• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

What does a PLQ mean anymore?

Callsign Kenny said:
-- if part of their requirement to command a LAV is a PLQ, it only makes sens to incorporate it into the training. 

~sigh~ I hesitate to wade into this again, but here is my point. PLQ is an initial leadership course. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a crew commander course.

After BMQ, do you CC? No, you've learned merely how to wear a uniform and not to salute the Sgt.
After SQ, do you CC? No, you've only been exposed to different types of mud.
After PLQ, do you CC? NO. You've only been shown how to teach lessons and drill. You do not expect to CC after these first two, yet for whatever reason (not seeking a response), you do expect to CC after a course which is not designed to teach you how to CC.

As c/s Kenny pointed out (to support rcac, but actually pointing out the argument's flaw...), part of their requirement to command a LAV is a PLQ. OK, now you have done that "part," until you've done the "other part" (crew command training), I don't see how you can really expect to be employed as such.
 
It;s really simple, PLQ qualifies you to be in a command/leadership role in the dismounted setting IE: section attacks, it means that your qualified to be a section 3i/c and the dismounted 2i/c.

the CC qualifies you to fight the vehicle so that after your time as a 3i/c and you have proven your capable of commanding troops you get the CC and now can fight the multi million dollar AFV in conjunction with the dismounted section or in the your context rcac the vehicle in conjunction with the mounted "recce" troop.

right now you have point A after some time developing as a Cpl you'll be ready for point B and then move up to MCpl.

 
HitorMiss said:
It;s really simple, PLQ qualifies you to be in a command/leadership role in the dismounted setting IE: section attacks, it means that your qualified to be a section 3i/c and the dismounted 2i/c.

Yep understood.That's how it works in the infantry,but as a recce or tanker crewman section attacks are something you do on your PLQ but never really employ it.Especially as a tanker,recce patrols you will use.To be a recce patrol 2IC all you need is your assult troopers course.

I'm not sure If you guys take the same crewcommander course we do,pretty sure it isn't but I may be wrong.To you guys its another role you can fill (i.e you can be a MCPL in a LIB without a crew commanders course) but to us its our primary role.

Your plq (infantry) is longer,graded harder on tactics and you also get assessed on other things.All I'm trying to say is that as a armoured crewman why not throw in a AVAMS course so at least you can crewcommand vehicles around base or hone your cc skills as enemy force.

These new rules of needing the courses to crewcommand vehicles is a nightmare while in garrison.You basically have to hunt down someone qualified AVAMS which is rare as they only ran one course since I've been on this base.I'm all about getting the jobs tasked out to us done quick,and walking from the k lines to b-9 (other side of base) is time consuming and pisses off everyone on base.

Just wondering if the ARTY/engineers guys need any other courses besides PLQ to be "ready" for the next rank?

And just confirming the infantry are qualified to become mcpl in a dismounted role.

HitorMiss said:
right now you have point A after some time developing as a Cpl you'll be ready for point B and then move up to MCpl.

Absolutely right.But 3 years ago as a cpl you could start you cc and eventually move on to your own callsign.Now with this course you don't get the opportunity.Just wondering how it is in other trades or if we are the only ones in the combat arms who has this.

 
rcac_011 said:
Yep understood.That's how it works in the infantry,but as a recce or tanker crewman section attacks are something you do on your PLQ but never really employ it.Especially as a tanker,recce patrols you will use.To be a recce patrol 2IC all you need is your assult troopers course.
I'm not sure If you guys take the same crewcommander course we do,pretty sure it isn't but I may be wrong.To you guys its another role you can fill (i.e you can be a MCPL in a LIB without a crew commanders course) but to us its our primary role.

When did they reinstate the "Assault Troop" back into the orbat? With it gone, so is the role of the assault trooper. Ergo, there is no such animal anymore as the assault trooper course. No section 2 i/c experience to be garnered there.

Or is the school doing something the rest of the Corps isn't aware of?
 
Once a soldier has completed a PLQ he is qualified to teach.  The whole CC qualification is not a new debate but the policy is pretty cut and dry right now.  I was a crew commander on Roto 13 and when I got back I wasn't allowed to crew command anymore.  AVAMS was written off for most guys in the regiment if they had any CC experience.  We are seeing guys do at the regiment do a PLQ and a year later do the DP3.  BTW at this point in time you do not need to be qualified DP3 to get promoted to MCpl and you don't need to be a MCpl to do a DP3.  Point being don't confuse the two.  And as far as being a requirement of the trade, most(not all) new MCpls will do a year taking care of the Troop Leader first.
 
