Just a question for the masses..
If the AF was to (hypothetically) eliminate the USAF uniform for all senior members (not cadets) and restricted them to only corporate style uniforms, do you think membership retention would hurt?
This came up in a discussion about seniors and "using" the USAF uniform for self-ego and the like, so I wanted to pass the debate on here.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/RHiD0K65NxxLO/giphy.gif)
Wouldn't bother me
Sorry Jeff, I think it's a legitimate discussion point.
Search is your friend Goblin. This has been "discussed", sometimes with great vigor, a number of times already.
Sorry I'm a "n00b" here. I've seen 10000 posts about ABUs, figured it was worth the reattack
Perhaps this metaphor would be more to your liking:
(http://www.sweeneypr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/beating_a_dead_horse_by_potatoehuman-d3fead41-500x375.jpg)
Quote from: Goblin on May 25, 2015, 06:11:26 PM
Sorry I'm a "n00b" here. I've seen 10000 posts about ABUs, figured it was worth the reattack
If you're a "nOOb", then how could you have seen 10,000 posts??? Not buying it, try again.
Man you guys are harsh. Sorry for intruding on the party.
In my minor and not very long attempt at searching before posting, I came across the ABU topic several times, but I didn't come across the topic I was looking for.
Didn't realize everyone would be so negative about the question. I know my place now.
I agree with Goblin. We are all on the same team here.
This is something that has been discussed multiple times and at great lengths.
A more thourough search would yeld what the op has asked.
The op has displayed trollish behaivor with the topic whether intential or not hence the reception he/she has received.
Trollish behavior by asking a question? Come on
Anyone want to provide me with a link to said discussion?
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 12:57:12 AM
Trollish behavior by asking a question? Come on
Asking a question and failing to adequately search is trollish.
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 12:57:12 AM
Trollish behavior by asking a question? Come on
Yep, because that's how most Trolls operate. Ask a "hot" question that they know it will stir things up.
It's a legitimate question. Forget it.
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:06:50 AM
It's a legitimate question. Forget it.
That has been asked, answered, heatedly discussed and beaten to death.
What would you reccomend I search for?
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:09:35 AM
What would you reccomend I search for?
Nothing let this sleeping dog be.
Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:14:39 AM
Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.
Okay...I'll answer your question. Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.
That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.
Thank you.
The reason I ask is we were having the conversation at one of our meetings about standardizing senior uniforms for meetings, and how that would affect retention.
Us Active Duty folks didn't care, but some people were genuinely upset. Which is why I wanted to ask the question.
By standardize, I mean the corporate uniform. We went down the road of "what ifs".
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 01:26:15 AM
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:14:39 AM
Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.
Okay...I'll answer your question. Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.
That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.
Yes they much prefer enforcing the two classes of senior membership, that way they don't need to make hard decisions
Quote from: Alaric on May 26, 2015, 01:33:25 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 01:26:15 AM
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:14:39 AM
Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.
Okay...I'll answer your question. Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.
That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.
Yes they much prefer enforcing the two classes of senior membership, that way they don't need to make hard decisions
And that is why we don't want to restart this conversation.
:(
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 01:26:15 AM
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:14:39 AM
Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.
Okay...I'll answer your question. Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.
That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.
The question is why? Ignoring those trying to start stuff, what is the reason there would be a drop off in membership? Are there that many people in the program just for the fancy blue suit?
Pot anyone on how long this thread lasts?
Just have a mod delete it then. I didn't realize it would be such a big deal or that I would get so many snarky remarks. I assumed I'd be able to have a reasonable discussion. I guess I need to brush up on my anonymous CAP forum standards before posting again.
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:59:47 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 01:26:15 AM
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:14:39 AM
Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.
Okay...I'll answer your question. Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.
That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.
The question is why? Ignoring those trying to start stuff, what is the reason there would be a drop off in membership? Are there that many people in the program just for the fancy blue suit?
It isn't just the fancy blue suit. Look at it this way: For as long as I can remember watching CAP as both an internal member (cadet and SM) and externally (My timeframe between cadet and SM was about 10 years), I've watched the things that CAP does that make its relationship to the USAF clear and obvious become less clear and less obvious. As a SM, for reasons not germane to the point I've yet to actually wear said fancy blue suit, and it would still bother me if the option was taken away.
But as a cadet in a composite squadron, it reinforced for me the reasons why I wanted to wear my uniform and wear it correctly because the SMs in my unit led by example on that front.
---------------------------------------------------------
But you can ignore all the above and distill my take on it down the the following 2 sentences:
If NHQ decides to keep taking away things from us that encourage unit esprit, I can donate my time and money to some other youth organization.
If NHQ decides to keep giving us things that encourage unit esprit, I will continue to donate my time and money to this organization.
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty simple formula.
Click the Search tab. Click "Advanced Search". Click "Choose a board to search in, or search all". Uncheck "Check all", and then check "Uniforms & Awards" and "Cadet Programs Management & Activities".
Search for "corporate". You'll get many results, covering multiple threads. Explore these threads, and you'll see the discussions.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 26, 2015, 02:33:45 AM
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:59:47 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 01:26:15 AM
Quote from: Goblin on May 26, 2015, 01:14:39 AM
Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.
Okay...I'll answer your question. Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.
That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.
The question is why? Ignoring those trying to start stuff, what is the reason there would be a drop off in membership? Are there that many people in the program just for the fancy blue suit?
It isn't just the fancy blue suit. Look at it this way: For as long as I can remember watching CAP as both an internal member (cadet and SM) and externally (My timeframe between cadet and SM was about 10 years), I've watched the things that CAP does that make its relationship to the USAF clear and obvious become less clear and less obvious. As a SM, for reasons not germane to the point I've yet to actually wear said fancy blue suit, and it would still bother me if the option was taken away.
But as a cadet in a composite squadron, it reinforced for me the reasons why I wanted to wear my uniform and wear it correctly because the SMs in my unit led by example on that front.
---------------------------------------------------------
But you can ignore all the above and distill my take on it down the the following 2 sentences:
If NHQ decides to keep taking away things from us that encourage unit esprit, I can donate my time and money to some other youth organization.
If NHQ decides to keep giving us things that encourage unit esprit, I will continue to donate my time and money to this organization.
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty simple formula.
If the AF Uniform is needed for esprit de corps, then what does that say of the fat and fuzzies? I have never worn the AF uniform, and have never seen it diminish the spirit of our unit. But I'm more a steak than sizzle guy, I care more about the mission than the uniforms, and in my opinion, you can do 90% of CAP in a polo shirt and slacks, the only exception is SAR in the field
I think some senior members would leave CAP if the AF-style uniform was eliminated, but I don't think it would be as bad as some may think. Those who are in CAP because of the organization and mission will stay. And it's possible that losing the AF-style uniform could force the issue of coming up with a better corporate uniform alternative. I honestly don't think it would hurt the organization that much.
While I'm proud to wear the AF-style uniform, losing this uniform would not affect my membership in CAP. I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 26, 2015, 05:36:58 AM
I think some senior members would leave CAP if the AF-style uniform was eliminated, but I don't think it would be as bad as some may think. Those who are in CAP because of the organization and mission will stay. And it's possible that losing the AF-style uniform could force the issue of coming up with a better corporate uniform alternative. I honestly don't think it would hurt the organization that much.
While I'm proud to wear the AF-style uniform, losing this uniform would not affect my membership in CAP. I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.
Yep...now put yourself in NHQ's shoes........we know for a fact that membership will be affected if we go to all corporate.....but who can put an number to that? And so we got keep the status quo or make a change .....one does not affect membership the other does. But it is a question mark to how badly it is going to affect membership and it is a question mark about what benefit it will bring to CAP.
So they choose to make no change....and get disrespected for making that decision.
If they make another decision and it goes south on them.....then what?
That is one of the problems with CAPTalk.....is that most of us are all talk an no one is in a position to make any change. And when change does happen we give them nothing but grief. When NHQ does as for feed back and input from the field.....for every good input they ask for they get nine that are completely off topic, or completely unworkable......I know one of the people who are vetting the STRATEGIC PLAN responses......and the vary from real strategic concepts to "why did they take the flag off the BDUs".
So....as had been said to the OP.....here on CT we have hashed this topic out before......ad nausium. NHQ is not going to go down that route because too many members want to be in USAF style uniforms and may quite if they take them away.
Right, Wrong, or Indifferent....those are the facts of the situation.
Quote from: Alaric on May 26, 2015, 03:04:25 AM
If the AF Uniform is needed for esprit de corps
I'll stop you right there. I didn't say it was needed. I said it encouraged it.
Let's look at CAPM 39-1, page 5.
Quote
1.1. Basic Philosophy and Enforceability.
1.1.1 Philosophy.
1.1.1.1. CAP's philosophy is to provide a distinctive and standard set of uniform items that
provide a positive public image of the Corporation, build esprit de corps, and enhance professionalism.
1.1.1.2. A significant representation of CAP's organizational heritage, as well as CAP's
unique affiliation as the Auxiliary of the US Air Force (USAF), is the authorization for CAP members to
wear CAP distinctive uniforms as well as uniforms similar to the US Air Force. CAP uses distinctive
emblems, insignia, and badges to identify individuals wearing the USAF-style uniforms as CAP
members.
1.1.1.2.1. CAP's USAF-style uniform policies will adhere to USAF standards
found in the appropriate USAF instructions. Differences from USAF standards will be only those
differences required to meet unique CAP requirements and allowed by USAF-approved exceptions. CAP
honors our special relationship with the USAF through closely adhering to the policies set for the USAF's
uniform.
1.1.1.2.2. CAP's Corporate-style uniforms facilitate a professional image for
members who choose not to or cannot wear the USAF-style uniform. These uniforms are meant to
complement, but not replace, the USAF-style uniform. They facilitate member uniformity while neither
imposing nor authorizing a military uniform substitute for the USAF-style uniform. Corporate-style
uniforms are simpler in design and cost is minimized by making most badges and devices optional for
wear.
1.1.1.3. Pride in one's personal appearance and in wearing the uniform greatly enhances the
esprit de corps essential to an effective organization. A very important part of the image a CAP member
projects and the impression they create is how he/she wears their uniform. As with other personal
appearance standards, the CAP uniform emphasizes a neat, clean, professional image. Members have a
responsibility to keep their uniform clean, pressed, and in good repair. In addition, members are
responsible for knowing the authorized uniform combinations and the correct placement of ribbons,
insignia, badges and other uniform items.
1.1.1.4. Therefore, it is critical for members to maintain a high standard of dress and
personal appearance. The five elements of this standard are neatness, cleanliness, safety, uniformity, and
good organizational image. The first four are absolute, objective criteria needed for the efficiency and
well-being of the CAP. The fifth criterion, good organizational image, is subjective but necessary.
Appearance in uniform is an important part of CAP's corporate image. Judgment on what is the proper
image may differ. The American public and its elected representatives draw certain conclusions on
military effectiveness based on the image CAP members present. The image must instill public
confidence and leave no doubt that CAP members adhere to our Core Values and are effective and
professional in executing our missions. The image of a professional and committed CAP member is
incompatible with the extreme, the unusual, and the fad.
So if we get rid of 1.1.1.2, CAP is basically telling me they are removing not only one of our tools to encourage esprit, but that they are further distancing us from the USAF and our heritage.
If that is being done, there had best be something equal or greater in value that we are gaining to encourage esprit and represent our heritage.
Part of the reason many people join is because of our relationship to the USAF, and it is their way of giving something back to their country. IF they took away the AF uniform from SM's, a lot of people would see it as another step in the USAF distancing themselves from us; no matter where the decision actually came from, USAF or NHQ. Then the question for them becomes: "Do I want to be part of, and provide support for an auxiliary whose "parent" doesn't even support or want it?" I'm not saying it's right, but a person's perception is their reality, and that must be considered when discussing a change so drastic. YMMV
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 26, 2015, 11:54:52 AM
Part of the reason many people join is because of our relationship to the USAF, and it is their way of giving something back to their country. IF they took away the AF uniform from SM's, a lot of people would see it as another step in the USAF distancing themselves from us; no matter where the decision actually came from, USAF or NHQ. Then the question for them becomes: "Do I want to be part of, and provide support for an auxiliary whose "parent" doesn't even support or want it?" I'm not saying it's right, but a person's perception is their reality, and that must be considered when discussing a change so drastic. YMMV
Couple things:
1) There would be an effect on retention (ie. some people who go "Corporate uniforms? I'm out!") and recruiting ("So let me get this straight, this is the Air Force's Auxiliary and you wear a pair of grey slacks? How does that even work?").
Then again, there may be the whole "Thank god I don't have to wear the stupid blue suit anymore" and "Hey, I could care less about uniforms, so this polo shirt and a pair of slacks is awesome.." from people, so who knows.
Can we quantify this effect? At the moment, no.
2) At the very least, when working with cadets in the Cadet Program, we already lack sufficient folks in units, especially in leadership roles, who are knowledgeable in USAF and/or military uniform wear. Reducing this further would,
in my personal opinion, have a long-term deleterious effect on the wear of the Air Force-style uniform by cadets.
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 26, 2015, 11:54:52 AM
Part of the reason many people join is because of our relationship to the USAF, and it is their way of giving something back to their country. IF they took away the AF uniform from SM's, a lot of people would see it as another step in the USAF distancing themselves from us; no matter where the decision actually came from, USAF or NHQ. Then the question for them becomes: "Do I want to be part of, and provide support for an auxiliary whose "parent" doesn't even support or want it?" I'm not saying it's right, but a person's perception is their reality, and that must be considered when discussing a change so drastic. YMMV
It would be interesting if our leadership really thought this was a big problem, and decided to poll the membership on the issue. Until we really know what "we" want, the "discussion" will drone on for quite a while...
Quote from: NIN on May 26, 2015, 03:01:21 PMCan we quantify this effect? At the moment, no.
Heck, we can't even quantify the "problem."
And until we can actually establish some sort of problem beyond members' personal opinions about what looks "better," or "more professional," or what is more respectful for our diverse membership, we will forever just have two groups of folks who sincerely and passionately believe that the other group's uniform preferences are incorrect.
(Plus the majority of the members who just focus getting the missions done.)
Quote from: Ned on May 26, 2015, 04:40:46 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 26, 2015, 03:01:21 PMCan we quantify this effect? At the moment, no.
Heck, we can't even quantify the "problem."
And until we can actually establish some sort of problem beyond members' personal opinions about what looks "better," or "more professional," or what is more respectful for our diverse membership, we will forever just have two groups of folks who sincerely and passionately believe that the other group's uniform preferences are incorrect.
(Plus the majority of the members who just focus getting the missions done.)
I absolutely agree with Ned, and until NHQ decides to actually ask the people in the organization we will never be able to quantify if there is a problem, and what impact "solving" the problem may have.
I'm not 100% sure it would have an effect on us at all. Surely, we can perform our ES missions in BBDUs and corporates. On the cadet side, it would be beneficial to have seniors INVOLVED IN THE CADET PROGRAM who can wear the AF uniform in support of that mission. AE doesn't require much in the way of uniforms for anyone. I don't think I would forsake 20+ years of CAP because they told me I couldn't wear BDUs anymore. I already don't wear blues anymore (thanks to all who bought mine when I "quit" last year, BTW), so not having another uniform wouldn't hurt me too much. Today, I went and chased an ELT for 3 hours at our local airport in BDUs, and the other people I was with wore the polo/slacks combo. We got the mission done, the ELT shut off and who gave much of a *%#$& what we were wearing at the time? Our group commander showed up briefly in civvies to lend a hand, as well.
I don't think it will much impact our missions, but it might torque some folks off. And if that is the only reason they're in, then really, is it a great loss?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 05:49:34 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 26, 2015, 05:36:58 AM
I think some senior members would leave CAP if the AF-style uniform was eliminated, but I don't think it would be as bad as some may think. Those who are in CAP because of the organization and mission will stay. And it's possible that losing the AF-style uniform could force the issue of coming up with a better corporate uniform alternative. I honestly don't think it would hurt the organization that much.
While I'm proud to wear the AF-style uniform, losing this uniform would not affect my membership in CAP. I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.
Yep...now put yourself in NHQ's shoes........we know for a fact that membership will be affected if we go to all corporate.....but who can put an number to that?
I don't know that for a fact. No one really can without some sort of survey or research on the matter.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 05:49:34 AM
And so we got keep the status quo or make a change .....one does not affect membership the other does.
Again we don't know for a fact one way or the other. The status quo is not always a good thing. That's why we're always changing. We're not the same organization we were 20 or even 10 years ago.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 05:49:34 AM
But it is a question mark to how badly it is going to affect membership and it is a question mark about what benefit it will bring to CAP.
I can't disagree.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 05:49:34 AM
So they choose to make no change....and get disrespected for making that decision.
Please tell me how my comments were disrespectful in any way. I have the upmost respect for the National leadership, volunteers and employees alike. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with every decision. You certainly don't.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 05:49:34 AM
If they make another decision and it goes south on them.....then what?
We learn and move on. That said, the membership should probably be consulted for such a drastic change.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 05:49:34 AM
That is one of the problems with CAPTalk.....is that most of us are all talk an no one is in a position to make any change. And when change does happen we give them nothing but grief. When NHQ does as for feed back and input from the field.....for every good input they ask for they get nine that are completely off topic, or completely unworkable......I know one of the people who are vetting the STRATEGIC PLAN responses......and the vary from real strategic concepts to "why did they take the flag off the BDUs".
So because feedback is not always perfect, it's better not to offer any at all? Interesting. Especially when you've been working so hard in developing and promoting a program that the vast majority of CAP members either don't see a need for or simply don't want.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 05:49:34 AM
So....as had been said to the OP.....here on CT we have hashed this topic out before......ad nausium. NHQ is not going to go down that route because too many members want to be in USAF style uniforms and may quite if they take them away.
Right, Wrong, or Indifferent....those are the facts of the situation.
Maybe so... for now. But the fact is no one knows what the future holds for us.
Someone pulls a wild idea out of his butt and posts it here, and you folks actually waste the time to debate it?
Quote from: EMT-83 on May 27, 2015, 12:02:09 AM
Someone pulls a wild idea out of his butt and posts it here, and you folks actually waste the time to debate it?
CAPTalk, debating wild ideas pulled from people's butts since 2005. >:D
EMT, chill out. There was some actual discussion going on here before your unnecessary comment.
While I agree that CAP needs to find a way to strengthen its relationship with Big Blue, I don't necessarily think that only uniforms can do that. Stealing from the CAC discussion (see? I can search), civilians are a HUGE part of the total force, feel like (and are) part of the team, yet don't wear or need uniforms.
I also believe (personal opinion) that the lack of standardization and yes, sometimes sloppiness of seniors in uniform may hurt the relationship more than help it.
When I try to bring folks from my "Real AF" squadron to a CAP meeting, they are definitely impressed by the cadet program. However, seeing senior members wearing the same uniform, same rank, and (sometimes!) sloppy uniforms is often a turn off.
The conversation stemmed from this: the debate of whether our squadron would benefit from a standardized senior uniform for meetings (polo) to possibly retain more active duty folks that would want to participate. This would be for the senior side... The DCC would wear the cadet UOD and set the standard for proper wear.
If you really think that's a wild idea, then you need to re-cage your attitude. Thanks to those who offered their opinions.
Quote from: Goblin on May 27, 2015, 03:06:34 AM
When I try to bring folks from my "Real AF" squadron to a CAP meeting, they are definitely impressed by the cadet program. However, seeing senior members wearing the same uniform, same rank, and (sometimes!) sloppy uniforms is often a turn off.
Then encourage the senior members that are wearing the uniforms in a sloppy manner to not do so (wear it sloppy that is. If they refuse then get them out of the uniform.) And get them those senior members in uniform actively engaged with the cadets.
If you have a senior member in the AF uniform poorly representing the uniform, the solution isn't to get rid of the uniform for everyone. The solution is to get that member into shape, or get that member out of the uniform.
Though now that I think about it, I think nearly all of our AF uniformed SMs are prior military. I suppose that is why they are so uniformly sharp.
Goblin is your CC going to pay for that combo for everyone?
Plus if your issue is the uniform being worn sloppy take action and fix it.
If I tell SM whoever that his uniform is out of regulations and that he cannot wear it until it's fixed, and he doesn't fix it, what recourse does one have? We don't want people kicked out or quitting either. I realize tact is key, but with volunteers it can be touchy sometimes.
Most were on board with the idea. Also, most that shell out cash for blues and mess dress don't have an issue buying a polo.
I don't have any problems telling a CAP pilot to roll down his flight suit sleeves and take the mach tuck out of his flight cap, but telling the 80 year old 1LT that he looks like he just rolled outta bed in his blues is an entirely different situation.
And also, working with cadets, it's not my lane.
Quote from: Goblin on May 27, 2015, 03:34:39 AM
If I tell SM whoever that his uniform is out of regulations and that he cannot wear it until it's fixed, and he doesn't fix it, what recourse does one have? We don't want people kicked out or quitting either. I realize tact is key, but with volunteers it can be touchy sometimes.
Most were on board with the idea. Also, most that shell out cash for blues and mess dress don't have an issue buying a polo.
I don't have any problems telling a CAP pilot to roll down his flight suit sleeves and take the mach tuck out of his flight cap, but telling the 80 year old 1LT that he looks like he just rolled outta bed in his blues is an entirely different situation.
And also, working with cadets, it's not my lane.
Wrong wrong wrong. Enforcement if the standard is everyone's lane and it says so in 39-1. Plus if you are going to mae a uniform the standard outside of the minimum required in 39-1 it is upto the unit to fund it not the member.
I hope you have a different attitude and approach in your real AF Sq than you do your CAP Sq.
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 27, 2015, 03:40:09 AM
Quote from: Goblin on May 27, 2015, 03:34:39 AM
If I tell SM whoever that his uniform is out of regulations and that he cannot wear it until it's fixed, and he doesn't fix it, what recourse does one have? We don't want people kicked out or quitting either. I realize tact is key, but with volunteers it can be touchy sometimes.
Most were on board with the idea. Also, most that shell out cash for blues and mess dress don't have an issue buying a polo.
I don't have any problems telling a CAP pilot to roll down his flight suit sleeves and take the mach tuck out of his flight cap, but telling the 80 year old 1LT that he looks like he just rolled outta bed in his blues is an entirely different situation.
And also, working with cadets, it's not my lane.
Wrong wrong wrong. Enforcement if the standard is everyone's lane and it says so in 39-1. Plus if you are going to make a uniform the standard outside of the minimum required in 39-1 it is upto the unit to fund it not the member.
