BMQ / BMOQ - Personal Electronics during course [MERGED]

[vonGarvin]

You make a good point, but for now, I'll just make quick reference to the army systems' approach to training.  (I'm just on my phone now.  Post later)

 

[MJP]

your very bold statement WRT cell phones (and other portable electronic devices) never leading to an ambush is information I highly doubt you are privy to.  Trust me, if something like that ever happened... you will never hear about it. Other than a random reiteration of acceptable use policy.

If all things worked as well as they should,  no I shouldn't (nor should 99% of the rest of the CF), but scuttlebutt happens.  I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement, but the then again claiming that no one will ever hear about it is just as silly.  We don't deal in absolutes in the profession of arms in most things we do, nor should we claim that we do.  Mea Culpa.

 

[PiperDown]

agreed.

 

[vonGarvin]

Fundamentally, the problem is that we measure the wrong things at CFLRS.  "Passing BMQ" and "Passing BMOQ" are useless stats.  Any CO can tweak conditions (and get Leading Change points oin their PER) and make it easier to graduate.

We should be measuring successful achievement of the Fuctional Operational Point - where pers are qualified and employable.  Anyone who fails before that point and leaves is a failure for the recruiting system and a failure for CFLRS.

As long as CFLRS only cares about BMQ/BMOQ grads, there are perverse incentives in the system.

And I'm back.
So, as I was saying, the ASAT has very definite stages to follow to train an individual for a position, be it infantryman, signaller, or whatever.  Now, I realise that BMQ and BMOQ are CF courses, but I'm fairly confident that they follow a similar pattern.
For Army courses, LFDTS holds the "key" on what is required to pass a course.  This is the Qualification Standard, and lays out in very clear terms what is required of an individual on day one of the job.  It takes all the skills required and breaks them down, and the result is that you end up with Performance Objectives.  In theory, at least, if the skill set of "a" isn't identified at the QS Writing Board (QSWB), then it isn't trained on course, nor is it required.  It must be noted that for every PO, there are conditions set, including things that are "given" (such as a map, compass, suitable training area) and things that are "denied" (such as assistance).  A crafty QS board could put into the QS for either BMQ or BMOQ that one of the "denied" items for either course could be personal communications devices for 'x' weeks, in which case the CO would not have the authority to give or take away such things.

As for measuring the Functional Operating Point, this comes to the final step of the Army Systems' Approach to Training: validation.  This is where for the Army, anyway, and in theory, CTC or LFDTS (can't remember which off the top of my head) is to go to the user (eg: armour regiments, etc) and assess whether the stuff in the QS fits the actual needs of the job.  So, for army courses anyway, it is done, at least in theory.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

And I'm back.
So, as I was saying, the ASAT has very definite stages to follow to train an individual for a position, be it infantryman, signaller, or whatever.  Now, I realise that BMQ and BMOQ are CF courses, but I'm fairly confident that they follow a similar pattern.
For Army courses, LFDTS holds the "key" on what is required to pass a course.  This is the Qualification Standard, and lays out in very clear terms what is required of an individual on day one of the job.  It takes all the skills required and breaks them down, and the result is that you end up with Performance Objectives.  In theory, at least, if the skill set of "a" isn't identified at the QS Writing Board (QSWB), then it isn't trained on course, nor is it required.  It must be noted that for every PO, there are conditions set, including things that are "given" (such as a map, compass, suitable training area) and things that are "denied" (such as assistance).  A crafty QS board could put into the QS for either BMQ or BMOQ that one of the "denied" items for either course could be personal communications devices for 'x' weeks, in which case the CO would not have the authority to give or take away such things.
As for measuring the Functional Operating Point, this comes to the final step of the Army Systems' Approach to Training: validation.  This is where for the Army, anyway, and in theory, CTC or LFDTS (can't remember which off the top of my head) is to go to the user (eg: armour regiments, etc) and assess whether the stuff in the QS fits the actual needs of the job.  So, for army courses anyway, it is done, at least in theory.

Techno, from my past experiences on WB's that is a very hard one to justify and place in the given/denied colum. It will all depend on the chair amongst other things....

 

[Michael OLeary]

Techno, from my past experiences on WB's that is a very hard one to justify and place in the given/denied colum. It will all depend on the chair amongst other things....

