How hard can it be really to standardize the Gray/White Corporate uniform?
I know this doesn't pass the lowlight, I can't read or am legally blind test. The Cadets are the United States Military Academy, get rid of the White Gloves and the black stripe on the trousers. They already even had the blank gray rank slides.
(http://crybelovedcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/4744167674_3a517b5bc9_z.jpg)
Give me a cover and a service coat with that, and I would be happy.
Even better, make the shirt a different shade of blue then AF blue, like royal blue or something.
I'm sure Scamguard would be very frickin' happy to take our money for some "standardized" grey trousers. ::)
Oh it is easy.....but who will sell them? Vanguard?
And for how much?
As soon as CAP identified "these are the slacks you will wear".....you are going to have 2000 people screaming bloody murder that their Walmart specials have been good enough for the last 15 years. 2000 more screaming that we should have gone with Brand X instead of Brand Y. 2000 more screaming "why that shade of gray?"........and finally another 2000 screaming that Khaki/Green/Black/Blue/Red/Neon/Pink would be the best color.
The status qua.....may be a cop out.....but maybe our volunteer leaders really do have something else to worry about.
BTW....I do think we should standardize....I'm just showing "how hard" it is to pick one and implement it. ;)
Edit....and another 2000 thousand saying.....cool give me a hat and service coat too! :) :) :) :) :)
Quote from: PHall on July 04, 2014, 05:06:56 AM
I'm sure Scamguard would be very frickin' happy to take our money for some "standardized" grey trousers. ::)
See.....what did I tell you. :) :) :) :) :)
AAFES already sells the Shirt, Shoes and Belt...just need to get the items approved for our members to purchase. The AAFES price on the shirt is $20.00
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 05:08:54 AM
As soon as CAP identified "these are the slacks you will wear".....you are going to have 2000 people screaming bloody murder that their Walmart specials have been good enough for the last 15 years. 2000 more screaming that we should have gone with Brand X instead of Brand Y. 2000 more screaming "why that shade of gray?"........and finally another 2000 screaming that Khaki/Green/Black/Blue/Red/Neon/Pink would be the best color.
This is usually the Polo Shirt Posse anyway, and with the new 39-1, while you can wear "tac" pants with the polo, it's expressly forbidden with the G/Ws (one thing they did right.) So those who like to show up to the meeting in their gray tac pants already have to have a separate set for the G/Ws anyway.
But now that you're all of the sudden concerned about the feelings of those who wear the corporate variants, it shouldn't be that hard to code a quick poll into eServices for all SMs about what the majority prefers...
No you did not read that right. The question was how hard was it to find a standard grey pants for the G/W. The answer is not very hard. But the implantation is hard for the reasons stated.
No one wants to open that can of worms if they don't have to.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 06:10:02 AM
No you did not read that right. The question was how hard was it to find a standard grey pants for the G/W. The answer is not very hard. But the implantation is hard for the reasons stated.
No one wants to open that can of worms if they don't have to.
My apologies.
Lord-
Did you really mean "implantation" or "implementation?"
Either of them is appropriate!
>:D
Quote from: Panache on July 04, 2014, 05:41:21 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 05:08:54 AM
As soon as CAP identified "these are the slacks you will wear".....you are going to have 2000 people screaming bloody murder that their Walmart specials have been good enough for the last 15 years. 2000 more screaming that we should have gone with Brand X instead of Brand Y. 2000 more screaming "why that shade of gray?"........and finally another 2000 screaming that Khaki/Green/Black/Blue/Red/Neon/Pink would be the best color.
This is usually the Polo Shirt Posse anyway, and with the new 39-1, while you can wear "tac" pants with the polo, it's expressly forbidden with the G/Ws (one thing they did right.) So those who like to show up to the meeting in their gray tac pants already have to have a separate set for the G/Ws anyway.
But now that you're all of the sudden concerned about the feelings of those who wear the corporate variants, it shouldn't be that hard to code a quick poll into eServices for all SMs about what the majority prefers...
Problem here is the big mouth variety of the minority yells louder than the majority and therefore gets more attention
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 05:08:54 AM
Oh it is easy.....but who will sell them? Vanguard?
And for how much?
