Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[PuckChaser]

Do you know when that is coming into effect? Fiscal year would make the most sense. That explains the low number of PLQ-L courses I've noticed scheduled for next fiscal year on the CTC calendar. If it's true then it would definitely clear the backlog that we got.

All I've heard is what a friend is telling me he's getting from his course staff, which is probably what you're hearing as well. Allegedly there's already a case of someone deliberately failing so they can come back and do the easier course. That individual was caught.

We shouldn't be making the course easier to clear a backlog. We should be surging instructors to run multiple courses at the same time to clear it.

 

[OldSolduer]

We shouldn't be making the course easier to clear a backlog. We should be surging instructors to run multiple courses at the same time to clear it.

Good point.

 

[meni0n]

Failing just to get on an easier course is quiet unfortunate.

 

[OldSolduer]

Failing just to get on an easier course if quiet unfortunate.

Quite unfortunate is an understatement.

This "soldier" should not be considered for leadership training for a number of years. He needs to regain the trust of his superiors and his subordinates. That will take time.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

PLQ Common is likely the same as the CF PLQ that RCAF types take?

No need for section attacks and patrolling for AC OPs, AVN Techs and NDT Techs.  Aircrew get taught their required stuff in things like ASERE.

So in that regard, I am all for turning the 'section attack' PO time into something useful for hard air trades.  I did CLC as Cbt Arms, my fireteam partner was  Fin Clerk.  She had no idea what she was doing on a recce patrol.  Is PLQ the time to start teaching that stuff?  If a Clerk was Army DEU but spent their first 2 postings at a HQ or Wing or HMCS and then gets promoted/posted to a BN, are they really able to 'lead' a section attack if they've never done one?

Training requirements should be judged with some common sense as well...not everyone needs the same skills and skill levels.

IMO, I liked the ISCC for Infantry, CLC for Combat Arms, and JLC for 'OAS' approach.  But that's old news.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Quite unfortunate is an understatement.

This "soldier" should not be considered for leadership training for a number of years. He needs to regain the trust of his superiors and his subordinates. That will take time.

It's possible he was already filling a spot ie A/L and this course was just to cement it.

 

[George Wallace]

PLQ Common is likely the same as the CF PLQ that RCAF types take?

What is old is new again then.  CF PLQ was the "Part 1", with the PLQ(L) being the "Part 2".......or something to that effect (2003/04 timeframe).

 

[meni0n]

Eye, I  think it might be one of the reasons they are going back to support trades doing CF PLQ due to a large number of complaints of the last portion not having anything relevant to what todays reality of most support trades.

 

[PuckChaser]

Eye, I  think it might be one of the reasons they are going back to support trades doing CF PLQ due to a large number of complaints of the last portion not having anything relevant to what todays reality of most support trades.

The easy solution was to just remove the mod. The harder solution (that the Army ran and hid from), is to sit a QSWB to determine actual field skill requirements for Army support trades. The problem is compounded by the fact that we have Combat Support trades (Medics, Sigs, etc) that require significantly more field skills to provide that intimate support than our purple trade members. The chief complaint I heard was that people thought being assessed on patrolling wasn't fair for people who haven't been exposed to a lot of it. That's a simple fix on the PC to reinforce patrolling spirit and skills, while critical failures are leadership points such as planning, command and control, etc.

 

[meni0n]

Another solution would be to go back to the pre-2008 CANFORGEN time and put some of the purple trades on CF PLQ and keep PLQ-L for some hard army trades

 

[Jarnhamar]

PO201 is a leadership check in the box.
You can evaluate a candidates leadership abilities without evaluating their actual skill when it comes to section attacks recce and the defensive. 

A cook can get lost 6 ways from Sunday doing a recce in the parking lot but if they remained in command and had control then that's leadership. 

A cook or supply tech may also get a better respect for how shitty a week doing patrols or in a trench can be.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What is old is new again then.  CF PLQ was the "Part 1", with the PLQ(L) being the "Part 2".......or something to that effect (2003/04 timeframe).

I am actually quite confused on what is what anymore WRT PLQ.  I did a PLAR for PLQ and ILQ around '07, as I did CLC and SLC but didn't have the 'new' Qual Codes on my MPRR.  During that time there was discussion over emails I was CCd on regarding 'which' PLQ I would get - the CF PLQ or the PLQ - Army or some other form of PLQ that the name eludes me.  It was a headache to try to understand.  Hopefully someone just says ENOUGH OF THIS BS! sooner than later and leaves well enough alone for atleast 5 years.  Thankfully, I was grandfathered PLQ and ILQ and have multiple copies of the letter from SSO NCMPD that states that so I don't have to worry about any personal butt-pain over CAF PLQ Game of Thrones. 

Lastly...didn't the PLQ go to PLP (Primary Leadership Program), and the same for ILQ to ILP?  >

 

[PuckChaser]

I heard they changed the name a while ago, but it must have died. Army course calendar still says PLQ.

 

[George Wallace]

I am actually quite confused on what is what anymore WRT PLQ.  I did a PLAR for PLQ and ILQ around '07, as I did CLC and SLC but didn't have the 'new' Qual Codes on my MPRR. 

