# Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion



## Information (31 Mar 2001)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> Confirm that by "Purple trade" you mean an MOC which is not exclusive to one element.  Like MP, Log, etc.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Yes.  A purple trade is not exclusively army, navy or air.  It exists in two or all three of the elements.


----------



## Yard Ape (27 Apr 2001)

Was there any function to introducing Air Force MPs, or was it just for aesthetics?  I also wonder about other trades common to all services.  Is there any difference in training for a clerk in the Army vs one in the Air Force?  If there is no difference, then why assign an element?  Why not just tell the individual to dress like the unit he/she is serving in?

  Yard Ape


----------



## Terry Warner (30 Apr 2001)

As an ex green-wearing clerk on an air base, I can tell you that the training at the schools on MOC courses, was adequate for the job.  The differences tend to more in individual outlook than in uniform colour.  

Uniform colour was once assigned by a cigar-smoking old Artillery major in Trenton (no kidding I watched him at work).  He had to calculate the end needs to maintain some magical ratio of blue/green/dark blue after recruit training.  These production requirements were then communicated to the recruiting centres, who would offer a job and a uniform to an applicant.  Once in one colour, the system was supposed to remain colour blind and indifferent.  However, first posting environments tended to set the trend for future employment.

Terry


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (30 Apr 2001)

Air Force MPs eh?
I was at Borden for shooting last weekend and there were Air Force MPs a couple of shooting bays down from us and they were practicing with C9s. My platoon had a little discusion about that at lunch and I heard that military MPs have lots of authority and can beat you if they suspect you with something(little egzagerated) so we were told not to bother them. The function of the MPs at Borden is kinf of obviouse, Its an air force base , so they have air force MPs.
I tried my best to answer your question.


----------



## garb811 (1 May 2001)

"Air Force" MPs have been around since the RCAF where the vast majority of the Air Force Policemen were employed as site security for those items that Canada never had.  If there is an "invented" MP uniform it would be the navy one as most MP functions, particularly that of disciplinarian, were filled by the shore patrol, usually specially trained pers of hard sea trades. SP was not their primary duty and they would only fill those functions when required, once their ship went to sea they were back to scrapping rust etc.  Once the glad bags came out MPs were eventually posted to every CFB and the duties and responsibilities were made pretty much the same at each base, aside from places like the MP Pls and Bn MPs.

SOF:  No we don‘t beat suspects, we are held to the same laws and standards (in some cases even higher standards) as civilian police.  As for Borden, it isn‘t an Air Force base, it‘s a CFRETS base, it doesn‘t belong to any element.  There is a strong Air Force presence there with 400(?) Wing and the Alphabet school but the primary purpose of the base is to host the various trade schools.  As for which bases MPs serve at, they serve at them all. Air Force can serve at Navy bases, Navy MPs can serve at Army bases and Army MPs etc. As has been stated, "purple" trades are not colour coded when it comes to postings, although I do know of a MP field Platoon that only has 4 "Army" MPs in it so perhaps that poetic justice on those that chose Air Force blue and Navy...


----------



## McG (15 May 2001)

In ‘98 I saw an Airforce Logistics Captain taking the BIOC Phase II.  She wanted to change her element to land so she would be eligable for a posting which went to army personel in her trade.  From this, one can only be left to conclude that there is some difference in training based on element.  Any Logistic officers out there who can clarify this?

(BIOC = Basic Infantry Officer Course.  The Phase II of this is common to all land officers)


----------



## garb811 (15 May 2001)

I can attest to a certain amount of colour coding going on within the officers of the purple branches, ie. you‘ll never see someone wearing blue or navy being made CO of a MP Pl.  As for other classifications I can‘t really say for sure but I will say that a log officer serving in a service battalion or with a combat arms unit requires a totally different skill set compared to one serving at an airbase.  It also makes sense to bring someone through the system throughout their career, imagine the chaos if the CO of a Svc Bn had never served in the field before and didn‘t really want to be there?

Not an expert in this, merely a few observations.


----------



## McG (22 Jun 2001)

How might the introduction of an element specific course, between QL2 and QL3, affect the ease with which soldiers within these trades can be posted from one unit to another unit of a different element?  Would it be the final nail in the coffin of Trudeau‘s unification of the forces?


----------



## garb811 (22 Jun 2001)

My guess is it would have zero impact since the various commands have been running environment specific JLC/JNCO courses for years now.  I know it‘s great fun to bug the older MCpls who wear blue about how hard it was to conduct small party tasks in a hanger in Penhold while some of us were off doing the Army one and playing infantryman...

It‘s better and worse today. You now go on a course based on where you are currently based.  This is good in theory since if you‘re posted to LF then it makes sense to teach someone how to conduct a section attack but then you run into situations where someone takes the Air Force or Navy course and are immediately promoted and posted to a LF base or vice versa.


----------



## Jimmy (2 Jul 2001)

So far, the discussion has focused on trades such as the MPs and Logistics, which, in my experience (very little in the navy area, I‘m afraid) are fairly similar across the elements.  Other trades, however, such as the tech trades in the CELE branch, differ grearly across land and air (no Navy in the CELE branch.)  The reasoning behind the partitioning of non-element specific trades (such as logistics and MPs) is unfortunately beyond me.


----------



## Yard Ape (10 Sep 2001)

> Originally posted by McG:
> [QB]How might the introduction of an element specific course, between QL2 and QL3, affect the ease with which soldiers within these trades can be posted from one unit to another unit of a different element?  [QB]



If all soldiers of a given element are expected to have a given common skill set, then soldiers from another element should not be thrown into the mix unqualified.  Under the new system, a person should only serve with the element that he belongs to.  The other option would be for Borden to run conversion courses for soldiers to switch form one element to another.


   Yard Ape


----------



## MP 811 (14 Sep 2001)

I canvouch for garb811 when he said earlier in the posts about uniforms and the different bases.  We all receive the same training, regardless of your occupational dress.  I‘m currently at the naval base in Esquimalt and I can tell you that there‘s only 1 navy MP here!!!!!!!!


----------



## Griswald DME (14 Nov 2004)

I understand  Medics, cooks, clerks, vehicle techs are purple trades.  What are some of the other trades that can be more than one element?  Carpentry?  Engineers?  And does that vary at times with Regs and Reserves?  What about trades such as electricians - ED and EGS techs are only Army and Air, and for Navy they are Naval Electricians, so thats not really tri-trade if you feel like getting overly technical.


----------



## Eowyn (14 Nov 2004)

Griswald said:
			
		

> I understand  ..., vehicle techs are purple trades.



My understanding is that Veh Tech, which belongs to the EME branch, are not purple.  EME belongs to the Army.  That being said, some Veh Tech are in the Air element and wear blue.


----------



## McG (14 Nov 2004)

I thought the EME branch choose to go all Army (including uniforms).

The engineer construction trades are purple (existing in both air and land elements).


----------



## Eowyn (14 Nov 2004)

McG said:
			
		

> I thought the EME branch choose to go all Army (including uniforms).



IIRC, I saw a veh tech, in blue, at the EME Assoc Conf 2003.  They were giving a report on the EME trades in the Air Res.  Things may have changed since then.


----------



## McG (14 Nov 2004)

Could be that EME is all land except for members of the Air Reserve.


----------



## gun plumber (15 Nov 2004)

EME is Army owned.Period
At one time in our life,EME (or more accuratly LORE)existed in the RCAF as well.Thats why we have light blue as one of the colors on the branch flag.
After spending 2 years in Borden on PAT,I hav'nt seen a single non-army tech pass through the school,and highly doubt that any exist.
As techs,we can get posted to air or naval establishments as well as land only bases.The only cross over,and it's not even a cross over really is NWT-Naval Weapons Tech-but that is a naval trade all to itself.
If someone can show me a picture of a non-army EME tech,I'll do some digging to explain it and hopefully clear up any questions that exist.The only possibility I could see would an Air Res unit,holding a Army EME tech,and for reasons of uniformity,having them wear a light blue beret with combats(ala a clerk wearing thier unit slip-ons instead of LOG).I know that some Air res units like airfield engineers probably require thier own V-techs.

Arte et Marte
By Skill and by Fighting


----------



## Griswald DME (15 Nov 2004)

I'm in airfield engineers and our veh techs are army, but they wear their own greens.  I believe our EOD guys are army as well. *trying to think*


----------



## McG (15 Nov 2004)

Your EOD guys would be 043 Cbt Engr.  They are Army.


----------



## Acorn (16 Nov 2004)

EOD can be Ammo Tech or airforce armourer (the latter is not a trade anymore, IIRC), as well as Engineer.

Acorn


----------



## brin11 (16 Nov 2004)

To my knowledge, there are no non-army EME personnel.  Where the airforce veh. tech came from I have no idea.  Are you sure he was a vehicle tech then and not a remuster just attending?  Lots of people remuster to the airforce but still attend their old trades' functions.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Nov 2004)

Dont forget the Navy, Clearance divers also perform EOD.

There are no reserve Ammo Tech positions period and no reg force Ammo Techs posted to AES'.  A friend of mine was offered a position there but he would have had to rebadge to Engineer, therefore I believe the EOD positions, at least at the reserve AES', are Combat Engineers.  There might be some potential for an Air Force EOD type to be employeed at one of the Reg Force AES', but I doubt it, it is an Engineer Squadron after all...


----------



## McG (16 Nov 2004)

Acorn said:
			
		

> EOD can be Ammo Tech or airforce armourer (the latter is not a trade anymore, IIRC), as well as Engineer.
> 
> Acorn


Yes, but within the Airfield Engr flights & squadrons this fuction is provided for by Cbt Engrs.


----------



## EME Tony (23 Nov 2004)

Hi Folks,

New to the forum and just a few thoughts.  Navy had an MP type branch known as Regulating Rates. A Regulating Petty Officer would be appointed for shipboard security and supervision of defaulters. They would be your professional "Sheriffs" on board larger ships much like the MP Det in an Inf Bn. The Shore Patrol were duty men(or extra duty men) depending on the circumstances for smaller ships, training establishments or to aid the Regulators in and out of their normal harbour duties. At one time the old RCN had a ship in harbour, I believe it was the HMCS Sioux, that was the cleanest ship in the fleet but never left harbour.

Before uglification, sorry (thinking voice), unification in '68 the old RCEME Corps was the third largest Corps in the Canadian Army (see Col Johnston's book Canada's Craftsmen). 

During the First World War the majority of the Cdn Ord Corps medals for bravery were earned by their fledgling Engineering Branch (prime example is SSgt Hurry, Weapon's Tech) where some of the prime EME Tenants were developed-"Repair as far forward as possible", and "Equipped and Trained to fight in their own defence". This earned the RCOC their "Royal title and later their "Combatant" status. In 1944 the RCOC(E) and the mechanical engineering branches of the RCASC, RCE and RCAC were combined to form the RCEME. A RCEME Soldier was trained as a basic infantryman first before he received technical trades training(unless of course he already had a skilled trade). Our first Col Commandant was Gen Andy McNaughton, a father of the Canadian Artillery (see Vimy Ridge and Rolling Barrages) and General of the Canadian Army in WW2. He was also an Engineer. The RCEME Home station was named McNaughton Barracks where our Memorial Gates still stand.

EME takes its mounted traditions from that time, our patrol dress and current mess dress shows our shared "blood" lineage to the RCOC/ RCE and further back to the RCA and Board of Ordnance. We were organized into Field Workshops,Technical Regiments, Technical Squadron's and Light Aid Detachments. Only recently have we reintroduced the use of a Lance Party for Ceremonial Purposes. 

During ug-  unification the RCAF Engineering Branch consisting of MSE Techs and Officers numbering near 600, were added to the bulk of the RCEME Corps to form LORE. At that time the RCEME Air Trades (primarily for Artillery spotting and Tac Hel) were formally removed to Air OPS and Tac Radio and Radar Repairs moved to the Sigs.(Really just put us back to our roots in some ways) Training for RCEME Air trades had been carried out at Rivers, Manitoba. That is where our light blue band came from and is the only light blue we carry. Yes, Tac Hel Sqns and Air Bases still have EME soldiers attached to them but we all wear green.(in fact I hear the Air Types will be working in green soon too, I guess blue attracts attention on the ground)

EME Branch is currently in the process of transferring all its Managing Authority back to the Army. The missing elements that are the Canadian version of what is known as the Regimental System are being researched and re-instated or filled in if never present, to bring us in line with the traditions of the rest of the Canadian Army. Every new EME soldier must complete the new Soldier Qualification, annual Field Craft refresher training, as well as the Combat Leaders Course during their trade progression. As well as being craftsmen, all EME soldiers must also attend Regimental Training at all levels of trade advancement. Besides common technical skills and doctrine, the QL3 apprentice learns Regimental History and the battle drills of a Mobile Repair Team driver, QL5 journeymen learn MRT Commander Drills, QL6 is Tactical moving and siting a Maint Pl defensive position and QL7 is at the Company Level. Turns out to be quite the area of real estate when you consider the sizes of vehicles we deal with and still try to not attract allot of attention as it tends to draw enemy fire. 

Currently our school belongs to CFSTG but who knows what our future will bring, our Home Station has already moved from Kingston to Borden. Our cousins the Engineers said there school would never leave BC to join the rest of the Combat Arms. Possibly we'll get our combatant status back that we earned as RCOC(E) those many years ago and make the move too.The names may change but the job stays the same, as far forward as possible!


----------



## DJ_Overload (24 Nov 2004)

McG said:
			
		

> In '98 I saw an Airforce Logistics Captain taking the BIOC Phase II.   She wanted to change her element to land so she would be eligable for a posting which went to army personel in her trade.   From this, one can only be left to conclude that there is some difference in training based on element.   Any Logistic officers out there who can clarify this?
> 
> (BIOC = Basic Infantry Officer Course.   The Phase II of this is common to all land officers)



   With reguarregardsis item, LOG is very much a "purple" trade and when it comes to it's NCM's there is no varriavariance's QL3 or any other QL level regardless what uniform they wear (to the best of my knowledge). But this is not so true in our Officer levels of leadership. A LOG officer who wears a Blue uniform will always serve on an Air Force or Training Base one that Wears Green will always be to a Army posting or training same is true for navy if they wear black they will be at one of the coasts or at a training the only exception that I am aware of are for holding or OJT proupos example I am on an Air Force base but we recently had a Army LOG officer working here while he awaited training

   In contradition and just to see how many other persons out there got this same story, as an NCM I was told durrindurings in Borden that because I wore a Blue uniform My first posting WOULD be to an Air Force Wing.. and that the only way I would get an Army posting off my 3's is if I had NOK (mom didn't count) at an Army base currently survinservingave them seperaseparationance I would guess). Did any other of you LOG (spificspecificallyy) get this story off your 3's or is my course the only one????


----------



## RatCatcher (13 Dec 2004)

I can add the medical side to this... There was talk a couple of years ago of turning the medical trades army. This does makes sense since the majority of medical personnel are posted to the Fd Ambs. Where it went from talk I have no clue. In the medical trades it doesnt really matter what coulour you wear, the training covers the basics of the field and garrision (including the air bases and navy bases).  Ship medics must complete the sea indoc the same as all trade.


----------



## medicineman (1 Jan 2005)

One other thing there Ratcatcher - you`re supposed to be fit to fly if posted to an Air Base, since one of the primary reasons for medics in the Air Force is med evacs.

As for the Log Officers, having worked at RMC for a number of years, I can attest to the fact that there are environmental MOC`s for Log Officers and their training reflects that.

Cheers, and a Happy Army New Year to All.

MM


----------



## PeterLT (13 Mar 2005)

IMHO, the "Purple Trades" were and probably are the worst thing to happen to the CF dues to uglification (love that term!). At first unification applied to the operational coordination of the three services and that was a good thing but a Sailor was a Sailor, an Airman an Airman and a Soldier a Soldier. It's when the green duds were brought in (Damn Hellier's oily hide!) and we entered the era of senior leadership that were essentially political yes men in uniform that this term and associated thinking emerged and flourished. All this did was to drive a wedge between our respective trade groups and corps and the fine folks we supported. There is nothing a guy in the field wants to hear like, "I don't care what you guys do with these trucks, I'm not Army, I'm purple. It's bad enough that I'm here. I should be on an air base." I had a young fellow throw that one at me when I told him to cam his vehicle and dig a shellscrape. When I was done with him, he had an intimate knowledge of a shovel and cam net, and he _was_ purple.

Again IMHO, after QL3 support trades should be posted according to their environment which should be determined at enrolment, that way there are no surprises. Once on the ground (or boat), there should be further training specific to the environment such as Sea Environmental, Fieldcraft, Weapons Trg, etc. Further trades training can have similar points where the system has common things but should primarily  emphasize training in the environment. The individual should then remain in that environment unless posted to a combined command level like Disneyland on the Rideau.

Speaking from an Army Logistics background, tradespeople do well in the Army if that is what they know and are well trained in, I would imagine the same to be true for the other services. It's when you mix and tell everyone they aren't really what they are wearing that problems arise.

Peter 

I try not to sound like the old soldier I am, and use big words like many of the more educated folks. I'll go back to my whittling and Matlock now.....


----------



## Cansky (18 Mar 2005)

PeterLT  quote 
Again IMHO, after QL3 support trades should be posted according to their environment which should be determined at enrolment, that way there are no surprises. Once on the ground (or boat), there should be further training specific to the environment such as Sea Environmental, Fieldcraft, Weapons Trg, etc. Further trades training can have similar points where the system has common things but should primarily  emphasize training in the environment. The individual should then remain in that environment unless posted to a combined command level like Disneyland on the Rideau

As a purple trade I totally agree (me army uniform)  We see the lack of knowledge best when it comes to JLC/JCNO or PLQ (whatever its called now).  There has been debate over why purple trades should do JNCO(or Mod 6 i think it is now).  When others who did their course on Air force or Navy bases don't!  Its really hard when you have been on a non-field postings  and suddenly your in an combat arms unit and on deployment on Combat ops you haven't got a clue as to where, when and what to do?  When I was on Op Apollo (I was luck did a WATC JLC/JNCO) at least I had a small clue as what to do.  But some of the others didn't. We had on support trade who joined us in theatre and had never done anything Army (ie section attacks or patrols) and with in  4 days in country was on Operations in the mountains.  Some where along the line support trades need to be trained to the enviroment they are working in or stay with the element uniform you where.  Funny if I go to the Navy I get sea enviromental training but not the airforce or army.  There its learn as you go.


----------



## OLD F of S (18 Mar 2005)

I have been out now close to 10 years so I am not used to the term purple trades, I assume it means support trades. I hate to go back to our old ways but in my time although a RCEME Rad Tech
I took my basic with the PPCLI and learned section attack, patrolling, cam and concealment, plus
fired all light infantry weapons. Upon grad parade was granted Group 1 Light Infantry badge.

        So after trades training when posted to field regt I had no problem understanding what the
grunts were doing as well could participate in a small but knowing roll in stand to and other functions
relating requirments in the field.

         I don't like to reinvent the wheel but it worked for me for 31 years.




                                Regards   OLD F of S


----------



## PeterLT (19 Mar 2005)

> I don't like to reinvent the wheel but it worked for me for 31 years.



I think that is exactly what went wrong. The wheel wasn't broken but it was seen as politically desirable to make it oblong. Hence the period where we were led by politicians and not military commanders. But *that's* another story.

Peter


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2005)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> Funny if I go to the Navy I get sea enviromental training but not the airforce or army.


The is a land enviromental training course.  At least, I've seen the books for it.  I've never heard of one actually having been run.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> The is a land enviromental training course.   At least, I've seen the books for it.   I've never heard of one actually having been run.



I have *SEEN* one in the field in Petawawa somewhere around 1996


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2005)

Regt Trg had never heard of the course when I asked to have one ramped up for Construction Troop.  As Kirsten pointed out, it is something we need to get better at.  I personally think all the construction trades should do SQ regardless of uniform colour.


----------



## Bert (2 Apr 2005)

If referring to SQ applied to cross-elemental purple trades, you have to solve the whole problem 
of training, standards, and re-thinking unification ideals.

SQ is nice to go through for land and weapon familiarization.  Yet, SQ doesn't provide the tactical
section skills in which to use these weapons as what may be found in BIQ.  Two questions
come to mind; To what combat standard would be set for the purple trades (or any trade/element) and
secondly how to maintain the skills and readiness levels?  Its great to provide an SQ, but if the
member, perhaps air force, rarely ever experiences the weapons again then is the course the best use
of time.  On a day to day basis, the air force in a general sense and as an example doesn't apply tactical
land training as the army would.  Activities usually occur to support the elemental pointy ends.  Maintaining
weapon familiarization, competency, in organized teams takes time and practice.

However, as described in earlier posts air force/navy purples may be deployed or attached with army units
and there is a difference in personal combat readiness.   Cross-elemental deployments occur and the military 
may have to close the readiness gaps with standards and continual training.


----------



## TCBF (2 Apr 2005)

Someone posted the link to the Pubs site the other night, and I forgot I was on leave and started reading Battle Task Standards for CSS.

The ones that start with L  are CSS specific, and you know what?  There is one called ATTACK, at section and platoon level, and one called DEFEND.  In the  CSS BTS book.  

Anti ambush drill is worth a read as well. Have fun!

Tom


----------



## Bert (2 Apr 2005)

A course structure can be implemented.   Content isn't the only issue.


----------



## Chief Clerk (2 Apr 2005)

Most Service Support, if not all (Logistics) are Purple.  It really does not matter what color uniform (Blue, Green, Black) you are wearing the CF will send you to wherever they wish.  You simply show up and soldier/air or Navy on.  I know the trg for RMS is no different - we all go to our main school in Borden, ONT (CFSAL), take whatever training is given and go back to our units.  The only thing I found different over the years is getting use to the different way the Chain of Comd acts and the discipline as each element (Navy, Air, Army) seem to have different "twists" in these areas.  Hey - with the size and amount of us Purple People (probably half the CF is purple)- why not go our own way and form and LOGISTICS command - that would be a twist!  

