# MLOC



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Todd Harris" <harris@nortelnetworks.com>* on *Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:36:26 -0400*
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
Just a question to the group.
How are Units out there dealing with pers who do not complete the MLOC
training?  Are you putting them on the various warning, releasing them, or
encouraging them to complete the trg?  Has anyone released someone for not
finishing the trg?
Thanx
Todd Harris
MLOC
Just a question to the group.
How are Units out there dealing with pers who do not 
complete the MLOC training? Are you putting them on the various 
warning, releasing them, or encouraging them to complete the trg? 
Has anyone released someone for not finishing the trg?
Thanx
Todd Harris
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:55:50 -0600 *
We‘re actually pretty lucky here in Edmonchuk - the Base has mechanical SA
ranges making range weekends significantly less costly to run.  It is
essentially possible to run an entire unit through the ranges in a single
day - including re-tests.  It also means pers who miss the unit shoot can
tag on with another unit with little difficulty.  It‘s not a big deal -
there is fairly good cooperation between most units here in town.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Troy.Steele@cnpl.enbridge.com [SMTP:Troy.Steele@cnpl.enbridge.com]
> Sent:Tuesday, October 03, 2000 7:18 AM
> To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> Cc:‘army@cipherlogic.on.ca‘
> Subject:RE: MLOC
> 
> can not agree less with the response but that makes good discussion.  My
> feeling on this is that you get more of what you tolerate and this really
> applies to MLOC.  We have no MLOC issue because we do not tolerate any
> shortcomings on it.  Hence we have no problem and do not expend huge
> resources
> 6 rifle week-ends????????? on this.   We have two shoots spaced about a
> month
> apart and published well in advance, , make it to them, YOU arrange to do
> it
> with another unit, or do not qualify, out to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Todd Harris"  on 10/02/2000 08:04:14 PM
> 
> Please respond to army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> 
> To:   "‘army@cipherlogic.on.ca‘" 
> cc:    bcc: Troy Steele/IPL
> Subject:  RE: MLOC
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you Bradley.  However in asking my question I was referring
> to
> the pers who have not been able to make it out to one of the six yes six
> MLOCK rifle weekends Both Level I and III this year?  That is a huge
> resource drain that could be better put to other use in my opinion.
> 
> Todd Harris
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bradley Sallows [mailto:Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2000 05:01
> To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> Subject: Re: MLOC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >No carrot here, this is not an option, out to them, uncrate the stick.
> 
> If only it were so simple.  I don‘t know anyone who is deliberately
> evading
> MLOC.  Smaller units may have insufficient NCOs and officers to provide
> MLOC
> testing opportunities throughout the year.  I suspect if one were to
> review
> QL3
> CTS for all MOC one might find there are MLOC skills which are in fact not
> imparted to soldiers by the time they complete QL3 in some trades - it‘s
> difficult to pin down this problem right now because there seems to be a
> certain
> amount of fluidity in QL2 standards, but clearly not all skills are taught
> on
> QL2 because QL2-qualified soldiers are not receiving a default pass for
> all
> MLOC
> skills in the year in which they complete QL2.  There is an assumption the
> balance of skills will be taught on QL3 - but that depends on the QL3 CTS.
> Some
> units may therefore face an additional burden of training before testing.
> The
> bottom line is that some people miss testing opportunities because of work
> and
> there may not be a standing MLOC evaluation cell in the unit.  I am not
> prepared
> to release an NCO of many year‘s experience or a promising junior soldier
> because their civilian shift work, for example, causes them to miss one or
> two
> MLOC tests just this one year.  As I noted, the problem children typically
> self-release.  Meanwhile, units must go on with collective training and
> MTSC
> evaluations while acknowledging the possibility it will be difficult to
> provide
> enough MLOC testing opportunities.  Most but not all deficiencies can be
> made up
> by seeking opportunities within other units‘ training schedules.  So there
> are
> solutions as well as problems, and encouragement the "carrot", when
> appropriate has its place.
> 
> Yes, it‘s mandated and should not be up for "carrot-vs-stick" discussion.
> But I
> would take care uncrating that stick in the reserve world.  Many things
> are
> mandated.  For example, should units release all personnel who fail to
> retain a
> valid standard first aid qualification as mandated by CFAOs?  Of all the
> units
> of which you are aware, how many include sufficient St John‘s certified
> Standard
> first aid courses not MLOC testing in their annual training calendar to
> ensure
> that approximately 1/3 of their people are requalifying each year the
> qualification being good for 3 years?  Do you know anyone who holds a DND
> 404
> which permits them to drive SMP vehicles while never having had either a
> Driver
> Wheeled or 935 QL3?  How many Driver Wheeled course vacancies are
> available
> to a
> typical unit over the course of a year?  Right there I have identified two
> areas
> in which I am certain there are shortfalls from mandated requirements, and
> they
> are both areas of considerable safety risk.
> 
> Obviously a CO would be ill-advised to falsely recommend a candidate for
> pre-deployment workups who had not in fact successfully completed MLOC
> within
> the current training year.  And MLOC contributes to training safety.
> Perhaps
> for a soldier not intent on competing for a position on a deployment,
> "risk
> assessment" can be satisfied by considering that they passed MLOC in the
> previous two years even if they failed to make it out to the unit‘s one
> annual
> rifle practice but still did the dry TsOET.
> 
> Brad Sallows
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>  > 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:47:32 -0700*
Does anyone out here have access to the CTP/CTS for the various QL3 trades.
The reason I ask is the new thinking is that MLOC training is being pushed
up from QL2 to QL3 incorporated with the trades training.  I have my doubts
this is actually happening and units are left to teach MLOC material for the
first time to candidates on their respective drill floors. I expect it is
worst in the non-combat arms trades.
Call me old school, but I always thought the purpose of QL2 basic training
was to bring every soldier to the MLOC standard before going forward to
learn their respective trades.
The current proposal to shorten QL2 by a further 10 days to 16 from 26 days
will place greater pressure on either home units or QL3 courses to complete
this "General Military Training".
I know some of us hark back to the good old days and even I occasionally
call those folks dinosaurs, but in this instance I think someone somewhere
lost focus on what the role of a QL2 was in the larger scheme and we need to
get back to instilling basic soldier skills, not piecemeal as is the case
now, but up front as the minimum standard candidates will be expected to
maintain throughout their career be they cooks, clerks, gunners or grunts.
what do all y‘all think
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------

