# Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread



## Jarnhamar

And all the other terms applicable;

Come this january im going to be ona plq or jlc (whatever it‘s called) course.(for reserve infantry if that matters) Some friends of mine from another regiment who are on it as well are taking a sort of pre-jlc course. I however will be showing up with no such pre-training. I‘ve been in section level leadership rolls on and off for 4 years now but i‘ve never had to mess around with making up orders, giving drill and all that other great stuff. 
My question is; is there a link on some canadian site or a list of information that could give me a bit of heads up. I could possibly familiarize myself with some of the stuff i‘ll be doing.  Maybe what the course is comprised of, the po‘s etc..

Any help would be greatly appriciated, thanks


----------



## Sharpey

PLQ is now divided into 6 mods, the 6th being the field portion.

 Mods 1 through 5 are comprised of physical training, range, computer based learning and discipline (drill etc...)

 I‘m currently going through Mod 5...bring a pillow! Sit and read from the DIN is all it is, PO check isn‘t until the summer. Range weekend is learning to run a range and the butts. Drill is what it used to be pretty much. Learn the 39 (I think) words of command. And then you have the law classes.

If you don‘t have access to the DIN, you are pretty much SOL for coarse outline etc... I‘ve looked and found nothing. 

Express test...if you fail it, oh well, do it later in the coarse. Miss a Mod, make that up later as well. It‘s making the coarse alot more Reserve friendly.


----------



## Calg Highr 0081

Go to your RSS WO and sign out a copy of the Section and Platoon in Battle.  Go to the Army Electronic Library and download a copy of  B-GL-332-001/FP-001 Vol 2 - Tactical Aide-Memoire 
 http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/Default.asp.  Also download  B-GL-392-004/FP-001 - Infantry, Volume 4, Patrolling , and  B-GL-382-001/FP-001- A Guide for Instructors .  That should get you started.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks a lot guys i really appriciate it.
The link you sent me to didn‘t work however
Or is that part of the military computer system?


----------



## Jarnhamar

NM got it to work, im as computer litterate as garfield. i‘m old school you see, back when i joined we didn‘t have computers. We used an abbacus    

(j/k)


----------



## Korus

Is the current PLQ equivalent to the reg force version? i.e., would I have to take it over again if I where to join the regs?


----------



## combat_medic

The former JLC/JNCO was the same as the reg force, and the new PLQ is supposed to be as well, though I‘m told the regs have one more mod about leadership within a garrison and on base, which obviously doesn‘t apply to the MO. If you got it and when reg, they‘d probably just make you do that mod.


----------



## combat_medic

Well, I just found out that I‘m getting loaded on MODs 2 and 4 of this new PLQ couse

(translation: PLQ = Primary Leadership Qualification, the course that‘s replaced JLC)

So, does anyone know what all the mods are, in which order they need to be done, and the approximate duration of each? This whole thing is confusing as he||. Has anyone been through this yet or instructed on any of the mods? Any advice?


----------



## MJP

Don‘t know the exact names they call it mod just what you do in them.  Just finished mods 1-4 and going on 5&6 in Feb.

Mod 1- Physical fitness;  learn and take a variety of classes on body mechanics, proper warm-up and cool down, as well as learning what the CF/PSP has to offer to help in planning and implementing physical fitness plans.  At the end you teach a 20 minute class, that includes warm-up and cool down. 5 days

Mod 2- How to teach; Learn how to teach drill, skill and knowledge lesson‘s.  Also learn how to properly implement and use Training aids and make proper lesson plans. 8 days(needs to be longer)

Mod 3- Range duties; Learn the duties of all the range staff, then participate as an ARSO, ammo NCO, background activity NCO. 2 days

Mod 4- Military justice; computer based course that involves learning how to use the CFAO‘s and the QRO‘s.  Focuses mostly on military law.

Mod 5- Military writing; I haven‘t been on this on this one but again I was told it is comp based and you pretty much learn how to write memo‘s, PDR‘s and Per‘s.  5 days

Mod 6- Field phase; longest mod at 28(around) training days.  Lots of stuff in this one;
Written PC‘s & EC‘s
-201, includes material covered in mods 1-5
-207 Offensive operations
-208 Defensive operations
-209 patrolling and navigation
Practical PC‘s and EC‘s
-210 prepare PER narrative
-206 small party tasks
-207 control weapons fire and target indication
-208 lead a sect to advance to contact and quick attack.
-208 lead a sect during occupation of the defense or routine in the defense
-209 navigation by day and night
-209 lead a recce patrol

Infantry guys once done mod 6 still have to take a further 3 week course that goes more in depth in the field stuff. Hope this helps.


----------



## combat_medic

Boy, that‘s detailed... thanks a lot!!!


----------



## Armymedic

Hello fellow medic..
I finished it all before Christmas.
Here in Petawawa we did it in this order:
Mod 5, then 1,2,3,4&5 Starting 4 Sept until Thanksgiving. Then the Wends after moved into quarters for Mod 6 for 6 wks gradding on Nov 27 if I remember correctly. As my was the first ran by LFCA training center, it was truely an experience. They have made modifications to the 2 courses that are on currently. If you have any questions don‘t hesitate to ask...


----------



## Jarnhamar

When you first show up  on course is it just the basic CF fitness test?
Run to level 6.5 on the beep test?


----------



## combat_medic

OK, well I‘m currently in WATC on the PLQ Mod 5 (PLQ = formerly the JLC/JNCO course). We‘re doing all this computer learning and I‘m bored out of my skull (don‘t tell my instructors that I‘m surfing the internet    ). Anyway, I must say that this entire PLQ system is a very VERY poor way of training leaders, in my humble opinion. Things that are totally unecessary at the JNCO level are hammered home for weeks, whereas vital, mission essential knowledge is barely passed over.

If there are any generals or other policy makers reading this post, please consider a re-vamp of the whole PLQ system.

If there are any people here who have completed the entire PLQ course, do you have any thoughts on it? Oh, and any info, tips or suggestions for Mod 6 would be great, as that‘s starting next week.


----------



## MJP

All I can say for revamping the PLQ is keep hammering it on the end week critiques.  All we did was pick it apart on every module and higlighted the flaws.  Make sure you have logical arguements for why it is bad and implementable solutions to fix it or else they tend to throw it back into your face.  

Plus since it is new(the first time reservists have done it full time in the summer IIRC) you‘ll have a lot of interest from the brigade CO‘s and RSM‘s.  Make sure you hammer it in to them that it pretty much sucks.  We had the Brigade RSM(2 CMBG) in on ours and we told him point blank about the flaws....especially MOD‘s 2 and 5!


----------



## Pencil Tech

Could somebody tell me what the difference between CF PLQ and army PLQ are, that is, with respect to the modules that I would need to do as land Log? Thanks for any info.


----------



## Armymedic

I am not sure if there has been any changes...

The land PLQ uses army based senarios to test leadership. I did the first LFCA course run in Petawawa. We did patrols, section attackes and roles in the defence for assessments of leadership. Courses since have used strictly small party tasks based on common things army pers must do..ie, set up LZ, set up Mod tent, recover a vehicle, etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I heard from a guy who just finished his PLQ course this summer that they are changing around the course once again.


----------



## MJP

It has has changed recently, taking out most of the field time for CSS trades.  Now CSS do small party tasking and then shut 'er down.  AFAIK combat arms still do the complete Mod 6(with infantry types combining the DP2B with Mod 6 to become MCpl qualified).  At least this was the scheme of things roughly 5 months ago.....so who knows now.


----------



## pbi

This is interesting, if somewhat depressing. It appears we are still stuck in the "tradesman first, soldier second" mode even though all of recent military experience (especially the US in OIF) screams out that this is an obsolete and dangerous concept. In my personal opinion, we should be training soldiers as soldiers first, and giving them a technical skill second. After all, the baddies won't check your MOC first before they have a go at you, as the US found out to its surpise and embarrassment in OIF.

A few years ago I sat on an Infantry training board at which we LFCA types proposed a single "Army" recruit training program for the entire Army Reserve, regardless of MOC. In other words, train to be a soldier from the second you step on board. This was wrecked on the rocks of the insistence of LFDTS that the "CF purple" BMQ could not be tinkered with as it was a sacred item. Sacred relic, more like.

Anyway, that's my rant. Feel better now. Cheers.


----------



## starlight_745

I have heard that the content of PLQ mod 6 may be changing.  Does anyone know anything about mod 6 specifically for CSS?  I have completed all mods except mod 6 and am planning to take it this coming summer.


----------



## Tpr.Orange

ill ask around 

what in regards to css mod 6 are you specifically looking to know?


----------



## starlight_745

My understanding of mod 6 was that all trades attended the PLQ (Land) together.  I am being told that now mod 6 will be broken up into Infantry, other Cbt Arms and CSS for mod 6 (all other mods remain the same).  Specifically I am interested in how long the mod 6 is and what PO's are covered to prepare for it.  So dar I have been unable to get more info from anywhere else.


----------



## Tpr.Orange

Ill double check when im in at work on wensday and see what I can find out for you


----------



## Armymedic

IMHO, Mod 6 should be the same for all trades. Leadership is leadership, no matter what the job. If there is trade specific training reqd to enhance you leadership, then it should be a MOC problem....

I haven't heard anything new about the PLQ.


----------



## combat_medic

When I took my Mod 2 in 2003, they were already talking about changing it to CSS vs. Infantry only courses. When I took the Mod 6 that summer, I was told that it would be the last combined arms course. Six months later, I was told again that no more combined PLQs would be offered. Just this month, I was told that it was changing 'really soon'. And yet, still the combined arms courses are being offered, with no changes in sight. I'm getting the impression that it's all talk.


----------



## starlight_745

I have a buddy who is infantry and he has been told that for his Mod 6 they will be merging the infantry DP2B course into the Mod6 to create an Infantry PLQ Mod 6.  Apparently he has been told it includes a bunch of new stuff like FIBUA etc.  According to what he has been told there will be no other trades on the course and CSS will be attending their own PLQ.  I have not seen course briques for next summer yet so I am not sure but I have been told this by several people who I would deem to be in the know.


----------



## combat_medic

I have no doubt that you heard it from a reliable source. My Platoon WO on my Mod 6 told me (in 2003) that our Mod 6 would be the last combined one. In late 2003, an Ops O told me that the summer of 2004 would offer the ISCC again for the Infantry, and still nothing has happened. I'm not trying to dispute the validity of your sources, but I've been hearing the same thing for a couple years from other people who are supposedly "in the know".


----------



## Infanteer

Why do we insist on changing the format every two years?


----------



## Rushrules

The content for PLQ mod 6 was changed about a year ago, but some Areas/Bde's may not feel like running 2 different courses.  The Reg F CSS/CS do the CF-PLQ, and the Reg F CA (and maybe the engineers) do the PLQ-Land.  The Reserves do the PLQ-Land.  As indicated above, the INF is supposed to do their own PLQ-INF.  It was the same way for the JNCO crse- one was CSS, one was INF.

I'm not well informed on the PLQ-INF, so I'll leave that one alone.  The CF-PLQ is basically the old JLC, which included drill, knowledge and skill lessons, as well as small party tasks.  In addition to this, the PLQ-L includes Army leadership, such as leading patrols, def routine, and quick attacks.


----------



## Sharpey

Mod 6 is 6 weeks long, approx. approx. 2 1/2 - 3 weeks death by powerpoint, approx. 2 weeks in the field and 1 week of admin.

The field portion is as follows: 2 days small party taskings, 2 days Nav Ex, 4 days Patrolling, 4 Days Section Attacks and Defensive.

Still very heavily based on the Infantry. I to have heard they are messing with the MOD 6 and seperating trades. Would make sence as section attacks and defensive in depth (as on MOD 6) are "almost" pointless to me in my trade. 

Yes section attacks are a great leadership building tool, but there are other ways to do that, example...crew commanding.


----------



## Tpr.Orange

apparantley the changes will be occuring soon they just haven't given a date to when thats going to happen


----------



## pro patria

With all of the leadership courses changing and getting much less damanding all the soldier that are passing
with ease.   It stated 10 years ago and now its starting to hurt us


----------



## Bert

How so?  Whats the proof?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

pro patria said:
			
		

> With all of the leadership courses changing and getting much less damanding all the soldier that are passing
> with ease.   It stated 10 years ago and now its starting to hurt us



I hear you don't even have to be able to express yourself well in written communication to be an NCO these days.  Can you shed any light on that for us?


----------



## Love793

Military correspondance is (re)taught on Mod 5.  Unfortunately it is during the 10 days of Computer based learning, most guys on my crse just scimmed through and hit the fwd link to make it look like we work working.  I saw more games of solitare played in those ten days then any time in my carreer.  A lot of time was also spent "Catching up with foreign and domestic affairs" (Canada Kicks Ass site) and ensuring the economic security of Tim Hortons.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Love793 said:
			
		

> Military correspondance is (re)taught on Mod 5.  Unfortunately it is during the 10 days of Computer based learning, most guys on my crse just scimmed through and hit the fwd link to make it look like we work working.  I saw more games of solitare played in those ten days then any time in my carreer.  A lot of time was also spent "Catching up with foreign and domestic affairs" (Canada Kicks Ass site) and ensuring the economic security of Tim Hortons.



I also hear that NCOs don't have to be able to recognize irony these days; I wonder if that was taught on Mod 5?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

I have to agree that the leadership course has become less effective in that weekends are now off(limits the abillity to instill stressfull environment), weapon drill is no longer taught, a candidate only needs to know how to form a basic formation etc.Although alot of the changes were for the good, in the end IMHO the quality of some future leaders coming off a recent course is reflected by their actions when put into stressful environments.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> I hear you don't even have to be able to express yourself well in written communication to be an NCO these days.  Can you shed any light on that for us?





> I also hear that NCOs don't have to be able to recognize irony these days; I wonder if that was taught on Mod 5?



Laugh My Aise Off (It was so good I had to write it out complete!!!)  Michael dude you have sussed it out man.

this thread should be locked, this is too much like the other of yer posts, pro patria.  Are your really in earnest, or are you trying to see how far you get?

tess


----------



## pro patria

Post topic get slammed, I have spent the last 12 years inst in INF School, Meaford, and Petawawa. My observation is what i stated before. This is with eyes on the ground not in the sky.


----------



## meni0n

I hear you don't have to take the field portion if you're on the CF PLQ. And they're applying new changes yet again so that support trades don't have to do field portion of PLQ as well.


----------



## the 48th regulator

hmm 12 years instructing in the infantry . . In Meaford. . . . . and Petawawa even.... . whoa

ok I guess the post is legit...

didn't mean to rain on your Parade square..

tess


----------



## SigPigs

I just went on my PLQ in Esquimalt of all places. I am an army guy, a radio tech or LCIS as we are now. Anyway I was taught weapons drill, and written communication was taught very well. Was it extremely demanding, no. But it is better than being treated like  a recruit and yelled at and run around like a bunch of dorks. We were taught about skills we need to succeed in the rank we were given.  Mostly already, as it is back logged. Give us tools to do our leading, and mostly, learning... as you know when you leave school you think you know it all and you really don't know anything. You have the skills to learn more though, and that's what we need.

Andrew


----------



## pro patria

No two PLQ crses are the same, Tp is always changing. Their is always some type of field small party tasks etc


----------



## GerryCan

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Laugh My Aise Off (It was so good I had to write it out complete!!!)  Michael dude you have sussed it out man.
> 
> this thread should be locked, this is too much like the other of yer posts, pro patria.  Are your really in earnest, or are you trying to see how far you get?
> 
> tess



Seems to me that your post isn't too much different than pro patrias... I don't have a clue as to what the hell you just said.

Sussed it out???


----------



## elminister

I must agree with Andrew, it's a learning process and you can't expect nco's to learn to be a leader in the few weeks of their PLQ.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Making a leadership course easy and less demanding will not produce as good quality leaders as ones that survive the difficult ones.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that the Sgts that did their PLQ (JLC or ISS) back 10 years ago, are far more mentally hardened than the ones that have done it in the last few years? Perhaps this is due to experience, but I cant help but feel that if you put someone through a long hard time in PLQ, theyll come out the other end harder and stronger than before, and vice versa.


----------



## Sharpey

My 2 - 5's were not that demanding. Physically yes they were but the actual learning portion has been raped. Wasn't to impressed to be honest. My Mod 6. was extremely demanding in all aspects, but was still directed at Infantry and no other trades really. But I will admit that section attacks are a great command and control learning tool.

But as stated above, no two courses are the same, due to different staff etc... My Mod 6 was the hardest course I've taken in my 11 years, wich is funny as my Mods 2-5 was probably the easiest. With that said, I think Mods 2-5 need to be restructured. More voice culture and learning words of command should be brought back,. if it hasn't been in the last 2 or 3 years.


----------



## Franko

Get rid of this bloody PLQ modular bull**** and bring back the Combat Leadership Course.

That'll sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Getting nights off and not going out to the field for weeks on end....that's not a leadership course....it's a cake walk. I know a few guys on it right now and they get off "work" and get to go home at night. Whatever happened to doing it as a course in house for the entire time and getting it completed in one shot?

6 modules....at home study....last mod taught as a real course. You can't say that every unit has the same standards. 

I'm sure that there are some people out there who think the PLQ or whatever it's called is the best thing going....

 :

Regards


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
Getting nights off and not going out to the field for weeks on end....that's not a leadership course....it's a cake walk. I know a few guys on it right now and they get off "work" and get to go home at night. Whatever happened to doing it as a course in house for the entire time and getting it completed in one shot?

6 modules....at home study....last mod taught as a real course. You can't say that every unit has the same standards.  

I know I've been gone a long time but are you telling me this replaced the CLC?


----------



## Sharpey

Franko said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to doing it as a course in house for the entire time and getting it completed in one shot?



They still offer that, 11 weeks at Leadership Coy., Mod 6 of that is 6 weeks in duration.


----------



## Michael OLeary

The Qualification Standard (QS) and Training Plan (TP) for the PLQ can be found here:

http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/38cbg_arsd/plq.htm


----------



## mo-litia

I agree totally with pro patria - the new systems suck some major ass!

I did my PLQ a couple of years ago; some of the mods at my home unit, the rest at WATC.   Once I hit the ground at WATC, I found out that it was a joint Reg / Res course; but, with a conspicuous absence of RegF Infantry troops.   (Somebody's still trying to look out for their own, and I don't blame them.)               Without fail, all of the RegF troops were CSS,as were a good portion of the ResF troops.

End result? The 20% or so of us who were ResF infantry and spent most of our field phase whipping into shape people who hadn't done a section attack since battle school! Good practise, I suppose, but far from the quality of training I could of received had I been able to work on my leadership skills with a competent section.

Oh yeah, on the last day, this thud of a WOG who had REPEATEDLY FAILED his SMALL PARTY TASKING was reassessed for approximately the third time.   The Sgt pulled together a small party for this troop, (All infantry, incidentally, I was one of them.), and told us that it had come down from higher that it was a NO-FAIL COURSE and that we had to punt this guy through!

Not to detract from the course staff at all, they were doing the best they could; but what the hell?   I joined the CF, worked my ass off to get to a point where I had earned a spot on what was supposed to be a challenging leadership course, and then I find out it's a farce and a cakewalk because higher ups have decided that the CF needs jacks - no matter how unqualified!?!?!?!

Oh, I almost forgot - we had every single weekend off without fail; except for one weekend when we where in the field, and then, if I recall correctly, we got one or two days off the following week to make up for missing our weekend!

I would gladly drop my leaf in a second for a chance at a spot on an old style course where I could get my leaf the old fashioned way - EARNING IT.

Bohica


----------



## Bert

In PLQs, do they mix up Res with Reg, and the different elements like Navy, Air Force, and Army?
If so, is there a difference in "performance" and or "culture conflict" ( don't know
if thats a good way to phrase it) in mixed settings?


----------



## mo-litia

Bert,

See my above post for answers to your questions.  As for mixing of elements my course was all army. Then, the thud mentioned above was ex-Navy, with absolutely no Army training at all. (He had to be shown the bloody C-6 drills because he didn't even know that the belt fed in from the left!!)  

Performance difference; definitely.

Culture conflict; absolutely. You can't mix dog crap with eggs and hope to get a tasty omlette, now can you?


----------



## aesop081

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Bert,
> 
> See my above post for answers to your questions.   As for mixing of elements my course was all army. Then, the thud mentioned above was ex-Navy, with absolutely no Army training at all. (He had to be shown the bloody C-6 drills because he didn't even know that the belt fed in from the left!!)
> 
> Performance difference; definitely.
> 
> Culture conflict; absolutely. You can't mix dog crap with eggs and hope to get a tasty omlette, now can you?



Before generalizing, you should take heed to the fact that alot of us " aiforce pukes" are ex-army guys with a shitload more experience than you ! You want to make fun of one guy, no prob, i can live with that but don't generalize. Its attitudes like that that cretae problems during joint training/ops !


----------



## mo-litia

aesop,

My intent may have been misunderstood . . . that reference to which you, no doubt, took offense to was intended towards the problem troop written about my first post on this thread. I was just venting some steam at the lack of reason and standards, (and the resulting problems), on today's PLQ courses.

As to my experience level, it is exactly where I want it to be, thanks.   Not every member of the Reserves is an aspiring Regular Force troop, remember?

Cheers


----------



## aesop081

mo-litia said:
			
		

> aesop,
> 
> My intent may have been misunderstood . . . that reference to which you, no doubt, took offense too was intended towards the problem troop written about my first post on this thread. I was just venting some steam at the lack of reason and standards, (and the resulting problems), on today's PLQ courses.
> 
> As to my experience level, it is exactly where I want it to be at this time thanks.   Not every member of the Reserves is an aspiring Regular Force troop, remember?
> 
> Cheers



Fair enough.....may have jumped the gun but still.

I agree with you that not every reservist is an aspiring reg.......i know reservist with more experience than alot of reags so that is not what i meant.  I thought that you were generalizing and i was applying my comment in your case specificaly.

On my JLC/JNCO we had ppl from alot of different trades, with alot of varying experience and some were better than others.  Should some have failed ? You bet ! Was it a difficult course ? Not in my opinion. Should it be ? Damned right ! As for the guy yopu are refering to not having C6 experience, i ask you this : How could he have ?  I tought a pre-JLC at my unit in 2001 and i had a guy in my section that had not even seen a C7.  When he joined it was with the FN......... He was a medic.


----------



## mo-litia

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Fair enough.....may have jumped the gun but still.
> 
> I agree with you that not every reservist is an aspiring reg.......i know reservist with more experience than alot of reags so that is not what i meant. I thought that you were generalizing and i was applying my comment in your case specificaly.
> 
> On my JLC/JNCO we had ppl from alot of different trades, with alot of varying experience and some were better than others. Should some have failed ? You bet ! Was it a difficult course ? Not in my opinion. Should it be ? Damned right ! As for the guy yopu are refering to not having C6 experience, i ask you this : How could he have ? I tought a pre-JLC at my unit in 2001 and i had a guy in my section that had not even seen a C7. When he joined it was with the FN......... He was a medic.



The guy was an ex-Navy binrat who'd been out for years and re-mustered as Army green. Either he'd never touched the C-6, ( I don't know a thing about Navy training!), or he'd been out so long he'd forgotten everything about it.   Nothing against the guy, just rusty as hell and not really cut out to be a leader of men.  So I see where you're coming from about varying levels of experience.

As to my opinions on the Air Force, let me say this. Taking into account my years of experience as a militiaman, I have only one strong feeling about the Air Force . . . jealousy!


----------



## aesop081

mo-litia said:
			
		

> The guy was an ex-Navy binrat who'd been out for years and re-mustered as Army green. Either he'd never touched the C-6, ( I don't know a thing about Navy training!), or he'd been out so long he'd forgotten everything about it.   Nothing against the guy, just rusty as hell and not really cut out to be a leader of men.   So I see where you're coming from about varying levels of experience.



Is that because of his professional attributes or based on the fact tha he didn't know a thing about the C6 ?



> As to my opinions on the Air Force, let me say this. Taking into account my years of experience as a militiaman, I have only one strong feeling about the Air Force . . . jealousy!



Why ?


----------



## mo-litia

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Is that because of his professional attributes or based on the fact tha he didn't know a thing about the C6 ?



See my first posting about his failing repeatedly during the course . . .



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> Why?



 . . . jeez, you try to disarm a guy with a joke, and this happens . . . I'm ending this here, bro, it's gotten too far off topic for me!


----------



## aesop081

mo-litia said:
			
		

> See my first posting about his failing repeatedly during the course . . .
> 
> . . . jeez, you try to disarm a guy with a joke, and this happens . . . I'm ending this here, bro, it's gotten too far off topic for me!



LOL...... ;D

So to get back on topic then, i agree that the PLQ has gotten out of hand. It should be more of a selection to determione if a soldiers has the skills and intestinal fortitude to lead troops.   IMHO , the reason we have all these scandals and failiure of leadership in the CF is the low standards we set in some cases for our leadership hopefulls.   How can we have "top-notch" leaders in the future if we hold leadership "candidates" ( i dont like the term students) to such low requirements ?


----------



## mo-litia

aesop081 said:
			
		

> LOL...... ;D
> 
> So to get back on topic then, i agree that the PLQ has gotten out of hand. It should be more of a selection to determione if a soldiers has the skills and intestinal fortitude to lead troops.   IMHO , the reason we have all these scandals and failiure of leadership in the CF is the low standards we set in some cases for our leadership hopefulls.   How can we have "top-notch" leaders in the future if we hold leadership "candidates" ( i dont like the term students) to such low requirements ?



I take it we have a truce?   ;D   

I totally agree with you on the fact that low standards in leadership training may come back to bite us in the ass; the disparity is already showing itself at every unit operating out of my armoury. 

IMO, If the CF went to trade specific PLQ courses that would do a lot towards correcting the shortfalls; at least for the combat arms.

Is anyone who makes the PLQ training plans reading this? I sure hope so!


----------



## 1feral1

Instructors dont have to be arseholes, but be fair and firm. I define a good course by its depth, realistic training content, quality of DS, promotion of teamwork, good coursemanship, and cohesion.

One gets to know who the 'buddy-fuc*ers' are.

At the end of the day, you only get out of it what you put into it. 

We can also not forget to look forward to the smoker at the end too, but strangely enough, 'smokers' are not the thing here at all. Dunno know if that generic to Aussie military culture or just the sign of the times.

Here I would say the leadership courses have only changed in tech matters, and are still hard core in many ways. No free rides here. I remember mine here not long after arriving, and I was caned hard at times, but only had the difficulty in translating CF lingo to Australian, and vise versa. I was so determined to do my best anyways.

I still remember by CLC (not JLC - I volunteered for a CLC and even had to sign a waver) in the summer 1988. 

Definatly not a cakewalk. Learned lots which i still apply today.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## aesop081

IMO, the failiure to hold leadership candidates to high standards and allowing those who do not have the skills to lead to pass, constitutes a failiure in leadership in its own right. On my course at WATC, one gal passed the course ( she was a mat tech) even though she started crying during her classroom skill lecture because the troops were not understanding what she was teaching. Still, she graduated.   What sort of example does that set for those guys who worked hard and passed because they deserved to ?


----------



## jamie lewis

I'm not so sure if you should take advise from a soldier that has been in the training system so long rather then sloging it out with the troops in the trenches.


----------



## 1feral1

Welcome to army.ca.

Although I understand your point, whats your angle Jamie?

Wes


----------



## jamie lewis

My main point is to the instructor that has been teaching at various schools for the past 12 years. He might not be the best person to give information. Todays jr leaders that are graduating are also well trained although some dinosaurs might not want to admit it.This is the new army not the old. He is probably the type of dude that would still rather be riding in a horse and buggy not a new state of the art LAV 3.


----------



## MJP

mo-litia said:
			
		

> IMO, If the CF went to trade specific PLQ courses that would do a lot towards correcting the shortfalls; at least for the combat arms.
> 
> Is anyone who makes the PLQ training plans reading this? I sure hope so!



Trade specific PLQ MOd sixes are on the way.     We've got several Cpl's that will be loaded on them in the Spring/Summer, for the infantry they combind the DP2B with the Mod 6.   Which is a step in the right direction, by getting the guys qualified in less time as well as being able to work at the Infantry standard the entire course vice the way Mod 6 was previously ran.


----------



## mo-litia

MJP said:
			
		

> Trade specific PLQ MOd sixes are on the way.     We've got several Cpl's that will be loaded on them in the Spring/Summer, for the infantry they combind the DP2B with the Mod 6.   Which is a step in the right direction, by getting the guys qualifiedf in less time as well as being able to work at the Infantry standard the entire course vice the way Mod 6 was previously ran.




That's great; wish it had been thought of before I did my course, though.


----------



## aesop081

jamie lewis said:
			
		

> My main point is to the instructor that has been teaching at various schools for the past 12 years. He might not be the best person to give information. Todays jr leaders that are graduating are also well trained although some dinosaurs might not want to admit it.This is the new army not the old. He is probably the type of dude that would still rather be riding in a horse and buggy not a new state of the art LAV 3.



And might you be a rpoduct of this "new " army you speak of ?  I have not been around long enough (12 years) to say that i am part of what you would call the "old" army.  This has nothing to do with horses and LAV-IIIs.....leadership is still leadership no matter what you use to get around the battlefield.  The current PLQ does a pathetic job at preparing junior NCOs for the reality of modern combat, no matter what the trade.  That leaf that you have over your cheverons are not an entitelment, it puts you in a very demanding position with heavy responsabilities, therfore you should be the best at what you do in order to lead others. As i have mentioned before, somme people hav passed that should never even have attended. Do you think that the CF benefit in this way ?  PLQ should be a selection for leadership, not just a check in the box so you can get a pay raise and new position.  I have done the JLC/JNCO and that was nothing like the stories of CLC that i had heard. The current PLQ prepares you for nothing.  Those graduates that are good leaders, have become good out of their own abilities and previous experience.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jamie lewis said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure if you should take advise from a soldier that has been in the training system so long rather then sloging it out with the troops in the trenches.



I think your being too generic. Quite often, the schools are the first to recieve the new equipment or procedures. Being trained first makes them the SME's. What if the guy was the hottest thing the Infantry has ever seen, but got hurt and categoried? Does that make him less of an authority because he's not with the Battalion? On the other side of the coin, if your Battalion or Unit sends a guy to be instructional staff at a school and leaves him there because he's a glue bag, and they don't want him with the troops, where does the responsibility lay? Especially if you see the grade of the pers coming from that system degrading. As a MCpl you should be questioning your superiors as to the quality of the troops your receiving, if you percieve a problem. Maybe then it can be traced back to the particular instructor that your Unit is protecting in Meaford, Gagetown or wherever. Don't blame the system for the shortfalls perpetuated by your own Unit.


----------



## jamie lewis

You have to look back into the past. Today in the RCR for example we have jumped on the band wagon and have joined the rest of the CF. We only sent troops on these courses that have merited to be in the position to go on it. So when your superiors write you PER/PDR's the have put you there for a reason. I have 15.5 yearsin the RCR and did my ISCC in 96, and my experience has made me a better leader.


----------



## Bomber

Some reserve units use their leadership training positions as a last resort employment option for a bunch of their soldiers, consequently, the people that they think should be leaders are reduced in half by the RTU canoe.  In the reserves, people need to look more at the fact that they were selected to be the future of their units, and apply themselves to their leadership courses 100 percent.  If they just look at it like an other summer tasking, then they will turn out to be those men and women that we all look at and say "HOW" and "WHY".  I am also a fan of doing things in one shot, I did the JLC, JNCO one shot deal in Pet, we had reg and reserve, Medics and Pioneers, we had incredible staff, but the best thing we had was the sections built cohesion.  The weekend courses are kind of loopy for cohesion building, because they get there Friday night, set up, get inspected Saturday morning, get a gentle jacking, but know in the back of their minds that they only have 28 more hours before they can rev their civics, play metal gear, or start a goatee again.  Sunday they get told to pull it together for next time, two weeks from then, and they pack up and go home.  none of that Barracks commander coming in to demo floor buffers, threatening death to anyone that scuffs the brass in P101, getting roded into cleaning the lounge in P50 when you don't even use it.  Plus your section commander can actually help you in 12-13 weeks, your PT level can go up, crap sacks can be weeded out, fail or no fail they get broken when they hit the field or blow their lungs out on 39 words of command.


----------



## Pikache

What scares me the most is that weak soldiers who have their PLQ gets to teach the new recruits how to be a soldier.


----------



## mo-litia

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> What scares me the most is that weak soldiers who have their PLQ gets to teach the new recruits how to be a soldier.



That is the biggest failing of our lack of standards these days.


----------



## Greasyoldman

The problem with PLQ isn't the soldiers taking it, it's not the staff teaching it, and it's not the course it's self. The problem is with the system as a whole. Once a Cpl completes PLQ, he's supposed to remain a Cpl for another 2 years in order to gain experience before being promoted to MCpl (which was explained to me by standards on my first day of PLQ). But, because the CF is short manned in leadership roles, Cpl's tend to get promoted to quickly and you end up with inexperienced MCpl's. Someone, somewhere, decided that people have a much higher chance of learning and remembering things when they weren't being screamed at and forced to do change parades or pointless homework till the wee hours of the morning. PLQ is designed to teach the basics, a foundation on where to start.

Ty


----------



## Highland Lad

Hard to argue with what looks like an institutionalization of weakness... I understand the logic of getting rid of all the chicken poop that used to be around, but you can not coddle someone who is supposed to be a fighting soldier and a leader of men.

The whole point of these crses (I thought) is supposed to be to test leadership performance under extreme stress conditions. After all, the individuals on these crses have already been determined to have the ability and skills required, back at battalion, right? (*sigh*... I know - I'm living in a fantasy world...)

I hated the staff on my crse (ISCC Wainwright, '92) with a passion, and vowed to get even with them any possible way I could. The best way I have found is to train the best troops I could since then, so that I could be proud of the results. I haven't always been able to do that (taught on a couple of "guaranteed" courses myself...), but I did my best.

I do agree that, on finishing the crse, Cpls should not immediately be punted up to Jack, but the demands of the service sometimes dictate differently. I know that I was proud to be handed a promotion soon after returning from crse, but I probably could have used a bit more seasoning.

Summary: From the posts I've seen, I would say that it does look like the problem is the course itself, and with the lack of standards that seem to be applied to the course and the candidates. A weak soldier should not ever be considered as a potential leader, and the ones who believe that a leadership crse will provide some needed backbone are weakening the CF in a way that should be considered criminal.


----------



## mo-litia

Greasyoldman said:
			
		

> The problem is with the system as a whole. Once a Cpl completes PLQ, he's supposed to remain a Cpl for another 2 years in order to gain experience before being promoted to MCpl (which was explained to me by standards on my first day of PLQ). But, because the CF is short manned in leadership roles, Cpl's tend to get promoted to quickly and you end up with inexperienced MCpl's.





			
				Highland Lad said:
			
		

> to train the best troops I could since then, so that I could be proud of the results. I haven't always been able to do that (taught on a couple of "guaranteed" courses myself...), but I did my best.
> 
> I do agree that, on finishing the crse, Cpls should not immediately be punted up to Jack, but the demands of the service sometimes dictate differently. I know that I was proud to be handed a promotion soon after returning from crse, but I probably could have used a bit more seasoning.



Cheers, to that - I too, was proud of my rapid appointment soon after my 'course' . . . for about five minutes. Reality can be very humbling.

But, yes - it's a good point about the CF being undermanned, so I have to agree that we, as soldiers, must do the best we can with the hand we have been dealt.  I for one, intend to do everything I can to help ensure that the next crop of leadership hopefuls gets the training that I wanted to receive. :-\


----------



## Meridian

* I note that I wade into these waters with a rubber ducky flotation device around my waist*

Not that this really needs to be said, but from the perspective of a new recruit, going through all the bs...  one of the things you have to rely on is that your DS are the best the army (navy/af depending) has to offer you.. You rely on the fact that they have already done what you are doing... that they themselves have had to prove themselves numerous times in order to demand the same of you.

It is disheartening to hear that this may not be the case.


----------



## Franko

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I know I've been gone a long time but are you telling me this replaced the CLC?



Yes Bruce......it has. 

Regards


----------



## Bert

Meridian

As you may have read in similar threads, there are many perspectives on the CF training 
system and the quality of people moving through it.   The CF is a large organization and
there is alot of good people, good units, and courses on the other side of the coin.   This isn't
to say one will never shake their head in disbelief.   If you can, don't base your opinion 
on a few posts here.   If one choses to go into the Forces, keep an open mind, a positive 
attitude, a sense of humour and you'll have a good time.


----------



## YukonJack

I've got to agree with Greasyoldman on this one too. The PLQ is designed to teach the basic requirements for the up-and-coming Junior Leader. It's a Cpl's course, preparing them for the next rank. Back-logs will see MCpl's on this course for a while yet. The JLC wasn't working too well. As a Hull Tech, you don't get to dig too many holes in the dirt. (Although the argument can be made that stress is stress, regardless of what the actual task is, or how it's applied, performance under stress is the objective.)
I'd say the elements seem to require an additional course, one designed to fully prepare a Soldier, Sailor or Airman(person) for their elemental leadership tasks.
You Army types can squeeze the screws a little tighter, The Navy types can concentrate on what to do when the beer runs out, and the Air types can take an advanced course on Hotel bookings. (this last part is a joke of course, just in case we can't all recognize levity).


----------



## Meridian

Noted, Bert. Thnx.


----------



## Calculator Jockey

I am hoping someone out there knows of this website and can assist me.

I am specifically looking for CF PLQ Mod 5 - The Distance Learning Package on the CTC Gagetown website. I cannot seem to find it. Is it only DIN access (intranet) or can we get it through the internet?

Thanks much in advance.


----------



## foerestedwarrior

dont know if it will work, but give er a go

http://ctc.gagetown.mil.ca/infantry/school/courses/document/PLQ2/English/index.htm


----------



## BernDawg

I believe that the distance learning packages are only available on the DIN.


----------



## Calculator Jockey

Thanks much! Will have to check the link out at the office tomorrow morning.


----------



## Loadmaster

I am curious to find out peoples opinions on the PLQ vs JLC,CLC,ISCC etc

And for people that are on or have finished the PLQ what is the MODS system like.


----------



## Garett

As an Lt who has run 2 X CF PLQ, 2 X PLQ Land, 1 X Inf 2B and now currently running the new PLQ Infantry my opinion is that we have too many standards.

Everyone in the CF (NAVY, Air Force and Army) except for the Infantry should do that Land course.  The CF PLQ is garbage, I've lost a lot of respect for basically every trade outside of the Combat Arms after running the two CF PLQ's.

The PLQ Land is a bit weak, we could make it better but it comes down to money.

The PLQ Infantry is a step up from the PLQ LAND + 2B system but it isn't as good as it could be and again it comes down to money.


----------



## Loadmaster

Myself I think they should go back to when it was ISCC.


----------



## Standards

I'm not too enthused with the current state of affairs either........but don't lose site of the two primary reasons (IMO) the Army went to the PLQ(L).  Note: the PLQ(CF) is not modularized.

1.  Since Mods 1 through 5 are done in the member's home garrison, hence their are no costs do to TD, meals, etc.

2.  Many pers complained about going away for long courses when they had just returned from deployments.  In some cases courses were turned down.

The way things have been the past several years it is a lot easier to cut material out and shorten courses (boss is happy) then it is to add additional instructional periods.


----------



## cbt arms sub tech

Doing PLQ Mod 6 in Wainwright probably this summer, looking for feedback from folks that completed MOD 6, anything I can work on physically, should I start running every night, should I get my kit all squared away?

Any suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## dutchie

You're going for the final phase of your leadership training....and you don't know the answer to that question?


----------



## cbt arms sub tech

Just there's a big difference from when you listen to peers, compared to some of the PPCLI that has just finished there PLQ in Wainwright this spring....I've got a pretty good idea, but if anyone has just finished an can offer advice on it, how to improve on certain skills or physical training, that what I'm looking for!


----------



## Garett

I run PLQ's at LFAA TC.

Go for an exempt on the Express Test and the 13km BFT in under 2 hours.  Learn Battle Procedure and the Orders format/process.  Other then that, you'll mostly have to wait for the course.


----------



## Sharpey

Brush up on your Nav, Section attacks and Defence Op's as well.


----------



## Observer23

I've taught PLQ and ran PLQ work-up training.   What Garett Hallman says about the BFT and orders format is what you should focus on.   If you are weak on Navigation, swing by your QM and draw a compass.   Find a unit mentor (if one has not been assigned to you).   Reading about stuff is all fine and dandy but it isn't as effective as being required to preform the skill.   Have your mentor assess your performance.   If you blunder in your work up, no big deal,   Its a training environment.   Better there than on course.

Summary: BFT, NAV, and especially orders format & battle procedure.   The rest will fall in place.   Good Luck


----------



## Garett

I forgot to mention Nav, it is something that is reviewed on the course but not focused on.  Really if you can't nav when you get on the course you probably shouldn't be there.

The recce patrols are the big stumbling block on the course.  Its usually an eight hour command period and you gotta go through battle procedure correctly, then you gotta nav to your objective, do your drills properly then nav back all the time doing everything tactically.

Most failures are for not giving a full set of orders (guys skip things even though its right on front of them) and not finding the objective.

On the PLQ Land you aren't really assessed on the task though, just leadership.  The task assessment is a guide for the instructor but it doesn't even have to be filled out, the PO 201 Leadership assessment form is the only thing that counts.  That means you can screw it all up but if you have good leadership throughout, you pass.

Great system aint it?!?!?


----------



## GunnersGirl

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> dont know if it will work, but give er a go
> 
> http://ctc.gagetown.mil.ca/infantry/school/courses/document/PLQ2/English/index.htm



no...the link didn't go anywhere... :-\


----------



## MikeM

That's because its the DIN Intranet link.. only works on DND network computers.


----------



## Naralis

Hi,

I am a reservist for the Royal Montreal Regiment in Quebec, and about to complete my DP1 (Inf). I was sworn in on June 4th, 2004. From what I understand, I will therefore be a Cpl next summer (it will have been two years), although I will have to wait to the next promotion parade at my regiment for my extra chevron (May 2007) because I will miss the 2 year mark by a couple of weeks for the 2006 parade.

I've been told that in Quebec right now there's a major shortage of MCpls and that therefore it's not that hard to get on the PLQ course, because there's a lack of instructors that needs to be addressed. So, do you think somehow I could begin my PLQ next summer? If so, do I need to complete the IPSWQ course before I can begin the PLQ modules? Assuming the IPSWQ is available on weekends in Winter, can I do the course as a Pte? 

Assuming that the answers to the previous questions are all in my favor, what steps should I take at my unit to enhance my chances of becoming a 3 or 4 year MCpl?

Thanks!


----------



## MJP

You can do ISPSQ as a pte and must have it prior to starting your PLQ.  Although I'm sure they could waiver it as long as you got it before starting mod 6.  I really don't see it happening though.

I would really not worry about promotions and concentrate on mastering your soldier skills, build up a good experience base,and just generally work hard.  Doing that will show your potential to your superiors and they will recommend you for further leadership training.


----------



## Standards

A good deal of the chances of promotion will depend upon the manning in your unit (i.e. Do they need more MCpl and do they have the positions?).

As far as the courses required for promotion to MCpl:

IPSW - there is no rank prerequisite, therefore yes you can do it as a Pte (and many people do).  It is required before going on the PLQ (Inf), but it is not required to do Mods 1-5.

PLQ (Inf) - Pte's can do Mods 1-4.  You must be a Cpl for Mod 5 and PLQ (Inf) (or Mod 6 for the non-infanteers).  Before someone chimes in with "But i knew this Pte..........", that is what the QS and TP stipulate.  I know the odd Pte has attended in the past, but it is rare and it requires a waiver.  Waivers are unlikely to be granted to a reservist due to the time required for promotion to Cpl (2 yrs as opposed to 4 yrs for Reg F).  Finally, DAT has specifically said they don't want any more infanteers going on PLQ (Inf) and they have the final word.

The best way to help your chances of promotion will be to complete the courses and do well (at least top third).  You must also show a high level of performance during your unit training.  This also means having good attendence as that is how you will build your experience.  Volunteer or step in when there is something to be done and use the opportunities to demonstrate your leadership potential (without being a brown noser or interfeering with what your sect comd is doing).  Good luck.


----------



## Naralis

MJP said:
			
		

> You can do ISPSQ as a pte and must have it prior to starting your PLQ.  Although I'm sure they could waiver it as long as you got it before starting mod 6.  I really don't see it happening though.
> 
> I would really not worry about promotions and concentrate on mastering your soldier skills, build up a good experience base,and just generally work hard.  Doing that will show your potential to your superiors and they will recommend you for further leadership training.


Thanks for the quick/frank answer 

What's the best way to build up experience in the res? From what I understand, other than the exercises on wkns, summer's only real experience builder is milcon. Should I do 4 months of guards next summer? How hard is it to be accepted for a tasking in Ottawa (or preferably Quebec) in the guards? Or is it a better choice to ask to be tasked as enemy force at a base?


----------



## Naralis

Standards said:
			
		

> A good deal of the chances of promotion will depend upon the manning in your unit (i.e. Do they need more MCpl and do they have the positions?).
> 
> As far as the courses required for promotion to MCpl:
> 
> IPSW - there is no rank prerequisite, therefore yes you can do it as a Pte (and many people do).  It is required before going on the PLQ (Inf), but it is not required to do Mods 1-5.
> 
> PLQ (Inf) - Pte's can do Mods 1-4.  You must be a Cpl for Mod 5 and PLQ (Inf) (or Mod 6 for the non-infanteers).  Before someone chimes in with "But i knew this Pte..........", that is what the QS and TP stipulate.  I know the odd Pte has attended in the past, but it is rare and it requires a waiver.  Waivers are unlikely to be granted to a reservist due to the time required for promotion to Cpl (2 yrs as opposed to 4 yrs for Reg F).  Finally, DAT has specifically said they don't want any more infanteers going on PLQ (Inf) and they have the final word.
> 
> The best way to help your chances of promotion will be to complete the courses and do well (at least top third).  You must also show a high level of performance during your unit training.  This also means having good attendence as that is how you will build your experience.  Volunteer or step in when there is something to be done and use the opportunities to demonstrate your leadership potential (without being a brown noser or interfeering with what your sect comd is doing).  Good luck.


Wow!  Thanks for the awesome information. One last lil' thing: do you know if the IPSW is given on weekends in Quebec or is it strictly given during the summer?


----------



## MJP

Standards said:
			
		

> PLQ (Inf) - Pte's can do Mods 1-4.



Excellent I'm glad they dropped the requirement of Cpl for mods 1-4.  We argued unsuccessfuly to send Ptes when the new PLQ system came out, as we've always sent Ptes that have shown good leadership potential on ISCC and JLC/JNCO.  


Naralis

I don't know if it's feasiable for you, but when I was a young reservist I volunteered to go on Ex's with the Reg Force.  I learned more in those 8 weeks then, than I did in a year of weekends with my unit.  It's probably not an option for you but if it does pop up take advantage of it.  Other than that, do as Standards mention step up to the plate(w/o being a brownnoser) and show your superiors your potential through your determination and hard work.


----------



## JBP

My unit recently sent a letter out to everyone advising that they want as many people as possible to jump onto PLQ ASAP this next training phase. They specifically stated in the letter that they will be taking rather new members to the Forces because we have such a severe lack of junior NCO's and Section Cmdrs... We have Cpl's as Section Cmdr's even! They stated that they'll take the best first, but only by availibility. So, they said they'll even take inexperienced soldiers with the hope that any soldier can eventually become a good leader... Not so sure about that, but hey...

So with what I've been reading on here, I suppose I should jump on this once-in-a-blue-moon chance and go straight for my unit's balls and get the PLQ? I'm currently starting BIQ on MONDAY though, so I'd be a SUPER new person... 

Thoughts? Suggestions on streaming up to MCpl...


----------



## MikeM

Don't get ahead of yourself Joe... you still have a long way to go. 

Suggestions? Keep a positive attitude and do as your told, and you'll be good to go.


----------



## armywoman

Out of curiosity.  I found this and was very interested in what everyones opinion is.

Canlandgen 007/05

Subj:  PLQ (L) SUP - Authority to load Ptes

Currently the army is experiencing  MCpl Shortfalls in certain MOCs specifically with certain Regts of the Inf, with the impact of transformation and force expansion, it is possible that other MOCs will also experience difficulty in producing sufficient JR Ldrs.
With the introduction of current generation of army junior leadership courses, PLQ (L) and PLG (inf), a restriction on loading of Ptes on Mod 5 and 6 was enacted IAW with A-PD002 PLQ/PC-H12 Dated 11 Jan 04.
( I don't have that ref. So I can not elaborate on its contents) and Canlandgen 023/03.
This policy has also had the effect of delaying the completion of leadership training to the members fifth year of svc as a min, with the future growth demands, it is assess that the min of five years would limit the army.
DLPM has confirmed that the provisions of DAPS remain in effect but this option promoting selected Ptes/Cpls to Mcpls has lapsed as a result of the restrictions of not being able to load Ptes on JR Leaderships Courses.

The following are the DAPS criteria:
Applies to Arty, Armd, Inf, Cbt Engr, Lineman and Rad Op Trades
The MOCs current merit list must be exhausted
Pte to MCpl - Min of 3 years in SVC and Less than 4 years and PLQ qualified
Cpl- Mcpl - Min 1 year in Rank but less than 2 and PLQ qualified

In response to a request from the army, CDA has granted the authority to wave the rank pre-requisites for loading personnel on army junior leadership courses.  This authorization will remain in effect until 30 Jun 2007.

IAW guidelines at ref E (Adm (hr-mil) instr 01/04 dated 11 Jan 04 (again no ref), unit COs of DAPS eligible MOCs are auth to select Ptes with strong leadership potential to attend and complete MODS 5 and 6 of PLQ (L) and PLQ (Inf) courses.

Must satisfy following criteria:
recommended by CO
eligible for DAPS promotion iaw CFAO 49-4 annex b
satisfy all crse pre-reqs incl IPSW Crse for inf candidates
must have completed MODS 1-4 of PLQ (L) and 
Must have served min of 24 months SVC
The criteria apply equally to Reg and Res soldiers.  By virtue reserve time in rank promotion criteria, reserve solders will be Cpls when they are eligible to commence Mod 5 and Mod 6 PLQ Trg. Reserve Cpls who are PLQ (L) qual are eligible for DAPS from Cpl to Mcpl after one year in rank.


That is more or less word for word.

To open the discussion 
Do members that have been in for 2 years, leadership qualities aside, have the military experience to be placed in a leadership role?

When the military was talking of force expansion did they know this was going to be a problem?  If so was anything done before to try and prevent it?

Would there have been a shortage of leadership if more was done to toughen up troops as opposed to lowering standards to get more people enlisted and to keep in those that should not be in uniform?


----------



## paracowboy

armywoman said:
			
		

> Do members that have been in for 2 years, leadership qualities aside, have the military experience to be placed in a leadership role?


sure. Why not? We know we have a high mortality rate in battle, and that anyone could be the Pl Comd after a fire-fight. That's why we push the idea of leadership and initiative down to the lowest level.
What sort of military experience does one really need to become a leader? One either is, or one is not. Courses simply provide knowledge, but natural leaders exist everywhere. One could argue that more experience simply means more stuck-in-a-rut thinking. You need fresh blood once in a while. 



> When the military was talking of force expansion did they know this was going to be a problem?


 I'm going to guess "probably not." The knowledge gap created by the exodus of our more experienced NCOs seemed to have caught the entire CoC off-guard, despite the constant and loud rumblings. 



> If so was anything done before to try and prevent it?


 I'm going to guess "probably not." Since they didn't fore-see our best and brightest departing in droves, they probably didn't plan for it.



> Would there have been a shortage of leadership if more was done to toughen up troops as opposed to lowering standards to get more people enlisted and to keep in those that should not be in uniform?


 We'd have maintained more of our leadership, but wouldn't have nearly the numbers of troops we have now. So, are we ahead, or behind?


----------



## 2 Cdo

I had a friend approach me today to ask if I knew what grade level of reading would be required for a member to attend PLQ Common. I informed him that I really didn't know as I have not seen a PLQ Common course in quite some time, but like a good NCO I told him that I would get back to him. If anyone, who has recent experience with the PLQ Common course, has any information in regards to what level of reading is required, please PM me. 
Also this member apparently is only at a grade 6 or 7 level. Thanks


----------



## combat_medic

Although I don't know the exact reading level required, I know that when I took the course, there were people of every education level there; from university post-graduates to high school dropouts. Many of the reading assignments were long and boring, but I don't think any of them were particularly difficult. The only challenge in reading them seemed to come from those people who read at a slower pace.

I know some of the PLQ reading assignments/packages were on the ctc.gagetown.mil.ca site (Infantry School - Courses - PLQ), and probably still are, so maybe if you can get a hold of those through the DIN, it will give you a better idea of the level required.


----------



## wpnstech

Just wondering if anyone here knows what the deal is with mod 6 part 1 & 2. I've had reg guys tell me they only do small party taskings (part1), and res do both part 1 & 2. The standards WO in my unit tells me that both reg and res do both part 1 & 2 and that that goes for anyone in the land environment. Does anyone know what is true?


----------



## dapaterson

All Army Reservists do PLQ (Land); Regular Force members will do either CF PLQ or PLQ(Land) depending on their trade.

Unless DAT has changed things again.

And again.

And again...


----------



## wpnstech

Actually I'm wondering more about EME trades in reg vs. res.


----------



## George Wallace

I would suspect that the Standards WO would know what he is talking about.


----------



## brin11

Just saw this one...actually reg force EME trades do small party taskings and that is all.  Makes one wonder why the discrepancy between the reg/reserve.  Too bad the units won't pay to send troops to regimental in Borden instead of part 2.


----------



## siky

Mod 6 is a weird course. Mod 6 has to be done by all in the land force, but there is a diference in Mod 6. Reg and Res do it, but the difference is part 1 is by all trades, part 2 is Hard asses for Infantry. Part one, has most of the common stuff in it, Small Party taskings, part 2 goes more indepth with hard testing on Patrolling and section attacks, and includes other stuff like calling in Arty fire. I did Mod 6 last summer in Pet, then transfered to the Reg EME.


----------



## George Wallace

It has now come out that "ALL" Trades will do the PLQ (Land).


----------



## brin11

Hi George,

Can you tell me where I can find the CANFORGEN or other documentation on that?  Guys I work with have been told by their career manager that the choice of whether the member will complete part 1 or both parts of Mod 6 is controlled by the branch.  As of 11 Dec of this year EME trades were still only required to complete part 1 of Mod 6:  small party taskings.  I know one member has specifically asked to complete part 2 and has been refused as it's not required and they won't pay for him to complete it.  This whole discrepancy is definitely a conundrum and confusing to most.  I follow it because it interests me to see when the whole thing will be sorted out, if ever.


----------



## Patrolman

EME trades as of 2006 will do the CFPLQ. Small Party Task week is their final ex. PLQ(L) is for all combat arms trades (minus Infantry) and also includes reserve MSE OPs and clerks (Regs do the CFPLQ),the Infantry does the, you guessed it! PLQ Infantry. The CFPLQ is in its final days and will be replaced by a revamped PLQ(L) that will be used to train all army trades minus the Infantry. The package is not yet complete,but we expect it to start being used in 2007. 
 DND has realized that the CFPLQ was not properly preparing candidates to be leaders in combat zones such as Afghanistan. By having all trades learn how to do the advance,defence,run ranges etc. we should be able to start fielding a more robust Army.


----------



## HCA123

Reviving an old thread I know, however I think it fits here as it's PLQ related. 

Questions:

1) Has anyone done mods 1-5 PLQ(L) and then tried to complete the remaining PO's from CFPLQ to get the CFPLQ. For example, does 1-5 + Mod 6 part 1 = CFPLQ? 

2) Does anyone have any references to being able to complete the CFPLQ crse after having done the mods 1-5?

Reason I'm asking is that I am dealing with trades that don't necessarily need the PLQ(L) - however we're getting spots on PLQ(L) mods 1-5. Looking for a quick and not-so-dirty way of getting the CFPLQ equivalency.


----------



## vigillis

I was a Crse WO this past summer on a QEL (T) which is PLQ (L) as you can tell I am in LFQA.  It was solely a Mod 6 course, and I had a musician that came in for part one, and did not do part two.  It was explained to me that part two was not required for the musician trade for promotion.  I had a long list of refs from LFQA TC and her unit explaining why, but I cleaned out my inbox a long time ago.  There was also talk of the music trade to go towards CFPLQ which might put the kybosh on your attempts.

I am sure however that someone will either confirm or deny what I have just said, but she was not the only case last summer either.