I hope you have a different attitude and approach in your real AF Sq than you do your CAP Sq.
This was posted while I was typing out a much longer winded version of this post.
I've been a senior member now, in three different squadrons (including as a deputy commander for cadets) where all of the senior members chose, of their own volition, to only wear corporate uniform. And so far, from my point of view, it has been a positive experience.
The USAF and/or NHQ doesn't have to "take it away from us".
In my opinion, it's a good idea, and this is a debate that can be won at the grassroots by convincing members, and units, one at a time, that it's a good, and maybe better, idea.
Just stop wearing the usaf style uniform, as a matter of culture, and eventually people start asking the question "why do we even still refer to it in our manuals?" It's not required. --in some ways, it would probably lead to an INCREASE in professionalism or at least professional image, for the organization--
--Now, a corporate service dress equivalent that looks good (in conjunction with the currently existing 'class B' --put a professional looking coat and tie over the aviator combo and allow doodads on it...) would be a great idea (again). But that's a DIFFERENT thread that's already been beaten to death :)
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2015, 01:47:13 AM
Quote from: Alaric on May 26, 2015, 01:33:25 AM
Yes they much prefer enforcing the two classes of senior membership, that way they don't need to make hard decisions
And that is why we don't want to restart this conversation.
:(
Wait, i'm confused...
What's wrong with national headquarters enforcing two classes of senior membership???
I think I like this topic. I think they should do away with Air Force uniforms. I have been in CAP most of my life, from WIWAC, except for that stint in the Army flying helicopters. My Dad was in the Air Force, WWII and Korea and retired in 1965. One of my sons went to the Air Force Academy, Class of 1991. I love the Air Force. With that said, I can no longer wear the Air Force uniform due to being a fatty. And guess what, it's not all about exercise and calories. I do feel left out at Conferences, etc. Our connection with the Air Force, as the Auxillary has changes so much over the past 50 years. We never get orientation flights with them. No refueling flights, no flights to Wright-Patt, no encampment on Air Force bases. We can't get on Air Force bases to buy uniform items without a song and dance. We can't use the Consolidated Club like we used to be able to. I truly feel we should change the name to Civilian Air Patrol and leave the Air force out of it. They could still support us and we could still do their Search and Rescue. I imagine they spend more on their NASCAR team each year than they do on us anyhow. I feel the uniform issue tears us apart and discourages possible members with disabilities or fat and fuzzies at least. Let's design a nice Corporate uniform and all get on the same team. I mean the word uniform actually has a definition and it sure isn't having 8 different items of wear on any given day. JMHO, as usual.
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 12:56:31 PM
I think I like this topic. I think they should do away with Air Force uniforms. I have been in CAP most of my life, from WIWAC, except for that stint in the Army flying helicopters. My Dad was in the Air Force, WWII and Korea and retired in 1965. One of my sons went to the Air Force Academy, Class of 1991. I love the Air Force. With that said, I can no longer wear the Air Force uniform due to being a fatty. And guess what, it's not all about exercise and calories. I do feel left out at Conferences, etc. Our connection with the Air Force, as the Auxillary has changes so much over the past 50 years. We never get orientation flights with them. No refueling flights, no flights to Wright-Patt, no encampment on Air Force bases. We can't get on Air Force bases to buy uniform items without a song and dance. We can't use the Consolidated Club like we used to be able to. I truly feel we should change the name to Civilian Air Patrol and leave the Air force out of it. They could still support us and we could still do their Search and Rescue. I imagine they spend more on their NASCAR team each year than they do on us anyhow. I feel the uniform issue tears us apart and discourages possible members with disabilities or fat and fuzzies at least. Let's design a nice Corporate uniform and all get on the same team. I mean the word uniform actually has a definition and it sure isn't having 8 different items of wear on any given day. JMHO, as usual.
Finally! Someone who actually makes sense.
According to the "regulars" on here, you sir are a troll!
With that being said, I tend to agree with that. A sharp looking common uniform, military in style but unique to CAP.
I don't think all ties should be cut, and I don't think we need a rename/rebrand, but a common uniform is a start (cadets exempt)
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 12:56:31 PM
.With that said, I can no longer wear the Air Force uniform due to being a fatty. And guess what, it's not all about exercise and calories. I do feel left out at Conferences, etc. Our connection with the Air Force, as the Auxillary has changes so much over the past 50 years. We never get orientation flights with them. No refueling flights, no flights to Wright-Patt, no encampment on Air Force bases.
These options still exist, you just have to work hard for them. I've personally flown CAP members in our jet on multiple occasions, and even more in the sim. It's more about networking now than a handout but the opportunities are still there.
If that is the case, it is the rarity, not the norm. As a cadet, I encamped at Chanute Air Force Base. Our Cadets have not been on an Air Force base for many years. We have Warner-Robbins, near us and it is a large active base, but no support from them to speak of.
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 02:04:06 PM
If that is the case, it is the rarity, not the norm. As a cadet, I encamped at Chanute Air Force Base. Our Cadets have not been on an Air Force base for many years. We have Warner-Robbins, near us and it is a large active base, but no support from them to speak of.
First, has anyone tried to get them on to an Air Force base for anything? Museum tours, o-flight, simulator tours are all available if you talk to the right people. Like Goblin said, it's about networking.
As for encampments not being on AF bases anymore, your first statement answers most of that, there are far fewer AF facilities available today than there were 20 years ago. And where there is an AF base, the facilities on base are utilized at a much higher rate due to the Air Force's push to reduce resource consumption and unused buildings. So when you combine all of that, at least here in Texas, the only Air Force base capable of handling 400 to 500 cadets and seniors for an encampment is Lackland AFB. Unfortunately, they're kinda full training the entire Air Force enlisted force. So instead, we use National Guard training facilities which usually have a much lower utilization rate but are large enough to handle the numbers.
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 02:04:06 PM
If that is the case, it is the rarity, not the norm. As a cadet, I encamped at Chanute Air Force Base. Our Cadets have not been on an Air Force base for many years. We have Warner-Robbins, near us and it is a large active base, but no support from them to speak of.
Have you reached out and tried? Have you approached the folks there in a timely manner to set things up? A lot of things that use to happen on a frequent basis do not happen much anymore due to the higher ops tempo and doing more with less manpower, less resources, and less funds. So anything outside of mission related necessity isn't going to happen as it use to.
I can tell you I have gotten cadets into flight sims with very little effort, arranged a working dog demo, and have had presentations accomplished simply by asking and coordinating in advance. I even coordinated the sim time for a unit that was passing through going to an event as well.
While many may consider getting onto base a headache, again it comes down to talking to the right people. Sorry but with how world events have been people on the whole are not going to get the instant or desired access on a whim. And simply because we are the AF Auxiliary does not mean we are entitled to base access or use of their facilities.
Exactly Gentlemen, the Air Force can no longer accomodate our needs, so why do we need to run around in blue shirts pertending like we are anything to them? The people driving and working on the Air Force NASCAR are no wearing Air Force uniforms, so why should we? And yes, I have asked and tried to get tours and etc. To get on base requires filling out documents and requesting specific dates for specific people with specific automobiles to get to buy uniform parts at the BX. Perhaps, you have better connections than I do. All I am saying is we are no longer a core part of the Air Force. We need to get over it and do our own thing with look-a-like uniforms so people can actually say, Guess what, I saw a Civil Air Patrol member today, and geewhiz, he looked sharp/spiffy/debonair, whatever. Having 8 different uniforms does not make us uniform in any fashion. You are not an Air Force officer and never will be as long as you are in CAP. Give up the Air Force uniform and let us all join together in whatever we decide and hold hands and sing Kumbaya..
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 27, 2015, 02:39:47 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 02:04:06 PM
If that is the case, it is the rarity, not the norm. As a cadet, I encamped at Chanute Air Force Base. Our Cadets have not been on an Air Force base for many years. We have Warner-Robbins, near us and it is a large active base, but no support from them to speak of.
Have you reached out and tried? Have you approached the folks there in a timely manner to set things up? A lot of things that use to happen on a frequent basis do not happen much anymore due to the higher ops tempo and doing more with less manpower, less resources, and less funds. So anything outside of mission related necessity isn't going to happen as it use to.
I can tell you I have gotten cadets into flight sims with very little effort, arranged a working dog demo, and have had presentations accomplished simply by asking and coordinating in advance. I even coordinated the sim time for a unit that was passing through going to an event as well.
While many may consider getting onto base a headache, again it comes down to talking to the right people. Sorry but with how world events have been people on the whole are not going to get the instant or desired access on a whim. And simply because we are the AF Auxiliary does not mean we are entitled to base access or use of their facilities.
Hey! We finally agree on something!
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 02:58:59 PM
All I am saying is we are no longer a core part of the Air Force.
When were we ever a "core" part of the AF?
Maybe when we were being shot at by the Army Air Corps while towing targets? or sinking or not sinking german subs? Actually, mostly in our mind and I am suggesting a reality check.
I wouldn't consider that "core" but point taken
Ok, guys. I can understand a debate over uniforms; that's what we do here, however I still don't understand the perceived relationship between CAP and the Air Force which causes such a debate.
We still get most of our missions handed down to us via the AF.
Mission training funds and Evals have AF support.
The AF has expanded its support of our Cadet Programs recently.
We still can get "stuff" at AF Clothing Sales.
Much of our flying is paid for; courtesy of the AF
AF region CAP-USAF LO offices are still open and willing to assist us.
The AF is taking CAP-USAF from AETC to ACC; more to follow.
Our annual grant is administered by the AF.
7 of the 11 members of the BoG are appointed by the SECAF (3 jointly appointed with the CAP CEO).
And, CAP still gets tremendous support from AFNG units all over the country.
Maybe I'm just a "half full" type, but I'm still liking what I see....
Where do you see that the Air Force has expanded its support of the Cadet program lately??
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 04:55:20 PM
Where do you see that the Air Force has expanded its support of the Cadet program lately??
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19976 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19976)
We are the United States Air Force Auxiliary. Yes, our relationship with the Air Force has changed over the years. Yes, we still provide a strong contribution to the Air Force. And yes, the Air Force still support us in many ways. Even though things may not be the way they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago, we are still an important part of the Air Force team.
That being said, I don't think the uniform debate should focus solely on our relationship with the Air Force. The issue here is that we have two sets of uniforms and one of those sets can't be worn by a big part of our membership. My preference would be for the Air Force to relax some of the uniform restrictions a bit, especially regarding weight and height requirements. I also wish the corporate uniforms were more standardized and equivalent to their Air Force counterparts. Unfortunately, whether we want to admit it or not, the current uniform division within our membership is not conducive to true unity and esprit de corps in our organization.
It's easier to do nothing. But in my opinion, we really should address the division and inequality of our members and uniforms.
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 02:58:59 PM
Exactly Gentlemen, the Air Force can no longer accomodate our needs, so why do we need to run around in blue shirts pertending like we are anything to them?
May I gently suggest you have that exactly backwards? The Air Force does not exist to "accommodate our needs." We exist to accommodate theirs.
And we don't have to "pertend" like we are anything to them, because we are. We know that because both Congress and the Air Force itself tell us so. I've personally had the AFNORTH commander show me his Air Tasking Order for the day, and point out that CAP was flying the majority of sorties that day for his command. I've spent hours with the AF Vice Chief of Staff, and he told me how much they counted on us for our support.
QuoteThe people driving and working on the Air Force NASCAR are no wearing Air Force uniforms, so why should we?
Ahh, well there you have me. But to be fair, we did not require Ashton Lewis to wear a CAP uniform when we sponsored our own NASCAR vehicle. 8)
QuoteAll I am saying is we are no longer a core part of the Air Force.
Strong non-concur; see my statements above. If the AF did not need us, they would not spend the tens of millions of dollars yearly on us. Sure missions change over the years; technology has happily required fewer of our traditional SAR missions, but our direct AF support, HS, and DR missions have expanded. The only certain thing, is that the mission mix will continue to change and evolve in the future. Things will never again be like they were "in the old days." And that's a Good Thing.
QuoteWe need to get over it and do our own thing with look-a-like uniforms so people can actually say, Guess what, I saw a Civil Air Patrol member today, and geewhiz, he looked sharp/spiffy/debonair, whatever. Having 8 different uniforms does not make us uniform in any fashion. You are not an Air Force officer and never will be as long as you are in CAP. Give up the Air Force uniform and let us all join together in whatever we decide and hold hands and sing Kumbaya..
Wow. I'm sorry you do not feel like our Air Force colleagues appreciate you sufficiently. But if it helps, they really do. At least when you are performing your CAP missions.
QuoteAs a cadet, I encamped at Chanute Air Force Base.
That sounds like it must have been a terrific experience. Chanute had a long and proud history. I bet the AF would love to still be holding encampments there. They'd love to be doing anything there, but as you know Congress closed it over 20 years ago, along with a lot of other bases that hosted CAP activities. That's certainly one of the reasons it is harder now for cadets to experience what you did. But that has little to do with the extent of the AF's desires to support us, and a whole lot to do with reductions forced on the AF by Congress.
QuoteOur connection with the Air Force, as the Auxillary has changes so much over the past 50 years. We never get orientation flights with them. No refueling flights, no flights to Wright-Patt, no encampment on Air Force bases. We can't get on Air Force bases to buy uniform items without a song and dance. We can't use the Consolidated Club like we used to be able to.
You know that the majority of CAP units are not located particularly close to an AFB, and have never had routine access to orientation flights, refueling flights, etc., right? Those are certainly great things to have for the cadets, but have never been particularly commonplace for the great majority of the troops. And I don't think I have ever heard of seniors having routine access to the AF Club System based just on their CAP status. It would certainly be unusual, but I suppose each local club may have some autonomy about who they admit.
QuoteI truly feel we should change the name to Civilian Air Patrol and leave the Air force out of it.
OK, let's try that thought experiment for a moment.
It would take Congressional action, of course, but let's assume that you can get a majority of the 535 voting representatives and senators to agree to "divorce" us from the AF. And let's assume the AF doesn't mind losing its auxiliary.
Let's start with funding. As you probably know, Congress allocates roughly $30 million a year for CAP, and routes it through our AF colleagues with the requirement that the AF oversee our operations and requiring strict financial accountability using government standards. The AF, in turn, provides the CAP-USAF structure and provides officers and civilians to accomplish the liaison and oversight.
Congress can certainly be penny-wise and pound-foolish at times, but I can't imagine they will be very excited about continuing to provide tens of millions of tax dollars to a stand-alone civilian corporation with no formal ties to the AF. Can you think of any other civilian corporations who get that kind of funding?
Try to imagine what CAP would be like with no appropriated funds. I have a hard time seeing anything other than the Cadet Program surviving. (Mostly because CP receives relatively little appropriated funding to start with.)
Now let's talk about assets. CAP has roughly $85 million worth of aircraft purchased with Uncle Sam's money. I'm thinking that in the event of a "divorce," he is likely to want them back. That would hurt even the Cadet Program.
Now let's talk about liability issues and member benefits. One of the major purposes of Federal Instrumentality status when we are performing AF missions is to reduce or eliminate personal liability for CAP members and the corporation for actions taken under operational conditions. We'd lose that, of course, if we divorce the AF. Ditto for FECA coverage for members and families.
Finally, let's talk about our terrific Cadet Program, one of the largest youth leadership development programs in the US. Indeed, most of the membership in CAP is devoted directly to CP. What would happen to the CP without an AF affiliation? Can you think of any other successful military-based programs that do not have the affiliation and support of a sponsor service? I can't.
I can't speak for others, of course, but I joined CAP
because of, not despite of, our AF affiliation.
I would like to think I could have been a successful Sea Scout, Young Marine, or even an Aviation Explorer. (They may disagree.) But I joined CAP because I wanted some affiliation with the AF. I indeed went to many encampments. Some on AFBs, some on Army bases, and even one or two on Marine facilities. It is difficult to recall the exact count, but I believe I actually had more orientation flights in Army aircraft than AF.
But during all of them, I wore my AF-style uniform and looked to my CAP and AF mentors for training and guidance.
QuoteI feel the uniform issue tears us apart and discourages possible members with disabilities or fat and fuzzies at least.
Well, that's what the thread is really about, of course. All of us are absolutely entitled to our opinions on this sensitive and important issue. But it would be nice to have some actual data to work with, because it is difficult for policy makers to work with opinions, especially when there are many passionately held and directly opposing opinions.
I'd be fine with dropping the blues provided NHQ standardized the style and grey for slacks and applied those standards to a service coat, tie and flight cap.
On the issue of woodland cammies, I'm curious if NHQ/USAF has ever discussed making them CAP distinctive. Most current discussion about that here on CT was in 2009.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9525.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9525.0)
Quote from: Salty on May 27, 2015, 06:36:45 PM
I'd be fine with dropping the blues provided NHQ standardized the style and grey for slacks and applied those standards to a service coat, tie and flight cap.
This is one of those "darned if you do; darned if you don't" issues.
The blazer / aviator shirt uniforms were deliberately designed to allow members to purchase the components locally rather than having to use a particular / standardized vendor like VG. The goal was to keep costs low and allow members to quickly acquire uniform parts without having to wait for a mail order process. So the "medium grey" was specified to facilitate those worthy goals.
The flip side was to provide the same kind of exacting specifications for MILSPEC uniforms, and require purchase from an authorized vendor. That would almost certainly cost more and be slower.
Either way would work, of course, but the decision was made to be more "member-friendly."
QuoteOn the issue of woodland cammies, I'm curious if NHQ/USAF has ever discussed making them CAP distinctive.
Of course we have. They've declined so far. But perhaps more importantly, at some point we will be moving into ABUs (or the "uniform after ABUs" ) and we will still face the same "two alternate uniform" issues.
Ned Lee
Member, NUC
[edit - spelling]
Thanks for the info, Ned.
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 04:55:20 PM
Where do you see that the Air Force has expanded its support of the Cadet program lately??
The half a million dollars they dropped into our laps for cadet support.
The millions of dollars they gave us for expanded support such as surrogate UAV and the HLS Eagle missions.
The fact that they are moving us under ACC to make giving us more missions and more money all that much easier.
I guess the last two are not CP...but shows that the USAF is expanding their use of our services.
Quote from: Ned on May 27, 2015, 06:54:30 PM
So the "medium grey" was specified to facilitate those worthy goals.
Colonel, with all due respect, the problem is that there's no industry or commercial standard for "medium grey". Unlike other colors, such as navy blue, grey comes in so many different shades and tones and no one vendor has a common standard of what medium grey is (assuming they offer the color at all). In fact, grey is not the most common color for slacks; khaki or beige is. Every time I go to a store to by a pair, it takes me a while to find some that are close enough. At any given meeting or activity, there's always an array of different shades of grey among those wearing a corporate uniform.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 27, 2015, 08:32:24 PM
Colonel, with all due respect, the problem is that there's no industry or commercial standard for "medium grey".
I'm certainly no textile expert, but I think I have to non-concur. As near as I can tell there are National Retail Foundation (NRF) standard codes (http://www.dswinc.com/vendors/EDI/Documents/NRFColorCodes.pdf) for "medium grey," just like for Oxford, charcoal, and dark greys.
But perhaps more importantly, again, the whole point was to
not specify a particular industry standard shade to ensure a reasonable ability for the typical member to go to Sears, Target, Wallmart or wherever and find something suitable without getting bogged down in whether the Haggar slacks in question were NRF shade 28 or 32 out of the Grey Color Group. Just imagine the conversation with the typical Target sales associate trying to help a member. I'm not even sure Haggar puts the exact shade information on the tag in the first place.
And yes, obviously that means that there will inevitably be differences in the shades obtained by members. Although I was not part of that particular decision, "medium grey" was selected because it best conveyed the shade to the members as compared to something like "slate" or "charcoal" greys.
It sincerely was an effort to reduce cost, angst, and delay to the typical member.
Of course, there is certainly nothing to stop us from revisiting the issue. What language would you suggest we use to specify a shade that will be widely available, easily understandable to the average member, and create the desired additional uniformity? I suspect we will also need language that will guide the member in determining how to read the tags to find the industry standard shade codes.
Maybe there is a standard. I'm certainly no expert. But in my experience buying grey pants and from what I've seen in every meeting and activity, if there is a standard for medium grey, it doesn't seem to be widespread.
Quote from: Ned on May 27, 2015, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 27, 2015, 02:58:59 PM
Exactly Gentlemen, the Air Force can no longer accomodate our needs, so why do we need to run around in blue shirts pertending like we are anything to them?
May I gently suggest you have that exactly backwards? The Air Force does not exist to "accommodate our needs." We exist to accommodate theirs.
And we don't have to "pertend" like we are anything to them, because we are. We know that because both Congress and the Air Force itself tell us so. I've personally had the AFNORTH commander show me his Air Tasking Order for the day, and point out that CAP was flying the majority of sorties that day for his command. I've spent hours with the AF Vice Chief of Staff, and he told me how much they counted on us for our support.
QuoteThe people driving and working on the Air Force NASCAR are no wearing Air Force uniforms, so why should we?
Ahh, well there you have me. But to be fair, we did not require Ashton Lewis to wear a CAP uniform when we sponsored our own NASCAR vehicle. 8)
QuoteAll I am saying is we are no longer a core part of the Air Force.
Strong non-concur; see my statements above. If the AF did not need us, they would not spend the tens of millions of dollars yearly on us. Sure missions change over the years; technology has happily required fewer of our traditional SAR missions, but our direct AF support, HS, and DR missions have expanded. The only certain thing, is that the mission mix will continue to change and evolve in the future. Things will never again be like they were "in the old days." And that's a Good Thing.
QuoteWe need to get over it and do our own thing with look-a-like uniforms so people can actually say, Guess what, I saw a Civil Air Patrol member today, and geewhiz, he looked sharp/spiffy/debonair, whatever. Having 8 different uniforms does not make us uniform in any fashion. You are not an Air Force officer and never will be as long as you are in CAP. Give up the Air Force uniform and let us all join together in whatever we decide and hold hands and sing Kumbaya..
Wow. I'm sorry you do not feel like our Air Force colleagues appreciate you sufficiently. But if it helps, they really do. At least when you are performing your CAP missions.
QuoteAs a cadet, I encamped at Chanute Air Force Base.
That sounds like it must have been a terrific experience. Chanute had a long and proud history. I bet the AF would love to still be holding encampments there. They'd love to be doing anything there, but as you know Congress closed it over 20 years ago, along with a lot of other bases that hosted CAP activities. That's certainly one of the reasons it is harder now for cadets to experience what you did. But that has little to do with the extent of the AF's desires to support us, and a whole lot to do with reductions forced on the AF by Congress.
