Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion

[McG]

What is the major difference between PLQs?

See here for a start: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18969.0.html
(You may have to dig a few pages)

Why not make them all army?

See the post immediately preceding yours:

Even if they maintain everyone should have an SQ, they will soon find there wasn't the resources to do it,

 

[rifleman]

See here for a start: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18969.0.html
(You may have to dig a few pages)
See the post immediately preceding yours:

got ya, seen. This is the same arguement with JLC, CLC, ISCC....lol

IIRC the old Jr NCO had a field portion. Trades don't need section attacks, just be able to handle a weapon and live in the field along with the mentality, life in the field is grand.

 

[McG]

Trades don't need section attacks, just be able to handle a weapon and live in the field along with the mentality, life in the field is grand.

I'm sure that is what at least a few soldiers of 507th Maintenance Company thought.  It is not adequate for the training only to develop the fighting skills of the individual.  As I had posted earlier, if things go bad it will not be good enough for support elements to fight as a collection of individuals.  There needs to be leadership that is competent to lead a small team in defence & offence (there is a lot of reason to consider taking the initiative from the enemy even when you're only looking to preserve your lives).  There will not always be a combat arms soldier around to provide this leadership, so it must come from within the support units themselves.  Combat Logistic Patrols in Afghanistan cannot afford to be a series of uncoordinated vehicles on the road.  Here again, there is a requirement for that junior level of combat leadership resident in the CSS elements (even if there is a combat arms escort).

Therefore, PLQ (L) must be a requirement for those junior leaders employed on a land operation.

 

[armyvern]

But it was not happening uniformly.  I've seen far too many exceptions were pers were in land units without this training.

Not all land Units have that training as a pre-requisite. I think they should, but they don't.

About the posting plot: Grandfathering (ie waiting 6 months to implement so it didn't affect the posting plot), doesn't do anything to solve the problem either. Those pers who had to be cancelled now sit in desk jobs at BSup. We still can't post them to 1st line field units with the SQ pre-req next year either (and being that some of them only got posted to this base recently - I don't see them posted to the Air or the Navy next year either).

So, next year, how do we bring back the guys that have already spent 3, 4, 5 years in those 1st line jobs with a couple of tours under their belt back to BSup to give them a break --- when all those jobs are being manned by blue/black people we can't send over to the field to replace them? Without moving those blue/black people to 1st line -- we've got no positions to put those Army folks into. The Pri 2 Units (ie field) MUST be manned, they can't be left unstaffed ... so guess who stays there now? That's right -- the Army Sup Techs based only upon their uniform colour NOT their job description because blue/black suppies have the same trade description as I do.

They HAD to sort out the uniform mess first. They had to implement an Army to Army, Air to Air, Sea to Sea plan (if in fact that IS their plan) BEFORE they implemented this new policy that has effectively cut our "actual usuable" supply techs who can be employed in those "must fill" postions by 50%.

 

[armyvern]

I agree 100%.
Maybe this will start seperating the wheat from the chaff with what type of per's get posted to combat units.

Quick question to Vern:

Wouldnt this be solved if they made the supply tech trade a Army hard trade?As then they would ALL have SQ and PLQ-land which seem to be to a higher standard anyway?Still able to post them to a ship/airbase,however with being hard army then they could easily get posted back to a combat unit?

Train them to the highest level (which from what your saying is the army SQ and PLQ-L) then there is no problem.

I've already said the bold bit about coming back with the Army Supply Tech Merit List (may as well give us a different cap badge too).

But, no --- I do NOT advocate then sending an Army Supply Tech to a Naval Base or an Air Base. If they can't do our jobs -- why the hell should we do theirs? Why should only Army Sup Techs be required to be purple and serve anywhere? Because, that's how it is with the CANFORGEN - Army types can still do Sea Enviornmental and get posted to sea, but not vice versa. See why the Army types are pissed off now? I can see why - It seems that only Army Supply Techs are purple now and able to serve in any CF Supply posn.

