SET Approval

[wuzafuzz]

After chatting with some ES folks I understand they need some accountability documentation the SET module doesn't provide.  Plus they obtained the required permissions for the extra steps.  While I'm not conversant on the details of the accountability provided by the extra process, their description made sense to me.  They don't need my agreement but I didn't want my earlier comments to be my last word on this.

[LGM30GMCC]

There are definitely cases of wings acting with 'e-mail guidance' and 'OIs' and such when they absolutely would need a supp to do the things they are doing. When they are found out to be doing this stuff, especially with regs like 60-3 with require NHQ approval to supplement a commander needs to step in and clean house a bit.

While I may or may not agree with the spirit, intent, or level of micromanagement a wing commander wants to exercise, they have the authority to do so in many cases. To some extent National denying a commander the ability to micromanage is, itself, micromanagement. They can certainly recommend AGAINST a course of action, and have a discussion about it, but in the end, unless it's something unsafe, or loosening of their restrictions, I don't know that NHQ should micromanage things that way.

I have also seen problems when wings of varying restrictions come together for joint operations. You start getting into questions of 'Do you really have the authority to do that' or rules changing as the IC changes. A lot of people do not get clear training of 'This is the national standard' and 'This is XX wing standard.' In a training environment this could get especially ugly. For multi-wing responses there needs to be some clarification ahead of time as to whose rules folks are going to be operating by. How that plays out could have a negative impact of mission readiness as a whole.

[Eclipse]

I have also seen problems when wings of varying restrictions come together for joint operations. You start getting into questions of 'Do you really have the authority to do that' or rules changing as the IC changes. A lot of people do not get clear training of 'This is the national standard' and 'This is XX wing standard.' In a training environment this could get especially ugly. For multi-wing responses there needs to be some clarification ahead of time as to whose rules folks are going to be operating by. How that plays out could have a negative impact of mission readiness as a whole.

Totally agree.  One might find it amusing that some of the same people who are in favor of adopting some other organizations' standards for training, are from wings that can't even adhere to our own standards.

In cases like these NHQ should simply say "no".  It's not necessary, period.  Why?  Because if it was, then NHQ would already mandate "it" (whatever "it" is).

This is like most of the wing 60-1 & 60-3 supps, which are nothing more then reiterating stuff that's already clearly required by the regs no one in that state bothers to read.