Does a Wing Commander's authority over Wing members extend beyond the state?

[Major Carrales]

The IC would still be in effective command of operations unless the IC transferred command to the visiting Brass.

Not really related to the topic, but still an interesting issue.  I've seen Wing CCs that aren't IC qualified get overly involved (in my opinion) in running SARs.  No major issues arose, but I could definetely see it happening. 

What is wierd about the ICS system is that, in actually, one needn't be an IC to be an INCIDENT COMMANDER.  If I am driving down the road and see a plane go down setting of the 121.5, and I call it in to AFRCC via the WING and I am the only one on site...I am the Incident Commander until which time as I transfer it to a more qualified person/member.

Now, because of that, the visiting Brass should not interfer if the IC is truely qualified.  They, as all people present, may offer advice...but the IC is in overall command.

[Eclipse]

So, if I'm a member of one wing (as most of us are), depending on the other wing(s), my Form 5 is, for all intents and purposes, worthless.  It's kind of a pain, though I understand that the WG/CCs are responsible for the airplanes in their charge.  Sometimes the airplanes for your required currency are closer to you in...another wing. Or maybe you travel for work, and you'd like to stay current, meet other pilots, you name it.

The "One CAP" concept is a solid one, and simply needs the regulatory elastic to make it fit.

I don't think this is true, at least in mission scenarios (YMMV) - if you roll up / fly into a mission base with a 101 card and other docs that say you are a current MP (or anything else) they are not going to start calling your OPS people and asking about your last form 5.  Also, since all pilot records are in MIMS now, this should be a consistent check across wings.

Whether one Wing will allow you to Form 5 in another Wing's plane, etc., another Wings STAN/EVAL pilot, etc., >is< likely a matter of local polictics, inertia and your inter-wing relationship, but once it says MP on the 101, it shouldn't be a problem in another state.

If it was, NESA couldn't run (for starters).

[lordmonar]

On active duty we have the concept of ADCON and OPCON.  When you deploy to support another unit, that unit gains operational control of you but your home unit maintains adminstration control.

Ergo...if you go to the desert the deployed commander can tell you what to do but he cannot promote you or do anything that is considered admistrative.  Likewise you cannot call back to your home unit to get your commander to countermand a deployed commanders operational policies.

In CAP...if you are CAWG and you go to NVWG to assit in a NVWG SAR...the IC has complete control of you and your crews...you will follow NVWG's policies and requirements.  The NVWG IC/CC would even dictate uniform wear.

So if a cadet from PAWG came to NVWG's winter encampment with his orange T-shirt and white pistol belt, he could be required to remove them and there is nothing that he or PAWG can do about it. 

But the NVWG could not do anything adminstratively for those individuals.  A NVWG member could not sign off on any SQRT paperwork, promotion orders, or anything of a adminstrative nature with out the permission of the owning wing commander.

Nor can a wing commander issue an order that affect anyone outside of his wing with out the concurrance of the regional commander or national commander (making it a regional or national policy).

This is such a no brainer I wonder why it even came up.

We often honor the policies of other wing commanders so long as they do not interfer with the mission, but this is simply a courtesy to simplify working with other wings and units.

So....again if someone from another unit, wing, region is working with you....you have operational control and he must comform to your standards or you can send him home.

[DNall]

That's safety gear, not uniforms & wouldn't even be covered in uniform regs. Wg supplements should cover the highly specific items that deal with just that state & could not even theoretically be standardized nationally.

Now wait a minute...that "gear" thing is a big loophole.  If I were "one of those sorts" I could simply issue kevlar helmets (or white Tommy Helmets from WWI painted white) to my GTs and simply say..." No, that's not a Uniform Item...its SAFETY Equipment!"  

Careful?!

That's correct. If you can justify it to the Wg CC as legitimately NEEDED safety gear then it's perfectly fine. I don't know if you can get surplus kevlar helmets or why in God's name you'd want sucha thing, but there's nothing to stop using them. I think what you're looking for is more like a Wg CC authorizing boonie hats as safety gear on GT ops, which would be problematic cause the AF considers that a uniform item, but the survival vest is safety gear.

[RocketPropelled]

So, if I'm a member of one wing (as most of us are), depending on the other wing(s), my Form 5 is, for all intents and purposes, worthless.  

