Loss of USAF uniforms

[goblin]

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?

[AirAux]

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.

[goblin]

I wouldn't consider that "core" but point taken

[FW]

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....

[AirAux]

Where do you see that the Air Force has expanded its support of the Cadet program lately??

[Майор Хаткевич]

Where do you see that the Air Force has expanded its support of the Cadet program lately??

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19976

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Ned]

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.

The 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.   

All 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.

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..

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.

As 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.

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.

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.

 

I 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.

I 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.

[Salty]

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

[Ned]

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."

On 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]

[Salty]

Thanks for the info, Ned.

[lordmonar]

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. 

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Ned]

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 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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Holding Pattern]

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.

The 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.   

All 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.

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..

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.

As 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.

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.

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.

 

I 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.

I 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?

[goblin]

^ pretty much everyone gets that bump nowadays.

Or they could just commission..

[TarRiverRat]

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!

[lordmonar]

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.

[MisterCD]

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 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: