BBDU Thread

[Stonewall]

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.

[ZigZag911]

A fact, no doubt....does that mean we have to give in to it?

[Stonewall]

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.

[Hawk200]

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?

[RogueLeader]

"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.

[Stonewall]

"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...

[RogueLeader]

"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...

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. . . . .

[Hawk200]

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.

[davedove]

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.

[JayT]

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:

Civilian 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.

[shorning]

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 has something similar.

[Stonewall]

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 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)

[shorning]

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 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.

[Stonewall]

If I'm not mistaken, the American Cadet Alliance 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.

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.

[Mustang]

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. 

[shorning]

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.

[SARMedTech]

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.

[davedove]

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 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.

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.

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.