# BMQ changed to 10 weeks ?



## FyroniK (17 Jan 2011)

Has anyone heard of this? The latest platoon to arrive at St. Jean is on a 10 week course apparently, when did this happen?


----------



## agc (17 Jan 2011)

I think someone is fibbing.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jan 2011)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> Has anyone heard of this? The latest platoon to arrive at St. Jean is on a 10 week course apparently, when did this happen?



Who cares........


----------



## Searyn (17 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Who cares........



The people hoping to go to BMQ sometime in the future?


----------



## ARMY_101 (17 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Who cares........



Anyone with a question on BMQ training or training standards in general?  I know I'd be interested in knowing what they're going to do with 3 weeks less (if this is actually true).


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jan 2011)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I know I'd be interested in knowing what they're going to do with 3 weeks less (if this is actually true).



Revolutionize training.

Folks, the lenght of BMQ has been changing for decades. In the end, people still learn the same things. Mine was 10 weeks back in 1993 for example and the platoon afterwards was 8 weeks........

Not to worry, you will all get the same "full" experience....hats and haircuts included.


----------



## FyroniK (17 Jan 2011)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Anyone with a question on BMQ training or training standards in general?  I know I'd be interested in knowing what they're going to do with 3 weeks less (if this is actually true).



I've heard they were thinking of shortening farnham and such, things that you learn on your SQ if you need to learn it, and things you don't need unless you are combat arms for money saving reasons mainly, but also makes sense... navy doesn't need to learn alot of what was going on in BMQ anyway. Wasn't expecting it to have already taken effect though.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jan 2011)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> navy doesn't need to learn alot of what was going on in BMQ anyway.



Tell that to all the Navy guys who found themselves in Afghanistan and other places.

But i yield to your vast experience.


----------



## FyroniK (17 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Tell that to all the Navy guys who found themselves in Afghanistan and other places.
> 
> But i yield to your vast experience.



People that get sent to Afghanistan receive training prior to being deployed. They learn, what they need to learn, and chances are they were in a combat arms trade if they were being sent there in the first place, thus falling back on the training they received After BMQ.

People are not dropped into Afghanistan with BMQ training and nothing else. Silly Willy.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Tell that to all the Navy guys who found themselves in Afghanistan and other places.
> 
> But i yield to your vast experience.



Anything I needed to know was surly covered in the 7-8 months I spent in Pet an Cali during work ups. Anything I "learned" in basic was forgotten. But that's just me...

You should have seen the look on the faces of the army guys when I told them I hadn't put on a ruck sack or done a 13K sense 1999! lol


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jan 2011)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> People that get sent to Afghanistan receive training prior to being deployed. They learn, what they need to learn, and chances are they were in a combat arms trade if they were being sent there in the first place, thus falling back on the training they received After BMQ.
> 
> People are not dropped into Afghanistan with BMQ training and nothing else. Silly Willy.



Dude, i, like, said i yield, k ?

peace out yo !! Chill !!


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2011)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> People that get sent to Afghanistan receive training prior to being deployed. They learn, what they need to learn, and chances are they were in a combat arms trade if they were being sent there in the first place, thus falling back on the training they received After BMQ.
> 
> People are not dropped into Afghanistan with BMQ training and nothing else. Silly Willy.



 :

For an eighteen year old to come onto a site that many currently serving members, from all three Elements, who have been to Afghanistan, contribute to and say what you just did, you are looking at quite a few firm rebuttals.  I would dig my hole now, because you have a lot of rounds coming in your direction.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Jan 2011)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> People that get sent to Afghanistan receive training prior to being deployed. They learn, what they need to learn, and chances are they were in a combat arms trade if they were being sent there in the first place, thus falling back on the training they received After BMQ.
> 
> People are not dropped into Afghanistan with BMQ training and nothing else. Silly Willy.



You are incorrect in part of your statement my friend! You should tell that to the PO1 Steward who found himself out in Soja for 8 months! Out of the crew of us who augmented 1-10 from Halifax, in the Navy uniform, only 1 was ex-combat arms! Your prior trade/training has very little to do with op taskings! 

