from a baby tif, it will take at least 7-8 for a PO ET equivalent
 
#8
angry_mac said:
Which is fair pompey but us mechs augmented the apprentices, there was more true tifs than there were mechs. Which does not bode well for the future, I can see a shortage of Senior Rates in the future especially at PO level, it took 5 yrs to grow a POWEA from a baby tif, it will take at least 7-8 for a PO ET equivalent
The RN made a mistake when it got rid of mechs. Young PO Tiffs really were a waste of space until they had a bit of time under their belts and by that time they were chiefs, On the other hand the Mech was useful because by the time he was rated PO (or Mech 2 in the old days) he had the time and experience required for both the job and the rate.
If the new ET system is really going to produce a PO as good as the old PO Mech then I am all for it. :w00t:
 

Richie

Lantern Swinger
#9
slim said:
Has the Wafu tiffs board changed and been brought into line with the rest of the RN at last. :thumright:
During my time in the service many PO Wafu tiffs had difficulties in passing the extremely difficult chiefs board. After two or three attempts they usually gave up and remained POs for the rest of their service, something I noticed rarely happened in the general service world.
Their"front line" time was also "elongated" if they remained a PO Tiff/Mech
 
#10
angry_mac said:
I can see a shortage of Senior Rates in the future especially at PO level, it took 5 yrs to grow a POWEA from a baby tif, it will take at least 7-8 for a PO ET equivalent
Not sure that will be the case. After all there is a good few guys on POETs course at the moment. Plus there's still old bastards like us (and older) knocking about. Don't forget that there are still a few younger 'tiffs around too. I think the last intake of Apprentices was in Jan '07 or something.

If not then perhaps we'll all get offered Extended Career to cover the gaps. Could be handy in this time of credit crunching. =(

slim said:
If the new ET system is really going to produce a PO as good as the old PO Mech then I am all for it. :w00t:
Hope so. Although it has to be said that I've seen young 'tiffs every bit as good as any mech and mechs just as juvenile and useless as any snot nosed baby 'tiff.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
P The Fleet Air Arm 3
E Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) 6
S The Fleet 9

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top