Getting in, and progressing through the engineering ranks, has long been a professional pet peeve of mine. In a bid to understand the process Ive had to educate myself about our system, which is why I laid out the training path, on the Training Page, on the main site. I have long sought to compare the Canadian system with the rest of the world. STCW are suppose to have removed these difference, but in my experience this is not the case. I find this disappointing for Canadians, as it affects me tremendously.
Martin in Australia, you may see his post below under viewtopic.php?f=9&t=167&p=3942#p3903, has been kind enough to let us follow him through his entrance and progression in our profession. I asked him a few days ago the same question I have asked many other peers over many years, and the answer was not surprising to me.
I am curious what you think, and hopefully you will share your comments and though on this subject. The biggest challenge to this evolution is the comparison of apples. Sometimes we have oranges; but with STCW its easier to understand the scope of some claims so give it a try.
I will reproduce the post from the other threads below to introduce further the topic...
"In reference to the level of qualification I will hold.. it will be a 3rd Engineers Certificate.
I have studied all of the theory required to gain an Advanced Diploma of Marine Engineering which is equivalent to Chief Engineer level. I started the course in 2008, did 12 weeks pre sea training and then went to sea for the remainder of the year on 2 different vessels with a short break in between.
In 2009 I completed the Diploma of Marine Engineering which is equivalent to 3rd Engineer level.
2010 I completed Second Engineer and Chief Engineer theory.
Here in Australia we must do an AMSA approved course to gain the theoretical knowledge required and also must have a minimum of 36 weeks sea time to be able to qualify for a 3E certificate. In the future after I have served enough time as 3E, all I have to do to gain my 2E qualification is sit an Oral exam. "
To which I replied...
"Yes that is what I thought. Thanks for the info. This system of getting your license, I believe, is pretty typical of many nations. Which kind of upsets me because in Canada we seem to have as many roadblocks as possible to young person being able to get a maritime license in a timely fashion. Its actually a bit ridiculous. You can see the path for Canadian engineer on my training page.
I particularly like your requirement for second class upgrade, seems simple enough. The initial stages of your training is relatively the same for cadets in Canada, where the big difference is when upgrading to higher licenses.
You were obviously quite motivated in your progression, judging by the tight timeline. Good on you.
I am curious, do you feel confident in your job or do you think more experience / training would be better - is the training is adequate?
I sometimes feel like immigrating to another country, like Australia, which I think would do my career advancement wonders. Here, with a family, I just don't have the time to study and jump through all these hoops designed to fail you. So I, like many other engineers get stuck in our positions, unless you become divorce, or will be after upgrading to the next license. Which is why there is no wonder that Canadians will never threaten the Maritime Status of pretty much any other nation, even Switzerland.
In my travels, I had always ask this training progression question to my peers, from a majority of the seafaring world, and the only licensing systems that I found similar to Canada's was Venezuela and Chili. The rest were very similar to the AMSA model - Norwegians, Dutch, Italian, Croatian, etc. Although I understand the Croatian system is has changed considerably now. "
What is your experience, and thoughts on this. Do you think Canada's system is competitive, are we at a disadvantage. Is is justified. Is it different than other countries?