Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[Nfld Sapper]

Hmm, given that the Army was involved in this for almost a year now and that the CANFORGEN on the changed PLQ itself states that environments are to incorporate their perceived "gaps" into their own environmental trg, I would hope that it won't take a year or two.  They did know this was coming and had a seat at the big people's table.

And hopefully this time they get the environmental training done right too - in that ALL pers being posted into the Army environment have to complete it and not just those of us in an Army uniform.  If it's essential for me to fill some "gap" then it is also obviously essential for the MS, LS, LCdr etc coming into the Army to do the same jobs us purple Army wearing uniforms types do.

Interesting on that considering for most trades the only environment training they get is on BMQ-L....

 

[PuckChaser]

Interesting on that considering for most trades the only environment training they get is on BMQ-L....

And they keep cutting that down, too.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

:whiteflag:

I stated my opinion on the current situation based on my 9 years in an Army uniform. Experiences vary, and thus my belief is that training should vary to meet that need. A national qualification should not. Should we have a separate army leadership course? Perhaps. That need should be, and most likely will be, identified by CCA when the time comes. For now, lets see how this works before we curse the "weaker" Army and long for back to the "good old days."

I will humbly bow out from this discussion and spectate for the time being and will agree to disagree.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

And they keep cutting that down, too.

I know.... as a Combat engineer the only time we see the field on any course is either BMQ-L or PLQ all of our courses are done in garrison with no field time...

 

[armyvern]

Interesting on that considering for most trades the only environment training they get is on BMQ-L....

Right ... unless they don't wear an Army uniform, then they don't get that either.  There's also a CANFORGEN from way back when that precludes certain trades' Naval and RCAF pers from undergoing even the SQ.  That's why I posted that the Army must win the battle to have ALL pers regardless of uniform colour who are posted into the Army undergo LET.

 

[PuckChaser]

The RCN would lose its mind if CA pers were not obligated to do NETP prior to going to sea. You're posted to Land unit? Here's your BMQ-L (if you don't already have it). Oh you're a PO2? Don't care.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

The RCN would lose its mind if CA pers were not obligated to do NETP prior to going to sea. You're posted to Land unit? Here's your BMQ-L (if you don't already have it). Oh you're a PO2? Don't care.

Kinda like how we had some SNCO's that didn't want to be a WWB course with people they taught in the past.....before you ask, someone somewhere misplaced the paper work from the Winter Indoc courses that we used to run to have the PLAR done on them...

 

[daftandbarmy]

Force protection is a good point. There definitely is a theme amongst support trades that I disagree with, I assume it came from the years in Afghanistan, that "if I'm shooting my weapon, all the combat arms types are dead and the war is lost and we've already gone home."

I don't have much experience, but most still wearing the uniform don't have much experience in conventional, peer-to-peer warfare either. In that setting, with a mobile Brigade Group, there is not a plethora of combat arms types hanging around the Brigade Support Area or securing Brigade HQ as it jockeys main and second, or securing commodity points, etc. There is certainly not enough to go around, ever, as the Brigade Commander needs all of his fighting troops in the fight, not doing menial security tasks because support trades have spent too much time saying "well the Infantry will provide security" and not enough time training soldier skills. Every Infanteer sucked out of the fight to do Force protection in the rear is a serious consideration, we do not exist to pull sentry shifts for other units who can't be bothered with that soldiering stuff.

When I was a Pl Comd on Maple Resolve 14 (helmets on [), my company was attached to 2 Svc Bn. 3 platoons were not nearly enough, and we often found ourselves attached to 1 RCR, or to Bde 0, or to this or to that. We also had our own stability ops to execute in the destabilized rear area that had just been run over by a Brigade on the advance (Exercise scenario, of course). A lot of people in 2 Svc Bn learned real quick that there was more soldiering to their trade than they had realized, and that included manning gates and OPs, digging trenches, pulling shifts on sentry, building obstacles, and yes, responding to EN fire as it harassed the BSA most days and nights.

(Helmets off) Again, this was an exercise, but it did a good job exposing a lot of weaknesses in 2 CMBG (and there were a lot, for all trades, including the combat arms and the infantry). The little blurb above though, is relevant to this thread.

