Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[dangerboy]

Does anyone know if PLQ Courses still teach warning orders and small party taskings? It's been awhile since I completed the course and things change so often now in the CAF. It would not surprise me if it is not part of the course anymore!
  I have a few Mbrs who are slated to go on PLQ course this late summer, I would like to help prepare them.

That is still the main component of the course, Battle procedure. The tactics school has a good two page aide-memoir with all sorts of useful info  and mission task verbs that you can download from their SharePoint site.

 

[Mediman14]

That is still the main component of the course, Battle procedure. The tactics school has a good two page aide-memoir with all sorts of useful info  and mission task verbs that you can download from their SharePoint site.

Thank you

 

[ringo598]

I would emphasize fitness and marching as well.  Having just finished PLQ/ALJC out west a few weeks ago.  Our course was about 38 to start and we graduated with 17 I believe, 95% of the loss was medical RTU.  For the first field ex according to GPS we hit just about 54km in mukluks (Required to wear by the school if below 0C) and more during the 2nd field ex for ALJC.  Speaking with many of the people on my course and my own experience, the course was much more of a...I don't want to use the word hazing, I'll use the term constant and prolonged confirmation of combat knowledge for 8 weeks.  All trades/elements had to do the first course (CAF-PLQ) and anyone from the air/navy side was in for a rude awakening since many had not rucked or done field work since BMQ, we also did not pass any females as all were medically RTU'ed due to the way the course was run.  But your experience might vary, as three other courses running in 3 other locations lost I believe 6 in total and I had several friends on those courses who mentioned a mentoring attitude from the staff and they finished the course with a good understanding of leadership.  The three people with the most overseas experience did not complete the course either, as 2 wrote memo's to have themselves removed...it was an interesting course.

 

[brihard]

For the first field ex according to GPS we hit just about 54km in mukluks (Required to wear by the school if below 0C)

Wait, what? What sort of inane bullshit is this? Mukluks are a great piece of kit and have their place. Sustained marching for long distances just below the freezing mark is not it. The human body during physical activity, with good socks and a decent boot is perfectly capable of keeping the foot warm somewhat below the freezing mark.

If your course has half casualties from forced marching wearing mukluks, then the staff need to ask themselves whether the demand they are putting on you realistically reflects what troops would be doing in wartime. No commander would be enforcing a dress standard that is not tailored to the task at hand and that reduces his or her effective strength by half. It sounds like a bunch of troops have lost a career course because of a stupid command decision compounded by leadership without the balls to stand up to same. Troops still have the right to be trained safely.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

That's the thing I never understood, why are PLQ/AJLC being run to break soldiers and giving them belt-fed COCK? That's how you end people's careers, make people bitter and jaded, and then you turn them into shitty leaders.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That's the thing I never understood, why are PLQ/AJLC being run to break soldiers and giving them belt-fed ****? That's how you end people's careers, make people bitter and jaded, and then you turn them into shitty leaders.

I was very thankful to have had the staff I did for my PLQ/AJLC out of Meaford.

The dedication of those instructors to take extra time to set us up for success was crucial in us having graduated 34 out of 38 candidates. Multiple instructors on IR would come by in the evening and help mentor and do remedial things like going over lesson plans and TTPs if we were stuck.

All goals were attainable, however , we weren't given a soft go. Training standards were met by every candidate and we all learned something from the course. Our Course Warrrant said it best "the CAF gets nothing from me producing 16 people who survived a COCKing, but it gains 38 leaders if I do the job right."

Ringo, it sounds like you all were victims of toxic leadership.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If your course has half casualties from forced marching wearing mukluks, then the Standards staff need to ask the Command Team whether the demand they are putting on you realistically reflects what troops would be doing in wartime. No commander would be enforcing a dress standard that is not tailored to the task at hand and that reduces his or her effective strength by half. It sounds like a bunch of troops have lost a career course because of a stupid command decision compounded by leadership without the balls to stand up to same. Troops still have the right to be trained safely.

If the course staff don't see an issue, the Standards cell should be seeing it IMO.  I absolutely despise stupid command decisions like 'everyone will wear mukluks below 0 degress'.  I can see being ordered to wear that stuff (if for some reason you didn't...) at places like....Crystal City/ATC but that's a different kind of stupid there.

