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

PLQ / AJLC changes again....

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
84
Points
330
I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the difference between qualified, current, proficient and expert when it comes to training, right? When bullets end up coming back towards me from those Fig 11 targets on the range, I definitely want to be way better than "qualified" to do pairs live. Pairs live is a dangerous training event, and takes a lot of work up to do safely. We all have our biases based on our environments and trades, so maybe your trade doesn't need this training but mine definitely does, and it was removed without any nuance to that requirement.

Everyone loves to beat the strawman about HRA/FSAs (I won't say clerks so people don't get triggered) not needing Army training. No problem, remove them. The Combat Support trades require it as well as some of the Combat Service Support trades, and the Army has pushed that onto the trade schools to figure out instead of having the Combat Arms create a standard they want to see out of their enablers so they're safe and effective on the battlefield.

All this whining about BMQ-L and AJLC makes me wonder if those folks would be singing a different tune if environmental allowances were treated like spec pay: You gain it and keep it based on specific training requirements. If HRAs/FSAs don't need field training, no problem, they don't need LDA either, they can get casual.
It's not whining about training, it was complaining about the way the training was delivered.

Doing a BMQ-L when you join doesn't help much when you never go to the field in your career, or only go after 10-15 years working in other environments. Having the training delivered locally as required, frees up time and money, while also ensuring the training is still fresh and relevant. We have limited numbers, and are going to be in this situation for some time to come, finding ways to balance "nice to have" training with "need to have" training is smart use of our people.

Otherwise why not send all CAF members on the BMQ-L, and NETP? Sure you might not have to fight a fire at sea in your entire career, but in the event of a fire/flood at sea I want the "riders" to be useful, and not just huddled in the Wardroom/Jr. Ranks/C&POs wondering what is happening.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
340
Points
910
It's not whining about training, it was complaining about the way the training was delivered.

Doing a BMQ-L when you join doesn't help much when you never go to the field in your career, or only go after 10-15 years working in other environments. Having the training delivered locally as required, frees up time and money, while also ensuring the training is still fresh and relevant. We have limited numbers, and are going to be in this situation for some time to come, finding ways to balance "nice to have" training with "need to have" training is smart use of our people.

Otherwise why not send all CAF members on the BMQ-L, and NETP? Sure you might not have to fight a fire at sea in your entire career, but in the event of a fire/flood at sea I want the "riders" to be useful, and not just huddled in the Wardroom/Jr. Ranks/C&POs wondering what is happening.
Whole I agree with you, I feel the blanket all non combat arms trades won't do BMQL is a mistake, purple trades? Sure but as a tech I still need to man a C6, C9 or Carl G in our lines, still have patrols as part of my BTS, etc.... leaving it upto units ti teach the basics will create a system with no standardization.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
297
Points
880
I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the difference between qualified, current, proficient and expert when it comes to training, right? When bullets end up coming back towards me from those Fig 11 targets on the range, I definitely want to be way better than "qualified" to do pairs live. Pairs live is a dangerous training event, and takes a lot of work up to do safely. We all have our biases based on our environments and trades, so maybe your trade doesn't need this training but mine definitely does, and it was removed without any nuance to that requirement.

Everyone loves to beat the strawman about HRA/FSAs (I won't say clerks so people don't get triggered) not needing Army training. No problem, remove them. The Combat Support trades require it as well as some of the Combat Service Support trades, and the Army has pushed that onto the trade schools to figure out instead of having the Combat Arms create a standard they want to see out of their enablers so they're safe and effective on the battlefield.

All this whining about BMQ-L and AJLC makes me wonder if those folks would be singing a different tune if environmental allowances were treated like spec pay: You gain it and keep it based on specific training requirements. If HRAs/FSAs don't need field training, no problem, they don't need LDA either, they can get casual.
You're talking about me! I was that Killick Sup Tech right from the RCN, sent for TF1-10. I didn't even have a ruck sack when I reported in PET (actually Meaford), why ? Because we didn't have any in stores in Halifax. My only military weapons exposure was the annual C7 quals. I did have the advantage of being NBP and a gun nut too.