If they want to make it so that our trade only has Army Sup Techs in Land positions (and, with this SQ policy ... that certainly seems to be exactly what is happening [at least in the Army Sup posns]), then what's good for goose is good for gander.

Army to Army
Air to Air
Sea to Sea

3 different trades vice a "purple one" that really is NOT purple anymore (unless you're Army) with this CANFORGEN. And, three different Merit Lists.

 

[McG]

Naval and Air, I presume, have a unique qualification.

The Navy does (NETP) but the Air Force has no such thing for non-aircrew occupations.

Not all land Units have that training as a pre-requisite. I think they should, but they don't.

My observations were based on field units in a CMBG.  If land enviromental training was not required for these, that was seriously wrong.

But, no --- I do NOT advocate then sending an Army Supply Tech to a Naval Base or an Air Base. If they can't do our jobs -- why the hell should we do theirs? Why should only Army Sup Techs be required to be purple and serve anywhere? Because, that's how it is with the CANFORGEN - Army types can still do Sea Enviornmental and get posted to sea, but not vice versa. See why the Army types are pissed off now? I can see why - It seems that only Army Supply Techs are purple now and able to serve in any CF Supply posn.

Exactly!  While the CANFORGEN made no comment on organization of MOS, it has effectively split those MOS for which a person's environment will dictate training.  This split needs to be more formalized in a future CANFORGEN or CMP instruction.  It does not need to be a complete split.  The Sup Tech MOS can continue to exist, but it will contain unique ground and sea sub-MOS (with one of those unique two digit identifiers at the end of the MOSID).  I say "ground" because I feel the air environment of the occupations affected by this CANFORGEN should be doing the same SQ and PLQ-L that the Army types will do (after all, the Air Force will want to deploy its CSS ground personnel into places like KAF to support the APOD & any tactical aviation that we may put into a theatre).

 

[armyvern]

The Navy does (NETP) but the Air Force has no such thing for non-aircrew occupations.
My observations were based on field units in a CMBG.  If land enviromental training was not required for these, that was seriously wrong.

I agree.

Exactly! While the CANFORGEN made no comment on organization of MOS, it has effectively split those MOS for which a person's environment will dictate training.  This split needs to be more formalized in a future CANFORGEN or CMP instruction.  It does not need to be a complete split.  The Sup Tech MOS can continue to exist, but it will contain unique ground and sea sub-MOS (with one of those unique two digit identifiers at the end of the MOSID).  I say "ground" because I feel the air environment of the occupations affected by this CANFORGEN should be doing the same SQ and PLQ-L that the Army types will do (after all, the Air Force will want to deploy its CSS ground personnel into places like KAF to support the APOD & any tactical aviation that we may put into a theatre).

Unfortunately, they've gone about it ass-backwards. Now, the Army will suffer for it. The Supply trade is now effectively cut in half of it's pers now available to fill it's Land Ops Pri 2 posns. Yet, any Naval and Air positions are still able to be manned by anyone of whatever uniform colour. The way this has been implemented only screws the Army.

If the eventuality is that they wanted to implement the "unique" MOS (air to air, sea to sea, land to land) ... then you had to implement THAT first and actually GET air to air, land to land, sea to sea. So that you could qualify those pers on site for that "unique MOS" and then actually utilize them.

The Army is now left with people manning positions in Base Supply orgs that it can NOT qualify and can NOT utilize where they are needed outside of Base Supply in those Pri 2 Land Force posns.

You want to say that only Army Sup Techs are now capable of manning Army Sup posns --- then damn well ensure that you ONLY send us Army types before you make that the rule, because now all the others are useless to us as we can't send them where they are needed. So, the Army Suppies get shafted to do the dirty work until that happens. By then, they'll be out - or at least on stress leave 1/2 days and unfit field themselves. Good luck to the Army. They're going to need it.

What they need to do now to fix this immediately (and we are paying for this policy right NOW as we speak already) ... is DIRECT uniform colour changes. And, if the Air Force has only 500 Supply Positions, then the other couple hundred Supply Techs wearing blue need to be DIRECTED into Army uniforms NOW ... and sent to the Army where positions that are vacant need to be filled NOW.

