Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[BinRat55]

There are many excellent points from all angles from smart, good people on this topic. There are merits for all opinions.

I have had the fortune of working in numerous areas of Logistics - both Jr NCO and Sr NCO. I have been on a hard Air base, Service Bn, several regiments, second line static training base, instructor in Borden, gucci tours in Golan, not so gucci tours in Africa and Afghanistan. As a Supply Tech I absolutely HAVE seen the use / need for what the JLC / JNCO / CLC taught me and what the new PLQ mods are lacking.

My opinion is that (Ostrozac nailed my thoughts) any trade that could conceivably end up in a trench in the training area or even right-seating next to me in some country NOT Canada, then why not? How can it hurt? It's a month of field training that will ultimately benefit the member (healthy member). Many of us have done exercises longer. Some of us have gone without showers, porcelain and solid food longer!

I have taught young Cpls (and PLQ qualified MCpls) how to write orders and how to live in the field. Because it was taught to me. I'm a Supply Tech for heaven's sake!

Why not?

 

[daftandbarmy]

There are many excellent points from all angles from smart, good people on this topic. There are merits for all opinions.

I have had the fortune of working in numerous areas of Logistics - both Jr NCO and Sr NCO. I have been on a hard Air base, Service Bn, several regiments, second line static training base, instructor in Borden, gucci tours in Golan, not so gucci tours in Africa and Afghanistan. As a Supply Tech I absolutely HAVE seen the use / need for what the JLC / JNCO / CLC taught me and what the new PLQ mods are lacking.

My opinion is that (Ostrozac nailed my thoughts) any trade that could conceivably end up in a trench in the training area or even right-seating next to me in some country NOT Canada, then why not? How can it hurt? It's a month of field training that will ultimately benefit the member (healthy member). Many of us have done exercises longer. Some of us have gone without showers, porcelain and solid food longer!

I have taught young Cpls (and PLQ qualified MCpls) how to write orders and how to live in the field. Because it was taught to me. I'm a Supply Tech for heaven's sake!

Why not?

Right on target....

In the end, we must all be able to do our jobs in the field, somewhere, under horrible conditions.

We are negligent if we do not select and train our leaders to operate under such conditions.

 

[Avail]

Binrat, all valid points, but couldn't the same be said of pushing Army pers through some Naval and Air training? Surely, it wouldn't hurt (much), and could conceivably be beneficial.

My point being - where's the line? Granted, it never hurts to learn a new skill, except in fiscal terms and in time spent.


Edited to add:

"Soldier First" is a fine theory, but what happens when we need a soldier to be a sailor? An airman to be a combat engineer? There comes a point when redundancy gets ridiculous.

All of this to say... I don't know what the best route is, but there's a lot to think about.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The point is, not everyone is going to end up 'in the field'. 

Why should a hard sea trade do 'field time'.  WTF does that have to do with how they are going to do THEIR job in combat?

Train the way you fight, fight the way you train.  For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force.

Make the training relevant, useful and pertinent to the environment.  Air Force 500 series need different skill sets than infantry types.  Air Force flying NCMs work in a different environment than Engineers.

I don't want Cpls' in my trade doing a month in the field.  I see they need that month spent differently to be good Jnr NCOs in the LRP world.  I see a need for that time to be spent maximizing their ability to be good Jnr NCOs in the LRP world, a Wing and the RCAF in general.  IF they end up 'in the field', we have specific trg and plans for that. 

I am not going to end up as a Section Commander in a rifle coy if I bail out somewhere, let's be honest.  And I am an ex-Cbt Arms type trained to DP3B.

The 'a month in the field' part benefits those who are hard army, and those who are going to be at a hard army unit.  I have a wholeeeeeeee shitload of relevant trg I could fill a month up with for Air Ops Cpls, and especially those in my trade.   

Having said that, the RCAF has courses for purple trades and hard air trades who are going to be in the AF world.  BAEQ, IAEQ are 2 examples.  The RCN has similar common to all trg (can't remember the name of the 4? week course...) and others.  It sounds like the army is coming up with a similar course, that the "I was a Clerk at Wings and HQs for 15 years before being posted to the RCD" folks will take.