QuoteOur connection with the Air Force, as the Auxillary has changes so much over the past 50 years. We never get orientation flights with them. No refueling flights, no flights to Wright-Patt, no encampment on Air Force bases. We can't get on Air Force bases to buy uniform items without a song and dance. We can't use the Consolidated Club like we used to be able to.
You know that the majority of CAP units are not located particularly close to an AFB, and have never had routine access to orientation flights, refueling flights, etc., right? Those are certainly great things to have for the cadets, but have never been particularly commonplace for the great majority of the troops. And I don't think I have ever heard of seniors having routine access to the AF Club System based just on their CAP status. It would certainly be unusual, but I suppose each local club may have some autonomy about who they admit.
QuoteI truly feel we should change the name to Civilian Air Patrol and leave the Air force out of it.
OK, let's try that thought experiment for a moment.
It would take Congressional action, of course, but let's assume that you can get a majority of the 535 voting representatives and senators to agree to "divorce" us from the AF. And let's assume the AF doesn't mind losing its auxiliary.
Let's start with funding. As you probably know, Congress allocates roughly $30 million a year for CAP, and routes it through our AF colleagues with the requirement that the AF oversee our operations and requiring strict financial accountability using government standards. The AF, in turn, provides the CAP-USAF structure and provides officers and civilians to accomplish the liaison and oversight.
Congress can certainly be penny-wise and pound-foolish at times, but I can't imagine they will be very excited about continuing to provide tens of millions of tax dollars to a stand-alone civilian corporation with no formal ties to the AF. Can you think of any other civilian corporations who get that kind of funding?
Try to imagine what CAP would be like with no appropriated funds. I have a hard time seeing anything other than the Cadet Program surviving. (Mostly because CP receives relatively little appropriated funding to start with.)
Now let's talk about assets. CAP has roughly $85 million worth of aircraft purchased with Uncle Sam's money. I'm thinking that in the event of a "divorce," he is likely to want them back. That would hurt even the Cadet Program.
Now let's talk about liability issues and member benefits. One of the major purposes of Federal Instrumentality status when we are performing AF missions is to reduce or eliminate personal liability for CAP members and the corporation for actions taken under operational conditions. We'd lose that, of course, if we divorce the AF. Ditto for FECA coverage for members and families.
Finally, let's talk about our terrific Cadet Program, one of the largest youth leadership development programs in the US. Indeed, most of the membership in CAP is devoted directly to CP. What would happen to the CP without an AF affiliation? Can you think of any other successful military-based programs that do not have the affiliation and support of a sponsor service? I can't.
I can't speak for others, of course, but I joined CAP because of, not despite of, our AF affiliation.
I would like to think I could have been a successful Sea Scout, Young Marine, or even an Aviation Explorer. (They may disagree.) But I joined CAP because I wanted some affiliation with the AF. I indeed went to many encampments. Some on AFBs, some on Army bases, and even one or two on Marine facilities. It is difficult to recall the exact count, but I believe I actually had more orientation flights in Army aircraft than AF.
But during all of them, I wore my AF-style uniform and looked to my CAP and AF mentors for training and guidance.
QuoteI feel the uniform issue tears us apart and discourages possible members with disabilities or fat and fuzzies at least.
Well, that's what the thread is really about, of course. All of us are absolutely entitled to our opinions on this sensitive and important issue. But it would be nice to have some actual data to work with, because it is difficult for policy makers to work with opinions, especially when there are many passionately held and directly opposing opinions.
To add to all of this, who wants to be the one to tell our cadet officers heading into the air force that they no longer get a bump to E3?
^ pretty much everyone gets that bump nowadays.
Or they could just commission..
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 26, 2015, 05:36:58 AM
I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.
Amen!
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 26, 2015, 05:36:58 AM
I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.
See...now we are making a valued comparison between two possible options.
Status Quo is more detrimental then ditching the AF-Style Uniforms.
That's your basic premise.....now support it.
Quote from: Ned on May 27, 2015, 09:04:50 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 27, 2015, 08:32:24 PM
Colonel, with all due respect, the problem is that there's no industry or commercial standard for "medium grey".
I'm certainly no textile expert, but I think I have to non-concur. As near as I can tell there are National Retail Foundation (NRF) standard codes (http://www.dswinc.com/vendors/EDI/Documents/NRFColorCodes.pdf) for "medium grey," just like for Oxford, charcoal, and dark greys.
But perhaps more importantly, again, the whole point was to not specify a particular industry standard shade to ensure a reasonable ability for the typical member to go to Sears, Target, Wallmart or wherever and find something suitable without getting bogged down in whether the Haggar slacks in question were NRF shade 28 or 32 out of the Grey Color Group. Just imagine the conversation with the typical Target sales associate trying to help a member. I'm not even sure Haggar puts the exact shade information on the tag in the first place.
And yes, obviously that means that there will inevitably be differences in the shades obtained by members. Although I was not part of that particular decision, "medium grey" was selected because it best conveyed the shade to the members as compared to something like "slate" or "charcoal" greys.
It sincerely was an effort to reduce cost, angst, and delay to the typical member.
Of course, there is certainly nothing to stop us from revisiting the issue. What language would you suggest we use to specify a shade that will be widely available, easily understandable to the average member, and create the desired additional uniformity? I suspect we will also need language that will guide the member in determining how to read the tags to find the industry standard shade codes.
The exact shade of grey, which technically the epaulets should be using, is Cable Number 65008 (silver-grey). THAT is exactly what shade CAP "medium grey" is supposed to be. Being that cable numbers are not used (see Pantones) this leaves us at a slight disadvantage.
As an example, something akin to this is more or less the silver gray in question, and even this I cannot give 100 percent certainly on: (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g219/pastfinder/Image100_zpszad5agez.gif) (http://s57.photobucket.com/user/pastfinder/media/Image100_zpszad5agez.gif.html)
Well, here's you some data points.
As an noncom cadet, I jonesed for D&C and color guard and pomp & pageantry. Military decorum was totally where it was at for me.
As a cadet officer, I dug both the orderly system of organizing information through regs and forms and reports, as well as humping it in the field and getting dirty while playing Army infantry. D&C precision lost a lot of its appeal, probably because as a cadet officer I just wasn't required to do it anymore.
As a SM, ES beyond mere basic ground-pounder tactics started becoming more and more tempting to me. I wanted to understand as much as I could about ground team, and NASAR, and FEMA. Playing Army in the field meant even more to me. Office management and politics meant nothing to me.
Now, as a former CAPer, on the outside looking in, I would have to say that not being able to wear an AF-style uni (blues or utilities) would smart something fierce, because of the heritage and the history and the sense of identity that was indoctrinated into me. No matter what I hear about how the organizations and their relationship has changed over the years since I got out, that sense of identity is still very much engrained within me. I'm not religious, but I still very much want to be a part of something greater than myself, and I love my country. Being a part of the Air Force Auxiliary and being of service to this nation, to whatever degree possible, really gave me a sense of pride and fulfillment.
But I wouldn't slow down one bit at ground team or disaster relief ops just because I was wearing blue BDUs, either.
Heck, I would just look at that as CAP's own twist on the black and OD and gray and urban camo alternative BDUs that supposed Air Force troops wore all the time on Stargate SG-1!
I'm in a civiliar SAR organization these days that has, IMO, pathetically silly garb. But I don't care about it, that much, because we're active. We train very frequently, without the BS and politics, and we get called out regularly. I'm serving my community and my state, right now. It doesn't feel much like we're being of service to the nation. But I'll take what I can get.
Quote from: MisterCD on May 28, 2015, 01:00:06 AM
Quote from: Ned on May 27, 2015, 09:04:50 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 27, 2015, 08:32:24 PM
Colonel, with all due respect, the problem is that there's no industry or commercial standard for "medium grey".
I'm certainly no textile expert, but I think I have to non-concur. As near as I can tell there are National Retail Foundation (NRF) standard codes (http://www.dswinc.com/vendors/EDI/Documents/NRFColorCodes.pdf) for "medium grey," just like for Oxford, charcoal, and dark greys.
But perhaps more importantly, again, the whole point was to not specify a particular industry standard shade to ensure a reasonable ability for the typical member to go to Sears, Target, Wallmart or wherever and find something suitable without getting bogged down in whether the Haggar slacks in question were NRF shade 28 or 32 out of the Grey Color Group. Just imagine the conversation with the typical Target sales associate trying to help a member. I'm not even sure Haggar puts the exact shade information on the tag in the first place.
And yes, obviously that means that there will inevitably be differences in the shades obtained by members. Although I was not part of that particular decision, "medium grey" was selected because it best conveyed the shade to the members as compared to something like "slate" or "charcoal" greys.
It sincerely was an effort to reduce cost, angst, and delay to the typical member.
Of course, there is certainly nothing to stop us from revisiting the issue. What language would you suggest we use to specify a shade that will be widely available, easily understandable to the average member, and create the desired additional uniformity? I suspect we will also need language that will guide the member in determining how to read the tags to find the industry standard shade codes.
The exact shade of grey, which technically the epaulets should be using, is Cable Number 65008 (silver-grey). THAT is exactly what shade CAP "medium grey" is supposed to be. Being that cable numbers are not used (see Pantones) this leaves us at a slight disadvantage.
As an example, something akin to this is more or less the silver gray in question, and even this I cannot give 100 percent certainly on: (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g219/pastfinder/Image100_zpszad5agez.gif) (http://s57.photobucket.com/user/pastfinder/media/Image100_zpszad5agez.gif.html)
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone's medium gray trousers/slacks looked like that?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2015, 12:36:32 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 26, 2015, 05:36:58 AM
I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.
See...now we are making a valued comparison between two possible options.
Status Quo is more detrimental then ditching the AF-Style Uniforms.
That's your basic premise.....now support it.
I could ask you the same about the NCO program.
I gave an opinion, which is shared by others. I don't have to support it. I know that not everyone feels the same way. I also know that we don't have quantitative data to support either position.
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 26, 2015, 11:54:52 AM
Part of the reason many people join is because of our relationship to the USAF, and it is their way of giving something back to their country. IF they took away the AF uniform from SM's, a lot of people would see it as another step in the USAF distancing themselves from us; no matter where the decision actually came from, USAF or NHQ.
Well, maybe the 50% of the SM membership that is actually deemed worthy enough to wear the AF uniform. The other 50%? Probably not so upset about it.
Quote from: MisterCD on May 28, 2015, 01:00:06 AM
The exact shade of grey, which technically the epaulets should be using, is Cable Number 65008 (silver-grey). THAT is exactly what shade CAP "medium grey" is supposed to be. Being that cable numbers are not used (see Pantones) this leaves us at a slight disadvantage.
As an example, something akin to this is more or less the silver gray in question, and even this I cannot give 100 percent certainly on: [Pic deleted; redundant]
Sorry, gotta disagree on the silver grey.
The grade sleeves are a lighter color than the color sample shown on the KB post, which shows three shades of grey, all labeled. The medium grey is the middle of the three shades.
Wait, what, are we discussing 50 shades of gray on here???
Quote from: AirAux on May 28, 2015, 03:42:30 PM
Wait, what, are we discussing 50 shades of gray on here???
I know, right? I was researching manufacturer color codes for this topic and innocently Googled "shades of grey" on my work computer. Turned out to be a bad idea.
But at least I got to chat with some nice folks in IT that I normally don't get to talk to. 8)
Haha nice!
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2015, 12:36:32 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 26, 2015, 05:36:58 AM
I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.
See...now we are making a valued comparison between two possible options.
Status Quo is more detrimental then ditching the AF-Style Uniforms.
That's your basic premise.....now support it.
Let me preface by saying that I'm retired, and have no dog in the hunt. However...
This really cuts to the heart of the matter. What would be better? Leaving things as they are now, with the perception of "second class members", or putting all SMs into ONE uniform? The only way to really get a feel for this, is to do a formal survey of the membership. Page after page of CT debate is nice, but there needs to be some hard data from the field, viable alternatives to present, and a formal pitch to the leadership to make anything happen. Like I said, I'm retired, and can only do so much, but if somebody starts to get the machine turning on this, I'm available to help.
This will get rocks thrown at me, but it's possible that Pineda had the right idea with the distinctive uni for SMs. Gotta go get me helmet...
Let's break it down.
What are the consequences of doing nothing?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
What are the consequences of doing away with the USAF Style uniforms?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
One can assume that since the status qua has been in place for quite a while (more then 15 years at least) then the current status of things would continue at least for the near/mid time frame frame (1-5 years).
If we do away with the USAF style uniforms.....some unquantified percentage of CAP members will walk away....and another unquantified number of perspective members will not join. To the benefit of what?
So...if you are on the side that is asserting "the status qua is more detrimental to the organization then doing away with the USAF-Style uniforms" it is on to you and your camp to support that assertion if the point is to effect a change in the thinking of leadership.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2015, 06:31:47 PM
Let's break it down.
What are the consequences of doing nothing?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
What are the consequences of doing away with the USAF Style uniforms?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
One can assume that since the status qua has been in place for quite a while (more then 15 years at least) then the current status of things would continue at least for the near/mid time frame frame (1-5 years).
If we do away with the USAF style uniforms.....some unquantified percentage of CAP members will walk away....and another unquantified number of perspective members will not join. To the benefit of what?
So...if you are on the side that is asserting "the status qua is more detrimental to the organization then doing away with the USAF-Style uniforms" it is on to you and your camp to support that assertion if the point is to effect a change in the thinking of leadership.
Given our membership is on the decline, the real question is do we rip off the bandage and establish one uniform, and then build with the remainder, or just watch as members dwindle away. But I agree with THRAWN until the membership as a whole is surveyed, we're all just blowing hot air.
The correct answer is to focus on methods to increase membership, not focus on ways to decrease it.
A general survey of all members on ways to increase membership would be a good idea. A survey loaded with a specific question like this without starting from requesting data on general concerns would not go over well.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2015, 06:31:47 PM
Let's break it down.
What are the consequences of doing nothing?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
What are the consequences of doing away with the USAF Style uniforms?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
One can assume that since the status qua has been in place for quite a while (more then 15 years at least) then the current status of things would continue at least for the near/mid time frame frame (1-5 years).
If we do away with the USAF style uniforms.....some unquantified percentage of CAP members will walk away....and another unquantified number of perspective members will not join. To the benefit of what?
So...if you are on the side that is asserting "the status qua is more detrimental to the organization then doing away with the USAF-Style uniforms" it is on to you and your camp to support that assertion if the point is to effect a change in the thinking of leadership.
Not necessarily saying you're wrong, but this same argument could be made of the NCO program.
I know that I am one of the guys pushing for data here, but I'm not sure a survey of the membership is going to help.
There is a saying in academia that "the plural of anecdote is not data." Similarly, I'm not sure that surveying the membership and collecting thousands of opinions will amount to data, either.
Imagine you are the national commander. What do you do if, for example, the membership splits roughly 50-50 on the issue? In all likelihood, you may decide that such a split does not amount to a mandate for change.
Does that mean the members who genuinely feel that the dual track uniforms are unfair and demeaning will change their views? That seems unlikely.
What happens if it is 60/40 or even 70/30 one way or another? Does that really solve the problem or make a transition easier? If members are feeling strongly about the issue, it seems unlikely that simply finding out that their personal opinion is in the majority or minority will change their minds. We feel what we feel.
Ultimately, I don't think personal subjective opinions (even if we collect them from every member) about what looks better, more professional, or is more respectful to our diverse membership can effectively drive uniform policy. In large part because we will never, ever, ever have a solid consensus on the issue. Never.
I submit that missions must drive uniform policy. After all, a uniform is only a tool to allow us to perform our missions more effectively. Accordingly, I'm believe that data collection on this topic has to be mission-oriented to be useful to policy makers.
Some have mentioned that some prospective members may or may not join because of our uniform policies. That would be a good data point, since membership drives mission capability. And in the case of CP, membership in essence IS the mission. We would need to design a study that would allow us to say that changing our uniform policy would increase (or decrease) our membership by x%. (Surveying current membership alone would be insufficient, since we can assume that they joined or renewed their membership under the current policy.)
Similarly, if actual data can be developed concerning how sorties flown, AE classes delivered, ground team capabilities, etc. would be affected by eliminating AF uniforms, that would help move the process forward.
You may remember that I have described this issue in the past as a "Wicked Problem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) because of the complex interdependencies of the proposed solutions (each solution just leads to other problems), the presence of confounding factors, and the fact that we cannot even agree on a definition of the "problem" in the first place.
Since the problem can never really be "solved" in the sense that any possible uniform choices will always leave a significant amount of (very) unhappy members, the best that any leader can do is to implement coping strategies that allow us to accomplish our missions with a minimum amount of turmoil and friction.
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.
As always, the leadership is open to additional solutions and / or coping strategies. But we already know that neither the "all corporate" or "all AF-style" positions will satisfy the membership.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 08:57:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2015, 06:31:47 PM
Let's break it down.
What are the consequences of doing nothing?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
What are the consequences of doing away with the USAF Style uniforms?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
One can assume that since the status qua has been in place for quite a while (more then 15 years at least) then the current status of things would continue at least for the near/mid time frame frame (1-5 years).
If we do away with the USAF style uniforms.....some unquantified percentage of CAP members will walk away....and another unquantified number of perspective members will not join. To the benefit of what?
So...if you are on the side that is asserting "the status qua is more detrimental to the organization then doing away with the USAF-Style uniforms" it is on to you and your camp to support that assertion if the point is to effect a change in the thinking of leadership.
Not necessarily saying you're wrong, but this same argument could be made of the NCO program.
How many people have expressed their intent to leave CAP because of the NCO program? I know many that think it will cause confusion, but none that are in the "I'm quitting" boat.
Quote from: SarDragon on May 28, 2015, 10:05:57 AM
Quote from: MisterCD on May 28, 2015, 01:00:06 AM
The exact shade of grey, which technically the epaulets should be using, is Cable Number 65008 (silver-grey). THAT is exactly what shade CAP "medium grey" is supposed to be. Being that cable numbers are not used (see Pantones) this leaves us at a slight disadvantage.
As an example, something akin to this is more or less the silver gray in question, and even this I cannot give 100 percent certainly on: [Pic deleted; redundant]
Sorry, gotta disagree on the silver grey.
The grade sleeves are a lighter color than the color sample shown on the KB post, which shows three shades of grey, all labeled. The medium grey is the middle of the three shades.
Dave,
That shade is "the color" which is technically taken from the color used on the CAP seal approved in 1953. Yes, Vanguard has the shade of grey wrong on the epaulets and the color scheme for the mess dress insignia. The issue has been wrong for a long time. The CAP history program has the original pair of grey epaulets produced in 1995 and I'll get photos of them if people wish to see what was supposed to be the proof color for all grey epaulets.
Frank
This is the Institute of Heraldry's sketch of the original CAP seal from 1953.
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g219/pastfinder/CAP-Seal_zpsqoqxg4sx.jpg) (http://s57.photobucket.com/user/pastfinder/media/CAP-Seal_zpsqoqxg4sx.jpg.html)
While a picture of the original epaulets would be interesting to see, it would be rather useless in judging color, especially shades. Computer monitors vary in the color projections. Unless that monitor is calibrated with the correct print color, the image of gray may appear different for each person.
My computer at home has my high resolution monitor calibrated for brightness and color to prints of my photos. The laptop screen however is not and nor is my wife's screen. Depending on which screen I am looking at the photo, they will all cause the image to look differently. My laptop screen is darker in brightness and color compared to my external monitor. My wifes computer is brighter than my laptop but still darker than my external monitor and has more grey to the color.
Edit-Forgot to mention, even the camera can change the shades due to a number of reasons. It may depend on white balance, whether a flash is used, whether that flash is too close, the sensor of the camera, etc.
Overall, it might be interesting to get a general idea, but it would not necessarily end the debate on the exact shade of gray.
Information on Monitor Calibrations (one of thousands of websites)
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/monitor-calibration.htm (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/monitor-calibration.htm)
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 28, 2015, 09:58:01 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 08:57:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2015, 06:31:47 PM
Let's break it down.
What are the consequences of doing nothing?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
What are the consequences of doing away with the USAF Style uniforms?
On mission?
On membership?
On future growth?
One can assume that since the status qua has been in place for quite a while (more then 15 years at least) then the current status of things would continue at least for the near/mid time frame frame (1-5 years).
If we do away with the USAF style uniforms.....some unquantified percentage of CAP members will walk away....and another unquantified number of perspective members will not join. To the benefit of what?
So...if you are on the side that is asserting "the status qua is more detrimental to the organization then doing away with the USAF-Style uniforms" it is on to you and your camp to support that assertion if the point is to effect a change in the thinking of leadership.
Not necessarily saying you're wrong, but this same argument could be made of the NCO program.
How many people have expressed their intent to leave CAP because of the NCO program? I know many that think it will cause confusion, but none that are in the "I'm quitting" boat.
I can't answer that question. However, I can say that, in my opinion, uniforms should not drive membership. Unfortunately, we have members who are more concerned with uniforms, grades, badges and ribbons that with accomplishing our missions. One thing is to wear the uniform with pride (I know I do) and another is to make that our primary reason to be in CAP. Personally, I'm in CAP because I believe in the mission and the organization. The uniform is just a tool.
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.
Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?
The problem would go away if General Lemay was in charge. He was over the weight standard himself, but it didn't detract from the man. It's fairly easy to keep people under the age of 40 thin, but when a lot of your support staff are in their 50's, 60's and 70's it is a problem. If the old gray guys went away, it would cut into the membership numbers deeply. Did you catch the pun about old "gray" guys? A lot of the young guys are into search and rescue and flying. A lot of the old guys are supporting the cadet and aerospace program, plus adding to the leadership at the top. Why must we feel second class and like red-headed step-children after having given so much for so many years?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:53:15 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.
Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?
Maybe.....but like Ned keeps saying....all compromises are at some level a lose-lose scenerio.
Could we adopt a real non USAF uniform? Sure we could.
We would be making the new basic service uniform go to around $120....Slacks, Shoes, Shirt, Hat, Belt. And around another $200 for coat, tie, longsleeve shirt.
Then of course a gray service CAP, a great coat/over coat for those Northern Tier units.
And then some sort of Mess Dress Equivalent.
We will be handing Vanguard another monopoly because we will never be able to get multiple sources.
And of those who are perfectly happy with the current corporate they will all be butt hurt about it.
The corporate serves a second purpose other then just allowing those outside USAF Standards to wear a uniform. It is also for those people who don't have a cool $300 sitting around to get into a uniform on the cheap.