You are correct that the CF is supposed to give you the training you require for the tasking your tasked with. Hence the long, long, long work up training! But as I stated your prior trade doesn't mean much!


----------



## FyroniK (17 Jan 2011)

If you refer to my post count as me being 18 years old, or pop into a thread with nothing on topic or useful to say other than trying to insult someone for fun Then quite frankly I would respect a said 18 year old more than yourself. Unfortunate but true.

What happened to Lead by Example? If everyone replied to everyone else in your manner the world would be a very disgusting place.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2011)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> If you refer to my post count as me being 18 years old, or pop into a thread with nothing on topic or useful to say other than trying to insult someone for fun Then quite frankly I would respect a said 18 year old more than yourself. Unfortunate but true.
> 
> What happened to Lead by Example? If everyone replied to everyone else in your manner the world would be a very disgusting place.



I guess CDN Aviator is right.  You do know soo much more than all of us who have time in the CF.  I too bow to your greatness.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jan 2011)

Ah.......the sweet, sweet sound of a toilet flushing........


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Jan 2011)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> If you refer to my post count as me being 18 years old, or pop into a thread with nothing on topic or useful to say other than trying to insult someone for fun Then quite frankly I would respect a said 18 year old more than yourself. Unfortunate but true.
> 
> What happened to Lead by Example? If everyone replied to everyone else in your manner the world would be a very disgusting place.



Easy tiger. If you don't flesh out your profile a bit people here tend to not take you seriously. If your experienced in the CF in some way then let us know your not that 18 y/o jtftwonijasniper_CoD4 wanna be type... It will go a long way I promise!

Also you were incorrect in your statement about Navy pers deploying to TFK.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jan 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> If your experienced in the CF in some way



He did BMQ last November by the looks of his posts.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He did BMQ last November by the looks of his posts.



lol Well that is "some" experience but I surmise not enough... lol


----------



## Jager (17 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He did BMQ last November by the looks of his posts.



Dam, you guys all beat me to the punch.

To the Op, I suggest you stay within your lanes, since you are straying way out of your arcs...


----------



## CombatDoc (18 Jan 2011)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> People that get sent to Afghanistan receive training prior to being deployed...and chances are they were in a combat arms trade if they were being sent there in the first place...


 The first half of this statement is true, and in rebuttal to the second half all I can say is :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## ARMY_101 (18 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Revolutionize training.
> 
> Folks, the lenght of BMQ has been changing for decades. In the end, people still learn the same things. Mine was 10 weeks back in 1993 for example and the platoon afterwards was 8 weeks........
> 
> Not to worry, you will all get the same "full" experience....hats and haircuts included.



Absolutely.  But it might not hurt to ponder why it was changed or see how the changes are implemented.  I think we know the experience changes over time, but for different reasons, and those reasons are (perhaps) worth discussing.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jan 2011)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  But it might not hurt to ponder why it was changed or see how the changes are implemented.  I think we know the experience changes over time, but for different reasons, and those reasons are (perhaps) worth discussing.



ok.......

This started with "heard" and "apparently"............not exactly a hallmark of reliability.

Again, who cares ? Basic training is exactly that, basic. Its primary purpose is indoctrination in how we do things. 10 weeks or 13 is irrelevant. Its been done in as little as 8 weeks in the not-so-distant past. The meat of what makes a CF member able to do his job is done at another stage of training.


----------



## FyroniK (18 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ok.......
> 
> This started with "heard" and "apparently"............not exactly a hallmark of reliability.
> 
> Again, who cares ? Basic training is exactly that, basic. Its primary purpose is indoctrination in how we do things. 10 weeks or 13 is irrelevant. Its been done in as little as 8 weeks in the not-so-distant past. The meat of what makes a CF member able to do his job is done at another stage of training.



It was a question, but people only come here to go off topic and insult rather than to discuss.


----------



## Scott (18 Jan 2011)

Then be the bigger person and STOP.

Only warning. 