As soon as CAP identified "these are the slacks you will wear".....you are going to have 2000 people screaming bloody murder that their Walmart specials have been good enough for the last 15 years. 2000 more screaming that we should have gone with Brand X instead of Brand Y. 2000 more screaming "why that shade of gray?"........and finally another 2000 screaming that Khaki/Green/Black/Blue/Red/Neon/Pink would be the best color.
The status qua.....may be a cop out.....but maybe our volunteer leaders really do have something else to worry about.
BTW....I do think we should standardize....I'm just showing "how hard" it is to pick one and implement it. ;)
Edit....and another 2000 thousand saying.....cool give me a hat and service coat too! :) :) :) :) :)
No ever asks "Why do I have to wear the USAF blue pants and shirt when I wear the USAF-style uniform". ::)
The color choice is simple... it must match the grey of the rank slides to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Cut/style... must match the USAF pants in cut/style to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Material... must match the USAF pants in material make up and blend to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Sense the trend here... its must provide a "uniform" appearance.
Christ how hard is this... it's a
UNIFORM not clean out your closet day. >:(
Quote from: SARDOC on July 04, 2014, 05:20:03 AM
AAFES already sells the Shirt, Shoes and Belt...just need to get the items approved for our members to purchase. The AAFES price on the shirt is $20.00
The white shirt sold at the Air Force MCSS is for the semiformal uniform; at an Army MCSS you will only find the Army Service Uniform white shirt with permanent military creases.
Quote from: shuman14 on July 04, 2014, 01:21:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 05:08:54 AM
Oh it is easy.....but who will sell them? Vanguard?
And for how much?
As soon as CAP identified "these are the slacks you will wear".....you are going to have 2000 people screaming bloody murder that their Walmart specials have been good enough for the last 15 years. 2000 more screaming that we should have gone with Brand X instead of Brand Y. 2000 more screaming "why that shade of gray?"........and finally another 2000 screaming that Khaki/Green/Black/Blue/Red/Neon/Pink would be the best color.
The status qua.....may be a cop out.....but maybe our volunteer leaders really do have something else to worry about.
BTW....I do think we should standardize....I'm just showing "how hard" it is to pick one and implement it. ;)
Edit....and another 2000 thousand saying.....cool give me a hat and service coat too! :) :) :) :) :)
No ever asks "Why do I have to wear the USAF blue pants and shirt when I wear the USAF-style uniform". ::)
The color choice is simple... it must match the grey of the rank slides to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Cut/style... must match the USAF pants in cut/style to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Material... must match the USAF pants in material make up and blend to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Sense the trend here... its must provide a "uniform" appearance.
Christ how hard is this this... it's a UNIFORM not clean out your closet day. >:(
Read what the 39-1 has to say about the grey trousers for the grey and white uniform. It's not very directive.
Quote from: SARDOC on July 04, 2014, 04:38:23 AM
How hard can it be really to standardize the Gray/White Corporate uniform?
I know this doesn't pass the lowlight, I can't read or am legally blind test. The Cadets are the United States Military Academy, get rid of the White Gloves and the black stripe on the trousers. They already even had the blank gray rank slides.
(http://crybelovedcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/4744167674_3a517b5bc9_z.jpg)
For starters, by design, and within a range, everyone in that photo is pretty "uniform" - even the belt
line is pretty close, owing for the hill they appear to be standing on.
That's not the case in CAP, where the size ranges from xxs to XXX
3LT.
A military clothing exchange is not going to sell that size range because they probably don't even have specs for it
to put to bid.
That would leave VG, and I don't want to buy >any< clothing from them. It's bad enough they are single-source for
insignia, at least that's understandable, but no thank you on clothing. Not to mention they would likely do "as ordered"
on the more unusual sizes, which would mean potentially weeks to months for delivery.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 04, 2014, 11:43:04 AM
Lord-
Did you really mean "implantation" or "implementation?"
Either of them is appropriate!
>:D
Depends on my mood. :) 8)
Quote from: shuman14 on July 04, 2014, 01:21:46 PM
No ever asks "Why do I have to wear the USAF blue pants and shirt when I wear the USAF-style uniform". ::)
The color choice is simple... it must match the grey of the rank slides to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Cut/style... must match the USAF pants in cut/style to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Material... must match the USAF pants in material make up and blend to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Sense the trend here... its must provide a "uniform" appearance.
Christ how hard is this this... it's a UNIFORM not clean out your closet day. >:(
Like I said....it is not hard.
