Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[BinRat55]

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 ?

And for me, therein lies the issue - Halifax touched on it. The "hard" trades. You have one RCR, one Stoker, one AVS Tech... right. Arrowhead to figs 123456. Reconstitute on 4.

I am a purple trade. That means I can end up as combat service support (I just came from 4 ESR) where I taught orders and battle procedure to my younger staff (who BTW were Land, Air AND Sea DEU) Where do we fit in? I did a JLC / JNCO (JNCO being the old CLC) and after the JLC portion, we watched one Musician and one Dental Tech go bye-bye. The Supply Techs / Maintainers were the only non-combat arms on the CLC. I personally know one of the Dental Techs and she is an amazing person - as well as a highly qualified and respected CWO!

I like to think I was better off having done it!

 

[dangerboy]

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 ? 

I can't see that happening anytime soon, we don't have the Infantry positions at the 3 Div TCs and the Infantry school fully manned.  As much as some infantry soldiers might like to get posted to Halifax or Esquimalt, I don't think that the Corps can afford to lose the PYs.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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."

I know I've said this before, but I think the way to go is a CF PLQ (like the former JLC) for anyone not cbt arms, a PLQ-Land (like the former CLC) for all Armd, Arty, Engr types and a PLQ-Inf (like the former ISCC).

Like Nerf Herder, I did my CLC in the early 90s when there was 'everyone not Infantry' loaded on CLC; my fire team partner was a young female Fin Clerk who didn't know what an ORV was let alone ever occupied one before.

This whole 'name changing BS' for CLC has been going on since 1996 at least; 20 years ago this coming spring/summer I was instructing on the 'new' JNCO-OAS pilot courses.  They were running JNCO-OAS (Jnr NCO - Other Arms and Services aka CLC) with everyone except Inf on it, and a course then called JNCO-Army which was the old ISCC.  Here we sit 20 years later of fucking around, looking like we are going back to the 'way it was' in 1993 when Inf did ISCC and everyone else did CLC.

I also think that people forget the formal and informal training and mentoring that happens in each trade before AND after PLQ trg.  A young Armd Cpl isn't going to become a fantastic crew commander because of PLQ, nor will an AVN tech become a better shift M-slash because of PLQ on it's own. 

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 ?

This.

The Air Force taught CF PLQ for its own folks at the Air Command Academy in Borden.  Why?  Because the average hard air trade Cpl doesn't care or need to know about section attacks and recce patrols. 

The main reason a common CF PLQ doesn't work is not everyone Jnr NCO in the Army does the same job, let alone in the entire CAF.  Have a common PLQ QS, let the Navy run one for RCN folks, let the RCAF run one like it has been and let the C Army run their own.  Each environment is aware of what its folks NEED to get out of their leadership training for Jnr NCOs.

Last point...STOP promoting people before they have their PLQ.  Same goes for ILQ.  Fix the system and then stop goddamn breaking it.

 

[George Wallace]

Last point...STOP promoting people before they have their PLQ.  Same goes for ILQ.

That has always been a sour point for me.  It is, and was, complete "FULL RETARD".

  Fix the system and then stop goddamn breaking it.

But then no one in that lofty position would get a check in the box for promoting change.  >

 

[kratz]

I know I've said this before, but I think the way to go is a CF PLQ (like the former JLC) for anyone not cbt arms, a PLQ-Land (like the former CLC) for all Armd, Arty, Engr types and a PLQ-Inf (like the former ISCC).

I also think that people forget the formal and informal training and mentoring that happens in each trade before AND after PLQ trg.  A young Armd Cpl isn't going to become a fantastic crew commander because of PLQ, nor will an AVN tech become a better shift M-slash because of PLQ on it's own. 

It was JLC when I joined, and the clerks who attended are doing well now.

I can count my mentors in trade. If the entire RCN / CAF was based on their skill, knowledge and dedication, we'd be OK as a force.
I'm just a fucking clerk (retired)

 

[meni0n]

Army calendar is out. Training days remain the same and no new CANFORGEN so this looks like just another rumor.

 

[BinRat55]

Last point...STOP promoting people before they have their PLQ.  Same goes for ILQ.  Fix the system and then stop goddamn breaking it.

