• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Change of Command - RAWC 2021: Are We "getting it right"?

Operational mindset, to me, is synonymous with primacy of operations and a fighting spirit.

As far as staff guiding commanders, people have to be honest with themselves. We can't be experts in everything therefore, we need people to guide our decisions (that's also true for "operators" who need guiding on the log/maintenance side). Any other way would be, imo, a very arrogant way to command. The CO of my previous unit was a non-operator (AERE) as the CO (Colonel) of a flying unit. As his senior pilot/operator in the unit, one of my main jobs was to guide his decisions regarding flying operations and all that it encompasses. Sometimes, he entirely delegated parts of flying operations and he retained the authority over some other areas. I thought it was a very effective way to leader the unit.

So handing over leadership of the key role of the unit to you was the best option?

Got it :)
I had the opportunity to listen to LGen Rouleau speak at CADSI recently, and was quite impressed with one of the messages he was pushing. This surprised me a bit, because I'm not a Rouleau sycophant, and in the past have questioned his motives on issues.

To paraphrase, he said we need to stop picking the next generation of Institutional leaders based on how well they excelled as Operators/Combat Leaders/War fighters. There are capable, qualified and exceptional individuals within the CAF who would serve the CAF well based on their broad experience and understanding of how the institution works. However, they are over-looked, or not given the credit for their experience, because they haven't followed the "Command billet path to success" (my words not his).

Because of the way the RCAF has organized itself, most L3 commanders are at the pinnacle of the CoC on their Wings (there are exceptions, but for the most part this holds true). Therefore, having the senior officer not being a flying trade (have we had AERE, CELE or AEC WComds at large flying Wings?) worries the rank and file that there isn't an "operator" in charge. But ask many of those WComds how much of their job was related to flying issues, and how much simply needed leadership and institutional know how, and I think most would see that it is here that the Leadership requirements of senior ranks begins to diverge.
have we had AERE, CELE or AEC WComds at large flying Wings?
17 Wing's last WComd (Col Charron) was a CELE, I believe.

I think it was the first time they tried it, and technically 17 Wing doesn't have any aircraft - 435 administratively belongs to 19 Wing in Comox (for...reasons?) and 1 CFFTS/3 CFFTS belong to 2 CAD.
And 17 Wg supports a lot of 1 CAD/2CAD connectivity, so makes sense. So long as the logic behind Commander section is solid, that should matter the most. I just recall what was seen as the Army’s ‘experiment’ with LGen Leach....mixed reviews.
To bring it back to tech-related stuff like the RAWC, I have another example:

The last Cmdt (now changed and not sure who the current one is or their background) of RCAF Barker College was LCol Scott Ash, a Logistics Officer. While Barker College does have the AFOD piece, the top floor of the building has very tech-y stuff like the Electronic Warfare courses, Space Operations courses, and Aerospace Studies Program.

Barker College used to always have a Pilot or ACSO Cmdt until LCol Ash was selected. I'm pretty sure he had no technical experience in any of those subjects.
Note: 1 CAD is NOT the same as CADTC
Thanks Captain Obvious. That was known information.
If you read the biography on the other end of that link, you will find that it has corroborating evidence for what was being discussed.