Quality Versus Desire?

[flyguy06]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

I do not understand, LM.

As an officer, you frequently move from staff positions to command and back again.

You also are assigned duty in and out of your specialty, and acquire secondary specailties along the way.  An officer should be qualified to step into any assignment appropriate to his grade.

I just dont see a Security Forces Officer stepping taking over a Fighter Squadron.

[JohnKachenmeister]

But you see fighter pilots taking over SF squadrons.  They have to get qualified in the field, but so what?

CAP, on the other hand, does not use units to accomplish its missions.  The units are merely training bases.  We set up a task force for every mission, beginning with appointment of an IC, who then structures his force from among qualified individuals.

My point is, if you want to be a PAO for example, why don't you want to be at least qualified to do PAO work on a mission?

If you are a pilot, and you want to go into the Operations specialty track, then your training should be toward Mission Pilot status.  If all you want to do is fly cadets on O-flights, track Cadet Programs or Aerospace Education, which would not have an ES mission-related skill component.

All I'm saying is that a dual-tracked training program is wasteful and confusing.  We should not have one "Specialty Track" and a separate "ES Training" track for the same skills.

[flyguy06]

No, I was speaking of the overall CAP experience. Somebody said youneed to involved in all three missions to be successful in CAP and to be in a senior command position. Idisagree and was saying for instance in thr USAF you dont have to be qualified inevery job in the USAF to be a Senior ranking officer.

In other words. You dont have to be involved in CP, ES, and AE in order to be an effective Wing Commander just like you dont have to be qualified as a pilot, security forces officer, logistics officer and intle officer in order to be an effective USAF Wing Commander. Its all about leadership and Management skills.

[DNall]

We have a guy here I just saw on Sunday that was a command pilot (FAC) in Vietnam, came back & after he stopped flying he moved over to a command slot in SF. Got Command pilot on top, basic LE under that, & SS/DFC on the top line under that. It's not at all uncommon for officers with operational experience to move over to other type units.

Flying units do require CCs to be flight rated officer though, could be a non-current transport navigator commanding a fighter unit, but that's fine. The only reason a cop couldn't go back that direction is the cost & length of the training, otherwise there's no restriction to it. If they want him over there bad enough to get him some wings then he's in.

I would agree though that it is for sure about leadership & mgmt skills, that we're failing terribly to get to our people. I don't think the conversation is about what you NEED to do now to move up, but rather what you SHOULD do, and if that's the case should it be added to the PD program.

Now, sorry I came in late, what's the point of this conversation? You want people to be minimally competent in CP, AE, & ES by the time they get to Major. Sure that sounds great. Make Yeager mandatory plus an external AE project (eagle scout style); require a stint in CP. The test thru master & other stuff you're supposed to do aren't very hard. Maybe encampment staff, command a major activity, go on an NCSA. That'd be good. Then ES, either get the badge or hold a branch/section level job. That'd be a good solid set of things to add. It doesn't necessarily mean you can go do those things right now, but you've had serious exposure & made a contribution at some point in your career.

Far as tie in the spec ratings to ES. I think absolutely. We're only talking about a handful. Comm is already tied in. Personnel & Admin should tie in starting at MSA & ending at section chief w/ the master rating. You already have to be able to do paperwork for cadets & AE even if you're in an ES oriented senior sq. It just makes sense to tie in the other way too, we just don't have nearly enough people going for those mission staff jobs, everybody wants the sex stuff (branch directors & IC or nothing at all). Finance ties in the same way. I don't know what's up w/ the ES track these days, but it should tie in, as should flight ops work w/ AOBD, logistics. It's pretty obvious when they have the same names.

[lordmonar]

I will agree with John...that as officers we should all experince all three missions that CAP does.  But I think that what we are argueing is here is to what degree should that expeince be?

Obviously we cannot nor should we try to be experts in everything.  We just don't have the time.

But I do think that everyone should get some familurisation training in all three missions.

So that means everyone should get at least one ES rating.  Everyone one should participate in some sort of cadet activity...(ES guys can hold an ES training weekend for cadets, cadet O-rides, AE guys can do the model rocketry program for cadets).  Everyone should also particpate in the AE program..(everyone takes the Phase III and IV AE tests just like the cadets and require the Yeager for LT Col instead of it being optional....and everyone should have some sort of external AE expeirnce....participate in a AE brief to and outside organisation).

This makes the officers more well rounded.  It will allow them to see how their cog fits into the big machine and will make them better at doing their jobs back at base.

