The Quality of our Training

[Forgotten_Hero]

What do you people think of the quality of our training lately? Especially the basic courses? In hindsight... I feel that my training was too easy, and could have been much better if it wasnt for the way SQ and BIQ are set up (theres a lot of repetition) and if the damn "Todays 'safe' army" idea was thrown to the wolves. I'm talking about the training material...

 

[jwsteele]

I completely agree.  I think our training...especially at the basic level (as that is the only course I can speak of with experience) is too easy.  However, I think the quality of the training is very good.  All the instructors are extremely competent and professional and the structure of the training is excellent.  It's just not demanding enough in my opinion.  And the amount of re-tests they allow people to take is bloody scary.  I'm an Officer Cadet and when I saw some of my peers take 2 and 3 retests on on something like a weapons handling test it scared the crap out of me that I might be fighting beside that moron one day.  The physical aspect of training needs to be kicked up a notch for sure.  They need to do a better job of weeding people out.  My two cents from very limited personal experience, but it terms of training quality, I think it is very good.

 

[Journeyman]

Training has always been tougher "back in the day"....ask any generation.

And while I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in making things cushier, I was heartened to hear MGen Natynczyk say that Canadian soldiers remian in high demand overseas because of our professional abilities - - with that degree of competence coming from the fact that people DO fail CF courses. Not every country has standards, or competencies, and it's more obvious in those contingents that are obviously thrown into uniform and deployed so that their government can tap into that UN cash cow.

At the unit and sub-unit level, our troops have got it gripped, and have well-trained leadership (believe it or not). As layers of bureaucracy are increased as one looks further up the chain of command, however, I think we're losing the bubble.  (although I'm sure our war-fighting abilities could only benefit from another harassment lecture or two  :crybaby:  )

 

[Bartok5]

.... as one looks further up the chain of command, however, I think we're losing the bubble.  

So, in your estimation at exactly what point within the chain of command does the "bubble" go astray? 

I'm merely curious.  I know very well that standards are not slipping at my personal level.  And having worked as both Directing Staff and as the Chief Instructor of the Army Tactics School from 2002-2005, I know that the "bubble" was quite appropriately placed during my watch. 

So by all means, please define and substantiate your accusation regarding the chain of command in quantifiable (and verifiable) detail.  If anything, I would argue that the senior chain of command (both operational and LFDTS-related) are leaving no stone unturned in their collective efforts to align our training with current operational requirements as rapidly as is humanly possible.  Perhaps if you "know better", you ought to be advising the "chain of command"......

 

[Spr.Earl]

When it comes to training you get out what you put in to it.

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

Thats only in terms of the physical aspect. You can put a great deal of effort into the training, but that doesnt change the content of the training, nor the schedule to be followed.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What do you people think of the quality of our training lately? Especially the basic courses?

More live fire. Troops come out scared of live fre it seems. They need confidence to use their weapons with live rounds and not just blanks.
Need more navagation training and first aid.

Reserve side, guys are getting promoted to coporal while still lacking some serious private skills.

 

[Mojo Magnum]

Fresh out of bmq at the mega, I'd have to say that the standard excellent.  Sure they could have pounded us a little harder but I don't think that was their job.  It was my understanding that along with providing a foundation from which to build upon, they were determining whether or not we possessed the potential and attributes that would make future success possible. 

I know I'm just at the beginning of my career here but it seems to me that those who don't work hard will not advance.

The whole system worked excellent in my opinion.  I saw individual instruction, group instruction, Division commanders taking the time to teach patrol maneuvers etc.

At the mega, it was damn good.

in this private's humble opinion.

 

[darmil]

All I can say is bring back QL2 and QL3. :bullet:

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's good to see you have such a good spirit towards your training my friend. Please don't take this the wrong way but at your level you really shouldn't be able to see the standards in the bigger picture.

A recruit will judge their BMQ experience on how much bullshit they put up with, how much sleep they got, how much food they ate, how many new guns they got to shoot and an overall feeling of accomplishment.  While you guys may feel great about yourselfs (and rightly so for passing, congrats) the over all standard of training isn't there IMHO.   During stalward guardian of this year I worked along side new privates fresh out of kingstons 401 training group and I wasn't alone in my disbelief.  

Just talking shop a moment, infantry soldiers did not know how to march (sounds funny doesnt it).  Didn't know the number of steps they needed to take to walk 100 meters. Were right out to lunch then it came to nav.  Had weak weapon skills. List goes on.

People will say "They have the basics now it's up to the unit to fine tune them.