There's always the issue of a 'common' PLQ, with the same QS and TP being implemented by various training establishments across the Forces;  when Ringo says "out west" I take that to mean Wain-wrong.  As he mentioned 'people were in for a rude awakening' if they were Navy or Air and many were RTUd medically.  What's the point of that, breaking people with ruck marches.  You know how many ruck marches I've done since I put on blue DEUs in 2007?  None.  Not a single one.  Because in the air force, we don't even have ruck sacks if we end up on the ground in hostile territory.  So why would I need to carry one around for 50+ kms in mukluks on a 'common' CAF PLQ?  Because I'd bet you the PLQ in Borden or the one the RCN runs out of Halifax, they aren't rucking 50+km in mukluks.

End result?  A 'common'  Jnr Leadership course that ends up not being 'common' at all.  Should the jnr leadership course be challenging?  Yes it should.  It should also be relevant to the environment people are working in - a Aviation Tech shouldn't be at an Army TE for leadership training anymore than a cbt arms Cpl should be in Borden at the AF Academy doing his/hers.  Because as much as we like to pretend there's no difference, there really is a difference between what the army, navy and air force expects out of the junior NCOs in their operational environments.  :2c:

 

[ringo598]

Here's the kicker, the staff (one or two did in fact wear mukluks) for the most part wore...neos.  We had other fun parts like a 3am wakeup with an air-raid siren on Sunday night so people were sleepy before we even started the 2nd field ex or the day after day of section attacks (Again wearing mukluks) in snow until people were just zombies.  Standards seemed completely on board, perhaps I'm a bit bitter as I saw what I felt were some good soldiers potentially end or delay their careers for really no good training value.  I don't doubt my own bias towards the course shows, since I feel I just wasted 9 weeks of my life and I'm not at all a better leader for it.  I wish I could have gotten a PLQ like RMC_Wannabe, as it would have been nice to go on a leadership course and emerge as a better leader.  But that's a big tangent.

Prepare your feet, nav skills, rucking skills, and I would heavily practice the orders format (SMESC) with the sub headings.  I also suggest basic briefing skills as a lot of people had difficulty there.  For example briefing a map for Situation: Enemy, Situation: Friendly, etc.  For any army managed trades, I would suggest going over defensive, offensive and stabilizing ops (There is a book avail) since we had a lot of test failures since the tests for PLQ are no longer the typical military style multiple choice, its now short answer.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is value to section attacks;  to assess command and control, planning, stamina, etc.  I did my Jnr Leadership course back in the days when there was ISCC for infanteers, CLC for Cbt arms/CSS;  I was on the CLC course.  We had a 'garrison' portion where we did all our Mil Law, Admin, MOI, etc and got little sleep.  This was before the time of computers and powerpoint;  we had to make our lesson plans with paper and pen, and had to have 2 copies for our lectures;  you learned the importance of remembering your daily ADREPs simply by forgetting to indent for more carbon paper (nothing funner than handwriting out your second LP copy at 2am...when PT starts at 5).

We did section attacks by day, and recce patrols by night during the field portion;  our course staff decided to do that, our sister course did a defensive portion.  Standardization??  My fireteam partner was a Fin Clerk female;  I found the course 'reasonable' and she thought it was complete BS.  She should have been on a JLC not a CLC IMO.  I feel the same way now, but that is me.  I don't believe in the 'all trades' common PLQ and then using infantry type tasks (section attacks, as an example) to assess everyone on an even playing field.  Ask the CFCWO when the last time he did a section attack was.

However, I was cbt arms back then and there was actually leadership value in day after day of section attacks and recce patrols and fatigue and the 'physical/field challenges'.  I don't, however, think there is for hard air or sea trades doing this training; it doesn't resemble what they will be doing in the operational environments.  Sure you can assess orders format, planning, command and control but I can also do that in other ways too.  Fatigue is different in each operational environment, though.  I don't do ruck marches now, but flying (as much as this sounds like BS) itself can tire you out;  down low bouncing around, 2G 60 degree turns over and over in ASW while slinging 75lb sono's (that suddenly weigh 2 times their normal weight during those 2G turns...flight deck, please call 'manouvering' before the turns  rly around, or at higher altitudes (your cabin pressure is say, 10k feet so you spend half a day like you're suddenly sitting on top of a 10k mountain).  Ruck marches won't prepare air personnel for that, as an example or how to be good jnr leaders in that environment. 

