Does a Wing Commander's authority over Wing members extend beyond the state?

[RiverAux]

The folks trying to hijack the thread on verbal orders haven't done it so I will....

Does a Wing Commander still retain ultimate command over members of his Wing when they leave the state and are in another Wing Commander's "jurisdiction"? 

This is actually a very relevant question as CAP continues to utilize assets from around the country to accomplish various missions.  Although some here aren't terribly interested in what regulations say about issues, I am, so here are some quotes:

CAPR 20-1 (Org of CAP) from Wing CC Job description:

Wing commanders are the senior corporate officers within their wing and are responsible to the corporation and to the region commander for ensuring that Corporation objectives, policies, and operational directives are effectively executed within their wing.

later in the job description Wing CCs are to:

Exercise command over all units and personnel in their wing.

So, what is a Wing (from same reg):

17. Wings. There are 52 wings in CAP, one for each state, the District of Columbia (which embraces the Washington, D.C. area), and Puerto Rico. A wing is comprised of the wing headquarters and all units within its geographical boundaries unless otherwise prescribed.

So, unlike an AF Wing which can go anywhere, it seems to me as if a CAP Wing is restricted geographically and that a Wing Commander only has command of CAP members within that geographic entity.  However, you could go Clinton over the meaning of "in" in regards to the Wing CC's direction to command all units and members in their Wing.  Is a member of a Wing still "in" that Wing even if out of state?  He is still a member of his home Wing according to his membership card. 

Any other applicable regs? 

I can definetely see both sides of this issue.  Given the problems in Hurricane Katrina, I wonder if this issue has been offiically addressed in any manner.

[SJFedor]

I can definetely see both sides of this issue.  Given the problems in Hurricane Katrina, I wonder if this issue has been offiically addressed in any manner.

Doubt it, but it really needs to be addressed.

Breaking up wings geographically was probably the easiest way to define the command boundaries of the wing kings. Best for the mission? Maybe at the time, but now that they're running us into that "One CAP" wall, maybe not so much anymore.

Long story short, my personal belief is that, if there's a need for members from one wing to go to another, for whatever reason, they should be considered TDY to that wing, and under the occupying wing commander's jurisdiction. However, since their PCS unit is back in the home wing, they'll remain compliant with certain regulations (uniforms, since that seems to be the hot button as of late) within the best judgement of the occupying wing king. I'm sure some of this goes back to PAWG's orange shirts and hawk bling, and, you gotta admit, orange shirts in their pure sense are kinda smart in a disaster area, but if there was an issue with it, the wing king, or moreso, the IC, should have said "hey, theres a k-mart down the road, go buy some black shirts and burn the orange ones". That should have been the end of it. There's rumors of PA's wing king telling the team down there "eh, fudge 'em, wear the orange shirts, i say its groovy", and that's where the command and control line needs to be more clearly defined.

[Major Carrales]

It seems to me that one is a member of the Wing to which they are officially attached.

For example, Texas Wing is getting the National Commander's Unit Citation and I assume any member of the Texas Wing, and those by proxy in the sumordinate units, are likely to get it as well.  I assume that means Texas Wingers, like several Canadians I know and respect that are attached to some South Texas Units.

However, I assume of some New Mexico Wing member travels to a Texas Wing event, they are held to the authority of the Texas Wing.  Thus, if I were to travel to Alamogordo, NM and participate in their activities... I would still wear the Texas Wing Patch, but I would have to conform to their operational policies.

I don't think it is fair to "shop around" or go transferring to other Wings (as I have heard rumors of) to circumnavigate a Wing's policy.  I have had people call up our unit from other wings asking for a transfer.  TO which I offer bupkes!!!

Now...

If I may be so bold as to ask, most esteemed RiverAux...

Have you had cause to contemplate this recently?  If so...why?