Congratulations on your PLQ. I saw you on grad day. Now I can put a face to RCAC.

Coming from a mech infantry battalion Maybe I can clarify something. Any person doing a gunners course Pte. or Cpl. also does the CC portion. If you are not PLQ qualified you can only crew command on base. Once you are qualified you can CC anywhere. Doing both courses at once alleviates the problem of someone having to do the gunner portion and CC portion at two different times.

As for not being employed as a MCpl. take it as a blessing. I received a advanced promotion to Cpl in 2000. Did my JLC/JNCO that fall with three and a half years in the army. I thought my career was flying. Little did I know was that I would not be promoted until Jan.2005. I had no PER's as a Cpl. so therefore, could not merit at career boards. That did not stop me from being employed in MCpl. positions. You would think that was good right! Wrong! I was expected to perform the same as MCpl.'s with 15 years experience. So while I was being assessed as a MCpl my peers were being assessed as C-9 gunners an drivers. As soon as they got their leadership course they were promoted. I watched over 40 pers get promoted ahead of me who did their after me. Why because the merit system does not work! It does not favor young keen soldiers the way it does old ones with years in POL or stores.

I had to do a selection course to even get on my JLC, now getting it is based on merit. Again good for older soldiers not so for young ones. Luckily I was posted from my old unit to a training unit last year. In battalion I would get a Developing PER maybe a Skilled at best simply because I would have been placed at the end of a long line of MCpl.'s waiting for their 6A. At the school my PER was based on performace not numbers. So my first PER as MCpl. was Exceeded Standard. So hopefully I will BE on my 6A in the spring.

Sorry to get off topic. I wholeheartedly agree that their should be AVAMS course at the end of a PLQ for Armoured soldiers.
 
Patrolman said:
Coming from a mech infantry battalion Maybe I can clarify something. Any person doing a gunners course Pte. or Cpl. also does the CC portion. If you are not PLQ qualified you can only crew command on base. Once you are qualified you can CC anywhere. Doing both courses at once alleviates the problem of someone having to do the gunner portion and CC portion at two different times.

maybe its not the PLQ we should look at,this sounds like a better system by far.As i said earlier it sucks having to walk a vehicle to b-9 across base (not for pt purposes just time consuming).
Thanks for the clarification,that what I was looking for.

Arty?Engrs?

Patrolman said:
Congratulations on your PLQ. I saw you on grad day. Now I can put a face to RCAC.

That also was my son who screamed and yelled through the bagpipes.He hates em as much as I do. ;D  (my wife played national band I endured enough of it) :-X




 
Spring_bok said:
Once a soldier has completed a PLQ he is qualified to teach.  The whole CC qualification is not a new debate but the policy is pretty cut and dry right now.  I was a crew commander on Roto 13 and when I got back I wasn't allowed to crew command anymore.  AVAMS was written off for most guys in the regiment if they had any CC experience.  We are seeing guys do at the regiment do a PLQ and a year later do the DP3.  BTW at this point in time you do not need to be qualified DP3 to get promoted to MCpl and you don't need to be a MCpl to do a DP3.  Point being don't confuse the two.  And as far as being a requirement of the trade, most(not all) new MCpls will do a year taking care of the Troop Leader first.

I would argue that post pretty much wrapped up everything into a pretty package: you are taught basic leadership stuff and how to teach. Then you will learn to crew command on the DP3 ARCC (much better now than in the not so distant past). Then get promoted. And then, you will likely gun for (AKA babysit) the Tp Ldr. And then CC. And while babysitting the Troopie (or gunning for a patrol commander or junior, take the time to think about what needs to be done (i.e. put yourself in their mindset and go through what you would do) and LEARN, LEARN, LEARN). The amount of learning and practicing you do on course (ARCC) DOES not make you into Rommel, believe it or not. You may think that you are shit-hot because you passed, but your knowledge at that level is only the tip of the iceberg. I learned far more from instructing MCpls and Ph3 (and PRes equiv), from watching them and the other instructors, and from thinking "what would I do in this case?" and then sometimes learning from the student, because they had a different take on the given situation.

