NEW SHAWBURY STATION COMMANDER

[FOZZY]

Now that the powers that be have seen sense and put a 'No Winged Master' in charge of a flying station, will we need so many senior officers in the flying world. I am of course referring to the iminent arrival of an ATC Gp Capt as Station Commander at Britains premier rotary flying training unit.

[opso]

So an Air Tragicker in charge of of the home of the Air Tragic School! <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> Should have seen the trend starting when they were foolish enough to let adminners become OC Admin Wg! How dare the system put non-aircrew in ground jobs that were previously held by aircrew! Although I seem to recall that when it lower ranking jobs, the majority of the aircrew fraternity thought it was generally a good idea that allowed aircrew more flying tours and less paperwork and staff jobs! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

This is far from the thin end of the wedge and it will be cracked wider still yet. The GD list for Wg Cdrs and above will see to that. We're too far down the road to do a u-turn, so it's time to get used to the idea.

[Proletarian]

Makes sense really as the new Commandant DHFS is a GD Gp Capt. If they were both GD, I imagine the relationship might become rather tense, so it makes sense.

[Scud-U-Like]

Considering 95% of a stn cdr's job is admin, the rationale behind reserving 95% of stn cdr posts for GD(P) was always dubious.

[Dunhovrin]

And at least some poor sap won't pitch up at met brief to find his check ride is with the staysh..

[spectre150]

Scud - wasn't the non admin 5% to do with supervision of flying - ie the Stn Cdr ultimately had responsibility for the conduct of flying on his unit. By the same token, OC Ops Wgs should be aircrew so that they can carry out those supervisory responsibilities in the CO's absence (takes cover as the ops support branch bear down down). Talking from a position of total ignorance here as I am unfamiliar with the DFTS concept - presumably the Gp Capt running DFTS has ultimate responsibility for the supervision of flying at Shawbury (what about not-DFTS flying?)

[Scud-U-Like]

You are correct Spectre. Therefore, on those flying stns where the Stn Cdr is non-GD(P) the policy should be that OC Ops must be GD(P), thereby making him the Stn Cdr's 'advisor flying'. The Stn Cdr of an RAF flying Stn does not need to be a pilot, any more than the Chief Exec of Heathrow Airport needs to be a pilot. Doubtless, the pilots will argue otherwise <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[RubiC Cube]

However, the Chief Exec of Heathrow will never have to prepare his troops for war.

[Big Tudor]

Most of the Stn Cdr's at Shawbury over the years have been pilots. What is the difference between having an ATC Gp Cpt in charge of a flying school or a pilot Gp Cpt in charge of the ATC school. Surely it's more to do with the persons leadership skills than their branch.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Rubic, I think you will find that the new staish at Shawbury also commanded the APOD at Pristina in 1999. He may not have been too popular but he got the job done.

[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: Whipping Boy's SATCO ]</p>

[Admin Guru]

I'm all for this move to have Adminers as Station Commanders. All credit to you, Sir. Who better to run a station that someone who knows the inner and complex workings of the admin tree?

For too long aircrew have had the monopoly on senior positions; as Jacko said "the old boys network." I am a modern thinker and in today's Air Force everyone has an equal part to play. There isn't a cockpit or a radar in the Station commanders office, so why have a pilot behind the desk? . .In my opininon, keep the trained pilots in the air and the trained adminers running the station.

[SACSmith]

I think that, as long as they get the job done, keep everyone on the station happy, fulfil the station's operational commitments, make in-roads with the local community and talk to all ranks on the camp, then they should just be left to get on with it, rather than criticising them before they've even had a chance to get their feet under the table. Or I am talking bo**ox. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[opso]

AG - I think that the new staish may well feel slightly offended to be called an adminner - after all he had to pass significantly harder professional training than how to hold the right end of a pencil! Yes, many of his duties as staish will be administrative in nature, but it just shows that those capable of 'high tech merit' jobs can also turn their hand to paperwork as needed. It would be a much fairer world if it often worked the other way as well, but then again, the world's not fair.

[DuckDogers]

A move that has been on the cards for quite a while to be frank. Unfortunately i'm going to have to agree with our moaning ATC colleagues and say that to a certain degree and from a certain point of view this move seems to make sense for the following reasons.

Firstly, DHFS is a'lodger unit'with its own budget and as proletarian pointed out has its own Group Captain or equivalent. (Personally i don't think that having a GP(P) as Stn Cdr would have created friction with the new Commandant DHFS just because he is RAF). A point proven by the fact that the USAF have an Admin Colonel as Base Commander and the Operational aspect is commanded by a Colonel Pilot/WSO etc....

Secondly, does Stn Cdr Shawbury need to get directly involved in the flying aspect aspect as DHFS has this covered? Having been there for some time, i think not.

Thirdly, given that the RAF policy at present dictates that all flying aspects of a unit are controlled by OC Ops Wg, also an Air Trafficer at Shawbury, does any of this really matter?

Finally, a Gp Capt post that IS NOT branch related (niether GD(P) (N), Ops Spt (Any), Admin etc.....)

Replies are eagerly anticipated. But those who have been at Shawbury will see it does not matter as DHFS have most aspects covered.

NB: It will sad to see Dick Allan depart.

[Flap62]

Sorry, might have missed it but what's this new chaps name? - please someone don't blah on about "sensitive information" - I'm sure its in the Shrewsbury Sheepworrier or whatever.

[Dan Winterland]

It's not the first time. At a small training airfield somewhere in Lincolnshire in the 1990's we had a PTI as the Staish. As the rules stated that he had to be current on type, he went through the same course the students did, then flew SCT when he finished that. Magic chap, but it was inadvisable to try and outdrink him!

[FOZZY]

Flap 62, the man's name is M.R.Wordley

[rotor tree]

Just a minor point - Commandant DHFS is not responsible for supervision of flying at Shawbury. DHFS is a lodger unit, and the Staish is responsible for the running of RAF Shawbury as an airfield and therfore overall supervision (as I understand it!)

[Mowgli]

Can't see a problem per se with non pilot stn cdr, provided that there are senior GD people in the chain of command, and that appears to be so in this case.

However, there should always be some stations commanded by pilots because when they then get promoted to be a "group" commander (AOC/AOCinC)they have had experience as a force commander at station level. Otherwise, you will have AOCs/CinCs who will not have been exposed to the admin and welfare issues that become a big part of a stn cdrs lot.

Unless of course you want non-pilots as AOC Groups, and I don't think that would work. I'm not suggesting that non aircrew are incapable of understanding the use and projection of air power, but it's a question of credibility. If I was ordered to go saussage side and do the business, I would want to know that those orders were coming from someone who's experienced combat (actual or training) himself/herself.

[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Mowgli ]</p>