Maj. General Pinada's comments at the TX Wing Conf.

Started by DrJbdm, April 15, 2007, 07:08:00 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DrJbdm

I think eventually CAP will get metal rank and blue slides, but it's going to take some time...We're going to have to wait until a friendly AETC CC  comes along and is willing to work with us to let us earn them back. But I think first we really do need to take a long painful collective look at ourselves in the mirror and fix what is holding us back. We can not survive by doing what we're doing now. Part of our problem is our heavy use of the term volunteer. As the Iowa wing discovered, that term carries lots of negative connotations. it envisions a less then professionally trained person. We should run from that term, we should instead refer to our service as professionals who donate their time, talent and treasure for our country.

Monty

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 09:43:40 PMI see where you're coming from, but there is a reason the Air Force said no to the blue rank slides, metal rank on the flight cap, metal rank on the blue windbreaker, and metal rank on the service dress coat for the Air Force service dress uniform for CAP.  Unlike the Coast Guard, they do not want their auxiliary to closely resemble the service they represent.

Be careful, Padawan...I'm not so sure the Air Force told you that or gave you blessing to speak on their behalf.  (Though I am willing to admit that if either did occur, I'll stand down...)   ;)

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 09:43:40 PMBy creating a corporate uniform that incorporates all the items that the Air Force did not allow on the AF style service dress uniform, the Air Force was slapped in the face.  I'm amazed they even allowed CAP to use Air Force uniform items on a CAP corporate uniform.

Sigh....this old argument again?  Smitty....brother....dude....whatever.....look: nobody holds the patent on the design of an oak leaf, the shade of a material, or whatever.  I've got two eyes in my head; I had them before you and dang it, I'm hacked you have eyes like me!  Give me your eyes.

(That's about as stupid an argument as could be had.....and not too terribly far off the mark from the whole "it's the Air Force's metal pins" diatribe vs. the "yeah, well the cops got 'em" whine.)

There are two camps, in general - those for it (for whatever reason) and those who aren't (for whatever reason.)  Who gives a rat's *whatever*, beyond that?

We know it, we got it, we moved on.

Eagle400

Major Montgomery, with great respect, where did you get the idea that the Air Force gave me blessing to speak on their behalf?  They didn't, and even if they did, it's a well-known fact that the Air Force does not want CAP to closely resemble the USAF in terms of uniforms.  Nobody needs the USAF's approval to make that point. 

Don't get me wrong: I'm not being disrespectful here.  I just don't understand why someone in power wanted to spend the money to create a new uniform rather than wait for the Air Force to approve those items that are not currently authorized on the AF blue service dress uniform for CAP.  Like DrJbdm said, it's going to take some time and an AETC/CC who is willing to work with CAP to let CAP earn those items back.  However, I believe that the CAP blue corporate service dress uniform (aka. TPU) hinders that process. 

I stand by the sentiment that the CAP blue corporate service dress uniform was not the result of feedback from the membership.  I'll even submit that no membership feedback was sought whatsoever!  No hard feelings to National, but I'll believe it when I see it.  No proof = Not buying the explanation.

So nobody holds the patent to rank insignia or shade of material.  Okay, I believe that.  But common sense dictates that when a junior organization (CAP) has been told by a senior organization (USAF) not to adopt items from their uniform, that's it.  No more debate.  However, if the Air Force did authorize certain items that are also worn on the AF service dress uniform to be worn on the CAP corporate service dress uniform, then it's okay.

Problem is, I don't know if the Air Force did authorize those items on the CAP corporate service dress uniform.  My argument is based on the assumption they did not.  If they did, I stand corrected and my argument will be placed in the round file.   

And no Maj Montgomery, I ain't giving up my eyes!  Sorry 'bout that.   ;D       

lordmonar

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 09:43:40 PMI see where you're coming from, but there is a reason the Air Force said no to the blue rank slides, metal rank on the flight cap, metal rank on the blue windbreaker, and metal rank on the service dress coat for the Air Force service dress uniform for CAP.  Unlike the Coast Guard, they do not want their auxiliary to closely resemble the service they represent.