Just no one wants to go down that route....because they know they can't win for losing.
And frankly they probably have more important things to do. As much as I like to argue about these things here on CT.....the G/W uniform.....uniformity is pretty low on my list of things I got to do once I become the National Commander.
So now even standardisation for the grey trousers is out because:
1. The Polo Shirt Collective won't like it.
2. Those wearing their threadbare Dickies (I've seen it, and it ain't pretty) would scream blue murder over having to get something "new" that you can't get at SmallFart, etc.
And yet we are still denied a service cap...I suggested a modified version of the exact same one that the USMA wears, made by Bernard Cap.
(http://bernardcap.com/caps/images/2450.jpg)
That is very, very, very close to the grey of our shoulder marks/nameplate.
But, as we found out with the new 39-1...status quo über alles.
Quote from: shuman14 on July 04, 2014, 01:21:46 PM
No ever asks "Why do I have to wear the USAF blue pants and shirt when I wear the USAF-style uniform". ::)
The color choice is simple... it must match the grey of the rank slides to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Cut/style... must match the USAF pants in cut/style to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Material... must match the USAF pants in material make up and blend to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Sense Since the trend here... its must provide a "uniform" appearance.
Christ how hard is this this... it's a UNIFORM not clean out your closet day. >:(
FTFY since you're not detecting anything in this regard.
Few things I take away from with the majority of the discussions
1) The established color of "medium grey" people have a hard time knowing what it is.
2) Members wearing G/W will never be happy until they get a coat and hat.
3) Members wanting change will not or have not even bothered submitting the recommendation through the channels to try and get their ideas implemented.
4) Members apparently don't think about cost involved in implementing some of these ideas on a large scale.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 04, 2014, 05:35:44 PM4) Members apparently don't think about cost involved in implementing some of these ideas on a large scale.
Negligible assuming the same policies regarding what is optional are used for both styles.
$10 for a hat isn't going to kill anyone, the rest fixes itself via wear-out dates.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2014, 05:39:30 PM
$10 for a hat isn't going to kill anyone, the rest fixes itself via wear-out dates.
But that 10 adds up with the number of people that it would impact.
No, it's $10 per person, regardless of the number of people.
You can't look at an impact like this as collective.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 04, 2014, 05:35:44 PM
Few things I take away from with the majority of the discussions
1) The established color of "medium grey" people have a hard time knowing what it is.
"Medium grey" is not an industry standard color. I have five pairs of "medium grey" trousers. None of them are the same color, and NOT as a result of fading. I had two that matched since I bought them at the same time. I have since replaced one with the same item number and color from the same vendor, and it is a different shade of grey, but still called "medium grey."
Quote2) Members wearing G/W will never be happy until they get a coat and hat.
To clarify 'coat' - a coat we can display our awards on in the same manner as the AF service coat.
Quote3) Members wanting change will not or have not even bothered submitting the recommendation through the channels to try and get their ideas implemented.
Many of us have, only for our suggestions to go 'somewhere', never to be seen or heard of again. Some of us have had this experience multiple times.
Quote4) Members apparently don't think about cost involved in implementing some of these ideas on a large scale.
We do think about cost, which is why we've looked at existing items that can be adopted or easily modified. If you want to consider folks not thinking about cost, look at how many tens of thousands of dollars were wasted when the NEC killed the CSU.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on July 04, 2014, 01:33:13 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on July 04, 2014, 05:20:03 AM
AAFES already sells the Shirt, Shoes and Belt...just need to get the items approved for our members to purchase. The AAFES price on the shirt is $20.00
The white shirt sold at the Air Force MCSS is for the semiformal uniform; at an Army MCSS you will only find the Army Service Uniform white shirt with permanent military creases.
So change the wording to allow for military creases. They allow 50 different shades of grey, those professional creases will not stop the Earth from spinning. ::)
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 04, 2014, 05:32:04 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on July 04, 2014, 01:21:46 PM
No ever asks "Why do I have to wear the USAF blue pants and shirt when I wear the USAF-style uniform". ::)
The color choice is simple... it must match the grey of the rank slides to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Cut/style... must match the USAF pants in cut/style to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Material... must match the USAF pants in material make up and blend to provide a "uniform" appearance.
Sense Since the trend here... its must provide a "uniform" appearance.