Gray Slacks $20 from Wal Mart.
White shirt $20 from pilot mall.com
Rank and Badges $20 from Vanguard.
any black shoe, any black belt.....free from your closets (most people have them already).
So that's the compromise. We can't get everyone into USAF uniforms with out kicking out the Fat and Fuzzies. If we pushed everyone into corporates we will piss off a lot of people....how many? Don't know...but a significant number in my opinion....maybe enough to actually hurt our ability to do missions.
We will piss off all those who have invested a significant amount of money in the USAF uniforms and they would have to change.
We would piss off all those who would see this a just one more attempt to push us farther away from the USAF.
We would piss off all those who would see it as another "all NHQ thinks about is uniforms no missions" argument.
And that is just talking about perceptions.
So...the current uniform committee focus most of the uniform decisions from a mission focus and not a perception focus. Just because unless they see clear evidence that the focus is wrong...they are going to try to do least harm as the move forward.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:42:13 PM
I can't answer that question. However, I can say that, in my opinion, uniforms should not drive membership. Unfortunately, we have members who are more concerned with uniforms, grades, badges and ribbons that with accomplishing our missions. One thing is to wear the uniform with pride (I know I do) and another is to make that our primary reason to be in CAP. Personally, I'm in CAP because I believe in the mission and the organization. The uniform is just a tool.
Yep....in a perfect world we would all be in CAP to make better cadets, serve our community state and nation and be happy with the opportunity to serve.
But no one......and I mean no one lives in that world...not really. Even you or you would not be unhappy about the status qua.
Badges, ranks and uniforms do mean something to our membership and making drastic changes will affect that membership and must be factored in to any decision made.
As long as our senior leadership, wing/region and higher commanders, are allowed to wear the USAF style uniform with impunity in spite of their non compliance with the ht/wt reg nothing will change and those of us who abide with the rules to accomplish the mission will continue to wear the corporate clown suit. It's good to be wing/region king.
Since those who wear the corporate uniform aren't allowed to wear any of their military bling how about we do the same with the USAF style and spread the pain plus it would make the USAF style more "distinctive".
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:53:15 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.
Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?
I know this is a hot topic of discussion here on CT, however it is difficult to relate this discussion with membership recruitment and retention. I don't think exit Surveys show this as a reason for leaving CAP. There never was a survey question on how the AF uniform (or CAP Distinctive) is a factor in recruitment. While Ned gives a great argument for not polling for uniform preferences, it might be advantageous to make it a question in recruitment or exit surveys. There are ways to get objective data on the subject; we just have to be able to ask the right questions...
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2015, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:53:15 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.
Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?
Maybe.....but like Ned keeps saying....all compromises are at some level a lose-lose scenerio.
Could we adopt a real non USAF uniform? Sure we could.
We would be making the new basic service uniform go to around $120....Slacks, Shoes, Shirt, Hat, Belt. And around another $200 for coat, tie, longsleeve shirt.
Then of course a gray service CAP, a great coat/over coat for those Northern Tier units.
And then some sort of Mess Dress Equivalent.
We will be handing Vanguard another monopoly because we will never be able to get multiple sources.
And of those who are perfectly happy with the current corporate they will all be butt hurt about it.
The corporate serves a second purpose other then just allowing those outside USAF Standards to wear a uniform. It is also for those people who don't have a cool $300 sitting around to get into a uniform on the cheap.
Gray Slacks $20 from Wal Mart.
White shirt $20 from pilot mall.com
Rank and Badges $20 from Vanguard.
any black shoe, any black belt.....free from your closets (most people have them already).
So that's the compromise. We can't get everyone into USAF uniforms with out kicking out the Fat and Fuzzies. If we pushed everyone into corporates we will piss off a lot of people....how many? Don't know...but a significant number in my opinion....maybe enough to actually hurt our ability to do missions.
We will piss off all those who have invested a significant amount of money in the USAF uniforms and they would have to change.
We would piss off all those who would see this a just one more attempt to push us farther away from the USAF.
We would piss off all those who would see it as another "all NHQ thinks about is uniforms no missions" argument.
And that is just talking about perceptions.
So...the current uniform committee focus most of the uniform decisions from a mission focus and not a perception focus. Just because unless they see clear evidence that the focus is wrong...they are going to try to do least harm as the move forward.
You missed the part where I said "optional".
I, for one, appreciate the heck out of not having to wear a hat with my corporate uniform.
But that's just one opinion :)
Already allowed. You may wear any hat you want with the corporate uniforms.
Sorry.....the CAP ball cap and civilian head gear for inclement weather is allowed.
But..........Why? Adding more options and optional combos.....is going against your whole point isn't it?
Ah, but there is a solution. Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress). You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer. Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this. If not, it is 3:10 A. M. Obviously I had an epiphany. The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's. The action will be for discrimination against obese members. Obesity has been classified by the A.M.A. as a disease. The A.M.A. contends that obesity is not necessarily controllable as previously thought and has genetic and medical components involving the endocrine system. Obesity has been classified as an impairment by the Social Security Administration. Other than perceived image the Air Force has no reason to deny CAP members from wearing the military uniform. Unfortunately that was also a consideration regarding gays being allowed to wear the uniform or even join the Air Force. That has been rectified and so will this uniform issue in the same manner, by the Court. One way or the other, we will become uniform and remove the stigma of obesity from our rank and file. The ACLU loves these cases and makes their living off of them. This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA. There will probably be a claim for damages in that the routine and continual stigma suffered by our obese members is self evident, or will be attested to in Court. Further, as part of any settlement or award, CAP/USAF, may be required to furnish, pay for, or reimburse all current members if a separate uniform is required to right the wrong of this egregious treatment of the offended parties. See, I knew there was a solution. I just forgot that we do not have to always approach the beast with our hat in our hand but may drop back on logic and utilize the argumentum ad baculum. So, I must leave you with one of my favorite closings, "Govern thyself accordingly". Of course, Ned, I don't mean you specifically, but you might wish to convey the message to the powers that be.
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
Ah, but there is a solution. Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress). You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer. Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this. If not, it is 3:10 A. M. Obviously I had an epiphany. The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's.
I think you actually found the one way to actually get the AF to disavow the CAP. Bravo.
And actually that wouldn't work. Because we still let people do jobs regardless of their ability to wear or not wear a uniform. Thus, no discrimination.
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA.
It will cost plenty when uniforms are no longer supplied and the legal fees are decided to be slapped against CAP the non-profit in AUX-OFF status and EAJA not applying, and the fees added to the general cost of operation, paid now in total by membership dues.
Your definition of discrimination is not even close. If you think disparate treatment of some members based upon obesity isn't discrimination, you don't have a clue.
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 08:08:49 AM
Your definition of discrimination is not even close. If you think disparate treatment of some members based upon obesity isn't discrimination, you don't have a clue.
First, I don't think what you posted. I would ask that you rebut what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
Then feel free to elucidate.
Because if a person is being treated differently by their command because of their weight, they have the ability to take it up the chain. If the person is being treated like every other member regardless of what they wear, then there is nothing to complain about.
There is also still the incredibly shaky ground of the suit given the volunteer nature of our work.
OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
I know that I am one of the guys pushing for data here, but I'm not sure a survey of the membership is going to help.
There is a saying in academia that "the plural of anecdote is not data." Similarly, I'm not sure that surveying the membership and collecting thousands of opinions will amount to data, either.
Imagine you are the national commander. What do you do if, for example, the membership splits roughly 50-50 on the issue? In all likelihood, you may decide that such a split does not amount to a mandate for change.
Does that mean the members who genuinely feel that the dual track uniforms are unfair and demeaning will change their views? That seems unlikely.
What happens if it is 60/40 or even 70/30 one way or another? Does that really solve the problem or make a transition easier? If members are feeling strongly about the issue, it seems unlikely that simply finding out that their personal opinion is in the majority or minority will change their minds. We feel what we feel.
Ultimately, I don't think personal subjective opinions (even if we collect them from every member) about what looks better, more professional, or is more respectful to our diverse membership can effectively drive uniform policy. In large part because we will never, ever, ever have a solid consensus on the issue. Never.
I submit that missions must drive uniform policy. After all, a uniform is only a tool to allow us to perform our missions more effectively. Accordingly, I'm believe that data collection on this topic has to be mission-oriented to be useful to policy makers.
Some have mentioned that some prospective members may or may not join because of our uniform policies. That would be a good data point, since membership drives mission capability. And in the case of CP, membership in essence IS the mission. We would need to design a study that would allow us to say that changing our uniform policy would increase (or decrease) our membership by x%. (Surveying current membership alone would be insufficient, since we can assume that they joined or renewed their membership under the current policy.)
Similarly, if actual data can be developed concerning how sorties flown, AE classes delivered, ground team capabilities, etc. would be affected by eliminating AF uniforms, that would help move the process forward.
You may remember that I have described this issue in the past as a "Wicked Problem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) because of the complex interdependencies of the proposed solutions (each solution just leads to other problems), the presence of confounding factors, and the fact that we cannot even agree on a definition of the "problem" in the first place.
Since the problem can never really be "solved" in the sense that any possible uniform choices will always leave a significant amount of (very) unhappy members, the best that any leader can do is to implement coping strategies that allow us to accomplish our missions with a minimum amount of turmoil and friction.
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.
As always, the leadership is open to additional solutions and / or coping strategies. But we already know that neither the "all corporate" or "all AF-style" positions will satisfy the membership.
Ned, I would agree with you that missions should dictate uniform policy, and in doing so, can lower the number of uniforms significantly
CP- AF Blues or Corporate equivalent, just like now.
ES (Field) - BBDU, the woodland BDUs are no longer an Air Force Uniform, and that way everyone would be wearing the same thing. The importance is mission functionality
Flight - Blue Flight Suit - fulfills mission functionality
ES (Mission Base) - Polo Shirt/Grey Slacks, like most volunteer SAR/ES organizations
AE- Either the dress uniform or the Polo Shirt depending on the activity
Do away with Mess Dress and its Corporate Equivalent as they have no mission functionality
Reduced the number of Uniforms from 8 to 4
Quote from: SarDragon on May 29, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.
With the exception of some religious restrictions, hair length and facial hair are a matter of choice, obesity is (sometimes) not
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 12:00:20 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 29, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.
With the exception of some religious restrictions, hair length and facial hair are a matter of choice, obesity is (sometimes) not
Not always. For some people, they use facial hair to cover scars from either accidents or bad facial acne. Also, what do they do with Soldiers that have Pseudofolliculitis Barbae? Remember that DA Form 3349, Physical Profile? Soldiers with shaving profiles receive a "2" for "P" under the PULHES system.
Quote from: LSThiker on May 29, 2015, 12:51:00 PM
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 12:00:20 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 29, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.
With the exception of some religious restrictions, hair length and facial hair are a matter of choice, obesity is (sometimes) not
Not always. For some people, they use facial hair to cover scars from either accidents or bad facial acne. Also, what do they do with Soldiers that have Pseudofolliculitis Barbae? Remember that DA Form 3349, Physical Profile? Soldiers with shaving profiles receive a "2" for "P" under the PULHES system.
I know something now, I didn't before, my day is not wasted.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 26, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I don't think it will much impact our missions, but it might torque some folks off. And if that is the only reason they're in, then really, is it a great loss?
Actually, that's a **really** good point; its something I find personally very annoying. Personally, I'd stay with CAP and give my serving children less to be amused about! :)
That said....there are more than a few CAP members who, in my personal expererience, play at being more than they are and I have one group in mind especially as I write this. Truly, if the rank and 'status' is your driving force then we're better off without you.
YMMV
Actually, Sikh's serving in the military are allowed to keep their beards and turbans for religious reasons...
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2015, 05:50:48 AM
Already allowed. You may wear any hat you want with the corporate uniforms.
Sorry.....the CAP ball cap and civilian head gear for inclement weather is allowed.
But..........Why? Adding more options and optional combos.....is going against your whole point isn't it?
Your opinion.
This doesn't affect me, as I wear the AF-style uniform. But many of my members, the ones who want to wear the AF-style uniform, but can't due to height and weight restrictions, would like a true corporate equivalent. Many here in CAP Talk have expressed the same thing.
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
I know that I am one of the guys pushing for data here, but I'm not sure a survey of the membership is going to help.
There is a saying in academia that "the plural of anecdote is not data." Similarly, I'm not sure that surveying the membership and collecting thousands of opinions will amount to data, either.
Imagine you are the national commander. What do you do if, for example, the membership splits roughly 50-50 on the issue? In all likelihood, you may decide that such a split does not amount to a mandate for change.
Does that mean the members who genuinely feel that the dual track uniforms are unfair and demeaning will change their views? That seems unlikely.
What happens if it is 60/40 or even 70/30 one way or another? Does that really solve the problem or make a transition easier? If members are feeling strongly about the issue, it seems unlikely that simply finding out that their personal opinion is in the majority or minority will change their minds. We feel what we feel.
Ultimately, I don't think personal subjective opinions (even if we collect them from every member) about what looks better, more professional, or is more respectful to our diverse membership can effectively drive uniform policy. In large part because we will never, ever, ever have a solid consensus on the issue. Never.
I submit that missions must drive uniform policy. After all, a uniform is only a tool to allow us to perform our missions more effectively. Accordingly, I'm believe that data collection on this topic has to be mission-oriented to be useful to policy makers.
Some have mentioned that some prospective members may or may not join because of our uniform policies. That would be a good data point, since membership drives mission capability. And in the case of CP, membership in essence IS the mission. We would need to design a study that would allow us to say that changing our uniform policy would increase (or decrease) our membership by x%. (Surveying current membership alone would be insufficient, since we can assume that they joined or renewed their membership under the current policy.)
Similarly, if actual data can be developed concerning how sorties flown, AE classes delivered, ground team capabilities, etc. would be affected by eliminating AF uniforms, that would help move the process forward.
You may remember that I have described this issue in the past as a "Wicked Problem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) because of the complex interdependencies of the proposed solutions (each solution just leads to other problems), the presence of confounding factors, and the fact that we cannot even agree on a definition of the "problem" in the first place.
Since the problem can never really be "solved" in the sense that any possible uniform choices will always leave a significant amount of (very) unhappy members, the best that any leader can do is to implement coping strategies that allow us to accomplish our missions with a minimum amount of turmoil and friction.
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.
As always, the leadership is open to additional solutions and / or coping strategies. But we already know that neither the "all corporate" or "all AF-style" positions will satisfy the membership.
Ned, I would agree with you that missions should dictate uniform policy, and in doing so, can lower the number of uniforms significantly
CP- AF Blues or Corporate equivalent, just like now.
ES (Field) - BBDU, the woodland BDUs are no longer an Air Force Uniform, and that way everyone would be wearing the same thing. The importance is mission functionality
Flight - Blue Flight Suit - fulfills mission functionality
ES (Mission Base) - Polo Shirt/Grey Slacks, like most volunteer SAR/ES organizations
AE- Either the dress uniform or the Polo Shirt depending on the activity
Do away with Mess Dress and its Corporate Equivalent as they have no mission functionality
Reduced the number of Uniforms from 8 to 4
I think this is a very reasonable proposal.
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
Ned, I would agree with you that missions should dictate uniform policy, and in doing so, can lower the number of uniforms significantly
CP- AF Blues or Corporate equivalent, just like now.
ES (Field) - BBDU, the woodland BDUs are no longer an Air Force Uniform, and that way everyone would be wearing the same thing. The importance is mission functionality
Flight - Blue Flight Suit - fulfills mission functionality
ES (Mission Base) - Polo Shirt/Grey Slacks, like most volunteer SAR/ES organizations
AE- Either the dress uniform or the Polo Shirt depending on the activity
Do away with Mess Dress and its Corporate Equivalent as they have no mission functionality
Reduced the number of Uniforms from 8 to 4
Hmmm. I'm not sure how doing away with optional uniforms worn by less than 5% of the members (mess dress) and reducing choices for other members really addresses the problem.
But maybe that's because we haven't been able to agree on just what the problem is.
For example, some people would state the problem as "large members have to wear a different uniform than other members and that is demeaning." If that's the problem, your solution does not even address it in CAP's largest mission, Cadet Programs. (And CP also goes to the field, BTW, in non-ES situations.)
Some people believe the problem is "large members cannot wear their earned military awards and decorations." Your solution would not allow them to do so.
And of course, there is the issue that members can already do exactly what you have described, and many / most choose not to. There is probably a reason for that. (Actually there almost certainly many reasons for that.) Imposing your solution will be removing choices from our members. Tell me again, why we should do that, please.
Quote from: Ned on May 29, 2015, 04:18:59 PM
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
Ned, I would agree with you that missions should dictate uniform policy, and in doing so, can lower the number of uniforms significantly
CP- AF Blues or Corporate equivalent, just like now.
ES (Field) - BBDU, the woodland BDUs are no longer an Air Force Uniform, and that way everyone would be wearing the same thing. The importance is mission functionality
Flight - Blue Flight Suit - fulfills mission functionality
ES (Mission Base) - Polo Shirt/Grey Slacks, like most volunteer SAR/ES organizations
AE- Either the dress uniform or the Polo Shirt depending on the activity
Do away with Mess Dress and its Corporate Equivalent as they have no mission functionality
Reduced the number of Uniforms from 8 to 4
Hmmm. I'm not sure how doing away with optional uniforms worn by less than 5% of the members (mess dress) and reducing choices for other members really addresses the problem.
But maybe that's because we haven't been able to agree on just what the problem is.
For example, some people would state the problem as "large members have to wear a different uniform than other members and that is demeaning." If that's the problem, your solution does not even address it in CAP's largest mission, Cadet Programs. (And CP also goes to the field, BTW, in non-ES situations.)
Some people believe the problem is "large members cannot wear their earned military awards and decorations." Your solution would not allow them to do so.
And of course, there is the issue that members can already do exactly what you have described, and many / most choose not to. There is probably a reason for that. (Actually there almost certainly many reasons for that.) Imposing your solution will be removing choices from our members. Tell me again, why we should do that, please.
If the argument in favor of the AF/Corporate uniforms is that we want to keep to the extent possible our connection with the AF, and since the Cadet Regulations specifically call out the AF Blue uniforms, this allows for that mission to continue in the current compromise.
For all the other 2 missions ES/AE there is no reason to wear an AF-style uniform, as a point of fact none of the uniforms worn for ES (with the exception of the Green Flight suit) are AF style uniforms. So ground teams would be in one
uniform. There is no reason to wear an AF color flight suit since we are not flying AF planes (yes I know they pay for them), therefore the flight crews would be wearing a
uniform.
The issue with not being able to wear military awards on the CAP uniform is more a matter of whether you can wear military awards on civilian clothing and I was under the impression only during military themed events
http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations (http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations)
For AE missions, which are usually lecture style events, rocketry or model building, or airshow type events, the event coordinator would determine the UOD, whether that be blue/corporate; field, or for the seniors (and 18+ cadets out of Ht/Wt/grooming) polo shirt
If CAP is staying afloat only due to those folks who are staying in to wear the AF uniform, and if forced to switch to a corporate style uniform would quit, what does that say about the status of our program?
That's the argument, right? Let's not change things because we don't know how many people we'd lose.
Sidebar: came across this photo on the Internet the other day. Don't know the person/don't care to; brown A2 in civilian clothes, CAP patches and nametag with a callsign and USAF AUX instead of CAP.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/29/a87c1abbaf61d29c5f3ecce0b16a42e9.jpg)
If these are the folks that would leave because they can't play AF, maybe that's for the better?
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 04:52:15 PM
If the argument in favor of the AF/Corporate uniforms is that we want to keep to the extent possible our connection with the AF, and since the Cadet Regulations specifically call out the AF Blue uniforms, this allows for that mission to continue in the current compromise.
For all the other 2 missions ES/AE there is no reason to wear an AF-style uniform, as a point of fact none of the uniforms worn for ES (with the exception of the Green Flight suit) are AF style uniforms. So ground teams would be in one uniform. There is no reason to wear an AF color flight suit since we are not flying AF planes (yes I know they pay for them), therefore the flight crews would be wearing a uniform.
The issue with not being able to wear military awards on the CAP uniform is more a matter of whether you can wear military awards on civilian clothing and I was under the impression only during military themed events
http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations (http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations)
For AE missions, which are usually lecture style events, rocketry or model building, or airshow type events, the event coordinator would determine the UOD, whether that be blue/corporate; field, or for the seniors (and 18+ cadets out of Ht/Wt/grooming) polo shirt
Thank you.
This is a pretty good illustration of why the problem is insoluble.
Your proposal is certainly reasonable, but it will not make the issues go away anymore than leaving the status quo. Restated, if you became the National Commander and implemented your strategy, you would still have disgruntled members and countless pages here on CAPTalk decrying your "unfair and divisive" rules.
Members could and undoubtedly would continue to point out that large members working on our largest mission - CP -- would continue to be required to wear a different uniform that they perceive to be demeaning, solely because of their weight. (Some might even call for a class action lawsuit, which would cost countless thousands of dollars in dues money to defend even if it failed to change the AF mandates.)
Other members would continue to correctly point out that they cannot wear their earned military awards and decorations on the corporate uniforms while members in the AF-style may optionally do so.
Restated, there are no apparent changes that will maintain or improve mission performance while simultaneously reducing some of the sincerely held unhappiness of the members who cannot wear the AF-style uniforms.
And to those who would say "well, if the only reason someone stays in CAP is to wear the AF uniform, then we are better off without them," remember that the counter "argument" is "If someone cannot maintain a healthy lifestyle and reduce their weight below 'obesity' levels, we are better off without them."
That kind of war of words is destructive, and violates our Core Value of Respect. All of our members are valuable. Indeed, our members are our most important asset. We must work together to perform our Congressionally imposed missions. We cannot and should not fling arrows across this divide.
Let us focus on what we do, rather than what we wear while doing it.
[Edit - unscrewed quote tags]
Quote from: Ned on May 29, 2015, 05:36:49 PM
Let us focus on what we do, rather than what we wear while doing it.
:clap: :clap:
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 01:54:41 PM
Actually, Sikh's serving in the military are allowed to keep their beards and turbans for religious reasons...
Correct; I served with one such. Fitting his gas mask was interesting but not a CAP problem >:D
You know, we DID have a uniform that could have lead to far fewer seniors wearing the AF service uniform. Not through orders from on high, or the AF, but by members deciding to wear it. However, the high muckity-mucks decided to take it away for no apparent reason. Unless that was the reason.
Based ONLY ON MY OWN OBSERVATIONS, some members who could wear the AF service uniform were deciding to wear the blue CSU without official encouragement or directive. True, the grooming standards needed to be tweaked, but that was fixable by the PTBs.
Quote from: arajca on May 29, 2015, 06:04:06 PM
You know, we DID have a uniform that could have lead to far fewer seniors wearing the AF service uniform. Not through orders from on high, or the AF, but by members deciding to wear it. However, the high muckity-mucks decided to take it away for no apparent reason. Unless that was the reason.
Based ONLY ON MY OWN OBSERVATIONS, some members who could wear the AF service uniform were deciding to wear the blue CSU without official encouragement or directive. True, the grooming standards needed to be tweaked, but that was fixable by the PTBs.
Your "beloved" CSU was doomed because of the way it was "authorized". If it had gone through the normal uniform authorization process, you'd probably still be wearing it today.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2015, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:53:15 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.
Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?
Maybe.....but like Ned keeps saying....all compromises are at some level a lose-lose scenerio.
Could we adopt a real non USAF uniform? Sure we could.
We would be making the new basic service uniform go to around $120....Slacks, Shoes, Shirt, Hat, Belt. And around another $200 for coat, tie, longsleeve shirt.
Then of course a gray service CAP, a great coat/over coat for those Northern Tier units.
And then some sort of Mess Dress Equivalent.
We will be handing Vanguard another monopoly because we will never be able to get multiple sources.
And of those who are perfectly happy with the current corporate they will all be butt hurt about it.
The corporate serves a second purpose other then just allowing those outside USAF Standards to wear a uniform. It is also for those people who don't have a cool $300 sitting around to get into a uniform on the cheap.
Gray Slacks $20 from Wal Mart.
White shirt $20 from pilot mall.com
Rank and Badges $20 from Vanguard.
any black shoe, any black belt.....free from your closets (most people have them already).
So that's the compromise. We can't get everyone into USAF uniforms with out kicking out the Fat and Fuzzies. If we pushed everyone into corporates we will piss off a lot of people....how many? Don't know...but a significant number in my opinion....maybe enough to actually hurt our ability to do missions.
We will piss off all those who have invested a significant amount of money in the USAF uniforms and they would have to change.
We would piss off all those who would see this a just one more attempt to push us farther away from the USAF.
We would piss off all those who would see it as another "all NHQ thinks about is uniforms no missions" argument.
And that is just talking about perceptions.
So...the current uniform committee focus most of the uniform decisions from a mission focus and not a perception focus. Just because unless they see clear evidence that the focus is wrong...they are going to try to do least harm as the move forward.
So what if we standardized the pants only. The $60 combo would likely become $100. ($60 for single sourced pants available in the upper reaches of waistband, maybe high but makes a round number)
Now a row of corporate uniform wearing SMs actually looks uniform. The belts would be slightly different as would the shoes, but the glaring "rainbow of grey" would be gone.
Now if you can't wear the AF Blue but want to look better you could add an optional grey flight cap that matches the pants. Perhaps (gasp!) a service cap in grey as well
Now to get really crazy a jacket in the same color. If you choose to go this route you must wear the same shoes as the the AF blues and perhaps we standardize the belt.
If you want to keep the ultra low cost option make the polo an option for the minimum basic uniform with the "medium grey pants". The silk screened logo polo is currently 25.90. The $60 above is now $65.
If you don't mandate the "Class A Grey" TM uniform the member cost does not change.
I'm open to hearing the down side of this idea.
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
Ah, but there is a solution. Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress). You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer. Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this. If not, it is 3:10 A. M. Obviously I had an epiphany. The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's. The action will be for discrimination against obese members. Obesity has been classified by the A.M.A. as a disease. The A.M.A. contends that obesity is not necessarily controllable as previously thought and has genetic and medical components involving the endocrine system. Obesity has been classified as an impairment by the Social Security Administration. Other than perceived image the Air Force has no reason to deny CAP members from wearing the military uniform. Unfortunately that was also a consideration regarding gays being allowed to wear the uniform or even join the Air Force. That has been rectified and so will this uniform issue in the same manner, by the Court. One way or the other, we will become uniform and remove the stigma of obesity from our rank and file. The ACLU loves these cases and makes their living off of them. This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA. There will probably be a claim for damages in that the routine and continual stigma suffered by our obese members is self evident, or will be attested to in Court. Further, as part of any settlement or award, CAP/USAF, may be required to furnish, pay for, or reimburse all current members if a separate uniform is required to right the wrong of this egregious treatment of the offended parties. See, I knew there was a solution. I just forgot that we do not have to always approach the beast with our hat in our hand but may drop back on logic and utilize the argumentum ad baculum. So, I must leave you with one of my favorite closings, "Govern thyself accordingly". Of course, Ned, I don't mean you specifically, but you might wish to convey the message to the powers that be.
I actually considered going thru our (and possibly the USAF) channel(s) for EO complaints on that concept within the 60 days after the new 39-1 dropped. Part of my argument was that forcing 18 to 20 year old cadets into an different uniform based solely weight violated our own CPP rules on hazing.
Quote from: Goblin on May 29, 2015, 05:26:08 PM
If CAP is staying afloat only due to those folks who are staying in to wear the AF uniform, and if forced to switch to a corporate style uniform would quit, what does that say about the status of our program?
That's the argument, right? Let's not change things because we don't know how many people we'd lose.
No, because people like me who aren't in the AF uniform will also quit because of the clear message it will be sending to CAP volunteers that NO, you are as AUX OFF as we can possibly make you, except when we grudgingly hit the ON button.
This may not be the intent, but it is how I'll read the message, barring an equally strong message from CAP-USAF that YES, YOU ARE OUR AUXILIARY.
Remember, many of us have plenty of non-profits to choose from to volunteer our time with. Many of us volunteer our time with CAP because of the AF affiliation.
The problem with the current situation regarding uniforms is that CAP and USAF have a declared zero tolerance on discrimination, however they have created second class members of those that are obese, by denying them the right to wear the prestigious, honorable Air Force uniform while allowing other members to do so. The discrimination is so glaring that CAP and USAF will have to prove they are not discriminating and looking at the lay of the land in this day and age they will not be able to do so.
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 12:00:20 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 29, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.
With the exception of some religious restrictions, hair length and facial hair are a matter of choice, obesity is (sometimes) not
OK, you've pointed out the obvious. Now, do you have a proposed solution? Any ideas at all?
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 29, 2015, 08:06:25 PM
No, because people like me who aren't in the AF uniform will also quit because of the clear message it will be sending to CAP volunteers that NO, you are as AUX OFF as we can possibly make you, except when we grudgingly hit the ON button.
This may not be the intent, but it is how I'll read the message, barring an equally strong message from CAP-USAF that YES, YOU ARE OUR AUXILIARY.
Remember, many of us have plenty of non-profits to choose from to volunteer our time with. Many of us volunteer our time with CAP because of the AF affiliation.
So, with that argument, are you suggesting that USAF Civilians should wear the USAF uniform as well? They are more affiliated with the Air Force in day-to-day operations than CAP, yet they don't have an identity issue.
Why is it that the only way people view an affiliation to the Air Force is by trying to look like them, instead of being proud that when certain stuff goes down, they're the ones who the AF will be calling? Isn't the name and mission set enough to make you proud to be affiliated with the program?
You should volunteer in CAP for the cadets, for the mission, and for its support of the AF. None of those involve wearing the USAF uniform.
Quote from: Goblin on May 29, 2015, 08:38:51 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 29, 2015, 08:06:25 PM
No, because people like me who aren't in the AF uniform will also quit because of the clear message it will be sending to CAP volunteers that NO, you are as AUX OFF as we can possibly make you, except when we grudgingly hit the ON button.
This may not be the intent, but it is how I'll read the message, barring an equally strong message from CAP-USAF that YES, YOU ARE OUR AUXILIARY.
Remember, many of us have plenty of non-profits to choose from to volunteer our time with. Many of us volunteer our time with CAP because of the AF affiliation.
So, with that argument, are you suggesting that USAF Civilians should wear the USAF uniform as well? They are more affiliated with the Air Force in day-to-day operations than CAP, yet they don't have an identity issue.
No, that isn't my argument. Reread my posts where I outlined why we wear uniforms per the regulations, and the justification in the regulations. I also made clear the reasons why there would be a strong perception of the AF distancing CAP from the AF even more should the uniforms be removed.
Quote
Why is it that the only way people view an affiliation to the Air Force is by trying to look like them, instead of being proud that when certain stuff goes down, they're the ones who the AF will be calling? Isn't the name and mission set enough to make you proud to be affiliated with the program?
You should volunteer in CAP for the cadets, for the mission, and for its support of the AF. None of those involve wearing the USAF uniform.
Why is it that people are so hung up on getting people out of the uniform instead of being proud that when certain stuff goes down, they're the ones who the AF will be calling?
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 29, 2015, 08:02:41 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
Ah, but there is a solution. Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress). You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer. Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this. If not, it is 3:10 A. M. Obviously I had an epiphany. The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's. The action will be for discrimination against obese members. Obesity has been classified by the A.M.A. as a disease. The A.M.A. contends that obesity is not necessarily controllable as previously thought and has genetic and medical components involving the endocrine system. Obesity has been classified as an impairment by the Social Security Administration. Other than perceived image the Air Force has no reason to deny CAP members from wearing the military uniform. Unfortunately that was also a consideration regarding gays being allowed to wear the uniform or even join the Air Force. That has been rectified and so will this uniform issue in the same manner, by the Court. One way or the other, we will become uniform and remove the stigma of obesity from our rank and file. The ACLU loves these cases and makes their living off of them. This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA. There will probably be a claim for damages in that the routine and continual stigma suffered by our obese members is self evident, or will be attested to in Court. Further, as part of any settlement or award, CAP/USAF, may be required to furnish, pay for, or reimburse all current members if a separate uniform is required to right the wrong of this egregious treatment of the offended parties. See, I knew there was a solution. I just forgot that we do not have to always approach the beast with our hat in our hand but may drop back on logic and utilize the argumentum ad baculum. So, I must leave you with one of my favorite closings, "Govern thyself accordingly". Of course, Ned, I don't mean you specifically, but you might wish to convey the message to the powers that be.
I actually considered going thru our (and possibly the USAF) channel(s) for EO complaints on that concept within the 60 days after the new 39-1 dropped. Part of my argument was that forcing 18 to 20 year old cadets into an different uniform based solely weight violated our own CPP rules on hazing.
Wasn't that requirement in the previous edition too?
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 08:27:48 PM
The problem with the current situation regarding uniforms is that CAP and USAF have a declared zero tolerance on discrimination, [. . .]
Sigh. I thought we were trying to be constructive here. But this doesn't help, because it is a pretty good example of a Strawman Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). CAP has not and cannot declare a simple "zero tolerance on discrimination" for the obvious reason that we (like every other organization on the planet) discriminate all the time. We don't treat cadets and seniors the same. We require different uniforms for men and women. We don't let most convicted felons join. (You get the idea.)
Perhaps you meant "CAP and USAF have declared a zero tolerance on
unlawful discrimination." While not technically true (mostly because we didn't need to make such a declaration - we just need to comply with the law like everyone else), it is not a bad basis for a discussion.
Quote[ . . .] however they have created second class members of those that are obese, by denying them the right to wear the prestigious, honorable Air Force uniform while allowing other members to do so.
It bears repeating that the AF does not have a special rule for CAP that prohibits large members from wearing the uniform; they are simply - in essence -- applying the same rule to us that they apply to themselves. The key difference is that the AF discharges its overweight members (after a process), while CAP members can continue to serve regardless of their size. You'd think that would be a Good Thing. Another way to look at it is that the dual-track uniform system is a "reasonable accommodation" for folks with a particular disability that allows them to remain active, contributing members.
Quote
The discrimination is so glaring that CAP and USAF will have to prove they are not discriminating and looking at the lay of the land in this day and age they will not be able to do so.
While I think I can agree that the dual track uniform system, in some respects, can be viewed as discriminatory, I'm not sure why either CAP or the USAF would have to prove anything to anyone. I'm not aware of any law that would begin to approach the situation.
Take a look at CAP's Nondiscrimination Program in CAPR 36-1 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf) and I think you will find that the applicable directive appears to be DOD Directive 1020.1 (which requires all "programs and activities" that receive DoD funding to not discriminate on the basis of handicap / disability.) But it's not like you can go down to the courthouse and sue anyone for violating a DoD directive. Further guidance can be found in AFI 36-207 which implements DOD Directive 1020.1 for the AF.
But you can always start with our own CAP Constitution, Article VII, which reads:
Quote from: CAP C&BL, Article VIIMembership in Civil Air Patrol is a privilege and not a right. Qualifications and conditions for membership shall be established in the Bylaws and regulations. Discrimination based on age, disability or the provisions of Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is prohibited.
So, if you think that CAP has violated its own Constitution by following AF rules on wear of the AF uniform, there are appropriate actions you can take. But in the meantime this particular discussion will continue to circle. As it has for years, and will do so for the foreseeable future.
Will play catch-up on this thread in detail later, just wanted to make it known that I hope I'm not the only one recalling Radioman's repeated infamous posts of "CIVIL Air Patrol", and how he would get rid of the USAF-style uniforms if he could, lol. ::)
Quote from: Ned on May 29, 2015, 05:36:49 PM
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 04:52:15 PM
If the argument in favor of the AF/Corporate uniforms is that we want to keep to the extent possible our connection with the AF, and since the Cadet Regulations specifically call out the AF Blue uniforms, this allows for that mission to continue in the current compromise.
For all the other 2 missions ES/AE there is no reason to wear an AF-style uniform, as a point of fact none of the uniforms worn for ES (with the exception of the Green Flight suit) are AF style uniforms. So ground teams would be in one uniform. There is no reason to wear an AF color flight suit since we are not flying AF planes (yes I know they pay for them), therefore the flight crews would be wearing a uniform.
The issue with not being able to wear military awards on the CAP uniform is more a matter of whether you can wear military awards on civilian clothing and I was under the impression only during military themed events
http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations (http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations)
For AE missions, which are usually lecture style events, rocketry or model building, or airshow type events, the event coordinator would determine the UOD, whether that be blue/corporate; field, or for the seniors (and 18+ cadets out of Ht/Wt/grooming) polo shirt
Thank you.
This is a pretty good illustration of why the problem is insoluble.
Your proposal is certainly reasonable, but it will not make the issues go away anymore than leaving the status quo. Restated, if you became the National Commander and implemented your strategy, you would still have disgruntled members and countless pages here on CAPTalk decrying your "unfair and divisive" rules.
Members could and undoubtedly would continue to point out that large members working on our largest mission - CP -- would continue to be required to wear a different uniform that they perceive to be demeaning, solely because of their weight. (Some might even call for a class action lawsuit, which would cost countless thousands of dollars in dues money to defend even if it failed to change the AF mandates.)
Other members would continue to correctly point out that they cannot wear their earned military awards and decorations on the corporate uniforms while members in the AF-style may optionally do so.
Restated, there are no apparent changes that will maintain or improve mission performance while simultaneously reducing some of the sincerely held unhappiness of the members who cannot wear the AF-style uniforms.
And to those who would say "well, if the only reason someone stays in CAP is to wear the AF uniform, then we are better off without them," remember that the counter "argument" is "If someone cannot maintain a healthy lifestyle and reduce their weight below 'obesity' levels, we are better off without them."
That kind of war of words is destructive, and violates our Core Value of Respect. All of our members are valuable. Indeed, our members are our most important asset. We must work together to perform our Congressionally imposed missions. We cannot and should not fling arrows across this divide.
Let us focus on what we do, rather than what we wear while doing it.
[Edit - unscrewed quote tags]
If we were actually concerned about mission instead of what people could wear, than there would be no arguments we would just wear what other ES service agencies wear Khakis and a polo shirt.
Perhaps, if ES was our only mission. But our largest mission absolutely requires wear of the AF style uniforms.
Quote from: Alaric on May 30, 2015, 12:45:53 AM
If we were actually concerned about mission instead of what people could wear, than there would be no arguments we would just wear what other ES service agencies wear Khakis and a polo shirt.
Maybe because what we wear makes us a little different then those other agencies.
Interested in youth training? BSA, GSA, Boys Club, YMCA, etc, et al.
Interested in Emergency Services? Lots of volunteer ground SAR agencies, Air SAR organizations, Volunteer Fire Department, Red Cross, Police Volunteers.
Interested in Aerospace Education? EAA, NASA, AEI,
But only one organization brings all three of those together and has a direct connection to the USAF.
Lose the uniforms....and you lose that connection and our organization would suffer for it IMHO.
Quote from: Ned on May 30, 2015, 01:32:45 AM
Perhaps, if ES was our only mission. But our largest mission absolutely requires wear of the AF style uniforms.
I don't disagree, but it's not the major mission for the Seniors who are the only ones affected by the regulations . I love working with the cadets and I wear my white shirt doing it. But that's not what brought me in and that's not what keeps me. It's certainly not what keeps any member of a senior squadron, I have been a member of 6 wings in 5 regions and my ( purely anecdotal) opinion is that no more than 30% of the senior membership is directly involved with the cadets. My point has always been as an organization we seem to pay more attention to the sizzle than the steak.
Ned, while the Air Force does not allow paraplegics or blind people to wear the Air Force uniform, Civil Air patrol does. Why can some with disabilities wear the Air Force uniform and others can't? There is desperate treatment of members with disabilities.
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 01:44:11 AM
Ned, while the Air Force does not allow paraplegics or blind people to wear the Air Force uniform, Civil Air patrol does. Why can some with disabilities wear the Air Force uniform and others can't? There is desperate treatment of members with disabilities.
So everyone who chooses to be obese and not abide by grroming standards should get special treatment? And by this I mean members who choose to not exercise or eat right or want the long hair and a fulll face fulk of hair. The org accomadates with the corp uniform for those who can't wear the AF type for whatever reason maybe.
No one has ever denied that there are legit causes for obese. And if I recall correctly our EO policies and the AFs are clear on discrimination.
The AF sets the standard as you know for wear of their uniform and if they have said if you don't groom how we want you too or fall within this weight for your height then what is the issue really discrimination especially since alot of the people who work on base for some contractors are disabled.
And while CAP allows members who are blind or cant walk the option of wearing the AF style and the AF doesn't remember the AF is a warfighting entity and CAP doesn't.
Being blind or in a wheel chair is not a bar to wearing the USAF uniform.
It may be a bar to being in the USAF....but if other wise authorize to wear the uniform....you may continue to wear it.
abdsp51, you noted, "so everyone that chooses to be obese..." We have determined that obesity is an illness, that there are uncontrollable factors involved, and that it may be a disability. Your statement is the exact reason that obese members having to wear a different uniform is harmful and a stigma to them. Ten years ago, homosexuals were stigmatized when ignorance said sexual preference was a choice. It is far past time to admit obesity is not controllable in a great many cases. We need to wear one uniform, Whether the Air Force allows us to wear the Air Force uniform or out of a sense of uniformity, teamwork and acceptance we all agree to wear a common uniform, it is time for a change and the discrimination to stop.
Lordmanor, if one is retired Air Force and authorized to wear the uniform, would obesity be a bar to that?
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 02:59:16 AM
abdsp51, you noted, "so everyone that chooses to be obese..." We have determined that obesity is an illness, that there are uncontrollable factors involved, and that it may be a disability. Your statement is the exact reason that obese members having to wear a different uniform is harmful and a stigma to them. Ten years ago, homosexuals were stigmatized when ignorance said sexual preference was a choice. It is far past time to admit obesity is not controllable in a great many cases. We need to wear one uniform, Whether the Air Force allows us to wear the Air Force uniform or out of a sense of uniformity, teamwork and acceptance we all agree to wear a common uniform, it is time for a change and the discrimination to stop.
Not buying it. There are plenty of people who choose to be obese and its not related to genes or medical reasons. We have also determined that alcoholism is also a disease same with PTSD and a host of other illnesses.
Do you want an alcoholic driving a cab or a truck for you or even flying for you?
You can say I am claiming ignorance all you want but I have specific personal experiences with people who choose to be obese, alcoholics etc. And if you look at alot of my posts I have always said and will continue to state that yes they are people who are obese due to MEDICAL reasons and should be accomadated as much as possible which is done.
And comparing people who are obese to those who are homosexual is really farfetched especially considering that there is not scientific proof that homosexuality is not a choice. Being gay and obese are apples and oranges.
I guess by your logic then I can let myself get overweight, pursue disabiliy and anything else since I would then have an illness and can expect to be accomadated.
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 03:00:50 AM
Lordmanor, if one is retired Air Force and authorized to wear the uniform, would obesity be a bar to that?
Nope but one has earned the right to wear it. But that is not the point.
We are not talking about wearing USAF uniforms. Just USAF style CAP uniforms.
I enjoy the debate over uniforms especially since in my new role as recruiting and retention, it seems to work differently on the different sides of the equation
The AF-style uniforms are a great recruiting tool, they become a divisive issue among senior members afterwards (and divisivness is not good for retention).
For myself, though I would like to see fewer uniforms, I knew what I was getting into when I joined so they are not going to cause me to leave. That being said, when I lose this last pesky 10 pounds, though I may buy blues, I see no reason to buy woodlands or a green flight suit.
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
I think the problem is in members viewing the corporate uniform as "second class."
That is the real issue to address IMO.
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
Not as far as the USAF is concerned.
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
No where near the same level at all. 40 years while an accomplishment is no where near 20+ serving the nation at home for extended hours and downrange for months or years at a time. The only people that I see here and in general raising a stink about being second class are those who feel second class. I see the corp uniform as an alternative to accommodate those who have issues with their weight.
I guess since obesesity is an illness and so is alcoholism we should let everyone just wear the AF style regardless of the standards in place and let alcoholics drive corp vehicles since hey they have an "illness" too.
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 30, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
No where near the same level at all. 40 years while an accomplishment is no where near 20+ serving the nation at home for extended hours and downrange for months or years at a time. The only people that I see here and in general raising a stink about being second class are those who feel second class. I see the corp uniform as an alternative to accommodate those who have issues with their weight.
I guess since obesesity is an illness and so is alcoholism we should let everyone just wear the AF style regardless of the standards in place and let alcoholics drive corp vehicles since hey they have an "illness" too.
Or those who choose to have facial hair, those who choose not to wear a military uniform for a multitude of reasons outside of the reasons outlined in the regs, etc.
If people are feeling like second class citizens in the corporate uniform, either the corporate uniform needs to change, or the people fostering the perception that it is a "bad" uniform need to work on changing that perception.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 30, 2015, 01:36:18 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 30, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
No where near the same level at all. 40 years while an accomplishment is no where near 20+ serving the nation at home for extended hours and downrange for months or years at a time. The only people that I see here and in general raising a stink about being second class are those who feel second class. I see the corp uniform as an alternative to accommodate those who have issues with their weight.
