RN Still short of Engineers? Ahem!

A

Art the Fart

Guest
#1
Mot so long ago when we had Fleets worldwide , the most senior Engineer was an ERA (The ERA to ERA dream).
Today, with few seaworthy ships and unsustainable Shore Establishments and less and fewer than everything else--We sport an EVA with a BSc (CEng) and MIMechE--What is going on?
Mind you he hasn't pushed the button of an oil can in light years, pushing, as he does now, pens as Nav Sec.
He now contemplates such vital matters as the colour of the buttons for the new No. 4A's for female submariners.
Black or Navy Blue?
We'll need to arrange a Seminar.
Scillies are pleasant at this time of year.
Culdrose will fly us out.
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#6
I read that the Engineering Council will not renew the 'Fast Track' to registration licences held by the Professional Institutions for RN Engineering Officers and Ratings.

I wasn't a fan or a benefactor.
 
#10
Haven't seen that, although that could cause some annoyance with those who are driving to make registration a requirement. Out of interest were there any reasons given?
 
A

Art the Fart

Guest
#11
Engineers?
Time to revert perhaps.
When those dirty engine things arrived the RN realised it must do something about it.
They found one officer with a mechanical bent, promoted him Rear Admiral and in 1903 made him the first Chief Inspector of Machinery.
His Inspectors aboard ship, located the broken bit-had its picture taken-found the manufacturers name cast on the side and posted off a requisition.
The Company made the replacement part and sent off a couple of Engineers who bolted the new bit on and gave the old bit the float test.
Having repaired aft for a Mess of Pottage and a couple of Horses Necks, they caught the train back to Sunderland or where-ever.
It was No. 1 who was unhappy. Those frightful mechanical chappies got grease all over my blancoed Turks Heads------and we've got the gals coming on board tonight for Leg-Overs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#13
Haven't seen that, although that could cause some annoyance with those who are driving to make registration a requirement. Out of interest were there any reasons given?
Those qualified can still register. They'll just have to do more of the process themselves rather than stand under a magic wand. That'll put them in the same boat as the 1000s of civilian engineers that some RN engineers claim to be the equals of. Seems fair.

Registration will never be a requirement until the expense ( and it is expensive) can be claimed.
 
#17
Those qualified can still register. They'll just have to do more of the process themselves rather than stand under a magic wand. That'll put them in the same boat as the 1000s of civilian engineers that some RN engineers claim to be the equals of. Seems fair.

Registration will never be a requirement until the expense ( and it is expensive) can be claimed.
It'll be interesting to see how many "fix stuff" Engineers and how many " managers of" fix stuff Engineers achieve registration in light of the change. I get the registration not being a requirement until the company pays for it piece. It just reminded me of a conversation with a couple of blokes a few pay grades above me who seemed that exactly that sort of thing is what they should be doing. It would appear that this even more pay grades up think it may be divisive and alienate non-engineers. Herein lies the overall problem.
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#18
I feel that in order to attract and retain qualified engineers the Navy will have to treat engineers as they treat doctors and dentists, paid extra because of the utility of their profession in civvy street. I have never noticed anyone being alienated. We get it.


Registration has utility for those situations where a civvy employer hasn't a clue what a certain rate, rank, specialisation of naval engineer does. EngTech, IEng and CEng helps. At over £200 a year for IEng and CEng, one would rather someone else paid. I believe EngTech registration is unaffected by the change and before the streamlined routes were established, naval engineers who could get registered, did. Some may not bother, some may be rejected. 'twas ever thus.
 
#19
I feel that in order to attract and retain qualified engineers the Navy will have to treat engineers as they treat doctors and dentists, paid extra because of the utility of their profession in civvy street. I have never noticed anyone being alienated. We get it.
Not whilst your arse points downwards I'm afraid. Doctors and Dentists have a monopoly on their trades, combined with the Public Sector being the largest single employer of them. Neither of those facts will be true for Engineers; add in the fact there is a widely fluctuating job market for Engineers in civvy St (cf all those being shed from the North Sea O&G sector at the moment), and the biggest reason for people leaving (according to exit interviews) is not pay, it is programme instability, and the end result is not a massive pay rise.
 
#20
Registration will never be a requirement until the expense ( and it is expensive) can be claimed.
Same as Civy Street if the employers did not pay for membership and push Grads through, then a lot would not bother, but Civy employers like to be able to quote the qualifications of their team when bidding for contracts.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads