???
Just wondering what is everyone's opinion on Squadron (Group) Commanders and grade.
Since grade and position are not dependent on each other, does SQ/GRP CC out rank everyone else by virtual of the office that they hold or does that only apply locally to the members within that SQ/GQ's span of control? What is the custom and courtesies for this?
For instance, a SQ CC is a 1st Lt with a Lt Col in the Squadron – Who out ranks who? When does that apply? always? only at squadron meetings? at GRP/WG events? etc.. Who salutes who?
Quote from: captrncap on May 01, 2007, 03:36:30 AM
???
Just wondering what is everyone's opinion on Squadron (Group) Commanders and grade.
Since grade and position are not dependent on each other, does SQ/GRP CC out rank everyone else by virtual of the office that they hold or does that only apply locally to the members within that SQ/GQ's span of control? What is the custom and courtesies for this?
Only in instances where it relates to their squadron or group. As for saluting, when a member reports to the front of a unit formation for an award or a promotion, then the member reporting salutes first (even it is a major reporting to a first lieutenant...they are saluting the position). If just walking outside, then the first lieutenant squadron commander would salute the lieutenant colonel squadron member first.
For example, I am a group deputy commander and a major. When the group commander is out of town, then I am the acting group commander. There happens to be a second lieutenant who is ground branch director qualified in one of the squadrons in my group. If a mission occurs while I am the acting group commander, and I sign in to the mission and get assigned as a ground team leader, then there would be a good chance that I would be under that second lieutenant's command for the mission (he jokes that will happen someday...I hope that when it does, that cadets see it...it would mess with their heads!).
Quote
For instance, a SQ CC is a 1st Lt with a Lt Col in the Squadron – Who out ranks who? When does that apply? always? only at squadron meetings? at GRP/WG events? etc.. Who salutes who?
The first lieutenant would "out rank" the lieutenant colonel in anything related to the squadron's affairs. Now if the same first lieutenant and lieutenant colonel were at an encampment as a "tac officer" and a "senior tac officer" respectively, then the lieutenant colonel would "out rank" the first lieutenant in anything related to the encampment.
If at the encampment they were discussing squadron affairs, then the lieutenant colonel could not "order" the first lieutenant to do anything with the squadron.
Don't get too wrapped up about grade. One of the confusing things about CAP is that people can have multiple duty assignments in very different contexts.
I'm in a squadron. My squadron commander's direction trumps all. I'm also running a TLC course. If my squadron commander served as an instructor, then my word would trump his for TLC issues. I'm also on the encampment command staff this year. I outrank the deputy encampment commander, but if the encampment CC isn't around and a decision needs to be made, I can't "pull rank" on the deputy.
Instead of focusing on grade/rank, focus on organizational structure and context. It will make life a lot easier on you.
This is just one of the things that has been broken by CAP. JMHO.
In the previous versions of the cadet leadership book series, it spent a whole page on the rank/grade subject. It had a cool little cartoon also! Too bad AFIADL 13 sucks so much! It needs to be re-written to address issues such as this.
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 01, 2007, 01:29:48 PM
In the previous versions of the cadet leadership book series, it spent a whole page on the rank/grade subject. It had a cool little cartoon also! Too bad AFIADL 13 sucks so much! It needs to be re-written to address issues such as this.
The text is still there.... But the cartoon of the cadets and stool is absent from the most recent version.
Grade provides zero authority in CAP.
Zero.
The entirety of any authority comes from staff appointment.
In terms of courtesies, the shoulder always wins (i.e. Unit CC always salutes those in his command who are a higher grade).
Maybe not authority, but credibility, and that's just as important.
People wear multiple hats in the military in dif contexts as well. It is very possible for a staff officer to direct a course that their commander attends or instructs as a subordinate. That's not at all confusing. It is very clear that you follow the chain of the thing you are acting in at the time. Just like I can have employees of mine outrank me in CAP or vice versa, and that doesn't mean anything in CAP or at work.
Quote from: DNall on May 01, 2007, 04:52:26 PM
Maybe not authority, but credibility, and that's just as important.
People wear multiple hats in the military in dif contexts as well. It is very possible for a staff officer to direct a course that their commander attends or instructs as a subordinate. That's not at all confusing. It is very clear that you follow the chain of the thing you are acting in at the time. Just like I can have employees of mine outrank me in CAP or vice versa, and that doesn't mean anything in CAP or at work.
Yes, but you're speaking of a situation where people are team players, know the bigger picture and aren't settling scores.
I think this was posed in the vein of the Lt. Col. who is passed over or doesn't like the 1st Lt. appointed as unit CC, and tries to shake his clusters around like they mean something in this context.
In my experience, this has also been a problem with recent, RealMilitary® officers who are new to the program.
In the RealMilitary®, officers are legally bound by their commission to take charge and execute leadership when things are going South - not so in CAP, but that can be a hard thing to "unlearn".
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2007, 06:15:10 PM
In the RealMilitary®, officers are legally bound by their commission to take charge and execute leadership when things are going South - not so in CAP, but that can be a hard thing to "unlearn".
I expect every CAP volunteer to know when to politely "take charge" when stuff around them is going bad. That would include telling another member to blow off if they are doing something wrong, inappropriate or outright insane. I have seen what happens when no one steps up to the plate and takes charge when an idiot tries to run the show.
In no way am I supporting insubordination or mutiny.
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 01, 2007, 07:59:29 PM
In no way am I supporting insubordination or mutiny.
...a very thin line, and the subject of many arguments, fights, 2b's and hard feelings....
Quote from: DNall on May 01, 2007, 04:52:26 PM
Maybe not authority, but credibility, and that's just as important.
People wear multiple hats in the military in dif contexts as well. It is very possible for a staff officer to direct a course that their commander attends or instructs as a subordinate. That's not at all confusing. It is very clear that you follow the chain of the thing you are acting in at the time. Just like I can have employees of mine outrank me in CAP or vice versa, and that doesn't mean anything in CAP or at work.
It's a false credibility, however. In the Real Military (TM), a Field Grade officer of any service will have had to jump through similar hoops. The big exceptions are Chaplains, Lawyers and Doctors, but they're not "line officers" and their authority can get really fuzzy.
In CAP, there's no way of telling the level of experience of the officer. If someone's the buddy of the Wing Commander, he could make his friend a Lt Col as soon as the membership paperwork clears - do not pass "GO," do not collect $200. (How? Easy - appoint the person Wing Legislative Liaison Officer CAPR 35-3, Section C Para 14). So, unless you get to see their ribbon rack, you can't tell if a Lt Col is former military, a heavy duty CAP veteran, or just a well connected greenhorn.
It will be very rare in the military for someone to have authority over a person of higher grade. Most of the time it will be someone carrying out the orders of someone superior to both of them. For example, an A1C SkyCop can't jack up a Col because he wants to, but because the CSAF issued orders (in the form of AFI's) that the A1C and the Col both must follow.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 01, 2007, 08:26:35 PM
It will be very rare in the military for someone to have authority over a person of higher grade. Most of the time it will be someone carrying out the orders of someone superior to both of them. For example, an A1C SkyCop can't jack up a Col because he wants to, but because the CSAF issued orders (in the form of AFI's) that the A1C and the Col both must follow.
Its not that rare, especially in USAFR units with older, experienced aircrew and younger, maybe active duty commanders...
Otherwise, you're 100% right, and despite the fact that I value and appreciate the bling on the level it functions, I think for a lot of reasons, especially our ES mission, we'd all be better off with golf shirts and ICS vests instead of the grade structure.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2007, 02:02:30 PM
Grade provides zero authority in CAP.
Zero.
The entirety of any authority comes from staff appointment.
In terms of courtesies, the shoulder always wins (i.e. Unit CC always salutes those in his command who are a higher grade).
I have to disagree with this one. All things being equal....any one no job Capt by "tradition and custom" outranks any no job 1st Lt and below. Custom and tradition are sources of unofficial authority....and you don't think there is no such thing as unofficial authority you have never had to kiss some A1C Finance Geek's butt to get your travel pay fixed.
...or put up with schtuff from a Col's secretary or a Col's wife.. I've done a lot of grin-and-bear-it in twenty six years of working for a military organization on my real job.
Via CAP, I've been shoulder-to-shoulder with both AF and CAP general officers, and shared dinner, war stories and jokes with all of them in various contexts. It's kinda tough to get excited by one attitudinal Colonel after you've been in a veritable rank pool...
As for rank over position, I'm a LtCol, and the squadron commander is a Capt. To make it more interesting, he's also five years my junior, and he's my brother. But, when we're on squadron-related business, he's still a 'sir.' I did tell him not to let it go to his head, or to have too much fun with it... ;) Several years ago, I knew the brothers Lewis out of Castro Valley, CA., and worked with/for them on a couple of things. I think they found themselves in a similar situation. They lived through it.. ;)
V/R,
Quote from: lordmonar on May 01, 2007, 11:23:08 PM
....and you don't think there is no such thing as unofficial authority you have never had to kiss some A1C Finance Geek's butt to get your travel pay fixed.
HAHA....been sent to "the back of the line" by an E-1 for not waiting to sign a box in front of him on a form. Had to refill a new form, and then wait twenty minutes so he could watch me sign my name. I guess they just don't trust Officers these days!
Quote from: LTC_Gadget on May 02, 2007, 01:40:51 AM
...or put up with schtuff from a Col's secretary or a Col's wife.. I've done a lot of grin-and-bear-it in twenty six years of working for a military organization on my real job.
I had one bird who's wife thought when he made Colonel she did as well. It was not uncommon for soldiers to be seen saluting her on post. Not to mention the SGT who worked in the admin section and thought he was hot stuff because he worked for the Garrison Commander. He routinely would be seen jumping to the front of lines in the PX and Commissary. Some people are the type that uses the social status of others for their benefit. Makes me sick sometimes.
I had the opportunity to watch the pharmacy line at the local dispensary some years ago. An O-4's wife was trying to bully her way to the front of the line and making a scene. All of a sudden, this other lady came from the back of the line and not so ploitely informed the O-4's wife that her place was at the end of the line, since it was first come, first serve. She then informed all within hearing that dependent wives had no special HOTL privileges, and that, BTW, she was the Admiral's wife and she claimed no special benefit from that status. She got a round of applause, as she returned to her own place in line.