There is plenty of perfectly valid discussion and even questioning on this board - within reason. There is also a whole lot of folks who cannot get over themselves and have to have the last word. These people also make accusations about there only being people coming here to go off topic and insult rather than discuss...but anyhoo.


----------



## MasterInstructor (21 Jan 2011)

Maybe it does not matter to a SGT how long BMQ is but it matters a lot to a new recruit/applicant, it matters a lot... I was there a year ago...

Edit: Added coma


----------



## Nauticus (21 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ok.......
> 
> This started with "heard" and "apparently"............not exactly a hallmark of reliability.
> 
> Again, who cares ? Basic training is exactly that, basic. Its primary purpose is indoctrination in how we do things. 10 weeks or 13 is irrelevant. Its been done in as little as 8 weeks in the not-so-distant past. The meat of what makes a CF member able to do his job is done at another stage of training.


Who cares? Everybody that will come here to ask how long BMQ is. There is a difference between 10 weeks and 14.

Yes, this thread is based on allegation, but there's also a big difference between providing an answer of "yes" or "no" and providing a source, and not contributing at all to the thread and in fact becoming detrimental to it by saying something as ridiculous and selfish as "who cares".


----------



## dev_tech (21 Jan 2011)

I think what he means is "does it matter?"  BMQ is BMQ.  Whether you go for ten or thirty weeks, you're on the CF clock.  Sure, one would like to know before hand, but, ultimately, you join and your ass belongs to The Queen.


----------



## ballz (21 Jan 2011)

I'll just add to the whole "wondering what they'll do with 3 less weeks" comment.

My BMOQ was 15 weeks. 8 weeks for Mod 1, 6 weeks for Mod 2, and a grad week.

Mod 1 is the BMQ equivilant (Mod 2 being the leadership portion of BMOQ). 8 weeks is all it took, and I think there was even some extra leadership training in addition to all the BMQ curriculum, like the leadership assessment course (forget the name) in Farnham which took a full day.

How did they fit all 13 weeks into 8? Well, we did first-aid during our indoc period on a Saturday and Sunday, instead of taking a full week to do it. Stuff like that... And yes, we still had adequate time.

Perhaps they should compress the BMQ, with such a surplus of applicants at the recruiting centres, to weed out the ones that can't learn at the quicker pace. But the CDS hasn't called and asked for my opinion, so I should probably stop here.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> My BMOQ was 15 weeks. 8 weeks for Mod 1, 6 weeks for Mod 2, and a grad week.
> 
> Mod 1 is the BMQ equivilant (Mod 2 being the leadership portion of BMOQ). 8 weeks is all it took, and I think there was even some extra leadership training in addition to all the BMQ curriculum, like the leadership assessment course (forget the name) in Farnham which took a full day.



Of course some of the Mod 2 portion of your course would have also covered PO/EOs taught on the BMQ, so they would have been redundant had they also been included in your BMOQ Mod 1.  



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Perhaps they should compress the BMQ, with such a surplus of applicants at the recruiting centres, to weed out the ones that can't learn at the quicker pace. But the CDS hasn't called and asked for my opinion, so I should probably stop here.




 ;D

It is usually in the first or second week of BMQ where these assessments are made.  That is kinda late to plan on a Crse for the "quicker learners", schedule it, populate it with Staff and Students, etc. and then do the same for the "slow learners".  I am sure the CDS a competent Staff who have figured this out and has no need to ask your or my opinion.   ;D


----------



## agc (21 Jan 2011)

MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> Maybe it does not matter to a SGT how long BMQ is but it matters a lot to a new recruit/applicant, it matters a lot... I was there a year ago...
> 
> Edit: Added coma



Did it matter to anyone enough to check the CFLRS website?


----------



## dev_tech (21 Jan 2011)

agc said:
			
		

> Did it matter to anyone enough to check the CFLRS website?



We have a winner.  Well played, sir.


----------



## Jager (21 Jan 2011)

agc said:
			
		

> Did it matter to anyone enough to check the CFLRS website?



Nope, I guess not...

According to the CFLRS website / Training Calendar (on the DIN) 13/14 weeks (aprox) for BMQ... No change is stated in the 2011-2012 Training Calendar that I have access to.


