CAP Talk

This weekend I attended the Texas Wing Conference here in Austin. Gen. Pinada attended the conference and spoke at the opening session on Saturday morning. From what I recall here's a few of the things he mentioned.

1) UNIFORMS: (specifically the TPU) Gen. Pinada said that the "TPU" (was not referred to by that name) was created as a result of what we the members have wanted. He said he placed the uniform together as a result of our input as well as trying to keep costs low. We have been asking for many years to have blue grade slides again as well as metal rank on the service coat. Over the years he has tried many different suggestions to the AF to see if there was someway he could get them to allow such things, they flat refused all suggestions. So he said that he created the TPU so we could have our own uniform that no one could tell us what to do with it. He wanted a professional looking military style uniform that all members could wear regardless of weight. Just have to meet the grooming standard.

2) REMOVING "USAF AUX" OFF UNIFORMS/PLANES: because of the homeland security missions we where being asked to perform, the ruling (not sure by whom) was that we would violate the PCA by having USAF AUX on our planes and uniforms. Gen. Pinada said this is not an attempt to move us away from the AF, he wants to see just the opposite. He wants to see a closer relationship with the USAF.

3) MEMBERSHIP: He said that not everyone who wants to join CAP needs to be able to join CAP. He wants to see an increase in standards in membership.  He is bring a Membership Board back to CAP and will make it manadatory for all membership actions. He is developing a form that says the Unit Commander has interviewed this applicant and that the Membership Board has also interviewed this applicant and they both find him to be capable of serving as a member of CAP and that he brings skills and abilities that would make him as asset to CAP. He further stated there will be no such standards for cadets, that he wants every single youth in America to join CAP. That he's leading a program to go into the inner city neighborhoods to recruit cadets. He's a believer in the life changing power that CAP has in a young persons life.

4) PROMOTIONS: He said that there will be an Oath of office that you will raise you right hand and swear to upon entering into CAP membership, he douse not like the current Oath CAP has now, it may have been fine 20 years ago, but it's not relevent today. further more all promotions will be done in a promotion ceremony, you will once again take an out of office and you will be given a very nice wall certificate for framing and display on your wall. he wants to see it more military like. He said he was tired of seeing people promoted  in a casual manner. He said he has seen people promoted in elevators or just handed new rank and being told, "Oh yeah, your promoted now"

5) NEW FLYING MISSION: He stated that there is a new flying missions for CAP that will involve lot's of flight time, he couldn't say anything more until everything is worked out but that he is VERY excited about this new opportunity for CAP pilots. More info will be released soon.

6) U.S. CAP: CAP's name is being changed to U.S. CAP to better reflect that we are a United States Force. He has said that he has seen the other Civil Air Patrol letterhead and webpages from other nations, all of them state the name of the nation first. he wants there to be no confusion that we are the U.S. CAP. I believe he said that name tags will now be changed as well. I'm not completely certain on that but thats would I believe he said.

  I think, that's it, I may have missed a few things but from what I can remember thats pretty accurate of what he said. I have tried to state as close to accurate his own words. Hey, alot of what he said has mirrored what was being said here. Seems as he has been reading some of our ideas. We never know.

  I had a chance to meet him and talk to him for a while, he was very friendly and cordial, he and I shared several laughs and talked a bit about our civilian jobs. (we're both LEO's) I thought he was a very nice gentleman. It was nice to finally hear something of a vision that he has for CAP.

Thanks for that information, DrJbdm.

Now ... we have been given some of the vision Gen. Pineda has for CAP.  Let's not beat that particular dead horse any more, eh?  Sure, there are things in here that many of us will not like ... but hey -- that's why he's the major general and we aren't.  Nice to know there were reasons behind the things done.

Movin' right along ... (Kermit the Frog, "The Muppet Movie")

Jack

That's not a vision... a vision is here is where the org WILL be ultimately & here is the detailed step by step 1/5/10/20 year plans how to get there. Now you sq/gp/wg/regs go forth & execute all that you do in a manner supporting of this concept. And sell us all as members on adopting this concept almost as if it were our new religion. If he told you something like that & you didn't mention it then start talking... I'm sorry I didn't go now, I would have pressed him on the subject.

I am glad though to see clarification on some of those other items. That doesn't mean I agree - it doesn't matter what the side of the plane says when you violate PCA, only if it's the AF or the state that's breaking the law. If the miloitary buys us plane/radios, funds the training that makes the mission possible, and the insurance that covers us in case of an accident, and provides oversight of the maint... then we are bound by PCA all the time without exception. Same deal with the uniform. You can't just weasle thru loop holes & think that's alright. If you don't live by the spirit & culture of the rules all the way down to the smallest details, then you just don't get it & can't function. On the other hand, I'm glad to see some things we've talked about, like the more selective entrance standards, review boards, and merit promotions getting some play.

Well I am glad that he's out there addressing some of the questions that are raised.  I'd like to see it coming out to the general membership, though...possibly through use of nationalcommander.com (http://www.nationalcommander.com/). (btw...is that site in compliance with CAPR 110-1?)

Dennis, I agree it's not a vision statement and i don't call it that. It is something of a vision however, but not a substitute for a clear concise statement of vision concerning where we are and where he wants us to go.

I agree with you on the PCA thing, I did bring up that I believed that I had heard that a U.S. Attorney has already made an opinion that he didn't believe it was a violation of the PCA for CAP to do such missions while displaying USAF AUX on the tail or on our uniforms, I suggested that we should have asked for an Attorney General's ruling on the subject before we just took everything that says USAF off the planes and uniforms. But the CAP legal officers are the ones really running the show around here.

It is good that several of the things we have talked about on here are taking fruit to a degree. Hopefully it gets expanded upon. So, a few good things are happening. I'm little more optimistic on some of the things going on.

  Dennis, I think you would have enjoyed a chance to talk to TP had you been able to come. I'm glad I went. Wished i would have or could have pressed him on some of the issues but I didn't feel the place was right at that moment.

I've actually met Gen Peneda, I have my own opinions of the man.

But what are your observations of him?  I don't care for responses if you have never met him.  I do care about those of you that have.

Remember Gen Peneda is alot like President Bush.  Elected official, makes decisions on what he thinks is the best for everyone, and is loved/hated by everyone.

What are your thoughts?

Quote from: DrJbdm on April 15, 2007, 08:48:16 PM
But the CAP legal officers are the ones really running the show around here.

Civil liability attorneys have no clue about public sector law, especially not on the extremely advanced level this issue exists at. Most of the legal counsel in congress would not be qualified to make that judgement.

QuoteI'm little more optimistic on some of the things going on.

I'm a little sorry I didn't make it out as well. I actually had to get some stuff done for the Army over the last few days & thru the next couple weeks. I am in general optomistic about CAP as a whole, and frankly if TP would just get out in the open & lead from the front in full public view with a vision he sells the members on & lets get going - he'd be dodging crap from detractors, but he's doing that now - then I think most of us would follow. He hasn't done that though & that's a leadership failure... ultimarely it doesn't matter how good your ideas are if you don't lead them thru in the light of day. I understand a lot of important things happen behind the curtain, but that only works when the troops are in gear and on the right road because you've put them there, then you can duck back behind the curtain for a while.

