Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[Nfld Sapper]

A PLQ just finished where they caught someone deliberately trying to fail off so he could get on an easier serial later. He apparently was failed off with a nice note in his file to his unit.

Hence why I said almost impossible.... [

 

[rmc_wannabe]

So they're cutting the field phase... what a freaking joke. All because of some whiners who never leave their desks can't stand 2 weeks living in a trench.

I think that money and a lack of instructors trumped complaints on this one.

The wording of the CANFORGEN makes it sound like the CA was able to train folks at a higher rate, even with an extra Mod, than the RCAF or RCN. It appears that they are going to try and standardise the training across the board to allow for backfill if and where possible. So LS Bloggins can theoretically go to 4 CDTC and do a PLQ if MCpl So-and-so can't attend.

I do think it's bullshit that they are taking the field portion out, but I think it's a top down directive rather than people bitching and moaning. I could be wrong.

:-\

 

[PuckChaser]

The wording of the CANFORGEN makes it sound like the CA was able to train folks at a higher rate, even with an extra Mod, than the RCAF or RCN. It appears that they are going to try and standardise the training across the board to allow for backfill if and where possible. So LS Bloggins can theoretically go to 4 CDTC and do a PLQ if MCpl So-and-so can't attend.

Easy solution that skipped over the heads of people being paid 6 figures: Its a modular course, LS Bloggins attends PLQ-L until end Mod 3, and gets sent home. Or Army pers do CF PLQ and attend an open slot on a Mod 4 somewhere. Imagine that....

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Easy solution that skipped over the heads of people being paid 6 figures: Its a modular course, LS Bloggins attends PLQ-L until end Mod 3, and gets sent home. Or Army pers do CF PLQ and attend an open slot on a Mod 4 somewhere. Imagine that....

I agree, and I think that is what is implied by stating that element specific training will be conducted after Mod 3. What remains to be seen is if they are going to create an Army specific "Mod 4" that is under a different umbrella than PLQ, or if they are implying that pers will carry on with their DP 3.0 phase and call it a day.  :dunno:

 

[putz]

Going to play Devils advocate (and I'm sure the unpopular one on this discussion) but it seems people are more pissed about the change to mod 4 as a "I've done it so should they" instead of looking at the bigger picture.  A lot of the "purple trades" attached to army bases or units did CFS PLQ not PLQ  L. As I remember there was a CANFORGEN pushed that stated which trades would be required to take PLQ L  (outside of army trades).  End of the day your still getting exposure to conducting patrols, presence patrols section attacks etc.  I've always been of the line of thought that if a cook, clerk or MP was leading an advance to contact or the only ones manning a defensive the situation was already at a maximum level of soup-sandwhich.

 

[PuckChaser]

That's not why I'm upset at all. I did it, and learned a heck of a lot from it. I took it as an opportunity to learn skills we don't often practice in Sigs. As a Snr NCO, I want my troops to have those skills, because one day it will keep them alive.

If a clerk or cook is manning a defensive, things have gone pear shaped and that's absolutely not the time for them to have seen in for the first time, on a 2-way range.

 

[lawandorder]

It would be nice to see the MOD 4 as an additional option for all those trades that want to push their members that direction, without it being mandatory.  However, from what I understand the move is a cost saving procedure pure and simple.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The field is great, for those who will spend significant amounts of time in the field and leading people in that environment.

The RCN has different tasks.  Damage control partys, Force Protection parties, Duty Watches ect ect ect all of these involve Jr leadership and IMHO would be only made stronger if incorporated into an RCN PLQ for "Hard Sea" folks. 

All of that can be taught along with Drill, and Lesson Instruction ect ect ect.  Just swap the field phase for a month of learning how to be a Duty Cox'n,  becoming Attack Team Leader (ATL) qualified,  learning how to run a FP watch, leading a shoring evolution's, IC Partship Hands station, ect. 

It would teach the same thing(s) as the field phase and is geared towards what a sailor will do as they move up through the ranks.  So why MUST all CAF people do it the Army way ?  Why is the Army way the only way the produces the required effects ? Or that actually true ?

 

[Nuggs]

It would teach the same thing(s) as the field phase and is geared towards what a sailor will do as they move up through the ranks.  So why MUST all CAF people do it the Army way ?  Why is the Army way the only way the produces the required effects ? Or that actually true ?

Hear, hear!

 

[RCPalmer]

Hear, hear!

Are Navy pers in Navy "billets" taking Army PLQ?  If so, that wouldn't seem to make much sense, but as far as I was aware CAF PLQ doesn't have a field phase. With regards to a navy specific PLQ, perhaps there is a cost component with regards to putting non-hard sea trades through those type of shipboard tasks.