----------



## HCA123

Ack. I've actually read that directive from LFDTS for musicians - but it doesn't make any mention of being equivalent to CFPLQ (as far as I remember anyway) - it's more or less a musician specific directive. If anyone knows whether or not it (meaning PLQ(L) mods 1-5 + 6pt1)may translate into other purple trades, let me know.


----------



## ark

HCA123 said:
			
		

> Reviving an old thread I know, however I think it fits here as it's PLQ related.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1) Has anyone done mods 1-5 PLQ(L) and then tried to complete the remaining PO's from CFPLQ to get the CFPLQ. For example, does 1-5 + Mod 6 part 1 = CFPLQ?
> 
> 2) Does anyone have any references to being able to complete the CFPLQ crse after having done the mods 1-5?
> 
> Reason I'm asking is that I am dealing with trades that don't necessarily need the PLQ(L) - however we're getting spots on PLQ(L) mods 1-5. Looking for a quick and not-so-dirty way of getting the CFPLQ equivalency.



I know this used to be done before, at least in PRes. Candidates would go on PLQ (L) courses, do Mods 1 to 5 + Mod 6 part 1 and have the equivalency granted for CFPLQ, However, you should definitely check with your Chain of Command if that is still the case.


----------



## d_edwards

I did the army jr nco course part one in 95 and released a year later.  I returned a couple of years ago and my  supervisor is asking me if I have my PLQ and I am not sure if I do.  Is that course considered an equivalent or do I need to take a PLQ.  I am air environment now, on my MPRR it is listed as army jr nco course part one. Any idea where I may find the reference.


----------



## ArmyRick

Basically the course you did was CF JLC (Not to be confused with LFC JR NCO) and no it is NOT equivalent to PLQ Mods 1-5.

Besides that you have been out too long and I don't beleive your CF JLC would be valid anymore.


----------



## PO2FinClk

You would likely have more responses if you posted in the Training Forum: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,39.0.html

Incidentally, I echo ArmyRick's comments.


----------



## Cansky

Although I agree with Army Rick on this topic.  I caution you to use it as gospil.  I would recommend you submit a memo up the chain of command and ask for a PLA (prior learning assessment) to see if they will allow you to keep the qualification from before.  It would benefit if you have the copy of your course report  and submit it with your memo.


----------



## JSR OP

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> Although I agree with Army Rick on this topic.  I caution you to use it as gospil.  I would recommend you submit a memo up the chain of command and ask for a PLA (prior learning assessment) to see if they will allow you to keep the qualification from before.  It would benefit if you have the copy of your course report  and submit it with your memo.



I agree.  I sumitted a memo for a granting of equivilancy for my JLC /JNCO after I did my componant transfer to the Reg Force.  I was granted equivalency and now I have JLC, JNCO, and PLQ quallifications on my MPRR.

While I wasn't in the same boat, it goes to show it definately won't hurt.


----------



## d_edwards

As they want to load me soon, by the time a PLA gets done I would probably be finished.  I suppose it wouldnt hurt to a have a more current course as quite a few things have changed anyways.


----------



## Standards

I have moved on to another position, but I doubt things have changed too much in the past few months.

From the Army perspective IAW LFCO 24-20 Prior Learning Assessment for Equivalencies and Qualification Reinstatements, PLQ(L) Mods 1-5 plus Mod 6 Pt 1 is equivalent to PLQ (CF).  However, the Army is not the MA (Managing Authority) for this training, it belongs to CDA (Canadian Defence Academy) as does the BMQ, BOTP, ILQ, ALQ, etc.  Therefore an equivalency can be granted for PLQ (CF) by taking most of PLQ (L), although I don't personally think this is the best way of going about it.

Regarding the bandsmen, LFCO 29-12 Army Reserve Career Progression covers this.  However it is currently being rewritten and is not available on the DIN.  Essentially it stated that all Army Reservists, except R871 Musicians, required SQ and PLQ (L) as part of their career progression.  Musicians do not require SQ and do not have to take the entire PLQ (L), they just need Mods 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 Pt 1.  Keep in mind, this LFCO is being rewritten (this has been in process for at least six months) so it could change.


----------



## geo

A little bit of "news" for our MP friends   :crybaby:.......
Time to get dirty!   >



> PLQ TRAINING
> Recently, Armed Forces Council has directed that all MP 00161 that are in need of PLQ training will now have to attend PLQ land.  Based on this, all the nominations in MITE for MP 00161 members awaiting PLQ training have been amended to request that these members attend PLQ in a land training center (Suffield, Petawawa, Valcartier or Gagetown), despite the command they belong to, their unit affiliation or the uniform these members are wearing.
> 
> Therefore, it has been directed that in the futur, no MP 00161 attend PLQ training in Borden, Esquimalt, Halifax, Naval Reserve in Quebec City, or any other establishment that may provide PLQ training.
> 
> ENTRAINEMENT DE QEL
> Récement, ''Armed Forces Council'' a décrété que tous les PM 00161 nécéssitant la QEL devront obligatoirement faire le QEL de l'Armée.  De ce fait, toutes les nominations pour les PM 00161 qui sont présentement en attente de cette qualification ont été amendé afin que ces membres se rendre dans un des centres d'entrainement de l'Armée (Suffield, Petawawa, Valcartier ou Gagetown), et ce, peu importe le commandement auquel ils appartiennent, l'affiliation de leur unité ou l'uniforme que ceux-ci portent.
> 
> De ce fait, aucun PM 00161 ne se rendra désormait plus à Borden, Esquimalt, Halifax, Réserve Navale à Québec, ou dans tout autre établissement des FC qui dispensent le cours de QEL.


----------



## BernDawg

I haven't seen anything "official" yet but I hear the same will be true for Construction Engineers in the near future.


----------



## 2fly

BernDawg said:
			
		

> I haven't seen anything "official" yet but I hear the same will be true for Construction Engineers in the near future.



Just doing an update to this old thread...  We currently have one CE type on the Navy PLQ in Esquimalt (13 May - 3 July 2008).


----------



## Jaydub

Here's an interesting question WRT PLQ.

Say if someone, who has already completed CF PLQ, wanted to remuster to a Combat Arms trade (Artillery).  Would they have to take a Land specific PLQ over again?


----------



## PMedMoe

More than likely, they would only have to do the additional Mods.  But I'm not an expert.


----------



## Boxkicker

I will keep you all updated as I am on the course right now. I am a supply Tech in 1 service, so far not to bad a little bit of chicken s*** stuff.


----------



## HItorMiss

JayDub

Yes you would have to complete the PLQ Mod 6 (Land) to retain the qual


----------



## JohnnyCanuck1977

I didn't realize the Army PLQ was so different. I always thought that infantry MCPLs did something called an CSLC, in lieu of a PLQ.  That aside they have redone the PLQ course yet again and it is now called EPLQ (Enhanced Primary Leadership Qualifications) I've been told the change has been made to ensure that the course was standadized across the board. The first EPLQ on the east coast will commence on 28 Oct 2008 so we'll just see how standard it is.  

I've read the QSP on the CFNOS website and it doesn't seem different at all when compared to the old PLQ/JLC.  Is there anyone here that can shed some light on the new EPLQ just excatly what is different? And is it an attempt to standardize the course across the country?


----------



## HItorMiss

There were 3 PLQ Mod 6 courses. PLQ (common) PLQ (land) and PLQ (Infantry)

The common to all mods were 1-5. The PLQ (Common) was esentialy mods 1-5 with a small party task.

Land is very much like Inf but without some hard asses roles and a little less indepth about certain aspects.

Inf was and I wont say the hardest as any course can be made to be very difficult but it was the most indepth and had the most hard asses roles to fill.


----------



## 2fly

JohnnyCanuck1977 said:
			
		

> I've read the QSP on the CFNOS website and it doesn't seem different at all when compared to the old PLQ/JLC.  Is there anyone here that can shed some light on the new EPLQ just excatly what is different? And is it an attempt to standardize the course across the country?



The first EPLQ course is about to grad on the west coast.  It is a 10 week course crammed into 7 and some of the changes include the field phase being tailored towards Afghanistan taskings instead of the usual "raise a tub off the ground 6 inches, etc".

The past couple of PLQ courses on the west had the field phase changed and it is much better with such things as setting up an LZ or providing security for a meeting of community leaders.  Much better than the old tasks.


----------



## George Wallace

JohnnyCanuck1977 said:
			
		

> I didn't realize the Army PLQ was so different. I always thought that infantry MCPLs did something called an CSLC, in lieu of a PLQ.  That aside they have redone the PLQ course yet again and it is now called EPLQ (Enhanced Primary Leadership Qualifications) I've been told the change has been made to ensure that the course was standadized across the board. The first EPLQ on the east coast will commence on 28 Oct 2008 so we'll just see how standard it is.
> 
> I've read the QSP on the CFNOS website and it doesn't seem different at all when compared to the old PLQ/JLC.  Is there anyone here that can shed some light on the new EPLQ just excatly what is different? And is it an attempt to standardize the course across the country?



 :

Crap!  I don't even know what I am qualified as anymore.

Why does someone have to justify their job in the Puzzle Palace by reinventing the wheel every Posting Season?  

This is worse than thinking email and computers will save us on paper..........What savings do we get by having to change every publication in the CF to reflect the correct terminology for the friggin CLC and ICCS courses every friggin year.  A dimwitted, non deployable, unemployable officer in some anonymous corner cubicle of one of the towers with his coffee cup in hand and mustard stains on his short sleeve shirt, minus ribbons, just in from a smoke break (of we know not what), feet up on desk, staring at army.ca, has just come up with a brilliant new name for yet another Leadership course, as the old one is already too old, having been changed a whole six months ago........  :   His flights of fantasy could have been put to better use with the Retire Anal Personnel Early plan.  It appears that the wages and costs of implementing his plans could easily have gone towards the purchase of another flight of CH 47 or Sqn of Leo 2.  In essence, the Secure Centralized Remote Employee Workplace  Unit that he is hidden away in has gone unnoticed for too long.  As we have not RAPE'd this fellow in his SCREW U location, we can only look at the CF continuing in being Feed Unnecessary Combat Knowledge, Extraneously Derived.


----------



## brihard

George- you've got me in stitches over that one. Well done.  ;D


----------



## 2fly

Well put.  Maybe some day they will leave the names alone and be happy not having their names added to OCCSPEC "look what I did while I was in Ottawa"sort of garbage...  Uh... Oh, yeah, I was dreaming.


----------



## honestyrules

I`m going on my "enhanced" CFPLQ next week in Quebec City, Naval reserve (Franco serial, Oct.14th to Dec.3rd) let`s see how it goes. 8 Days field phase in Valcartier towards the end of the course. I`ll post my impressions when I`ll come back!

Berndawg: There will be 3 or 4 Construction engineers on the course, so the "changes" ( Contruction Trades doing Land PLQ) you`re talking about haven`t been done yet!


----------



## Hotwire

Okay so Iv been a Mcpl for 2 years in the spring, and never been offered a PLQ, And Im headed to Afghanistan in feb/March. wich will bring me up to oct. I was once told that there is a grandfather clause for the JLC/PLQ that if your not offered or operationaly able to attent said course that you can have it written off as "Experiance from time served in rank"

Im not trying to get out of somthing, I just want to confirm or deny this.

Thanks alot!


----------



## George Wallace

Hotwire said:
			
		

> Okay so Iv been a Mcpl for 2 years in the spring, and never been offered a PLQ, And Im headed to Afghanistan in feb/March. wich will bring me up to oct. I was once told that there is a grandfather clause for the JLC/PLQ that if your not offered or operationaly able to attent said course that you can have it written off as "Experiance from time served in rank"
> 
> Im not trying to get out of somthing, I just want to confirm or deny this.
> 
> Thanks alot!



You have been a MCpl now, for 2 years, without a PLQ Crse, and you are in the 12 RBC?  Something does not sound right here.  I will have to ask the Career Manager about this one.

As for being granted your PLQ for "Experience for time served in Rank"; forget it.  There is no such thing.  You have to do the PLQ.  

But if you do get to keep your Rank and Pay, please do post it here.  I know several people who would be very interested in how you did that.


----------



## 2fly

Hotwire said:
			
		

> Okay so Iv been a Mcpl for 2 years in the spring, and never been offered a PLQ, And Im headed to Afghanistan in feb/March. wich will bring me up to oct. I was once told that there is a grandfather clause for the JLC/PLQ that if your not offered or operationaly able to attent said course that you can have it written off as "Experiance from time served in rank"
> 
> Im not trying to get out of somthing, I just want to confirm or deny this.
> 
> Thanks alot!



Wishfull thinking.  Sorry bud, you will have to do the course in order to keep the rank.  Just keep your fingers crossed that they load you on course before the decide to revert you.


----------



## Hotwire

well I will be a MCPL for 2 years as of may 2009. Im At 12 RBC, But Im currently doing my workup training for 0109 leaving in feb till oct. 

SO...  I cant see being loaded on a course before dec 2009/Jan 2010. ( as there is little to NO time for it, between now and then)

Is it possible for me to do the individual Mods on my own, like OPME, while Im over seas?

I may be an exception to the case, and Im not trying to get out of the course, I just wanted to know what the reprocusions are if I dont get the course...


----------



## JohnnyCanuck1977

Well if your not PLQ qualifed by the two year mark you may be demoted to CPL. But since you are being deployed and have not been offered a PLQ, and may not be offered one prior to your deployment, you maybe given some grace.  I've seen people go up to 3 years without a PLQ because they were injured and could not get medically fit for the course. I've also been on units were people were held back from going on the PLQ because of operational deployments so your situation isn't as unique as you may think.

The bottom line is get your Divisional system involved, have them inform your career manager of your concerns and let them figure out away ahead.  Since you've never been offered a PLQ I'm going to wager that your Divisional people have let you down or maybe there has been a change over recently and everyone assumes you already have a PLQ and you fell between the cracks.  This may work in your favour especially since you have a deployment coming up. Request that you be allowed to deploy and that you be loaded on the next PLQ on your return.  I'm sure that everyone involved will be happy with the comprimise because let's face it no one wants to do an AR(administrative review) to demote a good MCPL.


----------



## honestyrules

Hi all!

As I mentionned previously, I just want to provide all of you with the info on the new "enhanced" PLQ (ePLQ). I just finished it at the Naval Reserve unit in Quebec city.

It was the first Franco serial (QELA) of the "amélioré" (read enhanced) to be run out of Quebec. From what I understand of the differences between the former program compared to the new one, there is now more enphasis put on the section commander's role.
Most of the content is the same, but the amount of time to cover the topics has changed. Also, the course been run under the authority of CDA, the schools don't have the right to modify the content at all (that includes the Powerpoint slides). There is 16 mandatory PT classes ran by the section commander of the day for each section (you're being evaluated on it)and it includes tac vest/helmet marches for now, maybe short ruck marches on the next serials. They're getting the weapons back into the equation also. Next serials might involve carrying weapons on a day to day basis...The Knowledge lessons and skill lessons that you have to teach are now GIVEN TO YOU and are all involving military knowledge and skills (individual field movements, map/compass, combat first aid, prisonners of war, geneva convention, field hygiene, firing positions, that sort of stuff (no more of that "teach what you want as long as it makes sense" kinda deal)

Now for the field phase: (at least for Quebec's courses) 3 days in and out in Valcartier for lectures (field formations, hand signals and section attacks/pepperpot intro) ,so 3 days where you go back to the shacks at the end of the day. The week after is 6 days straight in Valcartier, living on a FOB, where the students run the show (sections commanders), including meals (a-boxes), dishes, perimeter defense and sentry duties 24/7. 
First 3 days of the field phase are the dry runs/pre-tests and the next 3 are the real evaluations. So no more "petit trot" or watever it was called in English. The word of the day is FORCE PROTECTION. So the section commander gets warning orders then orders, makes his orders..go through the battle procedures (15 steps) routine to do it, passes it on to the 2 I/C and section members, and go out to do it. Patrols, road blocks, searching pplz and vehicules, all that stuff and no more of the "make a raft" or "move that barrel" or "put up a mod tent".

Stand-to's, fire drills, main gate/roving patrol, OP shifts, refueling of the generators/heaters...

Anyway, I thought it would be a good thing to let people know what the changes are on the "enhanced" PLQ.

Mods, if some of that stuff is not appropriate to be seen here, please take it off.

If you got questions, PM me!

Delavan


----------



## Nfld Sapper

delavan said:
			
		

> Hi all!
> 
> As I mentionned previously, I just want to provide all of you with the info on the new "enhanced" PLQ (ePLQ). I just finished it at the Naval Reserve unit in Quebec city.
> 
> It was the first Franco serial (QELA) of the "amélioré" (read enhanced) to be run out of Quebec. From what I understand of the differences between the former program compared to the new one, there is now more enphasis put on the section commander's role.
> Most of the content is the same, but the amount of time to cover the topics has changed. Also, the course been run under the authority of CDA, the schools don't have the right to modify the content at all (that includes the Powerpoint slides). There is 16 mandatory PT classes ran by the section commander of the day for each section (you're being evaluated on it)and it includes tac vest/helmet marches for now, maybe short ruck marches on the next serials. They're getting the weapons back into the equation also. Next serials might involve carrying weapons on a day to day basis...The Knowledge lessons and skill lessons that you have to teach are now GIVEN TO YOU and are all involving military knowledge and skills (individual field movements, map/compass, combat first aid, prisonners of war, geneva convention, field hygiene, firing positions, that sort of stuff (no more of that "teach what you want as long as it makes sense" kinda deal)
> 
> Now for the field phase: (at least for Quebec's courses) 3 days in and out in Valcartier for lectures (field formations, hand signals and section attacks/pepperpot intro) ,so 3 days where you go back to the shacks at the end of the day. The week after is 6 days straight in Valcartier, living on a FOB, where the students run the show (sections commanders), including meals (a-boxes), dishes, perimeter defense and sentry duties 24/7.
> First 3 days of the field phase are the dry runs/pre-tests and the next 3 are the real evaluations. So no more "petit trot" or watever it was called in English. The word of the day is FORCE PROTECTION. So the section commander gets warning orders then orders, makes his orders..go through the battle procedures (15 steps) routine to do it, passes it on to the 2 I/C and section members, and go out to do it. Patrols, road blocks, searching pplz and vehicules, all that stuff and no more of the "make a raft" or "move that barrel" or "put up a mod tent".
> 
> Stand-to's, fire drills, main gate/roving patrol, OP shifts, refueling of the generators/heaters...
> 
> Anyway, I thought it would be a good thing to let people know what the changes are on the "enhanced" PLQ.
> 
> Mods, if some of that stuff is not appropriate to be seen here, please take it off.
> 
> If you got questions, PM me!
> 
> Delavan



Interesting as I have all of this when I did my PLQ back in 05/06 (except for the FOB part, we did the Cold War Defensive Positions). Then again I did PLQ(L), seems they want to get rid of the three different versions of the PLQ Course.


----------



## PMedMoe

Yep, sounds exactly like my Common PLQ (done in Petawawa) with the exception of the three days in the field.  Otherwise, we did all that.  Weapons *every day* and inspections right until the last week.


----------



## honestyrules

Well,
 I agree with all of you on this.

The thing is that for the last few years, the "support trades PLQ" was a little "different" (read easier) than other PLQs, and now they want to set a standard for most PLQs...I can`t talk for Land PLQ, which seems to be harder anyway...anyhow, just a bit of info for those who will be loaded on a "support trades" PLQ in Borden, Halifax, Quebec or other locations for "support trades" PLQs...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Your statment is a bit off, if you are posted/attached to a unit in the land environment you would have to do a PLQ (L) regardless if you are "support trade". I had Truckers, Clerks, Supply techs and an INT OP on my course.


----------



## honestyrules

> Your statment is a bit off



Well, I don`t mean to create  a controversy or something, let me tell you. But on my course, we had 3 or 4 medics from field ambulance in Valcartier(all of them were in AFG with the task force from Valcartier, dunno which roto number) and a Construction folk (army uniform) from a field engineer regiment. Then a medic from CSOR on my course, and one on the Anglo serial that ran a few weeks before ours.

Again, just a bit of info on what I seen, the only thing I can talk about.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

No worries, and congrats on completing your course.


----------



## PMedMoe

delavan said:
			
		

> The thing is that for the last few years, the "support trades PLQ" was a little "different" (read *easier*) than other PLQs



Not if you did it in Petawawa.  We were one of the first groups to go through the "new" PLQ and the instructors were still used to the old JLC/CLC.
From what I understand, the people who did their PLQ in Valcartier, Borden and Esquimalt had a cake walk compared to ours.  No weapons (as there wasn't enough for everyone), getting to pick what they wanted to teach for a skill lesson - with the instructor's approval, of course, etc.
Not that I care, it's over with for me.  What did I learn?  How *not* to be a leader.


----------



## CorporalMajor

OK, I read the thread. It appears my Sect IC and CSM would like to get me on a block Mods1-5 course. 

Even though I'm rather junior and inexperienced, I have leadership experience from team assignments in school (dozens of them) and I mentor a few of my no-hook subordinates on how-tos.

The CSM's rationale behind this course and taking it relatively soon is not to make one of those dreaded overnight MCpls, but give me a foundation on being a junior leader, and letting me grow from there.  That sounds pretty reasonable, and I want to ensure I wind up well prepared for the course. Unlike my other ones..

Now. No doubt there will be lots of PT and drill and those nonsense room inspections. In terms of learning material, I know what to expect. But I have some questions for someone who has taught or completed the course.

- What are some particular things to get a grip on before I land on the crse, apart from the obvious PT, drill, weapons drill.
- What are some DO NOT DOs that will land me in trouble?  Because I did enough of those on BMQ.  :-X
- What are the common pitfalls that get people, on any of these mods? 
- Is it a classroom oriented course, or am I going to be in the field more often?
- I have presented in front of 40-people classes many times (successfully), and have led many student teams at the same time (mostly successful).  Can this experience outside of the CF benefit me on this course, or is this "starting over" in terms of leading people and how to do it????
- I have heard a lot of varying opinions on this course and Mod 6.  Some say it is genuinely useful, others say it was yelling and discipline for the sake of itself (Mod 6 especially).   I take it every course is different from the next?


----------



## ltmaverick25

You wont do much in the field until MOD 6.  Mods 1-5 are much more garrison oriented.  You will learn things like military law and more general service knowledge, you will learn M of I, so how to teach lessons the military way.  You will also have a range weekend which is not very challenging at all.  You are basically learning to lead in a non field environment.

MOD 6 is where it gets both easier and harder.  Its easier in the sence that it will be run by the reg force leadership school.  My personal experience and opinion is that the staff tends to be a bit more professional then the reserve instructers are on the weekend MODs.  It is also harder in that the POs are no joke and much harder.  When you get to MOD 6 you want to make sure that you have your map and compass down solid.  Navigation will be key, the rest will be learned on the fly, but you are expected to have a solid grasp of navigation before ariving.

Otherwise just keep your nose out of trouble and do whats expected of you and you will be fine.  Its challenging, but its also acheivable, even for guys with less experience.


----------



## CorporalMajor

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> MOD 6 is where it gets both easier and harder.  Its easier in the sence that it will be run by the reg force leadership school.  My personal experience and opinion is that the staff tends to be a bit more professional then the reserve instructers are on the weekend MODs.



I don't really understand how that makes it easier.  ???

Do you mean they (Leadership Coy) are better instructors than the Res guys, as in the Regs don't defecate all over you for nothing, and can drive a lesson home better?  My MOD 6 will likely be at Leadership Coy in Petawawa, and as you know it is mainly reg force RCR/RCD types.  In terms of "hardcoreness", that gives me a pretty good idea of what to expect.

I know that 2CER were WAY better instructors on BMQ than some of the people I was under in Meaford for SQ (largely reservists, some good, most of them weren't that good)..  I hope this is once again the case for PLQ.   The only difference is, I might be sent anywhere for 1-5 (a full time month-long course - not that weekend BS) since those are apparently CF common.  So hopefully I will be sent somewhere that is well staffed, but then that isn't my choice......



> It is also harder in that the POs are no joke and much harder.  When you get to MOD 6 you want to make sure that you have your map and compass down solid.  Navigation will be key, the rest will be learned on the fly, but you are expected to have a solid grasp of navigation before ariving.
> 
> Otherwise just keep your nose out of trouble and do whats expected of you and you will be fine.  Its challenging, but its also acheivable, even for guys with less experience.


 Figures abut the Nav part.  I'm OK with NAV, the declination part pisses me off though. 

How are they difficult?  More academic?  More physical?  Or do they put you in difficult situations all the time? Unending ruckmarches? 

I don't think I would have problems passing any of it, in light of the complete retards I have seen getting through  : .  I may not be very experienced, but I am decently fit, reasonably intelligent, have initiative, et al.  Difficulty is only a measure of character in the end, and I expect it to be tough.  I mean, it's the military, right? And leadership isn't an easy task. 

As always I am all ears to any advice that will make me a better student.


----------



## ltmaverick25

The reason its easier is because of the professionalism.  As you so ably put it, in my personal opinion the reg force instructors are less likely to degrade you just for the sake of it.  They dont have anything to prove, this is their full time job and they got over themselves a long time ago.  I did my MOD 6 in Pet and I was for the most part always impressed with the way the staff conducted themselves.  For me, being 30 at the time, it was easier because we werent blatently treated like 2 year olds.

As for whats hard about it, it really depends on you and your skills.  Aside from the mental stress, and me never being in good enough shape, I found MOD 6 to be fairly easy in terms of being able to pass the tests.  The written tests I thought were extremely easy, though others did struggle with them.  I found the patrol to be the hardest part for me, though others did very well.  Section attacks and routine in the defensive were gravy for me.

Everyone is different and everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses.  Patrols were not my strength at all, but I managed to make it through.

It would appear that you have a fairly decent grasp of what to expect at this point.  I wouldnt do too much worrying about it.  Just make sure that you are in excellent physical shape, and mentally prepare yourself for a bag drive again.  If you can overcome the physical and mental side, you can pass any PC check the PLQ will throw at you.


----------



## CorporalMajor

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> The reason its easier is because of the professionalism.  As you so ably put it, in my personal opinion the reg force instructors are less likely to degrade you just for the sake of it.  They dont have anything to prove, this is their full time job and they got over themselves a long time ago.  I did my MOD 6 in Pet and I was for the most part always impressed with the way the staff conducted themselves.  For me, being 30 at the time, it was easier because we werent blatently treated like 2 year olds.


Good..  The jacking up for nothing kind of leadership is the last thing I need.  This isn't what everyone I spoke to thought about that place, but I figure as long as I behave myself I shouldn't worry about being shat on.

Academically, I'm almost done college so I don't think it's much to worry about there....... 

Cheers.


----------



## Kat Stevens

You WILL get dumped on for no apparent reason in the field phase.  There IS a reason for it; the field is where the rubber meets the road, and they need to pile on the pressure to see how you react, including getting a shitstorm in your face.  Learn the game early, and play it well.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Thats debatable.  Crapping on people for the sake of it in the field does not provide any value at all.  All it does is produce NCOs that think they need to crap on people as a matter of course.

When I did MOD 6 the only times we got crapped on in the field was when it was well deserved.  It would usually be as a group for not keeping the hootchie area in good repair, or lapsing on cam and concealment ect...

If ever an individual needed to be crapped on they were pulled off to the side.  No screaming and yelling.  It was simply, calmly explained what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and what they needed to do to fix it, and the consequences of not taking corrective action.  It worked quite well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Different people have different personalities and experiences, so different Ldrship instr's will have different leadership styles.

You don't have to scream and yell on a PLQ course at your candidates to put pressure on them...tight timings seem to do that very well.  

However, I agree with the statement by Kat that there is a time and place and requirement for stressing candidates on course, especially PLQ.  Having been on the receiving and giving end of it, I have seen it used as a valuable tool in any instr's toolbelt.  The problem is young, or inexperienced/green, *insert reason here* staff always using the hammer to fix a problem.  And equally so (and opposite) are the ones that just don't ever use the hammer when warranted; they create issues as well.

Regardless, it is my opinion that one instructor will always be labelled the 'hardass/jackass/screamer'...and usually by the people who are on the receiving end of usually deserved beratings.


----------



## CorporalMajor

So they want to make it a stress game. That is expected. The difference is that even though it IS difficulty for the sake of itself, as explained, it does have a purpose, to see how you do under stress.

But other than that - IMO if you don't have a defensible reason to shout at some one, you shouldn't have your mouth open in the first place. Thankfully for those that like the sound of their own voice, there will always be a mistake made like nodding off in class or some mouthy individual that will get the course marking time, no matter what.  As well, everyone knows it's a game.



> When I did MOD 6 the only times we got crapped on in the field was when it was well deserved.  It would usually be as a group for not keeping the hootchie area in good repair, or lapsing on cam and concealment ect...
> 
> If ever an individual needed to be crapped on they were pulled off to the side.  No screaming and yelling.  It was simply, calmly explained what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and what they needed to do to fix it, and the consequences of not taking corrective action.  It worked quite well.



Exactly... that's professionalism.  You don't need to bark all the time to persuade someone.. and if the person on the receiving end is smart, he or she will do as told or see his way to the door.  I mean no good leader depends on that one mechanism alone (though for some situations, it gets results fast).


----------



## Fide et Fortitudine

I agree with everything said so far.

I have heard from guys who do their Mod 6 (I'm doing mine in the summer) that the reg force instructors use more self induced stressors. So instead of screaming and bitching at you, they tell you you have some ridiculous timing and see how you work.

On the other hand I have seen the pitfalls of reserve instructors and their use of stress. On my MOD 1-5 there was a sergeant who was screaming at one guy for five minutes due to not having juice to drink.

But saying both these things, they are simply generalizations: I have had reserve instructors who give you proper respect and decide that it is better to learn than sit and bitch. As well, I am sure there are bad apples in the reg force too.

So expect the worst and work your best I guess


----------



## CorporalMajor

Well.  Looks like I'm going for 1 thru 5 at sunny Meaford. 

Now I wonder who's staffing this one.    Mabye Sgt Big Bird.   :camo:

At least I will know what to expect in terms of material.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

So read through the whole thread, just wondering what the news is on this, still have the 3 or 4 different standards...or what?

And what would be the difference for Navy pers vs AF vs Army?
sorry to ask its just confusing reading the army stuff since you're reserve and reg system and standards are so different


----------



## Nfld Sapper

AFAIK MODS 1-5 are common to all branches, the difference starts with MOD 6.

All PLQ's are REG/PRES, same TP and content.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Just wanted clarification since the militia run on different systems then NavRes and Air Reserves.

Classic example is BMQ militia = 4 weeks, NavRes/Air Reserves BMQ = same as reg force, same case with QL1/QL3 courses, the militia seems to have all their courses based on 4 weeks schedules.

If anyone can enlighten me as to the Militia's current training regime, everything still on 4 week courses?
if so why the different standard?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Negative most courses are 6 (some are more) weeks long.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Just wanted clarification since the militia run on different systems then NavRes and Air Reserves.
> 
> Classic example is BMQ militia = 4 weeks, NavRes/Air Reserves BMQ = same as reg force, same case with QL1/QL3 courses, the militia seems to have all their courses based on 4 weeks schedules.
> 
> If anyone can enlighten me as to the Militia's current training regime, everything still on 4 week courses?
> if so why the different standard?



Just to reiterate, for the Army, the PLQ-Land is the same course whether the candidate is Regular or Reserve. Module 6 of PLQ-Land is some 29 training days (six weeks) that is taken at one of the training centres. 

The other courses for Army reservists vary in length. Some are indeed four weeks while others are longer. The Qualification Standard (QS) for each course will identify which elements of the course are essential for Reserves to take and which ones can be taken at a later time. For example, a Reserve Crewman does not learn Coyote driving on his DP1 Armoured Recce Crewman because he won't drive a Coyote in his normal duties,nor does he learn Coyote Surveillance Operator. If he deploys with a Regular Force regiment, however, there is scope for him to take a Coyote driving course (_train to need_). The Reserve crewman still takes many other subject areas from the DP 1 course in common with his Regular Force counter-parts. Other branches follow similar patterns.

The Navy, Airforce and Army have different course lengths for their reserves because they are in different situations. The Army has a much larger scale of training.

Unless you are a Force Employer I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## CountDC

The militia also decided a long time ago that it would depend more on OJT at the units rather than lean heavily on formal courses - thus the shorter courses.  Of course this created the problem for awhile where for example a navres clerk could CT and maintain their QLs while a militia clerks QLs were not recognized.

Now to PLQs.  Currently a lot of acting lacking masters are created - used to be the reason given was that there was not enough leadership courses run to keep up with the demand and they didn't want to hold back people because of the system.  Seemed good in the past but now.  I am in a position where I see a lot of information and from that I have to wonder if the acting lacking master is such a good idea.  I see a lot of them that are unable to pass the PLQ and dropped back to LS/Cpl after wearing the leaf as long as 5 years.  I am now thinking that perhaps they should stop the actings and have completion of PLQ mandatory.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

So with all that being said, why are the reserves so separate and distinct almost to the point of being their own branches, as opposed to the Reg force where you don't that.

Has there ever been talk of making all reserves standards the same?


----------



## ARMY_101

Reserves are part-time and there to conduct training less frequently than those who are on full time taskings.  It doesn't seem realistic to make them go through the same standard and length of training when they only (usually) work part time.


----------



## dapaterson

Reg F is the biggest offender for Acting lacking, as Reserve promotion policy explicitly states that you can't be lacking a leadership qualification.

For the clerks: the majority of Reserve clerks in the Army will not perform the tasks taught on the Reg F course and not on the Res course.  Therefore, why train them in those skills?  Train-to-need is the name of that philosophy.


----------



## George Wallace

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Reserves are part-time and there to conduct training less frequently than those who are on full time taskings.  It doesn't seem realistic to make them go through the same standard and length of training when they only (usually) work part time.



Wroooooong!


----------



## dangerboy

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Reserves are part-time and there to conduct training less frequently than those who are on full time taskings.  It doesn't seem realistic to make them go through the same standard and length of training when they only (usually) work part time.



And when they do work full time (on exercise or deployment) are they then supposed to stay I would love to do this task but I am a reserve and we don't do this.


----------



## dapaterson

No, their leaders are supposed to be professionals who are educated and understand the system.  Plus, the training deltas are all documented in the appropriate course materials, so any required delta training can be provided.

On the other hand, finding a Reg F clerk who is trained in the CF system "Revised Pay System for the Reserves" is quite rare - usually, they require training if posted to a Reserve unit.  In other words, when someone comes in who because of their training regime and / or experience lacks some skillsets that are needed for the job, you train them - whether Reg or Res.


----------



## PuckChaser

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Reserves are part-time and there to conduct training less frequently than those who are on full time taskings.  It doesn't seem realistic to make them go through the same standard and length of training when they only (usually) work part time.



That ideal caused the Big R little r rift from days before. Now, at least in the SigOp world, all of the courses are condensed, but contain the same PO checks as the Reg F counterparts. If you want interoperability between the reserves and the regs, you need to train the reserves to the same standard, even if the total time is longer or broken into mods. My PLQ was 9 weeks long, 4 weeks shorter than the current standard, but we covered everything, just in a shorter period of time. Long days, some missed weekends, but the same deal.


----------



## CountDC

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Reg F is the biggest offender for Acting lacking, as Reserve promotion policy explicitly states that you can't be lacking a leadership qualification.
> 
> For the clerks: the majority of Reserve clerks in the Army will not perform the tasks taught on the Reg F course and not on the Res course.  Therefore, why train them in those skills?  Train-to-need is the name of that philosophy.



thanks for the pick up - forgot to indicate the acting lacking comment was in regards to reg f.


----------



## ArmyRick

Army 101, you are way off base. The role of the reserves is not to work part time. It is to have a prepared force ready to augment the reg f or mobilize for operations.

The PLQ is working fine as it stands now. We should at every oppurtunity, have reg f and reserve f do the same courses. Look at how often reservist deploy overseas. 

You need to check you head space and timing when it comes to understanding how and where the PRes fits into the big picture.


----------



## CountDC

101 it sounds like you have been getting info from some old time part time career reservist as that was the mentality of a lot of them in the 80's. Some even treated the reserves as nothing more than a social club (unfortunately there are still a few of those out there).   Todays reservist should do the same course training as their reg f counterpart so they can do the job they are meant for - augmenting the reg f when needed.


----------



## steep

QUESTION about PLQ this summer:

I heard a rumor that the PLQ slated for this summer (specifically Gagetown) is reg force only. Becasue of the new distance learning part they want to test it out first. Does anyone know what the deal is?

Also does anyone know why a command wouldn't have authority to load pers on courses? Please PM me if you have an idea.


----------



## dapaterson

Sometimes for trials a course is limited to a specific audience.  The PLQ DL may be such a case.

A Command can only load pers if they ahve been authorized vacancies, and if the train-to-need is met.  So it's quite unlikely that the Air Force would load a pilot on an advanced recce patrolman course, for example - no requirement.

In the case of PLQ-Land, to my knowledge medical trades do not take PLQ-L; they take CF-PLQ; thus Health Services wouldn't be loading people onto PLQ-L.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

All of the serials in Gagetown are still listed as REG/PRES. 

And the DL portion seems to be on MOD 1-5 so I am wondering if they finally "fixed the system" for MOD 5 as part of it was supposed to be a DL package.


----------



## steep

No medics take PLQ-L, or at least reserve medics do since we're feild units. 

So the PLQ DL's in gagetown are PRES too? That was just something I heard, but no one in my unit knew if it was true or not. 

How are authorized vacancies for a course alotted? Is it up to the course/LFAA to allot spots to the different commands?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PteFabulous said:
			
		

> No medics take PLQ-L, or at least reserve medics do since we're feild units.
> 
> So the PLQ DL's in gagetown are PRES too? That was just something I heard, but no one in my unit knew if it was true or not.
> 
> How are authorized vacancies for a course alotted? Is it up to the course/LFAA to allot spots to the different commands?



AFAIK all PLQ's run at the Area TC's are all REG/PRES courses.


Suggest you talk to your CoC,

Here is the listings off the PLQ's running at or by LFAA TC

DP2 - PLQ (L) Mod 6	DP2	REG/PRES	21/Apr/09	1/Jun/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	14/Apr/09	29/Apr/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	20/Apr/09	5/May/09
DP2-PLQ  Mod 1-5 RESIDENCY	DP2	REG/PRES 1/May/09	12/May/09
DP2 - PLQ (L) Mod 6	DP2	REG/PRES	13/May/09	23/Jun/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	13/May/09	29/May/09
DP2-PLQ  Mod 1-5 RESIDENCY	DP2	REG/PRES 3/Jun/09	             12/Jun/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	4/Jun/09          	22/Jun/09
DP2-PLQ  Mod 1-5 RESIDENCY	DP2	REG/PRES 24/Jun/09	6/Jul/09
DP2 - PLQ (L) Mod 6	DP2	REG/PRES	7/Jul/09   	17/Aug/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	9/Jul/09   	24/Jul/09
DP2-PLQ  Mod 1-5 RESIDENCY	DP2	REG/PRES 27/Jul/09	6/Aug/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	9/Jul/09   	24/Jul/09
DP2-PLQ  Mod 1-5 RESIDENCY	DP2	REG/PRES 27/Jul/09	6/Aug/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	29/Sep/09	14/Oct/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	29/Sep/09	14/Oct/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	29/Sep/09	14/Oct/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	29/Sep/09	14/Oct/09
DP2-PLQ  Mod 1-5 RESIDENCY	DP2	REG/PRES 16/Oct/09	27/Oct/09
DP2 - PLQ (L) Mod 6	DP2	REG/PRES	28/Oct/09	8/Dec/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	26/Oct/09	10/Nov/09
DP2-PLQ  Mod 1-5 RESIDENCY	DP2	REG/PRES 13/Nov/09	24/Nov/09
DP2 - PLQ Mod 1-5   DL	DP2	REG/PRES	12/Nov/09	27/Nov/09
DP2-PLQ  Mod 1-5 RESIDENCY	DP2	REG/PRES 30/Nov/09	9/Dec/09


_(All info is current as of the 24 Mar 09 ver of the Army National Calendar)_


----------



## dapaterson

PteFabulous said:
			
		

> No medics take PLQ-L, or at least reserve medics do since we're feild units.
> 
> So the PLQ DL's in gagetown are PRES too? That was just something I heard, but no one in my unit knew if it was true or not.
> 
> How are authorized vacancies for a course alotted? Is it up to the course/LFAA to allot spots to the different commands?



For Army run courses such as PLQ Land, there is an annual conference where the Army allocates positions on courses.  The Health Svcs Gp attends and makes its requirements known.  (There's a second go-round as well to get better clarity on the numbers.)  There is an agreement that a certain proportion of training slots will be made available to the Medical Reserve that dates from when the Med Res was transferred from the Army.


----------



## 21trucker

Was Med RTU this summer from PLQ L.  Is it still possible to be promoted to MCpl, provided you finish the rest of the course with in a certain time frame?

I did manage to complete Pt 1 successfully. If that matters.

 :yellow:


----------



## brihard

21trucker said:
			
		

> Was Med RTU this summer from PLQ L.  Is it still possible to be promoted to MCpl, provided you finish the rest of the course with in a certain time frame?
> 
> I did manage to complete Pt 1 successfully. If that matters.
> 
> :yellow:



I'm not aware of anyone being appointed MCpl without having completed PLQ mod 6 in its entirety. You may be able to go back and only do part 2, however. I would ask your chain of command about the possibility of getting in touch with the leadership company and finding out if they could parachute you in to part 2 of a subsequent course sometime earlier than next summer. On my mod 6 (infantry) we had several people join at two weeks and four weeks into the course who had medically RTUed on an earlier one.


----------



## PMedMoe

You can be promoted to appointed MCpl without PLQ.  IIRC, it must completed within two years of the promotion appointment.

I've known lots of people promoted appointed without it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> You can be promoted to appointed MCpl without PLQ.  IIRC, it must completed within two years of the promotion appointment.
> 
> I've known lots of people promoted appointed without it.



PRes no, you must first complete the course then get appointed to MCpl.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I thought the PRes was doing the A/L thing too?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I thought the PRes was doing the A/L thing too?



Then I would have be a A/Sgt for the last year EITS.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Then I would have be a A/Sgt for the last year EITS.



Seen.  Is that a CLS/LFAA policy/directive, or maybe just a 37 CBG thing (you 37 Bde guys ARE AFdU afterall  :blotto?  I was sure there were some A/L in 36 when I left.


----------



## PMedMoe

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> PRes no, you must first complete the course then get appointed to MCpl.



Seen, thanks.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Seen.  Is that a CLS/LFAA policy/directive, or maybe just a 37 CBG thing (you 37 Bde guys ARE AFdU afterall  :blotto?  I was sure there were some A/L in 36 when I left.



BTW thought is was you 36 Bde guys that where AFdu  ;D

All I know is that I got one Cpl who can not be appointed to MCpl because they do not have their QL5.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> BTW thought is was you 36 Bde guys that where AFdu  ;D
> 
> All I know is that I got one Cpl who can not be appointed to MCpl because they do not have their QL5.



Seen.  I think thats the difference.  Not having QL5 is a MOC qual deficiency, no?  PLQ is not MOC specific, rather a DP 2 PD qual.


----------



## CorporalMajor

It is very common for people to get A/MCpl without 5s.  I'm on my 5s now and have two MCpls on course with me.


----------



## Hotwire

So, Iv finaly been loaded on a PLQ course Jan 7 2010 - Feb 9 2010... Its the new DL version. 3 weeks at home working online, then 9 days in Aldershot doing the residency portion of the mods.. Only after sucessful completion of mods 1-5 will I start the Mod 6... wich starts the day after.

What are the diffrences between Mod 6 L, and Mod 6 Inf. ?

Im glad I can finaly get this taken care of, even though Its been 3 years, a Tour, and alot of people (From my Sec IC to the Career Mangeler) telling me, `you dont need it. Its just a check in the box`.  The Career Managers words EXACTLY!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PLQ (I)

To successfully complete Mod 6 the candidate must achieve the following:

(1)     PO 201 – Lead Subordinates:

(a)     EC 201 – Written EC that includes material covered in Mods 1 – 5; and

(b)     PC 201 – Practical PC – Leadership assessment during Patrolling, Defence and Offence;

(2)     PO 205 – Plan Operations: 

EC 205 – Written EC;

(3)     PO 206 – Conduct Operations/Control Direct Fire:

EC 206 – After Action Review, once following the Small Party Task Exercise and once following a   field assessment;

(4)     PO 207 – Control Indirect Fire;

(5)     PO 208 – Conduct Patrolling Operations;

(6)     PO 209 – Conduct Dismounted Offensive Operations:

(7)     PO 210 – Defend the Main Defensive Area;

(8)     PO 211– Conduct Transitional and Unique Operations;

(9)     EdO 201– Describe Dismounted Infantry Doctrine and Tactics;

(10)    EdO 202– Describe Combat Arms Doctrine; and 

(11)    EdO 203– Analyze current threat.


PLQ (L)

To successfully complete Mod 6 the candidate must achieve the following:

(1)     PO 201 – Lead Subordinates:

(a)     EC 201 – Written EC that includes material covered in Mods 1 – 5; and

(b)     PC 201 – Practical PC – Leadership assessment during Patrolling, Defence and Offence;

(2)     PO 205 – Plan Operations:

EC 205 – Written EC;

(3)     PO 206 – Conduct Operations/Activities: 

EC 206 – After Action Review, once following the Small Party Task Exercise and once following           a field assessment;

(4)     PO 207 – Lead Section in Offensive Operations:

(a)     EC 207 – Written EC;

(b)     EC 207 – Practical ECs on Control Weapons Fire and Target Indication; and

(c)     PC 207 – Practical PC – lead a section Advance to Contact and Quick Attack or urban                    assault.

(5)     PO 208 – Lead Section in Defensive Operations:

(a)     EC 208 – Written EC; and

(b)     PC 208 – Practical PC – lead a section during occupation of the defence or routine in the defence.

(6)     PO 209 – Lead Dismounted Recce Patrol:

(a)     EC 209 – Written EC – patrolling and navigation; and

(b)     PC 209 – Practical PC – lead a Dismounted patrol in an urban or green environment.


----------



## CorporalMajor

Hotwire said:
			
		

> So, Iv finaly been loaded on a PLQ course Jan 7 2010 - Feb 9 2010... Its the new DL version. 3 weeks at home working online, then 9 days in Aldershot doing the residency portion of the mods.. Only after sucessful completion of mods 1-5 will I start the Mod 6... wich starts the day after.



Has anyone tried the DL version of these mods?

How was it?  if I wind up going that's probably what'll get handed to me.


----------



## Cam

I'm now in the navy,and did my plq last feb.  It was pretty much an attend and keep your mouth shut  course.  By week 1, I was told to stop polishing my boots.  About three inspections anon anon.  The references did not line up with the lectures, and the flaws in the exams could not be corrected because Trentonhadn't approved.  Center of excellance my @ss.  The instructors petty new thier stuff pretty well, and one used to be an RCR, but...  Center of excellence again.  The field phase was as good as they could, but there is a noted lack of bushes in the ocean, so it's pretty much spit out the stuff they said earlier in the coures.  One of my lectures was map and compass.  The compass came in deg,xand the maps in mills.  The northings had different numbers on the different ends of the same gridline........  I wasn't permitted to teach any weapons lectures or such as I was an infantryman for 10 years (RCR).  Once again, for the most part, thet tried, but I was expecting a little more.  All in all, a few weeks and one more box checked I guess.


----------



## Hotwire

The DL Part, Even though dont start untill Jan, Iv already been looking threw. The written lectures are pretty vauge, and kind of all over the place. One thing I do think is well done are the videos, well the 2 Iv seen so far. I havent looked at any of the home work yet, or the testing for the DL portion.

Im ready to get on with this course, The field portion is what Im looking forward too. Feb, Im sure will be cold and wet in NS.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

That it will be Hotwire but on the flipside the training area is really small, virtually impossible to get lost.


----------



## Hotwire

well, week one of the residency is done. All my lessons taught and passed. 1 more week of residency left then we get onto mod 6. 

they are saying that mod 6 run as a FOB now. And they are saying there is only 9 days in the field. Im still weary about this place though. Our course is a mix of purple, black, blue, and green. Kinda looks like a bad bruise.... Feels like it too.   :-\

The DL portion didn't line up with the residency portion at all, our assignments were not forwarded as we were instructed they would be. Lesson plans were not to the same standard in either location. But, this is to be expected from a course that is pretty much set in pudding. The time table, the lessons, and the standards are changing as we speak. there are Airforce techs that are being pushed into the mod 6... how does that work??


----------



## aesop081

Hotwire said:
			
		

> how does that work??
> [/quote
> 
> I'm going to bet they are with a Tac Hel unit.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Hotwire said:
			
		

> well, week one of the residency is done. All my lessons taught and passed. 1 more week of residency left then we get onto mod 6.
> 
> they are saying that mod 6 run as a FOB now. And they are saying there is only 9 days in the field. Im still weary about this place though. Our course is a mix of purple, black, blue, and green. Kinda looks like a bad bruise.... Feels like it too.   :-\
> 
> The DL portion didn't line up with the residency portion at all, our assignments were not forwarded as we were instructed they would be. Lesson plans were not to the same standard in either location. But, this is to be expected from a course that is pretty much set in pudding. The time table, the lessons, and the standards are changing as we speak. there are Airforce techs that are being pushed into the mod 6... how does that work??



Also you have to remember that MOD 6 is broken up into 2 modules,

MOD 6 MOD 1
is common to everyone and lasts for 2 weeks. It encompasses small party tasks.

MOD 6 MOD 2
is for those employed/working in a land enviroment and lasts for 4 weeks and deals with section attacks and the like....

It may have changed since I did mine 3 yrs ago so ..........

My  :2c: your mileage may vary


----------



## wildman0101

dumb-a***D question
clc combat leadership course (combat arms)
jlc junior leadership course (non combat arms support)
im hazarding a guess that now these 2 are combined?
into the primary (primary leadership course)
just curious as that was how it was back in my day
so to speak...
one more question (is the reserve primary leadership 
course the same as reg force) in qualifictions ect...
just an old ironsides curiousity...
cheers ....
scoty b


----------



## Nfld Sapper

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> dumb-a***D question
> clc combat leadership course (combat arms)
> jlc junior leadership course (non combat arms support)
> im hazarding a guess that now these 2 are combined?
> into the primary (primary leadership course)
> just curious as that was how it was back in my day
> so to speak...
> one more question (is the reserve primary leadership
> course the same as reg force) in qualifictions ect...
> just an old ironsides curiousity...
> cheers ....
> scoty b



PLQ is a total force course so you can have a mix of both on it...


----------



## wildman0101

nfld sapper
so your saying the plq(primary leadership course is equivalent 
to the clc/jlc combined???
regards 
 Principles of Leadership
1) Achieve professional competence and pursue self-improvement

2)Clarify objectives and intent

3) Solve problems; make timely decisions

4) Direct; motivate by persuasion and example and by sharing risks and hardships

5) Train individuals and teams under demanding and realistic conditions

6) Build teamwork and cohesion

7) Keep subordinates informed, explain events and decisions

8 ) Mentor, educate, and develop subordinates

9) Treat subordinates fairly; respond to their concerns, represent their interests

10) Maintain situational awareness; seek information; keep current

11) Learn from experience and those who have experience

12) Exemplify and reinforce the miiltary ethos; maintain order and discipline; uphold professional norms

would you concur the training is the same
and regards to my initial question do the reserves have or are 
qualified the same... even though thier training is about or better
considering-reg force.... dont get me wrong ive worked with both
reg force and reserve... was my pleasure working with direct 
entries also and they were top notch...
really hope you dont mind all the questions as im just an old iron-
side catching up so to speak...
thanks mate ,,,,cheers,,,,
                         scoty b


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Can't comment on the JLC/JNCO/CLC Courses as they are before my time....

For PLQ there is only one course, no shortening of the course for the PRes (i.e. course is 50 training days long). So the qualification is the same wether you are REG or PRES.


----------



## bluecollared

If anyone has a current aide memoire or orders format that would be useful for the field portion of the mod 6 I would really appreciate a copy. PM me and I'll send you my din email address along with many thanks.

CHIMO!


----------



## ab136

Anyone have info on a PLQ running in St. Jean Feb-Mar?


----------



## kuchunwah

aide memoir would be nice...


----------



## Shamrock

Care to elaborate?


----------



## armyboytncoy

Theres MOD 6 Infantry and theres a MOD 6 Land. Combat arms do the Infentry one and us CSS guys do the Land if your army theres a hole different course for the navy and airforce. also mod 6 is now broken in to two phases now the first part is 16 days and the second part is 23 days. i only know this as i just got my course message to go on mine next month and that's what it says.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

armyboytncoy said:
			
		

> Theres MOD 6 Infantry and theres a MOD 6 Land. Combat arms  INFANTRY do the Infentry one and us  CSS guys   All other arms do the Land if your army theres a hole different course for the navy and airforce. also mod 6 is now broken in to two phases now the first part is 16 days and the second part is 23 days. i only know this as i just got my course message to go on mine next month and that's what it says.



Fixed that for you, also please use proper spelling/grammar/capitalization.


----------



## armyboytncoy

Well when i did my PLQ 1 - 5 the MOD 6 Infantry was for ALL Combat Arms trades and the MOD 6 Land was for the CSS guys.


----------



## vonGarvin

armyboytncoy said:
			
		

> Well when i did my PLQ 1 - 5 the MOD 6 Infantry was for ALL Combat Arms trades and the MOD 6 Land was for the CSS guys.


You must be mistaken.  PLQ 1 - 5 satisfies the CF's requirements for "primary leadership" for all CF Master Corporals, Master Bombardiers and Master Seamen.  PLQ Land adds on to that ("mod 6"), and satisfies the Army's requirements for all Army Master Corporals and Master Bombardiers.  PLQ Infantry satisfies the Army Requirements AND Infantry-specific requirements for Infantry Master Corporals.  This is why PLQ Infantry is longer than PLQ Land, because it must contain the same content as PLQ Land, as well as the Infantry Requirements.


----------



## armyboytncoy

1-5 is everyone together. Combat Arms and CSS, no matter what trade you are. On my 1-5 was PPCLI and there was truckers, everyone does the same together. The difference is the Mod 6, theres two. Mod 6 Infentry(ALL the Combat Arms) and Mod 6 Land(everyone else).


----------



## Nfld Sapper

armyboytncoy said:
			
		

> 1-5 is everyone together. Combat Arms and CSS, no matter what trade you are. On my 1-5 was PPCLI and there was truckers, everyone does the same together. The difference is the Mod 6, theres two. Mod 6 Infentry(ALL the Combat Arms) and Mod 6 Land(everyone else).



You are wrong.

PLQ LAND is for everyone in a LAND ENVIRONMENT less INFANTRY

PLQ INFANTRY is ONLY for INFANTRY PERSONNEL


----------



## JSR OP

Is it just me, or was it simpler for everyone to understand when there was an ISCC, JLC, and CLC?

Just a thought.


----------



## George Wallace

JSR OP said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or was it simpler for everyone to understand when there was an ISCC, JLC, and CLC?
> 
> Just a thought.



Yes, but if the name had not been changed annually several high ranking persons would never have had the "Promotes change" box ticked off on their PERs.


----------



## armyboytncoy

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> You are wrong.
> 
> PLQ LAND is for everyone in a LAND ENVIRONMENT less INFANTRY
> 
> PLQ INFANTRY is ONLY for INFANTRY PERSONNEL


Well then they changed it from when i did mine because after mod 5 we split Combat arms did the Infantry one and the CSS did the Land one, theres no being wrong on that because that's what happend.


----------



## dangerboy

When did you do yours and where?  One of the prerequisites for the PLQ Infantry besides being Infantry is you need to be qualified IPSWQ (Infantry Platoon Support Weapons Qualified).  Also on your course did you get assessed on calling in indirect fire and controlling direct fire machine guns?


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, but if the name had not been changed annually several high ranking persons would never have had the "Promotes change" box ticked off on their PERs.



Beleive it or not, sometimes things are changed for what are, at the time, good reasons and with good intentions. Not every single decision people make is driven by *"leading change"* (you could at least get it right). For a guy with your lenght of service and experience, you sure like to jump on uneducated bandwaggons all the time.

Then, there's the law of unintended consequences.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, but if the name had not been changed annually several high ranking persons would never have had the "Promotes change" box ticked off on their PERs.



 :boring:


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, but if the name had not been changed annually several high ranking persons would never have had the "Promotes change" box ticked off on their PERs.



So modularization of course delivery to serve total force needs, promote distributed courses to allow for local training and the move to standardize much of the common leadership requirements that were spread across branch specific courses had nothing to do with it?

As others have indicated, the soapbox built on the limited perspectives of your experience is starting to get stale.