It is spelled P I N E D A, not Pinada, pinata, or peneda, or pendejo. Tell me you guys know your chain of command!

Capt. Lord

Quote from: CaptLord on April 15, 2007, 09:55:03 PM
It is spelled P I N E D A, not Pinada, pinata, or peneda, or pendejo. Tell me you guys know your chain of command!

Capt. Lord

My Apologies to Gen Pineda.

It's nice to know that general Pineda has answered questions regarding the TPU, removal of "USAF AUX" from aircraft, membership, promotions, new flying mission, and "U.S. CAP."

However, I still have yet to find out why the American flag is worn on the BDU for CAP.  Does anyone know why?

Hopefully, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes will be a good reason to remove the American flag patch from the BDU, as the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes do a good enough job identifying CAP as American.

I don't like any of what I read.  Sounds like membership will be dropping more $$$ on another change.  Why keep us in suspense of what (new flying missions" are coming.  (My guess is border patrol, in conjunction with that new law that was proposed by that PA Congressman).  

Finally, it is not necessary to raise your right hand and take a new oath of office each time you are promoted.  The military does not even do that any longer.  I think it even says on the paper you sign stating that you took your original oath to commission that you don't need to retake the oath every time.  What is this promotion board going to do?  Who will it be comprised of?  My guess, members that have already become LTCOL's and Colonels!  

I will wait for more details......

That law doesn't have a remote chance of passing, but even if it by some miracle did, it doesn't change anything at all. DHS can already ask for missions thru AF, and we're either bound by PCA or not. It's a bad law, really.

Far as border flying. We do a lot of that for the state now, and some still for customs... thing is all that goes toa VERY limited number of highly qualified people & you can't just get into that group. They are already satisfied & getting the work they want. It's the guy that joins my unit & wants to train as an observer or MP that isn't going to get any real work for two years. That's the guy that's getting screwed & needs more missions. The bigger deal though is the ground work. The largest majority of ES focused people are on the ground side & that mission is drying up with little to replace it cause they haven't moved on NIMS.

On promotion boards... it's an optional thing to evaluate new applicants & for all promotins on both the cadet & adult side. This would make that mandatory & I assume provide further guidance on where the standards should be. That's a good thing.

And yes you do have to swear an oath every time on the officer side anyway. Legally your comission at 2Lt is invalidated & you get a new on at the new grade. It's the same thing as the VP has to take the oath if the Pres is killed, even though it's the exact same oath they took as VP & still legaly binding, it's still a requirement of officer to declare your loyalty & such.

DrJbdm's summary of the Major General's speech is accurate.  I would go as far as to say that the Major General was sincere in is tone and serious about his understanding and "vision for CAP."

Before this, I did not know the man...all I knew of him was that official reading form CAP NHQ and what was written about him here.  After hearing him speak, talking briefly with him and seeing how he carried himself I can say that I do not dislike him personally.

The uniform issue is really a moot one.  So many of us have tried to read so much into it.  It really doesn't reflect and relationship "pain or pleasure" between the USAF and CAP.  I really think this man sat down and tried to find a solution...a compromise...to try to make his membership happy.  I don't even think he tried to do it to "go down in history."  I really think he thought he would make those calling for "metal rank and blue sleeves" happy.  I also think the blue sleeve shouldermarks might need to have CAP on them.

Removing USAF Aux, too, has cause much over-analysis.  Here again, I think CAP Legal, not just the Major General really intended to do right to expand the scope of CAP missions.  We will always give priority to the USAF, but CAP is a tool that can easily dull.  By expanding CAP mission into HLS and traditionally Law Enforcement roles CAP is more viable.  I know there are those that see a CAP that "hires out" as being less of the USAF Auxiliary, but did anyone ever think that such an arrangement might actually further the image of the USAF to those agencies?  As for posse comitatus, when asked if we are Civilians or Military which one is the only answer.  After having read Col Hodgkin's remarks at CAPBLOG and fully examined the relationship between CAP and USAF, I am inclined to think that the USAF may actually enourage its auxiliary into that realm.  If not, don't you think that they would "smash us like a bug" for violating it?

In anycase, the laywers to be be certain before we take on those rolls.

What the Major General said about membership should not offend any here, especially those that are always calling for high standards and "oaths."  And CAP as an alternative to gangs and crime is a worthy goal.  In fact I hope my efforts at my school might actually save some kids.

"US Civil Air Patrol," I must honestly say, may be a needless change.  It will cost some money.  I will also say that the Major General also seems to believe that this is a necessary thing.

Well, that was my impression of these issues.  I could be wrong and likely am, one speculations of what another man is thinking are only as accurate as chance may dictate.

In anycase (once more), I will say that I believe in the Squadron and Group and will always put the missions of CAP above the politics of it.  After all, we are here to accomplish a job.

Quote from: DNall on April 15, 2007, 11:22:09 PM
And yes you do have to swear an oath every time on the officer side anyway. Legally your comission at 2Lt is invalidated & you get a new on at the new grade. It's the same thing as the VP has to take the oath if the Pres is killed, even though it's the exact same oath they took as VP & still legaly binding, it's still a requirement of officer to declare your loyalty & such.

UMM......you Sir are incorrect.  "According to 10 USC 626 14309 eliminates the necessity on executing oath on promotion of Officers"
here is the linky for it http://www.army.mil/usapa/eforms/pdf/A71.PDF (http://www.army.mil/usapa/eforms/pdf/A71.PDF)
look at the bottom instructions, number 2

Quote from: 12211985 on April 15, 2007, 10:30:25 PM
It's nice to know that general Pineda has answered questions regarding the TPU, removal of "USAF AUX" from aircraft, membership, promotions, new flying mission, and "U.S. CAP."

However, I still have yet to find out why the American flag is worn on the BDU for CAP.  Does anyone know why?

Hopefully, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes will be a good reason to remove the American flag patch from the BDU, as the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes do a good enough job identifying CAP as American.

Geez, just accept the fact that it is required and move on. Come on already.

Quote from: LtCol White on April 16, 2007, 12:41:42 AM

Quote from: 12211985 on April 15, 2007, 10:30:25 PM
It's nice to know that general Pineda has answered questions regarding the TPU, removal of "USAF AUX" from aircraft, membership, promotions, new flying mission, and "U.S. CAP."

However, I still have yet to find out why the American flag is worn on the BDU for CAP.  Does anyone know why?

Hopefully, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes will be a good reason to remove the American flag patch from the BDU, as the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes do a good enough job identifying CAP as American.

Geez, just accept the fact that it is required and move on. Come on already.

I agree, it was approved by all and thus it is policy.  If it was somehow wrong the USAF would have (or would at anytime) ordered it removed.

Honestly, I do not see why a US flag is so offensive to some.

Quote from: LtCol White on April 16, 2007, 12:41:42 AM

Quote from: 12211985 on April 15, 2007, 10:30:25 PM
It's nice to know that general Pineda has answered questions regarding the TPU, removal of "USAF AUX" from aircraft, membership, promotions, new flying mission, and "U.S. CAP."