So, for those people who are posted to the land environment (regardless of DEU), the army does have a vested interest in Jnr Leaders who can operate in the environment the army finds itself.  The course shouldn't be a cakewalk, but it shouldn't break over 50% of the students.  If it does, physically, then maybe we should be taking a look at the FORCE test and our PT policy needs to be reinforced at the unit level - I am fully aware some units in the CAF look at "PT time" the same they would if you said you wanted an hour a day to 'just sit around and do nothing'. 

So, to me, a few issues present itself from the story of your CAF PLQ common phase.

I was an instructor in Leadership Coy back in the mid'ish 90s - we had several courses on the go, Army JNCO (ISCC), JNCO OAS (Jnr NCO Other Arms and Services...a mix between CLC and JLC leaning toward the CLC side).  The way it was done back then, instructors lived how the students did.  If the students were in FFO cammed up, so were we.  We also, 20 years ago or so now, had some of the same issues as your courses are seeing now;  standardization or lack of it, the same courses being run differently by even different staff in the same TE, people inserting 'critical items' in assessments not approved by Standards because they felt the 'standard was too low'.  This wheel will, unfortunately, continue to go around until each environment/command establishes their own Leadership schools - which will never happen.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There is value to section attacks;  to assess command and control, planning, stamina, etc.  I did my Jnr Leadership course back in the days when there was ISCC for infanteers, CLC for Cbt arms/CSS;  I was on the CLC course.  We had a 'garrison' portion where we did all our Mil Law, Admin, MOI, etc and got little sleep.  This was before the time of computers and powerpoint;  we had to make our lesson plans with paper and pen, and had to have 2 copies for our lectures;  you learned the importance of remembering your daily ADREPs simply by forgetting to indent for more carbon paper (nothing funner than handwriting out your second LP copy at 2am...when PT starts at 5).

We did section attacks by day, and recce patrols by night during the field portion;  our course staff decided to do that, our sister course did a defensive portion.  Standardization??  My fireteam partner was a Fin Clerk female;  I found the course 'reasonable' and she thought it was complete BS.  She should have been on a JLC not a CLC IMO.  I feel the same way now, but that is me.  I don't believe in the 'all trades' common PLQ and then using infantry type tasks (section attacks, as an example) to assess everyone on an even playing field.  Ask the CFCWO when the last time he did a section attack was.

However, I was cbt arms back then and there was actually leadership value in day after day of section attacks and recce patrols and fatigue and the 'physical/field challenges'.  I don't, however, think there is for hard air or sea trades doing this training; it doesn't resemble what they will be doing in the operational environments.  Sure you can assess orders format, planning, command and control but I can also do that in other ways too.  Fatigue is different in each operational environment, though.  I don't do ruck marches now, but flying (as much as this sounds like BS) itself can tire you out;  down low bouncing around, 2G 60 degree turns over and over in ASW while slinging 75lb sono's (that randomly weight 2 times there normal weight during those 2G turns...) around, or at higher altitudes (your cabin pressure is say, 10k feet so you spend half a day like you're suddenly sitting on top of a 10k mountain).  Ruck marches won't prepare air personnel for that, as an example or how to be good jnr leaders in that environment. 

So, for those people who are posted to the land environment (regardless of DEU), the army does have a vested interest in Jnr Leaders who can operate in the environment the army finds itself.  The course shouldn't be a cakewalk, but it shouldn't break over 50% of the students.  If it does, physically, then maybe we should be taking a look at the FORCE test and our PT policy needs to be reinforced at the unit level - I am fully aware some units in the CAF look at "PT time" the same they would if you said you wanted an hour a day to 'just sit around and do nothing'. 

So, to me, a few issues present itself from the story of your CAF PLQ common phase.

I was an instructor in Leadership Coy back in the mid'ish 90s - we had several courses on the go, Army JNCO (ISCC), JNCO OAS (Jnr NCO Other Arms and Services...a mix between CLC and JLC leaning toward the CLC side).  The way it was done back then, instructors lived how the students did.  If the students were in FFO cammed up, so were we.  We also, 20 years ago or so now, had some of the same issues as your courses are seeing now;  standardization or lack of it, the same courses being run differently by even different staff in the same TE, people inserting 'critical items' in assessments not approved by Standards because they felt the 'standard was too low'.  This wheel will, unfortunately, continue to go around until each environment/command establishes their own Leadership schools - which will never happen.

Interesting insight.  I have 2 questions:

1)  Why do we need a PLQ/JLC/CLC, what ever acronym we want to use today, when a member has been judged by their snr trades people to be ready and able to take on this next role ?  To further clarify, if we put people forth as ready or immediately ready to be a MS/MCpl and take on more responsibility and leadership in their trade, as proven by their substantiated performance and potential on their PERs why do we feel it necessary to reconfirm this ?  Do we not trust people writing the PERs and providing mentoring and leadership to their members ?  Or are we just doing things because its always been done that way ? 

2)   

This wheel will, unfortunately, continue to go around until each environment/command establishes their own Leadership schools - which will never happen.

  How do you do this for purple trades ?  My opinion is their respective trades schools (Think CFLTC/CFSAL ect) should be looking after this course if it further required.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

A lot of the time, it's not that the Fitness Tests are inadequate (they are), but that a lot of the instructors on PLQ are making it more difficult than it needs to be.

I've seen several fit people come back broken, and it all seemed to boil down to the instructors having something to prove.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Interesting insight.  I have 2 questions:

1)  Why do we need a PLQ/JLC/CLC, what ever acronym we want to use today, when a member has been judged by their snr trades people to be ready and able to take on this next role ?  To further clarify, if we put people forth as ready or immediately ready to be a MS/MCpl and take on more responsibility and leadership in their trade, as proven by their substantiated performance and potential on their PERs why do we feel it necessary to reconfirm this ?  Do we not trust people writing the PERs and providing mentoring and leadership to their members ?  Or are we just doing things because its always been done that way ?

IMO, yes we need some Jnr Leadership qual;  we are asking people to take on a formal leadership role - but I think we fail in our goal by making it too 'common' - hard air, land and sea trades don't operate the same.  I think the hard air folks should be at an AF Leadership TE (Borden), the Navy runs PLQs out of CFNOS (IIRC) and the army has more than one TE that does PLQ.

CFPAS is one part;  Jnr NCOs are at the coal face of this system and it is an easy one to use on a 'common to all' course.  MOI, drill, etc - aside from teaching those specific skills and also teach things like time appreciations, planning (Aim Factors Courses Plan, etc), and all the other bits and pieces that Jnr NCOs have to start thinking about outside their own little bubbles.  This is like "Leadership Block 1" which leads into the "Leadership Block 2/3/4" courses we take later on;  ILP, IAEQ for the folks posted to RCAF units, ALP.

Part of the problem though, IMO, is the amount of A/L MCpl/MS.  I have some where I work and it seems to be the norm now to make them A/L and then send them on their course.  I think we're doing it wrong;  the PLQ should be a pre-requisite for promotion and that would put some QC into the people who are getting the Leaf;  A/L MCpl was a rare thing back when I was at that stage in life.  Very rare.

Also, we make them A/L and they are doing the Master Blaster stuff for 1 year or longer and then go on course and say 'what did I really learn, I was already doing the job for XX months etc'.  If you go on course thinking you know it all and are A/L...that could be the problem.  Do all MCpl/MS write PERs and PDRs and follow the review process IAW CFPAS?  I doubt it.  Do they all know how to prepare for a lesson, deliver effective training before, or after PLQ?  I doubt it.  But it is "Leadership Block 1" and we've got to start somewhere. 

In my time in, when I got in MCpl was a respected rank, and the ones who got the rank earned it thru, as you mentioned, being recognized by their CofC and then passing the Leadership Block I course.  Now, the rank/appointment seems to have been watered down some because of the amount of A/L ones out there;  we (the CAF) seem to have become used to expecting less of that rank over my 2 decades and change lacing up the boots.  That's just me, though, others might see it differently.

