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

BMQ Enhanced

combat_medic

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
410
So as not to derail the previous thread(s) in which this was discussed, I'd like to find out more information about this new BMQ Enhanced Course. Particularly the following:

1. Will it replace/eliminate the SQ altogether?
2. When is it expected to be implemented? I understand the pilot course is taking place now - when does the rest of the CF and the reserves start running it?
3. What is the duration, particularly in the reserves?
4. What POs will be removed?
5. Are the DP1s, particularly combat arms, going to have their TPs changed to add the skills that were removed from the SQ?
6. Will the DP1s have to remove part of their training to accommodate this, or will the course be lengthened?
7. Since the BMQ will, I presume, be lengthened, will reserve soldiers have the option of taking it in Mods, similar to the PLQ? Is this something that is being explored in the construction of the course?
8. At which point will courses be "grandfathered", if at all?

Sorry for the excessive questions, but this news is completely new, and I've heard nothing coming down the pipe about it.
 
combat_medic, here's an attempt to answer your questions.

However, first to put things in context you must keep it mind that the BMQ is unlike the vast majority of courses run by the Army in that it doesn't belong to us, it is a CF course.  It has one QS and two TPs, one each for PRes and Reg F.  This makes it very different from Army owned courses since most of ours are total force such that Pres and Reg F use the same TP.  This means that while the PRes version of the a given course may not include all the POs the Reg F version does, the POs that the PRes do complete are identical.  The BMQ is different as the Reg F and PRes versions include POs with the same name but with considerable difference in the time allotted and the number of teaching points to be covered.

On to your questions:

1.  Yes, eventually the SQ will disappear.  This will be phased over time (one year?) as those people still going through the BMQ will need the SQ.

2.  The timelines are not hard and fast.  Once the pilot course finishes they will have to rewrite the TP to include the lessons learned.  I think it's unlikely we will see the Enhanced BMQ brought in for the Pres before next summer and it will probably won't even be that early.

3.  Unknown at this time, but to put it in perspective, the Reg F Enhanced BMQ is 65 training days compared to the old/current BMQ of 55 days plus 31 days for the SQ.  Therefore it is somewhat shorter than the current courses put together.  This is because some POs are being left out.

4.  I haven't compared everything, but a quick look at the TPs showed that C9 and C6 are not in the Enhanced BMQ.

5.  Yes, the combat arms DP 1 trades courses will have the delta material added (so I have been told).  This is relatively easily done as the Army is the Managing Authority for these courses.  It is questionable/unlikely that the same will happen to the CSS DP1s.

6.  I expect to see the courses lengthened.  Hopefully that won't be too much of a battle as the total time spent training a Pte should not change, just where the training takes place and the name of the course.

7.  Modularization is included in most/all Army TPs so that the PRes can take the course in manageable time blocks.  I think its reasonable to assume that as the course gets extended, from the current 21 days BMQ plus 17 days SQ, that it will broken into two or more blocks.

8.  Unknown, but my understanding is we will go through a year in which the Enhanced BMQ is running for new entries along with the SQ for partially trained soldiers.  It will become a leadership responsibility to ensure their troops get trained before the SQ disappears and the soldier has to start over from the beginning.

The above constitutes a combination of what I have heard (most recently at the Army Standards Working Group last week) along with my best guesses.  It may not end up being 100% accurate, but should be in the ballpark.
 
Back
Top