Please Cite "Low Light"

[a2capt]

Okay, so all these years of this "low light" stuff, is this actually in a report someplace or just speculation piled on hearsay? With other military related organizations abound that don't seem to have this "issue", how can it be?


..and I don't mean the wannabe ones where "everyone is a general" either.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It is in Air Force Instruction 10-2701, Organisation And Function of the Civil Air Patrol.

1.3.4. CAP Distinctive Uniforms and Insignia. The emblems, insignia, and badges of the CAP Air
Force-style uniform will clearly identify an individual as a CAP member at a distance and in low-light
conditions. The Air Force must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform. CAP distinctive
uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not
occur.

Nicely vague...it can mean whatever you want it to.

[RiverAux]

There is no doubt that they are much tougher on CAP in regards to this than they are to AFJROTC and I've yet to hear of any logical explanation for why the two organizations should be treated differently.   My only hope has been now that we're being managed by the same part of the AF as them that this will change.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

They've also been much tougher on CAP than they have on some of their own personnel.

I have seen older NCO's who wouldn't fit CAP H/W standards, much less AF.

Then the few State Defence Forces that have Air units...OK, one could say "the AF has no control over that," which is untrue.  They own the uniform.  If they would tell an SDF "you cannot wear our uniform, no matter how modified," a State Adjutant General, particularly one from the Air Guard, would very likely not dispute it.

[Hawk200]

My only hope has been now that we're being managed by the same part of the AF as them that this will change.

I hope that your hope bears fruit. I think many of our uniforms are almost garish. There are little things that can be done to differentiate uniforms through shape of insignia rather than color, and I'm hoping wiser heads prevail.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Our older cadet officers are much more likely to be confused with AF personnel than our senior personnel are.

An 18-21 year old young man/woman wearing a blue uniform, blue nameplate, blue shoulder marks...

[RADIOMAN015]

It is in Air Force Instruction 10-2701, Organisation And Function of the Civil Air Patrol.

1.3.4. CAP Distinctive Uniforms and Insignia. The emblems, insignia, and badges of the CAP Air Force-style uniform will clearly identify an individual as a CAP member at a distance and in low-light conditions. The Air Force must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform. CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not occur.

Nicely vague...it can mean whatever you want it to.

Well AFI 90-301, allows military retirees (as well as typical military personnel and their dependents) to file complaints in the Air Force IG system, so I would guess that if some one had a burning desire to get a review of the current regulation on CAP's wear of AF uniforms as not being distinct enough this could be done pretty easy.

Personally, I know members have spent a lot of money on their AF uniforms and various CAP specific uniform items for these uniforms, so I wouldn't go forward with a complaint/concern about the uniform not being distinctive enough.

HOWEVER, looking at some of the posts on the board by former CAP members, who are also military retirees, who knows what they are thinking OR even IF some military person might have a bad encounter with a CAP member and decide to file a complaint.

Hmm, bright red really is a nice color, isn't it, is it in our uniform future :angel:
RM     

[cap235629]

Our older cadet officers are much more likely to be confused with AF personnel than our senior personnel are.

An 18-21 year old young man/woman wearing a blue uniform, blue nameplate, blue shoulder marks...

hence the requirement that 18 plus cadets who do not meet H/W cannot wear AF uniforms

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

hence the requirement that 18 plus cadets who do not meet H/W cannot wear AF uniforms

I mean those who do meet the standards.  My own unit has young men and women between those ages who look like they could have just come from BMT/OTS.

RM: I would hope a military person wouldn't be that petty.  Incidents like the "trolling for salutes" are few and far between...and hopefully farther since General Courter issued her letter on the subject.  But, if people want to be that thick, who owns the problem?

If you really like bright red so much, I suggest a trip north of the border and an application to join this unit:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/33cbg/GGFG.asp

But the fact remains that the "low light" bit, as currently defined, can mean almost anything the offended party wants it to mean...and to the detriment of CAP, as we continually find ways to bend over backwards to comply with this poorly-defined regulation, which can be redefined at the stroke of a pen by a new CSAF or SECAF.

And that stroke-of-a-pen may consider your bloody red insignia to be too close to Marine scarlet.

[Eclipse]

What about if you are wearing NVG's?  Do we need to be IR reactive, too?