By creating a corporate uniform that incorporates all the items that the Air Force did not allow on the AF style service dress uniform, the Air Force was slapped in the face.  I'm amazed they even allowed CAP to use Air Force uniform items on a CAP corporate uniform.

And why should they not be slapped in the face?  I mean the change to the uniforms was a knee jerk reaction in the first place to actions committed by people who are not even part of CAP anymore.  It is a slap in the face of the USAF's Axillary that they don't let us wear their uniform anymore.

That particular argument can be used both ways.

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 09:43:40 PMAnd I'm not buying the whole "it was what CAP members wanted" argument.  That's BS.  I've neither seen nor heard of any system for feedback at all regarding the CAP corporate service dress uniform.  This uniform is what general Pineda wanted, not the membership. 

Well that's one of the nice things about being the boss in a non-democratic organization.  What the boss wants....the people want.    

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 09:43:40 PMThen what corporate service-type uniform would be worn by those who are not within grooming standards?  There are events that are too formal for the polo shirt combination.

Do away with the grooming standards.  ;D
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Monty

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 10:15:09 PM
Major Montgomery, with great respect, where did you get the idea that the Air Force gave me blessing to speak on their behalf?  They didn't, and even if they did, it's a well-known fact that the Air Force does not want CAP to closely resemble the USAF in terms of uniforms.  Nobody needs the USAF's approval to make that point.

"Major Montgomery?"  Wow, I'm going to have to sit up straight here and play "real" I suppose.  :)

Smitty.......sigh, Smitty.  I'm going to approach you differently than I might approach another senior because, I know where you are going, I know what you want to do, and know what will be expected of you (beng an AFROTC cadet.)  Other older sorts might be set in their ways (hmmm, maybe like me?) but there might still be hope for you.  Ride the wave, because here we go: I'll bold the references that you might want to watch out in saying...lest somebody (like me)  or more critically, some internet yokel, might misconstrue as your acting as a USAF representative:

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 09:43:40 PMI see where you're coming from, but there is a reason the Air Force said no to the blue rank slides, metal rank on the flight cap, metal rank on the blue windbreaker, and metal rank on the service dress coat for the Air Force service dress uniform for CAP.  Unlike the Coast Guard, they do not want their auxiliary to closely resemble the service they represent.

Wow, are you sure?

Watch out for subjective interpretations.  What you suspect might very likely be (and I'd not entirely disagree) a ripple effect, neither you nor I were present when Maj Gen Whoever-he-Was, CAP, "frocked" himself.  That could very well have been the *only* reason the AF might have needed.  Best not to guess, unless you preface what you're saying with "I suspect" or "I believe."

You'll learn that stuff in POC, I promise!   

And for the record, the CAP looks *very* much like the service they represent.  I don't don it often, but when the service dress uniform comes out, hardly a citizen could tell me apart from my (now, former) AF brothers and sisters.  (I have enough USAF crud on that monkey suit to make even a few CAPRAPpers do a quick double check.  You're only sensitive to the changes because you happened to have been a cadet.  You don't speak for John and Jane Q. Public, even if you let your membership lapse.)



Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 10:15:09 PMBut common sense dictates......

Smitty, if I can't dictate common sense, you certainly can't either.  Deal?   ;)

Many of us seniors are beyond hope, but you my friend...have potential.  Exhibit a bit of restraint...then shake your head at us pig-headed, stubborn, unmovable "old guys" as we write essays in response to things that we'll never admit won't change a single thing in many folks' minds, anyway.

Howzabout those apples? 

;)

PS - I'm quite content with "Monty," as my signature asserts.

PPS - Keep your eyes; I have 20-12s, just like my mother gave me.