2)      How do you do this for purple trades ?  My opinion is their respective trades schools (Think CFLTC/CFSAL ect) should be looking after this course if it further required.

If the trade schools could handle it, would they even want to?  Purple trades now, AFAIK, attend the TE of the element they are posted to;  maybe I am wrong.  A Supp Tech Cpl/LS or A/L MCpl/MS would go to PLQ at the Army TEs if they are posted to an Army unit, or Borden if they are posted to the RCAF.  This makes some sense to me;  although it has some flaws.  I'm not sure now, but it you are a Supp Tech MCpl with 6 years in rank and get posted to an Army unit, do you have to do more "army" PLQish training?  What about a WO who is posted in to an army unit for the first time. 

Would there be merit in there being a comparable TE set up for PLQ as we have in St Jean at the Campus for ILP?  I think so *if* there is always going to be a common PLQ.  Let the common course be taught there and then each element have any desired/required Jnr Leadership trg/courses they feel important enough to set up, staff and pay for.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

A lot of the time, it's not that the Fitness Tests are inadequate (they are), but that a lot of the instructors on PLQ are making it more difficult than it needs to be.

I've seen several fit people come back broken, and it all seemed to boil down to the instructors having something to prove.

Not meaning to sound like an a$$hat, but is it possible they were simply injured during training, or not in as good as shape as people thought (gym fitness and field fitness aren't always the same...) and the instructors weren't...expecting too much?

Gym fitness; I can go to the gym, lift things up and put them down and get on my elliptical for an hour, eat healthy and get big thumbs up on my annual aircrew medical.  I could then strap on a heavy ruck, radio, do 10km forced march and break on the next defensive position while digging in to stage 5 or whatever, simply because I am an AF guy and more likely to be gym fit than I am field fit.

 

[ringo598]

Absolutely, some people off course did show up clearly unfit, they didn't last 2 weeks for the most part.  We all did a FORCE test on day 2 or 3 which had one failure.  The rest of the medical RTU's were...some training injury's (With my personal opinion of being unnecessary, the heavy snow/mukluk patrols/snowshoe patrols could have been easily modified to still give training value without injury).  The reservists on course had very difficult times (I think only 1 or 2 made it) simply because they had nearly no prep before hand.  I feel the CAF-PLQ is a great course depending on how its taught, and the ALJC could have those 3 weeks added to the end of people's trade's course on how to operate their trade in a land environment.  For example, being a det comd for a vehicle maint det in a low/med threat environment, or a signals det comd in a land environment with IED/Force on Force modifications.  And for the record, it was Shilo not Wainwrong

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We all did a FORCE test on day 2 or 3 which had one failure. 

What is the reason/point of this?  Wouldn't everyone have to have a valid FORCE test to get on the course?

the CAF-PLQ is a great course depending on how its taught

I agree with this 101%.  The problem lies when various TEs across different elements run it the way they see fit, when it is intended as a CAF common course. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

IMO, yes we need some Jnr Leadership qual;  we are asking people to take on a formal leadership role - but I think we fail in our goal by making it too 'common' - hard air, land and sea trades don't operate the same.  I think the hard air folks should be at an AF Leadership TE (Borden), the Navy runs PLQs out of CFNOS (IIRC) and the army has more than one TE that does PLQ.

CFPAS is one part;  Jnr NCOs are at the coal face of this system and it is an easy one to use on a 'common to all' course.  MOI, drill, etc - aside from teaching those specific skills and also teach things like time appreciations, planning (Aim Factors Courses Plan, etc), and all the other bits and pieces that Jnr NCOs have to start thinking about outside their own little bubbles.  This is like "Leadership Block 1" which leads into the "Leadership Block 2/3/4" courses we take later on;  ILP, IAEQ for the folks posted to RCAF units, ALP.

Part of the problem though, IMO, is the amount of A/L MCpl/MS.  I have some where I work and it seems to be the norm now to make them A/L and then send them on their course.  I think we're doing it wrong;  the PLQ should be a pre-requisite for promotion and that would put some QC into the people who are getting the Leaf;  A/L MCpl was a rare thing back when I was at that stage in life.  Very rare.

