Off-topic uniform rants

[LSThiker]

You wouldn't think it would be an issue. But who else here has taken a checkride from a CAP check pilot that was in an incomplete uniform?

Not to call out a minor thing, but if any one has an ear of the National Commander, can someone please tell him that his Kuwait Liberation Medal (Government of Kuwait) and the Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) are in the wrong spot. 

[PHall]

You wouldn't think it would be an issue. But who else here has taken a checkride from a CAP check pilot that was in an incomplete uniform?

Not to call out a minor thing, but if any one has an ear of the National Commander, can someone please tell him that his Kuwait Liberation Medal (Government of Kuwait) and the Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) are in the wrong spot.

Why not tell him yourself? Just send him an e-mail.

[THRAWN]

But they're not. They're foreign awards and go at the bottom of the stack. Check 39-3.

You wouldn't think it would be an issue. But who else here has taken a checkride from a CAP check pilot that was in an incomplete uniform?

Not to call out a minor thing, but if any one has an ear of the National Commander, can someone please tell him that his Kuwait Liberation Medal (Government of Kuwait) and the Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) are in the wrong spot.

[cnitas]

Derail incoming...
CAPM 39-1
11.2. Wear of Awards.
11.2.1. Precedence. The general order of precedence for wear of awards is 1) US Federal Awards,
2) CAP Awards, 3) JROTC/ROTC awards, and 4) Foreign Awards.

In the latest official photo I see online, it looks ok to me.  Both Lib of Kuwait - SA, and Kuwait being foreign awards, are at the bottom.

I hope you enjoyed your uniform fix...please carry on.

[LSThiker]

But they're not. They're foreign awards and go at the bottom of the stack. Check 39-3.

Duh, I always forget they are foreign awards.  Thanks.

[PHall]

But they're not. They're foreign awards and go at the bottom of the stack. Check 39-3.

Duh, I always forget they are foreign awards.  Thanks.

RTFM before you post...

[THRAWN]

But then whatever would we discuss?

But they're not. They're foreign awards and go at the bottom of the stack. Check 39-3.

Duh, I always forget they are foreign awards.  Thanks.

RTFM before you post...

[etodd]

But then whatever would we discuss?

Indeed. It only took two pages for this thread on pilots/planes/accidents ...  to get sidetracked to how a badge should be worn on a uniform.

I guess the number of airplane incidents would drop, if folks would just get their ribbons and badges placed correctly. 

[PHall]

But then whatever would we discuss?

Indeed. It only took two pages for this thread on pilots/planes/accidents ...  to get sidetracked to how a badge should be worn on a uniform.

I guess the number of airplane incidents would drop, if folks would just get their ribbons and badges placed correctly. 

It's called attention to detail and it applies to many things. Uniforms, chart reading, flying...

[TheSkyHornet]

But then whatever would we discuss?

Indeed. It only took two pages for this thread on pilots/planes/accidents ...  to get sidetracked to how a badge should be worn on a uniform.

I guess the number of airplane incidents would drop, if folks would just get their ribbons and badges placed correctly. 

It's called attention to detail and it applies to many things. Uniforms, chart reading, flying...

I concur here.

Safety is a reactive and proactive arena.

For example:
An aircraft preflight is proactive. You are performing a check to see if any hazards exist that are abnormal/irregular. Now that you have found a hazard, be reactive and address it---through proper protocols.

Here's a scenario:
A person wakes up at 0600. They grab a cup of coffee, shower, get dressed, head to work. They're out the door at 1700 to rush home, change, and head to their CAP meeting which starts at 1830. They're on a time constraint; it's getting dark. Their uniform is all jacked up; the cadets notice, but nobody says anything to the person. Patches out of place, one boot isn't laced up all the way; tomato paste on white bread looks better. But they're a good pilot. 500 hours, no incidents, IFR-rated. Time to start the pre-brief, the preflight, and get out before it gets too late. Weather looks perfect, aircraft looks good. It would probably help to remove that chalk before you try to push the plane out. It happens. Good start, good run-up. A no-issue flight. Taxiing back in....CLUNK. The wing tip just clipped the van; it was moved closer to the hangar to unload some gear from last weekend's training exercise. It isn't usually parked there.

Looking sloppy is a sign of rushing. When you rush, you start to make mistakes. No, a sloppy uniform is not causation to an aircraft accident. They're correlated in the sense of not paying attention. And blowing it off---"Meh, who cares? The regulation says uniforms. Jeans and a t-shirt are fine"---becomes complacency and carelessness.

If they're disregarded that simple reg, what else are they disregarding?

It's unprofessional. And unprofessional equals unsafe.

[LSThiker]

The off-topic uniform nonsense got moved to its own topic. 

Actually, it was a calculated move, which has demonstrated a point:  The knee jerk reactions by members of CAP.

We are all too quick to chastise others but fail to see the whole picture and differentiate honest mistakes from the level of severity of disregarding the rules. 

We can throw "attention to detail" and "professionalism" around all day but what does that really mean?  Where do we draw the line on this slippery slope? 