----------



## armyboytncoy

dangerboy said:
			
		

> When did you do yours and where?  One of the prerequisites for the PLQ Infantry besides being Infantry is you need to be qualified IPSWQ (Infantry Platoon Support Weapons Qualified).  Also on your course did you get assessed on calling in indirect fire and controlling direct fire machine guns?


 I did mine 5 years ago in Aldershot Nova Scotia. I did Land 1-5 I'm just getting on to my Mod 6 next month. The reason i didn't get on the Mod 6 after my course is that it was mod 6 Infantry, so All of the combat arms guys went and did that one.(arty, armoured, engineers and so on) then went regs and had to wait my turn.


----------



## ArmyRick

As it stands now, there is a PLQ Land and a PLQ Infantry. I know this because Meaford (my unit) is running 2 x PLQ Lands. I am not directly involved.

Is there a PLQ for non LFC members (Air and navy)?


----------



## aesop081

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Is there a PLQ for non LFC members (Air and navy)?



Yes. The Air Force runs its PLQ out of ACA in Borden.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

armyboytncoy said:
			
		

> I did mine 5 years ago in Aldershot Nova Scotia. I did Land 1-5 I'm just getting on to my Mod 6 next month. The reason i didn't get on the Mod 6 after my course is that it was mod 6 Infantry, so All of the combat arms guys went and did that one.(arty, armoured, engineers and so on) then went regs and had to wait my turn.



Listen, I did mine 5/6 yrs ago and can tell you that all other arms do PLQ MOD 6 LAND and only INFANTRY do PLQ MOD 6 INFANTRY....


----------



## agc

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yes. The Air Force runs its PLQ out of ACA in Borden.



Also CFFS(E), CFFS(Q) and CFNOS for the Navy and those employed outside an environmental command.


----------



## armyboytncoy

NFLD sapper were did u do yours then because I'm telling you that's the way LFAA ran the PLQ.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

armyboytncoy said:
			
		

> NFLD sapper were did u do yours then because I'm telling you that's the way LFAA ran the PLQ.



LFAA


----------



## vonGarvin

LFAA TC is the Centre of Excellence for PLQ Infantry, for what it's worth.  In 2003, I was a course officer for a PLQ (Land), and then for the PLQ (Infantry) which followed.  I can say, with 100% certainty, that only Infantrymen were on that PLQ Infantry.  And on every PLQ Infantry that followed.  You don't have the pre-reqs to be on a PLQ Inf if you are not Infantry.

Now, they may have done a bit of a hybrid, in that you did the PLQ (Land) portion with the Infantry guys, because at one time, there was PLQ Land (Mod 6) done by all, followed by a 2 week module for the Infantrymen...


----------



## ArmyRick

In the CTP for PLQ Infantry (Which is a pretty much though shalt type of document) it probably states that you must be INFMN.

If a non-infantry soldier was course loaded (Special Ops Assaulters that are from non-inf backgrounds I am sure are exempt or waivered) they could not be held accountable to the different PO checks.

Another thought, maybe non-infantry guys were thrown in with infantry but course reports and standard as per PLQ Land.


----------



## Kat Stevens

On my JNCO crse, at the end of the "common phase", combat arms guys were asked if we would want to do the field phase with the infantry, due to the fact that they didn't have enough bodies left to cover off all the positions in the field.  No extra cool qualification was offered, just "completed JNCO crse".


----------



## ArmyRick

Check your course report and see exactly what qualification you got. That is the document to go by. Please tell me you saved a copy?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Long past the point of being important any more, the course was 20 years ago, and I've been retired since '03, but my UER update sheet just said "completed JNCO Crse".


----------



## Stinky

Ok gents, we got a tasking for our lesson plan today. Were are to start looking for references and I thought why not dip into the wealth of knowledge that's here as well. My topic is "Road Blocks and Access Points" the only pub i could find on the din was atp 3.4.1.1......not a whole lot to go on. So i don't want to plagiarise so don't give an actual reference just a pub if you can think of one. Thanks!


----------



## top4u20

Does anyone know if there is a specific time frame that you have to be loaded on your residency portion of your PLQ after completing the distance learning portion? I understand the the CM has to load you. Will the distance learning expire after so long?
Thanks


----------



## rookieguide

DOes anyone know what PLQ land is looking like these days? I am to starts my mods 1-5 distance, and wondering what is happening with the field portion (length, difficulty, where upcoming courses are being held?).


----------



## MikeL

rookieguide said:
			
		

> DOes anyone know what PLQ land is looking like these days? I am to starts my mods 1-5 distance, and wondering what is happening with the field portion (length, difficulty, where upcoming courses are being held?).



There is no field portion on Mods 1-5, aside from the day on the range for Mod 3

AFAIK PLQ Mod 6 Land is 6 weeks(Thanks Sapper).  How difficult it will be depends on you(and other students) and how well you can grasp the knowledge/skills and apply them and your leadership ability.  Because you are doing 1-5 DL your first portion of the residency portion will be the practical and PO checks for Mods 1-5 then you will move into the Mod 6 portion.  Courses are run in Wainwright, Petawawa, Gagetown, Aldershot(?), Valcartier and Shilo - I only know Reservists who've done it in Shilo, no Reg Force.

I've only done my Mods 1-5, so my info on Mod 6 is just what I've read/heard.

Pretty sure theres a large thread on PLQ, might want too check it out.  Also talking to the other people in your unit who have PLQ would be a good way to find out what it's like, what to expect, etc.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

When I did PLQ 4 or 5 years ago, MOD 6 was 6 weeks and split into 2 mods, with the last mod being the field portion.



			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> AFAIK PLQ Mod 6 Land is still 1 month long.  How difficult it will be depends on you and how well you can grasp the knowledge/skills and apply them and your leadership ability.
> 
> Courses are run in Wainwright, Petawawa, Gagetown, Aldershot and Valcartier.
> 
> Because you are doing 1-5 DL your first portion of the residency portion will be the practical and PO checks for Mods 1-5 then you will move into the Mod 6 portion.
> 
> 
> Pretty sure theres a large thread on PLQ, might want too check it out.  Also talking to the other people in your unit who have PLQ would be a good way to find out what it's like, what to expect, etc.



Fixed that for ya


----------



## themoose

Hello everyone,

Does anyone know where I can find the documentation stating there is a 1 year time frame to complete your mod 6 after completion of your mods 1-5, or else you will need to redo mods 1-5? 

I did Mod's 1-5 then I went for knee surgery, i was then on t-cat, now I'm finally p-cat with MEL's, and I'm being sent back on mods 1-5 because "it's been longer than a year".

I have no desire to repeat 1-5 just for the sake of it.


any ideas???



Moose


----------



## MikeL

Once you have your mods, they do not expire.  I did Mod 1 a year before I did my Mods 2-5.. when I showed up on course I gave them a print out of my MPRR that said I had Mod 1 and I got to skip that portion.  Do you have your course report from Mods 1-5 and/or does it show on your MPRR?  If so, show that to your CoC.


----------



## PuckChaser

The only thing I've heard of close to this is that if you don't complete all the required mods for your trade (CFPLQ, PLQ-L or PLQ-Inf) after 2 years of being acting/lacking MCpl they can take your rank away.

As Skeletor said, if you've got a course report saying you've completed mods 1-5, you should be good to go. If you don't have paperwork to back yourself up though, the Big Green machine has another victim.


----------



## themoose

MPRR shows all mods and I have all my course reports.

I have hear this rumor in the past but never saw any references to it, and figured it was hearsay.

Ops WO says I need to redo them, and that he "checked into in" to see if I had to or not.

I need some reference in writing though to prove it to him, otherwise he wont believe me.



Moose


----------



## Fishbone Jones

themoose said:
			
		

> MPRR shows all mods and I have all my course reports.
> 
> I have hear this rumor in the past but never saw any references to it, and figured it was hearsay.
> 
> Ops WO says I need to redo them, and that he "checked into in" to see if I had to or not.
> 
> I need some reference in writing though to prove it to him, otherwise he wont believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> Moose



Better yet, have him produce the policy that says you lose it after a year. If he's recently checked on it, he should have it at his fingertips.

If he doesn't produce, but continues to insist, launch a Redress.

If you're Reserve, you should also ask to see your RSM, who acts as your career manager for your Unit NCMs.


----------



## George Wallace

Just throwing this out there:  If you haven't completed Mod 6 after quite a period of time since doing Mod 1 to 5, you may be in a situation where the Mods have been changed, and you no longer meet the required PO/EOs.  If the TP has been changed, you may have to start all over again.  I believe the TP for Mods 1 through 5 have recently been changed and this may be the reason you have to start over again--as you never completed the full course in the past.  

Just a thought.


----------



## Haggis

According to Annex A of CDA Directive 02/10, if a CF member completed PLQ or PLQ Land, the qualification is good for life.  Note this directive only applies to equivalencies.  If there is any question as to validity of individual mods, your unit should contact CDA at "CRCDA(at)forces.gc.ca" on the Internet or "(plus)CDA.PLAR-EEFA(at)CDA-ADC(at)Kingston" on the DWAN.


----------



## REDinstaller

According to the O gp Wednesday, the TP is currently being redone with no new courses until Jan 12.


----------



## dangerboy

Tango18A said:
			
		

> According to the O gp Wednesday, the TP is currently being redone with no new courses until Jan 12.



That is funny as LFWA TC is running one starting 17 Oct 11.


----------



## REDinstaller

Meh, maybe the O gp info expired.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Tango18A said:
			
		

> According to the O gp Wednesday, the TP is currently being redone with no new courses until Jan 12.



AFAIK eventhough a TP is being rewritten, courses would still be conducted using the current TP.....


----------



## themoose

Haggis said:
			
		

> According to Annex A of CDA Directive 02/10, if a CF member completed PLQ or PLQ Land, the qualification is good for life.  Note this directive only applies to equivalencies.  If there is any question as to validity of individual mods, your unit should contact CDA at "CRCDA(at)forces.gc.ca" on the Internet or "(plus)CDA.PLAR-EEFA(at)CDA-ADC(at)Kingston" on the DWAN.



After reading the directive, and looking at annex A, it's still not too clear to me.

it does state that if you complete PLQ or PLQ(L) it's good for life, but does that mean each mod that is complete is good for life, or do you need the entire course complete to have this apply?

I took mods 1-5 back in late '06 - early '07, so I'm not sure how much has changed when it comes to TP's, so maybe that's where I am "required" to take it all over again, but I don't see how it could have changed too much since then.   Maybe if we're talking JLC / CLC to PLQ.... 

I am currently slated for distance learning from 07-21 Nov.   I would love to sort this out so I don't have to go through all that fun again.

Thanks for all the info so far.


----------



## dapaterson

The PLQ qualification is valid for life.  The PLQ qualification is granted on completion of all the modules of PLQ.  You therefore don't hold the PLQ qualification.

Ongoing validitity of pseudo-quals such as PLQ mods is a different question.


----------



## Occam

Here's a novel idea.  How about we dispense with the PLQ schmozzle, and come out with a whole new program.  It could be 6 weeks long, done all at once while on TD, and not have any mods.  We could call it the "Junior Leadership Course".   ;D


----------



## PMedMoe

Occam said:
			
		

> Here's a novel idea.  How about we dispense with the PLQ schmozzle, and come out with a whole new program.  It could be 6 weeks long, done all at once while on TD, and not have any mods.  We could call it the "Junior Leadership Course".   ;D



That _is_ how I did my PLQ.  None of this DL stuff.  On TD at my home base, no less.   :

Of course, with the ILQ and ALQ now being called the ILP and ALP, I guess they're just attendance courses.......as opposed to a "qualification".


----------



## Haggis

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Of course, with the ILQ and ALQ now being called the ILP and ALP, I guess they're just attendance courses.......as opposed to a "qualification".



Actually, no.

The names were changed to make the ILP and ALP (and SLP) more palatable to RMC and civilian colleges and universities for the purposes of equivalency granting towards diplomas (i.e Diploma in Military Arts and Sciences).  Those institutions were loathe to recognize "qualifications" but were accepting of recognizing "programs".  The course content didn't change - just the names.


----------



## PMedMoe

Haggis said:
			
		

> Actually, no.
> 
> The names were changed to make the ILP and ALP (and SLP) more palatable to RMC and civilian colleges and universities for the purposes of equivalency granting towards diplomas (i.e Diploma in Military Arts and Sciences).  Those institutions were loathe to recognize "qualifications" but were accepting of recognizing "programs".  The course content didn't change - just the names.



Darn!


----------



## Occam

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That _is_ how I did my PLQ.  None of this DL stuff.  On TD at my home base, no less.   :



I know, that's how I did my PLQ JLC back in '93.  That's why I suggested it.   

Now some keen officer is going to take my idea, implement it, and get an "O" in "Leading Change".


----------



## dangerboy

As an instructor of PLQ course, I would love for them to scrap the DL and have the students show up and they learn everything at the school.  The majority of time we end up reteaching all the stuff they supposedly learned on the DL.  Talked to standards today and it is going to get real strange come 2012 as they transition to the new PLQ as they are moving stuff from one mod to another so some pers might show and and be taught stuff twice.  I am waiting to see the new TP when it is published on Documentium.


----------



## TN2IC

So now just thinking away.. what about the newer PLQ style? Most of it is at home learning. Personally I'm not impress with it. I did all my MOD's on base. Yes it was death by power point most days. But come on. Here, study this at home and become a MCpl?  rly:

Your thoughts?

Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## Fishbone Jones

TN2IC said:
			
		

> So now just thinking away.. what about the newer PLQ style? Most of it is at home learning. Personally I'm not impress with it. I did all my MOD's on base. Yes it was death by power point most days. But come on. Here, study this at home and become a MCpl?  rly:
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> TN2IC



Let's keep this in the VR world and concentrate on simulation.

Stay on track please

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Maxadia

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's keep this in the VR world and concentrate on simulation.
> 
> Stay on track please
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Any chance you could possibly split the topic?  I think the above comment in regards to PLQ has merit as a discussion. 

Thanks for considering.


----------



## Good2Golf

RDJP said:
			
		

> Any chance you could possibly split the topic?  I think the above comment in regards to PLQ has merit as a discussion.
> 
> Thanks for considering.



Not necessary.   There is a PLQ-related thread here with lots of discussion about DL (distance learning).


Regards,
G2G


----------



## Maxadia

Thanks, G2G.


----------



## fake penguin

I have been approached by my section commander to take my plq. I honestly don't feel ready. Now he keeps telling me that the unit needs Mclp and i owe it to the military to step up and take responsibliities. Just wondering how people felt about this topic, should you take plq because your ready or should you take it just because the unit needs you to. I' am a reservist if that helps.


----------



## aesop081

Go on the course. You might just surprise yourself.

It is PLQ after all, not advanced rocket design.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Like CDN Aviator said, you might surprise yourself.

A big pet peeve if mine is soldiers like yourself going on PLQ before they are ready to be leaders.

The sad truth however is that the reserves will send anyone on PLQ.  The turn over rate is so high that they need to send anyone who is available in the hopes that they might keep a MCpl around for a few years.

You can either suck it up and go do your best or you can refuse to go and have the guy beside you who can't tie his boots right sent on course- which he will pass because everyone passes then he will go back to your unit and be your boss.

If your intimidated by the responsibility (which is natural) it will ALL go away the first time you  get orders by someone with the backbone of a gummy bear.


----------



## George Wallace

It is nice of your Section Comd to ask you, but remember this; it is not him/her who will put you on this course.   They will have some input in the selection process by submitting your name up the chain and recommending you be placed on a merit list.  In the end, after a Merit Board, the CO and Sgt Major will be the ones you put you onto a PLQ.  

I agree with the comments from CDN Aviator and Grimaldus.  Making a decision is a big part of leadership.  So often we see people in leadership or management posns who can not make decisions.  That leads to Epic Fails.


----------



## PMedMoe

On my PLQ, I learned how _not_ to be a leader.  Take it.   :nod:


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> On my PLQ, I learned how _not_ to be a leader.  Take it.   :nod:



Same here.....my staff where unprofessional Infanteers/Truckers/Armd Recce


----------



## Jarnhamar

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Same here.....my staff where unprofessional Infanteers/Truckers/Armd Recce



I'm not sure how it works with the regs but with the reserves we send soldiers on PLQ *WAY* before they are ready.

We send guys and girls who haven't had the chance to make mistakes as privates and corporals so now their first mistakes are as MCpls who are both in charge of troops and acting as mentors.

Not much to do about it though.


----------



## PMedMoe

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how it works with the regs but with the reserves we send soldiers on PLQ *WAY* before they are ready.



I agree.  I used to do medical coverage for them and hoped I'd get sent on a Reserve course.   :nod:


----------



## ARMY_101

I see most of the discussion regarding distance-learning PLQ was from 3 years ago, when the course was just beginning. I'm slotted for the DL PLQ come the end of March.

Does anyone know which Mods this covers?  1-5?  1-6?

I've also heard the entire promotion structure to be promoted to MCpl. is changing/has changed, so how does this "new" PLQ fit into being promoted?


----------



## chrisf

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how it works with the regs but with the reserves we send soldiers on PLQ *WAY* before they are ready.
> 
> We send guys and girls who haven't had the chance to make mistakes as privates and corporals so now their first mistakes are as MCpls who are both in charge of troops and acting as mentors.
> 
> Not much to do about it though.



Your beef has nothing to do with sending people on the course... it has to do with units *promoting* them way before they're ready, just because somone is qualified doesn't mean they're suitable for promotion (Regardless if it ends up happening that way).

Attending a PLQ course, and learning useful skills, administration, instruction, and leadership, would be useful to any corporal. How they choose to use those skills should then determine whether they get promoted or not...


----------



## George Wallace

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Your beef has nothing to do with sending people on the course... it has to do with units *promoting* them way before they're ready, just because somone is qualified doesn't mean they're suitable for promotion (Regardless if it ends up happening that way).
> 
> Attending a PLQ course, and learning useful skills, administration, instruction, and leadership, would be useful to any corporal. How they choose to use those skills should then determine whether they get promoted or not...



In the past, it was a means to have a potential Jr NCO (Cpl/Pte) get leadership training and experience to develop and be promotable in the future.  The Comd of LFCA pulled a boner a few years back when he dictated that all graduates of the PLQ WOULD be promoted within two weeks of their graduation.  This caught many Reserve units by surprise, especially those who had Crse Loaded a candidate who was "available" to do the training, but perhaps not yet ready to be promoted.  

In the Reserve World, one has to realize that not all Reservists are avail 24 and 7 to do a Tasking, Tour, or Course.  Some who are students or unemployed may be able to take a Tasking, Tour or Course on short notice, but the majority who have good civvie jobs need lots of lead time to arrange time off to meet these commitments.


----------



## George Wallace

Mod 6 is still the "hard" Field portion.  You can't experience sleep deprivation from digging a trench and patrolling around the woods on DL and be expected to pass on that experience to your future subordinates on any Field training down the road.


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> dictated that all graduates of the PLQ WOULD be promoted within two weeks of their graduation.



Exactly. Thus I find a soldier from my course bragging about having less than 2 years in the reserves being promoted to MCpl who was back in Petawawa the following year instructing on a PLQ Mod 6 Infantry course.


----------



## chrisf

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Exactly. Thus I find a soldier from my course bragging about having less than 2 years in the reserves being promoted to MCpl



I just threw up in my mouth a bit.... I thought we still had the 4 year time in as a requirement as well?

My better half is currently attending a mo'litia BMQ course... I know maybe half her instructors, of thoe, most only earned their leaf in the last 12 months or less... some of the absurd things I've heard just make me shake my head... it can all be chaulked up to inexperience, and they'll learn eventually (I hope), but the problem is, the instructors teaching on the course are *all* inexperienced... there's no one to guide them along....


----------



## xFusilier

The current DL Package for PLQ covers material from modules 2, 4 and 5 duration is 10 training days.  In order to complete Mod 2, however you need to attend the residency portion.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Makes you wonder if the Crse O/WO are "monitoring" periods of instruction & trg.  I've taught on BMQs/QL3/QL4, etc and been Snr Instr, Crse WO before and there was always 'checks and balances' when heavy on the inexperienced instructor side of the house to make sure things were going as they should.  In my experience, courses always seemed to run better if there was a Snr Instr/Trg Sgt appointed, as the Crse WO was sometimes away doing Admin/co-ord/etc.  Thats how we tended to do things atleast, for both in-house and courses at the LFA TC.

If the problem is most of the Instructors are very inexperienced, the Snr NCOs/WOs can manage that if they are aware (and willing).

When LFA Standards came to pay the course a visit, the Standards folks also sometimes had a Q & A session with the candidates.  I know of a few times that a Q & A session resulted in 'concerns' being discussed with the Crse O/Crse WO and Standards staff.

 :2c:


----------



## chrisf

It's not just the instruction though, it's general actions and attitudes...

As a prime example, she asked me a few weeks back if I had any C7 handouts, I said of course I do, but ask your section commander, he'll get you somthing. She asked, the response was "if you wanted that, you should have taken notes in class" (Ironically, the very well done handout I gave her after, I originally took from the common drive belonging to that individuals home unit, and it had been created by a senior NCO from the same)

The worst part is, these junior leaders who weren't ready to be promoted and aren't ready for the job are teaching and mentoring other people... who are going to be even worse off when they end up in the same posistion...

Is there a solution? I have no idea what that solution is... I do know I try to pass on as much of my own experience as often as I can, whenever and wherever I can... I've still got plenty left to learn though, as does everyone....

Is the "promoted within two weeks" an LFCA policy? Or higher?

Either way, I still maintain, everyone should do the PLQ course, even if you're never promoted, you've got a better understanding of what's going on above you, and a better understanding of how to do your own job.

If you do get promoted, whether you feel you were ready or not, know your limitations, strive to over come them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> It's not just the instruction though, it's general actions and attitudes...



That is why I said monitoring periods of instruction and trg, which IMO covers everything outside of the 'classroom' aspect.



> As a prime example, she asked me a few weeks back if I had any C7 handouts, I said of course I do, but ask your section commander, he'll get you somthing. She asked, the response was "if you wanted that, you should have taken notes in class".



Having seen this type of stuff before, the benefit of having a Trg Sgt comes into play with stuff like this.  I was Trg Sgt/Snr Instr before and the CTP/TS/QS was my bible for 'min requirements' for trg aids, but I could also make suggestions to the Crse O/WO that could then be implemented, their call.  Or just task an Instr to do it.  Simple.  If they ask "why, they should be taking notes"...well then its a chance to educate MCpl Bloggins with the shiny Leaf on life as an instr.  I'd rather the students pay attention to the EDI stuff during a skill lecture than have their head down writing notes.  If I am teaching correctly, using ICEPAC concepts, EDI, etc then _most _ of the students _should_ be grasping the skill.  I also suggest if the staff provide a handout, that also makes no question on the content.   :2c:



> The worst part is, these junior leaders who weren't ready to be promoted and aren't ready for the job are teaching and mentoring other people... who are going to be even worse off when they end up in the same posistion...



Yup, and that makes the importance of mentoring by experienced Instr's, Snr NCOs and WO's all the more important.  Don't let that cycle complete itself, break the jnr intrs of bad habits and mindsets now.  That, IMO, is a leadership function and responsibility.  I remember some of the stupid stuff I did as a Cpl right off CLC, and am glad there was some people who corrected me.   So in one sense, to me, this isn't a new problem, as I was 'that new instr' many years ago who needed to be sorted out.



> Is there a solution? I have no idea what that solution is... I do know I try to pass on as much of my own experience as often as I can, whenever and wherever I can... I've still got plenty left to learn though, as does everyone....



To me, thats a simple answer.  Good leadership by their immediate superiors, who 'set the example', set the standard, insist it be met and also lead by example themselves.


----------



## George Wallace

Also remember, as was pointed out by PMedMoe, you will always learn.  You will learn just as much from bad/poor instructors as you will from the excellent ones.  What will you learn?  You will learn what not to do or what not to be.  You will then have that experience to pass on to subordinates someday.  It brings up that old question; do you learn more from your mistakes, or learn more from your successes?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

In the Reserve world people often get sent before being ready. This occurs when HQ and Schools keep insisting on changing\ cancelling courses and we end up with a huge lack of supervisors. It starts with not enough MCpls, moves on to too few Sgts and ends with no WOs. Units have little choice except to send anyone that's available because they have no supervisors left. It's taken my unit a good five years to dig ourselves out of that shortage of staff hole and we're just, now, getting our heads above water. It will only take the cancellation of a course or a change of dates resulting in people's vacation time getting screwed to put us right back. If a person comes back not quite ready, he can be mentored at home by his boss until he can fly on his own. At least he has the basics. Bad MCpls are a result of bad Sgts and, to some extent, other bad superiors, that's it. No need to look further. Don't place so much blame on the neophyte, go after his bosses.


----------



## dogger1936

recceguy said:
			
		

> In the Reserve world people often get sent before being ready. This occurs when HQ and Schools keep insisting on changing\ cancelling courses and we end up with a huge lack of supervisors. It starts with not enough MCpls, moves on to too few Sgts and ends with no WOs. Units have little choice except to send anyone that's available because they have no supervisors left. It's taken my unit a good five years to dig ourselves out of that shortage of staff hole and we're just, now, getting our heads above water. It will only take the cancellation of a course or a change of dates resulting in people's vacation time getting screwed to put us right back. If a person comes back not quite ready, he can be mentored at home by his boss until he can fly on his own. At least he has the basics. Bad MCpls are a result of bad Sgts and, to some extent, other bad superiors, that's it. No need to look further. Don't place so much blame on the neophyte, go after his bosses.



While I don't know you or your unit personally its good to see Snr NCO's looking at their units and making a change. Too many units don't look past the trg year; and it's awesome to see a unit doing this.

BZ to you and your unit.


----------



## blacktriangle

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Exactly. Thus I find a soldier from my course bragging about having less than 2 years in the reserves being promoted to MCpl who was back in Petawawa the following year instructing on a PLQ Mod 6 Infantry course.



Less than 2 years and a  MCpl?  For real?  ???


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Another case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same".  I remember this 'stuff' from late 80's/early to mid 90s.

I can only speak for what I saw in the then-AMA;  Regimental 'CLC" courses over a few weekends (you can imagine the lvl of Jr NCO they produced), Instr's that had no M of I knowledge, let alone a qual, etc being employed as Instr's, it really was nothing short of a gong-show.  As the "militia" transformed more to the Army Reserve, there seemed to be a FAR better grip (while still far from ideal at times) on the selection, trg and employment of Jnr NCOs.  There was more emphasis on actual experience, some common sense applied when filling the summer tasking brick, etc.  The ball was moving the right way down the field. 

It sounds like an old problem is becoming new once again....


----------



## a_majoor

If you are going on a PLQ course, ensure you get as much mentoring as possible during the DL portion of the course.

As an instructor on a PLQ Mod 1-3 course right now, I can truthfully say the candidates come from their DL's woefully unprepared to instruct classes. As an example, I took in their lesson plans on day one, and found multiple errors (ranging from fairly hilarious like "Christianing" the ground prior to a lesson, to bone headed like final quesrtions totally unrelated to the lesson just taught, to bits of other lessons cut and pasted in the lesson plan). Reviewing principles of instructin like ICEPAC and verbals support like CREST got me and my 2I/C blank stares...We even had to do impromptu instruction on things like how to plan lessons, create and use training aides like flip charts and whiteboards (lord help us if anyone decides to be a PowerPoint Ranger).

For potential candidates preparing to go on their Mod 6; hit the books (weapons pams, patrolling and fieldcraft aid memoires) and have your unit give you "hands on" field kit like the GPMG and radios; we have no time to retrain you if you can't remember how to troubleshoot or program a 522. If you can't read a map or shoot a bearing, best not come out at all....


----------



## dogger1936

I find reservist are harder on themselves than anyone! I personally did a PLQ mods 1-5 and 6 which was fully staffed by reservist and I was one of two regular force candidates. This staff ran an excellent course. infact it was the same course who had ran IIRC 6 back to back courses and had it down to a science. Well ran and well instructed course.

I personally wouldn't worry about only having a short amount of time in the military. I was a "fast mover" and had mine at the 5 year mark. There is nothing on that course you haven't done or seen before. Honestly as a Pte, Cpl I had heard orders enough that I could make them up off the top of my head day one. Drill....well you've been doing that since day 1; only difference your calling out the words of command. You reacted to it for years now you have to teach a simple lesson. Classroom. If your unit keeps their standards up at trg nights you have already seen how to mark a chalkboard and teach a class. You have heard the control statement a million times. You have heard the proper order it is taught in.

Small party tasking is something you get your kids to do. Go clean your room and I will provide direction and instruction on what needs to get done. Not much difference.

Patrols. you've humped along on them before. Aside from knowing how to read a map it's a fairly basic short route to a clearly defined obj. 

Some people struggle with the course however most if not all the stuff taught on these courses you've already done and seen before.

If for nothing else it's a bit of class A and B time anyway! Go enjoy!


----------



## dangerboy

dogger 1936. I think it depends on your unit and trade on how much exposure you have received on the items you listed off.  I have taught many PLQ course and a lot of candidates from non-combat arms (Reserve and Reg Force) have never gone on patrol except for the intro ones you do on BMQ Land, and proper orders and battle procedure, even in the combat arms this gets abreviated and a lot of Section Comds do not give full orders and just skim through the orders process.

I will agree with Thucydides that the current DL package is garbage, we have to re-teach everything that the students were supposed to learn on the DL.  I have noted it on every ECC and have addressed it with standards several times.  When you are doing the DL, talk to someone and get help.  Make sure you understand how to write lesson plans and ICEPAC.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

There was a time when i would have said that if you were approached by your section commander, then it's probably because someone qualified to make that decision knows you're ready. 

However, times have changed. And as someone said, the leadership gap is being filled by the army in a rushed manner. So you need to decide for yourself whether you want to be a MCpl yet (because PLQ course reports are now coming with MCpl ranks stapled to them).

While the army has it's requirements, you need to do what's correct for you. You have to decide, do you want to be the guy who was in only 3 years before he reached MCpl, and then be a weak NCO for a number of years? Or do you think you could hack it and would make a novice but solid Jr NCO? I'm afraid there's nobody on these boards who can answer that one for you.

....................................................................

To speak more generally about the issue, I have to agree with the folks expressing concern about how the army is going about their junior leadership selection and training. 


And i use the term "selection" loosely, as it seems the only requirement for selection these days is availability...
...combine that with the "no fail" policies...
...and combine that with the fact that completion of PLQ means automatic promotion to MCpl...

....and you end up with a system that basically has exactly no coherent selection process whatsoever. Brigade HQs demand that positions be filled regardless of whether units feel they have anyone who's suitable, and those positions all to often get filled just for the sake of filling them. We're basically just promoting the first people who were available for PLQ. That's a problem, and the quality of NCO in the reserves has suffered as a result, and will continue to suffer.

When i joined the reserves way back in the day, i recall that the talk of the town every year was who would be selected to go on JLC. Would it be this guy, or that guy? Would bloggins get picked or not? And it was a big deal to us pte/cpls because it mattered to us who was in a leadership position next year, and then maybe a year or two later, be a MCpl. 

Nowadays, the rank is more or less "handed out like candy" to the first guys who can commit to the course, and there's no selection process whatsoever. Not only does this give us less strong leaders, it dilutes the credibility of the rank. And diluting the credibility of the rank alters the hierarchical dynamic of the organization. Now if the army had set out to alter that dynamic for some coherent reason, then fine, but in reality, it's being altered as an adverse side-effect of poor staffing policies, and this is a problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

While MCpl is a substantial leap in a career, it is still a phase of assessment for the unit. And while there are lots of PLQ spots to fill, the spots for Sgt and WO course candidates are slim and dear. So while a person may squeek through and be a mediocre MCpl, their chance of progressing will pretty well end there. The units will not waste those valued one or two spots a year on people that can't progress with their rank.


----------



## dangerboy

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> ...combine that with the "no fail" policies...



I agree with most of what you are saying but not with your "no fail" policies.  I have ran many courses and we have no problem failing people.  The problem I have seen is sometimes we get non-permanent staff and they do not have the experience so don't know what to look for when they are assessing so end up not noticing mistakes.  Happens a lot in the defensive, or the other problem is when you have lazy staff that don't want to do paperwork.  If you fail a candidate it requires more paperwork than if you pass him, so some staff have passed them with low marks instead of failing them so they can relax earlier.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

recceguy said:
			
		

> While MCpl is a substantial leap in a career, it is still a phase of assessment for the unit. And while there are lots of PLQ spots to fill, the spots for Sgt and WO course candidates are slim and dear. So while a person may squeek through and be a mediocre MCpl, their chance of progressing will pretty well end there. The units will not waste those valued one or two spots a year on people that can't progress with their rank.



In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level. 

And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level.
> 
> And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.



If you see that happening, it's not the fault of the Army. It's the fault of your Unit and it's CoC. We will no fill before we send someone that's not suited. Simple as that.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what you are saying but not with your "no fail" policies.  I have ran many courses and we have no problem failing people.  The problem I have seen is sometimes we get non-permanent staff and they do not have the experience so don't know what to look for when they are assessing so end up not noticing mistakes.  Happens a lot in the defensive, or the other problem is when you have lazy staff that don't want to do paperwork.  If you fail a candidate it requires more paperwork than if you pass him, so some staff have passed them with low marks instead of failing them so they can relax earlier.



Ok, well that's your experience, but i can tell you, for absolute certainty, that "no fail" policies have existed in LFCATC. Instructors were told that if a candidate failed, then it was a leadership failure, and you failed to "mentor" that individual through the item he was having difficulty with, and therefore the candidate wasn't culpable. We were told that if, for example, he failed to state the mission statement in orders, then he was to be "mentored" until he got it, and then carry on (i'm not making this up). They literally did not let us fail anyone. Any failure of a candidate on any item was to be corrected on the spot before the assessment continued. There was even one case where the OC took an assessment guide from a failed section attack behind closed doors, without the instructor, and arbitrarily moved checkmarks out of the ineffective column into the effective column based on poor handwriting, not enough commentary, "disagreed" with certain points (about a section attack he did not observe).

We were told in no uncertain terms that nobody was to fail. It wasn't even sugar-coated. The only person who didn't pass that course was one individual who failed every attempt at every PO (except his 3rd or 4th attempts where he walked through his hard assessed by the hand by the instructors), and quit by refusing a 4th attempt at his recce patrol, and said to the OC that he'd rather go home, because he didn't want to go to leadership school in the first place - his unit just sent him there, and he didn't know where he was going or what he was doing. 

I don't know how it is now, but I'm telling you, a couple summers back, there was a no-fail policy. I was there man!

[edit]
...oh, and then they all got promoted by their units on the grad parade.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you see that happening, it's not the fault of the Army. It's the fault of your Unit and it's CoC. We will no fill before we send someone that's not suited. Simple as that.



You guys will no-fill rather than send the wrong people? See, that's a totally foreign concept to me. Last time i saw anything close to that method was in the late 90's. Ever since then, it's been "Who's available for 13 weeks this summer? You, you and you, congratulations! You're going to be leaders!!"

Glad to hear the problem isn't as systemic as i thought it was.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> You guys will no-fill rather than send the wrong people? See, that's a totally foreign concept to me. Last time i saw anything close to that method was in the late 90's. Ever since then, it's been "Who's available for 13 weeks this summer? You, you and you, congratulations! You're going to be leaders!!"
> 
> Glad to hear the problem isn't as systemic as i thought it was.



It also creates a sense of competition and ensures everyone is performing at peak. They know that just because there's a spot, doesn't mean their going. They have to prove they're worth it.


----------



## dangerboy

recceguy, I wish all units both Reg and Reserve had your units mentality.  I have seen what HAM Sandwich stated, candidates showing up for courses just because they needed a class B job for a couple of months.  It usually does not end up good for the candidate.


----------



## a_majoor

While they may have backed off on the "No Fail" policy, the idea of mentorship is still alive and kicking. I have no problems mentoring people who are trying hard but just don't quite get it, but after two attempts at a PO it should be clear the candidate is either not capable or not trying.

Removing a candidate from a course is quite difficult, the amount of paperwork is huge and the process is quite involved. The course staff all know what is involved in removing a candidate who is unsuitable, and my experience is they will bust their butts to ensure the paperwork and supporting documentation is done as well as possible. Far better to put in the extra hours in keeping the files current for everyone (and thus having ammunition ready when needed) than having to put in the extra time to re teach the failed candidate for another crack at the PO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> While the army has it's requirements, you need to do what's correct for you. You have to decide, do you want to be the guy who was in only 3 years before he reached MCpl, and then be a weak NCO for a number of years? Or do you think you could hack it and would make a novice but solid Jr NCO?



I am not sure what you are saying here or what you mean, but you DO know Cpl's AND MCpl's are Junior NCOs right??  And Sgt/PO2 are the only Snr NCOs?

Maybe it was your wording?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level.



So, even though they have passed all their trg to the 6A/6B level, and were promoted, in your eyes they don't meet the standard.  Maybe part of the problem is 'your standard'  The Army standard isn't based off your personal opinion, right?  I don't know about your unit, but I don't know of the Inf School handing out any "gimmies" on the 6A course.  There wasn't any at the Armour School when I did my 6A and the same held true for 6B/ARTC Block 4 and 5 at WATC when I went thru.  In a unit, there are always the "best/favorite/keener" and "lowest standard" pers thought of in each rank, and then all the "middle men" or whatever you want to call them.  Even the people you see as the "lowest standard" still had to meet the min requirements of their course to pass it.  Not everyone is a keener (no, I am not advocating on behalf of the 'min standard crowd', I am not a fan of that mindset either).



> And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.



Well, if its this bad, hopefully the CofC sees it and makes sure the MCpl is under the watchful eye of some switched-on Sgts and WOs.

I think its important to be aware of the fact that MCpl is not a be all/know all position.  So while not wanting to badmouth the appointment  of MCpl, I think its also important to remember where they fit in the big scheme of things.

1 Sgt can mentor and train every MCpl that is sent his/her way.  I still think 'bad MCpls' are primarily a leadership issue, they need to be guided and trained at times.  Some don't, sure, but some do and that hasn't and won't change at all.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While they may have backed off on the "No Fail" policy, the idea of mentorship is still alive and kicking. I have no problems mentoring people who are trying hard but just don't quite get it, but after two attempts at a PO it should be clear the candidate is either not capable or not trying.



I was really turned off to instructing on a PLQ course after my section commander handed me my defensive assessment.  I had points taken off for incorrect things (ie..lost points for not showing up 10 minutes early to orders, I actually showed up 15 minutes early, was the first one there and the staff showed up 5 minutes late).
My section commander wasn't even in the field during my assessment period it was my 2IC who was there and I know for a fact they didn't speak to each other when they switched being in the field.  
Both also couldn't be bothered to take notes, I guess they just "remembered" all the points. 

I'm glad they are getting rid of the "everyone passes" crap. On my course out of 40 the only one who "failed" was an over weight soldier who was already a master corporal, he just needed some check on the box to keep his rank. He didn't like the PT after day 2 so he quit.


----------



## Brasidas

I'm a reserve sig op in Alberta, and my training NCO is trying to load me on to a PLQ serial. She offered me a mod 1-6 in Wainwright, with the mod 6 being infantry. There is a "new model" PLQ, with mod 1-6 in Petawawa which is not infantry.

While I believe it possible for me to pass, I am aware of a training differential between mod 6 (L) and mod 6 (Inf), and I will not have the background of my coursemates.

My training NCO understands this, and while I believe we're on good terms, she has doubts about her ability to justify sending me out of area to attend PLQ(L). I am the only member from my unit who would be attending PLQ this year.

Is there any explicit direction I can refer to stating that I should not be loaded on PLQ(Inf) if there is a PLQ(L) available? I'd prefer to send ammo her way since she doesn't seem to have it; I didn't know a non-infantry guy, let alone a non-combat arms guy could be loaded on an infantry PLQ.


----------



## dangerboy

Only Infantry soldiers can be course loaded on PLQ Inf.  In addition a pre-req for PLQ Inf is the IPSW (Infantry Platoon Support Weapons) course.  If you don't have the course you are by the books not authorized to be on the course.


----------



## Brasidas

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Only Infantry soldiers can be course loaded on PLQ Inf.  In addition a pre-req for PLQ Inf is the IPSW (Infantry Platoon Support Weapons) course.  If you don't have the course you are by the books not authorized to be on the course.



Excellent. Can you refer me to the books that state those restrictions and the pre-req? DWAN-only links will work.


----------



## dangerboy

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Excellent. Can you refer me to the books that state those restrictions and the pre-req? DWAN-only links will work.



It is in the TP:  A-P9-031-DP2/PH-B01, NCM DP 2 – PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION (INFANTRY) (PLQ-INF), dated 7 Nov 2003.



> PREREQUISITES
> 10. In order to be selected for training, the prospective Infantry Non Commissioned Member shall meet the
> following prerequisites:
> a. PLQ (L) – Primary Leadership Qualification
> Modules 1-5;
> b. DP2 – Platoon Support Weapons
> Qualification;
> c. Reg F be physically fit in accordance with
> the AFS (Army Fitness Standard);
> d. P Res be physically fit in accordance with
> CF Express Test; and
> e. possess a minimum medical category of 333225.



The link for the TP is at http://webtop.gagetown.mil.ca:8080/anonymous-en/component/drl?objectId=0c0004bc800019b1&ReLoad=1132423236316 DWAN Only


----------



## charlesm

Also PLQ has changed even more than that.

You will do a two week DL First, either as  5 weekends  or as a two week course. This can be done from your home or at your unit.

The you normally will  do a two residency at the location where you will be doing your mod 6 just before the mod 6.

Also they finally changed PLQ Mod6(L) and the first new course is coming out this spring.


----------



## RCDtpr

charlesm said:
			
		

> Also PLQ has changed even more than that.
> 
> You will do a two week DL First, either as  5 weekends  or as a two week course. This can be done from your home or at your unit.
> 
> The you normally will  do a two residency at the location where you will be doing your mod 6 just before the mod 6.
> 
> Also they finally changed PLQ Mod6(L) and the first new course is coming out this spring.



What are the changes they made to the course?  I'm hoping one of them is that you can finally fail it again.  Absolutely ridiculous that it was a gimme course for a couple years


----------



## dangerboy

Just to expand, for the residency portion it does not matter if your are Land or Infantry the residency portion is the same.  It is only the Mod 6 that it is differant. For example the PLQ Infantry that is starting in a few weeks in Wainwright the majority of the candidates that are course loaded right now are not Infantry, they are land.  So they will do the Residency portion and then go home and do the Land Mod 6 at a later date.

Brasidas:  It should not matter where you do the PLQ as we have had soldiers show up to  LFWA TC from LFAA and LFCA.  Also there is a PLQ Land running in Wainwright, 11-21 April (Residency) and then 23 Apr - 31 May (Mod 6).  And there are 2 planned for the summer (as of right now).


----------



## Mudshuvel

Hey all,

I'm in need for a PLQ Theory Lesson Plan *format*, up to date and current. We don't have access to any on the Q-Drive and its required ASAP. If anyone can help, could you should be an PM?

Cheers

Mud


----------



## MikeL

I'll have a look and see if I have one still,  but your course staff should be giving you this stuff.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Something I've been thinking about the last couple of days which I thought could be passed on here to up and coming leaders.

A week ago I heard about some instructors on a reserve BMQ making recruits  do push ups with MOB boxes on their backs. I couldn't believe that kind of stupidity still happens.

Then a couple days ago I heard a pretty sad story. While waiting for my brakes to be finished I started chatting with one of the employees there who recognized my jacket as a military one.  He had friends who served in Afghanistan, knew civilians who went there for work, told me I was an idiot for throwing out my Tim Hortons cadpat hat cause they're limited editions. He helped put some care packages together for people overseas. Really great guy who loves the military and supports us 200%. It was like talking to one of the boys from the mess.

Come to find out his story. He was a was a young navy officer who partied a bit too much for the early 90's. He ended up getting out because he didn't fit in very well being an officer. He missed the CF so much that he rejoined as an NCM a couple of years later.  He had to do his basic over again and was flying through. Planned on a career in the CF.    Week 7 of 8 they were being punished and doing triple time drill with weapons and rucksacks. The guy said he knew they shouldn't be doing it but kept his mouth shut. One instructor came in saw it and made a comment about how it was dangerous and they shouldn't be doing it. The other instructor argued  and the first one left saying "well just make sure no one gets hurt".   On a right turn this guy tore something in his back and that was it. End ex for his military career.

On his way out of the CF the medical system managed to punt him without a pension saying it was a pre-existing injury. He didn't explain what exactly he was doing on PT to hurt himself.  He told me not a day goes by that he doesn't wake up and wish he was still in the CF and just listening to him talk I could feel how much he meant it.  I asked him why he didn't tell the doctors that he was hurt doing stupid PT and it was the instructors fault and he said they were really good instructors and he didn't want to ruin their careers over him.


When I heard this story it made me immediately think of what I heard a few days prior- the instructor making recruits do MOB box push-ups. There were 3 failures of leadership I seen in this guys story.  The instructor making recruits do triple time drill with rifles and rucksacks. The instructor who seen it, recognized it as being wrong and failed to put a stop to it and finally this guy who having had previous leadership training as an officer just went along with it because he didn't want to cause shit.

This guys who life was drastically changed (including the CF loosing someone who seems like a pretty cool guy) because of stupid PT when the instructors obviously knew better.

As a leader you might be put in a position where you need to go against the grain and stand out by stopping something that seems relatively harmless but something as "small" as a PT session done incorrectly can ruin someones whole career in a few seconds. Someone lives the rest of their life in pain and the CF looses a soldier.


----------



## 63 Delta

Great post with some great points! I remember being in basic in St Jean 5 years ago. My basic platoon was on the obstacle course, and the barb wire entanglement was full of ice and snow. Because of this, the MCpl decided to have us run right next to the entanglements. The problem was, the ground was extremely slick with mud, and the entanglement were built with 6 foot pickets sunk into the ground about 5 feet. Essentially the picket was a spike pointing up out of the ground. If anyone would have slipped and fallen, it would have easily impaled them. I pointed this out to the MCpl, and he brushed me off, telling me that one day we would do this with machine guns firing over top of the entanglement. Five years in, still haven't done that.

As well, during DP1, the course before me was required to run up and down the stairs fire man carrying course mates with their gas masks on. I don't see how that is constructive at all. They were extremely lucky no one was injured; I can only imagine the career implications if for you if someone was injured, and you were found to be in charge.

Anyways, all were great lessons in what not to do as a leader. There are many better ways to push your followers to their limits, without endangering them or exposing them to injuries.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The 'guys story', I hate to say, sounds a bit too far fetched for me.  

As for the MOB pushups, I've done chain/Airborne pushups before, pushups on my helmet, even PT with a section of telephone pole before; all approved PT by the CofC.  Even ran 1 or 2 miles (can't remember how far it was), from "somewhere between Granville and Cornwallis" to the Obstacle Crse in FFO and gas mask on, again approved PT that everyone did.

The last line I agree with, having witnessed something to that effect before, and been one of the Staff that brought it up to the CofC.  IMO, it is usually a young Crse Officer or newly minted MCpl that doesn't think thinks thru.

However, any unsantioned/off the books PT was, before I left the Trg System world,  taboo and anyone caught doing it would be dealt with swiftly.  

I have personal knowledge of a few ex-mbr's who were just dickheads with a little bit of rank as well WRT not knowing where the line between PT and STUPID is.  Good part of the reason they are ex-mbr's.

 :2c:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The 'guys story', I hate to say, sounds a bit too far fetched for me.


naw man, he sounded very legit and I'm damn awesome at catching people in tall tales.  Besides, I'm sure you, like myself, have seem some very crazy and stupid things in our time in the CF. Stuff that easily out does this. Off the top of my head a section commander in bosnia forcing a cpl to walk infront of an iltis to "prove" the ground off of the pavement with a radio thrown on his back for added weight.
 :



> As for the MOB pushups, I've done chain/Airborne pushups before, pushups on my helmet, even PT with a section of telephone pole before; all approved PT by the CofC.  Even ran 1 or 2 miles (can't remember how far it was), from "somewhere between Granville and Cornwallis" to the Obstacle Crse in FFO and gas mask on, again approved PT that everyone did.


Are you telling me that triple time drill with rucksacks is an approved form of punishment / corrective PT or it's acceptable to have recruits doing push ups with those giant MOB boxes on their backs?
That's an honest question, I was under the impression the answer to both those questions were no.
I'm leary sometimes of the justification that "the chain of command approved it". In my example above of the cpl in Bosnia- his "chain of command" approved him walking through a field.



> The last line I agree with, having witnessed something to that effect before, and been one of the Staff that brought it up to the CofC.  IMO, it is usually a young Crse Officer or newly minted MCpl that doesn't think thinks thru.


Young officers from RMC do tend to a bit over eager and gung hoe with PT but I think the fitness training/classes they do is still way more in depth and comprehensive than what a young cpl will learn on PLQ. The 1 day fitness plq mod is only mandatory for the regular force unless it's changed. You may have a 19 year old master corporal "leading" 30 or 40 students in PT.


----------



## john. M

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> naw man, he sounded very legit and I'm damn awesome at catching people in tall tales.  Besides, I'm sure you, like myself, have seem some very crazy and stupid things in our time in the CF. Stuff that easily out does this. Off the top of my head a section commander in bosnia forcing a cpl to walk infront of an iltis to "prove" the ground off of the pavement with a radio thrown on his back for added weight.
> :
> Are you telling me that triple time drill with rucksacks is an approved form of punishment / corrective PT or it's acceptable to have recruits doing push ups with those giant MOB boxes on their backs?
> That's an honest question, I was under the impression the answer to both those questions were no.
> I'm leary sometimes of the justification that "the chain of command approved it". In my example above of the cpl in Bosnia- his "chain of command" approved him walking through a field.
> Young officers from RMC do tend to a bit over eager and gung hoe with PT but I think the fitness training/classes they do is still way more in depth and comprehensive than what a young cpl will learn on PLQ. The 1 day fitness plq mod is only mandatory for the regular force unless it's changed. You may have a 19 year old master corporal "leading" 30 or 40 students in PT.



When I did PLQ last year, we reservist did do 1 day PT mod.  Plus there is no reserve run PLQ anymore correct me if im wrong.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Bravo Juliet said:
			
		

> When I did PLQ last year, we reservist did do 1 day PT mod.  Plus there is no reserve run PLQ anymore correct me if im wrong.



All of these courses should now be a REG/PRES mix.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> naw man, he sounded very legit and I'm damn awesome at catching people in tall tales.  Besides, I'm sure you, like myself, have seem some very crazy and stupid things in our time in the CF. Stuff that easily out does this. Off the top of my head a section commander in bosnia forcing a cpl to walk infront of an iltis to "prove" the ground off of the pavement with a radio thrown on his back for added weight.



Someone sounding legit to me would have to be confirmed with something more substantive.

I have seen or know of things that happened that shouldn't have, sure.  I just don't see the benefit to posting them or the details on a public forum.  People messed up/made bad decisions, if required the CofC was informed and it was dealt with.

I have also been around the CF long enough to know you don't believe every story you hear.  Examples are too numerous to name.



> :
> Are you telling me that triple time drill with rucksacks is an approved form of punishment / corrective PT



No I am saying that is part of the story I don't actually believe.  I've never HEARD of triple time drill before.  Rucksack drill, as a punishment, went out the windows YEARS ago IIRC.  I think the last time I heard of it was early '90s in Gagetown.  I know I've read the RSM Defaulters Instructions before, and it explicitedly stated what was to happen/not to happen, and that stuff fell in the latter list.  Thats not all that long ago, circa 2000 when I was Duty Sgt and had defaulters.



> or it's acceptable to have recruits doing push ups with those giant MOB boxes on their backs?



How much does the MOB weigh?  As I said, I've done stuff like situps with 3-4 other candidates with asection of telephone pole and it was part of actual PT.  I am not saying it IS a sanctioned PT thing.  I am saying if it was it wouldn't strike me as "too much".  I go to the gym and lift weights before work, so lifting a MOB is no different to me than doing bench press.  I do it for fitness and strength trg, on my own.  If some 170lb teenager can't do a pushup with 50lbs on his back...wow.

More of concern, if it is happening, and its not part of an approved PT session/plan, the CofC should be info'd about it.  

Did you witness it?  Are you sure, beyond a doubt, it happened?  Then tell your CofC.  Its the only way to ensure it stops, and that the mbr doing it is given proper instruction so as to change his/her ways.  If people are coloring outside the lines, talking about it here will not stop it from happening and start the proper corrective action the CofC would take to remedy the problem.

I won't speculate if it did/didn't happen, I just know if it is, it should be pushed up the CofC for many reasons, and if it didn't happen, anyonoe and their dog reading this thread could get the wrong impression.  How many reporters frequent this site?



> I'm leary sometimes of the justification that "the chain of command approved it".


  I can assure you, things like extra PT, extra drill, extra inspection, etc have been requested for an ACTUAL trg requirement, and approved by the CofC before, on more than one course I've taught on.  They key to it is requesting it, and only doing what is approved by the CofC.  If they answer "remedial inspection from 1900-2000hrs, you'd better be done and off that floor by 2000.



> In my example above of the cpl in Bosnia- his "chain of command" approved him walking through a field.



I'll refer to my comment earlier about being around long enough to not believe everything I hear.  



> Young officers from RMC do tend to a bit over eager and gung hoe with PT but I think the fitness training/classes they do is still way more in depth and comprehensive than what a young cpl will learn on PLQ. The 1 day fitness plq mod is only mandatory for the regular force unless it's changed. You may have a 19 year old master corporal "leading" 30 or 40 students in PT.



I'll suggest a 19 year old MCpl leading 30/40 recruits is the exception, not the rule.  IF a 19 year old MCpl is inexperienced and on the power trip, then sorting that out and properly developing the habits and attitude towards proper trg techniques is, IMO, a leadership function.  He/she needs to be mentored by a strong Sgt/WO.   So, if there is a 19 year old MCpl leading PT unsupervised, that is a leadership issue.  

Also, FWIW, almost every course I've been staff on, including BMQ at CFLRS, the Crse O lead morning PT, not the youngest MCpl available in NATO.

Experience is experience, and a Cpl with atleast 4 years in the Reg Force has seen how to do things by his/her MCpl, Sgt etc, like conduct a PT session, the same as a RMC student will see more senior people lead PT when they are going thru their system.  The danger lies in the ones who want, so badly, to be 'in the hot seat'; you know the type, frothing at the mouth to be able to "lead people", that when they do get to be staff, they are too busy bathing in their own awesomeness to remember their jobs as leaders.  

One of my favorite RSMs I ever served under, a guy who started in the Black Watch when it was still in the Reg Frce ORBAT, once said something along the line of:

"You gotta stop and ask yourself sometimes, in the middle of it all, is this trg serving any purpose to make my troops better, and if not, why the hell are we doing it then".


----------



## chrisf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll suggest a 19 year old MCpl leading 30/40 recruits is the exception, not the rule.  IF a 19 year old MCpl is inexperienced and on the power trip, then sorting that out and properly developing the habits and attitude towards proper trg techniques is, IMO, a leadership function.  He/she needs to be mentored by a strong Sgt/WO.   So, if there is a 19 year old MCpl leading PT unsupervised, that is a leadership issue.



At least as far as mo'litia courses are concerned, it ends up the norm, not the exception... it's just the result of high turn-over in units, and the resulting leadership, particularly at the lower ranks, being very junior as a result. 

Some do well regardless, some don't, all would benefit from mentoring...

Older/more experienced troops tend to have jobs and families, with limited availability as a result...

My better half very recently finished up a reserve weekend course. With the exception of the course warrant (who, as with any of the instructors, was only available part-time) the most senior instructor was a mcpl with two years experience...



> "You gotta stop and ask yourself sometimes, in the middle of it all, is this trg serving any purpose to make my troops better, and if not, why the hell are we doing it then".



That should be cast in brass and nailed a a lot of walls...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I spent 17 years in the Res, worked as an Instr right from the Jnr Cpl instr to Crse WO and A/Crse O on home unit/LFA TC courses, so I know the realities, and limitations the Res world faced/faces.

It didn't, and doesn't, change the realities of what is or isn't leadership responsibilities, IMO.  

 :2c:


----------



## chrisf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It didn't, and doesn't, change the realities of what is or isn't leadership responsibilities, IMO.



You're absolutely right, but it still remains the norm, not an exception... doesn't mean that norm is acceptable though...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bravo Juliet said:
			
		

> When I did PLQ last year, we reservist did do 1 day PT mod.  Plus there is no reserve run PLQ anymore correct me if im wrong.



Right right.  The PT mod is a day long. Reservists do not need the PT mod to be promoted to MCpl but I believe reg force members do require it.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Someone sounding legit to me would have to be confirmed with something more substantive.



