Who has been the youngest wing commander?

Started by Cindi, February 21, 2014, 10:22:03 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

#60
    These:

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on February 24, 2014, 09:18:36 PM

  • He made his Mitchell in 19 months.

  • He was given opportunities as a c/2d Lt by RI Wing that would normally be reserved for late Phase 3 or Phase 4 cadets in larger wings.

  • His promotion to Capt at age 21 was based on his CFII rating. (I processed the paperwork for the Wing CC).

If he fast-burned to Mitchell in 19 months, that means he must have just stopped progressing for at least 2 years, if not more.
A recent dark-sider who hasn't done anything but fly for two years isn't going to be a candidate on my list for Unit CC, Captain, or anything else.

Those opportunities at the wing level are probably the core of the issue - a young man with an aviation career ahead of him
gets into the pilot club early and the next thing you know he's a Wing CC.  I've seen this time and again where cadets
fast-burn and get attention, next thing you know they are acting like mini-seniors, even doing staff jobs they have no
business doing, and by the next year they are gone because there's is nothing left for them.

#3 above is there because it highlights why these advanced promotions are a bad idea.

The more I see this (from 50k feet, mind you), the more the disservice we did this young man becomes clear.

Had he progressed organically, we should be celebrating him as a Spaatz and "up and comer" not a "former member"

I hope he is able to find a place to come back as well.[/list]

"That Others May Zoom"

ZigZag911

And with this I absolutely agree...Ben Emerick, who only wanted to help RI WG and CAP, was placed in an extremely difficult position...in many ways, not fair to him at all, even if he did volunteer for the job.

Hopefully when some time has passed, he'll be active again.

Private Investigator

Quote from: FW on February 24, 2014, 12:52:07 AM
Quote from: Private Investigator on February 23, 2014, 06:21:31 PM
It depends on what is the benchmark of a good Wing Commander is. Talent is just that, talent and talent goes a long way. Some people you meet you know will be a Wing Commander and maybe a National Commander one day. Others are just that. "Others".

Two ways to approach the Wing King job, one is to continue with the staff you have and express your "Commanders Intent". Two, is fire everyone and for example if you were SQCC of SQ4, bring your SQ4 Staff in as your 'new' Wing Staff.  8)

It is difficult to do that when the typical RIWG squadron staff is two or three individuals plus the commander and deputy.  How I understand things there; everyone who has a position of responsibility in a squadron is also a member of wing staff.  80 or so members can only go so far before they get burned out.  Can it be done? of course.

Good point sir. In different Group HQs I have been assigned too. GP1 is really SQ 123, Monday night you are the Squadron Personnel Officer and Wednesday night you are Group Admin/Personnel Officer and the meeting location is the same. On getting burned out some Commanders are good at having an interesting meeting every night. Others, IMHO, are over their heads as Commanders. A 12 page agenda is not a outline, they are in 'script' mode.

Eclipse

^ All that administrative circle walking is a waste of time to maintain someone's text-book view of
CAP's structure, which is standing like a 10 foot seawall in the face of 40 foot waves.  Despite the
waves over-topping, and everyone getting flooded out, you just keep shoring it up on the
backside, instead of either making it bigger or building levees to re-route the floods.

All the while telling people "this is how it has to be".

Good companies and organizations adjust their structure to address reality and maximize
the economies of scale.

This is literally the opposite of that.

CAP-USAF's recent restructuring, while painful, maximized the few personnel left on the roster
by essentially ignoring the CAP Regions and assigning LRADOs based on their geographic
proximity to their AOR.  Not perfect, but it addresses reality and puts aside artificial borders.

"That Others May Zoom"

Private Investigator

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on February 24, 2014, 09:18:36 PM
  • There were 4 candidates for the Wing CC position. I was 1 of the 4 but had been serving in MA then CT Wings for almost 2 years.

I find it interesting that a small Wing had four (4) candidates for WGCC. The last two selections for CAWG CC was six (6) candidates. HIWG usually has zero (0) candidates. WAWG, ORWG and IDWG gets one or two.

If I take a SWAG, I am betting that a Wing Commander position that gets several applications will likely last a four year term. A postion with one or two applications, will likely change hands in two years or less. Hence, the 23 month average for a Wing Commander.   

Eclipse

An interesting thought, probably holds true on the mean.  More applicants = more (theoretically) qualified staff who are
actually interested.

The curve is thrown off, however, by the wings who have certain members who apply every time there's an opening,
either "because you can't in if you don't play" or "just to voice my opinion".

"That Others May Zoom"

Private Investigator


FW

Quote from: Private Investigator on February 25, 2014, 08:30:34 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on February 24, 2014, 09:18:36 PM


       
  • There were 4 candidates for the Wing CC position. I was 1 of the 4 but had been serving in MA then CT Wings for almost 2 years.

I find it interesting that a small Wing had four (4) candidates for WGCC. The last two selections for CAWG CC was six (6) candidates. HIWG usually has zero (0) candidates. WAWG, ORWG and IDWG gets one or two.

If I take a SWAG, I am betting that a Wing Commander position that gets several applications will likely last a four year term. A postion with one or two applications, will likely change hands in two years or less. Hence, the 23 month average for a Wing Commander.   

I think it was admirable there were 4 candidates for the position (5% of the senior membership of the wing). 


Quote from: Eclipse on February 25, 2014, 08:28:00 PM
^ All that administrative circle walking is a waste of time to maintain someone's text-book view of
CAP's structure, which is standing like a 10 foot seawall in the face of 40 foot waves.  Despite the
waves over-topping, and everyone getting flooded out, you just keep shoring it up on the
backside, instead of either making it bigger or building levees to re-route the floods.

