Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion

[Eye In The Sky]

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.  >

Now that is something I would have loved to see!

 

[aesop081]

Now that is something I would have loved to see!

Its not uncommon in the trade you are going into. I've done 60-day checks on Majors and Sgts regularly instruct CWO on course when they return to the aircraft.

 

[PMedMoe]

No offense Moe,

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

None taken.  Just reminds me of my one week TCCS (radio) course, which was also a refresher.  Pretty hard to be refreshed on something you've never learned.  :

Besides, I'm not a JLC MCpl, I did a PLQ Common. (gasp!  )

 

[scoutfinch]

I apologize if I have missed it (I have been following this thread, I swear!), but... what is the reason for the change?

It's hard to get a sense of good/bad unless the rationale for the changes is considered as well.

 

[armyvern]

Besides, I'm not a JLC MCpl, I did a PLQ Common. (gasp!  )

Tomato / Tomata ...

I'm willing to bet they'll regard them the same way wrt SQ requirement.

 

[armyvern]

I apologize if I have missed it (I have been following this thread, I swear!), but... what is the reason for the change?

It's hard to get a sense of good/bad unless the rationale for the changes is considered as well.

No reason has been given; it's just the CANFORGEN and that's it. My CoC has been trying to find out the reasoning behind this from Careers since the message was cut ... waiting ... still ...

 

[Neill McKay]

I wonder if now's the time to reconsider having the "purple trade" concept at all.  Would it make more sense to enrol and train X number of army supply techs (e.g.) to meet the needs of the army, Y number of navy supply techs to meet the needs of the navy, etc.?  In other words, would the reduced training cost (because of more focused training) outweigh the loss of flexibility of the current purple system?

 

[dapaterson]

Neill:  SO we'll build three schools with three staffs?  We'll leave some positions vacant in the NDHQ matrix becasue it's an Army Job to fill, while there's a Navy tradesman available?

KISS applies in personnel structure as well.  It's when eGOs get involved, and a desire to own everything under the sun without an understanding of the complexity of the underlying systems that things like this happen.

 

[Neill McKay]

Neill:  SO we'll build three schools with three staffs?  We'll leave some positions vacant in the NDHQ matrix becasue it's an Army Job to fill, while there's a Navy tradesman available?

I suppose the question I'm asking (and it's a question for discussion, not a suggestion) is about where the balance point is.  Is it better to train everyone in a purple trade to serve in more than one environment (which is costlier than training them to serve in only one environment each) at the cost of losing the flexibility to post soldiers to ships and send sailors to Afghanistan?  Would it make more sense to have purple trades but with element-specific sub-trades that are only employed in their own element?  The answer may differ for each purple trade as the size and employment of the trade would dictate the economics of the situation.

It's worth noting, though, that Canada is just about the only western country that has the purple trade concept at all, and our 40 years of experience have not yet inspired anyone else to try it.

 

[RickDevlieger]

I have been following this discussion for a while, and while not an expert in purple trades or the requirement for SQ. There seems to be a call for '"more " training, including some which would require a maintenance of a qual. There are a couple of issues which need to be resolved:

1. A very large portion of the CF, especially "purple trades" have day jobs, for lack of a better term. The job exists and needs to be done whether they are deployed or not. When we pull them away for training with out replacement (one man, one job), the work doesn't get done. I see this as an issue in the Navy as well. When a ship is training and doing battle problems etc, all the routine work is not being progressed. A large portion of a ship's company has maintenance responsibilities which go undone during "Training". It is all a matter of balance, too much training and the equipment doesn't work or nice shiny clean well oiled ship and the sailors don't know what to do with it.

2. Away time for the purpose of training is increasing. No one that I know in the military has an issue with deploying for a real world operation. They also understand the requirement to deploy for exercises at multi-unit levels. What becomes wearisome is to constantly be away IOT maintain this qual or that qual. For trades which have a day job, it also means being away from work which needs to be done even if you are remaining in the geographical area. It just means more hours at work making up for time due to training. It is my feeling that this is the source of more stress than actually deploying for a purpose.

So before we do a blanket call for more training, we need to assess the costs of doing and not doing the training. I'm not talking about dollars, those are easy. but the cost to personnel, those required to do the training who now can't used to deploy. There is fatigue and stress caused by not being able to get your own work done and being away from family before being away from the family for an operational deployment. There is some merit to conducting trining like SQ and NETP at the beginning of a career while pers are still on BTL vice later when they are taken away from their real job to complete the training.

