Here, talk all you want of the BBDU's, please let those ideas fall here, and please let the ABU thread off the hook.
I think its more dangerous for us to look like SWAT team members than it is to look like members of the military.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 23, 2007, 03:20:07 AM
I think its more dangerous for us to look like SWAT team members than it is to look like members of the military.
Interesting point. Just because a military person is in uniform, doesn't mean they're armed. A person in SWAT regalia is most likely armed to the teeth when you see them.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 23, 2007, 04:07:54 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 23, 2007, 03:20:07 AM
I think its more dangerous for us to look like SWAT team members than it is to look like members of the military.
Interesting point. Just because a military person is in uniform, doesn't mean they're armed. A person in SWAT regalia is most likely armed to the teeth when you see them.
Im really not being snotty here, but if they are armed to the teeth cant you tell? I see what you mean Hawk and RiverAux, but Im just wondering....I do wear blue doing TacMed but as a medical asset I only wear a sidearm...(after much deliberation some months ago). Ive worn alot of all blue in EMS but nobody has every mistaken me for anything but that largely because my uniform doesnt say SWAT or SHERIFF on the back. Is there really an problem of mis-indentification that anyone has experienced personally?
When I first started out 30+ years ago as an EMT, I had people ask me to pump their gas, show me their receipts as they left the store and ask me what aisle pool cleaning supplies were on. Never had that problem when I had a firearm, now people don't understand why I can't sign off their headlight ticket.
A uniform is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. If your at a fire, your a firefighter, at a crime scene, your a police officer at K-Mart your security.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 23, 2007, 06:42:20 AM
When I first started out 30+ years ago as an EMT, I had people ask me to pump their gas, show me their receipts as they left the store and ask me what aisle pool cleaning supplies were on. Never had that problem when I had a firearm, now people don't understand why I can't sign off their headlight ticket.
A uniform is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. If your at a fire, your a firefighter, at a crime scene, your a police officer at K-Mart your security.
And 30 years ago when EMS was in its infancy, many so called EMTs were wearing white orderly suits and driving hearses. Whats your point?
BBDUs for all!!!
If I can ever get the fundraising to support it, I'll buy BBDUs for EVERYONE in my squadron (cadets included) and we'll have a meeting uniform schedule something like this:
1st week - BDUs (woodland, ACU, or whatever comes down the pipe)
2nd week - PT
3rd week - BBDUs
4th week - Blues (or corporate equivalents)
Then we will have at least one meeting each month where the ENTIRE unit will be wearing the SAME uniform. Can you picture it? Every member of a CAP squadron wearing the same uniform, at the same time, without regard to weight, grooming, or financial status. Man, that'll be an awesome day!
Like my reasoning or not, but BBDUs just aren't military. Sure, the Coast Guard wears BBDUs, but that's their deal. They're on boats on a blue ocean. It's a uniform and they look decent in it.
For us being a para-military organzation, the auxiliary of a US military force, I think we need to wear a military uniform. If Big Air Force doesn't want our overweight members wearing the BDU/ABUs, then I say we all go to an alternate militaryesque uniform that is also green, the Jungle Fatigues. Distinctive but military. They even look great with white/blue badges and such. We all need to be in the same uniform. BITD (Back In The Day), all members wore BDUs regardless of weight or facial hair; they just didn't wear rank. I liked that better than having two totally different looking uniforms.
ONE CAP = ONE UNIFORM (not a blue one)
Quote from: Stonewall on July 23, 2007, 03:37:35 PM
If Big Air Force doesn't want our overweight members wearing the BDU/ABUs, then I say we all go to an alternate militaryesque uniform that is also green, the Jungle Fatigues. Distinctive but military. They even look great with white/blue badges and such. We all need to be in the same uniform.
If they were the actual, real jungle fatigues, you'd get my vote. Had a set when they were still authorized. Loved those things.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 23, 2007, 04:22:41 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 23, 2007, 03:37:35 PM
If Big Air Force doesn't want our overweight members wearing the BDU/ABUs, then I say we all go to an alternate militaryesque uniform that is also green, the Jungle Fatigues. Distinctive but military. They even look great with white/blue badges and such. We all need to be in the same uniform.
If they were the actual, real jungle fatigues, you'd get my vote. Had a set when they were still authorized. Loved those things.
Actually, Proper makes a set that are practically identical. I've got a pair of Proper fatigue pants and my old Jungle Fatigues from my cadet days and I'd be cool with wearing Proper. YMMV.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 23, 2007, 03:37:35 PM
Like my reasoning or not, but BBDUs just aren't military. Sure, the Coast Guard wears BBDUs, but that's their deal. They're on boats on a blue ocean. It's a uniform and they look decent in it.
For us being a para-military organzation, the auxiliary of a US military force, I think we need to wear a military uniform. If Big Air Force doesn't want our overweight members wearing the BDU/ABUs, then I say we all go to an alternate militaryesque uniform that is also green, the Jungle Fatigues. Distinctive but military. They even look great with white/blue badges and such. We all need to be in the same uniform. BITD (Back In The Day), all members wore BDUs regardless of weight or facial hair; they just didn't wear rank. I liked that better than having two totally different looking uniforms.
ONE CAP = ONE UNIFORM (not a blue one)
I don't have anything at all against the blue field uniform, and that's what I wear. However, I would gladly adopt a new uniform if it was in the spirit of getting everyone, regardless of weight or grooming, into the same uniform.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 23, 2007, 03:37:35 PM
Like my reasoning or not, but BBDUs just aren't military. Sure, the Coast Guard wears BBDUs, but that's their deal. They're on boats on a blue ocean. It's a uniform and they look decent in it.
For us being a para-military organzation, the auxiliary of a US military force, I think we need to wear a military uniform. If Big Air Force doesn't want our overweight members wearing the BDU/ABUs, then I say we all go to an alternate militaryesque uniform that is also green, the Jungle Fatigues. Distinctive but military. They even look great with white/blue badges and such. We all need to be in the same uniform. BITD (Back In The Day), all members wore BDUs regardless of weight or facial hair; they just didn't wear rank. I liked that better than having two totally different looking uniforms.
ONE CAP = ONE UNIFORM (not a blue one)
I agree...I think ODs would be the best thing we could do. It presents a military image, is easy to get both in BDU and gear form and is practical in the aspect of being not so sun absorbing and thus cooler that BBDUs. I also think that the cut of the Jungles with angled pockets, etc somewhat mimics what the ABUs, etc are looking like. I would definately vote for them. No baseball caps though....please!
Quote from: baronet68 on July 23, 2007, 03:13:50 PM
BBDUs for all!!!
If I can ever get the fundraising to support it, I'll buy BBDUs for EVERYONE in my squadron
I would refuse acceptance of BBDU's. if I had orders to be in BBDU's for ANY activity, I would transfer.
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 24, 2007, 01:57:21 AM
Quote from: baronet68 on July 23, 2007, 03:13:50 PM
BBDUs for all!!!
If I can ever get the fundraising to support it, I'll buy BBDUs for EVERYONE in my squadron
I would refuse acceptance of BBDU's. if I had orders to be in BBDU's for ANY activity, I would transfer.
Why? Is looking like a soldier really that important to a CAP member?
It's not about looking like a soldier. It's about presenting a military image. Like it or not, CAP is a military auxiliary.
The ACA Army Cadets look like soldiers. CAP should look like the Air Force. BBDUs would make us look like the Coast Guard.
Except ODUs look better than the Field Uniform/Blue BDU. >:D
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 23, 2007, 07:33:38 AM
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 23, 2007, 06:42:20 AM
When I first started out 30+ years ago as an EMT, I had people ask me to pump their gas, show me their receipts as they left the store and ask me what aisle pool cleaning supplies were on. Never had that problem when I had a firearm, now people don't understand why I can't sign off their headlight ticket.
A uniform is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. If your at a fire, your a firefighter, at a crime scene, your a police officer at K-Mart your security.
The point was as stated...put a uniform on a person and put him in an environment where one would expect somebody to be seen in uniform...that person could fill that persona. Put a firefighter in a light blue shirt, dark blue pants in a gas station and see how many people thinks he's the station attendant. Put an EMT in white pants and smock next to an ice cream cart, he's the ice cream man. Blue BDUs at a crime scene one might think your a police officer, next to an air ambulance, flight medic, I don't think if someone saw one person on the street they would think your swat. BTW EMS mid 60's with DOT/KKK standards. Say good by to the caddies and crash cars.
And 30 years ago when EMS was in its infancy, many so called EMTs were wearing white orderly suits and driving hearses. Whats your point?
Quote from: JThemann on July 24, 2007, 02:25:25 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 24, 2007, 01:57:21 AM
Quote from: baronet68 on July 23, 2007, 03:13:50 PM
BBDUs for all!!!
If I can ever get the fundraising to support it, I'll buy BBDUs for EVERYONE in my squadron
I would refuse acceptance of BBDU's. if I had orders to be in BBDU's for ANY activity, I would transfer.