Also, we make them A/L and they are doing the Master Blaster stuff for 1 year or longer and then go on course and say 'what did I really learn, I was already doing the job for XX months etc'.  If you go on course thinking you know it all and are A/L...that could be the problem.  Do all MCpl/MS write PERs and PDRs and follow the review process IAW CFPAS?  I doubt it.  Do they all know how to prepare for a lesson, deliver effective training before, or after PLQ?  I doubt it.  But it is "Leadership Block 1" and we've got to start somewhere. 

In my time in, when I got in MCpl was a respected rank, and the ones who got the rank earned it thru, as you mentioned, being recognized by their CofC and then passing the Leadership Block I course.  Now, the rank/appointment seems to have been watered down some because of the amount of A/L ones out there;  we (the CAF) seem to have become used to expecting less of that rank over my 2 decades and change lacing up the boots.  That's just me, though, others might see it differently.

Interesting position.  I am of the camp that says that you can nott train or teach leadership.  You can make a manager; and more skilled worker but you cannot make a leader, at least not from scratch.  In your quote above it seems, to me, to be more supportive of further trades training than anything leadership related. 

I as well would support your position that these should be focused on what one does for a job.  But for those of us in CMP governed trades that can change drastically and very quickly.  I went from HMCS Toronto to a Signals Regiment upon promotion to A/L MS.  And I was thus sent to St Jean for my PLQ. 

I respect your obviously well established and well supported position; but I remain unmoved.  I still see no need for what we are attempting to do with the current PLQ/JLC course at a level higher than ones trades training establishment. 

(a) If the trade schools could handle it, would they even want to?  (b) Purple trades now, AFAIK, attend the TE of the element they are posted to;  maybe I am wrong.  A Supp Tech Cpl/LS or A/L MCpl/MS would go to PLQ at the Army TEs if they are posted to an Army unit, or Borden if they are posted to the RCAF.  (c) This makes some sense to me;  although it has some flaws.  I'm not sure now, but it you are a Supp Tech MCpl with 6 years in rank and get posted to an Army unit, do you have to do more "army" PLQish training?  What about a WO who is posted in to an army unit for the first time.

Would there be merit in there being a comparable TE set up for PLQ as we have in St Jean at the Campus for ILP?  I think so *if* there is always going to be a common PLQ.  Let the common course be taught there and then each element have any desired/required Jnr Leadership trg/courses they feel important enough to set up, staff and pay for.

(A) I would hope they would want take an active role in the continuing development of their trades people.

(b) I could be wrong now but when I went through it was done by element.  I was wearing an RCN Uniform at a field unit, but I did PLQ Common at St Jean.

(c) Could this would be one reason trades based leadership training would be beneficial ?

Good discussion EITS.  I appreciate your input!

 

[Jarnhamar]

I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance.

I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from our "allies", our members should get somewhat more aggressive training.

On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys.

We had other fun parts like a 3am wakeup with an air-raid siren on Sunday night so people were sleepy before we even started the 2nd field ex or the day after day of section attacks (Again wearing mukluks) in snow until people were just zombies.  Standards seemed completely on board, perhaps I'm a bit bitter as I saw what I felt were some good soldiers potentially end or delay their careers for really no good training value.

I'd never try and excuse shitty training.  Having been on both sides of the student/instructor fence, including instructing new recruits, war-experienced veterans and clever officer cadets I'd feel confident saying you may not understand the training/hardships yet but it's for a good reason.

Sometimes the devil is in the details. I'd thinking dropping arty sims in a hide to wake everyone on course up at 3am only to out them back to sleep again is just dicking people around.

Dropping arty sims on a position when the sentry falls asleep and having the whole course pack up and move hide locations is effective for a few things.

As well plq candidates shouldn't be  driven to the point of being  zombies because they're retaining very little on the intellectual side of training. But they do need to be stressed out and able to think while at least a little exausted.

Some students who seem like super great soldiers are the ones you have to watch out for because they put on a show when the staff is watching then shut down when they're not or after they've passed the PO. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Interesting position.  I am of the camp that says that you can nott train or teach leadership.  You can make a manager; and more skilled worker but you cannot make a leader, at least not from scratch.  In your quote above it seems, to me, to be more supportive of further trades training than anything leadership related.

