Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
I noticed this today on the RCAF FB page:
While I'm not privy to all the career info on either the former and current RAWC Comd, I'm wondering...are we getting it right?
The outgoing Comd is an Air Op Officer, with operational experience dating back to Somali. A pilot by trade, so part of the Air Operations Branch.
The incoming Comd is a Contruction Engineering Officer. I'm left scratching my head. Not to disrespect CE Officers...but they aren't trained, experienced or familiar with...well....aerospace warfare.
I am an Air Operations Branch WO; my expectation to be posted to a Wing Msn Sp Sqn as the CE Unit WO is "nil". I simply don't have the required experience and knowledge to lead and manage CE and Fire Services trades etc. Could I do it? Certainly. But I definitely would not be the best choice, regardless of my operational experience and knowledge in my current trade and rank.
So...this leads to my question "are we getting it right?". Are we picking (1) the best people from (2) the most suited trade/classification for leadership in "current and future operations" and our institutions (training, developmental, operational)?
I took a look on the RAWC site; the CWO is an ATIS Tech (nothing against that trade...it was my previous one). Again...best trade for Aerospace Warfare leadership? Maybe a AWACS background AC Op, or an AES Op CWO is more suited because they come from the "air operations" world as operators.
Some might dogpile on me here; that's fine as I am not saying my thoughts and opinions are correct, but this is something I've been wondering in recent years so thought it might start an interesting discussion.
* I'll outright state I am not a huge fan of the current version of the "CWO/CPO Corps" and the "A Chief is a Chief is a Chief" mantra. It's simply not true IMO.
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com
While I'm not privy to all the career info on either the former and current RAWC Comd, I'm wondering...are we getting it right?
The outgoing Comd is an Air Op Officer, with operational experience dating back to Somali. A pilot by trade, so part of the Air Operations Branch.
The incoming Comd is a Contruction Engineering Officer. I'm left scratching my head. Not to disrespect CE Officers...but they aren't trained, experienced or familiar with...well....aerospace warfare.
I am an Air Operations Branch WO; my expectation to be posted to a Wing Msn Sp Sqn as the CE Unit WO is "nil". I simply don't have the required experience and knowledge to lead and manage CE and Fire Services trades etc. Could I do it? Certainly. But I definitely would not be the best choice, regardless of my operational experience and knowledge in my current trade and rank.
So...this leads to my question "are we getting it right?". Are we picking (1) the best people from (2) the most suited trade/classification for leadership in "current and future operations" and our institutions (training, developmental, operational)?
I took a look on the RAWC site; the CWO is an ATIS Tech (nothing against that trade...it was my previous one). Again...best trade for Aerospace Warfare leadership? Maybe a AWACS background AC Op, or an AES Op CWO is more suited because they come from the "air operations" world as operators.
Some might dogpile on me here; that's fine as I am not saying my thoughts and opinions are correct, but this is something I've been wondering in recent years so thought it might start an interesting discussion.
* I'll outright state I am not a huge fan of the current version of the "CWO/CPO Corps" and the "A Chief is a Chief is a Chief" mantra. It's simply not true IMO.