All the while telling people "this is how it has to be".

Good companies and organizations adjust their structure to address reality and maximize
the economies of scale.

This is literally the opposite of that.

CAP-USAF's recent restructuring, while painful, maximized the few personnel left on the roster
by essentially ignoring the CAP Regions and assigning LRADOs based on their geographic
proximity to their AOR.  Not perfect, but it addresses reality and puts aside artificial borders.

It would not take much to become more flexible with Wing Staffing.  It just takes a little imagination. The IC system shrinks and grows according to need; so should 20-1.  Just a thought...


Eclipse

Quote from: FW on February 25, 2014, 09:46:51 PMIt would not take much to become more flexible with Wing Staffing.  It just takes a little imagination. The IC system shrinks and grows according to need; so should 20-1.  Just a thought...

It's not a 20-1 issue, though that is a piece of it, it's a charter issue.

A wing should be required to have "x" members, not be tied to a specific state.  If a given state isn't big enough, you start combining them
until you have the critical mass for a "wing".

Otherwise, all that administrative overhead and expense is just a waste.  A Region of tiny states would have more resources to pool
less "homefield" background noise, and better ability to provide services.

Turn NER into NEW.  Done.


"That Others May Zoom"

Phil Hirons, Jr.


Eclipse

Fair enough, shuffle the decks and reorg with the wings too small to justify a wing into the new "NER",
and reorg MER with the larger ones.

Or whatever works.

Bottom line, no wing should have less members then any given unit in another state.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

Yeah, it does cause a minor irritation to my sensibilities that we have such disparities in Wing size but I don't think its a significant problem when all the other CAP issues are looked at.  It probably would be to CAP's benefit to re-examine our large-scale organizational structure.  I've yet to see any value in having Regions at all since their only purpose is to have a staff college and for the Region Commander to select a Wing Commander.  Other than that, they're useless.  But, on the other hand, they don't cause many problems so getting rid of them wouldn't be a priority.

Phil Hirons, Jr.

I don't disagree. Considering our shift to disaster relief, if we were to review the region structure we'd be better served to align with FEMA's 10 region structure. NER regional DR missions span 3 FEMA Regions (I NE; II NY, NJ, PR & VI; III PA). Can you say PAPERWORK?

RI Wing unofficial motto. "If we weren't a state, we'd be a group"

MSG Mac

Quote from: Eclipse on February 25, 2014, 10:33:11 PM
Fair enough, shuffle the decks and reorg with the wings too small to justify a wing into the new "NER",
and reorg MER with the larger ones.

Or whatever works.

Bottom line, no wing should have less members then any given unit in another state.

The problem with that solution is several of these wings are receiving state grants or have Memorandums of Understanding with their states that bring in $$$. NH Wing twice threatened to end appropriations when long time NHWG members (Schollaman and Grey) who lived just over the state lines were appointed as Wing Kings.  Both were removed within a week of appointment and told there would be no record of their being Wing CC's. What do you think states will do if there is no CAP organization attributed to that state?
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

Spaceman3750

Quote from: MSG Mac on February 26, 2014, 02:18:41 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 25, 2014, 10:33:11 PM
Fair enough, shuffle the decks and reorg with the wings too small to justify a wing into the new "NER",
and reorg MER with the larger ones.

Or whatever works.

Bottom line, no wing should have less members then any given unit in another state.

The problem with that solution is several of these wings are receiving state grants or have Memorandums of Understanding with their states that bring in $$$. NH Wing twice threatened to end appropriations when long time NHWG members (Schollaman and Grey) who lived just over the state lines were appointed as Wing Kings.  Both were removed within a week of appointment and told there would be no record of their being Wing CC's. What do you think states will do if there is no CAP organization attributed to that state?

In our wing (Eclipse and I), it's a non-issue since the state won't even sign an MOU with us, let alone give us appropriations. Would probably be an issue elsewhere.

RiverAux

Quote from: MSG Mac on February 26, 2014, 02:18:41 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 25, 2014, 10:33:11 PM
Fair enough, shuffle the decks and reorg with the wings too small to justify a wing into the new "NER",
and reorg MER with the larger ones.

Or whatever works.

Bottom line, no wing should have less members then any given unit in another state.

The problem with that solution is several of these wings are receiving state grants or have Memorandums of Understanding with their states that bring in $$$. NH Wing twice threatened to end appropriations when long time NHWG members (Schollaman and Grey) who lived just over the state lines were appointed as Wing Kings.  Both were removed within a week of appointment and told there would be no record of their being Wing CC's. What do you think states will do if there is no CAP organization attributed to that state?

No state is going to care whether it is a CAP Wing or a CAP Group or a CAP Starfleet (well, that last one might throw them off).

Eclipse

Agreed, they want bang for the buck.  Give it and they won't care who does what where.

"That Others May Zoom"

FW

Since Wing Commanders are not Corporate Officers, maybe it shouldn't matter that a wing be confined to a state's borders.  RI could be a group of MAWG or CTWG.  DE could be part of MDWG; etc.  It should all boil down to proper span of control.  It is worth looking into.  What would a state care what the title of the commander of the state CAP organization is called? It would make things simpler at Command Council meetings... :angel:

LSThiker

Quote from: FW on February 26, 2014, 03:59:10 AM
Since Wing Commanders are not Corporate Officers,

They are the sole corporate officer for that state.

MSG Mac

Quote from: LSThiker on February 26, 2014, 05:02:19 AM
Quote from: FW on February 26, 2014, 03:59:10 AM
Since Wing Commanders are not Corporate Officers,

They are the sole corporate officer for that state.

Not since the new governance went into effect last year.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member