Quote from: SarDragon on May 02, 2007, 06:24:45 AM
I had the opportunity to watch the pharmacy line at the local dispensary some years ago. An O-4's wife was trying to bully her way to the front of the line and making a scene. All of a sudden, this other lady came from the back of the line and not so ploitely informed the O-4's wife that her place was at the end of the line, since it was first come, first serve. She then informed all within hearing that dependent wives had no special HOTL privileges, and that, BTW, she was the Admiral's wife and she claimed no special benefit from that status. She got a round of applause, as she returned to her own place in line.
Funny story, that ... my aunt told me of a time when, as a new Navy wife (my late uncle retired as an E-6), she was in the Commissary (or whatever the Navy calls it) at Norfolk in the early '50s and some lady tried to bull her way to the front of the line, where my aunt was. Turns out she was Admiral Byrd's wife, which impressed my aunt no end -- but didn't get her in line before her. (My uncle was an E-2 at the time!) Mrs. Byrd said, "We'll see about THIS!" and went back to the end of the line. Later, at some on-base function or other, my uncle encountered the admiral and his wife, and aside, Admiral Byrd actually apologized to my uncle for the way his wife behaved! Wow.
Jack
I remember reading a particular staff study analysis about 10 years ago when I was ROTC. I will give you the "Readers Digest Version".
During 1952 in Korea, a Company of Infantry Soldiers were on their way up hill 355, when they were attacked. All of the Officers were killed except a brand new 2LT and half of the Company. He immediately took charge and began a "smart" retreat back down the hill. On his continuation down the hill a Colonel came up to him and stopped him in his tracks, he ordered the LT to turn around and lead his men back up the Hill. The LT told the Colonel to go to hell, that he had no idea what he was doing. The Colonel relieved the LT and led the men back up the hill. The LT stayed behind and watched as only the Colonel and 2 other men came running back down the hill. After a few days in the rear, The LT was shocked when he was charged with insubordination, failure to follow a lawful order, and a few others by the Colonel. At the Courts-Martial, the Army found the LT not guilty on all charges, stating that the Colonel may have been a superior officer, but because he was Doctor, and had always been an Army Doctor, he really had no idea what he was doing and he was wrong to take charge of that infantry unit. In fact, the LT had every right to not follow the Colonel up the hill.
In this instance Rank did not mean anything, Postion meant everything.
On a side note, Army Officers at that time could easily be made out as far as what their jobs were. They wore Branch Insignia (Infantry, Artillery, Aviation...etc.) Today you can't tell what an Officer does in the Army when he or she is wearing ACU's. It is a real shame! It made life just a little easier sometimes.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2007, 02:02:30 PM
Grade provides zero authority in CAP.
Zero.
The entirety of any authority comes from staff appointment.
Then maybe it's time for grade to correspond with position for every level of command, just like in the CG Auxiliary. Any thoughts?
Quote from: 12211985 on May 05, 2007, 04:10:34 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2007, 02:02:30 PM
Grade provides zero authority in CAP.
Zero.
The entirety of any authority comes from staff appointment.
Then maybe it's time for grade to correspond with position for every level of command, just like in the CG Auxiliary. Any thoughts?
Happy endings suck galactic muffins.
The CGAux has the same problem we do. You still have past officers running around with office insignia that doesn't equate to their current job, or lack of one. I have a past Division Captain (silver oak leaves) in my Flotilla.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2007, 08:16:24 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 01, 2007, 07:59:29 PM
In no way am I supporting insubordination or mutiny.
...a very thin line, and the subject of many arguments, fights, 2b's and hard feelings....
Not to mention you run the risk of displeasing any of our Newly minted Admirals of the Great State of Nebraska. ... Is it possible to walk the plank off the side of a Combine?
The way 99% of all SMs will look at Rank is that it indicates your level of professional education within the organization - notice I didnt say experience: ive seen plenty of folks that never progress beyond Lt or Capt. but have 2 or more Master ratings. -
As for the Rating system, well thats job job experience.
As for GRADE ... whenever I think of grade I think of payroll and we are all O-zeros as far as I know. ::) ...That is unless Nebraska sends these Admirals a stipend.
In my half dozen years with CAP ive seen that for the most part position goes to the most mature person who is willing to take the job. ...Sometimes due to lack of vollunteers the maturity can vary as can the level of experience in an area. Then its a question of having a warm body LT with a tech rating and all the time in the world or a Lt. Col with a Master but no time for the job....
At the very least, I would like to see us change our terminology/definitions to be in line with the military rather than confuse people.
Quote from: MIKE on May 05, 2007, 03:45:33 PM
At the very least, I would like to see us change our terminology/definitions to be in line with the military rather than confuse people.
I agree. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck... shouldn't it be a duck? CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary, and should have terminology/definitions that are in line with those of the Air Force.
I'm not saying CAP can't have its own customs and traditions, I'm just saying that common sense needs to be a factor here.
Even in the Army position trumps grade. If a staff member is a LTC and a commander of a unit is a major, the LTC cannot tell the major what to do. Position always dictates command ability.
Quote from: gallagheria on May 17, 2007, 07:08:23 PM
Even in the Army position trumps grade. If a staff member is a LTC and a commander of a unit is a major, the LTC cannot tell the major what to do. Position always dictates command ability.
I dont know about that. Are you telling me that a Major cannot tell a Company Commander what to do? Try telling that to my former Battalion X0. He used to chew up Company Commanders when they didnt have their maint status in on time
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 17, 2007, 11:50:08 PM
Quote from: gallagheria on May 17, 2007, 07:08:23 PM
Even in the Army position trumps grade. If a staff member is a LTC and a commander of a unit is a major, the LTC cannot tell the major what to do. Position always dictates command ability.
I dont know about that. Are you telling me that a Major cannot tell a Company Commander what to do? Try telling that to my former Battalion X0. He used to chew up Company Commanders when they didnt have their maint status in on time
You illustrate the point exactly.
Your BATTALION XO's position placed him over your Company Commander's position when it came to maintenance statuses.
Positional authority almost always trumps grade.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2007, 12:05:24 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 17, 2007, 11:50:08 PM
Quote from: gallagheria on May 17, 2007, 07:08:23 PM
Even in the Army position trumps grade. If a staff member is a LTC and a commander of a unit is a major, the LTC cannot tell the major what to do. Position always dictates command ability.
I dont know about that. Are you telling me that a Major cannot tell a Company Commander what to do? Try telling that to my former Battalion X0. He used to chew up Company Commanders when they didnt have their maint status in on time
You illustrate the point exactly.
Your BATTALION XO's position placed him over your Company Commander's position when it came to maintenance statuses.
Positional authority almost always trumps grade.
Exactly. In the same since the HHC (Headquarters and Headquartes Company I think) CO is usually a Capt, yet the S-1 (personnel) officer may be a Maj. The S-1 officer falls under the command of the Capt in company related matters.
Quote from: stillamarine on May 18, 2007, 05:19:34 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2007, 12:05:24 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 17, 2007, 11:50:08 PM
Quote from: gallagheria on May 17, 2007, 07:08:23 PM
Even in the Army position trumps grade. If a staff member is a LTC and a commander of a unit is a major, the LTC cannot tell the major what to do. Position always dictates command ability.
I dont know about that. Are you telling me that a Major cannot tell a Company Commander what to do? Try telling that to my former Battalion X0. He used to chew up Company Commanders when they didnt have their maint status in on time
You illustrate the point exactly.
Your BATTALION XO's position placed him over your Company Commander's position when it came to maintenance statuses.
Positional authority almost always trumps grade.
Exactly. In the same since the HHC (Headquarters and Headquartes Company I think) CO is usually a Capt, yet the S-1 (personnel) officer may be a Maj. The S-1 officer falls under the command of the Capt in company related matters.
Well, yes and no.
All the positional authority still stems from a superior officer. The S-1 doesn't really answer to the HHC - he answers to the CO, who delegated his authority in this matter to the HHC.
The reason an E-2 can jack up a Col at the gate is because he has authority given to him from either the Base Commander or SecAF/CSAF (through published regulations).
Now, in any matter not covered by such a delegation of authority, rank wins. The senior must take charge.
Command always overrides grade.
Take for instance a major in unit 1. He is a member of the staff. Take a captain who is in unit 2. The captain is a unit commander. The major has no authority whatsoever over the captain, unless he is in the chain of command, which in this case he is not. Command always overrides rank.
Now, in most cases, a higher ranking person will not be under a junior officer, but the position would be the deciding factor. In the Army, AR 600-20 ("Army Command Policy") clarifies this, and I am sure it is no different in the Air Force.
A bit misleading. Command does override grade in matters of command. But outside matters of command, rank matters. The major still has some authority over the captain, indeed over all captains.
So, the staff major can't order the company commander captain to make his company do something. He can however, correct the captain for personal things like uniform infractions, conduct at the O club, etc. In fact, he's expected to do so. He has a responsibility to his Service to make on the spot corrections to anyone of lower grade. And if the two of them were seperated from their units and working together, the major is in charge.
On the flip side, The captain has zero authority over that staff major. The major isn't in his unit, and also outranks him.
The difference in CAP is that the staff major truly has zero authority over the captain. Our regs only invest power in commanders. So if that staff major wants to correct the captain's uniform or conduct, or direct his actions at some Wing function, the captain can blow him off. And all the major can do is go find the captain's commander and complain.
It's all about the position, baby.
and last but certainly not least, the mods here aren't all LtCols, but if we get outta hand, no matter what rank, they can still put us on 'vacation,' or make us persona non grata... ;D
V/R,
Perhaps the naval example best clarifies this: aboard ship, isn't the commanding officer is the ultimate authority on that vessel and everyone aboard it, regardless of rank?
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 18, 2007, 09:41:59 PM
Perhaps the naval example best clarifies this: aboard ship, isn't the commanding officer is the ultimate authority on that vessel and everyone aboard it, regardless of rank?
Yes, but he is almost always the most senior officer on board, anyway. If the ship is carrying a flag officer, the skipper would usually be working for the flag in an operational sense, but the day-to-day happenings come under the skipper's purview.
In my experience, the RealMilitary® manages to work things out so that our CAP-like situations never happen. Training command situations differ, but there is always some chain of command that follows the rank structure.