MPs - Really, how did you get Spec Pay? (I know the trg downtown your taking is looked at "your two year course") But what else or was it just this that pushed you guys over that special edge?    Need to know the secret, maybe with us RMS guys taking on three MOCs we can get in on some sweet deal!  Really would not mind knowing the hoops you guys had to get through.


----------



## Vigilant (13 Jul 2005)

When I was at Borden last year there was a separate QL5 class for Navy Supply Techs.


----------



## Chief Clerk (15 Jul 2005)

You sure it was Reg Force?  Cant see why the Navy would have a separate crse for Sup Techs - the trg should not be different at that level and the element should not make a difference.  When they go to ships - they learn to do it the "ships" way same as the AF or Army.
Look as far as the uniform goes - I think of us purple trades as the prostitutes of the CF - Make it easy give us all pinstripe suites with a feather coming out of a hat - call us pimps!  
Or here is a thought - give us our OWN Command - Give us one uniform - Send us wherever the hell you want too - but we stay within SUPPORT Command and are "on loan" to an element.   :threat:
Had a blue uniform most of my career and have served with all - so why not give us one common uniform and fall under one New Command and begin empire building like the rest of Ottawa!


----------



## Pencil Tech (15 Jul 2005)

Chief Clerk said:
			
		

> Look as far as the uniform goes - I think of us purple trades as the prostitutes of the CF - Make it easy give us all pinstripe suites with a feather coming out of a hat - call us pimps!
> Or here is a thought - give us our OWN Command - Give us one uniform - Send us wherever the heck you want too - but we stay within SUPPORT Command and are "on loan" to an element.     :threat:
> form and fall under one New Command and begin empire buildall - so why not give us one common uniform and fall under one New Command and begin empire building like the rest of Ottawa!



Great idea Chief Clerk, you lead I follow!  ;D


----------



## Vigilant (22 Jul 2005)

Chief Clerk said:
			
		

> You sure it was Reg Force?  Cant see why the Navy would have a separate crse for Sup Techs - the trg should not be different at that level and the element should not make a difference.  When they go to ships - they learn to do it the "ships" way same as the AF or Army.




I think there was some Naval specific training. Don't know what it was, but it was a Reg force Navy serial.


----------



## Icer (23 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> When I was at Borden last year there was a separate QL5 class for Navy Supply Techs.



This would be reserve training.  There is no reg force-element specific NCM training at CFSAL.  For reservist courses that run during the summer it can get separated depending on the trade.


----------



## Vigilant (23 Jul 2005)

I just looked at the course list and you are right. It was listed as a Naval serial, but it was listed under a reserve heading which I did not notice at the time. Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Gen. Natynczyk, having been VCDS, will be acutely aware of the problems facing all three services* and the purple parts, too*, and he is equally aware of the resources needed to address those problems and fight a war a the same time.



Hopefully then, he can fix this:

CANFORGEN 101/08

Para 4B, just look at all those (L)s for (Land uniform only):


> NCM:
> 
> (1) BASIC MILITARY QUALIFICATION - LAND(BMQ-L)/SOLDIER QUALIFICATION (SQ) - THE FOL OCC WILL ATTEND THE SQ CRSE:
> 
> ...



Apparently we purple folks ain't so purple anymore ... unless you wear a green uniform of course ... then you can still do ALL of the trades job requirements and be posted to field Units unlike those blue & black folks who apparently are of the same trade as I, but can no longer be posted to some 1st line field Units due to the "SQ Course" pre-requisite that they now can not be placed onto.  :

I guess the next step -- is to give us purple Army folks ... our own merit list too.


----------



## Jammer (6 Jun 2008)

So Vern are you looking fwd to your SQ???? >


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

Jammer said:
			
		

> So Vern are you looking fwd to your SQ???? >



I've got all 3 environmental qualifications my dear -- and have served with all 3 of those environments. They each have their own way, their own good points & their own bad points.

I'll tell you this much, when this little CANFORGEN got passed on to the troops during yesterday's O Group -- there were a whole lot of great big grins and "yippee" coming from the mouths of those blue & black uniform wearers here who understand that this means they will no longer have to go to some of those hard green units and can now safely ride their damn desk in a "base" position.

Meanwhile, I watched the young troops who wear green also realize it's implication with a "WTF!!?? - They are the same trade as me and we're getting paid the same - why the hell are they so special?"

Moral here, with the CANFORGEN is, to say the MOST, absolutely 160% dismal.


----------



## TCBF (6 Jun 2008)

- Undoing Unification - one CANFORGEN at a time.


----------



## Jammer (6 Jun 2008)

Vern: I'm not so sure the young 'uns wearing other than green are out of the woods yet. I think it's going to go a ways to impliment and no doubt there will be amendments to this plan. 
So for the time being if I were one of the purple folks, I wouldn't be dancing in the streets yet.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jun 2008)

Everyone who joins the CF SHOULD undergo SQ. 
Why? Because as a soldier, sailor or airperson, you should at least know the basics of handling drills and firing the C7, C9 and C6. Every member of the CF should also know how to throw grenades.
You never know when that might come in handy...or where.

So does this mean those not qualified SQ are not eligble for operational deployments in the land environment ie Afghanistan? Or will there be a waiver ie "not deployable outside the wire". I can't see legions of pers not qualified SQ giving up the allowances and benefits that come with an Afghanistan tour.

Or am I just being a crusty old Army type?


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Undoing Unification - one CANFORGEN at a time.



Ergo my comment that the next step is bringing back the Army Supply tech merit list.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Vern: I'm not so sure the young 'uns wearing other than green are out of the woods yet. I think it's going to go a ways to impliment and no doubt there will be amendments to this plan.
> So for the time being if I were one of the purple folks, I wouldn't be dancing in the streets yet.



Sorry. They _are_ dancing, and it's already confirmed.

Actually nominated two of my blue pers for SQ this week. The were rejected due to their uniform colour.

The SQ course is now loaded/managed by the Army G1 -- and if they are not green, they aren't loading them: "CANFORGEN 101/08 refers".


----------



## Jammer (6 Jun 2008)

Ohhh the headaches this is going to cause Bde units....


----------



## meni0n (6 Jun 2008)

The other question is, how for example a air force comm rsch cpl who spent 6 years in ottawa be able to pass PLQ-L?


----------



## kratz (6 Jun 2008)

If every CF member was required to know a skill (C6, C9 or grenades), I would think it would be included in the BMQ training vice the SQ course. Just my thoughts on it.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jun 2008)

It doesn't matter on what course you get your training. As far as I'm concerned, if a blue clerk or cook or whatever wants to go to Afghanistan, then they should be SQ qualified, or equivalent. SO lets roll BMQ and SQ together.
That means learning how to operate the C9 and C6, throw grenades and all that comes with being SQ qualified.
Each individual is responsible for their own defence, and that means knowing how to operate certain small arms.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> If every CF member was required to know a skill (C6, C9 or grenades), I would think it would be included in the BMQ training vice the SQ course. Just my thoughts on it.



Well of course you think so.

Fact is purple trades end up on the ground in war zones!! Regardless of uniform colour. Why on earth would uniform colour dictate that you and I don't need that same qualification? 

Would this go over well? "Don't expect my Army purple butt to come over to protect or cover yours if the bullets start flying because it's been decided that you, as a Naval purple trade, do not need to be ground qualified? Defend yourself - good luck with that."

You think if I get posted back to ship I'd get away with screaming "but I DO NOT need a Sea Enviornmental course to know what to do if the ship starts sinking - you should have taught me that on BMQ?"

Yeah ri-ight. Dreams.


----------



## garb811 (6 Jun 2008)

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that the MP Branch actually came out on the right side of this one.  It should be noted though that it was NOT the MP Branch who decided all MP would do this, it was directed from higher.

What is going to end up happening is non-qual pers who are tasked for tour are going to have to get "supplemental training" or something to get them up to speed when tasked.  I don't believe any of the purple Branches are big enough to absorb the demand for deployable personnel with just their "green folk" so just because you're nice and cushy in a base posting while wearing a non-green uniform...

_Edit:  fixed pesky typo_


----------



## Jammer (6 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well of course you think so.
> 
> Fact is purple trades end up on the ground in war zones!! Regardless of uniform colour. Why on earth would uniform colour dictate that you and I don't need that same qualification?
> 
> ...



That's why there's a swimm test...just throwing out there.....


----------



## kratz (6 Jun 2008)

Going along with the train of thought then, purple trades would have their 10 weeks of BMQ, followed by however many weeks of SQ (6 weeks ??), followed by 6 weeks of NETP training. Just in case they are posted to a position where those skills are needed. Five months of training before a purple member can look at trades training?


----------



## McG (6 Jun 2008)

Vern,
I don't have access to the CANFORGEN at the moment.  Will the occupations directed to under go SQ also be mandated to to PLQ(L) as opposed to CFPLQ?  Will there be modification to the MOSIDs to recognize the stream differences within the occupation?

If this ensures that all personnel deploying into a land operation are properly qualified, then it is a step in the right direction.  Though I still do appreciate the concern of individuals in the jobs that they will now be stuck filling jobs which some of their peers are not allowed into.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern,
> I don't have access to the CANFORGEN at the moment.  Will the occupations directed to under go SQ also be mandated to to PLQ(L) as opposed to CFPLQ?  Will there be modification to the MOSIDs to recognize the stream differences within the occupation?
> 
> If this ensures that all personnel deploying into a land operation are properly qualified, then it is a step in the right direction.  Though I still do appreciate the concern of individuals in the jobs that they will now be stuck filling jobs which some of their peers are not allowed into.



The full text of 101/08:



> CANFORGEN 101/08 CMP 040/08 031334Z JUN 08
> COMMON DP1/DP2 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTEMPORARY CF LAND WARFARE
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Jun 2008)

Why aren't Crewmen and Artillery required to do SQ if a Sapper is?


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jun 2008)

The defence of Canada is the CF's top priority.

This means that you may, at some time in the future, need to pick up a weapon and KILL someone who is trying to do you or fellow Canadians harm. I don't care if you're infantry, a bosun  or an RMS Clerk at an Air wing, be prepared to visit death on those who would do us harm.
You're a liability if you do not know how to use a C7, C9 or a C6. Thus the requirement for the SQ.
There aren't enough land types around to secure airfields or naval installations.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Jun 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Why aren't Crewmen and Artillery required to do SQ if a Sapper is?



Maybe the lenght of the Sapper Dp1?

Did the engineers add the SQ into the DP1 package?We did a little while back.

Maybe that's the reason?


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Jun 2008)

Dunno, I'm three degrees removed from all the cool acronyms, I still speak TQ and CLC.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The defence of Canada is the CF's top priority.



Wow......how come i never heard of this before ? I'm sure glad i came on army.ca today so i could read your post..... :


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Dunno, I'm three degrees removed from all the cool acronyms, I still speak TQ and CLC.



So do I ... actually prefer to the call the course by it's actual name --- this DP1.2.3b.4 crap is simply confusing. I don't mind the "Developmental Period" (DP label), but calling a course .1, .3 whatever means hell in the Ops & Training world when we're dealing with many trades for whom each different .whatever equals something different.

We all tend to convert as in "what the hell course is the Inf DP3bravo again?"


----------



## danchapps (6 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Para 4B, just look at all those (L)s for (Land uniform only):
> Apparently we purple folks ain't so purple anymore ... unless you wear a green uniform of course ... then you can still do ALL of the trades job requirements and be posted to field Units unlike those blue & black folks who apparently are of the same trade as I, but can no longer be posted to some 1st line field Units due to the "SQ Course" pre-requisite that they now can not be placed onto.  :
> 
> I guess the next step -- is to give us purple Army folks ... our own merit list too.



I feel, and this is my own two cents, that if we do the same job we should have the same training. As I'm going through my 3's right now I see my peers doing the same training, the only difference is the uniform. 

(start vent)
Now, when putting in my 3 choices for posting I decided I would like Pet, Halifax, or Esquimault. Here's where I get irked by the system, despite being a "purple trade" I drew Edmonton. I've gotten over it, but just because I'm wearing a green uniform they wouldn't send me to a coast? They refuse to send the new Supply Tech sailors to anywhere other than a coast. They keep telling us it doesn't matter what uniform we wear, we can go anywhere. It appears this isn't so. I just feel that if I have to do SQ then why shouldn't the Air or Navy Supply Techs? I'd be more than willing to do their training. If we truly are interchangeable then why the big fuss about not sending me to one of the operational bases I picked?(end vent)

(Now I wait for the typical "it is what you make of it" or "you picked the army, kid" replies.)


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Jun 2008)

I hate to disappoint people, so here you go:  "you picked the army, kid"

I aim to please.


----------



## danchapps (6 Jun 2008)

My point is that if all supply techs are trained the same (QL3 wise) then what should it matter? I'm not saying give us our own uniform or anything, but why should there be such a vast double standard. As well, I'm fairly certain my being single had a lot to do with the posting, among many other factors. I personally would be all for a 2 month purple trade qualification that covers SQ, NETP and the Air Force indoc course (haven't a clue what it's called to be honest). Then it truly wouldn't matter who goes where.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Jun 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Dunno, I'm three degrees removed from all the cool acronyms, I still speak TQ and CLC.



Our armoured TQ3/battle school changed a while back to include the SQ portion on the battle school...which now looks a lot like it did 10 yrs ago.My GUESS (a echo c/s could clarify why)would be Arty and Armd decided to squash Soldier qualification course between basic and TQ3 while engineers did not.Everything is still covered.

You could notice the HUGE difference in the recruits you were getting strait from St.Jean compared to the kid's who were over at LFAA getting properly basic trained.I don't know what was happening in PQ but the product was much better once their attitudes got checked by a unit running the SQ.


----------



## medicineman (6 Jun 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I feel, and this is my own two cents, that if we do the same job we should have the same training. As I'm going through my 3's right now I see my peers doing the same training, the only difference is the uniform.
> 
> (start vent)
> Now, when putting in my 3 choices for posting I decided I would like Pet, Halifax, or Esquimault. Here's where I get irked by the system, despite being a "purple trade" I drew Edmonton. I've gotten over it, but just because I'm wearing a green uniform they wouldn't send me to a coast? They refuse to send the new Supply Tech sailors to anywhere other than a coast. They keep telling us it doesn't matter what uniform we wear, we can go anywhere. It appears this isn't so. I just feel that if I have to do SQ then why shouldn't the Air or Navy Supply Techs? I'd be more than willing to do their training. If we truly are interchangeable then why the big fuss about not sending me to one of the operational bases I picked?(end vent)
> ...



You could join my trade, where, as a PA, almost none of the Navy uniforms but one in my class are going to a coast - however a fair number of us green guys (myself included), are.  I even just got a heads up that I'm on NETP in Sept.  Ironically, I asked to go to Wainwright and the guy that's going there is Navy...oh well, feces occurs.  In response, I've only gotten one posting I asked for - and it was only because I was told the place you pick on this list is where you're going .

MM


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Jun 2008)

I'm really going to have to read this in depth, when I'm sober.   ;D

I am land, never did an SQ (does 10 years in a field unit count?) and have not done Mod 6 of the PLQ-L.  Maybe I should have never gone overseas....ever!!  :


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm really going to have to read this in depth, when I'm sober.   ;D
> 
> I am land, never did an SQ (does 10 years in a field unit count?) and have not done Mod 6 of the PLQ-L.  Maybe I should have never gone overseas....ever!!  :



Did you ever do an LLQ or an LET??

They were the predecessors to the current "SQ".

They call that grandfathering if so. Same for the CLC, JLC or Army JNCO predating the current "PLQ" course. I'm quite sure you must have done one of those no?


----------



## Roy Harding (6 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Did you ever do an LLQ or an LET??
> 
> They were the predecessors to the current "SQ".
> 
> They call that grandfathering if so. Same for the CLC, JLC or Army JNCO predating the current "PLQ" course. I'm quite sure you must have done one of those no?



When I was posted to 1 Svc Bn in 1993 they wanted me to do an LET.  At the time, I had three years in the infantry, eight years as a CSS trade in field units - four of them with the AB Regt, and a CLC.  I had a little conversation with the CSM - told him I'd TEACH the damned course, but would be damned if I'd TAKE it.  The CSM got his revenge - I was an instructor on ALL subsequent LETs run for the duration of my posting there.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> When I was posted to 1 Svc Bn in 1993 they wanted me to do an LET.  At the time, I had three years in the infantry, eight years as a CSS trade in field units - four of them with the AB Regt, and a CLC.  I had a little conversation with the CSM - told him I'd TEACH the damned course, but would be damned if I'd TAKE it.  The CSM got his revenge - I was an instructor on ALL subsequent LETs run for the duration of my posting there.



Well, given your history -- I'd have not loaded you for LET were I the CSM, but I wasn't.  

In my trade, we usually see this course written off as "completed" for those coming in from the hard zeros. It only makes sense that a CLC well out-weighs the basic land qual. That "common sense" factor once again. I'd say -- your CSM was a numpty (+ _more_).  ;D


----------



## Roy Harding (6 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, given your history -- I'd have not loaded you for LET were I the CSM, but I wasn't.
> 
> In my trade, we usually see this course written off as "completed" for those coming in from the hard zeros. It only makes sense that a CLC well out-weighs the basic land qual. That "common sense" factor once again. I'd say -- your CSM was a numpty (+ _more_).  ;D



Actually - turned out he was a good guy.  The CO at the time was a bureaucrat who was determined that EVERYONE would have the "LET" qual on their 490A.  CSM agreed with me - his revenge was for the cocky manner in which the newly posted-in Sgt made demands of him.  Had I approached things differently, he would have gone to the mat for me.  The constant tasking to instruct LET courses became somewhat of a joke between us over time.  He was alright.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jun 2008)

One of Roy's "pick your battles" lessons ?


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Jun 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> One of Roy's "pick your battles" lessons ?



Yeah - something all fresh new Sgts should pay attention to when arguing with their CSMs.  And when you lose - and you will - accept it with good grace and humour.  That particular CSM and I remained friends for a good long time.


----------



## xo31@711ret (7 Jun 2008)

Pretty much same thing happened to me Roy. I had LOTPed from the RCR to medic. Went to Stad; almost two years later went to Chatham, 119AD as their medic. Got loaded on the JLC at the armoured school early 91 or 92. (anyway it was the last JLC with the 'small party taskings' before the field portion was introduced). Finished the course and went back to Chatham only to be told I may have to do the whole JLC with field portion or at the very least the field portion. I jokingly told the hospital WO in Chatham, that if a medic has to lead a section attack, then the war was over. He told me, that seriously, I would have to do the next JLC. I replied thanks, but no thanks, keep the leaf. I had enough of the field for awhile ( 6 years with 1RCR); had the pre-ISCC (or the 'leading infantryman's course' back then which I had completed about 3 weeks before I went to Borden to attend TQ3 medic course - why I was ever loaded on the pre-ISCC...). 
The boss contacted the career mangler and I got exempt from the re-doing the JLC. I thought great, no more field for awhile....a year later I was posted to 2RCR UMS for 5 years LOL!  Karma?  But it was good to back with the Troops and connect with some old buddies again.


----------



## TCBF (7 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...  Would it be the final nail in the coffin of Trudeau‘s unification of the forces?



- Wasn't Trudeau.  Pearson. 1 Feb 1968.  Trudeau became PM 20 April 1968.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Did you ever do an LLQ or an LET??
> 
> They were the predecessors to the current "SQ".
> 
> They call that grandfathering if so. Same for the CLC, JLC or Army JNCO predating the current "PLQ" course. I'm quite sure you must have done one of those no?



Never did an LET or an LLQ and I was on one of the first "Common" PLQ courses.  I looked up the TP for Mod 6 and it's pretty hard to distinguish it from the small party tasking portion of the course.


----------



## lone bugler (7 Jun 2008)

When I joined up as a Med tech (reserves) the officer interviewing me asked me what element would I like to be in. Being totally shocked when asked this, he simply replied that theres really no difference in these purple trades. Seeing as I was serving with an Fld Amb I thought the logical choice was army, I thought if I had asked for navy I'd be parading in a different location. So on my first day I was so ever relieved when I found out everyone else choose army too at my unit.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jun 2008)

lone bugler said:
			
		

> ... the officer interviewing me asked me what element would I like to be in. Being totally shocked when asked this, he simply replied that theres really no difference in these purple trades...



Well, at least for your trade that still seems to be the case. There is no difference as all MedTechs are on the list to be "SQ" qualified.

Sadly though, the above statement used to be the case for us suppies, cooks, RMS etc --- but no longer is as per the CANFORGEN. Now, there really IS a difference ... and that difference creates nothing "value added" or for the betterment of our trade. Actually accomplishs the opposite.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Everyone who joins the CF SHOULD undergo SQ.


I disagree.


			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, if a blue clerk or cook or whatever wants to go to Afghanistan, then they should be SQ qualified, or equivalent.


I agree


			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Each individual is responsible for their own defence, and that means knowing how to operate certain small arms.


This is covered on BMQ in the C7 rifle.


			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> You're a liability if you do not know how to use a C7, C9 or a C6.


From an Army perspective, sure.  From a Navy perspective, maybe it is more important to know the 9 mm and .50 cal.  

Clearly, one intent of this CANFORGEN is to ensure people serving in land operations have the requisite land qualifications.  It would also seem, given that not everyone in certain occupations will recieve the land training, that there is an intent to rationalize training resources (commit time, resources and manpower to training everyone when only some require it?) and to guide people into career paths linked to the environment of which they are apart.

If you are Navy cook, then I would think it make perfect sense for you to go do NETP while your Army counterparts are doing SQ.  A fall out of this is that the occupational structure must then recognize the specific sub-occupation streams of cook, land and cook, sea. Some jobs would be exclusively land, some would be exclusively sea and others would be 'any.'

The Air Force is where this gets tricky.  I am not aware of any air environmental training for non aircrew types (somebody can let me know if such a thing does exist).  At the same time, if things go really bad it is the non-aircrew types that will be fighting the ground fight for the airfield.  On this line of thinking, it would most certainly be reasonable to consider SQ for these pers.  I personally think the construction engineering trades should do the SQ and PLQ-L despite being purple and under the managing authority of the air force.  You find construction engineering trades on all bases with units in the Air Force and a Naval Troop on each coast.  If base defence is required, then construction engineering provides a manpower pool along with MPs and non-flying occupations.  Further, construction engineering trades deploy on land operations.