Why? Is looking like a soldier really that important to a CAP member?
Absolutely Not!!!! I do admit that there was a time that looking like a soldier WAS important to me. That was before I joined CAP. Now it bothers me to see "fashion" camo- the clothes that have the camo patterns/styles that are not military looking, or to see someone wearing camo in an unprofessional way.
I do not care for the look of the BBU. I also happen to meet the AF Standards, and I will be [darn]ed if I don't wear what they say I'm allowed to.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 24, 2007, 03:34:05 AM
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 23, 2007, 07:33:38 AM
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 23, 2007, 06:42:20 AM
When I first started out 30+ years ago as an EMT, I had people ask me to pump their gas, show me their receipts as they left the store and ask me what aisle pool cleaning supplies were on. Never had that problem when I had a firearm, now people don't understand why I can't sign off their headlight ticket.
A uniform is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. If your at a fire, your a firefighter, at a crime scene, your a police officer at K-Mart your security.
The point was as stated...put a uniform on a person and put him in an environment where one would expect somebody to be seen in uniform...that person could fill that persona. Put a firefighter in a light blue shirt, dark blue pants in a gas station and see how many people thinks he's the station attendant. Put an EMT in white pants and smock next to an ice cream cart, he's the ice cream man. Blue BDUs at a crime scene one might think your a police officer, next to an air ambulance, flight medic, I don't think if someone saw one person on the street they would think your swat. BTW EMS mid 60's with DOT/KKK standards. Say good by to the caddies and crash cars.
And 30 years ago when EMS was in its infancy, many so called EMTs were wearing white orderly suits and driving hearses. Whats your point?
So. . . . .What's your point? ???
I don't care what we wear. But, if it takes everyone wearing the BBDU to get us all in the same uniform, lets do it.
Sgt Savage said it best....let's get everyone in the same outfit!
Personally, I think some are spending way too much time fretting over what they wear. Hopefully, that same energy is put into everything else they do in CAP. We argue back and forth all the time whether we should be/look "military" all the time. IMO, CAP doesn't need to look military, but we do need to look professional. I don't need a specific uniform to do that. I really think that there is a "wannabe" factor and some ego issues (i.e. "heck no I won't wear that! I wanna look like the Air Force!"). In the end, it's just a set of clothes.
Now...isn't there an important topic we could discuss? I think this one is (http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/dead.gif)
Quote from: shorning on July 24, 2007, 07:23:31 PM
Personally, I think some are spending way too much time fretting over what they wear. Hopefully, that same energy is put into everything else they do in CAP. We argue back and forth all the time whether we should be/look "military" all the time. IMO, CAP doesn't need to look military, but we do need to look professional. I don't need a specific uniform to do that. I really think that there is a "wannabe" factor and some ego issues (i.e. "heck no I won't wear that! I wanna look like the Air Force!"). In the end, it's just a set of clothes.
Now...isn't there an important topic we could discuss? I think this one is (http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/dead.gif)
Well said, sir. (http://www.blacklion.org/applause.gif)
I tend to read these discussions (and contribute on occasion) about uniforms as a break from the more serious issues, like the last month spent preping for an SUI and CI (for sqdn van). The fact that we can spend the amount of time we do here is a testimony to our certifiability passion regarding CAP. Most of the uniform issues boil down to this:
Having a professional appearence.
The fun comes in when we have highly spirited discussions about how to get there.
My point is...
Wear one uniform that is military and get rid of the rest including all of the fat and fuzzy folks or go to a non military that allows all those that can't or won't meet the standards to remain. The fashion police seem so worried about our members getting shot because we look like swat, I doubt any sane person would confuse a 100 pound overweight person as a police officer unless they are at a bank standoff. Than there are those that think we should carry guns. ??? I hear people saying we will lose all of those F & F seniors. Do we worry about not recruiting cadets since we don't have an alternate uniform for them? NO!. Do we allow F & F cadets? No! Are they CAP's future? Yes! Its called discipline and desire! Many of our folks don't have it, and may of our leaders don't desire it. Its all about quantity, not quality. Keep those membership dollars coming, recruiter ribbons coming. Wonder why we lose so many after only a year or two? Our organization let them down and we failed them. As a nation, our population grows but CAP doesn't. Why is that? We had more members two or three decades ago when long hair was in and the military was out. We had one uniform and standards. Slowly we allowed the smurf suit, than...well we all know. We were not concerned about losing folks back than and we had a stronger base. CAP membership is a privilege, not a right. We need leadership that will give us direction and they have. Like it or not, we can wear all these combos. I have seen overweight wing commanders, group and squadron commanders with beards. How about a 100 pound overweight National Commander with a beard? That folks is a glass ceiling!
Quote from: shorning on July 24, 2007, 07:23:31 PM
In the end, it's just a set of clothes.
So, would you wear sack-cloth clothes? After all, they're just a set of clothes.
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2007, 01:26:44 AM
Quote from: shorning on July 24, 2007, 07:23:31 PM
In the end, it's just a set of clothes.
So, would you wear sack-cloth clothes? After all, they're just a set of clothes.
If that was our uniform? Yes. And I'd still look and act professionally as possible. It's not the clothes that make the man/woman.
Quote
"mil·i·tar·y (mĭl'ĭ-tĕr'ē)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces: a military bearing; military attire.
Performed or supported by the armed forces: military service.
Of or relating to war: military operations.
Of or relating to land forces.
n., pl. military also -ies.
Armed forces: a country ruled by the military.
Members, especially officers, of an armed force.
u·ni·form (yū'nə-fôrm')
adj.
Always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying.
Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent.
Being the same as or consonant with another or others.
Unvaried in texture, color, or design.
n.
A distinctive outfit intended to identify those who wear it as members of a specific group.
One set of such an outfit.
I didn't see there where we all have to look like the Air Force, only like eachother.
To me, it just makes sense. Air Force Auxiliary = Look like Air Force
Same goes for USCG Auxiliary, American Cadet Alliance (and each branch they represent), AFJROTC, Army JROTC, NJROTC, and so on.
Lots of adults in CAP are beyond the whole looking like the military thing, or even acting ilke the military thing. But CAP isn't all about the adults. It's about the cadets, and a few other things like Emergency Services and training some adults in professional development and affording them a means to fly their little hearts out. Or, like lots of us on this website, do some ground search and rescue and work with cadets. But in the end, when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, it's about the cadets. And cadets want and need a military style program that gets their heritage and uniform from something bigger and better. Whether it be the Army, Marine Corps or the Air Force. In our case, it's the Air Force.
Speaking as a former cadet, the military influence from our parent branch made a huge difference in how I grew up as a cadet. Compare it to the Boy Scouts. What's after the Boy Scouts? Life? Getting a job? But CAP had something bigger and better than itself, the Air Force, or the military in general. And as a cadet, I loved everything about wearing the Air Force uniform.
I lived no where near an Air Force base as a cadet. But I did live 6 miles from a Navy base where I could buy BDUs. Heck, when I first joined, and through my first 3 years, I could buy fatigues there. Fatigues, just like the Air Force wore. And for now, buying BDUs is still a non-issue for most. Blue BDUS, however, aren't as prominent. You have to order them, unless you're one of the lucky ones that has some sort of SWAT/COP shop that sells them in your area.
My opinion, based on 20 years of experience in CAP, I say stick with what the Air Force wears, for everyone. Although I truly love the OD Jungles, and I'd be willing to order them for everyone, it just isn't as practical as wearing what the Air Force wears. Am I a wanna-be soldier, sailor, airman, marine? Nope! Am I in CAP to wear Air Force uniforms? Abso-friggin-lutely not. To me, I'm in and have been in CAP for the cadets, and as a cadet programs guy I think it's critical to keep ourselves in the Air Force's uniform. Your Opinion May Vary (YOMV).
Removed empty quote - MIKE
So what do you do with the fat and fuzzy?
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 25, 2007, 03:07:56 PM
So what do you do with the fat and fuzzy?
Although it's not the best answer, I'd say do what we used to do. Fat and Fuzzy wear the same uniform, just without rank. Two sewn on CAP cutouts.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 25, 2007, 03:07:56 PM
So what do you do with the fat and fuzzy?
Well, according to you, we kick them out.
Or we adopt a uniform that everybody can wear and not wear a military-style uniform.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 24, 2007, 11:35:47 PM
My point is...
Wear one uniform that is military and get rid of the rest including all of the fat and fuzzy folks or go to a non military that allows all those that can't or won't meet the standards to remain. ... I hear people saying we will lose all of those F & F seniors. Do we worry about not recruiting cadets since we don't have an alternate uniform for them? NO!. Do we allow F & F cadets? No! Are they CAP's future? Yes! Its called discipline and desire! Many of our folks don't have it, and may of our leaders don't desire it. Its all about quantity, not quality. ... We had more members two or three decades ago when long hair was in and the military was out. We had one uniform and standards. Slowly we allowed the smurf suit, than...well we all know. We were not concerned about losing folks back than and we had a stronger base. CAP membership is a privilege, not a right. We need leadership that will give us direction and they have. Like it or not, we can wear all these combos. I have seen overweight wing commanders, group and squadron commanders with beards. How about a 100 pound overweight National Commander with a beard? That folks is a glass ceiling!
