| 
2008 Forum Workshop Report
In October 2008 at its 17th annual Forum & AGM in Calgary, Alberta, CAMC held three workshops at which delegates could discuss particular current issues and express their views. The workshop facilitators have summarized the proceedings in this Workshop Report, which is also available on the CAMC web site as a pdf file (www.camc.ca/en/##). This report summarizes the three workshop topics and questions posed during the discussions. From delegate input, facilitators have also proposed new strategies and initiatives for CAMC to consider.
The workshops this year were as follows:
• “Blue Workshop”: Credential Recognition Programs (examining credential recognition within and outside of the industry and Canada)
facilitated by Robert (Bob) Nag, Civil Training and Services, CAE Inc.
• “Green Workshop”: Workplace Trends
(examining worker recruitment and retention strategies)
facilitated by Dennis Lyons, General Manager, AVIPRO Helicopters Ltd.
• “Red Workshop”: Career Development
(examining on-the-job training and mentoring)
facilitated by Wilson J. Boynton, President, Advanced Composites Training
The three facilitators presented a preliminary summation the next morning in a plenary session at the Forum. Each then wrote a formal report and submitted it to CAMC. Those reports are presented in this document.
“Blue Workshop”: Workplace Trends
(examining credential recognition within and outside of the industry and Canada)
facilitated by Robert (Bob) Nag, Civil Training and Services, CAE Inc.
The workshop group of approximately 15 people represented a good cross-section of the aviation/aerospace industry, including industry workers, hiring companies, the military, training organizations, and CAMC’s Serge Côté.
Although the workshop began by focusing on the provided questions, the discussion quickly diverged into the very interesting different initiatives already taken in this area, as well as those to come.
Credits from other Canadian Sectors?
There was some discussion about Air Canada hiring painters from the auto industry.
Credits from foreign sectors?
Here, discussion focused on the lack of equivalency, and the opinion that there should be some kind of standardization established at the entry gate of the country. Government is responsible for this. In fact, it was mentioned that Transport Canada should recognize more training programs than its current selection, in order to attract more candidates and have a more standardized entry approach.
An example was given of an AME from Tibet who submitted all paperwork in advance and gaps were identified by Transport Canada. These gaps were addressed before entry into Canada, which eased the entry process. The CAMC logbook was approved by an evaluator after the fact. However, it was noted that each case like this is handled on its own and that a standardized evaluation process should be established for immigrants who are searching for employment, and present educational credentials from abroad.
Another example was that Rolls-Royce Canada had brought over temporary employees from Germany.
In general, it is not possible to recognize foreign credentials because the competencies behind those credentials are not listed. Exceptions to that are in the US, Canada, Sweden and Norway, since unique relations have developed between those countries and the educational systems have similarities that strengthen this ability.
Weaknesses in the system?
A great open discussion ensued here between task-based educational credits and skill-based educational credits. The skill-based competencies are more generic and encompass a greater skill-set for the workforce.
Some other weaknesses in the system that were explored included the fact that an AME in Canada needs to take 6 to10 weeks of training when switching “type”, but in the US, the same switch requires only 150 hours of training. The conclusion was that type rating does not work, and doesn’t make sense.
Participants felt that we need to address the line-up of immigrants that come to Canada for work, and that the program should be structured to integrate these folks as quickly into the workforce as possible. We desperately need a standard, and we need to be able to measure foreign credentials against it efficiently.
Another conclusion was that the industry needs to lobby Transport Canada to recognize other courses, similar to the bilateral agreement that exists between the US and Canada. Transport currently does not recognize FAA courses, and we need to move towards a more robust MRA (Mutual Recognition Agreement) government tool to recognize these credentials. If no MRA exists between countries, then Canada should take the lead to check the competencies and fill in the gaps.
The concept of certifying schools as ATOs (Approved Training Organizations) was also discussed, highlighting the need to be able to train and test for, and attest to, competencies and skills through a structured and recognized program.
Existing Programs
A lively discussion was led by Serge Côté about CAMC’s PLAR (Prior Learning and Recognition) program. CAMC will have AMT, AME and welder PLARs ready for use and distribution in February 2009.