However, I still have yet to find out why the American flag is worn on the BDU for CAP.  Does anyone know why?

Hopefully, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes will be a good reason to remove the American flag patch from the BDU, as the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes do a good enough job identifying CAP as American.

Geez, just accept the fact that it is required and move on. Come on already.

The Army has US Army on their nametapes.  According to your logic they should pull the flag off the uniform.

I know CAP does not deploy outside of CONUS, but don't you feel proud to have the flag on your shoulder?

This is the second time I've met Gen Pineda - and I have no problem with the man or by his vision of CAP. Granted, he's introduced some items that have gotten mixed reviews from the membership, but I think he means well.

I'm one of the ones who wear the 'TPU' corporate combination in my CAP duties. Still has a couple of minor tweaks (mainly the addition of CAP to the grade slides) that need to be done  The flight officer slides already have them; I don't see a problem with Vanguard adding them to the officer grades.

I have served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, and while I'm just above my max weight for wearing the USAF-style uniform, I'm following the reg and wearing the corporate alternates. I'd rather wear the TPU than the corporate grays.

The female version of the TPU service dress coat is now available from Vanguard. Don't know the catalog numbers, but it is the same $160 as the male jacket.

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on April 16, 2007, 12:49:37 AM
...........cut...............don't you feel proud to have the flag on your shoulder?

I know for me, NOT having it on any other clothing I own doesn't make me any LESS proud of being an American......

Quote from: LtCol White on April 16, 2007, 12:41:42 AMGeez, just accept the fact that it is required and move on. Come on already.

No offense to anyone.  All I want to know is why CAP wears the American Flag on the BDU.

I think the uniform is patiotic enough without the flag.  When I get back into CAP, I won't need an American flag on my shoulder to remind me of who I am or why I wear the uniform.  YMMV. 

While it does not constitute a formal vision statement, General Pineda's remarks @ the TX Wg Conf certainly provide us with two things we've needed:

1) some rationale behind some of the high level decisions over the past year or so

2) some near term goals set by the National leadership

Thank you for posting this summary; while I may still disagree with some things (I continue to think it was a mistake to have the TPU so closely resemble USAF service dress; I think I understand better, now, the the General & NB thought it would help with retention), I have a clearer, more positive  sense of where the National CC stands.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 15, 2007, 10:32:52 PM
Finally, it is not necessary to raise your right hand and take a new oath of office each time you are promoted.  The military does not even do that any longer.

FYI, I went to an AF 1stLt's promotion just a couple of months ago, and they did...

V/R,

Some of you may remember a few months ago I said I was attending a promotion ceremony for a Col to Brig General......well   he was given the oath during the ceremony.

It would have been nice for TP to tell us all this stuff before ( or even now since this was only for the TXWG.)  Although I don't agree with it all, I have a better idea of where he is coming from.

Quote from: 12211985 on April 16, 2007, 03:23:32 AM

Quote from: LtCol White on April 16, 2007, 12:41:42 AMGeez, just accept the fact that it is required and move on. Come on already.

No offense to anyone.  All I want to know is why CAP wears the American Flag on the BDU.

I think the uniform is patiotic enough without the flag.  When I get back into CAP, I won't need an American flag on my shoulder to remind me of who I am or why I wear the uniform.  YMMV. 

Okay, well you argued that point extensively in another thread. The fact is we wear it cause the NB decided we should and that's all that matters. Most of us don't like it cause it's not an AF thing & it's a little wierd that the Army does it CONUS, but it doesn't matter what we think. It also doesn't matter why the board at the time decided we should, they jus tdid & it passed so that's the end of it. If you can get them to reverse it then by all means have at it, but asking about it or arguing techinicalities out here isn't going to do any good.

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on April 16, 2007, 01:00:53 AM
I'm one of the ones who wear the 'TPU' corporate combination in my CAP duties. Still has a couple of minor tweaks (mainly the addition of CAP to the grade slides) that need to be done  The flight officer slides already have them; I don't see a problem with Vanguard adding them to the officer grades.

Really? They put CAP on the FO slides? Well I guess they'd have to if they want to distinguish them from AFROTC. I agree whole heartedly they should ass that on the rest of them as well, and thereby lay the groundwork to standardize to that down the road. Plus in adding that you can make a case for going to the stadard one line AF nametag that would be MUCH cheaper & more readily avail. Or at least standardize the two-line blue nametag for everything cadet & senior both, blues/whites/etc... only exception being hte silver for the service coat (and I didn't like when the AF added that).

Quote from: 12211985 on April 16, 2007, 03:23:32 AM

Quote from: LtCol White on April 16, 2007, 12:41:42 AMGeez, just accept the fact that it is required and move on. Come on already.

No offense to anyone.  All I want to know is why CAP wears the American Flag on the BDU.

I think the uniform is patiotic enough without the flag.  When I get back into CAP, I won't need an American flag on my shoulder to remind me of who I am or why I wear the uniform.  YMMV. 

I don't know the exact reason why, but I'd heard that some CAP ground teams working Katrina and Rita in the few days after the storm had guns pulled on 'em, possibly because civilians did not know who they were.

"No offense to anyone.  All I want to know is why CAP wears the American Flag on the BDU."

Answer: CAP wears it because our uniform rules specify it.

Besides that definitive point, CAP is an American organization and I am proud to wear it.

The "USAF Aux" off the aircraft and vehices is not just about Posse Comitatus (PC).  There are many non-PC missions we do that we are not allowed to do as the USAF Aux.  For example, DR or photo missions for state or local EMA (for incidents that don't rise to the significance of a federal disaster) are usually flown as "C" missions.  The USAF can't do these missions without jumping through the MSCA Federal Disaster hoops, and the USAF can't task it's auxiliary to do missions it isn't allowed to do itself.  Hence our "dual-role" (always CAP, sometimes CAP functions as the USAF Aux) allows us to do these as corporate missions.  (I realize that there are a few exceptions to this but this is the general case).

A legal opinion was given that we may not use equipment (aircraft and vehicles) marked with "USAF AUX" on missions that the USAF was not allowed by law to do (i.e non AFAM'S - state/local DR, as well as PC) - hence the removal of that marking so the equipment can be used on all CAP missions, not just AFAM's.  That opinion came from USAF JAG's, not CAP.  Of course, USAF administers the funding that provides all of this stuff, so we do need to follow their rules.  CAP's counsel just found the way to make it work.

I also realize that this is different from the National Guard, which doesn't seem to have a problem using federal-provided equipment (marked as U.S. Army, or whatever) for state missions (some of which would be prohibited in federal status).  I don't know what the difference is.

The part about the USAF Aux. coming off planes and vans doesn't sound right to me, either.  It MAY be that one or more of the CAP lawyers running things has a case of being overly cautious, or one or more of our potential user agencies has overcautious lawyers.

I don't know why it was necessary to place the American Flag on the BDU, either.  But its on the flight suit, so why not?  The Army paces it on there because of their frequent overseas deployments (taking it off when in CONUS and putting it back on overseas can get old).

If we wear it as a statement of solidarity with our forward deployed forces, cool.  If it is a statement of our innate patriotism and spirit of National Service, also cool.  If we wear it because some of us operate near international borders, cool as well. 

