# CF PLQ equivalent to BOTP?



## gunner065 (8 Apr 2008)

Good day all, I recently accepted an offer for CEOTP (as a NCM) and I am confused as if I have to complete BOTP or not.  

From all the literature I was able to gather, because I am PLQ qualified I will be granted an IAP bypass.

After talking to a friend of mine who is currently instructing in St-Jean, only ILQ/GMTI qualified members are currently being granted BOTP.  As well, some members who completed BOTP in the last year informed me that PLQ is equivalent for BOTP, therefore I should get BOTP granted...

Anybody working in the CDA/Recruiting Group departments have any information into that regards?  I would greatly appreciate, as I would prefer getting a few more university courses completed than having to repeat training I, in most part, already have done part of PLQ.


----------



## PO2FinClk (9 Apr 2008)

New standards to PLAR assessments by CDA which have not yet been distributed allow for anyone who holds PLQ or more to be granted bypass BOTP. Rather they shall only be required to attend the "Officership Colloquium" (sp?) This was not even know by CFRG but CDA has been granting these equivalencies since last year, where as those completed by CFRG were premise to the old rules of "WO ILQ Qual or greater". Last I heard these changes are to be promulgated by CDA in the next few months.


----------



## gunner065 (9 Apr 2008)

Thank you PO2FinClk for the prompt and informative reply, appreciated.

I inquired into the matter with CDA, and as yet, have not received any reply.  As well, if this is the case, then which procedure should be followed to seek CDA granting that qualification?  Is it too early for this?

When I applied for commissioning, I mentioned this to my chain of command and they were confused too.  Therefore, they do not even know the proper procedure to follow for a PLAR.

Thanks


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2008)

Like everything else in the Recruiting process, you are treated as an individual when these decisions are made.  Qualifications granted will be determined on what qualifications you have, along with what experience you have had, including Deployments.  This is where one sees two people with the same qualifications, both being offered different terms and qualifications on joining.  Unless both people have had identical courses, employment and deployments, they may not be offered the same things.


----------



## MJP (9 Apr 2008)

You can get your unit to ask for a BOTP equivalencies through the CDA.  Simple process and covers you just in case.  Unit just writes you a letter and includes all the proper paperwork.

http://cda.mil.ca/dlm/engraph/services/accred/milequiv/botp_e.asp  DWAN link


----------



## gunner065 (9 Apr 2008)

Thank you all, for your words of wisdom.  And yes, George Wallace, I do understand that every person/member is treated as an individual as far as granting qualifications goes, but what I am looking for is pretty cut and dry.  

I just want to find out if CF PLQ is equivalent to BOTP, if it is and it is verifyable (printed somewhere black on white), than how does one member proceeds to get assessed.

When I had my commissioning interview with the BPSO, I mentioned rumours I had heard about PLQ equivalencies to BOTP, but the BPSO did not know anything about such allegations.  Furthermore, if indeed it is the case, than why isn't it public CF knowledge?

I have friends who did end up in St-Jean during the last year and were asked why they were there by the instructor cadre if they already had completed PLQ (Reg Force).  Again, I go on hearsay, it is the understanding by some that if a member is CF PLQ qualified that there is no requirement to do BOTP.  Furthermore, if that is the case, why isn't it mentioned anywhere?

Don't get me wrong, it would be a great refresher training for a seasoned NCM, but I would rather complete a few more university courses than having to refresh myself on the principles of leadership.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2008)

I really didn't appreciate your tone.

Having been down at the Inf School on Tasking running the CAP CP, I can tell you that I have seen WO's who still had to go through all the hoops like raw recruits.  As I said, it is all decided when they review your file, you qualifications, experience, Tours, etc.  

As for Instructors asking why a student is there; this is old news, and outside the powers of Instructors to control.  It is usually "natural curiousity" into the working of the System.

If you don't like that answer, then tough.  You are the one seeking advice.  If you don't like what you hear, then don't ask next time.


----------



## Monsoon (9 Apr 2008)

On the NAVRES side, the Master Seamen commissioning this year are being granted IAP, but not BOTP, over at VENTURE. If I recall correctly they were told that if they had hjad ILQ they would have been granted BOTP and only have to do the "Officership Colloquium" mentioned by PO2FinClk. So I gather the current math is PLQ = IAP and ILQ = BOTP.


----------



## MJP (9 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I really didn't appreciate your tone.



What part of the tone or content offended you George?  I thought he voiced his question and follow ups in calm logical manner. You were the the only one that really did not add value to the actual question except for your generic answer on how ones file will be evaluated which could have applied to anyone.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you don't like that answer, then tough.  You are the one seeking advice.  If you don't like what you hear, then don't ask next time.



I don't even see where he was mad/not liking the answers he got? The process itself is very obscure and the documents that lay it out are hard to find.  I only happened upon the actual PLAR at the CDA looking for something else.  I can understand why he was on here to seek clarification on things he has been told or heard.  Sounds to me like he is utilizing all the resources at hand to find the solutions and then present COAs to his CoC, not whining but hey what do I know.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Having been down at the Inf School on Tasking running the CAP CP, I can tell you that I have seen WO's who still had to go through all the hoops like raw recruits.  As I said, it is all decided when they review your file, you qualifications, experience, Tours, etc.



That is exactly why the system is changing in order to reduce redundant training and get these people into their units as soon as feasibly possible.


----------



## gunner065 (9 Apr 2008)

Thanks George for not understanding my comments.  Instead of generic information, I wanted to probe this forum to see if anyone had inside, precise information on any new developments in regards to PLQ/BOTP equivalencies. 

Although you have been instructing CAP CP and have seen WO's that would need 'remedial' leadership training, in essence it had nothing to do with my initial question.

I've been instructing at the QL5/QL6A level for the past two years, and do understand that some people are long in the tooth, therefore granting qualification is on a case by case basis.

Furthermore, I was not asking an advice, but merely asking information from people working at the CDA or within the Recruiting policy departments.  If doubtful, read my initial post...

For all the others, especially PO2FinClk and MJP, thank you for your insights, I will look further into the matter once I have access to my account next week.

I thought that people replying to posts on these forums were members with first hand knowledge of the topics, my mistake.  After 14 years in the military, you still get surprise by people...


----------



## Zoomie (9 Apr 2008)

Good question:

Although I don't work for PLAR, CFRC or CDA (or insert another acronym here) I can tell you how I was treated.

I had my CFJLC (IAP) and was granted a BOTC 1 bypass (IAP).  I simply added BOTC 2 (BOTP) where I didn't learn a thing except sword drill.  It's only 6 weeks out of your life for BOTP - enjoy it, it is the easiest leadership course the CF can offer.  I slept over 10 hours per night on that course.


----------



## gunner065 (9 Apr 2008)

Yeah, right now zoomie I'm at the point where I believe (75%0 that I will end up doing BOTP, no sweat.  The main reason why I am trying to clarify this topic is:  I was told that in the near future BOTP and IAP would be granted to member who completed a CF PLQ by now 2Lt's and someone on this forum.

Furthermore, as I will get commissioned under the CEOTP program, I would rather spend my time completing my degree than having to redo PLQ all over again.  In my mind, going to St-Jean would be a waste of time when I could progress through my studies faster...


----------



## rifleman (10 Apr 2008)

When we graduated BOTP, the reviewing officer asked one of the guys "what was his toughest course?" JLC, he said. The General quickly moved on.

Having gone through it myself, ISCC was more than enough for a By-pass. What a waste of time and resources.


----------



## Rowshambow (10 Apr 2008)

Having gone through this myself, I can tell you that if you are plq qualified, BOTP is a waste of time. On day 2 of our course, the PL WO asked why we were there, and he was told from his COC that if a PLAR was done (as it was supposed to be) most would have had a BOTP bypass and would have only had to do the 3 week Officer qualicom (sp?). I was glad to see it was Canada wide, and not just the 3 of us from Edmonton!

George, I hear what you are saying, I also know a WO who had to do BOTP because he wasn't ILQ, but what they are realizing is that as a PLQ qual pers you already know most of what is taught, and prob taught some of it! The big thing they are getting into at BOTP is the introduction of mission analysis. Also the sword drill thing doesn't count, they only have enough swords for a few guys, so you now only carry one if you get top candidate, and you only get taught a little bit of it, while on grad parade practice.

As for the "it's only 6 weeks just do it", well that's just dumb, why waste your time and the CF's money, and why would you want to be treated like a recruit again? For those of you who have been to St Jean, yes it's still the same, green desk, march on the yellow line etc... so why do it if you don't have too!

Submit a memo, have a plar done, it might help you, it might not!


----------



## 2fly (22 Apr 2008)

Hey Gunner,  any news on this issue?  I too may be running into the same situation...  I have heard that it was under review but nothing more.  From what I was told the current policy is we do BOTP only.  It would be good to bypass both IAP and BOTP if possible.


----------



## Osotogari (22 Apr 2008)

I would hope that if you can be employed as an NCM instructor on a course, then you should be entitled to a bypass.  That would be the most logical thing.  I would pull up the course/staffing MSExcel file they put out and use that to advance your case.  For example if a MCpl can instruct on the purple trades Basic officer course (whatever it's called these days) then there's no reason they should have to sit through it.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (22 Apr 2008)

I came across this document for the same reason: LFCO 24-20 - PRIOR LEARNING ASSESSMENT (PLA) FOR EQUIVALENCIES AND QUALIFICATION REINSTATEMENT. 

_Seems _ pretty cut and dried...the way I interpret this LFCO is that PLA is only compulsory during a CT or an OT (see para 11). Requests for equivalency during the commissioning process (either regular or reserve) is on a voluntary basis only (hence the "may" in para 12). I interpret that as something the member him/herself must initiate. Their chain of command can suggest a PLAR during the commissioning process when councelling the member, however the onus appears to be on the member to initiate the request for a PLAR in this case.  

I guess the key thing here is ensuring your MPRR is up to date (always a good idea anyway) and make a point to request a PLAR if you commission...according to this LFCO it won't be done automatically, as with a CT/OT. That might explain the number of members who wind up loaded on BOTP who, if the paperwork had been staffed and an equivalency granted, wouldn't have had to do the course in the first place. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## 2fly (22 Apr 2008)

Good point Otto.  Perhaps I will ask my chief to look into this further.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2008)

Unfortunately the PLA for Equivalencies and such are decided by persons in Borden who may not know of what they are assessing.   :-\


----------



## benny88 (22 Apr 2008)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Also the sword drill thing doesn't count, they only have enough swords for a few guys, so you now only carry one if you get top candidate, and you only get taught a little bit of it, while on grad parade practice.



  This is on a tangent, split if you want. When was your BOTP Rowshambow? I don't recall seeing or hearing of even the top candidates carrying swords during grad parades in the last little while. Anyone know what the deal is these days? I'm not worried about sword drill or top candidate at all, just curious.

Cheers.


----------



## MJP (22 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the PLA for Equivalencies and such are decided by persons in Borden who may not know of what they are assessing.   :-\



Exactly George, that is why it is in your best interest (as you are your own best career manager) to write your memos early and get a PLAR done by the CDA.  It may be too late for this year, if they don't wholesale apply a PLQ=Bypass method.  I haven't heard anything on my equivilency and it has been in for several weeks now.

Again here is the link guys.

http://cda.mil.ca/dlm/engraph/services/accred/milequiv/botp_e.asp  DWAN link


----------



## Arctic Acorn (23 Apr 2008)

MJP, according to that CFAO CDA is supposed to provide you a reply within 30 days. That said, its not like anyone will start stamping meal cards 'no dessert' if they're late. 

The key thing here though is that anyone who is in the commissioning process to submit a PLAR...it won't happen for you automatically, and CDA can't approve what they don't recieve.


----------



## Rowshambow (23 Apr 2008)

Benny, My BOTP ended this past December, the 7th December of 07, so it was quite recent!

As I stated before, get a PLAR done it can't hurt, also like others said, make sure your MPRR is up to date, I am sure the other Armoured (thats all I know so all I will comment about) can attest that an Armour 6A (Dp3A now) goes into more depth about Mission Analysis etc, than what is covered in BOTP, I know this from first hand experience!


----------



## medaid (23 Apr 2008)

I've submitted a PLAR... We'll just have to see what happens now... Granted my PLAR's a little late, but hey, better late then never.


----------



## 2fly (23 Apr 2008)

Great to hear.  I too will submit for a PLA and IAP/BOMQ bypass.  Please keep us posted as to its progress.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2008)

One point on the PLQ=IAP and ILQ=BMOQ bypass idea.  Don't forget that, with an ILQ qual, the mbr would also presumably have their DP3A (6A) or DP3B (6B) qual's done as well as the experience at that level.  I know for my 6B, we were assessed as both the Tp WO *and* Tp Ldr.  Its not just as simple as having the ILQ, it is also about the 6x qual's and TI as well.  If you think about it, PLQ quals you as a 'section commander' whereby the 6x's qual you as Pl/Tp/whatever WO/2 ic and beyond, depending on the applicable MOC.  And no I didn't make this up  ;D, its how it was explained to me by a PSO at a UTPNCM info briefing I attended, as I am of the ILQ qualified variety.  Maybe they are changing it to PLQ=BMOQ bypass.  My opinion is that might work positively for the hard army types but I am not so sure about other MOCs.  

Some people might argue my point "but who cares if OCdt Bloggins was 6B qualified as Infantry if they are going Air Log?" to which I will answer simply they have proven the ability to operate at that level before, where as a PLQ qual'd MCpl may not have.  There has to be a line drawn somewhere and I think, based on my own experience and opinion, I support the PLQ=IAP bypass, ILQ=BMOQ bypass system.  I have no answer for the cmbt arms types who have to 'grin and bear it' thru BOTP if they never reached the 6x/ILQ level before Commissioning,  but if the worst it is is 6 weeks of pensionable time and TD, atleast Montreal is close by  .


----------



## benny88 (24 Apr 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I have no answer for the cmbt arms types who have to 'grin and bear it' thru BOTP if they never reached the 6x/ILQ level before Commissioning,  but if the worst it is is 6 weeks of pensionable time and TD, atleast Montreal is close by  .


   
  And you get to hang out and laugh at us young guys running around like chickens with our heads cut off


----------



## PO2FinClk (24 Apr 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe they are changing it to PLQ=BMOQ bypass.


As stated in my original post, that is the information I received from CFRG pertaining to CDA's amendment of PLAR's. Those with PLQ would only be required to attend an "Officership Colloquium", which I have been told some already did last year.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2008)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> As stated in my original post, that is the information I received from CFRG pertaining to CDA's amendment of PLAR's. Those with PLQ would only be required to attend an "Officership Colloquium", which I have been told some already did last year.



Seen.  However, I like to see it in black and white  ;D.  The last time I was on the CDA Equivalency site, it hadn't been changed.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (25 Apr 2008)

The LFCO spells out the equivalencies...look it up on Google. 

According to the LFCO:

BMQ&SQ = BOTP
PLQ-L = CAP
ILQ = MOSC


----------



## PO2FinClk (25 Apr 2008)

LFCO's are not CF policies nor does CLS establish these. Rather they (LFCO's) are intended to further interpret CF policy and as such if CDA changes the PLAR criterion's then LFCO's will have to be amended accordingly. Undoubtedly LFDTS would liaise with CDA on all CLS issues, however just wanted to point that out to ensure no one misterpreted LFCO's for CF guidance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2008)

0tto Destruct said:
			
		

> The LFCO spells out the equivalencies...look it up on Google.
> 
> According to the LFCO:
> 
> ...



Thats great.  I don't belong to CLS so...means SFA to me


----------



## airlady (26 Apr 2008)

When i was in st-jean, i've seen ex sgt and wo swung their arms and marched in the building. I found that ridiculous, someone being so many years in the canadian force and not even able to be compatible with a 2lt. 
As an Electrical Engineer myself and also a little private in the air force, I just worry about the prospect of my career.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

airlady said:
			
		

> When i was in st-jean, i've seen ex sgt and wo swung their arms and marched in the building. I found that ridiculous, someone being so many years in the canadian force and not even able to be compatible with a 2lt.
> As an Electrical Engineer myself and also a little private in the air force, I just worry about the prospect of my career.



There is one standard for everyone on the same course.  What would you have, some people doing one thing, some the other and 'privileged'?  It doesn't work that way, and it wouldn't work that way.  If they do change the equivalency policy to PLQ=BMOQ that....issue...will go away.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

airlady said:
			
		

> When i was in st-jean, i've seen ex sgt and wo swung their arms and marched in the building. I found that ridiculous, someone being so many years in the canadian force and not even able to be compatible with a 2lt.
> As an Electrical Engineer myself and also a little private in the air force, I just worry about the prospect of my career.



You worry about the prospects for your career due to arm-swinging??

Swinging one's arms is part and parcel of marching. It happens on courses, and it happens on parade ALL the time throughout one's career. It's certainly not a sign of being considered "inferior".

Your post has me baffeled.

Even on my QL6s as a Sgt, if we needed to form up and march anywhere as a course, -- that meant we swung our arms. It's what soldiers do when they march.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 Apr 2008)

All sorts of things happen when a person changes occupations/components or becomes an officer.  It can seem a little strange to see a person who only recently was a Sergeant marching with a group of Officer-Cadets, but that is a rather temporary condition.  When I went through a component transfer I went from Capt to 2Lt.  I was happily marching around Gagetown in ranks for a while.  You are on a course, you are on a course with your coursemates.  Besides, it was kind of fun to march again.

As an aside, what does your being an electrical engineer and a private have to do with this?


----------



## gunner065 (28 Apr 2008)

I appreciate everyone's perspective on the matter and whoever shared their personal experiences of going through the process.  In a military fashion of always trying to gather facts from people who seems to be in the know, I inquired about the matter with the Canadian Defense Academy (as they are the MA of Leadership Training in the CF) and here's what I did receive:

          "In order to receive an equivalency to the IAP/BOTP you require the ILQ. Having completed a CF PLQ or JLC will grant you the qualification code of the IAP. However, every request are different, if you have additional courses and acted in a position above your rank, you can request for an equivalency based on your experience and recommendations of your Commanding Officer."

I will always like those generic answers, therefore if in doubt, do submit an PLAR and you never know you might just get granted the BOTP portion.  In my case, as my divisional chain informed me, although I am an exemplary Master Seaman, they do not believe that granting me a BOTP bypass would be in the best interest of the CF, therefore would not recommend to the CO of my current unit to recommend for such.

Best luck for all the others out there, for the ones in my situation, we will meet at BOTP in the near future...


----------



## SMP (17 Jul 2008)

Sorry for digging up an older can of worms, but I would like to know when is the best time to submit a PLAR? I'm currently a PRes NCM, CTing into the ROTP program in Sept 08. Should I submit it now, or wait until I complete the transfer? Thanks.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jul 2008)

SMP said:
			
		

> Sorry for digging up an older can of worms, but I would like to know when is the best time to submit a PLAR? I'm currently a PRes NCM, CTing into the ROTP program in Sept 08. Should I submit it now, or wait until I complete the transfer? Thanks.



Do it now......


----------



## gunner065 (31 Jul 2008)

Just an update on the subject.  After being appointed to NCdt and being loaded on BOTP, I received an email from a gal working at the CDA in the BTL Management Officer Cell.  

In a nutshell she mentioned that BMOQ (AIP and BOTP) granting procedures for members with previous leadership courses under their belt, were in the middle of being changed.  Therefore strongly suggesting members in my situation (CF PLQ qualified and outstanding potential at the next rank...) to submit a PLAR. 

As well, she mentioned that in the past few weeks, several members only holding a CF PLQ had been granted a BMOQ bypass and only had to complete an Officership Colloquium.

Needless to say, the memo is in and I am awaiting to see what will happen.


----------



## DC Roundsman (4 Sep 2008)

gunner065 said:
			
		

> Just an update on the subject.  After being appointed to NCdt and being loaded on BOTP, I received an email from a gal working at the CDA in the BTL Management Officer Cell.
> 
> In a nutshell she mentioned that BMOQ (AIP and BOTP) granting procedures for members with previous leadership courses under their belt, were in the middle of being changed.  Therefore strongly suggesting members in my situation (CF PLQ qualified and outstanding potential at the next rank...) to submit a PLAR.
> 
> ...



 My "significant other" is currently on her IAP/BOTP and there is a nasty rumour running around St. Jean that you need only to be QL5 qualified to get an IAP bypass.  I told her that the validity of this rumour is highly unlikely, but I would try to investigate it for her. Is there any update on this policy?


----------



## Wookilar (5 Sep 2008)

It a little more than a rumour, but it is far from being policy. 

IMHO, sending (most  ) former NCM's on IAP is a complete waste of time, money and resources and invariably leads to frustration on the part of the member and many instructors (just ask those in Weapons Cadre and certain members of our course staff giving us drill and PT "classes" about my IAP in '05, those poor guys had no idea what to do with 32 UT's on one course....).

A recommendation has been made to CFRG and CDA (official report service paper type) that they, essentially, get off their collective butts and put course equivalencies in black and white and make PLAR's automatic when commissioning from the ranks (whatever the program).

It is currently at the MGen level, waiting for a yea/nay and then a boot up higher. We do have people that are willing to look at it, but we are also fighting a system that has an issue with making NCM and Officer courses "equivalent" (for a number of reasons). This will not happen overnight.

If anyone is commissioning, put a PLAR in asap into CDA (*NOT CFRG*), it is still on an individual basis.

For example of how screwed up it currently is: PLQ (mod 6) gets you an automatic CAP bypass, *BUT* it does not automatically get a BOTP bypass......and CAP is considered a higher level course (even though it is in the same DP).

Wook

ps. Anyone needs any info, send me a pm.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Sep 2008)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> For example of how screwed up it currently is: PLQ (mod 6) gets you an automatic CAP bypass, *BUT* it does not automatically get a BOTP bypass......and CAP is considered a higher level course (even though it is in the same DP).



Yes,  but PLQ and CAP don't teach you which knife and fork to use first and what is the proper way to pass the Port at a Mess Dinner.    ;D


----------



## Wookilar (5 Sep 2008)

and I learned not to eat soup with my port or butter my bun with my fork...  :blotto:

and I paraphrase from some silly officership etiquite book...  :warstory:

"Bloggins, you dunderhead, you do not eat soup with your port!"

"..as it is your duty to correct your peers when ingaged in such social and ceremonial situations..."

Wook


----------



## muffin (5 Sep 2008)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> A recommendation has been made to CFRG and CDA (official report service paper type) that they, essentially, get off their collective butts and put course equivalencies in black and white and make PLAR's automatic when commissioning from the ranks (whatever the program).



This is already in the works - they are working on the database that will make this sort of thing happen. It isn't just a matter of this trade course vs that trade course, but also this university/college course plus this trade course vs that trade course etc. It's a complex and living thing, PLAR... and they are trying to make it faster and easier for everyone. They are calling it CFED in it's current form, but it doesn't seem to be functioning properly from the webapp, and it currently only contains info relevant to NCMs.

The "dream" is Little Johnny Private Recruite joins, they input all his courses and trainging to date and it will spit out ALL vialble options for advancement in his career. As Johnny progresses and takes this course at St Jean and that course in Borden, and then a few courses at Athabasca and U of M... his "options" update accordingly.

For now, the PLAR assessors use the current approved courses, and evaluate new courses as quickly as they can for the people who request it.

The only way course equivalencies could be "black and white" is if the content in the courses, the EOs and POs, never changed. There would be a lot of bored TDO's at CFTDC if that were the case 

Since I have been working with OPME, the PLAR structures and equivalencies have changed multiple (ie more than 5) times, and I think the current course development lifecycle calls for a review every 3-5 years.

muffin


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Sep 2008)

What is available is located at the DIN site for CDA, more specifically at the CDA Accreditation and Equivalency  page on their site.


----------



## Wookilar (5 Sep 2008)

Maggie,

I know the entire PLAR world is a very convoluted thing to behold and grows new heads seemingly constantly. I've seen bits and pieces of the CFED and I think it's a great idea, but like you say, very complicated and will be a living document, not something static.

The problem we are having specifically is with putting UT's on IAP/BOTP. Certain individuals, for their own reasons and own agendas, keep tying it up inside the whole PLAR process itself (not the PLAR guys themselves, they're all good over there and way over worked. This is from higher).

Granting a former NCM (with X amount of years, QL5 qualified) an IAP bypass should be a no brainer.
One look at the lesson plans and PO checks for PLQ and BOTP show them to be almost identical in content...add in years of experience and CO's/PSO's recomendation and someone is still going to tell me that an 18 year-old is more qualified/able to lead than a (former) MCPL with 10 years in?
If I hear one more officer tell me how "officer courses are taught differently" when the PO's and written tests are the exact same..... 

We have to start the equivalencies somewhere instead of tying it up in buearacratic red tape, and this insistance by some that officer training is somehow harder/more difficult/more complete than NCM training has got to go (especially when those same officers have never even seen said NCM courses or even bothered to look at the lesson plans).

This has been a thorn in my side for 4 years and will be for a few more yet is my guess  :threat: CDA/CFRG/LFDTS will not be the death of me yet....but they do make me feel awfully tired some days  ;D

Wook


----------



## muffin (5 Sep 2008)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> CDA/CFRG/LFDTS will not be the death of me yet....but they do make me feel awfully tired some days  ;D



I know what you mean ... but they pay my mortgage ... so I guess I can't complain too much  ;D haha


----------



## Wookilar (5 Sep 2008)

and you have air conditioning over there, don't you?