Which brings us full circle to the view that if there isn't a clearly defined impact on training it is hard to justify removing the electronics that may help some with the transition to military life. It's easy to say "we didn't need it, therefore they don't need it", but "we" didn't all have cell phones, etc., as a common lifestyle accessory in our day to begin with so we don't have a clear shared point of reference regarding the effects of an apparently (to the recruit) arbitrary removal.

If we are going to recruit from that pool of young Canadians who use their cells, etc, for comms then we have to learn how to integrate them into our military society by developing their understanding of the right and wrong times to use them and the added requirements to prioritize their use along with everything else we expect from them. I would rather see they develop that skill at the BMQ level than trying to do it later during trades training or in units. If we, as a system, don't address it early, we create a downstream effect when the get their toys back without having developed any understanding of their appropriate integration with military daily life. If that integration starts off at BMQ with clearly defined permissions and in house rules then they will have a baseline to adjust from as they progress.

As for the idea thats some recruits will be so distracted that they won't be able to do what we expect from them, I suspect these will often be the ones who would wash out anyway, at BMQ or later, for the same ADD behaviour. I would suggest that this will be a definite benefit to those recruits who will not have a training issue because of access to electronics, but will be able to maintain more consistent contact to spouses/SOs, children or family who are also undergoing the stress of separation. If this means a few good troops don't have to VR in order to sort out family issues that became disasters during a "black-out period" during which comms were difficult to maintain, then it's to our advantage that they can solve their problems and continue to succeed in training.

If nothing else, it should be considered worthy of a legitimate trial. If the collected assessments and judgment of the staff determine there is a clear disadvantage, then the CO has the power to remove it again and there is then a basis on which to define the restriction at the next QSWB.

 

[vonGarvin]

Very good post.

My idea of the taking away of commodities such as cell phones, phone privelages, etc, is just part of the psychological stripping and then build up throughout basic training.  Remember, we have a bunch of civilians walking in, and we have soldiers walking out.  There is so much more than just teaching stuff from a lesson plan.  And while it's true that cell phones were not invented when I went through, and the "Internet" was just a collection known as "Usenet" for geeks and for preservation of information following a nuclear strike by the USSR, it's just one "privelage" that is to be earned back following good performance.  And I think we all somehow realise that outside distractions adversely affect training.  By how much and what measures we ought to do it?  That is the question, I suppose, and it's more than an instinct.

 

[armyvern]

I just got back.

Welfare Comms ended in July. No more internet, no more phones to call home with. You wanted the net? You paid 180 bucks US a month for civilian high-speed access that was absolutely slower than any dial-up I had to use in my "youth" if you were lucky enough to be able to get logged in. 6 months of "austere".

I thank goodness that I didn't have any of those of today's Basic candidates there who can't last 4 weeks in more ideal conditions and so are VRing instead ...

Long story short: We had higher priority and, quite frankly, more important shit to deal with out there in the big world.

The CF will go on and anyone who thinks it won't because little Johnny or Mable can't get online or have iaccess is very very wrong and little Johnny and Mable will be in for some pretty rude awakenings.

 

[Michael OLeary]

My idea of the taking away of commodities such as cell phones, phone privelages, etc, is just part of the psychological stripping and then build up throughout basic training.  Remember, we have a bunch of civilians walking in, and we have soldiers walking out.

Unfortunately, we've never actually defined what we mean by that perceived need for "psychological stripping and then build[ing] up."  Or explained why it might be essential in the closed envoronment of CFLRS but doesn't appear to be needed, or applied, in unit run Reserve BMQ courses. Quite often what we do is very useful, even important, to our training processes, but when we cannot provide proof of that assumption because we've never gathered baisc data on it, then it doesn't matter how strong our instincts might be when the method is challenged. And then we find ourselves gathering the necessary data to prove what we believed was a core assumption actually exists as we believed it did.

 

[SentryMAn]

What happens to these soldiers when they hit a point in their career where they are not alowed to have their phone on them while working?  Many places on bases are cellular phone banned?

Will they VR then after the military has spent thousands on training?

 

[Jungle]

Troops overseas have been able to buy and use civvie cell phones for quite some time and nothing of the sort has happened yet.

