New Uniform update from NHQ 11/13/06

[davedove]

I tend to feel you need to write the things like they're for martians so there is no question of the standard you're trying to attain, and would like to see a supplement instruction detailing additional stuff that is common but not required - garters & stuff like that.

I tend to agree with that.  Like you said, there are not necessarily a lot of members with a lot of military experience, let alone Air Force experience.  Sure, it's probably impossible to get all the details in the regs, especially since things change, but we can come close.

When I was in the Army, I was told that manuals are often written at the sixth grade level so that they were plain and simple.

[LtCol White]

DNALL I agree. I'm not saying it doesnt need to be spelled out in detail.
It should be done in great detail in the revised 39-1.

I was only referring to the comments about how fast the info on the gortex and rank on the BDU came out without giving detailed guidelines on them. That was my comment about them being common sense and able to gain assistance for those who didn't find the authorization letter to be clear. It wasnt a general term related to all regulations or stating that not everything needed to be detailed out.  Simply that this one should have been clear enough in the interim to suffice.

[A.Member]

DNALL I agree. I'm not saying it doesnt need to be spelled out in detail.
It should be done in great detail in the revised 39-1.

Then the communication on it's wear should wait until that detail is provided in a revision or supplement.

I was only referring to the comments about how fast the info on the gortex and rank on the BDU came out without giving detailed guidelines on them. That was my comment about them being common sense and able to gain assistance for those who didn't find the authorization letter to be clear. It wasnt a general term related to all regulations or stating that not everything needed to be detailed out.  Simply that this one should have been clear enough in the interim to suffice.

What may be "common sense" to you or I may not be so common to someone else.  After all, that's the whole purpose of having regulations isn't it - to remove ambiguity?  I've actually heard people ask which way Lt bars should be worn on headgear.  So, simply saying use "common sense" is not a requirement.  Attaching a photo, particularly when it appears to be a poorly Photoshopped image, is also not a requirement (ex. is that a mini cloth insignia? ...a new uniform item?). 

It's very simple really (maybe even common sense?), no uniform changes should be communicated without an accompanying wear requirement (for example: Corporate Changes).  It's not that hard to do nor is it too much to ask.  As a matter of fact, in this case, it probably would've taken less time to do than creating the Photoshopped picture.   Even the addition of a simple statement such as, "Reference AFI 36-2903, Figure 2.12 for wear instructions" (or something similar) would be sufficient.

[Psicorp]

What may be "common sense" to you or I may not be so common to someone else.  After all, that's the whole purpose of having regulations isn't it?  I've actually heard people ask which way Lt bars should be worn on headgear. 

Umm...horizontally on the inside of the headgear, right?

*grin*   silly butterbars.

[A.Member]

Umm...horizontally on the inside of the headgear, right?

*grin*   silly butterbars.

Close... 

[BillB]

 Re: New Uniform update from NHQ 11/13/06

Umm...horizontally on the inside of the headgear, right?


Only on the TPU.

[Lancer]

<tongue in cheek>
I think the reason they sent the initial information out so soon is so every will be ready and get their orders into Vanguard, so that in the weeks and months it takes for the regulations to be updated, you'll finally have your parka and will know how to place rank and whatnot; just when things are starting to thaw.
</tongue in cheek>   

[DNall]

I wouldn't jump the gun here. I still haven't seen an official policy letter yet. It's just a heads up on something coming down the pipe & I think most all of us know what the standards will be based on not being retarded for starters. I was just making an aside about how so many things have come down of late, plus the horriblly executed revision on good intentions the current 39-1 is, equals we should re-write the thing in a user friendly method but with MUCH MORE detail than is common in AF regs, cause basically you're sending a document out to troops that have no frame of reference & very likely can't get one - so like you're talking to martians.

[afgeo4]

I don't believe I've ever seen authorization for the gore-tex name tape in the AFMAN either actually.  IMHO it makes as much sense as say... not wearing nametapes on BDU's or field jackets.

[MIKE]

* Bump *

CAP/CC Letter, Change to CAPR 39-1, CAP Uniforms 20 Nov 06

This garment will be worn with an ultramarine blue embroidered device on the front tab
(see atch 1). Cadet and senior member officers will wear the device with embroidered
grade insignia. Cadet and senior member NCOs will wear the device with the
embroidered CAP and metal grade insignia.

2. The Air Force has also authorized the wear of the ultramarine blue embroidered
grade insignia centered on the BDU hat (see atch 2) by senior member officers. The
grade insignia may be worn immediately and a mandatory wear date of 1 May 2006 has
been established.