If a member cannot wear the uniform properly, does that really mean they cannot fly the aircraft correctly?  I think we are making some large generalizations while we can cite anecdotal evidence to support our claims.  But does not mean it is true?  Is it true for uniforms?  What about CAPF 2a?  Rank abbreviations?  Failing to hold to attention to detail, does this mean the pilot is disregarding other rules?

Or is there an acceptable balance that really needs to be struck?   

If they're disregarded that simple reg, what else are they disregarding?

Obviously a member that disregards the rules should be immediately grounded.  They are no longer being professional and are thus unsafe.  Like all the great military, CAP, civilian leaders that just disregarded that driving law today.  Where do we draw the line on this, though?  Do we not see the irony in this sentiment?  We named an award after an aviator that disregarded the rules to prove a point.  But we ignore that because he was right (which I agree were bad rules designed to make him fail). 

Is it not possible that yes that pilot is a darn great pilot even if his boots are not properly laced?

Or have we gotten to the point we are scared of our own shadow?

I agree with Gen Smith and hope a change for the better can be made.
 

[etodd]

Everyone's points above are all good and correct.

I just like to simplify things.

By wearing the bare minimum Polo outfit ... I have eliminated maybe 50 things on the checklist to worry about.

And THAT means I can concentrate on the aircraft checklist and not be sitting there worrying whether that patch on my shoulder is slightly off center and maybe I should get a better shine on my shoes.

Decreased work load equals better proficiency and safety.

CAP MANUAL 39-1 is 130 pages long of rules and regs that have nothing to do with SAR or Aerospace Education!  We should drop that down to a trifold pamphlet.

[Eclipse]

You're missing the points made about joining the organization and not just the
one department you like.

In any number of threads you've made proud points about owning the MBU but never wearing it
like that's some how a good thing.

CAP doesn't need "pilots", it needs "members".  Members who fully participate and who don't fall back on
"well no one at my unit has ever said anything", etc.

[Mitchell 1969]

Edit: deleted because of a quoting error - my follow-up fell out of context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheSkyHornet]

You're missing the points made about joining the organization and not just the
one department you like.

In any number of threads you've made proud points about owning the MBU but never wearing it
like that's some how a good thing.

CAP doesn't need "pilots", it needs "members".  Members who fully participate and who don't fall back on
"well no one at my unit has ever said anything", etc.

This.

A member is not just someone who paid their dues and does whatever they feel like. It's someone who assimilates and conforms to the standards set.

If they're disregarded that simple reg, what else are they disregarding?

Obviously a member that disregards the rules should be immediately grounded.  They are no longer being professional and are thus unsafe.  Like all the great military, CAP, civilian leaders that just disregarded that driving law today.  Where do we draw the line on this, though?  Do we not see the irony in this sentiment?  We named an award after an aviator that disregarded the rules to prove a point.  But we ignore that because he was right (which I agree were bad rules designed to make him fail). 

Is it not possible that yes that pilot is a darn great pilot even if his boots are not properly laced?

Or have we gotten to the point we are scared of our own shadow?

I agree with Gen Smith and hope a change for the better can be made.

That's an oversimplification of what I said.

Someone who flat out doesn't care about their appearance (i.e., doesn't know the difference; doesn't give a hoot) shouldn't be behind the controls of a CAP aircraft---I'm speaking philosophically here. It's one thing to cut corners because there's an emergency and we really don't care what the reg says right now; we have to handle the crisis. It's another to not care what the reg says under normal operating conditions.

Starting the engine, conducting the flight, and landing back on the ground is not the only aspect of flight operations here. The uniform, whether an FDU, ABU, or polo, is not there to necessarily save your life and make your flight easier. It's to provide a disciplined bearing and appearance of professional in the overall CAP operation. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have uniforms; we'd show up in shorts and t-shirts like I do when I fly GA on my own time. But I'm not on my own time when I'm at a CAP event. It's a job, one that has standards attached to it. I don't have the option to disregard them just because they're inconvenient or I'm too clueless to learn them.

[etodd]

A member is not just someone who paid their dues and does whatever they feel like. It's someone who assimilates and conforms to the standards set.

Me? I've always conformed to everything asked of me. Am involved not just with ES but with the Cadets as well. Going Saturday to help "another" squadron fly 42 Cadets.

[EMT-83]

Whoa, wait - a uniform thread drifting into safety? Say it isn't so.

[arajca]

Whoa, wait - a uniform thread drifting into safety? Say it isn't so.

It's so. To paraphrase Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 76 - Every now and then change a uniform thread into something else. It confuses the heck out of the people.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Its so.

Since other topics morph into other stuff, uniform topics cannot morph into uniform topics. So they morph into something else.

By the way-morphed to tywo different topics.

First Safety, then Cadet Programs.

[chuckmilam]

Fear not, as with all threads, it will (re)turn into a uniform debate in time. 