I know that feeling.  I was tasked to the Inf School to run the CAP CP, and on my Inclearance to the School I had to fill out a datasheet on what my Quals were.  They listed PLQ, and not knowing what it was, I did not check it off.  It is a "___________ Plot" to keep us in a constant state of confusion.  [

 

[Franko]

Another solution would be to go back to the pre-2008 CANFORGEN time and put some of the purple trades on CF PLQ and keep PLQ-L for some hard army trades

Got some info on this - not going to happen.

The next version of PLQ will be a CAF wide version which will be needed for everyone, regardless of purple or other colour trade. It's basically the PLQ land version. Infantry will carry on to their own module, just like it is now.

There has to be some commonality between trades and you never know when an Air Force clerk might have to lead soldiers. I did my CLC in the early 90s and a couple of them passed. Out of 32 that started, only 9 of us graduated.

I'll leave you all to return to ripping the stuffing out of your teddy bears now.

Regards

 

[ballz]

I'll leave you all to return to ripping the stuffing out of your teddy bears now.

My concern with this approach is not that it makes it harder for purple trades / non-army types, but that it lowers the standard for some of the other trades.* That's cool that the infantry has its own PLQ, but IMO the entire combat arms needs that little bit "extra." Applying this model, if the CAF runs a PLQ and then each trade runs its own "add-on" piece that is trade specific, that may fit the bill, or at least in groups (aka combat arms, combat support trades, service support trades). But if they are going to run PLQ CAF-wide but only the Inf gets its own PLQ mod... many other trades suffer in the CAFs attempt to cater to such a huge width of skill sets.

*I was the Crse O for a PLQ-L at Leadership Company a little over a year ago. The swing NCO I had was armoured and was excellent, and had been there for 3 years I believe. I made a remark that the depth of experience between candidates (one was a PRes musician who had never been in the field before this course, while some were seasoned combat arms Corporals) was making it impossible to apply one standard fairly. Either a bunch of people that don't need these skills fail, or a bunch of people that need these skills and don't have them pass. He agreed and said "that's why I've seen the standard drop for the combat arms ever since they moved to this system. It's fine for the Infantry, they have their own PLQ to deal with the problem. What about armoured, arty, sappers? They are lumped in with musicians."

 

[daftandbarmy]

My concern with this approach is not that it makes it harder for purple trades / non-army types, but that it lowers the standard for some of the other trades.* That's cool that the infantry has its own PLQ, but IMO the entire combat arms needs that little bit "extra." Applying this model, if the CAF runs a PLQ and then each trade runs its own "add-on" piece that is trade specific, that may fit the bill, or at least in groups (aka combat arms, combat support trades, service support trades). But if they are going to run PLQ CAF-wide but only the Inf gets its own PLQ mod... many other trades suffer in the CAFs attempt to cater to such a huge width of skill sets.

*I was the Crse O for a PLQ-L at Leadership Company a little over a year ago. The swing NCO I had was armoured and was excellent, and had been there for 3 years I believe. I made a remark that the depth of experience between candidates (one was a PRes musician who had never been in the field before this course, while some were seasoned combat arms Corporals) was making it impossible to apply one standard fairly. Either a bunch of people that don't need these skills fail, or a bunch of people that need these skills and don't have them pass. He agreed and said "that's why I've seen the standard drop for the combat arms ever since they moved to this system. It's fine for the Infantry, they have their own PLQ to deal with the problem. What about armoured, arty, sappers? They are lumped in with musicians."

.... meanwhile, it takes longer to formally 'train' an infantry junior leader, who is out of commission on courses for more time than is reasonable.

Sigh....

 

[George Wallace]

What is old is new again.  We have gone full circle once again.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just speaking for the Navy here but are they going to start posting Infanteers into the leadership schools to teach the army side of things ? 

The PLQ already has little if anything to do with what a sailor will do at the primary leadership level so this only exacerbates the issue and makes it harder on anyone who isn't army and doesn't have any army experience.

I see the need for commonality in training,  but expecting a stoker or a WENG Tech to be able to set up a defensive or run a section attack is just silly.  While he may get the basics in the short time he needs to know it, read knowing it well enough to pass, it will be quickly info dumped as soon as they are back in the MCR. 

It's wasted training value on those who don't need it.  It boggles my mind that the RCN hasn't created its own Navy-centric PLQ it expects its "hard sea" folks to complete that would actually be of value and have some take away points.

Why not bring the whole necessity of a PLQ into question ?  I mean if ones trade has deemed them well enough to lead at a junior level why is that not good enough ? 

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's fine for the Infantry, they have their own PLQ to deal with the problem. What about armoured, arty, sappers? They are lumped in with musicians."

I would give the combat arms their own PLQ.  Emphasis on section attacks, recce, urban ops, defensive, calling for artillery fire and something vehicle related like vehicle recce or convoy ops.

This way all 4 trades have their thing and no one will feel left out. All those activities would be something all four trades may be exposed to.