# CF PLQ in Petawawa



## PiperDown (30 Nov 2006)

I am looking for information from anyone who has done the CF PLQ in Petawawa recently.
I was originally scheduled to attend the CF PLQ in Esquimalt, and now I have been changed to Petawawa.
The differences in these courses from what I can read from their respective websites is pretty substantial.
IE.. the Kit list for Esquimalt reads like any regular training course ( CFs, couple sets of combats etc.), and the one for Petawawa is 4 pages longer, and reads like something out of Battle School. Christ, I will have to search through years of accumulated kit to find some of the stuff they are listing.
Also, the website for Pet says the CF PLQ is 8 weeks long, and NOT modular based. (it lists the Army PLQ as module based) so, what is the training like? Should I leave my common dog at home, put on my helmet and prepare for Basic Training all over again? Or, do they tread you like the junior leaders you are supposed to be?

I have done many courses in my years where we had to suck it up (2 different trades 3's courses, plus Para etc. ) so, I am no stranger to "the cock" but, after 14 years my tolerance of getting treated like a child is running low.. LOL

Cheers,


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Nov 2006)

BOCHICA Piper.....Thats about the best advice I can tell you.... Sorry man but it might be easy it might be hard...I would lean to hard seeing as your coming to a predominately Cbt Arms base whose leadership school is staffed by mostly Cbt Arms NCO's. 

Prepare for worst hope for best. The again hope in one hand s*** in the other and see which fill's up first.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Nov 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> BOCHICA Piper.....Thats about the best advice I can tell you.... Sorry man but it might be easy it might be hard...I would lean to hard seeing as your coming to a predominately Cbt Arms base whose leadership school is staffed by mostly Cbt Arms NCO's.
> 
> Prepare for worst hope for best. The again hope in one hand s*** in the other and see which fill's up first.



infanteer was all you could find after your career as a motivational speaker failed ?


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2006)

Well!......Your kit list looks like it is from a Battle School because it is.  A lot has changed in the couple of years since I instructed there, so I would advise you to sort out which of the two PLQ Crses you are on; the Army or the CF and you will have a better idea of what to expect.  Whichever one you are on, you will be treated as any other 'Leadership Candidate' and that for some is like doing Basic all over again with the added pressure of now having to be a leader and instructor.


----------



## PiperDown (30 Nov 2006)

HitOrMiss - I have no problems with a combat arms base.. I did 7 years in sunny Shilo with 1RCHA (I can say sunny now.. because I am no longer there LOL) But, now that I have seen the light, I can only take stupidity in small doses.  ;D

It is the CF PLQ that I am loaded on.. I was just wondering for a "national" qualification, why the standards seems so wide spread apart from base to base running it.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2006)

I would say now, it is the "Element" thing.  You are going to do a "Land" Crse as you are going to a Land Force Battle School, as opposed to going out to Esquimalt and doing a "Sea" or Purple Trade 'orientated' course.


----------



## PiperDown (30 Nov 2006)

Hi George,

Apparently the Land PLQ is for combat arms trades only, and includes mod 6 (field portion) the CF PLQ is for all other trades. Petawawa is running both a CF PLQ and Land PLQ. However, their kit lists look remarkably the same.. hmmm...  Looks like I may have to remember how to fold my grey wool socks with a smiley face on them all over again. LOL !!!


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2006)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> Apparently the Land PLQ is for combat arms trades only, and includes mod 6 (field portion) the CF PLQ is for all other trades. Petawawa is running both a CF PLQ and Land PLQ. However, their kit lists look remarkably the same.. hmmm...  Looks like I may have to remember how to fold my grey wool socks with a smiley face on them all over again. LOL !!!



As it is an Army Base, all trades will do the "Land" orientated PLQ.  Purple Trades will get out of doing the "Defensive" in Mod 6 as things are going back to the old ISCC.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Nov 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> infanteer was all you could find after your career as a motivational speaker failed ?




Well apparently such great phrase's as Sucker Up Buttercup and Awww muffin were not well received by the audience, I guess I was how does doctor Phil put it, Emotional distant from those around me  

Piper, I was not trying to be facetious just giving you a heads up about the current staffing of the leadership school in Petawawa. I'd say get you stupid tolerance up a notch.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Nov 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Well apparently such great phrase's as Sucker Up Buttercup and Awww muffin were not well received by the audience, I guess I was how does doctor Phil put it, Emotional distant from those around me



Hey, dont get me wrong.....i'm the poster child for insensitivity....was just taking another shot at you


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Nov 2006)

Don't you think people have taken enough shot's at me LMAO  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (30 Nov 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Don't you think people have taken enough shot's at me LMAO  ;D



as you so kindly reminded me...they were shooting at a truck NEAR you...not AT you.......so my answer to that is "NO"


 ;D i kid, i kid....