Something did happen to us... recently.

 

[dapaterson]

What happens to these soldiers when they hit a point in their career where they are not alowed to have their phone on them while working?  Many places on bases are cellular phone banned?

Will they VR then after the military has spent thousands on training?

VR is not a right.  The CF can refuse a request for voluntary release.  That's when folks will learn that they should have been paying attention to lectures and to the paperwork they signed on enrolment.

 

[Michael OLeary]

What happens to these soldiers when they hit a point in their career where they are not alowed to have their phone on them while working?  Many places on bases are cellular phone banned?

Will they VR then after the military has spent thousands on training?

Do you really think our soldiers are that fragile? Do you really think that CFLRS will not brief them on appropriate times to use cell phones, etc., and ensure they understand that in their careers there will be times when total blackouts and turning in of phones will occur?

 

[MJP]

Something did happen to us... recently.

Hence why I said I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement.  I also should have said that I have seen (and heard of) poor comsec and persec procedures from troops overseas using cellphones that could have resulted some info getting into the wrong hands. Luckily in those few cases nothing happened.  In most cases that  I have seen it is people that say or post things inadvertently/innocently not realizing what can be gleamed from that info.  I am not naive enough to think that just because one is trained, that they will make the right decision with regards to their electronic usage overseas.  I was just saying that for the most part our soldiers are pretty compliant and gauge their usage properly. 
This is what we haven't seen yet   http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-03/world/israel.raid.facebook_1_idf-soldier-israel-defense-forces?_s=PM:WORLD

If all things worked as well as they should,  no I shouldn't (nor should 99% of the rest of the CF), but scuttlebutt happens.  I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement, but the then again claiming that no one will ever hear about it is just as silly.  We don't deal in absolutes in the profession of arms in most things we do, nor should we claim that we do.  Mea Culpa.

 

[SentryMAn]

Do you really think our soldiers are that fragile? Do you really think that CFLRS will not brief them on appropriate times to use cell phones, etc., and ensure they understand that in their careers there will be times when total blackouts and turning in of phones will occur?

No I do not, but the way things are going with recruits and the new generation of entitled kids coming down the pipe, they very may well be.  I've been able to witness it on the civi side and it's not a pleasant experience.  Training evolves and changes, I imagine things are a lot different now then in the 70's 80's and 90's and will continue to evolve.

You would not believe the stories I could tell you about the generation that is currently entering the working force on the civilian side from a few educator friends I have, things that made me  :facepalm: and thank goodness I wasn't born 10 years later in life.

 

[OldSolduer]

You would not believe the stories I could tell you about the generation that is currently entering the working force on the civilian side from a few educator friends I have, things that made me  :facepalm: and thank goodness I wasn't born 10 years later in life.

I've had first hand experience with this "new generation" and they aren't that new. I think we're making much ado about nothing.

If they are deployed to an area where there is no connectivity except for CF work only, then so be it. They will adapt, much like we have adapted.

But - IMO the first thing we should do is exercise in the "austere environment " ie leave your cell phones at home and the iPad won't be needed either.

 

[George Wallace]

How did we ever survive the COLD WAR without the Internet and Cell phones?

 

[Michael OLeary]

How did we ever survive the COLD WAR without the Internet and Cell phones?

And I am certain there were some Sergeants-Major in the 1950s proclaiming the impending Armegeddon when they saw those damn kids of the 1950s showing up with their rock and roll music.  How did we ever survive?

 

[OldSolduer]

How did we ever survive the COLD WAR without the Internet and Cell phones?

Yes - how did we do it? Oh- by radio, telephone, tin cans and string.....and in large part we would have used inidividual initiative.

And I am certain there were some Sergeants-Major in the 1950s proclaiming the impending Armegeddon when they saw those damn kids of the 1950s showing up with their rock and roll music.  How did we ever survive?

They said the same thing in the 70s when privates were buying their own cars!! THE SKY IS FALLING!

 

[armyvern]

A lot has changed at CFLRS in the past two months since I graduated it seems.. My Platoon mates sure as hell were charged for their ND's, $150 I think it was. They made us watch their summary trial on Graduation Day.

Wow; that's cheap. I'm used to ~2500 bucks these days (deployed of course). Were they into clearing bays?