[SARDOC]

If you really like bright red so much, I suggest a trip north of the border and an application to join this unit:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/33cbg/GGFG.asp

nah...Then we might be confused for the Marine Corps Band

http://antiquehorns.com/tag/usmc/

[PA Guy]

I think the reason for the nebulous "low light" edict and other AF generated uniform directives is pretty obvious.  The AF would prefer that CAP senior members not wear the AF uniform and will make it as difficult as they can for those CAP seniors who do.  Comparing CAP to AFJROTC is a non starter.  The problem is with senior members not cadets. Just my opinion.

[a2capt]

I totally forgot about the AFI, the real part of my question was has it actually been cited during the committee meetings, boards, etc., as a reason why we "got" whatever it was, or "can't" do whatever it is we asked? Or is this all speculation just like the post above, which starts out with "I think", and not "they said, cited, etc.. "

Because you gotta figure one thing. If they really didn't like, or didn't want, as easy as it was for them to say, "wear these barney boards", they would just take away whatever right there and then.

On the flip side, over the years things have come more aligned. The collar ranks on both seniors and cadets. We used to have CAP on one side.  The rank on the cover, except the flight cap where it's still the device. The loss of the wing patch on blues, while I believe at least JROTC still has the round patch there.

Thread after thread, it can make a guy see red.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

As I have said on another thread, transition everyone, and I mean EVERYONE to the old style four pocket service jacket. The Army still uses the same pattern for the Blues, just throw in some AF blue fabric, and edit the current Army epaulets to the old style, not hard I might add, and we are good to go. Add the wing patches back on or add the red Civil Air Patrol scroll to the shoulder and everything will be fine, even with replacing the gray slides to blue. No one on AD would have an issue recognizing that as not the current service jacket.

[PA Guy]

I totally forgot about the AFI, the real part of my question was has it actually been cited during the committee meetings, boards, etc., as a reason why we "got" whatever it was, or "can't" do whatever it is we asked? Or is this all speculation just like the post above, which starts out with "I think", and not "they said, cited, etc.. "

Because you gotta figure one thing. If they really didn't like, or didn't want, as easy as it was for them to say, "wear these barney boards", they would just take away whatever right there and then.

On the flip side, over the years things have come more aligned. The collar ranks on both seniors and cadets. We used to have CAP on one side.  The rank on the cover, except the flight cap where it's still the device. The loss of the wing patch on blues, while I believe at least JROTC still has the round patch there.

Thread after thread, it can make a guy see red.

Since few, if any, of the folks on this board are privy to those conversations speculation is about the best you are going to get.  Could the AF abolish the AF unifrom in CAP with the stroke of the pen?  Yes, but they won't, because it wouldn't be politically expedient for them.  Instead they will slowly chip away until most seniors give up the AF uniform because it becomes such a PITA to wear.  Look around, on a national scale how many seniors are now wearing corporates?

[lordmonar]

That's just because they are holding themselves to the standards.

But I agree with your sentiments.

I really wish the AF would follow the USCG and live us being fat and fuzzy......but they won't......so we aught to work with the USAF and come up with a single uniform that is acceptable to both the USAF and CAP.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I think the reason for the nebulous "low light" edict and other AF generated uniform directives is pretty obvious.  The AF would prefer that CAP senior members not wear the AF uniform and will make it as difficult as they can for those CAP seniors who do.  Comparing CAP to AFJROTC is a non starter.  The problem is with senior members not cadets. Just my opinion.

I've sometimes thought that, as "conspiracy theorist" as it may sound.

The AFI does not give the AF absolute veto over our CAP-distinctive uniforms.

If we were to design, with existing civilian clothing items, a CAP-distinctive uniform with a blue shirt and blue trousers, but of different shades to the USAF, not using any AF uniform items, really, what could they do?  It would be like the Navy throwing a hissy fit over the U.S. Power Squadrons and various yacht clubs using uniforms that look very similar to the USN.



I'm sorry if that sounds confrontational.  I think that ever since the days of the "berry boards" we have bent over backwards to avoid P.O.'ing the AF...and what have we got in return?  We jacked a popular, attractive uniform for reasons still unknown.

Maybe it would lead, not to a confrontation, but to a frank conversation about whether or not the AF even needs us anymore.  Nothing earthly lasts forever.