[fyrfitrmedic]

I'm sure some of this goes back to PAWG's orange shirts and hawk bling, and, you gotta admit, orange shirts in their pure sense are kinda smart in a disaster area, but if there was an issue with it, the wing king, or moreso, the IC, should have said "hey, theres a k-mart down the road, go buy some black shirts and burn the orange ones". That should have been the end of it. There's rumors of PA's wing king telling the team down there "eh, fudge 'em, wear the orange shirts, i say its groovy", and that's where the command and control line needs to be more clearly defined.

Therein lies the rub - rumors, trashtalk and innuendo run rampant.

[ZigZag911]

It really does need to be addressed, in part because we have 'two track' (or even three track' command:

1) you're a member of your home unit, which falls somewhere in the normal squadron- (group) -wing- region chain of command

2) if you are involved in ES, you report operationally to the IC, most likely throug a pilot in command, ground team leader, or section chief on the mission management team (this would be the most likely scenario in which folks would be going to other wings with specialized insignia and/or gear

3) then there is the possibility of encampment or other training events outside one's wing of origin

Two possibilities immediately present themselves:

1) the really active ES members generally have more than one uniform....keep one  strictly within national standards, no optional extras, asa 'travelling' uniform

2) The Region CCs enter into some sort of understanding that resolves the issue

[MIKE]

The folks trying to hijack the thread on verbal orders haven't done it so I will....

Splitting topics like that one can be a royal pain.  When there isn't a distinct break in the discussion where you can just cut it off and move it, you have to go in and pick each post out and merge 'em into the new topic.  So, if I was doing it it would probably mean taking both topics out of service for how ever long it takes me to split 'em up.

[Major Carrales]

I maintain a "traveling uniform" as was described above.  It makes sense, if I ever leave the Texas Wing there should be a national standard.

Since these "uniform variations" are only on BDUs and I would more likely to travel in Blues to a conference or the like.  I guess a regulation set of blues woudl best fir that bill.

Now...is this a uniform topic or a Wing policy topic?  If this is more BS over uniforms... let me know so I can simply not do this topic. We waste too much time already debating uniform items.

But if it is over true policy...like training, encampment or the like (which vary from Wing to wing based on  Wing supplements to the CAPR 60 Series Regs or the like; then I'm in.

[MIKE]

IIRC the uniform variations as authorized in CAPM 39-1 for wing commanders etc... Are only applicable to that commanders AOR... So any CAP baseball caps etc authorized per this authority.. should not be worn outside of that wing.

[RiverAux]

Have you had cause to contemplate this recently?  If so...why?

yeah, somebody busted this thread and didn't have the common courtesy to take it outside when I asked them to do so. 

Maj C -- I'm interested in it primarily from an ES point of view.  For example, if an out-of-state GT disagrees with the day's search plan from the IC, are they actually under the orders of that IC or do they still answer back to their home Wing CC?

[DNall]

When you sign in to a mission, the IC is in charge & no other, not even the Nat CC. Obviously someone else's Wg CC can't overrule the IC.

Personally, I don't think there should be wing supplements except in extreme cases & never should it govern standardized uniforms. I'd much prefer national standards & quit playing games.

[RocketPropelled]

Actually, this is a timely topic.

I've found myself in the middle of trying to get checked out in aircraft of wings different from my own (my job is about 90% travel throughout the Southeast Region, f'rinstance, and I am, so far, only Form 5'ed in FLWG).

As it turns out, "One CAP" is a great idea, but it's not supported by current regulations (or most local procedures) -- and I think that some well-meaning WG/CC's are starting to see some of these issues crop up.  I know at least one wing is working very hard to come up with a procedure for approving pilots from other wings without too much trouble (thanks!) -- but for now, I'm having to retake a Form 5 ride months before I'm due (by 60-1).  I don't mind so much, because, hey, I'll go a long way for currency and safety; but the WG/CCs are sometimes between a rock and a hard place.

So, if I'm a member of one wing (as most of us are), depending on the other wing(s), my Form 5 is, for all intents and purposes, worthless.  It's kind of a pain, though I understand that the WG/CCs are responsible for the airplanes in their charge.  Sometimes the airplanes for your required currency are closer to you in...another wing. Or maybe you travel for work, and you'd like to stay current, meet other pilots, you name it.