For anybody who thinks that that is not the way it should be, I will state that I am 100% behind the way that it is now, as it was criminal the way it was done in the past (making soldiers CC without proper training). The "mentoring" process that was used "back in the day"  probably did little more than to teach people bad habits which then had to be unlearned for the 6A (there's the Regimental way, and then there's the School way: I'll let anybody with a goodly amount of brain power figure out which might be better). Granted there was a higher comfort level (for those with CCing experience who did the 6A) with being used to being on the right side of the turret, but I wish I had been taught properly from the get go. Only so much gets learned through osmosis: most "trained" CCs that I had didn't always go through the correct steps, procedures and/or drills, and most sure as hell didn't take the time to explain what was going on in their head (most probably weren't sure themselves  ::) ).

I used to argue that there should have been Corps (Arty, Engr, Armd) specific modules (that word/concept is only a relatively recent addition to the training lexicon: it used to be pretty much all or nothing) at the end of the CLC/JLC/PLQ, but I suspect the almighty dollar spoke louder than common sense. There was a very large training gap between the CLC (and usually getting promoted to MCpl in a relatively short period) and the time that you were trained on your 6A (in my case, 10 years, with 6 years as a MCpl and crew commanding on 2 SFOR tours (first one only part time, second tour as a Jr Cmdr)), and most people were usually employed in the next rank level role without the requisite training. Again, criminal.

I guess the moral of the story is this: never stop learning and do the best at whatever job you have, as even the most mundane job will give you the opportunity to learn something that you will need in the future (i.e. as a ration NCO or Admin NCO, learn from the Course WO, as logistics (bullets and beans) is something that most jr soldiers don't think about, and it will pay off when you become a Tp WO). And the way things are moving now, I am pretty certain that guys will be wearing a crown on their sleeve when they go up to get their CD in the not too distant future, so start the learning/observing/analyzing now. So don't be like me, and many others: when you're in a position to learn, ask as many questions as you can, and get involved with being on exercise, on course, or on the job; it will definitely make the time go by quicker, and you'll have learned something new, to boot.

Al
 
Spring_bok said:
Once a soldier has completed a PLQ he is qualified to teach.  The whole CC qualification is not a new debate but the policy is pretty cut and dry right now.  I was a crew commander on Roto 13 and when I got back I wasn't allowed to crew command anymore.  AVAMS was written off for most guys in the regiment if they had any CC experience.  We are seeing guys do at the regiment do a PLQ and a year later do the DP3.  BTW at this point in time you do not need to be qualified DP3 to get promoted to MCpl and you don't need to be a MCpl to do a DP3.  Point being don't confuse the two.  And as far as being a requirement of the trade, most(not all) new MCpls will do a year taking care of the Troop Leader first.

+1 with that and also with Al...

That pretty much sums it all up.

BTW...the AVMS course, or whatever it's called, is a "Cover your arse" clause and nothing more.

It just ensures that you are able to move any AFV from point "A" to point "B" without nailing the bridge below WTP    ;D

Regards
 
Recce By Death said:
It just ensures that you are able to move any AFV from point "A" to point "B" without nailing the bridge below WTP    ;D

Regards

lol
we had to take the long way around for how long! ;D
 
Recce By Death said:
BTW...the AVMS course, or whatever it's called, is a "Cover your arse" clause and nothing more.
Maybe, but it is also a pain in the butt.  You cannot CC an M113 or a Bison in an empty parking lot without this course.  I cannot think of an army occupation for which the ability to CC even a battle taxi is not a fundamental requirement.  If we (the army) feel that our jr leaders require a course to be taught this universal skill, then why not include it with the package where we teach other universally required skills (like commanding a section attack).

. . . maybe the answer is that soldiers filling some jobs cannot wait for PLQ in order to get the AVAMS qual.
 