Christ how hard is this... it's a UNIFORM not clean out your closet day. >:(
FTFY since you're not detecting anything in this regard.
Nope I had it right the first time, but thanks sooo much. ::)
Quote4) Members apparently don't think about cost involved in implementing some of these ideas on a large scale.
Hey the Grey/White wears have been getting over for too long.
How dare they
not have to buy a flight cap like the trim and skinned USAF-style uniform wearers.
Time for them to pony up and be forced to buy a flight cap too. ;)
Quote from: shuman14 link=topic=19061.msg350011#msg350011
So change the wording to allow for military creases. They allow 50 different shades of grey, those professional creases will not stop the Earth from spinning. ::)
Why? The manual is based off of 36-2903 now and they are not allowed per the host service. If you like them so much go play with another org who allows it.
Okay......let's look at what it means to standardize our gray slacks.
The USAF has an office that does nothing but checks the quality of the uniforms supplied to AAFES from varioius suppliers. Also any small shop tailor can submit samples for approval.
We would have to establish a CAP office like that. They would have pick the shade and material that would be the standard.
Then someone would have to contract with a supplier or supplies to produce them. We would then have to tell our people "this is the place you have to go to get your uniform pants".
We can't just say "any pants that look like USAF slacks and match the gray on our rank sleeves".....because a) You will not be able find them......and b) too many people with say "close enough" and we are exactly where we are today.
That's what we have to do just to get the existing uniform up to a uniform standard.
So now you want a service coat, and a garrison cap....and I would suspect you all would want a service cap too.......just more or the same.
Now....I'm for it.....I know how much a USAF officer's uniform costs these days.....so you are looking at that price...plus some because it will be a low volume specialty item. So....$179 for a service Coat, $40 for pants, $14-18 for a shirt, $15 for a hat, $6 tie, $3 Belt and $45 for shoes.
So...the minimum basic uniform goes from any medium gray slacks that you may have in your closet today, any black bet you may already have in your dresser, any black shoes that you may have in your closet today, and a white aviator's shirts that you can buy fro $15-25..........to at least $117.
If they want a service coat and service cap.....that $179 for the coat, and $42 for the service cap.
And this does not factor in that possible cost increase or any mark up Vanguard may want to be the point of sale.
So......That is not an insignificant dollar figure and it is one that any CAP/CC for a day will have to contend with if they wanted to just make this happen.
Lordmonar's plan also does not factor in Eclipse's good point - this uniform is designed for our large members, and we are not all built the same. A slender or straight-cut pant like the USAF style will not work.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 04, 2014, 10:57:11 PM
Lordmonar's plan also does not factor in Eclipse's good point - this uniform is designed for our large members, and we are not all built the same. A slender or straight-cut pant like the USAF style will not work.
Which would mean even higher cost for those who had to wear the G/W due to weight.
Quote from: shuman14 on July 04, 2014, 07:51:39 PMSo change the wording to allow for military creases. They allow 50 different shades of grey, those professional creases will not stop the Earth from spinning.
If the Army is comfortable wearing security guard shirts, good on them, we don't need them.
So what's so difficult about standardization on the corporates? Vanguard can source them from Fechheimer (www.fechheimer.com (http://www.fechheimer.com)), who makes commercial versions of Air Force and Navy uniforms, as well as police and fire uniforms.
Here's a white replica of the AF-style 'Class B' (service uniform) shirt:
Flying Cross Duro Long Sleeve Poplin Shirt (http://www.flyingcross.com/Duro-Poplin-Mens-Shirt-Mitered-Flaps.aspx)
Flying Cross Duro Short Sleeve Poplin Shirt (http://www.flyingcross.com/Duro-Poplin-Mens-Short-Sleeve-Shirt-Mitered-Flaps.aspx)
(Look, Ma, no pesky military creases! :D Zoom in...)
And they even have trousers, too!
Command Men's 4 Pocket Pants Tropical Lighter Weight (http://www.flyingcross.com/Command-Mens-4-Pocket-Pants-Tropical-Lighter-Weight.aspx)
And it's not too much of a stretch to spec out a service dress jacket in the same color as the trousers.