----------



## derekrobitaille (26 Jan 2011)

Holy crap, I am new here and to be honest, I read quite a few threads where people are absolutely disrespectful in. Kind of ironic really when this is a forum representing our country and I see people on here putting down others, being rude and not giving a crap when I think people should be encouraging and helping one another without being disrespectful. If you have nothing nice to say and think the reply you are about to post is legitimate when really, it's just a smart-ass remark, please don't post it.


----------



## ArmyRick (26 Jan 2011)

Thank you for the opinion. This web site does not represent the Canadian Forces, hence how do you suppose we represent the country?

If you don't like what more expirienced people have to say, see ya later!


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2011)

derekrobitaille said:
			
		

> Holy crap, I am new here and to be honest, I read quite a few threads where people are absolutely disrespectful in. Kind of ironic really when this is a forum representing our country and I see people on here putting down others, being rude and not giving a crap when I think people should be encouraging and helping one another without being disrespectful. If you have nothing nice to say and think the reply you are about to post is legitimate when really, it's just a smart-*** remark, please don't post it.



Holy crap!  I am old here and to be honest, I have read quite a few threads where people have been absolutely disrespectful in their posts.  Kind of ironic really that they come to this forum to seek information and expect to be spoon fed as soon as they ask a question that may have been asked only seconds earlier, and most likely dozens of times before.  I think that people should show more initiative and read before they post.  If you have nothing nice to say about the replies you get, perhaps it is the question or the way you asked the question that you posed that is at fault.  Perhaps a little research first on your part may have alleviated the type of response to your post.  If you do get a response that is to the negative, don’t rephrase your question over and over expecting to eventually get a reply that you want to hear.  We do not play “Mom vs Dad” here.


----------



## Jager (27 Jan 2011)

Here's the link for the publically available course lists:
http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/menu/cfc-ecc/dc-cd/index-eng.asp


----------



## islandguy (29 Jan 2011)

I am currently in week  8 here at CFLRS.  The platoons that just came in last week are all on a 10 week course.  Like others have said they took out the Farnham field exercises.  Also they made some slight changes.  New recruits now don't get rifles until week 5 or 6.  My platoon received our rifles in week 2.  It's a great course here! Good luck to potential recruits!


----------



## MasterInstructor (29 Jan 2011)

WOW! I did not think it was true! As much as I hated Farnham, I am glad I did it! I think every CF member should experience it! Too bad they took it out...


----------



## Flips13 (30 Jan 2011)

They take out the Fitness test to get in, take Farnham out, why they making it so easy to go through now..


----------



## Alea (30 Jan 2011)

Flips13 said:
			
		

> They take out the Fitness test to get in



What? Are you sure of that? 
I am really surprised and won't believe it until I read something official that proves it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Alea


----------



## Flips13 (30 Jan 2011)

Alea said:
			
		

> What? Are you sure of that?
> I am really surprised and won't believe it until I read something official that proves it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> Alea



Well correct me if i'm wrong on this but : http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/13064.2125.html

Not one of those latest ppl to post has had to do a PT Test to get in.


----------



## Alea (30 Jan 2011)

Flips13 said:
			
		

> Well correct me if i'm wrong on this but : http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/13064.2125.html
> 
> Not one of those latest ppl to post has had to do a PT Test to get in.



OK! 
Someone with experience and knowledge will certainly come to correct me if I am wrong.

Here's what I know about the Physical Test:
If one enrolls in the Reserve - PT done before BMQ and part of the enrollment process
If one enrolls in the Regular - PT done the first week of BMQ in Saint-Jean

As per the link you posted in your reply, please notice the PT Test date for those applying in the Reserve and the fact that there is no date for those who applied for Regular. 
Also note that for those who applied for the Reserve and have an interview date but no PT date is because the interview is usually scheduled before (or the same date as the PT) hence the reason why some of them have no PT date... they just haven't done their PT yet. 