If we wear it because we might end up deploying our medics and chaplains on non-combat overseas missions, surprising, but also cool.

Kach,

This chaplain's ready to go ...

:angel:

Quote from: JCJ on April 16, 2007, 01:10:11 PM
There are many non-PC missions we do that we are not allowed to do as the USAF Aux.

That doesn't matter. We can do corporate missions in USAF marked aircraft. There is no issue with that... well a slightly distastful ethical situation if we start doing BS missions just to get paid (moutain lions & such).

The only issue is that the AF can not order us to do missions the AF is not allowed to do itself. In other words it cannot violate PCA by proxy. The markings on the side of the plane have zero legal meaning whatsoever. There is however an AFI that says if they are on there then the AF gets a legal review before the mission to ensure we aren't making them look bad by going too far over the line.

IMO, this is CAP folks not underrstanding why we can't get any work, blaming PCA instead of problems with our qualifications & capabilities, and stripping off these markings so they can go volunteer us for LE missions that are going to seriously endanger our federal funding. What they need to do is take the painful steps to look ourselves in the collective mirror & fix our real problems that keep us from doing anything useful for the federal govt.

Quote from: DNall on April 16, 2007, 03:20:07 PM

Quote from: JCJ on April 16, 2007, 01:10:11 PM
There are many non-PC missions we do that we are not allowed to do as the USAF Aux.

That doesn't matter. We can do corporate missions in USAF marked aircraft. There is no issue with that... well a slightly distastful ethical situation if we start doing BS missions just to get paid (moutain lions & such).

The only issue is that the AF can not order us to do missions the AF is not allowed to do itself. In other words it cannot violate PCA by proxy. The markings on the side of the plane have zero legal meaning whatsoever. There is however an AFI that says if they are on there then the AF gets a legal review before the mission to ensure we aren't making them look bad by going too far over the line.

IMO, this is CAP folks not underrstanding why we can't get any work, blaming PCA instead of problems with our qualifications & capabilities, and stripping off these markings so they can go volunteer us for LE missions that are going to seriously endanger our federal funding. What they need to do is take the painful steps to look ourselves in the collective mirror & fix our real problems that keep us from doing anything useful for the federal govt.

In fact it does matter - we had a major group of missions cancelled on short notice becasue of it.  They were non - LE corporate missions for a state agency (Game and Fish Commission) that, since G & F has a major LE component, were determined to be a no-go with aircraft that have "USAF AUX" on it but OK for aircraft without (which we didn't have at the time).

I agree that a continuing effort on professionalism will bring more federal missions but I don't think the leadership, or most of the members, want to be a "federal only" agency - it would make much more difficult, or prohibit some of the very important state & local missions that are being flown.  Right now we have the flexibility to do good things at the state and local level as well as as teh "USAF Aux" when tasked as such

I disagree with your "slightly distasteful ethical...BS missions" comment.  I don't have a problem with missions that are permitted by law and our regulations, are safe and similar to our emergency mission flight profiles (and therefore helpful for our pilots to maintain their proficiency) and are funded by an appropriate customer, such as a state or local government. 

Quote from: JCJ on April 16, 2007, 08:38:53 PM
In fact it does matter - we had a major group of missions cancelled on short notice becasue of it.  They were non - LE corporate missions for a state agency (Game and Fish Commission) that, since G & F has a major LE component, were determined to be a no-go with aircraft that have "USAF AUX" on it but OK for aircraft without (which we didn't have at the time).

I don't know who's making that call, but they are flat wrong. It absolutely doesn't matter. The AF cannot subisize LE missions, they can provide support to civil authorities. We are bound by those rules all the time. Now, the dif in it being a corp mission or not is the approval authorities & legal review.

QuoteI agree that a continuing effort on professionalism will bring more federal missions but I don't think the leadership, or most of the members, want to be a "federal only" agency - it would make much more difficult, or prohibit some of the very important state & local missions that are being flown.  Right now we have the flexibility to do good things at the state and local level as well as as teh "USAF Aux" when tasked as such

The fed govt does an extensive amount of support work for state/local govts. There is no reason that has to be excessively restrictive. That's a contrived situation that's never existed before. I'd also mention that I don' think people are that particular. I think if the Congress came along & said CAP can do missions for the fed govt only, and that the number of those missions increased by 10 times, I don't think anyone would care about border patrol or animal population counts or environmental surveys.

QuoteI disagree with your "slightly distasteful ethical...BS missions" comment.  I don't have a problem with missions that are permitted by law and our regulations, are safe and similar to our emergency mission flight profiles (and therefore helpful for our pilots to maintain their proficiency) and are funded by an appropriate customer, such as a state or local government. 

If those missions are about getting paid & putting our pilots up but otherwise are not part of our congressionally designated mission then we have no business doing it. Pilots are supposed to fly at least 10hrs/mo on their own dime & bring that proficiency to us for use on critical missions in service of AF missions for America. If they happne to get some of those hours in by flying those missions then fine, but that's supposed to be bonus. We are not supposed to be ubsidizing people's flying habbits. This whole state/local movement over recent years is jut far too commercial for my tastes. Much of it seems like a conflict of interests & unethical to me & I want no part of it.

Quote from: DNall on April 17, 2007, 01:22:42 AM

Quote from: JCJ on April 16, 2007, 08:38:53 PM
In fact it does matter - we had a major group of missions cancelled on short notice becasue of it.  They were non - LE corporate missions for a state agency (Game and Fish Commission) that, since G & F has a major LE component, were determined to be a no-go with aircraft that have "USAF AUX" on it but OK for aircraft without (which we didn't have at the time).

QuoteI don't know who's making that call, but they are flat wrong. It absolutely doesn't matter. The AF cannot subisize LE missions, they can provide support to civil authorities. We are bound by those rules all the time. Now, the dif in it being a corp mission or not is the approval authorities & legal review. )

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 (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/AFI_102701.pdf)

QuoteI agree that a continuing effort on professionalism will bring more federal missions but I don't think the leadership, or most of the members, want to be a "federal only" agency - it would make much more difficult, or prohibit some of the very important state & local missions that are being flown.  Right now we have the flexibility to do good things at the state and local level as well as as teh "USAF Aux" when tasked as such

QuoteThe fed govt does an extensive amount of support work for state/local govts. There is no reason that has to be excessively restrictive. That's a contrived situation that's never existed before. I'd also mention that I don' think people are that particular. I think if the Congress came along & said CAP can do missions for the fed govt only, and that the number of those missions increased by 10 times, I don't think anyone would care about border patrol or animal population counts or environmental surveys.

That'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.txt (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt).  The 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.

QuoteI disagree with your "slightly distasteful ethical...BS missions" comment.  I don't have a problem with missions that are permitted by law and our regulations, are safe and similar to our emergency mission flight profiles (and therefore helpful for our pilots to maintain their proficiency) and are funded by an appropriate customer, such as a state or local government. 

