WTF is the Engineer in IS Engineer

#2
:?
The clever money is on IS ENG and SYS ENG Tech merging to become a super geek trade.
Unfortunately, that will further alienate that trade from the rest of the corps.
 
#3
In the same way that Mrs Spliff is a Domestic Engineer, IS Monkeys can be considered IS Engineers. Perhaps I can explain: she knows it's a microwave oven and that it produces hot food, but hasn't got a fücking clue how it works.
 
#4
Should be called IS Application Monkeys..
 
#5
I really can't see this much talked about merger of IS Eng and SysEngTech. It would be a collasal all encompassing trade that would end up with two main (lots of little ones) streams, so would be technically two trades anyway.

Is there any concrete evidence or rumour regarding this merger?
 
#6
declan_gib said:
Dont say after the IS, you clown!

Are they really Engineers? Or should that be left to us Techs!

Thoughts.
In my experience the majority of "you Techs" couldn't Engineer a crisp out of a bag!
however,
and not wanting to turn this into a I hate techs thread (no really)
the majority of good network engineers I have met in the Corps do seem to be Techs,
but please don't tell me all of you techs can engineer networks better than us IS Geeks! because that's just balls!
 
#7
hallveg said:
In my experience the majority of "you Techs" couldn't Engineer a crisp out of a bag!
however,
and not wanting to turn this into a I hate techs thread (no really)
the majority of good network engineers I have met in the Corps do seem to be Techs,
but please don't tell me all of you techs can engineer networks better than us IS Geeks! because that's just balls!
Herr Hallveg

Its not just techs, that have made good IS Geeks, I'm sure you and a few others have been in longer than this trade (and its predecessors) have existed.

I do think the Corps has gone wrong with the whole IT/IS world and its management and repair. Too many people go to the wrong trade with their faults/problems. Then again some of the faults that crop up! Bring back semaphore!

If I wanted to have anything to do with IT (other than break it and abuse it) I'd pick a job that did it. I've tried damned hard to avoid IT throughout my career so far, but it does seem to seep in.

I've no problems with any of the trades (its all certain personalities that flub it all up) just their structure and remit!

The best rumour I've heard is all techs are going to end up in the REME, they've apparently already poached some from the ENGRs. 8O
 
#8
Can't see that happening either, although I have heard it before. REME Tels Techs and R Sigs SysEngTechs aren't really the same beast. Although I have worked alongside both in my career, I wouldn't say either could do each others jobs without a fair degree of specific training.
 
#9
It's not really hard though is it? You only need basic computer and networking knowledge and they'll teach you the rest. And you should pass provided that you're not a complete computer mong.

I'd do IS Eng could be a right easy life but I just couldn't be arrsed 'engineering' brews all day for lazy ex-liney seniors that are running out their last couple of years on easy street...

And on another note, I hate the c0cks that insist on shouting when they walk past my block, its getting annoying...
 
#10
Higround, I think I know the Liney Senior of which you speak, if he was at Div..
 
#11
Just thought I would add my own views (I have lots, usually wrong, but at least their my own) to this apparent thread. Although I have to agree with hellveg about most of the good Network Engineers being Techs, it is not representive of the trades as a whole.

There are more than a slack handfull of us IS Engs who can hold our own on the Network Engineering front and we do not have the formal training that the Techs go through on the Cormorant course, but lets face it CLI is CLI and once you have the fundimentals of how the manufacturers IOS works then it's easy enough to program.

Cisco for example has a completly different command set to say Nortel, but essentially all you need to know is how the IOS expects the routes to be inserted and what it should do with the packets that it recieves (or frames at layer 2).

As for the usual b@ll@cks between IS and Tech most of the IS in the units I know of are ex Techs with a smattering of Operators and 1 or 2 lineys. As much as it pains the Operaters and the Techs, IS Eng is the only trade that has the capability of using and fixing its own kit.

Spliff-Boy said:
In the same way that Mrs Spliff is a Domestic Engineer, IS Monkeys can be considered IS Engineers. Perhaps I can explain: she knows it's a microwave oven and that it produces hot food, but hasn't got a fücking clue how it works.
You don't know many IS Engs do you. :roll:
 
#12
Just a different slant on it.

