Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am not advocating adopting RN practices in anything.

I simply put that out there because you don't get too many organizations more naval oriented than the Royal Navy. If it feels that using an "army" leadership training environment because, as they themselves indicate, it is the easiest, fastest and most efficient way of inducing the stress required to develop and evaluate the leadership skills of its personnel, it is probably because it is.

BTW, a personal opinion here, in the Navy we do base defence, harbour defence, boardings, beach landing coordination (on the beach), demolition, aid to civil powers (I did: recalled for the Oka crisis) etc. It seems to me that training that gets our people more confident in the use of weapons in a tactical situation, even if the army way, is not necessarily a bad thing. 

 

[PuckChaser]

The real issue here is that CMP didn't have a good enough grip on its managed trades, and created a double standard for Sup Tech and RMS. Instead of fixing that by removing for all our requiring for all, hard Army trades who aren't infantry lose valuable training.

 

[BinRat55]

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.

It was a fictitious reference. WORD victory just happened to come to mind, that's all. If I have offended you in any way, i'm sorry.

So, in jest, I have to tell you that the word "repeat" is an artillery term. I think what you meant to say was "I say again..."

 

[Halifax Tar]

BTW, a personal opinion here, in the Navy we do base defence, harbour defence, boardings, beach landing coordination (on the beach), demolition, aid to civil powers (I did: recalled for the Oka crisis) etc. It seems to me that training that gets our people more confident in the use of weapons in a tactical situation, even if the army way, is not necessarily a bad thing.

OGB have you retired from the RCN ?  Boatswains already teach "tactical" shooting.  Not to mention the newly minted ENBP.  In fact I recieved more instruction on "tactical" shooting while with the RCN than I did with any any unit I was in with the CA. You do realize every member of the Force Pro now does a famil shoot before entering harbour right ?  And every duty watch must go over the function test, and stopages and IAs on C8 right ?  So this equates to roughly 3 times a month the whole ships company is put through weapons handling drills.  This is on top of their yearly quals.

Lastly on the whole weapons handling thing, harbour and base defence is not a tactical shooting arena.  Checking IDs at gates and keeping watch on the boom are deterence and self defence based shooting scenarios at best.  All it calls for is basic marksmanship.

Beach landing coordination ?  You are not seroiusly going to throw this out as supporting factor are you ? Demolition we have people for that.  Clearance Divers and Boatswains to a minor extent. 
.
I think you highly underestimate the available trg and quality of the trg that is provided to sailors now.  Especially when it comes to SA handling.

I fail to see how shipping our people off to train in an environment they are not experienced in to learn skills they will never use after the course, could been seen as valuable or an effective use of resources.   

 

[armyvern]

... hard Army trades who aren't infantry lose valuable training.

Well, they shouldn't lose anything. Have you even bothered to read the entire CANFORGEN?  It clearly states that environments are to develop and deliver the requisite "gap" trg that they believe exist, but that the PLQ will now be a a CAF common-to-all baseline course.

And, if it is so important, then the Cdn Army should already have their plan in place: they partook in the discussions regarding the new PLQ Course and have been involved for a year now.

FFS.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Well, they shouldn't lose anything. Have you even bothered to read the entire CANFORGEN?  It clearly states that environments are to develop and deliver the requisite "gap" trg that they believe exist, but that the PLQ will now be a a CAF common-to-all baseline course.

FFS.

So now another almost impossible to fail course... ;D

 

[armyvern]

So now another almost impossible to fail course... ;D

Not from what I've seen out there ...

 

[Nfld Sapper]

So now another almost impossible to fail course... ;D

Not from what I've seen out there ...

I've heard differently from one that just ran at Wainwright...

 

[PuckChaser]

Well, they shouldn't lose anything. Have you even bothered to read the entire CANFORGEN?  It clearly states that environments are to develop and deliver the requisite "gap" trg that they believe exist, but that the PLQ will now be a a CAF common-to-all baseline course.

And, if it is so important, then the Cdn Army should already have their plan in place: they partook in the discussions regarding the new PLQ Course and have been involved for a year now.

FFS.

Not at work, and no one bothered to post it here.