I guess since obesesity is an illness and so is alcoholism we should let everyone just wear the AF style regardless of the standards in place and let alcoholics drive corp vehicles since hey they have an "illness" too.
Or those who choose to have facial hair, those who choose not to wear a military uniform for a multitude of reasons outside of the reasons outlined in the regs, etc.
If people are feeling like second class citizens in the corporate uniform, either the corporate uniform needs to change, or the people fostering the perception that it is a "bad" uniform need to work on changing that perception.
I think the major time it becomes a bad uniform (to those who have never served in the military) is that whereas at a banquet where the uod is dress uniform, the corporate equivalent does not allow for the wearing of CAP decorations (except a lapel pin for highest award).
Quote from: Alaric on May 30, 2015, 02:42:47 PMI think the major time it becomes a bad uniform (to those who have never served in the military) is that whereas at a banquet where the uod is dress uniform, the corporate equivalent does not allow for the wearing of CAP decorations (except a lapel pin for highest award).
You get to wear only one CAP miniature medal on the blazer formal uniform.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on May 30, 2015, 04:13:33 PM
Quote from: Alaric on May 30, 2015, 02:42:47 PMI think the major time it becomes a bad uniform (to those who have never served in the military) is that whereas at a banquet where the uod is dress uniform, the corporate equivalent does not allow for the wearing of CAP decorations (except a lapel pin for highest award).
You get to wear only one CAP miniature medal on the blazer formal uniform.
Sorry my point was you can only wear one award
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
Simply, no.
AF AD folks who do not meet physical requirements, after suitable counseling and attempts at compliance, will be released from active duty. Since CAP gets a 10% allowance, they should either comply, or wear the alternate uniform.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 30, 2015, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
I think the problem is in members viewing the corporate uniform as "second class."
That is the real issue to address IMO.
Easiest way to address it - the corporate uniform becomes THE uniform.
FWIW - the people who seem to say the loudest that corporate is not second class are the ones who are allowed to wear the "first class" version.
I've heard the arguments and explanations. I don't buy them. A uniform that can't even settle on a standard shade, cut, fabric, tailoring, with headgear not required, with a baseball cap as the out of sync cap option simply screams "second class." That is reinforced dramatically when someone inquires as to why there are two different uniforms and the answer delivered is "Oh, they wear that because THEY ARENT ALLOWED to wear the blue one."
Seriously, now - what other organization does that?
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 31, 2015, 05:55:17 AM
Easiest way to address it - the corporate uniform becomes THE uniform.
Is it the easiest way?
How many people do we lose if we take the EASY way?
What happens to our recruiting numbers when we take the EASY way?
How long before CAP changes from the USAF Axillary to just a flying club?
Listen....I get it and on a certain level I agree with you....we ought to be in the same uniform. I also agree that the corporate uniform should have standardized fabric and single sourced suppliers.
I also see the reasoning behind the status qua and agree that the "best course of action" is to keep with the status qua.
I'd like to have the power to just make the change and [darn] all the consequences....but no one lives in that world we live in the real CAP.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 31, 2015, 05:55:17 AM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 30, 2015, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
I think the problem is in members viewing the corporate uniform as "second class."
That is the real issue to address IMO.
Easiest way to address it - the corporate uniform becomes THE uniform.
FWIW - the people who seem to say the loudest that corporate is not second class are the ones who are allowed to wear the "first class" version.
I've heard the arguments and explanations. I don't buy them. A uniform that can't even settle on a standard shade, cut, fabric, tailoring, with headgear not required, with a baseball cap as the out of sync cap option simply screams "second class." That is reinforced dramatically when someone inquires as to why there are two different uniforms and the answer delivered is "Oh, they wear that because THEY ARENT ALLOWED to wear the blue one."
Seriously, now - what other organization does that?
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 31, 2015, 05:55:17 AM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 30, 2015, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
I think the problem is in members viewing the corporate uniform as "second class."
That is the real issue to address IMO.
Easiest way to address it - the corporate uniform becomes THE uniform.
FWIW - the people who seem to say the loudest that corporate is not second class are the ones who are allowed to wear the "first class" version.
I've heard the arguments and explanations. I don't buy them. A uniform that can't even settle on a standard shade, cut, fabric, tailoring, with headgear not required, with a baseball cap as the out of sync cap option simply screams "second class." That is reinforced dramatically when someone inquires as to why there are two different uniforms and the answer delivered is "Oh, they wear that because THEY ARENT ALLOWED to wear the blue one."
Seriously, now - what other organization does that?
Seriously then, the answer is to fix the corporate uniform, not dump the AF uniform. If the squadrons I've been in can manage to make it work and have people side by side in AF and corporate uniforms without issue, I reiterate:
I think the problem is in members viewing the corporate uniform as "second class."
Stop thinking of it that way and it won't be a problem.
Quote from: PHall on May 29, 2015, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 29, 2015, 08:02:41 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
Ah, but there is a solution. Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress). You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer. Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this. If not, it is 3:10 A. M. Obviously I had an epiphany. The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's. The action will be for discrimination against obese members. Obesity has been classified by the A.M.A. as a disease. The A.M.A. contends that obesity is not necessarily controllable as previously thought and has genetic and medical components involving the endocrine system. Obesity has been classified as an impairment by the Social Security Administration. Other than perceived image the Air Force has no reason to deny CAP members from wearing the military uniform. Unfortunately that was also a consideration regarding gays being allowed to wear the uniform or even join the Air Force. That has been rectified and so will this uniform issue in the same manner, by the Court. One way or the other, we will become uniform and remove the stigma of obesity from our rank and file. The ACLU loves these cases and makes their living off of them. This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA. There will probably be a claim for damages in that the routine and continual stigma suffered by our obese members is self evident, or will be attested to in Court. Further, as part of any settlement or award, CAP/USAF, may be required to furnish, pay for, or reimburse all current members if a separate uniform is required to right the wrong of this egregious treatment of the offended parties. See, I knew there was a solution. I just forgot that we do not have to always approach the beast with our hat in our hand but may drop back on logic and utilize the argumentum ad baculum. So, I must leave you with one of my favorite closings, "Govern thyself accordingly". Of course, Ned, I don't mean you specifically, but you might wish to convey the message to the powers that be.
I actually considered going thru our (and possibly the USAF) channel(s) for EO complaints on that concept within the 60 days after the new 39-1 dropped. Part of my argument was that forcing 18 to 20 year old cadets into an different uniform based solely weight violated our own CPP rules on hazing.
Wasn't that requirement in the previous edition too?
Not sure on the cadet change. However CAP Regs for complaints have a requirement to file within 60 days. (This has some exceptions.) My thought at the time was the release of a new 39-1 would be a clear reset on the 60 days.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 31, 2015, 07:59:33 AM
I think the problem is in members viewing the corporate uniform as "second class."
This would be much easier to do if the corporate uniforms were "separate but equal," but that is not the case. For example I like baseball caps as much as the next guy, but they are in no way equal to a flight cap or service cap.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 31, 2015, 05:55:17 AM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 30, 2015, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: AirAux on May 30, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Lordmanor, So a 25 year old weighing 140 pounds joins CAP and wears the Air Force uniform. He is proud of his uniform. 40 years later he has served proudly and successfully for 40 years and now weighs 260 pounds and has 2-3 medical conditions and can not lose weight no matter what he does. Hasn't this member earned the right to wear the Air Force uniform, or should he feel the shame/embarrassment of having to wear the second class corporate uniform, a constant reminder that he is no longer as valued as he once was?
I think the problem is in members viewing the corporate uniform as "second class."
That is the real issue to address IMO.
Easiest way to address it - the corporate uniform becomes THE uniform.
FWIW - the people who seem to say the loudest that corporate is not second class are the ones who are allowed to wear the "first class" version.
I've heard the arguments and explanations. I don't buy them. A uniform that can't even settle on a standard shade, cut, fabric, tailoring, with headgear not required, with a baseball cap as the out of sync cap option simply screams "second class." That is reinforced dramatically when someone inquires as to why there are two different uniforms and the answer delivered is "Oh, they wear that because THEY ARENT ALLOWED to wear the blue one."
Seriously, now - what other organization does that?
Agree or disagree with the regulation, Us Naval Sea Cadets does much the same.
http://homeport.seacadets.org/display/Manuals/Uniform+Regulations (http://homeport.seacadets.org/display/Manuals/Uniform+Regulations)
"1. Alternate Uniform. A uniform worn by an NSCC adult volunteer who is
not authorized or is unable to wear the military style officer’s
uniform due to weight standards, medical condition, or other approved
reason. The NSCC Alternate Uniform is not civilian attire."
Their alternate uniforms are described in this document, starting about page 3-49. (Page 49 in PDF land.) There are a lot of similarities to some CAP corporate uniforms.
Bottom line, CAP is not unique for having distinctive uniforms based on height, weight, or grooming. The parent service gets to make the rules.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 31, 2015, 06:18:43 AM
How long before CAP changes from the USAF Axillary to just a flying club?
Some of the most dedicated members who support many Air Force missions, especially air ops missions, don't wear the AF-style uniform. I also know many who wear the AF-style uniform and care more about uniforms, insignias and awards than the mission. Flying Club? I'd say we need to avoid becoming a "military-ish club", regardless of which uniform we wear.
Let's also not forget we can't have Civil
Air Patrol without the AIR part. I've seen more folks pretending to be some sort of "commando" type group, than a flying club. YMMV.
a few thoughts.....
A law suit is a dangerous road to travel. Just because you have in your mind an end point, doesnt mean that is the same end point that will be judged and mandated to compliance. What other doors may that open. firstly, even in an out of court settlement, where is CAP going to come up with the extra cash to fight that fight.....what other programs are going to suffer because of that?
If it is in deed proved that CAP discriminated against people with obesity, via official judgement that they are at fault, they are now open to additional law suits by individuals who now may want/see an easy win for money in their pocket. Good for you, you now have the same uniform as everyone else, but because xyz ex-member also won that $1 mil discrimination law suit because "shaming him for obesity" in those grey pants made him feel depressed and thats why he never excelled and couldnt get out of moms basement and accomplish his dreams., we sold off all the planes and vans and pretty much bankrupted the organization.... oops.
My other worry: You have to come forward and admit you now have a diagnosed medical condition (that previously you didnt have), how does admission of a potentially limiting medical condition effect they further participation in CAP activities, or could it effect your civilian employment, health insurance, life insurance? Where do we say that they are obese? (I was 5'11" and 227 lbs, most "charts" says that's obese) there is a difference between obese and not able to meet height and weight standards.
Maybe anyone who is obese shouldn't be flying in a CAP aircraft? Or as part of a ground team? Or maybe a member at all. There are many jobs out there that people cant do because of certain disabilities or medical conditions, CAP could apply that same standard, right now they leave that up to the individual to say "I can or cant do this with my issue" Force their hand on one side and it may make them force one on the other.
MK
On another note: I personally dont see why CAP doesnt change their standard. A few years ago the AF adopted a standard of appearance (in conjunction with the AFPFT) Basically commanders are required to ensure that members maintain an "acceptable" appearance when in uniform. There are no magic numbers on height and weight except during enlistment/commissioning (you are scored on your "girth" as part of your PT test, but that is waiverable to a certain extent the rest of your time) All AF uniforms for everyone.
This adaption would at least solve a good portion of the 2nd class member issue. But it would force all of the beard and "wierd" hairdo crowd to conform or get out, not to mention those that just dont want to wear a military style uniform (comply or be terminated) and I am sure now they would feel slighted too
MK
Quote from: lordmonar on May 31, 2015, 06:18:43 AM
I also see the reasoning behind the status qua and agree that the "best course of action" is to keep with the status qua.
Okay, I fully admit your Latin must be much better than mine, but... What is this "status qua" to which you continually refer? Is it similar to "status quo"?
Resolved via PM. Nothing to see here. Move along. 8)
I've said it repeatedly:
1) all seniors in corporate -- gray & whites. BBDU, NOMEX flight suit in non-USAF color
2) get a suitable military-style dress jacket for corporate, at least as an option in place of blazer
As a kaydet, I looked on the fat & fuzzy seniors who wore corporates with disdain. They couldn't measure up to our level of military-ish decorum and pizazz, so they settled for "lesser" uniforms.
But now I see those same corporate uniforms as an opportunity that many people might not otherwise have to still participate fully in a USAF-derived program. They're getting to do everything that the military-ish folks do, just in a different type of clothing. I guess I'm more glass-half-full now than I used to be as a kaydet. It's not about what the corporate uniform isn't--it's about what a corporate uniform is, and the positive good that it does.
Fat & fuzzies are not lessers, nor are their uniforms. They're a whole other component of the membership that CAP would not have at its disposal if it were super-strict and oo-rah gung-ho about weight/grooming standards as we kaydets always thought we wanted the organization to be.
And corporate uniforms, more than being somehow less than AF-style unis, are still a means to identify certain people as full-fledged members of the organization, whether they meet certain USAF-style specs or not.
All that being said...
It's kinda funny how the Navy and even the Army have allowed beards in military uniform in the past. Grooming standards were modified to allow them, for a time, under certain circumstances. And it wasn't the end of the world. It worked.
Because a beard doesn't keep you from doing your job. (Heck, with the spec ops guys, it helped them to do it a little better, in terms of blending in or achieving rapport with foreign populations.)
And to some degree, neither does being overweight. It doesn't necessarily keep you from being able to do your (CAP) job. Yes, being big around the middle can make things more difficult. But so can being really tall, or being elderly. Should CAP treat those folks any differently, too? What about having asthma, or COPD, or poor night vision, or whatever?
It should come down to whether you can do the job and meet performance standards: Function over fashion.
But weight-standards as a litmus test for uniform wear is putting fashion over function. I know, I know, there is a basic gut hunch feeling that if you're fat, you must be out of shape functionally too. But that's a superficial assumption. Look at all the portly firefighters who go through hell to do their jobs. Yes, their extra weight makes it harder on them to do it. But they still get it done. And like it or not, look at the portly CAPers who wear BDUs for ground team, and who still get it done. Obviously, they can do the same work that is expected of them as somewhat who meets AF-style grooming/weight standards. So it does seem somewhat nonsensical to declare them unworthy of wearing the same uniform, on a practical level.
That is, unless you go and re-write the performance standards out from underneath them, I guess...
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 01, 2015, 02:48:17 AM
I've said it repeatedly:
1) all seniors in corporate -- gray & whites. BBDU, NOMEX flight suit in non-USAF color
2) get a suitable military-style dress jacket for corporate, at least as an option in place of blazer
You got about $800? Because that how much you would owe me to replace all the USAF uniforms I've got? I won't need money for corporates because i've got those already (well not a blue NOMEX flight suit).
You ready to pick up the slack when all those people (not me) quite because A) You forced another uniform change on them. B) You are pushing away from the Air Force again. C) All NHQ cares about is uniforms?
You ready to pick up the recruiting pace...because not only are we going to have to replace all those who quit, we got work against the negetive backlash they will generate and we will not have the allure of the uniform and the connect it gives us with the USAF.
You ready to deal with people bringing it up again and again for YEARS when you ask them questions completely not related to uniforms? People are still grousing about the CSU going away.
That is the nature of CAP.....right wrong or indifferent.
That is why NHQ and the USAF is happy with the Status Quo (finally fixed my auto correct :) ).
So....before they are going to be ready to push for some big change.....you are going to have to convince them that the benefits out weight the KNOWN butt pain it is going to cause them.
[/rant]
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 01, 2015, 02:48:17 AM
I've said it repeatedly:
1) all seniors in corporate -- gray & whites. BBDU, NOMEX flight suit in non-USAF color
2) get a suitable military-style dress jacket for corporate, at least as an option in place of blazer
And you've been ignored repeatedly because your idea is not workable.
Sarmed1, the Air Force would be part of the lawsuit and would bear most responsibility, financial liability, because they are the ones that ordered the discrimination. Can anybody explain why fatties can't wear the BDU's since they are not an Air Force uniform? I mean, it really looks like the Air Force is set on discriminating against fatties, doesn't it?? For a long time, a member could get free BDU's when the Air Force abandoned them, however, fatties have always had to pay for the BBDU's at full price. The ego of the Air Force is more important than the ego of their volunteer members? Their zero tolerance policy on discrimination is a farce.
I know this comment is going to get mostly ignored because people like AirAux and others want to push the change for changes sake argument and complain about how anyone who wears the corporate uniform is second class and discriminated against.
Quote from: TexasBEAST on June 01, 2015, 03:07:25 AM
As a kaydet, I looked on the fat & fuzzy seniors who wore corporates with disdain. They couldn't measure up to our level of military-ish decorum and pizazz, so they settled for "lesser" uniforms.
As a cadet, I looked upon almost ALL senior members with some degree of disdain, not because of what they wore but how they wore it. There were people who wore the whites that I thought looked sharp, because they wore it right. There were people who wore the blues that looked like a sack of garbage, because they wore it wrong. It's not the uniform that creates a second class member, it's the member that creates a second class uniform.
Right now as a senior member, I am within the CAP weight limit and just a couple of pounds over the air force weight limit. There has never been a time that I've not been eligible to wear the AF-style uniform due to weight. Most of the time, I chose to wear the AF-style because I already had them and they were easy to come by at a decent price. Now I wear only the corporate uniform because I choose to have a kick-ass handlebar mustache. I'm not treated any differently by my fellow squadron mates, or anyone else I come in contact with because of my choice of uniforms. If I ever decide to get my mustache back in regs, because it is kind of annoying sometimes, then I'll wear the AF-style again; and the mission will go on no differently than it does now. Again, the uniform doesn't make me a second class member.
As for standardization, I'm glad that there is no standard brand/model/color of pants. I'm able to go to Sears and buy a pair of pants for $29 that is a reasonable match to the color of pants that the Bookstore used to sell. I'm able to display all of my CAP achievements on the white shirt, though I usually don't because it's a pain in the neck putting all that on there. I'm also glad that I don't have to buy a CAP corporate dress coat and am able to use one of the blazers that I already have hanging in my closet. I'm treated with the same respect as the 180# guy wearing his blues simply because it's not the uniform that makes someone second class, it's the person. And that is the real problem.
Also, opening up AF-style for everyone won't make us any more professional. You'll still have the people who can't be bothered to wash and press their whites not being bothered to wash and press their blues. You'll also still have the same people wearing only polos because they don't want to be bothered with customs and courtesies or they think we should be the CIVILIAN Air Patrol with bright red name tapes and big flashing signs that say, "don't treat us like the Military because we haven't earned that right."
The only thing that I would ask of the uniform committee, is to allow more than one mini-medal to be worn on the corporate semi-formal uniform. As much as I enjoy changing out my one mini-medal throughout the evening to see who notices, I would like to be able to display them all at formal functions.
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
Can anybody explain why fatties can't wear the BDU's since they are not an Air Force uniform?
I don't know, maybe because it's an Army uniform?
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
Sarmed1, the Air Force would be part of the lawsuit and would bear most responsibility, financial liability, because they are the ones that ordered the discrimination. Can anybody explain why fatties
It is hard to take your position seriously if you are going to keep using pejoratives like this.
Quote from: jeders on June 01, 2015, 02:37:13 PM
I know this comment is going to get mostly ignored because people like AirAux and others want to push the change for changes sake argument and complain about how anyone who wears the corporate uniform is second class and discriminated against.
Quote from: TexasBEAST on June 01, 2015, 03:07:25 AM
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
Can anybody explain why fatties can't wear the BDU's since they are not an Air Force uniform?
I don't know, maybe because it's an Army uniform?
The Woodland BDU has not been an Army uniform in years
Quote from: Alaric on June 01, 2015, 07:07:14 PM
Quote from: jeders on June 01, 2015, 02:37:13 PM
I know this comment is going to get mostly ignored because people like AirAux and others want to push the change for changes sake argument and complain about how anyone who wears the corporate uniform is second class and discriminated against.
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
Can anybody explain why fatties can't wear the BDU's since they are not an Air Force uniform?
I don't know, maybe because it's an Army uniform?
The Woodland BDU has not been an Army uniform in years
That depends. Even though they may not wear that particular pattern of camouflage, that does not necessarily mean they do not claim it as a uniform. The fact it does not appear in a uniform manual, just means that the military does not currently claim it as a standard or currently used uniform. Nevertheless, they could, in theory, revert back to that particular style of uniform.
Starfleet, how would you like them referred to? Since it is all a weight issue that I am discussing I find nothing wrong with it, especially since the Air Force treats them with disdain and less respect than the lean, mean, uniform wearing machines, right? I am a fatty and I feel like a second class citizen and I have given over 40 years to this organization and I am tired of it. If you don't want us around, throw us out, but don't keep using us while treating us like red-headed step-children.
Quote from: LSThiker on June 01, 2015, 07:21:48 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 01, 2015, 07:07:14 PM
Quote from: jeders on June 01, 2015, 02:37:13 PM
I know this comment is going to get mostly ignored because people like AirAux and others want to push the change for changes sake argument and complain about how anyone who wears the corporate uniform is second class and discriminated against.
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
Can anybody explain why fatties can't wear the BDU's since they are not an Air Force uniform?
I don't know, maybe because it's an Army uniform?
The Woodland BDU has not been an Army uniform in years
That depends. Even though they may not wear that particular pattern of camouflage, that does not necessarily mean they do not claim it as a uniform. The fact it does not appear in a uniform manual, just means that the military does not currently claim it as a standard or currently used uniform. Nevertheless, they could, in theory, revert back to that particular style of uniform.
And when they did, we'd have to do something about it. But that is not very logical, using that argument we could not adopt any uniform, that had ever been used by the US Military since they could "revert back to that particular style of uniform" If for instance we wanted to change from the Blue BDUs to O.D. fatigues (not that I'm suggesting that) since technically the army could revert
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 07:28:44 PM
...especially since the Air Force treats them with disdain and less respect than the lean, mean, uniform wearing machines...
You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. I've know numerous overweight members who have earned the same respect as a non-overweight person doing the same things. Again, it's the member who makes the second class thing happen, not the uniform.
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 07:28:44 PM
... I feel like a second class citizen and I have given over 40 years to this organization and I am tired of it.
That sounds like an issue that you need to resolve locally. And if you think that being thin and in an Air Force-style uniform is going to have any measurable effect on that, you're kidding yourself.
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 07:28:44 PM
If you don't want us around, throw us out, but don't keep using us while treating us like red-headed step-children.