Reminds me of the Sgts at AFROTC Field Training... " You are a worthless Disgusting MAGGOT!!! ... SIR. " :)
Quote from: SarDragon on May 18, 2007, 10:51:26 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 18, 2007, 09:41:59 PM
Perhaps the naval example best clarifies this: aboard ship, isn't the commanding officer is the ultimate authority on that vessel and everyone aboard it, regardless of rank?
Yes, but he is almost always the most senior officer on board, anyway. If the ship is carrying a flag officer, the skipper would usually be working for the flag in an operational sense, but the day-to-day happenings come under the skipper's purview.
Exactly my point -- the admiral may be along for the ride, but does not interfere in the inner workings of ship or crew.
Quote from: 12211985 on May 05, 2007, 04:10:34 AMThen maybe it's time for grade to correspond with position for every level of command, just like in the CG Auxiliary. Any thoughts?
I have a problem with the "just like in the CG Auxiliary". This isn't the CG Aux. And I dislike the idea of being stuck in a particular grade just because I live 120 miles away from wing headquarters; not one of the "in-crowd"; or not eligible for major just because my state doesn't have a group.
I have no problem with people getting promoted if they legitimately meet the requirements for each level of the PD program. The rank shows experience. And yes, a military officer receiving an equivalent grade in CAP has loads of leadership experience. There is very little difference than a military officer transferring branches, they just have to learn a few new things about their new service's mission and ways of doing things.
When it comes to positional grade, yes, I seriously dislike the concept. I don't even know what the CG Aux does as far as a professional development program goes, but I might reconsider if I thought it involved personal advancement like our program does. As far me, I like the fact that if I advance myself that it's going to show in some manner.
CG Aux has no real professional development program though there are some opportunities to participate in various CG programs and some specialties within the CG Aux have progressive training programs.
Being in both CAP and CG Aux, the CG Aux system is much better adapted to an organization actually comprised of civilians.
However, as has been stated before no system CAP is likely to develop will resolve the inherent differences in administrative positional authority and operational (ES-related) positional authority given the fact that CAP units are not actually used in the same operational sense as are real military units. You can have a system of rank that makes sense for administrative purposes, a system that makes sense for emergency services purposes, or use the current CAP system in which rank makes no sense at all either for CAP administration or emergency response.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 20, 2007, 09:59:29 PM
You can have a system of rank that makes sense for administrative purposes, a system that makes sense for emergency services purposes, or use the current CAP system in which rank makes no sense at all either for CAP administration or emergency response.
It makes plenty of sense if viewed in the proper context. ES is not the be-all, end-all of CAP. There are other factors involved too. Even in the Air Force, a general occasionally goes out for a flight, but he would still answer to the SOF in such a situation. And I've seen an Army full bird jump from an airplane, but he still answers to the jumpmaster. I personally know a Blackhawk crewchief that told a one star not to unbuckle during the flight. General got irritated, even though the crewchief was polite about it. There are times when you may have higher ranking lives in your hands. And a lot of those times, you have to protect them from themselves.
Just having the rank doesn't automatically make the individual an expert in all aspects, or always in charge. There are plenty of military situations that are just as equivalent, although we don't hear of them in CAP.
In CAP there are plenty of higher ranking personnel that have already "been there, done that". Should someone automatically take charge for thirty five or forty years straight? There are people that have been in CAP that long. Why shouldn't they have the option of relaxing later, without taking a bust for it?
As far as the CG Aux goes, I've heard about the "Past Officer" device. Is it worn on all authorized uniforms? If not, it doesn't show experience at all times. And the experience is always there, not just when a certain uniform is worn. Rank in CAP shows it at all times. As long as the credentials are updated, there is no harm in someone working for many years at a time, and then resting on their laurels.
I was just stating the simple fact that due to the structure of CAP you will never come close to a rank system that works well for everything CAP does. Either you put up with the Lt. commanding a squadron full of Majors or you put up with a Lt. running a mission manned mostly by people higher ranking than them, or you put up with both. People will complain about any one of those options.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 21, 2007, 02:04:30 AM
I was just stating the simple fact that due to the structure of CAP you will never come close to a rank system that works well for everything CAP does. Either you put up with the Lt. commanding a squadron full of Majors or you put up with a Lt. running a mission manned mostly by people higher ranking than them, or you put up with both. People will complain about any one of those options.
Point taken. Sorry, didn't quite realize your viewpoint. Apologies. Personally, I've never had problems with such a system. If a person is qualified, I've got no problem with them assuming a mission. And I don't think someone that isn't qualified should have a problem with it.
If someone higher ranking has a problem with it, then that is a case where they need to obtain the appropriate qualifications to assume command of the situation. Otherwise, they need to maintain silence.
If you work backwards from real military grade, you can figure out how a volunteer system based on such grade should work.
1. Grade is an outward symbol of the generic authority and responsiblity a servicemember holds. In the absence of a clear chain of command, the ranking guy is in charge, and responsible for upholding the standards of the organization.
2. Grade is an outward symbol of the responsibility the person holds in their job. When I see an E-8, I can be pretty sure that his job is more than just turning wrenches. When I see an 05, I'm pretty sure he's either a high level staff officer, mid level commander, or highly trained and experienced (like a doctor)
3. Related to #3, Grade is used to determine what job to give to a person. The military won't waste a Colonel on a Captain's job. But it would fill the Captain's job with a Captain before putting a 1st Lt in the job.
4. Grade is tied to pay. Because of 2-4 above, we pay more for higher grades.
So.....how can we mimic this system within CAP, given our volunteer nature.
1. Grade = Generic Responsiblity and Authority. CAP doesn't do this today . If a Major sees a bunch of Captains from some other unit screwing up, he has no authority to correct them and no responsiblity to get involved. If CAP officers had this authority and responbility, we'd have a lot more people empowered to uphold our standards.
But.....things would get wonky if a Major worked for a Captain. There would be conflict if they disagreed - both would feel they had the responsiblity to fix things and the authority to do so. This is probably why CAP gives no authority to grade.
2. Grade symbolizes your level of responsiblity in the organization. Not in CAP it doesn't. People can't be forced to take jobs. And CAP members often move up and down the chain. They may choose to take a lesser role because of all kinds of outside life issues (problems at work, having kids, getting older). In CAP, members who used to be Wing ES officers may now just be Squadron Testing Officers - so their rank gets all out of whack with what they are doing.
3. Grade determines what job you get. If we did this, it would clear up the possible problems with #2 - Majors wouldn't work for Captains. The Major would get the job, and the Captain would work for him
4. Grade = Pay. We can throw this right out. We don't pay people.
But, we have the same problem as with #3. The Major may not WANT the job, and be happier working for the Captain. And now we're back to the #2 issue.
Is there a way out of this?
Yup.
Make rank temporary.
So when you apply for a job, if you have completed the appropriate level of PD, you get a promotion.
But if you decide to move back to a lower level of the organzation, you accept a lower grade.
You can always move back up later when you have more time and energy.
If we did something like this..
1. We could tie rank to responsiblity and authority. The guys currently in charge would also be the guys with the rank. Makes sense the the rest of us would have to listen to 'em. And that they could be held accountable if they didn't run things correctly.
2. When you saw a Major, you'd know he held at least a Major's job (he might hold Lt Col's job but only have the PD for a Major). So the grade would give you some idea of this guy's level of responsibility.
3. We wouldn't have to worry about using grade to fill jobs. We'd fill jobs based on PD level, past performance, and interest, and then give them the appropriate grade.
For personal "bragging rights" we'd still have our level 1-5 PD system with the ribbons. We could also do some sort of past officer device that could be used during purely social occasions (like banquets) so you could show off that you used to be a Colonel.
But for the most part, we'd end up with results closer to the military - the grade on the collar would tell us what kind of responsiblity and authority this officer currently holds.
The one tricky place is ES, where the chain of command can be completely different from the one used in Wings/Groups/Squadrons. The easiest answer is not to wear rank for ES ops, as it simply doesn't matter. Another way would be to require Armbands or some other indicator of current ICS position, making it clear that on ES ops, no ICS indicator = no authority.
The only other alternative I can think of is what CAP does today - use grade to recognize training and past performance, but don't give officers any authority or responsiblity by virtue of grade, so that it doesn't get in the way of the chain of command.
Now, I'm not steeped in Army stuff, even though I worked for them. However, it seemed the WO's are a little less "grade conscious" among themselves, at least from a saluting standpoint.
If we adopted a FO system (FO-X where X=PD Level) would it be easier for us to operate in a way that the Real Military would understand?
Yup, right down to their generic title of "Mister" the warrants have a certain casualness that might be a good model to follow.
Some will say that the problem with such a plan is that USAF doesn't have warrants or flight officers.
But this could be a strength - it would clearly define us as "not real USAF" but at the same time keep us within a traditional U.S. military system.
It also eliminates direct comparisons with active military (especially if we used flight officer grade) which should limit the accusations of "wannabee."
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 21, 2007, 04:22:56 PM
Now, I'm not steeped in Army stuff, even though I worked for them. However, it seemed the WO's are a little less "grade conscious" among themselves, at least from a saluting standpoint.
If we adopted a FO system (FO-X where X=PD Level) would it be easier for us to operate in a way that the Real Military would understand?
Hell most of them don't even salute commissioned officers most of the time. They are very casual. I also love those 20 year old warrants that JUST competed the "high school to flight school" program. They think because they have the word "officer" in thier title, that they are equal to commissioned officers. I sometimes enjoy making a point to let these new "officers" know they still have to salute a 2LT.
Warrants would be BAD for CAP. Lets change the system that says after 1 year of service you can be promoted to 2nd Lt, after 2 more years you can be promoted to 1st LT, after 3 more years you can make CAPT, after 5 more years you can make major, and after 5 more years you can make LTCOL. That means it would take 17 years to become a LTCOL. Now.....those officers have demonstrated some commitment to the program right? We will then have members that are truely "senior" to lead the organization at higher levels. Also......lets get the SLS and CLC and other courses online. GAS COSTS WAY TOO MUCH NOW to have a member travel any long distance to attend a weekend class at the wing HQ. Does it make sense to drop $150.00 on gas and another $30.00 on tolls, not to mention food and lodging? Lets produce soemthing that doesn't cost a small fortune to be part of. WE spend enough on Uniforms!
