ROV TRAINING PLUS OTHER TRAINING

[Gina McLauchlan]

This is one carried over from the old forum

here is a site http://www.mtcs.info

[David]

Gina,

I couldn’t get the link to work

[Anonymous]

Hi
It works allright for me.

[Bill Evans]

Hi everybody, I’m long overdue for registering and contributing to the forum. I will use ‘rovtrain’ as my nickname but I don’t mind you knowing who I am. I am Bill Evans and I have been involved with the ROV industry on and off for 24 years. I have also been involved in training for 10 years.

I am the course coordinator of the ROV introductory course run by the Western Australian Maritime Training Centre in Fremantle, and I have read with interest some of the comments made about the validity of new trainees completing courses before working offshore. Some of them were downright defamatory!

The fact is that many companies are requiring new personnel to have some form of training before employment – as is common in many industries. If you don’t believe me, peruse the IMCA freelance package for the reasons this is so.

ROV companies don’t train people from scratch, they ‘acquire’ the skills and knowledge learned in other industries. Therefore it makes sense that there be some transitionary training.

As a person progresses in this industry, many opportunities are provided to learn and experience new things. Unfortunately, if you stay with one company you may not experience all the aspects of the job that (IMCA) describes as a ‘competent’ person at that level. This means that some training and at least assessment is warranted.

Comments made about course outcomes on this forum are also incorrect, perhaps those making them could get some facts upon which to base their opinions. I instigated a survey of graduates recently and in our case, we have trained 40 people in the last 12 months. Of those 75% were offered and/or took work within 1 month. They are still working. 10% have not looked for/taken work due to a better offer given by their current employer once they were aware that they would be lost, 10% are still looking or are unavailable to work (existing commitments) but they only graduated 3 weeks ago and some haven’t even bothered to look yet. Only 2 have dropped off the radar completely and I have no idea what they are doing. I can provide the testimonies of the graduates if required to back up these facts.

I call that employment success, don’t you?

So before you go generalising about the value of a particular course (I accept that they are not all equal), perhaps you could make some enquiries rather than base your comments on inadequately researched opinion.

I think one of the main reasons we have been successful is that we have an industry forum where all the major employers meet with us to discuss training needs. They have all been kept informed and consulted as we developed the curriculum and had it nationally accredited with the AQTF (Australian Quality Training Framework). We apply the IMCA requirement of trade training and industry experience. We also have our industry forum rank the applicants in order of ’employability’ to allow the best qualified applicants the best opportunity.

Finally, don’t expect the world from people who have done a 3 week intro course. They are work ready but aren’t experienced. You in the field can’t train a good pilot/tech in a year – don’t expect those of us running these courses to do it in 3 weeks. We try to make them aware of the industry, the equipment and the need to operate in a safe work environment. Can’t do much else in 3 weeks. Give them a chance and they will perform, I believe, better than the average trainee you take off the street. They have shown some dedication and commitment to getting into the industry by parting with some cash (and those of you that think the cost is high are out of touch with the cost of training) and in many cases, some income earning time. They deserve a fair go.

[piedpiper]

rovtrain,

maybe things work differently down under. Thing is in the UK, on the whole the schools don’t seem that good. Look at Fugro for instance they have their own in-house training scheme, so they can train their guys up to what they require and take on guys with relevant qualifications. I believe that Canyon ran one last year also, as did Technip. End of the day it’s probably better this way as the companys can cherry pick people with skills that are required.

Maybe because you meet with the major companys, you know their requirements and they leave it upto you to supply them with new guys. As a matter of interest, do you have minimum qualifications or relevant background before you take people on. Or is it as long as they come up with the money ?

piedpiper

[Bill Evans]

piedpiper,

We apply the IMCA requirement of trade qualification and industry experience. We also have our industry forum rank the applicants in order of ’employability’ to allow the best qualified applicants the best opportunity. That is, they have to have a trade qualification in mech/hydraulics, electrical (industrial, not domestic) or electronics. The exception to this rule is if a company has someone working for them that they want to sponsor, I will allocate that person a place on the course. At the end of the day, we train people for employment, not for the sake of it or just for the money. There are many cynics in ROVland that think all companies/institutions that offer training do so just for $$. We have set our pace based on what we and our industry partners think can be reasonably assimilated. Isn’t it funny that no-one makes this claim against universities which spew out hundreds of graduates in every discipline for (usually) dozens of jobs?