Aside from that, I've been trying to make a point that the collective "we"...current Jnr and Snr NCOs, Officers, etc...have a duty to develop the leadership potential in our followers, day to day.  I learned the basics of BP long before I started my CLC course.  I was being mentored by Jnr and Snr NCOs, Warrant Officers etc before and after my CLC...before and after my SLC.

If we are putting all our eggs in one basket called PLQ to develop things in our most junior NCOs such as CFPAS, finding and interpreting orders and regs, basic leadership, etc then we are failing as leaders day to day.  PLQ is not the end all, be all of JNCO development.  It shouldn't be the start, or finish point, in JNCO development.  Accepting that, I have no real issues with a Common PLQ that all Cpl's and LS's will take.  SLC was done that way, and ILP is now.  Yet, we don't assume that an Air Force Warrant Officer and an Army Warrant Officer have the same leadership realities. 

It works for ILP, it can work for SLC.  We don't rely on ILP to teach infantry Sgt's or Air Force Sgt's everything they need to know about being a WO in their respective worlds.  Why are we doing it at the Jnr NCO leadership level with PLQ?

 

[BinRat55]

Binrat, all valid points, but couldn't the same be said of pushing Army pers through some Naval and Air training? Surely, it wouldn't hurt (much), and could conceivably be beneficial.

My point being - where's the line? Granted, it never hurts to learn a new skill, except in fiscal terms and in time spent.

Absolutely - I agree. Within reason of course. It's not unreasonable that Master Seaman Bloggins, Sup Tech currently employed on the HMCS AthaB could be posted to 4 ESR as their TQ. So, MS Bloggins should have field training. By that very same tolkin, Master Corporal Baggins is currently with 1 RCR QM in Pet and now posted to HMCS Provider. The first thing she gets is fire fighting training, man overboard drills, RAS drills... see what i'm saying?

When I was in Gander with 103 SAR, I was trained as a spotter. Last I checked, it doesn't exist here in base Supply (unles you're at Tim Hortons "spotting" the wingnuts not dressed properly)

So, the line would be "all inclusive of where your trade employability could take you"... make sense?

 

[armyvern]

There are many excellent points from all angles from smart, good people on this topic. There are merits for all opinions.

I have had the fortune of working in numerous areas of Logistics - both Jr NCO and Sr NCO. I have been on a hard Air base, Service Bn, several regiments, second line static training base, instructor in Borden, gucci tours in Golan, not so gucci tours in Africa and Afghanistan. As a Supply Tech I absolutely HAVE seen the use / need for what the JLC / JNCO / CLC taught me and what the new PLQ mods are lacking.

My opinion is that (Ostrozac nailed my thoughts) any trade that could conceivably end up in a trench in the training area or even right-seating next to me in some country NOT Canada, then why not? How can it hurt? It's a month of field training that will ultimately benefit the member (healthy member). Many of us have done exercises longer. Some of us have gone without showers, porcelain and solid food longer!

I have taught young Cpls (and PLQ qualified MCpls) how to write orders and how to live in the field. Because it was taught to me. I'm a Supply Tech for heaven's sake!

Why not?

Hey, I'm all for that.

All purple support trades should do the "Army Mod" of the PLQ for exactly the reasons you state.  All purple supporters should also do the Sea Environmental Course too because they could also end up sailing.

Either of the three uniform colours could end up doing field or sailing both at home and abroad. 

The thing is, do we do them as part of an environmental PLQ (current way) that sees cross-pollination of purple people who have never and will never done the Army portion.  Or, do we have all CAF members do the Army PLQ (which will cost a fortune and in many cases be unnecessary as some pers may never work in all three environments).  Or, do we do that PLQ as a common-to-all environments course and leave all the specific environmental trg to the environments whereby ALL members posted into that environment are REQUIRED to complete the environmental trg (Sea or Land) - that is the way to which we are moving; it is more cost effective as we still have purple Army uniform wearing types who've never served with the Army and RCAF uniform types who've only served with the Army. 

The thing is, the Army needs to win the future battle on the SQ/LET courses over the other environments - if they are posted into the Army, they must do LET (because purple RCN and RCAF do not currently have to undergo SQ/LET when coming into the Army environment).  Army guy going on a ship however? You can bet your ass he has to do the Sea Environmental.