... I guess my point is that you don't need SQ to fight a ship and you don't need SQ to crew an aircraft.  However, any other job and your fight will (by nature of your job) be on the land.  Some jobs are required on the land & in ships.  Training all people in such occupations for both roles adds flexibility, but it comes with a cost (resources, manpower and time).  The best solution for the CF is probably not one of the extremes of:
1. train every person in every purple occupation for everything, or
2. train a individuals in a purple occupation for the relevant enviroment as posted into jobs.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> 2. train a individuals in a purple occupation for the relevant enviroment as posted into jobs.



Unfortunately, this is where this CANFORGEN errs.

We now have purple trades posted into Land Enviornemental positions who we can not course load for SQ by virtue of their uniform colour as per this new CANFORGEN; ergo they can NOT perform all aspects of the job they are required to do in this location ... and their co-horts and fellow Sup Techs in green get shafted to do all those 1st line CQ/QM jobs while they ride the desks in Base Supply.

Might as well leave the positions empty for cripes sake rather than filling them with people who can only perform partial tasks. It's better on morale to have to do the field work because there's no one else available to do it, then to have to do it because someone else has been deemed "special" enough to garner all the desk work. <--- that's just BAD for morale.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

I still say everyone who joins the CF should undergo SQ, NO MATTER what element.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this is where this CANFORGEN errs.


I think that in the past we attempted to do the just in time training, but LET was unequally & inconsistently applied (some units ran LET for purple trades, some did not, and I've never heard of external standards organizations monitoring like they do for just about any other course we run now).  Not only were we missing the mark on just in time LET, but we were as far off with PLQ-L vs CFPLQ.  One could spend the first part of a career supporting the Navy do a CFPLQ and then get posted straight into an army combat unit.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We now have purple trades posted into Land Enviornemental positions who we can not course load for SQ by virtue of their uniform colour as per this new CANFORGEN; ergo they can NOT perform all aspects of the job they are required to do in this location ...


That is looking at things in the transition period.  Obviously, the way ahead must be that land environmental pers are posted to land units.  Those Air & Navy types unable to get the training must be posted to Air and Navy units.  There is no specific mention of posting only land environmental pers to land units (esp field units) & no mention of recognizing a sub-MOS for the land environment.  However, such steps would be essential to making the plan work (and I believe you've commented along similar lines) and so I am assuming this information will be revealed in future CANFORGEN or other orders.

For the interim, if nobody has the new training yet then nobody is less qualified than anybody else.  If the Army types already are getting the training, then look to requesting equivalencing  to keep your air and navy types as equally employable as possible (until they get posted out).  If you've got an ex combat arms cpl or higher, then staff an equivalencie for SQ, and do the same for any air or navy types that have done PLQ-L and an iteration of more of annual IBTS.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

Again my question is:

How many naval and air types are willing to forgo the allowances and benefits that come with an operational tour? If you want an op tour, get SQ first.
If you don't have SQ, you shouldn't be elible for an op tour.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think that in the past we attempted to do the just in time training, but LET was unequally & inconsistently applied (some units ran LET for purple trades, some did not, and I've never heard of external standards organizations monitoring like they do for just about any other course we run now).  Not only were we missing the mark on just in time LET, but we were as far off with PLQ-L vs CFPLQ.  One could spend the first part of a career supporting the Navy do a CFPLQ and then get posted straight into an army combat unit.
> That is looking at things in the transition period.  Obviously, the way ahead must be that land environmental pers are posted to land units.  Those Air & Navy types unable to get the training must be posted to Air and Navy units.  There is no specific mention of posting only land environmental pers to land units (esp field units) & no mention of recognizing a sub-MOS for the land environment.  However, such steps would be essential to making the plan work (and I believe you've commented along similar lines) and so I am assuming this information will be revealed in future CANFORGEN or other orders.
> 
> For the interim, if nobody has the new training yet then nobody is less qualified than anybody else.  If the Army types already are getting the training, then look to requesting equivalencing  to keep your air and navy types as equally employable as possible (until they get posted out).  If you've got an ex combat arms cpl or higher, then staff an equivalencie for SQ, and do the same for any air or navy types that have done PLQ-L and an iteration of more of annual IBTS.



Flaw 1: You're assuming that career manglers are about to tell a few hundred married service couples that they'll be posted seperately for career-long durations. You just know that isn't going to happen. Hell, they won't tell them that NOW due to retention issues. All this has caused here ... is some VERY disgunteled army type Sup Techs and an increase in the drafting of VR Memos from same type. A pri 6 Unit already 18 pers short due to our low priority fill rate in the Army heirarchy, and now some of the few that we DO have are being precluded from being tasked to do their purple jobs because of this CANFORGEN. We can't afford to lose any more, not now, not in the future - not if the Army wants any kind of support anyway.

Flaw 2: You know -- it doesn't help retention any when it is consistanlty the SAME people that you piss off over and over and over again. Transition ... who's getting the bonus marks for this one on their annual? I'm willing to bet that he/she doesn't wear a green uniform and belong to a purple trade.

Waaaayyyy too many spouses of the "fairer" type wearing black & blue here married to hard zero trades.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> If you don't have SQ, you shouldn't be elible for an op tour.


You don't need SQ to do an operational tour aboard a ship out at sea.  You don't need SQ to fly planes out of a non-hostile third country.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Flaw 1: You're assuming that career manglers are about to tell a few hundred married service couples that they'll be posted separately for career-long durations.


The CM could tell them to accept separate postings or apply for environmental transfer (and all the training that goes with that).  You will likely find green pers at the various wings or either coast looking to go to another environment for the same reason.  It has to happen or the concept fails.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

MCG: Agreed, however anyone wanting a tour in a hostile land environment must be SQ (in my opinion) qualified. The comabt arms are a bit busy chasing ne'er do wells. The "purples" have to know what to do, with what and when, even those who don't go outside KAF.


----------



## Rodahn (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> MCG: Agreed, however anyone wanting a tour in a hostile land environment must be SQ (in my opinion) qualified. The comabt arms are a bit busy chasing ne'er do wells. The "purples" have to know what to do, with what and when, even those who don't go outside KAF.



Hmmm... Whatever happened to the old adage that you were a soldier first, and a tradesman/tradesperson second?


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> MCG: Agreed, however anyone wanting a tour in a hostile land environment must be SQ (in my opinion) qualified. ...  The "purples" have to know what to do, with what and when, even those who don't go outside KAF.


Now we are in agreement, and I think the concept introduced in the CANFORGEN achieves this intent for the most part.  The only place where I see this new concept break down is for the Air Force ground occupations.  The Navy can do NETP, the Army can do SQ, and the Air Force ground trades should also do SQ.



			
				Rodahn said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Whatever happened to the old adage that you were a soldier first, and a tradesman/tradesperson second?


This applies if you are a soldier.  Not so much if you are a sailor or airman.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> You don't need SQ to do an operational tour aboard a ship out at sea.  You don't need SQ to fly planes out of a non-hostile third country.



I don't see anywhere in this thread that this idea was suggested. Not all purple Supply Techs will be posted to Sea, to Land Force, or to Air Ops positions. But, they certainly COULD be ... and when they are posted to those posns -- they should be required to complete the enviornmental course for the applicable element. Period. Full Stop. That's their job. Now, with this - it's NOT their jobs anymore unless they're Army.

*Anyone* deploying overseas should undergo SQ - full stop.

I'm very sorry, but personnel joined the CF, not the Army, not the Air Force, and not the Navy. They applied. They chose a trade. And, IF they chose a purple trade - they were then either "offered" a uniform colour OR assigned one. But, the TRADE (ie JOB) choice came first. Now, apparently the JOB comes second. I have serious issues with that.

I have serious issues with that precisely because I am a Supply tech. Period. I have completed all three enviornmental courses when my postings to those enviornments necessitated it. I didn't complain. I didn't whine. I just did my job. I _happen_ to wear a green uniform. My trade -- was MY choice, and _*after*_ I picked that trade they asked what DEU I wanted. 



> The CM could tell them to accept separate postings or apply for environmental transfer (and all the training that goes with that).  You will likely find green pers at the various wings or either coast looking to go to another environment for the same reason.  It has to happen or the concept fails.



Unfortunately, the CMs are going to have to DIRECT uniform colour changes, because I'll tell you the old gals around here in blue and black still can't wipe the damn chesire grins off their mugs and you won't be seeing them volunteering for anything anytime soon. Nor will you see the CMs posting them seperately -- that's BAD for retention as I've already said and will cause releases for an already "red" trade. Their not posting them seperately is a large reason why we are 18 short here ... they needed to post them out to keep them with their spouses and no filled them as they left.

Just give a try cutting, hmmm say 3 PPCLI by 12% and getting away with it.  

In the end, the purple ones in green get shafted again.

If the move was to send Land to Land, Air to Air etc of the purple types ... then they should have implemented that policy change BEFORE they implemented this change that takes away 1/2 our local Sup techs here that are actually able to DO the WHOLE job.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

Now that MCG and I finally agree... ;D, any of those that are not qualified SQ or equivalent, should forgo operational tours in Afghanistan until they become qualified. Its not fair that a person takes SQ and then some weenie who doesn't qualifiy SQ gets to go anyways, thereby receiving the same allowances and benefits an SQ qualified person receives.

If you are "on the ground" and not qualified SQ, you are a liability to yourself and others. They do not have the time to babysit you, and you are putting others in danger.
Get SQ qualified.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Now that MCG and I finally agree... ;D, any of those that are not qualified SQ or equivalent, should forgo operational tours in Afghanistan until they become qualified. Its not fair that a person takes SQ and then some weenie who doesn't qualifiy SQ gets to go anyways, thereby receiving the same allowances and benefits an SQ qualified person receives.
> 
> If you are "on the ground" and not qualified SQ, you are a liability to yourself and others. They do not have the time to babysit you, and you are putting others in danger.
> Get SQ qualified.



Well, we have a firm "THREE" agreements on this bit then.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Now we are in agreement, and I think the concept introduced in the CANFORGEN achieves this intent for the most part.  The only place where I see this new concept break down is for the Air Force ground occupations.  The Navy can do NETP, the Army can do SQ, and the Air Force ground trades should also do SQ.
> This applies if you are a soldier.  Not so much if you are a sailor or airman.



It achieves the intent?

Can you explain how then, we now have over 25 pers who can NOT undergo the necessary course required to fill pri 2 positions here? Ergo, they'll sit in the cosy Base Pri 6 ones, while the Army types go round and round out in the not-so-cosy pri 2 field Units?


----------



## Drummy (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I still say everyone who joins the CF should undergo SQ, NO MATTER what element.



And where does the Regular Force Lilac Trade(Musician) fit into this? Remember, there are only two Reg Force Army Band left. The closest one of these people will come to deploying is playing a recruiting concert at the local high school. I will admit though, that can be quite dangerous depending on the location.

Drummy


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2008)

? At least 3 Reg F bands - Ottawa, the RCA band, and the Van Doos... and probably one or more in the Navy as well...

And musicians are perhaps a trade we could easily abolish from the Reg F (at least) - what's the value added in having a collection of pseudo-Sergeants?  In Ottawa, at a change of appointment ceremony for a MGen, I was more than a little shocked to see that the Air Force band in Ottawa could only muster a string quartet for the ceremony... and I don't care what you say, "O Canada" by strings does not cut it.

EDIT to add:  Sorry, I misready Drummy's comment - he refers to only 2 Reg F *ARMY* bands.  I've still got quibbles with the current structure and employment of the trade - frills and frippery that adds little that we can't get more affordably from other places - particularly since we don't deploy bandsmen anywhere.  Indeed, we hire musicians to entertain the troops overseas, and leave military musicians at home.  Something doesn't ring true there...


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

Reg Force Bands: Yes they should be SQ qualified.

They should also be qualified SMP wheel vehicle drivers and trained to fulifill other functions as well including op tours.

In the British Army, the Corps of Bugles of the Royal Green Jackets were also the medics for the Royal Green Jackets.

As far as I'm concerned, Reg Force bands are a waste of money. Make them all Reserve Force bands if they don't want to soldier with the rest of us.
We have musicians in the PRes who are willing to go on op tours, who are qualified as drivers etc.


----------



## danchapps (10 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm very sorry, but personnel joined the CF, not the Army, not the Air Force, and not the Navy. They applied. They chose a trade. And, IF they chose a purple trade - they were then either "offered" a uniform colour OR assigned one. But, the TRADE (ie JOB) choice came first. Now, apparently the JOB comes second. I have serious issues with that.
> 
> I have serious issues with that precisely because I am a Supply tech. Period. I have completed all three enviornmental courses when my postings to those enviornments necessitated it. I didn't complain. I didn't whine. I just did my job. I _happen_ to wear a green uniform. My trade -- was MY choice, and _*after*_ I picked that trade they asked what DEU I wanted.
> If the move was to send Land to Land, Air to Air etc of the purple types ... then they should have implemented that policy change BEFORE they implemented this change that takes away 1/2 our local Sup techs here that are actually able to DO the WHOLE job.



Thank you Vern, you pretty much nailed what I was trying to get across a couple of days ago. 

As well, to the others, the reason I seemed a bit miffed was due to the fact I wanted to get some sea time in before becoming "hard" army. I would like to, at some point, serve with each branch of the forces, not necessarily wear the uniform of each, but to work in close conjunction to know how they run things, thus making me more effective at my job. I had made my 3 posting choices knowing that all 3 bases were very much hurting for supply techs, and wound up getting a 4th base. Oh well, maybe when my Edmonton time is up I'll get it.


----------



## Drummy (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Reg Force Bands: Yes they should be SQ qualified.
> 
> They should also be qualified SMP wheel vehicle drivers and trained to fulifill other functions as well including op tours.
> 
> ...



Old Solduer,

You are definitely one of the reasons that Professional musician of the Forces mistrust and even dislike 

Oh crap, I can't finish this right now, or I,m going to get banned from here. 


ps: the highlighted part does not concern the CF, and a Corp pf Bugles does not a band of professional musicians make.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

Too Bad Drummy:
I've heard horror stories regarding Reg Force bands. I've heard from reliable sources that their existence is being questioned at higher levels.
I have to question that as well. We pay a load of Sgts to do nothing but play music. What's the return? I really don't see one. 
I worked next door to the PPCLI Band for three years. I found them to be arrogant and condescending towards the 031s, while wearing OUR hat badge. They were a bunch of prissy prima donnas who wouldn't associate with any other military members, on or off duty.

SO get upset and angry. I don't care. I think Reg Force Bands are a waste of time and money, and the money saved from these prima donnas woiuld be better off invested in local PRes bands.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

Drummy said:
			
		

> And where does the Regular Force Lilac Trade(Musician) fit into this? Remember, there are only two Reg Force Army Band left. The closest one of these people will come to deploying is playing a recruiting concert at the local high school. I will admit though, that can be quite dangerous depending on the location.
> 
> Drummy



Hmmm. How about The 2RCR Pipes & Drums (we're up to 4 Reg Force Army bands now ...)

linked here to a pic

It would seem that some of them have deployment medals on their chests. I recall issuing a few more of them their AR cadpat for 1-07 as well.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, Reg Force bands are a waste of money. Make them all Reserve Force bands if they don't want to soldier with the rest of us.
> We have musicians in the PRes who are willing to go on op tours, who are qualified as drivers etc.



Seems there are a few people on this forum taking Drummy's statement as factual.

Look at the pics ladies & gents. See the medals? They DO deploy after all.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2008)

2 RCR P&D is a voluntary sub-unit - where 031s play the pipes and drums on a volunteer basis (though there may be some voluntolding, I don't know enough about the history there).  They are not musicians.  They do not deply as musicians - if you look at the task brick for deployment, they are not going over as "The Pipes and Drums".


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

dapaterson has it right. 2 RCR Pipes and Drums are soldiers first. They are 031 by trade, as is the PPCLI Corps of Drums. They deploy as soldiers, not musicians.
I know that the Patricias appreciated the Corps of Drums far more than the PPCLI Band.

We're off topic. Again.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I don't see anywhere in this thread that this idea was suggested. Not all purple Supply Techs will be posted to Sea, to Land Force, or to Air Ops positions. But, they certainly COULD be ... and when they are posted to those posns -- they should be required to complete the enviornmental course for the applicable element. Period. Full Stop. That's their job.


That is how it was in theory, and it did not work out that cleanly.  Junior leaders were making their way into land units and land operations (even outside the wire jobs) with CFPLQ and not PLQ-L.  Troops were even making it into these positions without SQ or LET.  The CANFORGEN made mention toward limited training capacity, so training everyone is apparently not an option.  The solution, and it can be seen in the CANFORGEN, is to designate specifically those personnel who will support the land environment and then to ensure those personnel get the specific training required.  The next step for this is that the Navy Sup Tech all do NETP.  Each supports its own environment operationally & domestically.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If the move was to send Land to Land, Air to Air etc of the purple types ...


While not the purpose of the CANFORGEN, this is the effect it will achieve.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... personnel joined the CF, not the Army, not the Air Force, and not the Navy. They applied. They chose a trade. And, IF they chose a purple trade - they were then either "offered" a uniform colour OR assigned one. But, the TRADE (ie JOB) choice came first. Now, apparently the JOB comes second. I have serious issues with that.


The job has not become second.  It is quite clearly first and it has simply become segregated into more focused streams.  You joined the CF in a purple trade.  The CF has since decided that contemporary land combat is sufficiently complicated that participants require more focused training.  The jack of all environments is no longer adequate for land ops.  You are now a green sub-MOS of a purple MOS. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It achieves the intent?
> 
> Can you explain how then, we now have over 25 pers who can NOT undergo the necessary course required to fill pri 2 positions here? Ergo, they'll sit in the cosy Base Pri 6 ones, while the Army types go round and round out in the not-so-cosy pri 2 field Units?


The "intent" as I described it was to ensure personnel fully trained for land operations are the personnel deploying on land operations.  The CANFORGEN absolutely will achieve this (and we were not achieving it under the previous system).  It will, as you point out, come with some growing pains and there will be a permanent reduction in employment flexibility (pers will now have to be employed within the environment for which they are trained).

I also recognize the potential for disappointment in people who joined with the intention of serving in every environment.  Here again, those pers all joined to serve the CF & the CF needs their services to focus on a specific environment now.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the CMs are going to have to DIRECT uniform colour changes, because I'll tell you the old gals around here in blue and black still can't wipe the damn chesire grins off their mugs and you won't be seeing them volunteering for anything anytime soon. ...


Absolutely.  It will be "here is your posting message, if you don't accept it then you will be transfered to the Land environment tomorrow and booked for the next available SQ."

[quote author=http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/2rcr/html/pipes_e.html ]all members of the band are regular force soldiers who volunteer from within the Battalion.[/quote]
We are talking about different beasts wrt the bands.  In one case it is bands maintained by units in which the band is a secondary duty and all members have primary operational functions within the unit.  In the other case, we are talking about bands in which all members are musicians by occupation and without another operational function.


----------



## Drummy (10 Jun 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 2 RCR P&D is a voluntary sub-unit - where 031s play the pipes and drums on a volunteer basis (though there may be some voluntolding, I don't know enough about the history there).  They are not musicians.  They do not deply as musicians - if you look at the task brick for deployment, they are not going over as "The Pipes and Drums".
> 
> DA Paterson,
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 2 RCR P&D is a voluntary sub-unit - where 031s play the pipes and drums on a volunteer basis (though there may be some voluntolding, I don't know enough about the history there).  They are not musicians.  They do not deply as musicians - if you look at the task brick for deployment, they are not going over as "The Pipes and Drums".



They are a RegF entity no? The are Army reg Force yes? They deploy yes? And, yes - they volunteer (plenty of them too) to be a musician within that *Army Reg Force Unit's band*. 

So, they don't deploy as band members -- isn't THAT a good thing? Isn't that what the complaints are about below?? I just wanted to point out that they do actually exist with a soldier first mentality, but you'd never get that by reading the comments on this thread so far.

Come on down and let them know they aren't musicians -- there's a whole bunch of them who'd beg to differ with you -- they just happen to be "soldiers first".


----------



## garb811 (10 Jun 2008)

I wonder what the effect on recruting is going to be once word of this gets out.  How many candidates are going to hold out for a blue or black uniform as opposed to accepting green?  What happens when the blue and black quotas are filled but there aren't enough green to go into the roto pool?  Will some of the blue and black be directed to change uniforms?  This has the potential to make manning even worse, right from the start of the entire process.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

I would not assume that there would be a particular aversion to Land Sup Tech at the CFRCs.  We manage to hire people into infantry despite the hardships associated with that occupation.  It could be that Air Force is the environment people avoid because it is the one that comes without the adventure of sea or the field.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

Here's the solution:

If  X, a supply tech at CFB Wherever whose DEU is Naval, refuses to go on an SQ because he has been tasked to deploy to Afghanistan, gets 30 days notice and is out the door. Good bye. Same goes for Y, an RMS clerk whose DEU is Army, refuses to go to sea. Out....good bye.
If Z, an MSE OP who wears Air DEU volunteers to go to Afghanistan but is not SQ qualified...then he/she goes on SQ and gets sent to Afghanistan.

Bottom line, if you are ordered to do something  you do it, unless its manifestly unlawful.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Here's the solution:
> 
> If  X, a supply tech at CFB Wherever whose DEU is Naval, refuses to go on an SQ because he has been tasked to deploy to Afghanistan, gets 30 days notice and is out the door. Good bye. Same goes for Y, an RMS clerk whose DEU is Army, refuses to go to sea. Out....good bye.
> If Z, an MSE OP who wears Air DEU volunteers to go to Afghanistan but is not SQ qualified...then he/she goes on SQ and gets sent to Afghanistan.
> ...



Another post that I can agree with. Miracles in motion today I tell you.