You keep wanting to put words in other people's mouths, but the fact is that NO ONE has advocated getting rid of people who can't or don't wear the AF-style uniform for whatever reason. If you really feel that badly about yourself, then you need to address that locally. Nationwide, everyone is treated equally based on their abilities and willingness to work together to accomplish the mission, not based on their choice of clothing.
Quote from: Alaric on June 01, 2015, 07:34:30 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on June 01, 2015, 07:21:48 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 01, 2015, 07:07:14 PM
Quote from: jeders on June 01, 2015, 02:37:13 PM
I know this comment is going to get mostly ignored because people like AirAux and others want to push the change for changes sake argument and complain about how anyone who wears the corporate uniform is second class and discriminated against.
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
Can anybody explain why fatties can't wear the BDU's since they are not an Air Force uniform?
I don't know, maybe because it's an Army uniform?
The Woodland BDU has not been an Army uniform in years
That depends. Even though they may not wear that particular pattern of camouflage, that does not necessarily mean they do not claim it as a uniform. The fact it does not appear in a uniform manual, just means that the military does not currently claim it as a standard or currently used uniform. Nevertheless, they could, in theory, revert back to that particular style of uniform.
And when they did, we'd have to do something about it. But that is not very logical, using that argument we could not adopt any uniform, that had ever been used by the US Military since they could "revert back to that particular style of uniform" If for instance we wanted to change from the Blue BDUs to O.D. fatigues (not that I'm suggesting that) since technically the army could revert
That's a reasonable assumption. Of course if we wanted to adopt an O.D. BDU, which is not the same as the O.D. fatigues worn prior to the BDU, then that we could do.
Quote from: AirAux on June 01, 2015, 07:28:44 PM
Starfleet, how would you like them referred to? Since it is all a weight issue that I am discussing I find nothing wrong with it, especially since the Air Force treats them with disdain and less respect than the lean, mean, uniform wearing machines, right? I am a fatty and I feel like a second class citizen and I have given over 40 years to this organization and I am tired of it. If you don't want us around, throw us out, but don't keep using us while treating us like red-headed step-children.
Well, I don't see the AF treating them with disdain and less respect. If the AF said, "MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS OR GET OUT" that would be one thing. And that is the one thing they are not doing.
If you really, really, really don't like the corporate uniform... just don't wear a uniform. Clothes don't make the man, but if you really feel it does, then get yourself a sharp suit and show up to meetings in that.
I'll point out that the next lawsuit will be "freedom of speech" as people demand to wear the uniform everywhere to do anything they want.
To answer your original question, you can choose terms such as "obese" and/or "overweight" which are not nearly as loaded a term as "fatties" is.
Or you can do what I've done in the context of this thread and simply refer to "Those not meeting the weight/grooming standards for the current AF uniform." or a variation thereof.
Quote from: Alaric on June 01, 2015, 07:34:30 PM
And when they did, we'd have to do something about it. But that is not very logical, using that argument we could not adopt any uniform, that had ever been used by the US Military since they could "revert back to that particular style of uniform" If for instance we wanted to change from the Blue BDUs to O.D. fatigues (not that I'm suggesting that) since technically the army could revert
I am not using the argument. The claim is dependent on what the Air Force wants. If they view a previously used pattern as still an "Air Force" uniform, then yes we would have to get approval. This is currently being done with the BDUs. The Air Force no longer uses them, but they still view the BDUs as an Air Force uniform. For that reason, as Ned has stated prior, the Air Force continues to reject our free use of BDUs. However, they hold no claim on Blue BDUs as they have never been an Air Force uniform. If we wanted to use solid green BDUs, then we could have as OD fatigues were not OD BDUs. If we want to use the old McConnell service dress, you can bet the Air Force would resist, even though they have not used that uniform for
decades now since 1994. The old 1084s were discontinued in the 1969.
I think we have hit an all time low with this thread. We've stooped to the threat of a lawsuit, bickering over pc correct terms, and just overall heated opinions.
AirAux who do you think is going to suffer the most should you pursue this COA? It won't be the AF that's for sure. Someone somewhere is going to have to eat that cost and ultimately it may be the membership to include those you are strongly crusading for.
So should you file suit and win do I send you the bill when the membership fees go up? Or how about other programs that may suffer due to the legal fees?
As much as I am reluctant to add life to this thread, let me remind all of us that concerning harsh words directed one way or another:
Quote from: NedThat kind of war of words is destructive, and violates our Core Value of Respect. All of our members are valuable. Indeed, our members are our most important asset. We must work together to perform our Congressionally imposed missions. We cannot and should not fling arrows across this divide.
Also, if it helps, I'm fairly sure there is little or no chance for a viable lawsuit on this difficult and divisive issue.
For a viable lawsuit, a plaintiff has to be able to point to an illegal action by the defendant (in most cases that the defendant had violated some duty imposed by law) and that the plaintiff had suffered measurable and specified damages as a direct result of the defendant's actions.
Here, there does not appear to be any
law that imposes a duty on CAP to allow large members to wear AF-style uniforms. The ADA does not apply to CAP in this situation (we are not a "covered entity.") And if it did, the corporate uniforms would almost certainly be a reasonable accommodation to allow large members to participate on the same basis as everyone else.
There is certainly a DoD Directive and arguably an AFI that may require us to treat members as if the ADA did apply, but you can't sue someone for violating a DoD directive or an AFI. You're supposed to use the chain of command and IG channels.
The other significant roadblock to a potential lawsuit is the lack of tangible, measurable damages suffered by members wearing corporate uniforms. I don't dispute that some members feel demeaned by the uniforms. Heck, I tend to agree with them. But it is probably hard to assign a measurable amount of damages to such feelings in a organization that the aggrieved party voluntarily joined knowing the rules, voluntarily stayed despite experiencing the disparate treatment, and indeed voluntarily paid dues to the very organization that they believe is treating them badly.
In my business, we call this a "nominal damages" case at best. Meaning that -- even if the plaintiff proves their case of unlawful discrimination -- she/he would receive a damage award of perhaps $1. It can be very hard to get a lawyer to take a case without substantial measurable damages.
Quote from: Ned on June 01, 2015, 11:34:33 PM
In my business, we call this a "nominal damages" case at best. Meaning that -- even if the plaintiff proves their case of unlawful discrimination -- she/he would receive a damage award of perhaps $1. It can be very hard to get a lawyer to take a case without substantial measurable damages.
Well, it sounds like AirAux is willing to take this case as a pro bono work. Perhaps you can preside over the court. It would be the first all CAP court hearing, which should make for an interesting discussion on CAPTalk :)
Quote from: lordmonar on June 01, 2015, 03:12:47 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 01, 2015, 02:48:17 AM
I've said it repeatedly:
1) all seniors in corporate -- gray & whites. BBDU, NOMEX flight suit in non-USAF color
2) get a suitable military-style dress jacket for corporate, at least as an option in place of blazer
You got about $800? Because that how much you would owe me to replace all the USAF uniforms I've got? I won't need money for corporates because i've got those already (well not a blue NOMEX flight suit).
You ready to pick up the slack when all those people (not me) quite because A) You forced another uniform change on them. B) You are pushing away from the Air Force again. C) All NHQ cares about is uniforms?
You ready to pick up the recruiting pace...because not only are we going to have to replace all those who quit, we got work against the negetive backlash they will generate and we will not have the allure of the uniform and the connect it gives us with the USAF.
You ready to deal with people bringing it up again and again for YEARS when you ask them questions completely not related to uniforms? People are still grousing about the CSU going away.
That is the nature of CAP.....right wrong or indifferent.
That is why NHQ and the USAF is happy with the Status Quo (finally fixed my auto correct :) ).
So....before they are going to be ready to push for some big change.....you are going to have to convince them that the benefits out weight the KNOWN butt pain it is going to cause them.
[/rant]
First. I would allow a sufficient phase in period of several years, so that the average member would be replacing worm clothing items anyway.
I would not owe you anything, nor would anyone else...it would simply be a change in uniform regulations.
"Uniform", as we've noted frequently, normally refers to some degree of commonality...which I feel would be worthwhile for CAP as an organization.
I don't agree that this would be pushing away from the Air Force, I think it would be satisfying their preference (perhaps unstated) to avoid having people who can't meet USAF grooming standards wearing their uniform...which I get, and understand, truly...I think a move this radical is needed because enforcement for nearly 30 years has ranged from difficult to impossible...and some of the worst offenders have been senior CAP officers at wing, region, national, including more than a few full colonels.
I've been a CAP member for a long. long time...somebody is always complaining about something... and, frankly, I feel that we're better off without anyone who would quit over a uniform...many of them are probably "paper" members anyway.
I realize you are retired Air Force and feel strongly about this, and you have every right to do so...I just look at it differently, don't see the challenges you've identified (correctly, for the most part) as insurmountable.
Quote from: PHall on June 01, 2015, 03:20:23 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 01, 2015, 02:48:17 AM
I've said it repeatedly:
1) all seniors in corporate -- gray & whites. BBDU, NOMEX flight suit in non-USAF color
2) get a suitable military-style dress jacket for corporate, at least as an option in place of blazer
And you've been ignored repeatedly because your idea is not workable.
Disagree, see my response to LordMonar.
It IS workable, if this is what is best for CAP.
It might not be a lot of fun, will undoubtedly present some problems...but it could very well solve a lot of problems, too.
Ned, respectfully, I have done discrimination work. if there is an appearance of discrimination, the defendant has to prove otherwise, and denying obese people the right to wear the Air Force uniform while allowing other disabled people to do so smacks of discrimination. Trust me, discrimination cases are not nominal. I have not threatened anything, but when reasonable people can't agree, the Court is the last alternative. This discrimination can not go on. As has been mentioned in this thread alone, some members believe fats and fuzzies are not as good as the Air Force blue members. The feelings that obese members have over this are much more devastating than thought or talked about. These are damages and not nominal. Having been a member in Air Force blue and now being relegated to corporate dress, I can tell you that it hurts and makes one feel like a second class member. If the lean, mean members had any compassion, they would give up the Air Force uniform and support us by all wearing the corporate uniform. The fact that they won't acknowledges that they do not think the uniforms are equal in perception.
abdsp51, If, as we have been led to believe, that the Air Force is the one setting the uniform terms and the one denying CAP obese members the same privileges to wear the Air Force uniform as other members, due to their disability, the Court will go after them. The Air Force will be the one facing the defense costs. CAP will only be incidental.
I feel fairly confident if a bunch of CAP members sued the USAF as the primary defendant the USAF would drop CAP like a bad habit. There will be no uniform problem, there will of course be no aux status, no missions and no money too. I'm sure the rest of the organization will be forever grateful to you.....
MK
AirAux some of us do have compassion for those who can not wear AF style but honestly why penalize members who have a choice simply due to others not having a choice.
We get it some people are obeses due to reasons beyond their control but what about those who are obese because of their eating habits and lack of exercise?
Again alcoholism is labeled an illness as well do you want an alcoholic driving a car on your watch?
Maybe instead of wearing pants everyday I want to sear a kilt instead should I sue for that?
As someone who has a choice of which style to wear I have compassion for my fellow sm who cant wear the AF style but I should not be penalized in ajy shape or form because I have a choice.
Would that not count as discrimination as well?
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 02, 2015, 01:01:46 AM
I don't agree that this would be pushing away from the Air Force,
It is not how YOU would see it...but how others would see it.
QuoteI think it would be satisfying their preference (perhaps unstated) to avoid having people who can't meet USAF grooming standards wearing their uniform...which I get, and understand, truly...I think a move this radical is needed because enforcement for nearly 30 years has ranged from difficult to impossible...and some of the worst offenders have been senior CAP officers at wing, region, national, including more than a few full colonels.
That will get NHQ on your side.
QuoteI've been a CAP member for a long. long time...somebody is always complaining about something... and, frankly, I feel that we're better off without anyone who would quit over a uniform...many of them are probably "paper" members anyway.
I realize you are retired Air Force and feel strongly about this, and you have every right to do so...I just look at it differently, don't see the challenges you've identified (correctly, for the most part) as insurmountable.
I did not say they were insurmountable. I just said they are not worth the return of investment. Status Quo vs Everyone in Corporates......has a low Cost/Benefit Ratio...not worth the effort.
If someone was willing to put in the effort, get everyone on board, and be ready to deal with the backlash.....then yeah...sure....it can be done. I'd rather spend that time and effort of expanding or missions. But if you feel differently about it that's cool too.
And for the record.....IF I WERE GOD FOR A DAY (IIWGFAD) I would have everyone...including the large and hairy ones in to USAF uniforms tomorrow.....vice that I would have everyone in corporates. But I know what I want...and I also know the obstacles for getting there....and understand why we don't bother to go in that direction.
abdsp51, you noted, "but honestly why penalize members who have a choice simply due to others not having a choice." You are stating that having to wear the corporate uniform is a penalty and that is the whole problem with this situation. This is the discrimination. If it wasn't derogatory to have to wear the corporate uniform, if they were both equal, all members would agree to wear the corporate uniform just for a sense of teamwork and uniformity. BUT, no one is willing to do this as they see the corporate uniform as a penalty, something deserving only for a second class citizen. Truly, it amazes me that you all can't understand how this hurts individually and collectively.
Quote from: AirAux on June 02, 2015, 02:32:03 AM
abdsp51, you noted, "but honestly why penalize members who have a choice simply due to others not having a choice." You are stating that having to wear the corporate uniform is a penalty and that is the whole problem with this situation. This is the discrimination. If it wasn't derogatory to have to wear the corporate uniform, if they were both equal, all members would agree to wear the corporate uniform just for a sense of teamwork and uniformity. BUT, no one is willing to do this as they see the corporate uniform as a penalty, something deserving only for a second class citizen. Truly, it amazes me that you all can't understand how this hurts individually and collectively.
Hey guess what I wear BBDU and have for a little while. The corp uniforms are not secondary nor meant to be used as such. I wear the polo as well even though I can't stand it.
By demanding those who have a choice conform to what you want to create a sense of untiy is bull. I have a choice and I have never ever treated those who only have the option of the corp as second class.
If you feel that way then you need to adjust your view on it. It is equal simply because you fail or choose not to see it is not the orgs issues or mine.
Quote from: AirAux on June 02, 2015, 01:39:18 AM
Ned, respectfully, I have done discrimination work. if there is an appearance of discrimination, the defendant has to prove otherwise, and denying obese people the right to wear the Air Force uniform while allowing other disabled people to do so smacks of discrimination.
Where does it say that anyone has a
right to wear the Air Force uniform?
CAP membership in and of itself is a privilege. Wearing the uniform is a part of that privilege. I, by personal choice, must wear corporate uniforms, and am comfortable with the situation. I'd like to have a classier looking dress uniform, and the opportunity to wear my Navy ribbons, but neither is a deal killer for maintaining my membership, which totals 45 years at this time.
AirAux, go ahead and try to file your suit. Good luck in finding a court that won't toss it.
I don't even think you could get the ACLU to take this case because you're operating under a false assumption.
But go for it, you're the one paying the filing fees...
From what I've gathered in this entire thread is that a significant amount of the membership in CAP are quite happy with the two-tiered system, and as long as they are allowed to wear the AF-style uniform and the fat-and-fuzzies aren't, well, all the better.
Quote from: Panache on June 02, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
From what I've gathered in this entire thread is that a significant amount of the membership in CAP are quite happy with the two-tiered system, and as long as they are allowed to wear the AF-style uniform and the fat-and-fuzzies aren't, well, all the better.
"quite happy" may be too strong of a word. Maybe "resigned to" or "accept as an unhappy compromise" would be better.
Quote from: SarDragon on June 02, 2015, 03:26:47 AM
CAP membership in and of itself is a privilege. Wearing the uniform is a part of that privilege. I, by personal choice, must wear corporate uniforms, and am comfortable with the situation. I'd like to have a classier looking dress uniform, and the opportunity to wear my Navy ribbons, but neither is a deal killer for maintaining my membership, which totals 45 years at this time.
I know I'm going out on a limb, however I will venture to say this is probably the majority opinion of the membership on the subject...
Here's the thing:
My opinion is that we should get rid of the two-tiered multiform approach. Obviously, there's some contention on that point.
But, honestly, I would be happy if we just fix the Corporate uniform: It's god-awful ugly.
The CSU isn't coming back. That's a given.
Easiest, quickest improvement: change the color of the shirt. White is not a good choice. White tends to emphasize the weight of our more rotund members. Also, it seems far too easy to "see through" a white shirt to the undergarments worn underneath. It shows dirt very easily. It just looks sloppy.
What color to change the shirt to? Anything but white. I prefer royal blue. I think it looks sharp and gives us a connection to the AF. Alternatively, khaki (in a shirt made with modern permanent-press fabric) as a homage to our history with the Army Air Corps. But, again, anything other than white.
Second easy improvement: authorize an (optional) differently-colored flight cap. Wearing a baseball cap with a uniform is just cheesy.
Third improvement, but not so easy (or cheap): authorize an (optional) service coat that is the same color as the flight cap and authorize the wear of CAP awards and ribbons with it.
I think these three changes will go a long way, and they're not unreasonable.
Quote from: Panache on June 02, 2015, 10:47:51 AM
Here's the thing:
My opinion is that we should get rid of the two-tiered multiform approach. Obviously, there's some contention on that point.
But, honestly, I would be happy if we just fix the Corporate uniform: It's god-awful ugly.
The CSU isn't coming back. That's a given.
Easiest, quickest improvement: change the color of the shirt. White is not a good choice. White tends to emphasize the weight of our more rotund members. Also, it seems far too easy to "see through" a white shirt to the undergarments worn underneath. It shows dirt very easily. It just looks sloppy.
What color to change the shirt to? Anything but white. I prefer royal blue. I think it looks sharp and gives us a connection to the AF. Alternatively, khaki (in a shirt made with modern permanent-press fabric) as a homage to our history with the Army Air Corps. But, again, anything other than white.
Second easy improvement: authorize an (optional) differently-colored flight cap. Wearing a baseball cap with a uniform is just cheesy.
Third improvement, but not so easy (or cheap): authorize an (optional) service coat that is the same color as the flight cap and authorize the wear of CAP awards and ribbons with it.
I think these three changes will go a long way, and they're not unreasonable.
This seems like a reasonable solution. While I personally like the AF style uniform and wear it as my "standard" one, I don't see the corporate uniforms as second class at all. Rather, I agree that having two sets of uniforms makes things anything BUT "uniform." So we have one style for everyone and stick with it.
Regardless, I didn't join CAP for the uniform, and I will wear whatever is authorized. I just personally wish we were more "uniform" with our uniforms.
Sean
I have seen this topic discussion several times, even joined in a time or two, only to be "trounced" by some frequent posters. However, I still believe in the purpose of allowing input, howsoever received.
Just an input from our local unit, FWIW. We are in a rather remote (in terms of population and military bases). The only active military base is an Army chemical storage base about 300 miles from here, and a National Guard training base about 70 miles from. Not exactly DOD central. Further, the local community is much more jeans and T-shirts than shirts and ties, so uniforms are not particularly in favor. All that is simply background to local mind-set.
Our local unit is a composite squadron, actually the largest and most active in our Wing. Our cadet program, and the seniors working it, wear the AF uniforms properly and proudly. Any change there would likely hurt the program.
The rest of the unit (Seniors) are members because they believe in the missions, ES in particular. Most common uniform to that group is the Polo combination. A few wear the AF uniform. None have mess dress. To these folks, fulfillment of the mission is important; uniforms are only a means towards that end. I doubt that anyone even pay attention to slack color. Most would likely do what they do without uniforms.
None of this is to diminish the uniform or its importance in the overall program. I just want to point out that, for us, the uniform issue is secondary to mission accomplishment. Few join or stay for the uniform, outside the CP. I know that is not true for many others, and I certainly do not want to belittle that import. Just want to give feedback from our little field.
I have enjoyed being a part of Civil Air Patrol since I joined in the early 90's. I was currently an active duty warrant officer and I saw so much passion when I went to my local squadron. I saw adults who cared about training young people and young people wanting to be a part of something bigger than them. I saw other adults who care about flying and those missions associated with that endeavor. I also observed teams of SAR members training with equipment to find aircraft and they actually went on missions on a regular basis. There were also members that did little to nothing but seemed happy to be just there. Today, that same passion is there though some of the missions have changed or modernized. Of course there were discussions of the various uniforms we wore and our relationship with the Air Force. Most people felt like all of you now. Some people stayed and other's left because of those feelings. It is about choice and what is really important. I chose to stay with CAP even after leaving the Army. I stayed for the cadets and our nation's future. That is my mission to help young people learn the values this organization aspires to.
I remember putting my cherry boards on and thought this is quite obvious in its intent. We are a part of the Air Force but we are different. We are not military but civilians wearing military type uniforms. Like most organizations there are rules and we are being asked to follow them. CAP administration has tried to accommodate everyone, hence the multiple uniforms. All those uniforms cost money and then we change them. So that affects our passion and it gets redirected from our real missions. That is too bad since we are such a great organization. I hope all these changes to our CAP governing body and the effects of the national budget and emerging technologies will lessen our passion and those that keep CAP going. In comparison to this uniform discussion, I find that much more important.
I, for one, own most every uniform that CAP authorizes....and I wear each one proudly since it provides identification with the USAF and with the best group of individuals I have had the privilege of knowing and serving with -- the members of CAP. It is always been my practice at either a CCRSC or a NSC which I have staffed to wear both the USAF-Style and the White/Grey Corporate uniforms. Depending on the situation or setting I will also alternate between the Blazer Combo or the Serviced Dress. I am fully aware of the angst many senior members feel regarding not being able to have a good looking uniform .... but I have never viewed them as "second class citizens". Each volunteer member of CAP contributes greatly to the missions and the success of this organization -- and for that I am appreciative.
I wear the corporate uniforms. I like the blue bdus and the blue flight suit and utility uniform as well as the polo with gray slacks or tacticals. I extremely dislike the white aviator shirts. Hard to keep clean, can see the tee shirt underneath, no proper hat choices for it, and I do not see any connection to the Air Force with this shirt. I don't mind the Blazer combo that much but still not proper hat for it when needed. I refuse to wear a baseball cap with the aviator and the blazer. Does not look proper and does not show a good image in my opinion. They say the medium gray pants is for ease of acquirement and low cost. I have not seen that yet. I still have to order my trousers on-line. Most stores do not cater to people above a 44 waist line. I wear 48 in my trousers. I have a problem with weight due to current health problems. I am losing weight but doubt I will ever be down far enough to wear the AF style uniform. In the USCG Aux, they did not have problems with us fat and fuzzies wearing their uniform and we did not worry about grade or rank. We were treated like active duty. I will still do my job in CAP no matter what uniform I wear. I do tend to lean towards the polo primarily because I just don't believe the white aviator is the best look for us, but will wear it when needed and I wear it properly and still with pride.