----------



## muffin (5 Sep 2008)

I do... but I am in the basement of Yeo Hall now - and moving to trailers behind the rink later this month  :blotto:


----------



## DC Roundsman (11 Sep 2008)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Maggie,
> 
> I know the entire PLAR world is a very convoluted thing to behold and grows new heads seemingly constantly. I've seen bits and pieces of the CFED and I think it's a great idea, but like you say, very complicated and will be a living document, not something static.
> 
> ...




Ok...let me start by saying that granting a Cpl with some time in is probably not the best candidate for a IAP bypass, however, is it really necessary to make them learn how to do drill and to requalify on items that can or should be done at unit level. (like first aid, CBRN, weapons)

Also, I really fail to see how treating you like crap makes you a better leader.  I fully understand the team concept of being in the military and teaching new recruits on how to work together to ensure a mission is completed at all costs, is very important. However, is it really necessary to be treated like crap during our leadership courses as well.  I know that being treated like crap really made me a better leader.(can you feel the sarcasm).  

As far as I'm concerned a leader, is a leader, is a leader.  I believe through proper guidance and mentorship you will effectively develop proper leadership skills.  Once the adults realize that the CF's leadership courses are practically identical, we will eventually get some credit and stop wasting time and resources reteaching our personnel how to fold, iron, march and polish boots.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Sep 2008)

Please define 'treated like crap'.

(On my CLC in '93, we were inspected.  On my 6A in '97, we were inspected during the garrison portion (open locker).  We marched to/from the shacks to the School.  On my SLC in 2002, we did drill.  We had 1 room inspection.  We polished our boots.  Whats the big deal about that?)


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2008)

Sailor B

One of two things are obviously being misunderstood by you.

The first being that everyone should pass and be given a position in the CF, no matter what.  That the CF should hold everyone by the hand and give them some sort of guarantee that they will become a Leader and actually be able to lead people.  I hope that this point never ever entered your mind.

The second point, I think you honestly do not understand.  That point is that the CF Training System is geared to train people for War, a very stressful job.  A job where there is no method of putting stress on people to evaluate and test them than the methods currently used........other than actual combat.  

Would you prefer that we weed out weak leaders on a Crse, or would you prefer we let them prove their metal in a Combat Zone getting people killed due to their incompetence?


----------



## armyvern (11 Sep 2008)

Sailor B said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned a leader, is a leader, is a leader.  I believe through proper guidance and mentorship you will effectively develop proper leadership skills.  *Once the adults realize that the CF's leadership courses are practically identical*, we will eventually get some credit and stop wasting time and resources reteaching our personnel how to fold, iron, march and polish boots.



Lots of experience with those Leadership courses eh?

I can assure you that the ILQ (because I have actually DONE it) does not resemble the PLQ in any way, shape, or form. You can prattle off all you want about the "adults" and "realization that courses are identical" ... but that statement iteself just makes me realize that you have no clue - precisely because they are so NOT even close to resembling each other.   : Carry on (and yes, - feel free to note my sarcasm).


----------



## Wookilar (11 Sep 2008)

Vern,

Shouldn't you be re-writting Phase Training (and bringing me all the cheat notes  ;D) instead of sorting people out?

To further the discussion, a second service paper with hard recommendations is in front of higher right now..... don't know what is going to happen to all of this. Is it ever a rats nest and tied up between D Mil C or whatever their name is this year, RMC, CDA, CFRG, LFDTS and some Fleet School acronym I forget. Didn't see anything yet from any blue-types.

Arguments, objections and counter-objections are flying...turns out the standardized PLQ is not so standardized  : depending on who you ask to and what side of the fence they currently sit on....very frustrating. Seems the IAP question has been dealt with, but for some reason will still be done INDIVIDUALLY instead of making it an automatic PLAR (seems like a make-work project to me and the people that will actually be doing the work are not the ones suggesting it  ).

Can anyone, with more experience with higher command levels, make some educated guesses on why the reluctance to grant IAP bypass (given a set criteria of course) may exist ???....it is possible afterall that I am not seeing enough of the "big picture" but it seems like such a basic (no pun intended) bit of common-sense (I know,  I know) that an experienced member does not need to do Basic twice.

Wook


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Sep 2008)

I'd like to see a comparison of the POs/EOs taught on BMQ/CF PLQ to those taught on IAP.

If they match up...then it should be easy-smeasy.

I'd also like to know who is at the table that is resistant as well.  Any ideas?  Anyone??

Maybe this is something each MA for each MOC needs to give a thumbs up/down to and make it work that way if the broader ALL OR NONE approach isn't working...