The "One CAP" concept is a solid one, and simply needs the regulatory elastic to make it fit.

[Major Carrales]

Have you had cause to contemplate this recently?  If so...why?

yeah, somebody busted this thread and didn't have the common courtesy to take it outside when I asked them to do so. 

Maj C -- I'm interested in it primarily from an ES point of view.  For example, if an out-of-state GT disagrees with the day's search plan from the IC, are they actually under the orders of that IC or do they still answer back to their home Wing CC?

Understood...

In the case you mention, the visiting GT, in my understanding, has to comply to the locality.  The IC, is in overall command of the activiy as per the ICS.

Thus, unless he/she is relieved by the Wing Commander (any one of them) the the Regulations apply as well as local rules (Wing Supplements to REGS)

If the Ground Team "disagrees," the GTL is free to voice the objection...but they must comply with the established order of the IC...or leave.

[Major Carrales]

When you sign in to a mission, the IC is in charge & no other, not even the Nat CC. Obviously someone else's Wg CC can't overrule the IC.

Personally, I don't think there should be wing supplements except in extreme cases & never should it govern standardized uniforms. I'd much prefer national standards & quit playing games.

Agreed...

CAP uniforms need to be standard CAP wide. 

I also think that WING SUPPLEMENTS need to address uniform issues...but rather policy points specific to the Wing.  For example, Hawaii might need some special dispensation from the water overflights between islands.  Alaska might also need rules for its more isolated areas.

[ELTHunter]

When you say "For example, if an out-of-state GT disagrees with the day's search plan from the IC, are they actually under the orders of that IC or do they still answer back to their home Wing CC?" do you mean from a tactics or safety point of view?

If you just don't think the search plan is well thought out and the probability of success is low, voice your opinion to the IC, but then carry out the plan.

If you think the plan is unsafe, you have a right and an obligation to the members of your team to remove your team from the mission.

Bottom line is that the IC is in charge during the mission, and for all practical purposes, the Wing CC is removed from your chain-of-command from a tactical standpoint.

[DNall]

When you sign in to a mission, the IC is in charge & no other, not even the Nat CC. Obviously someone else's Wg CC can't overrule the IC.

Personally, I don't think there should be wing supplements except in extreme cases & never should it govern standardized uniforms. I'd much prefer national standards & quit playing games.

Agreed...

CAP uniforms need to be standard CAP wide. 

I also think that WING SUPPLEMENTS need to address uniform issues...but rather policy points specific to the Wing.  For example, Hawaii might need some special dispensation from the water overflights between islands.  Alaska might also need rules for its more isolated areas.

That's safety gear, not uniforms & wouldn't even be covered in uniform regs. Wg supplements should cover the highly specific items that deal with just that state & could not even theoretically be standardized nationally.

[RiverAux]

The gt maybe isn't the best example, but to clarify, lets say the IC with the out-of-state ground team wants them to do something that would be prohibited by a supplement in their home state?  Are they still bound by their home-state supplement (and therefore to their Wing Commander) or are they obligated to follow the instructions of the IC?  

Personally, I think they should follow the instructions of the IC but it isn't clear to me that the regulations would definetely support that point of view.  

How about another example.  Say there is a major cadet protection violation involving an out-of-state team.  Who is in charge of the investigation and the consequences?  The home Wing CC or the Wing CC where it occurred?  Keep in mind that there could also be violations of state law involved in the state where it occurred.  

We could think of many specific examples and argue about them, but I'm more interested in the overall general policy and if there is any real guidance for us peons on this issue.  

So, where does the authority of a Wing Commander (through one of their ICs or activity commanders) that has members of another Wing in his state start and stop?  For exactly which actions must they answer to their home Wing CC and which to the Wing CC where they're at?  

I just think that this issue deserves a little more clarification in the regs if we're moving more towards this "one CAP" concept.  Now, its possible that the National Commander has addressed this issue directly with the Wing CCs and we just don't know about it.  