I completely disagree with this. They come back to the unit without the basics and instead of teaching these soldiers more advanced training were forced to work on teaching them how to tie their boots and pack their rucksacks.

 

[Bert]

Ghost778

I understand what you're saying, however the comments are generalized.  There may be different
perceptions between reg and res force BMQs, combat arms and non-combat arms members, expectations,
and their characteristics.

From my own experiences from BMQ and time in with the reg force, I'd say the training we got in BMQ is
pretty well summed in in Mojo's comments above.  Given the amount of weapon handling time and range
practice in BMQ, in no way can a recruit just of out of BMQ be a qualified expert at anything or
especially a trained infantry soldier.  And it is up to the unit and subsequent courses (the training system
including BMQ) to mold, evolve, and train the soldiers and make sure they meet the standards.  The trick
is to make expectations realistic within the training system, identify where standards are not being meant
in an objective way, and fix the problem.

Personally, I don't know anyone who can't tie boots who in my unit.  Ruckpack/webbing is a little different
as the courses taught on the Wing have a different load-out and method than what was taught in BMQ.  If
anything, the standards of QL2, QL3, 4, 5,...  should be as assessed as the post-BMQ recruit.  The variances
between members with a several years in can be just as startling, not necessarily due to any faults on the part
of the member, but variances in standards, unit expectations, and training. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Right of course it's all dependent on regular force or reserve and the specific training area.  My views are biased and limited

 

[Journeyman]

So, in your estimation at exactly what point within the chain of command does the "bubble" go astray?  

I suggest a very good starting point would be the Senate report,
Wounded: Canada's Military and the Legacy of Neglect.
Our Disappearing Options for Defending the Nation Abroad and at Home.
An Interim Report by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (September 2005),
It's available online http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/repintmainsep05-e.htm

It is chock full of "verifiable details" regarding an absence of warfighting focus at the senior levels. While it is aimed primarily at the political leadership, the document includes repeated instances of such things as increasingly bureaucraticized military personnel producing a "stranglehold on production." (p. 91)

So, to repeat my original comment, "At the unit and sub-unit level, our troops have got it gripped, and have well-trained leadership" - a reflection upon your time at the Tactics School no doubt, and yes, Denis is doing a fine job following in your footsteps, so there's no need for undue sensitivity. It's where politics and soldiering meet that I have issues. Again, read through the document and see how much funding would be available for extra range time if it wasn't spent on trying to eliminate regional disparity, keeping open redundant armouries in certain political ridings, and using the CF as a lab for social experiments.

As the report notes, "A military â “ even an under-funded military â “ is supposed to roar like a lion.  But the DND bureaucracy was beginning to look more like a flock of lambs." (ibid.)

 

[Proud Canadian]

Basic training is a joke. Basic is the place if you enter being in shape you will graduate being out of shape. The military needs to bring back the Cornwallis basic training days and ditch human rights.

 

[loyalist]

Well, I think it has more to do with structure than anything. The course desginers are given a LOT of material to cover for basic training, and time is simply not aloocated (speaking from IAP experience) the staff do a hell of a job in balancing everything. Do I think it's stupid that some cocky jackass in my platoon filed a complaint against our Master Seaman who is older, more experinced, knwons more about the army and is a better leader than her for mkaing us run in combat boots? Absolutely. that lies with directives from higher-up anf the poltical tune to focus on "human rights" rather han "operational requirements". If we took shit like that out the process, and made it more REAL, I think it would eqip young OCdts far better. My tasking involved lifting a cemet block off the ground onto a tower, simple enough...too bad the equipment wasn't properly measured and the pulleys were too bulky! Good thing I was able to quickly adapt, though I think my leadership ability could have been better asesed on something less technical.

Of course, criticism is easy. The new program involves more combat-oritented training, and there will no doubt be growing pains with this program. I will continue o be impressed with the fine conduct and professionalism of the NCMs and officers at CFLRS.

 

[Daidalous]

I know this is a bit off topic, but it deals with training.


I did a 4 day fuel handing course in Borden, This course has been a drunk course for many years.  When I did mine they changed it from a attend course to homework and exam at the end.  Sure the course was challenging, and I am very glad that it now is, most of us put aside our desires to hit the H club.  When we wrote the test 5 out of 14 failed and they had to work with standards to lower that number to 2.

I nearly fell out of chair when they said that,  you pass or you fail, simple as that.  I sure as hell don't want someone that knows only 68% of how to safely work with 18,000 Litres of highly explosive fuel, or lord help us a 300,000 plus fuel farm, but we have to give them the qualifications because we don't want to many people failing.