Thanks for taking the time to read and question.

Cheers

rovtrain

[Cabledog]

Fellas,

I have had a look at ROVTRAIN’S website and it is worth a read on the pre-req’s for the course, it is the most stringent I have seen to date. Seem’s to me (an inexperience bod in this arena) that this perhaps the best way to do this and keep some standards up at the same time.

Fairplay :tup:

Cabledog

[Sony]

Hi Rovtrain,

I had a look on your website. You seem to be a little different then one other vocational training centre (Fort William), who I think are very focused on how much money they can bank berfore they have to change things.
1st You are reqeusting a CV with qualifications on there before they register/pay, which I think is fantastic as you can/do advise these people whether they have any prospects in the industry, hence your great employment rate after the course!?
2nd Your course is 7350 in Australian $$$ and the 1 in fort william is now nearly 4000 in the good old Sterling.
3rd You have the offshore survival included in your course which would be another 800,- on top here.
I’m not sure how many flying hours you have got after your course? Here we only did 10, which personally I think is a lot cos everybody could fly the ROV perfectly then, but the employers might not think so.

(disgruntled) Sony 😡 😉

Laters

[Cabledog]

Rovtrain

The snag I have is that (I think) your course may not be open to me. I do have the hydraulic’s/sparky background etc, have done sea survival and dunker training, as well as high level firefighting and damage control from my 12 years as an engineer in the RN, as well as 4 years telecoms work as a civvie etc but I Don’t think that this will be accepted "as 3 years relevant industry experience." 🙁

If I am wrong then top dollar 😆 will take the slap on the wrist and stop dripping 😳

Please advise

Cabledog

[TheBaron]

Interesting comment, Sony!

I’m not sure how many flying hours you have got after your course? Here we only did 10, which personally I think is a lot cos everybody could fly the ROV perfectly then,…….

I’ve been flying for thousands upon thousands of hours and have NEVER met anyone that can fly ‘perfectly’ after 10 hours of training, but maybe that’s the new standard that’s being pushed out of these schools. Good news for all you Supervisors out there. Sit back, relax, and take the cash. The ROV is in good hands now.

Just ribbing you there, Sony. I’m sure you got a little caught up in the moment.

Seriously, to all wannabees out there, there is NO requirement to do these courses if you have suitable trade qualifications. Use the money you would have spent on the course and book some airline tickets. Have you noticed how most of the course providers have multiple references to IMCA on their sites and publications? IMCA says this, IMCA says that. IMCA SHMIMCA! It’s a subliminal ploy to make you think you are going the ‘correct’ route.
For wannabees that have no formal trade qualifications, then perhaps the ROV course is the way to go if you want that slight edge whilst job hunting.
At the end of the day, the course providers are a business. They need to make a profit, and they will do whatever they can to achieve that goal.

[Andy Shiers]

I agree with you Baron 🙂
Out of interest Rovtrain , What vehicles do you utilise for training purposes ? Seaeye digital ? Triton , Scorpio ? Rig worker ?
I ‘m interested to know if the newbie gets to see the guts of the ROV ,
Do you buy the newer vehicles on the market to keep up with the latest technology in the oil industry ?
All the answers will be greatly welcomed

[temp]

ROVtrain

I think some of the points made consistently by people on this forum (myself included) regarding ROV training courses, whilst often appearing negative, are these;

Some form of induction training for new-starts is desirable, and that it makes sense for a company to carry out induction training, either with their own in-house programme or a mix of external training provider and in-house, followed by continued offshore training. This should ensure people going offshore onto a ROV crew for the first time at least have some idea of e.g. safety aspects and what the basic bits of a system consist of, basics of ROV operations etc.

In the UK/EU safety legislation, it is mandatory for companies in any sector, not just offshore industry etc, to ensure personnel are ‘trained and competent’. Much of this can be done on the job i.e. offshore with an ongoing structured development programme, although sometimes can degenerate into simply completing a ticklist in their training logbook. Companies could be deemed negligent for sending trainees offshore without putting them through some sort of induction and safety training first, especially if an accident occurs.