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 21, 2007, 05:06:26 PM
Warrants would be BAD for CAP. Lets change the system that says after 1 year of service you can be promoted to 2nd Lt, after 2 more years you can be promoted to 1st LT, after 3 more years you can make CAPT, after 5 more years you can make major, and after 5 more years you can make LTCOL. That means it would take 17 years to become a LTCOL. Now.....those officers have demonstrated some commitment to the program right? We will then have members that are truely "senior" to lead the organization at higher levels.
You're making an assumption that these Lt Col's will actually lead CAP, instead of just staying in the squadrons.
In many cases, key wing staff positions are filled with Lt's and Capt's because they were the best qualified person who wanted the job. A lot of Lt Col's and Major's didn't even apply.
As for putting CLC and SLS online - we could certainly do that. But I'm not sure I want a leader who did all his "training" in his living room. While the current CLC and SLS need a LOT of work to become decent courses, you can't learn to lead online. You have to have hands-on instruction involving other people.
We have lots of dedicated members who have demonstrated "commitment to the program," but that doesn't mean all these members are interested in - or capable of - running a Wing or Region.
I'm not against increasing time in grade - it would ensure our folks were about the same age as their USAF equivalents - but it still doesn't help with the issue that we wear military rank, but use it in a most un-military fashion. Nor would it help us get better leaders.
Would it also make sense to demand time spent in CAP between SLS and CLC? I know a guy who took SLS and CLC practically back to back.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 21, 2007, 08:21:44 PM
Would it also make sense to demand time spent in CAP between SLS and CLC? I know a guy who took SLS and CLC practically back to back.
I took them on consecutive weekends, because that's when they were being offered.
The rest of the story - I was in an overseas unit in Japan and we made the course available to the Kadena and Yokota units. Most of the attendees had been in CAP at least two years, so it wasn't a big issue.
Would we have been better off waiting a while between the two courses? Probably. Would it have been practical? Probably not, given instructor availability. He was leaving Japan in less than three months, so we got as many folks together as possible and went for it. There were no other qualified instructors among the three units.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 21, 2007, 08:21:44 PM
Would it also make sense to demand time spent in CAP between SLS and CLC? I know a guy who took SLS and CLC practically back to back.
Topic drift continues...
Yeah, I've seen guys knock out Level 1, SLS and CLC in their first six months. It was clear by the CLC that they weren't getting anywhere near as much out of it as the folks who had a few years in, and held critical jobs at Squadron or Group.
If the courses has tests you had to pass, then the inexperienced guy would probably fail. But since it's just "show up for a weekend and get your certificate," I'd support at least delaying CLC until Level II is complete.
SLS, taught correctly, is good for anyone holding a squadron staff job, so doing it early on makes sense for many.
Quote from: Dragoon on May 22, 2007, 01:37:39 PM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 21, 2007, 08:21:44 PM
Would it also make sense to demand time spent in CAP between SLS and CLC? I know a guy who took SLS and CLC practically back to back.
Topic drift continues...
Yeah, I've seen guys knock out Level 1, SLS and CLC in their first six months. It was clear by the CLC that they weren't getting anywhere near as much out of it as the folks who had a few years in, and held critical jobs at Squadron or Group.
If the courses has tests you had to pass, then the inexperienced guy would probably fail. But since it's just "show up for a weekend and get your certificate," I'd support at least delaying CLC until Level II is complete.
SLS, taught correctly, is good for anyone holding a squadron staff job, so doing it early on makes sense for many.
If experience is so critical to passing SLS and CLC.....why have them at all?
It is the old chicken and egg issue. The training should prepare you for the job you are going to take....not the one you have held for 2-1 years.
And if the training is NOT teaching you anything you did not already know through experince...then it is just a hoop jumping/box checking exercise and should be dropped altogether.
The only reason why we have rank requirements for training is to help control class size. RSC is limited to Majors (with some exceptions) because if you allowed anyone to attend then there would not be any seats for those who "need" the course.
Quote from: Dragoon on May 22, 2007, 01:37:39 PM
If the courses has tests you had to pass, then the inexperienced guy would probably fail. But since it's just "show up for a weekend and get your certificate," I'd support at least delaying CLC until Level II is complete.
This is one of the big problems with Level 1, SLS, CLC, RSC, UCC...no requirement to demonstrate any learning other than showing up....there ought to be something, not necessarily tests for every one of them, but some sort of objective demonstration of performance....writing a briefing, or making a briefing, teaching a class, designing a multi-month unit schedule....maybe writing a paper, or giving a speech, as the cadets do for certain achievements.
Lets try to steer this one back om topic guys.
Quote from: MIKE on May 23, 2007, 03:07:44 AM
Lets try to steer this one back om topic guys.
I though we sort of beat that one to death.
In an everyday encounter and on general terms grade determines rank....but in specific cases position determines rank.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2007, 11:43:33 PM
If experience is so critical to passing SLS and CLC.....why have them at all?
It is the old chicken and egg issue. The training should prepare you for the job you are going to take....not the one you have held for 2-1 years.
The concept is that a certain level of experience in one job helps you absorb the training for the new job.
I mean, you could send a new Airman First Class off to the First Sergeant Academy, but he'd be a heck of alot better prepared if he'd been an NCO for while first.
I know that having done some leading and supervising in my job already, I got a lot more out of my graduate management classes than the 21 year olds in the class who were straight out of their bachelor's programs. They just didn't have enough experience to attach the new knowledge to.
Since Level II is focus on Squadron work, holding off CLC until completion of Level II should give you some grounding in squadron stuff before you being learning wing stuff.
Now, if you're working at Wing as a pre-level II guy, all bets are off.
Quote from: Dragoon on May 23, 2007, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2007, 11:43:33 PM
If experience is so critical to passing SLS and CLC.....why have them at all?
It is the old chicken and egg issue. The training should prepare you for the job you are going to take....not the one you have held for 2-1 years.
The concept is that a certain level of experience in one job helps you absorb the training for the new job.
I mean, you could send a new Airman First Class off to the First Sergeant Academy, but he'd be a heck of alot better prepared if he'd been an NCO for while first.
Apples and oranges. You should have said send an A1C to Airman Leadership School. First Sergeants Academy is for E-7's and above. Much too great of a jump.
But an A1C certainly could pass the ALS with little or no problems....in fact he could learn the "book way of doing things" much easier than older Airman because he does not have a lot of years experience of seeing and doing it "wrong".
Quote from: Dragoon on May 23, 2007, 01:59:49 PMI know that having done some leading and supervising in my job already, I got a lot more out of my graduate management classes than the 21 year olds in the class who were straight out of their bachelor's programs. They just didn't have enough experience to attach the new knowledge to.
Again apples and oranges. SLS and CLC are NOT graduate level anything.
I do agree that some seasoning is required for the RANK but the course? No....if you were assuming that the member is a just out of high school 18 year old FO....maybe....but let's take me for example....I got 21 year in the AF and have 4 years of CAP under my belt....I have been waiting for a SLS class for over 3 years now.....should I really wait another 2 years until I take my CLC to get some seasoning? SLS is NOT going to teach me anything new (I have reviewed the syllabus) so it is just a hoop jumping exercise for me.
Granted not everyone is just like me.....but if we make rules that make getting training MORE difficult then I am against it!
Quote from: Dragoon on May 23, 2007, 01:59:49 PM
Since Level II is focus on Squadron work, holding off CLC until completion of Level II should give you some grounding in squadron stuff before you being learning wing stuff.
Now, if you're working at Wing as a pre-level II guy, all bets are off.
And how many times does that happen? ;D
You have illistrated the need NOT to have waits between formal training courses. We shove people into jobs they are not ready for as it is....if you with hold the training they need to do those jobs....then you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
In an ideal program, SLS and CLC would be conducted at least annually. In fact, National funds one of each per wing per year. CAPR 50-17 says
Quote5-3. Corporate Learning Course (CLC).
After completing the Squadron Leadership School and learning about squadron operations, senior members should attend the Corporate Learning Course (CLC).
It does not mention any period of separation between SLS and CLC.
Quote from: arajca on May 24, 2007, 02:23:02 AM
In an ideal program, SLS and CLC would be conducted at least annually. In fact, National funds one of each per wing per year. CAPR 50-17 says
Quote5-3. Corporate Learning Course (CLC).
After completing the Squadron Leadership School and learning about squadron operations, senior members should attend the Corporate Learning Course (CLC).
It does not mention any period of separation between SLS and CLC.
Wait, Wait, Wait! NHQ funds one once per year?!? What does that funding include? Lunches, billeting, dinners??? If they do, why do some Wings charge for a member to attend the ONCE PER YEAR SLS/CLC?? I am curious now.......so Wing gets money that can be going to something totally NOT the SLS/CLC.
The funding covers the materials (books and certificates) only. Billeting, food, etc, would be REAL nice to have covered, but it ain't. National won't even cover coffee and donuts for the course. Many times, the instructors/directors eat (no pun intended) the cost of these.
To help redirect this careening thread back to the proper highway ...
I think we've debated this "rank vs. position" before here. It was the consensus, I recall, that the grade insignia worn by a member was simply recognition of what he/she has achieved, whether in CAP or in the RealMilitary(tm). Apart from the reserved grades (colonel, brigadier general, major general), the grade worn has little if anything to do with one's job in the squadron/group/wing/region OR on SAR activities.
Position in this organization is, of course, everything. So it wouldn't be uncommon for a 1st Lt to be in command of a squadron full of field grade officers. And any field grade officer who has an issue with that simply doesn't understand the way CAP uses grade, and needs to be "educated."
I understand what folks mean when they say, "We can use bling instead of grade to show what one has achieved." Unfortunately, that only works when you have a member who wears the bling. (We have a lot who don't.) And it's important to recognize what one has achieved, and in some there's a need to show it off. Grade does this at a glance -- "Oh, you're a major, you've made it through this and this and this. Good on you!"
That's my opinion ... free, and worth what it cost.
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 24, 2007, 01:22:35 PM
To help redirect this careening thread back to the proper highway ...