Emphasis added. 

   

[Hawk200]

* Bump *

CAP/CC Letter, Change to CAPR 39-1, CAP Uniforms 20 Nov 06

This garment will be worn with an ultramarine blue embroidered device on the front tab
(see atch 1). Cadet and senior member officers will wear the device with embroidered
grade insignia. Cadet and senior member NCOs will wear the device with the
embroidered CAP and metal grade insignia.

2. The Air Force has also authorized the wear of the ultramarine blue embroidered
grade insignia centered on the BDU hat (see atch 2) by senior member officers. The
grade insignia may be worn immediately and a mandatory wear date of 1 May 2006 has
been established.

Emphasis added. 

   

Nice!

And jeez, did it take them long enough to come out with that policy letter, or what?

[TankerT]

And jeez, did it take them long enough to come out with that policy letter, or what?

Remember, NHQ lost about... what... 30% of their paid staff in the last year?  Of course that is going to slow them down compared to before...

DNall's comments about being overstaffed or something else complaining about my comment in 5...4...3...2...

[Hawk200]

And jeez, did it take them long enough to come out with that policy letter, or what?

Remember, NHQ lost about... what... 30% of their paid staff in the last year?  Of course that is going to slow them down compared to before...

DNall's comments about being overstaffed or something else complaining about my comment in 5...4...3...2...

30% ? I didn't even know that, been a little more concerned about my own unit, having just rejoined after about a 5 year absence.

So really, 30% ? All that money go to the infinitely spendier project 25 radios?

[arajca]

And jeez, did it take them long enough to come out with that policy letter, or what?

Remember, NHQ lost about... what... 30% of their paid staff in the last year?  Of course that is going to slow them down compared to before...

DNall's comments about being overstaffed or something else complaining about my comment in 5...4...3...2...

30% ? I didn't even know that, been a little more concerned about my own unit, having just rejoined after about a 5 year absence.

So really, 30% ? All that money go to the infinitely spendier project 25 radios?

The radios have nothing to do with the staff funding. The AF funded the radios specifically on a different budget. The P25 requirement was set by Congress, I think.

[DNall]

Everything was set by Congress, the AF doesn't appropriate money, they ask for it. The two items were seperate on the budget, but don't think Congress doesn't know how much gets spent on CAP over the course of several bills. I don't think the radios had anyting to do with the staff at all, but rather they narrowed the margin of error when you go asking for more money.

[SJFedor]

Here's something interesting, the new command patch is only authorized for the corporate uniforms right now, the USAF Aux patch is still the patch authorized for the USAF flight suit.

And the letter finally has guidance on where to put the grade on the hat and how the tab will be worn on the goretex.

Well, now that I've seen it in black and white, I guess I can get to sewing.

[MIKE]

I think I'll get a new cap first.

[DNall]

Here's something interesting, the new command patch is only authorized for the corporate uniforms right now, the USAF Aux patch is still the patch authorized for the USAF flight suit.

Because of course it requires approval from AF to make a change on the AF uniform, and I'm not sur it's good practice to make changes to the corporate side & put AF in a box to approve it on their side too or for them to be responsible for costing us more money.

Secondly, this seems to confirm for me that this change & the USAF AUX off the planes are not driven by the AF, but rather CAP trying to runing corporate to be free of AF restrictions. That's not good at all.

[SJFedor]

Myself and James Colgan are having a dicussion about this now, and the general consensus is that we hope the AF takes a huge dump on NHQ for requesting more of this crap.

[lordmonar]

Here's something interesting, the new command patch is only authorized for the corporate uniforms right now, the USAF Aux patch is still the patch authorized for the USAF flight suit.

Because of course it requires approval from AF to make a change on the AF uniform, and I'm not sur it's good practice to make changes to the corporate side & put AF in a box to approve it on their side too or for them to be responsible for costing us more money.

Secondly, this seems to confirm for me that this change & the USAF AUX off the planes are not driven by the AF, but rather CAP trying to runing corporate to be free of AF restrictions. That's not good at all.

Maybe it is just National trying to unify our image....that we are always CAP.  they require USAF to sign off on it for the flight suit, and they are waiting for that approval.  If USAF said no to flight suit and we still went ahead and did it on corporates...then we would be trying to do an end run.  I think this is just that the USAF wheels take longer to go around on uniform issues than CAP does.