Yeah, I know... I'm just preaching to the choir... )
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 04, 2014, 08:22:13 PM
Quote from: shuman14 link=topic=19061.msg350011#msg350011
So change the wording to allow for military creases. They allow 50 different shades of grey, those professional creases will not stop the Earth from spinning. ::)
Why? The manual is based off of 36-2903 now and they are not allowed per the host service. If you like them so much go play with another org who allows it.
Hey I'm just suggesting a shirt that is already in the AAFES system which would be easily obtainable by CAP, reasonably priced and can be special ordered in triple extra portly for our larger members.
But if that logic escapes you... ::)
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2014, 04:27:11 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on July 04, 2014, 07:51:39 PMSo change the wording to allow for military creases. They allow 50 different shades of grey, those professional creases will not stop the Earth from spinning.
If the Army is comfortable wearing security guard shirts, good on them, we don't need them.
If the ASU shirts are security guard shirts then the current CAP Grey/White shirts are janitor shirts... I'm just saying. ;)
Which is why I have compiled a White Paper on the subject of (relatively) minimum change to the G/W...free to all who wish to read it.
I have posted it here several times, and those who grouse the most about my griping about the status quo and not having any ideas of my own are the ones who refuse to read and comment on my ideas!
As far as grey trouser standardisation, why not use the USMA colour as a baseline?
Quote from: CyBorg on July 05, 2014, 09:20:35 PM
Which is why I have compiled a White Paper on the subject of (relatively) minimum change to the G/W...free to all who wish to read it.
I have posted it here several times, and those who grouse the most about my griping about the status quo and not having any ideas of my own are the ones who refuse to read and comment on my ideas!
As far as grey trouser standardisation, why not use the USMA colour as a baseline?
It's a good paper.
A more common and, dare I say it, INDUSTRY STANDARD, color is Heather Grey. Most fabric manufacturers have a heather grey that matches other fabric manufacturers' heather grey. It's also common among law enforcement (and security) agencies.
As for shirts, here is yet another source for AF styled white shirts. http://www.garffshirts.com/pilot-shirts-aviator-poplin-pilot-uniform-shirts.aspx (http://www.garffshirts.com/pilot-shirts-aviator-poplin-pilot-uniform-shirts.aspx)
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.
Quote from: Garp on July 05, 2014, 10:05:16 PM
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.
Your point?
Quote from: Garp on July 05, 2014, 10:05:16 PM
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.
Gotta call BS on several points here:
1. They do not complement the AF style uniform. They are so distinctly as to easily be from two different organizations, until you get up close.
2. They DO replace the AF style uniform for those of us who have no choice.
3. They do NOT facilitate uniformity because there are no easily met standards. When asked directly, national said any white shirt with epaulets, two flapped pockets, and no military creases meets the standards.
4. Most badges and devices are optional on the AF style uniforms as well.
5. Cost was minimized (somewhat) by sacrificing uniformity of the uniform.
6. CAP does use military style awards, devices, and grade. Therefore a military style uniform IS appropriate.
And the vague description of the corporate uniform doesn't help matters much.
What defines an 'aviator shirt'? Generally a shirt with epaulets and flap pockets. You can buy an 'Aviator' shirt by Van Heusen through Scamguard (hint, hint) or other fine purveyors of uniforms. The PTB at NHQ don't care if you get a white aviator shirt with mitered pockets (AF-style) or plain pockets (VH Aviator). And yes, I've seen my share of members wearing police-style shirts with scalloped flap pockets and military perma-creases. FTR I prefer the mitered pocket shirt.
Trousers? Another bit of uniform schizophrenia... medium gray is preferred, though I've seen very light gray to very dark gray. Pleated front or plain front? Cuffs or straight trouser legs? I finally standardized on flat front, straight leg (with 'West Point break') medium (heather) gray.
Close enough -except for colors - to at least look uniform with the ones who wear AF-style.
Just my opinion, and it still doesn't count for much, even though I just got promoted to Lt Col.
BS or not, i was just quoting from the manual
Quote from: Garp on July 06, 2014, 12:03:04 AM
BS or not, i was just quoting from the manual
Might have helped if you had used quote tags in your post.
Then he would have known where it came from.
All of my esteemed colleagues posting on this topic have forgotten one factor...
The NUC, NHQ or whatever flavour-of-the-month acronym is being used seemingly do not want us to have anything but the colourless, non-aviation related status quo.