Not next week, not next year - else the Army Supply support is going to collapse first. Then, it'll be too late ... for the Army.

 

[OldSolduer]

Then perhaps, as Vern states, those that are wearing a comfy Blue DEU be DIRECTED to change to Rifle Green DEU. Then they can be loaded on SQ and posted to a field unit.If they refuse....30 days NTM.....out the front gate, in civvies with your clearance form in hand. Bye Bye.

 

[TCBF]

...(may as well give us a different cap badge too).

- The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?

 

[armyvern]

- The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?

Sure, I've already got that cummerbund too.  ;D

 

[danchapps]

- The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?

Sure, why not, the name sounds cooler anyway.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Everyone who joins the CF SHOULD undergo SQ.
Why? Because as a soldier, sailor or airperson, you should at least know the basics of handling drills and firing the C7, C9 and C6. Every member of the CF should also know how to throw grenades.
You never know when that might come in handy...or where.

So train them in those weapons then.  That doesn't have to be done on SQ.  How would people react to me saying "everyone should do NETP because you never know when fire fighting and damage control would be used"?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Air Force is where this gets tricky.  I am not aware of any air environmental training for non aircrew types (somebody can let me know if such a thing does exist).  At the same time, if things go really bad it is the non-aircrew types that will be fighting the ground fight for the airfield.  On this line of thinking, it would most certainly be reasonable to consider SQ for these pers.  I personally think the construction engineering trades should do the SQ and PLQ-L despite being purple and under the managing authority of the air force.  You find construction engineering trades on all bases with units in the Air Force and a Naval Troop on each coast.  If base defence is required, then construction engineering provides a manpower pool along with MPs and non-flying occupations.  Further, construction engineering trades deploy on land operations.

There are courses, namely BAEQ, PAEQ and IAEQ, which are ran out of the Air Command Academy in Borden.  When they are taken is found in A-PD-055-002/PD-002 Section 4, Sub-Section B, Table 4B-1 (NCMGS is the short title).  Having quickly reviewed the TPs, they do not cover anything in the line of SAs or MMGs though  8)

DIN link is: http://16wingweb.borden.mil.ca/aca/pages/courses_e.html

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I still say everyone who joins the CF should undergo SQ, NO MATTER what element.

Great.  Because the training system has NO backlogs in it now, lets also be fair to the other 2 Environment, and load everyone on NETP and BAEQ as well!  Then everyone can go to any environment and have a smick about it.  I'll talk to the CDS and MND tonight, over supper.

 

[TCBF]

- This SQ business came about because the Army wanted the old 'depot' level recruit trg and the air side wanted RCAF St-Jean 1950s trg. A compromise was reached, resulting in a new course - SQ - just when our availability of trained instructor-grade NCOs was at a nadir (thank-you FRP).  Thus, we now run too many courses to a lower standard.

- Solution?  If the Purple can pull out of the Army PLQ, then the Army can pull out of the Purple BMQ.  Back to Regimental Depots for combined Army Recruit SQ ('Basic Training'), and then off to the units they go. 

- Longer courses are needed to reduce a high injury rate for today's recruits, so this will work out.  Those who are injured should be given Driver Wheeled/DDC/SBC Crses while in PAT Pl.

- If no grad possible before end of two years, release as NET (Not Economically Trainable).

 

[OldSolduer]

Eye in the Sky, sarcasm does nothing for your case.

I know there are backlogs. I also know that in the COE, which is Afghanistan, the purple trades don't always have the luxury of combat arms around to protect them. SO, Eye, who should do the protecting? Contract it out to private companies?

The soloution is simple. Everyone who wants to go to Afghanistan must be qualified SQ, at minimum.

Now as for loading everyone on naval or air course, you know that is blatantly ridiculous. We were only talking "purple" trades. We aren't talking bosuns and AESOPs going on a recce with the infantry, so SQ for them isn't going to happen, UNLESS there are positions in Afghanistan.
And its very unlikely that an infantry officer will ever serve aboard the HMCS Winnipeg.