I wonder if sometimes you're more concerned about what the person looks like as opposed to whether the person can do the job well. We already have what we need to allow those who do the job to participate. Why do you want to change that?
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 25, 2007, 03:14:23 PM
I wonder if sometimes you're more concerned about what the person looks like as opposed to whether the person can do the job well. We already have what we need to allow those who do the job to participate. Why do you want to change that?
We had that too, before the BBDUs. The only thing the BBDUs offered the fat and fuzzy was a means to wear rank. And as most seem to argue who are pro-BBDUs rank doesn't matter, you know, since looking
military or like the Air Force doesn't seem to matter.
Looks count and that's a fact.
Thought not among the great legal minds of our generation, it would seem to me that there might be an argument to be made for discrimination suits if CAP began to not issue ranks to those who are overweight. Being as it is a non-profit corporation with some of its funding coming from the federal level (via the USAF) I could see where some might make an issue, living as we do in a litigious society. I know folks tire of the USCGAUX comparisons but they seem to do well with "one membership, one uniform." Im friends with a local flotilla commander who weighs in excess of 300 pounds, has been able to get ODUs (from where I do not know, certainly not the UDC at Woodbine, NJ) that fit him and he and his unit are regularly tasked by the USCG on Lake Michigan and westward to the Big Muddy. Lets admit that America is one of the fattest countries on the planet, stop worrying so much about about what the neighbors will think and move forward with one unifying set of uniforms. The USCGAUX has silver buttons and sleeve braid, etc why can we not wear CAP distinctives which would put us in whites and blues and just drop the stinking weight thing already. We're making alot of really good people feel terrible and like they are second class CAP members because they get relegated to golf shirts and mission bases. I would have been happy to wear the BBDUs due to my weight when it was in excess of the allowed limits and still occasionally do when our ES/UDF team decides it wants to look distinctive, eg presenting a uniform appearance when called out at 0300 for an ELT hunt at the local international airport. We recently got a rather good response when we went to meet with the Airport officials, all dressed in BBDUs, boots shined within an inch of their lives (all black Altama Jungles) all insignia and patches (they did get a kick out of the Goofy and it was actually an ice breaker when our PAO explained its origins, etc) proper, rank (or lack there of) squared away and presenting a very military appearance (with our new U.S. Civil Air Patrol tapes.
Perhaps it is also time to think about military bearing. Its picayuny but good posture, taking off ones cap immediately when coming indoors, using our best sirs and ma'ams (always to anyone we spoke to) direct eye contact and a firm but not bone crushing handshake will let them know we are not some local crop dusting company.
What say you, oh legion of greater experience?
Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 25, 2007, 01:14:22 PM
Quote
"mil·i·tar·y (mĭl'ĭ-tĕr'ē)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces: a military bearing; military attire.
Performed or supported by the armed forces: military service.
Of or relating to war: military operations.
Of or relating to land forces.
n., pl. military also -ies.
Armed forces: a country ruled by the military.
Members, especially officers, of an armed force.
u·ni·form (yū'nə-fôrm')
adj.
Always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying.
Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent.
Being the same as or consonant with another or others.
Unvaried in texture, color, or design.
n.
A distinctive outfit intended to identify those who wear it as members of a specific group.
One set of such an outfit.
I didn't see there where we all have to look like the Air Force, only like eachother.
You forget the most important one:
Main Entry: para·mil·i·tary
: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential
auxiliary military force <a paramilitary border patrol> <paramilitary training>
That's what is descriptive of CAP. CAP started out under the office of Civilian Defense, and ended up as an auxiliary of the Air Corps. The idea was to permit those who could not perform military service to still provide
service to their country. The OCD didn't really have the means to manage an organization like that.
I guess we need to figure out what changed along the way. Changeover to Air Force management couldn't have been the only thing.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 25, 2007, 04:03:43 PM
Thought not among the great legal minds of our generation, it would seem to me that there might be an argument to be made for discrimination suits if CAP began to not issue ranks to those who are overweight.
For one, rank was always given to those who earned it. It was just not permitted for wear on the military uniforms by those that did not meet weight/grooming requirements. Like
Stonewall said, it was option to allow rank wear by those who couldn't wear rank on the military utilities.
Second, as is stated, membership is a privilege not a right. Otherwise, their wouldn't be any disqualifiers. Military service is the same way, it is possible to do things or have conditions that won't allow you to serve. That's why there is an FBI check for us.
Thanks Hawk for your thoughtful reply. What I am referring to however is weight, not criminal background, or lack thereof. I just would like to see us end this decades long war of who is to fat to wear this or that uniform. Im going to go with what majority rules here, but I think all people, regardless of size, should have an equal chance to participate in CAP and in doing so serve their country.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 25, 2007, 04:36:58 PM
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 25, 2007, 04:03:43 PM
Thought not among the great legal minds of our generation, it would seem to me that there might be an argument to be made for discrimination suits if CAP began to not issue ranks to those who are overweight.
For one, rank was always given to those who earned it. It was just not permitted for wear on the military uniforms by those that did not meet weight/grooming requirements. Like Stonewall said, it was option to allow rank wear by those who couldn't wear rank on the military utilities.
He is correct, and perhaps I should have made that clear. But if you were a Lt Col, you were still a Lt Col, you just couldn't wear the Oak Leaves on the military uniform, e.g. BDUs. Again, it's the same reason why Senior Members are "Officers" regardless of rank, unless of course, they choose the NCO option like SGT Savage did. Nothing wrong with it, it's cool. Just not what everyone does. So a SM
not meeting the weight requirements to wear rank would still be called "colonel", assuming that the person addressing him knows their rank, and cadets would still render the guy a salute.
Trust me, they make some big BDUs. I've seen some big dudes wearing some BDUs and they were those same capable bodies that so many of us speak of when defending the "fat and fuzzy", but what was even better, they looked like the rest of the
Patrol. The BBDUs, IMHO, are a means to singling out thos "F&F" folks moreso than in any other way. Granted, BBDUs are an option for any member, but who generally wears them? The "F&F".
[Who came up with that? It's funny, but I'm sure someone is pizzed off at it.] So in a sea of camouflage, you've got some islands of blue, who are the blue, in general? The guys and gals that are
restricted from wearing the BDUs. Not only is it more discirminatory than forbidding someone from wearing military grade, it blatently singles those people out physically. Remember, we're a society of
"Minority rights, but Majority rules".
Quote from: Stonewall on July 25, 2007, 03:25:22 PM
Looks count and that's a fact.
There are those who consider
substance far more important than
image....sadly, in our shallow, relativistic society, all too few!
Ill just reply by saying I would like to see ES in BBDUs. Thats just my vote and I thank you for letting me have my one vote.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 25, 2007, 04:52:23 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 25, 2007, 03:25:22 PM
Looks count and that's a fact.
There are those who consider substance far more important than image....sadly, in our shallow, relativistic society, all too few!
Hey man, just because I stand by the premise of "looks count", doesn't mean I don't hold people to standards beyond the uniform. I'm well aware that looking sharp doesn't always correlate with one's skills and knowledge. But in the same boat, many folks argue on this forum that
just cuz the guy is fat and fuzzy doesn't mean he isn't an asset to CAP. No shiznit, Batman. But you have to start somewhere, and whether you like it or not, be it a job interview or a door-to-door interview as part of a missing person search, people will judge you on your appearance before they get to know you. That's why larger Americans have it tougher than those who
appear to be physically fit, because people judge on appearance until actions can prove otherwise. It's just a fact. Not saying it's right, but I am saying it's a fact.
A fact, no doubt....does that mean we have to give in to it?
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 25, 2007, 04:59:32 PM
A fact, no doubt....does that mean we have to give in to it?
Give in to the fact that looks count? Um, I'm pretty sure it's nothing to give in to. If looks didn't count, we wouldn't have uniform standards or uniforms at all. If looks didn't count, we'd say
"hey everybody, show up looking like a rag bag piece of crap because we ain't given in to what the military or society says about looks counting...". So yeah, I'd say we gave in around 1 Dec 41.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 25, 2007, 04:46:29 PM
Thanks Hawk for your thoughtful reply. What I am referring to however is weight, not criminal background, or lack thereof. I just would like to see us end this decades long war of who is to fat to wear this or that uniform. Im going to go with what majority rules here, but I think all people, regardless of size, should have an equal chance to participate in CAP and in doing so serve their country.
I agree that uniformity is an issue. But there is one HUGE aspect that very few people in CAP seem to even want to consider.
The limitation on the weight/grooming standards is
not under the control of the Civil Air Patrol. The
Air Force made the determination that if a member does not meet certain weight and grooming standards, then they would not be permitted to wear the Air Force uniforms. It's an Air Force condition of our organization's wear of Air Force uniforms.