I'll concede that this fellows story could be inaccurate. Maybe his triple time drill was really just double time drill that seemed really fast to him.
Maybe there is more or less to the story than he briefly explained.
Regardless of the accuracy of this guys specific story I think we all agree that someones career/life can be negatively changed in a moment thanks to someone turning a blind eye to a dangerous action.



> Examples are too numerous to name.



Exactly.




> Rucksack drill, as a punishment, went out the windows YEARS ago IIRC.  I think the last time I heard of it was early '90s in Gagetown.


I've seen it as recently as 2005



> How much does the MOB weigh?  As I said, I've done stuff like situps with 3-4 other candidates with asection of telephone pole and it was part of actual PT.  I am not saying it IS a sanctioned PT thing.  I am saying if it was it wouldn't strike me as "too much".  I go to the gym and lift weights before work, so lifting a MOB is no different to me than doing bench press.  I do it for fitness and strength trg, on my own.  If some 170lb teenager can't do a pushup with 50lbs on his back...wow.


You and I may have no problem doing it.  What about a 102 pound 5'0  female recruit, would her trying to do a push up with a 50 pound cumbersome plastic barracks box on her back be dangerous?  She crumbles smashes her face develops a back injury and shes out of the CF. 
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.  Personally "mob box push ups" just seems dangerous to me.



> Also, FWIW, almost every course I've been staff on, including BMQ at CFLRS, the Crse O lead morning PT, not the youngest MCpl available in NATO.


Agreed, it's the times with manning shortages and what do find inexperienced members leading their own style of PT that's the issue. 



> Experience is experience, and a Cpl with atleast 4 years in the Reg Force has seen how to do things by his/her MCpl, Sgt etc, like conduct a PT session, the same as a RMC student will see more senior people lead PT when they are going thru their system.  The danger lies in the ones who want, so badly, to be 'in the hot seat'; you know the type, frothing at the mouth to be able to "lead people", that when they do get to be staff, they are too busy bathing in their own awesomeness to remember their jobs as leaders.


For sure.


----------



## chrisf

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Right right.  The PT mod is a day long. Reservists do not need the PT mod to be promoted to MCpl but I believe reg force members do require it.



Absolutely they do, unless somthing has changed recently.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Right right.  The PT mod is a day long. Reservists do not need the PT mod to be promoted to MCpl but I believe reg force members do require it.



For the in-house courses we run MOD 1 (PT)  is manditory.....


----------



## Jarnhamar

Looks like it's changed recently. That's good news.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> You and I may have no problem doing it.  What about a 102 pound 5'0  female recruit, would her trying to do a push up with a 50 pound cumbersome plastic barracks box on her back be dangerous?  She crumbles smashes her face develops a back injury and shes out of the CF.



I don't want to get into the "there should be one standard" argument, its circular and has been  :deadhorse: so I'll just leave that one at that.



> I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.  Personally "mob box push ups" just seems dangerous to me.



As they very likely are, but I like to focus on the point of IF it is happening, it needs to be addressed to those who have the power to cease the activity, correct the Instr, etc.  



> Agreed, it's the times with manning shortages and what do find inexperienced members leading their own style of PT that's the issue.



I see that as a Leadership issue.  If the Crse O/Crse WO provide direction on "what/when/how/who", there should be no problem.  If there is a problem, it also suggests the instr NOT following the direction is not following orders.  That can be dealt with as well.


----------



## a_majoor

PLQ Mods 1-3 include the PT portion for both the Regular Force and Reserve candidates. This can get slightly silly as I have seen Reservists who are qualified civvy fitness instructors/trainers in their "real life" jobs being herded into the fitness center along with everyone else (and in the back of my mind I wondered what CSOR candidates thought of the PT experience compared to what they do back in their unit).

I am a big proponent of the "one standard" model, since a C-6 GPMG weighs 11 KG regardless of who is carrying it. Until someone can make local exceptions to the laws of physics, that's just the way it will be.

I am a bit stunned to hear of people doing "barracks box" pushups with the barracks box on their backs. Not only is it dangerous and stupid, it is also implausible. Did they perhaps mean the candidates were doing pushups with their feet elevated by being up on the barracks box so more body weight rests on the arms? That is plausible and also sanctioned (putting the feet up on benches and so on is the more common way to do this, but a MOABB will do in a pinch).

Leaders are responsible for the care of their troops as well as the readiness to carry out tasks. Perhaps if their mentors teach junior leaders to treat the men like high quality tools rather than disposable widgits we will see attitudes change for the better.


----------



## HeavyHooker

Just got a date for the PLQ Residential.  I know what the PLQ is obviously but the residential portion of that title is a bit confusing. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

HH


----------



## dangerboy

HeavyHooker said:
			
		

> Just got a date for the PLQ Residential.  I know what the PLQ is obviously but the residential portion of that title is a bit confusing. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
> 
> HH



Depending on what mods you have the residency usually covers the fol: Some lectures on leadership (PO 201), Instruct personel (Skill, Knowledge and Drill. PO 202), Conduct a conventional range (you act as an ARSO, Butts NCO, Ammo NCO. PO 210) and conduct Physical Fitness training (PO 203).


----------



## ARMY_101

xFusilier said:
			
		

> The current DL Package for PLQ covers material from modules 2, 4 and 5 duration is 10 training days.  In order to complete Mod 2, however you need to attend the residency portion.



Anyone know how we complete Mods 1 and 3 then?  :-\  My MPRR says I've completed 2, 4, and 5, but we did training covering all 5 mods.  And as far as I know, you can't just go to battle school for individual mods...


----------



## dangerboy

Mod 1 is run by PSP, you get assessed running a PT session and write a written test and Mod 3 is Field and Range Safety where you are on a range and are assessed in two positions (ARSO, Butts NCO, Ammo NCO or Background activities).  

 If you have completed these activities I suggest finding any proof of that and talking to your Chain of Command to get it entered onto your MPRR.


----------



## aesop081

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Depending on what mods you have .........



Wasn't it just easier the old way ? You went to the school for 8 weeks-ish and that was it.


----------



## dangerboy

I wish, that would solve a lot of administrative headaches.  It is going to get worse this fall when they Army PLQ replaces the PLQ Land.  The Army PLQ has 4 Mods while the current PLQ Land has 6 Mods, I forsee a lot of confussion for people that have some of the Mods but not all of them.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I wish, that would solve a lot of administrative headaches.  It is going to get worse this fall when they Army PLQ replaces the PLQ Land.  The Army PLQ has 4 Mods while the current PLQ Land has 6 Mods, I forsee a lot of confussion for people that have some of the Mods but not all of them.



Have a feeling that they would not get credit for the former mods with the newier mods......


----------



## AgentSmith

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I wish, that would solve a lot of administrative headaches.  It is going to get worse this fall when they Army PLQ replaces the PLQ Land.  The Army PLQ has 4 Mods while the current PLQ Land has 6 Mods, I forsee a lot of confussion for people that have some of the Mods but not all of them.



Wait what? There's a new PLQ? What mods will the new one cover?


----------



## MikeL

Any more info on this new PLQ course?  And if the older mods troops already have will carry over?

I already have mods 1-5 so really hoping I won't have to repeat any of that subject matter and just do whatever the new Mod 6 is.


----------



## brihard

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Any more info on this new PLQ course?  And if the older mods troops already have will carry over?
> 
> I already have mods 1-5 so really hoping I won't have to repeat any of that subject matter and just do whatever the new Mod 6 is.



I would expect that, like the Infantry DP realignment, the 'old' and 'new' courses will be run concurrently for a few years; anyone with some of PLQ already will likely carry on under the current system. Anyone who's not yet commenced will likely start in the new system. This will continue for a reasonable period time, within which it can be expected that most if not all troops who are actually motivated to complete a PLQ that they've already commenced will do so.

I'll try to get on documentum tomorrow and see if the new PLQs have been put up; if so I'll try to throw together a summary.


----------



## dangerboy

The new Army PLQ is up on Documentum (the Army PLQ TP is under the current PLQ folder)  and if I remember correctly it has a timeline on how long the old Mods are good for.  I don't think it is for very long, I fear a lot of troops are going to have to repeat some training.


----------



## ARMY_101

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> I already have mods 1-5 so really hoping I won't have to repeat any of that subject matter and just do whatever the new Mod 6 is.



Same here... but we all know that's a dream and at least some people will fall through.


----------



## MikeL

Looked it up this morning,  the changes made to look pretty good, like the PT portion.  Didn't see any timelines(for how longer current PLQ mods 1-5 are good for) or when this new PLQ comes into effect.

Looks like the current PLQ Mods 1-5 are similar to the Army PLQ Mods 1-2 and Mod 6 is similar to the new Mods 3-4.  As well, for the new PLQ once you do the Distance Learning portion you have 12(or 18) months to complete the whole PLQ course.  If you don't complete all mods within that 12(or 18) month period you have to start it all again at the start(including DL)


----------



## dangerboy

The TP is does not say anything about old mods but it does give a timeline for the new mods:



> 14. Students must complete Mod 2 within 12 months of
> the start of Mod 1.
> 15. Further to this, students must complete the course
> within 18 months of completing Mod 2.
> 16. Failure to complete the program within the
> prescribed timeline will result in the expiration of the
> MITE codes and expired Mods will have to be taken up
> again.


----------



## willy

I was at a conference last week at which we were briefed that 1 Jan 13 was going to be the drop dead date.  If a mbr is not fully qualified under the old system by that time, then he is going to have to start fresh under the new TP.


----------



## ARMY_101

I'm on the Documentum looking at both the "currently in use" PLQ as well as the new PLQ slated "for future use - date TBD:"



> TRAINING PLAN CHANGE REQUEST
> Dated 7 Jun 12
> Submitted by Capt Parent, G3 Trg Des Army Common 3
> Approved by Col G.D. Corbould, Comd, CTC, AITA
> 
> Pers who have completed Mods 2-5 DL followed by residency Mods 1-3 delivered by LFAA will transition directly onto Mod 3 of the new PLQ ("A-PLQ")
> 
> Pers who have completed Mods 2-5 DL followed by the residency Mods 1-3 delivered by LFQA will complete "delta trg package" prior to transitioning onto Mod 3 of A-PLQ
> 
> Pers who have completed Mods 1-5 of old PLQ ("PLQ-L") must complete the two-day DL "delta trg package" prior to transitioning onto Mod 3 of A-PLQ
> 
> Pers who have completed Mods 1-4 will see some modifications to their training for Mod 5.  Mod 5 will be delivered in residency prior to transitioning onto Mod 3 of A-PLQ.
> 
> *TIMELINES
> Members who complete PLQ-L Mod 6 prior to 1 Sep 12 do not have to take delta trg package
> As of 1 Jun 12, LFA's have begun delivering the new PLQ-L Mod 5 trg and the deltra trg package to students who will not undergo the current PLQ-L Mod 6 prior to 1 Sep 12.
> As of 1 Sep 12, A-PLQ Mods 3 and 4 are fully implemented.
> NLT 31 Dec 12, all PLQ-L Mods 1-5 are to cease.*


----------



## ARMY_101

Further investigation:

The "new" PLQ ("A-PLQ") was approved on 15 May 12.  Structure is as follows:

PLQ-A remains 50 days in duration.
PLQ-A is now broken into four modules instead of six:

Mod 1 - distance learning, 11 days
- PO's covering leading subordinates, maintaining order and discipline, developing subordinates, enforcing physical fitness requirements, etc.
- Can be delivered full-time or part-time and is run through LFAA (English) or LFQA (Quebec)

Mod 2 - residency, 9 days
- PO's covering the practical portion of enforcing physical fitness, instructing personnel, and enforcing field and range safety
- Can be delivered part-time or full-time through units, brigades, and ATC's
- Mod 2 must be completed within 12 months of beginning Mod 1

Mods 3 and 4 - consecutive residency, 30 days ("the field portion")
- PO's covering leading subordinates, planning operations, operating in tactical environments, and conducting section-level stability ops
- PO's covering leading subordinates; and conducting enabling, offensive, and defensive ops at the section level
- "Specific serials will be identified for PRes personnel who are required, by exception, to attend Mods 3 and 4 in consecutive years."
- Mods 3 and 4 must be completed within 18 months of completing Mod 2

*TIMELINES*
1 Sep 12 - LFA's begin delivering A-PLQ Mods 2-4
1 Oct 12 - distance learning opens for A-PLQ Mod 1
NLT 31 Dec 12 - all PLQ-L courses have ceased

EQUIVALENCY
Equivalency for pers midway through the PLQ-L mod system will be as follows:

- Pers who have completed PLQ-L Mod 2-5 DL package only will transition directly onto Mod 2 of A-PLQ
- Pers who have completed PLQ-L Mods 1-5 must complete two-day distance learning "delta trg package" before transitioning onto A-PLQ Mod 3
- Pers who have completed PLQ-L Modified mod 5 or PLQ-L Modified mods 2-5 DL followed by residency mods 1-3 will transition directly onto Mod 3 of A-PLQ
- Pers who ave completed Mod 6 part 1 of PLQ-L will not be granted equivalency for Mod 3 of A-PLQ, and will be required to complete A-PLQ Mods 3 and 4 in their entirety
- Pers who have only completed a portion of PLQ-L Mods 1-5 delivered in residency before 31 Dec 12 will be required to complete A-PLQ Mods 1-4 in their entirety.

Approved Col G.D. Corbould, Comd, 1617


----------



## ARMY_101

^ Anyone know what's going on with the infantry PLQ along with all these changes? Does this new training plan create one standard PLQ for all army trades, or will infantry PLQ still be 3 weeks longer and more field/ops focused?


----------



## dangerboy

The infantry will still have its own leadership course, the TP has not been released yet. So they will be using the current TP until at least 2013.


----------



## hammond

Morning, 

I've completed the PLQ-L DL portion in May, but was sent on another tasking prior to completing my residency and Mod 6. From the above reply it appears I will complete PLQ through Mod 2, 3 & 4 of A-PLQ. I was wondering if anyone knows how I could review the DL lectures. I was told I would still have access to them after my DL portion concluded, but when I log on to DNDLearn, I do not have the PLQ course on my enrolled courses list. Thanks for the help.


----------



## milmusician

hello.

This is my first post to this site.
I'm doing the PLQ DL right now - which is proving to be interesting.  It is a Part-Time course (spread out over 5 weeks).  We have to do 2 days of reading/tests each week.


----------



## PuckChaser

IslandTrooper said:
			
		

> Morning,
> 
> I've completed the PLQ-L DL portion in May, but was sent on another tasking prior to completing my residency and Mod 6. From the above reply it appears I will complete PLQ through Mod 2, 3 & 4 of A-PLQ. I was wondering if anyone knows how I could review the DL lectures. I was told I would still have access to them after my DL portion concluded, but when I log on to DNDLearn, I do not have the PLQ course on my enrolled courses list. Thanks for the help.



Go to Documentum on the Gagetown DWAN site, will have lesson plans for PLQ in there.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Go to Documentum on the Gagetown DWAN site, will have lesson plans for PLQ in there.



Anybody have info on when LFAA's running a non-INF mod 3/4 after 30 Nov 12?

Alternatively, I don't suppose there's a precedent for someone finishing mod 2 APLQ and going on mod 6 PLQ-L, which is all that WATC's offering. Got mods 1-4 PLQ-L.

I'm collecting a fun mix of PLQ-L and APLQ, and I'm looking forward to being done one scheme somewhere.


----------



## brihard

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Anybody have info on when LFAA's running a non-INF mod 3/4 after 30 Nov 12?
> 
> Alternatively, I don't suppose there's a precedent for someone finishing mod 2 APLQ and going on mod 6 PLQ-L, which is all that WATC's offering. Got mods 1-4 PLQ-L.
> 
> I'm collecting a fun mix of PLQ-L and APLQ, and I'm looking forward to being done one scheme somewhere.



I have a list of every PLQ running everywhere until roughly April. I'll check tomorrow. Note that you are by no means restricted to PLQs in your area. I'm in Ontario and sent two Cpls to the PLQ Infantry running in Aldershot. 'Off peak' PLQs (read, not in the summer) aren't too hard to get people on, or at least that's been my experience working ops in a reserve unit and seeing what my nominations have gotten back in loadings.

I'm almost certain you can do APLQ Mods 1-2 and then roll on to a 'legacy' Mod 6 Pt 1 and Mod 6 Land. I'll have to check the APLQ TP change request up on documentum, but I'm as sure as I can be without having it in front of me to read off of.

In fact, go one better- shoot me a PM with your DWAN email address and I'll send you the PLQ spreadsheet as well as a link to the national calendar where you can find all this stuff.


----------



## FGHsabre

Just Got loaded for PLQ starting in January. Just so everyone is updated, PLQ is 4 mods now. A distance learning part. MOD 1,, a Residency part MOD 2 and a 6 week Practicum part, MOD  3 - 4. (equivalent to the old Mod 6)


----------



## MikeL

FGHsabre said:
			
		

> Just Got loaded for PLQ starting in January. Just so everyone is updated, PLQ is 4 mods now. A distance learning part. MOD 1,, a Residency part MOD 2 and a 6 week Practicum part, MOD  3 - 4. (equivalent to the old Mod 6)



If you looked at the prev page you would have seen that you are a few months late on posting the info




			
				ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Further investigation:
> 
> The "new" PLQ ("A-PLQ") was approved on 15 May 12.  Structure is as follows:
> 
> PLQ-A remains 50 days in duration.
> PLQ-A is now broken into four modules instead of six:
> 
> Mod 1 - distance learning, 11 days
> - PO's covering leading subordinates, maintaining order and discipline, developing subordinates, enforcing physical fitness requirements, etc.
> - Can be delivered full-time or part-time and is run through LFAA (English) or LFQA (Quebec)
> 
> Mod 2 - residency, 9 days
> - PO's covering the practical portion of enforcing physical fitness, instructing personnel, and enforcing field and range safety
> - Can be delivered part-time or full-time through units, brigades, and ATC's
> - Mod 2 must be completed within 12 months of beginning Mod 1
> 
> Mods 3 and 4 - consecutive residency, 30 days ("the field portion")
> - PO's covering leading subordinates, planning operations, operating in tactical environments, and conducting section-level stability ops
> - PO's covering leading subordinates; and conducting enabling, offensive, and defensive ops at the section level
> - "Specific serials will be identified for PRes personnel who are required, by exception, to attend Mods 3 and 4 in consecutive years."
> - Mods 3 and 4 must be completed within 18 months of completing Mod 2
> 
> *TIMELINES*
> 1 Sep 12 - LFA's begin delivering A-PLQ Mods 2-4
> 1 Oct 12 - distance learning opens for A-PLQ Mod 1
> NLT 31 Dec 12 - all PLQ-L courses have ceased
> 
> EQUIVALENCY
> Equivalency for pers midway through the PLQ-L mod system will be as follows:
> 
> - Pers who have completed PLQ-L Mod 2-5 DL package only will transition directly onto Mod 2 of A-PLQ
> - Pers who have completed PLQ-L Mods 1-5 must complete two-day distance learning "delta trg package" before transitioning onto A-PLQ Mod 3
> - Pers who have completed PLQ-L Modified mod 5 or PLQ-L Modified mods 2-5 DL followed by residency mods 1-3 will transition directly onto Mod 3 of A-PLQ
> - Pers who ave completed Mod 6 part 1 of PLQ-L will not be granted equivalency for Mod 3 of A-PLQ, and will be required to complete A-PLQ Mods 3 and 4 in their entirety
> - Pers who have only completed a portion of PLQ-L Mods 1-5 delivered in residency before 31 Dec 12 will be required to complete A-PLQ Mods 1-4 in their entirety.
> 
> Approved Col G.D. Corbould, Comd, 1617


----------



## DOM6569

Does anyone know if the DL on your own time or scheduled? 
Anyone know the 2012/2013 PLQ sched for London?


----------



## ARMY_101

DOM6569 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if the DL on your own time or scheduled?



One format is on your own time over a two-month time period (part-time). The other is full-time, which is from 8:00am to 5:00pm and they track your online activity.


----------



## brihard

DOM6569 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if the DL on your own time or scheduled?
> Anyone know the 2012/2013 PLQ sched for London?



1. The DL is scheduled for 10 training days. You can either do it in a straight shot that's usually scheduled over about two and a half weeks and is intended for full time, full days, or a 'weekend' format that gives you a bit over a month to do it. For myself, I try to load my guys only on the longer duration one.

2. There is not a schedule for PLQs outside of the are training centres. None are currently approved to run. Mod 1 will always be DL adminsitered by Aldershot; Mod 2 can be run by the area training centres, by brigades or by units, and mods 3 and 4 can only be run by the ATCs. 

We could well see the reserve brigades choosing to run Mod 2 on weekends; that'll be contingent on whether they discern a need to and have the budget / staff. I'd not be surprised to see mods 2, 3, and 4 all running consecutively in the summer at the ATCs. I've had no problem getting guys loaded on full time mod 2s; nothing stops a unit in Ottawa, for instance, from nominating someone for courses in Wainwright, Gagetown, or Aldershot and getting the spots.


----------



## jeffiep

Looking for someone in the know on how long I have to get my Inf mod 6? I have my 1-5 and would prefer not to start form scratch. I am under the impression that there is one running in Pet starting Jan 28, how far out do they confirm course loading? I have my name submitted and am waiting a response. I have learned to deal with the last minute notifications but it drives my wife crazy. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## MikeL

jeffiep said:
			
		

> Looking for someone in the know on how long I have to get my Inf mod 6? I have my 1-5 and would prefer not to start form scratch.





			
				ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> EQUIVALENCY
> Equivalency for pers midway through the PLQ-L mod system will be as follows:
> 
> - Pers who have completed PLQ-L Mod 2-5 DL package only will transition directly onto Mod 2 of A-PLQ
> *- Pers who have completed PLQ-L Mods 1-5 must complete two-day distance learning "delta trg package" before transitioning onto A-PLQ Mod 3*
> - Pers who have completed PLQ-L Modified mod 5 or PLQ-L Modified mods 2-5 DL followed by residency mods 1-3 will transition directly onto Mod 3 of A-PLQ
> - Pers who ave completed Mod 6 part 1 of PLQ-L will not be granted equivalency for Mod 3 of A-PLQ, and will be required to complete A-PLQ Mods 3 and 4 in their entirety
> - Pers who have only completed a portion of PLQ-L Mods 1-5 delivered in residency before 31 Dec 12 will be required to complete A-PLQ Mods 1-4 in their entirety.
> 
> Approved Col G.D. Corbould, Comd, 1617


----------



## ARMY_101

jeffiep said:
			
		

> Looking for someone in the know on how long I have to get my Inf mod 6? I have my 1-5 and would prefer not to start form scratch. I am under the impression that there is one running in Pet starting Jan 28, how far out do they confirm course loading? I have my name submitted and am waiting a response. I have learned to deal with the last minute notifications but it drives my wife crazy. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!



Where'd you hear there's a 28 Jan PLQ in Pet? Direction from our chain of command was that all 33 CBG training was cancelled "for the foreseeable future, probably until April 2013."


----------



## PuckChaser

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Where'd you hear there's a 28 Jan PLQ in Pet? Direction from our chain of command was that all 33 CBG training was cancelled "for the foreseeable future, probably until April 2013."



Training may be cancelled for 33 CBG but the RegF is still going to run courses. Something starting 28 Jan in Pet definitely doesn't sound like a PRes course.


----------



## brihard

Army_101- you're not in 33 CBG anymore. Your present chain of command never has been. Be leery of taking anything they say about 33 CBG training at face value. Battle school continues to run courses. You know of at least 5 different ways to contact me; exercise any of them during the work day and you know that I can have you firm, non-speculative answers pretty quickly. That said, you also know that a PRL reservist who does not belong to or contribute actively to a unit likely will not get much support in trying to get career courses, and that the brigade will resist giving up batle school spots to someone who no longer is a member of it. When you made the decision to remove yourself from a regiment while working long term Cl B, you have also cut yourself off at the knees in terms of any career progression. 

PuckChaser- PLQs are, as it stands, all being run at full time training establishments. The concept of 'RegF PLQs' versus 'PRes PLQs' is no longer, in my informed opinion, valid. I have two guys right now on Mod 6 Infantry in Aldershot. I had three there and one in Gagetown back in February. While, yes, some PLQ 3-4 serials will likely still run at the ATCs in the summer months aimed primarily at reservists, even my 'reserve' Mod 6 still had two troops from 3 RCR on it. Likewise, while 'rest of the year' serials see more reg force guys, we can nominate people and most serials will see some reservists loaded. All the moreso for the Mod 2 residency, and of course the Mod 1 DL is a total smorgasbord.

Jeffiep- To my knowledge (current as of about a week ago) there is a single legacy Mod 6 Infantry not yet underway and still scheduled to run. That is running out of Wainwright in Feb - Apr 2013. It may still get converted to a 'new' Infantry mods 3-4. Nothing whatsoever stops your unit from nominating you for this course. I can check tomorrow (if I remember to) and see if it's still showing as scheduled as a legacy course, or if it's new. All of the approved FY 13-14 PLQs are under the new system. Skeletor nailed it on equivalencies. If you have mods 1-5 (either in the old format, or the new DL/Residency) you can do new mods 3 and 4 and be PLQ qualified. Note that if you do the new PLQ infantry 3-4, you'll also still need the new DP2 Advanced Small Arms to get your leaf. If you get on that legacy 6 in Wainwright, that will suffice for appointment to MCpl.


Back to 'reserve' PLQs-  The only one of the 4 mods that is authorized to run at reserve training establishments (brigade battle schools) is Mod 2; 2 weeks duration, or what would be 5 weekends. If the success my unit has had is indicative of anything (disclaimer- as always, 'anecdote' doesn't equal 'data'), there seems little need for the CBGs to expend limited resources to run weekend PLQs, when the mod 2 residency is only two weeks. The minutes from the last Qualification Standard  writing board for Army PLQ included specific discussion of reserve/reg training deltas in PLQ, and it was made clear that there would be no difference in training delivered. So it makes sense to keep serials open to both, with exceptions made only where bona fide need exists to fill a gap, or in the summer when most reservists are most able to be available for two months. 

With Mods 3-4 being shorter than the old Mod 6, my SWAG is that we'll see mod 2s scheduled immediately prior to most of the mods 3-4. I have the course dates at work for the next 16 months; I'll cross reference that tomorrow. That said, I could be wrong, and potentially at least some of the CBGs will run their own Mod 2s. But based on how CBG batle schools' budgets are getting hit, I'd be surprised if that were to win out against Inf DP2 Weapons Det courses, BMQ Land courses, DP1 Inf Mod 1s, or Driver Wheels.

Anyway gents, I hope that clears up some stuff for you.

I need a life.


----------



## Shamrock

Brihard said:
			
		

> When you made the decision to remove yourself from a regiment while working long term Cl B, you have also cut yourself off at the knees in terms of any career progression.



Just seeking clarification - are you saying that when a soldier is on a long term class B outside his home unit (though he may continue to wear the cap badge), his career progression becomes the responsibility of his host unit?


----------



## brihard

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Just seeking clarification - are you saying that when a soldier is on a long term class B outside his home unit (though he may continue to wear the cap badge), his career progression becomes the responsibility of his host unit?



Not precisely- PRL as opposed to belonging to a unit's strength. We have members working long term Cl B but still actively working with a unit that takes active interest in that member's career advancement. Conversely, you go CL B long term and get moved to PRL, it's no longer in the unit's interest to expend course positions on a guy who doesn't give back to a unit.


----------



## jeffiep

Thanks for clearing some of this up. I was into my unit Ops office about a month ago and reviewed the national calendar with the Ops WO, he showed me the Jan 28 start in Pet as well as 26 Mar in Aldershot. I am sure it has all changed by now, typical.


----------



## brihard

I just checked. The Feb - Apr Mod 6 Infantry is still showing as a legacy mod 6 rather than the new one.


----------



## dangerboy

The Infantry has not switched over to the new Mod system.  Only the Army PLQ has switched over, I have not heard of the official date when the Infantry is addopting it.


----------



## brihard

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The Infantry has not switched over to the new Mod system.  Only the Army PLQ has switched over, I have not heard of the official date when the Infantry is addopting it.



Yes it has. I have troops already in the new system. Mods 1-3 are army common; only mod 4 is split army / inf. Mod 4 infantry courses begin in January. WATC and SQFT each have one legacy mod 6 inf still scheduled, but each also have new ones going subsequently. ATCs had a bit of latitude to account for courses already scheduled and planned for on the old QS.


----------



## Shamrock

Brihard said:
			
		

> Not precisely- PRL as opposed to belonging to a unit's strength. We have members working long term Cl B but still actively working with a unit that takes active interest in that member's career advancement. Conversely, you go CL B long term and get moved to PRL, it's no longer in the unit's interest to expend course positions on a guy who doesn't give back to a unit.



Honestly not my intent to be argumentative (this time) - I'm just sort of trying to wrap my head around this.  Allow me to preface this with my saying I don't know what PRL is.  From my read of this, soldiers are able to apply for out-of-unit employment with minimal chain of command engagement and rather than getting a full-blown posting, are essentially loaners to the gaining units.  Home units remain the URS and career managers.  

The issue I take with the information posted above is it seems the withholding of the course is punitive.  The soldier, though not taken on strength at his home unit, is not NES; if anything, his performance will be subject to more substantial review, which in turn could lead to a more solid placement in the merit list.  If anything, low meriting would be a greater reason not to course-load a troop than otherwise.

I certainly don't think someone would fall off the merit list simply because he's working outside the unit.  But I do think it'd be quite impossible to nominate him for the course while he's getting paid to work somewhere else.  I must again profess my ignorance, but I think their budget assumes the soldier's pay - and if this assumption is correct, it becomes salient there would be little advantage in sending him or her on a course of that length.


----------



## ARMY_101

@Shamrock As a member of a PRL, perhaps I can clarify.

A PRL (Primary Reserve List) is a unit in and of itself.  It is intended for serving Class B (and sometimes C) reservists who "cannot be conveniently administered through another reserve unit."  There are two in Ottawa and I believe 6 or 7 others throughout Canada.

They are not structured any differently than any other unit: they have a CO, DCO, RSM, etc. and a Personnel Management section which is the equivalent to any other unit's Ops section (they administer career progression, tours, etc).  A member who belongs to a PRL is fully a member of the PRL - that's their home unit, where their pers file is held, to whom they report for pay and admin, and so forth.

That's why I'm a bit confused by the above post stating that a PRL has no interest in training a member who belongs to them.  They do have an interest in training and progressing their members, and you'd have an awful lot of upset members if you told them they weren't being trained or promoted because they belonged to a PRL.


----------



## Shamrock

In that case, everything makes perfect sense.

Regimental affiliation has no bearing on career progression in this instance.  The PRL is responsible for care and maintenance of its own.  While the affiliated regiment may provide feedback and recommended COAs to its badge wearing members, unless the member is somehow making an appearance, the mothership will have no substantiation should it attempt to advocate for the member.  He's not saying the PRL isn't taking care of its members, he's saying the Regiment has no means to get involved to assist them.


----------



## ARMY_101

Shamrock said:
			
		

> In that case, everything makes perfect sense.
> 
> Regimental affiliation has no bearing on career progression in this instance.  The PRL is responsible for care and maintenance of its own.  While the affiliated regiment may provide feedback and recommended COAs to its badge wearing members, unless the member is somehow making an appearance, the mothership will have no substantiation should it attempt to advocate for the member.  He's not saying the PRL isn't taking care of its members, he's saying the Regiment has no means to get involved to assist them.



Members who belong to a PRL have no regimental affiliation: the PRL is their unit. They wear standard environmental DEUs.


----------



## brihard

I'll go further on this, and I'm gonna put on my blunt-arsehole-infantry-NCO-hat and use the example of reserve NCMs in the combat arms.

A member is transferred to the PRL, yes, if they "cannot be conveniently administered through another reserve unit". Typically this is done when a reserve member gets a 2 or 3 year class B and ceases actively parading with that reserve unit. the PRL exists as an administrative organization to administer the need for reservists to work contractually for periods of a few years; it is not an operational organization that has a mandate to force generate, force employ, or to actively career progress.

So let's take two hypothetical MCpls:

MCpl Bloggins gets a 3 year contract working at a Cl B position in a major city. He continues to shwo up on Wednesday nights and parade with his unit as a section 2ic. He attends as many of the weekend exercises as he is able to.

MCpl Smith likewise gets a 3 year Cl B position in the same city. He elects to no longer remain active with his reserve unit. In order to free up that MCpl line serial that he is occupying but not doing the job of, he is transferred to a PRL.

So we have one which does contribute to a unit, continues to do his comabt arms job in a field environment, and continues to career progress within the unit. The other has taken a different route wherein the reserves are used as a mechanism to compete for long term contracts. He will not be employed in the environment of that trade.

Reserve units get barely enough positions on career courses for the advancement of their own people. I work ops in a unit with 126 infantry Pte and Cpl. Every single one who we wish to advance to MCpl must get DP2 Weapons Det Member and PLQ the whole way through. Every platoon weapons det needs guys to be qualified for the job, and we need depth, too. There is attrition at every stage.  And this year I will be lucky if my regiment gets six or eight positions on the weapons det member course, which is run within the reserve brigades or at the area training centres.

So: If a reservist has elected to take full time employment for several years AND has chosen, while doing so, not to contribute to a unit, why should those very limited positions on career advancement trade courses be offer to them? An infantryman who elects not to work as an infantryman, in my mind, has no business expecting the infantry to give him positions to progress in his career as an infantryman, so he can then go and get another non-infantry Cl B at a higher rank level. We have ample full time Cl B guys who DO show up to train as well and who DO get those spots on career courses. MCpl Smith and MCpl Bloggins both hope to be Sgts some day. Which one, in their trade, MERITS the Small Arms Instructor's Course necessary to do so? We have guys working 3 year Cl Bs as Sgts now who did the same as MCpl and as Cpls, and did nothing more than keep coming out to play, and go on a career course every 3 or 4 years.

The reservist who doesn't contribute to a unit and who snipes that career course spot is boning the guy who does. Moreover, that reservist who has been employed for some years as an NCM and has not worked in the section, detachment, or patrol is unsuitable to be advanced to the next rank in that same trade when they have not retained, refreshed, or further developed their combat arms trade skills. You could take an RMS clerk who hasn't worked in an infantry section in four years since they changed trades and put him through a PLQ Mod 6 Infantry. Doesn't mean he's got any business claiming to be an Infantry MCpl afterwards. How does that differ fromt he reservist who goes PRL and ceases to do anything in trade? 

If a combat arms reservist wishes to work full time, not participate in a field force unit, and to career advance, the answer is to component transfer to the regular force in a suitable trade. There he will have the opportunity to work full time and to advance with only the very reasonable expectation that he be subjected to full time career management.

Alternatively, show up for the three hours a week and one weekend a month that is all that is expected of a reservist in order to be merited for that career advancement. I am not aware of any reserve combat arms units that don't have some vacant line serials for NCMs to transfer into. Contact a unit recruit, express interest in transfering from PRL back onto a unit establishment, and demonstrate that a spot on those courses is _merited_ not arranged through a back door deal where a reserve brigade is obliged to surrender a spot on a course they're running for their troops.


----------



## George Wallace

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Members who belong to a PRL have no regimental affiliation: the PRL is their unit. They wear standard environmental DEUs.



They retain their Regt'l / Branch affiliations as there is no hatbadge for PRL.  If a person is a Cameron, they will still wear their Cameron accoutrements and maintain that Regimental affiliation.  They only belong to the PRL for administrative reasons.  This process allows, in this case, the Cameron's to free up a line serial/Position Number for another member.


----------



## brihard

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They retain their Regt'l / Branch affiliations as there is no hatbadge for PRL.  If a person is a Cameron, they will still wear their Cameron accoutrements and maintain that Regimental affiliation.  They only belong to the PRL for administrative reasons.  This process allows, in this case, the Cameron's to free up a line serial/Position Number for another member.



This one's a bit of a winger- but reserve units being what they are and having a bunch of regimental kit that belongs to the unit (highland regiments being particularly bad for this), I'm sure I've seen members of units have to turn in their distinctive unit headdress, DEU accoutrements, etc so that they can be issued out to others.


----------



## George Wallace

Brihard said:
			
		

> This one's a bit of a winger- but reserve units being what they are and having a bunch of regimental kit that belongs to the unit (highland regiments being particularly bad for this), I'm sure I've seen members of units have to turn in their distinctive unit headdress, DEU accoutrements, etc so that they can be issued out to others.



Depends on the rank and SOU of the individual.  A person may return after a short Class B SOU to their affiliated Regiment/unit.  I am sure, if you walked into NDHQ, you will see many Highland units represented by pers on PRL, who have their complete entitlement of Regimental accoutrements.  

If, as is the case of those who are not going PRL, but doing a transfer to another Trade, then you will see them turning in their Regimental Kilts, etc. and in a position where they have no complete set of DEUs.


----------



## brihard

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Depends on the rank and SOU of the individual.  A person may return after a short Class B SOU to their affiliated Regiment/unit.  I am sure, if you walked into NDHQ, you will see many Highland units represented by pers on PRL, who have their complete entitlement of Regimental accoutrements.
> 
> If, as is the case of those who are not going PRL, but doing a transfer to another Trade, then you will see them turning in their Regimental Kilts, etc. and in a position where they have no complete set of DEUs.



Oh, certainly. I'm talking about the same hypothetical as I had earlier- a PRes member who transfers out of the Ft Mooseknuckle Highland Fusiliers and has to turn in their Tam'O'Shanter, kilt, and the brass bits for their uniform and puts up a beret with infantry cap badge and generic 'canada' stuff on the tunic. But you're absolutely right that most who go PRL seem to hang on to their regimental kit.


----------



## Journeyman

I'm guessing that's only a problem with you militia guys who don't wear normal uniforms, but insist on mixing CF with catholic schoolgirl....and a stripper's feather boa in your hat 

         :stirpot:


----------



## ARMY_101

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They retain their Regt'l / Branch affiliations as there is no hatbadge for PRL.  If a person is a Cameron, they will still wear their Cameron accoutrements and maintain that Regimental affiliation.  They only belong to the PRL for administrative reasons.  This process allows, in this case, the Cameron's to free up a line serial/Position Number for another member.



It didn't work that way for our PRL: members from at least two reserve units were told to return all regimental kit and completely out-clear. Now they/I wear a beret, infantry cap badge, and standard army DEU (no kilt, unfortunately).


----------



## brihard

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that's only a problem with you militia guys who don't wear normal uniforms, but insist on mixing CF with catholic schoolgirl....and a stripper's feather boa in your hat
> 
> :stirpot:



Pants are tyranny.


----------



## SupplyOntario

I've read through the first few pages, and last few - but not all 13.  

I did Mods 2-5 about 7 years ago, I'm finishing Mod 1 this week, and plan to get loaded on to Mod 6 (the new 3&4) later this year.  How long is the Delta pgk that I need?  I think I read a couple days or over 2 months?  Can I do this from the regular net, or do I have to be on base with DIN access?  What's covered in the Delta pkg?

Any info about Aldershot would also be helpful - I'm hoping to be sent there.  Anyone got course dates for the new 3 & 4 in Aldershot?  

Thanks!  I just want this over with....


----------



## ARMY_101

SupplyOntario said:
			
		

> I've read through the first few pages, and last few - but not all 13.
> 
> I did Mods 2-5 about 7 years ago, I'm finishing Mod 1 this week, and plan to get loaded on to Mod 6 (the new 3&4) later this year.  How long is the Delta pgk that I need?  I think I read a couple days or over 2 months?  Can I do this from the regular net, or do I have to be on base with DIN access?  What's covered in the Delta pkg?
> 
> Any info about Aldershot would also be helpful - I'm hoping to be sent there.  Anyone got course dates for the new 3 & 4 in Aldershot?
> 
> Thanks!  I just want this over with....



Delta is a two-day distance learning course: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18969/post-1153037.html#msg1153037.  I'm not sure what it covers but considering the context it sounds mostly like a review/refresher of the materials learned in Mods 1-5 before going on Mod 6 (mods 3 and 4).


----------



## Rheostatic

Do the current PLQ DL packages require a full-time commitment, or is it realistic to expect they can be done on evenings and weekends (in the case of a PRes member with a full-time civilian job)? Also, does the DL require DWAN access? Is it hosted on DNDLearn?


----------



## Sig_Des

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Do the current PLQ DL packages require a full-time commitment, or is it realistic to expect they can be done on evenings and weekends (in the case of a PRes member with a full-time civilian job)? Also, does the DL require DWAN access? Is it hosted on DNDLearn?



When I did mine a couple years back, it was hosted on DNDLearn, so I just did it all from home. Basically the only requirements were that I had to login at some point during the day, make sure that I commented on the days topic on the forum, and have my homework in at the alloted time. As far as the course load, I think it's possible to do it evenings and weekends, but it'd be a lot.

I'm not sure what the actual rules are for PRes though.


----------



## brihard

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Do the current PLQ DL packages require a full-time commitment, or is it realistic to expect they can be done on evenings and weekends (in the case of a PRes member with a full-time civilian job)? Also, does the DL require DWAN access? Is it hosted on DNDLearn?




Rheo, I can speak to this. I work ops and training and currently have 11 of my troops on the DL.

The DL portion has two formats. The most common one to see is one scheduled over 15-16 calendar days. These ones are intended to be done straight through; you get paid about 11 days or so, and you are spending two work weeks solid doing them.

The other format is referred to as 'weekend'. It's intended primarily for primary reservists who have other commitments to balance. This is normally scheduled for about 33 calendar days- you have five weekends to do the material on your own time, and there are weekly benchmarks set to stay on track.

The 13/14 calendar is out in draft form. While not eyt confirmed, the PLQ DLs are tenatively se4t. The next 'weekend' formats will be in September, and then another one in November. 

The full time ones are full days. If you're a real masochist it might be possible to plow through them, but I'd seek a week or two free and clear to do it in. I wouldn't chance it otherwise. I've got a guy right now who even on the weekend portion is going to tueb it because he was a week late getting it set up, and couldn't catch up between work and school. There's a lot of readings to do.

The actual courseware is all online, and can be accessed from a computer at home via a DND Learn format that's friendly to that. You don't need a DWAN account to log into it.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Rheostatic

It certainly does help, thanks to both of you. Can you send a link to the draft 13/14 Calendar? My link for the national calendar is limited to this FY.


----------



## brihard

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> It certainly does help, thanks to both of you. Can you send a link to the draft 13/14 Calendar? My link for the national calendar is limited to this FY.



I'll PM it momentarily.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Am I reading this correctly or does the new curriculum for Army PLQ negate Mod 6 from the previous PLQ incarnation?


----------



## MikeL

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Am I reading this correctly or does the new curriculum for Army PLQ negate Mod 6 from the previous PLQ incarnation?



AFAIK, 

PLQ Mods 1-5 are now Mods 1 and 2 on the new Army PLQ.  Mod 6 is now Mods 3 and 4.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Thanks.  It seems like its condensed vs. the older system which to be fair I wasn't a part of.


----------



## ARMY_101

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Thanks.  It seems like its condensed vs. the older system which to be fair I wasn't a part of.



The course is still the same length, it's just broken down into different mods.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Roger that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CANFORGEN 031/13  PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION - ARMY (PLQ-A) PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION - ARMY (PLQ-A)

UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: *deleted*

1. BACKGROUND. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT REVIEW OF THE NCM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM AND THE REVISED NCM GENERAL SPECIFICATION (NCMGS) AT REF A, CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE ARMY QUALIFICATION STANDARD AND TRAINING PLAN FOR PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION - LAND. THESE CHANGES HAVE RESULTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR MODULE (VICE CURRENT SIX MODULE) SYSTEM. IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE CONFUSION DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD, THERE WILL BE A CHANGE TO THE NAME OF THE QUALIFICATION FROM PRIMARLY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION - LAND (PLQ-L) TO PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION - ARMY (PLQ-A). 


2.  COURSE STRUCTURE. THE NEW PLQ-A IS STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS: 

A.  MODULE 1 - AN 11 DAY MODULE DELIVERED VIA DISTANCE LEARNING (DL) BY LFAATC FOR ENGLISH SERIALS, AND SQCISQ FOR FRENCH SERIALS. 

B.  MODULE 2 - A NINE DAY MODULE DELIVERED IN RESIDENCE (FULL-TIME FORMAT) EITHER AT THE AREA TRAINING CENTRES OR AT BRIGADES (FOR P RES). 

C.  MODULES 3 AND 4 - EACH MODULE OF 15 DAY DURATION WILL BE DELIVERED IN RESIDENCE AT THE AREA TRAINING CENTRES. 


3.  TRAINING DELIVERY. THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS WILL APPLY TO THE DELIVERY OF THE PLQ-A: 

A.  MODULE 1 WILL BE DELIVERED IN A SYNCHRONOUS DISTANCE LEARNING FORMAT. TO CATER TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRES, IT CAN BE DELIVERED IN A PART-TIME BASIS. 

B.  MODULE 2 WILL BE DELIVERED IN A FULL-TIME FORMAT AT THE AREA TRG CENTRES. TO CATER TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRES IT MAY BE DELIVERED IN A PART-TIME FORMAT AT CBG SCHOOLS. 

C.  MODULES 3 AND 4 WILL BE ONLY DELIVERED IN A FULL-TIME FORMAT AT THE AREA TRG CENTRES AND ARE INTENDED TO BE DELIVERED CONSECUTIVELY WITH STUDENTS REMAINING FOR THE DURATION, ALTHOUGH SPECIFIC SERIALS WILL BE IDENTIFIED FOR PRES PERSONNEL WHO ARE REQUIRED, BY EXCEPTION, TO ATTEND MODULES 3 AND 4 IN CONSECUTIVE YEARS. 

D.  ALL MODULES WILL BE MANAGED VIA THE ARMY NATIONAL CALENDAR AND COURSE LOADED BY CTC HQ. 

E.  A COMMON SELECTING AGENCY WILL APPLY TO ALL MODULES OF THE PLQ-A: D MIL C FOR REG F AND AREA HQ FOR PRES. 

F.  STUDENTS WILL NORMALLY BE NOMINATED FOR THE PLQ-A COMPLETE, BY THE SELECTING AGENCY. CTC HQ WILL LOAD AGAINST SPECIFIC MODULES BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SELECTING AGENCY. 


4.  ALL OCCUPATIONS CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO ATTEND PLQ-L IAW REF D WILL BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND PLQ-A UPON ITS IMPLEMENTATION. SPECIFICALLY: 

A.  ALL ARMY MANAGED OCCUPATIONS (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF INFMN) TO INCLUDE: 

(1) CRMN 

(2) FD ARTYMN 

(3) AD ARTYMN 

(4) CBT ENGR 

(5) GEO TECH 

(6) ACCIS 

(7) EO TECH 

(8.) MAT TECH 

(9) VEH TECH 

(10) WPN TECH 


B.  THE FOLLOWING NON-ARMY MANAGED OCCUPATIONS: 

(1) MP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS) 

(2) MSE OP (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY) 

(3) SUP TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY) 

(4) RMS CLK (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY) 

(5) COOK (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY) 

(6) AMMO TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY) 

(7) POSTAL CLK (ALL ENVIRONMENTS) 

(8.) COMM RSCH (ALL ENVIRONMENTS) 

(9) INT OP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS) 

(10) CBRN OP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS) 

(11) TRAFFIC TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY) 


5.  TRANSITION. IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT A SIGNIFICANT VOLUME OF PERS ARE PARTIALLY TRAINED IN THE CURRENT PLQ-L. IN ORDER TO AVOID GAPS IN TRAINING AND REDUCE THE POTENTIAL DUPLICATION OF TRAINING, THE FOLLOWING TRANSITIONAL PARAMETERS WILL APPLY UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLQ-A: 

A.  PERS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THE PLQ-L MODULE 2-5 DL PACKAGE ONLY, WILL TRANSITION IMMEDIATELY TO MODULE 2 OF PLQ-A. 

B.  PERS WHO HAVE COMPLETED MODULES 1-5 OF PLQ-L MUST COMPLETE A TRANSITIONAL TWO DAY DL DELTA PACKAGE PRIOR TO BEING AUTHORIZED TO ATTEND PLQ-A MODULE 3. 

C.  AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, A MODIFIED PLQ-L MODULE 1-5 RESIDENCY PACKAGE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR DELIVERY BY AREA TRAINING CENTRES THAT WILL ACHIEVE THE PLQ-A MODULES 1 AND 2 EQUIVELANCE. C. PERS WHO HAVE COMPLETED MODULE 6 PART 1 OF THE PLQ-L WILL NOT BE GRANTED EQUIVALENCY FOR MODULE 3 OF PLQ-A, BUT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE MODULES 3 AND 4 IN THEIR ENTIRETY 


6.  TIMELINES. THE FOLLOWING TIMELINES WILL APPLY TO PLQ-A IMPLEMENTATION: 

A.  1 APR 12 - ALL AREA TRAINING CENTRES WILL COMMENCE DELIVERY OF MODIFIED PLQ-L MODULE 1-5 RESIDENCY PACKAGE. 

B.  APR-JUN 12 - CONDUCT OF PILOT SERIAL PLQ-A MODULE 1(DL) BY LFAATC. 

C. 1 SEP 12 - ALL LAND FORCE AREAS WILL COMMENCE DELIVERY OF PLQ-A MODULES 2 TO 4. 

D. 1 OCT 12 - CONDUCT OF MODIFIED PLQ-L MODULE 1-5 RESIDENCY PACKAGE WILL CEASE. LFAATC AND SQCISQ WILL COMMENCE DELIVERY OF PLQ-A MODULE 1. 

E. NLT 31 DEC 12 - TRAINING OF PERSONNEL ON PLQ-L MODULES 1 TO 5 BY INDIVIDUAL MODULES AT HOME UNITS AND BDES IS TO BE COMPLETED. 


7.  CA LEAD FOR THIS DIRECTION IS COMD LFDTS AS THE ARMY TRAINING AUTHORITY (ATA).  LFDTS POC IS DAT PD, *DELETED*. ARMY INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AUTHORITY (AITA) POC IS CTC HQ G3 TRG DES (CA), *DELETED*. CTC G3 POC FOR COURSE LOADING AND SCHEDULING IS G3 COURSES 1-2, *DELETED*. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
* some info removed for PERSEC.

** para 6 is modified for what I think was the intended format, as it appears sub-para's C - F got stuck in with 6(b).


----------



## brihard

That's already outdated... They've liften half of it directly from the applicable QS and TP revisions promulgated a year ago, yet the CANFORGEN speaks in the present tense. PLQ-L mods 1-5 are no longer running in any form; old, new, delta, bridge, or what have you. It's all the new mods now at any of the army run schools.

Also, army reserve musicians appear to have been overlooked. I would put money on their requirement being A-PLQ mods 1-3, as that almsot exactly approximates the legacy PLQ-L Mod 6 part 1, or in turn the CF-PLQ common. But I can't find an official document anywhere that confirms this for me, and my query up the ops chain is still moving through the pipe.

The PLQ Inf Mod 4 is longer than the rest-of-army one. You're looking at a full month for that one vice the 15 days stated in the CANFORGEN for the A-PLQ Mod 4.


----------



## xFusilier

The last direction we received on musicians, from the ATC Stds Cell, was that they do CF PLQ.  As for trying to find a national listing of CF PLQ courses, I've been looking for weeks and have yet to find one.


----------



## ARMY_101

Is there an official PAM/Training Plan for the new four-mod PLQ? If so, would someone mind shooting me a PM?


----------



## MikeL

If you have DWAN access you should be able to find the TP, etc off the Gagetown cabinets site.

Easy way to find it (since DWAN search can be brutal) is go to the Infantry School's DWAN site,  and click on any of the courses listed and that should bring up the course on the cabinets site.  Once you are there,  there is a side bar on the left where you can find every Army managed course(AFAIK).


----------



## ARMY_101

Excellent. Thanks Skeletor.


----------



## ARMY_101

Anyone have any tips or comments on Army PLQ? Particularly comments on the "new" 4-Mod system and inf-PLQ Mod 4 if applicable?


----------



## dangerboy

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Anyone have any tips or comments on Army PLQ? Particularly comments on the "new" 4-Mod system and inf-PLQ Mod 4 if applicable?



Fairly standard tips but I will repeat them.  Make sure you are in shape ( a lot of pers arrive out of shape and it affects their performance).  Brush up on your map and compass skills.  If your weapons handling skills are rusty, have someone run you through TOETs on C7, C9, and C6.  There is always a few needles NDs that could have been prevented.  If you are Infantry, review using the C6 in the SF role.  Practice marking and recording targets.


----------



## ARMY_101

Does anyone have any experience with their inf unit's interpretation of the Training Implementation Directive from CTC (BGen Corbould) dated 29 Oct 12?

Specifically, since ASA is a new course for promotion to MCpl, current MCpls and Sgts have priority to attend ASA; where does that leave promotion prospects for Cpls with PLQ Mods 1-4 in the new system? (Without the training plan change they would be promotable to MCpl following PLQ.)

Training Directive para 10 (b) says ASA may be waived if 1) the mbr lacks the qual due to service reasons (e.g. scheduling and not because the mbr failed); 2) the mbr is nominated for the next available course; and 3) two years following the promotion, if the mbr has not yet completed ASA, their file will be reviewed to determine whether they should be bumped back to Cpl.

*Does this mean a promotion to MCpl without ASA is Acting/Lacking, or Acting While so Employed?* Have any units recently promoted any MCpls who could speak to how they did it and whether the candidate was considered a "legacy" promotion (i.e. under the old system) or anything special.

Anyone's assistance/experience in recently being promoted or interpreting this new policy would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Someone was explaining the PLQ Mod 1 he's leaving on next week.  
2 weeks "distance learning". He's laughing about sitting at home for 2 weeks where he is supposed to stay logged into a computer all day to complete the course. He was told by someone who was just on it that he was usually done by 1 or 2. 

I'm not familiar with the new mods or distance learning but isn't this a poor method of introducing a soldier to their first formal taste of leadership?

Is this another Ctrl-C, Alt-F, Ctrl-V online army test?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I do believe that there is also conformational testing at ATC's when they arrive to do the remaining mods..


----------



## ARMY_101

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Someone was explaining the PLQ Mod 1 he's leaving on next week.
> 2 weeks "distance learning". He's laughing about sitting at home for 2 weeks where he is supposed to stay logged into a computer all day to complete the course. He was told by someone who was just on it that he was usually done by 1 or 2.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the new mods or distance learning but isn't this a poor method of introducing a soldier to their first formal taste of leadership?
> 
> Is this another Ctrl-C, Alt-F, Ctrl-V online army test?



There's no being done by 1 or 2pm, that's for sure. During my online DL I was online from 0800 to 1600h every day of the 11 days, and half those days I went home to do another 2-4 hours of course work.

From the army's perspective, it's much cheaper to have 200 students at home with 3 instructors monitoring clicks and responding to emails instead of running 5 platoons worth of courses with full staff, accommodations, etc.

The DL staff have the ability to monitor clicks, number of minutes on each slide, typing, etc. so they can definitely see if someone is clicking through a lesson in 30 seconds then copy-pasting the answers.


----------



## Jacky Tar

I can see this new DL prep for PLQ sucking badly for some poor killick at sea where the entire ship is sharing a single 64 kbit satlink. Had something similar with my ILQ DL phase; 40 minutes for a page to load while at sea. I emailed my facilitator and told him I'd work on the essays and such but the discussion boards were right out unless they had a text-only alternative for reduced-bandwidth situations. They didn't.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Given your situation I'd pull myself off course if your at sea. You should be spending between 5-8 hours in front of the computer.


----------



## 392

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> The DL staff have the ability to monitor clicks, number of minutes on each slide, typing, etc. so they can definitely see if someone is clicking through a lesson in 30 seconds then copy-pasting the answers.



Is this still hosted on DNDLearn or on DLN? If it is still DNDLearn, the proctors only have the ability to see how long you stayed logged on, how many modules / quizzes you've completed and the duration it took. I have not yet had the (dis)pleasure of monitoring DL on DLN yet, so I don't know if they improved the proctor's abilities there.


----------



## DONT_PANIC

Is DL the only way that they are running PLQ now, or is there will the traditional full 8 week courses being run?  I've heard different answers either way.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> From the army's perspective, it's much cheaper to have 200 students at home with 3 instructors monitoring clicks and responding to emails instead of running 5 platoons worth of courses with full staff, accommodations, etc.



That may be cheaper but is it the ideal introduction to leadership? Leading through emails?



> The DL staff have the ability to monitor clicks, number of minutes on each slide, typing, etc. so they can definitely see if someone is clicking through a lesson in 30 seconds then copy-pasting the answers.


I'm fairly skeptical about this capability.