OK, it "evolved" out of IACE's uniform (I think). I would think the aim there would be to look as neutral as possible, and one cannot get more neutral than grey and white.
But to have it as even an "alternative" uniform for an aviation-related organisation...I cannot think of any aviation organisation, civil (ie airlines) or military (except the former East German Air Force and the Swiss Air Force, and they had/have headgear and service dress coats) that uses these non-colours.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2014, 01:19:30 AM
All of my esteemed colleagues posting on this topic have forgotten one factor...
The NUC, NHQ or whatever flavour-of-the-month acronym is being used seemingly do not want us to have anything but the colourless, non-aviation related status quo.
No, we haven't forgotten it. We just don't like it.
Quote from: arajca on July 06, 2014, 01:22:17 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2014, 01:19:30 AM
All of my esteemed colleagues posting on this topic have forgotten one factor...
The NUC, NHQ or whatever flavour-of-the-month acronym is being used seemingly do not want us to have anything but the colourless, non-aviation related status quo.
No, we haven't forgotten it. We just don't like it.
And I don't like it either, but what can be done about it other than gripe on CT?
Face it: even my very minimum-change ideas that you read and critqued (thank you) wouldn't stand a fart's chance in a hurricane. The status quo is too ingrained.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 05, 2014, 10:09:42 PM
Quote from: Garp on July 05, 2014, 10:05:16 PM
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.
Your point?
although i wasn't clear (sorry!) my point was similar to the one you just made. the manual in the paragraph i provided clearly states the policy of the organization, and offering anything closer than we are (nameplate and rank) to a military uniform is against the stated and recently recertified aims of the CAP uniform program (approved by CAP/CC and CAP-USAF both apparently). I've been reading for four years watching this, and similar discussions, and i don't know he we get a much clearer "No" than this.
Garp, I do not know how long you have been in CAP. I have spent 20 years off-and-on in this organisation.
Do you remember the original grey-and-white kit? The one with the very plain white shirt, no epaulets, no devices, blazer-type nameplate only? That was replaced in 1995 by the current kit, which was modified to allow wear of CAP badges and shoulder marks. In essence, "militarising" it ever-so-slightly.
So, following that line of logic (or lack thereof), if the NUC really wanted to hold to "not authorising a military uniform substitute," should they not have gone back to the older G/W setup?
If not, then why not at least authorise headgear, a service-type coat and cap for the current setup? There are plenty of ways of doing that without "militarising" it any further; i.e., following a civilian airline model.
I have often thought something along the lines of the neo-airline Air America uniform would work.
(http://www.air-america.net/images/AAM/uniforms/FwdFW.jpg)
(http://www.air-america.net/images/AAM/uniforms/classa-1.jpg)
(http://www.air-america.net/images/AAM/uniforms/classa-2.jpg)
(and I do not necessarily advocate adopting sleeve striping)
(http://www.air-america.net/images/AAM/uniforms/hjack.jpg)
Even an "Ike" jacket would be a nod to our heritage.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2014, 01:19:30 AM
All of my esteemed colleagues posting on this topic have forgotten one factor...
But to have it as even an "alternative" uniform for an aviation-related organisation...I cannot think of any aviation organisation, civil (ie airlines) or military (except the former East German Air Force and the Swiss Air Force, and they had/have headgear and service dress coats) that uses these non-colours.
Actually, the US Navy used a gray uniform from 1943-49. It was supposed to replace the tan uniform.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/i04000/i04381k.jpg)
(http://www.bb63vets.com/Photos/bridge2.jpg)
(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_12_2012/post-3982-0-30008800-1354330863.jpg)
By all means, let's go back in time 30 years in picking a uniform... Because that won't look weird >:D
Cadets are wearing a 30+ year old jacket. (Literally and figuratively).
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 06, 2014, 09:57:32 PM
By all means, let's go back in time 30 years in picking a uniform... Because that won't look weird >:D
I would rather go back 30+ years to an attractive, aviation-orientated uniform than the "choices" we have today.
And Riffraff...point taken. I'd forgot about the Navy's grey kit.
no reason to hold our breath waiting for standardized gray trousers (or coat and cap to go with it).
i mean, think of how bad it would be for our organization... if the public started thinking we looked "sharp", "professional", and "well organized".
that wouldn't be good for CAP and it's mission... now would it?
^^Did you mean to include a photo/graphic?