 

[Standards]

Judging by some, but not all, of the remarks I think some people don't have an understanding of how courses are developed and modified.  I don't pretend to have all the answers, but i will try and clarify a few things (from an Army perspective as those are the courses I deal with).

1.  All courses are based on three sets of documents: the Qualification Standard (QS), the Training Plan (TP) and the Master Lesson Plans.

2.  The QS resides in one of the cells in DAT (Director of Army Training) in Kingston.  A board, comprised of members of the applicable trades and personnel experienced with the course sits together and creates/updates the QS.  This document is the basis for everything else to do with the course.

3.  The TP resides with Army Individual Training Authority (AITA) in Gagetown.  It expands upon what the QS says and is created by a similar board.  The TP lays out what is to be taught and how much time is allotted.  The course staff cannot unilaterally deviate from this.  Since personnel from units are invited to these boards, if you are not happy with the TP then talk to whomever represented you (more on this below).

4.  The MLPs are created by the Centre of Excellence (CoE) for the specific course.  They are not meant to be slavishly followed.  Instead they are a starting point for the instructor to create his own lesson plan, but generally the easier solution is to hit print and walk to the classroom......

5.  The End Course Review (ECR) is the mechanism for changing elements of the course you are unsatisfied with.  This document starts with comments from the students and staff and wends its way through the chain of command until it reaches AITA.  it then gets filed until the next TP review, at which point all ECRs for that course are pulled out and examined for common trends.  By the book, each TP is to be reviewed every five years, however due to the current circumstances (contemporary operating environment etc), all Army TPs are being reviewed within the next three years.  This involves over 140 courses.

Some of the problems from my perspective are:

6.  I hear a lot of people complaining that they aren't happy with ****** (insert name of course).  However the old saying "if you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem" comes to mind.  As i stated earlier, the ECR is the method to change the course.  In the past year the four brigades in LFWA have run upwards of 300 courses, however I have seen less than 5 ECRs.  The units apparently want to have everything changed without bothering to staff anything to support why the changes need to be made!

7.  As I stated previously, QS and TP boards sit periodically to review the course and make changes.  Units are tasked to send personnel to these boards through CFTPO.  However, the units generally decide they are too busy so they no-fill the position.  In the cases where they do send a representative, it is often the wrong person - either too junior and inexperienced to have a valid viewpoint or much too senior to the point that their perspective of what the course should be teaching is skewed.  For example, within the past year two Infantry Battallions ran Basic Mountain Ops courses and both had issues with the course (ECRs anyone?).  However, the TP board sat a month or so ago and both units were "too busy" to send representatives.  Possibly its just me, this seems rather two-faced.

8.  For the reservists, keep in mind that the TP designated which POs are essential training and which are supplemental training.  The reserve version of the course completes only the essential POs while the reg force completes all of them (essential and supplemetal).  This is why reg force versions of the course are generally longer, but for some courses, particularly leadership, all POs are essential.  Remember this when you are complaining about why ****** (insert topic) isn't taught on the reserve course.  Also keep in mind that supplemental training can be included as long as qualified instructors and the resources are available (and the CO is willing to fund the extra expense).

To sum up, the standard applied to the course is that laid out in the TP's assessment plan.  If it seems to easy, then address it just like any other issue with the course.  I am not overly fond of the amount of failures allowed in some courses, however, like anything else, there is also two sides to this problem.  On a number of occasions I have found courses who had removed students without following the proper PRB (Progress Review Board) process ans therefore the unit's actions were illegal (not to mention immoral and unethical).

Probably too much info, but hopefully this clarifies things for some.

Have a Merry Christmas!

 

[OC]

While "STANDARDS" knows what he is talking about and basically summed everything up, I thought I'd add my two cents for what its worth.

1.  The problem surrounding this discussion results from the misnomer BASIC.  Basic training does not equal BMQ.  BMQ alone does not replace QL2.  Secondly Regular Force and Reserve BMQ and SQ courses follow the same CTP (Course Training Plan) with the same number of mins allocated to each lesson.  Yes, there are minute differences, (like the swim test on BMQ, which can be omitted from a Reserve course, if there is no time or pool available.  However, obviously, Reservists will have to do a swim test before participating in an exercise involving something like a watercrossing)

2.  To some, a soldier is not BASIC qualified until they have completed: BMQ, and SQ. To others a soldier is not BASIC qualified until they have completed BMQ, SQ, and BIQ (or trade qual).  Then they are qualified, but lack experience.  By participating in training and exercises they gain experience and then qualify (with the qualifications complete, time, and experience) to be promoted to cpl.