----------



## garb811 (10 Jun 2008)

You need to spend some time in a Purple Trade then and watch people start to sweat once talk of a posting to a Field unit comes up.   ;D

Yes, some people enjoy and thrive in that environment but I'm not willing to bet there are enough of those types to man the positions required to keep the Army running.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I would not assume that there would be a particular aversion to Land Sup Tech at the CFRCs.  We manage to hire people into infantry despite the hardships associated with that occupation.  It could be that Air Force is the environment people avoid because it is the one that comes without the adventure of sea or the field.



Oh, but it comes with some pretty jammy goes (4000 thread count sheets on your bed for example  ) -- and tours if you want them (I managed to snag some of both type during my 6 years with them).  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

I've been in the CF for over 30 years. I was posted to CFRS Cornwallis and was told if I refused, I would be released within 30 days. Not that I would have refused, but that was the deal. And it was CF policy.
The air types at CFRS were all volunteers, most were former Army, Cbt Arms. They told me that some non-former army air types refused postings and got away with it. (I hope this doesn' t confuse anyone)
It seems things haven't changed much.
Vern, you are correct. We joined the CF. We ALL signed the line and acknowledege that we may have to pay the ultimate price.

I had someone tell me once that if the USSR ever went to war with NATO, there would be three people missing: Him and the two MPs sent to find him. Even though were were the same rank (Privates) he got raked over the coals for that. He took his release a year or so later.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Bottom line, if you are ordered to do something  you do it, unless its manifestly unlawful.


The problem would not be that people have refused training.  My observation is that the training has not been offered & the resources are not there to do it.

There is more than just SQ as well.  A junior leader operating outside the wire needs the PLQ-L.  While Land Environmental Training (LET) existed but was not happening, I am not aware that any Land Leader Training even exists to top-up someone from CFPLQ to PLQ-L.

Just in time enviromental training has not been achieving the requirement.  The resources do not exist for universal qualification.  Environmental specialization (you are not just a cook, you are an Army Cook) seems to be a reasonable middle ground.

I'm not suggesting this is a perfect solution either.  Air cooks, sup techs, etc should (as ground trades) be doing the SQ along with the Army types.  We are not there but the CANFORGEN illustrates that there is movement.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> You need to spend some time in a Purple Trade then and watch people start to sweat once talk of a posting to a Field unit comes up.


I've seen it.  Those will be the problem children through this transition.  The ones that will fight both a move & a change of environment.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> The problem would not be that people have refused training.  My observation is that the training has not been offered & the resources are not there to do it.



This is incorrect. Until this CANFORGEN, we *could* and *have* sent many purple people wearing blue & black onto SQ courses which thereby meant they could be posted to 1st line field Units here at this location upon it's successful completion.

Now, we are not even allowed to nominate them for course, ergo there are some 1st Line positions that we can not post them into. Our manning pool for persons to fill those priority 2 Land Op positions ... has just been pillaged and plundered. And, it has been done at the expense of those Ptes/Cpls of green wearing type. That's the facts.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> There is more than just SQ as well.  A junior leader operating outside the wire needs the PLQ-L.  While Land Environmental Training (LET) existed but was not happening, I am not aware that any Land Leader Training even exists to top-up someone from CFPLQ to PLQ-L.
> 
> Just in time enviromental training has not been achieving the requirement.  The resources do not exist for universal qualification.  Environmental specialization (you are not just a cook, you are an Army Cook) seems to be a reasonable middle ground.
> 
> ...



SQ was not a "just-in-time" course for us -- it was a pre-requisite for some of those Sup Field positions. When we nominated pers for the SQ ... they got it. Until last week. It IS still a pre-req for those 1st line postings -- that hasn't changed. Only now only some Sup Techs (green ones) are required to fulfill their whole and total roles of job.

Reasonable middle ground - again: would have had them fixing the uniform colour mess BEFORE deeming 1/2 these pers sitting in land op positions "not suitable for SQ by virtue of uniform colour". And, it would have our "trade" fixed to be three seperate merit boards once again -- because it is NOT obviously the same job, nor job specs anymore.

Essentially, what they have done is deemed 1/2 the Sup techs sitting here "unfit field" -- try doing that in a non-purple trade in the hard army and see what happens to both the morale of those who must now carry on getting that "field" job done with 1/2 the resources ... while the other half sits merrily back smiling. That IS what has just happened with this CANFORGEN to the purple trades.

How about we do that to the Infantry and see how we make out? Kind of like "No blond infanteers are allowed to proceed through Battle School and therefore can not proceed onto their jobs in 1st line field Unit." No one ... (except me) would ever even DARE suggest that as an appropriate COA. Yet we now have "No blue or black Sup techs are allowed to proceed on SQ and therefore can not proceed onto their jobs in 1st line field Unit".


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

I knew that we'd have problems when we went  to the DEU's. We now have people saying "I'm this or that" and "I don't go to the field (or sea)".

Sorry to disappoint you lot who "don't go to the field". You are extremely fortunate that I, and a few others on this forum and not on this forum, aren't in charge.
You'd say "I don't go to the field (or sea)" exactly once. You would get your 30 days NTM.....out the front gate.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

Vern,
The CANFORGEN does not unqualify anybody that was qualified (there will just be nobody new of the Air or Navy environments becoming qualified).  If someone that has completed the SQ course want to pretend otherwise, give them a field task & charge them when they refuse based on colour of their clothing.  

If the problem is that people are already in jobs that require SQ but these people do not have SQ, then this illustrates the failure of just-in-time training (either for operations or postings).  I have observed this failure of the just-in-time training approach through the presence of people in land field units & on land operations without the land qualifications.  I know the problem exists.

I will admit, some of my comment has been idealist divining of the future.  Nothing officially is stated of creating land sub-MOS of the applicable purple MOS (though it has effectively happened through different training and resulting employability), nothing is stated officially of posting pers to units of their own environment (though this will become essential to making the whole thing work), and nothing is stated officially that the Navy will adopt a similar enviromental specialization approach (though it makes sense to follow if the Army is doing it).

As I have indicated, there will be growing pains but this is a workable solution once we get past them.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

The solution is already there:

Hard Army types do SQ as a matter of function.
Naval and Air, I presume, have a unique qualification.

Anyone posted to a land unit, if not qualified SQ, goes on the SQ course. Period. I know LFWA TC runs them, so what is to prevent a unit from running an anuual SQ for the purple types who are not SQ qualified?


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern,
> The CANFORGEN does not unqualify anybody that was qualified (there will just be nobody new of the Air or Navy environments becoming qualified).  If someone that has completed the SQ course want to pretend otherwise, give them a field task & charge them when they refuse based on colour of their clothing.
> 
> If the problem is that people are already in jobs that require SQ but these people do not have SQ, then this illustrates the failure of just-in-time training (either for operations or postings).  I have observed this failure of the just-in-time training approach through the presence of people in land field units & on land operations without the land qualifications.  I know the problem exists.
> ...



Do you realize that approx 1/2 of the CF Supply trade are not of the Army variety? They have just pillaged and plundered our trades manning pool.

I certainly realize that some Air & Naval DEU already have the SQ qual and therefore can be posted to 1st line filed Units with that pre-req still.

The problem is that we have people who were slated in for postings to 1st line field Units who required the SQ ... and, until last week, were going on the SQ. Now, we get to can them as we can't qualify them. Now, we are re-sending Army wearing boys/girls who have only just returned to base Supply from 1st Line posns. Or sending non-QL4 qual'd Army Sup techs instead (a no-no, but heck -- they're the only ones left that can do the SQ and actually get posted there).

By the time they get to implemeting their "ideal solution" -- they'll have very few Army Sup techs left. They'll all be on 1/2 days due to stress leave and therefore "unfit field" too. I say -- go with ASD. My trade -- is hurting, as are all the purple trades and we are the smallest bleep on the Big Armies radar. Yep, morale and retention are good all right ... and moves like this are just making it soooo much better. All this has accomplished is our purple ability to support YOU - the Army. And, you think everyone bitched before about the "lack of supply system" -- just wait for it.

I fear, we have entered a storm this time that we will not recover from. Not judging by the comments, morale, and lack of GAFF anymore by those green-wearing Suppies here today that are the ones stuck "MAKING" this miracle happen ... from the bottom on up.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The solution is already there:
> 
> Hard Army types do SQ as a matter of function.
> Naval and Air, I presume, have a unique qualification.
> ...



CANFORGEN 101/08 is EXACTLY what prevents this.

Other than that, your proposed solution is EXACTLY what WAS occuring ... until last week and that CANFORGEN. Give it a read.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

Thanks Vern I will give it a read.

Vern, you have also shed light on why a certain Wing Clothing Stores has severely reduced hours. Shall I PM you with the location and hours?


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Thanks Vern I will give it a read.
> 
> Vern, you have also shed light on why a certain Wing Clothing Stores has severely reduced hours. Shall I PM you with the location and hours?



Oh ... let me guess which Wg that is ...

Sure, send me a PM.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The problem is that we have people who were slated in for postings to 1st line field Units who required the SQ ... and, until last week, were going on the SQ.


I see the problem here.  It would have been better for the CANFORGEN to have come out in the fall when it could guide the posting plot as opposed to making things react when the posting messages are already out.  Even better would have been an implementation instruction allowing air and navy types of the affected MOS to complete the SQ training starting any time over the next 6 months in order to accommodate the current APS.



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The solution is already there:
> 
> Hard Army types do SQ as a matter of function.
> Naval and Air, I presume, have a unique qualification.
> ...


This solution does not address PLQ-L.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Other than that, your proposed solution is EXACTLY what WAS occuring ... until last week and that CANFORGEN. Give it a read.


But it was not happening uniformly.  I've seen far too many exceptions were pers were in land units without this training.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

What we need is firm direction from the top. I mean the CDS, CLS, CMS, CAS and CMP.
Anyone posted to a field unit requires SQ. Period. NO exceptions. 
The PLQ-L problem is a bit more complex. Those who are qualified under other elements may need to undergo a conversion course to PLQ-L.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Jun 2008)

Why?  It's doubtful the CC or Chief Cook in a CER  or armd regiment will ever have to lead a section attack or a recce patrol.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jun 2008)

I will tell you why Kat. They may never have to lead a sectioin attack or a recce patrol. Heaven knows they are the last ones I'd want in that position.
They have to know because as the CC or Chief Cook, they are responsible for their people. They also have to know how to defend themselves in case everything has fallen to cr@p.
A CC or cook who can't load a weapon and fire it is a casualty. Period.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Why?


Because our enemy, both insurgent & conventional, will work to avoid our combat forces and attack those weakest elements that will cause the greatest disruption.  If the CC cannot direct the OR in a battle of self-defence, then they will die fighting as a group of individuals.

The risk is even more pronounced for supply and transport types who regularly go out into bandit country as part of their duties.

Things can go pear-shaped in conventional and COIN Ops.  Be prepared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch


----------



## X-mo-1979 (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I will tell you why Kat. They may never have to lead a sectioin attack or a recce patrol. Heaven knows they are the last ones I'd want in that position.
> They have to know because as the CC or Chief Cook, they are responsible for their people. They also have to know how to defend themselves in case everything has fallen to cr@p.
> A CC or cook who can't load a weapon and fire it is a casualty. Period.



 I agree 100%.
Maybe this will start seperating the wheat from the chaff with what type of per's get posted to combat units.

Quick question to Vern:

Wouldnt this be solved if they made the supply tech trade a Army hard trade?As then they would ALL have SQ and PLQ-land which seem to be to a higher standard anyway?Still able to post them to a ship/airbase,however with being hard army then they could easily get posted back to a combat unit?

Train them to the highest level (which from what your saying is the army SQ and PLQ-L) then there is no problem.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I will tell you why Kat. They may never have to lead a sectioin attack or a recce patrol. Heaven knows they are the last ones I'd want in that position.
> They have to know because as the CC or Chief Cook, they are responsible for their people. They also have to know how to defend themselves in case everything has fallen to cr@p.
> A CC or cook who can't load a weapon and fire it is a casualty. Period.



Understood, but a PLQ (whatever it's called this week) qualification is a PLQ qualification.  If a guy manages to go 12 or better years working in his own environment, then gets your "go army or get out" message, goes on an SQ course, THEN needs to do field portion of PLQ (again)?  My question was in response to you PLQ L comment only I'm not stupid enough (barely) to think that everyone doesn't have the responsibility for their own protection.  When was the last time the OR van sat out in the BAP without about 18 layers of other troops around it?


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Wouldnt this be solved if they made the supply tech trade a Army hard trade?As then they would ALL have SQ and PLQ-land which seem to be to a higher standard anyway?Still able to post them to a ship/airbase,however with being hard army then they could easily get posted back to a combat unit?
> 
> Train them to the highest level (which from what your saying is the army SQ and PLQ-L) then there is no problem.



And what about the other purple trades affected by this CANFORGEN?

COOK (L)

SUP TECH (L)

TFC TECH (L)

MSE OP (L)

RMS CLK (L)


----------



## rifleman (10 Jun 2008)

Even if they maintain everyone should have an SQ, they will soon find there wasn't the resources to do it, just like they did in the first place. What is the major difference between PLQs?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (10 Jun 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And what about the other purple trades affected by this CANFORGEN?
> 
> COOK (L)
> 
> ...



Again make them all army.Doesnt seem right to send a guy on a cf plq,then post him from Greenwood to Petawawa,make him do his SQ and PLQ L.why not make them all army?


----------



## meni0n (10 Jun 2008)

It seems alot of things were overlooked and some just blatanly ignored when they came out with the CANFORGEN.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> What is the major difference between PLQs?


See here for a start: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18969.0.html
(You may have to dig a few pages)



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Why not make them all army?


See the post immediately preceding yours:





			
				rifleman said:
			
		

> Even if they maintain everyone should have an SQ, they will soon find there wasn't the resources to do it,


----------



## rifleman (10 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> See here for a start: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18969.0.html
> (You may have to dig a few pages)
> See the post immediately preceding yours:



got ya, seen. This is the same arguement with JLC, CLC, ISCC....lol

IIRC the old Jr NCO had a field portion. Trades don't need section attacks, just be able to handle a weapon and live in the field along with the mentality, life in the field is grand.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Trades don't need section attacks, just be able to handle a weapon and live in the field along with the mentality, life in the field is grand.


I'm sure that is what at least a few soldiers of 507th Maintenance Company thought.  It is not adequate for the training only to develop the fighting skills of the individual.  As I had posted earlier, if things go bad it will not be good enough for support elements to fight as a collection of individuals.  There needs to be leadership that is competent to lead a small team in defence & offence (there is a lot of reason to consider taking the initiative from the enemy even when you're only looking to preserve your lives).  There will not always be a combat arms soldier around to provide this leadership, so it must come from within the support units themselves.  Combat Logistic Patrols in Afghanistan cannot afford to be a series of uncoordinated vehicles on the road.  Here again, there is a requirement for that junior level of combat leadership resident in the CSS elements (even if there is a combat arms escort).

Therefore, PLQ (L) must be a requirement for those junior leaders employed on a land operation.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> But it was not happening uniformly.  I've seen far too many exceptions were pers were in land units without this training.



Not all land Units have that training as a pre-requisite. I think they _should_, but they don't.

About the posting plot: Grandfathering (ie waiting 6 months to implement so it didn't affect the posting plot), doesn't do anything to solve the problem either. Those pers who had to be cancelled now sit in desk jobs at BSup. We still can't post them to 1st line field units with the SQ pre-req next year either (and being that some of them only got posted to this base recently - I don't see them posted to the Air or the Navy next year either). 

So, next year, how do we bring back the guys that have already spent 3, 4, 5 years in those 1st line jobs with a couple of tours under their belt back to BSup to give them a break --- when all those jobs are being manned by blue/black people we can't send over to the field to replace them? Without moving those blue/black people to 1st line -- we've got no positions to put those Army folks into. The Pri 2 Units (ie field) MUST be manned, they can't be left unstaffed ... so guess who stays there now? That's right -- the Army Sup Techs based only upon their uniform colour NOT their job description because blue/black suppies have the same trade description as I do.

They HAD to sort out the uniform mess first. They had to implement an Army to Army, Air to Air, Sea to Sea plan (if in fact that IS their plan) BEFORE they implemented this new policy that has effectively cut our "actual usuable" supply techs who can be employed in those "must fill" postions by 50%.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I agree 100%.
> Maybe this will start seperating the wheat from the chaff with what type of per's get posted to combat units.
> 
> Quick question to Vern:
> ...



I've already said the bold bit about coming back with the Army Supply Tech Merit List (may as well give us a different cap badge too).

But, no --- I do NOT advocate then sending an Army Supply Tech to a Naval Base or an Air Base. If they can't do our jobs -- why the hell should we do theirs? Why should *only* Army Sup Techs be required to be purple and serve anywhere? Because, that's how it is with the CANFORGEN - Army types can still do Sea Enviornmental and get posted to sea, but not vice versa. See why the Army types are pissed off now? I can see why - It seems that only Army Supply Techs are purple now and able to serve in any CF Supply posn. 

If they want to make it so that our trade only has Army Sup Techs in Land positions (and, with this SQ policy ... that certainly seems to be exactly what is happening [at least in the Army Sup posns]), then what's good for goose is good for gander.

Army to Army
Air to Air
Sea to Sea

3 different trades vice a "purple one" that really is NOT purple anymore (unless you're Army) with this CANFORGEN. And, three different Merit Lists.


----------



## McG (11 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Naval and Air, I presume, have a unique qualification.


The Navy does (NETP) but the Air Force has no such thing for non-aircrew occupations.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not all land Units have that training as a pre-requisite. I think they _should_, but they don't.


My observations were based on field units in a CMBG.  If land enviromental training was not required for these, that was seriously wrong.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, no --- I do NOT advocate then sending an Army Supply Tech to a Naval Base or an Air Base. If they can't do our jobs -- why the hell should we do theirs? Why should *only* Army Sup Techs be required to be purple and serve anywhere? Because, that's how it is with the CANFORGEN - Army types can still do Sea Enviornmental and get posted to sea, but not vice versa. See why the Army types are pissed off now? I can see why - It seems that only Army Supply Techs are purple now and able to serve in any CF Supply posn.


Exactly!  While the CANFORGEN made no comment on organization of MOS, it has effectively split those MOS for which a person's environment will dictate training.  This split needs to be more formalized in a future CANFORGEN or CMP instruction.  It does not need to be a complete split.  The Sup Tech MOS can continue to exist, but it will contain unique ground and sea sub-MOS (with one of those unique two digit identifiers at the end of the MOSID).  I say "ground" because I feel the air environment of the occupations affected by this CANFORGEN should be doing the same SQ and PLQ-L that the Army types will do (after all, the Air Force will want to deploy its CSS ground personnel into places like KAF to support the APOD & any tactical aviation that we may put into a theatre).


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Navy does (NETP) but the Air Force has no such thing for non-aircrew occupations.
> My observations were based on field units in a CMBG.  If land enviromental training was not required for these, that was seriously wrong.



I agree.



> Exactly! While the CANFORGEN made no comment on organization of MOS, it has effectively split those MOS for which a person's environment will dictate training.  This split needs to be more formalized in a future CANFORGEN or CMP instruction.  It does not need to be a complete split.  The Sup Tech MOS can continue to exist, but it will contain unique ground and sea sub-MOS (with one of those unique two digit identifiers at the end of the MOSID).  I say "ground" because I feel the air environment of the occupations affected by this CANFORGEN should be doing the same SQ and PLQ-L that the Army types will do (after all, the Air Force will want to deploy its CSS ground personnel into places like KAF to support the APOD & any tactical aviation that we may put into a theatre).



Unfortunately, they've gone about it ass-backwards. Now, the Army will suffer for it. The Supply trade is now effectively cut in half of it's pers now available to fill it's Land Ops Pri 2 posns. Yet, any Naval and Air positions are still able to be manned by anyone of whatever uniform colour. The way this has been implemented *only* screws the Army.

If the eventuality is that they wanted to implement the "unique" MOS (air to air, sea to sea, land to land) ... then you had to implement THAT first and actually GET air to air, land to land, sea to sea. So that you could qualify those pers on site for that "unique MOS" and then actually utilize them.

The Army is now left with people manning positions in Base Supply orgs that it can NOT qualify and can NOT utilize where they are needed outside of Base Supply in those Pri 2 Land Force posns.

You want to say that only Army Sup Techs are now capable of manning Army Sup posns --- then damn well ensure that you ONLY send us Army types *before* you make that the rule, because now all the others are useless to us as we can't send them where they are needed. So, the Army Suppies get shafted to do the dirty work until that happens. By then, they'll be out - or at least on stress leave 1/2 days and unfit field themselves. Good luck to the Army. They're going to need it.

What they need to do now to fix this immediately (and we are paying for this policy right NOW as we speak already) ... is DIRECT uniform colour changes. And, if the Air Force has only 500 Supply Positions, then the other couple hundred Supply Techs wearing blue need to be DIRECTED into Army uniforms NOW ... and sent to the Army where positions that are vacant need to be filled NOW.

Not next week, not next year - else the Army Supply support is going to collapse first. Then, it'll be too late ... for the Army.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jun 2008)

Then perhaps, as Vern states, those that are wearing a comfy Blue DEU be DIRECTED to change to Rifle Green DEU. Then they can be loaded on SQ and posted to a field unit.If they refuse....30 days NTM.....out the front gate, in civvies with your clearance form in hand. Bye Bye.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...(may as well give us a different cap badge too).



- The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?



Sure, I've already got that cummerbund too.  ;D


----------



## danchapps (11 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?



Sure, why not, the name sounds cooler anyway.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Everyone who joins the CF SHOULD undergo SQ.
> Why? Because as a soldier, sailor or airperson, you should at least know the basics of handling drills and firing the C7, C9 and C6. Every member of the CF should also know how to throw grenades.
> You never know when that might come in handy...or where.



So train them in those weapons then.  That doesn't have to be done on SQ.  How would people react to me saying "everyone should do NETP because you never know when fire fighting and damage control would be used"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Air Force is where this gets tricky.  I am not aware of any air environmental training for non aircrew types (somebody can let me know if such a thing does exist).  At the same time, if things go really bad it is the non-aircrew types that will be fighting the ground fight for the airfield.  On this line of thinking, it would most certainly be reasonable to consider SQ for these pers.  I personally think the construction engineering trades should do the SQ and PLQ-L despite being purple and under the managing authority of the air force.  You find construction engineering trades on all bases with units in the Air Force and a Naval Troop on each coast.  If base defence is required, then construction engineering provides a manpower pool along with MPs and non-flying occupations.  Further, construction engineering trades deploy on land operations.