[Major Carrales]

These will be poor examples, but they are times I've have noted what is being reflected in this thread en re John's Senario...

1) I was told when I did some research on the USS Lexington that the Captain of the LEX was in charge of the operations on the Lex.  Thus, when the Admiral used it as his flagship, the Admiral had little control over the operations of the Lex itself.  And, if he needed something, he would use the chain-of-command as issue an order the the Lex's Captain.

2) In the 1953 movie "War of the Worlds" a Marine Col from El Toro was establishing a perimitter around the Martians.  General Mann, a high ranking General came to visit the operations in that part of Southern California.

General Mann indicates that the Col was still in command and his presence was not to effect that in any way.

Now...as poor examples as these are, I woudl think that if there were a major SAR operation going and the Major General or soem Region/Wing King was to show up.  The IC would still be in effective command of operations unless the IC transferred command to the visiting Brass.

[RiverAux]

The IC would still be in effective command of operations unless the IC transferred command to the visiting Brass.

Not really related to the topic, but still an interesting issue.  I've seen Wing CCs that aren't IC qualified get overly involved (in my opinion) in running SARs.  No major issues arose, but I could definetely see it happening. 

[Major Carrales]

When you sign in to a mission, the IC is in charge & no other, not even the Nat CC. Obviously someone else's Wg CC can't overrule the IC.

Personally, I don't think there should be wing supplements except in extreme cases & never should it govern standardized uniforms. I'd much prefer national standards & quit playing games.

Agreed...

CAP uniforms need to be standard CAP wide. 

I also think that WING SUPPLEMENTS need to address uniform issues...but rather policy points specific to the Wing.  For example, Hawaii might need some special dispensation from the water overflights between islands.  Alaska might also need rules for its more isolated areas.

That's safety gear, not uniforms & wouldn't even be covered in uniform regs. Wg supplements should cover the highly specific items that deal with just that state & could not even theoretically be standardized nationally.

Now wait a minute...that "gear" thing is a big loophole.  If I were "one of those sorts" I could simply issue kevlar helmets (or white Tommy Helmets from WWI painted white) to my GTs and simply say..." No, that's not a Uniform Item...its SAFETY Equipment!"  

Careful?!

[Eclipse]

I say this is an operational authority topic and will address it as such, the uniform stuff is background noise which
could be addressed with a single memo (in either direction) by NHQ.  Until such time, I assume that the home Wing CC
has authority over the trivialities of certain uniform items (caps, belts, t-shirts, etc.), and do not / would not require
a visiting member make any change to their uniform which requires expense or putting needle to thread.  Anything
which does not incur expense, or is a safety issue, would have to be corrected.

For Emergency Services, you are under the local control of the IC(s) as defined by the travel orders or Ops Plan.

In the case of Katrina, for example, our orders (yes, we had travel orders), indicated that we were under the command of the ILWG CC until we arrived at MSWG HQ and signed into the mission.  So we checked in with both our Wing CC and MSWG CC enroute for things like ETA, status, etc.  Any deviation from our planned route, ops plan, etc., would need to
be cleared with our Wing CC before we complied, or until such time as he turned us over to a different authority.  If he told us to come home before we got there, we’d have to turn the trucks around.

Upon signing into the mission at MSWG HQ we were under the command of the IC(s) for the mission, and were deployed / utilized based on the IC's directives.

Those teams that failed to comply with this SOP did not continue their participation in the mission.

[Major Carrales]

The IC would still be in effective command of operations unless the IC transferred command to the visiting Brass.

Not really related to the topic, but still an interesting issue.  I've seen Wing CCs that aren't IC qualified get overly involved (in my opinion) in running SARs.  No major issues arose, but I could definetely see it happening. 

What is wierd about the ICS system is that, in actually, one needn't be an IC to be an INCIDENT COMMANDER.  If I am driving down the road and see a plane go down setting of the 121.5, and I call it in to AFRCC via the WING and I am the only one on site...I am the Incident Commander until which time as I transfer it to a more qualified person/member.