Alea

P.S.: I highly doubt (again someone with KNOWLEDGE will correct me if I'm wrong) that the PT will be taken off.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2011)

Alea 

You are correct.   Recruits entering the Regular Force have their PT Test done at Recruit School (St Jean or Borden).   Recruits entering the Reserves have their PT Test done at the CFRC facilities, as Reserve units have no facilities to conduct PT Testing for applicants.  If Flip13 had bothered to read the topics on PT Testing he would have read that info several times over as it has been answered more than once, in several topics.


----------



## Alea (30 Jan 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Alea
> 
> You are correct.   Recruits entering the Regular Force have their PT Test done at Recruit School (St Jean or Borden).   Recruits entering the Reserves have their PT Test done at the CFRC facilities, as Reserve units have no facilities to conduct PT Testing for applicants.  If Flip13 had bothered to read the topics on PT Testing he would have read that info several times over as it has been answered more than once, in several topics.



Thank you for the confirmation Mr. Wallace  :nod:
I'll keep on working on my push-ups as, again, I highly doubt that the CF will take the PT away may it be for the Reserves or the Regular and Flips13... by stating things like "_the CF is taking out the Fitness test to get in_" you could lead some members to "scratch their heads" for the wrong reasons!

George is totally right: you should read more or at least come with some proofs of what you're saying.

Alea


----------



## Corey Darling (30 Jan 2011)

Technically, Flips13 wasn't incorrect, perhaps his statement was simply misunderstood? 

The PT test for regforce is no longer conducted at the CFRC, as pointed out. So one can be sworn into the forces without completing a single PT test, regardless of their fitness level, leading to failures later at Basic when the first express test is conducted.


----------



## Alea (30 Jan 2011)

Corey said:
			
		

> The PT test for regforce is no longer conducted at the CFRC



So this must have changed a long time ago. 2 of my military friends joined the CF about 4 years ago and none of them had to go through a PT before getting to Saint-Jean/Borden.
My process has been going on for almost 2 years and I never heard about having to take a PT before I get to Saint-Jean... unless I decide to go Reserve.

So if you are referring to a rule that changes many years ago... 
Now the rule is PT for Reserve in a CFRC facility and PT for Regular in Saint-Jean or Borden. 
In one way or another, *the PT is not taken away* at all (even if the rule changed... there is still PT). 

Flips13 was exactly stating that the CF is taking the PT out!
I agree my English needs some work but I did read that correctly.
Stating that the CF took the PT out means no PT AT ALL and that is not the case.

Alea


----------



## 2010newbie (30 Jan 2011)

Alea, I agree with your understanding of the post 100%; that's the same way I understood it as well. 

In our SEM briefing this month we were also told that for our unit ASU(T), all Officer Cadets must perform the CF Expres prior to going to BMOQ in May even if we were exempt on the last test or did it within a year (most of us completed it in August). They also informed us that we would be doing the CF Expres at BMOQ as well.


----------



## Flips13 (31 Jan 2011)

Corey said:
			
		

> Technically, Flips13 wasn't incorrect, perhaps his statement was simply misunderstood?
> 
> The PT test for regforce is no longer conducted at the CFRC, as pointed out. So one can be sworn into the forces without completing a single PT test, regardless of their fitness level, leading to failures later at Basic when the first express test is conducted.




Sorry for the misunderstanding, this is what i meant. Before you had to complete the PT test as a part of your application process but they took it out. So now you do it at the school and if you fail it you go to ''warrior platoon'' ? untill your fit enough to do the test.


----------



## owa (6 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ok.......
> 
> This started with "heard" and "apparently"............not exactly a hallmark of reliability.
> 
> Again, who cares ? Basic training is exactly that, basic. Its primary purpose is indoctrination in how we do things. 10 weeks or 13 is irrelevant. Its been done in as little as 8 weeks in the not-so-distant past. The meat of what makes a CF member able to do his job is done at another stage of training.



It seems at least some people care or are curious.  Why would you be the one who suggests what is relevant in some people's lives?  You make it sound like it is a big deal that they are curious on what was changed or what to expect in the future...  Or if there were even any changes made.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Feb 2011)

I agree with Aviator.