There are courses, namely BAEQ, PAEQ and IAEQ, which are ran out of the Air Command Academy in Borden.  When they are taken is found in A-PD-055-002/PD-002 Section 4, Sub-Section B, Table 4B-1 (NCMGS is the short title).  Having quickly reviewed the TPs, they do not cover anything in the line of SAs or MMGs though  8)

DIN link is: http://16wingweb.borden.mil.ca/aca/pages/courses_e.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I still say everyone who joins the CF should undergo SQ, NO MATTER what element.



Great.  Because the training system has NO backlogs in it now, lets also be fair to the other 2 Environment, and load everyone on NETP and BAEQ as well!  Then everyone can go to any environment and have a smick about it.  I'll talk to the CDS and MND tonight, over supper.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jun 2008)

- This SQ business came about because the Army wanted the old 'depot' level recruit trg and the air side wanted RCAF St-Jean 1950s trg. A compromise was reached, resulting in a new course - SQ - just when our availability of trained instructor-grade NCOs was at a nadir (thank-you FRP).  Thus, we now run too many courses to a lower standard.

- Solution?  If the Purple can pull out of the Army PLQ, then the Army can pull out of the Purple BMQ.  Back to Regimental Depots for combined Army Recruit SQ ('Basic Training'), and then off to the units they go.  

- Longer courses are needed to reduce a high injury rate for today's recruits, so this will work out.  Those who are injured should be given Driver Wheeled/DDC/SBC Crses while in PAT Pl. 

- If no grad possible before end of two years, release as NET (Not Economically Trainable).


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jun 2008)

Eye in the Sky, sarcasm does nothing for your case.

I know there are backlogs. I also know that in the COE, which is Afghanistan, the purple trades don't always have the luxury of combat arms around to protect them. SO, Eye, who should do the protecting? Contract it out to private companies?

The soloution is simple. Everyone who wants to go to Afghanistan must be qualified SQ, at minimum.

Now as for loading everyone on naval or air course, you know that is blatantly ridiculous. We were only talking "purple" trades. We aren't talking bosuns and AESOPs going on a recce with the infantry, so SQ for them isn't going to happen, UNLESS there are positions in Afghanistan.
And its very unlikely that an infantry officer will ever serve aboard the HMCS Winnipeg.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> We aren't talking bosuns and AESOPs going on a recce with the infantry, so SQ for them isn't going to happen, UNLESS there are positions in Afghanistan.



Some AES Ops are indeed headed for the sandbox to operate the new UAV. Should we now add SQ to the trade ? Or can the weapons stuff be covered on pre-deployement training. ? Should we add yet another course to AES Op training ( alredy takes 3 years to crank out a fully operational AES Op) just in case  they deploy with UAVs ?


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Everyone who joins the CF SHOULD undergo SQ.
> Why? Because as a soldier, sailor or airperson, you should at least know the basics of handling drills and firing the C7, C9 and C6. Every member of the CF should also know how to throw grenades.



I have never had an SQ (or LET or whatever) course and I have been taught to handle all those weapons.  We did IBTS yearly, including Field Craft, Navigation, weapons handling, the BFT, the PWT, grenades, gas huts and more.  I have also fired some of those weapons even though, if I were overseas, the Geneva Convention would preclude me from doing so, unless it was the only weapon I had to protect myself (or a patient).  
I was at 2 Fd Amb for 10 years and did this *at least* yearly, if not more often and now they want me to go on an SQ?  Well, maybe I won't have to as I am no longer a Med Tech.  :  You'd think all that training would be considered equivalent to an SQ.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jun 2008)

But your arguement is *everyone* in the CF should do SQ, is it not?  My point, while perhaps made in a stupid way, was what if the CMS and CAS staff weinies start saying the same about NETP and BAEQ for the newly trained purple trade folks?  Then we could be spending a ton of time pumping people thru environmental trng.  It would be a dangerous precedent to set, no?

Now, to be clear, I am not advocating on the validity of this new policy as it affects purple trades.  Personally, being former army (and not that long ago either) I believe in the soldier first perspective.  I agree with your point, everyone who is deploying and tasked with land units SHOULD HAVE a SQ (as a minimum).  Qualified and competent do not necessarily go hand in hand but better qualified than not.  

I do not, however, think that sending someone on an SQ course, then posting them to a Wing or a navy base for 4 years, and then posting them to a field unit with the 'tick in the box' for SQ is the right answer either.  If they are posted to a field unit, they take the training as close as possible to that posting or immediately into it.  

Agreed on your comment on my sarcasim.  Good call.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I have never had an SQ (or LET or whatever) course and I have been taught to handle all those weapons.  We did IBTS yearly, including Field Craft, Navigation, weapons handling, the BFT, the PWT, grenades, gas huts and more.  I have also fired some of those weapons even though, if I were overseas, the Geneva Convention would preclude me from doing so, unless it was the only weapon I had to protect myself (or a patient).
> I was at 2 Fd Amb for 10 years and did this *at least* yearly, if not more often and now they want me to go on an SQ?  Well, maybe I won't have to as I am no longer a Med Tech.  :  You'd think all that training would be considered equivalent to an SQ.



No offense Moe,

But we all do IBTS each and every year. That's called a _refresher_.

No worries, as a JLC MCpl - you'd end up being grandfathered anyway. I suspect that you fell into the exemption period as per below.

It all reminds me of the roll-over from the LET to the LLQ ... and someone dictated that ALL pers not LLQ qualified, regardless of rank & experience, WOULD undergo LLQ Course if in field positions. 

When I went to my first field posting the pre-req was the LET. We all got it in that time-period. But, the pers who were already posted in field positions when the LET came on-line and became mandatory were all "grandfathered" and thus were not required to undergo the LET because of their experience in the field already.

When the LET was phased out and the new requirement became the "LLQ" course -- there was NO grandfathering. The rules for the LLQ stated that ALL pers in field positions WOULD be LLQ qualified if they did not hold the LET qualification. Ergo all those senior ranks that didn't have to do the LET(because they were exempted by grandfathering) ... now HAD to do the LLQ if they were still serving in field positions.

Made for interesting times in Petawawa as we young Ptes & Cpls who had the LET qualification ended up instructing our superiors as they underwent their LLQ.  >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Made for interesting times in Petawawa as we young Ptes & Cpls who had the LET qualification ended up instructing our superiors as they underwent their LLQ.  >



Now that is something I would have loved to see!


----------



## aesop081 (11 Jun 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Now that is something I would have loved to see!



Its not uncommon in the trade you are going into. I've done 60-day checks on Majors and Sgts regularly instruct CWO on course when they return to the aircraft.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No offense Moe,
> 
> But we all do IBTS each and every year. That's called a _refresher_.



None taken.  Just reminds me of my one week TCCS (radio) course, which was also a _refresher_.  Pretty hard to be refreshed on something you've never learned.  :

Besides, I'm not a JLC MCpl, I did a PLQ Common. (gasp!   )


----------



## scoutfinch (11 Jun 2008)

I apologize if I have missed it (I have been following this thread, I swear!), but... what is the reason for the change?

It's hard to get a sense of good/bad unless the rationale for the changes is considered as well.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Besides, I'm not a JLC MCpl, I did a PLQ Common. (gasp!   )



Tomato / Tomata ...

I'm willing to bet they'll regard them the same way wrt SQ requirement.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> I apologize if I have missed it (I have been following this thread, I swear!), but... what is the reason for the change?
> 
> It's hard to get a sense of good/bad unless the rationale for the changes is considered as well.



No reason has been given; it's just the CANFORGEN and that's it. My CoC has been trying to find out the reasoning behind this from Careers since the message was cut ... waiting ... still ...


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jun 2008)

I wonder if now's the time to reconsider having the "purple trade" concept at all.  Would it make more sense to enrol and train X number of army supply techs (e.g.) to meet the needs of the army, Y number of navy supply techs to meet the needs of the navy, etc.?  In other words, would the reduced training cost (because of more focused training) outweigh the loss of flexibility of the current purple system?


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2008)

Neill:  SO we'll build three schools with three staffs?  We'll leave some positions vacant in the NDHQ matrix becasue it's an Army Job to fill, while there's a Navy tradesman available?

KISS applies in personnel structure as well.  It's when eGOs get involved, and a desire to own everything under the sun without an understanding of the complexity of the underlying systems that things like this happen.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jun 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Neill:  SO we'll build three schools with three staffs?  We'll leave some positions vacant in the NDHQ matrix becasue it's an Army Job to fill, while there's a Navy tradesman available?



I suppose the question I'm asking (and it's a question for discussion, not a suggestion) is about where the balance point is.  Is it better to train everyone in a purple trade to serve in more than one environment (which is costlier than training them to serve in only one environment each) at the cost of losing the flexibility to post soldiers to ships and send sailors to Afghanistan?  Would it make more sense to have purple trades but with element-specific sub-trades that are only employed in their own element?  The answer may differ for each purple trade as the size and employment of the trade would dictate the economics of the situation.

It's worth noting, though, that Canada is just about the only western country that has the purple trade concept at all, and our 40 years of experience have not yet inspired anyone else to try it.


----------



## RickDevlieger (11 Jun 2008)

I have been following this discussion for a while, and while not an expert in purple trades or the requirement for SQ. There seems to be a call for '"more " training, including some which would require a maintenance of a qual. There are a couple of issues which need to be resolved:

1. A very large portion of the CF, especially "purple trades" have day jobs, for lack of a better term. The job exists and needs to be done whether they are deployed or not. When we pull them away for training with out replacement (one man, one job), the work doesn't get done. I see this as an issue in the Navy as well. When a ship is training and doing battle problems etc, all the routine work is not being progressed. A large portion of a ship's company has maintenance responsibilities which go undone during "Training". It is all a matter of balance, too much training and the equipment doesn't work or nice shiny clean well oiled ship and the sailors don't know what to do with it.

2. Away time for the purpose of training is increasing. No one that I know in the military has an issue with deploying for a real world operation. They also understand the requirement to deploy for exercises at multi-unit levels. What becomes wearisome is to constantly be away IOT maintain this qual or that qual. For trades which have a day job, it also means being away from work which needs to be done even if you are remaining in the geographical area. It just means more hours at work making up for time due to training. It is my feeling that this is the source of more stress than actually deploying for a purpose.

So before we do a blanket call for more training, we need to assess the costs of doing and not doing the training. I'm not talking about dollars, those are easy. but the cost to personnel, those required to do the training who now can't used to deploy. There is fatigue and stress caused by not being able to get your own work done and being away from family before being away from the family for an operational deployment. There is some merit to conducting trining like SQ and NETP at the beginning of a career while pers are still on BTL vice later when they are taken away from their real job to complete the training.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jun 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...
> KISS applies in personnel structure as well.  It's when eGOs get involved, and a desire to own everything under the sun without an understanding of the complexity of the underlying systems that things like this happen.





			
				Chief Tech said:
			
		

> ... There seems to be a call for '"more " training, including some which would require a maintenance of a qual. There are a couple of issues which need to be resolved: ...



- Good points all.  Perhaps we should, in these cases, target trg to those who need it when they are posted/attached/CFTPOd.  In some cases the annual refresher trg (IBTS) may be sufficient.  In others, a more robust timetable/SQ may be needed.

- As for leaders: a case by case basis. At what level is the need, and how much risk are we willing to accept?

- Just plain inefficient MHR to train everyone as a Ninja.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Just plain inefficient MHR to train everyone as a Ninja.



Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...



I know only of me and 5 others. They're all men. I'm IN!!!  ;D


----------



## danchapps (11 Jun 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...


I'll volunteer. I always thought ninjas were cool, and I love wearing black and sneaking around all over the place.


----------



## McG (12 Jun 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There are courses, namely BAEQ, PAEQ and IAEQ, which are ran out of the Air Command Academy in Borden.


Interesting.  On the recruiting site, SQ and NETP are respectively mentioned in the basic training program for hard Army and Navy MOS.  There is no mention of BAEQ.  Then again, the banner across the top of the Army jobs page is a Romanian TAB APC so, I will not be accusing the site of being the most accurate source of information.  For now, because it does not really affect the larger argument, we can assume that BAEQ does impart some essential knowledge for operating in an Air Force setting (but we can leave it to other threads to flesh that out for certain).



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I wonder if now's the time to reconsider having the "purple trade" concept at all.  Would it make more sense to enrol and train X number of army supply techs (e.g.) to meet the needs of the army, Y number of navy supply techs to meet the needs of the navy, etc.?  In other words, would the reduced training cost (because of more focused training) outweigh the loss of flexibility of the current purple system?





			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?


Not to that extreme.  Environmental sub-MOS would be the way to go in my opinion.  Some jobs require an Army Sup Tech, some jobs require a Navy Sup Tech, and some jobs just require a Sup Tech.  Sub-MOS would allow a mechanism for individuals to be trained in the occupation and trained in a single environment.  Training would be reduced (as pers are only trained in one environment) and competency would increase (as pers would be employed in the environment of their training & practice/gain experience in that environment) but we would not loose all the flexibility that would occur in a complete split of an occupation.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ....  Qualified and competent do not necessarily go hand in hand but better qualified than not.
> 
> I do not, however, think that sending someone on an SQ course, then posting them to a Wing or a navy base for 4 years, and then posting them to a field unit with the 'tick in the box' for SQ is the right answer either.  ...


Exactly.  Environmental specific sub-MOS (which is the effective if not formal result of the CANFORGEN) is a means to resolving this problem.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Some AES Ops are indeed headed for the sandbox to operate the new UAV. Should we now add SQ to the trade ?


There is probably no requirement for such a move, and I suspect a trg needs analysis would identify that for such a move there are too few AES Ops that will require the training.  However, SQ should required training for the formation of and later postings into a TUAV Flt (and a PLQ-L conversion for junior leaders too).  



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Now as for loading everyone on naval or air course, you know that is blatantly ridiculous. We were only talking "purple" trades. We aren't talking bosuns and AESOPs going on a recce with the infantry, so SQ for them isn't going to happen, UNLESS there are positions in Afghanistan.  ... And its very unlikely that an infantry officer will ever serve aboard the HMCS Winnipeg.


The TF HQ during Somalia was off shore on a ship, and the next generation of ship will include a multi-purpose room (I forget the appropriate technical name) that will have as one of its roles to serve as a joint or land operations centre.  Therefore, we will always require the ability to indoctrinate members of one environment to the operational essential skills of another environment.  If you work on the ground, you must know how to fight on the ground; if you work in the air, you must know how to fight in the air; if you work at sea, you must know how to fight at sea.  Individual soldier skills will do an infantryman no good when he is in an off-shore CP that's under attack.

There has been a lot of focus in this thread on the environmental specific individual skills.  These are vital.  However, equally if not more vital is the environmentally specific junior leadership.  Now, somebody can pipe in and tell me that in ships & aircraft there will always be a hard trade of that environment close enough that this is a non-issue.  In land warfare, where there is plenty of room for dispersion, this is essential for all the participating leaders to know how to lead the fight at the very least with a small team.


----------



## meni0n (21 Jun 2008)

So why are most of the purple trades get chopped to Land environment specific training and INT ops and Comm Rsch get selected as a whole trade? Especially the PLQ-L issue, as for example you have an Air Comm Rsch doing his course in Kingston and then going to Ottawa for 4-6 years and then somehow can pass a PLQ-L? And since it's only run by the Cbt Arms, there won't be many courses available to send all that extra influx of personnel to Pet for training. Wouldn't this create an even bigger backlog on courses? Same for Int op as they do their trades training by environment, what is the logic of a PLQ-L if an air int op would only be posted to an air base?


----------



## armyvern (21 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Not to that extreme.  Environmental sub-MOS would be the way to go in my opinion.  Some jobs require an Army Sup Tech, some jobs require a Navy Sup Tech, and some jobs just require a Sup Tech.  Sub-MOS would allow a mechanism for individuals to be trained in the occupation and trained in a single environment.  Training would be reduced (as pers are only trained in one environment) and competency would increase (as pers would be employed in the environment of their training & practice/gain experience in that environment) but we would not loose all the flexibility that would occur in a complete split of an occupation.
> Exactly.  Environmental specific sub-MOS (which is the effective if not formal result of the CANFORGEN) is a means to resolving this problem.



The only caveat that I would see to this is that there must be a move to three seperate merit listing. Army, Navy, and Air.

A common based "Supply" course, with subsequent "Enviornmental Specific Trades Qual" tacked on to it dependant upon one's uniform colour may work.

But, in the end --- it's the "promotions/postings" that have to be considered as well.

Retaining a single merit list simply doesn't make sense in this context. What if the first 100 corporals ranked on a common listing are of the "Air Force Specialty Supply type" and there is a Master Corporal required in an Army position? Do you skip the first 100 pers to promote number 101 because he is Army and thus is the first one with the quals to fill this "Army" position?

The vast majority of purple trade advancement entails "promoted and posted to ...". There must be an empty position to promote someone into. What if you are number 1 on that list for 6 years, but a position in the next rank level doesn't open up in your specific "enviornment" ... as a "Common trade" are you going to be happy sitting back for 6 years while other enviornmental people get promoted ahead of you because the positions all opened up in other enviornments? Somehow -- that just won't fly.

If the move is to make Army Suppies serve in the Army, Air in the Air, and Sea in the Sea ... then the only fair way to do such is to divide and seperate the merit lists into three distinct and seperate listings. 

Three seperate merit lists allows for the number 1 Army Supply Cpl to be promoted and posted into the first available Army Supply Master Corporal position, and likewise for the other enviornments. Anything else would entail "skipping" over "better and thus higher merited Supply Techs" to fill positions. Can you say "Grieveances up the ying-yang to the CDS as a rule?" Because that's what it would become.

And, really, if our quals need to be different too for employment/placement/promotion, then really we are not the "same" trade anymore - despite having that common "supply" root.


----------



## McG (21 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The only caveat that I would see to this is that there must be a move to three seperate merit listing. Army, Navy, and Air.


I agree here.  There might be room for a converging merit list.  Everyone would be listed by environment and collectively.  Initially, promotions would go based on the enviromental lists, then there could be a handful of any-environment promotions that go out based on those pers left on the converged list.  If this is too complicated or un-workable, then the simple approach of environment specific merit lists only is the way to go.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> So why are most of the purple trades get chopped to Land environment specific training and INT ops and Comm Rsch get selected as a whole trade? Especially the PLQ-L issue, as for example you have an Air Comm Rsch doing his course in Kingston and then going to Ottawa for 4-6 years and then somehow can pass a PLQ-L? And since it's only run by the Cbt Arms, there won't be many courses available to send all that extra influx of personnel to Pet for training. Wouldn't this create an even bigger backlog on courses? Same for Int op as they do their trades training by environment, what is the logic of a PLQ-L if an air int op would only be posted to an air base?



I am sure you have heard the saying "You are a Soldier First, a Tradesman Second".  If not, I wonder where you have been.  Everyone does a PLQ-L so that when they deploy, they will know what to do (hopefully) when the excrement hits the rotating oscillator.  Now, unless you only intend on sitting at a desk in a Distant Early Warning Site as a Career Cpl you need to know this stuff, as you are likely someday to do a Tour in some far off land under very primitive and dangerous conditions.  If you don't do the PLQ-L, then you are not likely to ever have a supervisory role in any such taskings.

Remember, also, that the Infantry PLQ is much longer and Trade specific than the PLQ-L.  That is their "Bread and Butter".  Yours is to be able to assist them and be able to have the skills to survive in Battle, should the occasion arise.


----------



## meni0n (21 Jun 2008)

I know that George, but that CANFORGEN pretty much says that at a Svc Bn, people wearing a green beret are going to do PLQ-L but people with a blue beret won't. They will deploy overseas with no PLQ-L. How does that make sense? What makes them so different from a air int or sigint. Why have one standard for one purple trade and a different one for another?


----------



## McG (21 Jun 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Why have one standard for one purple trade and a different one for another?


If the land element of one purple trade is large enough to provide the critical mass to support land operations, force generation and domestic requirements while the land element of another purple trade cannot be large enough to provide that critical mass, then those two trades may take a very different approach.  As was discussed earlier, those blue & black uniformed pers in land field units without the land enviromental training will have to be posted out.  Their continued presence in land units will violate the stated intent of the CANFORGEN (to have all pers deploying to land operations properly trained to the land standard) and so they must go back to their own environments.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sure you have heard the saying "You are a Soldier First, a Tradesman Second".


... of course, this logic is irrelevant on a ship (sailor ≠ soldier) or in the air (airman ≠ soldier).


----------



## time expired (21 Jun 2008)

Watching this thread I see the chickens of unification finally coming
home to roost,all the justifications and lies that were propagated
to prove what a great idea it was  are finally proving what it really
 was,a gigantic money saving scheme and a chance for a few"onside" 
senior officers to get promoted.All it took was a few real "you could
really get killed"postings and the failures of unification become readily
apparent.
                   Regards


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> I know that George, but that CANFORGEN pretty much says that at a Svc Bn, people wearing a green beret are going to do PLQ-L but people with a blue beret won't. They will deploy overseas with no PLQ-L. How does that make sense? What makes them so different from a air int or sigint. Why have one standard for one purple trade and a different one for another?



Are you sure you interpreted that correctly.  The policy used to be, at least, that a person going on PLQ from any Bde Unit, no matter what Element they belonged to, would do the PLQ-L.  That meant anyone posted to a Land Formation, no matter what colour of DEU they wore, no matter what Trade, would all do the exact same training.  So, you being in a Svc Bn would meet those same rules.

I didn't know that they had changed.


