Leadership Badge

[Hawk200]

Our advanced training squadron wore armbands with Star Trek TOS style rank braid on it for flight sergeant and flight commander.

That probably looked really out of place. I like Star Trek too, but I've also realized it's entertainment not reality. It doesn't have any place being mixed with any kind of uniform.

[Dragoon]

I hate to say it, but if  are going to continue to misuse grade so taht we can't depend on the ranking senior (or cadet) being the guy in charge, it does kind of make sense to have some sort of badge of current authority.  Something you only wear while in the job.

The reason this isn't done much in the  Real Military is that, unlike in CAP,  Lt Col's don't work for Capt's. 

[Hawk200]

I hate to say it, but if  are going to continue to misuse grade so taht we can't depend on the ranking senior (or cadet) being the guy in charge, it does kind of make sense to have some sort of badge of current authority.  Something you only wear while in the job.

There's already a Squadron Commander badge. It identifies the person in charge, just like the Air Force does it.  We do have a number of parallels to the Air Force, why not take note of the similarities?

So many people want to mirror the military, but they get hung up on the differences or in pointing out "We're not the military (or the Air Force)!".

The reason this isn't done much in the  Real Military is that, unlike in CAP,  Lt Col's don't work for Capt's. 

Which is really a moot point anyway. Positional grade is pretty meaningless when many members lack the integrity to obey the orders they volunteered to accept in the first place. They're not going to obey when someone outranks them anyway, and will find a way to justify their disobediance.

[Flying Pig]

I hate to say it, but if  are going to continue to misuse grade so taht we can't depend on the ranking senior (or cadet) being the guy in charge, it does kind of make sense to have some sort of badge of current authority.  Something you only wear while in the job.

The reason this isn't done much in the  Real Military is that, unlike in CAP,  Lt Col's don't work for Capt's. 

You mean like my Sq.  where I am the junior guy!!  I have a fleet of Majors and LTC's.

[DNall]

I hate to say it, but if  are going to continue to misuse grade so taht we can't depend on the ranking senior (or cadet) being the guy in charge, it does kind of make sense to have some sort of badge of current authority.  Something you only wear while in the job.

There's already a Squadron Commander badge. It identifies the person in charge, just like the Air Force does it.  We do have a number of parallels to the Air Force, why not take note of the similarities?

So many people want to mirror the military, but they get hung up on the differences or in pointing out "We're not the military (or the Air Force)!".

The reason this isn't done much in the  Real Military is that, unlike in CAP,  Lt Col's don't work for Capt's. 

Which is really a moot point anyway. Positional grade is pretty meaningless when many members lack the integrity to obey the orders they volunteered to accept in the first place. They're not going to obey when someone outranks them anyway, and will find a way to justify their disobediance.

Couple decent points in there. I would also mention that grade is not always a good indicator of leadership position. My S3 is a good example. His authority comes from being S3, not cause he's a Major. He's also one of the more junior aviators in the unit. If he goes on a mission, a WO is going to be in charge. You can't just walk up on the highest ranking person & assume they're in charge. That might be a pretty fair guess, but it's not really all that accurate. A whole lot of the time in the military you'll see some senior officers around, and then find they are actually there to observe & that they may be from a completely unrelated branch with really no ability to lead the ongoing operation. It's really not that unusual. I do understand your point, and CAP really doesn't do a good job with grade, but it really isn't so universally meaningful as you're making it out to be either.

Let me also just say on this badge issue... within your own unit where everyone knows everyone else & their job(s), there is no purpose to identifiers. At a mission you should have ID badges with job titles on them, that's what we do & it's quite effective. In other situations, say an encampment or airshow, you're bringing units & sub-units together & telling them who their leadership & chain of command are, probably have it posted as well. The basic cadet in Foxtrot flight doesn't need to know who the Alpha Flt Sgt is. He needs to stay in his lane & do his job. In other words, there's no use for any of this.

[Hawk200]

Let me also just say on this badge issue... within your own unit where everyone knows everyone else & their job(s), there is no purpose to identifiers. At a mission you should have ID badges with job titles on them, that's what we do & it's quite effective. In other situations, say an encampment or airshow, you're bringing units & sub-units together & telling them who their leadership & chain of command are, probably have it posted as well. The basic cadet in Foxtrot flight doesn't need to know who the Alpha Flt Sgt is. He needs to stay in his lane & do his job. In other words, there's no use for any of this.