Quote from: TarRiverRat on June 06, 2015, 03:28:05 AM
... I refuse to wear a baseball cap with the aviator and the blazer....
Incidentally, which baseball cap(s) can be worn with the aviator and polo shirt combos? CAPM 39-1 makes several references to "
the CAP baseball cap," but what is that? Vanguard has two or three that say "Approved for wear by Civil Air Patrol members with the utility uniform and blue field uniform."
Somewhere way back in this thread someone said it shouldn't matter what you wear but the quality of work provided. That's true, to a certain extent, but you can't man the CAP liaison desk in an EOC in a rude dog t-shirt, jorts and flip-flops. It doesn't matter how professional you are at your job, your peers from other agencies and the public at large will not take you seriously if you look unprofessional.
I'd also like to point out that if some of the "fixes" proposed here for the corporate uniform were implemented it would actually make the problem worse.
If you create a flight cap and service coat in corporate grey you are going to create even more multi-forms and more than fifty shades of grey that will be even more obvious when "that guy" (and we all know "that guy") shows up in his Walmart special pants and his newly authorized grey service coat and cap.
Then the solution to the newly created problem is mandate a matching pair of grey service trousers, which causes wailing and gnashing of teeth because "that guy" can't wear his threadbare grey slacks that he from Montgomery Wards two decades ago anymore.
No matter how you cut this pie, someone is gonna get butt-hurt over something (can't wear: AF blue, cheap pants, favorite shade of grey, etc.).
I would submit to you that CAP is the only organization that lets this problem continue. Numerous volunteer agencies exist that dictate what and how their members wear their authorized uniform.
Example, the Anytown Police Department has an unpaid, volunteer Police Reserve. The paid, fulltime Police Officers wears a solid navy blue uniform, the Reserve Officers wear a grey shirt and navy pants. Both uniforms have regulations that dictate make, model, color shade for both shirts and pants.
If you want to be a Reserve Office in Anytown... you buy the shirt and pants they tell you to wear and nothing else. Show up in Walmart special navy pants and you will get sent home; show up a second time in them, they tell you don't come back ever again.
Did a APD Reserve member get butt-hurt because he can't wear cheap pants - yes.
Did anyone at APD lose sleep over it - no.
So why the angst in CAP?
Fix the problem and let those who fall out, fall out. I suspect CAP will be better for it.
As I've always said, do away with the USAF-style and corporate greys and adopt one corporate uniform for all senior members of CAP.
Current Blue Flightsuit become the sole flying uniform.
Current Blue BDUs become the sole field uniform.
Current Blue polo shirt and khaki trousers (see below) become the sole business casual uniform.
Adopt a modern silver/tan khaki corporate service uniform to replace the USAF-style and corporate grey uniforms.
From top to bottom:
Current common Military low-quarter shoes are the only authorized footwear.
Trousers will be cut in style and fabric to the specifications of the current USAF 1620 trousers but in silver/tan khaki.
Belt will be the current USAF blue with silver buckle shade 1620 belt.
Shirts, both long and short sleeves, will be cut in style and fabric to the specifications of the current USAF 1550 shirts but in silver/tan khaki.
Necktie will be the USAF herringbone tie in shade 1620.
Epaulet slides will be in shade 1620 with embroidered rank and "C.A.P.".
The service coat will be in a matching silver/tan khaki to the trouser and shirts it will be cut in the style of the old 1549 coat (ie the Tony Nelson coat) or in the new "Hap Arnold Heritage Coat" style. Shirt epaulet slides in shade 1620 to be worn on the coat as well.
Flight and Service caps will be the current USAF shade 1620 will be worn with CAP insignia devices.
Authorize the wear of former Military service decorations and/or badges on the Khaki uniform, Blue BDUs and Flightsuit.
Done, corporate uniform distinct and different from the USAF... BUT... with enough USAF features and flashes of "Air Force Blue" to clearly mark the USAF Auxiliary of CAP and the links to CAP's past in USAAC/USAAF khaki.
Like the Army did with the new ACU transition, give the membership four (4) full years to transition from the current USAF style and corporate greys to the new corporate Khaki uniform.
If membership leaves because of cost, loss of USAF style, whatever, so be it. Readjust fire and move on with the mission in one CAP distinctive uniform.
For a guy who is just a Patron Member who is not even authorized to wear any CAP uniform, you sure have a lot to say about our uniforms.
So what's your angle, cuz' as far as I can tell, you have no dog in this fight.
Quote from: shuman14 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:11 PM
Somewhere way back in this thread someone said it shouldn't matter what you wear but the quality of work provided. That's true, to a certain extent, but you can't man the CAP liaison desk in an EOC in a rude dog t-shirt, jorts and flip-flops. It doesn't matter how professional you are at your job, your peers from other agencies and the public at large will not take you seriously if you look unprofessional.
I'd also like to point out that if some of the "fixes" proposed here for the corporate uniform were implemented it would actually make the problem worse.
If you create a flight cap and service coat in corporate grey you are going to create even more multi-forms and more than fifty shades of grey that will be even more obvious when "that guy" (and we all know "that guy") shows up in his Walmart special pants and his newly authorized grey service coat and cap.
Then the solution to the newly created problem is mandate a matching pair of grey service trousers, which causes wailing and gnashing of teeth because "that guy" can't wear his threadbare grey slacks that he from Montgomery Wards two decades ago anymore.
No matter how you cut this pie, someone is gonna get butt-hurt over something (can't wear: AF blue, cheap pants, favorite shade of grey, etc.).
I would submit to you that CAP is the only organization that lets this problem continue. Numerous volunteer agencies exist that dictate what and how their members wear their authorized uniform.
Example, the Anytown Police Department has an unpaid, volunteer Police Reserve. The paid, fulltime Police Officers wears a solid navy blue uniform, the Reserve Officers wear a grey shirt and navy pants. Both uniforms have regulations that dictate make, model, color shade for both shirts and pants.
If you want to be a Reserve Office in Anytown... you buy the shirt and pants they tell you to wear and nothing else. Show up in Walmart special navy pants and you will get sent home; show up a second time in them, they tell you don't come back ever again.
Did a APD Reserve member get butt-hurt because he can't wear cheap pants - yes.
Did anyone at APD lose sleep over it - no.
So why the angst in CAP?
Fix the problem and let those who fall out, fall out. I suspect CAP will be better for it.
As I've always said, do away with the USAF-style and corporate greys and adopt one corporate uniform for all senior members of CAP.
Current Blue Flightsuit become the sole flying uniform.
Current Blue BDUs become the sole field uniform.
Current Blue polo shirt and khaki trousers (see below) become the sole business casual uniform.
Adopt a modern silver/tan khaki corporate service uniform to replace the USAF-style and corporate grey uniforms.
From top to bottom:
Current common Military low-quarter shoes are the only authorized footwear.
Trousers will be cut in style and fabric to the specifications of the current USAF 1620 trousers but in silver/tan khaki.
Belt will be the current USAF blue with silver buckle shade 1620 belt.
Shirts, both long and short sleeves, will be cut in style and fabric to the specifications of the current USAF 1550 shirts but in silver/tan khaki.
Necktie will be the USAF herringbone tie in shade 1620.
Epaulet slides will be in shade 1620 with embroidered rank and "C.A.P.".
The service coat will be in a matching silver/tan khaki to the trouser and shirts it will be cut in the style of the old 1549 coat (ie the Tony Nelson coat) or in the new "Hap Arnold Heritage Coat" style. Shirt epaulet slides in shade 1620 to be worn on the coat as well.
Flight and Service caps will be the current USAF shade 1620 will be worn with CAP insignia devices.
Authorize the wear of former Military service decorations and/or badges on the Khaki uniform, Blue BDUs and Flightsuit.
Done, corporate uniform distinct and different from the USAF... BUT... with enough USAF features and flashes of "Air Force Blue" to clearly mark the USAF Auxiliary of CAP and the links to CAP's past in USAAC/USAAF khaki.
Like the Army did with the new ACU transition, give the membership four (4) full years to transition from the current USAF style and corporate greys to the new corporate Khaki uniform.
If membership leaves because of cost, loss of USAF style, whatever, so be it. Readjust fire and move on with the mission in one CAP distinctive uniform.
This
Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2015, 02:22:48 PM
For a guy who is just a Patron Member who is not even authorized to wear any CAP uniform, you sure have a lot to say about our uniforms.
So what's your angle, cuz' as far as I can tell, you have no dog in this fight.
Copy.
Active member > Patron member
Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2015, 02:22:48 PM
For a guy who is just a Patron Member who is not even authorized to wear any CAP uniform, you sure have a lot to say about our uniforms.
So what's your angle, cuz' as far as I can tell, you have no dog in this fight.
Well, good question. I'm a patron member... now... because I don't have the time to be an active member. Between work, the Reserves, health problems with my spouse and a 8-month old at home there's no time for just about anything else.
But I know that won't always be the case and when my daughter is old enough, I will encourage her to become a cadet as CAP will be something we can do together. I also have friends who are longtime CAP members which will allow me to spend more time with them.
With that in mind, I have a vested interest in seeing one of the "big" issues in CAP solved before we (my daughter and I) get there.
Plus awards, decorations and uniform trivia are hobby of mine. If I can influence the outcome of
the great CAP uniform debate from the patron member sideline... that be pretty cool in my mind.
Quote from: shuman14 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:11 PM
Somewhere way back in this thread someone said it shouldn't matter what you wear but the quality of work provided. That's true, to a certain extent, but you can't man the CAP liaison desk in an EOC in a rude dog t-shirt, jorts and flip-flops. It doesn't matter how professional you are at your job, your peers from other agencies and the public at large will not take you seriously if you look unprofessional.
I'd also like to point out that if some of the "fixes" proposed here for the corporate uniform were implemented it would actually make the problem worse.
If you create a flight cap and service coat in corporate grey you are going to create even more multi-forms and more than fifty shades of grey that will be even more obvious when "that guy" (and we all know "that guy") shows up in his Walmart special pants and his newly authorized grey service coat and cap.
Then the solution to the newly created problem is mandate a matching pair of grey service trousers, which causes wailing and gnashing of teeth because "that guy" can't wear his threadbare grey slacks that he from Montgomery Wards two decades ago anymore.
No matter how you cut this pie, someone is gonna get butt-hurt over something (can't wear: AF blue, cheap pants, favorite shade of grey, etc.).
I would submit to you that CAP is the only organization that lets this problem continue. Numerous volunteer agencies exist that dictate what and how their members wear their authorized uniform.
Example, the Anytown Police Department has an unpaid, volunteer Police Reserve. The paid, fulltime Police Officers wears a solid navy blue uniform, the Reserve Officers wear a grey shirt and navy pants. Both uniforms have regulations that dictate make, model, color shade for both shirts and pants.
If you want to be a Reserve Office in Anytown... you buy the shirt and pants they tell you to wear and nothing else. Show up in Walmart special navy pants and you will get sent home; show up a second time in them, they tell you don't come back ever again.
Did a APD Reserve member get butt-hurt because he can't wear cheap pants - yes.
Did anyone at APD lose sleep over it - no.
So why the angst in CAP?
Fix the problem and let those who fall out, fall out. I suspect CAP will be better for it.
As I've always said, do away with the USAF-style and corporate greys and adopt one corporate uniform for all senior members of CAP.
Current Blue Flightsuit become the sole flying uniform.
Current Blue BDUs become the sole field uniform.
Current Blue polo shirt and khaki trousers (see below) become the sole business casual uniform.
Adopt a modern silver/tan khaki corporate service uniform to replace the USAF-style and corporate grey uniforms.
From top to bottom:
Current common Military low-quarter shoes are the only authorized footwear.
Trousers will be cut in style and fabric to the specifications of the current USAF 1620 trousers but in silver/tan khaki.
Belt will be the current USAF blue with silver buckle shade 1620 belt.
Shirts, both long and short sleeves, will be cut in style and fabric to the specifications of the current USAF 1550 shirts but in silver/tan khaki.
Necktie will be the USAF herringbone tie in shade 1620.
Epaulet slides will be in shade 1620 with embroidered rank and "C.A.P.".
The service coat will be in a matching silver/tan khaki to the trouser and shirts it will be cut in the style of the old 1549 coat (ie the Tony Nelson coat) or in the new "Hap Arnold Heritage Coat" style. Shirt epaulet slides in shade 1620 to be worn on the coat as well.
Flight and Service caps will be the current USAF shade 1620 will be worn with CAP insignia devices.
Authorize the wear of former Military service decorations and/or badges on the Khaki uniform, Blue BDUs and Flightsuit.
Done, corporate uniform distinct and different from the USAF... BUT... with enough USAF features and flashes of "Air Force Blue" to clearly mark the USAF Auxiliary of CAP and the links to CAP's past in USAAC/USAAF khaki.
Like the Army did with the new ACU transition, give the membership four (4) full years to transition from the current USAF style and corporate greys to the new corporate Khaki uniform.
If membership leaves because of cost, loss of USAF style, whatever, so be it. Readjust fire and move on with the mission in one CAP distinctive uniform.
I like it. Will never happen, but I like it. The khaki is part of our heritage and would be a lot better than the white and gray.
Quote from: shuman14 on June 07, 2015, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2015, 02:22:48 PM
For a guy who is just a Patron Member who is not even authorized to wear any CAP uniform, you sure have a lot to say about our uniforms.
So what's your angle, cuz' as far as I can tell, you have no dog in this fight.
Well, good question. I'm a patron member... now... because I don't have the time to be an active member. Between work, the Reserves, health problems with my spouse and a 8-month old at home there's no time for just about anything else.
But I know that won't always be the case and when my daughter is old enough, I will encourage her to become a cadet as CAP will be something we can do together. I also have friends who are longtime CAP members which will allow me to spend more time with them.
With that in mind, I have a vested interest in seeing one of the "big" issues in CAP solved before we (my daughter and I) get there.
Plus awards, decorations and uniform trivia are hobby of mine. If I can influence the outcome of the great CAP uniform debate from the patron member sideline... that be pretty cool in my mind.
I find it interesting that you (or anyone else) considers this a "big" issue. Despite eleven pages of tail-chasing, overall I view this as a "swagger stick" type of issue -
http://designobserver.com/feature/best-management-memo/37923/ (http://designobserver.com/feature/best-management-memo/37923/)
As I read through this thread and many other uniform threads, I ask myself whether any proposed change(s) will help me or anyone else I know perform CAP duties/tasks better, faster or with increased frequency.
As you've expressed, there's no doubt that you feel differently (despite your lack of functional experience within the organization). At least you've given yourself plenty of time (about 9.5 years) to be an effective (albeit absent?) agent of change.
He still hasn't figured out he's not taken seriously yet.
Big Blue has an undeniable interest in how USAF members look in the USAF uniform, and how CAP members look in the USAF-style uniform. The average civilian doesn't know the difference, and sometimes sister service personnel don't know the difference. Folks have reported being thanked for their service, receiving military discounts, and receiving military courtesies.
Big Blue enforces its interest in USAF personnel appearance in uniform, and has been known to demote and discharge enlisted personnel for being overweight. Officers receive increasingly stern letters and can eventually be booted as well (but no demotion).
I say this as a retired enlisted member and current CAP officer who is still too fat to wear blues: I'm fine with Big Blue's policy. I'm not going to wait until I meet CAP standards (which are already generous), I'll wait until I'm significantly thinner.
A CAP officer in USAF-style uniform who falls far short of presenting a military appearance should consider whether he's serving Big Blue's best interests.
P.S. The CAC thing will never happen. Live in the now.
Quote from: shuman14 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:11 PM
If you create a flight cap and service coat in corporate grey you are going to create even more multi-forms and more than fifty shades of grey that will be even more obvious when "that guy" (and we all know "that guy") shows up in his Walmart special pants and his newly authorized grey service coat and cap.
That happens
now with the blue realtor-style blazer outfit. I'm not sure I see a problem there.
Quote from: Bobble on June 08, 2015, 02:42:24 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on June 07, 2015, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2015, 02:22:48 PM
For a guy who is just a Patron Member who is not even authorized to wear any CAP uniform, you sure have a lot to say about our uniforms.
So what's your angle, cuz' as far as I can tell, you have no dog in this fight.
Well, good question. I'm a patron member... now... because I don't have the time to be an active member. Between work, the Reserves, health problems with my spouse and a 8-month old at home there's no time for just about anything else.
But I know that won't always be the case and when my daughter is old enough, I will encourage her to become a cadet as CAP will be something we can do together. I also have friends who are longtime CAP members which will allow me to spend more time with them.
With that in mind, I have a vested interest in seeing one of the "big" issues in CAP solved before we (my daughter and I) get there.
Plus awards, decorations and uniform trivia are hobby of mine. If I can influence the outcome of the great CAP uniform debate from the patron member sideline... that be pretty cool in my mind.
I find it interesting that you (or anyone else) considers this a "big" issue. Despite eleven pages of tail-chasing, overall I view this as a "swagger stick" type of issue -
http://designobserver.com/feature/best-management-memo/37923/ (http://designobserver.com/feature/best-management-memo/37923/)
As I read through this thread and many other uniform threads, I ask myself whether any proposed change(s) will help me or anyone else I know perform CAP duties/tasks better, faster or with increased frequency.
As you've expressed, there's no doubt that you feel differently (despite your lack of functional experience within the organization). At least you've given yourself plenty of time (about 9.5 years) to be an effective (albeit absent?) agent of change.
I get your point, but uniforms change with time... the USAF wears a uniform much different from the one it wore when it was the USAAC/USAAF.
Look at the simple change from 1549s to McPeak to the current 1620... didn't really change the effectiveness of the USAF (or CAP) in anyway, but it happened.
BTW, I own a swagger stick, it's walnut with a .50 cal casing as the handle/knob and a 7.62 round and casing as the tip.
I'm old school, so when I am giving a briefing that would require a pointer, I use my swagger stick. I've occasionally carried it to formal functions when I'm not wearing a sword belt and sabre. I get "looks" but hey, I just got to be me. 8)
If the Army is ever dumb enough to promote me to LTC, I'll carry it everyday. Colonels, of all stripes, are allowed to be eccentric. ;D
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 08, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
He still hasn't figured out he's not taken seriously yet.
Maybe not by you, but there are others here that take my suggestions in the spirit they are offered.
Quote from: Panache on June 08, 2015, 12:22:12 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:11 PM
If you create a flight cap and service coat in corporate grey you are going to create even more multi-forms and more than fifty shades of grey that will be even more obvious when "that guy" (and we all know "that guy") shows up in his Walmart special pants and his newly authorized grey service coat and cap.
That happens now with the blue realtor-style blazer outfit. I'm not sure I see a problem there.
But it's not really a uniform, it's a civilian coat and jacket, it's suppose to look different.
Trust me, if you have 10 CAP members in the same uniform grey service coat, and 10 different grey trousers... it will look like an abortion.
Quote from: shuman14 on June 08, 2015, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 08, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
He still hasn't figured out he's not taken seriously yet.
Maybe not by you, but there are others here that take my suggestions in the spirit they are offered.
Name one...
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 09, 2015, 03:10:02 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on June 08, 2015, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 08, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
He still hasn't figured out he's not taken seriously yet.
Maybe not by you, but there are others here that take my suggestions in the spirit they are offered.
Name one...
I do. I read Shuman's posts in the same spirit as I read yours. :D :D :D
Quote from: shuman14 on June 08, 2015, 11:26:18 PM
BTW, I own a swagger stick, it's walnut with a .50 cal casing as the handle/knob and a 7.62 round and casing as the tip.
Of course you do. Because you need it to do your job.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 09, 2015, 03:10:02 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on June 08, 2015, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 08, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
He still hasn't figured out he's not taken seriously yet.
Maybe not by you, but there are others here that take my suggestions in the spirit they are offered.
Name one...
Not that I need to justify myself to you, but because you asked
so nicely... CyBorg is a name that jumps to my mind.
he was always supportive of my input both on the forum and in private messages.
Quote from: PA Guy on June 09, 2015, 03:23:45 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 09, 2015, 03:10:02 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on June 08, 2015, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 08, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
He still hasn't figured out he's not taken seriously yet.
Maybe not by you, but there are others here that take my suggestions in the spirit they are offered.
Name one...
I do. I read Shuman's posts in the same spirit as I read yours. :D :D :D
;D
Quote from: Bobble on June 09, 2015, 03:39:43 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on June 08, 2015, 11:26:18 PM
BTW, I own a swagger stick, it's walnut with a .50 cal casing as the handle/knob and a 7.62 round and casing as the tip.
Of course you do. Because you need it to do your job.
Yep, I've got eye on some nice ivory handles for my M-9 too. They will
really help out doing my job. :P
I think we need to look at authorizing a cape with the uniform. To help out with the job.
(and to hide imperfections in the uniforms.)
No capes! Need I remind you what happened to Dyno Girl in '68?
The cape would be great!
It would help in case of rain...
It would help in Winter...
...And bring one more item to argue in CAPTalk about! The color, the length, the material, how it attaches...
Oh the possibilities!
ENDLESS!!!
ST:TNG bags. Red for ES, blue for CP, gold for AE.
Whats next?
Quote from: THRAWN on June 09, 2015, 11:05:19 PM
ST:TNG bags. Red for ES, blue for CP, gold for AE.
Whats next?
Doesn't Red mean you're Dead? >:D
Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2015, 02:24:04 AM
Quote from: THRAWN on June 09, 2015, 11:05:19 PM
ST:TNG bags. Red for ES, blue for CP, gold for AE.
Whats next?
Doesn't Red mean you're Dead? >:D
Only if you are an ensign. :-)
Quote from: LSThiker on June 10, 2015, 02:33:06 AM
Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2015, 02:24:04 AM
Quote from: THRAWN on June 09, 2015, 11:05:19 PM
ST:TNG bags. Red for ES, blue for CP, gold for AE.
Whats next?
Doesn't Red mean you're Dead? >:D
Only if you are an ensign. :-)
Only on Kirk's ENTERPRISE...
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on June 09, 2015, 09:23:41 PM
I think we need to look at authorizing a cape with the uniform. To help out with the job.
(and to hide imperfections in the uniforms.)
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjU2/z/A2wAAOSwNSxVOlIP/$_35.JPG)
Not a 100% but I think the mannequin has a swagger stick too. ;)