initial term limit for squadron commanders?

[smilindrew]

What is the initial term limit for a squadron commander? And are these national Regs? Or can wing dictate their own rules?

[FlyTiger77]

You'll find the answer in CAPR 20-1, para 14c which states in pertinent part: "...These commanders serve a four-year term of office..."

[AirAux]

And then it's out the door whether there is a satisfactory replacement or not, with threats to close the squadron, and not even a thank you to the exiting commander..  Another bright idea from those above that don't even know the program or how it works..

[Eclipse]

Strongly non-concur.

A unit with no replacement CC after 4 years is, by design, failing.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Strongly non-concur.

A unit with no replacement CC after 4 years is, by design, failing.

+1.

[Lord of the North]

And then it's out the door whether there is a satisfactory replacement or not, with threats to close the squadron, and not even a thank you to the exiting commander..  Another bright idea from those above that don't even know the program or how it works..

Not True!.  CAPR 20-1 para 14c states "c. The wing commander appoints group, squadron, and flight commanders. These commanders serve a four-year term of office. Upon completion of the initial term, the Commander may be appointed to subsequent four-year terms with the approval of the Wing and Region commander."  (my emphasis).

[Eclipse]

Yes, and I can tell you the likelihood of that being approved approaches zero.

After 4 years an active, successful CC is cooked, and an inactive one should be replaced, so why even entertain the idea?

[lordmonar]

Yes, and I can tell you the likelihood of that being approved approaches zero.

After 4 years an active, successful CC is cooked, and an inactive one should be replaced, so why even entertain the idea?

Because you can....and failing or not....you got to keep squadrons open or the WING will fail in its mission.

[Eclipse]

In this case they already have (failed), no point in perpetuating it.

Not that it won't happen - why follow the clear intent of the regulation when you can maintain status quo and  avoid an uncomfortable conversation?

If you haven't gotten your "plan" in place so that it lives past you in four years, you never will.

If you have, time to move on and give someone else a chance.

And if in four years you haven't recruited enough people to replace you and put a transition plan in place,
then you really need to go.

Perpetuating failure is failure and one of the top reasons we can't get out of the circular rut we're in.

BTW "beloved" and "respected" does not necessarily equal "successful".

[Майор Хаткевич]

Besides,

Each time a CC spot opens in our wing, everyone gets the application email. Just because there's no one in THAT unit, doesn't mean an outsider can't take over.

[Eclipse]

Besides,

Each time a CC spot opens in our wing, everyone gets the application email. Just because there's no one in THAT unit, doesn't mean an outsider can't take over.

In many cases, especially struggling units, that's the best course of action - new blood, no history or
inappropriate allegiances.

[Private Investigator]

Besides,

Each time a CC spot opens in our wing, everyone gets the application email. Just because there's no one in THAT unit, doesn't mean an outsider can't take over.

In many cases, especially struggling units, that's the best course of action - new blood, no history or
inappropriate allegiances.

I concur.

The CAPR 20-1 2 Jan 2013 makes it a 4 year tour. As a Group Commander for four years, that is a bit much. Squadron Commanders get burnt out after 3 years. I notice that after the third year most CCs will go on auto-pilot.

[Private Investigator]

What is the initial term limit for a squadron commander? And are these national Regs? Or can wing dictate their own rules?

On a side note, the Squadron Commander is appointed by the Group Commander or the Wing Commander in Wings without Groups. The Squadron Commander does a bad job they can be fired. I fired a few when I got too many complaints about them. 

[Patterson]

Where does the ousted Squadron Commander move to?  Serve as a Group or Wing assistant staff officer?  Unfortunately the great majority of Group/Wing/Region staffers don't meet weekly (sometimes monthly or even quarterly!).  You are forcing out a person that has dedicated themselves to the most contact-intensive and active position in the entire organization.  How does a person go from doing something they most likely enjoy and being told "time to go, though we don't know where you should go"??

Some might say that the recently cashiered commander can just pick up a new duty at the squadron.  Others will say "just move up" or "just move on". Unless there is a real plan in place (in writing) that spells out where successful squadron commanders should go once they are drummed out of command, the notion of term limits and replacements are insulting to the majority of commanders that are/have been pushed out to meet the regulation.

I am also getting really tired of being told/ reminded about the timeframe involving commander burnout.  Those are opinions.  Just because a commander was burned out at the four year mark and his squadron exploded does not equal the organizational norm. 