Pretty much the way I view it too. Keeping those details in mind, I think it was clear the the OP was more concerned about bling than anything legitimately useful.

[Dragoon]

Couple decent points in there. I would also mention that grade is not always a good indicator of leadership position. My S3 is a good example. His authority comes from being S3, not cause he's a Major. He's also one of the more junior aviators in the unit. If he goes on a mission, a WO is going to be in charge. You can't just walk up on the highest ranking person & assume they're in charge. That might be a pretty fair guess, but it's not really all that accurate. A whole lot of the time in the military you'll see some senior officers around, and then find they are actually there to observe & that they may be from a completely unrelated branch with really no ability to lead the ongoing operation. It's really not that unusual. I do understand your point, and CAP really doesn't do a good job with grade, but it really isn't so universally meaningful as you're making it out to be either.

Yeah, Army aviation can be a weird entity, and not a good indication of what's "normal."  Talk to your infantry, artillery and armor brethren about how rank works most everywhere else.

And yeah, sometimes the ranking guy is just observing - but by his grade he has the authority, by UCMJ to step in if things are going awry.  He could be in charge at a moments notice.

And that S3 major of yours can pull rank any time on a WO, even in flight, if that WO is screwing up the battalion mission.  To do otherwise would be dereliction of duty.  Don't mistake technical leadership (i.e. PIC) with command authority.  You can defer to a technical expert at any time, but you're still the ranking guy.

In USAF, occasionally you let the major lead a flight with an 05 in the mix.  But outside of small, short duration activities like that,  you're not going to see a major directly supervising the work of Lt Cols.  If that was the case, they'd promote him a few times first!  :-)

[Dragoon]

I hate to say it, but if  are going to continue to misuse grade so taht we can't depend on the ranking senior (or cadet) being the guy in charge, it does kind of make sense to have some sort of badge of current authority.  Something you only wear while in the job.

There's already a Squadron Commander badge. It identifies the person in charge, just like the Air Force does it.  We do have a number of parallels to the Air Force, why not take note of the similarities?

The Squadron Commander's Badge is a very good start.  There are other key positions that could warrant a similar indicator.  Cadet Commanders (who may not be the ranking cadet), perhaps vice/deputy commanders.  Group Commanders are not clearly identified as seperate from Squadron Commanders.

Such a system would designate authority (if I walk into a unit, I can figure out who the boss is very quickly) AND reward those folks who are doing the tough jobs.  You know, like grade ought to do, but doesn't.

The reason this isn't done much in the  Real Military is that, unlike in CAP,  Lt Col's don't work for Capt's. 

Which is really a moot point anyway. Positional grade is pretty meaningless when many members lack the integrity to obey the orders they volunteered to accept in the first place. They're not going to obey when someone outranks them anyway, and will find a way to justify their disobediance.

That may be a problem in some places, but is one that should be FIXED, not just allowed to exist.  One way to do it is to reinforce the importance  of leadership positions.  By clearly identifying the folks who really run things (commanders and key staffers) we send a message to all members about who's in charge and important - and it ain't the no-job Lt Col.

I guess I'd  rather see rewards for those in the tough command and staff jobs rather than rewards basically for achieving PD levels.  It's NICE to have Level IV - but it's much more important to be a good Wing Operations Officer.

One small step in  larger war.

[ZigZag911]

Group Commanders do in fact have a distinctive badge, basic sqdn CC badge with a star.

[Hawk200]

And yeah, sometimes the ranking guy is just observing - but by his grade he has the authority, by UCMJ to step in if things are going awry.  He could be in charge at a moments notice.

And that S3 major of yours can pull rank any time on a WO, even in flight, if that WO is screwing up the battalion mission.  To do otherwise would be dereliction of duty.  Don't mistake technical leadership (i.e. PIC) with command authority.  You can defer to a technical expert at any time, but you're still the ranking guy.

There has been more than a few officers that got themselves in hot water by pulling there rank. I've already heard of many officers that have been riding in a Blackhawk that got themselves in trouble thinking that there rank allows them to call shots. The only place any officer can really be certain that his rank is absolute is within his own chain of command. Outside it, he or she needs to just maintain their observer status.

Such a system would designate authority

Authority is designated through personnel actions and assignments, not by a badge.

(if I walk into a unit, I can figure out who the boss is very quickly)

The only person you need to be seeing when you walk into a unit for the first time is the commander. He or she has the badge. Even if they're not wearing it, they're still the squadron commander. Anyone elses position in the unit isn't of any consequence to you.