----------



## meni0n (22 Jun 2008)

From the CANFORGEN George:

(B) NON-ARMY- MANAGED OCC. PLQ-L IS NOW THE ONLY JUNIOR LEADER COURSE FOR THE FOLLOWING NON-ARMY-MANAGED OCC:

(1) MP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)

(2) MSE OP (L)

(3) SUP TECH (L)

(4) RMS CLK (L)

(5) COOK (L)

(6) AMMO TECH (L)

(7) POSTAL CLK (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)

(Cool COMM RSCH

(9) INT OP NOTE: ALL MP, POSTAL CLK, COMM RSCH AND INT OP OCC PERSONNEL REQUIRING JR LDR TRG, REGARDLESS OF ENVIRONMENT, SHALL BE LOADED ON PLQ-L. FOR MSE OP, SUP TECH, RMS CLERK, COOK AND AMMO TECH OCCS, ONLY PERSONNEL OF THE LAND ENVIRONMENT WILL BE LOADED ON PLQ-L. ARMY G1 WILL APPORTION PLQ-L VACANCIES TO CAREER MANAGERS BASED ON CLS PRIORITIES.


This basically forces the non-army environment people at the Svc Bn to do CFPLQ. Now the question is, why a Air Int Op has to go to PLQ-L while Air Sup Tech has to do CFPLQ? Where is the logic in that?


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> This basically forces the non-army environment people at the Svc Bn to do CFPLQ. Now the question is, why a Air Int Op has to go to PLQ-L while Air Sup Tech has to do CFPLQ? Where is the logic in that?



Exactly what we're all wondering.

That previously "purple" Sup Tech may also one day find him/herself a Leader placed in an authority position on ground in Afghanistan. I say "previously" as we are no longer purple when we can't all do/aren't all required to do applicable training based upon being posted "anywhere". If we can't be posted "anywhere" - we, by definition are no longer "purple".  I can only assume that this CANFORGEN means that either:

1) Only land suppies will now serve on ground in war zones; or that
2) Somehow, Sea or Air Suppies don't need Land training to be placed in on ground in war zones. <--- And THAT *really* worries me.

Note: I'm not saying that an Air Int OP should not be doing PLQ-L; I think they _should be _ based upon the previously stated reasons that they will find themselves one day in a leadership role in a land war zone. But, I think the same is applicable to air and sea sup techs - and all purple trades.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you sure you interpreted that correctly.  The policy used to be, at least, that a person going on PLQ from any Bde Unit, no matter what Element they belonged to, would do the PLQ-L.  That meant anyone posted to a Land Formation, no matter what colour of DEU they wore, no matter what Trade, would all do the exact same training.  So, you being in a Svc Bn would meet those same rules.
> 
> I didn't know that they had changed.



Nope George.

Air & Sea Sup Techs no longer do SQ or PLQ-L as per the CANFORGEN. Even those currently serving in Land Op positions. See my previous wrt to a couple of my blue/black folk being removed from nomination for SQ due to their uniform colour.


----------



## EW (22 Jun 2008)

Comm Rsch has been "owned" by the Army for a few years now.  Hence the reason for the Army PLQ for all.  

At the time a Comm Rsch MWO, I remember when that decision was made a few years ago.   There was a lot of hand wringing about how all the trades senior appointments would be made by Army boards in the future.  The issue was that these boards would be looking at the career track of Army MWOs and see the conventional progression of section/det commander, Sgt, Troop/Platoon WO, Ops Sgt/WO, CSM/SSM, Foreman/Yeoman of Signals (for those other C&E trades), RSM, etc, etc; but with Comm Rsch (outside of 1CSR/1CDHSR/JSR, 2EW Sqn) they would see some funky acronyms, and job titles.  Led to some significant reorganization of the CFSOC at Leitrim from the Navy's Divisional system to something that the Army might be able to recognize.  There was also a move made to increase the percentage of Army uniforms, maintain the Navy uniform percentage, and decrease the number of 291'ers in blue.

Even a few grizzled Comm Rsch CPO1's grudgingly admitted that the Army taking responsibility for the trade was a 'good thing,' and truly representative of the future.  I only hope that means that PLQ-L for Comm Rsch, regardless of uniform, is here to stay.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nope George.
> 
> Air & Sea Sup Techs no longer do SQ or PLQ-L as per the CANFORGEN. Even those currently serving in Land Op positions. See my previous wrt to a couple of my blue/black folk being removed from nomination for SQ due to their uniform colour.



This is just plain silly.  Some windowless, cubicle bound, officer, justifying his/her existence in DisneyLand on the Rideau has just undone what someone with real life experience had corrected a few years ago.  This is plain retarded.

I think we all agree on that.

Now I also ask: why does that same type of person have to sit back in their comfy chair, sipping mocha lattes, in front of a computer screen, day dreaming and renaming every course in the CF.  I went on a tasking at the Inf School a few years back, and when filling out the Info sheet during inclearance, I had no idea what qualifications I held, as someone in their wisdom had renamed them all.  I had no clue what a DP1 was, so I didn't tick it off.  

As long as the CFPLQ is more than the old JLC and covers what the CLC covered, we don't have to worry about Purple Trades being qualified ISSC.   (Talk about dating one's self.)   ;D


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jun 2008)

Int Op and Comm Rsrch are in particular demand on deployed ops right now; for them, it's not a case of "If you haven't been, you're going" but "If your waiver period is up, you're going again."

Given the land-centric nature of much of the deployed work being done by those trades, regardless of DEU, the decision to push them all into PLQ-L made sense - give everyone that exposure, awareness, knowledge, and shared experience with others they will be working alongside in the future.  Other MOSIDs do not deploy as great a proportion of their pers.

On the SQ issue:  It's a red herring.  BMQ has been lengthened to include much of the content that previously was covered on SQ, making the old SQ redundant.  There is a group caught in the transition - and I'm not sure how that's being managed.  But for folks who've started after the enhanced BMQ was begun there's only a minimal delta in training time - and some of that is recovered because it's a single course, so less admin periods required.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2008)

A red herring?

How is it a red herring when my Army uniformed Sup Techs still need the SQ to be posted to a field Unit ... but Air and Blue don't? And it's a pre-req for service in some field Units? (That precludes us from posting them to field Units where it is a pre-req).

If it's affecting who my trade can post and where -- it's not a red herring.

If the issue is that some of this is now being taught on BMQ -- then WHY exactly are Army DEU Suppies still going to be required to undergo SQ to do their jobs (and the fact that Air/Navy are no longer allowed to undergo this to do their jobs)??

If the issue is that SQ is no longer going to be a requirement to go to the field ... why are land uniformed suppies still required to do it as per the CANFORGEN? Because we're not purple anymore?? There's lots of blue/black around here that we can't do much with now. If it's affecting us -- it's no red herring.


----------



## McG (23 Jun 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Now the question is, why a Air Int Op has to go to PLQ-L while Air Sup Tech has to do CFPLQ? Where is the logic in that?


Go back two posts prior to your repeating this question in order to see the answer.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> As long as the CFPLQ is more than the old JLC and covers what the CLC covered, ...


CFPLQ does not achieve your criteria, but PLQ (L) does.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is just plain silly.  Some windowless, cubicle bound, officer, justifying his/her existence in DisneyLand on the Rideau has just undone what someone with real life experience had corrected a few years ago.


George,
If you go back to where the full CANFORGEN was posted, you will notice that it is direction out of the Armed Forces Council.  I don't think the CDS or any of the ECSs feel the need to justify their existence.  Further, whatever "correction" you think was done by "someone with real life experience" had failed.  If you go back through this thread you will read that personnel are deploying on land operations without the proper land enviromental training simply because they happened to be posted to non-land units at those critical moments in their career.  That is just not on, and this CANFORGEN is a step in the direction of rectifying that.


----------



## CountDC (24 Jun 2008)

I see it as a move towards where they want things to go - purple will no longer apply to us anymore.  We will be posted to the element we belong to - navy to ships/naval bases, army to army and air to air.  Last CM brief I attended about a month ago this was stressed to us as the way of the future with perhaps one out of element posting to see how the other side did things.


----------



## Chief Clerk (6 Jul 2008)

Its like one big circle - the Canadian Forces - we will eventually go back to 3 elements - the purple folks will finally be able to be where they want.  I think our leaders may have believed combining the ARMY, AIRFORCE and NAVY would save big $, but it would seem at the sake of the Purple Jobies!  And from what I can see - we made EVEN MORE Headquarters with even more Officer positions - yet most worker bees (ORs/NCM/whatever you care to call us) MOCs are in the RED!  As quick as a young person joins, one releases.  And hey lets offer the young folks a really good contract (read 3 then X amount with nothing in between to give you choices and change the contract we had that was not broke!).  Over the years I have seen it would seem, small pushes towards going our separate ways, because of course anything big would be disloyal in some folks eyes.  Hopefully this will give us back our sense of belonging - and for some of us maybe even take our old cap badges back!  Give us the choice of being ARMY, AIRFORCE or NAVY - Let the purple jobbie know the true meaning of Espirit de Corps, loving the smell of cordite or jet fuel or whatever the hell the Navy loves (beer - JUST joking guys) in the AM -  or at least know forever who your food chain is when you wake each AM!  Do yah think this could happen within 2 years - as I will have over 30 and retirement is looking good!
PS - like the cap badge CountDC - were you truly an Admin Weenie?


----------



## CountDC (7 Jul 2008)

Chief Clerk said:
			
		

> Give us the choice of being ARMY, AIRFORCE or NAVY - Let the purple jobbie know the true meaning of Espirit de Corps, loving the smell of cordite or jet fuel or whatever the hell the Navy loves (beer - JUST joking guys) in the AM -  or at least know forever who your food chain is when you wake each AM!  Do yah think this could happen within 2 years - as I will have over 30 and retirement is looking good!
> PS - like the cap badge CountDC - were you truly an Admin Weenie?



choice of ARMY or NAVY for clerks -too many already in the AIRFORCE.

Beer is right!!! Just leave out the AM part - smells good anytime.

Don't know if it will happen in 2 but the push is on.

Yes I was an Admin Weenie before the great merge.  I was an RMS Clk before they existed although we used the term FAdmin Clk at work.  I was Fin remustered to Admin and was used to do both trades at the HQ as needed.


----------



## Scot57 (11 Jul 2008)

EW said:
			
		

> Comm Rsch has been "owned" by the Army for a few years now.  Hence the reason for the Army PLQ for all.
> 
> At the time a Comm Rsch MWO, I remember when that decision was made a few years ago.   There was a lot of hand wringing about how all the trades senior appointments would be made by Army boards in the future.  The issue was that these boards would be looking at the career track of Army MWOs and see the conventional progression of section/det commander, Sgt, Troop/Platoon WO, Ops Sgt/WO, CSM/SSM, Foreman/Yeoman of Signals (for those other C&E trades), RSM, etc, etc; but with Comm Rsch (outside of 1CSR/1CDHSR/JSR, 2EW Sqn) they would see some funky acronyms, and job titles.  Led to some significant reorganization of the CFSOC at Leitrim from the Navy's Divisional system to something that the Army might be able to recognize.  There was also a move made to increase the percentage of Army uniforms, maintain the Navy uniform percentage, and decrease the number of 291'ers in blue.
> 
> Even a few grizzled Comm Rsch CPO1's grudgingly admitted that the Army taking responsibility for the trade was a 'good thing,' and truly representative of the future.  I only hope that means that PLQ-L for Comm Rsch, regardless of uniform, is here to stay.


 Excellent post. I am out of the system (Supply) now but I have long advocated for the Supply trade to do the same. Can't speak for the other Logistic trades (although I do have an opinion .. ) .... their is a reason why the EME Branch is stronger and their affiliation and idenity greater then that of the Logistics Branch. They wear one uniform no matter if they serve on an Army Base or Air Base. IMO, there is no need for a Sup Tech to be wearing a Air Uniform .. period. An argument could be made for the Navy storesman. The Air Force term ACSSS - equals Combat Service Support. The old argument of needing a "true AIR" Sup tech because of the unique high tech avionics/ equipment (which was used against me) has long ago passed. High tech is everywhere. Two uniforms is all that is required. Army and Navy. A realigment of those wearing Navy could be done thus ensuring that those Sup Techs serving in the field are wearing Army, including those posted to the Air Force performing CSS. 

... but, the battle continues. There are alot of senior Air Force Logistics Officers (and CWO's).


----------



## LuvsMud (6 Dec 2008)

If I understand correctly a Navy Med Tech will be required to complete SQ and NETP? I've done a search but haven't found much info on NETP. Is there another name for the course? When would you complete it? I'm told Navy Med Techs won't be posted to a ship until they've done their QL5 if ever. Newbies are usually attached to a Fd Amb. Is this correct?


----------



## aesop081 (6 Dec 2008)

LuvsMud said:
			
		

> I've done a search but haven't found much info on NETP. Is there another name for the course? When would you complete it?



It is called NETP.........

You have to complete this course if you are posted to a ship.


----------



## DiverMedic (7 Dec 2008)

LuvsMud said:
			
		

> If I understand correctly a Navy Med Tech will be required to complete SQ and NETP? I've done a search but haven't found much info on NETP. Is there another name for the course? When would you complete it? I'm told Navy Med Techs won't be posted to a ship until they've done their QL5 if ever. Newbies are usually attached to a Fd Amb. Is this correct?



You need NETP (Naval Environmental Training Program) to go on ship.  Also need your 5s as a medic to go on ship.  90% of new medics are sent to Fd Ambs.  The other 9% are service couples or extenuating circumstances.  1% are just lucky....

DM


----------



## LuvsMud (7 Dec 2008)

9% are service couples eh? ... "How you dooooooin?"  :-*  
Hehehe I'm teasing of course. Thank you for the info.


----------



## medicineman (8 Dec 2008)

LuvsMud said:
			
		

> If I understand correctly a Navy Med Tech will be required to complete SQ and NETP? I've done a search but haven't found much info on NETP. Is there another name for the course? When would you complete it? I'm told Navy Med Techs won't be posted to a ship until they've done their QL5 if ever. Newbies are usually attached to a Fd Amb. Is this correct?



Something to get used to - you're a Med Tech - full stop.  The uniform is just the clothes they tell you to wear to work.  I'm Army, with Aeromedical Evacuation wings, attach posted to a submarine - figure that one out.  If you luck out and get posted to a coast, you'll get to go on ship - after your NETP and 5's, and not necessarily in that order.  The 5's are more important.

Have a gooder.

MM


----------



## LuvsMud (8 Dec 2008)

It sounds like you've had a great career! Thank you for the info.


----------



## norris (13 Jan 2009)

What about the Chaplain Branch.  Are they mostly land, air or sea?


----------



## MikeL (13 Jan 2009)

norris said:
			
		

> What about the Chaplain Branch.  Are they mostly land, air or sea?



Same thing.. theres Chaplains/Padres, etc wearing the uniform of every element. An like other purple trades you can goto any unit; I'am in an Infantry unit an we an Air Force Padre.


----------



## Gary D. in SK (27 Apr 2009)

Are all ED Techs Air Force element, or are there some in Land as well?


----------



## fire_guy686 (29 Apr 2009)

Gary D. in SK said:
			
		

> Are all ED Techs Air Force element, or are there some in Land as well?



Just from taking a quick peak at the recruiting site it shows ED Techs being both air and land elements.


----------



## Gary D. in SK (29 Apr 2009)

that's kind of what I thought initially and put Land as my preferred element on my application.  But then I noticed that there is no SQ component, and in every piece of recruiting information I have seen the Techs pictured appear to be Air Force.


----------



## nocknee (21 Oct 2009)

Sorry if I'm sidetracking the discussion here somewhat.

I'm hoping that as an Army Med Tech I wouldn't end up on a ship, or a boat, but as a purple trade I realize that's a possibility. How much weight is given to the stated preference of the recruit? Does it depend entirely on the needs of the CF or does the profile/qualifications of the recruit in any way determine where that person will be posted?


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Oct 2009)

nocknee said:
			
		

> Sorry if I'm sidetracking the discussion here somewhat.
> 
> I'm hoping that as an Army Med Tech I wouldn't end up on a ship, or a boat, but as a purple trade I realize that's a possibility. How much weight is given to the stated preference of the recruit? Does it depend entirely on the needs of the CF or does the profile/qualifications of the recruit in any way determine where that person will be posted?



The CF will send you where they need you.  Your preferences _may_ be taken into consideration.  Obviously, qualifications will matter as well (e.g. Air MedEvac)  That being said, it's usually easy to get posted to a field unit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The CF will send you where they need you.  Your preferences _may_ be taken into consideration.  Obviously, qualifications will matter as well (e.g. Air MedEvac)  That being said, it's usually easy to get posted to a field unit if you request a posting to a Wing, or to a Wing if you request a posting to either Navy bases, or...


----------



## meni0n (17 Feb 2010)

Just wondering, a year and a half after the CANFORGEN came out, has it been fully implemented or are some people still being sent on courses other than listed in the CANFORGEN? For example going on a CFPLQ instead of PLQ-L?


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2010)

Perhaps Vern (being a senior member of my trade) or anyone else can shed some light on my personal situation then.

I am currently a LS who is being promoted to MS this year (2010). With my promotion will come a posting away from Halifax. Now if i get posted to a Army base will the PLQ im loaded on be a PLQ-L or a PLQ done on a Navy base. 

Either one doesn't bother me except that if I do get loaded on a PLQ-L, will my CoC ensure that I am brought up to speed on the army specific expectations ? By this I mean to say that my knowledge of how to run a section attack or do a patrol and any of the other field craft and combat skills are non existent. I would hope that my CoC would ensure I am brought up to speed on all this. 

As well if I am not loaded on a SQ does that mean my time in say Petawawa would be spend base side ? I find that disheartening to say the least as I get more personal enjoyment and job fulfillment out of first line employment. Or could a MS be loaded onto a SQ course ?


----------



## dangerboy (29 Mar 2010)

The fol info is taken from CANFORGEN 101/08 http://vcds.dwan.dnd.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2008/101-08_e.asp

B) NON-ARMY- MANAGED OCC. PLQ-L IS NOW THE ONLY JUNIOR LEADER COURSE FOR THE FOLLOWING NON-ARMY-MANAGED OCC: 

(1) MP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS) 

(2) MSE OP (L) 

(3) SUP TECH *(L) * 

(4) RMS CLK (L) 

(5) COOK (L) 

(6) AMMO TECH (L) 

(7) POSTAL CLK (ALL ENVIRONMENTS) 

(8) COMM RSCH 

(9) INT OP NOTE: ALL MP, POSTAL CLK, COMM RSCH AND INT OP OCC PERSONNEL REQUIRING JR LDR TRG, REGARDLESS OF ENVIRONMENT, SHALL BE LOADED ON PLQ-L. FOR MSE OP, SUP TECH, RMS CLERK, COOK AND AMMO TECH OCCS, ONLY PERSONNEL OF THE LAND ENVIRONMENT WILL BE LOADED ON PLQ-L. ARMY G1 WILL APPORTION PLQ-L VACANCIES TO CAREER MANAGERS BASED ON CLS PRIORITIES. 


So the way I read it as you are a Navy Sup tech you will not be course loaded on a PLQ (L).

It is the same for BMQ (L)/SQ

(1) BASIC MILITARY QUALIFICATION - LAND(BMQ-L)/SOLDIER QUALIFICATION (SQ) - THE FOL OCC WILL ATTEND THE SQ CRSE: 

(A) CBT ENGR 

(B) GEO TECH 

(C) COMM RSCH 

(D) LINEMAN 

(E) LCIS TECH 

(F) SIG OP 

(G) WPN TECH 

(H) EO TECH 

(I) MAT TECH 

(J) VEH TECH 

(K) INT OP 

(L) MP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS) 

(M) COOK (L) 

(N) POSTAL CLK 

(O) SUP TECH *(L)* 

(P) AMMO TECH 

(Q) TFC TECH (L) 

(R) MSE OP (L) 

(S) RMS CLK (L) 

(T) MED TECH


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2010)

So if I read your post properly and everything else in this thread while I am so employed on an "Land" base I cant be employed first line ? That hardly makes any sense at all...


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2010)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Perhaps Vern (being a senior member of my trade) or anyone else can shed some light on my personal situation then.
> 
> I am currently a LS who is being promoted to MS this year (2010). With my promotion will come a posting away from Halifax. Now if i get posted to a Army base will the PLQ im loaded on be a PLQ-L or a PLQ done on a Navy base.
> 
> ...



As a MS wearing a naval uniform, you will only be required to complete the PLQ Mod 1-5 (same mods as every other trade & environment). These mods are offered at Land, Air and naval establishments - so you may possibly complete your Mods 1 to 5 at any of the three environmental establishments.

If you are indeed posted at a land posting, you may volunteer to do the PLQ(L) {ie Mod 6 after you have completed the common mods 1-5} if you so choose; I have seen pers of other uniforms get their Mod 6 (including a Sup Tech when she asked for it), but it is hard to get loaded onto it as it is Army managed and Army pers take priority.

That all being said, having a qual of Mods 1 - 5 only does not preclude you from employment in the field enviornment at 2nd line or 1st line; so, fear not young jedi.

As for the SQ - I don't know of anty MCpls/MS who have been required to undergo that course --- that, I suppose, does not mean that it isn't possible.

Relax ... the Army isn't as bad as your nightmares (and rumour) say it is!! We'll have you converted in no time at all!!  > Just kidding.

Really, take it as it comes; ask questions; don't be shy. We've had a whole lot of sailors and airmen and airwomen Suppy types show up in Army Units ... and I do believe they have all lived to tell the tale (some of us even switched our uniforms over). It's different from the Navy and it's different from the Air Force, but, like anything, it is what you make of it and your inquiring post leads me to believe that you'll make out just fine.

Vern


----------



## danchapps (30 Mar 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We've had a whole lot of sailors and airmen and airwomen Suppy types show up in Army Units ... and I do believe they have all lived to tell the tale (some of us even switched our uniforms over).



To add two pennies here Vern, we recently had a PO1 change uniform to Army WO. They figured they did enough army stuff that they might as well become army. As well, it saved said person from having to correct all the young Pte's from calling them WO instead of PO (not I, as I know the difference between swords and an anchor )


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Mar 2010)

hahaha well I wouldn't think I will be "jumping ship" so to say over to the army uniform but I certainly know lots of people who have had DEU changes from all 3 elements to one or the other! Hell I know I an Air Force WO who has 17 years in Esquimalt now! 

