Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion

[kratz]

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]

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]

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


REF: 1180-1 (NDHQ SEC) 22 JAN 2007 (RECORD OF DECISION AFC MTG
01/07 17 JAN 2007)



THIS IS A COORDINATED CMP/CLS MESSAGE


BACKGROUND. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ALL CF PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING IN LAND-CENTRIC OPERATIONS HAVE THE NECESSARY SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE TO SURVIVE AND WIN, THE CDS APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE WITHIN AFC (REF) THE ADOPTION OF LAND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENT (LER) BASED TRAINING FOR DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD (DP)1 AND DP2


CDS INTENT. CF SR LEADERSHIP IS DETERMINED TO PROVIDE THE FULL CF JOINT TEAM FOR LAND WARFARE WITH ALL COMPETENCIES REQUIRED TO SURVIVE AND OPERATE EFFECTIVELY IN THE CONTEMPORARY OPERATING ENVIRONMENT. HOWEVER, IMPLEMENTATION OF ADD TRG MUST BE PHASED TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF TRG CAPACITY AND THE NECESSARY TRANSFER OF RESOURCES TO LAND WARFARE TRG TO ENABLE AND SUSTAIN THIS EXPANSION


COURSES. THE FOL IS IN EFFECT:


OFFR:

(1) COMMON ARMY PHASE (CAP) - THE FOL OCC WILL SEND ALL THEIR OFFR CANDIDATES FOR TRG:

(A) INF

(B) ARMD

(C) ARTY

(D) ENGR

(E) SIGS

(F) INT (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)

(G) LOG (L)

(H) EME

(I) MP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)

(J) CONSTRUCTION ENGR

(2) ARMY JUNIOR OFFICER STAFF QUALIFICATION (AJOSQ) AND ARMY TACTICAL OPERATIONS COURSE - COMBAT ARMS (ATOC CA) - THE FOL OCC WILL ATTEND ATOC CA UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF AJOSQ:

(A) INF

(B) ARMD

(C) ARTY

(D) ENGR

(E) SIGS

(F) INT - FOR FY 08/09, INT OFFR WILL BE LOADED ON ATOC (CA) ON A SPACE-AVAL BASIS.

(3) ARMY JUNIOR OFFICER STAFF QUALIFICATION (AJOSQ) AND ARMY TACTICAL OPERATIONS COURSE - COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT (ATOC CSS) - THE FOL OCC WILL ATTEND ATOC CSS UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF AJOSQ:

(A) EME

(B) LOG (L)

(C) HCA

(D) MP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)

(E) INT - COMMENCING IN FY 09/10, INT OFFRS WILL BE LOADED ON ATOC CA.

(4) ARMY OPERATIONS COURSE (AOC) - THE FOL OCC WILL ATTEND AOC.

(A) INF

(B) ARMD

(C) ARTY

(D) ENGR

(E) SIGS

(F) EME

(F) INT (G) LOG (L)

(H) MP (SELECTED FROM ALL ENVIRONMENTS)

(I) OTHER OCCS WILL BE LOADED BASED ON POSTING TO SPECIFIC POSITION WITH REQUIREMENT IDENTIFIED IN THE SPQR PROCESS.


NCM:

(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

(2) PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION - LAND (PLQ-L)

(A) ARMY-MANAGED OCC. THE PLQ (L) IS NOW THE ONLY JUNIOR LEADERSHIP COURSE FOR THE ARMY MANAGED OCC, REGARDLESS OF ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL IS SERVING. THE SOLE EXCEPTION IS THE INF OCC WHICH WILL CONDUCT PLQ INF FOR ITS SOLDIERS. THE FOL ARMY-MANAGED OCC WILL ATTEND THE PLQ-L:

(1) CRMN

(2) FD ARTYMN

(3) AD ARTYMN

(4) CBT ENGR

(5) GEO TECH

(6) LINEMAN

(7) LCIS TECH

(8) SIG OP

(9) EO TECH

(10) MAT TECH

(11) VEH TECH

(12) WPN TECH

(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.

INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CURRENTLY CF PLQ MOD 6 QUAL AS OF THE RELEASE OF THIS MESSAGE ARE GRANDFATHERED AND WILL NOT REQR PLQ-L.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LER-BASED FOR OTHER OCC REQR IT MUST WAIT THE EXPANSION OF TRG CAPACITY. THIS IS UNDER REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENT MSGS WILL BE RELEASED AS DECISIONS ARE MADE.

LFC LEAD FOR THIS DIRECTION IS COMD LFDTS AS THE ARMY TRG AUTH (ATA). LFDTS POC IS DAT 5 - PD, LCOL XX XXXXXXX, CSN XXX-XXXX. ARMY G1 POC IS DEP G1, LCOL X XXXXX, CSN XXX-XXXX.

SIGNED BY ...

 

[Kat Stevens]

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

 

[OldSolduer]

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]

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]

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

 

[aesop081]

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]

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]

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]

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

I aim to please.

 

[danchapps]

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]

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]

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.)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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