Now, because of that, the visiting Brass should not interfer if the IC is truely qualified.  They, as all people present, may offer advice...but the IC is in overall command.

[Eclipse]

So, if I'm a member of one wing (as most of us are), depending on the other wing(s), my Form 5 is, for all intents and purposes, worthless.  It's kind of a pain, though I understand that the WG/CCs are responsible for the airplanes in their charge.  Sometimes the airplanes for your required currency are closer to you in...another wing. Or maybe you travel for work, and you'd like to stay current, meet other pilots, you name it.

The "One CAP" concept is a solid one, and simply needs the regulatory elastic to make it fit.

I don't think this is true, at least in mission scenarios (YMMV) - if you roll up / fly into a mission base with a 101 card and other docs that say you are a current MP (or anything else) they are not going to start calling your OPS people and asking about your last form 5.  Also, since all pilot records are in MIMS now, this should be a consistent check across wings.

Whether one Wing will allow you to Form 5 in another Wing's plane, etc., another Wings STAN/EVAL pilot, etc., >is< likely a matter of local polictics, inertia and your inter-wing relationship, but once it says MP on the 101, it shouldn't be a problem in another state.

If it was, NESA couldn't run (for starters).

[lordmonar]

On active duty we have the concept of ADCON and OPCON.  When you deploy to support another unit, that unit gains operational control of you but your home unit maintains adminstration control.

Ergo...if you go to the desert the deployed commander can tell you what to do but he cannot promote you or do anything that is considered admistrative.  Likewise you cannot call back to your home unit to get your commander to countermand a deployed commanders operational policies.

In CAP...if you are CAWG and you go to NVWG to assit in a NVWG SAR...the IC has complete control of you and your crews...you will follow NVWG's policies and requirements.  The NVWG IC/CC would even dictate uniform wear.

So if a cadet from PAWG came to NVWG's winter encampment with his orange T-shirt and white pistol belt, he could be required to remove them and there is nothing that he or PAWG can do about it. 

But the NVWG could not do anything adminstratively for those individuals.  A NVWG member could not sign off on any SQRT paperwork, promotion orders, or anything of a adminstrative nature with out the permission of the owning wing commander.

Nor can a wing commander issue an order that affect anyone outside of his wing with out the concurrance of the regional commander or national commander (making it a regional or national policy).

This is such a no brainer I wonder why it even came up.

We often honor the policies of other wing commanders so long as they do not interfer with the mission, but this is simply a courtesy to simplify working with other wings and units.

So....again if someone from another unit, wing, region is working with you....you have operational control and he must comform to your standards or you can send him home.

[DNall]

That's safety gear, not uniforms & wouldn't even be covered in uniform regs. Wg supplements should cover the highly specific items that deal with just that state & could not even theoretically be standardized nationally.

Now wait a minute...that "gear" thing is a big loophole.  If I were "one of those sorts" I could simply issue kevlar helmets (or white Tommy Helmets from WWI painted white) to my GTs and simply say..." No, that's not a Uniform Item...its SAFETY Equipment!"  

Careful?!

That's correct. If you can justify it to the Wg CC as legitimately NEEDED safety gear then it's perfectly fine. I don't know if you can get surplus kevlar helmets or why in God's name you'd want sucha thing, but there's nothing to stop using them. I think what you're looking for is more like a Wg CC authorizing boonie hats as safety gear on GT ops, which would be problematic cause the AF considers that a uniform item, but the survival vest is safety gear.

[RocketPropelled]

So, if I'm a member of one wing (as most of us are), depending on the other wing(s), my Form 5 is, for all intents and purposes, worthless.  

I don't think this is true, at least in mission scenarios (YMMV) - if you roll up / fly into a mission base with a 101 card and other docs that say you are a current MP (or anything else) they are not going to start calling your OPS people and asking about your last form 5.  Also, since all pilot records are in MIMS now, this should be a consistent check across wings.