I think we've debated this "rank vs. position" before here. It was the consensus, I recall, that the grade insignia worn by a member was simply recognition of what he/she has achieved, whether in CAP or in the RealMilitary(tm). Apart from the reserved grades (colonel, brigadier general, major general), the grade worn has little if anything to do with one's job in the squadron/group/wing/region OR on SAR activities.
Position in this organization is, of course, everything. So it wouldn't be uncommon for a 1st Lt to be in command of a squadron full of field grade officers. And any field grade officer who has an issue with that simply doesn't understand the way CAP uses grade, and needs to be "educated."
I understand what folks mean when they say, "We can use bling instead of grade to show what one has achieved." Unfortunately, that only works when you have a member who wears the bling. (We have a lot who don't.) And it's important to recognize what one has achieved, and in some there's a need to show it off. Grade does this at a glance -- "Oh, you're a major, you've made it through this and this and this. Good on you!"
That's my opinion ... free, and worth what it cost.
Jack
Keeping on topic..
Yup, you've summed up how we use grade. But the reason it keeps coming up is that many (me included) think the way we use grade is WRONG!
As for "it's important to show off your experience." I disagree. Those that need to show it off can wear the bling. But I'm not putting much stock in anyone based on their grade. I'll draw my conclusions after watching them in action.
I think it's clear that a lot of CAP doesn't think it's important to wear grade, or they wouldn't have approved the golf shirt as a "uniform."
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2007, 11:49:50 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on May 23, 2007, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 22, 2007, 11:43:33 PM
If experience is so critical to passing SLS and CLC.....why have them at all?
It is the old chicken and egg issue. The training should prepare you for the job you are going to take....not the one you have held for 2-1 years.
The concept is that a certain level of experience in one job helps you absorb the training for the new job.
I mean, you could send a new Airman First Class off to the First Sergeant Academy, but he'd be a heck of alot better prepared if he'd been an NCO for while first.
Apples and oranges. You should have said send an A1C to Airman Leadership School. First Sergeants Academy is for E-7's and above. Much too great of a jump.
Going back off topic.. :)
The A1C to First Sergeant Academy is EXACTLY my point - you bet it's too great of a jump.
CLC is about Wing Level operations. It SHOULD be too great of a jump for a brand new member. The brand new member attending SLS should be the equivalent of the Airman Leadership School analogy.
If a new member, with zero experience and nothing but Level 1 and SLS, can fully grasp all the concepts, techniques and procedures introduced in the Corporate Leadership Course, we've set the course bar wayyyyyyyy too low.
Quote from: Dragoon on May 24, 2007, 07:55:41 PM
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 24, 2007, 01:22:35 PM
To help redirect this careening thread back to the proper highway ...
I think we've debated this "rank vs. position" before here. It was the consensus, I recall, that the grade insignia worn by a member was simply recognition of what he/she has achieved, whether in CAP or in the RealMilitary(tm). Apart from the reserved grades (colonel, brigadier general, major general), the grade worn has little if anything to do with one's job in the squadron/group/wing/region OR on SAR activities.
Position in this organization is, of course, everything. So it wouldn't be uncommon for a 1st Lt to be in command of a squadron full of field grade officers. And any field grade officer who has an issue with that simply doesn't understand the way CAP uses grade, and needs to be "educated."
I understand what folks mean when they say, "We can use bling instead of grade to show what one has achieved." Unfortunately, that only works when you have a member who wears the bling. (We have a lot who don't.) And it's important to recognize what one has achieved, and in some there's a need to show it off. Grade does this at a glance -- "Oh, you're a major, you've made it through this and this and this. Good on you!"
That's my opinion ... free, and worth what it cost.
Jack
Keeping on topic..
Yup, you've summed up how we use grade. But the reason it keeps coming up is that many (me included) think the way we use grade is WRONG!
As for "it's important to show off your experience." I disagree. Those that need to show it off can wear the bling. But I'm not putting much stock in anyone based on their grade. I'll draw my conclusions after watching them in action.
I think it's clear that a lot of CAP doesn't think it's important to wear grade, or they wouldn't have approved the golf shirt as a "uniform."
Concur. We've taken symbols that are instantly recognizable by the military as representing who is in charge over whom and turned it on its head. In CAP, it represents how worthwhile CAP thinks you are. Then we expect the military to understand our interpretation of grade insignia?
Going back to a previous quote:
Quote
It was the consensus, I recall, that the grade insignia worn by a member was simply recognition of what he/she has achieved, whether in CAP or in the RealMilitary(tm).
I missed that consensus - allow me to vigorously object to it.
Grade in the military is not a recognition of achievement, like a medal - it is a public symbol of the trust, authority and responsibility placed on the person who wears it. To turn officer grade into the CAP equivalent of "Scouting Achievements" is simply wrong.
^^ My miltary rank insignia is a reflection of what I have achieved. It shows I have been commissioned, it shows I completed basic courses of instruction, and it shows I have what it takes to be burdened with more responsibility. It absolutly shows achievement. Also, there are medals that are not given because of achievements accomplished. I don't think anyone wakes up and says "I want to get shot today, so I can get a purple heart.
I would love to see CAP go back to what it was 1945-1955.
Quote from: Dragoon on May 24, 2007, 07:58:44 PMThe A1C to First Sergeant Academy is EXACTLY my point - you bet it's too great of a jump.
CLC is about Wing Level operations. It SHOULD be too great of a jump for a brand new member. The brand new member attending SLS should be the equivalent of the Airman Leadership School analogy.
If a new member, with zero experience and nothing but Level 1 and SLS, can fully grasp all the concepts, techniques and procedures introduced in the Corporate Leadership Course, we've set the course bar wayyyyyyyy too low.
Well two problems with your idea. First "brand new member" does not necessarily mean 18 year old Flight Officer. Second you are making a lot of assumptions about the members who may or may not be attending the classes.
Take me. I have Level 1 and NO SLS yet....and I have 3 years in CAP and have commanded a cadet squadron! Not that everyone one is just like me...but the majority of my squadron were pretty old when they first joined. About 50% being in the 35-45 year age group.
Finally.....there is NO BAR to set too low or too high in SLS or CLC. You simply have to attend. So until you start by changing the curriculum, the assessment method and passing standards...it makes less than zero sense to say there should be some arbitrary waiting period between SLS and CLC.
Tags - MIKE
I'd be more then happy to see the standards raised.
My former roommate along with many others from my old Det. recieved their butterbars recently. I did not, due to an aforementioned medical issue. If there was anyway I could get past that I would be honored to make the Air Force my Career for life. But as it is I cannot do this. I dont know how many others there are like me in this organization but my point is this: I want to get as much out of CAP as I can that I would have recieved as a commissioned officer.
Now, I know its Apples and Oranges but I'd like to see that apple turn into a Tangerine.
QuoteNot that everyone one is just like me...but the majority of my squadron were pretty old when they first joined. About 50% being in the 35-45 year age group.
Wow, you've actually got a pretty young unit if you have that many people in that age group.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 25, 2007, 01:24:01 PM
QuoteNot that everyone one is just like me...but the majority of my squadron were pretty old when they first joined. About 50% being in the 35-45 year age group.
Wow, you've actually got a pretty young unit if you have that many people in that age group.
And all the more to the point that SLS and CLC is not really teaching anybody any thing other than the CAP way of doing things. It is NOT like USAF Airman Leadership School or Squadron Officers School where it is presenting more or less appropriate instruction to the right rank/experience group at the right time.
The last thing we need right now is to add MORE road blocks to getting the CAP specific training our members need. If a guy can knock them both out in the same year.....more power to him.
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 25, 2007, 12:25:28 AM
^^ My miltary rank insignia is a reflection of what I have achieved. It shows I have been commissioned, it shows I completed basic courses of instruction, and it shows I have what it takes to be burdened with more responsibility. It absolutly shows achievement. Also, there are medals that are not given because of achievements accomplished. I don't think anyone wakes up and says "I want to get shot today, so I can get a purple heart.
I would love to see CAP go back to what it was 1945-1955.
Didn't you tell me the other day that you don't like the red epaulets?!
Quote from: JC004 on May 25, 2007, 10:16:14 PM
Didn't you tell me the other day that you don't like the red epaulets?!
Did he say "red" epaulets, or "maroon"?
Quote from: Hawk200 on May 26, 2007, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: JC004 on May 25, 2007, 10:16:14 PM
Didn't you tell me the other day that you don't like the red epaulets?!
Did he say "red" epaulets, or "maroon"?
Both!
Quote from: Hawk200 on May 26, 2007, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: JC004 on May 25, 2007, 10:16:14 PM
Didn't you tell me the other day that you don't like the red epaulets?!
Did he say "red" epaulets, or "maroon"?
We were talking about the khaki uniform at the time, so red. Of course, we have folks who still wear it since the uniforms are so freaking confusing:
(http://jcolgan004.googlepages.com/red.jpg)
I don't like the looks of the red epaulets. Maybe something like Army Leadership tabs or what the Boy Scouts wear would look better?
Jeez, those look almost orange to me. No wonder the CAP guys back then got such freaky looks. Thank god they only made us wear the maroon and not have to go that far back in history...
I remember the first time that I saw the red epaulets in person...it was some half a football field away. I immediately recognized what they were. Not being old enough to know WWII, I think there was a greater appreciation of CAP, but I can't say with any authority. Regardless of epaulet color, the mission comes first, and I think that what we can offer the Air Force is significant if we can get our crap together. Personally, I have mixed feeling about CAP grade, but one thought that I have is that we should move towards the USCG AUX system. I don't care to be called Lt...I care to be treated as a civilian who is augmenting the US Air Force voluntarily. These bars mean nothing to me, and certainly nothing compared to my friends who wear them in the uniformed services of the United States, most of whom have seen some pretty nasty stuff. CAP grade is useless to me. We can have a Captain who is such due to professional appointment, but doesn't know the first thing about CAP. We can have a 2d Lt who knows most everything about CAP. As Colonel Treadwell called them (CAP ranks) at NER TLC last year, they're "atta-boys," and nothing much else. Screw CAP grade - let's be a group of professional civilians providing service to the finest aerospace power in the world.
^^ Loose the rank/grade. How hard would it be to say "Hi, I'm Joe Blow, I am the Sqd Commander". Or "I am Joe Smith, the Wing Commander".