Ned

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 10:15:09 PM
t's a well-known fact that the Air Force does not want CAP to closely resemble the USAF in terms of uniforms. 

Well, heck as long as it's a "well known fact," we're done I guess.

Nevermind that of course our uniform already "closely resembles" the USAF uniform.

(I defy any civilian -- or military member for that matter -- to pick out the CAP vs USAF members at more than 20 yards or so.  By any conventional definition, our USAF style uniforms are virtually identical to our USAF partners.)

Because the USAF wanted it that way.  After all, they authorized our current USAF-style uniform. 

Quote
Don't get me wrong: I'm not being disrespectful here. 

Really?  Not disrespectful to comment on the National Commander's remarks by saying "No proof = Not buying the explanation?"

Hmmm.  My dictionary defines "respect" as "deferential regard" and "regarded with deference and esteem."

Somehow impyling that the man is lying or at least witholding "the truth" does sound a little like you are not treating him with "deferential regard."  But hey, that's just me.

Note, you are certainly free to bad-mouth people on the internet.  At times, it seems like the new national pastime.  Just don't try to do it while claiming to respect them.  That's just silly.

And a whole lot easier to do anonymously.


Quote

I just don't understand why someone in power wanted to spend the money to create a new uniform rather than wait for the Air Force to approve those items that are not currently authorized on the AF blue service dress uniform for CAP. 

Come on.  This isn't about the money.  It didn't cost any money to design the uniform using "off the rack" components.  And it certainly didn't cost the members any money to offer an optional uniform.  And from personal experience, it was the cheapest "new uniform" CAP has ever offered.  I already had the shirt, pants, and hat.  I think I might have spent $6 for grade slides at the BX and a new nametag.

Nope, it seems unlikely that you are concerned about financial matters.

It must be something . . . else.


Not that it matters much.


Ned Lee




RiverAux

Quote(I defy any civilian -- or military member for that matter -- to pick out the CAP vs USAF members at more than 20 yards or so.  By any conventional definition, our USAF style uniforms are virtually identical to our USAF partners.)

Only in regards to the Service Dress.  There is absolutely nothing on the BDUs that would link us to the Air Force or any other military service. 

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 10:15:09 PM
Major Montgomery, with great respect, where did you get the idea that the Air Force gave me blessing to speak on their behalf?  They didn't, and even if they did, it's a well-known fact that the Air Force does not want CAP to closely resemble the USAF in terms of uniforms.  Nobody needs the USAF's approval to make that point. 

Don't get me wrong: I'm not being disrespectful here.  I just don't understand why someone in power wanted to spend the money to create a new uniform rather than wait for the Air Force to approve those items that are not currently authorized on the AF blue service dress uniform for CAP.  Like DrJbdm said, it's going to take some time and an AETC/CC who is willing to work with CAP to let CAP earn those items back.  However, I believe that the CAP blue corporate service dress uniform (aka. TPU) hinders that process. 

I stand by the sentiment that the CAP blue corporate service dress uniform was not the result of feedback from the membership.  I'll even submit that no membership feedback was sought whatsoever!  No hard feelings to National, but I'll believe it when I see it.  No proof = Not buying the explanation.

So nobody holds the patent to rank insignia or shade of material.  Okay, I believe that.  But common sense dictates that when a junior organization (CAP) has been told by a senior organization (USAF) not to adopt items from their uniform, that's it.  No more debate.  However, if the Air Force did authorize certain items that are also worn on the AF service dress uniform to be worn on the CAP corporate service dress uniform, then it's okay.

Problem is, I don't know if the Air Force did authorize those items on the CAP corporate service dress uniform.  My argument is based on the assumption they did not.  If they did, I stand corrected and my argument will be placed in the round file.   

And no Maj Montgomery, I ain't giving up my eyes!  Sorry 'bout that.   ;D       

I hope you don't get mad at me, but...