QuoteIf those missions are about getting paid & putting our pilots up but otherwise are not part of our congressionally designated mission then we have no business doing it. Pilots are supposed to fly at least 10hrs/mo on their own dime & bring that proficiency to us for use on critical missions in service of AF missions for America. If they happne to get some of those hours in by flying those missions then fine, but that's supposed to be bonus. We are not supposed to be ubsidizing people's flying habbits. This whole state/local movement over recent years is jut far too commercial for my tastes. Much of it seems like a conflict of interests & unethical to me & I want no part of it.

I 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.

QuoteI 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.

I AM NOT ONE OF THEM, but you will find people who will make such objections here. 

Quote from: Chaplaindon on April 16, 2007, 02:58:16 PM
Kach,

This chaplain's ready to go ...

:angel:

So is this med tech

I've never met Gen. Pineda but expect to soon (within the next 6 months or so).  As such, I certainly have nothing against the man personally.  That said, his leadership and decision making skills certainly appear to have significant room for improvement. 

While it's "nice" that he eventually shared his reasoning behind a number of recent decisions, his answers almost result in many more questions/concerns.  For example:

*  My membership began long before he assumed command.  He states the TPU was a result of member feedback.  How was the feedback collected/obtained?  Was a formal survey conducted?  Nonetheless, it was surmised that some members wanted blue epaulets back.  So, the solution was to create an entirely new uniform?  Is that a truly reasonable solution to the issue?  Of the times I've ever heard grumbling over the epaulets, I never once heard it suggested/requested that we invent yet another whole new uniform as a solution - especially one as silly looking as the TPU.  In essence, his reponse was that wearing blue epaulets was so important to members that we needed a new uniform so that they could have them.  That's just absurd.  In addition, there seems to be a lack of foresight as to it's impact.   

*  The explanation of the removal of USAF Aux from vehicles is poor.  DNall has addressed this.  The Gen. says he doesn't want to move us further from USAF but, in practice, that's exactly what his decisions are doing.

*  I'm fine with his response on membership.  We shouldn't try to be all things to all people.  We need to increase our standards.  How does he propose that we do this?   Vision is needed here.  I don't see that coming from NHQ.

*  Flying a new mission...but it's a secret.  Great (sarc). 

*  U.S. CAP.  What a crock explanation.  Again, I've seen/heard from very few people that warmly receive this change and even fewer that felt this was any type of issue to begin with.  It was a solution in search of a problem...like a number of the other items listed above.

As mentioned by many others, we still lack a strategic vision/direction statement from NHQ.  What's more, is that NHQ did not recognize the importance of communicating/discussing virtually any of these changes with membership  until long after the fact.

Quote from: Smokey on April 16, 2007, 03:58:14 AM
Some of you may remember a few months ago I said I was attending a promotion ceremony for a Col to Brig General......well   he was given the oath during the ceremony.

It would have been nice for TP to tell us all this stuff before ( or even now since this was only for the TXWG.)  Although I don't agree with it all, I have a better idea of where he is coming from.

As for how it sounds, it all comes down to timing.  For example, here in the Iowa Wing, there were policies being instituted that I had a very negative perception about- to the point where I actively worked to derail it from being spread to other wings (see some of my earliest posts).  Since then, and having gotten to talk to the Wing Commander, and the Chief of Staff, the reasoning for their decisions made more sense.  That doesn't mean that I liked it then and to some extent now.  I can accept the policy and work with the system.

Quote from: A.Member on April 17, 2007, 06:08:25 PM
I've never met Gen. Pineda but expect to soon (within the next 6 months or so).  As such, I certainly have nothing against the man personally.  That said, his leadership and decision making skills certainly appear to have significant room for improvement. 

While it's "nice" that he eventually shared his reasoning behind a number of recent decisions, his answers almost result in many more questions/concerns.  For example:

*  My membership began long before he assumed command.  He states the TPU was a result of member feedback.  How was the feedback collected/obtained?  Was a formal survey conducted?  Nonetheless, it was surmised that some members wanted blue epaulets back.  So, the solution was to create an entirely new uniform?  Is that a truly reasonable solution to the issue?  Of the times I've ever heard grumbling over the epaulets, I never once heard it suggested/requested that we invent yet another whole new uniform as a solution - especially one as silly looking as the TPU.  In essence, his reponse was that wearing blue epaulets was so important to members that we needed a new uniform so that they could have them.  That's just absurd.  In addition, there seems to be a lack of foresight as to it's impact.   

*  The explanation of the removal of USAF Aux from vehicles is poor.  DNall has addressed this.  The Gen. says he doesn't want to move us further from USAF but, in practice, that's exactly what his decisions are doing.

*  I'm fine with his response on membership.  We shouldn't try to be all things to all people.  We need to increase our standards.  How does he propose that we do this?   Vision is needed here.  I don't see that coming from NHQ.

*  Flying a new mission...but it's a secret.  Great (sarc). 

*  U.S. CAP.  What a crock explanation.  Again, I've seen/heard from very few people that warmly receive this change and even fewer that felt this was any type of issue to begin with.  It was a solution in search of a problem...like a number of the other items listed above.

As mentioned by many others, we still lack a strategic vision/direction statement from NHQ.  What's more, is that NHQ did not recognize the importance of communicating/discussing virtually any of these changes with membership  until long after the fact.

In the General's defense, prior to the TPU, there WAS a lot of activity/grumbling/grousing on the net and at conferences about blue slides, cap rank on the flight cap and BDU's, and returning to metal grade on the blue jacket.  He DID go to the AF with those requests, and got told no, except that we are allowed to wear embroidered bright rank on the BDU cap.  The plan was for a crest to be placed halfway up the blue jacket epaulet to be worn along with the metal rank.  The AF said "Not only NO but HELLNO!"  So TP did the next best thing, in his mind.

I just wish he had done away with the white and gray at the same time.

I am ready to go!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 17, 2007, 07:43:49 PMIn the General's defense, prior to the TPU, there WAS a lot of activity/grumbling/grousing on the net and at conferences about blue slides, cap rank on the flight cap and BDU's, and returning to metal grade on the blue jacket.  He DID go to the AF with those requests, and got told no, except that we are allowed to wear embroidered bright rank on the BDU cap.  The plan was for a crest to be placed halfway up the blue jacket epaulet to be worn along with the metal rank.  The AF said "Not only NO but HELLNO!"  So TP did the next best thing, in his mind.

I 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 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.     

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. 

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.

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.

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       

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

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.

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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 (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.txt (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt).  The 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.

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.

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.

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.

The Navy managed to do it for years, we could just adopt their previous standard.

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...
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/CaptSmithCap/BEARD_EXAMPLE.jpg)
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 :)

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!

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,

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.   

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,

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...
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/CaptSmithCap/BEARD_EXAMPLE.jpg)
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 :)

All I can say is look out for the black vans.....They are most certainly coming for yo................

Quote from: LTC_Gadget on April 18, 2007, 03:52:13 PM
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,

I'm not the one you need to convince.  I get it.  And of course all uses of the term aren't always "automatically bad".   No one here has said that.

Who, where, what, how things are being referred to must be taken into account.  You must understand your audience.  Alternatives?   I don't know...perhaps Auxiliarist (may or may not even be a word - not certain)?  Officers?  Members?  