----------



## PuckChaser

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm fairly skeptical about this capability.



The technology is there. Whether the CF paid for it and knows how to use it is a whole other story.


----------



## Sig_Des

The thing with the DL Big Brother threats, as long as you log on every day, complete your modules every day, take part in the daily discussion, and hand in your assignments, everything should be gravy.

I very much doubt that the DS in Gagetown is logging in at 1850 to make sure that Cpl Bloggins in Edmonton is still logged on at 1550 Mountain time. Or that it only took him 12 minutes to go through the Mess Etiquette module.


----------



## OldSolduer

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> That may be cheaper but is it the ideal introduction to leadership? Leading through emails?
> I'm fairly skeptical about this capability.



I agree. 

In my tiny mind, the PLQ should be an in house residency style course. Future leaders need role models......is your  Dell Laptop an appropriate role model?


----------



## Old Sweat

Try doing a drill mutual online!


----------



## George Wallace

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> ...... Or that it only took him 12 minutes to go through the Mess Etiquette module.



It is the Digital Age and there are timers built into many of these programs; so yes, they likely know that Bloggins only spent 12 minutes on Mess Etiquette.    >


----------



## Sig_Des

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is the Digital Age and there are timers built into many of these programs; so yes, they likely know that Bloggins only spent 12 minutes on Mess Etiquette.    >



Oh, I'm sure they do. The question is, do they care? As long as they're digital "section members" are putting all the checks in the required boxes.

I wasn't a fan of the DL modules on certain lessons. Specifically the teaching and Range Safety portions. Hard to get a full grasp from a screen.


----------



## Remius

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> In my tiny mind, the PLQ should be an in house residency style course. Future leaders need role models......is your  Dell Laptop an appropriate role model?



Well, I would think that people tapped for the course have been identified as potential leaders to begin with.  To be honest I don't really place the instructors of a PLQ as the role models I followed.  I got a lot more from the leaders I've served under, good and bad.

I see the PLQ as a means to provide tools to be good leaders.  The role models abound in a soldier's career.  Leadership is developped.  Online or in class, the PLQ is just really a toolbox.  For me I used/use that toolbox, but I learned a lot more about leadership from men far better than I.


----------



## Jacky Tar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Given your situation I'd pull myself off course if your at sea. You should be spending between 5-8 hours in front of the computer.



In the past now, by quite a few years, but my facilitator was good about it. He agreed that the media-heavy site was a problem for deployed pers and there had been complaints about it before, but as of my experience of it ('08), no changes planned. I remember thinking how unsuprised I was at this revelation


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Having not seen the DL for PLQ so take this with a grain of salt, items like instruct drill and skill/knowledge lessons will be done at the ATC's when the member arrives for the PT and Field portions I think...

And I agree with everyone else that DL should not be used for a PLQ course... for courses like 6A/B/ILP/ALP/SLP sure


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The new PLQ is broken into 4 mods now. 

Mod 1 is the only one DL and is just under 2 weeks. You cover a lot of stuff including Memos, PDR/PER's, duty, honour etc. Nothing that needs to be hands on. 

Mod 2 is the instructing phase, 9 days I think. Usually done on or near the base you work at I believe. Topics covered are drill, Wpn classes, etc

Phase 3 & 4 are in the field. 15 consecutive days each where I believe patrolling, defensive, etc are covered.


----------



## ARMY_101

DONT_PANIC said:
			
		

> Is DL the only way that they are running PLQ now, or is there will the traditional full 8 week courses being run?  I've heard different answers either way.



CANFORGEN 031/13 by Comd CA laid out the "new" four-Mod PLQ system. Mod 1 is always distance learning, and the POs for Mods 2-4 has been posted earlier in this thread.


----------



## upandatom

Mods 1-5 done, 
Anyone have a PLQ-L calender? Been told to find a suggestion for the most suitable time/loc for me to be placed on. 

PM the link please!

Thanks!!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I didn't think they were running anymore legacy courses.... so I do believe you will have to do MODS 3 and 4 of the new system....


----------



## ARMY_101

upandatom said:
			
		

> Mods 1-5 done,



How did you do Mods 1-5? I didn't think they were running any past September 2012 ???

As per an earlier post, this is the equivalency plan:



> EQUIVALENCY
> Equivalency for pers midway through the PLQ-L mod system will be as follows:
> 
> - Pers who have completed PLQ-L Mod 2-5 DL package only will transition directly onto Mod 2 of A-PLQ
> - Pers who have completed PLQ-L Mods 1-5 must complete two-day distance learning "delta trg package" before transitioning onto A-PLQ Mod 3
> - Pers who have completed PLQ-L Modified mod 5 or PLQ-L Modified mods 2-5 DL followed by residency mods 1-3 will transition directly onto Mod 3 of A-PLQ
> - Pers who ave completed Mod 6 part 1 of PLQ-L will not be granted equivalency for Mod 3 of A-PLQ, and will be required to complete A-PLQ Mods 3 and 4 in their entirety
> - Pers who have only completed a portion of PLQ-L Mods 1-5 delivered in residency before 31 Dec 12 will be required to complete A-PLQ Mods 1-4 in their entirety.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This PLQ thread is convincing me that this has become another episode of The Gong Show like boot procurement has.  *golf clap*  brah-vo!!


----------



## ARMY_101

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This PLQ thread is convincing me that this has become another episode of The Gong Show like boot procurement has.  *golf clap*  brah-vo!!



Hey, I just work here :-\


----------



## daftandbarmy

FWIW, this course makes liberal use of online learning with moderated discussions etc too:

http://www.royalroads.ca/prospective-students/master-arts-leadership


----------



## upandatom

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any experience with their inf unit's interpretation of the Training Implementation Directive from CTC (BGen Corbould) dated 29 Oct 12?
> 
> Specifically, since ASA is a new course for promotion to MCpl, current MCpls and Sgts have priority to attend ASA; where does that leave promotion prospects for Cpls with PLQ Mods 1-4 in the new system? (Without the training plan change they would be promotable to MCpl following PLQ.)
> 
> Training Directive para 10 (b) says ASA may be waived if 1) the mbr lacks the qual due to service reasons (e.g. scheduling and not because the mbr failed); 2) the mbr is nominated for the next available course; and 3) two years following the promotion, if the mbr has not yet completed ASA, their file will be reviewed to determine whether they should be bumped back to Cpl.
> 
> *Does this mean a promotion to MCpl without ASA is Acting/Lacking, or Acting While so Employed?* Have any units recently promoted any MCpls who could speak to how they did it and whether the candidate was considered a "legacy" promotion (i.e. under the old system) or anything special.
> 
> Anyone's assistance/experience in recently being promoted or interpreting this new policy would be greatly appreciated.



I am not an infanteer, but, 

this is the canforgen related to the transition, and I must say it has been a smooth transition, smoothest I have seen and even with only 7 years, I have seen between career, career courses, and mil qualschange and cause nightmares for others, so I have to say good work. 

http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2013/031-13_e.asp

I completed 1-5, then promoted, posted, been waiting for a MOD 6, system changed, I recieved and email for DND Learn, completed it, now recieved word I am loaded onto a MOD4 (new MOD 6) this summer. Still waiting on message and location though. Not Worried go there, do it, come home, 

My question is, they are pretty clear about the duration of MOD 1+2, but kinda grey on MOD 3+4, 
is it;

15 days combined MOD 3+4?

or, 

MOD 3 15 days
MOD 4 15 days
Total 30?

Cheers,


----------



## ARMY_101

@Upandatom

Mod 1: 11 days DL
Mod 2: 9 training days
Mod 3: 14 training days
Mod 4 (infantry): 25 days

Or, for the non-infantry Mod 4:

TRAINING DURATION
9. Module training as follows:
a. Mod 1 - DL - 11 days;
b. Mod 2 – drill, classroom, range and physical
training - 9 days;
c. Mod 3 – plan, conduct activity and stability
operations - 15 days;
d. Mod 4 – conduct enabling, offensive and
defensive operation - 15 days;


----------



## Jarnhamar

Leadership point #1-ensure your soldiers have a place to sleep when you send them on a tasking  ;D


----------



## Lin_833

Does anyone know where I can find the DL Delta Package for PLQ Mod 1-6 transition to PLQ Mod 1-4?

Thanks


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Documentum


----------



## ARMY_101

I’ve just recently completed PLQ under the new four-mod system and thought I would add some input on what’s needed and what I found helpful:

1.	Get a DWAN account and review, review, review.  Make sure you have easy access to PAMS, Training Plans, MLPs, CANFORGENs and orders websites, Documentum, and so forth.  If you don’t know where to find these, ask.

2.	Most review for specific topics you will need to know for the field portion will be covered when you’re teaching your peers in Mod 2 (e.g. map and compass, target indication, machine gun fire, etc), however still review the PAMs and ensure your personal knowledge is current.

3.	Stay on your unit to make sure they give you joining instructions and all required paperwork.  Don’t show up missing stuff.  On that note, don’t show up broken and expect you’ll be carried through the course without being able to carry your ruck sack.

4.	Inspections die down after Mod 3, but don’t think the staff won’t check your rooms.

5.	Support the guy in the breach.  Whether that’s your course senior or your section commander for the day. Don’t argue with that they say or they’ll be docked marks for it.

6.	… That being said, don’t take anything personally.  Staff want to see everyone have the ability to jack each other up; and if you can do it to your peers you can do it to BMQ troops.  If you didn’t like something that was said, buy each other a beer and hash it out away from the staff.

7.	Learn everyone’s strengths and weaknesses early on, and exploit them.  Some guys are amazing at teaching but suck at recce. Some guys suck at map and compass but are amazing in urban ops.  Figure this out, and rely on one another.

8.	You are being hard assessed as a 2IC and soft assessed as an IC.  A lot of us thought this sucked, instructors included.  However, the focus for PLQ is now on making you an effective section 2IC; being the IC for an exercise is evaluated on your general leadership traits only – it’s the 2IC who needs to be supported.

9.	As the 2IC, be resourceful, creative, and support your IC however possible. Your job is to make the IC’s job as easy as possible, right down to making sure everyone’s changed their underwear and uses the right gloves.

10.	Typical classroom day:
0500 Reveille
0510-0610 Fitness (usually candidate-led)
0610-0700 Shower, shave, breakfast
0700-0800 Weapons draw/section admin
0800-1200 Classes
1200-1300 Lunch
1300-1600 Classes
1610 Dismissal
1610-2300 Personal time to review notes, study, prep for inspections, prep kit, etc.
2300 Lights out

11.	Typical field day:
0500 Reveille
0510-0700 Ablutions, breakfast
0700-1700 Section-level assessments
1700 Supper
1800-0200 Section-level assessments
0200-0500 Forced rest every 48 hours, or another section assessment

12.	The Mod 3 field week is five days of stability operations.  The old PLQ exercised sections by having them follow the battle procedure process to set up a meal line or mod tent; the new PLQ has you actually go out and do something: set up a VCP, some sort of humanitarian aid station, or conduct a presence patrol.  Assessments are done in five hour blocks: that’s five hours from the time you receive your orders to the time your section is back in the biv site.

13.	The Mod 4 field week is nine days of offensive, defensive, and urban operations.  You will have two days of urban ops (house clearing, fortifying built up areas, etc) followed by three days of defensive operations (digging to stage 6, clearance patrols, operating in depth, etc) followed by one day of section attacks followed by three days of offensive operations (recce patrols).  These are done in seven-hour blocks; again, from the time you receive your orders to the time your section is back in the biv.

I’m sure there’s more, and I’m happy to answer any questions anyone may have.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Much appreciated


----------



## Quirky

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I’m sure there’s more, and I’m happy to answer any questions anyone may have.



I'm assuming this is Land PLQ as mine was nothing like that.


----------



## ARMY_101

Quirky said:
			
		

> I'm assuming this is Land PLQ as mine was nothing like that.



No, this was infantry PLQ.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Quirky said:
			
		

> I'm assuming this is Land PLQ as mine was nothing like that.



What was yours?


----------



## Quirky

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> What was yours?



Mine was done at the Mega Inn at St. Jean.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I meant what element


----------



## Quirky

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I meant what element



Reg AF, but we had a mixture with a few medics from the green side.


----------



## upandatom

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I’ve just recently completed PLQ under the new four-mod system and thought I would add some input on what’s needed and what I found helpful:
> 
> 1.	Get a DWAN account and review, review, review.  Make sure you have easy access to PAMS, Training Plans, MLPs, CANFORGENs and orders websites, Documentum, and so forth.  If you don’t know where to find these, ask.
> 
> 2.	Most review for specific topics you will need to know for the field portion will be covered when you’re teaching your peers in Mod 2 (e.g. map and compass, target indication, machine gun fire, etc), however still review the PAMs and ensure your personal knowledge is current.
> 
> 3.	Stay on your unit to make sure they give you joining instructions and all required paperwork.  Don’t show up missing stuff.  On that note, don’t show up broken and expect you’ll be carried through the course without being able to carry your ruck sack.
> 
> 4.	Inspections die down after Mod 3, but don’t think the staff won’t check your rooms.
> 
> 5.	Support the guy in the breach.  Whether that’s your course senior or your section commander for the day. Don’t argue with that they say or they’ll be docked marks for it.
> 
> 6.	… That being said, don’t take anything personally.  Staff want to see everyone have the ability to jack each other up; and if you can do it to your peers you can do it to BMQ troops.  If you didn’t like something that was said, buy each other a beer and hash it out away from the staff.
> 
> 7.	Learn everyone’s strengths and weaknesses early on, and exploit them.  Some guys are amazing at teaching but suck at recce. Some guys suck at map and compass but are amazing in urban ops.  Figure this out, and rely on one another.
> 
> 8.	You are being hard assessed as a 2IC and soft assessed as an IC.  A lot of us thought this sucked, instructors included.  However, the focus for PLQ is now on making you an effective section 2IC; being the IC for an exercise is evaluated on your general leadership traits only – it’s the 2IC who needs to be supported.
> 
> 9.	As the 2IC, be resourceful, creative, and support your IC however possible. Your job is to make the IC’s job as easy as possible, right down to making sure everyone’s changed their underwear and uses the right gloves.
> 
> 10.	Typical classroom day:
> 0500 Reveille
> 0510-0610 Fitness (usually candidate-led)
> 0610-0700 Shower, shave, breakfast
> 0700-0800 Weapons draw/section admin
> 0800-1200 Classes
> 1200-1300 Lunch
> 1300-1600 Classes
> 1610 Dismissal
> 1610-2300 Personal time to review notes, study, prep for inspections, prep kit, etc.
> 2300 Lights out
> 
> 11.	Typical field day:
> 0500 Reveille
> 0510-0700 Ablutions, breakfast
> 0700-1700 Section-level assessments
> 1700 Supper
> 1800-0200 Section-level assessments
> 0200-0500 Forced rest every 48 hours, or another section assessment
> 
> 12.	The Mod 3 field week is five days of stability operations.  The old PLQ exercised sections by having them follow the battle procedure process to set up a meal line or mod tent; the new PLQ has you actually go out and do something: set up a VCP, some sort of humanitarian aid station, or conduct a presence patrol.  Assessments are done in five hour blocks: that’s five hours from the time you receive your orders to the time your section is back in the biv site.
> 
> 13.	The Mod 4 field week is nine days of offensive, defensive, and urban operations.  You will have two days of urban ops (house clearing, fortifying built up areas, etc) followed by three days of defensive operations (digging to stage 6, clearance patrols, operating in depth, etc) followed by one day of section attacks followed by three days of offensive operations (recce patrols).  These are done in seven-hour blocks; again, from the time you receive your orders to the time your section is back in the biv.
> 
> I’m sure there’s more, and I’m happy to answer any questions anyone may have.



Pretty Much Bang on. 
The PLQ-A (Army) is slightly different then the Infantry, take out the Urban Ops, 
and honestly, Stab Ops was fun, best part of the course. Have fun with it, 

Only thing I did not like about the course, and it was brought up in the AAR. No opportunity to make command decisions, ie, timings etc. basically being a parrot for the marching NCO, yes you march em back and forth, however, you have an NCO two steps behind you telling you what they are doing wrong, not giving you the chance to correct it, and if you correct it outside of them telling you, you get blasted. Even when your pointer is bear marching and you are trying to correct it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

upandatom said:
			
		

> Even when your pointer is bear marching and you are trying to correct it.



But was he/she in step with themself?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Wait, you can't jack up your guys if they mess up?


----------



## ARMY_101

upandatom said:
			
		

> Pretty Much Bang on.
> The PLQ-A (Army) is slightly different then the Infantry, take out the Urban Ops,
> and honestly, Stab Ops was fun, best part of the course. Have fun with it,
> 
> Only thing I did not like about the course, and it was brought up in the AAR. No opportunity to make command decisions, ie, timings etc. basically being a parrot for the marching NCO, yes you march em back and forth, however, you have an NCO two steps behind you telling you what they are doing wrong, not giving you the chance to correct it, and if you correct it outside of them telling you, you get blasted. Even when your pointer is bear marching and you are trying to correct it.



Like any other course, the staff are notoriously bipolar: some staff members would ask the course senior "so, when do you want to form up tomorrow morning?" and whether he said 7:30am or 5:15am the response from that particular MCpl was "okay." Other staff told the course senior to fall in, marched the platoon themselves, and barked "you will be outside at 0655" like a BMQ course.  Of course, we knew the hard vs. soft timings (classes started at 0800), so it was up to the staff member on whether he'd let us learn our time appreciation skills and wear it if it failed (pro tip: you cannot march a platoon 1.5kms in 10 minutes).


----------



## ARMY_101

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Wait, you can't jack up your guys if they mess up?



See my comment above. Some staff encouraged it: "yeah! He can jack up another Cpl! He's learning!"

Other staff: "wow, what a buddy blade! He's jacking up another Cpl!"


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Like any other course, the staff are notoriously bipolar: some staff members would ask the course senior "so, when do you want to form up tomorrow morning?" and whether he said 7:30am or 5:15am the response from that particular MCpl was "okay." Other staff told the course senior to fall in, marched the platoon themselves, and barked "you will be outside at 0655" like a BMQ course.  Of course, we knew the hard vs. soft timings (classes started at 0800), so it was up to the staff member on whether he'd let us learn our time appreciation skills and wear it if it failed (pro tip: you cannot march a platoon 1.5kms in 10 minutes).



Sounds like no 'course standard' existed, which, IMO, is the responsibility of the Crse WO and Crse O to iron out, and brief the other instr's on, and ensure is being followed.  

This is pretty simple stuff, why are 'we' failing at it??


----------



## Jarnhamar

I disagree with only hard assessing troops on the role of a 2IC.

It's very common for even non-plq qualified Corporals to act as section commanders in the reserves and reg force. (A lesser extent for the latter but still happens).

Giving them a "soft access" only seems like a waste of time, resources and not taking into consideration the reality of what corporals are faced with.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I am a supervisor with no PLQ and was a section 2 I/C in A Stan with ammo for the close down.


----------



## ARMY_101

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sounds like no 'course standard' existed, which, IMO, is the responsibility of the Crse WO and Crse O to iron out, and brief the other instr's on, and ensure is being followed.
> 
> This is pretty simple stuff, why are 'we' failing at it??



Agreed. Part of me felt like it was the whole "keep them on their toes." Same as BMQ when you'd get jacked up by your 2IC for not having your CADPAT pockets ironed, then the next day get jacked up by your IC for having your CADPAT pockets ironed.


----------



## ARMY_101

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I disagree with only hard assessing troops on the role of a 2IC.
> 
> It's very common for even non-plq qualified Corporals to act as section commanders in the reserves and reg force. (A lesser extent for the latter but still happens).
> 
> Giving them a "soft access" only seems like a waste of time, resources and not taking into consideration the reality of what corporals are faced with.



This was pretty much unanimous on our course too, even up to the Standards WO and school OC. The only justification they could (attempt to) give was that in the _ideal_ army, Sgts are Section Commanders and MCpls are 2ICs, so why overwhelm a Cpl on his PLQ with a Sgt's job?


----------



## PuckChaser

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> The only justification they could (attempt to) give was that in the _ideal_ army, Sgts are Section Commanders and MCpls are 2ICs, so why overwhelm a Cpl on his PLQ with a Sgt's job?



My response to that would be that if you're trying to build leaders, treat them as leaders. Making your Cpl work as a Sgt gives him a great appreciation of the jobs "2-up" from his own. And of course, we never take Section Commanders as casualties that would cause a 2iC to become that new section commander....  :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> My response to that would be that if you're trying to build leaders, treat them as leaders. Making your Cpl work as a Sgt gives him a great appreciation of the jobs "2-up" from his own. And of course, we never take Section Commanders as casualties that would cause a 2iC to become that new section commander....  :facepalm:



Agreed!  On my PLQ (CLC, '93) we HAD to pass PCs as the Student Section Commander (section attacks, recce patrols, routine in the defence, small party tasks, etc).  This was still the case when I was staff on them in the late 90s as well.  Not sure if the old ISCC did it the same.

On 6A (Ptl Comd), we were assessed in the A c/s seat and later on 6B, we had to pass PCs/traces as the Tp Leader as well as the A c/s.  Same reasoning you posted above.

Seems like, in some regards, we're going backwards not forwards.


----------



## upandatom

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Agreed. Part of me felt like it was the whole "keep them on their toes." Same as BMQ when you'd get jacked up by your 2IC for not having your CADPAT pockets ironed, then the next day get jacked up by your IC for having your CADPAT pockets ironed.



Maybe, but by the time you are on your PLQ, you should know what the game is, and be able to play it just as well, I even logged onto my DWAN account, looked up the course calender and found the "diamond" high stress days and just told the rest of the course whats up before hand, ie, hey expect a bit more tomorrow so be on your toes. 

By the time you hit PLQ, you should be learning how to mentor properly, your staff should be taking you along, letting you make mistakes, pull you to the side after and say "hey ya maybe should of done this, ya maybe should of done that." or even after, pull you in front of the section and have an AAR.

There was one Section Commander on course, everyone saw that it would be a bag drive to be in his section, but still, you saw the mentoring, you saw he was trying to make you be a better leader, not just random confirmation of combat knowledge thrown in your face every 20s.


----------



## meni0n

Heard a rumor today that due to budget that mod 4 will be cut for some trades that are not combat arms. Anyone heard anything of the sort or is that just someone's imagination?


----------



## PuckChaser

Wishful thinking on the part of people who don't want to do it? Isn't mod 4 completely different for combat arms anyways?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I know there is a move a foot to shorten all PRes training here at CTC by 30% so it's entirely possible that it will get a cut......


----------



## meni0n

I know infantry got their own PLQ but the rest of the combat arms do PLQ-L just like the rest of the army or purple trades. But it does seem unrealistic unless they decided to go back on the CANFORGEN in 2008 that made some trades do PLQ-L instead of CF PLQ.


----------



## JBP

Maybe after the next round of budget cuts in April...

I and a few other people from my unit have just been loaded on PLQ-L mods 2-4 in Gagetown and Aldershot. So it isn't cut out by no means yet!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

meni0n said:
			
		

> I know infantry got their own PLQ but the rest of the combat arms do PLQ-L just like the rest of the army or purple trades. But it does seem unrealistic unless they decided to go back on the CANFORGEN in 2008 that made some trades do PLQ-L instead of CF PLQ.



Infantry do the same mod 1-3. 4 has additional time added on


----------



## acen

With all the budget cuts, it's funny how they increased the amount of course time by 6 weeks in order to become a qualified infantry master corporal versus the old system with the addition of the DP2 ASA course (formerly the sargeants course), especially for the PRes who are on the same courses as RegF.


----------



## meni0n

Clarification on the rumor, prior to 2008, trade did CF PLQ. After that, it was PLQ-L. Now there's rumors going around the trade that it will be reverting back to CF PLQ although likely not this year.


----------



## PuckChaser

meni0n said:
			
		

> Clarification on the rumor, prior to 2008, trade did CF PLQ. After that, it was PLQ-L. Now there's rumors going around the trade that it will be reverting back to CF PLQ although likely not this year.



If your cap badge avatar is correct, I know what trade you're talking about. I'm willing to bet those rumours are being propagated by people who don't want to see your trade do any sort of field work what-so-ever. If it reverts back, I'll lose what little faith I have left in your trade in its ability to produce people who won't be a permanent liability in a tactical environment.


----------



## meni0n

It's mostly based on the fact that with Afghanistan over, a lot of people are viewing PLQ-L as time and resource wasting, especially since the majority of the trade works in an office environment.  I also talked to someone just recently and he was telling me that section attacks were being pushed to the Sgt level, which kind of didn't make sense to me. But the question is also there, why train someone to run a section attack or a recce and then send them back to the office environment. I doubt they will remember any of it years down the road, and if all of a sudden there is no one to run a section attack except one of us, we are in a world of trouble  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Despite what the mothership thinks, the lion's share of what makes your trade important to a modern commander is what it can provide tactically.

PLQ-L is not about running section attacks. The section attack is a tool used to teach junior leaders how to properly command and control dismounted troops while under enemy fire. The lessons learned from the conduct of section attacks/recce patrols/platoon in defense on PLQ can be related to properly running a detachment in a tactical environment. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'm willing to bet about half your trade has an office that runs on 8 wheels and is painted green. This isn't a "PLQ-L is a waste of time" issue, its a culture issue within your trade.


----------



## meni0n

I think it's closer to one third of the trade that's part of the land unit. Learning to run a det properly doesn't need to be done at the PLQ level as I learned it in my time as a sigop on the 5s, which can also be pushed at the unit level. The culture within the unit is dominated by the mothership because that's where the majority of the trade ends up eventually and include many other facets of the trade, a lot of them more important than the tactical side of the house. 

So here is where the disconnect is usually, you got guys sitting at the mothership viewing the PLQ-L as useless to them because most of them will probably will not be put in that tactical environment and also doing things that are more important, in their eyes.


----------



## Jammer

Primary Leadership Qualification (L).
There's this great little feature on DND share point called Documentum. In there, you will find the QS for this course. I'm pretty sure you'll notice that nowhere will you ever be considered an infanteer or a quasi-SOF operator.
I deal with the nause of people looking for every way not to have to do this trg. Most of the BS reasons are because if the "we're not in Afghanistan now" gripes. So my response to this excuse is: "What you're telling me then is you'll never ever be deployed...or even want to...oh, you want to be deployed, but don't want the responsibility of having subordinates?" If that's the case with you, perhaps you should consider a career as an an Apple genius, instead of wasting time in the CAF. As I heard during my basic trg over and over again..."there's a lineup of people out there looking for your job".


----------



## Jammer

That's the collective "you" BTW.


----------



## meni0n

Well, mindset goes that the trade deployed just fine up to 2008 with CF PLQ, which it seems  is an acceptable course to the Air Force,Navy and some Amy occupations that teaches on how to handle the responsibility of having subordinates. I am not advocating the reversion back, just stating of how PLQ-L is viewed by many.


----------



## Jammer

It can be viewed any way they want. Point of fact is...if you want to advance..sack up and do it, get it past you and move on. It's the Army, it's beyond time for the culture of self entitlement and bending to accommodate end. 
I'll throw this little gem out there...if you're an Army trade, posted to a unit and are getting LDA...YOUR ASS IS GOING ON A PLQ (L).
I keep a copy of a Tim Horton's application in my desk for just these occasions.


----------



## meni0n

So what about all those people not part of that army unit  and not getting lda? Theres no reason to get upset.


----------



## Jammer

Where I work:
If you are are in an Army managed trade, you WILL do a PLQ (L). That means ACISS (all sub occupations).


----------



## meni0n

Ok I'm talking about a trade where the minority is part of a land unit and majority is in Ottawa.


----------



## PuckChaser

And yet the vast majority of operational employment is tactical (land and sea) in nature.


----------



## meni0n

Still done by that minority though, well the land one. Navy can be both but those navy personnel done the CF PLQ.


----------



## Jammer

You're not tracking are you?
ARMY managed trades...there is a CANFORGEN that describes what they are. Look it up...consider it precessional development.


----------



## meni0n

I've seen it. Maybe you should take a look at that CANFORGEN again and make sure that ALL army managed trades do PLQ-L because there are exceptions on there based on the uniform type for certain occupations. The way that it was done made no sense and still doesn't.


----------



## Jammer

Check PM and understand what is being communicated to you.


----------



## Avail

I'll be doing my PLQ this summer and was hoping the Army.ca community would have some valuable advice, tips, reading recommendations, or training topics that would be wise for a Signaller (and the other trades outside the Combat Arms) to brush up on before course. 

As always, thanks for the advice.


----------



## Avail

Thanks, Mike. I've read through that thread several times. It wasn't quite what I was looking for.


----------



## JS2218

Neso said:
			
		

> Thanks, Mike. I've read through that thread several times. It wasn't quite what I was looking for.



Have you already done Mod 1 (the distance learning package)? Mod 1 covers all of your theoretical stuff and book reading (regs, who can charge who, etc). The Army-wide PLQ is exactly that, so you won't be doing sigs-specific training any more than the course might rely on you for some advanced tips/tricks with the radios and comms equipment.

For all 4 Mods brush up on your references and pub searches; continue teaching/public speaking if you weren't already; get a basic fitness routine in place (expect round robin fitness routines with other candidates planning/leading the routine); and be prepared to be fed copious amounts of information with a firehose.

Depending on your course instructors, they might expect you (the course itself) to basically administer itself with their support/guidance, so be ready to do ADREPS, SITREPs, and brief higher commanders (e.g. a Colonel might fly in from Ottawa for a day and want your feedback on how the PLQ course is running. lol)

There's also a pre-course package to remind you of basic map and compass skills, calculating declination, calculating distances, helping coach new shooters, and so on.

How's that?


----------



## Avail

JS2218 said:
			
		

> Have you already done Mod 1 (the distance learning package)? Mod 1 covers all of your theoretical stuff and book reading (regs, who can charge who, etc). The Army-wide PLQ is exactly that, so you won't be doing sigs-specific training any more than the course might rely on you for some advanced tips/tricks with the radios and comms equipment.



I have.




			
				JS2218 said:
			
		

> There's also a pre-course package to remind you of basic map and compass skills, calculating declination, calculating distances, helping coach new shooters, and so on.



This is news to me. Is it on the DWAN? If so, where?




			
				JS2218 said:
			
		

> How's that?



Excellent.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Currently teaching drill, a skill class and knowledge class all fall under the same PO. What does that mean?  If you fail your first hard assess on drill you will go right to formal warning. If you pass your drill class retest and fail on your first skill class (or knowledge) you will go right to PRB (progress review board). If they don't give you another chance you're on your way home.

Find someone and practice teaching them drill, a skill class and knowledge class. Find a lesson plan on something and practice talking for 40 minutes straight.


----------



## ballz

Neso said:
			
		

> I'll be doing my PLQ this summer and was hoping the Army.ca community would have some valuable advice, tips, reading recommendations, or training topics that would be wise for a Signaller (and the other trades outside the Combat Arms) to brush up on before course.
> 
> As always, thanks for the advice.



Do you know where you are doing the course? I was just Crse O for a PLQ-A at Leadership Company in Pet and let me tell you, it is not a walk in the park like it used to be.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ballz said:
			
		

> Do you know where you are doing the course? I was just Crse O for a PLQ-A at Leadership Company in Pet and let me tell you, it is not a walk in the park like it used to be.


Was that course last Oct/Nov?

I was surprised (and impressed) at leadership coy's new attitude and no longer passing everyone who shows up like they did a couple years ago.


----------



## JS2218

Neso said:
			
		

> This is news to me. Is it on the DWAN? If so, where?



Pretty sure I found it on the Petawawa Sharepoint.


----------



## ballz

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Was that course last Oct/Nov?
> 
> I was surprised (and impressed) at leadership coy's new attitude and no longer passing everyone who shows up like they did a couple years ago.



Yes, there was two PLQ-As at that time and one PLQ-Infantry, they were all tough... The new OC gives total support to the staff in failing someone if they believe the person is inadequate as a leader. It's just a shame that at the same time in Aldershot there was the same course being run but it was a gimme.

We didn't expect the same kind of recce patrols out of the clerks and musicians as we do out of the infanteers, but we did expect leadership. It was no cake-walk, and I was genuinely impressed by how many candidates we finished with. I thought half of them would have quit by the end of the FTXs, but they stuck it out and are better for having done so. 

At the same time, its hard to keep the academic bar high when you are testing clerks / musicians / supply techs / veh techs etc on section attacks, recce patrols, defensive routine, etc, so IMO having the combat arms (less infantry) do the course with musicians (we had a musician who had never been in the field until this course... tough as nails obviously, or she would have never gotten through it) is a big mistake on the army's part.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I took mine in Aldershot.  ;D
I wouldn't say it was a gimme though.


----------



## Avail

ballz said:
			
		

> Do you know where you are doing the course? I was just Crse O for a PLQ-A at Leadership Company in Pet and let me tell you, it is not a walk in the park like it used to be.



Gagetown and looking forward to it! I'm trying to consume as much extra knowledge as I can beyond the Mod 1 beforehand. Any suggestions?


----------



## ballz

Neso said:
			
		

> Gagetown and looking forward to it! I'm trying to consume as much extra knowledge as I can beyond the Mod 1 beforehand. Any suggestions?



Yes.

I told my candidates that there were three things that I wanted to them to achieve during the course.

1. Understand leadership and be able to lead.
2. Understand battle procedure and be able to produce an effective set of SMESC orders
3. Improve their basic fieldcraft / soldiering skills.

IMO if they go back to their unit having achieved all three, the green machine got its money's worth.

For a Cpl or A/ MCpl wanting to prepare for success, I would suggest showing up already having a good understanding of the 16 steps of battle procedure and how to produce a set of SMESC orders. You will be taught how to conduct a VCP, how to conduct a presence patrol, how to conduct a recce, how to conduct sensitive site security, etc... however, for all of those tasks you will need to conduct battle procedure, come up with a plan, and communicate that plan through a set of SMESC orders. 

You will be taught the 16 steps of BP and how to write SMESC orders as well, but it is usually the hardest part for students to grasp and execute, largely because it needs a few practice runs to really "get it" and you don't get a whole lot of practice runs. If you have a firm grasp of the 16 steps of BP and SMESC orders, then leading a mission and conducting a task that is "outside" your normal scope of practice is going to be a lot easier.


----------



## stellarpanther

This is a question for a co-worker.  In most if not all Log trades, mbr's are promoted to MCpl before taking their PLQ and need to get it within 2 years or tghey lose it.   If for some reason they don't get to take their PLQ due to medical reasons within 2 years would they still lose their leaf?


----------



## JS2218

Being Acting Lacking for more than two years would trigger a review by DGMC. They would evaluate any medical issues and determine the appropriate course of action.


----------



## cbradley

I am wondering if anyone knows out there could answer a question for me. I am on a PLQ Army course and we are finishing up MOD 4. Can someone get standards to review an assessment that resulted in a failure and the canadiate was not given an opportunity for a reassessment due to time constraints.


----------



## PuckChaser

cbradley said:
			
		

> I am wondering if anyone knows out there could answer a question for me. I am on a PLQ Army course and we are finishing up MOD 4. Can someone get standards to review an assessment that resulted in a failure and the canadiate was not given an opportunity for a reassessment due to time constraints.



If you are going to be a course failure due to that failed assessment, Standards will see the file and review it anyways.


----------



## dangerboy

You will also have a Performance Review Board (PRB) which is chaired by usually the CO of the training centre and he will review your file and you will be given a chance to express your feelings.


----------



## mariomike

Maybe this can be merged with the mega-thread.

Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ formerly JLC/JNCO formerly CLC) Q&A
http://army.ca/forums/threads/18969.0


----------



## cbradley

From what i understand from my course officer I'm being removed from course for medical reasons due to my chit being for a 24 hour period.


----------



## PuckChaser

cbradley said:
			
		

> From what i understand from my course officer I'm being removed from course for medical reasons due to my chit being for a 24 hour period.



If your chit prevents you from a re-assessment, then having standards look at it isn't going to help you. You're not going to pass if you don't pass all the PCs, if you can't get a reassessment due to a medical chit then you are a medical RTU, not a course failure and will have a chance to complete the course at a later date.


----------



## cbradley

Ok thank you.


----------



## Jarnhamar

cbradley said:
			
		

> From what i understand from my course officer I'm being removed from course for medical reasons due to my chit being for a 24 hour period.



There is a solid reason why we do this.

Just an example.  On a 5 day field exercise a student would pass their assessment on a Monday and then "get hurt" and pulled out of the field for the rest of the ex.  Obviously sometimes it's a legitimate injury but also sometimes (often in my opinion) they're faking an injury to avoid the field.

Now students that miss 24 hours of field time are removed from course.

Also if you fail a test and then fail the retest and you physically run out of time (mod is ending) for a PRB and re-retest then you're out of luck.


----------



## 392

cbradley said:
			
		

> I am wondering if anyone knows out there could answer a question for me. I am on a PLQ Army course and we are finishing up MOD 4. Can someone get standards to review an assessment that resulted in a failure and the canadiate was not given an opportunity for a reassessment due to time constraints.



Contrary to popular belief and what they might say, course staff do not have the ability to just remove students from a course for failure or really anything else either. There is a very detailed process that begins with Standards reviewing the details and providing recommendations and ends with the Cmdt of the school making the final decision on the student's fate. This ensures the student is treated fairly and any removal from course is air tight.

WRT your question on time constraints, most TPs have a para on retests, and most of them will say "if time permits". Even if you are down to the last minute of the last period in the course, there are options, including extending your stay to complete any retests or you waiving your right to the 24 hour period before your retest.

My point is, there are always options, and the removal of a student (unless there is no hope in hell of achieving a pass) should always be the last resort.


----------



## cbradley

Thank you for all your input I know however have case to plea to my CoC to not have to start the course from the beginning again.


----------



## PuckChaser

cbradley said:
			
		

> Thank you for all your input I know however have case to plea to my CoC to not have to start the course from the beginning again.



Thats why we do mods, you'll start at the beginning of Mod 4 again.


----------



## cbradley

My course report recommended I start at Mod 2 again although I passed everything up to the defensive in mod4


----------



## Kat Stevens

As a guy who attended "The Worst 3 1/2 Months of my Life, twice, I can empathize.  At least you don't go back to day 1, week 1 anymore.


----------



## sidemount

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thats why we do mods, you'll start at the beginning of Mod 4 again.


The OC of leadership Coy here in Pet explained to us last year that this is not the case anymore, that the mods are only there for reservists who cant get the time to do the course as a whole. Reg force memebers who do not finish the course for whatever reason have to start over. It has happened to a guy that works in my building....medically rtu in mod 4, had to start at the beginning of mod 2.


----------



## Poacher434

I have searched through the threads and haven't really found a concrete answer or reference. One was close and it was a link to a CANFORGEN which outlined the transition from PLQ-L to PLQ-A, though it did not reference the Infantry equiv.

I have spoken with many reps outside of many organizations and it seems there are still discrpencies, I also saw a power point outlying the new DP for the additional course, but it did not reflect or reference the prior qual.

So my question is..

Mod 6 Qualified MCpl's.... are they 100% qualified with no time limit to be a MCPL.
            Will those individuals ONLY need an ASA to be promoted to SGT, or will they eventually need the new ISCC (or what ever they will call the new section commander course)

MOD 4 Cpls.... Can unit CO's promote acting lacking to MCpl without ASA... if so, is there a 'time constraint' in which they must be qualified ASA?
          

I have seen units refuse to promote a Mod 4 Cpl because they believe that ASA is a hard prereq for a new to be MCpl, perhaps they are ill informed?
I have also seen units give promotions to Mod 4 Cpls without ASA.


I am mostly looking for something to reference.
If someone can answer this 100% with up to date references.. than by golly you are far better at searching through the dwan than I am and you get a gold star

Cheers.
Hopefully this will also help some of you new Cpl's Mcpl's have a better idea as to whats what


----------



## dangerboy

Poacher434 said:
			
		

> Will those individuals ONLY need an ASA to be promoted to SGT, or will they eventually need the new ISCC (or what ever they will call the new section commander course)



The course is called the Rifle Section Commanders Course (RSCC).  For your question about PLQ Infantry Cpls being appointed to MCpl, the intent was that they were to do the PLQ become a MCpl gain some experience then do the ASA.  That was the thinking, if that is what is happening I have no idea.


----------



## meni0n

So once again there are rumours going around that support trades will be switching to PLQ Common. Some of personnel that are attending PLQ right now have said that their staff told them it is the last PLQ Land course being run for support trades. Does anyone know if that is the case?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What's the difference between Land and Commen?


----------



## PuckChaser

They're removing Mod 4 (Old Mod 6 Pt 2), so no section attacks, defensive ops, or recce patrols.


----------



## meni0n

Do you know when that is coming into effect? Fiscal year would make the most sense. That explains the low number of PLQ-L courses I've noticed scheduled for next fiscal year on the CTC calendar. If it's true then it would definitely clear the backlog that we got.


----------



## PuckChaser

meni0n said:
			
		

> Do you know when that is coming into effect? Fiscal year would make the most sense. That explains the low number of PLQ-L courses I've noticed scheduled for next fiscal year on the CTC calendar. If it's true then it would definitely clear the backlog that we got.



All I've heard is what a friend is telling me he's getting from his course staff, which is probably what you're hearing as well. Allegedly there's already a case of someone deliberately failing so they can come back and do the easier course. That individual was caught.

We shouldn't be making the course easier to clear a backlog. We should be surging instructors to run multiple courses at the same time to clear it.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We shouldn't be making the course easier to clear a backlog. We should be surging instructors to run multiple courses at the same time to clear it.



Good point.


----------



## meni0n

Failing just to get on an easier course is quiet unfortunate.


----------



## OldSolduer

meni0n said:
			
		

> Failing just to get on an easier course if quiet unfortunate.


Quite unfortunate is an understatement.

This "soldier" should not be considered for leadership training for a number of years. He needs to regain the trust of his superiors and his subordinates. That will take time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PLQ Common is likely the same as the CF PLQ that RCAF types take?

No need for section attacks and patrolling for AC OPs, AVN Techs and NDT Techs.  Aircrew get taught their required stuff in things like ASERE.

So in that regard, I am all for turning the 'section attack' PO time into something useful for hard air trades.  I did CLC as Cbt Arms, my fireteam partner was  Fin Clerk.  She had no idea what she was doing on a recce patrol.  Is PLQ the time to start teaching that stuff?   If a Clerk was Army DEU but spent their first 2 postings at a HQ or Wing or HMCS and then gets promoted/posted to a BN, are they really able to 'lead' a section attack if they've never done one?

Training requirements should be judged with _some_ common sense as well...not everyone needs the same skills and skill levels.

IMO, I liked the ISCC for Infantry, CLC for Combat Arms, and JLC for 'OAS' approach.  But that's old news.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Quite unfortunate is an understatement.
> 
> This "soldier" should not be considered for leadership training for a number of years. He needs to regain the trust of his superiors and his subordinates. That will take time.


It's possible he was already filling a spot ie A/L and this course was just to cement it.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> PLQ Common is likely the same as the CF PLQ that RCAF types take?



What is old is new again then.  CF PLQ was the "Part 1", with the PLQ(L) being the "Part 2".......or something to that effect (2003/04 timeframe).


----------



## meni0n

Eye, I  think it might be one of the reasons they are going back to support trades doing CF PLQ due to a large number of complaints of the last portion not having anything relevant to what todays reality of most support trades.


----------



## PuckChaser

meni0n said:
			
		

> Eye, I  think it might be one of the reasons they are going back to support trades doing CF PLQ due to a large number of complaints of the last portion not having anything relevant to what todays reality of most support trades.



The easy solution was to just remove the mod. The harder solution (that the Army ran and hid from), is to sit a QSWB to determine actual field skill requirements for Army support trades. The problem is compounded by the fact that we have Combat Support trades (Medics, Sigs, etc) that require significantly more field skills to provide that intimate support than our purple trade members. The chief complaint I heard was that people thought being assessed on patrolling wasn't fair for people who haven't been exposed to a lot of it. That's a simple fix on the PC to reinforce patrolling spirit and skills, while critical failures are leadership points such as planning, command and control, etc.


----------



## meni0n

Another solution would be to go back to the pre-2008 CANFORGEN time and put some of the purple trades on CF PLQ and keep PLQ-L for some hard army trades


----------



## Jarnhamar

PO201 is a leadership check in the box. 
You can evaluate a candidates leadership abilities without evaluating their actual skill when it comes to section attacks recce and the defensive.   

A cook can get lost 6 ways from Sunday doing a recce in the parking lot but if they remained in command and had control then that's leadership.  

A cook or supply tech may also get a better respect for how shitty a week doing patrols or in a trench can be.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What is old is new again then.  CF PLQ was the "Part 1", with the PLQ(L) being the "Part 2".......or something to that effect (2003/04 timeframe).



I am actually quite confused on what is what anymore WRT PLQ.  I did a PLAR for PLQ and ILQ around '07, as I did CLC and SLC but didn't have the 'new' Qual Codes on my MPRR.  During that time there was discussion over emails I was CCd on regarding 'which' PLQ I would get - the CF PLQ or the PLQ - Army or some other form of PLQ that the name eludes me.  It was a headache to try to understand.  Hopefully someone just says ENOUGH OF THIS BS! sooner than later and leaves well enough alone for atleast 5 years.  Thankfully, I was grandfathered PLQ and ILQ and have multiple copies of the letter from SSO NCMPD that states that so I don't have to worry about any personal butt-pain over CAF PLQ Game of Thrones.  

Lastly...didn't the PLQ go to PLP (Primary Leadership Program), and the same for ILQ to ILP?   >


----------



## PuckChaser

I heard they changed the name a while ago, but it must have died. Army course calendar still says PLQ.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am actually quite confused on what is what anymore WRT PLQ.  I did a PLAR for PLQ and ILQ around '07, as I did CLC and SLC but didn't have the 'new' Qual Codes on my MPRR.



I know that feeling.  I was tasked to the Inf School to run the CAP CP, and on my Inclearance to the School I had to fill out a datasheet on what my Quals were.  They listed PLQ, and not knowing what it was, I did not check it off.  It is a "___________ Plot" to keep us in a constant state of confusion.   [


----------



## Franko

meni0n said:
			
		

> Another solution would be to go back to the pre-2008 CANFORGEN time and put some of the purple trades on CF PLQ and keep PLQ-L for some hard army trades



Got some info on this - not going to happen.

The next version of PLQ will be a CAF wide version which will be needed for everyone, regardless of purple or other colour trade. It's basically the PLQ land version. Infantry will carry on to their own module, just like it is now.

There has to be some commonality between trades and you never know when an Air Force clerk might have to lead soldiers. I did my CLC in the early 90s and a couple of them passed. Out of 32 that started, only 9 of us graduated. 

I'll leave you all to return to ripping the stuffing out of your teddy bears now.

Regards


----------



## ballz

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> I'll leave you all to return to ripping the stuffing out of your teddy bears now.



My concern with this approach is not that it makes it harder for purple trades / non-army types, but that it lowers the standard for some of the other trades.* That's cool that the infantry has its own PLQ, but IMO the entire combat arms needs that little bit "extra." Applying this model, if the CAF runs a PLQ and then each trade runs its own "add-on" piece that is trade specific, that may fit the bill, or at least in groups (aka combat arms, combat support trades, service support trades). But if they are going to run PLQ CAF-wide but only the Inf gets its own PLQ mod... many other trades suffer in the CAFs attempt to cater to such a huge width of skill sets.

*I was the Crse O for a PLQ-L at Leadership Company a little over a year ago. The swing NCO I had was armoured and was excellent, and had been there for 3 years I believe. I made a remark that the depth of experience between candidates (one was a PRes musician who had never been in the field before this course, while some were seasoned combat arms Corporals) was making it impossible to apply one standard fairly. Either a bunch of people that don't need these skills fail, or a bunch of people that need these skills and don't have them pass. He agreed and said "that's why I've seen the standard drop for the combat arms ever since they moved to this system. It's fine for the Infantry, they have their own PLQ to deal with the problem. What about armoured, arty, sappers? They are lumped in with musicians."


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:
			
		

> My concern with this approach is not that it makes it harder for purple trades / non-army types, but that it lowers the standard for some of the other trades.* That's cool that the infantry has its own PLQ, but IMO the entire combat arms needs that little bit "extra." Applying this model, if the CAF runs a PLQ and then each trade runs its own "add-on" piece that is trade specific, that may fit the bill, or at least in groups (aka combat arms, combat support trades, service support trades). But if they are going to run PLQ CAF-wide but only the Inf gets its own PLQ mod... many other trades suffer in the CAFs attempt to cater to such a huge width of skill sets.
> 
> *I was the Crse O for a PLQ-L at Leadership Company a little over a year ago. The swing NCO I had was armoured and was excellent, and had been there for 3 years I believe. I made a remark that the depth of experience between candidates (one was a PRes musician who had never been in the field before this course, while some were seasoned combat arms Corporals) was making it impossible to apply one standard fairly. Either a bunch of people that don't need these skills fail, or a bunch of people that need these skills and don't have them pass. He agreed and said "that's why I've seen the standard drop for the combat arms ever since they moved to this system. It's fine for the Infantry, they have their own PLQ to deal with the problem. What about armoured, arty, sappers? They are lumped in with musicians."



.... meanwhile, it takes longer to formally 'train' an infantry junior leader, who is out of commission on courses for more time than is reasonable.

Sigh....


----------



## George Wallace

What is old is new again.  We have gone full circle once again.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Just speaking for the Navy here but are they going to start posting Infanteers into the leadership schools to teach the army side of things ?   

The PLQ already has little if anything to do with what a sailor will do at the primary leadership level so this only exacerbates the issue and makes it harder on anyone who isn't army and doesn't have any army experience. 

I see the need for commonality in training,  but expecting a stoker or a WENG Tech to be able to set up a defensive or run a section attack is just silly.  While he may get the basics in the short time he needs to know it, read knowing it well enough to pass, it will be quickly info dumped as soon as they are back in the MCR.  

It's wasted training value on those who don't need it.  It boggles my mind that the RCN hasn't created its own Navy-centric PLQ it expects its "hard sea" folks to complete that would actually be of value and have some take away points. 

Why not bring the whole necessity of a PLQ into question ?  I mean if ones trade has deemed them well enough to lead at a junior level why is that not good enough ?


----------



## Jarnhamar

ballz said:
			
		

> It's fine for the Infantry, they have their own PLQ to deal with the problem. What about armoured, arty, sappers? They are lumped in with musicians."



I would give the combat arms their own PLQ.  Emphasis on section attacks, recce, urban ops, defensive, calling for artillery fire and something vehicle related like vehicle recce or convoy ops.

This way all 4 trades have their thing and no one will feel left out. All those activities would be something all four trades may be exposed to.


----------



## BinRat55

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just speaking for the Navy here but are they going to start posting Infanteers into the leadership schools to teach the army side of things ?
> 
> The PLQ already has little if anything to do with what a sailor will do at the primary leadership level so this only exacerbates the issue and makes it harder on anyone who isn't army and doesn't have any army experience.
> 
> I see the need for commonality in training,  but expecting a stoker or a WENG Tech to be able to set up a defensive or run a section attack is just silly.  While he may get the basics in the short time he needs to know it, read knowing it well enough to pass, it will be quickly info dumped as soon as they are back in the MCR.
> 
> It's wasted training value on those who don't need it.  It boggles my mind that the RCN hasn't created its own Navy-centric PLQ it expects its "hard sea" folks to complete that would actually be of value and have some take away points.
> 
> Why not bring the whole necessity of a PLQ into question ?  I mean if ones trade has deemed them well enough to lead at a junior level why is that not good enough ?



And for me, therein lies the issue - Halifax touched on it. The "hard" trades. You have one RCR, one Stoker, one AVS Tech... right. Arrowhead to figs 123456. Reconstitute on 4.

I am a purple trade. That means I can end up as combat service support (I just came from 4 ESR) where I taught orders and battle procedure to my younger staff (who BTW were Land, Air AND Sea DEU) Where do we fit in? I did a JLC / JNCO (JNCO being the old CLC) and after the JLC portion, we watched one Musician and one Dental Tech go bye-bye. The Supply Techs / Maintainers were the only non-combat arms on the CLC. I personally know one of the Dental Techs and she is an amazing person - as well as a highly qualified and respected CWO!

I like to think I was better off having done it!


----------



## dangerboy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just speaking for the Navy here but are they going to start posting Infanteers into the leadership schools to teach the army side of things ?



I can't see that happening anytime soon, we don't have the Infantry positions at the 3 Div TCs and the Infantry school fully manned.  As much as some infantry soldiers might like to get posted to Halifax or Esquimalt, I don't think that the Corps can afford to lose the PYs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ballz said:
			
		

> My concern with this approach is not that it makes it harder for purple trades / non-army types, but that it lowers the standard for some of the other trades.* That's cool that the infantry has its own PLQ, but IMO the entire combat arms needs that little bit "extra." Applying this model, if the CAF runs a PLQ and then each trade runs its own "add-on" piece that is trade specific, that may fit the bill, or at least in groups (aka combat arms, combat support trades, service support trades). But if they are going to run PLQ CAF-wide but only the Inf gets its own PLQ mod... many other trades suffer in the CAFs attempt to cater to such a huge width of skill sets.
> 
> *I was the Crse O for a PLQ-L at Leadership Company a little over a year ago. The swing NCO I had was armoured and was excellent, and had been there for 3 years I believe. I made a remark that the depth of experience between candidates (one was a PRes musician who had never been in the field before this course, while some were seasoned combat arms Corporals) was making it impossible to apply one standard fairly. Either a bunch of people that don't need these skills fail, or a bunch of people that need these skills and don't have them pass. He agreed and said "that's why I've seen the standard drop for the combat arms ever since they moved to this system. It's fine for the Infantry, they have their own PLQ to deal with the problem. What about armoured, arty, sappers? They are lumped in with musicians."



I know I've said this before, but I think the way to go is a CF PLQ (like the former JLC) for anyone not cbt arms, a PLQ-Land (like the former CLC) for all Armd, Arty, Engr types and a PLQ-Inf (like the former ISCC).

Like Nerf Herder, I did my CLC in the early 90s when there was 'everyone not Infantry' loaded on CLC; my fire team partner was a young female Fin Clerk who didn't know what an ORV was let alone ever occupied one before.

This whole 'name changing BS' for CLC has been going on since 1996 at least; 20 years ago this coming spring/summer I was instructing on the 'new' JNCO-OAS pilot courses.  They were running JNCO-OAS (Jnr NCO - Other Arms and Services aka CLC) with everyone except Inf on it, and a course then called JNCO-Army which was the old ISCC.  Here we sit 20 years later of fucking around, looking like we are going back to the 'way it was' in 1993 when Inf did ISCC and everyone else did CLC.

I also think that people forget the formal and informal training and mentoring that happens in each trade before AND after PLQ trg.  A young Armd Cpl isn't going to become a fantastic crew commander because of PLQ, nor will an AVN tech become a better shift M-slash because of PLQ on it's own.  



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The PLQ already has little if anything to do with what a sailor will do at the primary leadership level so this only exacerbates the issue and makes it harder on anyone who isn't army and doesn't have any army experience.
> 
> I see the need for commonality in training,  but expecting a stoker or a WENG Tech to be able to set up a defensive or run a section attack is just silly.  While he may get the basics in the short time he needs to know it, read knowing it well enough to pass, it will be quickly info dumped as soon as they are back in the MCR.
> 
> It's wasted training value on those who don't need it.  It boggles my mind that the RCN hasn't created its own Navy-centric PLQ it expects its "hard sea" folks to complete that would actually be of value and have some take away points.
> 
> Why not bring the whole necessity of a PLQ into question ?  I mean if ones trade has deemed them well enough to lead at a junior level why is that not good enough ?



This.

The Air Force taught CF PLQ for its own folks at the Air Command Academy in Borden.  Why?  Because the average hard air trade Cpl doesn't care or need to know about section attacks and recce patrols.  

The main reason a common CF PLQ doesn't work is not everyone Jnr NCO in the Army does the same job, let alone in the entire CAF.  Have a common PLQ QS, let the Navy run one for RCN folks, let the RCAF run one like it has been and let the C Army run their own.  Each environment is aware of what its folks NEED to get out of their leadership training for Jnr NCOs.

Last point...STOP promoting people before they have their PLQ.  Same goes for ILQ.  Fix the system and then stop goddamn breaking it.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Last point...STOP promoting people before they have their PLQ.  Same goes for ILQ.



That has always been a sour point for me.  It is, and was, complete "FULL RETARD".



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Fix the system and then stop goddamn breaking it.