I have it on very reliable authority (Although my source was confidential and this was discussed over a cocktail at an Officer's Club at a certain well-known Air Force Base) that the Air Force gave unofficial approval to the TPU.  Contrary to your assertion that the Air Force wants us all marked with the Scarlet Letter "A" (for Auxiliary), they are annoyed at the disparity of uniforms. 

They realize that THEY created the monster by insisting on unrealistic weight standards given the age of the average CAP member, but they saw the TPU as a way of controlling the monster, and get us all in pretty much the same jersey.

The Air Force WANTS us in Air Force Blue and on the team.  Their standard is that the CAP Air Force uniform must have such special insignia as to be recognizable at a distance or in low light conditions as identifying the wearer as a CAP rather than Air Force officer.
Another former CAP officer

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on April 18, 2007, 02:18:24 AM
Quote(I defy any civilian -- or military member for that matter -- to pick out the CAP vs USAF members at more than 20 yards or so.  By any conventional definition, our USAF style uniforms are virtually identical to our USAF partners.)

Only in regards to the Service Dress.  There is absolutely nothing on the BDUs that would link us to the Air Force or any other military service. 

That's okay...because I still get people who ask me If I am in the Army.

Let's face it most "people" don't have a clue on way or the other...I remember back when Top Gun came out.....someone in USAF recruiting told me that it was a godsend for them...because so many people thought that it was about the Air force.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

NAYBOR

#49
My only question:  If Maj. Gen. Pineda stated he made a uniform "that no one else could tell us what to do with...", why was the "US" cutouts removed from the TPU?  If the name is "officially" being changed to the "U.S." Civil Air Patrol...?

Hey, I know--use "US" cutouts on the upper part of the TPU coat (where the CAP cutouts are currently placed), and "CAP" cutouts right below them on the lower lapel--"US CAP"!  ::)

Well, if they change the name tags (yet again), I hope they put the last name first, and then "US Civil Air Patrol" below the name.

DNall

Sorry I've been pretty busy lately...
PCA based mission dissapproval:
Quote from: JCJ on April 16, 2007, 08:38:53 PM
NOC, after discussion w/ CAP-USAF.  Perhaps based on AFI 10-2701 para 2.8 available here http://level2.cap.gov/documents/AFI_102701.pdf
Again, that is not correct. We fly missions for federal LE agencies, we fly for the US forestry service, in my state we fly border missions for both the state & 1AF that are so close to LE that I can't tell the difference other than the creative writing in the requests.

If you had missions disapproved then they were either a) way over the line and you should have known better; or, b) you wrote it up so it sounded like LE when it isn't.

QuoteThat's not the issue.  Anytime CAP supports any federal agency, it must be in AFAM status (see 10 USC 9442 available here http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txtThe USAF may not task it's auxiliary to do anything it isn't allowed by law to do itself, such as support to state or local governments (under most circumstances).  Corporate status allows us to do many beneficial things that we couldn't do in AFAM status.
The first part, AF cannot order Aux to break the law by proxy, is 100% right. The second part of that sentence is just wrong. The military is allowed to extensively support civil authorities in a wide variety of situations. You're good to go if any of the following are true & you're not physically aiding in arrest & siezure:
Quote...save lives; protect critical infrastructure, property, and the environment; contain the event; and preserve national security.

Specifically... it may be funded by the military under Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (public law 93–288), if it "alleviate(s) suffering and mitigate(s)
damage resulting from major disasters and civil emergencies." Or more broadly:
Quote...support during natural disasters, special security events (e.g., the Olympics), and man-made incidents (terrorism, oil spills) which have evoked a presidential or state emergency declaration.
That includes things like base fire depts responding into town to assist civilian fire depts, and doesn't involve a big headache to get them rolling.
-OR-
The military can, under the Economy Act, do routine activities that do not negatively effect readiness if they are reimbursed.