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 28, 2007, 12:23:12 AM
^^ Loose the rank/grade. How hard would it be to say "Hi, I'm Joe Blow, I am the Sqd Commander". Or "I am Joe Smith, the Wing Commander".
And long-live red epaulets on khaki! >:D
Quote from: JC004 on May 27, 2007, 12:26:31 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on May 26, 2007, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: JC004 on May 25, 2007, 10:16:14 PM
Didn't you tell me the other day that you don't like the red epaulets?!
Did he say "red" epaulets, or "maroon"?
We were talking about the khaki uniform at the time, so red. Of course, we have folks who still wear it since the uniforms are so freaking confusing:
(http://jcolgan004.googlepages.com/red.jpg)
Is that guy on the left doing a test wear of CAP's new dress white corporate combo?
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 25, 2007, 12:25:28 AM
^^ My miltary rank insignia is a reflection of what I have achieved. It shows I have been commissioned, it shows I completed basic courses of instruction, and it shows I have what it takes to be burdened with more responsibility. It absolutly shows achievement. Also, there are medals that are not given because of achievements accomplished. I don't think anyone wakes up and says "I want to get shot today, so I can get a purple heart.
The computer ate my reply last week, so I'll try to reconstruct it.
OK, I forgot to include the word "primarily" in my description. Yes, grade does show (in most cases) some level of achievement, but that is a side effect. It is not given because you did a good job as much as it is given because the "powers that be" believe you are able to handle the higher level of authority and responsibility. Authority and Responsibility are the reasons for military grade, but they are not the reasons in CAP.
If I walk into a stress situation in the military, I can look around and determine if I am in charge or who I am to support because they are in charge, based on the grade they wear.
In CAP there are no clues. I can ignore just about everyone except the project officer and the five commanders: sqdn, gp, wing, region, and national. Any random CAP General or Colonel will get my polite attention, but I am under no obligation to listen to their instructions.
We have taken symbols that are used in the military to determine authority and turned them into merit badges - no wonder the military is confused by us.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 28, 2007, 02:50:39 PM
We have taken symbols that are used in the military to determine authority and turned them into merit badges - no wonder the military is confused by us.
To a certain degree, so has The Real Military (tm)....otherwise, why do they need special badges (beyond grade insignia) to identify commanders?
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 28, 2007, 04:11:43 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 28, 2007, 02:50:39 PM
We have taken symbols that are used in the military to determine authority and turned them into merit badges - no wonder the military is confused by us.
To a certain degree, so has The Real Military (tm)....otherwise, why do they need special badges (beyond grade insignia) to identify commanders?
That is a good question. I am also curious why the AF has done that. I would imagine it was a throw back to the Army days when officers wore branch insignia. It helps to show what a particular person does. There was a proposal in the late 1980's to return "branch insignia" to Officers uniforms for the AF. I think that somehow turned into the specialty badges. If anyone has more depth on that, I would be interested!
Quote from: SJFedor on May 28, 2007, 07:09:45 AM
Quote from: JC004 on May 27, 2007, 12:26:31 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on May 26, 2007, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: JC004 on May 25, 2007, 10:16:14 PM
Didn't you tell me the other day that you don't like the red epaulets?!
Did he say "red" epaulets, or "maroon"?
We were talking about the khaki uniform at the time, so red. Of course, we have folks who still wear it since the uniforms are so freaking confusing:
(http://jcolgan004.googlepages.com/red.jpg)
Is that guy on the left doing a test wear of CAP's new dress white corporate combo?
Always causing problems...even in TNWG. SHHH.
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 28, 2007, 04:31:21 PM...I am also curious why the AF has done that. I would imagine it was a throw back to the Army days when officers wore branch insignia.
I would seriously doubt that. What kind of branch insignia would say "unit commander"? In the Army, commanders wear extremely varying branch insignias. A commander of a flying unit would wear Aviation branch, in a field artillery unit it would be crossed cannons, for Infantry it's crossed rifles. A specific branch insignia would not directly correspond to command.
QuoteThere was a proposal in the late 1980's to return "branch insignia" to Officers uniforms for the AF. I think that somehow turned into the specialty badges.
Also doubtful. With the specialty badges indicating career field in the Air Force, those only came out in the early nineties. Prior to that, there were only a few badges related to career field. They also show a persons proficiency. A lot of personnel in the Air Force wanted to show that on their uniforms as well.
My point is the "command" specialty badge -- or perhaps more correctly, badge of office.....it seems that the services (USAF & USN, not sure about the others( find it necessary to use an insignia other than grade to identify the commanding officer.
Once upon a time, if I read my history correctly, there would be one and only one four stripe captain (O-6) on a capital ship, such as an aircraft carrier during WWII (I'm not counting admiral's staff officers here, just those assigned to the vessel).
From what I've seen, it is not unusual for the CO, XO, and air wing CO on an aircraft carrier to all be O-6 grade.
While they would not describe it thus, it seems that practically speaking, The Real Military (tm) uses grade as a form of recognition, as well as designating the individual's level of responsibility.
But you have to remember neither the Leadership Tabs (for the Army) or the Commander/Past Commander badge (for the Navy and Air Force) gives the wearer any added authority. Those are both attempts to make command positions more desirable. Command is a thankless job and often not required for promotion, so they decided to add bling as an enticement. However, an E-6 or O-4 with a Leadership Tab doesn't outrank another E-6 or O-4 because of the tab.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 03:36:43 AM
But you have to remember neither the Leadership Tabs (for the Army) or the Commander/Past Commander badge (for the Navy and Air Force) gives the wearer any added authority. Those are both attempts to make command positions more desirable. Command is a thankless job and often not required for promotion, so they decided to add bling as an enticement. However, an E-6 or O-4 with a Leadership Tab doesn't outrank another E-6 or O-4 because of the tab.
I understand that, and I agree from personal experience as a group commander that commanders at all levels are over-burdened and underappreciated.
Your remark about bling-enticement is precisely what I've been trying to say...even in RM (tm) today one needs separate insignia, other than grade insignia,
to identify who is in command....it's not just a CAp phenomenon (though i will grant it is far worse in CAP, where 1 Lts regularly command Lt Cols!)
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 03:36:43 AM
But you have to remember neither the Leadership Tabs (for the Army) or the Commander/Past Commander badge (for the Navy and Air Force) gives the wearer any added authority. Those are both attempts to make command positions more desirable. Command is a thankless job and often not required for promotion, so they decided to add bling as an enticement. However, an E-6 or O-4 with a Leadership Tab doesn't outrank another E-6 or O-4 because of the tab.
As I understand it in the army they do....that was the purpose of the tab. It is used to identify those who have the authority to command in combat. Ergo if the Lt buys it and you got an E-5 with the tab and an E-6 without...the E-5 rules.....in combat.
A good example of this is the SPEC-4 and the Corporal E-4. One is an NCO and the other is not. Back in the day when they had Spec-5 and SPEC-6...the E-4 Corporal still out ranked the SPEC-6 in the field.
Granted that caused a lot of confusion so the army dropped the SPEC-5 and SPEC-6 but kept the SPEC-4.
The USAF had a similar problem with the E-4 SrA and E-4 Sgt.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2007, 06:37:10 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 03:36:43 AM
But you have to remember neither the Leadership Tabs (for the Army) or the Commander/Past Commander badge (for the Navy and Air Force) gives the wearer any added authority. Those are both attempts to make command positions more desirable. Command is a thankless job and often not required for promotion, so they decided to add bling as an enticement. However, an E-6 or O-4 with a Leadership Tab doesn't outrank another E-6 or O-4 because of the tab.
As I understand it in the army they do....that was the purpose of the tab. It is used to identify those who have the authority to command in combat. Ergo if the Lt buys it and you got an E-5 with the tab and an E-6 without...the E-5 rules.....in combat.
A good example of this is the SPEC-4 and the Corporal E-4. One is an NCO and the other is not. Back in the day when they had Spec-5 and SPEC-6...the E-4 Corporal still out ranked the SPEC-6 in the field.
Granted that caused a lot of confusion so the army dropped the SPEC-5 and SPEC-6 but kept the SPEC-4.
The USAF had a similar problem with the E-4 SrA and E-4 Sgt.
The green tab identifies that someone is currently in a leadership position. It doesn't give any additional authority - it just makes it clear who is a leader and who is isn't. It certainly doesn't give any authority over folks not assigned to you.
In a chaotic situation like a plane crash, you had an two guys from different units, an E-5 green tabber and an E-6 without....the E-6 is in charge. Rank still matters.
The tab got it's start back in, I think WWII. The rumor was that it was too hard to find the actual commanders in and among all the staff officers in HQ.
Of course, today, there aren't epaulets on the ACU to rap the tab around, so it isn't much identification value in a combat situation. Sure looks nice on the greens, though. But the new blue service uniform doesn't have epaulets either..
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 29, 2007, 03:41:28 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 03:36:43 AM
But you have to remember neither the Leadership Tabs (for the Army) or the Commander/Past Commander badge (for the Navy and Air Force) gives the wearer any added authority. Those are both attempts to make command positions more desirable. Command is a thankless job and often not required for promotion, so they decided to add bling as an enticement. However, an E-6 or O-4 with a Leadership Tab doesn't outrank another E-6 or O-4 because of the tab.
I understand that, and I agree from personal experience as a group commander that commanders at all levels are over-burdened and underappreciated.
Your remark about bling-enticement is precisely what I've been trying to say...even in RM (tm) today one needs separate insignia, other than grade insignia,
to identify who is in command....it's not just a CAp phenomenon (though i will grant it is far worse in CAP, where 1 Lts regularly command Lt Cols!)
Yup, you'll always need some special insignia to designate commanders.
But the military also has grade insignia to designate generic authority - the authority you have over all members of the organization, especially in chaotic situations where it is unclear who should be the commander.
CAP gets away with misusing grade because we seldom have the kind of chaos one finds on the battlefield. But we also lose the benefit of a Lt Col knowing that if he sees something screwed up, regardless of who the commander is, he has the
responsibility to go fix it and the
authority to do so.
In CAP, that Lt Col has neither. It's not his problem, and even if it was, they don't have to listen to him.
