FortBill

Member Joined: Feb 19, 2007

that being said Ray...

does your thoughts and comments come under the saying "ten a penny" ????

Member Joined: Feb 16, 2009

Hate it when you lose your password and the site reminder script does not seem to work . Anyway lets look and see what we have here. I feel I have to put a few things straight

liddelljohn wrote:

Problem is that many of these EX fort bill guys with no previous tech experience are a waste of space on the job ..........

star wrote:

that being said Ray...

does your thoughts and comments come under the saying "ten a penny" ????

Both these statements are disappointing and uninformed and do the latest batch of Fugro trainees an injustice. I can say this with some authority rather than guessing since I have their CV's in front of me. All the current trainees have very substantial industrial backgrounds, with good qualifications in electrical engineering. 3 have off shore experience and one has worked on ROV's for a number of years. Oh and one kept nuclear powered submarines working, which, are a little more complicated than your average ROV. What you are seeing here is Fugro’s commitment to the future of this industry even in difficult times and an understanding of the necessary calibre of trainee that is needed to make a good ROV pilot tech.

MechTech wrote:

We (all in the industry) know enough about you clowns........ end of.....

Do you really ........ start of ........

rayshields wrote:

MechTech wrote:

I would love to hear Mr Shields view on this topic.....

As an established man in the industry and with the like can you tell/inform us of what's going on here??

No. Not really. I have my own views which would probably break Forum rules Smile

The forum rules would be fine Ray, I have read your report on FW its quite informative and positive, laid good foundations for Fugro to work closely with TUWC and has helped us develop and continue to tweak the course so that the Fugro trainees now get the best practical flying and theoretical experience they can before they go offshore, A bit more real world than a simulator although simulators have there place and although not a Rig or a Boat a lot better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

QUOTE:--- Never discuss or engage in an argument unless you have all the facts in front of you and have a good understanding about that moment in history.

Mr Tricker ( my RE/History teacher ) dam good advice collected sometime in the 70’s

ROVworld Webteam Joined: Dec 26, 2003 Location: Scotland

Mr-Silent wrote:

... I have read your report on FW its quite informative and positive, laid good foundations for Fugro to work closely with TUWC and has helped us develop and continue to tweak the course

MY report on Fort William? I would love to read that myself, must be the old age kicking in as I cannot remember doing one.

Informative sounds like me - but positive?? Smile

Member Joined: Feb 19, 2007

No comment

Member Joined: Jun 08, 2004

good for fugro

Member Joined: Jun 05, 2004

Well , If Fugro are willing to pay for it as Sclub and sonsub will have to then I have no problems as THEY are footing the bill.
The trainees will have the same amount of knowledge taught them in a couple of days offshore ( AS TRAINEES ) ,........I have NO problems with that either ............... AS TRAINEES . Smile

Member Joined: Dec 17, 2003 Location: Thailand

lostboy wrote:

Well , If Fugro are willing to pay for it as Sclub and sonsub will have to then I have no problems as THEY are footing the bill.
The trainees will have the same amount of knowledge taught them in a couple of days offshore ( AS TRAINEES ) ,........I have NO problems with that either ............... AS TRAINEES . Smile

Agreed Lost

If the companies are willing to invest in their employees, I'm all for it as long as it's one of the more reputable schools. And once again, an on-the-job-training/mentoring program is still my preferred method of training TRAINEES....

Member Joined: Apr 04, 2006

Although I personally prefer MCTS I would have to say that a the induction courses are a perfect introduction to the industry however they do have significantly more content than a trainee would learn in a couple of weeks offshore.

I mean realistically how many guys have the time to explain how the control system works or how to do hotmelts during a re-term on downtime. For that matter how many people can explain how a servo works. What use is a trainee during fault finding who may have never tested a fibre before or cannot read a hydraulic diagram.

At the end of the basic ROV course they should be able to have an understanding of all of the above.

I am not saying at the end of these courses they are superstar pilot/techs but it is better than them walking off the street and also it gives the trainee a basic appreciation of what is needed along with some basic piloting skills so even if they are not flying they can assist with navigating to a worksite.

I get a bit fed up on the forums seeing half of the gripes being about poor standards and then a whole heap of complaints about training schools as an industry we cannot have it both ways can we?

Member Joined: Dec 17, 2003 Location: Thailand

Jim,

I agree fully with what you say.... I know, I've been there. That's why I stuck the word "mentoring" in there. I've spent many times after-hours/shift having discussions with new lads about what THEY want to learn for 30 min. at a time. It works.... And within 2 weeks they are definitely less green and gain more confidence. Guys that do not show enough interest, are weeded out, full stop.