 

[TCBF]

...
KISS applies in personnel structure as well.  It's when eGOs get involved, and a desire to own everything under the sun without an understanding of the complexity of the underlying systems that things like this happen.

... There seems to be a call for '"more " training, including some which would require a maintenance of a qual. There are a couple of issues which need to be resolved: ...

- Good points all.  Perhaps we should, in these cases, target trg to those who need it when they are posted/attached/CFTPOd.  In some cases the annual refresher trg (IBTS) may be sufficient.  In others, a more robust timetable/SQ may be needed.

- As for leaders: a case by case basis. At what level is the need, and how much risk are we willing to accept?

- Just plain inefficient MHR to train everyone as a Ninja. 

 

[dapaterson]

- Just plain inefficient MHR to train everyone as a Ninja. 

Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...

 

[armyvern]

Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...

I know only of me and 5 others. They're all men. I'm IN!!!  ;D

 

[danchapps]

Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...

I'll volunteer. I always thought ninjas were cool, and I love wearing black and sneaking around all over the place.

 

[McG]

There are courses, namely BAEQ, PAEQ and IAEQ, which are ran out of the Air Command Academy in Borden. 

Interesting.  On the recruiting site, SQ and NETP are respectively mentioned in the basic training program for hard Army and Navy MOS.  There is no mention of BAEQ.  Then again, the banner across the top of the Army jobs page is a Romanian TAB APC so, I will not be accusing the site of being the most accurate source of information.  For now, because it does not really affect the larger argument, we can assume that BAEQ does impart some essential knowledge for operating in an Air Force setting (but we can leave it to other threads to flesh that out for certain).

I wonder if now's the time to reconsider having the "purple trade" concept at all.  Would it make more sense to enrol and train X number of army supply techs (e.g.) to meet the needs of the army, Y number of navy supply techs to meet the needs of the navy, etc.?  In other words, would the reduced training cost (because of more focused training) outweigh the loss of flexibility of the current purple system?

The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?

Not to that extreme.  Environmental sub-MOS would be the way to go in my opinion.  Some jobs require an Army Sup Tech, some jobs require a Navy Sup Tech, and some jobs just require a Sup Tech.  Sub-MOS would allow a mechanism for individuals to be trained in the occupation and trained in a single environment.  Training would be reduced (as pers are only trained in one environment) and competency would increase (as pers would be employed in the environment of their training & practice/gain experience in that environment) but we would not loose all the flexibility that would occur in a complete split of an occupation.

....  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.  ...

Exactly.  Environmental specific sub-MOS (which is the effective if not formal result of the CANFORGEN) is a means to resolving this problem.

Some AES Ops are indeed headed for the sandbox to operate the new UAV. Should we now add SQ to the trade ?

There is probably no requirement for such a move, and I suspect a trg needs analysis would identify that for such a move there are too few AES Ops that will require the training.  However, SQ should required training for the formation of and later postings into a TUAV Flt (and a PLQ-L conversion for junior leaders too). 

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.

The TF HQ during Somalia was off shore on a ship, and the next generation of ship will include a multi-purpose room (I forget the appropriate technical name) that will have as one of its roles to serve as a joint or land operations centre.  Therefore, we will always require the ability to indoctrinate members of one environment to the operational essential skills of another environment.  If you work on the ground, you must know how to fight on the ground; if you work in the air, you must know how to fight in the air; if you work at sea, you must know how to fight at sea.  Individual soldier skills will do an infantryman no good when he is in an off-shore CP that's under attack.

There has been a lot of focus in this thread on the environmental specific individual skills.  These are vital.  However, equally if not more vital is the environmentally specific junior leadership.  Now, somebody can pipe in and tell me that in ships & aircraft there will always be a hard trade of that environment close enough that this is a non-issue.  In land warfare, where there is plenty of room for dispersion, this is essential for all the participating leaders to know how to lead the fight at the very least with a small team.

 

[meni0n]

So why are most of the purple trades get chopped to Land environment specific training and INT ops and Comm Rsch get selected as a whole trade? Especially the PLQ-L issue, as for example you have an Air Comm Rsch doing his course in Kingston and then going to Ottawa for 4-6 years and then somehow can pass a PLQ-L? And since it's only run by the Cbt Arms, there won't be many courses available to send all that extra influx of personnel to Pet for training. Wouldn't this create an even bigger backlog on courses? Same for Int op as they do their trades training by environment, what is the logic of a PLQ-L if an air int op would only be posted to an air base?