But then no one in that lofty position would get a check in the box for promoting change.   >


----------



## kratz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know I've said this before, but I think the way to go is a CF PLQ (like the former JLC) for anyone not cbt arms, a PLQ-Land (like the former CLC) for all Armd, Arty, Engr types and a PLQ-Inf (like the former ISCC).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I also think that people forget the formal and informal training and mentoring that happens in each trade before AND after PLQ trg.*   A young Armd Cpl isn't going to become a fantastic crew commander because of PLQ, nor will an AVN tech become a better shift M-slash because of PLQ on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was JLC when I joined, and the clerks who attended are doing well now.
> 
> I can count my mentors in trade. If the entire RCN / CAF was based on their skill, knowledge and dedication, we'd be OK as a force.
> I'm just a fucking clerk (retired)
Click to expand...


----------



## meni0n

Army calendar is out. Training days remain the same and no new CANFORGEN so this looks like just another rumor.


----------



## BinRat55

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Last point...STOP promoting people before they have their PLQ.  Same goes for ILQ.  Fix the system and then stop goddamn breaking it.



Yes. An amazing point. I honestly don't understand why this hasn't been fixed already. Since January alone, I personally (not second hand - personally) know of 5 people who were promoted a few years ago and now have to relinquish their leaf. What a waste - not their fault, but time and resources.


----------



## MissMercury

I am currently on PLQ, just finished Mod 2. Anyone have some handy acronyms for remembering the 16 steps of Battle Procedure and other MOD 3 stuff?

Thanks!


----------



## MissMercury

I did see that post, however it was originally posted in 2002. Seemed very outdated and I wasn't really willing to sift through 17+ pages of comments in one post.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MissMercury said:
			
		

> I am currently on PLQ, just finished Mod 2. Anyone have some handy acronyms for remembering the 16 steps of Battle Procedure and other MOD 3 stuff?
> 
> Thanks!



Not what you're asking for but I'll post anyways  ;D
I think you're highlighting a failing of the PLQ course. We force students to memorize various laundry lists without taking the time to explain the significance of how they really apply to junior leaders. You (we) spend more time and effort memorizing those lists than understanding them, and promptly forget them once we pass the PO check.  Principles of leadership is one of the major ones. Students memorize it but then draw a blank when you tell them to apply it to running PT.


----------



## Good2Golf

The Army.ca Battle Procedure app? ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sorry. I fail to see the problem.

What, in reality, is a JNCO/ CLC/ PLQ/ etc course?

It's a course that teaches:

How to give a drill lesson;
How to instruct a class;
Small party tasking; and
Working as a team to overcome a dangerous obstacle.

I fail to see how these items are not for all trades. I'll concede that the last one, typically, is conducted as section manoeuvre. However, it's not rocket science. Someone, not infantry, has plenty of opportunity to learn the basics during course or recall what they learned in Basic. Candidates should be scored on HOW they led their section, not if they successfully killed the enemy.

The best way to confirm this, is the application of Battle Procedure (BP). However, just because it's called BP, doesn't make it exclusive to Combat Arms. BP is the art of problem solving, in a specified order, considering the variables (and pitfalls) of a number of solutions until the most logical way forward presents itself. Everyone, but the most inept, use BP every day anyway, from what time to get up to when you go to bed. You are constantly playing 'what if' & 'so what' in your head as each new problem presents itself that day, whether you're conscious of the fact or not.

Change the name Battle Procedure to Action Procedure and instead of attacking a trench, plug a hole in dike, etc. The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self.

The course is designed as the first step in leadership, providing the candidate with the basic tools they need to start leading/ teaching others.
Whether teaching the stripping & assembling of a C7A2 or how to use a portable defibrillator, the principles remain the same.


----------



## PuckChaser

Its laziness. Section attacks and defense positions are difficult and tiring conditions. People are lazy, and don't want to work hard at the tasks. They even think they know better, because they've been a MCpl for 2 years due to training system shortfalls. As you said, leading a section attack isn't about how good of an infanteer you can be. Its that the Army can trust you to lead effectively under demanding circumstances (oh look, a PER bullet) when required. A lot of people have joined the CAF thinking they're in a desk job, and never have to go to the field because they didn't see that in their trade's job description, so the training is useless. We need to teach them to analyze why certain items are taught, and how they can apply them to their day to day jobs. 

Seems like a really good PC in the DL portion, an essay on how you can apply skills learned in Mod 4.


----------



## kratz

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry. I fail to see the problem.
> 
> What, in reality, is a JNCO/ CLC/ PLQ/ etc course?
> 
> It's a course that teaches:
> 
> How to give a drill lesson;
> How to instruct a class;
> Small party tasking; and
> Working as a team to overcome a dangerous obstacle.
> 
> I fail to see how these items are not for all trades. I'll concede that the last one, typically, is conducted as section manoeuvre. However, it's not rocket science. Someone, not infantry, has plenty of opportunity to learn the basics during course or recall what they learned in Basic. Candidates should be scored on HOW they led their section, not if they successfully killed the enemy.
> 
> The best way to confirm this, is the application of Battle Procedure (BP). However, just because it's called BP, doesn't make it exclusive to Combat Arms. BP is the art of problem solving, in a specified order, considering the variables (and pitfalls) of a number of solutions until the most logical way forward presents itself. Everyone, but the most inept, use BP every day anyway, from what time to get up to when you go to bed. You are constantly playing 'what if' & 'so what' in your head as each new problem presents itself that day, whether you're conscious of the fact or not.
> 
> *Change the name Battle Procedure to Action Procedure and instead of attacking a trench, plug a hole in dike, etc. The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self.
> *
> 
> The course is designed as the first step in leadership, providing the candidate with the basic tools they need to start leading/ teaching others.
> Whether teaching the stripping & assembling of a C7A2 or how to use a portable defibrillator, the principles remain the same.



BANG On !!  :nod:  (Your point in yellow).

When I was in, my Naval Reserve unit would conduct a fall junior Officer / NCM leadership Exercise. Senior ranks would set the parameters  and act as supernumerary oversight. Trained Junior officers and Master Seamen assigned the tasks and during the "round robin" style small group taskings, all participants had opportunity to lead, follow and learn. Leadership potential was noted, as well as areas to improve, by the senior leadership observing the evolutions.  This is one of the best attended exercises the unit conducts each year.


----------



## sidemount

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry. I fail to see the problem.
> 
> What, in reality, is a JNCO/ CLC/ PLQ/ etc course?
> 
> It's a course that teaches:
> 
> How to give a drill lesson;
> How to instruct a class;
> Small party tasking; and
> Working as a team to overcome a dangerous obstacle.
> 
> I fail to see how these items are not for all trades. I'll concede that the last one, typically, is conducted as section manoeuvre. However, it's not rocket science. Someone, not infantry, has plenty of opportunity to learn the basics during course or recall what they learned in Basic. Candidates should be scored on HOW they led their section, not if they successfully killed the enemy.
> 
> The best way to confirm this, is the application of Battle Procedure (BP). However, just because it's called BP, doesn't make it exclusive to Combat Arms. BP is the art of problem solving, in a specified order, considering the variables (and pitfalls) of a number of solutions until the most logical way forward presents itself. Everyone, but the most inept, use BP every day anyway, from what time to get up to when you go to bed. You are constantly playing 'what if' & 'so what' in your head as each new problem presents itself that day, whether you're conscious of the fact or not.
> 
> Change the name Battle Procedure to Action Procedure and instead of attacking a trench, plug a hole in dike, etc. The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self.
> 
> The course is designed as the first step in leadership, providing the candidate with the basic tools they need to start leading/ teaching others.
> Whether teaching the stripping & assembling of a C7A2 or how to use a portable defibrillator, the principles remain the same.



This!!!!!!!!!
100x This!!!!!

IMO PLQ is not there to teach someone how to be a leader. You should have already been identified by your chain of command as to having leadership skills. PLQ then shows you the military formats that you require to complete your job such as the 16 steps of battle procedure and Orders format.
You are assessed on your BP, Orders, and ability to maintain command and control when shit hits the fan. 
Like every other way we are trained, we take what we have been taught and then apply it to the unique jobs we do within the CAF. 

Like recceguy said "The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self."
This is something that every leader in the CAF needs to be able to do regardless of trade. 

I'm sure all the complaining comes from not wanting to spend a couple weeks in the field 36h on, 4h off when you are used to a roof over your head.


----------



## meni0n

Not sure if anyone seen the new CANFORGEN but PLQ-L and CF PLQ are being amalgamated into one course called PLQ and mod 4 has been cut, so starting June the new course is being run, Mod 1-3.


----------



## PuckChaser

meni0n said:
			
		

> Not sure if anyone seen the new CANFORGEN but PLQ-L and CF PLQ are being amalgamated into one course called PLQ and mod 4 has been cut, so starting June the new course is being run, Mod 1-3.



So they're cutting the field phase... what a freaking joke. All because of some whiners who never leave their desks can't stand 2 weeks living in a trench.


----------



## sidemount

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So they're cutting the field phase... what a freaking joke. All because of some whiners who never leave their desks can't stand 2 weeks living in a trench.


100% agree


----------



## Nfld Sapper

The course as it is now is basically, show up and pass....almost impossible to fail off....


----------



## PuckChaser

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> The course as it is now is basically, show up and pass....almost impossible to fail off....



A PLQ just finished where they caught someone deliberately trying to fail off so he could get on an easier serial later. He apparently was failed off with a nice note in his file to his unit.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> A PLQ just finished where they caught someone deliberately trying to fail off so he could get on an easier serial later. He apparently was failed off with a nice note in his file to his unit.



Hence why I said almost impossible.... [


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So they're cutting the field phase... what a freaking joke. All because of some whiners who never leave their desks can't stand 2 weeks living in a trench.



I think that money and a lack of instructors trumped complaints on this one.

The wording of the CANFORGEN makes it sound like the CA was able to train folks at a higher rate, even with an extra Mod, than the RCAF or RCN. It appears that they are going to try and standardise the training across the board to allow for backfill if and where possible. So LS Bloggins can theoretically go to 4 CDTC and do a PLQ if MCpl So-and-so can't attend.

I do think it's bullshit that they are taking the field portion out, but I think it's a top down directive rather than people bitching and moaning. I could be wrong.

 :-\


----------



## PuckChaser

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> The wording of the CANFORGEN makes it sound like the CA was able to train folks at a higher rate, even with an extra Mod, than the RCAF or RCN. It appears that they are going to try and standardise the training across the board to allow for backfill if and where possible. So LS Bloggins can theoretically go to 4 CDTC and do a PLQ if MCpl So-and-so can't attend.



Easy solution that skipped over the heads of people being paid 6 figures: Its a modular course, LS Bloggins attends PLQ-L until end Mod 3, and gets sent home. Or Army pers do CF PLQ and attend an open slot on a Mod 4 somewhere. Imagine that....


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Easy solution that skipped over the heads of people being paid 6 figures: Its a modular course, LS Bloggins attends PLQ-L until end Mod 3, and gets sent home. Or Army pers do CF PLQ and attend an open slot on a Mod 4 somewhere. Imagine that....



I agree, and I think that is what is implied by stating that element specific training will be conducted after Mod 3. What remains to be seen is if they are going to create an Army specific "Mod 4" that is under a different umbrella than PLQ, or if they are implying that pers will carry on with their DP 3.0 phase and call it a day.  :dunno:


----------



## putz

Going to play Devils advocate (and I'm sure the unpopular one on this discussion) but it seems people are more pissed about the change to mod 4 as a "I've done it so should they" instead of looking at the bigger picture.  A lot of the "purple trades" attached to army bases or units did CFS PLQ not PLQ  L. As I remember there was a CANFORGEN pushed that stated which trades would be required to take PLQ L  (outside of army trades).  End of the day your still getting exposure to conducting patrols, presence patrols section attacks etc.  I've always been of the line of thought that if a cook, clerk or MP was leading an advance to contact or the only ones manning a defensive the situation was already at a maximum level of soup-sandwhich.


----------



## PuckChaser

That's not why I'm upset at all. I did it, and learned a heck of a lot from it. I took it as an opportunity to learn skills we don't often practice in Sigs. As a Snr NCO, I want my troops to have those skills, because one day it will keep them alive.

If a clerk or cook is manning a defensive, things have gone pear shaped and that's absolutely not the time for them to have seen in for the first time, on a 2-way range.


----------



## lawandorder

It would be nice to see the MOD 4 as an additional option for all those trades that want to push their members that direction, without it being mandatory.  However, from what I understand the move is a cost saving procedure pure and simple.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The field is great, for those who will spend significant amounts of time in the field and leading people in that environment. 

The RCN has different tasks.  Damage control partys, Force Protection parties, Duty Watches ect ect ect all of these involve Jr leadership and IMHO would be only made stronger if incorporated into an RCN PLQ for "Hard Sea" folks.  

All of that can be taught along with Drill, and Lesson Instruction ect ect ect.  Just swap the field phase for a month of learning how to be a Duty Cox'n,  becoming Attack Team Leader (ATL) qualified,  learning how to run a FP watch, leading a shoring evolution's, IC Partship Hands station, ect.  

It would teach the same thing(s) as the field phase and is geared towards what a sailor will do as they move up through the ranks.  So why MUST all CAF people do it the Army way ?  Why is the Army way the only way the produces the required effects ? Or that actually true ?


----------



## Nuggs

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It would teach the same thing(s) as the field phase and is geared towards what a sailor will do as they move up through the ranks.  So why MUST all CAF people do it the Army way ?  Why is the Army way the only way the produces the required effects ? Or that actually true ?



Hear, hear!


----------



## RCPalmer

Nuggs said:
			
		

> Hear, hear!



Are Navy pers in Navy "billets" taking Army PLQ?  If so, that wouldn't seem to make much sense, but as far as I was aware CAF PLQ doesn't have a field phase. With regards to a navy specific PLQ, perhaps there is a cost component with regards to putting non-hard sea trades through those type of shipboard tasks.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Easy solution that skipped over the heads of people being paid 6 figures: Its a modular course, LS Bloggins attends PLQ-L until end Mod 3, and gets sent home. Or Army pers do CF PLQ and attend an open slot on a Mod 4 somewhere. Imagine that....


Why do you assume this possibility was missed by the decision makers?  Maybe there is already an Army Section Leaders course being developed that will be required for all Army managed occupations within 12 months of getting the PLQ?


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> Why do you assume this possibility was missed by the decision makers?  Maybe there is already an Army Section Leaders course being developed that will be required for all Army managed occupations within 12 months of getting the PLQ?


Was it listed in the CANFORGEN? If your hypothesis is correct, there was no reason to omit that detail from the message. If it wasn't in there, I'm willing to bet on it not being there.

The idea of a RCN mod 4 is an excellent one, I'm not sure why there wasn't one previously. As you indicated, there are plenty of RCN-specific skills that could teach the same lessons. For those purple trades, the decision on what Mod 4 could be current position based, DEU based, or some sort of hybrid so the right skills are taught to the right person.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Was it listed in the CANFORGEN? If your hypothesis is correct, there was no reason to omit that detail from the message.


It was not an Army CANFORGEN.  If the Army has its own initiative in the works to continue a common field leadership training, one would not expect CMP to be making that announcement for the Army ... especially if the Army is not ready with its implementation plan.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Was it listed in the CANFORGEN? If your hypothesis is correct, there was no reason to omit that detail from the message. If it wasn't in there, I'm willing to bet on it not being there.
> 
> The idea of a RCN mod 4 is an excellent one, I'm not sure why there wasn't one previously. As you indicated, there are plenty of RCN-specific skills that could teach the same lessons. For those purple trades, the decision on what Mod 4 could be current position based, DEU based, or some sort of hybrid so the right skills are taught to the right person.



This we agree on.  

What about if purple trades who sail and go to the field or can reasonably be expected to preform in leadership roles in either Army or Navy do both.  That way if one either goes to the field or sea as a MCpl or above atleast they have some experience. 

When I talk purple I mean the true purple trades, i.e. Sup Tech, Cook and RMS Clerk and maybe, maybe... Int Op


----------



## putz

MCG said:
			
		

> It was not an Army CANFORGEN.  If the Army has its own initiative in the works to continue a common field leadership training, one would not expect CMP to be making that announcement for the Army ... especially if the Army is not ready with its implementation plan.



So what would happen if you passed your PLQ and couldn't pass the army portion?  Forced element remuster???  Maybe I'm just being difficult but I don't see the need for an add on.  If any thing they should create a separate PLQ for combat arms trades and the other for the whole of the CF.  I say that coming from an infantry back ground.


----------



## RCPalmer

MCG said:
			
		

> It was not an Army CANFORGEN.  If the Army has its own initiative in the works to continue a common field leadership training, one would not expect CMP to be making that announcement for the Army ... especially if the Army is not ready with its implementation plan.



Either way, this should be sync'd up with the services.  No one should be rolling out a new course which impacts on all of the services without a clearly articulated way ahead with regards to the implementation in each service.  Now we have Army NCMs thinking that they will become qualified MCpls through CFPLQ and no field component.  While this will probably be clarified at some point, we are left with an information vacuum.  

I would assert that the level of confidence in the IT system is not particularly high at the moment due to the amount of uninformed reinventing of the wheel and change for change's sake.  While I agree that improvements are needed in many cases, and that we should be open to change, moves like this don't help.


----------



## George Wallace

:

I echo recceguy's post and am surprised that so many of you are unable to grasp his post and are incapable of applying your imaginations in such a way as to apply what you learn on a PLQ to all aspects of your life.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry. I fail to see the problem.
> 
> What, in reality, is a JNCO/ CLC/ PLQ/ etc course?
> 
> It's a course that teaches:
> 
> How to give a drill lesson;
> How to instruct a class;
> Small party tasking; and
> Working as a team to overcome a dangerous obstacle.
> 
> I fail to see how these items are not for all trades. .................................................
> 
> The best way to confirm this, is the application of Battle Procedure (BP). However, just because it's called BP, doesn't make it exclusive to Combat Arms. BP is the art of problem solving, in a specified order, considering the variables (and pitfalls) of a number of solutions until the most logical way forward presents itself. Everyone, but the most inept, use BP every day anyway, from what time to get up to when you go to bed. You are constantly playing 'what if' & 'so what' in your head as each new problem presents itself that day, whether you're conscious of the fact or not.
> 
> Change the name Battle Procedure to Action Procedure and instead of attacking a trench, plug a hole in dike, etc. The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self.
> 
> The course is designed as the first step in leadership, providing the candidate with the basic tools they need to start leading/ teaching others.
> Whether teaching the stripping & assembling of a C7A2 or how to use a portable defibrillator, the principles remain the same.



As for the statements that not everyone will be doing Infantry attacks or tasks, that is a moot point.  Everyone will continue to do their Career Courses and OJT and cover aspects that are particular to their TRADE.  There is NO NEED to create a crse specific to each individual TRADE in the CAF that teaches CAF members how to plan and implement tasks .  That is utterly ridiculous, fiscally unsound,  as is the continuing whining being displayed here.


----------



## dapaterson

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> Either way, this should be sync'd up with the services.  No one should be rolling out a new course which impacts on all of the services without a clearly articulated way ahead with regards to the implementation in each service.  Now we have Army NCMs thinking that they will become qualified MCpls through CFPLQ and no field component.  While this will probably be clarified at some point, we are left with an information vacuum.
> 
> I would assert that the level of confidence in the IT system is not particularly high at the moment due to the amount of uninformed reinventing of the wheel and change for change's sake.  While I agree that improvements are needed in many cases, and that we should be open to change, moves like this don't help.



Perhaps, just perhaps, there was agreement about timelines, and then someone didn't make that new target.  In that case, do you hold back everyone because one group didn't do what they had committed to, or do you push on and let them fix themselves later?

Waiting for everyone is a great recipe for not getting anything done.


----------



## armyvern

Or perhaps, just perhaps, it was about grievances and many issues where certain support trades get promoted off of one merit list, but have three different standards of "required" leadership courses in order to keep their MCpl/MS ranks.

They are purple.  The LS getting promoted to MS and posted off to Wainwright or Petawawa will still have the exact same job as the supporter in the Army uniform in those locations. Just as the Army MCpl serving with the Navy will have the same jobs as the RCN wearing uniform types of his trade there.

One trade with one merit list with three differing standards for leadership courses.  Some people lose their leaf for not being able to complete a portion of their course that others in their trade do not even have to attempt but whom still keep their own leafs.  Anybody see anything grieveable there?  I sure as heck do.  They are purple - despite the uniform colour they wear.

None of this BS about they should need "XXX" to serve with the Army because the fact is that the RCN and RCAF supporters coming in with their non-Army PLQs never did "XXX".  THAT "XXX" stuff should be the stuff everyone gets on a Land Environmental Course ... just as you get the "XXX" that you require for service with the RCN on Sea Environmental (you know, because in the RCN, they aren't really "Soldiers First" - they are "Damage Control First" because that's what's going to save their asses).

Many of us have brought this up many times - don't care _what_ standard you choose for PLQ requirements, but you must choose *one* standard. One trade, one merit list, one standard leadership required to keep your rank.


----------



## RCPalmer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> I echo recceguy's post and am surprised that so many of you are unable to grasp his post and are incapable of applying your imaginations in such a way as to apply what you learn on a PLQ to all aspects of your life.
> 
> As for the statements that not everyone will be doing Infantry attacks or tasks, that is a moot point.  Everyone will continue to do their Career Courses and OJT and cover aspects that are particular to their TRADE.  There is NO NEED to create a crse specific to each individual TRADE in the CAF that teaches CAF members how to plan and implement tasks .  That is utterly ridiculous, fiscally unsound,  as is the continuing whining being displayed here.



Respectfully, I disagree.  The delivery of of the *Army* junior leadership course (in whatever form it may have taken) was not just about assessing leadership skills.  Just like BMQ-A and BMOQ-A, it is also intended to ingrain a "soldier first" ethos across all trades, and ensure that all personnel in these trades can perform the basic tasks to defend themselves and their peers in a field environment. 

With respect to the leadership courses (PLQ-A and BMOQ-A), it is also intended to create a base level of tactical acumen to ensure that those leaders can lead their subordinates in elementary infantry tasks in an emergency, and have an idea of what "right" looks like with regards to tactical elements applicable to their trade such as sentry routine, cam and concealment, siting of hasty defensive positions, etc.

If the soldiers' MOSID specific career courses are going to be adjusted to capture that requirement, or an Army specific mod as a CFPLQ add on is to be created, great, but that has not been articulated. I would assert that if this requirement could be achieved through OJT, the concept of a common Army leadership course (which has been around since at least the 60's) would not exist.

With regards to cost (which would imply a requirement to manage course length), it is just a matter of priorities. There are a lot of things I would cut from PLQ before the field portion.


----------



## Remius

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we'll be discussing the changes they make yet again next year.   [lol:


----------



## RCPalmer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps, just perhaps, there was agreement about timelines, and then someone didn't make that new target.  In that case, do you hold back everyone because one group didn't do what they had committed to, or do you push on and let them fix themselves later?
> 
> Waiting for everyone is a great recipe for not getting anything done.



And what would be the implications of waiting?  The Air Force and the Navy do CF PLQ, just like before. The only service for whom this change has any implication is the Army, and the effect of rolling it out in this way has created a not-insignificant hole in our leadership development process.


----------



## armyvern

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> And what would be the implications of waiting?  The Air Force and the Navy do CF PLQ, just like before. The only service for whom this change has any implication is the Army, and the effect of rolling it out in this way has created a not-insignificant hole in our leadership development process.



That's why that hard army portion should be part of a Land Environmental.

Because all those RCN and RCAF wearing purple supporters also get posted to the Army environment and they've never done the hard army portion, nor will they ever ... unless it moves to become part & parcel of the land environmental.  

Even with the PLQ as it stands right now - there's a shit tonne of Jr leaders serving with the Army who've never done it; they just don't wear Army uniforms.  The world is not going to end and the sky isn't falling.


----------



## meni0n

Well no, there will be no more CF PLQ as it is amalgamated. The only implication is that there will be more training establishments available now for all of the CF due to the newly created PLQ course. I think the DL got shortened as well to 9 days but I am not sure. CANFORGEN also stated that the QS board sat with all three elements so I am sure the Army had its say and that the new format is what it chose, or maybe was given no choice.


----------



## dapaterson

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> And what would be the implications of waiting?  The Air Force and the Navy do CF PLQ, just like before. The only service for whom this change has any implication is the Army, and the effect of rolling it out in this way has created a not-insignificant hole in our leadership development process.


Then hold Comd CADTC accountable for the Army not having a coordinated plan.  The Army is not the CAF.  If the Army isn't ready for a change they knew was coming, don't argue for the CAF to hold back.

Maybe if the same level of staff effort was applied to planning training that's applied to buttons and bows...


As for the implications of waiting: If PLQ(old) costs more to deliver than PLQ(new), then we are wasting time and money.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> With respect to the leadership courses (PLQ-A and BMOQ-A), it is also intended to create a base level of tactical acumen to ensure that those leaders can lead their subordinates in elementary infantry tasks in an emergency, and have an idea of what "right" looks like with regards to tactical elements applicable to their trade such as sentry routine, cam and concealment, siting of hasty defensive positions, etc.



And given the way things are going in the CoE, drivers, communicators, fliers, floaters and cooks all need to be able to fire and move with the best of them. 

The Dushman has made the concept of the 'frontline' and 'rear echelon' meaningless....


----------



## Halifax Tar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I echo recceguy's post and am surprised that so many of you are unable to grasp his post and are incapable of applying your imaginations in such a way as to apply what you learn on a PLQ to all aspects of your life.



Because I completed my PLQ in 2012 and found it was a stupid course that had little or no impact on me and I know others feel the same.  A complete waste of time and resources.  The same could be said about my Sup Tech QL6.  Know what I learned on that course ?  You don't need 275 slides to do a safety brief.  Ya that happened, a general safety brief that was 275 slides...  Excellent training value right there! 

What would have been valuable, CF Writing, Deepend CFPAS trg, Disciplinary and Administrative measures trg; you know those admin tasks that really start creeping into your career as you move from LS to MS to PO2. 

I get it you think the best way to train a leader is in the field.  While that works for the green machine it teaches nothing to the RCN.  And actually that trg for hard sailors would be better spent getting them up to snuff on the ADMIN/DC/Seamanship evolution's they will be expected to lead as MS. 

How you apply this to a branch like LOG is a mind bender.  I say the trades I listed before should do a field phase and seamanship phase, as anyone in those trades at the MS/MCpl level can reasonably be expected to sail and/or go to the field regardless of uniform.  I am a good example of that.


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ...



Regarding your QL6 Sup Tech (and really all Sup Tech QLs being run these days); they suck.  It's all being discussed.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What would have been valuable, CF Writing, Deepend CFPAS trg, Disciplinary and Administrative measures trg; you know those admin tasks that really start creeping into your career as you move from LS to MS to PO2.



Sorry to hear that the Crse has been so watered down.  Those subjects were once a major part of the CLC crse in the day, and as you correctly pointed out, very valuable to a young CAF member in progressing through their career.  

As for the "Field" comment, I will ignore it, as leadership will be necessary in all 'environments': the "Field"; the classroom; in general anywhere one's workplace may be.  So it is moot to complain about the "Field" if the lessons learned are applicable to any 'environment'.  Just take your "BLINDERS" off.


----------



## Halifax Tar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry to hear that the Crse has been so watered down.  Those subjects were once a major part of the CLC crse in the day, and as you correctly pointed out, very valuable to a young CAF member in progressing through their career.
> 
> As for the "Field" comment, I will ignore it, as leadership will be necessary in all 'environments': the "Field"; the classroom; in general anywhere one's workplace may be.  So it is moot to complain about the "Field" if the lessons learned are applicable to any 'environment'.  Just take your "BLINDERS" off.



I am not complaining about the field.  I have almost as much field time as I do sea time and truly if you really asked me I prefer the field over going to sea (Congrats ArmyVern you converted me  lol ) I  just dont see any training value in the field for those who dont work in that environment...


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm curious as to how many purple trades are actually Army managed, where the PLQ-A would have been an issue. Comm Rsch is the only one I have knowledge of that requires all DEU members to complete PLQ-A, but that's solely because they're either desks in Letrim, or 21EW as a huge majority of their pers. What about Int, Sup Tech, Cook, RMS (did I miss one)?


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how many purple trades are actually Army managed, where the PLQ-A would have been an issue. Comm Rsch is the only one I have knowledge of that requires all DEU members to complete PLQ-A, but that's solely because they're either desks in Letrim, or 21EW as a huge majority of their pers. What about Int, Sup Tech, Cook, RMS (did I miss one)?



I can only speak for LOG but none of them are "Army managed".  We belong to CMP.


----------



## RCPalmer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Then hold Comd CADTC accountable for the Army not having a coordinated plan.  The Army is not the CAF.  If the Army isn't ready for a change they knew was coming, don't argue for the CAF to hold back.
> 
> Maybe if the same level of staff effort was applied to planning training that's applied to buttons and bows...
> 
> 
> As for the implications of waiting: If PLQ(old) costs more to deliver than PLQ(new), then we are wasting time and money.



Agreed WRT buttons and bows...so many fail to recognize the non-recoverable opportunity cost of staff effort.  It is enough to make you want to cry. :crybaby:

Perhaps CADTC has some culpability WRT keeping up with the planning process, but I would be curious about the actual extent of the Army consultation on the change and the timeline.  Just because there was consultation does not mean that the Army was actually in a position to impose their solution (such as re-writing every trade specific leadership course TP or creating an environmental specific PLQ mod) in time.  

At the end of the day the Army is part of the CAF, and any CAF order should include adequate consideration of the state of subordinate elements in terms of their ability to carry it out.  It is the old "don't issue an order you don't expect to be carried out" rule.  

Ultimately, the net effect of killing army PLQ has greater downstream implications for the force than the relatively modest adjustment to the common PLQ program.  Additionally, the changes to CF PLQ could have been implemented (achieving most of the relevant costs savings) while leaving Army PLQ alone for a period of time while they address the implications of the new program.


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how many purple trades are actually Army managed, where the PLQ-A would have been an issue. Comm Rsch is the only one I have knowledge of that requires all DEU members to complete PLQ-A, but that's solely because they're either desks in Letrim, or 21EW as a huge majority of their pers. What about Int, Sup Tech, Cook, RMS (did I miss one)?



Nope.  A whole bunch of Army uniform wearing Loggies have to do the Army PLQ as well while their counterparts in differing uniform colours of the same trade did not.  Posties, for example, all had to do Army PLQ regardless of uniform (they are Loggies as well, but Sup etc do IAW uniform colour). Ergo my, One Trade, One Merit List, One standard PLQ, which is not how it currently is.

RCEME is Army managed. Loggies are not; we are Branch managed but for some ungawdly reason had three standards for the Jr Leadership course.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Having a common CAF PLQ, delivered by TEs in the C Army, RCAF and RCN;  if anyone believes the QS and TP will be 'delivered in a standardized manner' between us, the navy and army...well there is some _Sunny Ways _thinking right there.   :blotto:

RCN and RCAF trades doing section attacks makes about as much sense as Cbt Arms folks doing damage control and 'FUSDUCHOT' drills.  Make a common PLQ (not that I agree, but accept it is being done for the same reasons most of us have the same PT tests and standard...because we are thin skinned and PC as a society and our military is following along), let each environment deliver it to it's own people the way it will best benefit each individual command.

That means leaving some wording in the QS vague on purpose so that the ECS TEs can implement their own TPs that are relevant to field ops, sailing and flying.  PO 401 could be 'command a subunit during operations' vice 'Command a Section in the field during offensive operations'. 

How to fix it for the folks like AV is discussing that are left on the windward side of the shit-hill?  One standard for Jnr Leadership courses.  Each environment should be able to inject the 'missed' field/sailing/air ops training in their DP1/DP2 trade coursing.   :2c:

That kind of thing.  The primary goal of the training is to have good Jnr NCOs that can perform junior leadership tasks in their environment when the shit hits the fan.  Anything that detracts from that is simply BS.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nope.  A whole bunch of Army uniform wearing Loggies have to do the Army PLQ as well while their counterparts in differing uniform colours of the same trade did not.  Posties, for example, all had to do Army PLQ regardless of uniform (they are Loggies as well, but Sup etc do IAW uniform colour). Ergo my, One Trade, One Merit List, One standard PLQ, which is not how it currently is.
> 
> RCEME is Army managed. Loggies are not; we are Branch managed but for some ungawdly reason had three standards for the Jr Leadership course.



Vern this was a bone of contention when your MS/MCpls would sit around for a few a beers and chat.  Not towards each other but towards the system.  

LOG is an interesting beast...


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Vern this was a bone of contention when your MS/MCpls would sit around for a few a beers and chat.  Not towards each other but towards the system.
> 
> LOG is an interesting beast...



It was a bone of contention at much higher ranks than that too.


----------



## Ostrozac

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how many purple trades are actually Army managed, where the PLQ-A would have been an issue. Comm Rsch is the only one I have knowledge of that requires all DEU members to complete PLQ-A, but that's solely because they're either desks in Letrim, or 21EW as a huge majority of their pers. What about Int, Sup Tech, Cook, RMS (did I miss one)?



The list of who did PLQ-Army is in this thread, post number 317. The bone of contention has been this list here:

B.  THE FOLLOWING NON-ARMY MANAGED OCCUPATIONS:
(1) MP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(2) MSE OP (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(3) SUP TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(4) RMS CLK (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(5) COOK (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(6) AMMO TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(7) POSTAL CLK (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(8.) COMM RSCH (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(9) INT OP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(10) CBRN OP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(11) TRAFFIC TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY) 

Now, if you're an MP, Postie, Comm Researcher, Int Op, or CBRN Op, then it's really no big deal. One trade, one merit list, one standard. Whether you dressed in Air, Navy or Army uniforms, you were required to complete PLQ-Army in order to advance against your peers.

The problem was really with the other trades: MSE, Supply, RMS Clerk, Cook, Ammo Tech, Traffic Tech. In that case, people with Army uniforms were required to do a measurably more difficult course, but were being merited for advancement in their trade against Air Force and Navy uniform pers who only had to do CF PLQ. 

My thoughts? Purple is purple. And all our purple trades that we expect to send to the field should do the hardest standard of PLQ -- PLQ Army -- the "only Army uniforms" thing was a cop-out -- so long as we still send Air Force Clerks and Navy Cooks to brigades, they need to have the appropriate training, and they need to be fairly assessed for promotion within their trade. The MP's and the Posties were right.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> My thoughts? Purple is purple. And all our purple trades that we expect to send to the field should do the hardest standard of PLQ -- PLQ Army -- the "only Army uniforms" thing was a cop-out -- so long as we still send Air Force Clerks and Navy Cooks to brigades, they need to have the appropriate training, and they need to be fairly assessed for promotion within their trade. The MP's and the Posties were right.



In a perfect world, I would agree.  However, reality adds a challenge...

What of the reality that some of the folks from a trade like Clerk, for example, who had 10 YOS but had been posted to a Wing, then a HQ and then NDHQ and are now sent on PLQ-Land.  Is that setting the member up for success?  I don't think so.

Common PLQ for all.  Those who need the harder training because of being posted to the Army, let them get it if/when they go Army.  I am of the generation who did the old CLC.  My fire team partner was a Fin Clerk.  You wouldn't have wanted her leading a section if the SHTF, before or after CLC.  I am sure she was a great Fin Clerk MCpl however.

I know people don't like to hear this, but not everyone is a soldier first.  I wear the Air Ops cap badge and fly.  If I go down, I am not a 'soldier' because I am on the ground with a weapon.  I don't train for that possibility like cbt arms types train to operate.  I don't even have the same goal at that point.  Not everyone is a 'soldier first' and our Jnr Leadership training should reflect that reality.

Like I said before, there was ZERO wrong with having JLC , CLC (CSS, Armd, Engr and Arty) and ISCC (Inf only) back in the day.  Like our rank insignia, we are messing with something that wasn't broken in the goddamn first place.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What would have been valuable, CF Writing, Deepend CFPAS trg, Disciplinary and Administrative measures trg; you know those admin tasks that really start creeping into your career as you move from LS to MS to PO2.



I was introduced to some of this on my PRE-CLC course and informal PD from my Cpls/MCpls/Sgts before and after CLC (now PLQ).  Point being, the formal course part is only one tool Jnr NCOs are exposed to.  We've dropped the 10 Principles of Leadership formally, but I still carry the card in my wallet.  "Develop the leadership potential in your followers".  A good Jnr/Snr NCO starts that before someone is sent on PLQ, IMO.


----------



## BinRat55

There are many excellent points from all angles from smart, good people on this topic. There are merits for all opinions.

I have had the fortune of working in numerous areas of Logistics - both Jr NCO and Sr NCO. I have been on a hard Air base, Service Bn, several regiments, second line static training base, instructor in Borden, gucci tours in Golan, not so gucci tours in Africa and Afghanistan. As a Supply Tech I absolutely HAVE seen the use / need for what the JLC / JNCO / CLC taught me and what the new PLQ mods are lacking. 

My opinion is that (Ostrozac nailed my thoughts) any trade that could conceivably end up in a trench in the training area or even right-seating next to me in some country NOT Canada, then why not? How can it hurt? It's a month of field training that will ultimately benefit the member (healthy member). Many of us have done exercises longer. Some of us have gone without showers, porcelain and solid food longer!

I have taught young Cpls (and PLQ qualified MCpls) how to write orders and how to live in the field. Because it was taught to me. I'm a Supply Tech for heaven's sake!

Why not?


----------



## daftandbarmy

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> There are many excellent points from all angles from smart, good people on this topic. There are merits for all opinions.
> 
> I have had the fortune of working in numerous areas of Logistics - both Jr NCO and Sr NCO. I have been on a hard Air base, Service Bn, several regiments, second line static training base, instructor in Borden, gucci tours in Golan, not so gucci tours in Africa and Afghanistan. As a Supply Tech I absolutely HAVE seen the use / need for what the JLC / JNCO / CLC taught me and what the new PLQ mods are lacking.
> 
> My opinion is that (Ostrozac nailed my thoughts) any trade that could conceivably end up in a trench in the training area or even right-seating next to me in some country NOT Canada, then why not? How can it hurt? It's a month of field training that will ultimately benefit the member (healthy member). Many of us have done exercises longer. Some of us have gone without showers, porcelain and solid food longer!
> 
> I have taught young Cpls (and PLQ qualified MCpls) how to write orders and how to live in the field. Because it was taught to me. I'm a Supply Tech for heaven's sake!
> 
> Why not?



Right on target.... 

In the end, we must all be able to do our jobs in the field, somewhere, under horrible conditions.

We are negligent if we do not select and train our leaders to operate under such conditions.


----------



## Avail

Binrat, all valid points, but couldn't the same be said of pushing Army pers through some Naval and Air training? Surely, it wouldn't hurt (much), and could conceivably be beneficial.

My point being - where's the line? Granted, it never hurts to learn a new skill, except in fiscal terms and in time spent.


Edited to add:

"Soldier First" is a fine theory, but what happens when we need a soldier to be a sailor? An airman to be a combat engineer? There comes a point when redundancy gets ridiculous.

All of this to say... I don't know what the best route is, but there's a lot to think about.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The point is, not everyone is going to end up 'in the field'.  

Why should a hard sea trade do 'field time'.  WTF does that have to do with how they are going to do THEIR job in combat?

Train the way you fight, fight the way you train.  For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force.

Make the training relevant, useful and pertinent to the environment.  Air Force 500 series need different skill sets than infantry types.  Air Force flying NCMs work in a different environment than Engineers.

I don't want Cpls' in my trade doing a month in the field.  I see they need that month spent differently to be good Jnr NCOs in the LRP world.  I see a need for that time to be spent maximizing their ability to be good Jnr NCOs in the LRP world, a Wing and the RCAF in general.  IF they end up 'in the field', we have specific trg and plans for that.   

I am not going to end up as a Section Commander in a rifle coy if I bail out somewhere, let's be honest.  And I am an ex-Cbt Arms type trained to DP3B.

The 'a month in the field' part benefits those who are hard army, and those who are going to be at a hard army unit.  I have a wholeeeeeeee shitload of relevant trg I could fill a month up with for Air Ops Cpls, and especially those in my trade.    

Having said that, the RCAF has courses for purple trades and hard air trades who are going to be in the AF world.  BAEQ, IAEQ are 2 examples.  The RCN has similar common to all trg (can't remember the name of the 4? week course...) and others.  It sounds like the army is coming up with a similar course, that the "I was a Clerk at Wings and HQs for 15 years before being posted to the RCD" folks will take.

Aside from that, I've been trying to make a point that the collective "we"...current Jnr and Snr NCOs, Officers, etc...have a duty to develop the leadership potential in our followers, day to day.  I learned the basics of BP long before I started my CLC course.  I was being mentored by Jnr and Snr NCOs, Warrant Officers etc before and after my CLC...before and after my SLC.

If we are putting all our eggs in one basket called PLQ to develop things in our most junior NCOs such as CFPAS, finding and interpreting orders and regs, basic leadership, etc then we are failing as leaders day to day.  PLQ is not the end all, be all of JNCO development.  It shouldn't be the start, or finish point, in JNCO development.  Accepting that, I have no real issues with a Common PLQ that all Cpl's and LS's will take.  SLC was done that way, and ILP is now.  Yet, we don't assume that an Air Force Warrant Officer and an Army Warrant Officer have the same leadership realities.  

It works for ILP, it can work for SLC.  We don't rely on ILP to teach infantry Sgt's or Air Force Sgt's everything they need to know about being a WO in their respective worlds.  Why are we doing it at the Jnr NCO leadership level with PLQ?


----------



## BinRat55

Neso said:
			
		

> Binrat, all valid points, but couldn't the same be said of pushing Army pers through some Naval and Air training? Surely, it wouldn't hurt (much), and could conceivably be beneficial.
> 
> My point being - where's the line? Granted, it never hurts to learn a new skill, except in fiscal terms and in time spent.



Absolutely - I agree. Within reason of course. It's not unreasonable that Master Seaman Bloggins, Sup Tech currently employed on the HMCS AthaB could be posted to 4 ESR as their TQ. So, MS Bloggins should have field training. By that very same tolkin, Master Corporal Baggins is currently with 1 RCR QM in Pet and now posted to HMCS Provider. The first thing she gets is fire fighting training, man overboard drills, RAS drills... see what i'm saying?

When I was in Gander with 103 SAR, I was trained as a spotter. Last I checked, it doesn't exist here in base Supply (unles you're at Tim Hortons "spotting" the wingnuts not dressed properly)

So, the line would be "all inclusive of where your trade employability could take you"... make sense?


----------



## armyvern

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> There are many excellent points from all angles from smart, good people on this topic. There are merits for all opinions.
> 
> I have had the fortune of working in numerous areas of Logistics - both Jr NCO and Sr NCO. I have been on a hard Air base, Service Bn, several regiments, second line static training base, instructor in Borden, gucci tours in Golan, not so gucci tours in Africa and Afghanistan. As a Supply Tech I absolutely HAVE seen the use / need for what the JLC / JNCO / CLC taught me and what the new PLQ mods are lacking.
> 
> My opinion is that (Ostrozac nailed my thoughts) any trade that could conceivably end up in a trench in the training area or even right-seating next to me in some country NOT Canada, then why not? How can it hurt? It's a month of field training that will ultimately benefit the member (healthy member). Many of us have done exercises longer. Some of us have gone without showers, porcelain and solid food longer!
> 
> I have taught young Cpls (and PLQ qualified MCpls) how to write orders and how to live in the field. Because it was taught to me. I'm a Supply Tech for heaven's sake!
> 
> Why not?





Hey, I'm all for that.

All purple support trades should do the "Army Mod" of the PLQ for exactly the reasons you state.  All purple supporters should also do the Sea Environmental Course too because they could also end up sailing.

Either of the three uniform colours could end up doing field or sailing both at home and abroad.  

The thing is, do we do them as part of an environmental PLQ (current way) that sees cross-pollination of purple people who have never and will never done the Army portion.  Or, do we have all CAF members do the Army PLQ (which will cost a fortune and in many cases be unnecessary as some pers may never work in all three environments).  Or, do we do that PLQ as a common-to-all environments course and leave all the specific environmental trg to the environments whereby ALL members posted into that environment are REQUIRED to complete the environmental trg (Sea or Land) - that is the way to which we are moving; it is more cost effective as we still have purple Army uniform wearing types who've never served with the Army and RCAF uniform types who've only served with the Army.  

The thing is, the Army needs to win the future battle on the SQ/LET courses over the other environments - if they are posted into the Army, they _*must*_ do LET (because purple RCN and RCAF do not currently have to undergo SQ/LET when coming into the Army environment).  Army guy going on a ship however? You can bet your ass he has to do the Sea Environmental.

(PS:  I too loved my extra trg and employment as SAR Spotter in Trenton)


----------



## BinRat55

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The point is, not everyone is going to end up 'in the field'.
> 
> Why should a hard sea trade do 'field time'.  WTF does that have to do with how they are going to do THEIR job in combat?
> 
> Train the way you fight, fight the way you train.  For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force.
> 
> Make the training relevant, useful and pertinent to the environment.  Air Force 500 series need different skill sets than infantry types.  Air Force flying NCMs work in a different environment than Engineers.
> 
> I don't want Cpls' in my trade doing a month in the field.  I see they need that month spent differently to be good Jnr NCOs in the LRP world.  I see a need for that time to be spent maximizing their ability to be good Jnr NCOs in the LRP world, a Wing and the RCAF in general.  IF they end up 'in the field', we have specific trg and plans for that.
> 
> I am not going to end up as a Section Commander in a rifle coy if I bail out somewhere, let's be honest.  And I am an ex-Cbt Arms type trained to DP3B.
> 
> The 'a month in the field' part benefits those who are hard army, and those who are going to be at a hard army unit.  I have a wholeeeeeeee shitload of relevant trg I could fill a month up with for Air Ops Cpls, and especially those in my trade.



And I agree whole-heartedly. But where some are lost in translation is the difference between Army, Air and Navy. You did it yourself - "For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force." There are Army postings and there is Army DEU. I have been in Combat Arms units with Naval pers, Air pers AND Army pers - all the same trade.

When the individual tradseman has zero chance of ending up anywhere else but their element (stoker for example) then yes - sections attacks should be left to the Call of Duty playing field.


----------



## armyvern

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> There are Army postings and there is Army DEU.



Too true.  They are not the same thing in the world of purple.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> And I agree whole-heartedly. But where some are lost in translation is the difference between Army, Air and Navy. You did it yourself - "For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force." There are Army postings and there is Army DEU. I have been in Combat Arms units with Naval pers, Air pers AND Army pers - all the same trade.
> 
> When the individual tradseman has zero chance of ending up anywhere else but their element (stoker for example) then yes - sections attacks should be left to the Call of Duty playing field.



IMO, Vern hit the nail on the head a post or 2 above;  common leadership trg (PLQ), with an environmental course people take if they are posted to the Army.  This makes sense, instead of trg people based on DEU colors.  Our ILP is a 'common to all', PLQ can be as well.  Any MCpl promoted to Sgt in the RCAF world does the IAEQ on their Wing, and it is not just Air Ops folks, it is any trade employed in the AF world.

I'll use Flight Engineers as a non-purple trade example.  A FE posted to a LRP Sqn...would not do the LET (Land Environmental Trg?) course.  5 years later, that FE is posted to a TacHel Sqn, and then should be loaded on the LET course or whatever it will/could be called.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The point is, not everyone is going to end up 'in the field'.
> 
> Why should a hard sea trade do 'field time'.  WTF does that have to do with how they are going to do THEIR job in combat?
> 
> Train the way you fight, fight the way you train.  For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force.



Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases?  

Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases?
> 
> Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?



I did BDF while posted to CFB Halifax. Upon my arrival to that posting, I was immediately sent onto Sea Environmental Course, then BDF Course (we did ranges and everything!), then Riot Control Course.  Two years later, I switched over to the NERT and was sent on the NERT training.

Also did BDF while posted to Trenton - we also did annual trg and ranges as part of their BDF (our Trg Staff were CABC guys).


----------



## George Wallace

I think much of this discussion is being tied up by people who are not clearly differentiating between "leadership training" and "Trades training" or specific "Environmental (hard Sea or Aircrew) training".  PLQ is just "Leadership" training.  The method that it is being done is not meant to be specific to any Trade, but to give training in how to produce and implement a plan.  Because it is, for the most part, infantry centric, does not mean that it is Infantry Trade related.  It is a common military 'platform' that all members of the CAF should be able to identify with, reflecting back to their Basic Training, and then use to adapt to their specific occupation once they complete the course.  If they can not learn the qualities of leadership from a PLQ due to them having "blinders" on and not being able to make those skills and knowledge transferable to their particular occupation, they may not be what we were looking for in 'leaders'.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think much of this discussion is being tied up by people who are not clearly differentiating between "leadership training" and "Trades training" or specific "Environmental (hard Sea or Aircrew) training".  PLQ is just "Leadership" training.  The method that it is being done is not meant to be specific to any Trade, but to give training in how to produce and implement a plan.  Because it is, for the most part, infantry centric, does not mean that it is Infantry Trade related.  It is a common military 'platform' that all members of the CAF should be able to identify with, reflecting back to their Basic Training, and then use to adapt to their specific occupation once they complete the course.  If they can not learn the qualities of leadership from a PLQ due to them having "blinders" on and not being able to make those skills and knowledge transferable to their particular occupation, they may not be what we were looking for in 'leaders'.



George, if the current iteration of the Army PLQ was indeed a "common military flatform" - even though you've admitted that it is "Infantry-centric", then the entire of the CAF would already be required to do it.

They aren't because it isn't.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases?
> 
> Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?



The WASF training, I have no idea who does it but I'll guess it's a combo of the Readiness Trg Flight, MPs and current WASF folks.  Regardless of their trg, it isn't going to be the same as having the Wing secured by a Coy of trained infanteers.   ;D

Personally, I wish we had something like these 2...

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/roles-finder/force-protection/raf-regiment-gunner/

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/AirfieldDefenceGuard/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think much of this discussion is being tied up by people who are not clearly differentiating between "leadership training" and "Trades training" or specific "Environmental (hard Sea or Aircrew) training".  PLQ is just "Leadership" training.  The method that it is being done is not meant to be specific to any Trade, but to give training in how to produce and implement a plan.  Because it is, for the most part, infantry centric, does not mean that it is Infantry Trade related.  It is a common military 'platform' that all members of the CAF should be able to identify with, reflecting back to their Basic Training, and then use to adapt to their specific occupation once they complete the course.  If they can not learn the qualities of leadership from a PLQ due to them having "blinders" on and not being able to make those skills and knowledge transferable to their particular occupation, they may not be what we were looking for in 'leaders'.



Quick question;  did you see anything wrong with the old JLC/CLC/ISCC days?


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Quick question;  did you see anything wrong with the old JLC/CLC/ISCC days?



Actually, you ended one post with that very point:  Too many "Good Idea Faeries" have over the years since taken a set of working crses and broken it them; thus throwing us all into this current discussion.   [


----------



## BinRat55

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases?
> 
> Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?



Funny story - I was the WSupO in Gander and while at a round table discussion the idea of a "Base Camp" IOT provide support to downed chopper defence in remote areas which included the defence element. Everyone at the table just looked at me for a moment... at which point I said "Well who else is gonna be the Honor Guard Commander?"

Then we went for beer.


----------



## Halifax Tar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases?
> 
> Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?



Mostly sailors, with guns.  Trained by sailors... Boatswains.  Actually BASF is more related to a Force Protection scenario than anything I did in the Army.   

Heaven above! I just remembered we dont even Army folks running the bedford ranges... Nope just Boatswains.  Teaching everything...

9mm, SIG, 870, MP5, C6, C7/8, C9 and even the .50 all taught bye boatswains!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases?
> 
> Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?



When I was posted to an AF base, eons ago, it normally ended up with all the Cbt Arms remuster guys being pulled out and put on the fence.

Same when it came to a Wing parade, quarter guards, etc, mostly Cbt Arms remuster guys. 

Saved the Wing Chief from having to learn drill. ;D


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> Same when it came to a Wing parade, quarter guards, etc, mostly Cbt Arms remuster guys.
> 
> Saved the Wing Chief from having to learn drill. ;D



 [

If it wasn't for three of us former Cbt Arms guys, my QL 5A Grad Parade would have been a real joke.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Mostly sailors, with guns.  Trained by sailors... Boatswains.  Actually BASF is more related to a Force Protection scenario than anything I did in the Army.
> 
> Heaven above! I just remembered we dont even Army folks running the bedford ranges... Nope just Boatswains.  Teaching everything...
> 
> 9mm, SIG, 870, MP5, C6, C7/8, C9 and even the .50 all taught bye boatswains!



 [

And you are worried about a couple of days in the woods playing silly bugger.   >


----------



## Fishbone Jones

You've got to read what I said previous. Whatever element, the final ex is a test of leadership. Can they organise? Can they lead? Can they give concise, proper orders? Can the candidate form a cohesive team, instill confidence in their team, maintain the aim, give clear direction and properly initiate and complete the mission.

I don't care if it's attacking a trench or fixing a hole in a boat or looking for a black box of a downed aircraft. Whatever the scenario, it needs to be urgent, stressfull and demanding.

These are JUNIOR leaders. This is their first exposure to command. We are giving them the basic leader\ teacher tools to START them on their career as a Supervisor. We're not training Combat Team Commanders here.

However, it would be nice to know that my purple trade clerk knows their weapon and basic infantry tactics in case Johnny Jihad and his buddies try breach the wire and they have to leave their keyboard and fill a hole in the fence.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> You've got to read what I said previous. Whatever element, the final ex is a test of leadership. Can they organise? Can they lead? Can they give concise, proper orders? Can the candidate form a cohesive team, instill confidence in their team, maintain the aim, give clear direction and properly initiate and complete the mission.
> 
> I don't care if it's attacking a trench or fixing a hole in a boat or looking for a black box of a downed aircraft. Whatever the scenario, it needs to be urgent, stressfull and demanding.
> 
> However, it would be nice to know that my purple trade clerk knows their weapon and basic infantry tactics in case Johnny Jihad and his buddies try breach the wire and they have to leave their keyboard and fill a hole in the fence.



I alluded to your previous post and pointed out that the candidates should be imaginative enough to take these lessons and transfer them to their occupations when they return to their units.  

Here is a youtube video that may be applicable to this discussion:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTlhfjjEWD0


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I alluded to your previous post and pointed out that the candidates should be imaginative enough to take these lessons and transfer them to their occupations when they return to their units.
> 
> Here is a youtube video that may be applicable to this discussion:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTlhfjjEWD0



It's a good one. I've used it as a teaching point more than once.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

George +1.

To this day, more than 15 years after retirement, I still make my bed first thing in the morning, and do it the Navy way I was taught in basic at Corwallis.

I do it for the reasons the Admiral mentions in that little video, plus one more reason: It drives my wife nuts !!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Force Protection.

In Afghanistan US army soldiers talked about no matter what trade they were they would end up being machine gunners on humvees. US Airforce did a lot of Force Protection and security and I seen some US Navy employed as FP as well.

With manning shortages doing some type of force protection job or security job is something every element or trade may find ourselves doing. Guarding a gate, searching detainee's, vehicle check points.   Having junior leaders placed in a leadership role for a FP orientated task  would make sense.

PLQ should be a gut check including shitty food, lack of sleep, shitty sleeping conditions. At least some exposure to that.

We can't afford to have leaders in any trade who spent the first part of their career dodging work, getting out of hard tasks and riding sick-chits. Part of that weeding out process is by making PLQ hard and stressful, not full of hugs, participation medals and "everyone passes".


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Force Protection.
> 
> In Afghanistan US army soldiers talked about no matter what trade they were they would end up being machine gunners on humvees. US Airforce did a lot of Force Protection and security and I seen some US Navy employed as FP as well.
> 
> With manning shortages doing some type of force protection job or security job is something every element or trade may find ourselves doing. Guarding a gate, searching detainee's, vehicle check points.   Having junior leaders placed in a leadership role for a FP orientated task  would make sense.
> 
> PLQ should be a gut check including shitty food, lack of sleep, shitty sleeping conditions. At least some exposure to that.
> 
> We can't afford to have leaders in any trade who spent the first part of their career dodging work, getting out of hard tasks and riding sick-chits. Part of that weeding out process is by making PLQ hard and stressful, not full of hugs, participation medals and "everyone passes".



So basically cocking the hell out out of someone for a week will make someone a better leader? I wholeheartedly disagree.

A good leader is a good leader. It can't be taught but it can be learned and applied through experience. Experiences vary based on what you're doing and where. A Cpl acting as Chief Clerk and doing a good job of it is demonstraring and emulating good leadership. An LS acting as Kitchen IC on ship will either sink or swim based on how he manages things and usually relies on his experience. Same goes for rifleman number 2 who took over as section IC and lead the patrol. 