Quote from: A.Member on April 18, 2007, 04:00:24 PM
And of course all uses of the term aren't always "automatically bad".   No one here has said that.

I believe that DrJbdm at least implied  it:

Quote from: DrJbdm on April 17, 2007, 09:47:46 PM
that term carries lots of negative connotations. it envisions a less then professionally trained person. We should run from that term,

So, why is it that seemingly no other volunteer organization is cast in a negative light when using that word, and it's only us ?

V/R,

Quote from: DNall on April 18, 2007, 09:39:31 AM
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 (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.txt (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt).  The 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.

I'm well familiar with NIMS, MSCA, MSCLEA, and HSPD-5.  In return, I'd respectfully suggest that you familiarize yourself with our own regulations (particularly 60-1 and 60-3), AFI 10-2701 (referenced above) and 10 USC 9442 (also referenced above) - and the NOC telephone number.  This may prevent you from getting yourself, or your colleagues involved in something that is either prohibited by the rules that you agreed to follow when you joined, or federal law.

I don't beiieve we'll see eye-to-eye on this so I don't think there's any need for further discussion. Be safe...

Volunteers are generally not a problem until you have a big emergency, and that's where you find the word "volunteer" taking on a negative connotation...  When untrained people come out of the woodwork to volunteer, they cause problems.  There is an entire course on the FEMA website on how to deal with volunteers.  Untrained volunteers are of limited use, and cause an agency to expend needed resources simply to classify and identify them, not to mention feed them, and provide water and sanitation facilities.  We all understand that there is a big difference between a trained group of volunteer responders and the local church group that gets together to "volunteer" on the spur of the moment.   Unfortunately during a crisis if you show up at a command post and report in a group of "volunteers" the general consensus is going to be "Oh great just what we need another 50 people getting in the way and using up resources!"  However, if you show up and report in with a group of "professional responders", "auxiliarists",  etc.  who are donating their time and treasure to their community, you (hopefully) won't be seen as a drain on resources, but as a useful resource.

Quote from: LTC_Gadget on April 18, 2007, 04:36:11 PM
So, why is it that seemingly no other volunteer organization is cast in a negative light when using that word, and it's only us ?

V/R,

Denial is not a river in Egypt.  My concern is with this organization, not every other one.  Like I said earlier, you don't have to like it but you do need to recognize it and adjust your approach accordingly.

for many years volunteer fire departments faced this same issue as being seen as less then well trained professionals. They where considered in general to be "playing" firemen. In many areas they where not taken seriously, even by those who lived in the communites served by volunteer fire departments. In order to combat that, they had to completely remake their image and to a large degree they have reshaped themselfs into being viewed as highly trained professional fire-fighters. Most of them, if not all of them are licensed by the Texas agency that licenses paid fire-fighters and there is no difference in that certification.

  When it comes to public safety personnel or emergency services personnel, the term volunteer is not viewed as being professional. The issue we have to be concerned with, is what others perception is of volunteers. While we may get warm fuzzies with that term, others may view us as being untrained or under-trained and neither is the perception you want people having of us. The worst perception we could be faced with is people thinking we are "playing" at what we are doing. paid or unpaid, that's not an issue and really that makes no difference to anyone, but we seem to want to emphasize that point.

  When people see us respond during a SAR mission or Natural Distaster or even a terrorist incident, they don't want to be faced with someone who isn't ready to view themselves as being AS capable as those who are getting paid for being there. Certainly the volunteer fire departments don't view themselves in that regard. We could take a lesson from them.

Quote from: DrJbdm on April 18, 2007, 07:39:13 PM
The issue we have to be concerned with, is what others perception is of volunteers.

We should be concerned about the publics perception of us, which I agree with, but you can't 'rename' what we are, a rose is a rose.

Quotethey don't want to be faced with someone who isn't ready to view themselves as being AS capable as those who are getting paid for being there. Certainly the volunteer fire departments don't view themselves in that regard. We could take a lesson from them.

Who said we don't view ourselves as capable?  Or that we have the perception that we are not trained?

CAP has a whole does not view it's self as capable as the paid professionals. CAP tends to view it's self as a group of citizen volunteers who can or want to help in some small way. It's not viewing it's self the same as even volunteer fire departments.

  At the Wing Conference I asked Lt. Col. Cima if CAP was going to get into compliance with the NIMS standard, she said that CAP was going to pick and choose what standards it felt it could comply with and then say we are trained up to our standards. The problem is we can not train up to our standards, we have to train up to the standards set for those wishing to play in this arena. She further stated that CAP is not even in full compliance with the ICS standards, that we developed our own ICS standard and then called it ICS because thats the name other agencies can relate too. Thats our problem, we are not willing to train to the standards set for us.

Quote from: DrJbdm on April 18, 2007, 09:44:04 PM
At the Wing Conference I asked Lt. Col. Cima if CAP was going to get into compliance with the NIMS standard, she said that CAP was going to pick and choose what standards it felt it could comply with and then say we are trained up to our standards. The problem is we can not train up to our standards, we have to train up to the standards set for those wishing to play in this arena. She further stated that CAP is not even in full compliance with the ICS standards, that we developed our own ICS standard and then called it ICS because that's the name other agencies can relate too.  That's our problem, we are not willing to train to the standards set for us.

Exactly.  That has been pointed out in a number of threads on this forum.  This is also not the first time that CAP has acknowledged that it doesn't necessarily try to comply or meet other standards.  As a minor example, CAP "agency liaison" is "agency representative" in ICS.  CAP changed the term deliberately because an AL does not represent CAP in the capacity that an AREP does in ICS.

This though, has nothing to do with CAP being a volunteer organization, it's CAP being...CAP.  There are many volunteer organizations who are compliant with these standards.  Many of these volunteer agencies are also recognized as players in the emergency services community.  Just complying or meeting standards does not bring this acceptance.   It is a matter of presentation and performance. 

Volunteer started to get a negative connotation after Katrina.  To try to separate the good from the bad, "convergent volunteer" and  "spontaneous volunteer" have come to be recognized in the industry as the terms for volunteers who aren't part of an organized and trained group of volunteer responders.  "Unpaid professional" is being adopted by many trained volunteer organizations to further separate themselves from convergent and spontaneous volunteers.

CAP and other volunteer groups must use "volunteer" for their fundraising and recruitment, but not when they are trying to sell their capability to other organizations.  They must perform as professionals in thought, training, compliance, capability and response.  Those that do are recognized as such, and not as volunteers, by the rest of the ES community.

Mike

Mike I agree with you, although I don't think we need to sell ourselves as volunteers for recruitment. perhaps for donations and other areas along the same route. CAP in my opinion needs to take a good long hard painful look in the collective mirror and do a radical change on it's image. We need to remake ourselves. We seem to be better known as a youth oriented organization then a true Air Force Auxiliary emergency services unit. While I think the cadet program is very important, after all i was a cadet myself. it shouldn't be the reason for existence.

  We need strict membership standards, we need unit commanders held responsible to a set policy and be given efficiency reports by the group comanders. Unit commanders should be given a two year term with additional terms decided upon by the efficiency reports.