 

[McG]

Easy solution that skipped over the heads of people being paid 6 figures: Its a modular course, LS Bloggins attends PLQ-L until end Mod 3, and gets sent home. Or Army pers do CF PLQ and attend an open slot on a Mod 4 somewhere. Imagine that....

Why do you assume this possibility was missed by the decision makers?  Maybe there is already an Army Section Leaders course being developed that will be required for all Army managed occupations within 12 months of getting the PLQ?

 

[PuckChaser]

Why do you assume this possibility was missed by the decision makers?  Maybe there is already an Army Section Leaders course being developed that will be required for all Army managed occupations within 12 months of getting the PLQ?

Was it listed in the CANFORGEN? If your hypothesis is correct, there was no reason to omit that detail from the message. If it wasn't in there, I'm willing to bet on it not being there.

The idea of a RCN mod 4 is an excellent one, I'm not sure why there wasn't one previously. As you indicated, there are plenty of RCN-specific skills that could teach the same lessons. For those purple trades, the decision on what Mod 4 could be current position based, DEU based, or some sort of hybrid so the right skills are taught to the right person.

 

[McG]

Was it listed in the CANFORGEN? If your hypothesis is correct, there was no reason to omit that detail from the message.

It was not an Army CANFORGEN.  If the Army has its own initiative in the works to continue a common field leadership training, one would not expect CMP to be making that announcement for the Army ... especially if the Army is not ready with its implementation plan.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Was it listed in the CANFORGEN? If your hypothesis is correct, there was no reason to omit that detail from the message. If it wasn't in there, I'm willing to bet on it not being there.

The idea of a RCN mod 4 is an excellent one, I'm not sure why there wasn't one previously. As you indicated, there are plenty of RCN-specific skills that could teach the same lessons. For those purple trades, the decision on what Mod 4 could be current position based, DEU based, or some sort of hybrid so the right skills are taught to the right person.

This we agree on. 

What about if purple trades who sail and go to the field or can reasonably be expected to preform in leadership roles in either Army or Navy do both.  That way if one either goes to the field or sea as a MCpl or above atleast they have some experience.

When I talk purple I mean the true purple trades, i.e. Sup Tech, Cook and RMS Clerk and maybe, maybe... Int Op

 

[putz]

It was not an Army CANFORGEN.  If the Army has its own initiative in the works to continue a common field leadership training, one would not expect CMP to be making that announcement for the Army ... especially if the Army is not ready with its implementation plan.

So what would happen if you passed your PLQ and couldn't pass the army portion?  Forced element remuster???  Maybe I'm just being difficult but I don't see the need for an add on.  If any thing they should create a separate PLQ for combat arms trades and the other for the whole of the CF.  I say that coming from an infantry back ground.

 

[RCPalmer]

It was not an Army CANFORGEN.  If the Army has its own initiative in the works to continue a common field leadership training, one would not expect CMP to be making that announcement for the Army ... especially if the Army is not ready with its implementation plan.

Either way, this should be sync'd up with the services.  No one should be rolling out a new course which impacts on all of the services without a clearly articulated way ahead with regards to the implementation in each service.  Now we have Army NCMs thinking that they will become qualified MCpls through CFPLQ and no field component.  While this will probably be clarified at some point, we are left with an information vacuum. 

I would assert that the level of confidence in the IT system is not particularly high at the moment due to the amount of uninformed reinventing of the wheel and change for change's sake.  While I agree that improvements are needed in many cases, and that we should be open to change, moves like this don't help.

 

[George Wallace]

:

I echo recceguy's post and am surprised that so many of you are unable to grasp his post and are incapable of applying your imaginations in such a way as to apply what you learn on a PLQ to all aspects of your life.

Sorry. I fail to see the problem.

What, in reality, is a JNCO/ CLC/ PLQ/ etc course?

It's a course that teaches:

How to give a drill lesson;
How to instruct a class;
Small party tasking; and
Working as a team to overcome a dangerous obstacle.

I fail to see how these items are not for all trades. .................................................

The best way to confirm this, is the application of Battle Procedure (BP). However, just because it's called BP, doesn't make it exclusive to Combat Arms. BP is the art of problem solving, in a specified order, considering the variables (and pitfalls) of a number of solutions until the most logical way forward presents itself. Everyone, but the most inept, use BP every day anyway, from what time to get up to when you go to bed. You are constantly playing 'what if' & 'so what' in your head as each new problem presents itself that day, whether you're conscious of the fact or not.