I spent from12 months in Pet for "work up trg" and the vast majority was spent farmed out 1 RCR RQ or some CQ I cant remember in 2 Svc. We did 2 months in Ft Irwin too, which was spent with a few convoys and then I was sent to the "PRT" for the remainder of that Ex.

There was plenty of time in that 12 months work work me up, and I have never had BMQ-L or the A/JLC. And I was deployed on a whole bunch of convoys, I was tasked to be part of moving the Guns from Wilson to Soja and I was then sent to the PDC.

I'm not beating on HRA/FSAs. I want them in their seats doing their jobs. Processing financial and HR stuff. These people are eminently important to me, they are looking after my pers docs and pay.

We should be realistic about what's required. Log folks are never going to clear trenches and advance to contact. But they should be able to be an effective part of a convoy, run a check point, guard a gate and successfully maintain a defensive. Basically hold the ground their on.

I said it previously, the Army messed up on LDA. They tried to copy the way we do SDA and it doesn't work. A ship is a true mobile unit. Every member of that ships coys sails when the ship slips lines and it becomes a self sustaining piece of Canada, we don't have rear party's or stay behind folks unless its a short term pers landing scenario. Regiments don't do that. You cant pack up an OR and send it to the Matawa plains for a 2 week gun camp, that's an insane amount of work and your only asking to create problems in your OR if you do. Even when was at 1 RCR RQ we slept in the shop and convoyed out the stores from the previous days ADREPs. That was actually effective as the CO of 1 RCR was interested in training us on convoy drills and CSS as much as he was about his gun fighters.

You really wanna get pissed off start investigating who all gets LDA in the CAF. There are a ton of units and pers getting LDA who will never set foot in the field while posted to that billet number.

Tie LDA to a qualification, maybe that's a good idea; but I would suggest the Army be realistic and realize LDA is being wasted on folks who dont go to the field and should be in receipt of casual instead. I would tie it to a minimum number of 24 hour days in the field. Say 100 out of year.

My point is current pre-deployment training leaves enough time to bring the nonexperience folks up to speed. OR Stop with the purpleness for god sake and start employing sailors at sea, soldiers in the field and zoomies in hotels. Like god intended.

Otherwise why not send all CAF members on the BMQ-L, and NETP? Sure you might not have to fight a fire at sea in your entire career, but in the event of a fire/flood at sea I want the "riders" to be useful, and not just huddled in the Wardroom/Jr. Ranks/C&POs wondering what is happening.

Exactly!
 
Last edited:

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
365
Points
1,030
Otherwise why not send all CAF members on the BMQ-L, and NETP? Sure you might not have to fight a fire at sea in your entire career, but in the event of a fire/flood at sea I want the "riders" to be useful, and not just huddled in the Wardroom/Jr. Ranks/C&POs wondering what is happening.
Do we have ships that can carry more than 10 or 20 "riders"? If we had an amphibious assault ship then the embarked Inf Coy should definitely have DC training, it's in their best interest to keep themselves alive.

I'm hearing this was a top down decision, with no feedback solicited from the AJLC WG that's currently sitting to update the course. Another case of senior leadership trying to fix one problem, with no estimate on the effects that one change would cause. One of the largest Branches in the Army (RCCS) now does no Land Environment training, and must figure it out on their own or rely on overworked+undermanned CMBGs to make up the delta. To save what? 8 weeks over the span of a 6-9 year career to get to MCpl? HFXTar spent more time in the smoke pit on his workup training than that, and I guarantee you if we didn't figure out how to optimize whitespace in predeployment training during an actual shooting match, it's not going to get any better in a peacetime military. The next complaint will be that predeployment training is too condensed and not enough down time because we're cramming in basic soldier skills on R2HR.

OR Stop with the purpleness for god sake and start employing sailors at sea, soldiers in the field and zoomies in hotels. Like god intended.
Great point, although I suspect a lot of folks who are in "DEU of convenience" would be asking for changes because they didn't like the postings they were starting to get.
 