[Dragoon]

The other area of "well roundedness" which our commanders often fail at is the support stuff.   Most importantly finance, logistics and legal.

I've seen more commanders get in trouble for these things than for poor execution of missions.

Probably because our missions are fun, and it's easy to get enthusiastic folks to run them.  But the support stuff......not so much fun.  So you don't have as many enthusiastic staffers ensuring it's done well.

I don't think every CAP "officer" needs a lot of this - but anyone aspiring to any level of command or Wing Staff probably needs a pretty thorough knowledge of these areas.

[flyguy06]

I agree that well roundeness is important. I thought you guys were sayng they should be fully engulfed in all missions. People just dont have the time. The most active people in CAP either are retired or own their own business or woek from home. Most people are not inthat situation.

Everyone cant take every weekend off to do some CAP activity. We have families and some of us work on weekends. I am nthe National Guard . Coinsidentally my Wing like to have SAREX's onthe same wekend I have Guard drill, so guess what? I cant attend therefore I cant get me ES qualifications.

Does that mean I should be deprived the right ro be a Group or higher Commander?

[Dragoon]

Technically, you don't need SAREXs to get qualified.  You can get the prep and familiarization stuff done with an evaluator, and then you can participate on 2 training or actual missions.  So, depending on the specialty, helping out with a couple of ELT searchs may just square you away.

[lordmonar]

No..no...not at all Flyguy,

I was not saying everyone had to be hard core 100% into all the missions.

I was thinking something like MSA or MRO or MS or UDF being required for Level II.  Training does not take a lot of time..only requires two SAREX's....so minimal involvment.  On the CP side of things...develope a list of one or two day events that relate to the other missions model rocketry, o-rides, ES training weekend.
On the AE side...it is interal AE (take the test) and external AE...assist with a presentation (not give it but assist the AE guys).

For level III more of the same but at a higher level or responsibility/involvement.  It will take a little more time and commitment....but that is what we are looking for in our majors.

For level IV even more so...to maybe includeing being on Encampment Staff, completing the Yeager (not optional as it is now), doing an AE presentationn (instead of one of the options) and getting an ES rating in the branch or section level.

I would not expect anyone to devote any more time to any one mission (outside of their chosen field) then they would devote time to got to RSC or other training that we do now.

[JohnKachenmeister]

My point is that ES should be incorporated into the specialty track.  In other words, you should be able, at the technician level, to do your assigned job both "In garrison" and "In the field."

Some specialty tracks would not have an ES component, like AE and CP.  If you are religiously opposed to performing ES missions, then go for those specialties.

All other specialty tracks have a mission-related component.  Having a guy with a masters rating in finance who is not qualified to handle mission finance in a pinch is not a master of his specialty.

[ZigZag911]

No, I was speaking of the overall CAP experience. Somebody said youneed to involved in all three missions to be successful in CAP and to be in a senior command position. Idisagree and was saying for instance in thr USAF you dont have to be qualified inevery job in the USAF to be a Senior ranking officer.

You don't need to be "expert" in all the missions to hold a senior command, but you do need familiarity and basic knowledge of all three missions, with expertise in one of them.

[ZigZag911]

Does that mean I should be deprived the right ro be a Group or higher Commander?

First, command is a responsibility, not a "right".

Secondly, you come across a good officer....so I would presume you would not want a group or higher command until you had been thoroughly prepared to start it (realizing that in any of these positions there is a certain amount of OJT)

[flyguy06]

That is very true Zigzag,

About command though. A commander has to be an overall manager, He doesnt need to be an expert in the field. I used the USAF before as an example. Let me use the ARmy since that is what I know the best.

I am an Infantry Officer. Could I comand a Quartermaster Company? Sure. I just know the basics of Quartermaster stuff, but I would have quartermaster NCO's who are the subjetc matter experts and they would paint me a picture so I could make proper decisions.

Same goea for CAP. You should have a general knowledge of all three missions I agre, but you dont need to be an expert at them all.

[ZigZag911]

That is very true Zigzag,

About command though. A commander has to be an overall manager, He doesnt need to be an expert in the field. I used the USAF before as an example. Let me use the ARmy since that is what I know the best.

I am an Infantry Officer. Could I comand a Quartermaster Company? Sure. I just know the basics of Quartermaster stuff, but I would have quartermaster NCO's who are the subjetc matter experts and they would paint me a picture so I could make proper decisions.

Same goea for CAP. You should have a general knowledge of all three missions I agre, but you dont need to be an expert at them all.

Agreed!!!