----------



## gunner065 (11 Sep 2008)

Here's an update with my case.  I submitted a PLAR requesting both IAP and BOTP bypass on August 21st.  On September 4th, I received a lovely email with an attachment (a pdf formatted letter) indicating that the CDA was granting me both courses hence the whole Basic Officer Military Qualification (BOMQ).  Them granting the request was based on me completing PLQ in 2005 and my career highlights to-date.

So for anybody out there that thinks they may have the quals and experience to bypass some training in part or whole, please do not wait for someone else to do the work for you, it won't happen.  You are never better served than by yourself...as long as your CofC is informed.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd like to see a comparison of the POs/EOs taught on BMQ/CF PLQ to those taught on IAP.



I recently had to do exactly that for my application. I took every single PO for both IAP and BOTC and had to relate it to training i had already done or experience i already had.

IAP was a no-brainer.

BOTC ( or whatever its called now) is a different story.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I recently had to do exactly that for my application. I took every single PO for both IAP and BOTC and had to relate it to training i had already done or experience i already had.
> 
> IAP was a no-brainer.
> 
> BOTC ( or whatever its called now) is a different story.



In the end, did the PLAR results come out with a yes/no for BOTP?


----------



## MJP (11 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I recently had to do exactly that for my application. I took every single PO for both IAP and BOTC and had to relate it to training i had already done or experience i already had.
> 
> IAP was a no-brainer.
> 
> BOTC ( or whatever its called now) is a different story.



Did you hear back from them though.  I'm interested as I know we were both doing it at roughly the same timeframe.  Methinks someone might have even had someone else's memo template as well.....


----------



## aesop081 (11 Sep 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> Did you hear back from them though.  I'm interested as I know we were both doing it at roughly the same timeframe.  Methinks someone might have even had someone else's memo template as well.....



It never had time to come back. As you know i am no longer following that route byt the CO who wrote me up said that it was going to be positive and that had i continued, bypass for both would have been granted.


----------



## 2fly (19 Sep 2008)

Well CDN Aviator, here I go again my friend.  I applied for CEOTP again this year and selected more than one trade and not pilot.   I hope that things turn out better than at ASC for last years competition. 

I am going on 9-01 ROTO 7 so I will more than likely hear while I am away so I am not sure about submitting for my PLA, I will more than likely just prime my CoC to submit the email to CDA if I get the official oh-key-do-key.


----------



## Sly@CDA (24 Nov 2008)

gunner065 said:
			
		

> Good day all, I recently accepted an offer for CEOTP (as a NCM) and I am confused as if I have to complete BOTP or not.
> 
> From all the literature I was able to gather, because I am PLQ qualified I will be granted an IAP bypass.
> 
> ...



http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/DLI/engraph/services/accred/milequiv/botp_e.asp

See the link for answer.


----------



## gunner065 (10 Dec 2008)

Just completed the Officership Colloquium, and glad it's over.  Although that course was initially meant for WO, MWO and CWO (ILQ qualified) CFR's, because of the availability of the CEOTP program to NCMs, it was used as a band-aid for MCpl/Sgt who were granted BOMQ (IAP and BOTP), like myself.  

Rumour has it that starting Jan 2009, MCpl/Sgt who are granted BOMQ and have to complete phase training for the "new" officer trade will not have to complete any "Indoc" officer course and will go directly onto trade training.  But again, nothing seems to be "automatic" and I would greatly encourage anyone in that same situation to submit a PLAR for leadership training already completed.

And to answer your quote, Sly20, after having been through the PLAR process myself; what is written on that website is a general guideline and CDA recognizes previous qualifications/training on a case-by-case situation.  The link in itself does not answer anything but rather provides more confusion.  I even did email a member of the CDA who informed me that I would not be granted a BOMQ bypass unless I was ILQ qualified, four weeks later, I had the BOMQ granting letter in my hand.


----------



## Sly@CDA (10 Dec 2008)

And to answer your quote, Sly20, after having been through the PLAR process myself; what is written on that website is a general guideline and CDA recognizes previous qualifications/training on a case-by-case situation.  The link in itself does not answer anything but rather provides more confusion.  I even did email a member of the CDA who informed me that I would not be granted a BOMQ bypass unless I was ILQ qualified, four weeks later, I had the BOMQ granting letter in my hand.
[/quote]

This letter (pdf) originated from me, for the confusion on the webpage; that's not me.


----------