It could be that more members are "going corporate" because of all the uniform hassles...but I think it's more likely because it's cheaper and easier.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Cyborg, I notice that manny of your ideas on what "should be dosne with CAP" revert to asking if CAP is even needed, are you not proud of CAP? I couldn't even imagine CAP dying off because of a member asking that question. CAP is still very much needed, what is not needed is CAP having any members considering disbanding the organization.

What we do need though is someone to constructively asking (just the way it is being sone now) what can we do to help our relationship with the USAF, and when can we do it? Continuing with what our higher leadership is doing now is what is going to get things done, it just takes time patience and none of the membership asking if it is ok if we just stop the programs all together.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^I am a cynic by nature.

If I weren't proud of CAP I wouldn't have been part of it for almost 18 years.

But over those 18 years I have seen our relationship with the USAF deteriorate markedly.

When I first came in, the relationship was good.

It's fluctuated between "shaky" and "indifferent" in the time period since.

The uniforms are just a surface symptom.

But what honestly gets me is that when problems come up....the assumption is almost always that it's CAP that's at fault, that somehow we have transgressed, then we have to do yet another "thank you sir may I have another" (watch Animal House sometime for reference)...case in point, the CSU.

Other cases in point: basic training graduates getting told by their MTI's, if they get told anything about CAP at all, to "ignore them," the removal of "USAF Auxiliary" from everything from our MAJCOM crest to the empennage of our aircraft, to the bloody stupid "low-light" bit.

The former is inexcusable, the second incomprehensible, the third bordering on unenforceable.

I'm not for disbanding CAP; for one thing I don't have the power to do that!

I saw us almost disbanded in 1995 because of John McCain.

It's rare, thankfully, that I have run into open hostility from AF personnel, but it has happened.  The semi-official line is that CAP members are supposed to "suck it up in silence."  That's a crock.

If relations with the USAF are to be bettered...that is a two-way street.

[LGM30GMCC]

Alright,

I can safely say the USAF doesn't 'need' CAP. We weren't 'Needed' in WW2. We fulfill a capability (or set of capabilities) in a manner that reduces costs for the USAF. We are beneficial to the USAF. If we didn't exist they would 'need' something to fulfill that capability and could find some other way of doing it. If the USAF really 'Needs' something it finds ways of getting it done.

All that being said, the USAF keeps finding ways to USE CAP that are beneficial to it. They keep finding CAP able to provide a capability cheaper, more quickly, and more easily than other solutions and so they take advantage of that. This can lead to 2 ways of thinking.

1) Hey - our little brother is really useful and we can keep 'em close. They are professional, productive, and having them look like us can help. It might lead to some confusion with some of our folks but we can solve that with a little education. (Ex: we are now an entry in Airman "The Book", it isn't much, but we're in there as part of the USAF, and not under AU or AETC or whatever.)

2) Hey our little brother is really useful and we can keep 'em close, but some members keep acting like idiots so we want CAP members to be immediately obvious so if there is some conflict our members know to take orders/instructions from the dudes with a commission, not some CAP member. (I know this leaves out CAP-NCOs, but there aren't very many of those out there, makes a shorter statement)

The more like the USAF we BEHAVE the faster and more likely it is that we will get to look more and more like the USAF.

AFJROTC falls very much under the control of the USAF. With a stroke of its pen the USAF can disband AFJROTC, they are part of AETC and serve a very specific purpose (recruiting) that we do not. Now if they got rid of AFJROTC and instead found ways of CAP doing 100% of what AFJROTC could do, then we might get to look more like the USAF as well. But remember, AFJROTC instructors are employees of the USAF, they have the power of the purse on them and can hire/fire/discipline/train them. They are also all former USAF members, so the USAF has a closer idea of how they will act because they have been directly trained by the USAF. For this level of scrutiny imagine that every CAP instructor was required to attend some kind of TDY training before they could become an instructor. It would cripple our units overall, and the USAF likely would not want to invest the time/money in that without some manner of ensuring the folks it trained actually did the job it had trained them to do.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

1) Hey - our little brother is really useful and we can keep 'em close. They are professional, productive, and having them look like us can help. It might lead to some confusion with some of our folks but we can solve that with a little education. (Ex: we are now an entry in Airman "The Book", it isn't much, but we're in there as part of the USAF, and not under AU or AETC or whatever.)