Does it really matter how long BMQ is? 10 weeks? 12 weeks? 14 weeks? No it doesn't. If your too caught up in 2-4 weeks of training than maybe a career in the CF is not for you.

You may get stuck in operational theater an extra 2-3 months. You may have a TD task extended agaisnt your will by several weeks or months. Your courses may be longer due to unforseen circumstances (Basic Para herc availibility, advance winter warfare unable to redeploy from arctic due to nasty weather, working weekends on a career course to help people get another shot at passing PO checks).

This is my opinion and here is what I have to say. Suck it up butter cup and get on with it. Its only BMQ and before you know it, its nothing but a memory.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> There is a difference between 10 weeks and 14.



No there is not. The course after mine was 2 weeks shorter. I still know some of these guys and they are no lesser soldiers for it. People who want to join are going to go on course wether its 10 weeks or 20....therefore it makes no damned difference.



			
				MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> WOW! I did not think it was true! As much as I hated Farnham, I am glad I did it! I think every CF member should experience it! Too bad they took it out...



Someone with more TI and experience than you ( and me) decided that we could afford to go without certain things at that stage of training. Deal with it, its only BMQ.



			
				owa said:
			
		

> It seems at least some people care or are curious.  Why would you be the one who suggests what is relevant in some people's lives?  You make it sound like it is a big deal that they are curious on what was changed or what to expect in the future...  Or if there were even any changes made.



If they want to join, the lenght of the course is irelevant. They want to join, they will go for however long the CF sees fit. Simple as that. 10 weeks.......14 weeks.....20 weeks...who cares, the objective of the course starys the same, just like it always has.


I realy wanted to let this die but it seems theres too many neurotic worry warts on the interweb.........


----------



## BrandonSharp (6 Feb 2011)

Wow, I've been silently watching this thread for the last 2 weeks or so now, and I'm shocked it's still going on. People, it really makes no difference how long your "Introductory" course is. This is the primer before you paint, the underwear before your pants. Basically, this is just step one. For the potential recruits who are haggling over 10 weeks vs. 14 weeks, get used to the waiting and last minute changes. 

BMQ is still BMQ. Whether it's a day, 13 weeks or 2 years. Since the good ol' government is paying our way through this process, I'm pretty sure they'll make sure we have what we need. 


Again, just my  :2c:
 :stop: :brickwall:


----------



## Nauticus (7 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No there is not. The course after mine was 2 weeks shorter. I still know some of these guys and they are no lesser soldiers for it. People who want to join are going to go on course wether its 10 weeks or 20....therefore it makes no damned difference.



Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it "makes no difference", I said "there is a difference".

People _do_ think it matters, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. You may disagree, but your opinion holds no relevance to whether this is a worthwhile topic or not.

Many people will, in fact, be curious whether BMQ has changed to ten weeks, and if so, what is modified so that it may do so.


----------



## Scott (8 Feb 2011)

Makes me wonder how I ever made it through my courses without being able to ask every single burning question I had....

I don't think anyone will argue that there is a difference between 10 weeks and twelve - the base level math that any idiot can do proves it. However, the FACT is that it should NOT make a difference to the recruit. The recruit's job is to go and to learn. Worrying about whether or not they'll be home for May long or whether or not they'll be able to see te 'Nucks try for the Stanley Cup should not be their focus.

Yes, people think it matters, hence this thread, good point. But the larger point of this thread should be for those of us who've been through it to tell them that, no, it does not matter. Just focus on the training and getting yourself ready for BMQ.

If someone can inform them of the change, fine. But my point about it's relevance in the overall picture stands.

Simple.


----------



## dev_tech (22 Feb 2011)

Just to clarify, I swore in Feb 17 and was informed by two people at the RC that it's 14 weeks for March 7.


----------



## tfly (24 Feb 2011)

islandguy said:
			
		

> I am currently in week  8 here at CFLRS.  The platoons that just came in last week are all on a 10 week course.  Like others have said they took out the Farnham field exercises.  Also they made some slight changes.  New recruits now don't get rifles until week 5 or 6.  My platoon received our rifles in week 2.  It's a great course here! Good luck to potential recruits!