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
84
Points
330
Do we have ships that can carry more than 10 or 20 "riders"? If we had an amphibious assault ship then the embarked Inf Coy should definitely have DC training, it's in their best interest to keep themselves alive.

I'm hearing this was a top down decision, with no feedback solicited from the AJLC WG that's currently sitting to update the course. Another case of senior leadership trying to fix one problem, with no estimate on the effects that one change would cause. One of the largest Branches in the Army (RCCS) now does no Land Environment training, and must figure it out on their own or rely on overworked+undermanned CMBGs to make up the delta. To save what? 8 weeks over the span of a 6-9 year career to get to MCpl? HFXTar spent more time in the smoke pit on his workup training than that, and I guarantee you if we didn't figure out how to optimize whitespace in predeployment training during an actual shooting match, it's not going to get any better in a peacetime military. The next complaint will be that predeployment training is too condensed and not enough down time because we're cramming in basic soldier skills on R2HR.


Great point, although I suspect a lot of folks who are in "DEU of convenience" would be asking for changes because they didn't like the postings they were starting to get.
My counter to what you are saying is fairly straightforward, if in the RCCS world soldier skills are part of the core competency for the trades, why are they not part of the trades training? if it's only 6-8 more weeks of training why not make it an official part of the DP1-DP3? I understand it wasn't done that way because the army has since the early 2000s had SQ/BMQ-L, but what did they do prior to that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJP

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
297
Points
880
Great point, although I suspect a lot of folks who are in "DEU of convenience" would be asking for changes because they didn't like the postings they were starting to get.
I have no issue with this. It has to happen at the WO/PO1 level now anyway if individuals want to be succession managed.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,180
Points
1,060
My point is current pre-deployment training leaves enough time to bring the nonexperience folks up to speed. OR Stop with the purpleness for god sake and start employing sailors at sea, soldiers in the field and zoomies in hotels. Like god intended.

Amen brother! ;)

The cult of pre-deployment training seems to be designed to attempt to remove every possible variable from an inherently dangerous and unpredictable environment, primarily for ass covering purposes. Courses can be the same. This is not necessarily good thing.

At some point you have to augment training with leadership. If you can't trust your leaders to figure it out, and support them as required, there's your training and development goal.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
365
Points
1,030
My counter to what you are saying is fairly straightforward, if in the RCCS world soldier skills are part of the core competency for the trades, why are they not part of the trades training? if it's only 6-8 more weeks of training why not make it an official part of the DP1-DP3? I understand it wasn't done that way because the army has since the early 2000s had SQ/BMQ-L, but what did they do prior to that?
BMQ-L was a prereq to DP1, which then provided the basis for learning detachment/hide defensives for the FTX. It's still there, but now the prereq training is gone before CFSCE even knew about it. By the pace of CTC's approval of QS and TP boards/amendments, it'll be a minimum of 5 years to include that training in the DP1, and RCCS only got lucky because we're doing a trade shuffle (again #facepalm) so they have a strategic opportunity to fix DP2. CFSCE also has a massive throughput problem, in that before COVID it was able to produce 60 officers and 30 NCMs in a year. Adding in 4 weeks to DP1 after ACISS cut the Sig Op QL3 from 6 months to 3 months is likely a non starter, and will push the task onto the Bdes to figure out, because they're not busy enough as it is.

I can't speak early than 2002 to what the Rad Op trade did, but my QL3 course in 2003 was designed to lead up to operating a detachment in a field environment, which included defending the position from attack.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
785
Points
940
I think if you can teach an infantry goon how to use MonitorMass, Guardian, Excel, and work in the OR/CQ then you can teach army support people how to run around and pretend to do combat arms stuff.

My experience observing/teaching PLQs is that people work themselves up about it and make themselves sick with anxiety. When they get on course they're fine. The biggest hurdle for people is being in shape. Lots of people seem inclined to show up with can't run or can't ruck or can't do drill chits. Ever see someone teach drill while sitting in a chair because they have a no standing for longer than 15 minutes chit? It's pretty fucked up.