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Nov 2006)

It's not the one with my name on it that concerns me, it's the one marked "To whom it may concern" that scare me silly...

Ok enough thread Hijack.

Piper have you called the schooled to get a course package?


----------



## Desert Fox (30 Nov 2006)

I did MOD 6 INF this summer in Pet, and other then the fact that all the resources that should have been allocated for that course went to CSOR (I realise some things have to be higer priority than others) it was by far the best course i have experience. The staff had a mentoring approch, and it worked... the only time we got screwed around was when we brought it upon ourselves, otherwise they had a genuine intrest in developing good leaders, rather then abusing people for the sheer kick of it. Mind you, there was a Mod 6 Land course running along side us, and they had inspections at 2300hrs on a regular basis. So its generally hit or miss.... The course that started up after mine (diffrent staff) was calling the timing while doing drill for the duration...
Its hit and miss....good luck!


----------



## Cdnarmybear (1 Dec 2006)

Some poeple here in sunny Wainwright did a CF PLQ, I was on the PLQ (L) even though I am a purple trade. But we only did Mod 1-5, so I will have to do my Mod 6 either in Shilo in Jan, or here in the summer. Depends were and when they can load you, the sooner you get it done the better.(but I'm sure you already know that) Our instructors weren't just there to screw us over, they made sure that we were provided all the tools we needed to be sucessful on the course. If you get on course with a good group of people, it won't be that bad.
Good luck!!


----------



## Arctic Acorn (2 Dec 2006)

Whether or not you will be on a CF vice PLQ (Land) also depends on if you are regular or reserve. As I understand it, only the combat arms does the PLQ (L) (except for the infantry, who do a slightly different, longer, course) in the regs, but in the militia everyone except Band MOCs do the whole package. On my serial, we had clerks, int ops, medics, MSE ops, weapon techs, etc...

IMO, I think its great that they make all deployable Land MOCs do the PLQ (Land) in the reserve, and the regular force should adopt that policy as well. Given the theatre we operate out of now, those skillsets will come handy. 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Pte_Martin (2 Dec 2006)

I think you are wrong there, I was reserve and when i did my PLQ in Jan 06, we did mods 2-5 with all trades then the infantry went straight into mod 6 which i believe is a 9 week course. The other Elements came back a couple months later and completed there mod 6.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (2 Dec 2006)

Did they do both part one (small party taskings) and part two (offensive, defensive, patrolling)? I know in my own trade, in the regs they just do up to small party taskings and stop there. 

I will say that my info is a little dated, and I sure hope I'm wrong...I think it's important for ALL land MOCs to do the whole PLQ package. 

Can anyone else confirm/deny if all regular Land MOCs do both parts of Mod 6? 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Pte_Martin (2 Dec 2006)

Your right that both do Part one. When i did it though Infantry did mod 6 on their own (part 1 and 2), and then The other trades came back in April and and did their mod 6 which did include part one.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2006)

0tto Destruct said:
			
		

> Did they do both part one (small party taskings) and part two (offensive, defensive, patrolling)? I know in my own trade, in the regs they just do up to small party taskings and stop there.
> 
> I will say that my info is a little dated, and I sure hope I'm wrong...I think it's important for ALL land MOCs to do the whole PLQ package.
> 
> Can anyone else confirm/deny if all regular Land MOCs do both parts of Mod 6?



It sometimes depends on where you are Posted.  If you are Posted to a Cbt Arms Unit or Base, you will do it.  If you are Posted to a non-Cbt Arms base, like Borden or Kingston, you may not.  If you are lucky to be on an Air Base or a Naval Base, then you will do their element specific crses.

The idea is to have all trained to 'basically' the same standard.  The Infantry candidates will have to do more, as that is their bread and butter, and it is used as a measure for their later advancement in their Trade.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (2 Dec 2006)

Thanks for the update, Mr. Wallace. 

Apologies for the thread hijack. 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2006)

0tto Destruct said:
			
		

> Thanks for the update, Mr. Wallace.
> 
> Apologies for the thread hijack.
> 
> :dontpanic:



Now remember, my info is still dated, and the courses are changing.  As Infantry_ pointed out, others have had to return to do a Mod 6, and I have a friend in that boat also, but it 'may' not be as detailed as the Infantry guys Mod 6.

Remember also that each course will have variations and changes from the last as they try to improve the Crse, or are limited by some shortfall or shortage in the system.


----------



## rmacqueen (2 Dec 2006)

No matter what course you are on, where it is held will have an impact.  There is always an "environmental" aspect that creeps into the training.  I have seen these courses from all 3 environments and everyone is different in the tone of the training.  Just ask any of older guys what it was like to do a course in Summerside, PEI.