 

[aesop081]

We aren't talking bosuns and AESOPs going on a recce with the infantry, so SQ for them isn't going to happen, UNLESS there are positions in Afghanistan.

Some AES Ops are indeed headed for the sandbox to operate the new UAV. Should we now add SQ to the trade ? Or can the weapons stuff be covered on pre-deployement training. ? Should we add yet another course to AES Op training ( alredy takes 3 years to crank out a fully operational AES Op) just in case they deploy with UAVs ?

 

[PMedMoe]

Everyone who joins the CF SHOULD undergo SQ.
Why? Because as a soldier, sailor or airperson, you should at least know the basics of handling drills and firing the C7, C9 and C6. Every member of the CF should also know how to throw grenades.

I have never had an SQ (or LET or whatever) course and I have been taught to handle all those weapons.  We did IBTS yearly, including Field Craft, Navigation, weapons handling, the BFT, the PWT, grenades, gas huts and more.  I have also fired some of those weapons even though, if I were overseas, the Geneva Convention would preclude me from doing so, unless it was the only weapon I had to protect myself (or a patient).  
I was at 2 Fd Amb for 10 years and did this at least yearly, if not more often and now they want me to go on an SQ?  Well, maybe I won't have to as I am no longer a Med Tech.  :  You'd think all that training would be considered equivalent to an SQ.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But your arguement is everyone in the CF should do SQ, is it not?  My point, while perhaps made in a stupid way, was what if the CMS and CAS staff weinies start saying the same about NETP and BAEQ for the newly trained purple trade folks?  Then we could be spending a ton of time pumping people thru environmental trng.  It would be a dangerous precedent to set, no?

Now, to be clear, I am not advocating on the validity of this new policy as it affects purple trades.  Personally, being former army (and not that long ago either) I believe in the soldier first perspective.  I agree with your point, everyone who is deploying and tasked with land units SHOULD HAVE a SQ (as a minimum).  Qualified and competent do not necessarily go hand in hand but better qualified than not. 

I do not, however, think that sending someone on an SQ course, then posting them to a Wing or a navy base for 4 years, and then posting them to a field unit with the 'tick in the box' for SQ is the right answer either.  If they are posted to a field unit, they take the training as close as possible to that posting or immediately into it. 

Agreed on your comment on my sarcasim.  Good call.

 

[armyvern]

I have never had an SQ (or LET or whatever) course and I have been taught to handle all those weapons.  We did IBTS yearly, including Field Craft, Navigation, weapons handling, the BFT, the PWT, grenades, gas huts and more.  I have also fired some of those weapons even though, if I were overseas, the Geneva Convention would preclude me from doing so, unless it was the only weapon I had to protect myself (or a patient).  
I was at 2 Fd Amb for 10 years and did this at least yearly, if not more often and now they want me to go on an SQ?  Well, maybe I won't have to as I am no longer a Med Tech.  :  You'd think all that training would be considered equivalent to an SQ.

No offense Moe,

But we all do IBTS each and every year. That's called a refresher.

No worries, as a JLC MCpl - you'd end up being grandfathered anyway. I suspect that you fell into the exemption period as per below.

It all reminds me of the roll-over from the LET to the LLQ ... and someone dictated that ALL pers not LLQ qualified, regardless of rank & experience, WOULD undergo LLQ Course if in field positions.

When I went to my first field posting the pre-req was the LET. We all got it in that time-period. But, the pers who were already posted in field positions when the LET came on-line and became mandatory were all "grandfathered" and thus were not required to undergo the LET because of their experience in the field already.

When the LET was phased out and the new requirement became the "LLQ" course -- there was NO grandfathering. The rules for the LLQ stated that ALL pers in field positions WOULD be LLQ qualified if they did not hold the LET qualification. Ergo all those senior ranks that didn't have to do the LET(because they were exempted by grandfathering) ... now HAD to do the LLQ if they were still serving in field positions.

Made for interesting times in Petawawa as we young Ptes & Cpls who had the LET qualification ended up instructing our superiors as they underwent their LLQ.  >