As much as the CAF wants to think we're back to cold war style trench warfare with frontlines, the threats our non-combat arms army people will face are attacks from the rear and insider attacks.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
340
Points
910
As much as the CAF wants to think we're back to cold war style trench warfare with frontlines, the threats our non-combat arms army people will face are attacks from the rear and insider attacks.

In a cold war mindset the biggest threat to our rear lines is lay back patrols, Special forces, Recce patrols, and para troopers, essentially the best of the best. Which is why it is important that CSS, who are in charge of rear area security get a sufficiant amount of weapons, and tactics training, not to win, but to survive. We can go back to cold war doctrine, that is all fine, but at least fully commit to it, not half baked like it is right now.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
800
Points
910
In a cold war mindset the biggest threat to our rear lines is lay back patrols, Special forces, Recce patrols, and para troopers, essentially the best of the best. Which is why it is important that CSS, who are in charge of rear area security get a sufficiant amount of weapons, and tactics training, not to win, but to survive. We can go back to cold war doctrine, that is all fine, but at least fully commit to it, not half baked like it is right now.
It was half baked in the 80s too
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
365
Points
1,030
Sometimes reddit users hit the nail on the head...
 

Attachments

  • y1iu4l9boo071.jpg
    y1iu4l9boo071.jpg
    69.6 KB · Views: 22

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
115
Points
710
I doubt this has anything to do with funding... if it's money-related, it's financial mismanagement, not funding. If there are savings from this, they will be pissed up a rope.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
297
Points
880
I think if you can teach an infantry goon how to use MonitorMass, Guardian, Excel, and work in the OR/CQ then you can teach army support people how to run around and pretend to do combat arms stuff.

My experience observing/teaching PLQs is that people work themselves up about it and make themselves sick with anxiety. When they get on course they're fine. The biggest hurdle for people is being in shape. Lots of people seem inclined to show up with can't run or can't ruck or can't do drill chits. Ever see someone teach drill while sitting in a chair because they have a no standing for longer than 15 minutes chit? It's pretty fucked up.

As much as the CAF wants to think we're back to cold war style trench warfare with frontlines, the threats our non-combat arms army people will face are attacks from the rear and insider attacks.

I would agree. That's why CSS should be trained and effective in defensive fighting. Being able to hold on until the Cbt Arms can show up and ease the pressure. I have argued for years that the different schools, CFLTC for example, should be running PLQ/ILP/ALP as its a career course no different than a QL/DP level. And the corps school should be the epicenter for corps doctrine and employment strategy.

The caveat is, how do you accomplish this for purple trades ? Who are getting less and less purple all the time, at least in the Logistics NCM realm.

I will also say I'm the guy who went on PLQ and ILP and took nothing from it. It was a waste of time, and I contend that leadership training is a waste of time, I expect that many will disagree with me on that. In our PER system we identify leaders and promote them on that merit, after successive years of proving that. Then they need a course to prove it again ?

What the Army needs is something akin to the RCNs OSQAB/NETP for REMFs. And then further training in that as your field responsibilities change from worker to leader. And the Army needs to come out and state that CMs need to stop posting them people at the MCpl level and above with no prior extended field time. The RCN should be doing the same. Purple shouldn't exist past the S1/Cpl level.
 
Last edited:

211RadOp

Sr. Member
Reaction score
2
Points
230
My counter to what you are saying is fairly straightforward, if in the RCCS world soldier skills are part of the core competency for the trades, why are they not part of the trades training? if it's only 6-8 more weeks of training why not make it an official part of the DP1-DP3? I understand it wasn't done that way because the army has since the early 2000s had SQ/BMQ-L, but what did they do prior to that?

I joined as a Rad Op in '88. After Basic we went to Borden for Driver Training then onto CFSCE for the remainder. This included Land Tactical Training where we learned how to live and fight in the field. With the creation of BMQ-L, LTT disappeared.

CFSCE also has a massive throughput problem, in that before COVID it was able to produce 60 officers and 30 NCMs in a year.

I don't know where you got your numbers, but when I was in 2 Sqn (2018) we were putting through alot more than 30 NCMs a year. Yes the change over from ACISS to Sig Op did drop the numbers, as it happened right before COVID hit.
 
Top