Whether one Wing will allow you to Form 5 in another Wing's plane, etc., another Wings STAN/EVAL pilot, etc., >is< likely a matter of local polictics, inertia and your inter-wing relationship, but once it says MP on the 101, it shouldn't be a problem in another state.

If it was, NESA couldn't run (for starters).

That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make -- if a F91 check is good and standard across wings (and verifiable in MIMS), why isn't the F5?

Most of our flying is, I'll hazard a guess, not directly F91-mission-related.  Proficiency flying, etc., should be taken into account as well.

Either you're checked out, or you're not -- if we're getting ourselves into a situation where Wing A doesn't like how Wing B does business (or doesn't know), then we have a problem.  I'm all for the idea of sharing local procedures and policies, such as supplements and "how to pay for your proficiency time" -- but it seems that if we're "One CAP", then qualified is qualified.

[Hotel 179]

Whether one Wing will allow you to Form 5 in another Wing's plane, etc., another Wings STAN/EVAL pilot, etc., >is< likely a matter of local polictics, inertia and your inter-wing relationship, but once it says MP on the 101, it shouldn't be a problem in another state.

Hello All,

You have it pegged.  My squadron is 10 miles from another Wing.  There are recurring missions that I have been trained to execute in the "other" Wing and do so on a regular basis, sometimes in "our" plane and sometimes in "their's".  "Their" pilots CAPF5 and 91 "our" pilots.  In the MIMS, there's a drop-down window to list the check pilot.  No problem. 

It all started with a phone-call to "their" people, several cups of coffee and now it works just fine.

Semper vi.....ya'll

Stephen

[ZigZag911]

But the NVWG could not do anything adminstratively for those individuals.  A NVWG member could not sign off on any SQRT paperwork

In view of national standardization, MIMS listings, and SET, are we certain someone from one wing could not sign off training or evaluation for mission skill for a member from a different wing?

[lordmonar]

But the NVWG could not do anything administratively for those individuals.  A NVWG member could not sign off on any SQRT paperwork

In view of national standardization, MIMS listings, and SET, are we certain someone from one wing could not sign off training or evaluation for mission skill for a member from a different wing?

The individual tasks, and mission credit yes....but the last block is for your unit commander to sign.  He is the approval authority.  So....by my read...by the book...you cannot get signed off by another wing....in practice though....I don't see a problem.  If on of my members came back from summer leave in his home state with a butt load of SQRT's signed off.  I would have no problem with just pressing on.  If I had my doubts...I would take care of it.

Also...a visiting member who needs to be task qualified to perform a mission....I would have no problems signing off on his SQRT and sending him out on the mission (assuming he really knew the information) no matter what wing he is from.

[SJFedor]

Don't forget, it's unit/wing/region commander or their designee.

So if your unit CC designates the Ops officer, DCS, and some other dude to sign it, it's legit. Just the same as if your region commander designates that the school director for a regional SAR training school may sign it.

I think the whole standardization across the board was so that you CAN get training from people other then your home crew. Some specialties are hard to find in certain wings (although an IC can certify participation in any specialty)

[Psicorp]

The individual tasks, and mission credit yes....but the last block is for your unit commander to sign.  He is the approval authority.  So....by my read...by the book...you cannot get signed off by another wing....in practice though....I don't see a problem.  If on of my members came back from summer leave in his home state with a butt load of SQRT's signed off.  I would have no problem with just pressing on.  If I had my doubts...I would take care of it.

Exactly!

As long as the person signing off the individual tasks is SET certified for the rating she/he is signing, what's the big deal?  The whole point of SQTRs is to ensure than a GTM3 qualified person from NYWG has the same basic knowledge and skills as a GTM3 from AKWG.

The final signature for the whole SQTR and thus "final blessing of Mission Readiness" should be the Squadron CC, it has to be approved by Group and Wing in most cases afterwards (usually electonically) on the Form 100.  There's nothing saying that a CC or designate couldn't quiz the individual prior to applying the John Hancock.