Hi, I'm trying to get an answer to the following:
If an individual is assigned to Wing rather than a squadron, what is the chain of command? In 20-1 it looks like all members of Wing who are assigned a staff position report to the Chief of Staff. But this only provides clarity for the staff officers. What about a member who for example is an assistant recruiting officer? Would this person's chain of command start with the Recruiting Officer, and then the Chief of Staff, or is the Chief of Staff their commander.
I know that I should probably already know this, but I need some help figuring this one out.
Thanks for any input.
The COS is their commander but the assistant reports directly to their assigned person.
In your case the Asst Rec Officer reports to the Rec Officer who in turn reports to the COS.
Flyer
That's not always possible in CAP as many folks have more than one position, thus reporting to more than one officer.
If you're try to get an answer or solution to a problem within your functional area, then as Assistant "Staff" Officer you would go to the primary "Staff" Officer first, thus following the chain of command. If you're trying to resolve an issue with your personnel record, for example, you can go directly to the Personnel Officer responsible for that. If you have a question about your ES qualifications, then you can go directly to the ES Officer.
If this is an issue truly requiring going up the chain, then you can go directly to the Chief of Staff, if appropriate. There are times when going directly to the vice commander or even wing commander would be appropriate, if you're assigned to wing HQ.
If you're an ADY staff member, then the wing CoC is only appropriate to resolve issues regarding your staff position. Any other issues would have to go through the CoC of your assigned unit.
Okay, thanks for the explanations. I don't have an issue, I just want to understand how the dynamics of the chain work at this level.
Thanks again for your help.
The Chief of Stuff isn't a commander, he is a manager of managers.
The only Commander in this chain is the Wing CC. Beyond that nitpic I agree with the above.
Assistant staff officers report to the primary, who then reports (in most cases) to the Chief of Staff.
Where it gets messy in CAP is when someone is assigned to a subordinate unit but also holds a
higher echelon job (something, IMHO, we need to knock off). In that case, the local unit commander
is the person's commander for everything except the limited lane of duties for the higher assignment.
Need to know what to do as Wing R&R? Ask the COS. Personal administrative or training issue? Talk to your CC.
Plus, if you look at 20-1, not everyone reports to the CoS.
SE for example reports directly to the Wing/CC, while by default the ES Training Officer reports to the Director of ES who reports to the Director of Operations, who reports to the CS (although Wings have the option of having DOS report directly to CS rather than DO)
Quote from: JeffDG on August 25, 2013, 01:38:34 AM(although Wings have the option of having DOS report directly to CS rather than DO)
((*sigh*)) One can always hope.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 25, 2013, 01:53:47 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 25, 2013, 01:38:34 AM(although Wings have the option of having DOS report directly to CS rather than DO)
((*sigh*)) One can always hope.
The default is DOS-DO-CS, but 20-1 specifically grants Wing/cc's the option of bumping DOS up a level in the chain.
^ And an increasing number of wings, especially those with multiple COS' are elevating ES to
a directorate, which only makes sense, since it is 1/3rd to arguably 1/2 of our mission.
The problem comes in when Wings confuse "flight operations" with "emergency services" and think they
are one in the same. They aren't. Airplanes are simply a resource for the ES, CP, and AE missions. Even 20-1, by default really gets it wrong with CP and AE being directorates by default, and ES being subordinate department.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 25, 2013, 03:22:00 AM
^ And an increasing number of wings, especially those with multiple COS' are elevating ES to
a directorate, which only makes sense, since it is 1/3rd to arguably 1/2 of our mission.
The problem comes in when Wings confuse "flight operations" with "emergency services" and think they
are one in the same. They aren't. Airplanes are simply a resource for the ES, CP, and AE missions. Even 20-1, by default really gets it wrong with CP and AE being directorates by default, and ES being subordinate department.
I agree...actually, I'd probably consider going farther were I dictator for a day...put CP, AE and ES outside the CS side of things reporting directly to the CC...they are the Congressionally mandated missions after all.
All I'm saying is that the default org chart does put ES under Ops.
CS is not a commander, but, like vice commanders and deputy commanders, has delegated command authority by virtue of appointment, and stands in the chain of command.
As a practical matter, the CS generally fulfills the signatory and approval functions of the 'unit commander' with relation to those staff members assigned to the wing or region HQ (that is, those not ADY).