So what you're saying is that PLQ-A was cancelled, and now the CA has to design "gap training" to replace it? In what Bizzaro world does that make sense? We already had the training, it was certain trades (read: purple trades) where the training was misapplied to half a trade. Its the RCAF and RCN who haven't designed environmental leadership training, either because their senior leadership didn't deem it valuable, nobody thought of it, or they figured their purple trades got enough training from PLQ-A that would work.

By cancelling PLQ-A before the new training is ready, we've created a 3-tier MCpl system, where some will have the old course, some will have this cut down course, and some will have the new course. It makes no sense to cancel training before another course is ready. If there was issues with certain trades, remove those trades from having to complete it, and leave the remainder alone.

FFS.

 

[BinRat55]

Those who are course loaded for the new course will need to be wearing the LOTB. No boot get the boot.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist! The parallels here are fun!

 

[PuckChaser]

Those who are course loaded for the new course will need to be wearing the LOTB. No boot get the boot.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist! The parallels here are fun!

Too funny!

 

[Sig_Des]

I've heard differently from one that just ran at Wainwright...

I did my PLQ Mod 6 in Gagetown in 2012. I remember being asked on an inspection if I thought this was an attendance course... as far as standards it seemed to me that it was. There did also seem to be a bit of a two-tier system when it came to assessing a hard army member vs a purple trade member on a task like a Recce patrol (which I understand, as one of our section members was a 10 year supply tech who had never done section attacks, recce patrols or defensive).

If PLQ is to be a check-in-the box baseline course, fine. It's happening, and I'm on board, especially if there's a distinct environmental mod. However, what will the requirement be for members to complete the individual service specific training once implemented? Will it be rank requirement? Will a member now need to complete 3 separate course (Trade Qual + Leadership Qual + ISST) to be a substantive MCpl/MS? What will the timelines look like?

 

[BinRat55]

My first posting was in Petawawa. My "distinct environmental mod" consisted of Vern beating me with a shovel and popping rocks off my brain-bucket down at 5 Fingers!

I think I turned out ok.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Its the RCAF and RCN who haven't designed environmental leadership training, either because their senior leadership didn't deem it valuable, nobody thought of it, or they figured their purple trades got enough training from PLQ-A that would work.

I can't speak for the RCN.  In my part of the RCAF world, however, 'leadership trg' isn't left solely in the hands of PLQ instructors.  In the crew environment, Pte's and Cpl's get mentored by MCpl's and Sgt's primarily, MCpl's get mentored by Sgt's and WO's, and so on.

RCAF do a BAEQ course.  Then PLQ.  After PLQ, folks posted to RCAF units have a year to complete IAEQ after they are promoted Sgt and that is for all pers posted to RCAF units.  It seems to me that most RCAF folks see the CF PLQ as sufficient for what it is supposed to do, develop the new Jnr NCOs into being better Jnr NCOs.  It is not, and never was, designed to make everyone fully conversant in their duties and JNCOs.

The Air Force did have a course called PAEQ that all JNCOs had to do before or after PLQ called PAEQ.  However, it was discontinued a few years ago. 

I'll ask again;  if ILP is working, and has been for years (I did SLC in 2002...before it was called ILQ) as a 'common' course for SNCOs moving on into the Warrant Officer world, why is a 'common' PLQ so insufficient for JNCO baseline training?  Everyone understood that SLC/ILQ was not the 'total solution' for trg required for all trades Sgt's who were going to be WOs.  I think we just need to accept the same fact for PLQ, let the Navy, Air Force and Army deliver its own leadership trg and move on to something more pressing...

 

[BinRat55]

I can't speak for the RCN.  In my part of the RCAF world, however, 'leadership trg' isn't left solely in the hands of PLQ instructors.  In the crew environment, Pte's and Cpl's get mentored by MCpl's and Sgt's primarily, MCpl's get mentored by Sgt's and WO's, and so on.

RCAF do a BAEQ course.  Then PLQ.  After PLQ, folks posted to RCAF units have a year to complete IAEQ after they are promoted Sgt and that is for all pers posted to RCAF units.  It seems to me that most RCAF folks see the CF PLQ as sufficient for what it is supposed to do, develop the new Jnr NCOs into being better Jnr NCOs.  It is not, and never was, designed to make everyone fully conversant in their duties and JNCOs.