Perhaps we should first look at term limits being placed on Group/ Wing and Region staff positions. If a person has only served on the staff at wing for the past twenty years and has not stepped once into a local squadron, that is far worse than a squadron commander with five years at one unit.

[Eclipse]

Where does the ousted Squadron Commander move to?

Not relevent to the actual question.

That is a separate personnel / personal issue specific to the individual, however the fact that anyone would view the situation
as anything but the normal course of business for any organization means there's too much ego in the equation. And this isn't being "drummed out of command".  That's the problem, people take it too personally and view change as some reflection on their performance.

Yes - higher HQ, different HQ, larger-scope activities, a different staff job, etc., etc. The last guy's job isn't the new guy's problem.
The last guy should have worked that out for himself, which gets to your point about transition.  By the 3rd year there should be multiple candidates and backups for all major jobs.  People die, get sick, move, etc.  Far too many units come to a screeching halt because "John got a new job."

In most wings there are 35-50 some CC jobs, and dozens if not hundreds qualified.

Done properly, the group and wing staff jobs should be turning over and changing when the CC's do.  Not all of them, but
many, for the same reasons.  New guy, new ideas.

I left my Squadron Command early and voluntarily to take a Group Command which I left kicking and screaming.  I would have
never given up that job had I not been required to, but my successors have done excellent if not better jobs, and they deserved
their chance as well, as do their successors, etc., etc., etc.

[AirAux]

As I said, booted out without even a thank you.  We are a volunteer organization and upper menagement needs to remember that.  Eclipse, as you noted the squadron was failing, at least by someone's standards.  Small composite squadron started by the commander 11 years ago.  Probably much more typical than a squadron of 50 or so.  Size varied from 15 to 40, a one time high.  A failed squadron?  Ask the senior member that just finished his first year of flight training and was assigned to McGuire AFB for DC-10 fueler training.  He joined because he wanted to fly for the Air Force.  Ask the other senior member that is halfway through his first year of flight training in Texas,  He joined as a cadet 8 years ago because he wanted to fly for the Air Force.  Ask the second year USAFA cadet that joined as a cadet 6 years ago because he wanted to go to the academy.  Ask the 7-8 active duty members that all joined as cadets because they wanted to join the military some day.  Ask the parents of the 2-3 cadets who had been in trouble with the law and this commander gave them another chance when another squadron woldn't accept them (and they turned out nicely).  Ask the commanders that called this commander between midnight and three in the morning to take some of his sqyadron members and work ELT's.  I could go on, but, obviously CAP has redefined the concept of success..

[Eclipse]

As I said, booted out without even a thank you.

Said who?  If you start form that position, which is NOT CORRECT, then the rest of your assertions hold zero weight.

You can throw all the caveats, asterisks, "I know betters" and "CAP done wrongs because I gave my alls" that you want and
it won't change anything.

The only way to maintain a culture of new ideas, avoid stagnation, and encourage proper mentor-ship is to have term limits.

Just because "John" was a great commander, doesn't mean "Jane, Greg, and Herschel" won't be as well, maybe better, maybe not,
but they deserve their chance instead of sitting on the sidelines because "John" is the "bestest CC ever" and won't even consider
getting out of the way.

You accept the job knowing there are four years, that fuels initiative and drive.  For those where the "changed the rules", in most cases
the clck started with the new reg, either way, you know the clock is ticking, get it done, and then act like an adult and make room for the next guy.

[arajca]

I think (yea, it's a bad habit), CAP is trying move away from the personality driven units to sustainable units. How many of the units with the eternal CC would withstand the CC's departure, for whatever reason?

[lordmonar]

obviously CAP has redefined the concept of success..

Not CAP.....just Eclipse.

I will say again my position.  As a good rule of thumb terms limits make sense for all the reasons Eclipse has stated.  I think that it is a mistake to MANDATE term limits.....as it has been stated before.....if the sitting commander is the best fit for the job.....why screw with it?

Replacement commanders IMHO is NOT the job of the sitting commander...but the job of the next higher echelon...working with the current commander in developing a successor.

In a perfect world....the deputy commander or vice commander would be that successor.....but we know for a fact...that that model is not followed in CAP.

[Eclipse]

I think (yea, it's a bad habit), CAP is trying move away from the personality driven units to sustainable units. How many of the units with the eternal CC would withstand the CC's departure, for whatever reason?

This.