Basically, if you are doing your course in Pet expect to be treated like Cbt Arms no matter what your trade.  You may have it easier than the grunt or zipperhead but at least then you are mentally prepared.  At the end of the day you will have bragging rights and be better off for it than if you had gone to an easier environment.


----------



## Trinity (2 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whichever one you are on, you will be treated as any other 'Leadership Candidate' and that for some is like doing Basic all over again with the added pressure of now having to be a leader and instructor.



That is EXACTLY how I describe my CF JLC/ CF JNCO (now CF PLQ) done at Petawawa

That is exactly what I would expect for you.

Enjoy P-50... the leadership shacks.. I hated them with a passion.
Shiniest brass on base  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Dec 2006)

From what I can gathered while at YRAP at DET Aldershot,

If you are INF MOC then you will do PLQ Mod 6 Infantry which is 8 weeks

All other MOC's will do PLQ Mod 6 Land which is 6 weeks.

Both course packages are the same except for the extra 2 weeks that the infantry do.


----------



## Pte_Martin (2 Dec 2006)

That's where i did my PLQ


----------



## brihard (6 Dec 2006)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> From what I can gathered while at YRAP at DET Aldershot,
> 
> If you are INF MOC then you will do PLQ Mod 6 Infantry which is 8 weeks
> 
> ...



What is the nature of the 2 additional weeks? More field time, I presume?


----------



## Pte_Martin (6 Dec 2006)

As a Infanteer you do more field time and alittle more classes, and we do offensive, defensive, patrolling


----------



## Bomber (14 Dec 2006)

I did the JLC/JNCO in Pet the last year it was running.  Great course, lots of stress and hard work, but much better than the courses I watched buddies going on in subsequent years.  I was doing my DP3 Arty in 2004 and saw a PLQ course get pulle din from the field to do laundry on a wednesday night, cause of the rain in the trianing area.  Surprised I was.  I was then on the new ILQ adventure in 2005, and was formed up with a serial of PLQ students on the left and a serial of BMQ students on the right and our course was berated for not having speare rolls of bum wad at the ready in our crappers.  Stations jobs were thus not up to snuff.  We were not fit to lead or to be followed.... pretty professional dressing down in front of our past and future subordinates.  So, even as a Sgt I was treated like a two year old.  But take it all with a grain of salt, a bunhc on the course trie dthe old "Course Critique screw the instructors route" it failed, hard, and they were left looking like idiots after voicing opinions not held by the entire course and the divide was pretty clear between who had the problems and who didn't.  There was also complaints from people that the rooms in P50 didn't have working internet lines, and that 4 people to a room was to much.  Some of people just left the Critique and hung out in the smoking section until the nonsense subsided.  The complainers are always the ones that balk at the drill portions, and don't see it as a necessity or a challenge, but as some kind of torture or punishment.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Dec 2006)

I did my CF PLQ in Petawawa in Oct-Nov 2003.  It WAS just like Basic (at least Basic in Cornwallis  :)  The most important thing I learned was how NOT to be a leader.   Judging from some of the people who passed (i.e. no PT chit for 21 days which is the max) the course wasn't too hard, as long as you prioritized your time properly.  We had an awesome WO and my section commander was a Veh Tech Sgt.  I felt sorry for the other sections......
I do have to say, it was the only time I got in s**t for drinking water during PT...actually it was while we were doing the cool down.  The Sgt just about freaked and yelled, "I'll tell you when to drink!!"  So for the rest of that day, I kept putting my hand up and asking to go for a drink until the WO asked me what the hell I was doing (I knew him well as I had done med coverage for many reserve JLC courses).  It was pretty funny....small way to amuse yourself on course.


----------



## army_fonz (26 Dec 2006)

The new PLQ course, regardless of where it is done, is a Hell of alot easier that the old JLC course. I should know, I use to instruct on it.


----------



## Desert Fox (26 Dec 2006)

what do you mean by "easier", its a very subjective term... I recently did my Inf Mod 6 in Petawawa... It was by far the best course I've been on. Learned lots, wasnt cocked around by the staff for the sake of getting cocked... If we screwed up, they would let us know... it was that simple.  This particular serial was very much based on a mentorship type approach, and seems to have worked. The candidate had respect for the staff, and vis-a-versa. 

If by "easy" you mean less cock, then I agree with you, however I see this as a good thing... You dont learn anything from a screaming idiot (not intended as a personal attack, ment in a general sence of those people whom we have all see, aka "Loudership"

If by "easy" you mean standards have dropped in terms of field requirements in terms of patroling length/distance and what not, I agree. I felt that the standard seems low.