2) Hey our little brother is really useful and we can keep 'em close, but some members keep acting like idiots so we want CAP members to be immediately obvious so if there is some conflict our members know to take orders/instructions from the dudes with a commission, not some CAP member. (I know this leaves out CAP-NCOs, but there aren't very many of those out there, makes a shorter statement)

1.  I doubt that is ever likely to be the mindset of the AF again, even though we do appear yearly in Airman magazine.  Other than AU, very few USAF websites even mention us.

2.  This is probably the closest we'll get...even though the "idiot episodes" are few and far between.

Again, the AF has to take some responsibility for educating their troops.  It's been a long time since BMT for me but one of the academic/classroom sessions could be used for just that.  Two hours max., maybe presented by CC TXWG.

[NCRblues]

1) Hey - our little brother is really useful and we can keep 'em close. They are professional, productive, and having them look like us can help. It might lead to some confusion with some of our folks but we can solve that with a little education. (Ex: we are now an entry in Airman "The Book", it isn't much, but we're in there as part of the USAF, and not under AU or AETC or whatever.)

2) Hey our little brother is really useful and we can keep 'em close, but some members keep acting like idiots so we want CAP members to be immediately obvious so if there is some conflict our members know to take orders/instructions from the dudes with a commission, not some CAP member. (I know this leaves out CAP-NCOs, but there aren't very many of those out there, makes a shorter statement)

1.  I doubt that is ever likely to be the mindset of the AF again, even though we do appear yearly in Airman magazine.  Other than AU, very few USAF websites even mention us.

2.  This is probably the closest we'll get...even though the "idiot episodes" are few and far between.

Again, the AF has to take some responsibility for educating their troops.  It's been a long time since BMT for me but one of the academic/classroom sessions could be used for just that.  Two hours max., maybe presented by CC TXWG.

So lets see, there are 6 bmt squadrons operating at lackland right now, with a graduating class from all 6 once a week. So that means that the TxWg/CC would have to be on lackland for 12 classroom hours, not to mention the time it takes to move from squadron to squadron. So i would guess, 2 full days a week teaching what CAP is to trainees.

This may be just me, but uh, i doubt that will happen.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Hypothetical suggestion WRT CC TXWG, as well as the timeframe.  That's why I included "max."

Any CAP member vetted by TXWG and staff 737th TRG could do.

My point is that a huge part of the problem between us and the AF is that the AF are not educated about us, and it is up to the AF to do that.

I believe it could quite easily take the place of one of the marathon dorm-cleaning/underwear-folding sessions I remember (if they still do that).

[NCRblues]

Hypothetical suggestion WRT CC TXWG, as well as the timeframe.  That's why I included "max."

Any CAP member vetted by TXWG and staff 737th TRG could do.

My point is that a huge part of the problem between us and the AF is that the AF are not educated about us, and it is up to the AF to do that.

I believe it could quite easily take the place of one of the marathon dorm-cleaning/underwear-folding sessions I remember (if they still do that).

I'm sure they still do that, its been a few years now, but i did it as well. I agree that education is the key here (and what a better place than basic) but i think we will hit a brick wall with the AF over it.

I believe (IMHO of course) that we will run into the same thing i deal with on a daily basis in CAP. CAP will suggest "hey you can take out one of your dorm cleaning sessions and we will teach CAP...win win right?" and i think (again IMHO) that we will get the AF answer as "but....but...we have always done that dorm cleaning at that time...i don't think we can change that...sorry, were maxed for time at basic".

Not saying its correct, there was plenty of "down time" at basic, but the AF standard answer towards anything to do with basic is "sorry, were maxed for time here".

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

You're probably right WRT the AF attitude, but it could also be put in the BMT book (do they still issue those?) with much less effort, especially now with all the desktop-publishing abilities (my BMT book was a bunch of photocopies bound together).

Maybe it could be done as an incentive...meaning that a trainee who attends such a training module could be compensated with X amount of patio time?

[adamblank]

I think LGM is on track here.  I know on his base the SQ/CC there has interacted with OG SQ/CCs and their capabilities are known all the way to the WG/CC who is very interested in how they can help achieve mission success in a tough financial time for the government as a whole.