There is value to section attacks; to assess command and control, planning, stamina, etc. I did my Jnr Leadership course back in the days when there was ISCC for infanteers, CLC for Cbt arms/CSS; I was on the CLC course. We had a 'garrison' portion where we did all our Mil Law, Admin, MOI, etc and got little sleep. This was before the time of computers and powerpoint; we had to make our lesson plans with paper and pen, and had to have 2 copies for our lectures; you learned the importance of remembering your daily ADREPs simply by forgetting to indent for more carbon paper (nothing funner than handwriting out your second LP copy at 2am...when PT starts at 5).
We did section attacks by day, and recce patrols by night during the field portion; our course staff decided to do that, our sister course did a defensive portion. Standardization?? My fireteam partner was a Fin Clerk female; I found the course 'reasonable' and she thought it was complete BS. She should have been on a JLC not a CLC IMO. I feel the same way now, but that is me. I don't believe in the 'all trades' common PLQ and then using infantry type tasks (section attacks, as an example) to assess everyone on an even playing field. Ask the CFCWO when the last time he did a section attack was.
However, I was cbt arms back then and there was actually leadership value in day after day of section attacks and recce patrols and fatigue and the 'physical/field challenges'. I don't, however, think there is for hard air or sea trades doing this training; it doesn't resemble what they will be doing in the operational environments. Sure you can assess orders format, planning, command and control but I can also do that in other ways too. Fatigue is different in each operational environment, though. I don't do ruck marches now, but flying (as much as this sounds like BS) itself can tire you out; down low bouncing around, 2G 60 degree turns over and over in ASW while slinging 75lb sono's (that suddenly weigh 2 times their normal weight during those 2G turns...flight deck, please call 'manouvering'
before the turns
![Eek! :o :o](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png)
rly
![Smile :) :)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)
around, or at higher altitudes (your cabin pressure is say, 10k feet so you spend half a day like you're suddenly sitting on top of a 10k mountain). Ruck marches won't prepare air personnel for that, as an example or how to be good jnr leaders in that environment.
So, for those people who are posted to the land environment (regardless of DEU), the army does have a vested interest in Jnr Leaders who can operate in the environment the army finds itself. The course shouldn't be a cakewalk, but it shouldn't break over 50% of the students. If it does, physically, then maybe we should be taking a look at the FORCE test and our PT policy needs to be reinforced at the unit level - I am fully aware some units in the CAF look at "PT time" the same they would if you said you wanted an hour a day to 'just sit around and do nothing'.
So, to me, a few issues present itself from the story of your CAF PLQ common phase.
I was an instructor in Leadership Coy back in the mid'ish 90s - we had several courses on the go, Army JNCO (ISCC), JNCO OAS (Jnr NCO Other Arms and Services...a mix between CLC and JLC leaning toward the CLC side). The way it was done back then, instructors lived how the students did. If the students were in FFO cammed up, so were we. We also, 20 years ago or so now, had some of the same issues as your courses are seeing now; standardization or lack of it, the same courses being run differently by even different staff in the same TE, people inserting 'critical items' in assessments not approved by Standards because they felt the 'standard was too low'. This wheel will, unfortunately, continue to go around until each environment/command establishes their own Leadership schools - which will never happen.