The main point often made is that ROV trainees should already have previous formal training, experience and qualifications in some engineering discipline i.e electrical/electronic or mechanical/hydraulic.

However, some training establishments can give the misleading impression that doing a 4 week or so ‘electronics or hydraulics course’ add-on to the induction course can suitably equip someone to go offshore as a technician, when it can only really scratch the surface. It is ok and makes sense to give e.g trainees with a mechanical background some basic training in electrics etc (and v.v mechanical/hydraulic basics for electrical types), as trainee ROV techs eventually need to get to grips with all technical and operational aspects, not just their main trade area.

Admission to courses should be dependant upon pre-requisite levels of previous experience in another industry, unless being trained from scratch by a company as e.g. an apprentice. Unfortunately, certainly in UK this is not the case. If paying for a course yourself, companies seem to accept anyone onto a course as long as they are able to pay, which would appear to go against IMCA guidelines. This practice is probably the main reason experienced offshore guys often seem to have a negative view of ROV training schools.

I usually advise potential trainees enquiring on this site who have an engineering background that they should not need to do a self-funded ROV course in order to get an ROV trainee job, as their experience should be enough. Companies who take on trainees will generally put them through some form of induction training anyway. Also, if they are not successful in getting ROV work, the course will have been too specific to be useful for other technical job applications, potential employers will not be interested in it.

Nothing wrong in people changing career and getting formal engineering qualifications/experience as a route into possible ROV work, but a four week ‘electronic technician’ course will not make someone a tech.
It is a lot of money for someone to be duped out of by an unscrupulous training school, with no guaranteed job as an ROV trainee at the end of it.

The Fremantle training school at least seems to screen candidates for suitability, presumably why your stated success rate in people gaining employment after the course is fairly high.

Cabledog
Would have thought your previous experience as Navy elect.tech and also some telecomms, plus experience of being away at sea would be seen as pretty relevant previous experience, attractive to potential employers.
It’s a bit of a numbers game, many people applying for not a lot of slots, although ROV trainee recruitment does seem to have increased last couple of years or so, good time to be looking to get into the industry.
Doing a course may just tip the balance, who knows, but it is a lot of money to spend on such a long shot.
Good luck

temp

[Cabledog]

Temp,

what you say makes a lot of sense. My current CV covers all my background etc but I thnk it needs to be re-formatted to cover my past a bit better. However I don’t want to over do that side of it as then I reckon it comes close to blagging the job. (Not on in my book) I do have a four year gap to make up for which maybe is the problem.

All the advice I have read on here has been taken onboard and is being inwardly digested so to speak.

Onward and upward!

Cabledog

[Bill Evans]

Well, I’ve certainly stirred the pot if nothing else.
If I may, I’ll answer all comments so far in the one reply?

Sony – yes I do spend an awful lot of time advising people about their prospects. I send away more people than I recommend, but I always leave the door open by suggesting that if they think they have the requisite skills and knowledge that they get themselves a job in an ROV workshop and have the employer recommend them to the course if they will employ them afterward. No-one just registers and pays – we have a competitive selection process endorsed and administered by ops managers. Can’t get fairer than that.

As far as flying goes, we don’t do a lot. I had a meeting with the employers before I agreed to do the course (I was headhunted because of my dual background, ROVs and training) and they specifically said that stick hours were not as relevant as the background of skills and knowledge, safety, BOSIET etc. I currently have a toy obs. class (Trojan Bluey) and a Super C Cat (under refurbishment) with a few others promised. At the end of the day, who could even attempt to cover the plethora of vehicles out there? All I concentrate on is processes – they are constant and totally independent of vehicle manufacturer. We all have dive logs, video logs, tech logs. We all do pre-and post dives, we all do JSAs etc etc. So don’t worry about the lack of hours, that will be remedied on the job if you get a supervisor who is willing to accept the responsibility of training you (probably more about that later!).

