Loss of USAF uniforms

[TexasBEAST]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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:

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone's medium gray trousers/slacks looked like that?

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Panache]

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.

[SarDragon]

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.

[AirAux]

Wait, what, are we discussing 50 shades of gray on here??? 

[Ned]

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.   

[goblin]

Haha nice!

[THRAWN]

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...

[lordmonar]

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.

[Alaric]

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.

[Holding Pattern]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Ned]

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" 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.

[Holding Pattern]

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.

[MisterCD]

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.

[LSThiker]

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

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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?

[AirAux]

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?