Lets all see this for what it is: CMP called out CCA for trying to use the PLQ format to teach combat experience to Army Jnr NCOs. It costs money, time, and effort to train folks in a different stream. It also costs man hours doing ARs and PRBs that would not be required save for someone wearing the wrong DEU.


----------



## Jarnhamar

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> So basically cocking the hell out out of someone for a week will make someone a better leader? I wholeheartedly disagree.


That's the problem. Some people blow it out of proportion and consider shitty food, no sleep and some stress as getting the hell cocked out of them. It isn't. It's stress inoculation. I wasn't suggesting turning PLQ into BUDs hell week.



> A good leader is a good leader. It can't be taught but it can be learned and applied through experience. Experiences vary based on what you're doing and where. A Cpl acting as Chief Clerk and doing a good job of it is demonstraring and emulating good leadership. An LS acting as Kitchen IC on ship will either sink or swim based on how he manages things and usually relies on his experience. Same goes for rifleman number 2 who took over as section IC and lead the patrol.


Practically anyone can do a good or okay job when they're well rested, happy and well fed.  If someone is doing great in a leadership role but crumbles under pressure and stress then they aren't a good leader.



> Lets all see this for what it is: CMP called out CCA for trying to use the PLQ format to teach combat experience to Army Jnr NCOs. It costs money, time, and effort to train folks in a different stream. It also costs man hours doing ARs and PRBs that would not be required save for someone wearing the wrong DEU.


I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here my friend. Injecting combat experience into PLQ is bad?


----------



## PuckChaser

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> So basically cocking the hell out out of someone for a week will make someone a better leader? I wholeheartedly disagree.



You get what you want to get out of it. I learned how my body reacts to sleep dep, and hard work. I also learned how my peers reacted in different situations, and strategies to manage that work/rest cycle so I could help my soldiers push through being "tired" and get the job done. You could probably learn some of that by memorizing a book, but I'd rather learn it on a course, in Canada, with practically reinforced lessons, so when I'm out leading people under the stress of a warzone, its not the first time I've seen people sleep-f$%#ed before.

Why are you advocating taking difficulty out of courses? Maybe we should just make a 700 question scan-tron sheet, and if you don't pass it, you can't be a MCpl ever. Why bother having courses?


----------



## ballz

Force protection is a good point. There definitely is a theme amongst support trades that I disagree with, I assume it came from the years in Afghanistan, that "if I'm shooting my weapon, all the combat arms types are dead and the war is lost and we've already gone home."

I don't have much experience, but most still wearing the uniform don't have much experience in conventional, peer-to-peer warfare either. In that setting, with a mobile Brigade Group, there is not a plethora of combat arms types hanging around the Brigade Support Area or securing Brigade HQ as it jockeys main and second, or securing commodity points, etc. There is certainly not enough to go around, ever, as the Brigade Commander needs all of his fighting troops in the fight, not doing menial security tasks because support trades have spent too much time saying "well the Infantry will provide security" and not enough time training soldier skills. Every Infanteer sucked out of the fight to do Force protection in the rear is a serious consideration, we do not exist to pull sentry shifts for other units who can't be bothered with that soldiering stuff.

When I was a Pl Comd on Maple Resolve 14 (helmets on [), my company was attached to 2 Svc Bn. 3 platoons were not nearly enough, and we often found ourselves attached to 1 RCR, or to Bde 0, or to this or to that. We also had our own stability ops to execute in the destabilized rear area that had just been run over by a Brigade on the advance (Exercise scenario, of course). A lot of people in 2 Svc Bn learned real quick that there was more soldiering to their trade than they had realized, and that included manning gates and OPs, digging trenches, pulling shifts on sentry, building obstacles, and yes, responding to EN fire as it harassed the BSA most days and nights.

(Helmets off) Again, this was an exercise, but it did a good job exposing a lot of weaknesses in 2 CMBG (and there were a lot, for all trades, including the combat arms and the infantry). The little blurb above though, is relevant to this thread.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's the problem. Some people blow it out of proportion and consider shitty food, no sleep and some stress as getting the hell cocked out of them. It isn't. It's stress inoculation. I wasn't suggesting turning PLQ into BUDs hell week.



I would argue that stress is relative. 



> Practically anyone can do a good or okay job when their well rested, happy and well fed.  If someone is doing great in a leadership role but crumbles under pressure and stress then they aren't a good leader.



Again. Pressure and stress are relative. Leading a recce patrol shouldn't have to be the gold standard for pers that don't usually conduct them



> I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here my friend. Injecting combat experience into PLQ is bad?



I'm arguing experience and qualification are two veey different things. Should we work on getting personnel combat experience? If their position and job exposes them to it, so be it.

Should all CAF/CA personnel in all trades require it as a qualification for career advancement in their specific trade, hell to the no.


----------



## PuckChaser

ballz said:
			
		

> Force protection is a good point. There definitely is a theme amongst support trades that I disagree with, I assume it came from the years in Afghanistan, that "if I'm shooting my weapon, all the combat arms types are dead and the war is lost and we've already gone home."



There's a lot of leadership in the support trades that reinforce that, as well. The new troops see it and start to emulate. Those complaining about PLQ-A from behind their desk have gotten their way, and now trades like Sigs, Int, Medic lose valuable training.

Your "war" story is a perfect example of whats wrong with CS and CSS elements right now, and we continue to feed the lines at recruiting making the Army out to be like a desk job. Its pretty funny when a unit that is collecting LDA sees 50-60 members of a 350 person unit head to sick parade on the Friday before or Monday of departure prior to a 2 week exercise, desperately trying to get out of sleeping in Mod Tents and being mildly uncomfortable. They then look at you funny when you call them a disgrace and suggest they turn their LDA back into the Crown for real soldiers to use.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why are you advocating taking difficulty out of courses? Maybe we should just make a 700 question scan-tron sheet, and if you don't pass it, you can't be a MCpl ever. Why bother having courses?



I'm not advocating taking the difficulty out of courses. I'm advocating making training relative and cost effective for all pers involved.


----------



## blacktriangle

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe we should just make a 700 question scan-tron sheet, and if you don't pass it, you can't be a MCpl ever. Why bother having courses?



What would be wrong with having advancement exams?


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> PLQ should be a gut check including shitty food, lack of sleep, shitty sleeping conditions. At least some exposure to that.
> 
> We can't afford to have leaders in any trade who spent the first part of their career dodging work, getting out of hard tasks and riding sick-chits. Part of that weeding out process is by making PLQ hard and stressful, not full of hugs, participation medals and "everyone passes".



I fully agree. You need to be accustomed to stressfull situations.

Its not being fed "cock". You only "cock" yourself and your troops. Being fed IMPs, lack of sleep, lack of time etc is being trained. Being fed "cock" because someone is on a power trip is not on.


----------



## PuckChaser

Spectrum said:
			
		

> What would be wrong with having advancement exams?



To replace a PLQ? Promotion boards are a good idea, much like people doing PLQ before they're appointed MCpl.


----------



## RCPalmer

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I'm not advocating taking the difficulty out of courses. I'm advocating making training relative and cost effective for all pers involved.



To say that the PLQ (Army) field content is not relevant or cost effective reflects a very narrow view of the competencies the Army expects of its leaders.   

Honestly, I (and I don't think I am alone here) want every Army NCO to have some "fight" in them which entails a basic ability to grab onto the soldiers to their left and right, and take the fight to the enemy in an emergency.  An introduction to section level infantry tactics provides precisely that capability.  The exact same logic is applied to BMQ(A) for the troops, and BMOQ(A) for the officers. 

The other thing to keep in mind here is that the Army is going to figure out a way to bridge this gap.  It may take a year or two, but you will see it. It might be a redesigned field phase in your MOSID specific career course, an independant "Army Junior Leaders' Course", or an additional PLQ mod, but there will be something.


----------



## blacktriangle

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> To replace a PLQ? Promotion boards are a good idea, much like people doing PLQ before they're appointed MCpl.



I meant to complement the PLQ - i.e. once you enter promotion zone, you are eligible to write an advancement exam, with the results reflected in the annual PER. Exam scores could contribute to identifying who's ready to attend a career course. Totally agree that PLQ should be completed prior to appointment to MCpl.


----------



## RocketRichard

Speaking of PLQ, has much changed since I took CLC at PPCLI Battle School in 92'?


----------



## armyvern

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> The other thing to keep in mind here is that the Army is going to figure out a way to bridge this gap.  It may take a year or two, but you will see it. It might be a redesigned field phase in your MOSID specific career course, an independant "Army Junior Leaders' Course", or an additional PLQ mod, but there will be something.



Hmm, given that the Army was involved in this for almost a year now and that the CANFORGEN on the changed PLQ itself states that environments are to incorporate their perceived "gaps" into their own environmental trg, I would hope that it won't take a year or two.  They did know this was coming and had a seat at the big people's table.

And hopefully this time they get the environmental training done right too - in that ALL pers being posted into the Army environment have to complete it and not just those of us in an Army uniform.  If it's essential for me to fill some "gap" then it is also obviously essential for the MS, LS, LCdr etc coming into the Army to do the same jobs us purple Army wearing uniforms types do.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> *Hmm, given that the Army was involved in this for almost a year now and that the CANFORGEN on the changed PLQ itself states that environments are to incorporate their perceived "gaps" into their own environmental trg, I would hope that it won't take a year or two.  They did know this was coming and had a seat at the big people's table*.
> 
> And hopefully this time they get the environmental training done right too - in that ALL pers being posted into the Army environment have to complete it and not just those of us in an Army uniform.  If it's essential for me to fill some "gap" then it is also obviously essential for the MS, LS, LCdr etc coming into the Army to do the same jobs us purple Army wearing uniforms types do.



Interesting on that considering for most trades the only environment training they get is on BMQ-L....


----------



## PuckChaser

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Interesting on that considering for most trades the only environment training they get is on BMQ-L....



And they keep cutting that down, too.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

:whiteflag: 

I stated my opinion on the current situation based on my 9 years in an Army uniform. Experiences vary, and thus my belief is that training should vary to meet that need. A national qualification should not. Should we have a separate army leadership course? Perhaps. That need should be, and most likely will be, identified by CCA when the time comes. For now, lets see how this works before we curse the "weaker" Army and long for back to the "good old days."

I will humbly bow out from this discussion and spectate for the time being and will agree to disagree.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And they keep cutting that down, too.



I know.... as a Combat engineer the only time we see the field on any course is either BMQ-L or PLQ all of our courses are done in garrison with no field time...


----------



## armyvern

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Interesting on that considering for most trades the only environment training they get is on BMQ-L....



Right ... unless they don't wear an Army uniform, then they don't get that either.  There's also a CANFORGEN from way back when that precludes certain trades' Naval and RCAF pers from undergoing even the SQ.  That's why I posted that the Army must win the battle to have ALL pers regardless of uniform colour who are posted into the Army undergo LET.


----------



## PuckChaser

The RCN would lose its mind if CA pers were not obligated to do NETP prior to going to sea. You're posted to Land unit? Here's your BMQ-L (if you don't already have it). Oh you're a PO2? Don't care.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The RCN would lose its mind if CA pers were not obligated to do NETP prior to going to sea. You're posted to Land unit? Here's your BMQ-L (if you don't already have it). Oh you're a PO2? Don't care.



Kinda like how we had some SNCO's that didn't want to be a WWB course with people they taught in the past.....before you ask, someone somewhere misplaced the paper work from the Winter Indoc courses that we used to run to have the PLAR done on them...


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:
			
		

> Force protection is a good point. There definitely is a theme amongst support trades that I disagree with, I assume it came from the years in Afghanistan, that "if I'm shooting my weapon, all the combat arms types are dead and the war is lost and we've already gone home."
> 
> I don't have much experience, but most still wearing the uniform don't have much experience in conventional, peer-to-peer warfare either. In that setting, with a mobile Brigade Group, there is not a plethora of combat arms types hanging around the Brigade Support Area or securing Brigade HQ as it jockeys main and second, or securing commodity points, etc. There is certainly not enough to go around, ever, as the Brigade Commander needs all of his fighting troops in the fight, not doing menial security tasks because support trades have spent too much time saying "well the Infantry will provide security" and not enough time training soldier skills. Every Infanteer sucked out of the fight to do Force protection in the rear is a serious consideration, we do not exist to pull sentry shifts for other units who can't be bothered with that soldiering stuff.
> 
> When I was a Pl Comd on Maple Resolve 14 (helmets on [), my company was attached to 2 Svc Bn. 3 platoons were not nearly enough, and we often found ourselves attached to 1 RCR, or to Bde 0, or to this or to that. We also had our own stability ops to execute in the destabilized rear area that had just been run over by a Brigade on the advance (Exercise scenario, of course). A lot of people in 2 Svc Bn learned real quick that there was more soldiering to their trade than they had realized, and that included manning gates and OPs, digging trenches, pulling shifts on sentry, building obstacles, and yes, responding to EN fire as it harassed the BSA most days and nights.
> 
> (Helmets off) Again, this was an exercise, but it did a good job exposing a lot of weaknesses in 2 CMBG (and there were a lot, for all trades, including the combat arms and the infantry). The little blurb above though, is relevant to this thread.



In the UK 3 Cdo Bde and 16 Air Asslt Bde puts everyone, regardless of rank or trade, through either the Commando Course or Pre-Parachute Selection on the theory that everyone needs to be able to fight if required.

Amongst others I had dentists, engineers, cooks and helicopter crew members in my section on both courses. Most did very well for non-infantry types. Some flamed out as they weren't up to it, as did some infantry types.

I'm not saying we need to do exactly the same, but when you're selecting for leaders you need to put people under pressure in a controlled, high intensity, personally uncomfortable environment or you will wind up with c@ap out the other end. A dirt/field based learning environment is perfect for that purpose.

That's one of the main reasons behind the Royal Navy, paradoxically, inventing 'Outward Bound' leadership/ character development training in WW2.

"Outward Bound's founding mission was to give young seamen the ability to survive harsh conditions at sea by teaching confidence, tenacity, perseverance and to build experience of harsh conditions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outward_Bound


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm not saying we need to do exactly the same, but when you're selecting for leaders you need to put people under pressure in a controlled, high intensity, personally uncomfortable environment or you will wind up with c@ap out the other end. A dirt/field based learning environment is perfect for that purpose.



A few of us have been using that as our reasoning throughout this discussion.  

We are after-all discussing "Leadership" training; not "environmental/occupation specific" training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm not saying we need to do exactly the same, but when you're selecting for leaders you need to put people under pressure in a controlled, high intensity, personally uncomfortable environment or you will wind up with c@ap out the other end. A dirt/field based learning environment is perfect for army-environment folks for that purpose.



I agree but will add I am a fan of the 'fight the way you train, train the way you fight' mentality.  Air Force fight in aircraft, Navy fight on ships.  Make the JNCO leadership training and leadership assessment at the JNCO level fight where they are most likely going to be fighting; the stress will come out.  I would rather see the RCAF 'field portion' be centered around CSAR/SERE situations rather than section attacks and recce patrols.  Finding/assisting downed aircraft and aircrew.  Fighting a hanger fire.  That type of stuff.

On the flip side of the coin, consider how well received doing what I suggested above for RCAF JNCO trg/assessments WRT to PLQ would be to the army folks in the crowd.  Not very well, because it wouldn't develop the useable skills they want in army JNCOs.  Now that I am aircrew (former cbt arms), I feel the same way about section attacks and recce patrols for RCAF people.  There are better tools that are more relevant that produce the same trg benefits and exercise the same junior leadership skills.

The Army shouldn't dictate the content of PLQ trg and Jnr leadership trg to the RCN and the RCAF anymore than the RCN and RCAF should dictate it to the Army.  ILQ is common to all, PLQ can be as well.  I've said it a few times, PLQ isn't the start or finish point for JNCO development.  Well, it shouldn't be.  If it is, the CAF has a far bigger leadership problem in the NCO & Warrant Officers ranks than it does with this PLQ gong show.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The RCN would lose its mind if CA pers were not obligated to do NETP prior to going to sea. You're posted to Land unit? Here's your BMQ-L (if you don't already have it). Oh you're a PO2? Don't care.



NETP is a requirement to be a crew member of any HMC Ship.  Not to mention the massive amount of trg that is required once you get to said ship.  The CA has no choice or say in this matter.  Its a non player.  In fact this statement really a red herring.

You know how to solve getting PO2s with no field time ?  Stop posting them to the field.  

Pressure and high intensity can be replicated in many ways including ways of relevant subject matter to your audience.  The field has no application or relevance to sea duty.  None. Zero. Zilch.  You can replicate this in any plethora of DC scenarios that would build on existing leadership while marinating relevance to RCN sailors. 

FYI for those of you with experience in only the field,  it is not the only austere environment we have in the CAF.  And it isn't even always the most uncomfortable.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Pressure and high intensity can be replicated in many ways including ways of relevant subject matter to your audience.  The field has no application or relevance to sea duty.  None. Zero. Zilch.  You can replicate this in any plethora of DC scenarios that would build on existing leadership while marinating relevance to RCN sailors.
> 
> FYI for those of you with experience in only the field,  it is not the only austere environment we have in the CAF.  And it isn't even always the most uncomfortable.



True.  Pressure and high intensity can be replicated in many ways.  

The real question is what is most readily available, the simplest and cheapest?


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> And it isn't even always the most uncomfortable.



Clearly you've never taken a snow shower in January. 

I'm inclined to agree with the PLQ as a baseline, like ILP or ALP.  Then each element/trade group or whatever have their own mod added on that is most relevant and if they happen.  Then provide a delta package or whatever to those trades that might be posted in or attached.


----------



## BinRat55

I have written and rewritten this post a dozen times, but I am struggling with the way to make a point, so here is one more attempt:

Initially, I need my MCpls to have a working knowledge of the remedial system, both administrative and disciplinary. I need them to have a good knowledge of their AOR and AOF. I also need them to have a better than average knowledge of CFPAS (PER / PDR / Assessment abilities) and a good command of the English language. Job knowledge is important as well, however, much like writing patrol orders, running a range and conducting a section attack, this can be taught secondary. 

No where in the CFPAS word picture book does it indicate that its desirable for a Cpl to perform these "field tasks" to become a MCpl. 

I fought to teach field craft and such in some units that don't do field time and was pretty much shot down. I was asked / begged / told to teach same to units who have purple trades who do field time.

So where am I going with this? I really don't know. But I know this - I know that at the end of the day I want - need - a good MCpl who can manage a section (or two) using a combination of confidence, knowledge, common sense and professionalism. Unfortunately, none of this is in the PLQ - any of them!


----------



## Halifax Tar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> True.  Pressure and high intensity can be replicated in many ways.
> 
> The real question is what is most readily available, the simplest and cheapest?



For the RCN is it most defiantly the trg establishments withing the RCN sphere.  Not to mention the resounding relevance and continued progression for seamanship knowledge and leadership. 

Readily Available ?  Check.  They already conduct their own CF PLQs.  Simplest? Check.  All the required facilities already exist, as well as the knowledge base.  Cheapest ?  You bet.  No need to TDs and other such related costs.


----------



## BinRat55

Remius said:
			
		

> Clearly you've never taken a snow shower in January.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with the PLQ as a baseline, like ILP or ALP.  Then each element/trade group or whatever have their own mod added on that is most relevant and if they happen.  Then provide a delta package or whatever to those trades that might be posted in or attached.



Yes - exactly - like a baseline. Common to all based on what we need the junior leader to be able to accomplish in any / all settings regardless. Plug-and-play the remainder and call it "employability factor". If a MCpl want's to be posted to the HMCS Victory, then prior to posting he / she must take that part of the PLQ which expands on how to be a leader at sea. That sorta thing. It's almost akin to needing the 3K course prior to being posted to CFS Alert.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:
			
		

> Clearly you've never taken a snow shower in January.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with the PLQ as a baseline, like ILP or ALP.  Then each element/trade group or whatever have their own mod added on that is most relevant and if they happen.  Then provide a delta package or whatever to those trades that might be posted in or attached.



Cearly you've never spent time on the Grand Banks or Flemish Cap in January.   

The only time in my career I have ever questioned my life choices were at sea.   

Your second paragraph sounds like an excellent COA.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Or off Cape Mendecino... Ulp. Gag.

Give me a wet trench any day, over that....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A word of caution BinRat55. It's either HMS VICTORY (no "C") or RCSCC VICTORY. We, in Commonwealth navies, take reference to the VICTORY very seriously, and it is not repeat not to be used as a term for "just any warship".

If you had said " if a Mcpl wants to be posted to HMCS Whichever", that would have been fine - but not a reference to VICTORY.

As for stressing environments, yes, the sea can be just as much of  a stressing or sleep depriving environment, if not more. However, at a leadership course level, reproduction of this stressful environment is difficult. As George said only a few posts ago, the land environment is simply the environment where this stressing can be done the easiest, fastest and cheapest.

Don't believe it? Here is an episode from a series of four show made for TV a few years back in England that follows a group of entry officers in the R.N. at Dartmouth college: They chose to do their leadership phase the "army" way in the moors specifically for that reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2zaocVi_XU


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't believe it? Here is an episode from a series of four show made for TV a few years back in England that follows a group of entry officers in the R.N. at Dartmouth college: They chose to do their leadership phase the "army" way in the moors specifically for that reason:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2zaocVi_XU



The RN is not where the RCN should be getting its leadership ideas from.  We tried that before.  Mainguy Report anyone ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am not advocating adopting RN practices in anything.

I simply put that out there because you don't get too many organizations more naval oriented than the Royal Navy. If it feels that using an "army" leadership training environment because, as they themselves indicate, it is the easiest, fastest and most efficient way of inducing the stress required to develop and evaluate the leadership skills of its personnel, it is probably because it is. 

BTW, a personal opinion here, in the Navy we do base defence, harbour defence, boardings, beach landing coordination (on the beach), demolition, aid to civil powers (I did: recalled for the Oka crisis) etc. It seems to me that training that gets our people more confident in the use of weapons in a tactical situation, even if the army way, is not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## PuckChaser

The real issue here is that CMP didn't have a good enough grip on its managed trades, and created a double standard for Sup Tech and RMS. Instead of fixing that by removing for all our requiring for all, hard Army trades who aren't infantry lose valuable training.


----------



## BinRat55

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A word of caution BinRat55. It's either HMS VICTORY (no "C") or RCSCC VICTORY. We, in Commonwealth navies, take reference to the VICTORY very seriously, and it is not repeat not to be used as a term for "just any warship".
> 
> If you had said " if a Mcpl wants to be posted to HMCS Whichever", that would have been fine - but not a reference to VICTORY.



It was a fictitious reference. WORD victory just happened to come to mind, that's all. If I have offended you in any way, i'm sorry. 

So, in jest, I have to tell you that the word "repeat" is an artillery term. I think what you meant to say was "I say again..."


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> BTW, a personal opinion here, in the Navy we do base defence, harbour defence, boardings, beach landing coordination (on the beach), demolition, aid to civil powers (I did: recalled for the Oka crisis) etc. It seems to me that training that gets our people more confident in the use of weapons in a tactical situation, even if the army way, is not necessarily a bad thing.



OGB have you retired from the RCN ?  Boatswains already teach "tactical" shooting.  Not to mention the newly minted ENBP.  In fact I recieved more instruction on "tactical" shooting while with the RCN than I did with any any unit I was in with the CA. You do realize every member of the Force Pro now does a famil shoot before entering harbour right ?  And every duty watch must go over the function test, and stopages and IAs on C8 right ?  So this equates to roughly 3 times a month the whole ships company is put through weapons handling drills.  This is on top of their yearly quals.

Lastly on the whole weapons handling thing, harbour and base defence is not a tactical shooting arena.  Checking IDs at gates and keeping watch on the boom are deterence and self defence based shooting scenarios at best.  All it calls for is basic marksmanship.

Beach landing coordination ?  You are not seroiusly going to throw this out as supporting factor are you ? Demolition we have people for that.  Clearance Divers and Boatswains to a minor extent.  
. 
I think you highly underestimate the available trg and quality of the trg that is provided to sailors now.  Especially when it comes to SA handling. 

I fail to see how shipping our people off to train in an environment they are not experienced in to learn skills they will never use after the course, could been seen as valuable or an effective use of resources.


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... hard Army trades who aren't infantry lose valuable training.



Well, they shouldn't lose anything. Have you even bothered to read the entire CANFORGEN?  It clearly states that environments are to develop and deliver the requisite "gap" trg that they believe exist, but that the PLQ will now be a a CAF common-to-all baseline course.

And, if it is so important, then the Cdn Army should already have their plan in place: they partook in the discussions regarding the new PLQ Course and have been involved for a year now.

FFS.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, they shouldn't lose anything. Have you even bothered to read the entire CANFORGEN?  It clearly states that environments are to develop and deliver the requisite "gap" trg that they believe exist, but that the *PLQ will now be a a CAF common-to-all baseline course*.
> 
> FFS.



So now another almost impossible to fail course... ;D


----------



## armyvern

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> So now another almost impossible to fail course... ;D



Not from what I've seen out there ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> So now another almost impossible to fail course... ;D





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not from what I've seen out there ...



I've heard differently from one that just ran at Wainwright...


----------



## PuckChaser

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, they shouldn't lose anything. Have you even bothered to read the entire CANFORGEN?  It clearly states that environments are to develop and deliver the requisite "gap" trg that they believe exist, but that the PLQ will now be a a CAF common-to-all baseline course.
> 
> And, if it is so important, then the Cdn Army should already have their plan in place: they partook in the discussions regarding the new PLQ Course and have been involved for a year now.
> 
> FFS.



Not at work, and no one bothered to post it here.

So what you're saying is that PLQ-A was cancelled, and now the CA has to design "gap training" to replace it? In what Bizzaro world does that make sense? We already had the training, it was certain trades (read: purple trades) where the training was misapplied to half a trade. Its the RCAF and RCN who haven't designed environmental leadership training, either because their senior leadership didn't deem it valuable, nobody thought of it, or they figured their purple trades got enough training from PLQ-A that would work.

By cancelling PLQ-A before the new training is ready, we've created a 3-tier MCpl system, where some will have the old course, some will have this cut down course, and some will have the new course. It makes no sense to cancel training before another course is ready. If there was issues with certain trades, remove those trades from having to complete it, and leave the remainder alone.

FFS.


----------



## BinRat55

Those who are course loaded for the new course will need to be wearing the LOTB. No boot get the boot.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist! The parallels here are fun!


----------



## PuckChaser

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Those who are course loaded for the new course will need to be wearing the LOTB. No boot get the boot.
> 
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist! The parallels here are fun!



Too funny!


----------



## Sig_Des

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I've heard differently from one that just ran at Wainwright...



I did my PLQ Mod 6 in Gagetown in 2012. I remember being asked on an inspection if I thought this was an attendance course... as far as standards it seemed to me that it was. There did also seem to be a bit of a two-tier system when it came to assessing a hard army member vs a purple trade member on a task like a Recce patrol (which I understand, as one of our section members was a 10 year supply tech who had never done section attacks, recce patrols or defensive).

If PLQ is to be a check-in-the box baseline course, fine. It's happening, and I'm on board, especially if there's a distinct environmental mod. However, what will the requirement be for members to complete the individual service specific training once implemented? Will it be rank requirement? Will a member now need to complete 3 separate course (Trade Qual + Leadership Qual + ISST) to be a substantive MCpl/MS? What will the timelines look like?


----------



## BinRat55

My first posting was in Petawawa. My "distinct environmental mod" consisted of Vern beating me with a shovel and popping rocks off my brain-bucket down at 5 Fingers!

I think I turned out ok.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its the RCAF and RCN who haven't designed environmental leadership training, either because their senior leadership didn't deem it valuable, nobody thought of it, or they figured their purple trades got enough training from PLQ-A that would work.



I can't speak for the RCN.  In my part of the RCAF world, however, 'leadership trg' isn't left solely in the hands of PLQ instructors.  In the crew environment, Pte's and Cpl's get mentored by MCpl's and Sgt's primarily, MCpl's get mentored by Sgt's and WO's, and so on.

RCAF do a BAEQ course.  Then PLQ.  After PLQ, folks posted to RCAF units have a year to complete IAEQ after they are promoted Sgt and that is for all pers posted to RCAF units.  It seems to me that most RCAF folks see the CF PLQ as sufficient for what it is supposed to do, develop the new Jnr NCOs into being better Jnr NCOs.  It is not, and never was, designed to make everyone fully conversant in their duties and JNCOs. 

The Air Force did have a course called PAEQ that all JNCOs had to do before or after PLQ called PAEQ.  However, it was discontinued a few years ago.  

I'll ask again;  if ILP is working, and has been for years (I did SLC in 2002...before it was called ILQ) as a 'common' course for SNCOs moving on into the Warrant Officer world, why is a 'common' PLQ so insufficient for JNCO baseline training?  Everyone understood that SLC/ILQ was not the 'total solution' for trg required for all trades Sgt's who were going to be WOs.  I think we just need to accept the same fact for PLQ, let the Navy, Air Force and Army deliver its own leadership trg and move on to something more pressing...


----------



## BinRat55

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can't speak for the RCN.  In my part of the RCAF world, however, 'leadership trg' isn't left solely in the hands of PLQ instructors.  In the crew environment, Pte's and Cpl's get mentored by MCpl's and Sgt's primarily, MCpl's get mentored by Sgt's and WO's, and so on.
> 
> RCAF do a BAEQ course.  Then PLQ.  After PLQ, folks posted to RCAF units have a year to complete IAEQ after they are promoted Sgt and that is for all pers posted to RCAF units.  It seems to me that most RCAF folks see the CF PLQ as sufficient for what it is supposed to do, develop the new Jnr NCOs into being better Jnr NCOs.  It is not, and never was, designed to make everyone fully conversant in their duties and JNCOs.
> 
> I'll ask again;  if ILP is working, and has been for years (I did SLC in 2002...before it was called ILQ) as a 'common' course for SNCOs moving on into the Warrant Officer world, why is a 'common' PLQ so insufficient for JNCO baseline training?  Everyone understood that SLC/ILQ was not the 'total solution' for trg required for all trades Sgt's who were going to be WOs.  I think we just need to accept the same fact for PLQ, let the Navy, Air Force and Army deliver its own leadership trg and move on to something more pressing...



Something else I did several years ago with the AF was something called "Sgts Seminar" - It was in Shearwater and I was told all Sr NCOs in the Air world had to do it. I honestly think considering the application to "leadership" it was the best and most informative course I have ever done. We were given a afternoon with a Col who sat on and ran several PER boards with careers. We were allowed to pepper him all aft with questions. VERY informative! We learned how to do a proper introduction, a proper interview, AJAG was with us for hours on the ins / outs / dos / donts of SIs and RDPs. There was PER writing discussions, command structure, how to conduct ones self at a mess dinner...

I loved it. Cantcha tell?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Something else I did several years ago with the AF was something called "Sgts Seminar" - It was in Shearwater and I was told all Sr NCOs in the Air world had to do it. I honestly think considering the application to "leadership" it was the best and most informative course I have ever done. We were given a afternoon with a Col who sat on and ran several PER boards with careers. We were allowed to pepper him all aft with questions. VERY informative! We learned how to do a proper introduction, a proper interview, AJAG was with us for hours on the ins / outs / dos / donts of SIs and RDPs. There was PER writing discussions, command structure, how to conduct ones self at a mess dinner...
> 
> I loved it. Cantcha tell?



The Sgt's Seminar is now called IAEQ, still delivered at the Wings but I believe the QS/TP is owned by the RCAF Academy in Borden.  IIRC it is a 4 day (maybe 5?) course.


----------



## BinRat55

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The Sgt's Seminar is now called IAEQ, still delivered at the Wings but I believe the QS/TP is owned by the RCAF Academy in Borden.  IIRC it is a 4 day (maybe 5?) course.



I wholeheartedly believe (caveat: as long as they are still close to the same training plan / QS that I saw) that all Sr NCOs should do this. I realize our ILP is similar, but it really isn't. ILP was great, but this... this is smaller, closer to what a day-to-day Sgt or WO would do.


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that PLQ-A was cancelled, and now the CA has to design "gap training" to replace it? In what Bizzaro world does that make sense? We already had the training, it was certain trades (read: purple trades) where the training was misapplied to half a trade.



The CA are the ones saying they need "this" and "that" over and above what the RCN and RCAF are doing.  They simply need to take "this and that" and make it a mod to be done by any MCpl/MS and above being posted into the Cdn Army environment (just like the new CANFORGEN says).  Too freaking simple.

BTW, I haven't always been Army.  I was RCAF (because I looked better in blue).  I did a JLC at the alphabet school in Borden where my "field" consisted of getting on a bus in front of the Mess Hall at 0730hrs one morning, being dropped into the "field" at they Angus gate (the "Y" intersection) and doing a small party task and being back to the shacks by 1600hrs.

I have served in all of our Commands.  I seem to have made out just fine leadership-wise:  especially so within the Army given where I actually sit today.  I'm here to tell you that the world is not going to end despite all those protesting otherwise.


----------



## OldSolduer

:goodpost:

I been around a few days and I've seen CLC, ISCC, PLQ etc come and go.

The raw material is the same - young Canadians stepping up to be challenged. 

As long as they are being taught what they need to know, they'll be fine.


----------



## meni0n

So the army has released a new CANFORGEN detailing a new Army Junior Leadership Course to take place following the completion of the Mod 3 of the PLQ. It looks like it will be a copy of the old Mod 4. One thing that is a bit confusing is that they make reference to a paragraph 4 in an older CANFORGEN where a list of CA and NON-CA Managed occupations were listed that had to do PLQ-L but only mention CA occupations. The way I read the new CANFORGEN, only CA occupations will be required to do the new AJLC course. If someone saw the new CANFORGEN, can you chime in and confirm that or is it not very clearly written?


----------



## armyvern

meni0n said:
			
		

> So the army has released a new CANFORGEN detailing a new Army Junior Leadership Course to take place following the completion of the Mod 3 of the PLQ. It looks like it will be a copy of the old Mod 4. One thing that is a bit confusing is that they make reference to a paragraph 4 in an older CANFORGEN where a list of CA and NON-CA Managed occupations were listed that had to do PLQ-L but only mention CA occupations. The way I read the new CANFORGEN, only CA occupations will be required to do the new AJLC course. If someone saw the new CANFORGEN, can you chime in and confirm that or is it not very clearly written?



Same way we are reading it here - believe the CMs of the non-Army occs will have to cut further message(s) to clarify which purples trades will undergo the training from this bit of the latest:



> STUDENT NOMINATIONS FOR INFMN, CRMN, AND ARTYMN WILL REMAIN AT THE DISCRETION AND SUGGESTION OF UNIT COS. STUDENT NOMINATION FOR THE REMAINING MOSIDS OUTLINED IN REF B, WILL REMAIN WITH THE RESPECTIVE CMS. ALL CA STUDENTS UNDERGOING TRAINING AT CA TES WILL BE COURSE LOADED BY CTCHQ STAFF


----------



## meni0n

Vern,

Actually I think that last bit just reiterates that CMs are responsible for submitting nominations for the new PLQ course as before. But it also specifically mentions that for CA occupations it is CTC that will be course loading. From that line it looks like CTC will no longer be course loading non-managed CA occupations.

 If they take the list of the non-army managed occupations from before and just apply it to the new AJLC, I don't really see what was the whole point of this as it's back to what it was originally. This is a bit confusing.


----------



## sidemount

Situation.....No Change

literally....the wording shows no change from how it was with PLQ-L or PLQ-A or whatever they want to call it this week. :facepalm:


----------



## meni0n

Well no, the big difference is that they keep referring to CA occupations and make no mention of NON-CA managed ones. Oh, and that there is a AJLC now. And that there is also a possibility of someone getting loaded on a PLQ common course and then waiting a while for the AJLC although it specifically states that  CA occupations will do AJLC right after PLQ which means that they can only get sent to training establishments for their PLQ that also run AJLC. Is this confusing enough?


----------



## acen

Any info on the transition from current PLQ Mod 1-4 to the new system? I'm away from DWAN.


----------



## CountDC

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Yes. An amazing point. I honestly don't understand why this hasn't been fixed already. Since January alone, I personally (not second hand - personally) know of 5 people who were promoted a few years ago and now have to relinquish their leaf. What a waste - not their fault, but time and resources.



use to work dealing with these - was getting at least one a month for mbrs losing the leaf.  Worse case I saw was a guy that was 7 years a master and had to drop leaf as he failed the PLQ.  Never been a fan of Acting Lacking as it became so over abused and an easy way out rather than fixing the training system and running more courses to get everyone qualified.


----------



## dapaterson

A/L has permitted the system to paper over the failure of the training system to provide the necessary number of seats on courses.

It should be stopped, but no one is willing to make that draconian a step.


----------



## armyvern

meni0n said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> If they take the list of the non-army managed occupations from before and just apply it to the new AJLC, I don't really see what was the whole point of this as it's back to what it was originally. This is a bit confusing.



Exactly; if that's the way they intended it, then a MS or MCpl RCAF Sup tech type still has a differing standard while employed in the Army in a MCpl Sup tech (or any purple) posn ... and a different standard for promotion/rank retention despite a single merit list for the entire trade regardless of uniform colour.  Nothing would be solved.


----------



## armyvern

meni0n said:
			
		

> Well no, the big difference is that they keep referring to CA occupations and make no mention of NON-CA managed ones. Oh, and that there is a AJLC now. And that there is also a possibility of someone getting loaded on a PLQ common course and then waiting a while for the AJLC although it specifically states that  CA occupations will do AJLC right after PLQ which means that they can only get sent to training establishments for their PLQ that also run AJLC. Is this confusing enough?



And that's our thoughts.  That CMs can still decide as to which non-CA managed occs go onwards to complete the AJLC (PLQ follow-up) ...

It'll be interesting to see if careers keeps the same purple list requirements as previous messages and, if so, do purple guys who wear the Army uniform take down their MCpls if they fail to complete the AJLC while their RCAF and RCN counterparts retain rank while never having to attempt it ... If so, then the grievance based upon 1 trade with a single merit list but two standards would still be applicable.

OR

Do the CMs deem that all purple occs will undergo the AJLC as they are all subject to posting into that environment regardless of uniform colour. If so, no room for found grievance.

OR

Do the CMs decide, why bother sending anyone?

Time will tell what exactly they come up with.


----------



## meni0n

From my understanding and the tone of the new CANFORGEN is that the AJLC only applies to army occupations. I guess we will have to wait and see until June if that is the case as that's when they start running the new PLQ.


----------



## timed

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Currently teaching drill, a skill class and knowledge class all fall under the same PO. What does that mean?  If you fail your first hard assess on drill you will go right to formal warning. If you pass your drill class retest and fail on your first skill class (or knowledge) you will go right to PRB (progress review board). If they don't give you another chance you're on your way home.
> 
> Find someone and practice teaching them drill, a skill class and knowledge class. Find a lesson plan on something and practice talking for 40 minutes straight.



Do you have to teach in PLQ for 40 mins straight?


----------



## George Wallace

timed said:
			
		

> Do you have to teach in PLQ for 40 mins straight?



It will depend on how well organized and knowledgeable you are on your subject matter; and who your DS are.  If your DS figures that you have a firm grip on what you are teaching and you are covering all the "Teaching Points" in order, they may cut you short on portions, or all and SUM you up.  If you are weak in your presentation, you may have to go the full length of the class.  If you are under your allotted time or go over your allotted time, depending on the class you are teaching, you can also be penalized.  

Is there one answer to your question?  No.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Regardless, you'll have to be able to teach for 40 mins in real life after PLQ...sometimes 8 x 40 minute periods a day.


----------



## Jarnhamar

timed said:
			
		

> Do you have to teach in PLQ for 40 mins straight?



Going over or under by 5 minutes used to be a critical fail, meaning you fail the whole thing.  It's recently been changed so you just lose x points. If you teach a 40 minute lesson in 9 minutes or something silly you'll still fail since it's ineffective.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Some lessons can be a real B to get up to 40 min


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Some lessons can be a real B to get up to 40 min



Like mounting and dismounting the  BFA  on a C6   :facepalm:


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like mounting and dismounting the  BFA  on a C6   :facepalm:



or of RCEME Common, 40 min to teach what a screw driver is, I swear who comes up with some of these time frames?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> or of RCEME Common, 40 min to teach what a screw driver is, I swear who comes up with some of these time frames?



I could easily come up with at least one, if not more, 40 min lessons on screwdrivers. ;D

Try do a 15 min on a common wire paperclip or a thumbtack.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe MOI should focus on actually useful things.  I've taken, and taught, on CLC/JNCO/PLQ/whatever it may haven been called and never head of LPs on thumb tacks and screw drivers!


----------



## Collin.t

Question: I did basic back in 2001, now MS hard sea trade, PLQ qualified in 2013, if I were to remuster to a purple trade (comm rsch) that has to do PLQ-L how would it work once I get back into the promotion zone?

Since I never did SQ, would I have to do SQ and then APLQ?


----------



## CombatMacguyver

Bender842 said:
			
		

> Question: I did basic back in 2001, now MS hard sea trade, PLQ qualified in 2013, if I were to remuster to a purple trade (comm rsch) that has to do PLQ-L how would it work once I get back into the promotion zone?
> 
> Since I never did SQ, would I have to do SQ and then APLQ?



I'm fairly certain that Comms Rsrch doesn't do PLQ-A, or SQ.  That being said if you switched to a trade that needed PLQ-A and SQ, you'd be hard pressed to get a PLAR (from what I've seen lately)


----------



## Collin.t

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> I'm fairly certain that Comms Rsrch doesn't do PLQ-A, or SQ.  That being said if you switched to a trade that needed PLQ-A and SQ, you'd be hard pressed to get a PLAR (from what I've seen lately)



Unfortunately they do SQ and PLQ-A, or whatever it's called this week. It seems to me they should do like the navy, train as required, no every purple trade will go to sea but they all have the potential to, yet we don't send them all on NETP.


----------



## CombatMacguyver

Bender842 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately they do SQ and PLQ-A, or whatever it's called this week. It seems to me they should do like the navy, train as required, no every purple trade will go to sea but they all have the potential to, yet we don't send them all on NETP.



Are you certain?  Because there are a few Army trades that don't do PLQ-A but PLQ-common.  And there are still more purple trades that don't do it.  EGS techs for example do the common PLQ, and _maybe_ SQ (unlikely).

Seems odd that comms rsrch would do it...

That being said, "train as needed" is foreign to the Army.  Otherwise we wouldn't have mechanics and gun-plumbers pepper-potting for miles, or supply technicians with jump wings...


----------



## dapaterson

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> ... or supply technicians with jump wings...



A Sup Tech specialty is rigger - the folks who check, prep and pack parachutes.  Kind of a good idea to give them some skin in the game...


----------



## McG

Bender842 said:
			
		

> Question: I did basic back in 2001, now MS hard sea trade, PLQ qualified in 2013, if I were to remuster to a purple trade (comm rsch) that has to do PLQ-L how would it work once I get back into the promotion zone?
> 
> Since I never did SQ, would I have to do SQ and then APLQ?


Environmental variants of PLQ no longer exist.  Army Junior Leadership Course is now a course that is delivered after PLQ.  If it is required for promotion in your new occupation, you would have to do it for promotion.


----------



## Collin.t

MCG said:
			
		

> Environmental variants of PLQ no longer exist.  Army Junior Leadership Course is now a course that is delivered after PLQ.  If it is required for promotion in your new occupation, you would have to do it for promotion.




Thanks for the solid answer, now next step, what is AJLC? a rebranded MOD 6 field phase?


----------



## McG

Bender842 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the solid answer, now next step, what is AJLC? a rebranded field phase?


Yes.  See CANFORGEN 080/16.


----------



## PuckChaser

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Are you certain?  Because there are a few Army trades that don't do PLQ-A but PLQ-common.  And there are still more purple trades that don't do it.  EGS techs for example do the common PLQ, and _maybe_ SQ (unlikely).
> 
> Seems odd that comms rsrch would do it...
> 
> That being said, "train as needed" is foreign to the Army.  Otherwise we wouldn't have mechanics and gun-plumbers pepper-potting for miles, or supply technicians with jump wings...


50% of the Comm Rsch trade is employed at 21EW which is an Army field unit. That's why you're doing SQ and AJLC.


----------



## CombatMacguyver

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 50% of the Comm Rsch trade is employed at 21EW which is an Army field unit. That's why you're doing SQ and AJLC.



"They're doing it", I'm not comms rsrch, just wanted to clarify.

There can't be many of them.  21EW doesn't seem to have too many people on their side of the building.  Unless they're spread out all over the base?

On that note, why the hell was 21EW removed from JSR in the first place?  From a support perspective it seems like it would make a lot more sense to stand them up as a squadron within JSR instead of parading a squadron as a regiment...  I dunno...


----------



## McG

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> On that note, why the hell was 21EW removed from JSR in the first place?  From a support perspective it seems like it would make a lot more sense to stand them up as a squadron within JSR instead of parading a squadron as a regiment...  I dunno...


Seems like a great question for another thread:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/124325.new.html#new

We can then keep this on topic.


----------



## ryanhd20

Good Morning,

First time poster. I will just lay out the facts:
2009 - Promoted to MS
2010 - Completed CF PLQ
2011 - VOT to army trade
2013 - Completed SQ
2014 - Completed Winter Warfare Basic
2015 - Promoted to MCpl (MPRR says substantive)

Now almost 2 years after promotion, I am possibly having to go back to do the PLQ-A or L MOD4. Are there any references for my specific situation or am I just going to have to do it?


----------



## PuckChaser

You're in an Army trade that needs AJLC (new name for Mod 4 now). Your CAF PLQ isn't going to write it off, you have to do it. I'm not at work, but there's  a couple CANFORGENs in 2010/2011 that outline the requirement, as well as a recent one from 2015/2016 that outlines the changes in the system. I believe one of those documents has a sub para speaking to your situation, but I remember most of those sub paras were "member will complete AJLC".


----------



## ryanhd20

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're in an Army trade that needs AJLC (new name for Mod 4 now). Your CAF PLQ isn't going to write it off, you have to do it. I'm not at work, but there's  a couple CANFORGENs in 2010/2011 that outline the requirement, as well as a recent one from 2015/2016 that outlines the changes in the system. I believe one of those documents has a sub para speaking to your situation, but I remember most of those sub paras were "member will complete AJLC".



Thanks for the info. I believe the email I saw about this had those CANFORGEN's referenced. Just seems odd, that after this long they are coming after me.


----------



## PuckChaser

The Army is way behind on getting pers qualified for PLQ. Unless you're in the Cbt Arms, waiting a year or 2 for PLQ is common.


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Army is way behind on getting pers qualified for PLQ. Unless you're in the Cbt Arms, waiting a year or 2 for PLQ is common.



They must be catching up; one of my support trades in an Army uniform (purple) is forecast appointed to MCpl APS 2017 and has been slated for PLQ beginning the 3rd week of Jan 2017.


----------



## PuckChaser

My Signallers are usually getting messages within a year. They recently moved all the Leadership courses run out of Pet to Meaford, and turned up the volume from reading the course calendar. Likely someone realized if they put a little manpower at the problem they can clear the backlog. There's no reason why we shouldn't have pers trained prior to promotion like you outlined.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AJLC would be  environmental specific trg.   I was Army before with CLC and SLC complete (PLQ and ILQ), but even though I am qualified to WO on the leadership stuff, I still am required to do the RCAF "Sgt Seminary (Intermediate Air Environmental Qual -  IAEQ) because it is AF specific.


----------



## K-Town

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Army is way behind on getting pers qualified for PLQ. Unless you're in the Cbt Arms, waiting a year or 2 for PLQ is common.


Since switching to new PLQ, JLC-A the billets seemed to have opened right up. I was promoted MCPL A/L May 2016, received CFTPO for DL beginning mid Jan 2017 and rest of mods including JLC-A 1 Feb - 31 Mar 2017 CFB Edmonton. I was deferred until this fall, I have no idea where I am going but was assured as soon as I am cleared I will be on next available course.


----------



## K-Town

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> My Signallers are usually getting messages within a year. They recently moved all the Leadership courses run out of Pet to Meaford, and turned up the volume from reading the course calendar. Likely someone realized if they put a little manpower at the problem they can clear the backlog. There's no reason why we shouldn't have pers trained prior to promotion like you outlined.



Disregard my last  :


----------



## putz

Is the new harmonized PLQ up amd running?  I have some troops that are being told they're on it while others are being told they're on the "old one".  Is there really any change to training other than some trades not doing AJLC?


----------



## Nuggs

I'm on the DL for the newest one now.

I can't make heads or tails of what's changed. From what I'm being told it's all the same now. Mod 1 DL. Mod 2 residential. Mod 3 field phase (small party taskings). Then the Army does mod 4 (AJLC), the Navy does JNELP, and then the Air Force does whatever they do 😋

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nuggs said:
			
		

> I'm on the DL for the newest one now.
> 
> I can't make heads or tails of what's changed. From what I'm being told it's all the same now. Mod 1 DL. Mod 2 residential. Mod 3 field phase (small party taskings). Then the Army does mod 4 (AJLC), the Navy does JNELP, and then the Air Force does whatever they do 😋
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Arts and Crafts   ;D

Actually, after PLQ in the air force there is LOTS of *PT



* personal time


----------



## jollyjacktar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Arts and Crafts   ;D
> 
> Actually, after PLQ in the air force there is LOTS of *PT
> 
> 
> 
> * personal time



What you do with your socks in the privacy of your rack is personal.    :bowing:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Rack... ???

Oh, you mean my hotel room!


----------



## loonie559

How long is the current PLQ?


----------



## LightFighter

loonie559 said:
			
		

> How long is the current PLQ?



My PLQ was 
Mod 1(DL) - 2 weeks 
Mod 2 - 2 weeks
Mod 3 - 3 weeks
Mod 4 Infantry - 5 weeks

I believe the Army Mod 4 was 3 weeks in length. 

This was a couple years ago, but I imagine the course content/length for this new JLC is similar.


----------



## Ex_RMP

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Are you certain?  Because there are a few Army trades that don't do PLQ-A but PLQ-common.  And there are still more purple trades that don't do it.  EGS techs for example do the common PLQ, and _maybe_ SQ
> 
> Seems odd that comms rsrch would do it...
> 
> That being said, "train as needed" is foreign to the Army.  Otherwise we wouldn't have mechanics and gun-plumbers pepper-potting for miles, or supply technicians with jump wings...



Currently on mine at Shilo and we have 2 Comms Rsrch on course and both are doing the AJLC after Mod 3, one is Air Force other Army


----------



## LoKe

Ex_RMP said:
			
		

> Currently on mine at Shilo and we have 2 Comms Rsrch on course and both are doing the AJLC after Mod 3, one is Air Force other Army


All 291ers will do BMQ-L (SQ) and PLQ-A (mod1-3) and AJLC, regardless of DEU.

Is James still alive, btw?


----------



## MilEME09

LightFighter said:
			
		

> My PLQ was
> Mod 1(DL) - 2 weeks
> Mod 2 - 2 weeks
> Mod 3 - 3 weeks
> Mod 4 Infantry - 5 weeks
> 
> I believe the Army Mod 4 was 3 weeks in length.
> 
> This was a couple years ago, but I imagine the course content/length for this new JLC is similar.



Last I heard the current PLQ-A is 7 weeks


----------



## JMei001

Hey guys, I’m just trying to map out/guesstimate my training for the next ~5 heads to plan out all my extra curriculum non-military. By the end of this summer I’m poised to complete my BMQ, BMQ (L), and my QL3. Next summer will be QL4. When will I get the chance to get onto a PLQ course as a PRes Medic? If offered at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky

JMei001 said:
			
		

> Hey guys, I’m just trying to map out/guesstimate my training for the next ~5 heads to plan out all my extra curriculum non-military. By the end of this summer I’m poised to complete my BMQ, BMQ (L), and my QL3. Next summer will be QL4. When will I get the chance to get onto a PLQ course as a PRes Medic? If offered at all
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That is almost impossible to guess, really.  It depends on your unit (how many people are ahead of you for it who can get the time to take it), the same thing in your Bde, Div...are there enough courses running that particular FY (never know when cuts to trg come down to meet direction on budgets), etc.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

JMei001 said:
			
		

> Hey guys, I’m just trying to map out/guesstimate my training for the next ~5 heads to plan out all my extra curriculum non-military. By the end of this summer I’m poised to complete my BMQ, BMQ (L), and my QL3. Next summer will be QL4. When will I get the chance to get onto a PLQ course as a PRes Medic? If offered at all
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You will also have to show some leadership aptitude. Your unit will not send just anyone and every to PLQ because they have to understand things like Battle Procedure and must display the ability to make military decisions under extreme stress. You don't always get the say if you go on the course, you can ask for it, but if they feel you're not ready for it, they won't send you.

Generally, in the Reserve Force, PLQ is something you get at least 4 years of service


----------



## JMei001

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> You will also have to show some leadership aptitude. Your unit will not send just anyone and every to PLQ because they have to understand things like Battle Procedure and must display the ability to make military decisions under extreme stress. You don't always get the say if you go on the course, you can ask for it, but if they feel you're not ready for it, they won't send you.
> 
> Generally, in the Reserve Force, PLQ is something you get at least 4 years of service


Awesome, thanks. I go on BMQ Dec 1st really excited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## robin5693

How do I go about registering for Mod 1(DL)? I've searched DLN for a number of different terms... PLQ, Primary Leadership Qualification, Primary, Leadership, mod1, PLQ DL, etc. and can't find anything....


----------



## dapaterson

You must be nominated for the course - it's not self-selection.


----------



## robin5693

Yeah I thought so too, but this email chain I got from my CM seems to say that I have to register myself?


----------



## MilEME09

robin5693 said:
			
		

> Yeah I thought so too, but this email chain I got from my CM seems to say that I have to register myself?



No because it is set up like serials, there is a set number of days it runs, you have staff in gagetown who you report too, you are nominated for PLQ, and then you are loaded onto mod 1.


----------



## PuckChaser

robin5693 said:
			
		

> Yeah I thought so too, but this email chain I got from my CM seems to say that I have to register myself?



Might have to register for a DLN/DNDLearn account. If you're loaded, course will show up there.


----------



## armyvern

robin5693 said:
			
		

> Yeah I thought so too, but this email chain I got from my CM seems to say that I have to register myself?



See your Ops or Orderly Room to pull down a copy of your CFTPO message.  Details for course registration should be included on that.  If the email chain from your career manager also included your course message, one of the paras on that should contain the contact pers details for registration.


You also have to register a DND Learn account.


----------



## Mediman14

Does anyone know if PLQ Courses still teach warning orders and small party taskings? It's been awhile since I completed the course and things change so often now in the CAF. It would not surprise me if it is not part of the course anymore!
   I have a few Mbrs who are slated to go on PLQ course this late summer, I would like to help prepare them.


----------



## dangerboy

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if PLQ Courses still teach warning orders and small party taskings? It's been awhile since I completed the course and things change so often now in the CAF. It would not surprise me if it is not part of the course anymore!
> I have a few Mbrs who are slated to go on PLQ course this late summer, I would like to help prepare them.



That is still the main component of the course, Battle procedure. The tactics school has a good two page aide-memoir with all sorts of useful info  and mission task verbs that you can download from their SharePoint site.


----------



## Mediman14

dangerboy said:
			
		

> That is still the main component of the course, Battle procedure. The tactics school has a good two page aide-memoir with all sorts of useful info  and mission task verbs that you can download from their SharePoint site.



Thank you


----------



## ringo598

I would emphasize fitness and marching as well.  Having just finished PLQ/ALJC out west a few weeks ago.  Our course was about 38 to start and we graduated with 17 I believe, 95% of the loss was medical RTU.  For the first field ex according to GPS we hit just about 54km in mukluks (Required to wear by the school if below 0C) and more during the 2nd field ex for ALJC.  Speaking with many of the people on my course and my own experience, the course was much more of a...I don't want to use the word hazing, I'll use the term constant and prolonged confirmation of combat knowledge for 8 weeks.  All trades/elements had to do the first course (CAF-PLQ) and anyone from the air/navy side was in for a rude awakening since many had not rucked or done field work since BMQ, we also did not pass any females as all were medically RTU'ed due to the way the course was run.  But your experience might vary, as three other courses running in 3 other locations lost I believe 6 in total and I had several friends on those courses who mentioned a mentoring attitude from the staff and they finished the course with a good understanding of leadership.  The three people with the most overseas experience did not complete the course either, as 2 wrote memo's to have themselves removed...it was an interesting course.


----------



## brihard

ringo598 said:
			
		

> For the first field ex according to GPS we hit just about 54km in mukluks (Required to wear by the school if below 0C)



Wait, what? What sort of inane bullshit is this? Mukluks are a great piece of kit and have their place. Sustained marching for long distances just below the freezing mark is not it. The human body during physical activity, with good socks and a decent boot is perfectly capable of keeping the foot warm somewhat below the freezing mark.