----------



## Trinity (26 Dec 2006)

army_fonz said:
			
		

> The new PLQ course, regardless of where it is done, is a Hell of alot easier that the old JLC course. I should know, I use to instruct on it.



or not.  Guess we can't take this guys word for anything


----------



## Desert Fox (27 Dec 2006)

does the said banned member have a bit of a history? tehehe...


----------



## Yrys (27 Dec 2006)

continuing hijack :

From his profil, probably 

Signature:
I say I'm a SGT with 20 years in the afternoon and then I become a M/Cpl with 21 years later on that day.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/members/22471


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2007)

Changing times.  The old JLC is gone.  No longer will each Service run their own JLC and CFJLC style courses.  The 'new' PLQ will be the Land PLQ for everyone.  No more Air Force PLQ if you are on an Air Base.  No more Navy PLQ, if you are on a Navy posting.  Everyone will do the Land PLQ, so that they will be deployable.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jan 2007)

I agree but they'd better standardize the courses being given on different bases (Petawawa, Halifax, Borden, Esquimalt, etc)


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I agree but they'd better standardize the courses being given on different bases (Petawawa, Halifax, Borden, Esquimalt, etc)



 :   I don't know if that is worth answering or not.  All the courses will be standardized.  They will all have the same CTPs.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :   I don't know if that is worth answering or not.  All the courses will be standardized.  They will all have the same CTPs.



George,
It is very much worth talking about.  I did my JLC/CLC/PLQ course during the JLC/JNCO Course era.  It was broken down into two parts.  One was the "CF JLC" course and the second part was the LF JNCO course.  The CF JLC was supposed to be standard throughout the CF.  It was not, plain and simple.  It followed the same schedule, but there were few differences.  There was little PT programmed in, so the we did PT before the scheduled time and after the scheduled time.  The lessons the CTP said we should teach were not very "army", so they were changed.
Good, bad, whatever.  It was a challenging course run by 2 RCR and I know I learnt a lot.  Did people fail that may have passed the same course had it be run to the schedule so they were not under more stress due to being tired and short on time, maybe.
The CTP may be standarized, the difficulty of the course will vary depending on where/who run it.  This is true for every course that is run on different bases, has been since I joined.  I would have thought you would have noticed this during your time.

D


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2007)

AmmoTech90

All I can say is "That was then.  This is now."  I have instructed on both those course at the RCR Battle School in Pet.  The PLQ is not the same.  Now the instructions are coming out that "ALL" will do the Land PLQ.

I do agree with you on this comment, and it is only a fact of life that human nature will come into effect:



			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The CTP may be standarized, the difficulty of the course will vary depending on where/who run it.  This is true for every course that is run on different bases, has been since I joined.  I would have thought you would have noticed this during your time.



That being said, it will be as standardized as much as humanly possible, just like PER's are as 'fair' as humanly possible.


----------



## Desert Fox (10 Jan 2007)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Did people fail that may have passed the same course had it be run to the schedule so they were not under more stress due to being tired and short on time, maybe.



I think this is a good thing to be frankly honest. It is a LEADERSHIP course. Leaders are not only expected but required to perform effectively under harsh conditions, our mission in Afghanistan is a stellar example as to why we need all leaders, in all trades, at all levels to have their shit wired tight. If someone couldn't handle the "extra" pressure of preparing a 40 min lecture on short notice, I for one would not want them anywhere near me on the field of battle, let alone in front of me.

I realise this is a bit off the original topic, but stronger leaders are needed more now so then ever, and to "lessen" the pressure on these courses does little benefit to anyone.

The move towards an army influenced leadership course for all members is in my humble opinion a step in the right direction.


----------



## portcullisguy (18 Jan 2007)

Desert Fox said:
			
		

> I think this is a good thing to be frankly honest. It is a LEADERSHIP course. Leaders are not only expected but required to perform effectively under harsh conditions ...



I have to agree wholeheartedly with my friend and fellow infanteer.

I am currently in an acting supervisory position with my work (for those who don't know, I'm a "border services officer" aka customs inspector), and I have had the opportunity to apply lessons that I've learned from the PLQ I was on last year.  The people I supervise have told me they'd like to see me get the job permanently.  They've told me that they are happy with my leadership style, most of which are straight off the "leadership principles" of the CF: lead by example, keep your followers informed, know your soldiers and promote their welfare, etc.  I feel the training I have (together with my experience at doing my job, and my confidence in the people I work with) prepares me well to deal with stressful or difficult conditions in my workplace.

The main difference that I notice in my civvy street job, compared to my army one, is that the "requirement" to perform is not reinforced in my civvy job.  Without berating my chosen field too much, I will jsut say that there is a lot of "that's not me!" and "That's someone elses job!" going on where I work, which I just don't see in the army as much, if at all.


----------