The weight standards for CAP have an allowance of almost 10% over Air Force weight standards. The Air Force was nice, and permitted some wiggle room. An Air Force member that exceeds weight standards is put on a program to deal with it. If they don't, they are involuntarily separated from the service. If we attempted to do that, we'd lose a lot of members.
Until everyone in CAP meets the same weight/grooming standards, there will probably never be a single uniform. I know that there are people that for legitimate reasons have weight problems, and I am truly sorry for those people. There also people that are in wheelchairs or that are blind, and we accomodate them. I'm sorry for them too. But there are far more people that are overweight due to their own laziness, and we still accomodate those people as well. And the only uniforms created as of late are designed to accomodate them.
A year ago, I was pushing 185 (I know, doesn't sound like much), and didn't excercise like I should. I started walking an hour a night, four times a week. Lost 20 pounds in four months. I wasn't obese, but I did lose weight. And I've seen numerous people in both CAP and the military that could do the
exact same thing, but don't and then whine when their weight is an issue.
I know there are plenty of people that say we should eliminate the Air Force uniforms, but I honestly believe that if we eliminate them, the Air Force will cut us loose. They would look at it like: "Don't want our uniforms? Fine, you don't need our money or support either." I'm sure the Air Force top brass have a little bit of practice when it comes to being vindictive. Besides, what's the point of being associated with the military, if we're not wearing military uniforms?
"You can take my AF uniforms when you can pry them out of my cold, dead fingers.' You want corporates, that's fine by me; but do NOT take away my AF.
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2007, 07:01:32 PM
"You can take my AF uniforms when you can pry them out of my cold, dead fingers.' You want corporates, that's fine by me; but do NOT take away my AF.
I agree with you man, but don't be goin' all Ruby Ridge on us and stuff... 8)
Quote from: Stonewall on July 25, 2007, 07:06:01 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2007, 07:01:32 PM
"You can take my AF uniforms when you can pry them out of my cold, dead fingers.' You want corporates, that's fine by me; but do NOT take away my AF.
I agree with you man, but don't be goin' all Ruby Ridge on us and stuff... 8)
You mean I have to take the weapons that "fell off the tuck" BACK to the armory? ??? Ah man. . . . .I was just getting ready to go to Alabama. . . . I was going to invite you guys too. . . . .
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 25, 2007, 04:55:56 PM
Ill just reply by saying I would like to see ES in BBDUs. Thats just my vote and I thank you for letting me have my one vote.
Then you kind of end up reversing the discrimination. Telling people that even though they meet weight/grooming, they have to conform to those who don't. I neither like nor dislike BBDU's, but I prefer the military uniforms.
There's really not any good way to get everyone in the same uniform. I can only think of three right off hand:
1) The Air Force relaxes its restrictions on weight and grooming so that everyone can wear the AF style uniforms. This is probably not going to happen anytime soon.
2) Have everyone wear corporate uniforms. While certainly possible, this would mean losing an important link with the AF.
3) Require everyone to meet the AF standards. CAP has decided to have its ranks open to anyone and many who do not meet the standards contribute much to this organization. By requiring the standards for membership, a lot of very talented people would probably quit, and we would lose their talent.
None of these are good solutions, so we will probably not be able to solve the problem of differing uniforms.
Well, one option is to follow what the British Air Training Corps does, which is have so called 'Civilian Intructors,' who don't wear uniforms.
From the Air Cadet Central Wiki:
QuoteCivilian Instructors, or CIs, are unpaid, non-uniformed members of staff. Traditionally they were responsible for teaching the technical aspects of the Classification training syllabus. More recently they can be found teaching many subjects, and taking on a variety of roles on the squadron. They are typically undervalued by uniformed members of staff but they tend to hold squadrons togther with their dedication and vast knowledge.
Quote from: JThemann on July 25, 2007, 09:26:28 PM
Well, one option is to follow what the British Air Training Corps does, which is have so called 'Civilian Intructors,' who don't wear uniforms.
If I'm not mistaken, the American Cadet Alliance (http://www.militarycadets.org/) has something similar.
Quote from: shorning on July 25, 2007, 09:45:23 PM
Quote from: JThemann on July 25, 2007, 09:26:28 PM
Well, one option is to follow what the British Air Training Corps does, which is have so called 'Civilian Intructors,' who don't wear uniforms.
If I'm not mistaken, the American Cadet Alliance (http://www.militarycadets.org/) has something similar.
There is one uniform for officers, and another for instructors. If you don't fit the mold, you're an instructor and you wear the golf-shirt type uniform. If you fit the mold, you have the option of being an officer and dealing with all the trimmings and trappings (including the expectation of professional behavior and professional development)
Quote from: Stonewall on July 25, 2007, 09:46:50 PM
Quote from: shorning on July 25, 2007, 09:45:23 PM
Quote from: JThemann on July 25, 2007, 09:26:28 PM
Well, one option is to follow what the British Air Training Corps does, which is have so called 'Civilian Intructors,' who don't wear uniforms.
If I'm not mistaken, the American Cadet Alliance (http://www.militarycadets.org/) has something similar.
There is one uniform for officers, and another for instructors. If you don't fit the mold, you're an instructor and you wear the golf-shirt type uniform. If you fit the mold, you have the option of being an officer and dealing with all the trimmings and trappings (including the expectation of professional behavior and professional development)
Way to rip off another's post from another forum, Kirt. ;) :D :P >:D
Quote from: shorning on July 25, 2007, 10:00:48 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the American Cadet Alliance (http://www.militarycadets.org/) has something similar.
Quote
There is one uniform for officers, and another for instructors. If you don't fit the mold, you're an instructor and you wear the golf-shirt type uniform. If you fit the mold, you have the option of being an officer and dealing with all the trimmings and trappings (including the expectation of professional behavior and professional development)
Way to rip off another's post from another forum, Kirt. ;) :D :P >:D
I asked in that other forum and got the answer, I was just sharing the info I had been given. Not taking credit for it, just thought I'd share because I was curious myself. 8)
Couple things.
#1, CAP carries AF Auxiliary status only occasionally now. Maybe the rule should be AF-style uniforms authorized ONLY while engaged in activities carrying "AUX ON" status--which means that MOST of the time, we should be in CAP-distinctives.
#2, Let's face facts: America is an increasingly fat nation. Active discrimination on the basis of body size serves only to deny us the services of otherwise valuable members. As for the ACA/ATC model, not fitting "the mold" = civilian instructor not worthy of officer status? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I want CAPABLE officers, and nowhere in my definition of CAPABLE will one find "slender; looks good in a uniform".
#3, Fixating on the militaryness or lack thereof in our uniforms is simply another episode of the "form vs substance" debate. We don't NEED to look "military" to accomplish our mission, and that should be the bottom line. The plethora of uniforms we have only serves to make us look unprofessional.
Uniform = ONE form.
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2007, 07:23:09 AM
We don't NEED to look "military" to accomplish our mission, and that should be the bottom line.
And I think that's the part that many folks overlook.
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2007, 07:23:09 AM
Couple things.
#1, CAP carries AF Auxiliary status only occasionally now. Maybe the rule should be AF-style uniforms authorized ONLY while engaged in activities carrying "AUX ON" status--which means that MOST of the time, we should be in CAP-distinctives.
#2, Let's face facts: America is an increasingly fat nation. Active discrimination on the basis of body size serves only to deny us the services of otherwise valuable members. As for the ACA/ATC model, not fitting "the mold" = civilian instructor not worthy of officer status? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I want CAPABLE officers, and nowhere in my definition of CAPABLE will one find "slender; looks good in a uniform".
#3, Fixating on the militaryness or lack thereof in our uniforms is simply another episode of the "form vs substance" debate. We don't NEED to look "military" to accomplish our mission, and that should be the bottom line. The plethora of uniforms we have only serves to make us look unprofessional.
Uniform = ONE form.
If we are to be uniform, lets start with the way we train and the way we act. Standardize ALL training and professional development so that those who barely make the grade are eligible for the same advancement and operatonal slots as those who excel. Make CAP about excellence, not about meeting minimum standard. Lets start requiring PT of SMs along with our cadets for all SMs who provide proof of the ability/health standards to participate from their physician. That would be one way to help us be the elite auxiliary we wish to be, by offering for service members who not only look healthy but are. But as has been said, we simply cannot nor should we start taking discriminary actions (either under the law of de facto) against those who are not in perfect condition. Ive seen State Guard officers with beer bellies and pack a day smoking habits but they are not treated like second class citizens. As has also been said, to do so will deprive us of many officers with valuable skills and other assets to bring to the table. The fact that we have an asscociation with the AF is demonstrated by the fact that they trust us enough to task us, not by what we wear. Even for the leanest and meanest among us, as the ABUs and moss boots roll out, we wont look like them anyway.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 25, 2007, 09:46:50 PM
Quote from: shorning on July 25, 2007, 09:45:23 PM
Quote from: JThemann on July 25, 2007, 09:26:28 PM
Well, one option is to follow what the British Air Training Corps does, which is have so called 'Civilian Intructors,' who don't wear uniforms.