I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't thrown in off the deep end with out being taught how to doggie paddle first is all! 

I guess I will have to wait and see where I'm posted when I get home.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Apr 2010)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> To add two pennies here Vern, we recently had a PO1 change uniform to Army WO. They figured they did enough army stuff that they might as well become army. As well, it saved said person from having to correct all the young Pte's from calling them WO instead of PO (not I, as I know the difference between swords and an anchor )



In reverse I had one buddy switch from Army to navy DEU just so he could go on tours with the ships.  Seems they didnt like having him on board with that camo green on his back...


----------



## Neill McKay (19 Oct 2010)

Somewhere I got the impression that the NCM log trades were going to be divided into elemental sub-trades (as are Log Officers now), with members' postings and training (e.g. NETP/SQ etc) tending more towards their element.  Did anything come of that, or was it just a blue sky?


----------



## McG (19 Oct 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Somewhere I got the impression that the NCM log trades were going to be divided into elemental sub-trades (as are Log Officers now), with members' postings and training (e.g. NETP/SQ etc) tending more towards their element.  Did anything come of that, or was it just a blue sky?


That only ever existed as an idea presented by me on this site:  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22558/post-722530.html#msg722530
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22558/post-723737.html#msg723737
I am not aware of it ever being officially considered anywhere.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2010)

Belay my last...

I think the log trades sub dividing thing did come close to fruition. I know the current CO of the NSE made mention of it during a speech to his troops on this tour. This was when the Log Branch head honchos were coming in for a visit.


----------



## McG (19 Oct 2010)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> So what your saying is the CANFORGEN that topic discusses is null and void ? Please correct me if I am wrong.


You are wrong.  I am not saying any CANFORGEN is "null and void."
I will say that the CANFORGEN being discussed made no mention of creating environmental sub-occupations.  The CANFORGEN simply mandated training to certain groups based on a uniform colour.  That CANFORGEN will introduce (has introduced) a degree of service dysfunction because it mandates training based on uniform colour without going the extra step of creating sub-occupations based environmental employment requirements.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2010)

Seen MCG and thank you for the correction.


----------



## caocao (19 Oct 2010)

From a CE NCM point of view, although we wear Army and AF DEUs we can and are posted with all 3 elements and when it comes to postings we are colour blind meaning that we try to post the best person for the job regardless of DEU.  We have pers (AF DEU) who have spent their entire career with the Navy and Army DEU pers who have spent all their time with the Air Force.  Myself, i have equally spent my 25 year career between Army and AF postings (Valcartier twice, Gagetown, Lahr, Cold Lake, Winnipeg, Uplands).


----------



## Pusser (19 Oct 2010)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I don't think it would be as much of an issue as you think to be honest. I may be naive but I doubt the, figure head position, of Branch CWO has a great effect on the everyday duties of the persons in that branch. If we can have an Army CDS that can lead all 3 elements complete and the supporting arms then I fail to see how it would be difficult for an Army CWO to be an effective branch CWO comprised of Army, Navy and Airforce.
> 
> I don't think you would have one element that would suddenly be short of a specific tradesmen. We manage to work it now and the billets for those positions come by environmental manning lists not dictated by the branches. All you would have to do is over a 5 year period, move people to their elements and give those who wish to stay in that element the chance to change uniforms if possible. I really think you would see it all come out in the wash, so to speak. As well to fill the deficiencies, when the young lad or lassy comes to the CFRC and wants to be an RMS Clerk you advise them on what elements are open and looking for RMS Clerks, then its their choice.



Obviously, you've never been to CFSAL - the Canadian Forces School of *Army* Logistics.  ;D

In my experience, as far as the Army is concerned, "joint" means army and you're not "joint" unless you do it the army way.  OK, so that's an oversimplification, but I think folks will get my drift.

The biggest criticism of my criticism seems to be the difference between "field" positions and "desk positions (i.e. static vs operational), but I'm not talking about that.  I'm not saying that personnel should be allowed to concentrate their careers on bases vs operations.  What I'm saying is that when you go to an operational position (be it a field unit, a ship or whatever the air force does), it should be in the same element (i.e. ship to shore to shore, etc. and field to base to field to base etc.) so that your experience and training can be put to good use.   The argument that you need experience in multiple elements in order to function in joint headquarters is hogwash.  If that were true then we would sent infantry officers to sea and pilots to drive tanks.  Remember, most of the senior leadership in joint headquarters are operators who have almost never operated in the other elements.  They learn "joint" on staff courses and through experience in the headquarters once they get there.

As for the argument that larger branches that encompass all three elements provide more opportunities for advancement, I don't see it.  How does competing for promotion with an air force transportation officer in Winnipeg, whose job is nothing like mine, enhance my career opportunities?


----------



## Pusser (19 Oct 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Officers are considered specialists (even GSOs), and NCMs are considered generalists (even when they collect Spec pay).



Actually, precisely the opposite is true.  NCMs are much more specialized than officers.


----------



## Snakedoc (20 Oct 2010)

What we have from an institutional standpoint, is a lot of cultural confusion (ever since 1968) which arguably decreases organizational effectiveness.  Looking at other militaries around the world with seperate services, the organizational identity of each seperate service is very clear and there is no question for each person from Clerks to NavComms that their role is to support their service and the service culture is a huge part of that. 

In the CF, we have one service, the Canadian Armed Forces, but no clear unifying culture.  What we have are 3 elemental cultures from the former services, branch cultures, and the Candian Armed Forces culture.  I can only imagine how confusing this would be for a brand new Navy OS clerk posted to an Air Force base.  Which identity do they belong to?  The army from their army-centric BMQ?  The Navy from their rank and uniform?  Or the Air Force from where they currently work?  Are they a Sailor, Airman, Soldier, or simply a generic Canadian Armed Forces member first?  Or does their identity belong to the Logistics branch and their purple trade?


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Oct 2010)

Totally agree Snackdoc


----------



## FSTO (20 Oct 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Obviously, you've never been to CFSAL - the Canadian Forces School of *Army* Logistics.  ;D
> 
> In my experience, as far as the Army is concerned, "joint" means army and you're not "joint" unless you do it the army way.  OK, so that's an oversimplification, but I think folks will get my drift.
> 
> ...



Good post Pusser. My highlight of the Air Force officer is what drives me nuts about the Air Force. Heaven forbid that any light blue officer is multi-tasked. Whereas the Sea Logistics Officer is in charge of Pay, Supply, Transport and administration the obese Air Force base is full of officers doing one job only! I know that this is an oversimplification but it seems that the Navy (and not just ours but all navies) is able to do a lot more with a lot less then at least one other service. This is mainly due to our environment (stuck in a steel box with limited space) and that is the number one reason we think and act the way we do.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Oct 2010)

FSTO said:
			
		

> .....(stuck in a steel box with limited space) and that is *the number one reason we think and act the way we do*.


Like caged rats.    ;D



Sorry, it was too good a target; I'll STFU now


----------



## FSTO (20 Oct 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Like caged rats.    ;D
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it was too good a target; I'll STFU now


No, that made me laugh outloud. We are actually multi-tasked caged rats! ;D


----------



## aesop081 (20 Oct 2010)

FSTO said:
			
		

> is able to do a lot more with a lot less then at least one other service.



Well, why dont you come down here to Shangrila and try and tell me how underemployed i am.


----------



## FSTO (20 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, why dont you come down here to Shangrila and try and tell me how underemployed i am.



LOL oh I knew I would stir up a hornets nest. Its all the nature verses nurture debate. The Navy is constrained by space and is forced to do thing the way they do, the Air Force and Army do not operate in that environment and that is why they do things their way. Not saying one way is better than the other (oh who am I kidding, of course I am!  ;D) is just the way it is. 
I applaud the purple trades for trying their damnest to bridge the gap between the 3, but as Pusser states far more eloquently than I, what advantage are they really gaining?


----------



## Neill McKay (20 Oct 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In my experience, as far as the Army is concerned, "joint" means army and you're not "joint" unless you do it the army way.  OK, so that's an oversimplification, but I think folks will get my drift.



Or, purple is another shade of green.


----------



## Jungle (20 Oct 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In my experience, as far as the Army is concerned, "joint" means army and you're not "joint" unless you do it the army way.  OK, so that's an oversimplification, but I think folks will get my drift.



Your experience is different from mine; if i'm going on a Ship, I expect to be told where I can go, when I can go, and what I am permitted to do.
The few times I have done amphib ops, the Navy was in charge of getting us to the point where we leave the Ship, then it was our plan from then on.
When Sailors go ashore, in an Army unit's AO, it is perfectly normal that they should coord time and space factors with the owner of the battlespace.

Don't forget that everybody else exists to support the Infantry in it's job: close with and destroy the enemy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Oct 2010)

I will join this interesting thread with a few personal comments, which I hope will be taken in the spirit in which they are offered.

I think there is a great confusion in many of the posts between "jointness" and "unified", and then there is further confusion between the execution of a "joint" operation at the unit/sub-unit level as opposed to the actual "joint" planning or command of it.

Jungle's last post includes some of this confusion.

First of all, his (hers?) last statement that "everybody else exists to support the infantry" certainly confirms Pusser's view that for the Army, joint means the Army way .

The example in Jungle's last post however show two units participating in a joint operation, but at a level that requires jointness from neither: Just because a ship embarks troops for the purpose of landing them somewhere, it does not make it joint in its operation in any way - its just one more normal - I would even say "standard" - naval task. As captain, I have a job to do and do it the Navy way up to the point where my responsibility for those lives ends (which BTW Jungle, is a the water's edge, not when you leave the ship). At that point, the Army unit does whatever it has to do the Army way - in the normal way the Army usually does it. Similarly, if a wing of ground support planes was assigned to support the Army in this example, it would do so the Air Force way. There is nothing "joint" in any of the ways those units act.

The real "jointness" is done at the planning stage - where the Navy, the Army and the Air Forces' staffs are put together to come up with a single overall plan - and potentially at the Command level, where the Officer in overall command of the operation can be from any element (The British overall command of the recapture of the Falklands was a Commodore, Sandy White), regardless of its most important aspect, and the HQ staff supporting it must by necessity include personnel from all three elements. That is jointness .

The idea that  "purple trade" should be joint by having experience in all three elements is, pardon my expression, bullshit left over from the old unification days. Whilst armed forces everywhere in the world have proven that each environment requires its own culture - and this culture is quite similar for each environment from one country to the next - none have ever held that some "trades" require an individual culture that crosses from one environment to the other. That is not to say that  we cannot have systems that are unified and operated by trades personnel in the same way but within their respective environments. Communicators in all three environment can and do use a "unified" message form. Logistics trades personnel can and do use  a "unified" system of Material Distribution Account, etc. This however does not require a sea logistics officer to know how a service battalion works or  for a Squadron logistics officer to know how to lead a damage control party, as a sea log would.

So  I say, let the trades people learn the unified processes and systems at schools that do not have any Navy/Army/Air Force bias  but then let them chose their environment, absorb its culture and live within it. I am sure it would make Pusser and Halifax Tar happy. 

As for the original question, while I can live with Canadian Navy, I would be proud to serve the Royal Canadian Navy again.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Oct 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Don't forget that everybody else exists to support the Infantry in it's job: close with and destroy the enemy.



Far from it. A CP-140 chassing an SSBN in the Atlantic support national survival not the Infantry. You may find this hard to beleive but yes, not everyone's job supports 031s. My primary peacetime job doesnt even support the infantry.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2010)

To slightly amend:

The idea that  "purple trade" should not be joint by having experience in all three elements is, pardon my expression, bullshit left over from the old pre-unification days. 


A key goal of unification was to reduce the tooth to tail ratios.  Maintaining excess capacity of three kinds of supply techs (for example) to fill positions is a waste of money and of personnel.  In a resource constrained environment we don't have the luxury of bloated establishments (writes the guy in NDHQ, I admit).  Maintaining ship to shore, field unit to garrison, and squadron to wing ratios across all the environments means many positions more than are needed - and leads to an imbalance in postings and deployments - "Oh, that's an air force sup tech; we need an Army Sup Tech to work the LPO desk on deployment" has been said more than once, and remains a fraudulent statement.

I grew up in Montreal as an Anglophone, and so am immediately suspicious of anyone who makes the "distinct society" claim.  To argue that "The Navy is so different" or "The Air Force is unique" is ridiculous.  It's a base, emotive claim, as if somehow people can't move to antoher environoment and work there.  Of course that's not true; in the real world people are often forced to move to new workplaces witrh radically different cultures.  Only in the nanny-state of the military would we attempt to institutionalize fear of change and inflexibility and call them character traits to emulate.


----------



## Jungle (20 Oct 2010)

Wow, I guess I wrinkled some egos there...  ;D



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The real "jointness" is done at the planning stage - where the Navy, the Army and the Air Forces' staffs are put together to come up with a single overall plan - and potentially at the Command level, where the Officer in overall command of the operation can be from any element (The British overall command of the recapture of the Falklands was a Commodore, Sandy White), regardless of its most important aspect, and the HQ staff supporting it must by necessity include personnel from all three elements. That is jointness .



This definition may have been applicable in the good-ol-days, but now "joint" defines an operation planned / conducted by more than one element. If the third element was essential, then nothing would be joint in Afg.
We are joint at lower levels of planning now.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Far from it. A CP-140 chassing an SSBN in the Atlantic support national survival not the Infantry. You may find this hard to beleive but yes, not everyone's job supports 031s. My primary peacetime job doesnt even support the infantry.



Dude, Relax... I'm not suffering from some egocentric syndrome. I understand that many tasks are not done in direct support of the Infantry, or the Army for that matter; but at the end of the day, if you want to win a battle, you need Infantry to close with and destroy the enemy, then hold the ground. Everything else exists to facilitate that, whether it is tanks offering intimate support, guns sending love in 155mm bundles, planes keeping the skies friendly or ships controlling the seas.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Oct 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The real "jointness" is done at the planning stage - where the Navy, the Army and the Air Forces' staffs are put together to come up with a single overall plan - and potentially at the Command level, where the Officer in overall command of the operation can be from any element (*The British overall command of the recapture of the Falklands was a Commodore, Sandy White*), regardless of its most important aspect, and the HQ staff supporting it must by necessity include personnel from all three elements. That is jointness .



You may be thinking of Rear Admiral "Sandy" Woodward who was a task group commander during OP CORPORATE, who, although he may have been the senior British officer (afloat or ashore) in that part of the South Atlantic, was not in "overall command" of operations to recapture the Falklands.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/history/battles/falklands-conflict/


> On 2 April 1982, the day of the invasion, destroyers and frigates exercising off Gibraltar under Rear Admiral 'Sandy' Woodward were ordered south. They were joined by the carriers Hermes and Invincible, loaded with Sea Harrier fighters as well as amphibious ships and merchant ships were taken up from the trade for use as troopships. These were also three nuclear powered submarines to cover the surface ships. *In overall command was Commander-in-Chief Fleet, Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse* at his headquarters at Northwood near London. *Woodward commanded the carrier task group* while *Commodore Mike Clapp was in charge of the amphibious ships*.



Including ground and air elements the commanders would have been.
http://www.naval-history.net/F18taskforce.htm


> TASK FORCE COMMANDERS, NORTHWOOD
> Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, Task Force Commander,
> Major General J J Moore MC and bar RM, Land Forces Deputy,
> and later
> ...



I do, however, agree with your explanation that applying "jointness" is most reserved for 'higher end' operational planning and execution and that when many refer to "purple trades" needing joint experience they should be talking about "unified" or "integrated" or "static/generic" positions that support the organization as a whole.

As for the suggestion that purple trades should be single service employed only, it is more than adequately addressed here:


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> A key goal of unification was to reduce the tooth to tail ratios.  Maintaining excess capacity of three kinds of supply techs (for example) to fill positions is a waste of money and of personnel.  In a resource constrained environment we don't have the luxury of bloated establishments (writes the guy in NDHQ, I admit).  Maintaining ship to shore, field unit to garrison, and squadron to wing ratios across all the environments means many positions more than are needed - and leads to an imbalance in postings and deployments - "Oh, that's an air force sup tech; we need an Army Sup Tech to work the LPO desk on deployment" has been said more than once, and remains a fraudulent statement.


----------



## Snakedoc (20 Oct 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To argue that "The Navy is so different" or "The Air Force is unique" is ridiculous.  It's a base, emotive claim, as if somehow people can't move to antoher environoment and work there.  Of course that's not true;* in the real world people are often forced to move to new workplaces witrh radically different cultures*.  Only in the nanny-state of the military would we attempt to institutionalize fear of change and inflexibility and call them character traits to emulate.



But each element IS quite different, the function of each base is to support operations within that environment, organizational identity and culture play a large role in that.  I do not know of one civilian organization in the real world that has 6 different cultures for an employee to adopt.  Not only this, but one of the main reasons why civilian employees are not hired or end up quiting is that they do not fit within an organizations culture.

Now, I completely agree with the fact that this should not mean 'somehow people can't move to another environment and work there.'  If additional surge capacity or support is required there should be the ability to move people of equivalent training to a new environment and for them to learn the new environment and how it works.  However, this should not be the norm, the majority of this person's career should be spent within their environment, and at the end of the day, this person should be able to say 'I am a Sailor, I am in the (Royal) Canadian Navy, and my role is to support the (Royal) Canadian Navy within the CF.  As a Sailor, I am able to defend a ship or naval establishment, be part of a damage control team, be part of a fire fighting team, and perform general shipboard duties required of all Sailors (ie coming alongside etc.)' or something to that effect.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So  I say, let the trades people learn the unified processes and systems at schools that do not have any Navy/Army/Air Force bias  but then let them chose their environment, absorb its culture and live within it. I am sure it would make Pusser and Halifax Tar happy.
> 
> As for the original question, while I can live with Canadian Navy, I would be proud to serve the Royal Canadian Navy again.



Here Here to that.  I completely feel the same sentiment.  The benefits of a unified system can still be reaped while maintaining a strong sense of organizational culture and identity.  Most major militaries around the world are moving towards this.  However they are doing this gradually whereas the CF went a complete 360 (gutting the identity and culture of the former services in the process) and then is now slowly back-peddling to find a balanced medium.  Though I've never served in the Royal Canadian Navy, I would certainly be proud to adopt the name and identity.


----------



## Snakedoc (20 Oct 2010)

My apologies for the double post, it appears the threads were split just as I was posting.  I believe my post fits better in this thread:



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> To argue that "The Navy is so different" or "The Air Force is unique" is ridiculous.  It's a base, emotive claim, as if somehow people can't move to antoher environoment and work there.  Of course that's not true;* in the real world people are often forced to move to new workplaces witrh radically different cultures*.  Only in the nanny-state of the military would we attempt to institutionalize fear of change and inflexibility and call them character traits to emulate.



But each element IS quite different, the function of each base is to support operations within that environment, organizational identity and culture play a large role in that.  I do not know of one civilian organization in the real world that has 6 different cultures for an employee to adopt.  Not only this, but one of the main reasons why civilian employees are not hired or end up quiting is that they do not fit within an organizations culture.

Now, I completely agree with the fact that this should not mean 'somehow people can't move to another environment and work there.'  If additional surge capacity or support is required there should be the ability to move people of equivalent training to a new environment and for them to learn the new environment and how it works.  However, this should not be the norm, the majority of this person's career should be spent within their environment, and at the end of the day, this person should be able to say 'I am a Sailor, I am in the (Royal) Canadian Navy, and my role is to support the (Royal) Canadian Navy within the CF.  As a Sailor, I am able to defend a ship or naval establishment, be part of a damage control team, be part of a fire fighting team, and perform general shipboard duties required of all Sailors (ie coming alongside etc.)' or something to that effect.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So  I say, let the trades people learn the unified processes and systems at schools that do not have any Navy/Army/Air Force bias  but then let them chose their environment, absorb its culture and live within it. I am sure it would make Pusser and Halifax Tar happy.
> 
> As for the original question, while I can live with Canadian Navy, I would be proud to serve the Royal Canadian Navy again.



Here Here to that.  I completely feel the same sentiment.  The benefits of a unified system can still be reaped while maintaining a strong sense of organizational culture and identity.  Most major militaries around the world are moving towards this.  However they are doing this gradually whereas the CF went a complete 360 (gutting the identity and culture of the former services in the process) and then is now slowly back-peddling to find a balanced medium.  Though I've never served in the Royal Canadian Navy, I would certainly be proud to adopt the name and identity.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2010)

As much I would love to see the harbinger of change in all the unification and separating the log branch, the question needs to be asked, "Are we just beating a dead horse about this?"

What I mean to say is that I doubt in my service or lifetime I will ever see change. Does anyone actually see it as a distinct possibility or are we really just dealing in alternate realities here ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Oct 2010)

Thank you Blackadder, Woodward was who I had in mind. And I am glad to see my point confirmed, though the details were incorrect: While the recapture was obviously done by soldiers, the overall command was Navy. And that was my point about jointness.

Halifax Tar: Keep your hopes high. In my career, we have gone from the (depressing) era of walking about in green gas bar attendant uniform (the Work Dress, not the CF) and calling ourselves "maritime command" (with the attendant HQ exile to Halifax) to recovering our pride with a naval uniform, calling ourselves a Navy again (though with some resistance still out there) and having CMS reintegrate the circles of political power in Ottawa. So change occurs - just at a rate that may seem too slow for those who figure out quickly where we should be going.

As for those who still cling to the purpose statement of  the Glasso Commission on Unification as a method  "to reduce the tooth to tail ratios" because "maintaining excess capacity of three kinds of supply techs (for example) to fill positions is a waste of money and of personnel" and that  "in a resource constrained environment we don't have the luxury of bloated establishments", well I have news for  you: Not only did the Navy "tooth to tail" ratio increase by bounds and leap since unification [I cannot comment on the other two elements] but the specific type of wider training and qualification the Navy provided its "pay clerks" that made them capable of handling multiple tasks (like the sea logistics officers, which we thankfully retained) that are now each trade specific has disappeared and that creates a need for excess capacity within the Navy.

