Training

Well-said tc1, I am sure that training centres and those outside the industry will disagree, but reality is that many people are doing courses on the expectation that it will lead to employment and that the certificates they earn are a lot more meaningful than simply an attendance certificate from a commercia business.

I wish that we, and the facilitators on this website, could be more clear than we are, by putting the truth out there about training and work opportunities, so that new-comers can know the reality of getting into this industry and what they are really getting from doing an "ROV course" from an IMCA-member company from the Service Provider/Training Institution membership category. Maybe the IMCA R002 Rev 2 document can be put on the site as a down-loadable (as it is on the IMCA website(www.imca-int.com, downloadable documents) and people interested in doing a course to get in, can at least make an informed decision to join (pity figures are not available showing them how many experienced guys (and others who hold certificates from the various ROV schools) are sitting at home without work or what companis (if any) are hiring. 😀

KruezOps,

Your post essentially mirrors my sentiments concerning ROV schools. There are a few more old hands that are of… well… the old school whom prefer to have a lad trained on company premises as well as a "TRAINEE" status on their offshore contracts. It behooves companies to do so as it’s more personalized than a school churning out unqualified personnel. A good supv. overseeing a trainees task is the way to go…..

Scott,
I briefly touched on this with my old firm but we never followed it through as I left shortly after. I feel companies should appoint people in their firm as ‘Trainers’. They, of course must be willing and have the necessary patience an skill set to carry a trainee and ensure he learns the right way of doing things. I’ve seen too many trainees who spend a year with a system and still have not learned the basics. This is mostly down to the supervisor they were with being a mouth breather who should never have been in the position in the first place.
These trainers can be reviewed annualy and given the training they require to develope personnel.
This would make training schools even more redundant than they already are. That pointless certificate they issue at the end of their useless course is the only reason as far as I can see that we can’t justifiably label the people who run these courses ‘thieves’.
Rab

A few observations/questions…

As to "Fitness to Work Offshore" are you referring to a Dr.’s certificate or an actual physical fitness assessment (running, push up’s etc…) or both? Personally I’d like to see folks have to meet a minimum physical fitness assesessment. Some of these guys are going to take a freaking crane to get off the rig…

"Pilot Only Personnel"- Most people don’t want to believe it or think it will happen, but it’s coming… You will have people that will fly the ROV and those that will work on them. It is a matter of what is better financially for the companies…

"Training" People should be trained and certified by the manufacturer to a certain competence level to use their gear. I know a lot of old timers are going to scream foul, but just because you can fly and work on one type of ROV doesn’t mean you know squat about another. Once you are certified to work on a system, then you go out on jobs as a trainee and you fall under your employers training regimine.

Chief

While I agree in principle with what you say concerning training, I’ve seen some guys with more experience on a certain system than some of the manufacturers field representatives / engineers for the said system. Taking this into mind with KreuzOps’ On-The-Job-Training thoughts/plans, there is no reason why there couldn’t be one or 2 individuals within an ROV company (operator) that could be trained on "THAT PARTICULAR SYSTEM" (no, I’m not shouting…) and train guys just coming onto it – this could be done offshore if the ROV operator managers are willing to eat the cost of a trainee offshore. Of course, bunk space is usually a problem….

Let’s throw this one around for a bit guys as I think it’s a big issue on most companies and old hands shoulders at present.

In relation to team size and make up.

We all know the abuse that is happenning with the make up of teams at present.

It would be nice to think that some day we can have a team made up of individual specialists,ie pilot,elec tech,mech tech,hydraulic tech,fiber optic tech,rigger,crane operator,banksman,it specialist and team secretary.

Im sorry maybe I go too far but I just dont see how the client or companies would accept this as the fiscal penalty would be enormous.

I agree that their are some who are good at one thing and bad on another.

When considering sending a team to operate and maintain a valuable piece of equipment, then surely the company hirer and firer, should always consider the needs.Im afraid at present in some cases the only need that is considered, is how little can we provide to gain the biggest margins.

Here lies the root of the problem and I envisage in future that the IROVA will get involved in re education and movement away from these sharp practices by bean counters to the detriment of our pay and conditions of work.

Our job, like many others throughout the world ,has evolved as a multi task job.The reason that multi tasking originally came about was as a cost cutting measure.I do not envisage that any company could support the old system of one man one job.