By. Chris "UA" Lessard
Foreword: This article is not long, but is meant to invoke an individual thought exercise to answer a single question: How much technical competence is the right amount to effectively operate as a 13M?
One of the most significant recurring discussions within the Great 13M Debate is attempting to determine how much knowledge and understanding of each specific function within airfield operations should a 13M obtain vs. how much this knowledge and understanding is spread across airfield operations. This is what is known as the “depth vs. breadth” argument. The 13M Mission Qualification Training (MQT) program is meant to focus the 13M1 in a breadth of subjects but requires very little depth of understanding. Developing the “depth” of your technical aptitude in this career field will be up to you. This article argues that to have the best opportunity to be an effective 13M, you should strive to obtain as much competence in the technical skills while a Company Grade Officer (CGO).
Consider how the Army looks at Company Commanders to execute its mission. The only two requirements are: Does the member have the right rank and branch (e.g., infantry, armor, aviation, etc.)? How a Company Commander attains the required knowledge to lead their company is left up to them. Based on the culture of the Battalion or Division, most Company Commanders will strive to learn how each of their company’s weapons function, tactics, and capabilities to effectively utilize the company. To best plan the company’s actions during missions, the Company Commander needs to have both depth and breadth across their unit. While 13Ms are not Army Company Commanders, the concepts of the positions are very similar to effectively execute the mission of the Airfield Weapon System.
13Ms are responsible for a great deal of varied equipment, personnel, skills, and practical application of those capabilities. A 13M should obtain as much knowledge about those things for which they are responsible. Obtaining just a book understanding of the function or facility may provide an excellent foundation to build upon. However, the application of the function will help the officer better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the flight. Imagine if you were asked to read a book on how to be a competent public speaker, but never practiced the tactics of being a public speaker. Then you were asked to explain to other people about how to become an effective public speaker or make decisions that might affect how people conduct public speaking events. You might say all the right things per the book you just read, but you may be missing the context required of experience during the learning process. I look at becoming technically competent in the same way. You should not just read the book, but physically practice the tactics described to determine for yourself what is required to effectively execute your mission.
I know what your next thought is going to be: I have enlisted personnel whose job it is to accomplish the technical side of the mission; my job is not to do their job for them but to lead them. I have heard that comment every time this debate takes place. I agree with the sentiment that a 13M’s role is not primarily to do their job. However, physically training in those skills is an excellent way to both gain technical competence and to interact with your flight.
The first reason to continue developing the technical part of your profession is just that; it’s your profession. The 13M CFETP states that 13Ms provides “technical oversight” of all AO functions. To effectively provide this oversight, you should have the technical knowledge and understanding of the concepts. A tried and true way to attain this knowledge is going through training programs and completing the certification process. One of the expectations I gave to all the members of the AOF was, “I will not ask you to do something I am either not willing to do myself, or have already done.” Then I would back that phrase up by rolling my sleeves up and working alongside the flight.
Second, as an AOF/CC, you are responsible for oversight of all training programs within the AOF as the AOF/CC. While I understand some take this to mean they just receive and pass information provided within the flight, I take this responsibility as an obligation to have a complete understanding of all processes. No other person within the flight will have the responsibility to understand ALL training programs, except the AOF/CC. The insights you have based on this knowledge can also lead to better integration of training needs between the functions within the flight.
Lastly, as an officer within the Operations Group or working with aircrew members daily, you may feel disadvantaged when in discussions that discuss the airspace, NAVAIDs, or airfield operations. I have learned from personnel experience, that aircrew will have a good understanding of their training/local airspace or how the NAVAIDs work in their aircraft or affect their mission. Will you have the same knowledge? While you may be able to bring an AO expert to every meeting you are required to attend, questions you should ask yourself is: “Why does the Wing need the AOF/CC to be a 13M if they always defer the answers to their SNCOs? What then, does a 13M provide to the Sq/CC, Gp/CC, or Wg/CC as the AOF/CC?”
What each 13M must decide for themselves, is how much technical depth do they need to accumulate vs. the breadth provided in IST or MQT. For example, prior enlisted 13Ms may be able to skip most technical training in their previous AFSC and focus on the other technical functions and administrative side of running the flight. For me, professional competence as a 13M required a working understanding of both general and local ATC, Airfield Management and RAWS applications, as well as the administrative requirements of the flight. Having this technical competence broadly across the flight was critical to effectively leading and executing the Airfield Weapon System mission.
As always, we would love to hear your comments regarding this topic. If you would like to provide a rebuttal, a response or a pile on, please use the Contact Form on the home page to contact the editors.
Comments