This whole AVAMS or AVAMQ or whatever it's called is becoming a royal pain. We have pers here in 2CER (as I'm sure 1, 4ESR and 5RGC have as well) that have been qualified 113, 548, AVGP/Bison etc. for well over 10 years, who by virtue of someone confusing a LAV III with the rest of the rolling refrigerators, cannot crew command anymore. Hell, I'm an examiner on the bloody things and I cannot even crew command anymore  ??? While I wholeheatedly agree with the AVAMS qualification for the LAV III (much bigger beast than a 113), to lump all of them together under one umbrella is not good. And before the inevitable shot comes out about actually attending an AVAMQ or gunner/CC course - if we were able to slow down enough for me to skin off to do it - I would. Putting the 5th tour out the door since 2003 is starting to weigh heavy on our unit, and there's just not enough different pers now to do all of the tasks that come down the pipe - so we have troops who are not deploying already moving right from one task to the next with very little time to worry about things like AVAMQ. Besides, no requirement for a CC course in a "light" troop ;D

For an Engineer perspective on the PLQ thing - I'm not quite sure exactly what the CTP states right now for our Section 2IC course, but 043's go through trade specific training in order to be employed as 2IC's, which for the most part they receive prior to doing a PLQ. I know during the old 5A, we learned a lot of the higher workings of section level tasks (i.e. a basic intro to being a section commander - which for an engineer entails quite a bit of knowledge). Anyway, point being that our trade covers off the trade-specific stuff on a trade-specific course. The PLQ is there, as was already stated, to teach basic leadership - not technical aspects of your individual trade. While I can agree with being disheartened about not getting what was promised by way of posting, remember that you were posted to your school. If CTC is anything like CFSME next door, you are not allowed to instruct unless you are a MCpl or higher - regardless of the PO / EO.

And if you think slinging rations sucks for a PLQ qualified Cpl, try being a WO slinging bridge parts in the Engineer Equipment Troop. Or a CQ / SQ slinging rations. Just because you move up the ladder, doesn't mean you necessarily move away from the crappy jobs. Like they say - it's a crappy job, but someone's gotta do it..... ;)
 
Just to clarify,I really dont care too much for the job,you just do the job to the highest standard and soldier on.A lot of people are getting the wrong idea from the post,being the "poor me attitude".I basically am intrested in what other combat arms have to do to be qualified MCPL.I placed the examples in there to illustrate what happends in the armoured,to compare to other arms.




392 said:
For an Engineer perspective on the PLQ thing - I'm not quite sure exactly what the CTP states right now for our Section 2IC course, but 043's go through trade specific training in order to be employed as 2IC's, which for the most part they receive prior to doing a PLQ. I know during the old 5A, we learned a lot of the higher workings of section level tasks (i.e. a basic intro to being a section commander - which for an engineer entails quite a bit of knowledge). Anyway, point being that our trade covers off the trade-specific stuff on a trade-specific course. The PLQ is there, as was already stated, to teach basic leadership - not technical aspects of your individual trade.

Cheers, is this the "section members course" I believe it's called? So as an engenieer you are qualified because they place the PLQ after trade specific training.

(this is the info Im looking for guys!)
cheers for the info 392
 
rcac_011 said:
Cheers, is this the "section members course" I believe it's called?
It is called the section 2ic course (but it is more like advanced section member) and it is spawn of the old 5a course.
 
The Section Member Course is basically the old QL3 course, and like MCG said, the 2IC course was derived from the old QL5A (CLC/JLC/PLQ was the 5B).
 
Try this on for size:  I am DP3 CC qualified but (rumour mill says) I can not crew command a Leo C2 because I don't have the "direct fire" portion (only given to mostly Strats now).  I instruct on the darn things but I have to back deck it?  I have been Leo dvr qualified since I joined and I am C2 gnr qualified..

Al, tell me it's not true!!
 
Bzzliteyr said:
Try this on for size:  I am DP3 CC qualified but (rumour mill says) I can not crew command a Leo C2 because I don't have the "direct fire" portion (only given to mostly Strats now).  I instruct on the darn things but I have to back deck it?  I have been Leo dvr qualified since I joined and I am C2 gnr qualified..

Al, tell me it's not true!!
Is this rumour or is there a directive?
 
Spring_bok said:
Is this rumour or is there a directive?
From what I hear it is a Directive.  Before getting out, I could no longer Crew Command a turreted vehicle, even though I had done so for over twenty-five years, unless I had a CC Crse that the School drew up.  So I had to do a Coyote Gunnery/CC Crse.

They were drawing up DP3A through DP3F (or more) crses to cover CC of every imaginable turreted veh they expected to have.  I do believe that they have compromised and allow CC's to CC a Veh of a different type than they got their CC Crse on........It is a rather confusing state of affairs and it would put the Corps into the Parking Lot due to lack of Crew Commanders in no time flat. 
 
Back
Top