I don't think this is true, at least in mission scenarios (YMMV) - if you roll up / fly into a mission base with a 101 card and other docs that say you are a current MP (or anything else) they are not going to start calling your OPS people and asking about your last form 5.  Also, since all pilot records are in MIMS now, this should be a consistent check across wings.

Whether one Wing will allow you to Form 5 in another Wing's plane, etc., another Wings STAN/EVAL pilot, etc., >is< likely a matter of local polictics, inertia and your inter-wing relationship, but once it says MP on the 101, it shouldn't be a problem in another state.

If it was, NESA couldn't run (for starters).

That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make -- if a F91 check is good and standard across wings (and verifiable in MIMS), why isn't the F5?

Most of our flying is, I'll hazard a guess, not directly F91-mission-related.  Proficiency flying, etc., should be taken into account as well.

Either you're checked out, or you're not -- if we're getting ourselves into a situation where Wing A doesn't like how Wing B does business (or doesn't know), then we have a problem.  I'm all for the idea of sharing local procedures and policies, such as supplements and "how to pay for your proficiency time" -- but it seems that if we're "One CAP", then qualified is qualified.

[Hotel 179]

Whether one Wing will allow you to Form 5 in another Wing's plane, etc., another Wings STAN/EVAL pilot, etc., >is< likely a matter of local polictics, inertia and your inter-wing relationship, but once it says MP on the 101, it shouldn't be a problem in another state.

Hello All,

You have it pegged.  My squadron is 10 miles from another Wing.  There are recurring missions that I have been trained to execute in the "other" Wing and do so on a regular basis, sometimes in "our" plane and sometimes in "their's".  "Their" pilots CAPF5 and 91 "our" pilots.  In the MIMS, there's a drop-down window to list the check pilot.  No problem. 

It all started with a phone-call to "their" people, several cups of coffee and now it works just fine.

Semper vi.....ya'll

Stephen

[ZigZag911]

But the NVWG could not do anything adminstratively for those individuals.  A NVWG member could not sign off on any SQRT paperwork

In view of national standardization, MIMS listings, and SET, are we certain someone from one wing could not sign off training or evaluation for mission skill for a member from a different wing?

[lordmonar]

But the NVWG could not do anything administratively for those individuals.  A NVWG member could not sign off on any SQRT paperwork

In view of national standardization, MIMS listings, and SET, are we certain someone from one wing could not sign off training or evaluation for mission skill for a member from a different wing?

The individual tasks, and mission credit yes....but the last block is for your unit commander to sign.  He is the approval authority.  So....by my read...by the book...you cannot get signed off by another wing....in practice though....I don't see a problem.  If on of my members came back from summer leave in his home state with a butt load of SQRT's signed off.  I would have no problem with just pressing on.  If I had my doubts...I would take care of it.

Also...a visiting member who needs to be task qualified to perform a mission....I would have no problems signing off on his SQRT and sending him out on the mission (assuming he really knew the information) no matter what wing he is from.

[SJFedor]

Don't forget, it's unit/wing/region commander or their designee.

So if your unit CC designates the Ops officer, DCS, and some other dude to sign it, it's legit. Just the same as if your region commander designates that the school director for a regional SAR training school may sign it.

I think the whole standardization across the board was so that you CAN get training from people other then your home crew. Some specialties are hard to find in certain wings (although an IC can certify participation in any specialty)

[Psicorp]

The individual tasks, and mission credit yes....but the last block is for your unit commander to sign.  He is the approval authority.  So....by my read...by the book...you cannot get signed off by another wing....in practice though....I don't see a problem.  If on of my members came back from summer leave in his home state with a butt load of SQRT's signed off.  I would have no problem with just pressing on.  If I had my doubts...I would take care of it.

Exactly!

As long as the person signing off the individual tasks is SET certified for the rating she/he is signing, what's the big deal?  The whole point of SQTRs is to ensure than a GTM3 qualified person from NYWG has the same basic knowledge and skills as a GTM3 from AKWG.

The final signature for the whole SQTR and thus "final blessing of Mission Readiness" should be the Squadron CC, it has to be approved by Group and Wing in most cases afterwards (usually electonically) on the Form 100.  There's nothing saying that a CC or designate couldn't quiz the individual prior to applying the John Hancock.