In the UK 3 Cdo Bde and 16 Air Asslt Bde puts everyone, regardless of rank or trade, through either the Commando Course or Pre-Parachute Selection on the theory that everyone needs to be able to fight if required.

Amongst others I had dentists, engineers, cooks and helicopter crew members in my section on both courses. Most did very well for non-infantry types. Some flamed out as they weren't up to it, as did some infantry types.

I'm not saying we need to do exactly the same, but when you're selecting for leaders you need to put people under pressure in a controlled, high intensity, personally uncomfortable environment or you will wind up with c@ap out the other end. A dirt/field based learning environment is perfect for that purpose.

That's one of the main reasons behind the Royal Navy, paradoxically, inventing 'Outward Bound' leadership/ character development training in WW2.

"Outward Bound's founding mission was to give young seamen the ability to survive harsh conditions at sea by teaching confidence, tenacity, perseverance and to build experience of harsh conditions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outward_Bound

 

[George Wallace]

I'm not saying we need to do exactly the same, but when you're selecting for leaders you need to put people under pressure in a controlled, high intensity, personally uncomfortable environment or you will wind up with c@ap out the other end. A dirt/field based learning environment is perfect for that purpose.

A few of us have been using that as our reasoning throughout this discussion. 

We are after-all discussing "Leadership" training; not "environmental/occupation specific" training.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm not saying we need to do exactly the same, but when you're selecting for leaders you need to put people under pressure in a controlled, high intensity, personally uncomfortable environment or you will wind up with c@ap out the other end. A dirt/field based learning environment is perfect for army-environment folks for that purpose.

I agree but will add I am a fan of the 'fight the way you train, train the way you fight' mentality.  Air Force fight in aircraft, Navy fight on ships.  Make the JNCO leadership training and leadership assessment at the JNCO level fight where they are most likely going to be fighting; the stress will come out.  I would rather see the RCAF 'field portion' be centered around CSAR/SERE situations rather than section attacks and recce patrols.  Finding/assisting downed aircraft and aircrew.  Fighting a hanger fire.  That type of stuff.

On the flip side of the coin, consider how well received doing what I suggested above for RCAF JNCO trg/assessments WRT to PLQ would be to the army folks in the crowd.  Not very well, because it wouldn't develop the useable skills they want in army JNCOs.  Now that I am aircrew (former cbt arms), I feel the same way about section attacks and recce patrols for RCAF people.  There are better tools that are more relevant that produce the same trg benefits and exercise the same junior leadership skills.

The Army shouldn't dictate the content of PLQ trg and Jnr leadership trg to the RCN and the RCAF anymore than the RCN and RCAF should dictate it to the Army.  ILQ is common to all, PLQ can be as well.  I've said it a few times, PLQ isn't the start or finish point for JNCO development.  Well, it shouldn't be.  If it is, the CAF has a far bigger leadership problem in the NCO & Warrant Officers ranks than it does with this PLQ gong show.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The RCN would lose its mind if CA pers were not obligated to do NETP prior to going to sea. You're posted to Land unit? Here's your BMQ-L (if you don't already have it). Oh you're a PO2? Don't care.

NETP is a requirement to be a crew member of any HMC Ship.  Not to mention the massive amount of trg that is required once you get to said ship.  The CA has no choice or say in this matter.  Its a non player.  In fact this statement really a red herring.

You know how to solve getting PO2s with no field time ?  Stop posting them to the field. 

Pressure and high intensity can be replicated in many ways including ways of relevant subject matter to your audience.  The field has no application or relevance to sea duty.  None. Zero. Zilch.  You can replicate this in any plethora of DC scenarios that would build on existing leadership while marinating relevance to RCN sailors.

FYI for those of you with experience in only the field,  it is not the only austere environment we have in the CAF.  And it isn't even always the most uncomfortable.

 

[George Wallace]

Pressure and high intensity can be replicated in many ways including ways of relevant subject matter to your audience.  The field has no application or relevance to sea duty.  None. Zero. Zilch.  You can replicate this in any plethora of DC scenarios that would build on existing leadership while marinating relevance to RCN sailors.

FYI for those of you with experience in only the field,  it is not the only austere environment we have in the CAF.  And it isn't even always the most uncomfortable.

True.  Pressure and high intensity can be replicated in many ways. 

The real question is what is most readily available, the simplest and cheapest?

 

[Remius]

  And it isn't even always the most uncomfortable.