ESL (English as a Second Language) training also affects foreign credential recognition, although indirectly. Workshop participants discussed the level of English language competency of candidates who apply, and the necessity for language testing. It was mentioned that the École des métiers de l'aérospatiale de Montréal (EMAM) has a good structured program that is not Transport-Canada approved but could be used. The standard of the Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) was also discussed to dissect the 48 levels that exist between Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing.
Participants agreed that an apprenticeship program that teaches AMEs small pieces over several years would be a better program than what is available today. The benefits for industry would be great, but there was the large question of who would fund and recognize this program — and again, people thought it should be the responsibility of Transport Canada.
Then D’Arcy Phillips from the Manitoba Aerospace Council spoke about the WIN (Workplace Integration for Newcomers) Program. This program, costing between $4,000 and $5,000 dollars per person allows a candidate to complete, in six weeks on average, a competency-based assessment, followed by gap training. This process delivers to the workforce a fully trained and certified employee. This program partnered with schools, which allowed the use of school facilities in off-hours for instruction and gap training. This program is also used for reassessment as required.
Conclusion
This group engaged in a very interesting, spirited and inspiring discussion. The PLAR program will address many of the issues discussed at the workshop, and CAMC will be able to lobby and inform the government of the needs of the industry.
My thanks to Al Valentin of StandardAero for taking notes at the workshop.
Robert Nag
Blue Workshop Facilitator
“Green Workshop”: Workplace Trends
(examining worker recruitment and retention strategies)
facilitated by Dennis Lyons, General Manager, AVIPRO Helicopters Ltd.
The workshop group of approximately 30 people represented a broad range of the aviation/aerospace industry. Participant industry experience ranged from 4 to 50 years. Dialogue was constant and although we had been given five topics to examine, most of the discussion focused on the “disconnect between the training institutions graduates and industry requirements.”
The following report summarizes what the participants had to say on the topics. I have grouped the responses together as they pertain to each other but not necessarily in the order of discussion. Where applicable I have added my observations and have listed recommendations for CAMC involvement at the end.
Does your company have a skilled workforce shortage? There was a resounding “yes” to this question. All participants who “hire” skilled workers identified a shortage ranging from a single immediate position to as many as 12. It is important to note that these positions are for “already trained and certified/licensed personnel.” Participants indicated that they do not have time to train “apprentices.” When questioned further, the primary reasons given for this lack of interest were the need to complete work already in progress and not being able to afford the time for experienced workers to train apprentices. Participants also reported that they lose a lot of people to work that does not involve shift work.
If so how is it being addressed? What does your company do to retain its skilled workforce in such a highly competitive market? Participants all said their companies used incentives like providing housing, flights, and pay incentives but that the most important one was finding a shift that works for that person. The challenges identified that are working against the industry are
• higher paying jobs outside the industry
(such as $37 an hour to put wheels together);
• recognition by different departments of the City of Calgary that the graduates of the “M” program come with most if not all the skills they require and that the city actively recruits these graduates;
• the constant hire-layoff-rehire cycle of this industry
(not only is this bad for morale of the individuals concerned but it is bad PR for the industry; and, finally,
• we are an industry of night shifts.
There was a general feeling that working in this industry had become “just another job” and was no longer considered a career with perks like “free travel.” Some other suggestions were to allow people a means of moving between companies with transportable benefits. This is interesting compared with another comment that most agreed with: that workers do not want to move around once established in a location.
How does your company attract new skilled workers from schools, training centres, the Canadian aviation and aerospace sector, other Canadian industry sectors, and outside of Canada? Overall the participants said their companies had no particular initiatives other than advertising and basic word of mouth. There appeared to be a feeling that everyone was so busy they did not have time to recruit and that they certainly did not have the resources to deal with people outside of aviation/aerospace. Some did say that they knew of organizations that had done a massive hire of apprentices and were hoping that at the end of the day they would have enough skilled workers to meet their needs. (Facilitator comment: There seemed to be a lack of understanding of what was available from CAMC, and of whether or not CAMC could help them in this area.)
