Home › Forums › General › General Board › New Poll added – Should a trainee be an additional member?
- This topic has 36 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
Scott Beveridge.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 9, 2008 at 5:50 pm #1938
James McLauchlan
ParticipantShould a trainee be an additional team member?
The poll was added to the left of the page today.
We are trying to ascertain if you feel that an ROV trainee should be fielded as an additional team member, over and above an agreed safe minimum system manning level, or should they take the place of a qualified/experienced ROV tech.
Often, on jobs, there simply isn’t space for an additional team member but equally I also know that on many boats there is plenty of cabin space and they don’t mind having extra people onboard as trainees.
It’s not so much about what happened in the past but more like what you feel should happen in future.
Please vote and also discuss the poll topic here.
best regards
James McNovember 9, 2008 at 6:46 pm #20139Stephen Black
ParticipantTrainees should already have a trade based training. Therefore they should fit into the team without bother
Sending out people without prior training should not happen
November 9, 2008 at 8:26 pm #20140T-Boy
ParticipantShould a trainee be an additional team member?
YES.
The industry obviously needs new blood in, to work up through the ‘ranks’.
People need to start off at a basic level to get the foundation information drummed in.
As we are all aware it puts a hell of a strain on all if the newbie is put into a qualified persons’ slot.
It doesn’t happen in the office, but offshore…BUT
What needs to be addresed is the selection/interview process…i.e taking on people with a trade background and a willingness to learn…
This appears to have been sidestepped over the last few years.Is it too late 😯
November 9, 2008 at 8:56 pm #20141ROVRatt
ParticipantA place should definitely be made for the trainee. A brand new person in the team offshore is a liability and puts pressure on the rest of the team. My first trip offshore as a greenie I walked into a downtime umbilical reterm. The superintendent was furious that the beach sent out a greenie as part of the team and I tried to make myself useful during the reterm.
On another vessel I have seen a trainee who was not part of the team and a tooling tech with a trainee, so it seems to be happening in some places.
November 9, 2008 at 9:57 pm #20142Ray Shields
ParticipantFirst problem – define a Trainee.
Any person who takes the training course at Fort William leaves with paperwork and a competency book which meets IMCA ROV Pilot Tech 2. So they are not a trainee?
If a person has a suitable technical qualification/experience and has attended a companys training course (be that in-house or through a training school), at what point are they no longer a trainee?
Unfortunately IMCA is the only standard available, and I feel it is a poor standard.
I think most ROV companies define trainees as people in their first 6 months of employment. After that they become a Pilot Tech x (where x = a random number of Pilot Techs depending on how many the company has decided to make up, as IMCA only has two)
If we are to state (quite rightly) that Trainees should not be counted as members of a team, the definition of a Trainee needs to be defined and standardised.
IMCA competency levels are well overdue an overhaul anyway – they are way too low.
From experience, it is very difficult to get Clients to agree to take Trainees as extras (bedspace is the most common excuse). If a company runs its own vessels then getting Trainees on as extras is usually done.
November 9, 2008 at 11:13 pm #20143ParticipantFirst problem – define a Trainee.
Any person who takes the training course at Fort William leaves with paperwork and a competency book which meets IMCA ROV Pilot Tech 2. So they are not a trainee?
Good post Ray. Defining a trainees responsibilities is something else that needs to be addressed.
One thing that must be also be defined is the matter of grades. There are no definitive grades in our industry, unlike the diving industry. Each ROV company seems to choose grades that suit their particular (commercial?) agenda.
So what does ‘Pilot tech 2’ actually mean? This is something else that needs addressing, but not in this thread.
I view a trainee as someone that does not have offshore operational experience in a working environment. They may have sound technical training, but it is highly likely that they do not have working system nor operational experience. To gain useful experience in both areas takes time and therefore, no matter where they were trained or what cert they head offshore with, the basic fact is that initially trainees cannot be classed as effective team members from the outset.
I feel that it should not be deemed acceptable to reduce the operational integrity, nor the safe operation of a team, by weakening the experience necessary to perform operations to client expectations by the inclusion of a trainee as a substitute for an experienced team member. Therefore, no matter how painful it might appear to an operator in having soak up the cost of carrying trainees, it is a necessity that they [operator] should not be able to sidestep. It’s this lack of investment in the past that is causing the problems we are experiencing now.
It is not fair on the team, or the trainee, for that person to be placed in the position of pilot tech.
For the above reasons I voted, in the poll, for a trainee to be added as an extra member of the team and do not feel that they should replace an experienced team member.
November 10, 2008 at 12:08 am #20144ParticipantOne thing that must be also be defined is the matter of grades. There are no definitive grades in our industry, unlike the diving industry. Each ROV company seems to choose grades that suit their particular (commercial?) agenda.
So what does ‘Pilot tech 2’ actually mean? This is something else that needs addressing, but not in this thread.
But there are definitive grades – defined by IMCA with a specification for each Grade. Despite this, IMCA members still make up their own grades, pointless having a spec which is so low.
So do we need a "What is a Trainee" thread?