 
Hmmm, I wonder if that was my platoon that started on Jan 17th??  If it was, we were definately 14 weeks.  And we got our rifles on week 4.  But trust me...many times I wished I was on the so-called 10 weeks BMQ.  Not that it matters, I left platoon with an injury 2 days shy of getting my 4's.   :-[   However, I can still hope for a shorter course next time.   ;D   (should I decide there is a next time)



			
				89Sharp said:
			
		

> BMQ is still BMQ. Whether it's a day, 13 weeks or 2 years. Since the good ol' government is paying our way through this process, I'm pretty sure they'll make sure we have what we need.


 
True, but as a mum with three kids at home (and a reservist to boot) I makes a difference to me.  Just say'n... :-X


----------



## BrandonSharp (24 Feb 2011)

tfly said:
			
		

> True, but as a mum with three kids at home (and a reservist to boot) I makes a difference to me.  Just say'n... :-X



I don't doubt that at all, but I figure it's safe to say that anybody going into a military career should get used to some "unconventional" timings, and last minute changes.


----------



## tfly (24 Feb 2011)

And if I wasn't enjoying too much wine (because I can...now that I'm home) I would have said...."IT" makes a difference....  Oooops...

But 89SHAP....this is true!


----------



## BrandonSharp (26 Feb 2011)

tfly said:
			
		

> ops...
> 
> But 89SHAP....this is true!



Lol, this is the only way I know how to speak.


----------



## jwtg (27 Feb 2011)

Please forgive my ignorance, I searched both Milnet and CFLRS/DND resources.  

IS the Farnham field portion of BMQ/BMOQ being shortened/removed?  CFLRS day to day schedule still includes quite a bit of time in Farnham, and I can't find anything authoritative indicating that indeed Farnham is being removed.

Again, forgive me ignorance if I somehow missed this information.  

A link to a DND publication would be preferred, if anyone can find one...


----------



## wrathchild11 (1 Mar 2011)

Is Farnham gone from basic???

Farnham is the best part of basic....something for the recruits to look forward too .  The 2 weeks that we  are arguing about might mean something for the young recruits.


....just sayin'


----------



## aesop081 (1 Mar 2011)

wrathchild11 said:
			
		

> The 2 weeks that we  are arguing about might mean something for the young recruits.



Not exactly a resounding endorsment. If the Cf decided it is not needed then away it goes. Deal with it.


----------



## BrandonSharp (1 Mar 2011)

Even if Farnham IS taken out (which I think it is for my BMQ course in 4 days), it just means that the 10 week course will become a little more intense. Two weeks is nothing worth whining about.


----------



## Lil_T (2 Mar 2011)

Farnham was the best time I had during basic - God damn I hated that course.  I"m actually sad if they take out the field portion of the course.  Shouldn't a CANFORGEN have been released regarding that kind of sweeping change?  meh regardless.... you're still gonna get that tick in the box at the end of the course no matter how long it is.  I just think it would be unfortunate if they took out the only fun part of the whole course (this includes the rappel tower which was freaking awesome!)


----------



## aesop081 (2 Mar 2011)

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Shouldn't a CANFORGEN have been released regarding that kind of sweeping change?



Schools change their courses frequently without the need to issue a CANFORGEN, why should this be any different ?


----------



## MJP (2 Mar 2011)

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Shouldn't a CANFORGEN have been released regarding that kind of sweeping change?  meh regardless....



Why it doesn't really affect the day to day operations of the CF to any real extent and what CA said


----------



## Lil_T (2 Mar 2011)

oh I know they do... but I've also noticed (from reading past msgs) that when there's a significant change to the program, there is often a corresponding message released.  Yes, I"m a dork who likes to read the messages...  bravo, by the way for picking up on an offhand comment that I essentially negated myself.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Mar 2011)

Lil_T said:
			
		

> there is *often* a corresponding message released.



"Often"

"Always"

I can do it in French too.........


----------



## Lil_T (3 Mar 2011)

Parfait, moi aussi.... en effet, je sais que souvent et toujours ne sont pas la même chose....


----------