In short, we can do just about anything under a an AFAM status & can significantly streamline that approval process. CAP has to be stupid about things though. The easiest way to fix these sorts of issues is to become NIMS compliant & be listed as a federal mutual aid resource.

I'd encourage you in addition to further researching MCSA, to look into MSCLEA (Law enforcement), and mil asst for civil disturbances. A good starting poitn is Homeland Security Presidential directive-5.



QuoteI think you'll find yourself on the minority side of the aisle on this one.  Support to state and local government is consistent with our charter.  No one's talking about subsidizing anyone's personal flying.  I think it would be unlikely for anyone to have an ethical objection to a safe and legal flight operation in support of a state or local govenrment (at their request and on their dime) that also provides a good training or proficiency opportunity.  Frankly, I'm surprised that you would object to that.
I'm sure I am in the minority on this, but where do you draw the line? Is wildlife spotting okay? How about transporting people on state business? Packages/cargo? How about searching for escaped prisoners on the state's dime? How about kidnappers & robbery suspects? How about tracking car chases from the air? What about a trooper in the right seat tracking speeders? I mean if PCA doesn't apply then bring it on right?

Where's the line, and where does it become an ethical problem? I mean I can create a justification for anything I want to do & sell it, but that doesn't make it right. And that right or wrong is ultimately what's going to gurantee or threaten our funding. You just cannot weasle around the technicalities in the law & FAA exemption to do what you want. If you abuse priviliedges, they will be taken away.

DNall

Quote from: DrJbdm on April 17, 2007, 09:47:46 PM
I think eventually CAP will get metal rank and blue slides, but it's going to take some time...
The standard on that is recognizable by mil personnel from a distance (10-20feet) as not an AF officer or in any way possessing of UCMJ authority.

Frankly the interpretation of that standard relies heavily on education of airmen on what CAP is & what the uniforms look like. Add an element to BMTS & officer producing programs that briefs the subject (much like CGAux does) and you can suddenly tighten up quite a bit.

I don't know that such a change nets metal grade (w/ CAP cutout) & blue slides, but perhaps gray slides w/o the "CAP" or something like black slides w/ "CAP". I think we're stuck with slides on the coat/outterwear no matter what. Maybe if you did an expensive change like colored epaulets, but at what point is the beast you create so bad it's not worth having metal grade anymore.

I wouldn't worry too much about this issue. I think we have more space to consume in being worthy than the AF has to give on what they allow of us. I think we should earn it before we stick our hand out asking for a reward.

jimmydeanno

Quote from: 12211985 on April 17, 2007, 09:43:40 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 17, 2007, 07:43:49 PMI just wish he had done away with the white and gray at the same time.

Then what corporate service-type uniform would be worn by those who are not within grooming standards?  There are events that are too formal for the polo shirt combination. 

It was originally the new CSD, when it first came out there were no weight or grooming standards.  I don't see what the big deal is, NOAA allows their COMMISSIONED OFFICERS to wear beards in uniform...heaven forbid civilians wear a beard in a CAP Distinctive uniform.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

JohnKachenmeister

I have no problem with beards, except that some members don't know how to trim them.  A neatly-trimmed beard looks good complimenting a uniform.  However, when someone looks like Animal, the drummer in the Muppets band... No, your appearance sucks.

Banning beards completely is easier than regulating their appearance.
Another former CAP officer

Al Sayre

The Navy managed to do it for years, we could just adopt their previous standard.
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

jimmydeanno

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 18, 2007, 01:05:32 PM
However, when someone looks like Animal, the drummer in the Muppets band... No, your appearance sucks.

Whatever do you mean...

Please note that while this 'likeness' may look like someone we know, it was not at all an attempt to degrade the person in the 'base' picture, just a readily available CAP photo.  Also, please excuse the poor use of MSPaint :)
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Psicorp

Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 18, 2007, 01:37:38 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 18, 2007, 01:05:32 PM
However, when someone looks like Animal, the drummer in the Muppets band... No, your appearance sucks.