That's why they need to have a Director of Operations.....with two shops under him/her......Current Operations (OPS what you are doing now or in the next 30 days) and Plans & Programs (making and coordinating our plans and capabilities with our customers; and planning SAREX's and other operations in the future (60 days and beyond).
Quote from: lordmonar on August 26, 2013, 03:22:40 AM
That's why they need to have a Director of Operations.....with two shops under him/her......Current Operations (OPS what you are doing now or in the next 30 days) and Plans & Programs (making and coordinating our plans and capabilities with our customers; and planning SAREX's and other operations in the future (60 days and beyond).
We don't use the "Operations" in that way. In most wings "Operations" = "Airplane Stuff".
"Airplane Stuff" is essentially a resource maintenance program. Making sure the planes work, pilots are certified as "pilots", and those resources are where they need to be
based on the actual mission needs. They should be serving the needs of the real missions, not driving them.
My primary example is this constant mantra of "needing hours on the airframes". We aren't in the business of just burning gas. We're in the business or helping people (ES), and
educating cadets and the public about aviation (CP/AE). Hours and resource needs should be driven from those seats, and if you have no mission need, then we don't need to burn the hours,
and might not need that many planes.
But instead, we do it backwards - "We need another 100 hours this quarter to keep the planes." "Better have a SAREx and fly some O-Rides."
This is because the resources, and the need to keep them, is driving the mission.
Singing to the choir Eclipse.
I challenge anyone.....anyone in CAP to produce are published standing OPLAN that details what our ES capabilities are supposed to be.
Once you know what the OPLAN calls for....then you know how many air planes and Ground Crews, and support people you need to support the mission.
Once you know that....then you know how many people you need to fill all those slots, how much training you have to accomplish to get your people ready.
If you know those two things......then you don't have to beg people to put time on aircraft because those numbers would be built into it.
Try this on for size.
Assume that you have assigned one aircraft to squadron X.
That squadron would be tasked to provide six aircrews for that plane (that is six pilots, six observers, six scanners).
These aircrew would be required to fly at least one hour every month to maintain the proficiency. That's six hour right there.
Squadron X with an air plane would also be tasked to fly at least 12 hours of Cadet O-rides a month that is a total of 18 hours......in programmed flying. That 216 hours per year.
Squadrons would have to report their flying hours monthly and answer why they have not met their flying goals. No one should be scrabbling to meet their flying hours.
I can't tell you how many times I've said the above to a roomful of crickets.
The Wing CC should be asking:
"Who are the customers?" (Not hypothetically, literally by name")
Both internal and external
"What are their expectations?" (Actual tasks, times, etc.)
"What are our capabilities?" (What can we actually do today?)
Unless and until you answer those questions with more then what's in the pamphlets, you're cooked.
And after you answer the questions, you make hard choices based on facts, not how you wish things were
or how there were WIWAC.
I just saw a skeleton on horse riding by....looking for his six friends.....should I be worried :)
Quote from: lordmonar on August 26, 2013, 04:17:19 AM
I just saw a skeleton on horse riding by....looking for his six friends.....should I be worried :)
Seriously.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 26, 2013, 03:59:38 AMTry this on for size.
Assume that you have assigned one aircraft to squadron X.
That squadron would be tasked to provide six aircrews for that plane (that is six pilots, six observers, six scanners).
These aircrew would be required to fly at least one hour every month to maintain the proficiency. That's six hour right there.
Squadron X with an air plane would also be tasked to fly at least 12 hours of Cadet O-rides a month that is a total of 18 hours......in programmed flying. That 216 hours per year.
Squadrons would have to report their flying hours monthly and answer why they have not met their flying goals. No one should be scrabbling to meet their flying hours.
I wish it was that easy. Up until this year, we managed to get our 200+ hours fairly easily. This year has been really difficult. It's been down for maintenance over two months total, not including 100-hr inspections and an annual. Scheduled events have been weathered out several times.
O-rides are iffy at best. Getting cadets to sign up and show up has been a problem, and weather has been an issue there, too.
And on top of all that, funding interruptions have had an effect. Other units here have had similar issues, outside the maintenance problems.
I too have long had a problem with "Operations" basically meaning airplane stuff. I do think the airplane stuff needs to be handled by a specific staff member, but it is an entirely separate ball of wax from ES and the other reasons use the airplanes.