(PS:  I too loved my extra trg and employment as SAR Spotter in Trenton)

 

[BinRat55]

The point is, not everyone is going to end up 'in the field'. 

Why should a hard sea trade do 'field time'.  WTF does that have to do with how they are going to do THEIR job in combat?

Train the way you fight, fight the way you train.  For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force.

Make the training relevant, useful and pertinent to the environment.  Air Force 500 series need different skill sets than infantry types.  Air Force flying NCMs work in a different environment than Engineers.

I don't want Cpls' in my trade doing a month in the field.  I see they need that month spent differently to be good Jnr NCOs in the LRP world.  I see a need for that time to be spent maximizing their ability to be good Jnr NCOs in the LRP world, a Wing and the RCAF in general.  IF they end up 'in the field', we have specific trg and plans for that. 

I am not going to end up as a Section Commander in a rifle coy if I bail out somewhere, let's be honest.  And I am an ex-Cbt Arms type trained to DP3B.

The 'a month in the field' part benefits those who are hard army, and those who are going to be at a hard army unit.  I have a wholeeeeeeee shitload of relevant trg I could fill a month up with for Air Ops Cpls, and especially those in my trade. 

And I agree whole-heartedly. But where some are lost in translation is the difference between Army, Air and Navy. You did it yourself - "For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force." There are Army postings and there is Army DEU. I have been in Combat Arms units with Naval pers, Air pers AND Army pers - all the same trade.

When the individual tradseman has zero chance of ending up anywhere else but their element (stoker for example) then yes - sections attacks should be left to the Call of Duty playing field.

 

[armyvern]

There are Army postings and there is Army DEU.

Too true.  They are not the same thing in the world of purple.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And I agree whole-heartedly. But where some are lost in translation is the difference between Army, Air and Navy. You did it yourself - "For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force." There are Army postings and there is Army DEU. I have been in Combat Arms units with Naval pers, Air pers AND Army pers - all the same trade.

When the individual tradseman has zero chance of ending up anywhere else but their element (stoker for example) then yes - sections attacks should be left to the Call of Duty playing field.

IMO, Vern hit the nail on the head a post or 2 above;  common leadership trg (PLQ), with an environmental course people take if they are posted to the Army.  This makes sense, instead of trg people based on DEU colors.  Our ILP is a 'common to all', PLQ can be as well.  Any MCpl promoted to Sgt in the RCAF world does the IAEQ on their Wing, and it is not just Air Ops folks, it is any trade employed in the AF world.

I'll use Flight Engineers as a non-purple trade example.  A FE posted to a LRP Sqn...would not do the LET (Land Environmental Trg?) course.  5 years later, that FE is posted to a TacHel Sqn, and then should be loaded on the LET course or whatever it will/could be called.

 

[George Wallace]

The point is, not everyone is going to end up 'in the field'. 

Why should a hard sea trade do 'field time'.  WTF does that have to do with how they are going to do THEIR job in combat?

Train the way you fight, fight the way you train.  For the army, that means the field.  The same can't be said for the Navy and Air Force.

Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases? 

Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?

 

[armyvern]

Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases? 

Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?

I did BDF while posted to CFB Halifax. Upon my arrival to that posting, I was immediately sent onto Sea Environmental Course, then BDF Course (we did ranges and everything!), then Riot Control Course.  Two years later, I switched over to the NERT and was sent on the NERT training.

Also did BDF while posted to Trenton - we also did annual trg and ranges as part of their BDF (our Trg Staff were CABC guys).

 

[George Wallace]

I think much of this discussion is being tied up by people who are not clearly differentiating between "leadership training" and "Trades training" or specific "Environmental (hard Sea or Aircrew) training".  PLQ is just "Leadership" training.  The method that it is being done is not meant to be specific to any Trade, but to give training in how to produce and implement a plan.  Because it is, for the most part, infantry centric, does not mean that it is Infantry Trade related.  It is a common military 'platform' that all members of the CAF should be able to identify with, reflecting back to their Basic Training, and then use to adapt to their specific occupation once they complete the course.  If they can not learn the qualities of leadership from a PLQ due to them having "blinders" on and not being able to make those skills and knowledge transferable to their particular occupation, they may not be what we were looking for in 'leaders'. 