The topic that had the most discussion, however, was the contrast between the expectations of industry and those of training organizations. In a nutshell, industry wants a “super tech” graduating with all the skills and competencies to start work with minimal or no supervision the very day they start, preferably with an endorsement on the type of equipment the company is working on. The training organizations wanted to see “contracts in place for each and every student” with a “guarantee” of work. The term used was that there was “a double standard” and that it was a “one-way street” favouring the company. The discovery in the workshop is that there is an incredible disconnect between the two.
Each training organization has an advisory council but when pushed to describe its involvement, participants admitted that this particular topic is never discussed in detail, if at all. One participant talked about a training model being piloted in both Nova Scotia and Manitoba. In this project company representatives sat down with representatives from training organizations and government and identified a pool of trainees, who underwent a gap analysis, giving credit for their skills and knowledge. Then they customized a course to meet both candidate and industry needs, trained the candidates and put them to work. Organizers expect that most of the new employees will stay with the company primarily because the work is in their home town and it is skilled work with good pay. It should be noted that the focus in this pilot project was on skills and competency not academics.
There were lots of reasons given why others could not do the same. In fact, very little “thinking outside the box” occurred and declarations were made by some that they were comfortable with the current system.
In the workshop were representatives of a training organization and a local company, which had previously identified an immediate need for 12 workers. I asked the company rep. if it would hire students if the school could train them in the needed areas (such as wire bundles) When he said that could work, I then asked the training organization rep. whether the school could adapt its current training to meet this company’s requirements. The answer was “yes” and that it could be done rather quickly. From this exchange, we concluded that industry needed to be informed about how training organizations operate and what restrictions provincial governments place on them, and that training organizations need to use their advisory councils to identify where they can adapt to current conditions and meet local industry needs.
Suggestions for supporting this model are “coop student opportunities,” contracts to pay tuition, and changes to financial systems to allow flexible training models for aviation. Another interesting comment was that when schools do have open houses and a Director of Maintenance attends with a position to offer, sometimes when an apprentice showed up, the company HR person had no information about the arrangement and sent the candidate away without a job.
A final note: it became clear that our current system does not train skilled workers to be “mentors” for new hires regardless of whether they are apprentices or experienced. Comments that participants had heard ranged from, “I do not want an apprentice because they slow me down.”, to “Some people are too grumpy to work with.”
For CAMC, here are some suggestions for areas that could use some attention and assistance:
a) Help training organizations and local companies understand each other’s needs and limitations at the local level, perhaps by hosting a workshop for the two parties to discuss local solutions and to review the Nova Scotia and Manitoba pilot projects.
b) Identify ways to train skilled workers on how to be a good mentor, perhaps by developing an aviation-specific course to help break down cultural barriers to working on our own.
c) Approach industry and training organizations to ask what changes to government financing could improve the system,
d) Find a way to help smaller companies develop an HR strategy for recruitment and retention.
e) Compile a list of best practices currently in use by industry.
f) Host a working group to look at addressing the hire-layoff-rehire cycle by developing a system through which a worker’s pension and benefits could become “portable.”
g) Help industry to find ways to keep its aging workforce working.
Although it may appear that there are too many challenges to overcome, the group remained optimistic that solutions can be found, remembering that this industry is known for persevering and being creative when it needs to be.
Dennis Lyons
Green Workshop Facilitator
“Red Workshop”: Career Development
(examining on-the-job training and mentoring)
facilitated by Wilson J. Boynton, President, Advanced Composites Training
The “Red Workshop” focused on career development strategies for aircraft technicians with emphasis on the topics of coaching, mentoring, certification, licensing, job rotation and “soft-skills” development.
The workshop participants were divided into three discussion groups , each comprising a balance of male/female and civilian/military participants. Each group was asked to to write down the important information or conclusions resulting from their discussions.
Five questions were posed to each group one at a time, with a survey of each group’s conclusions after 15 to 20 minutes of discussion. Questions and major conclusions were as follows.
1) What initiatives, if any, has your company implemented for coaching (short-term) and mentoring (long-term) new hires?
It was suggested that CAMC should investigate the publication of a National Occupational Standard for technicians who are to be designated as coaches and mentors.