Change the name Battle Procedure to Action Procedure and instead of attacking a trench, plug a hole in dike, etc. The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self.

The course is designed as the first step in leadership, providing the candidate with the basic tools they need to start leading/ teaching others.
Whether teaching the stripping & assembling of a C7A2 or how to use a portable defibrillator, the principles remain the same.

As for the statements that not everyone will be doing Infantry attacks or tasks, that is a moot point.  Everyone will continue to do their Career Courses and OJT and cover aspects that are particular to their TRADE.  There is NO NEED to create a crse specific to each individual TRADE in the CAF that teaches CAF members how to plan and implement tasks .  That is utterly ridiculous, fiscally unsound,  as is the continuing whining being displayed here.

 

[dapaterson]

Either way, this should be sync'd up with the services.  No one should be rolling out a new course which impacts on all of the services without a clearly articulated way ahead with regards to the implementation in each service.  Now we have Army NCMs thinking that they will become qualified MCpls through CFPLQ and no field component.  While this will probably be clarified at some point, we are left with an information vacuum. 

I would assert that the level of confidence in the IT system is not particularly high at the moment due to the amount of uninformed reinventing of the wheel and change for change's sake.  While I agree that improvements are needed in many cases, and that we should be open to change, moves like this don't help.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there was agreement about timelines, and then someone didn't make that new target.  In that case, do you hold back everyone because one group didn't do what they had committed to, or do you push on and let them fix themselves later?

Waiting for everyone is a great recipe for not getting anything done.

 

[armyvern]

Or perhaps, just perhaps, it was about grievances and many issues where certain support trades get promoted off of one merit list, but have three different standards of "required" leadership courses in order to keep their MCpl/MS ranks.

They are purple.  The LS getting promoted to MS and posted off to Wainwright or Petawawa will still have the exact same job as the supporter in the Army uniform in those locations. Just as the Army MCpl serving with the Navy will have the same jobs as the RCN wearing uniform types of his trade there.

One trade with one merit list with three differing standards for leadership courses.  Some people lose their leaf for not being able to complete a portion of their course that others in their trade do not even have to attempt but whom still keep their own leafs.  Anybody see anything grieveable there?  I sure as heck do.  They are purple - despite the uniform colour they wear.

None of this BS about they should need "XXX" to serve with the Army because the fact is that the RCN and RCAF supporters coming in with their non-Army PLQs never did "XXX".  THAT "XXX" stuff should be the stuff everyone gets on a Land Environmental Course ... just as you get the "XXX" that you require for service with the RCN on Sea Environmental (you know, because in the RCN, they aren't really "Soldiers First" - they are "Damage Control First" because that's what's going to save their asses).

Many of us have brought this up many times - don't care what standard you choose for PLQ requirements, but you must choose one standard. One trade, one merit list, one standard leadership required to keep your rank.

 

[RCPalmer]

:

I echo recceguy's post and am surprised that so many of you are unable to grasp his post and are incapable of applying your imaginations in such a way as to apply what you learn on a PLQ to all aspects of your life.

As for the statements that not everyone will be doing Infantry attacks or tasks, that is a moot point.  Everyone will continue to do their Career Courses and OJT and cover aspects that are particular to their TRADE.  There is NO NEED to create a crse specific to each individual TRADE in the CAF that teaches CAF members how to plan and implement tasks .  That is utterly ridiculous, fiscally unsound,  as is the continuing whining being displayed here.

Respectfully, I disagree.  The delivery of of the Army junior leadership course (in whatever form it may have taken) was not just about assessing leadership skills.  Just like BMQ-A and BMOQ-A, it is also intended to ingrain a "soldier first" ethos across all trades, and ensure that all personnel in these trades can perform the basic tasks to defend themselves and their peers in a field environment.

With respect to the leadership courses (PLQ-A and BMOQ-A), it is also intended to create a base level of tactical acumen to ensure that those leaders can lead their subordinates in elementary infantry tasks in an emergency, and have an idea of what "right" looks like with regards to tactical elements applicable to their trade such as sentry routine, cam and concealment, siting of hasty defensive positions, etc.

If the soldiers' MOSID specific career courses are going to be adjusted to capture that requirement, or an Army specific mod as a CFPLQ add on is to be created, great, but that has not been articulated. I would assert that if this requirement could be achieved through OJT, the concept of a common Army leadership course (which has been around since at least the 60's) would not exist.

With regards to cost (which would imply a requirement to manage course length), it is just a matter of priorities. There are a lot of things I would cut from PLQ before the field portion.