Yes. An amazing point. I honestly don't understand why this hasn't been fixed already. Since January alone, I personally (not second hand - personally) know of 5 people who were promoted a few years ago and now have to relinquish their leaf. What a waste - not their fault, but time and resources.

 

[MissMercury]

I am currently on PLQ, just finished Mod 2. Anyone have some handy acronyms for remembering the 16 steps of Battle Procedure and other MOD 3 stuff?

Thanks!

 

[MissMercury]

I did see that post, however it was originally posted in 2002. Seemed very outdated and I wasn't really willing to sift through 17+ pages of comments in one post.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I am currently on PLQ, just finished Mod 2. Anyone have some handy acronyms for remembering the 16 steps of Battle Procedure and other MOD 3 stuff?

Thanks!

Not what you're asking for but I'll post anyways  ;D
I think you're highlighting a failing of the PLQ course. We force students to memorize various laundry lists without taking the time to explain the significance of how they really apply to junior leaders. You (we) spend more time and effort memorizing those lists than understanding them, and promptly forget them once we pass the PO check.  Principles of leadership is one of the major ones. Students memorize it but then draw a blank when you tell them to apply it to running PT.

 

[Good2Golf]

The Army.ca Battle Procedure app? ;D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry. I fail to see the problem.

What, in reality, is a JNCO/ CLC/ PLQ/ etc course?

It's a course that teaches:

How to give a drill lesson;
How to instruct a class;
Small party tasking; and
Working as a team to overcome a dangerous obstacle.

I fail to see how these items are not for all trades. I'll concede that the last one, typically, is conducted as section manoeuvre. However, it's not rocket science. Someone, not infantry, has plenty of opportunity to learn the basics during course or recall what they learned in Basic. Candidates should be scored on HOW they led their section, not if they successfully killed the enemy.

The best way to confirm this, is the application of Battle Procedure (BP). However, just because it's called BP, doesn't make it exclusive to Combat Arms. BP is the art of problem solving, in a specified order, considering the variables (and pitfalls) of a number of solutions until the most logical way forward presents itself. Everyone, but the most inept, use BP every day anyway, from what time to get up to when you go to bed. You are constantly playing 'what if' & 'so what' in your head as each new problem presents itself that day, whether you're conscious of the fact or not.

Change the name Battle Procedure to Action Procedure and instead of attacking a trench, plug a hole in dike, etc. The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self.

The course is designed as the first step in leadership, providing the candidate with the basic tools they need to start leading/ teaching others.
Whether teaching the stripping & assembling of a C7A2 or how to use a portable defibrillator, the principles remain the same.

 

[PuckChaser]

Its laziness. Section attacks and defense positions are difficult and tiring conditions. People are lazy, and don't want to work hard at the tasks. They even think they know better, because they've been a MCpl for 2 years due to training system shortfalls. As you said, leading a section attack isn't about how good of an infanteer you can be. Its that the Army can trust you to lead effectively under demanding circumstances (oh look, a PER bullet) when required. A lot of people have joined the CAF thinking they're in a desk job, and never have to go to the field because they didn't see that in their trade's job description, so the training is useless. We need to teach them to analyze why certain items are taught, and how they can apply them to their day to day jobs.

Seems like a really good PC in the DL portion, an essay on how you can apply skills learned in Mod 4.

 

[kratz]

Sorry. I fail to see the problem.

What, in reality, is a JNCO/ CLC/ PLQ/ etc course?

It's a course that teaches:

How to give a drill lesson;
How to instruct a class;
Small party tasking; and
Working as a team to overcome a dangerous obstacle.

I fail to see how these items are not for all trades. I'll concede that the last one, typically, is conducted as section manoeuvre. However, it's not rocket science. Someone, not infantry, has plenty of opportunity to learn the basics during course or recall what they learned in Basic. Candidates should be scored on HOW they led their section, not if they successfully killed the enemy.

The best way to confirm this, is the application of Battle Procedure (BP). However, just because it's called BP, doesn't make it exclusive to Combat Arms. BP is the art of problem solving, in a specified order, considering the variables (and pitfalls) of a number of solutions until the most logical way forward presents itself. Everyone, but the most inept, use BP every day anyway, from what time to get up to when you go to bed. You are constantly playing 'what if' & 'so what' in your head as each new problem presents itself that day, whether you're conscious of the fact or not.