3.  While the training on BMQ may seem easy, many candidates "fail" to complete the course. Courses will gradually become more challenging. Yes, there is repetition.  One must not forget that review is important, and secondly, not every candidate will have the opportunity to do all 3 courses (BMQ, SQ, BIQ) back to back and therefore some need that review.  That being said, believe it or not, professional comments during the course review at the end, can lead to changes (granted over time) in course content.  So, for example, at the end of the SQ course, if you feel that spending 4 lessons reviewing "topic alpha" which is taught on BMQ are not necessary, put that in the Course Review and make a recommendation that it be changed to only one period of review. Also remember, that another SQ course may feel differently and write the opposite on their course review. This is why change is slow.

4.  Last, a military reflects the society if serves.  Through government, the citizens will voice what issues are important and the priority of spending on those issues.  Training and training resources come down to money and military spending in Canada is below a few other kinds of priorities for many Canadians.  So, yes putting live rounds down range, or live fire is excellent trg, but its expensive.  So don't just gripe about it, vote, and as a citizen, let your MP know what you think.

Cheers

P.S.  Training is what you make of it. 

 

[Infanteer101]

So far from what I have seen throughout this thread is some folks either being bitter about the place of training or individuals associated with training and not really concerned about the training itself (there are a couple of people who are concerned with this however). Furthermore, what are people comparing our "quality" of training to? The US? The Brits? Another recurring theme is "we could have been pushed harder in basic training" or something to that effect. After-all for those people respectfully, who are you to judge that? Do you honestly think that training at CFLRS St. Jean, the Infantry school in Gagetown etc trains less capable, ill trained people? I Think not! The intensity of training is infact a completely independent factor in relation to the quality of training. Understandably, the training "back in the day" was tougher by several degrees and that was due to lack or gain of several factors: technology, equipment, politics, role of the CF are a few of them. I by no means claim to be an expert on training, but I can safely say that the current quality of training in the CF is refelective on the values of Canadians that we adhere to today, it has been said that we have one of THE most tolerant and upwardly mobile socities of our time and with that comes advances in culture, technology, rights, etc etc. The CF has adopted several of these policies to further strengthen the fabric that ties us soldiers together. Some people say that "Today's Army" is a joke or "What is Canada's role again"? and they are entitled to their opinions...this however does not mean that we have comprimised the standards or the quality of training that continues to pump out highly capable, professional and to many degrees tolerant soldiers that are in demand to serve and deploy in hot zones all over the world to not only provide assitance but to also help re-build them.

Another point I will make is that soldiers aren't neccessarily becoming soft and certainly not less educated due to any training cycle. I believe the current collective goal of the CF is to attract a generation that come from all walks of life and are given the opportunity to progress both professionally and academically whether they are officer candidates or NCM hopefuls. The "quality" of training has not decipated, it has merely been adapated to suit the needs or our society and cultural advancements in society. For those still in the training cycles, especially those in the combat arms, beware, your opinions and judgements will soon change because BMQ, SQ and BOTC 1 and 2 are the easiest phases or your careers, that is where you will gain basic soldiering and leadership skills and by basic I mean BASIC. You will soon find that your hearts' desires whether they be going out in the bush and playing soldier or jumping out of perfectly good airplanes for no good reason...will only help tune you for the bigger picture that lies ahead and that is being in an operational theatre or just being an ambassador to your occupation in some capacity. For those of us who want to become career infantrymen, sappers, gunners, tankers; the intensity of training will not only increase and you will find yourself adapting to those particular changes rather quickly according to your adaptive capability but DO NOT expect the training expectations and standards to depreciate at any level because you WILL get weeded out by a highly capable and experienced staff at virtually any phase. The goal of Basic Training is simple: to give you the basic skills and experience neccessary to operate as a single unit in the operations of a "bigger than you" unit within a team of other units who wear the same colour as you do. Canada does not train stupid soldiers and neither do we give out ribbons to make your bed properly or how to use the toilet in a hygienic fashion. The medals, ribbons, patches and pins are earned and serve as daily reminders of your training and experience and believe me you don't need a stack of 'em to show the quality of your training or how much of a war nut you are. To me, wearing the uniform of my country is a privilige in itself and I am proud to don it day in and day out, any additions to it are further privileges that I will earn and are NOT rights. If you think that you were not pushed hard enough during Basic Training, just wait, you will change your mind very quickly and rest assured that there are several places within our country that offer that kind of training regimen and are known to break the beast in most men/women. Cheers!