New Requirements for Unit Commander

[ADCAPer]

Rumor has it that there is a new policy letter out from National which requires all Unit Commanders to attend UCC before they can be appointed.

Anyone heard anything about this?

[JohnKachenmeister]

I heard it was being considered.  Hadn't heard it got carved in stone.  Can you substitute SLS or CLC?

[Al Sayre]

News to me... Could be problematic in small Wings when you only have 1 new commander to teach, and what do you do in the mean time when a Commander quits, gets fired, moves or dies with little or no notice? 

[ddelaney103]

Will they close the unit if no one with the school wants the job?

[DNall]

Prob-lem-atic... I'd imagine they'll do it like RWCC that you need the course within a state period of time or you lose the job. The better solution is to combine UCC tiwh SLS or CLC... you know that's what SOS is in the military is the PME but also future leader evaluation course. That could be real useful.

[dwb]

Given the number of UCCs actually offered, I'd be surprised if this were true.  I don't know as though I agree with it, either.  UCC is a fantastic course, and very worthwhile, but the availability of the training just isn't there yet.

[MIKE]

MAWG has been doing something like this over the last couple of years.  The way it works here is that if you are a unit CC it's mandatory... Unless you have it already.  So, MAWG has offered the course at least a few times over the last year or so.

Requiring the course in order to be eligible for command makes sense to me... but I haven't done UCC yet. 

[Major Carrales]

Problematic  is understatement...

I am tempted to say...

1) make it a distance learning thing.

Where the "course" could be done via teleconference.  It has been my experience that the best training has to be actually commanding a unit.

2) Require that Deputy Commanders take the course...this way there is a pool to draw from.

3) Add an UCC element to the CLC...maybe a DAY three?

These are my suggestions...but do we really need this?  What about Squadron-CCs that have already been at it for years?

[DNall]

Well, I can't speak to what the new SLS/CLCs will look like, but there was a lot of wasted time in the old version. We ended up making SLS pretty useful to brand new members, but ridiculous for people that have been in 12-30 months. CLC is a LOT of review & a little of the same SLS kind of stuff for pilots that came in at Captain.

In a perfect world, I'd put SLS with Lvl I, & an actual personal professional development course where SLS is now that includes the material from AFIADL13, and UCC combined with elements of SOS in place of UCC.

I really do like the idea of requiring it for Deputy Commanders within a year of being appointed. That not only gives you the greater need to get more courses offered, but it also give you the pool to require CC's have it before they can be appointed, and it gives you a good opportunity to evaluate people waiting in teh wings.

[lordmonar]

I am not against a requirment like that....it makes sense in just about every way that you can think of.

But again it comes down to implementaiton.

I don't really care about the content of the stupid courses.......I just need the course taught!

Requiring UCC before appointment means that the wing is going to have to be more proactive in providing the course.

We have see this thing before.

TLC....mandiotry for CP guys...but who is teaching it?

SLS....manditory for Level II....but who is teaching it?

UCC....manditory for commanders....but who is teaching it?

Beefing up Level I to include SLS is all great....but who is teaching it?

When wings are only holding these courses once or twice a year then you see why it takes so long to get anyone trained and qualified.

So...I am not against the training requirment per se.....but if National does implement it....they have to mandate the wings to provide the training in a timely manner and hold them accountable for the training to take place.

[RiverAux]

I think everyone agrees that in-person training is usually better than internet, but I don't see it as a realistic option for quite a bit of CAP.  We're just spread too far apart and have too few people that need the training at any one time to make classroom courses feasible for most of our stuff. 

The CG Aux has a requirement for flotilla commanders to take an internet course focused on CG Aux regulations.  Even with an internet course it isn't usuall for this requirement to be a problem. 

CAP needs to be moving faster towards having any individual-based requirement being fulfilled over the internet if at all possible.  Some of it may require "procotored" internet tests, but that can be done a lot easier than trying to put an SLS or CLC together. 