If I'm not mistaken, the American Cadet Alliance (http://www.militarycadets.org/) has something similar.
There is one uniform for officers, and another for instructors. If you don't fit the mold, you're an instructor and you wear the golf-shirt type uniform. If you fit the mold, you have the option of being an officer and dealing with all the trimmings and trappings (including the expectation of professional behavior and professional development)
I wouldn't consider this a solution, as it perpetuates the segregation of members. If the objective is to have our membership uniform, this isn't the answer.
Quote from: shorning on July 26, 2007, 07:53:34 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2007, 07:23:09 AM
We don't NEED to look "military" to accomplish our mission, and that should be the bottom line.
And I think that's the part that many folks overlook.
I would agree with that. However, I would argue that, with the exception of the golf shirt and blazer uniforms, all of our uniforms do have a somewhat paramilitary appearance. For instance, the grey aviator shirt combo has grade insignia and can be worn with badges and ribbons. Most civilians viewing it would consider it a military looking uniform.
You don't have to wear a current US military uniform to have a military appearance.
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2007, 07:23:09 AM
Couple things.
#1, CAP carries AF Auxiliary status only occasionally now. Maybe the rule should be AF-style uniforms authorized ONLY while engaged in activities carrying "AUX ON" status--which means that MOST of the time, we should be in CAP-distinctives.
#2, Let's face facts: America is an increasingly fat nation. Active discrimination on the basis of body size serves only to deny us the services of otherwise valuable members. As for the ACA/ATC model, not fitting "the mold" = civilian instructor not worthy of officer status? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I want CAPABLE officers, and nowhere in my definition of CAPABLE will one find "slender; looks good in a uniform".
#3, Fixating on the militaryness or lack thereof in our uniforms is simply another episode of the "form vs substance" debate. We don't NEED to look "military" to accomplish our mission, and that should be the bottom line. The plethora of uniforms we have only serves to make us look unprofessional.
Uniform = ONE form.
Mustang:
Re: #1. In Colorado during the blizzard the CAP shifted from Title 36 funding under the state, to Title 10 funding when the disaster was declared a National one, then back to Title 36 funding when the focus of the mission shifted back to saving herds of beef cattle. Do you seriously propose changing uniforms several times during a mission? What happens when a SAR mission is received while the unit is in a routine training meeting or serving in a community-funded capacity? "Gentlemen, we have a rescue mission... go home and change."
Re: #2: Yes, fatness is a national problem, but the CAP/USAF solution of applying basic entry weight standards + 10% is not the correct, nor the healthy, solution. Body fat determinations are NOT hard to do, and do not require medical training. Our weight standards should reflect that well-muscled persons weigh more, but are still healthy in terms of percentage of body fat. An allowable percentage of body fat for persons not meeting the screening weight would be an achieveable and healthy goal in CAP.
Quote from: shorning on July 26, 2007, 07:53:34 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2007, 07:23:09 AM
We don't NEED to look "military" to accomplish our mission, and that should be the bottom line.
And I think that's the part that many folks overlook.
Boy it sure would be hard to provide the cadets a military-style leadership development program without looking military....when it comes down to it, the military doesn't need to look military to accomplish its mission either, but yet they go with that look.
Please, allow me to rant for a minute....
What in gods name is "Looking Military"? Cummon, does it mean we have to wear camouflage uniforms? Does that mean "Blues" don't look military? One could easily argue that we are neither uniform or military because of the 12 different "uniforms" we wear at any given time. I suppose it's tough to tell that someone is in the Navy because they don't wear the right "uniform", right. I guess you have to run up to every person on the street to find out which one is a police officer because their uniform isn't distinctive enough.
It's all silly!! A uniform is a uniform. The BBDU is a uniform. In fact, it's as military a uniform as any other uniform. It serves both purposes; it's functional and the same as every other BBDU.
I don't wear a BBDU because I have many BDU uniforms that I didn't have to buy. If the BBDU was the standard, I would wear it. I think the bigger issue is that we BE UNIFORM.
I relinquish my soap box... Open Fire.
People keep mentioning the Air Force weight and grooming standards. You have to remember that most of the people adhering to that are people between the ages of 20 and 45 and that physical training and conditioning is part of daily life for them CAP, being a volunteer organization, and designed to tap the experience and wisdom of it's volunteers, probably has a median age of 40-60, not counting the cadets. For this reason, we will never be able to completely meet the weight and grooming standards of the Air Force. Do I give my 4 hours of volunteer time to the CAP program or do I go out and exercise and run? Other than health reasons, there is no good reason our personnel need to be in the condition/weight/grooming standards of the Air Force. We do not deploy for months on end. Our nation is not paying us to be in top physical condition nor counting on us to be in top physical condition. I think we should all try hard and maybe harder than we have to meet theAir Force standards, but lets get real, we won't, so there..
Colonel-
while i did speak in favor of perhaps utilizing PT to assist members with weight issues, I would never make it mandatory and I think it many ways it was a response to the stated "they can have my BDUs when they can pry them from my cold dead hands" mindset. The ideas that say you can have rank but not wear rank, or that we eliminate rank from overweight members is ludicrous. How many screamers would there be if we took the lean and mean crowd and said, ok, now the standard is you have to meet the same physical standards, including PT abilities as the cadets? Most couldnt do it. This is just silly. The USCG has been around longer than the Air Force and allows members who are past a certain weight to wear the same uniforms as those who are not. I have no problem with the grooming standards and say we should take a page from their book there as well. Whats next? Are we going to require that all members go on (at the their own expense, of course) the Nutrisystem diet. Come on folks. If there were half as many posts here about professionalism as there are about what the heck we wear, we would be advancing in that regard by leaps and bounds. (dons nomex)
When we wear the AF style uniforms, we bring credit or discredit on the AF, depending on how we look. Is this fair, is this right? No, but I doubt that anybody can convince the public that we are good when we look bad. It's the whole "first impressions' thing again. The thing of it is, the AF basically said: "You want to dress like us? Fine, but you also have to look like us too. since you aren't being paid to be in top physical condition, we'll allow an extra 10% on our weight scale. While we don't have to let you wear our clothes, as you are our Auxiliary, we want to be nice and let you still wear them. We just want you to look good for you and us."
Essentially, the Coast Guard needs its Auxiliary to meet its serious personnel shortage (too much mission, too few people), so they are flexible about the uniform in the interest of getting the job done.
Truth be told, USAF does not need CAP whatsoever to carry out its main assigned missions....that's the simple fact.
So, they can afford to hold a stricter standard regarding wear of their uniform.
Now, I started out as a cadet, wearing the USAF uniform was a big deal to me too....but I think we need to face the reality that the majority of our adult officers are middle aged or older, have never served in the military, and consequently can't begin to meet military PT & height-weight standards.
The issue then becomes do we, as CAP, want a senior member force mainly dressed like 'civilian instructors'?
I'm getting to the point that the argument has dragged on so long, all I really would like to see is consensus.
One final point -- most of the Air Force does not even know we exist -- and I suspect those that do would much prefer that we dressed like somebody, anybody, else -- meter maids, forest rangers, the Orkin Man....take your choice!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 26, 2007, 05:21:33 PM
I'm getting to the point that the argument has dragged on so long, all I really would like to see is consensus.
Unfortunately, due to the wide variety of people in CAP, consensus is nearly impossible. Should we try to change that? Yes, but i don't know how myself.
ZigZag:
I work pretty close with USAF folks here in FL, and I can pretty well say that your assumptions about the USAF view of CAP are not exactly on the mark.
MOST Air Force folks know we exist. Most know that we are older, and second-line troops at best. Most know that we perform the Air Force's SAR missions, and almost all know we have a cadet program.
What they DON'T know about us is that we have our own uniform regs. Most AF folks sort of assumed that USAF uniform regs pertain to the CAP, with certain special insignia. When I wore my flight suit at the Space and Missile Museum, an AF reserve major doing his annual training there went off about "The old CAP major who wears the outdated insignia." He was referring to my plastic-encased metal rank and my leather name badge.
Surprise... it isn't outdated for us! Should be, but isn't.
Maybe we should let the AF write our uniform regs by adding a chapter to their own AFI, titled "Special Insignia for Civil Air Patrol." We've just plain screwed the pooch on this.
I vote for uniformity as a higher priority than Air Force-iness.
If we could all wear USAF suits, that would be just fine. But while shaving could be mandated with only a miniscule effect on membership, demanding everyone get thin just ain't gonna happen. Not worth wasting oxygen discussing.
So....as long as USAF puts weight standards on their uniforms, we can never wear them and be "uniform." Because a lot of our members will always be wearing something else.
A corporate uniform is the only way to go if the primary the goal is uniformity.
Having the goal of "looking like the Air Force" is unachievable. You PERSONALLY, may look like the Air Force, but WE as an organization have two choices.