  We need to follow the tougher standards in NIMS or ICS or whatever the major players are using. We need to be fully compliant and stop making our own rules. We should be fully prepared to play in the major league

  We need to get away from terminology that hurts our image and remake ourselves in the Air Force image, after all we are the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary. I think it's obvious that Big Brother Blue wants us to be closer to them, I think we should come into the Air Force Image. Lets stop trying to change them, it simply won't work.

General Pineda wants to see some tougher membership standards, I don't think he'll go far enough in those standards, but at least it's a start. CAP has strayed far from what it once was in the 80's, we need to start a hard swing back to the right and get back on course.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 18, 2007, 02:36:10 AM

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.
[/quote]

John, I am flabbergasted to hear this....but also very, very pleased....hopefully this means the relationship between CAP & USAF is better than many of us thought.

QuoteTheir 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.

Yes, because not being able to tell a CAP member from an AF member within nanoseconds could shake the entire service to its very core. 

If this was really a problem they would not be trying to solve it by encouraging the creation of yet another CAP uniform.  It only gets harder to tell who is in CAP when any given CAP member might be wearing one of a half-dozen or more uniforms depending on their mood that day. 

If CAP had a bit more "brand identity" in our uniforms it would be so much easier to spot the CAP member at a glance.  Your average airman is not going to memoraize all these potential CAP uniforms anyway.  If we just had 1 set of uniforms for any type of activity they would get used to associating those few uniforms with CAP and there wouldn't be a "problem".

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 19, 2007, 03:46:36 AMI 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. 

There is no secret about this at all.  The orginal TPU had the US cutouts on them and rank on the hat.  The USAF asked us to take them off and we complied.

[/quote]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.[/quote]

I got a real easy fix for this.  CAP cut outs vice US and a big honking CAP patch on the Sholder of all AF uniforms, not a wing patch, but a big round CAP (like maybe the old CAP Crest we wore on our flight suits or the patch the use for overseas squadrons).

That way it would be instantly recognisable that the individual approching you is a member of CAP and not the USAF.

On the flight suit we have already solved 90% if that problem with our current patch mix.

Lord M:

Instead of a patch, I have always advocated using the CAP crest from the mess dress on ALL uniforms.  Make an embroidered one for the BDU or use the Command Patch from the flight suit on the BDU.

I am noticing something very interesting and, if accurate, very bothersome:

Now that we have it somewhat "confirmed" (albeit unofficially) that AF not only approved but encouraged the corporate service uniform, there are still people decrying it as unnecessary, unneeded, un-American, whatever.  It sounds to me as if those opinions wouldn't change if the Secretary of the Air Force himself came in here and said, "We love it, go with it." 

I guess what I'm saying is ... Some don't like it.  We got that.  Some won't wear it.  We got that too.  Some think it's unnecessary, etc.  The Air Force doesn't think so, and their opinion -- in the end -- is really the only one that matters.

Isn't it at last time to move on?

Sorry for my tone in advance,

Jack

Quote from: LTC_Gadget on April 18, 2007, 02:21:27 PM

The Peace Corp is staffed with volunteers and no one thinks their efforts are inept.

 

Really?  Guess I'm no one.

We now (and have had for many years) an all volunteer military, and most seem to agree they are professional indeed!

We need to describe ourselves as 'professionally trained & qualified volunteers'....of course, we need to ensure that we really meet that standard, first!

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 20, 2007, 05:51:29 PM
We now (and have had for many years) an all volunteer military, and most seem to agree they are professional indeed!

We need to describe ourselves as 'professionally trained & qualified volunteers'....of course, we need to ensure that we really meet that standard, first!

It was all-volunteer until the STOP-LOSS (slavery) "program" started back up for Iraq 2.

-So I don't find myself transfered to GITMO.......DISCLAIMER:
I FULLY Support the United States, and it's policies regarding the military services.  I make no claims that it's policies, management or senior leadership are inept, idiotic, or outright insane.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 20, 2007, 07:09:33 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 20, 2007, 05:51:29 PM
We now (and have had for many years) an all volunteer military, and most seem to agree they are professional indeed!

We need to describe ourselves as 'professionally trained & qualified volunteers'....of course, we need to ensure that we really meet that standard, first!

It was all-volunteer until the STOP-LOSS (slavery) "program" started back up for Iraq 2.

-So I don't find myself transfered to GITMO.......DISCLAIMER:
I FULLY Support the United States, and it's policies regarding the military services.  I make no claims that it's policies, management or senior leadership are inept, idiotic, or outright insane.

I think I just saw a blackedout CAP van turn onto your street!! Its one of those new classified missions CAP has now.  >:D

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 20, 2007, 07:09:33 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 20, 2007, 05:51:29 PM
We now (and have had for many years) an all volunteer military, and most seem to agree they are professional indeed!

We need to describe ourselves as 'professionally trained & qualified volunteers'....of course, we need to ensure that we really meet that standard, first!

It was all-volunteer until the STOP-LOSS (slavery) "program" started back up for Iraq 2.

-So I don't find myself transfered to GITMO.......DISCLAIMER:
I FULLY Support the United States, and it's policies regarding the military services.  I make no claims that it's policies, management or senior leadership are inept, idiotic, or outright insane.

Yet one more reason why CAP should be pursuing an augmentation program at flank speed.

Since the TPU is styled after the Luftwaffe Kleiner Rock:

Ve haff vays of loosening your tounge!  You vill tell us vat ve vant to know!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2007, 11:57:01 PM
Since the TPU is styled after the Luftwaffe Kleiner Rock:

Ve haff vays of loosening your tounge!  You vill tell us vat ve vant to know!

Jawohl, zu Befehl, Herr Major!  ;D Though the Kleiner Rock was worn only by Luftwaffe general officers up until the start of WWII.

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on April 22, 2007, 01:25:13 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 21, 2007, 11:57:01 PM
Since the TPU is styled after the Luftwaffe Kleiner Rock:

Ve haff vays of loosening your tounge!  You vill tell us vat ve vant to know!

Jawohl, zu Befehl, Herr Major!  ;D Though the Kleiner Rock was worn only by Luftwaffe general officers up until the start of WWII.

So does this make Pineda Goering?  Reichmarshall Pineda?  >:D

What's scary isn't just the double breasted cut, but the fact that the Kleiner Rock was worn only with a white shirt and blue tie!

Psychiatrists have identified a new mental disorder... TPU Syndrome.  The disease is characterized by intrusive thoughts about invading Eastern European countries and France whenever the patient dresses in the TPU.

Didn't the Luftwaffe also have a black leather flight jacket?

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE this trend. The Luftwaffe was one of the best-dressed air forces in history!

And invading France would be fun.  Can I get one of those sexy little Walther pistols?

Quote from: LtCol White on April 22, 2007, 02:15:20 AM
So does this make Pineda Goering?  Reichmarshall Pineda?  >:D

Not sure what distant cousin Hermann would make of that ....  ;D

Jack

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2007, 03:30:42 AM
And invading France would be fun.  Can I get one of those sexy little Walther pistols?

Not like it would be hard. Just declare war, and they'll surrender post-haste.  Only if I get one too.