So please, unless someone can show me a current comparative study between the CF "tooth to tail ratio" and that of  a reasonably similar military force from another country that is not "unified" [my suggestions would be Australia, Britain, the Netherlands and Germany) that proves to me that the CF ratio is better, or at the very least just as good, don't quote me Mr. Glasso and his "efficiency" bumpf that never materialized.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2010)

Of course efficiences aren't realized - because we insist on treating people as enviro-centric and building bloat.

It's not low-hanging fruit in rationalization (NCR-centric occupations being civilianized would be among the easiest ways to free up several hundred Reg F PYs to reinvest *) but is necessary.

Empire building is DND's biggest problem.  Using bollocks environmental issues to maintain those empires is a leadership failure.  And, unfortunately, one that the organizational culture rewards.


* Occupations like MARE, EME, AERE, Sigs (Land and Air) and Log all have disproportionate numbers of their pers in Ottawa.  The majority of those functions should be civilianized; that a full 20 year career in those occupations can be had in a static office job is proof that they are not military essential functions, but rather are functions essential to supporting the military (a distinction that is too often lost).


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2010)

> * Occupations like MARE, EME, AERE, Sigs (Land and Air) and Log all have disproportionate numbers of their pers in Ottawa.  The majority of those functions should be civilianized; that a full 20 year career in those occupations can be had in a static office job is proof that they are not military essential functions, but rather are functions essential to supporting the military (a distinction that is too often lost).



dapaterson, 

I would like to know your foundations for your statement that so man people of the various occupations you listed spend there whole careers in Ottawa or another static location ? 

We are now reaping what sow with regards to the civilianization of DND positions in Ottawa. Have your tried to get an answer from an Item/Supply Manager recently that wasn't garbled or way out in left field ? Be careful what you wish for. I would rather have someone who at least has an iota of sympathy or an idea of what I am talking about than the current batch of people I have been dealing with there!


----------



## McG (21 Oct 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> * Occupations like MARE, EME, AERE, Sigs (Land and Air) and Log all have disproportionate numbers of their pers in Ottawa.





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would like to know your foundations for your statement that so man people of the various occupations you listed spend there whole careers in Ottawa or another static location ?


Have a look at PML for the listed occupations, then have a look inside ADM(Mat) to see count the number of established positions for those occupations.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We are now reaping what sow with regards to the civilianization of DND positions in Ottawa. Have your tried to get an answer from an Item/Supply Manager recently that wasn't garbled or way out in left field ? Be careful what you wish for. I would rather have someone who at least has an iota of sympathy or an idea of what I am talking about than the current batch of people I have been dealing with there!


An officer that has spent more than a decade not leaving NDHQ is a bureaucrat in uniform.  The civilian doing a Class A reserve job will often be more in-touch and sympathetic to the users perspective.


----------



## Pusser (21 Oct 2010)

The solution to these problems is not necessarily to civilianize certain jobs.  We need military folks in staff jobs in order to ensure that the aim and a proper perspective is maintained.  Where we fail in this regard is in not rotating people with current experience into the staff jobs.  The static folks are at fault for pushing to stay in Ottawa far too long where they lose currency, and the operational folks are at fault for complaining about how the "idiots on staff" don't know what's going on, but fighting like hell to avoid going to Ottawa to be part of the solution.  In short, the answer is that we all need to get out a bit more.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2010)

But there aren't enough positions to get out in to the real world in those trades.  Geographic locations for over 2/3 of Log officers (all colours) Major and above in the Regular Force are in the NCR.  The AERE branch is overwhelmingly located in the Cumberland building.  Louis St Laurent is the MARE and EME home station (or at least it should be).

Military influence in PMOs = good.  Military excess = bad.

We have a finite number of military PYs authorized by the government.  They have to be prioritized.  And DGAEPM 7-34-9-12 (Nuts, locking, rudder, left hand side, Auroras, pre midlife extension) should not be a priority to establish as a military position (let alone as a Maj with two military subordinates).  [Note:  These positions are ficticious.  As far as I know]


If we build a structure that demands massive numbers of engineers in cubicles, that demand is best met through civilian engineers, with some military augmentation.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Have a look at PML for the listed occupations, then have a look inside ADM(Mat) to see count the number of established positions for those occupations.
> An officer that has spent more than a decade not leaving NDHQ is a bureaucrat in uniform.  The civilian doing a Class A reserve job will often be more in-touch and sympathetic to the users perspective.



Where should the Cdr/Lcol Log Officer go ? Perhaps for the army they can command a SVC BTN *IF* and I stress *IF* they are lucky, as those positions are also held by EME officers. But a Naval LOG O is destined to be shore bound in an HQ or staff setting for the vast majority of their careers. Lets also not forget that those positions didn't just appear, at some point someone addressed an outstanding need by creating them. Those people with 10+ years in NDHQ came from somewhere and had some sort of "first line" experience before being summoned to the empire err NDHQ.

Dont get me wrong here I have spent almost my whole 12 years, to date, on either ships or on tour, I have avoided shore postings like the plague, and I have zero interest in going to a 2nd or 3rd line posting or an HQ. Having said that I feel that if I was posted to a position, say on the CMS staff then I feel I could contribute somewhat to that with my Naval Supply related first line experience, notwithstanding my constant efforts to get back to fleet.

So MCG I see your point, I do, but I see the other side as well.

A PO once told me a quote, and love it to this day "Sailors should be on ships and ships should be at sea" and that is how I see it.


----------



## Pusser (21 Oct 2010)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A PO once told me a quote, and love it to this day "Sailors should be on ships and ships should be at sea" and that is how I see it.



This sailor prefers to be "in" ships.  It gets a little cold "on" ships if one never gets to go inside! ;D  Otherwise, well said.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (21 Oct 2010)

In my experience there are indeed cultural differences between the services (whatever the heck we call the Army/Navy/Airforce).  Those differences exist for good reasons.  We do different things.  

I can see having a few "purple" trades such as Chaplain, Legal and MOs, but the lion share should belong to their parent service.

Regarding NDHQ, just because somebody has been there ten years does not make them a bureaucrat.  I'm not saying that I want to get posted there, but I appreciate that there are uniformed folks.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Regarding NDHQ, just because somebody has been there ten years does not make them a bureaucrat.  I'm not saying that I want to get posted there, but I appreciate that there are uniformed folks.



No one is argunign the need for uniformed folks in NDHQ.  What I'm critiquing is that better than 1 in 8 trained members of the Reg F are posted to the National Capital Region.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Regarding NDHQ, just because somebody has been there ten years does not make them a bureaucrat.  I'm not saying that I want to get posted there, but I appreciate that there are uniformed folks.



Understood, but when someone has been there 14 years.......an slides from one place to another.....that ain't right.

I was on course not long ago and two of my syndicate  members (combined) had more time in Ottawa than I have in....and that is sad.


----------



## captloadie (22 Oct 2010)

There is another very good reason to keep uniforms in static locations like NDHQ and the ADMs. No disrespect to our civilian counterparts in the Log world, but once you unionize your work force, you lose a lot of flexibility. Work to rule, strikes, or simply the union rules about work day length cannot be allowed to hinder operations. If for instance the CF has to move a large supply hub in 30 days to a new location for some reason, it needs to be able to push its planning staffs to work longer hours, weekends etc. If these were all civilianized, and this corresponded to a strike period, the CF would be screwed.

Please don't take this as a rant against the Unions. It is meant to be an argument why you need to have a flexible workforce in place.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Oct 2010)

I must agree with captloadie.  The civilian side of DND has strict rules by which it works by.   If you want to have a civilian to do something, it had better be written up in their contract or they are not going to do it.  The simple hanging of pictures on  an office wall call for a Work Order to be submitted to Public Works and a person from Public Works coming in and placing the nail in the wall in the appropriate spot.  Don't you even think of bringing in a hammer and nail from home.  Them are the rules, and you are forced to follow them.  (Now I know what others are going to say, and I have knowledge of what has been done so myself, but we won't say what we did or didn't do on the internet.)


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2010)

Please.  The "flexible"military workforce in the NCR takes their 1 hour for PT from their 8 hour shift, plus meals, plus smoke breaks, gets more annual leave than the civilians, plus gets additional special days at Christmas, short days at other times, and are frequently told to go home early on long weekends, plus have training requirements to maintain proficiency (well, they're supposed to, but there are still senior folks going to the range to fire the "new" rifle - you know, that newfangled C7 that replaced the FN).  Overall, you generally get less work from a military member than from a civilian.  Military personnel are also significantly more expensive than civilians at equivalent levels.  

Again:  If you have a Reg F of about 60K trained strength (end-state), how many do you want to take off the top for the highest level HQ function - and how many at each lower level of HQs - before you get to the sailors in ships, boots on the ground, and pilots in 4 star hotels (OK, yes, it's an Air Force jab)?  I would argue that over 6K Reg F in the NCR is too many.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Oct 2010)

I think we may be drifting away from the Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion title of this thread


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Oct 2010)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think we may be drifting away from the Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion title of this thread



Nah, that never happens around here.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 May 2015)

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> As stated by many before ... starting down a slippery slope.
> 
> Within the Log Br
> - RCN and RCAF wanting their pers to wear their cap badges
> ...



i do agree that Army, Navy, and Air logistics are different and should be trained differently in the supply (foods too) and transportation streams, but could be trained as 1 for the finance and HR streams. The tactical training of logisticians at the NCM level is almost non-existant for Army pers and they need more training on establishing CPs, DPs, convoys, etc. For example there's a Sup Tech in Shilo just promoted to MCpl that hasn't done SQ yet... SQ!! Jr Logisticians need more field skills taught earlier and enforced at a younger level at the school.

Officers would also benefit from a combination of streams for the army pers into the 4 CMBG S&T Coy, with the 3 week specialty courses either tacked onto LOCL to put out pers who can be Supply or transport. Navy pers could have their specialty courses (fin, supply) put on LOCS, and air force could have a S&T type training pack put on their LOCA. LOCC could then be HR and fin heavy and remain as a common training point for the 3 services.

Logistics needs much more focus on tactics, particularly when you read the requirements in ADO 2021. The RCEME trade does this FAR more effectively than Log does, so Log could learn from them.


----------



## dapaterson (20 May 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> i do agree that Army, Navy, and Air logistics are different and should be trained differently in the supply (foods too) and transportation streams, but could be trained as 1 for the finance and HR streams. The tactical training of logisticians at the NCM level is almost non-existant for Army pers and they need more training on establishing CPs, DPs, convoys, etc. For example there's a Sup Tech in Shilo just promoted to MCpl that hasn't done SQ yet... SQ!! Jr Logisticians need more field skills taught earlier and enforced at a younger level at the school.
> 
> Officers would also benefit from a combination of streams for the army pers into the 4 CMBG S&T Coy, with the 3 week specialty courses either tacked onto LOCL to put out pers who can be Supply or transport. Navy pers could have their specialty courses (fin, supply) put on LOCS, and air force could have a S&T type training pack put on their LOCA. LOCC could then be HR and fin heavy and remain as a common training point for the 3 services.
> 
> Logistics needs much more focus on tactics, particularly when you read the requirements in ADO 2021. The RCEME trade does this FAR more effectively than Log does, so Log could learn from them.



Supply and transport functions should be uniform agnostic.  The employment of that knowledge may take place in environments that require specific skills, but the trade knowledge base is common to all.  The current fetish for dis-unifying the Log branch is not driven by rational, professional analysis, but rather by operator ego and their desire to have uniform uniforms on parade.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Supply and transport functions should be uniform agnostic.  The employment of that knowledge may take place in environments that require specific skills, but the trade knowledge base is common to all.  The current fetish for dis-unifying the Log branch is not driven by rational, professional analysis, but rather by operator ego and their desire to have uniform uniforms on parade.



Disagree. There are commonalities in what a trucker with a blue vs green beret do in a garrison setting but on operations the army truckers would be expected to conduct DPs, CPs, convoys, and dumping programs. The loss of focus on those skills due to a desire to be common isn't something we should pursue. Even supply, in that the types of supply are different, systems of supply are different, and environment in which supply occurs is different, should be seperated. The common elements could certainly be taught in a common setting (DRMIS, supply management, garrison supply, etc), but the army needs a more "army focus" for field ops to maintain and train skills in that area.


----------



## dapaterson (20 May 2015)

The Army's overall lack of field time is the root cause of those problems, and is not unique to CSS.  If Sup Techs and MSE Ops are not conducting proper DPs, convoys etc then we have an Army collective training problem, not a Log occupational training one.

Common occupational training is sensible and resource efficient, coupled with whatever specific environmental IT&E is required.  We require pers who understand the systems, and not only their part of it; otherwise, their advice and recommendations may not be sufficient and may create additional friction.

A wholesale splitting along environmental lines is not in the best interests of the CAF; it only serves the buckles, buttons and bows brigade and assures them of all green or blue or black on parade.  We are too small a military to let each group do their own things for reasons of uniform colour.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Army's overall lack of field time is the root cause of those problems, and is not unique to CSS.  If Sup Techs and MSE Ops are not conducting proper DPs, convoys etc then we have an Army collective training problem, not a Log occupational training one.
> 
> Common occupational training is sensible and resource efficient, coupled with whatever specific environmental IT&E is required.  We require pers who understand the systems, and not only their part of it; otherwise, their advice and recommendations may not be sufficient and may create additional friction.
> 
> A wholesale splitting along environmental lines is not in the best interests of the CAF; it only serves the buckles, buttons and bows brigade and assures them of all green or blue or black on parade.  We are too small a military to let each group do their own things for reasons of uniform colour.



I'm not suggesting a whole scale split, but rather suggesting that the reality is that army logistics pers require additional skills. Anything common could be taught in a common forum with some field augmentation (such as with the medical pers) for the Army guys. I would also suggest that you're correct about the CT- there's not enough training in field Log skills at the CT level, but I would suggest a large part of this stems from a lack of IT.  

I do agree though that Logistics doesn't need any sort of "buttons and bows" change nor return to the RCOC or RCASC. Training change can be made without that


----------



## Tibbson (20 May 2015)

Maybe I'm missing something here but y'all make it sound like army logisticians will only be posted to army units while air and navy logisticians will only be posted to their elemental units.  Every time I've deployed there has been a good mix of drivers or supply types conducting the DPs and running the roads.  To say, as some have, that "the reality is that army logistics pers require additional skills" doesn't make sense to me when I look at the army guy behind the counter or driving trucks here in Halifax.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 May 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing something here but y'all make it sound like army logisticians will only be posted to army units while air and navy logisticians will only be posted to their elemental units.  Every time I've deployed there has been a good mix of drivers or supply types conducting the DPs and running the roads.  To say, as some have, that "the reality is that army logistics pers require additional skills" doesn't make sense to me when I look at the army guy behind the counter or driving trucks here in Halifax.



In a field/Svc Bn environment. As I said, in a garrison environment there are certainly common skills.


----------



## Pusser (21 May 2015)

Logistics occupational training should be by all means common to all and conducted in a single school.  However, there are enough differences between how logistics support is delivered in each element, that personnel can have a viable career in a single element.  This idea that logisticians have to have experience in more than one operational environment is absolute nonsense (unless that is what individuals want).  If we must move folks around between operational environments, then change their uniforms.  Different uniforms in HQs are fine, but operational units should be homogenous.  Yes, I admit that this is a buttons and bows issue and some find it trivial, but it drove me nuts everytime I went on parade with my department in the ship and everyone looked uniform accept the hodge podge behind me.  Their professionalism is/was unquestioned, but in my opinion, it LOOKED unprofessinal.  After all, aren't uniforms supposed to be, well, UNIFORM?

It's worth noting that we don't post Logistics officers outside of their elements (other than HQs - sometimes), so why do we insist on doing it to the NCMs?


----------



## Tibbson (21 May 2015)

Stove piping the postings by elemental uniforms would be perhaps the easiest however with our recruiting system the way it is I wonder if we'd be able to hire enough "air" logisticians or "sea" logisticians (for example) when we need them.  Its certainly cheaper then changing someone's uniform dependent upon their postings.

On the other hand, and I don't know enough about this as I should, isn't there a quota system used now in determining who goes into what uniform when recruited for one of the so called purple trades?  I know for my own trade, MP, that we have much fewer MPs wearing the RCN uniform (or uniform accoutrements when in OPD) then we have army or air.  And, in the case of my trade, if we restrict their postings dependent upon their elemental affiliation, we restrict both the experience they can gain and therefore the versatility of having them in the trade and using them for deployments and taskings.  It may work fine for some trades but I can see where it could produce a whole host of counter productive changes.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that we don't post Logistics officers outside of their elements (other than HQs - sometimes), so why do we insist on doing it to the NCMs?



There is more to the CAF than the RCN, CA and RCAF.  Oddly enough, there are many Log officers in units under CJOC, in units under ADM(Mat), in CMP... And there are severe stresses in certain log specialties due to the failure of the new, environmentally stovepiped model to develop some core competencies required.


(And if you want uniformity, we can return to the 1970s single DEU  >)


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 May 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Logistics occupational training should be by all means common to all and conducted in a single school.  However, there are enough differences between how logistics support is delivered in each element, that personnel can have a viable career in a single element.  This idea that logisticians have to have experience in more than one operational environment is absolute nonsense (unless that is what individuals want).  If we must move folks around between operational environments, then change their uniforms.  Different uniforms in HQs are fine, but operational units should be homogenous.  Yes, I admit that this is a buttons and bows issue and some find it trivial, but it drove me nuts everytime I went on parade with my department in the ship and everyone looked uniform accept the hodge podge behind me.  Their professionalism is/was unquestioned, but in my opinion, it LOOKED unprofessinal.  After all, aren't uniforms supposed to be, well, UNIFORM?
> 
> It's worth noting that we don't post Logistics officers outside of their elements (other than HQs - sometimes), so why do we insist on doing it to the NCMs?



Well said.  

Your last line needs to be addressed from outside the Log Br by the heads of the RCN, CA and RCAF.  They need to hold the Log Br to task on their insistence for this dire need to have experience in more than one element.  The RCN paid allot of money and spent allot of time training me to be ship qualified, QM qualified, NBP qualified, HAZMAT Response Team Qualified, CCT qualified and payed me 9 years of sea pay to foster and grow the knowledge required to run a supply dept on a ship.  Then a CM in Ottawa says I need more "elemental diversity" so they posted me to the Army.   :facepalm:

*Anecdotal point.  They posted to me to the CA claiming I needed Army time while on my 3 half days reintegration having just returned from my second tour in Afg.  Which I spent 8 months before hand in Petawawa doing... Army training.*  :facepalm: X 2


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 May 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well said.
> 
> Your last line needs to be addressed from outside the Log Br by the heads of the RCN, CA and RCAF.  They need to hold the Log Br to task on their insistence for this dire need to have experience in more than one element.  The RCN paid allot of money and spent allot of time training me to be ship qualified, QM qualified, NBP qualified, HAZMAT Response Team Qualified, CCT qualified and payed me 9 years of sea pay to foster and grow the knowledge required to run a supply dept on a ship.  Then a CM in Ottawa says I need more "elemental diversity" so they posted me to the Army.   :facepalm:
> 
> *Anecdotal point.  They posted to me to the CA claiming I needed Army time while on my 3 half days reintegration having just returned from my second tour in Afg.  Which I spent 8 months before hand in Petawawa doing... Army training.*  :facepalm: X 2



I agree with this point. My old MCS was an Air Force Sup Tech but had spent the majority of his time in the naval environment and the army environment. He told me a story about showing up in the Svc Bn, going out to the field, and being told to establish an OP, than being treated like a fool when he didn't know how to do it. He also, desperately, wanted to go to the air environment again, which was what he thought he was joining for many years ago.

The reality is that pers going on a naval ship, pers going on an airfield, and pers operating in a tactical field environment require different skill sets. I dont see my suggestion that training be provided at CFLTC to train the NCM side of the house in operational matters (as the officers do on LOCL, LOCS, and LOCA) as being a "buttons and bows" issue but rather a way to improve the ability for NCMs to function better within their environments. More field training for the officers might help rid the trade of the "businessmen in uniforms" mentality....

I also disagree with the postings of purple trade pers to different environments for the sake of doing it. While it's a "purple trade" its' really not... people do different jobs (with some commonality which could certainly be trained in a common setting) and they joined a specific element to be within it. Naval Log joined to be on a ship, army log joined to be in the field... how does it help anyone to post the navy guy into the field with no training and the army guy onto a ship with no naval training? THAT is a waste of money far surpassing any request to properly train individuals....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2015)

Model log try for NCMs on their initial occ trg along the lines Int Ops do.  They all do a common phase then go onto environmental specific trg based on the environment they are going.  My buddy OTd air Int Op from the guns, did the air Int Op trg after common phase and was posted to Cold Lake doing RCAF type int op stuff.


----------



## Pusser (26 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is more to the CAF than the RCN, CA and RCAF.  Oddly enough, there are many Log officers in units under CJOC, in units under ADM(Mat), in CMP... And there are severe stresses in certain log specialties due to the failure of the new, environmentally stovepiped model to develop some core competencies required.
> 
> 
> (And if you want uniformity, we can return to the 1970s single DEU  >)



Understood and agreed.  Note that I said a mix of uniforms in HQs is not a bad thing.  I was referring only to reglar front line units (Special Ops are a special case) which are, RCN, CA and RCAF specific.

As for your last point, may I ask that you now stick out your tongue and bit down on it VERY VERY hard?  I want to see blood.  It is believed that even Hellyer now thinks that perhaps he went a bridge too far with uniforms (mind you, he also believes aliens walk among us ...).


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 May 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> As for your last point, may I ask that you now stick out your tongue and bit down on it VERY VERY hard?  I want to see blood.  It is believed that even Hellyer now thinks that perhaps he went a bridge too far with uniforms (mind you, he also believes aliens walk among us ...).



I put the motion forward that we make his (Paul Hellyer's) name a swear word on this site,  or perhaps just the "Name we shall not mention".


----------



## medicineman (28 May 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I put the motion forward that we make his (Paul Hellyer's) name a swear word on this site,  or perhaps just the "Name we shall not mention".



Sorry, Voldemort is already code for someone else here.

MM


----------



## Robert0288 (29 May 2015)

Have the server auto-correct?  ;D


----------