I have no firm foot in either camp; but we are expected to 'develop the leadership potential in our followers'.  Some have more potential than others  ;D.  But I think you can teach leadership but some of your *students* will become better leaders;  I just had a few convo's not long ago on an away trip with a newer A/L MCpl about the '3 Ms', 10 Leadership Principles [ I know we've moved from that but...I still have the wallet card], how NCOs bridge the gap between the Officers and junior NCMs, how to support your Sunray and positively influence them at the same time, stuff like that.  I think it can be developed, but agree a natural born leader (which comes down to personality perhaps?) is going to be head and shoulders above someone you had to coax it out of.

I as well would support your position that these should be focused on what one does for a job.  But for those of us in CMP governed trades that can change drastically and very quickly.  I went from HMCS Toronto to a Signals Regiment upon promotion to A/L MS.  And I was thus sent to St Jean for my PLQ.

This is the grey area;  I think each environmental commander will want the folks posted into his/her world to have his/her environment specific Jnr Leader training/skillset baseline (PLQ is only a baseline, IMO).  Could the purple trade branch TEs handle a specific course for members going into a RCN posting, or a RCAF or Cdn Army one?  I have no idea.  It sounds like a lot of extra courses to me.

However, I do see things to be concerned with having a CAF PLQ, with the same QS and one qual code.  I am more of a fan of the older ISCC/CLC/JLC system.  If Battle Schools run CAF PLQs, they will be run the way the Battle School Command team wants them run, which is likely going to be different than the way the RCAF Academy runs theirs, which is different than how CFLRS runs theirs, which is different than how CFNOS runs theirs.  Doesn't sound so 'common' to me when I think of that, having seen how the Navy PLQ in the field portion runs, talked to guys who've done the Borden AF one and my memories of CLC back from yesteryear.

Unless I am misinterpreting things as it stands now, a RCAF AVN Tech Cpl could, technically, find him/herself in Shilo or Petawawa on a CAF PLQ course if there was a spot available and his/her CMgr really wanted to put him/her on PLQ 'asap'.  Personally I think that is a fairly big issue.  What a Cbt Arms Sgt/WO expects out of their Army MCpls is very, very different from what I want from my MCpls.  I think any Cbt arms Snr NCO or WO would be equally concerned with sending their young Cpl or A/L MCpls to the RCAF Academy in Borden, for the same reasons. 

Could this would be one reason trades based leadership training would be beneficial ?

In the case of larger trades, I think so.  If I were to look at what PLQ teaches now, I am sure my opinion would be "we should do our own leadership course" WRT my trade;  PLQ doesn't prepare people to lead air personnel in flying op's, but that is pretty much what my trade expects from MCpls.  For us, when we come off our MOAT course (Maritime Operational Aircrew Training), we are then Basic Category (think of it like being an apprentice) operators.  Then it on to a 2 year OJT program to upgrade to Advanced Category operator (A Cats).  Each crew has a Lead AES OP, who is appointed by the CO and must be an A Cat - that is our leadership position in my fleet.  A Cats mentor and train B cats and select A Cats get the Lead position on a crew.  What training do we provide our personnel to be Leads?  At this point, the requirement with my current CO is 'must have PLQ', simply because there are no others QS blessed leadership courses in my trade for MCpls';  Sgt's do the IAEQ which provides no leadership training (there is some PD and networking that comes from it, but not leadership).  We are a trade of 200 all ranks;  I am not sure the cost-benefit analysis would result in "AES Ops need their own leadership course as a trade for MCpls".  I don't think the snr RCAF leadership would support it.

Good discussion EITS.  I appreciate your input!

Thanks, and you as well.  If we don't discuss these things, there will never be an improvement and we'll just keep on keepin' on...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance.

I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from out "allies", or members should get somewhat more aggressive training.

On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys.

Our 'deployed ready' standard for ground and aircrew, in my fleet at least, aren't even to that level of training.  Not for Jnr NCOs, Snr NCOs, WOs, or Officers.  I would like to explain in more detail but that wouldn't be smart on here...