France has four 'Terror Alert Levels"
1. Run
2. Hide
3. Lay down
4. Collaborate

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2007, 03:28:37 AM
What's scary isn't just the double breasted cut, but the fact that the Kleiner Rock was worn only with a white shirt and blue tie!

Psychiatrists have identified a new mental disorder... TPU Syndrome.  The disease is characterized by intrusive thoughts about invading Eastern European countries and France whenever the patient dresses in the TPU.

Didn't the Luftwaffe also have a black leather flight jacket?

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE this trend. The Luftwaffe was one of the best-dressed air forces in history!

Heh... Ol' Herman the German was a 'fashionista' long before the term came into existence! ;D The SS uniforms were reportedly designed by Hugo Boss.

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on April 22, 2007, 11:19:58 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2007, 03:28:37 AM
What's scary isn't just the double breasted cut, but the fact that the Kleiner Rock was worn only with a white shirt and blue tie!

Psychiatrists have identified a new mental disorder... TPU Syndrome.  The disease is characterized by intrusive thoughts about invading Eastern European countries and France whenever the patient dresses in the TPU.

Didn't the Luftwaffe also have a black leather flight jacket?

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE this trend. The Luftwaffe was one of the best-dressed air forces in history!

Heh... Ol' Herman the German was a 'fashionista' long before the term came into existence! ;D The SS uniforms were reportedly designed by Hugo Boss.

Its actually true. THe uniforms were designed and produced by Boss. http://americandefenseleague.com/hilknow1.htm

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on April 22, 2007, 11:19:58 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2007, 03:28:37 AM
What's scary isn't just the double breasted cut, but the fact that the Kleiner Rock was worn only with a white shirt and blue tie!

Psychiatrists have identified a new mental disorder... TPU Syndrome.  The disease is characterized by intrusive thoughts about invading Eastern European countries and France whenever the patient dresses in the TPU.

Didn't the Luftwaffe also have a black leather flight jacket?

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE this trend. The Luftwaffe was one of the best-dressed air forces in history!

Heh... Ol' Herman the German was a 'fashionista' long before the term came into existence! ;D The SS uniforms were reportedly designed by Hugo Boss.

I remember reading that in the paper a while back...

The current owners of the Hugo Boss fashion line have done a lot of sponsorship in high-profile sailing regattas. The crew of the Open-60 Hugo Boss made quite an entrance at Sydney-Hobart '05 when they started the race in identical dark business suits - not very practical but it looked sharp.

Maybe we should get Hugo Boss to replace Vanguard.  How's their website?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2007, 01:05:10 PM
Maybe we should get Hugo Boss to replace Vanguard.  How's their website?

Lots of flash [and Flash] and glitz... and not a 'no image' to be found!

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on April 22, 2007, 01:53:29 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 22, 2007, 01:05:10 PM
Maybe we should get Hugo Boss to replace Vanguard.  How's their website?

Lots of flash [and Flash] and glitz... and not a 'no image' to be found!

Then it is decided, from now on polos and slacks will be produced by hugo boss.  We can begin ordering our TPU's from Hugo Pineda in Cuba as well. 

"Whether he's hitting the Havana night spots or merely shipping off a dissident wing commander to a forced labor camp, he ALWAYS looks good... He's General Tony Pineda and his 'Fashions by Tony' will make you look good too!"

"Inspired by the Luftwaffe creations of the Second World War, you will be the Toast of the Ramp Tramps showing up at the airport in the double-breasted ensemble formerly worn only by high-ranking German officers.  Or go for the 'Machismo' leather look of the black flight jacket with the complimentary Navy-inspired brown leather badge with your name and wings, along with a colorful command patch creatively devoid of any reference to the Air Force."

"Fashions by Tony is excusively marketed by our partners at Vanguard, Inc.  Be sure to log on to our website and check out our sylish product line, including our exclusive 'No Image Available' intimate apparel collections!"

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 23, 2007, 04:03:37 AM
"Whether he's hitting the Havana night spots or merely shipping off a dissident wing commander to a forced labor camp, he ALWAYS looks good... He's General Tony Pineda and his 'Fashions by Tony' will make you look good too!"

"Inspired by the Luftwaffe creations of the Second World War, you will be the Toast of the Ramp Tramps showing up at the airport in the double-breasted ensemble formerly worn only by high-ranking German officers.  Or go for the 'Machismo' leather look of the black flight jacket with the complimentary Navy-inspired brown leather badge with your name and wings, along with a colorful command patch creatively devoid of any reference to the Air Force."

"Fashions by Tony is excusively marketed by our partners at Vanguard, Inc.  Be sure to log on to our website and check out our sylish product line, including our exclusive 'No Image Available' intimate apparel creations!"

kach...you are the man.   >:D 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 23, 2007, 04:03:37 AM
"Whether he's hitting the Havana night spots or merely shipping off a dissident wing commander to a forced labor camp, he ALWAYS looks good... He's General Tony Pineda and his 'Fashions by Tony' will make you look good too!"

"Inspired by the Luftwaffe creations of the Second World War, you will be the Toast of the Ramp Tramps showing up at the airport in the double-breasted ensemble formerly worn only by high-ranking German officers.  Or go for the 'Machismo' leather look of the black flight jacket with the complimentary Navy-inspired brown leather badge with your name and wings, along with a colorful command patch creatively devoid of any reference to the Air Force."

"Fashions by Tony is excusively marketed by our partners at Vanguard, Inc.  Be sure to log on to our website and check out our sylish product line, including our exclusive 'No Image Available' intimate apparel creations!"

Outstanding......can't wait to catch the commercial!  Makes me want to vacation in Cuba this summer

Kach, you better be watching for that van on your street!!!

My name has been on the "People to kill" list for a long time!  >:D

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 23, 2007, 06:19:11 PM
My name has been on the "People to kill" list for a long time!  >:D

^^ that's one reason he's on my staff when I take over CAP.   >:D

Is a Webmaster General equal to a Major General?

Quote from: BillB on April 23, 2007, 07:15:09 PM
Is a Webmaster General equal to a Major General?

Well, it's like this...a Webmaster General is kind of like an Inspector General, but not at all.  I have for many years (since I saw a lowly airman) been called "General," so people started calling me Webmaster General, or WebGen for short, and it all worked out nicely.  So I am better than a Major General for sure, since I am simply General (and that's 4-stars).

All this talk about ranks makes me wonder if there an AF publication that details the ranks of Officers and staff at various levels - Det/ Flt/ Sq thru Numbered AF.
Maybe the webmaster General SHOULD be a General  ;D

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on April 24, 2007, 04:53:59 PM
All this talk about ranks makes me wonder if there an AF publication that details the ranks of Officers and staff at various levels - Det/ Flt/ Sq thru Numbered AF.
Maybe the webmaster General SHOULD be a General  ;D

For someone who has to deal with EVERY department more than just about anybody but the command staff, they should AT LEAST get some cookies.  Dealing with every office/department/etc. is a LOAD of fun, let me tell you.  Especially when most of the staff aren't too sure about this new interweb concept...  I wish I could get them all on board, but it's hard to get a lot of them to understand just how helpful the internet is or will be to their office/department/wing as a whole.