Quote from: Dragoon on May 29, 2007, 01:48:51 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2007, 06:37:10 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 03:36:43 AM
But you have to remember neither the Leadership Tabs (for the Army) or the Commander/Past Commander badge (for the Navy and Air Force) gives the wearer any added authority. Those are both attempts to make command positions more desirable. Command is a thankless job and often not required for promotion, so they decided to add bling as an enticement. However, an E-6 or O-4 with a Leadership Tab doesn't outrank another E-6 or O-4 because of the tab.
As I understand it in the army they do....that was the purpose of the tab. It is used to identify those who have the authority to command in combat. Ergo if the Lt buys it and you got an E-5 with the tab and an E-6 without...the E-5 rules.....in combat.
A good example of this is the SPEC-4 and the Corporal E-4. One is an NCO and the other is not. Back in the day when they had Spec-5 and SPEC-6...the E-4 Corporal still out ranked the SPEC-6 in the field.
Granted that caused a lot of confusion so the army dropped the SPEC-5 and SPEC-6 but kept the SPEC-4.
The USAF had a similar problem with the E-4 SrA and E-4 Sgt.
The green tab identifies that someone is currently in a leadership position. It doesn't give any additional authority - it just makes it clear who is a leader and who is isn't. It certainly doesn't give any authority over folks not assigned to you.
In a chaotic situation like a plane crash, you had an two guys from different units, an E-5 green tabber and an E-6 without....the E-6 is in charge. Rank still matters.
The tab got it's start back in, I think WWII. The rumor was that it was too hard to find the actual commanders in and among all the staff officers in HQ.
Of course, today, there aren't epaulets on the ACU to rap the tab around, so it isn't much identification value in a combat situation. Sure looks nice on the greens, though. But the new blue service uniform doesn't have epaulets either..
In the Army, the branch insignia was the command identifier is chaotic situations. The 2LT infantry guy has all right and authority to give out commands to a Colonel if both found themsleves mixed in with an infantry Platoon and the Colonel was say a DOCTOR. That is what is missing on the ACU's and the reason is to make the enlisted guys feel better about themsleves, and that is a shame!
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 29, 2007, 03:10:55 PM
In the Army, the branch insignia was the command identifier is chaotic situations. The 2LT infantry guy has all right and authority to give out commands to a Colonel if both found themsleves mixed in with an infantry Platoon and the Colonel was say a DOCTOR. That is what is missing on the ACU's and the reason is to make the enlisted guys feel better about themsleves, and that is a shame!
Umm...no. That's not the case (speaking from a couple of decades of doing this for a living). That ain't in the regs.
Doctors, Chaplains and Lawyers are of course, special cases. Their rank is primarily about pay.
But if a couple of Infantry Lts and a Quartermaster Captain find themselves together behind enemy lines, the captain is in charge. Of course, we hope he'd take some advice from the Lts...
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 29, 2007, 03:10:55 PM
In the Army, the branch insignia was the command identifier is chaotic situations. The 2LT infantry guy has all right and authority to give out commands to a Colonel if both found themsleves mixed in with an infantry Platoon and the Colonel was say a DOCTOR. That is what is missing on the ACU's and the reason is to make the enlisted guys feel better about themsleves, and that is a shame!
Wait, you've lost me.
Enlisted don't wear branch insignia on BDU's - what exactly is making them feel better about themselves?
Quote from: Dragoon on May 29, 2007, 01:48:51 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2007, 06:37:10 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 03:36:43 AM
But you have to remember neither the Leadership Tabs (for the Army) or the Commander/Past Commander badge (for the Navy and Air Force) gives the wearer any added authority. Those are both attempts to make command positions more desirable. Command is a thankless job and often not required for promotion, so they decided to add bling as an enticement. However, an E-6 or O-4 with a Leadership Tab doesn't outrank another E-6 or O-4 because of the tab.
As I understand it in the army they do....that was the purpose of the tab. It is used to identify those who have the authority to command in combat. Ergo if the Lt buys it and you got an E-5 with the tab and an E-6 without...the E-5 rules.....in combat.
A good example of this is the SPEC-4 and the Corporal E-4. One is an NCO and the other is not. Back in the day when they had Spec-5 and SPEC-6...the E-4 Corporal still out ranked the SPEC-6 in the field.
Granted that caused a lot of confusion so the army dropped the SPEC-5 and SPEC-6 but kept the SPEC-4.
The USAF had a similar problem with the E-4 SrA and E-4 Sgt.
The green tab identifies that someone is currently in a leadership position. It doesn't give any additional authority - it just makes it clear who is a leader and who is isn't. It certainly doesn't give any authority over folks not assigned to you.
In a chaotic situation like a plane crash, you had an two guys from different units, an E-5 green tabber and an E-6 without....the E-6 is in charge. Rank still matters.
The tab got it's start back in, I think WWII. The rumor was that it was too hard to find the actual commanders in and among all the staff officers in HQ.
Of course, today, there aren't epaulets on the ACU to rap the tab around, so it isn't much identification value in a combat situation. Sure looks nice on the greens, though. But the new blue service uniform doesn't have epaulets either..
I remember seeing (I don't remember if it was in real life or for sale) grade insignia for ACU's embroidered on leadership tab green instead of ACU material - but I don't think it was official.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 08:27:48 PM
I remember seeing (I don't remember if it was in real life or for sale) grade insignia for ACU's embroidered on leadership tab green instead of ACU material - but I don't think it was official.
It's official. Before there were cloth rank insignia loops for the Gore-Tex, combat leaders (personnel wearing the green tab) wore the green loop on the Gore-Tex with rank insignia pinned through it. Metal insignia was deemed a FOD hazard, so the rank insignia was soon embroidered on the green loops to still designate the authorized positions.
The plain insignia is worn on the Class A uniform, just wrapped around the epaulets.
Quote from: Hawk200 on May 29, 2007, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 08:27:48 PM
I remember seeing (I don't remember if it was in real life or for sale) grade insignia for ACU's embroidered on leadership tab green instead of ACU material - but I don't think it was official.
It's official. Before there were cloth rank insignia loops for the Gore-Tex, combat leaders (personnel wearing the green tab) wore the green loop on the Gore-Tex with rank insignia pinned through it. Metal insignia was deemed a FOD hazard, so the rank insignia was soon embroidered on the green loops to still designate the authorized positions.
The plain insignia is worn on the Class A uniform, just wrapped around the epaulets.
You misunderstand - I know Leadership Tabs are legal, it was the particular useage.
Someone was taking and embroidering grade insignia on "Leadership Tab green" fabric, then sewing it onto hook and loop. They would then wear this on the ACU instead of the standard grade insignia embroidered onto ACU fabric and sewn on hook and loop.
It's kind of like the sewing unit patches onto a piece of ACU fabric the size of the sleeve hook and loop and then putting hook and loop on the fabric. You then slap it on the sleeve and it looks like you've sewn the patch directly onto the sleeve. It's done, but not exactly legal.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 08:22:07 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 29, 2007, 03:10:55 PM
In the Army, the branch insignia was the command identifier is chaotic situations. The 2LT infantry guy has all right and authority to give out commands to a Colonel if both found themsleves mixed in with an infantry Platoon and the Colonel was say a DOCTOR. That is what is missing on the ACU's and the reason is to make the enlisted guys feel better about themsleves, and that is a shame!
Wait, you've lost me.
Enlisted don't wear branch insignia on BDU's - what exactly is making them feel better about themselves?
They were I assume upset that Officers got Branch Bling. Now its disappeared so the enlisted folks dont get depressed about not having it.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 29, 2007, 03:25:21 AM
Once upon a time, if I read my history correctly, there would be one and only one four stripe captain (O-6) on a capital ship, such as an aircraft carrier during WWII (I'm not counting admiral's staff officers here, just those assigned to the vessel).
From what I've seen, it is not unusual for the CO, XO, and air wing CO on an aircraft carrier to all be O-6 grade.
Which makes me wonder ... does the USN/USCG still observe the old saw that a four-striper aboard a ship he/she doesn't have command in is called "commodore"? Since, after all, the title "captain" belongs to one person only, regardless of rank?
Or did they do away with that?
Jack
It is still used to this day...just verified with my good Navy buddy.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on May 29, 2007, 11:08:06 PM
You misunderstand - I know Leadership Tabs are legal, it was the particular useage.
Someone was taking and embroidering grade insignia on "Leadership Tab green" fabric, then sewing it onto hook and loop. They would then wear this on the ACU instead of the standard grade insignia embroidered onto ACU fabric and sewn on hook and loop.
My apologies, I didn't realize what you were referencing. That concept isn't a legal one that I know of, and prior to your post I'd never heard or seen anything of that kind. Not to say that it isn't done, it wouldn't surprise me. But the insignia you describe does not comply with the Army's uniform regulation. I have seen a few wierd, non-compliant items sold in Mil Clothing before, and I would hope that the average soldier would be bright enough not to try to wear it.
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 30, 2007, 09:58:32 AM
Which makes me wonder ... does the USN/USCG still observe the old saw that a four-striper aboard a ship he/she doesn't have command in is called "commodore"? Since, after all, the title "captain" belongs to one person only, regardless of rank?
Or did they do away with that?
Jack
Probably explains why one will hear juniors addressing other O-6s by functional titles such as "XO" or "Skipper" for the air wing CO....hardly could call them 'commodore' which would be giving them a courtesy title higher than the Captain!
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 30, 2007, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 29, 2007, 03:25:21 AM
Once upon a time, if I read my history correctly, there would be one and only one four stripe captain (O-6) on a capital ship, such as an aircraft carrier during WWII (I'm not counting admiral's staff officers here, just those assigned to the vessel).
From what I've seen, it is not unusual for the CO, XO, and air wing CO on an aircraft carrier to all be O-6 grade.
Which makes me wonder ... does the USN/USCG still observe the old saw that a four-striper aboard a ship he/she doesn't have command in is called "commodore"? Since, after all, the title "captain" belongs to one person only, regardless of rank?
Or did they do away with that?
I remember reading that in the olden days that if a Marine, Army or Air Force captain was invited to dine in - or was a member of - the ship's wardroom he automatically got a 'wardroom promotion' to Major, as there is only one Captain aboard a ship. Probably a military urban legend.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on May 31, 2007, 05:45:09 PM
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 30, 2007, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 29, 2007, 03:25:21 AM
Once upon a time, if I read my history correctly, there would be one and only one four stripe captain (O-6) on a capital ship, such as an aircraft carrier during WWII (I'm not counting admiral's staff officers here, just those assigned to the vessel).