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have no firm foot in either camp; but we are expected to 'develop the leadership potential in our followers'.  Some have more potential than others  ;D.  But I think you can teach leadership but some of your *students* will become better leaders;  I just had a few convo's not long ago on an away trip with a newer A/L MCpl about the '3 Ms', 10 Leadership Principles [ I know we've moved from that but...I still have the wallet card], how NCOs bridge the gap between the Officers and junior NCMs, how to support your Sunray and positively influence them at the same time, stuff like that.  I think it can be developed, but agree a natural born leader (which comes down to personality perhaps?) is going to be head and shoulders above someone you had to coax it out of.

I wonder do we confuse managerial ability with leadership at times ?  Having said that a leader needs to be able to manage their resources and people as well as inspire and lead. 

This is the grey area;  I think each environmental commander will want the folks posted into his/her world to have his/her environment specific Jnr Leader training/skillset baseline (PLQ is only a baseline, IMO).  Could the purple trade branch TEs handle a specific course for members going into a RCN posting, or a RCAF or Cdn Army one?  I have no idea.  It sounds like a lot of extra courses to me.

However, I do see things to be concerned with having a CAF PLQ, with the same QS and one qual code.  I am more of a fan of the older ISCC/CLC/JLC system.  If Battle Schools run CAF PLQs, they will be run the way the Battle School Command team wants them run, which is likely going to be different than the way the RCAF Academy runs theirs, which is different than how CFLRS runs theirs, which is different than how CFNOS runs theirs.  Doesn't sound so 'common' to me when I think of that, having seen how the Navy PLQ in the field portion runs, talked to guys who've done the Borden AF one and my memories of CLC back from yesteryear.

Unless I am misinterpreting things as it stands now, a RCAF AVN Tech Cpl could, technically, find him/herself in Shilo or Petawawa on a CAF PLQ course if there was a spot available and his/her CMgr really wanted to put him/her on PLQ 'asap'.  Personally I think that is a fairly big issue.  What a Cbt Arms Sgt/WO expects out of their Army MCpls is very, very different from what I want from my MCpls.  I think any Cbt arms Snr NCO or WO would be equally concerned with sending their young Cpl or A/L MCpls to the RCAF Academy in Borden, for the same reasons.

I think this one of the big falling downs of having a 100% unified and integrated CSS element, such as in our current iteration of the Log Branch for example.  Which is why, since I don't see the Log branch making any drastic changes WRT uniform and work environment, I think PLQ/JLC for Log should be taught at our school.  And the course should be incorporated to include Pan CAF resources like CFPAS and drill, and then concentrate on core Log competencies like convoy duties, camp defensives, and other actual real world tasking's we can reasonably be required to do.  Trade specific should be left to the senior trades courses.  Which I was woefully disappointed in mine.

In the case of larger trades, I think so.  If I were to look at what PLQ teaches now, I am sure my opinion would be "we should do our own leadership course" WRT my trade;  PLQ doesn't prepare people to lead air personnel in flying op's, but that is pretty much what my trade expects from MCpls.  For us, when we come off our MOAT course (Maritime Operational Aircrew Training), we are then Basic Category (think of it like being an apprentice) operators.  Then it on to a 2 year OJT program to upgrade to Advanced Category operator (A Cats).  Each crew has a Lead AES OP, who is appointed by the CO and must be an A Cat - that is our leadership position in my fleet.  A Cats mentor and train B cats and select A Cats get the Lead position on a crew.  What training do we provide our personnel to be Leads?  At this point, the requirement with my current CO is 'must have PLQ', simply because there are no others QS blessed leadership courses in my trade for MCpls';  Sgt's do the IAEQ which provides no leadership training (there is some PD and networking that comes from it, but not leadership).  We are a trade of 200 all ranks;  I am not sure the cost-benefit analysis would result in "AES Ops need their own leadership course as a trade for MCpls".  I don't think the snr RCAF leadership would support it.

I think I was using trade too liberally and I should have used trade/branch training establishments.  But I see your point for a small trade like AESOP.

Thanks, and you as well.  If we don't discuss these things, there will never be an improvement and we'll just keep on keepin' on...

Totally agree.  Sometimes we need to tear something apart and inspect its moving parts to make sure its doing what its intended and to grasp an understanding of it.