Whatever do you mean...

ZZ CAP!
Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257

LTC_Gadget

Quote from: DrJbdm on April 17, 2007, 09:47:46 PM
IPart of our problem is our heavy use of the term volunteer. As the Iowa wing discovered, that term carries lots of negative connotations. it envisions a less then professionally trained person. We should run from that term, we should instead refer to our service as professionals who donate their time, talent and treasure for our country.

Hold up, there a sec..  If I recall correctly, the revolutionary war was won with "volunteers" (Special compliment to Tennessee).  We currently have an *all volunteer* military force, and we're still considered one of the best fighting forces in the world.  At least the UN thinks so, because they keep asking us to take point every time they want to flex their muscles.  The American Red Cross and the Salvation army are staffed largely with volunteers and no one thinks they're half-baked.  The Peace Corp is staffed with volunteers and no one thinks their efforts are inept.  Many cities and towns have *volunteer* fire departments, and insurance companies still cover folks who live in those areas, since they don't think that simply being a volunteer makes then inept, unqualified or st00pid. 

Whomever has a problem with the term volunteer would seem to me to be simply misinformed or just plain wrong.  But, as is often the case, there are many closed-minded people, who happen to be in positions of power, whose personal mantra seems to be "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up."  As some comedian somewhere says "You can't fix stupid." 

Lest someone be confused again, for the record, there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity.  They are not interchangeable.  Ignorant simply means that you don't know.  We're all ignorant of something.  I'm ignorant of how to do brain surgery, but could learn if I wanted to.  Stupid, on the other hand, is when one can't or won't  learn.

V/R,
John Boyd, LtCol, CAP
Mitchell and Earhart unnumbered, yada, yada
The older I get, the more I learn.  The more I learn, the more I find left yet to learn.

A.Member

#58
Quote from: LTC_Gadget on April 18, 2007, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on April 17, 2007, 09:47:46 PM
IPart of our problem is our heavy use of the term volunteer. As the Iowa wing discovered, that term carries lots of negative connotations. it envisions a less then professionally trained person. We should run from that term, we should instead refer to our service as professionals who donate their time, talent and treasure for our country.

...Whomever has a problem with the term volunteer would seem to me to be simply misinformed or just plain wrong.  But, as is often the case, there are many closed-minded people, who happen to be in positions of power, whose personal mantra seems to be "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up."  As some comedian somewhere says "You can't fix stupid." 

Lest someone be confused again, for the record, there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity.  They are not interchangeable.  Ignorant simply means that you don't know.  We're all ignorant of something.  I'm ignorant of how to do brain surgery, but could learn if I wanted to.  Stupid, on the other hand, is when one can't or won't  learn.
Well, all of what you said may be true but I agree with DrJbdm.  The term "volunteer" often is tantamount to the term "amateur" in the eyes of many paid professionals - and as such often carries more negative connotations.  You don't have to like it but you absolutely need to recognize that fact and adjust your approach accordingly.  Failure to do so would make one equally as ignorant...or possibly stupid. :P   How the organization positions/markets/presents itself is critical.   
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

LTC_Gadget

So you're saying that all uses of the term volunteer automatically are bad.  Great.

"Often"?  Not sure that the perception is "often" that way.  There's a chance that's overstating the frequency of occurrence.

And just because someone is paid doesn't automatically make them a "professional" either.. Used car salesmen, hit men, begars .. Hmmmm..

So, what's your 'fix.'  The fact is that we're not conscripted into this organization.  By definition, we join as volunteers.  We don't get paid, we're volunteers.  What word do you want to use?  And if the word volunteer is so bad, why does it not reflect badly on all the organizations that I named?  You didn't even address that..

V/R,
John Boyd, LtCol, CAP
Mitchell and Earhart unnumbered, yada, yada
The older I get, the more I learn.  The more I learn, the more I find left yet to learn.