I'll ask again;  if ILP is working, and has been for years (I did SLC in 2002...before it was called ILQ) as a 'common' course for SNCOs moving on into the Warrant Officer world, why is a 'common' PLQ so insufficient for JNCO baseline training?  Everyone understood that SLC/ILQ was not the 'total solution' for trg required for all trades Sgt's who were going to be WOs.  I think we just need to accept the same fact for PLQ, let the Navy, Air Force and Army deliver its own leadership trg and move on to something more pressing...

Something else I did several years ago with the AF was something called "Sgts Seminar" - It was in Shearwater and I was told all Sr NCOs in the Air world had to do it. I honestly think considering the application to "leadership" it was the best and most informative course I have ever done. We were given a afternoon with a Col who sat on and ran several PER boards with careers. We were allowed to pepper him all aft with questions. VERY informative! We learned how to do a proper introduction, a proper interview, AJAG was with us for hours on the ins / outs / dos / donts of SIs and RDPs. There was PER writing discussions, command structure, how to conduct ones self at a mess dinner...

I loved it. Cantcha tell?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Something else I did several years ago with the AF was something called "Sgts Seminar" - It was in Shearwater and I was told all Sr NCOs in the Air world had to do it. I honestly think considering the application to "leadership" it was the best and most informative course I have ever done. We were given a afternoon with a Col who sat on and ran several PER boards with careers. We were allowed to pepper him all aft with questions. VERY informative! We learned how to do a proper introduction, a proper interview, AJAG was with us for hours on the ins / outs / dos / donts of SIs and RDPs. There was PER writing discussions, command structure, how to conduct ones self at a mess dinner...

I loved it. Cantcha tell?

The Sgt's Seminar is now called IAEQ, still delivered at the Wings but I believe the QS/TP is owned by the RCAF Academy in Borden.  IIRC it is a 4 day (maybe 5?) course.

 

[BinRat55]

The Sgt's Seminar is now called IAEQ, still delivered at the Wings but I believe the QS/TP is owned by the RCAF Academy in Borden.  IIRC it is a 4 day (maybe 5?) course.

I wholeheartedly believe (caveat: as long as they are still close to the same training plan / QS that I saw) that all Sr NCOs should do this. I realize our ILP is similar, but it really isn't. ILP was great, but this... this is smaller, closer to what a day-to-day Sgt or WO would do.

 

[armyvern]

So what you're saying is that PLQ-A was cancelled, and now the CA has to design "gap training" to replace it? In what Bizzaro world does that make sense? We already had the training, it was certain trades (read: purple trades) where the training was misapplied to half a trade.

The CA are the ones saying they need "this" and "that" over and above what the RCN and RCAF are doing.  They simply need to take "this and that" and make it a mod to be done by any MCpl/MS and above being posted into the Cdn Army environment (just like the new CANFORGEN says).  Too freaking simple.

BTW, I haven't always been Army.  I was RCAF (because I looked better in blue).  I did a JLC at the alphabet school in Borden where my "field" consisted of getting on a bus in front of the Mess Hall at 0730hrs one morning, being dropped into the "field" at they Angus gate (the "Y" intersection) and doing a small party task and being back to the shacks by 1600hrs.

I have served in all of our Commands.  I seem to have made out just fine leadership-wise:  especially so within the Army given where I actually sit today.  I'm here to tell you that the world is not going to end despite all those protesting otherwise.

 

[OldSolduer]

:goodpost:

I been around a few days and I've seen CLC, ISCC, PLQ etc come and go.

The raw material is the same - young Canadians stepping up to be challenged.

As long as they are being taught what they need to know, they'll be fine.

 

[meni0n]

So the army has released a new CANFORGEN detailing a new Army Junior Leadership Course to take place following the completion of the Mod 3 of the PLQ. It looks like it will be a copy of the old Mod 4. One thing that is a bit confusing is that they make reference to a paragraph 4 in an older CANFORGEN where a list of CA and NON-CA Managed occupations were listed that had to do PLQ-L but only mention CA occupations. The way I read the new CANFORGEN, only CA occupations will be required to do the new AJLC course. If someone saw the new CANFORGEN, can you chime in and confirm that or is it not very clearly written?