That may be a problem in some places, but is one that should be FIXED, not just allowed to exist.  One way to do it is to reinforce the importance  of leadership positions.  By clearly identifying the folks who really run things (commanders and key staffers) we send a message to all members about who's in charge and important - and it ain't the no-job Lt Col.

And you think bling is the answer to that? Kind of a backwards viewpoint when leadership is designated by a badge instead of a badge denoting leadership. For the true leaders, a badge is completely meaningless anyway, why make them buy something? Or are you planning on dipping into your wallet to subsidize issue of such jewelry?

I guess I'd  rather see rewards for those in the tough command and staff jobs rather than rewards basically for achieving PD levels.  It's NICE to have Level IV - but it's much more important to be a good Wing Operations Officer.

There already are such things. As for wing assignments, not everyone has a chance at those. Requiring wing staffing is a dead end concept, for numerous reasons.

One small step in  larger war.

What "war" would that be?

[DNall]

I'm sorry, but my military experience is your boss tells you the chain of command for a task & that's what it is. IE - rank over grade. To be completely technical, it's the grade (UCMJ authority) of your boss that matters, not what you or the other guy are wearing.

I came over from infantry. I know that they do a better job of associating rank with grade, but that's no where near universal, certainly not beyond the Army, not down through the AF to CAP. What matters is the Wg CC designating this person IC & that person GBD & this other person GTL. It doesn't matter what any of their grades are, and certainly the LtCol GBD cannot assume command from the IC when they don't like the orders they are given. They can complain to the Wg/CC, but that's it.

The same is true of my S3 Major when he's assigned to fly 2nd ship CP/G with a WO as flight lead. It's the rank (not grade) of my Bn cdr ordering that action that matters, not what anyone is wearing.

The only authority that exists is the Commander in Chief. Everything else is delegated & designated to individuals with task/purpose & limits to their authority. I understand that grade serves as authority within a very narrow confine, but don't take that so far as to take authority to delegate away from higher.

Now, all that said, I do agree that the military does a better job of associating grade with rank because of their promotion system that requires people to keep moving or go away & that recognized continued training as part of advancement. You well know that I favor bringing such lessons over to CAP with some adaptation. Just don't read too much into it for now is all I'm saying.

Certainly we don't have need of more bling that is not following the mil example & is not practically necessary.

[adamblank]

This kind of action is seen a lot in the operations sections for AF officers.  I see it over in space and missiles all the time.  The commander can often be a Lieutenant with a Captain on their crew.  This usually happens because they were a crossflow from another career field, or they had an assignment in a different section of the career field.  You don't see problems very often.  The commander is the commander because of experience in the section and time working in the job.  It seems as the key is always mutual respect.

[Short Field]

It seems as the key is always mutual respect.

Absolutely right on point.  W

hen I was a 1Lt, Active Duty, I had a Captain assigned to my branch to work for me.  I treated him with respect and politely asked him to do certain tasks - he politely agreed to do them.  I didn't make a point of being in charge - and he didn't create a situation where it was necessary.  Years later as a Lt Col, I ran a team in the Pentagon.  It was not unusual to get reserve officers assigned to the team for their two weeks of duty - and many of them were O-6s.  Not a big deal as we were always especially polite to each other and made sure we didn't create a problem.   

There was never a problem (outside of one really brain dead O-6 that I had to order to NEVER answer a phone again) as we both knew which of us would spend the rest of their tour inventoring reams of paper to make sure each ream had exactly 500 sheets of paper. 

[SAR-EMT1]

My group had a huge terrirtory but only 2 squadrons in it. We figured it wouldnt be nescessary to have group level CAC's.

Isn't minimum levels for Group status 5 squadrons? 

Perhaps he meant only 2 squadrons with cadets?

No, just two squadrons. Both were composite squadrons. That probably explains why they rearranged them though.

I can back this up. As late as 2003 ILWG had within its boundaries two particular groups that only had two squadrons. One covered the mattoon unit and the savoy unit. The location of the other im not sure of. Then again, as late as the start of 2008 ILWG had several squadrons with just 5 members on the books, thats not even enough for a flight.

The current reorganization took place just last year for the simple fact that the Wing hadn't done anything to its structure since the early 90's.
Seems to be working very well so far. We've cut the fat and have an effective network nowadays.

[nesagsar]

If I remember correctly the other group was Peoria and Bloomington.