• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Drill instructors as a full time trade?

Gwiz

Guest
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
10
Just curious what everyone thinks about having fulltime/permanent instructors for trades training, Basic, SQ etc etc.

Say having individuals be qualified for the position with minimum of amount of years in, rank etc like similar qualification guidelines like an ammo tech or fight engineer would have to meet.

would a system that has specialists training recruits result in a greater standard overall of recruits?

What do you think? pros/cons?
 
You'd end up with a cadre of instructors with no op experience.  Those who can, do. those who can't, teach.  An instructor with nothing but book smarts would not be too practical, IMHO.

CHIMO,  Kat
 
Gwiz said:
Just curious what everyone thinks about having fulltime/permanent instructors for trades training, Basic, SQ etc etc.

Say having individuals be qualified for the position with minimum of amount of years in, rank etc like similar qualification guidelines like an ammo tech or fight engineer would have to meet.

would a system that has specialists training recruits result in a greater standard overall of recruits?

What do you think? pros/cons?

It sounds like a good idea, similar in principle to the old PERI trade perhaps?

Whether anyone would want to put the money and manpower into it might be another matter.  The navy used to have such a person, actually, but hasn't since the early 1960s (may be a bit off on the date).
 
Gwiz said:
Just curious what everyone thinks about having fulltime/permanent instructors for trades training, Basic, SQ etc etc.
There are full time instructor jobs, but they are filled by NCOs and officers of the various CF occupations.   An instructor occupation would be overly specialised and inflexible (could not be employed operationally). Using an instructor occupation to instruct trades training is inefficient (Before instructing a Cbt Engr Sect mbr crse, the instructor needs to be trained as a cbt engr (and this analogy applies for all occupations).   So, you have to train the instructor in the MOC anyway, why not employ them in the MOC?    

It is far better to send experienced NCOs to teach the skills they have been taught & have practiced.
 
Gwiz said:
would a system that has specialists training recruits result in a greater standard overall of recruits?
I think we can all appreciate that any instructor who has not practised his craft in the field cannot instruct competently.   Practical experience is the difference between being "book" smart and "life" smart.  Specialists who get "trapped" at schools wouldn't gain the life smarts of their deployed or field employed peers.

I think we should leave well enough alone.  Canadian soldiers are probably the most well rounded Army generalists in the world.   That imparts a level of life smarts unrivalled in most militaries.

A quick look around most bases/stations/armouries and NDHQ (yes, I said "NDHQ") will quickly turn up that we have more than sufficient drill instruction expertise in the CF right now.   All we need is the willingness of the chain of command to use it.
 
Haggis said:
A quick look around most bases/stations/armouries and NDHQ (yes, I said "NDHQ") will quickly turn up that we have more than sufficient drill instruction expertise in the CF right now.   All we need is the willingness of the chain of command to use it.

Then why do we have so much potential wasting time in PAT platoons across Canada??

As a Reserve NCO who is very proud of his instructional capabilities (gained at both the RCR and PPCLI battle schools), I would love to be able to apply for a posting to one of them as a dedicated instructor (and maybe free up some of the full-time line beasts for more 'useful' taskings)...
 
The curse of the PAT battalions is simply organizational mismanagement: with the CF projected to go into a death spiral by 2005, with only 45,000 members at the then current rates of attrition and recruiting, a panicked drive to recruit any warm body was put into effect (remember all those cool recruiting ads in the movie theaters? For those of us serving remember thinking  "What force is that?").

The recruiting drive worked at the "meta" level, our numbers didn't decline at the "death spiral" rate, and our political masters can be told we have about 52,000 service members.

Unfortunately, similar time, effort and resources were not put into the training or supply system: the current shortage of boots is a partial result of all these recruits vacuuming up the uniform stocks. Similarly, no extra resources have been put into the schools, and, if you think about it, there are only so many NCOs around to do all the jobs that need to be done: If you are in Borden training PATs, who is doing your job at the unit?

This is also the reason that "Martin's Marauders"; the 5000 man "Peacekeeping brigade" will never come to fruition. If you cast about this forum, there are threads discussing the revelation it would take over 5 years to absorb and train that many new soldiers into the system (i.e. we only have the ability to process and train an additional 1000 troops a year!).

For the long term health of the CF, a "step wise" increase in the recruiting and training systems needs to be instituted, with the training system firmly in the driver's seat. As the CF gradually grows, more NCOs like you will be available to take on training tasks (there will be someone at the unit to do your job after all), resulting in a constant flow of good quality troops to the CF, instead of the current "pig in a python" glut of PATs.
 
Back
Top