1. Look like a whole bunch of different things at once (some in USAF, some in corporate, some in civvies).
2. Look like one organization, but at the expense of some of us looking like USAF.
I really don't think there's a viable third option.
Quote from: Dragoon on July 26, 2007, 07:39:59 PM
I vote for uniformity as a higher priority than Air Force-iness.
I agree 110%.
Quote
If we could all wear USAF suits, that would be just fine. But while shaving could be mandated with only a miniscule effect on membership, demanding everyone get thin just ain't gonna happen. Not worth wasting oxygen discussing.
Or the far, far worse idea -- kicking out all those who aren't slender enough to be "lookin' good" in AF blues. As I've said before: To those who have this burning desire to look like AF all the time,
go join the Air Force!Quote
A corporate uniform is the only way to go if the primary the goal is uniformity.
I like how you put that -- "a" corporate uniform, not "the" corporate uniform. (I know, I know ... semantics.) And if we can get past the distaste people feel for corporate blues based on who created them and how they were instituted, we're 99% of the way toward compromise in what you've correctly identified as a basically unsolvable issue.
Quote
Having the goal of "looking like the Air Force" is unachievable. You PERSONALLY, may look like the Air Force, but WE as an organization have two choices.
1. Look like a whole bunch of different things at once (some in USAF, some in corporate, some in civvies).
2. Look like one organization, but at the expense of some of us looking like USAF.
I really don't think there's a viable third option.
There isn't. And Option 2 is, for a good-sized chunk of the membership (no pun intended), the way to go. If "uniformity" is the goal, corporate may end up being the ideal, because AF uniforms just aren't going to be an option for a fair share of the membership.
Good post, Dragoon!
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 26, 2007, 08:27:47 PMAs I've said before: To those who have this burning desire to look like AF all the time, go join the Air Force!
I must say, I think that's a pathetic response to people who are of the opinion that wearing the Air Force is the right idea. It's not like it's anything more than an opinion, yet the only response you can come up with is
go join the Air Force. I happen to be one of those who thinks wearing the Air Force style uniform is the right way to go. I also happen to be one of those who carries an Air Force CAC in my wallet. There are those who are in the Air Force and meet the weight/grooming that are pro-BBDU. That's fine too. It's simply a discussion that will carry no weight in any uniform committee's decision to change what we already have. But simply telling someone to
go off and join the Air Force, well, I just think it's a copout response.
Just because I don't like the corporate uniforms, or chose not to wear them, that does not mean that I want to get rid them. The corporate uniforms look very professional. I just happen to be of a mind that the AF look just as professional. I believe that since we are under the AF, I work for the AF in an unpaid- part time job; therefore I have the privilege to wear their uniform because I fit their guidelines. Those rules just happen to make their uniforms look good.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 26, 2007, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 26, 2007, 08:27:47 PMAs I've said before: To those who have this burning desire to look like AF all the time, go join the Air Force!
I must say, I think that's a pathetic response to people who are of the opinion that wearing the Air Force is the right idea. It's not like it's anything more than an opinion, yet the only response you can come up with is go join the Air Force.
On reflection, I see your point ... but the point
I'm trying to make is not necessarily with you per se, but with those who think we should only be wearing AF uniforms. You're right in that it's the "right way to go." But it's not an available way to go for a sizeable segment of our membership. And if the goal is uniformity, something has to go so that the goal can be achieved. We either decide to go with corporates so we all look uniform, or we jettison those who don't meet AF guidelines. And I think you'll agree that the Air Force ain't gonna relax their uniform guidelines for CAP any time soon.
I withdraw my "go join the Air Force" comment inasmuch as it may offend people who meet guidelines but are okay with corporate uniforms for those who don't. (To those who think our clothing should be AF-only, my comment stands.)
I guess my little tirade is directed toward those who think AF uniforms are the only ones CAP should wear -- these, to me, are the people who might be better off being part of Big Brother Blue. It is indeed my opinion, and those are like noses -- everybody has one.
Quote
It's simply a discussion that will carry no weight in any uniform committee's decision to change what we already have.
Here, Colonel, we agree. And if my comment offended you, I sincerely apologize, for that was not my intent.
Jack
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 26, 2007, 09:01:08 PM
Just because I don't like the corporate uniforms, or chose not to wear them, that does not mean that I want to get rid them. The corporate uniforms look very professional. I just happen to be of a mind that the AF look just as professional. I believe that since we are under the AF, I work for the AF in an unpaid- part time job; therefore I have the privilege to wear their uniform because I fit their guidelines. Those rules just happen to make their uniforms look good.
No argument here ... but if the overall goal is uniformity, what do we do with those who can't wear AF? Those are the people the rules exclude from AF uniforms. I can't wear AF because I'm too heavy. (And retired, but a CAPF 12 and a check changes that.)
I too think the corporates look professional, and really don't understand the loud, long objections to them.
Jack
Lieutenant, thats a little ridiculous to say that you 'work for the Air Force' in any way, shape, or form. Wearing a CAP hat, none of us 'work for the Air Force,' except maybe in a few hours out of a month when we're on an Air Force assigned mission. And even that is debatable.
On the topic of my post about the Air Training Corps and CIs, maybe we do need to 'segerate' our members. Why does every Senior Member coming through the door need to have an Officer grade? In the ATC, every adult member, unless they have prior service, starts off as a Civilian Intructor, as is my understanding. You then have to apply to become an Royal Auxiliary Air Force (Volunteer Reserve) NCO, and you hold the grade of Adult Sergeant. After time in service, and the needs of the organization, you get promoted to Adult Flight Sergeant, then Adult Warrant Officer. You can also apply for a comission, and have to take a course at the RAF Academy, and then and only then do you achieve officer ranks.
Now of course, the ATC's don't have Cadet Officers, so that clears up a few things in terms of whos definately in charge.
So why does every new SM need to be an officer?
(Don't you all just love double thread drift?)
Back to the topic of uniforms. CAP has a lot of issues when them for various reasons. I like having our own manual, because it makes things less confusing then have an supplement to the Air Force manual. I can only imagine cadets showing up to CAP activities with SF berets and sliver stripes down there pants because 'The uniform manual said so.'
We already see members wearing boonie hats, and cloth flight nameplates, and other things that seperate us from the Air Force.
Why don't we, as Civil Air Patrol, accept that we need to develope our own entirely seperate traditions in terms of uniforms from the Air Force? If we have to look different from our active duty cousins, then so be it! Wearing blue BDUs hasn't made my job as a Cadet Officer any harder or easier, it just helps me sleep a little better at night because people now read my last name and chuckle, rather then thank me for military service that I haven't done.
My objections:
Corporate Service: sliver on the coat- its ugly
BBBU's: don't like the color
If we had OD's, Id wear both interchangeably
White Aviator/Blue trousers: looks to similar to AF, and in outdoors when sunny, the whites look like blue- or blue to white.
No objection to the others.
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 26, 2007, 09:01:08 PM
I believe that since we are under the AF, I work for the AF in an unpaid- part time job;
meant as tongue-in-cheek, sorry
But still, as we are under its wing, we are a part of the Family. Are we not?
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 26, 2007, 09:47:30 PMAnd if my comment offended you, I sincerely apologize, for that was not my intent.
It doesn't offend me in the least. Like I said, I think its a typical copout response. Many senior members in CAP
can't join the military, for whatever reason, yet they still see a valid point in outfitting all of CAP in the AF's uniform. It's not about me, it's about CAP. If it were about me, or even up to me, we'd be wearing OD jungle fatigues. I've said that all along.
I believe there's value is dressing in USAF uniforms. But I believe there is more value in us, as one team, being in one uniform. Whatever that uniform might be. Since all of CAP can't wear USAF uniforms....there aren't a lot of other options.
The old practice of "fat boys don't wear rank" juse made more mockery of our grade structure - imagine a Wing Commander who couldn't wear his eagles. Silly. You're either a colonel or you're not. If you are, you get the birds.
Now shaving I've got now problem with. If USAF would eliminate weight standards but enforce grooming standards, I'd vote for USAF suits in a heartbeat (and I'm pretty thin, by the way). But I don't think that's likely to happen in our lifetime.
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 26, 2007, 10:03:17 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 26, 2007, 09:01:08 PM
I believe that since we are under the AF, I work for the AF in an unpaid- part time job;
meant as tongue-in-cheek, sorry
But still, as we are under its wing, we are a part of the Family. Are we not?
Sorry If you feel I snapped at you, I didn't intend to sound harsh.
If we're part of the Air Force family in anything but name and cuts of cloth, I haven't felt it.
Why do so many of you want ODs back?
I'd wager it's because we have lots of ex cadets who wore OD back in the day, and older ex military who did the same. It's what they're most comfortable with.
I like the way that they look, just the same that I like how the BDU's look.
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 26, 2007, 10:26:59 PM
I like the way that they look, just the same that I like how the BDU's look.
Well, something just occured to me.