 

[armyvern]

Not to that extreme.  Environmental sub-MOS would be the way to go in my opinion.  Some jobs require an Army Sup Tech, some jobs require a Navy Sup Tech, and some jobs just require a Sup Tech.  Sub-MOS would allow a mechanism for individuals to be trained in the occupation and trained in a single environment.  Training would be reduced (as pers are only trained in one environment) and competency would increase (as pers would be employed in the environment of their training & practice/gain experience in that environment) but we would not loose all the flexibility that would occur in a complete split of an occupation.
Exactly.  Environmental specific sub-MOS (which is the effective if not formal result of the CANFORGEN) is a means to resolving this problem.

The only caveat that I would see to this is that there must be a move to three seperate merit listing. Army, Navy, and Air.

A common based "Supply" course, with subsequent "Enviornmental Specific Trades Qual" tacked on to it dependant upon one's uniform colour may work.

But, in the end --- it's the "promotions/postings" that have to be considered as well.

Retaining a single merit list simply doesn't make sense in this context. What if the first 100 corporals ranked on a common listing are of the "Air Force Specialty Supply type" and there is a Master Corporal required in an Army position? Do you skip the first 100 pers to promote number 101 because he is Army and thus is the first one with the quals to fill this "Army" position?

The vast majority of purple trade advancement entails "promoted and posted to ...". There must be an empty position to promote someone into. What if you are number 1 on that list for 6 years, but a position in the next rank level doesn't open up in your specific "enviornment" ... as a "Common trade" are you going to be happy sitting back for 6 years while other enviornmental people get promoted ahead of you because the positions all opened up in other enviornments? Somehow -- that just won't fly.

If the move is to make Army Suppies serve in the Army, Air in the Air, and Sea in the Sea ... then the only fair way to do such is to divide and seperate the merit lists into three distinct and seperate listings.

Three seperate merit lists allows for the number 1 Army Supply Cpl to be promoted and posted into the first available Army Supply Master Corporal position, and likewise for the other enviornments. Anything else would entail "skipping" over "better and thus higher merited Supply Techs" to fill positions. Can you say "Grieveances up the ying-yang to the CDS as a rule?" Because that's what it would become.

And, really, if our quals need to be different too for employment/placement/promotion, then really we are not the "same" trade anymore - despite having that common "supply" root.

 

[McG]

The only caveat that I would see to this is that there must be a move to three seperate merit listing. Army, Navy, and Air.

I agree here.  There might be room for a converging merit list.  Everyone would be listed by environment and collectively.  Initially, promotions would go based on the enviromental lists, then there could be a handful of any-environment promotions that go out based on those pers left on the converged list.  If this is too complicated or un-workable, then the simple approach of environment specific merit lists only is the way to go.

 

[George Wallace]

So why are most of the purple trades get chopped to Land environment specific training and INT ops and Comm Rsch get selected as a whole trade? Especially the PLQ-L issue, as for example you have an Air Comm Rsch doing his course in Kingston and then going to Ottawa for 4-6 years and then somehow can pass a PLQ-L? And since it's only run by the Cbt Arms, there won't be many courses available to send all that extra influx of personnel to Pet for training. Wouldn't this create an even bigger backlog on courses? Same for Int op as they do their trades training by environment, what is the logic of a PLQ-L if an air int op would only be posted to an air base?

I am sure you have heard the saying "You are a Soldier First, a Tradesman Second".  If not, I wonder where you have been.  Everyone does a PLQ-L so that when they deploy, they will know what to do (hopefully) when the excrement hits the rotating oscillator.  Now, unless you only intend on sitting at a desk in a Distant Early Warning Site as a Career Cpl you need to know this stuff, as you are likely someday to do a Tour in some far off land under very primitive and dangerous conditions.  If you don't do the PLQ-L, then you are not likely to ever have a supervisory role in any such taskings.

Remember, also, that the Infantry PLQ is much longer and Trade specific than the PLQ-L.  That is their "Bread and Butter".  Yours is to be able to assist them and be able to have the skills to survive in Battle, should the occasion arise.

 

[meni0n]

I know that George, but that CANFORGEN pretty much says that at a Svc Bn, people wearing a green beret are going to do PLQ-L but people with a blue beret won't. They will deploy overseas with no PLQ-L. How does that make sense? What makes them so different from a air int or sigint. Why have one standard for one purple trade and a different one for another?