It could be lineing the IT trades with civvy street roles.

There is a major difference between Technician and Engineer (about £7k). A technician role supports the engineering roles in most.

One side I have seen in civvy street is that you will not have a job description of **** Engineer until you have been a *** Technician.
I thing Orange did that for a while but dont know if still do.

Just a thought.
 
#13
There were loads of them at Div, well loads of seniors retraded to IS geeks, quite funny the office there. About 6 SNCOs with 2 siggies there too.

Never seen so few people make so many brews...
 
#14
I knew a lad, retraded liney caled J**f S*****n who was at div, 212 IIRC funny lad.
 
#15
Sorry Specky, I know plenty of IS Engs and have worked closely with them on numerous occasions, but wtf I was only employing a bit of banter. Perhaps you should wear some slightly less snug undercrackers.
 
#16
You can't be an engineer unless you have a 'CEng' qualification. If you haven't got one then you are a tech regardless of what your title is. However, the term 'engineer' has become so devalued as to be meaningless. Just think people calling themselves doctor without a PhD or LLD or whatever. There was a row recently about IS types calling themselves systems architects. You cannot use the title architect unless you are a member of a relevant chartered institute.

C
 
#17
Bit rough around the edges that last post. Surely Incorporated Engineers (IEng) can be considered to be engineers; they are of course recognised and accredited by the IET. Furthermore, being a member of an institute doesn't make you an engineer. There are two hurdles to cross; the first is acceptance by the body as a member (fairly easy) and the second is to convince them that your qualifications and experience add up to Chartered or Incorporated Engineer status (fricking hard). I would doubt that many (if any) IS Engs, up to and including class 1, would be accredited as IEng let alone CEng. In short, the most accurate description we have seen so far on this thread for the IS Eng is Application Monkey.
 
#18
Spliff-Boy said:
Bit rough around the edges that last post. Surely Incorporated Engineers (IEng) can be considered to be engineers; they are of course recognised and accredited by the IET. Furthermore, being a member of an institute doesn't make you an engineer. There are two hurdles to cross; the first is acceptance by the body as a member (fairly easy) and the second is to convince them that your qualifications and experience add up to Chartered or Incorporated Engineer status (fricking hard). I would doubt that many (if any) IS Engs, up to and including class 1, would be accredited as IEng let alone CEng. In short, the most accurate description we have seen so far on this thread for the IS Eng is Application Monkey.
Quite right S_B. A bit hungover I'm afraid. :cry: IEng is a tricky one (me being one). But you need the right standard of qualifications to join the IET at the right level to be Eng Tech, IEng or CEng. Nearly everyone I know who calls themselves an engineer isn't one.

C
 
#19
Firstly

Spliff-Boy said:
Bit rough around the edges that last post. Surely Incorporated Engineers (IEng) can be considered to be engineers; they are of course recognised and accredited by the IET. Furthermore, being a member of an institute doesn't make you an engineer. There are two hurdles to cross; the first is acceptance by the body as a member (fairly easy) and the second is to convince them that your qualifications and experience add up to Chartered or Incorporated Engineer status (fricking hard). I would doubt that many (if any) IS Engs, up to and including class 1, would be accredited as IEng let alone CEng. In short, the most accurate description we have seen so far on this thread for the IS Eng is Application Monkey.
and

secondly

civvy said:
Quite right S_B. A bit hungover I'm afraid. IEng is a tricky one (me being one). But you need the right standard of qualifications to join the IET at the right level to be Eng Tech, IEng or CEng. Nearly everyone I know who calls themselves an engineer isn't one.

C.

what a load of Arrse, i am a driver.............. but not a bus driver.
Just because the parents of the pair of you two perform fellatio, it doesnt mean we do.
 
#20
How can I possibly respond to such devastating repartee, you are clearly the peoples poet. Did you forget that you asked the original question, cünt.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Onetap Police, PMCs, Security 33
Honkytonkman Weapons, Equipment & Rations 18
vinniethemanxcat Travel 30

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top