If we're getting complaints in Florida about our leather nameplate and plastic rank insignia...
How are military guys gonna react when we start showing up in OD?
(I stopped by the surplus store before, and OD green fatigues were about a third more expensive then blue BDUs.)
Quote from: JThemann on July 26, 2007, 10:23:29 PMWhy do so many of you want ODs back?
I'm not advocating that we go back to ODs, it's just my personal opinion that they look awesome, especially with CAP insignia on them. I just love them to death. They're as durable as any other fatigue type uniform, are military in nature, are as easy to get as BBDUs and they're just cool. No one will change my opinion on that, it's just my thing. Because I was in CAP when we wore them, I was exposed to them and fell in love with them. All through the years in BDUs, I still liked OD jungles more than anything else.
Only difference is, I'd go with the straight pockets over the slants...
(http://www.jacksonvillesquadron.org/images/og107s.jpg)
Now that is a good looking suit. Do you have a scan of that EMT patch?
Quote from: JThemann on July 26, 2007, 10:53:49 PM
Do you have a scan of that EMT patch?
Looks like they changed the design, but here's the order form.
http://www.nremt.org/downloads/emt_purchase_form.pdf
Quote from: Stonewall on July 26, 2007, 10:12:05 PM
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 26, 2007, 09:47:30 PMAnd if my comment offended you, I sincerely apologize, for that was not my intent.
It doesn't offend me in the least. Like I said, I think its a typical copout response. Many senior members in CAP can't join the military, for whatever reason, yet they still see a valid point in outfitting all of CAP in the AF's uniform. It's not about me, it's about CAP. If it were about me, or even up to me, we'd be wearing OD jungle fatigues. I've said that all along.
Point conceded. But ... since outfitting all of CAP in the AF uniform will not happen unless the Air Force does away with the weight restrictions ... how do we achieve uniformity?
I wore the OD fatigues on AD myself. (We didn't use the slant pockets then.) I always liked that pickle suit.
Jack
Quote from: Stonewall on July 26, 2007, 11:22:45 PM
Quote from: JThemann on July 26, 2007, 10:53:49 PM
Do you have a scan of that EMT patch?
Looks like they changed the design, but here's the order form.
http://www.nremt.org/downloads/emt_purchase_form.pdf
Yes they have changed the patch just a little in the subdued, standard and reflective. While some uniform stores get them and sell them, the NR wont sell them to anyone who isnt on the registry.
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 27, 2007, 12:15:20 AM
But ... since outfitting all of CAP in the AF uniform will not happen unless the Air Force does away with the weight restrictions ... how do we achieve uniformity?
We don't. There are a couple of camps on which uniform to wear, but to eliminate one or the other results in losses.
The Air Force uniforms have only changed when the Air Force did. The grey/whites evolved, allowing ribbons and additional badges. Then a new uniform showed up out of the blue. A uniform that has spawned a number of questions about its sudden origin.
Overall, there are far more corporate variations than there are military ones in our organization. The military ones are readily available, and you don't get stuck with one source for them. It's kind of hard to talk uniformity when the most variations are corporate in nature.
There are people that think we should do away with blues. That will be a sad day for me, for a few reasons, but I won't stick around after that.
I think that a "more" uniformity is better in our case than "total" uniformity. We go all AF or Corporate, we lose people. Not what we want- or should at the very least. I believe what Major Carrales proposed in one of his threads would work well.
Kach, thanks for the info, it's good to know AF folks know about us...now, if we EVER come to some common ground on uniforms among ourselves, then we need to figure out how to best follow USAF insignia practices....and how to make them aware of our little 'eccentricities'.
Dragoon said it best, there are really only two options -- and while I favor uniformity, I don't favor it at the expense of unity!
There are very strong feelings on all sides of this issue....and generally compelling arguments supporting each of these opinions.
Perhaps we need to "agree to disagree"!
And perhaps we need to consider limiting the number of combinations under both corporate and military uniform styles.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 27, 2007, 06:07:10 AM
Dragoon said it best, there are really only two options -- and while I favor uniformity, I don't favor it at the expense of unity!
Agreed. I'm one of two people in my unit that wears the AF variants. There certainly hasn't been any issues because of it.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 27, 2007, 06:07:10 AMThere are very strong feelings on all sides of this issue....and generally compelling arguments supporting each of these opinions.
The unfortunate thing is that there is no middle ground to meet on with those. One side winning means a lot of the losing side leaves.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 27, 2007, 06:07:10 AM
And perhaps we need to consider limiting the number of combinations under both corporate and military uniform styles.
When it comes to military uniform styles, there aren't many. The corporate side is where the number of combinations seems to be approaching exponential. (OK, not really
exponential, but there is a lot of variation there.)
I highly, HIGHLY disagree that we are bound to lose oodles of useful folks if we proscribe corporate uniforms for all. I think that's a paper tiger argument.
Not everyone quits just because they don't like something. Many threaten to quit, but in the end decide there's more to be gained by sticking around.
Some do quit, but in many cases they are folks who weren't invested in the organization - just in the uniform. Not a big loss.
I remember the Maroon Epaulets. We lost some folks. But we kept all the useful, contributing people. They weren't going to let a little thing like weird colored epaulets destroy their committment to our missions.
Most of us have been through rounds and rounds of uniform changes we disagreed with, and we're still here.
If you're willing to quit over a uniform, then it's clear that was your main reason for being here in the first place. And frankly, that's not a very good reason.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, and coming back to the "Vision" thing, I wonder if we would be having this much of a discussion about corporates vs. BBDU's etc. if the National Commander had issued a memorandum like this:
National HQ, CAP
Puzzle Palace South
Maxwell AFB, AL.
Dear Fellow CAP Members:
After a comprehensive review of our uniform requirements, and a careful analysis of the existing CAPM 39-1, it is apparent that the number and types of uniforms is chaotic, and deleterious to the morale, cohesiveness, and image of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol.
Therefore, in close coordination with the National Board and the Air Force, I would like to share with you the Uniform Initiatives for CAP in the 21st Century.
Service Dress Uniform: Due to the age and physical condition of the CAP force, and objections raised by the Air Force of overweight persons and persons not meeting the grooming standards of the Air Force being permitted to wear an Air Force officer uniform, we have established a modified Air Force Auxiliary officer uniform for wear by all members of the CAP. The uniform is Air Force blue, features a return to our traditional metal rank on the epaulet, and is in keeping with the tradition of CAP members wearing a modified Air Force uniform, which was earned in combat in the desperate early months of World War II. The uniform also features some aspects of the naval unifom, in recognition that those CAP members who patrolled our coasts against enemy submarines were performing a maritime combat mission. This uniform will be called the "Auxiliary Service Dress Uniform."
Battle Dress Uniforms and flight suits: Also in keeping with our "One CAP" theme, the use of the woodland BDU uniform and the sage green flight suit will be phased out in favor of the "Auxiliary Blue" uniforms. These uniforms are the same cut and material of the Air Force flight suits and BDU's, but will be distinctive and reflect the pride of volunteer service.
The Auxiliary Service Dress uniform will be worn by all senior-member officers by (date). Cadets under age 18 will continue to wear the Air Force uniform. Cadets over 18 will also transition to the Auxiliary Service Dress if they do not meet the screening weight shown in the table in CAPM 39-1. Guidance for grooming standards, which will allow for neatly-trimmed beards, will follow. Also, since I'm the National Commander now, we can forget about wearing that stupid silver sleeve braid. Its now blue, and take that stupid braid off your service cap, too. It makes you look like some kind of third-world dictator.
The Auxiliary Blue flight suits and battledress will be worn by all officers and cadets by (date). Officers will continue to wear the metal rank on the cap, and an embroidered flight suit namebadge is being designed and will be published under separate cover. Sew-on officer rank is authorized on the Auxiliary Blue flight suit, using Auxiliary Blue background material. The sew-on nametapes and insignia on the Auxiliary Blue battledress will also be in Auxiliary Blue. The phase-out for ultramarine blue nametapes is (date).
The Golf Shirt uniform is continued for wear at informal occasions and as flight clothing while operating gliders. The Golf Shirt may be worn by cadets when flying gliders.
Additionally, wear of military decorations and badges on CAP uniforms is authorized, unless expressly forbidden by the service issuing the badge or award.
With these uniform initiatives, we will continue serving the US Air Force as a professional partner, with a far more professional appearance.
Semper Vi.
John R. Kachenmeister
Major General, CAP
National Commander
Very well done. Not just a directive, but clear cut reasons why. If the phase out dates were reasonable (I'm thinking 4 to 5 years out), this would probably succeed.
You know, I don't recall that this has even been brought up, but CAP managed to fulfill all of its ES and other missions where a BDU is required for almost its entire history without having a matching corporate uniform (BBDU) for the fat & fuzzies.
While I'm sure there were some overweight people that cheated and still wore (and currently wear) the BDU the fact is that we probably could cut out the BBDU entirely and still do everything we've always done. Is it worth it to the organization to have a uniform for overweight people to wear on ground team missions that they are probably not fit enough to participate in anyway?