 

[armyvern]

I think much of this discussion is being tied up by people who are not clearly differentiating between "leadership training" and "Trades training" or specific "Environmental (hard Sea or Aircrew) training".  PLQ is just "Leadership" training.  The method that it is being done is not meant to be specific to any Trade, but to give training in how to produce and implement a plan.  Because it is, for the most part, infantry centric, does not mean that it is Infantry Trade related.  It is a common military 'platform' that all members of the CAF should be able to identify with, reflecting back to their Basic Training, and then use to adapt to their specific occupation once they complete the course.  If they can not learn the qualities of leadership from a PLQ due to them having "blinders" on and not being able to make those skills and knowledge transferable to their particular occupation, they may not be what we were looking for in 'leaders'.

George, if the current iteration of the Army PLQ was indeed a "common military flatform" - even though you've admitted that it is "Infantry-centric", then the entire of the CAF would already be required to do it.

They aren't because it isn't.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases? 

Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?

The WASF training, I have no idea who does it but I'll guess it's a combo of the Readiness Trg Flight, MPs and current WASF folks.  Regardless of their trg, it isn't going to be the same as having the Wing secured by a Coy of trained infanteers.  ;D

Personally, I wish we had something like these 2...

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/roles-finder/force-protection/raf-regiment-gunner/

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/AirfieldDefenceGuard/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think much of this discussion is being tied up by people who are not clearly differentiating between "leadership training" and "Trades training" or specific "Environmental (hard Sea or Aircrew) training".  PLQ is just "Leadership" training.  The method that it is being done is not meant to be specific to any Trade, but to give training in how to produce and implement a plan.  Because it is, for the most part, infantry centric, does not mean that it is Infantry Trade related.  It is a common military 'platform' that all members of the CAF should be able to identify with, reflecting back to their Basic Training, and then use to adapt to their specific occupation once they complete the course.  If they can not learn the qualities of leadership from a PLQ due to them having "blinders" on and not being able to make those skills and knowledge transferable to their particular occupation, they may not be what we were looking for in 'leaders'.

Quick question;  did you see anything wrong with the old JLC/CLC/ISCC days?

 

[George Wallace]

Quick question;  did you see anything wrong with the old JLC/CLC/ISCC days?

Actually, you ended one post with that very point:  Too many "Good Idea Faeries" have over the years since taken a set of working crses and broken it them; thus throwing us all into this current discussion.  [

 

[BinRat55]

Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases? 

Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?

Funny story - I was the WSupO in Gander and while at a round table discussion the idea of a "Base Camp" IOT provide support to downed chopper defence in remote areas which included the defence element. Everyone at the table just looked at me for a moment... at which point I said "Well who else is gonna be the Honor Guard Commander?"

Then we went for beer.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases? 

Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?

Mostly sailors, with guns.  Trained by sailors... Boatswains.  Actually BASF is more related to a Force Protection scenario than anything I did in the Army. 

Heaven above! I just remembered we dont even Army folks running the bedford ranges... Nope just Boatswains.  Teaching everything...

9mm, SIG, 870, MP5, C6, C7/8, C9 and even the .50 all taught bye boatswains!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just out of curiousity; who fills the Base Defence Force on Air Bases and Navy Bases? 

Are you telling me that you want people, with not even the most basic of 'Army' skills, standing there, supervising people with loaded weapons at the front gate asking you for your ID?

When I was posted to an AF base, eons ago, it normally ended up with all the Cbt Arms remuster guys being pulled out and put on the fence.

Same when it came to a Wing parade, quarter guards, etc, mostly Cbt Arms remuster guys.

Saved the Wing Chief from having to learn drill. ;D

 

[George Wallace]

Same when it came to a Wing parade, quarter guards, etc, mostly Cbt Arms remuster guys.

Saved the Wing Chief from having to learn drill. ;D

[

If it wasn't for three of us former Cbt Arms guys, my QL 5A Grad Parade would have been a real joke.