Clearly you've never taken a snow shower in January.

I'm inclined to agree with the PLQ as a baseline, like ILP or ALP.  Then each element/trade group or whatever have their own mod added on that is most relevant and if they happen.  Then provide a delta package or whatever to those trades that might be posted in or attached. 

 

[BinRat55]

I have written and rewritten this post a dozen times, but I am struggling with the way to make a point, so here is one more attempt:

Initially, I need my MCpls to have a working knowledge of the remedial system, both administrative and disciplinary. I need them to have a good knowledge of their AOR and AOF. I also need them to have a better than average knowledge of CFPAS (PER / PDR / Assessment abilities) and a good command of the English language. Job knowledge is important as well, however, much like writing patrol orders, running a range and conducting a section attack, this can be taught secondary.

No where in the CFPAS word picture book does it indicate that its desirable for a Cpl to perform these "field tasks" to become a MCpl.

I fought to teach field craft and such in some units that don't do field time and was pretty much shot down. I was asked / begged / told to teach same to units who have purple trades who do field time.

So where am I going with this? I really don't know. But I know this - I know that at the end of the day I want - need - a good MCpl who can manage a section (or two) using a combination of confidence, knowledge, common sense and professionalism. Unfortunately, none of this is in the PLQ - any of them!

 

[Halifax Tar]

True.  Pressure and high intensity can be replicated in many ways. 

The real question is what is most readily available, the simplest and cheapest?

For the RCN is it most defiantly the trg establishments withing the RCN sphere.  Not to mention the resounding relevance and continued progression for seamanship knowledge and leadership.

Readily Available ?  Check.  They already conduct their own CF PLQs.  Simplest? Check.  All the required facilities already exist, as well as the knowledge base.  Cheapest ?  You bet.  No need to TDs and other such related costs. 

 

[BinRat55]

Clearly you've never taken a snow shower in January.

I'm inclined to agree with the PLQ as a baseline, like ILP or ALP.  Then each element/trade group or whatever have their own mod added on that is most relevant and if they happen.  Then provide a delta package or whatever to those trades that might be posted in or attached.

Yes - exactly - like a baseline. Common to all based on what we need the junior leader to be able to accomplish in any / all settings regardless. Plug-and-play the remainder and call it "employability factor". If a MCpl want's to be posted to the HMCS Victory, then prior to posting he / she must take that part of the PLQ which expands on how to be a leader at sea. That sorta thing. It's almost akin to needing the 3K course prior to being posted to CFS Alert.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Clearly you've never taken a snow shower in January.

I'm inclined to agree with the PLQ as a baseline, like ILP or ALP.  Then each element/trade group or whatever have their own mod added on that is most relevant and if they happen.  Then provide a delta package or whatever to those trades that might be posted in or attached.

Cearly you've never spent time on the Grand Banks or Flemish Cap in January. 

The only time in my career I have ever questioned my life choices were at sea. 

Your second paragraph sounds like an excellent COA.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Or off Cape Mendecino... Ulp. Gag.

Give me a wet trench any day, over that....

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

A word of caution BinRat55. It's either HMS VICTORY (no "C") or RCSCC VICTORY. We, in Commonwealth navies, take reference to the VICTORY very seriously, and it is not repeat not to be used as a term for "just any warship".

If you had said " if a Mcpl wants to be posted to HMCS Whichever", that would have been fine - but not a reference to VICTORY.

As for stressing environments, yes, the sea can be just as much of  a stressing or sleep depriving environment, if not more. However, at a leadership course level, reproduction of this stressful environment is difficult. As George said only a few posts ago, the land environment is simply the environment where this stressing can be done the easiest, fastest and cheapest.

Don't believe it? Here is an episode from a series of four show made for TV a few years back in England that follows a group of entry officers in the R.N. at Dartmouth college: They chose to do their leadership phase the "army" way in the moors specifically for that reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2zaocVi_XU

 

[Halifax Tar]

Don't believe it? Here is an episode from a series of four show made for TV a few years back in England that follows a group of entry officers in the R.N. at Dartmouth college: They chose to do their leadership phase the "army" way in the moors specifically for that reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2zaocVi_XU

The RN is not where the RCN should be getting its leadership ideas from.  We tried that before.  Mainguy Report anyone ?