Change the name Battle Procedure to Action Procedure and instead of attacking a trench, plug a hole in dike, etc. The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self.


The course is designed as the first step in leadership, providing the candidate with the basic tools they need to start leading/ teaching others.
Whether teaching the stripping & assembling of a C7A2 or how to use a portable defibrillator, the principles remain the same.

BANG On !!  :nod:  (Your point in yellow).

When I was in, my Naval Reserve unit would conduct a fall junior Officer / NCM leadership Exercise. Senior ranks would set the parameters  and act as supernumerary oversight. Trained Junior officers and Master Seamen assigned the tasks and during the "round robin" style small group taskings, all participants had opportunity to lead, follow and learn. Leadership potential was noted, as well as areas to improve, by the senior leadership observing the evolutions.  This is one of the best attended exercises the unit conducts each year.

 

[sidemount]

Sorry. I fail to see the problem.

What, in reality, is a JNCO/ CLC/ PLQ/ etc course?

It's a course that teaches:

How to give a drill lesson;
How to instruct a class;
Small party tasking; and
Working as a team to overcome a dangerous obstacle.

I fail to see how these items are not for all trades. I'll concede that the last one, typically, is conducted as section manoeuvre. However, it's not rocket science. Someone, not infantry, has plenty of opportunity to learn the basics during course or recall what they learned in Basic. Candidates should be scored on HOW they led their section, not if they successfully killed the enemy.

The best way to confirm this, is the application of Battle Procedure (BP). However, just because it's called BP, doesn't make it exclusive to Combat Arms. BP is the art of problem solving, in a specified order, considering the variables (and pitfalls) of a number of solutions until the most logical way forward presents itself. Everyone, but the most inept, use BP every day anyway, from what time to get up to when you go to bed. You are constantly playing 'what if' & 'so what' in your head as each new problem presents itself that day, whether you're conscious of the fact or not.

Change the name Battle Procedure to Action Procedure and instead of attacking a trench, plug a hole in dike, etc. The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self.

The course is designed as the first step in leadership, providing the candidate with the basic tools they need to start leading/ teaching others.
Whether teaching the stripping & assembling of a C7A2 or how to use a portable defibrillator, the principles remain the same.

This!!!!!!!!!
100x This!!!!!

IMO PLQ is not there to teach someone how to be a leader. You should have already been identified by your chain of command as to having leadership skills. PLQ then shows you the military formats that you require to complete your job such as the 16 steps of battle procedure and Orders format.
You are assessed on your BP, Orders, and ability to maintain command and control when shit hits the fan.
Like every other way we are trained, we take what we have been taught and then apply it to the unique jobs we do within the CAF.

Like recceguy said "The point of the final ex is to ensure the leader knows how to size up a situation, protect their people and delegate responsibility under stressful conditions in a timely manner to ensure the mission is successful. Mission, men, self."
This is something that every leader in the CAF needs to be able to do regardless of trade.

I'm sure all the complaining comes from not wanting to spend a couple weeks in the field 36h on, 4h off when you are used to a roof over your head.

 

[meni0n]

Not sure if anyone seen the new CANFORGEN but PLQ-L and CF PLQ are being amalgamated into one course called PLQ and mod 4 has been cut, so starting June the new course is being run, Mod 1-3.

 

[PuckChaser]

Not sure if anyone seen the new CANFORGEN but PLQ-L and CF PLQ are being amalgamated into one course called PLQ and mod 4 has been cut, so starting June the new course is being run, Mod 1-3.

So they're cutting the field phase... what a freaking joke. All because of some whiners who never leave their desks can't stand 2 weeks living in a trench.

 

[sidemount]

So they're cutting the field phase... what a freaking joke. All because of some whiners who never leave their desks can't stand 2 weeks living in a trench.

100% agree

 

[Nfld Sapper]

The course as it is now is basically, show up and pass....almost impossible to fail off....

 

[PuckChaser]

The course as it is now is basically, show up and pass....almost impossible to fail off....

A PLQ just finished where they caught someone deliberately trying to fail off so he could get on an easier serial later. He apparently was failed off with a nice note in his file to his unit.