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

Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
124
Points
710
PuckChaser said:
My response to that would be that if you're trying to build leaders, treat them as leaders. Making your Cpl work as a Sgt gives him a great appreciation of the jobs "2-up" from his own. And of course, we never take Section Commanders as casualties that would cause a 2iC to become that new section commander....  :facepalm:

Agreed!  On my PLQ (CLC, '93) we HAD to pass PCs as the Student Section Commander (section attacks, recce patrols, routine in the defence, small party tasks, etc).  This was still the case when I was staff on them in the late 90s as well.  Not sure if the old ISCC did it the same.

On 6A (Ptl Comd), we were assessed in the A c/s seat and later on 6B, we had to pass PCs/traces as the Tp Leader as well as the A c/s.  Same reasoning you posted above.

Seems like, in some regards, we're going backwards not forwards.
 

upandatom

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ARMY_101 said:
Agreed. Part of me felt like it was the whole "keep them on their toes." Same as BMQ when you'd get jacked up by your 2IC for not having your CADPAT pockets ironed, then the next day get jacked up by your IC for having your CADPAT pockets ironed.

Maybe, but by the time you are on your PLQ, you should know what the game is, and be able to play it just as well, I even logged onto my DWAN account, looked up the course calender and found the "diamond" high stress days and just told the rest of the course whats up before hand, ie, hey expect a bit more tomorrow so be on your toes.

By the time you hit PLQ, you should be learning how to mentor properly, your staff should be taking you along, letting you make mistakes, pull you to the side after and say "hey ya maybe should of done this, ya maybe should of done that." or even after, pull you in front of the section and have an AAR.

There was one Section Commander on course, everyone saw that it would be a bag drive to be in his section, but still, you saw the mentoring, you saw he was trying to make you be a better leader, not just random confirmation of combat knowledge thrown in your face every 20s.
 

meni0n

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Heard a rumor today that due to budget that mod 4 will be cut for some trades that are not combat arms. Anyone heard anything of the sort or is that just someone's imagination?
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
297
Points
1,030
Wishful thinking on the part of people who don't want to do it? Isn't mod 4 completely different for combat arms anyways?
 

Nfld Sapper

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
10
Points
580
I know there is a move a foot to shorten all PRes training here at CTC by 30% so it's entirely possible that it will get a cut......
 

meni0n

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I know infantry got their own PLQ but the rest of the combat arms do PLQ-L just like the rest of the army or purple trades. But it does seem unrealistic unless they decided to go back on the CANFORGEN in 2008 that made some trades do PLQ-L instead of CF PLQ.
 

JBP

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maybe after the next round of budget cuts in April...

I and a few other people from my unit have just been loaded on PLQ-L mods 2-4 in Gagetown and Aldershot. So it isn't cut out by no means yet!
 

Scoobie Newbie

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
meni0n said:
I know infantry got their own PLQ but the rest of the combat arms do PLQ-L just like the rest of the army or purple trades. But it does seem unrealistic unless they decided to go back on the CANFORGEN in 2008 that made some trades do PLQ-L instead of CF PLQ.

Infantry do the same mod 1-3. 4 has additional time added on
 

acen

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
With all the budget cuts, it's funny how they increased the amount of course time by 6 weeks in order to become a qualified infantry master corporal versus the old system with the addition of the DP2 ASA course (formerly the sargeants course), especially for the PRes who are on the same courses as RegF.
 

meni0n

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Clarification on the rumor, prior to 2008, trade did CF PLQ. After that, it was PLQ-L. Now there's rumors going around the trade that it will be reverting back to CF PLQ although likely not this year.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
297
Points
1,030
meni0n said:
Clarification on the rumor, prior to 2008, trade did CF PLQ. After that, it was PLQ-L. Now there's rumors going around the trade that it will be reverting back to CF PLQ although likely not this year.

If your cap badge avatar is correct, I know what trade you're talking about. I'm willing to bet those rumours are being propagated by people who don't want to see your trade do any sort of field work what-so-ever. If it reverts back, I'll lose what little faith I have left in your trade in its ability to produce people who won't be a permanent liability in a tactical environment.
 

meni0n

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
It's mostly based on the fact that with Afghanistan over, a lot of people are viewing PLQ-L as time and resource wasting, especially since the majority of the trade works in an office environment.  I also talked to someone just recently and he was telling me that section attacks were being pushed to the Sgt level, which kind of didn't make sense to me. But the question is also there, why train someone to run a section attack or a recce and then send them back to the office environment. I doubt they will remember any of it years down the road, and if all of a sudden there is no one to run a section attack except one of us, we are in a world of trouble  ;D
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
297
Points
1,030
Despite what the mothership thinks, the lion's share of what makes your trade important to a modern commander is what it can provide tactically.

PLQ-L is not about running section attacks. The section attack is a tool used to teach junior leaders how to properly command and control dismounted troops while under enemy fire. The lessons learned from the conduct of section attacks/recce patrols/platoon in defense on PLQ can be related to properly running a detachment in a tactical environment. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'm willing to bet about half your trade has an office that runs on 8 wheels and is painted green. This isn't a "PLQ-L is a waste of time" issue, its a culture issue within your trade.
 

meni0n

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I think it's closer to one third of the trade that's part of the land unit. Learning to run a det properly doesn't need to be done at the PLQ level as I learned it in my time as a sigop on the 5s, which can also be pushed at the unit level. The culture within the unit is dominated by the mothership because that's where the majority of the trade ends up eventually and include many other facets of the trade, a lot of them more important than the tactical side of the house.

So here is where the disconnect is usually, you got guys sitting at the mothership viewing the PLQ-L as useless to them because most of them will probably will not be put in that tactical environment and also doing things that are more important, in their eyes.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Primary Leadership Qualification (L).
There's this great little feature on DND share point called Documentum. In there, you will find the QS for this course. I'm pretty sure you'll notice that nowhere will you ever be considered an infanteer or a quasi-SOF operator.
I deal with the nause of people looking for every way not to have to do this trg. Most of the BS reasons are because if the "we're not in Afghanistan now" gripes. So my response to this excuse is: "What you're telling me then is you'll never ever be deployed...or even want to...oh, you want to be deployed, but don't want the responsibility of having subordinates?" If that's the case with you, perhaps you should consider a career as an an Apple genius, instead of wasting time in the CAF. As I heard during my basic trg over and over again..."there's a lineup of people out there looking for your job".
 

meni0n

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Well, mindset goes that the trade deployed just fine up to 2008 with CF PLQ, which it seems  is an acceptable course to the Air Force,Navy and some Amy occupations that teaches on how to handle the responsibility of having subordinates. I am not advocating the reversion back, just stating of how PLQ-L is viewed by many.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It can be viewed any way they want. Point of fact is...if you want to advance..sack up and do it, get it past you and move on. It's the Army, it's beyond time for the culture of self entitlement and bending to accommodate end.
I'll throw this little gem out there...if you're an Army trade, posted to a unit and are getting LDA...YOUR ASS IS GOING ON A PLQ (L).
I keep a copy of a Tim Horton's application in my desk for just these occasions.
 

meni0n

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
So what about all those people not part of that army unit  and not getting lda? Theres no reason to get upset.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Where I work:
If you are are in an Army managed trade, you WILL do a PLQ (L). That means ACISS (all sub occupations).
 
Top