It was noted that not all technicians by virtue of their years of experience in the trade necessarily have the skills to be good trainers, coaches or mentors. Above average communications skills were seen as an absolute must for these tasks.
Technicians might not be willing or in any way motivated to participate as coaches and mentors if there is no monetary or other form of tangible reward for their efforts.
Asynchronous learning: not all technicians will benefit from a program where “soft-skills” are instructed in a time-controlled or formal setting. Some suggested that it is necessary to coach technicians on an individual basis when it comes to soft-skill development such as delegating and team leadership. Each technician should keep a formal record of accomplishments and progress.
It was recommended that CAMC place more emphasis on identifying and making available to its membership, sources of information relating to both technical and soft-skills development.
2) Are certification and licensing encouraged at your company?
There was unanimous agreement in each group that technician certification to CAMC national occupational standards should be encouraged by all employers.
It was clearly stated that all employers should do a better job of advertising their preference for hiring CAMC-certified technicians (thus increasing the industry awareness of the competitive advantages and benefits of having a CAMC-certified staff of technicians
AME licensing is important and it was suggested that employers should place more emphasis on awarding higher pay, benefits and advancement based on an employee’s personal development and certification/licensing.
Also unanimous was the belief that the PLAR (Prior Learning Assessment) program can’t come soon enough! Employers are facing the universal challenge of finding skilled technicians in all of the trades. A method of qualifying and obtaining access to skilled foreign workers was considered to be essential to the growth, if not the very survival, of the industry.
3) Are there opportunities for promotion at your company? What is the process for “moving up the ladder?”
It was suggested that perhaps a generic “Career Progression Guide” be created by CAMC in order to help both technicians and employers identify a means of recognizing and rewarding technician skills development
Perhaps CAMC could develop a generic “template” for skills development and reward that employers might adapt to individual company operations.
There are many individual technicians who do not wish to “climb the corporate ladder” in their careers. Many are perfectly happy using their skills to perform the daily tasks of their trade and do not wish to take on a supervisory or management role. Therefore, a method of rewarding lateral progression of skills should be adopted by the industry (framework to be developed by CAMC?)
4) Does your company provide “soft-skill” training? i.e. CAMC’s Harvard ManageMentor®10. If so, has such training been beneficial to you?
It was suggested that a complete review of the CAMC “Instructor Guides” be completed to ensure that all “essential soft skills,” those considered vital to technical training and development, are properly identified.
A formalized method for language skills assessment should be created/adopted/promoted by CAMC, to provide employers with a method by which a technician’s reading, writing and interpretation skills could be determined. Because of the two official languages in which Canadian technicians may have been educated, a technician who was educated in French may be able to speak fluent English, but not be able to read the language (and vice-versa). They may be unable to interpret data and instructions that are critical to their job performance.
It was noted that government and/or corporate sponsorship and funding for training tuition, is considered essential in order to encourage technicians to develop a personal education ethic and career development path.
5) Do you have any suggestions for improving CAMC’s certification programs?
There was a belief that the CAMC marketing plan needs to do a better job of generating awareness of CAMC activities and benefits of membership at the middle-management level in the industry.
CAMC should endeavour to inform middle-management and front-line supervisors about CAMC resources available to technicians.
The CAMC web site was thought to be “a great brochure” on CAMC activities, but is not considered to be easily navigated by most technicians. Finding access through the web site to CAMC resources is difficult.
It was suggested that the CAMC web site should be made more ”interactive” so that technicians seeking access to OEM technical data web sites, technical data resources, links to the CAR’s and other often-needed resources, can be accessed by links on the CAMC site. Make the CAMC web site a “one-stop shop” for these items.
Finally, it was suggested that the CAMC should have a forum for the review of what CAMC is NOT doing effectively.
In closing, I would simply state that in addition to the recommendations above, the seven observations and recommendations presented by Dennis Lyons facilitator of the “Green Workshop” mirror almost exactly the recommendations reached by the participants in the “Red Workshop” (These are listed on page 6 of this report).
Wilson J. Boynton
“Red Workshop” Facilitator
|