I haven't seen the current Unit Commander Course and I don't think its ever been taught in our Wing.  General turnover among squadron commanders is fairly low and we probably only have 1-3 new ones a year.  So, we're never going to have enough for a course of our own and I would have a hard time sending people out of state to do this unless it is the most fabulour course ever.

[Major Carrales]

I am not against a requirment like that....it makes sense in just about every way that you can think of.

But again it comes down to implementaiton.

I don't really care about the content of the stupid courses.......I just need the course taught!

Requiring UCC before appointment means that the wing is going to have to be more proactive in providing the course.

We have see this thing before.

TLC....mandiotry for CP guys...but who is teaching it?

SLS....manditory for Level II....but who is teaching it?

UCC....manditory for commanders....but who is teaching it?

Beefing up Level I to include SLS is all great....but who is teaching it?

When wings are only holding these courses once or twice a year then you see why it takes so long to get anyone trained and qualified.

So...I am not against the training requirment per se.....but if National does implement it....they have to mandate the wings to provide the training in a timely manner and hold them accountable for the training to take place.

The answer is actually simple on one level...shift this over to GROUP.  Yup, that means Groups have to be more than just people going up a chain.  they would have to be mentors.

Groups are local and can pull instructors from Squadrons, or import them from nearby groups.

Wings that do not have Groups will have to deal with another set of problems....or have "Squadron Coalitions" to do the training.

[MIKE]

I knew RiverAux would bring up APC, so there was no point in me mentioning it.

[RiverAux]

Many Wings do not have Groups.  

I think you're missing the point.... if an entire Wing does not have enough new unit commanders to make it feasible to have a class, how will it get taught?  

[Major Carrales]

Many Wings do not have Groups.  

I think you're missing the point.... if an entire Wing does not have enough new unit commanders to make it feasible to have a class, how will it get taught?  

Wings that do not have Groups will have to deal with another set of problems....or have "Squadron Coalitions" to do the training.


These coalitions and Groups could have the course as needed...I don't know?!!  What do you want me to say?

I've of the mind to try to develop ways to ake things work...when all options are exhausted, then it is officially a bad idea.

[Robert Hartigan]

Help me understand something here. Why are you all offer suggestions and solutions to a problem that does not exist?

It is a rumor and therefore not worth the time. When and if it is presented as a requirement you will have all the information necessary to determine what the problem is if there is one.

Right now the problem is the perpetuation of a rumor.

That is all, carry on!

[Major Carrales]

Help me understand something here. Why are you all offer suggestions and solutions to a problem that does not exist?

It is a rumor and therefore not worth the time. When and if it is presented as a requirement you will have all the information necessary to determine what the problem is if there is one.

Right now the problem is the perpetuation of a rumor.

That is all, carry on!

Quite correct.  I normally try to be proactive. A side effect of not enough sleep and too much disaster mitigation training.

[ADCAPer]

Help me understand something here. Why are you all offer suggestions and solutions to a problem that does not exist?

It is a rumor and therefore not worth the time. When and if it is presented as a requirement you will have all the information necessary to determine what the problem is if there is one.

Right now the problem is the perpetuation of a rumor.

That is all, carry on!

The Georgia Wing Commander has already issued a policy letter stating that existing Commanders need to take this class ASAP, and anyone else who wants to act as a commander must take the class before they will be appointed.

[Robert Hartigan]

The Georgia Wing Commander has already issued a policy letter stating that existing Commanders need to take this class ASAP, and anyone else who wants to act as a commander must take the class before they will be appointed.And he or she can diviate from that policy if circumstance require.

That's nice. Good for him. I am sure he has his reasons but that does not mean you should be alarmed.

[RiverAux]

Wings that do not have Groups will have to deal with another set of problems....or have "Squadron Coalitions" to do the training.

Again, how does a Wing or Group that most likely will never have enough people needing this class at one time deal with such a requirement?  Have a class for three people?  It isn't really a problem of finding someone to teach it, it is whether it is worthwhile to teach it to only a tiny handful of people. 

Such a course either needs to be done all over the internet or broadened in such a way that it would be beneficial for all CAP officers.   If we have the 3 new unit commanders AND 15 others who might take it, then its worthwhile to teach.