From what I've seen, it is not unusual for the CO, XO, and air wing CO on an aircraft carrier to all be O-6 grade.
Which makes me wonder ... does the USN/USCG still observe the old saw that a four-striper aboard a ship he/she doesn't have command in is called "commodore"? Since, after all, the title "captain" belongs to one person only, regardless of rank?
Or did they do away with that?
I remember reading that in the olden days that if a Marine, Army or Air Force captain was invited to dine in - or was a member of - the ship's wardroom he automatically got a 'wardroom promotion' to Major, as there is only one Captain aboard a ship. Probably a military urban legend.
That's probably part of it. The big reason though, is that a Captain in the Navy is a very different rank than a Captain in the other services, O-6 vs. O-3. The other grades all have different names, so there is no confusion, except for Lieutenant, but the rank are close enough there so as to limit confusion. And, they didn't want to call the O-3 Captains "Lieutenant" because that would sound like a drop in grade to them, so they get to be Majors while on board.
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 30, 2007, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 29, 2007, 03:25:21 AM
Once upon a time, if I read my history correctly, there would be one and only one four stripe captain (O-6) on a capital ship, such as an aircraft carrier during WWII (I'm not counting admiral's staff officers here, just those assigned to the vessel).
From what I've seen, it is not unusual for the CO, XO, and air wing CO on an aircraft carrier to all be O-6 grade.
Which makes me wonder ... does the USN/USCG still observe the old saw that a four-striper aboard a ship he/she doesn't have command in is called "commodore"? Since, after all, the title "captain" belongs to one person only, regardless of rank?
Or did they do away with that?
Jack
I was under the impression that "Commodore" was the old term for "Rear Admiral, Lower Half "
It was also used exensively by Escort Group Commanders during the Battle of the Altantic.
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 30, 2007, 09:58:32 AM
Which makes me wonder ... does the USN/USCG still observe the old saw that a four-striper aboard a ship he/she doesn't have command in is called "commodore"? Since, after all, the title "captain" belongs to one person only, regardless of rank?
Or did they do away with that?
Jack
Quote from: Encylcopedia
The Navy no longer maintains a rank of Commodore but the term has survived as a title. Modern-day Commodores are senior Captains in command of Destroyer/Cruiser/Amphibious Squadrons, Coastal Warfare Groups, Submarine Squadrons, and Aircraft Wings. Such officers are referred to, both verbally and in correspondence, as "Commodore," but wear the rank insignia of a Captain. An officer with the rank of Captain in the United States Navy, who is a passenger aboard a ship but not commanding it, may also be addressed by the title "Commodore" to avoid confusion with the ship's commander who is the only one addressed by the title "Captain."
For the post above, this is a good read on the development of the 'commodore.'
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Commodore_%28USN%29
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on May 31, 2007, 05:45:09 PM
I remember reading that in the olden days that if a Marine, Army or Air Force captain was invited to dine in - or was a member of - the ship's wardroom he automatically got a 'wardroom promotion' to Major, as there is only one Captain aboard a ship. Probably a military urban legend.
I don't think it's mere urban legend....I first read that as a teenager in
Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein -- an Annapolis grad (early 1930s, I think) who served AD for several years before a medical condition forced him out....he was extremely careful with the accuracy of his militaria.
Ya know... the answer is actually no.
It never does.
Grade/Rank - trumps all - at all times - in every context.
When I was in the AF, anytime there was a problem - I got the phone. Fun stuff.
Nothing like sitting there with my two stripes, talking to this very pissed off guy with two stars... it actually would get kind of annoying to keep repeating, "No Sir, I will not do that." .... :)
Granted it was only occasionally that I got that specific privilage of telling a General no... on a day to day basis it was normally only a Full Bird...
.. and at the end of it all.. the next day - when I would arrive at work - I would have another LOR waiting for me to sign.
"Great job yesterday Zach..... thats why we only let you handle those situations. Oh.. sign here please.. Keep up the great work, thanks."
The Air Force could be so confusing at times :)
.. anyway - none of that invalidates what I said at first.
If the President of the United States called me, and gave me the same request... he would have received the same answer... "No Sir, I will not do that."
The reason is simple - I was not the one saying no to the General, it was my voice yes - but it was actually the President through the NSA through my commander through my immediate supervisors that was saying no the General - I was just the tool. Even if it was the President - it would have been him saying no to himself.
The President would have to have basically killed the way the entire Military works for him to be able to rescind the standing orders that existed through the authority... on down the chain - of a Previous Commander in Chief (if not himself)
So no - position never trumps grade ... because any authority that you have in that position comes from a higher grade than you are ever going to deal with more likely.
.... the General... well the most high ranking officers I said no to was related to security things, them wanting something - more often than not thinking for whatever reason think that because of their rank - I would just let them in the SCIF... guess I never liked Kansas enough to do that :)
The general... and a few others... were involved in Bosnia during the early early/mid 90s.... and would be in Italy or god knows where else... but everything ran out of where I worked - in Germany.
There system would go down - which the absolutely had to have up... lives counted on it - and every second it was down was not a good thing. Problem was - it was realtime information that was used by a couple other places that also had lives tied to knowing what the info was. They would go down... the General would call and ask me to reboot - being the US Military - we are talking computer systems left over from the Roman Empire - and as soon as we knew there was a problem - we found it, isolated - and pretty much on the spot normally had contractors already on their way to the Airport in the US to get their asses to Germany and get what was broken fixed... but rebooting the system was not an option cause only God had a clue if it would actually come back up .... and my job in life at that point was to make sure that system never went down....
... and again - I could say no because the NSA and the Air Force had standing orders from above stipulating that I say no - it was never my call - I was just the tool.
Quote from: Zach on June 01, 2007, 04:21:38 AM
Ya know... the answer is actually no.
It never does.
Grade/Rank - trumps all - at all times - in every context.
Are you talking about CAP?
Zach, you understand you just contradicted yourself?
Position always trumps grade. Trust me, federal law even stipulates that position trumps grade. Take the chairman of the joints chiefs of staff, a four-star general. He may not have been a four-star general as long as someone else, but his position places him above any other officer in the military. 10 USC 152(c).
LTC Bubba Joe cannot walk up to MAJ Billy Bob and tell him what to do with his unit unless LTC Bubba Joe is in MAJ Billy Bob's chain of command. Plain and simple. See AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy):
QuoteCommand is exercised by virtue of office and the special assignment of members of the United States Armed Forces holding military grade who are eligible to exercise command. A commander is, therefore, a commissioned or warrant officer who, by virtue of grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over a military organization or prescribed territorial area that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a "command."
The article on the term "commodore" is right on. The title used by most persons in Kinsgville, Texas to refer to the Commander of NAS Kingsville is Commodore.
Quote from: gallagheria on June 01, 2007, 06:06:36 AM
Zach, you understand you just contradicted yourself?
Position always trumps grade. Trust me, federal law even stipulates that position trumps grade. Take the chairman of the joints chiefs of staff, a four-star general. He may not have been a four-star general as long as someone else, but his position places him above any other officer in the military. 10 USC 152(c).
LTC Bubba Joe cannot walk up to MAJ Billy Bob and tell him what to do with his unit unless LTC Bubba Joe is in MAJ Billy Bob's chain of command. Plain and simple. See AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy):QuoteCommand is exercised by virtue of office and the special assignment of members of the United States Armed Forces holding military grade who are eligible to exercise command. A commander is, therefore, a commissioned or warrant officer who, by virtue of grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over a military organization or prescribed territorial area that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a "command."
True all that! That is why DOD civilians may be in the Command structure.
Quote from: gallagheria on June 01, 2007, 06:06:36 AM
Zach, you understand you just contradicted yourself?
Position always trumps grade. Trust me, federal law even stipulates that position trumps grade. Take the chairman of the joints chiefs of staff, a four-star general. He may not have been a four-star general as long as someone else, but his position places him above any other officer in the military. 10 USC 152(c).
LTC Bubba Joe cannot walk up to MAJ Billy Bob and tell him what to do with his unit unless LTC Bubba Joe is in MAJ Billy Bob's chain of command. Plain and simple. See AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy):QuoteCommand is exercised by virtue of office and the special assignment of members of the United States Armed Forces holding military grade who are eligible to exercise command. A commander is, therefore, a commissioned or warrant officer who, by virtue of grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over a military organization or prescribed territorial area that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a "command."
It is interesting there that it says the commander exercises his authority "be virtue of grade and assignement" not just by virtue of assignment.
Basically, there are a set of rules to make sure that, with a few exceptions, the ranking guy gets the command job, therefore avoiding the whole issue.
But reading further in the reg, you find out how rank works (at least in the Army) in a very different way than in CAP.
Quote
If a commander of an Army element, other than a commander of a headquarters and headquarters element, dies,
becomes disabled, retires, is reassigned, or is temporarily absent, the senior regularly assigned United States Army
Soldier will assume command.
In other words, if the boss ain't there, his ranking subordinate is in charge. Not necessarily the deputy. Very different than CAP.
QuoteThe senior officer, warrant officer, cadet, NCO, specialist, or private among troops at the scene of an emergency will assume temporary command and control of the Soldiers present. These provisions also apply to troops separated from their parent units under battlefield conditions. The senior person eligible for command, whether officer or enlisted, within a prisoner of war camp or among a group of prisoners of war, or a group of personnel detained by hostile forces or elements will assume command according to grade and date of rank seniority without regard to service.
In other words, if it isn't clear who the comamnder is, we go with rank.
CAP doesn't do this, and I think it's too bad. Sure, it won't work for ES (which is all about quals) but it would clear up all the confusion when multiple units participate in the same activity. We know who's in charge, who we have to listen to - and who should take the blame if he doesn't make things happen.
There's also a part further down requiring all leaders to ensure that all soldiers in public are dressed appropriately and acting correctly, and requiring all soldiers to obey them. CAP could benefit from that.
Of course, the key to something like this is making sure those we promote would be responsible enough and capable enough to handle this responsibility and authority.