Cabledog – you actually sound like a really good candidate – why are you selling yourself short? We are talking about 3 years industry experience – not ROV experience. If you had that, you wouldn’t need the course would you? From my discussions with employers, they are looking for people who know how to get on with the job, get along with people and hopefully have been exposed to a safety culture better than we often see in our industry. The reason we have the industry panel is to provide feedback as to what ops managers are looking for. Every ops manager has to balance the teams based on background (clanky or squiggly) and experience. This means that at different times theya re looking for different people. Have a look at a company roster – if it doesn’t have the person’s trade background next to their name I’d be surprised. We have a lot of ex-pussers (navy) doing the course. It isn’t their training or experience that lets them down when they leave the course, it’s their attitude. Some military postings become nothing more than sheltered workshops for people with inferiority complexes (they feel everyone is inferior to them). That isn’t restricted to navy by the way, I see it from air force too (I’m ex RAAF). Unfortunately, they bring that attitude with them too.

If you want it – go for it. You can have anything you want in this life, you just have to be prepared to pay the price for it.

The Baron – "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"
Dale Carnegie I think. I’m sure you are a great ROV operator but until you are in a position to employ "wannabees" as you call them, perhaps you could advise them to contact prospective employers and ask THEM what would improve their chances of getting a job? As far as IMCA goes, it isn’t the employers that are pushing down that path, it’s the clients. Perhaps you should check some of your company’s contracts. I have over here.

lostboy – see answer to sony about the vehicle situation. We give a brief introduction to flying, that’s all there is time for in a short course. As I said earlier, people don’t become good pilots or ROV techs in a year offshore, don’t expect it from a 3 week course.

temp – so you agree an intro course is appropriate, good start.
Ahh, the ‘offshore training regime’. From my experience and my enquiries since I started delivering this course, training offshore is limited and rarely structured, with the exception of a couple of major companies who have a formal training programme. For everyone else the trainee is at the mercy of the supervisor and what he thinks of training, and the trainee, and the nature of the job and ………

I fully agree that we should be recruiting tradespeople, that’s why we do it.

Again, I agree a short course doesn’t make a tradesman, nor should it purport to. Cross-training of existing tradespeople is viable and essential in our small operational teams. I recently met a clanky that said "I don’t do wiring diagrams or electrical stuff". That attitude can only harm the effectiveness of the team.

As for training schools taking unqualified applicants, again I agree. IMCA has recently raised this very issue, it will be interesting to see if anything comes of it. What many people out there fail to realise is that IMCA edicts are like the Pirates’ Code, more a set of guidelines than specific rules. But many clients are taking them as gospel and I predict that this will become more prevalent, not less. It is a good thing to have a set of uniform guidelines.

An ROV course, is indeed specific. Not a lot of use elsewhere. Only serious applicants need apply. I read many postings from people who have followed the advice given on this forum, they frequently complain that they aren’t getting anywhere. Is it their application or their method that is ineffective? Once upon a time meeting someone in a bar was the only way to get into the industry, but we have to move with the times or they will move against us.

cabledog – my most common advice to people is to review your resume and CV. I see them trot out the same document for every job they apply for time and time again. Find out what the employer is looking for and tailor your application to suit. Don’t bullshit, but don’t be a martyr to the idea that you shouldn’t present yourself in the best possible light that you can.

Phew. It’s getting late over here, I didn’t expect to get such a response so quickly but thanks for all your comments, positive and negative. I constantly look for ways to improve the way we deliver our services and if anyone comes up with good suggestions, I’ll steal them sure as eggs!

Cheers

rovtrain

[Cabledog]

ROVTRAIN

Top answers man, hope you are not a 1 fnger typist 😆

I come from the small ships side of the Navy and never had the time for the sheltered jobs. I know what you mean about the attitude though, some ex-forces people need to learn that now they are on "civvie street" there is no option but to start all over again and that generally means at the bottom of the food chain. That is the point of the re-settlement training, to help get people a FRESH start in a new environment/career. In my experience 99% of these guys have an awesome attitude but you do get the odd one that things he/she is still a WO1 (top of the non commissioned tree for you pure blood civvies out there) In my job at the moment most of the engineers are ex forces and I would work anywhere with them. I think the attitudes etc are the same in the ROV world, they are actually quite small and close knit communities, and in my humble opinion these are the best communities to work in :tup:

Anyway back to the point, I don’t think I am selling myself short, just being honest and trying to extend my engineering knowledge/career in a new and specialised field. I will keep at it and the break will come eventually, with or with out the course though, that is the question?

Once again thanks for the advice, one is starting to feel a bit like a sponge 💡 💡

[Author]

Posts