[ColonelJack]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again (and probably more times in the future), and I am not addressing any one individual:

I cannot understand why people join an organization like CAP - which wears uniforms and has a military-style grade structure - and then do every single thing that they can do to avoid wearing uniforms and possessing military-style grade.

If you really want to just get by with not even wearing the minimum uniform called for in our regulations - the regulations you agreed to when you joined - then why did you join in the first place?

Bob's right.  CAP needs members who are in for the whole program.

If all you want to do is fly SAR and/or traipse through woods on ES missions, aren't there far more suitable organizations to be a part of?  Ones that don't require (again with those pesky regs that you agreed to abide by when you signed up) you to feel as if you're playing military?

Good grief.

Jack

[Luis R. Ramos]

Saying that otherwise:

People move to live near airports, then complain about the noise. If you do not like airplane noise, why move near an airport?

[Fubar]

I cannot understand why people join an organization like CAP - which wears uniforms and has a military-style grade structure - and then do every single thing that they can do to avoid wearing uniforms and possessing military-style grade.

We're desperate for members. New folks wander in, hear about all the great opportunities CAP has to offer and then notice a couple of cadets marching around in some sort of military-style uniform. The prospective member raises an eyebrow and asks if everyone has to do that. The answer is, "Don't worry about it, all you need is a polo shirt and you'll just have to worry about flying and helping out in some sort of staff job that helps keep the unit running."

Most people I know that have joined CAP had some variation of that conversation (or joined a senior-only squadron which is essentially a flying club). That's why people join an organization like CAP without being interested in uniforms and military stuff. I don't think people like me are join and then immediately start scheming how to avoid the aspects of CAP we aren't interested in, we're told up front not to worry about it.

Once you're in and you start to run into people who joined specifically for uniforms and behaving as if they're in the military, it's easy to see where conflict arises. As long as there is a CAP polo shirt uniform, you'll have members who aren't interested in the military dress up.

As for the grade structure, since it doesn't actually mean anything (especially when someone can walk in from the military and be granted advanced grade with no CAP knowledge), people who aren't military aficionados are going to have a hard time caring about it since it doesn't directly affect their mission success (flying missions, serving as the squadron DO, preparing safety briefings, etc). If you want me to care about the grade structure, have it mean something.

If you really want to just get by with not even wearing the minimum uniform called for in our regulations - the regulations you agreed to when you joined - then why did you join in the first place?

I certainly wouldn't advocate not wearing a uniform at all, even though they're only required during specific circumstances (flying for one). If I was required to wear something more than a polo shirt, I'd probably consider it, depending on what's involved, cost, and so forth.

Bob's right.  CAP needs members who are in for the whole program.

I feel as though I am in for the whole program. I work part-time like hours on CAP and for the most part, it's fun or I wouldn't do it. I certainly adhere to everything this program requires me to do. I don't understand why there are people out there who don't think that's enough.

[kwe1009]

If you really want to just get by with not even wearing the minimum uniform called for in our regulations - the regulations you agreed to when you joined - then why did you join in the first place?

I certainly wouldn't advocate not wearing a uniform at all, even though they're only required during specific circumstances (flying for one). If I was required to wear something more than a polo shirt, I'd probably consider it, depending on what's involved, cost, and so forth.

The minimum required uniform for Senior Members is the gray/whites or USAF-style blues per CAPM 39-1 so you are required to have something more than the polo shirt.  The polo combination is a utility uniform and is optional.

[etodd]

The minimum required uniform for Senior Members is the gray/whites or USAF-style blues per CAPM 39-1 so you are required to have something more than the polo shirt.

Yep.  I own it as required.

The polo combination is a utility uniform and is optional.

Has been listed as one of the UOD at every event I've ever attended, including tomorrow's event where I'll fly 8 sorties.

All is good.  All is by the book.

Some folks' problem isn't with me, and those like me .... its with the Regs. If there are certain uniforms you just can't stand, then take it up the chain and get the Regs changed. Until such time as that occurs ... you're fussing at the wrong people.  Look up higher in the chain.

[PHall]

The minimum required uniform for Senior Members is the gray/whites or USAF-style blues per CAPM 39-1 so you are required to have something more than the polo shirt.

Yep.  I own it as required.

The polo combination is a utility uniform and is optional.

Has been listed as one of the UOD at every event I've ever attended, including tomorrow's event where I'll fly 8 sorties.

All is good.  All is by the book.

Some folks' problem isn't with me, and those like me .... its with the Regs. If there are certain uniforms you just can't stand, then take it up the chain and get the Regs changed. Until such time as that occurs ... you're fussing at the wrong people.  Look up higher in the chain.

Well, when you signed that membership application you agreed to follow all the regulations, not just the ones you like.

[etodd]

Well, when you signed that membership application you agreed to follow all the regulations, not just the ones you like.

Did you not see where I said "all is by the book"?  I think you would be hard pressed to find me in violation of anything.
Go ahead ... try one.

[SarDragon]

OK, I think we've worn this one out. I moved it in the first place because there was some residual benefit with regard to attention to detail. Since that even got off track ...
Click!