I very much doubt you will get anyone (sensible) here say that Trainees should be regular team members.
November 10, 2008 at 1:35 am #20145rover22
ParticipantHi all,
Great idea, if the trainee is strictly an observer who reports to and stays under the control of the Supervisor and has set-activities to witness and after the trip demonstrate in writing or assessment, then it can be a good learning opportunity.
If it is hectic, the Supervisor can sent hem to bed or to sit in the corner, but if it is quiet, then they can be called closer and given some opportunities to learn adn ask questions.
As the trainee learns and demonstrates usefulness or ability, the Supervisor can start using them where he feels they are competent. Its just like a trainee at the moment, except you wont have to rely on a raw trainee as a member of the team, but rather as an extra.
It is a nice idea, but in the long run, pie in the sky I think. Who pays for him/her being there? (bed/food/travel, insurance/salary etc? The agency/client/ROV or diving company? Personaly, I dont see it happening anytime soon (although I hope I am wrong).
Rover 22
November 10, 2008 at 8:15 am #20146ParticipantIt is possible to do – it used to be done on the Inspector/Carla but without the set-activities to witness and assessments bit which would have been better.
Alas I believe extras has fallen by the wayside along with many other changes.
November 10, 2008 at 9:04 am #20147Andy Shiers
ParticipantIt is a nice idea, but in the long run, pie in the sky I think. Who pays for him/her being there? (bed/food/travel, insurance/salary etc? The agency/client/ROV or diving company? Personaly, I dont see it happening anytime soon (although I hope I am wrong).
Here we go again 🙄
What bloody business has a trainee got with an agency !
Why does the ROV industry have to be so flippin different to any other industry in regards to Trainees ?
Trainees get their experience by working up the ladder , Apprenticeship.
If a trainee comes out on a contract I am on and he/she is through an agency I will black list them ! and the agency.
If the lad or…………… laddet has got the right qualities to be in the Industry then the ROV company will take them on and pay for their upkeep/insurance/courses. The reason being is because they NEED the salary personnel as they are cheaper than Merc’s and they want loyalty.
Is this so bloody hard to understand or is everyone on another planet ! 😯November 10, 2008 at 9:05 am #20148ParticipantDon’t answer that 😆
November 10, 2008 at 9:56 am #20149Scott Beveridge
ParticipantDon’t answer that 😆
Is this so bloody hard to understand or is everyone on another planet !
Nanu – nanu, you pathetic earthling! Lost in Space!
Seriously though, the companies should take on trainees as an extra DIRECTLY and pay out of pocket for em’. They (the trainees) need the hands-on and I would consider this an apprenticeship.
on a parallel note: It was a shame what the UK and colonies / former colonies did (away) with the school-apprentice programs. I thought it was a brilliant idea!
November 10, 2008 at 10:09 am #20150ParticipantThe feeling I sense (behind the scenes) is that of.. This is how it has been for so long so nothing will change. Unless people get a little more proactive about this, things will always remain the same to the benefit of the companies not you.
Trainees are accepted overhead in any other industry. In those industries they are not expected to do the work and take teh responsibility of a trained person so why is this practice allowed to prevail in the ROV industry?
It is most likely because there is nobody to put the brakes on this kind of thing. In effect, the companies almost have free reign to do exactly as they please. As a result trainees are mostly sent out as replacements for trained people, but the fundamental difference is the company pays less money to fill the slot and therefore makes more profit on the project. This leaves a weak team but that doesn’t seem to worry those that continue with the practice. I have been of a few Norwegien vessel where the ROV co asked me if it was OK for them to send an extra person out as a trainee. If we have space it is no problem for us. In these cases the cost is most obviously being sucked up by the company employing the trainee. So if they do it in Norway why not the UK sector?The poll (and this discussion) is part of the bigger picture trying to nail minimum manning levels and have them added into an ROV industry agreement so that minimums are agreed thus going a long way to ensuring that safe operating practices prevail. The agreed minimums should not be compromised by substituting a trainee for an experienced team member. It is most obviously the wrong thing to do and needs addressing.
It’s not about whether we will see it happen or not, it’s about adding these points into the ROV industry agreement ahead of negotiations and pushing for them to be accepted.
So far, from the poll, it seems that the majority feel that trainees should be fielded in addition to a normal crew and should not be allowed to replace experienced team members. I’ll let it run for a while longer until it has done it’s job and the switch it for the next one. That way we will keep adding pieces to the puzzle and form an agreement based on majority consensus.
November 10, 2008 at 11:16 am #20151sedco
ParticipantFor me it depends if the trainee comes to a 3 man work class system or to a 2 man eyeball system. I can handle a trainee on a work class job if the SE is half decent but it makes for long days on a eyeball system if the only backup up you’ve got is a greenhorn.
November 10, 2008 at 11:41 am #20152ParticipantThe other problem is that the office does not see them as a Trainee.
They have technical qualifications and they have done the ROV Training course, therefore they are not trainees, they are just inexperienced. get on with teaching them!
Of course they only PAY them as Trainees…!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