Yes, the BBDU allows the fuzzies to participate in this one CAP mission that they couldn't do wearing an AF uniform, but is it worth it in terms of organizational uniformity to get those few fit but fuzzies out on the ground teams? We got by without them for over 50 years.
Why should CAP abandon its historic association with the AF and switch entirely to BBDUs to accomodate a small percentage of its members who shouldn't be on ground teams due to weight or for the few people who want to have facial hair?
Yes, yes, yes, there are some people who may be fit but not meet the weight standards to wear the BDUs, but these are far outnumbered by the people who are just fat and unfit.
Kach, you just got my vote for National Commander.
(Sorry, Gen. Courter ... but then, I didn't really have a vote anyway.)
;)
Jack
Quote from: RiverAux on July 27, 2007, 03:11:04 PM
You know, I don't recall that this has even been brought up, but CAP managed to fulfill all of its ES and other missions where a BDU is required for almost its entire history without having a matching corporate uniform (BBDU) for the fat & fuzzies.
What it had was the fatigue uniform (and later BDU) that was authorized for senior members of all fitness and fuzziness to wear, but without grade insignia. We had the fat and fuzzies, my friend ... we just didn't let them display their rank. Which is not exactly a good thing, to many.
Quote
While I'm sure there were some overweight people that cheated and still wore (and currently wear) the BDU the fact is that we probably could cut out the BBDU entirely and still do everything we've always done. Is it worth it to the organization to have a uniform for overweight people to wear on ground team missions that they are probably not fit enough to participate in anyway?
If ES was the only thing CAP members were expected to do, you might have a valid point here. But ES is only 1/3 of the CAP mission. I interpret what you're saying to mean that uniform guidelines should be written to exclude 2/3 of CAP's mission so the 1/3 that goes out on GT missions can look good. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Quote
Yes, the BBDU allows the fuzzies to participate in this one CAP mission that they couldn't do wearing an AF uniform, but is it worth it in terms of organizational uniformity to get those few fit but fuzzies out on the ground teams? We got by without them for over 50 years.
No, we didn't. We didn't let them show their grade. They still went on the missions. I know -- I'm not exactly fit & trim, and have been on several GT and air ops missions. I went. Others did too.
Quote
Why should CAP abandon its historic association with the AF and switch entirely to BBDUs to accomodate a small percentage of its members who shouldn't be on ground teams due to weight or for the few people who want to have facial hair?
No one is suggesting abandoning our association with the Air Force. (At least, I hope they're not.) And I wouldn't advocate a switch to all-BBDUs -- though Kach's imaginary National CC letter does make a great deal of sense. But it would be a far greater disaster for CAP as a whole to alienate that percentage of its members you cite -- a percentage I feel is larger than you think it is.
Quote
Yes, yes, yes, there are some people who may be fit but not meet the weight standards to wear the BDUs, but these are far outnumbered by the people who are just fat and unfit.
And these "fat" people don't contribute? Is that what you are saying?
Jack
I'm not saying the overweight people don't contribute, but they shouldn't be out on ground teams which is the primary purpose of the BDU uniform. Yes, it is commonly worn at many squadron meetings and sure you might wear for other duties where fitness may not be as big an issue, but they are relatively minor. Wearing it without grade is a cop out --- you're just as overweight without the grade as you are with it.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 27, 2007, 03:37:50 PM
I'm not saying the overweight people don't contribute, but they shouldn't be out on ground teams which is the primary purpose of the BDU uniform. Yes, it is commonly worn at many squadron meetings and sure you might wear for other duties where fitness may not be as big an issue, but they are relatively minor. Wearing it without grade is a cop out --- you're just as overweight without the grade as you are with it.
So are you advocating no utility uniforms at all for the fat/fuzzy crowd, or are you advocating getting rid of the fat/fuzzy crowd?
I certainly don't want to go back to wearing uniforms without grade. Not ever.
Jack
No utility uniforms for the fat and fuzzies. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if they relaxed the fuzzy standards and let them wear AF uniforms of all types, but thats not my call. They just shouldn't have a separate uniform of their own.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 27, 2007, 04:00:11 PM
No utility uniforms for the fat and fuzzies. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if they relaxed the fuzzy standards and let them wear AF uniforms of all types, but thats not my call. They just shouldn't have a separate uniform of their own.
The corporate blues are for the fat. Should those be done away with as well?
And the aviator grays are for the fuzzy. Same question.
Jack
This is a thread about BBDUs....
Quote from: RiverAux on July 27, 2007, 04:51:41 PM
This is a thread about BBDUs....
True.
You've also not answered the questions.
(I oughta be a lawyer!)
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 27, 2007, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 27, 2007, 04:51:41 PM
This is a thread about BBDUs....
True.
You've also not answered the questions.
(I oughta be a lawyer!)
And the judge would probably not allow the question as it is immaterial to the discussion at hand.
Tags - MIKE
Hmm.
Maybe you oughta be a lawyer! ;)
Seriously, though ... I'd like to know your answer to the question about the other uniforms.
By the way, I like your poll on BDUs being the working uniform of CAP after the Air Force transitions to the new uniform. Will those be available to all in your proposal?
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 27, 2007, 05:19:01 PM
By the way, I like your poll on BDUs being the working uniform of CAP after the Air Force transitions to the new uniform. Will those be available to all in your proposal?
It's not going to work that way. Just because the military phases out a uniform does not mean that CAP gets to do with it as they please. If that were true, we'd probably still be in fatigues.
Also, the BDU was designed by the Army. It's still
their uniform. It will not become an exclusive CAP design because the Air Force ceases to use it.
How exactly has having other uniforms affected CAP's ability to perform it's mission? Can someone show me where someone being in an alternate uniform has seriously impacted that? Having five different corporate variations is far less uniform than having one military and one corporate version.
And most people don't seem to be bearing in mind that National is the one discriminating with the Corporate Service Dress. The Air Force had nothing to do with it. They had only a couple restrictions on wearing blues: meet the grooming standards, but with a slightly relaxed weight standard. Corporates have
far more variation.
Though I am Observer qualified, most of the ES work I have done recently has been UDF team, or Flight Line operations. The only uniform I have available that I would even consider wearing to go Dumpster diving is BDUs. Additionally, I consider the flight line to be a "dirty" environment where BDUs are appropriate. Are you suggesting that I give up my ES duties and stick to pushing paper somewhere? Not gonna happen.
Ball's in your court.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 27, 2007, 03:37:50 PM
I'm not saying the overweight people don't contribute, but they shouldn't be out on ground teams which is the primary purpose of the BDU uniform. Yes, it is commonly worn at many squadron meetings and sure you might wear for other duties where fitness may not be as big an issue, but they are relatively minor. Wearing it without grade is a cop out --- you're just as overweight without the grade as you are with it.
Be careful equating "Overweight" with "Unfit." A person with a low body fat and high muscle mass is in excellent physical condition and will be 'way over the weight table in 39-1.
I think you'll find I usually used "fit". But, I think you'll agree that of the folks that don't meet USAF weight standards most are overweight and unfit. I'd say the percentage that are overweight but fit is fairly low.
The general impression the overweight = unfit is one reason the fire service has gone to performance based physical evaluations. The overall goal is to ensure the firefighter can perform the tasks required without becoming a victim.
The same idea should be used for GT and other physcally demanding CAP duties. There are already accepted and proven physical tests for various levels of SAR team duties. Why not steal adopt these?
I've got no problem with those and with the implementation of the new national standards that CAP will have to meet sooner or later, CAP members will have to pass such tests to participate in ES.
I find it offensive to think that just because somebody really prefers one uniform over another, and would leave before being forced into a uniform that they had no care for-, is that they don't contribute much to the organization. While that may be likely the majority of that crowd, it is not all of it. As it happens, I consider myself very active in CAP, and I am continually looking to be more so. Do the AF uniforms mean alot to me? Heck yeah. I consider the loss of them to be cutting away a vital piece from the Group. While I don't like the Corporate versions, I believe the same way if all the Corporates we cut as well.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 29, 2007, 01:07:26 AM
I think you'll find I usually used "fit". But, I think you'll agree that of the folks that don't meet USAF weight standards most are overweight and unfit. I'd say the percentage that are overweight but fit is fairly low.
I wouldn't be so sure.
When I commanded an Army company, we had a "Screening weight," but those over the screening weight were sent for a body fat analysis. About half of my company would be over the screening weight, but usually only 3 or 4 were over the body fat standard. Almost all were able to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test.
That's the problem with using the basic training entry weight standard, since it presumes average muscle development, but the process of military training (or athletic training for football or wrestling, etc.) builds muscle mass. Muscle has a far higher density than fat, and consequently weighs more per cubic inch.
Well, now we're talking apples and oranges. Overweight people in the Army are probably much, much more likely to be able to meet a fitness standard than are CAP members who don't meet our weight standards.
Most overweight CAP people are really overweight and unfit as well.