If your course has half casualties from forced marching wearing mukluks, then the staff need to ask themselves whether the demand they are putting on you realistically reflects what troops would be doing in wartime. No commander would be enforcing a dress standard that is not tailored to the task at hand and that reduces his or her effective strength by half. It sounds like a bunch of troops have lost a career course because of a stupid command decision compounded by leadership without the balls to stand up to same. Troops still have the right to be trained safely.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

That's the thing I never understood, why are PLQ/AJLC being run to break soldiers and giving them belt-fed COCK? That's how you end people's careers, make people bitter and jaded, and then you turn them into shitty leaders.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> That's the thing I never understood, why are PLQ/AJLC being run to break soldiers and giving them belt-fed ****? That's how you end people's careers, make people bitter and jaded, and then you turn them into shitty leaders.



I was very thankful to have had the staff I did for my PLQ/AJLC out of Meaford.

 The dedication of those instructors to take extra time to set us up for success was crucial in us having graduated 34 out of 38 candidates. Multiple instructors on IR would come by in the evening and help mentor and do remedial things like going over lesson plans and TTPs if we were stuck.

 All goals were attainable, however , we weren't given a soft go. Training standards were met by every candidate and we all learned something from the course. Our Course Warrrant said it best "the CAF gets nothing from me producing 16 people who survived a COCKing, but it gains 38 leaders if I do the job right."

Ringo, it sounds like you all were victims of toxic leadership.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brihard said:
			
		

> If your course has half casualties from forced marching wearing mukluks, then the Standards staff need to ask the Command Team whether the demand they are putting on you realistically reflects what troops would be doing in wartime. No commander would be enforcing a dress standard that is not tailored to the task at hand and that reduces his or her effective strength by half. It sounds like a bunch of troops have lost a career course because of a stupid command decision compounded by leadership without the balls to stand up to same. Troops still have the right to be trained safely.



If the course staff don't see an issue, the Standards cell should be seeing it IMO.  I absolutely despise stupid command decisions like 'everyone will wear mukluks below 0 degress'.  I can see being ordered to wear that stuff (if for some reason you didn't...) at places like....Crystal City/ATC but that's a different kind of stupid there.

There's always the issue of a 'common' PLQ, with the same QS and TP being implemented by various training establishments across the Forces;  when Ringo says "out west" I take that to mean Wain-wrong.  As he mentioned 'people were in for a rude awakening' if they were Navy or Air and many were RTUd medically.  What's the point of that, breaking people with ruck marches.  You know how many ruck marches I've done since I put on blue DEUs in 2007?  None.  Not a single one.  Because in the air force, we don't even have ruck sacks if we end up on the ground in hostile territory.  So why would I need to carry one around for 50+ kms in mukluks on a 'common' CAF PLQ?  Because I'd bet you the PLQ in Borden or the one the RCN runs out of Halifax, they aren't rucking 50+km in mukluks.

End result?  A '_common_'  Jnr Leadership course that ends up not being '_common_' at all.  Should the jnr leadership course be challenging?  Yes it should.  It should also be relevant to the environment people are working in - a Aviation Tech shouldn't be at an Army TE for leadership training anymore than a cbt arms Cpl should be in Borden at the AF Academy doing his/hers.  Because as much as we like to pretend there's no difference, there really is a difference between what the army, navy and air force expects out of the junior NCOs in their operational environments.   :2c:


----------



## ringo598

Here's the kicker, the staff (one or two did in fact wear mukluks) for the most part wore...neos.  We had other fun parts like a 3am wakeup with an air-raid siren on Sunday night so people were sleepy before we even started the 2nd field ex or the day after day of section attacks (Again wearing mukluks) in snow until people were just zombies.  Standards seemed completely on board, perhaps I'm a bit bitter as I saw what I felt were some good soldiers potentially end or delay their careers for really no good training value.  I don't doubt my own bias towards the course shows, since I feel I just wasted 9 weeks of my life and I'm not at all a better leader for it.  I wish I could have gotten a PLQ like RMC_Wannabe, as it would have been nice to go on a leadership course and emerge as a better leader.  But that's a big tangent.

Prepare your feet, nav skills, rucking skills, and I would heavily practice the orders format (SMESC) with the sub headings.  I also suggest basic briefing skills as a lot of people had difficulty there.  For example briefing a map for Situation: Enemy, Situation: Friendly, etc.  For any army managed trades, I would suggest going over defensive, offensive and stabilizing ops (There is a book avail) since we had a lot of test failures since the tests for PLQ are no longer the typical military style multiple choice, its now short answer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There is value to section attacks;  to assess command and control, planning, stamina, etc.  I did my Jnr Leadership course back in the days when there was ISCC for infanteers, CLC for Cbt arms/CSS;  I was on the CLC course.  We had a 'garrison' portion where we did all our Mil Law, Admin, MOI, etc and got little sleep.  This was before the time of computers and powerpoint;  we had to make our lesson plans with paper and pen, and had to have 2 copies for our lectures;  you learned the importance of remembering your daily ADREPs simply by forgetting to indent for more carbon paper (nothing funner than handwriting out your second LP copy at 2am...when PT starts at 5).

We did section attacks by day, and recce patrols by night during the field portion;  our course staff decided to do that, our sister course did a defensive portion.  Standardization??  My fireteam partner was a Fin Clerk female;  I found the course 'reasonable' and she thought it was complete BS.  She should have been on a JLC not a CLC IMO.  I feel the same way now, but that is me.  I don't believe in the 'all trades' common PLQ and then using infantry type tasks (section attacks, as an example) to assess everyone on an even playing field.  Ask the CFCWO when the last time he did a section attack was.

However, I was cbt arms back then and there was actually leadership value in day after day of section attacks and recce patrols and fatigue and the 'physical/field challenges'.  I don't, however, think there is for hard air or sea trades doing this training; it doesn't resemble what they will be doing in the operational environments.  Sure you can assess orders format, planning, command and control but I can also do that in other ways too.  Fatigue is different in each operational environment, though.  I don't do ruck marches now, but flying (as much as this sounds like BS) itself can tire you out;  down low bouncing around, 2G 60 degree turns over and over in ASW while slinging 75lb sono's (that suddenly weigh 2 times their normal weight during those 2G turns...flight deck, please call 'manouvering' _before_ the turns  rly around, or at higher altitudes (your cabin pressure is say, 10k feet so you spend half a day like you're suddenly sitting on top of a 10k mountain).  Ruck marches won't prepare air personnel for that, as an example or how to be good jnr leaders in that environment.  

So, for those people who are posted to the land environment (regardless of DEU), the army does have a vested interest in Jnr Leaders who can operate in the environment the army finds itself.  The course shouldn't be a cakewalk, but it shouldn't break over 50% of the students.  If it does, physically, then maybe we should be taking a look at the FORCE test and our PT policy needs to be reinforced at the unit level - I am fully aware some units in the CAF look at "PT time" the same they would if you said you wanted an hour a day to 'just sit around and do nothing'.  

So, to me, a few issues present itself from the story of your CAF PLQ common phase.

I was an instructor in Leadership Coy back in the mid'ish 90s - we had several courses on the go, Army JNCO (ISCC), JNCO OAS (Jnr NCO Other Arms and Services...a mix between CLC and JLC leaning toward the CLC side).  The way it was done back then, instructors lived how the students did.  If the students were in FFO cammed up, so were we.  We also, 20 years ago or so now, had some of the same issues as your courses are seeing now;  standardization or lack of it, the same courses being run differently by even different staff in the same TE, people inserting 'critical items' in assessments not approved by Standards because they felt the 'standard was too low'.  This wheel will, unfortunately, continue to go around until each environment/command establishes their own Leadership schools - which will never happen.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There is value to section attacks;  to assess command and control, planning, stamina, etc.  I did my Jnr Leadership course back in the days when there was ISCC for infanteers, CLC for Cbt arms/CSS;  I was on the CLC course.  We had a 'garrison' portion where we did all our Mil Law, Admin, MOI, etc and got little sleep.  This was before the time of computers and powerpoint;  we had to make our lesson plans with paper and pen, and had to have 2 copies for our lectures;  you learned the importance of remembering your daily ADREPs simply by forgetting to indent for more carbon paper (nothing funner than handwriting out your second LP copy at 2am...when PT starts at 5).
> 
> We did section attacks by day, and recce patrols by night during the field portion;  our course staff decided to do that, our sister course did a defensive portion.  Standardization??  My fireteam partner was a Fin Clerk female;  I found the course 'reasonable' and she thought it was complete BS.  She should have been on a JLC not a CLC IMO.  I feel the same way now, but that is me.  I don't believe in the 'all trades' common PLQ and then using infantry type tasks (section attacks, as an example) to assess everyone on an even playing field.  Ask the CFCWO when the last time he did a section attack was.
> 
> However, I was cbt arms back then and there was actually leadership value in day after day of section attacks and recce patrols and fatigue and the 'physical/field challenges'.  I don't, however, think there is for hard air or sea trades doing this training; it doesn't resemble what they will be doing in the operational environments.  Sure you can assess orders format, planning, command and control but I can also do that in other ways too.  Fatigue is different in each operational environment, though.  I don't do ruck marches now, but flying (as much as this sounds like BS) itself can tire you out;  down low bouncing around, 2G 60 degree turns over and over in ASW while slinging 75lb sono's (that randomly weight 2 times there normal weight during those 2G turns...) around, or at higher altitudes (your cabin pressure is say, 10k feet so you spend half a day like you're suddenly sitting on top of a 10k mountain).  Ruck marches won't prepare air personnel for that, as an example or how to be good jnr leaders in that environment.
> 
> So, for those people who are posted to the land environment (regardless of DEU), the army does have a vested interest in Jnr Leaders who can operate in the environment the army finds itself.  The course shouldn't be a cakewalk, but it shouldn't break over 50% of the students.  If it does, physically, then maybe we should be taking a look at the FORCE test and our PT policy needs to be reinforced at the unit level - I am fully aware some units in the CAF look at "PT time" the same they would if you said you wanted an hour a day to 'just sit around and do nothing'.
> 
> So, to me, a few issues present itself from the story of your CAF PLQ common phase.
> 
> I was an instructor in Leadership Coy back in the mid'ish 90s - we had several courses on the go, Army JNCO (ISCC), JNCO OAS (Jnr NCO Other Arms and Services...a mix between CLC and JLC leaning toward the CLC side).  The way it was done back then, instructors lived how the students did.  If the students were in FFO cammed up, so were we.  We also, 20 years ago or so now, had some of the same issues as your courses are seeing now;  standardization or lack of it, the same courses being run differently by even different staff in the same TE, people inserting 'critical items' in assessments not approved by Standards because they felt the 'standard was too low'.  This wheel will, unfortunately, continue to go around until each environment/command establishes their own Leadership schools - which will never happen.



Interesting insight.  I have 2 questions:

1)  Why do we need a PLQ/JLC/CLC, what ever acronym we want to use today, when a member has been judged by their snr trades people to be ready and able to take on this next role ?  To further clarify, if we put people forth as ready or immediately ready to be a MS/MCpl and take on more responsibility and leadership in their trade, as proven by their substantiated performance and potential on their PERs why do we feel it necessary to reconfirm this ?  Do we not trust people writing the PERs and providing mentoring and leadership to their members ?  Or are we just doing things because its always been done that way ?  

2)    





> This wheel will, unfortunately, continue to go around until each environment/command establishes their own Leadership schools - which will never happen.


  How do you do this for purple trades ?  My opinion is their respective trades schools (Think CFLTC/CFSAL ect) should be looking after this course if it further required.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

A lot of the time, it's not that the Fitness Tests are inadequate (they are), but that a lot of the instructors on PLQ are making it more difficult than it needs to be.

I've seen several fit people come back broken, and it all seemed to boil down to the instructors having something to prove.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Interesting insight.  I have 2 questions:
> 
> 1)  Why do we need a PLQ/JLC/CLC, what ever acronym we want to use today, when a member has been judged by their snr trades people to be ready and able to take on this next role ?  To further clarify, if we put people forth as ready or immediately ready to be a MS/MCpl and take on more responsibility and leadership in their trade, as proven by their substantiated performance and potential on their PERs why do we feel it necessary to reconfirm this ?  Do we not trust people writing the PERs and providing mentoring and leadership to their members ?  Or are we just doing things because its always been done that way ?



IMO, yes we need some Jnr Leadership qual;  we are asking people to take on a formal leadership role - but I think we fail in our goal by making it too 'common' - hard air, land and sea trades don't operate the same.  I think the hard air folks should be at an AF Leadership TE (Borden), the Navy runs PLQs out of CFNOS (IIRC) and the army has more than one TE that does PLQ.

CFPAS is one part;  Jnr NCOs are at the coal face of this system and it is an easy one to use on a 'common to all' course.  MOI, drill, etc - aside from teaching those specific skills and also teach things like time appreciations, planning (Aim Factors Courses Plan, etc), and all the other bits and pieces that Jnr NCOs have to start thinking about outside their own little bubbles.  This is like "Leadership Block 1" which leads into the "Leadership Block 2/3/4" courses we take later on;  ILP, IAEQ for the folks posted to RCAF units, ALP.

Part of the problem though, IMO, is the amount of A/L MCpl/MS.  I have some where I work and it seems to be the norm now to make them A/L and then send them on their course.  I think we're doing it wrong;  the PLQ should be a pre-requisite for promotion and that would put some QC into the people who are getting the Leaf;  A/L MCpl was a rare thing back when I was at that stage in life.  Very rare.

Also, we make them A/L and they are doing the Master Blaster stuff for 1 year or longer and then go on course and say 'what did I really learn, I was already doing the job for XX months etc'.  If you go on course thinking you know it all and are A/L...that could be the problem.  Do all MCpl/MS write PERs and PDRs and follow the review process IAW CFPAS?  I doubt it.  Do they all know how to prepare for a lesson, deliver effective training before, or after PLQ?  I doubt it.  But it is "Leadership Block 1" and we've got to start somewhere.  

In my time in, when I got in MCpl was a respected rank, and the ones who got the rank earned it thru, as you mentioned, being recognized by their CofC and then passing the Leadership Block I course.  Now, the rank/appointment seems to have been watered down some because of the amount of A/L ones out there;  we (the CAF) seem to have become used to expecting less of that rank over my 2 decades and change lacing up the boots.  That's just me, though, others might see it differently.



> 2)      How do you do this for purple trades ?  My opinion is their respective trades schools (Think CFLTC/CFSAL ect) should be looking after this course if it further required.



If the trade schools could handle it, would they even want to?  Purple trades now, AFAIK, attend the TE of the element they are posted to;  maybe I am wrong.  A Supp Tech Cpl/LS or A/L MCpl/MS would go to PLQ at the Army TEs if they are posted to an Army unit, or Borden if they are posted to the RCAF.  This makes some sense to me;  although it has some flaws.  I'm not sure now, but it you are a Supp Tech MCpl with 6 years in rank and get posted to an Army unit, do you have to do more "army" PLQish training?  What about a WO who is posted in to an army unit for the first time.  

Would there be merit in there being a comparable TE set up for PLQ as we have in St Jean at the Campus for ILP?  I think so *if* there is always going to be a common PLQ.  Let the common course be taught there and then each element have any desired/required Jnr Leadership trg/courses they feel important enough to set up, staff and pay for.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> A lot of the time, it's not that the Fitness Tests are inadequate (they are), but that a lot of the instructors on PLQ are making it more difficult than it needs to be.
> 
> I've seen several fit people come back broken, and it all seemed to boil down to the instructors having something to prove.



Not meaning to sound like an a$$hat, but is it possible they were simply injured during training, or not in as good as shape as people thought (gym fitness and field fitness aren't always the same...) and the instructors weren't...expecting too much?

Gym fitness; I can go to the gym, lift things up and put them down and get on my elliptical for an hour, eat healthy and get big thumbs up on my annual aircrew medical.  I could then strap on a heavy ruck, radio, do 10km forced march and break on the next defensive position while digging in to stage 5 or whatever, simply because I am an AF guy and more likely to be gym fit than I am field fit.


----------



## ringo598

Absolutely, some people off course did show up clearly unfit, they didn't last 2 weeks for the most part.  We all did a FORCE test on day 2 or 3 which had one failure.  The rest of the medical RTU's were...some training injury's (With my personal opinion of being unnecessary, the heavy snow/mukluk patrols/snowshoe patrols could have been easily modified to still give training value without injury).  The reservists on course had very difficult times (I think only 1 or 2 made it) simply because they had nearly no prep before hand.  I feel the CAF-PLQ is a great course depending on how its taught, and the ALJC could have those 3 weeks added to the end of people's trade's course on how to operate their trade in a land environment.  For example, being a det comd for a vehicle maint det in a low/med threat environment, or a signals det comd in a land environment with IED/Force on Force modifications.  And for the record, it was Shilo not Wainwrong


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ringo598 said:
			
		

> We all did a FORCE test on day 2 or 3 which had one failure.



What is the reason/point of this?  Wouldn't everyone have to have a valid FORCE test to get on the course? 



			
				ringo598 said:
			
		

> the CAF-PLQ is a great course depending on how its taught



I agree with this 101%.  The problem lies when various TEs across different elements run it the way they see fit, when it is intended as a CAF common course.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IMO, yes we need some Jnr Leadership qual;  we are asking people to take on a formal leadership role - but I think we fail in our goal by making it too 'common' - hard air, land and sea trades don't operate the same.  I think the hard air folks should be at an AF Leadership TE (Borden), the Navy runs PLQs out of CFNOS (IIRC) and the army has more than one TE that does PLQ.
> 
> CFPAS is one part;  Jnr NCOs are at the coal face of this system and it is an easy one to use on a 'common to all' course.  MOI, drill, etc - aside from teaching those specific skills and also teach things like time appreciations, planning (Aim Factors Courses Plan, etc), and all the other bits and pieces that Jnr NCOs have to start thinking about outside their own little bubbles.  This is like "Leadership Block 1" which leads into the "Leadership Block 2/3/4" courses we take later on;  ILP, IAEQ for the folks posted to RCAF units, ALP.
> 
> Part of the problem though, IMO, is the amount of A/L MCpl/MS.  I have some where I work and it seems to be the norm now to make them A/L and then send them on their course.  I think we're doing it wrong;  the PLQ should be a pre-requisite for promotion and that would put some QC into the people who are getting the Leaf;  A/L MCpl was a rare thing back when I was at that stage in life.  Very rare.
> 
> Also, we make them A/L and they are doing the Master Blaster stuff for 1 year or longer and then go on course and say 'what did I really learn, I was already doing the job for XX months etc'.  If you go on course thinking you know it all and are A/L...that could be the problem.  Do all MCpl/MS write PERs and PDRs and follow the review process IAW CFPAS?  I doubt it.  Do they all know how to prepare for a lesson, deliver effective training before, or after PLQ?  I doubt it.  But it is "Leadership Block 1" and we've got to start somewhere.
> 
> In my time in, when I got in MCpl was a respected rank, and the ones who got the rank earned it thru, as you mentioned, being recognized by their CofC and then passing the Leadership Block I course.  Now, the rank/appointment seems to have been watered down some because of the amount of A/L ones out there;  we (the CAF) seem to have become used to expecting less of that rank over my 2 decades and change lacing up the boots.  That's just me, though, others might see it differently.



Interesting position.  I am of the camp that says that you can nott train or teach leadership.   You can make a manager; and more skilled worker but you cannot make a leader, at least not from scratch.  In your quote above it seems, to me, to be more supportive of further trades training than anything leadership related.  

I as well would support your position that these should be focused on what one does for a job.  But for those of us in CMP governed trades that can change drastically and very quickly.  I went from HMCS Toronto to a Signals Regiment upon promotion to A/L MS.  And I was thus sent to St Jean for my PLQ.  

I respect your obviously well established and well supported position; but I remain unmoved.  I still see no need for what we are attempting to do with the current PLQ/JLC course at a level higher than ones trades training establishment.  



> (a) If the trade schools could handle it, would they even want to?  (b) Purple trades now, AFAIK, attend the TE of the element they are posted to;  maybe I am wrong.  A Supp Tech Cpl/LS or A/L MCpl/MS would go to PLQ at the Army TEs if they are posted to an Army unit, or Borden if they are posted to the RCAF.  (c) This makes some sense to me;  although it has some flaws.  I'm not sure now, but it you are a Supp Tech MCpl with 6 years in rank and get posted to an Army unit, do you have to do more "army" PLQish training?  What about a WO who is posted in to an army unit for the first time.
> 
> Would there be merit in there being a comparable TE set up for PLQ as we have in St Jean at the Campus for ILP?  I think so *if* there is always going to be a common PLQ.  Let the common course be taught there and then each element have any desired/required Jnr Leadership trg/courses they feel important enough to set up, staff and pay for.



(A) I would hope they would want take an active role in the continuing development of their trades people. 

(b) I could be wrong now but when I went through it was done by element.  I was wearing an RCN Uniform at a field unit, but I did PLQ Common at St Jean. 

(c) Could this would be one reason trades based leadership training would be beneficial ?

Good discussion EITS.  I appreciate your input!


----------



## Jarnhamar

I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance. 

I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from our "allies", our members should get somewhat more aggressive training. 

On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys. 



			
				ringo598 said:
			
		

> We had other fun parts like a 3am wakeup with an air-raid siren on Sunday night so people were sleepy before we even started the 2nd field ex or the day after day of section attacks (Again wearing mukluks) in snow until people were just zombies.  Standards seemed completely on board, perhaps I'm a bit bitter as I saw what I felt were some good soldiers potentially end or delay their careers for really no good training value.



I'd never try and excuse shitty training.  Having been on both sides of the student/instructor fence, including instructing new recruits, war-experienced veterans and clever officer cadets I'd feel confident saying you may not understand the training/hardships yet but it's for a good reason. 

Sometimes the devil is in the details. I'd thinking dropping arty sims in a hide to wake everyone on course up at 3am only to out them back to sleep again is just dicking people around. 

Dropping arty sims on a position when the sentry falls asleep and having the whole course pack up and move hide locations is effective for a few things. 

As well plq candidates shouldn't be  driven to the point of being  zombies because they're retaining very little on the intellectual side of training. But they do need to be stressed out and able to think while at least a little exausted. 

Some students who seem like super great soldiers are the ones you have to watch out for because they put on a show when the staff is watching then shut down when they're not or after they've passed the PO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Interesting position.  I am of the camp that says that you can nott train or teach leadership.   You can make a manager; and more skilled worker but you cannot make a leader, at least not from scratch.  In your quote above it seems, to me, to be more supportive of further trades training than anything leadership related.



I have no firm foot in either camp; but we are expected to 'develop the leadership potential in our followers'.  Some have more potential than others  ;D.  But I think you can teach leadership but some of your *students* will become better leaders;  I just had a few convo's not long ago on an away trip with a newer A/L MCpl about the '3 Ms', 10 Leadership Principles [ I know we've moved from that but...I still have the wallet card], how NCOs bridge the gap between the Officers and junior NCMs, how to support your Sunray and positively influence them at the same time, stuff like that.  I think it can be developed, but agree a natural born leader (which comes down to personality perhaps?) is going to be head and shoulders above someone you had to coax it out of.



> I as well would support your position that these should be focused on what one does for a job.  But for those of us in CMP governed trades that can change drastically and very quickly.  I went from HMCS Toronto to a Signals Regiment upon promotion to A/L MS.  And I was thus sent to St Jean for my PLQ.



This is the grey area;  I think each environmental commander will want the folks posted into his/her world to have his/her environment specific Jnr Leader training/skillset baseline (PLQ is only a baseline, IMO).  Could the purple trade branch TEs handle a specific course for members going into a RCN posting, or a RCAF or Cdn Army one?  I have no idea.  It sounds like a lot of extra courses to me. 

However, I do see things to be concerned with having a CAF PLQ, with the same QS and one qual code.  I am more of a fan of the older ISCC/CLC/JLC system.  If Battle Schools run CAF PLQs, they will be run the way the Battle School Command team wants them run, which is likely going to be different than the way the RCAF Academy runs theirs, which is different than how CFLRS runs theirs, which is different than how CFNOS runs theirs.  Doesn't sound so 'common' to me when I think of that, having seen how the Navy PLQ in the field portion runs, talked to guys who've done the Borden AF one and my memories of CLC back from yesteryear.

Unless I am misinterpreting things as it stands now, a RCAF AVN Tech Cpl could, technically, find him/herself in Shilo or Petawawa on a CAF PLQ course if there was a spot available and his/her CMgr really wanted to put him/her on PLQ 'asap'.  Personally I think that is a fairly big issue.  What a Cbt Arms Sgt/WO expects out of their Army MCpls is very, very different from what I want from my MCpls.  I think any Cbt arms Snr NCO or WO would be equally concerned with sending their young Cpl or A/L MCpls to the RCAF Academy in Borden, for the same reasons.  



> Could this would be one reason trades based leadership training would be beneficial ?



In the case of larger trades, I think so.  If I were to look at what PLQ teaches now, I am sure my opinion would be "we should do our own leadership course" WRT my trade;  PLQ doesn't prepare people to lead air personnel in flying op's, but that is pretty much what my trade expects from MCpls.  For us, when we come off our MOAT course (Maritime Operational Aircrew Training), we are then Basic Category (think of it like being an apprentice) operators.  Then it on to a 2 year OJT program to upgrade to Advanced Category operator (A Cats).  Each crew has a Lead AES OP, who is appointed by the CO and must be an A Cat - that is our leadership position in my fleet.  A Cats mentor and train B cats and select A Cats get the Lead position on a crew.  What training do we provide our personnel to be Leads?  At this point, the requirement with my current CO is 'must have PLQ', simply because there are no others QS blessed leadership courses in my trade for MCpls';  Sgt's do the IAEQ which provides no leadership training (there is some PD and networking that comes from it, but not leadership).  We are a trade of 200 all ranks;  I am not sure the cost-benefit analysis would result in "AES Ops need their own leadership course as a trade for MCpls".  I don't think the snr RCAF leadership would support it.



> Good discussion EITS.  I appreciate your input!



Thanks, and you as well.  If we don't discuss these things, there will never be an improvement and we'll just keep on keepin' on...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance.
> 
> I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from out "allies", or members should get somewhat more aggressive training.
> 
> On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys.



Our 'deployed ready' standard for ground and aircrew, in my fleet at least, aren't even to that level of training.  Not for Jnr NCOs, Snr NCOs, WOs, or Officers.  I would like to explain in more detail but that wouldn't be smart on here...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I have no firm foot in either camp; but we are expected to 'develop the leadership potential in our followers'.  Some have more potential than others  ;D.  But I think you can teach leadership but some of your *students* will become better leaders;  I just had a few convo's not long ago on an away trip with a newer A/L MCpl about the '3 Ms', 10 Leadership Principles [ I know we've moved from that but...I still have the wallet card], how NCOs bridge the gap between the Officers and junior NCMs, how to support your Sunray and positively influence them at the same time, stuff like that.  I think it can be developed, but agree a natural born leader (which comes down to personality perhaps?) is going to be head and shoulders above someone you had to coax it out of.



I wonder do we confuse managerial ability with leadership at times ?  Having said that a leader needs to be able to manage their resources and people as well as inspire and lead.  



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This is the grey area;  I think each environmental commander will want the folks posted into his/her world to have his/her environment specific Jnr Leader training/skillset baseline (PLQ is only a baseline, IMO).  Could the purple trade branch TEs handle a specific course for members going into a RCN posting, or a RCAF or Cdn Army one?  I have no idea.  It sounds like a lot of extra courses to me.
> 
> However, I do see things to be concerned with having a CAF PLQ, with the same QS and one qual code.  I am more of a fan of the older ISCC/CLC/JLC system.  If Battle Schools run CAF PLQs, they will be run the way the Battle School Command team wants them run, which is likely going to be different than the way the RCAF Academy runs theirs, which is different than how CFLRS runs theirs, which is different than how CFNOS runs theirs.  Doesn't sound so 'common' to me when I think of that, having seen how the Navy PLQ in the field portion runs, talked to guys who've done the Borden AF one and my memories of CLC back from yesteryear.
> 
> Unless I am misinterpreting things as it stands now, a RCAF AVN Tech Cpl could, technically, find him/herself in Shilo or Petawawa on a CAF PLQ course if there was a spot available and his/her CMgr really wanted to put him/her on PLQ 'asap'.  Personally I think that is a fairly big issue.  What a Cbt Arms Sgt/WO expects out of their Army MCpls is very, very different from what I want from my MCpls.  I think any Cbt arms Snr NCO or WO would be equally concerned with sending their young Cpl or A/L MCpls to the RCAF Academy in Borden, for the same reasons.



I think this one of the big falling downs of having a 100% unified and integrated CSS element, such as in our current iteration of the Log Branch for example.  Which is why, since I don't see the Log branch making any drastic changes WRT uniform and work environment, I think PLQ/JLC for Log should be taught at our school.  And the course should be incorporated to include Pan CAF resources like CFPAS and drill, and then concentrate on core Log competencies like convoy duties, camp defensives, and other actual real world tasking's we can reasonably be required to do.  Trade specific should be left to the senior trades courses.  Which I was woefully disappointed in mine. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In the case of larger trades, I think so.  If I were to look at what PLQ teaches now, I am sure my opinion would be "we should do our own leadership course" WRT my trade;  PLQ doesn't prepare people to lead air personnel in flying op's, but that is pretty much what my trade expects from MCpls.  For us, when we come off our MOAT course (Maritime Operational Aircrew Training), we are then Basic Category (think of it like being an apprentice) operators.  Then it on to a 2 year OJT program to upgrade to Advanced Category operator (A Cats).  Each crew has a Lead AES OP, who is appointed by the CO and must be an A Cat - that is our leadership position in my fleet.  A Cats mentor and train B cats and select A Cats get the Lead position on a crew.  What training do we provide our personnel to be Leads?  At this point, the requirement with my current CO is 'must have PLQ', simply because there are no others QS blessed leadership courses in my trade for MCpls';  Sgt's do the IAEQ which provides no leadership training (there is some PD and networking that comes from it, but not leadership).  We are a trade of 200 all ranks;  I am not sure the cost-benefit analysis would result in "AES Ops need their own leadership course as a trade for MCpls".  I don't think the snr RCAF leadership would support it.



I think I was using trade too liberally and I should have used trade/branch training establishments.  But I see your point for a small trade like AESOP. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Thanks, and you as well.  If we don't discuss these things, there will never be an improvement and we'll just keep on keepin' on...



Totally agree.  Sometimes we need to tear something apart and inspect its moving parts to make sure its doing what its intended and to grasp an understanding of it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance.
> 
> I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from our "allies", our members should get somewhat more aggressive training.
> 
> On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys.


Why ? Or are you being Army specific here ? 

  


			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd never try and excuse shitty training.  Having been on both sides of the student/instructor fence, including instructing new recruits, war-experienced veterans and clever officer cadets I'd feel confident saying you may not understand the training/hardships yet but it's for a good reason.
> 
> Sometimes the devil is in the details. I'd thinking dropping arty sims in a hide to wake everyone on course up at 3am only to out them back to sleep again is just dicking people around.
> 
> Dropping arty sims on a position when the sentry falls asleep and having the whole course pack up and move hide locations is effective for a few things.
> 
> As well plq candidates shouldn't be  driven to the point of being  zombies because they're retaining very little on the intellectual side of training. But they do need to be stressed out and able to think while at least a little exhausted.
> 
> Some students who seem like super great soldiers are the ones you have to watch out for because they put on a show when the staff is watching then shut down when they're not or after they've passed the PO.



This is what I am getting at.  Are we just punishing people for being top performers because we can and always have, or can we honestly put our hands on our hearts and say the QSP for the PLQ/JLC is producing better leaders ?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why ? Or are you being Army specific here ?


I don't think it should be army specific. In my mind if we decide that someone in any trade needs to shoot a gun every year as a part of IBTS then we should add using the gun in an offensive way to the mix that way they can in theory better defend themselves. We're deploying airforce and Navy pers to dangerous areas along side the army. 

  


> This is what I am getting at.  Are we just punishing people for being top performers because we can and always have, or can we honestly put our hands on our hearts and say the QSP for the PLQ/JLC is producing better leaders ?


I'm not sure to be honest. I've seen some awesome leadership turn out really good leaders. I've also seen "everyone will pass" courses.  We still unfortunately have special students on plq whom instructors are pressured to pass ie someone fails the basics of a patrol conducted in a parking lot but because they work for X head quarters they have to pass to keep their rank or whatever.   Why even bother sending them on a course?

I get the other side of the argument, why does a dental hygienist need a leadership course that spends time in the field.  Maybe the answer would be to split the plq /jlc into two so that one course is administrative that teaches people to be managers and the other for people who would deploy and work outside of an office? I'm not sure.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I don't think it should be army specific. In my mind if we decide that someone in any trade needs to shoot a gun every year as a part of IBTS then we should add using the gun in an offensive way to the mix that way they can in theory better defend themselves. We're deploying airforce and Navy pers to dangerous areas along side the army.



Sorry for the late reply.  Working on getting two teams out the door right now.  Anyways, We, in the RCN, only do C7/8 Qual up to the PWT 1 level.  In reality PWT 1 is a very simple rifle competency test and is more of a confirmation of safety than skill or marksmanship.  The most a RCN member would/can reasonably be expected to have to use a C7/8 for is as a sentry or gate guard.  Very few of the hard sea trades deploy with the Army and those that do all get lengthy work up training with even fewer actually moving into harms way and getting into TICs, this not a slight just an observation of having seen this on two AFG deployments.  Everyone has a role to play, none is greater than another.  Also I am not sure what practical and employable leadership or management skills can be learned by having a stoker or NESOP pepper pod around Aldershot. 

IMHO the time and resources would be much better spent learning how to be proficient at their trade at the MS level and above, to some extent.  Anything outside that immediate requirement, like deployments with the Army should be seen as the exception, not the rule, and pre-deployment training is the perfect time to bring that member up to speed. 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure to be honest. I've seen some awesome leadership turn out really good leaders. I've also seen "everyone will pass" courses.  We still unfortunately have special students on plq whom instructors are pressured to pass ie someone fails the basics of a patrol conducted in a parking lot but because they work for X head quarters they have to pass to keep their rank or whatever.   Why even bother sending them on a course?
> 
> I get the other side of the argument, why does a dental hygienist need a leadership course that spends time in the field.  Maybe the answer would be to split the plq /jlc into two so that one course is administrative that teaches people to be managers and the other for people who would deploy and work outside of an office? I'm not sure.



The joke in the Army Log community is that if it comes down to a Svc Btn having to advance to contact and conduct fighting patrols, something has gone very wrong up at the pointy end of the sword. 

Do we really need to make sure a Sup Tech or Clerk can clear a trench ?  Or would it be more beneficial to the front end guys to have that Sup Tech and Clerk actually learn skills and practices that they will use to support that front end better ?  Leaving the fighting training to be done in the year we now give people to work up. 

I think there are different situations for different levels of leadership.  I cant run my stores section on a ship like I would an RQ at 1 RCR.  While the supply discipline and professional practices would be similar the WO > Cpl/Pte interaction is vastly different, and rightly so. 

Again I would like to see the, for Log at least, CFLTC take on the PLQ/JLC training.  Right now we lack one standard for this course in our community.  I, as RCN, would/and did do a lesser version while my Army counterpart would do something like course mentioned above in Shilo.  But we both come out with the same qual; and can be plug and played into any MS/MCpl billet the CM wants.  This would also allow us to create a course that incorporates general log practices, tasks and environments we can work in and develop that junior leader into that role.   

At least if it was done at the Log TRG establishment it would be one standard for all, like our QL levels now.


----------



## ringo598

Yeah, from my discussions with people in Edmonton, Aldershot and Valcartier, the courses seem to lack any appreciable standard at all.  I will say as a positive the new tests are actually somewhat decent, its nice to see the test standard moving towards actually understanding instead of just guessing on multiple choice.


----------



## sidemount

I'd have to say that I am in the boat of "leadership can't be taught". Some people are just naturally better leaders than others. However, I don't really see the point of the PLQ course as actually teaching leadership as it is more of giving those who have been recognized as having leadership potential the tools and knowledge they need to complete their jobs successfully ie knowing battle procedure, orders format, etc.

However, in saying that, and like many have pointed out, there is no real common standard across all trades. What I need to know to be a successful leader in the RCEME world is different than the combat arms world. This has already been discussed and I don't really have anything new to add besides saying that the respective schools of the various corps/branches should really be looking after this.

One major issue I have with the PLQ course is the lack of standards. The teaching staff is mainly all incremental staff. We all know that the best and brightest aren't the ones that units send to fill this task. I experienced this on two separate occasions. Doing mods 1-3 as a Cpl, there were several staff members that were newly promoted MCpls that had finished the PLQ course only a couple serials prior. They had no experience. The same happened again when I returned for mod 4. The kicker was the course officer. He was fresh off of Phase training and had never been to a unit. He had no experience, talked about how his course mates hated him on phase training and would refer to his "86 days" in the field. We were lucky to have a solid course WO who kept him in line. 

Also the testing on PLQ, at least when I was there 5 years ago wasn't multiple guess but it was the simple regurgitation of laundry lists of things like battle procedure, principles of leadership, orders format, etc. There was absolutely no critical thinking required which I believe is a very important skill that all leaders need to develop.

In the long run, the PLQ course could serve a very important purpose to new leaders but the way we employ it now is not very useful at all for a good chunk of troops.


----------



## MilEME09

sidemount said:
			
		

> One major issue I have with the PLQ course is the lack of standards. The teaching staff is mainly all incremental staff. We all know that the best and brightest aren't the ones that units send to fill this task. I experienced this on two separate occasions. Doing mods 1-3 as a Cpl, there were several staff members that were newly promoted MCpls that had finished the PLQ course only a couple serials prior. They had no experience. The same happened again when I returned for mod 4. The kicker was the course officer. He was fresh off of Phase training and had never been to a unit. He had no experience, talked about how his course mates hated him on phase training and would refer to his "86 days" in the field. We were lucky to have a solid course WO who kept him in line.
> 
> Also the testing on PLQ, at least when I was there 5 years ago wasn't multiple guess but it was the simple regurgitation of laundry lists of things like battle procedure, principles of leadership, orders format, etc. There was absolutely no critical thinking required which I believe is a very important skill that all leaders need to develop.
> 
> In the long run, the PLQ course could serve a very important purpose to new leaders but the way we employ it now is not very useful at all for a good chunk of troops.



I just got off course and I can say it hasn't changed much, fresh 2LT with a good course WO, testing was all filling in the blank laundry lists, though we were told apparently its changing and we were the last course to go though the laundry lists and its finally changing to multiple choice questions. I learned more from PLQ/AJLC about leadership from watching what not to do from watching staff and what to do from course mates. The lack of standards for testing in the field also made no sense, on stab OPs we had one member get a 75% after getting multiple IED strikes, casualties, a riot, basically everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him. We then had another member score a 90% who all they did was walk to Yukon lodge talk to a civi and walk back, very different scenario's, one was very easy to maintain command and control, another one very easy to loose command and control. Saw the same thing again on AJLC Recce patrols get tons thrown at them, while others got little to nothing. Brought it up in our ECR and such but we all know how useful those end up being.


----------



## Chad.wiseman

Curious if any units offer PLQ locally on weekends rather than having to dedicate 12 weeks away at another base?  Thanks.


----------



## MilEME09

Chad.wiseman said:
			
		

> Curious if any units offer PLQ locally on weekends rather than having to dedicate 12 weeks away at another base?  Thanks.



A couple PRes units experimented with doing mod's 2-3 locally, then only doing mod 4 at a base, no idea how it worked out.


----------



## runormal

The Brigade commander brought it up the last time I saw him, but that was at least a year ago. I've asked the COC and was told that it was a maybe. I haven't heard anything yet and I can't really see it happening, at least this year.


----------



## PuckChaser

Even though its the PRes, the OP likely has a few years to go before PLQ is an option, he just did DP1 this summer.


----------



## ringo598

I've heard some rumint from a few sources that there are some changes to ALJC coming this April, can annoy confirm this or is just wishful thinking?


----------



## RedcapCrusader

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Even though its the PRes, the OP likely has a few years to go before PLQ is an option, he just did DP1 this summer.



You'd be surprised. There was a recent serial that I had crossed paths with, had 3 Privates on the course, they had only been in the CAF for a year.

Not sure what's going on with the PRes structure these days, but it's incredible that people with less than 4 years service are being out onto a PLQ and promoted, they haven't enough experience!


----------



## MJP

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised. There was a recent serial that I had crossed paths with, had 3 Privates on the course, they had only been in the CAF for a year.
> 
> Not sure what's going on with the PRes structure these days, but it's incredible that people with less than 4 years service are being out onto a PLQ and promoted, they haven't enough experience!



That is not a new phenomenon for the PRES world though, it is almost built on making 4 year MCpl/Sgts.  FWIW it isn't terrible on the Reg Force side of the house.  My PLQ years ago had 4 or 5 folks that were advanced promoted just to get them on the crse in their 3rd year of service.  Before that it wasn't uncommon to see Ptes on JLC/JNCO.   Proper mentoring, continued training and good career development can overcome inexperience to a degree.


----------



## daftandbarmy

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised. There was a recent serial that I had crossed paths with, had 3 Privates on the course, they had only been in the CAF for a year.
> 
> Not sure what's going on with the PRes structure these days, but it's incredible that people with less than 4 years service are being out onto a PLQ and promoted, they haven't enough experience!



Turnover is astronomical so, to fill up courses, some people are being pushed on to them on a 'give it your best shot' basis, I'm sure.


----------



## ringo598

Heh.  That turnover.  I had some friends on a recent PLQ in Shilo that finished last week.  Apparently something like 14 of 38 graduated.  I do hope the CF enjoys paying out all those injuries and medical RTU's.  Perhaps one day our training system will evolve into teaching leadership instead of "suffering = leadership" model we seem to promote.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The CAF, Army in the case of Shilo, needs Junior NCO leaders that are physically able to 'lead from the front' and have the ability to perform their MOSID and Jnr NCO leadership tasks in the field.

Should PT and field training be removed so "more candidates can pass", or should candidates be better prepared physically for the training and expectations?


----------



## Kat Stevens

One of the first lessons learned on ISCC/CLC/JLC/JNCO/PLQ etc is that all candidates are equal, but some are more equal than others. If you are liked, you can get away with murder. If not, you're boned. PT, drill and classroom instruction, and field portion are a necessity. 15 weeks of belt fed cock? Perhaps not.


----------



## ringo598

My concern is the failure rates, when you compare to other places (Ancedotal I know, but I've had people very recently on courses in Meaford, Aldershot, Wainwright) the failure rates were maybe 5-10%.  Its the difference between a mentoring course where the candidates left with more/better leadership skills vs a suffering course where the candidates learned nothing except how to be miserable for 2 weeks.

You know, I wouldn't even be chapped if the course was renamed Primary Mental and Physical Resilience Training (PMPRT, copyrighting that) and was a tough miserable slog with classes on mental and physical resilience skills theory, methods of dealing with sleep dep, and austere environment training thrown in.  But don't call it Primary Leadership and then have people learn/retain no leadership skills afterwards because the whole 12 weeks was just them being screamed at and doing section attacks hundreds of times until over half the course is sent home with injuries.


----------



## cld617

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The CAF, Army in the case of Shilo, needs Junior NCO leaders that are physically able to 'lead from the front' and have the ability to perform their MOSID and Jnr NCO leadership tasks in the field.
> 
> Should PT and field training be removed so "more candidates can pass", or should candidates be better prepared physically for the training and expectations?



This is a case of wanting to maintain the universality of service mantra while enacting the changes that allow the sick lame and lazy to be promoted. If the CAF wants to promote and utilize the expertise of the 46 year old mother of 3 who has knee injuries but is a damned good Supply Tech, then they need to appropriately tailor career courses to them and administer the CAF wide courses at that level. If we want to establish FORCE test times which allow someone to saunter and pass, then we can't let runaway staff conduct course PT or training which requires a  30 year olds Silver and up peformance level. 

So yes, the PT and training needs to be trimmed if its causing this many injuries in non-combat arms modules of PLQ. We don't need to abuse and break our people on a course that already lacks leadership instruction.


----------



## ringo598

I'm not sure the fit part made a difference?  Many of the people lost I found were fit with operational experience, but at 2am with no sleep on rickity snowshoes in the dark, people would slip on ice or tank ruts and injure themselves.  In fact the two most fit people I met in the CAF both ended up releasing from PLQ related injuries.

I just find is odd when I ask people what they learned/did on PLQ and the response is usually "I just got C.O.C.K.E.D around for X weeks and I learned shit cause I was sleep fucked the whole time".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So, is the concern with the CAF PLQ, or the AJLC or whatever it's called now?  Or...is it the way the course is being administered/conducted in Shilo, vice all Army JLC TEs?

The 46 year old supply tech has the same QS, TP etc to live up to on PLQ as the 26 year old, and that makes sense.  The way the course is delivered is likely the issue;  if the 46 year old mother of three with knee injuries did CAF PLQ in Borden, she could very well likely witness the same QS and TP applied...differently then at a "Battle School" TE.

Personally, I was and will remain a supporter of the way junior NCO training was grouped/conducted back when I did it;  ISCC (infantry only) , CLC (combat arms and service support) and JLC (everyone else).


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, is the concern with the CAF PLQ, or the AJLC or whatever it's called now?  Or...is it the way the course is being administered/conducted in Shilo, vice all Army JLC TEs?
> 
> The 46 year old supply tech has the same QS, TP etc to live up to on PLQ as the 26 year old, and that makes sense.  The way the course is delivered is likely the issue;  if the 46 year old mother of three with knee injuries did CAF PLQ in Borden, she could very well likely witness the same QS and TP applied...differently then at a "Battle School" TE.
> 
> Personally, I was and will remain a supporter of the way junior NCO training was grouped/conducted back when I did it;  ISCC (infantry only) , CLC (combat arms and service support) and JLC (everyone else).



Doesn't matter if it's CAF PLQ or AJLC, it's the delivery by the DS.

My AJLC in Wainwright was great, instructors from the PPCLI with good heads on them. There was real mentorship.

My buddy did his same time in Edmonton and it was a course mainly of Reservists and the DS were very unreasonable. Like the previous poster mentioned, he learned more about what kind of leader NOT to be but couldn't remember much else from the course.


----------



## ringo598

I think for me a little of both?  If a supply tech is doing a recce, something terrible has happened at the pointy end.  I'd love to see it tackle common tasks in the current battlefield.  Instead of Recce's and section attacks which I believe (Someone offer evidence of a non-combat trade running a section attack or recce in the 10 years in AFG?) those trades would reasonably never do.  

Is it better to train the combat tasks that will probably happen (Mounted ambush, IED, base defence, convoy's, etc) vs 'soldier first' skills that will nearly never happen?  

I think I'm bias'ed anyways as I'm a bitter complaining old guy who still has long lasting injuries from my course lol.

I just really hate seeing fellow soldiers hurt for what seems is minimal training value.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter if it's CAF PLQ or AJLC, it's the delivery by the DS.
> 
> My AJLC in Wainwright was great, instructors from the PPCLI with good heads on them. There was real mentorship.
> 
> My buddy did his same time in Edmonton and it was a course mainly of Reservists and the DS were very unreasonable. Like the previous poster mentioned, he learned more about what kind of leader NOT to be but couldn't remember much else from the course.



Then I think we're agreeing and maybe not realizing it?   :nod:

The CAF PLQ employs the same QS/TP.  I'm betting that QS/TP is...delivered differently...at the Army TEs, the RCAFA in Borden, and at CFNOS in Halifax.  I know a few people (hard air trades) who did their PLQ @ CFLRS and compared to the normal delivery at the Air Academy, CFLRS had more f$$kery included during the course.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ringo598 said:
			
		

> I think for me a little of both?  If a supply tech is doing a recce, something terrible has happened at the pointy end.  I'd love to see it tackle common tasks in the current battlefield.  Instead of Recce's and section attacks which I believe (Someone offer evidence of a non-combat trade running a section attack or recce in the 10 years in AFG?) those trades would reasonably never do.
> 
> Is it better to train the combat tasks that will probably happen (Mounted ambush, IED, base defence, convoy's, etc) vs 'soldier first' skills that will nearly never happen?
> 
> I think I'm bias'ed anyways as I'm a bitter complaining old guy who still has long lasting injuries from my course lol.
> 
> I just really hate seeing fellow soldiers hurt for what seems is minimal training value.



These are comments that I'm hoping, as a Standards & Training type in my current job, get pushed up the CofC, entered in course critiques, etc.  Commanders should have input/observations like this to consider in making their decisions.  Someone is managing the QS for the AJLC; is that QUal Mgr getting this type of feedback via course critiques and/or AAR?  

The course that started with 43 and graduated 18 (I think that was the numbers given above), that should have gotten the attention of the Standards folks.  

Despite all the name changing, and seemingly never ending changes to PLQ QS content, etc across the CAF, nothing seems to have REALLY changed since my CLC in '93.  My fire team partner was a Fin Clerk and her assessment to be a Fin Clerk MCpl was based on section attacks and recce patrols, vice anything related to the actual challenges in her job.  We had a sister course that was half combat arms, half CSS types, the same as we were.  We couldn't understand why they didn't run 1 CLC and 1 JLC course...fast forward 26 years and look at the discussion points now.  Not much has changed; the CAF appears to still be all over the board on Jnr NCO coursing.


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Then I think we're agreeing and maybe not realizing it?   :nod:
> 
> The CAF PLQ employs the same QS/TP.  I'm betting that QS/TP is...delivered differently...at the Army TEs, the RCAFA in Borden, and at CFNOS in Halifax.  I know a few people (hard air trades) who did their PLQ @ CFLRS and compared to the normal delivery at the Air Academy, CFLRS had more f$$kery included during the course.



When I attended PLQ at the ACA in Borden back in '08 it was a relaxed course. We were one of the early "enhanced" PLQ courses that did the week in a "FOB" rather than the daily trip in busses to the "field". The field portion was a bit silly, but it was far better than the old style "move a barrel with these two sticks and a rubber band" type of task that had existed before. Our instructors were there to teach us about leadership(which was actually all management), and mentor us as experienced Sgts(the actual leadership training). 

The course staff didn't mess around with us during inspections, we didn't even have a kit layout. All we had to do was tidy/clean our rooms, and wear presentable CADPAT. PT was only either PSP lead or, student lead as training for our assessment on our PT lesson plan. 

I learned through time that apparently the RCN and CA didn't get the memo stating that Cpls and MCpls had already passed BMQ, and didn't need to be recoursed...


----------



## AF_Girl

Hey,
Going on my PLQ in Halifax next month and wondering if anyone has information they can share with me. I am air force going on a navy PLQ and I have never been to Halifax.
Thanks


----------



## ringo598

Even though I still havn't redone my AJLC, I did pass the CAF PLQ semi-recently.  The combined one isn't hard as long as the staff don't go out of their way to fail people which I doubt you'll see in Halifax simply because the Navy/Air seem more focused on running the course as a leadership qualification verse CAC-PLQ.  (Hmmm yessss put me in that stress position, sorry off topic).

Biggest non-medical RTU/Injury issues I saw:

1.  Giving briefs/orders.  Very basic public speaking skills, work on those.  Be able to write concisely and to sum things down, you'll get tons of stuff throw at you during orders, your job is to summerize and explain it down to your troops/sailors/airfolk.  Battle procedure is the entire field ex, just cycles of you getting orders, creating orders, giving orders, executing orders.  And remember, make a decision, the staff arn't looking for the best decision, but that you make one.

2.  The auto fails on mod 2, I think we had 8-9 people on final or PRB from all the auto fails.  You have to teach 3 classes which have tons of auto-fails in the scoring:
     a)  General Knowledge class like trenches or defensive works.
     b)  A weapons class on a section of the C7.  Example teaching how to field strip and clean.  Tons of autofails for safety here, like if you don't have the students clear their weapons or if you mess up the EDI process.  You'll learn EDI.
     c)  Drill.  You'll get a drill movement and have to teach your squad it.  Autofails for the process, of if you call the command wrong.  This one failed a lot of people because you had to memorize the entire class and process, while the other things you taught you could have an written aid.

If you do poorly and whatever, DON'T STRESS, the PRB/Warnings reset at the end of the mod.  Learn from your mistake and move on.

You get soft and hard assessments and lots of practice, but some people in front of a crowd all alone and having to call drill or missing one step of EDI and its a fail.  It sucks and I've never seen in 10 years a class taught the way they teach, but you play the game.  

You have to also be an A-RSO and run a fitness class as well, very few people failed this.  Just follow the steps and go through it with a buddy before you do it, its easy to tell who prepped and who didn't.  

Mod 3 is battle procedure and field ex.  Again, make a decision, look after your troops, write down and brief your orders in the correct sequence.  We made fill in the blank sheets to help out people who were having problems, it literally was to the point I had "I say again, 3 section will x by y with x IOT accomplish w" so you would remember to say the mission twice.  The field ex is just scenarios that you could face on any stab op, like a checkpoint.  Try to get done first before you get sleep ****ed, its definitely not equal at all since people who go first are clear and awake and so your job is much much easier, the guys who go near the end are completely wrecked and are at a huge disadvantage.  If you are strong on this take one for your team and let someone weaker go first and you take a test near the end.

Anything else just ask.


----------



## Rifleman62

Dealing with tired people when giving Orders, it is good practice to ask for a quick brief back of the individual tasks/vital points of your orders to your section and the key points (e.g.timings, etc) before saying Questions in One/Two Minutes.


----------



## Chad.wiseman

Curious if any units conduct mod 2 at their home units?  Also I noticed mod 3 and 4 are 17 training days.  Does that include weekends?


----------



## Brasidas

I taught mod 2 locally last spring (2019). Mod 3 +AJLC were at a TC


----------



## MilEME09

Chad.wiseman said:
			
		

> Curious if any units conduct mod 2 at their home units?  Also I noticed mod 3 and 4 are 17 training days.  Does that include weekends?



Mod 2 I have heard of being done locally, however mod 3 and 4 are done at the TC's, Training days never include weekends, it is actual working days so monday to friday. Field ex on mod 4 does go upto 14 days continuous but thats subject to candidate load. I was out of the field on day 10 because we were all done testing since we had roughly a section plus drop from the course. mostly due to injury as it was a winter course.


----------



## portcullisguy

Hello, I am back in the ARes as an Inf Corporal after 6+ years of supp res, and back on this forum after 8 years of inactivity. And now I am back pretty much where I started, on a pre-plq. I had previously done mods 1-5 of the old PLQ over several training cycles but never got to finish mod 6 and so I am told I have to do it all again, which is fine, I am enjoying the practice as I am way rusty with so much time out. But my concern is no one seems to be able to answer my Q's about what PLQ will look like next year, WRT length of course. I am being told it could be 12 weeks. I don't have that kind of time off from work.

Does anyone have any solid info yet on the "new" PLQ and length of mods? 17 days for mod 3 and 4 mentioned above sounds reasonable, and I understand some other portions are now DL, but that is not what I am being told at unit (though nobody seems sure). Any info appreciated.


----------



## Brasidas

portcullisguy said:
			
		

> Hello, I am back in the ARes as an Inf Corporal after 6+ years of supp res, and back on this forum after 8 years of inactivity. And now I am back pretty much where I started, on a pre-plq. I had previously done mods 1-5 of the old PLQ over several training cycles but never got to finish mod 6 and so I am told I have to do it all again, which is fine, I am enjoying the practice as I am way rusty with so much time out. But my concern is no one seems to be able to answer my Q's about what PLQ will look like next year, WRT length of course. I am being told it could be 12 weeks. I don't have that kind of time off from work.
> 
> Does anyone have any solid info yet on the "new" PLQ and length of mods? 17 days for mod 3 and 4 mentioned above sounds reasonable, and I understand some other portions are now DL, but that is not what I am being told at unit (though nobody seems sure). Any info appreciated.



If by "new" you mean what's currently in the Army National Calendar, it's 20 training days for mod 3 and 16 days for AJLC.


----------



## portcullisguy

Thanks for that. Assuming at least some portions of Mods 1 and 2 are distance learning, that means about 7 weeks away from work/home. Cheers.


----------



## Brasidas

portcullisguy said:
			
		

> Thanks for that. Assuming at least some portions of Mods 1 and 2 are distance learning, that means about 7 weeks away from work/home. Cheers.



Mod 1 is 9 days DL.

Mod 2 is usually at a training center, but some reserve brigades were running them locally on weekends and parade nights. Approximately 10 trg days, though there was some shifting and extra practice shoving the schedule around when I taught it this year.

I have no idea whether, when, or where a local mod 2 may run again. There's all kinds of cancellations on the national calendar, and there are no serials of any kind listed at the moment.


----------

