Are the navy/silver tapes for the ABUs also authorized for BDU wear? I haven't been able to find a regulation, namely 39-1, that specifically authorizes this, however I have noticed members wearing them, and it seems Vanguard has stopped stocking the old tapes. If someone could point me to the appropriate regulation, should it exist, it would be much appreciated!
Regards,
Starbird
The ABU wear policy says it, right there on the front page. 39-1 doesn't have ABUs in there yet.
Thanks :)
Make sure you read ALL the combined ABU policies.
There was the original 4 MAY 16 memo that covered it (para 3, as I remember) and then the June 2016 memo that didn't specify, and I'm not sure about the October guidance.
But pay attention to all the combined guidance.
It's in the ABU transition announcement, not the ABU Wear Instructions.
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/letter_D5FAEC5658C32.pdf
Quote
3. The phase in period for wear of the ABU will begin on 15 June 2016. Members will wear the ABU with the dark blue tapes and insignia as outlined in the attached wear instructions. Vanguard will begin accepting orders for the new devices on 15 June 2016. The Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) may continue to be worn until the mandatory phase out date of 15 June 2021. CAP will also begin to transition to dark blue tapes on the Corporate field uniform and BDUs with a mandatory wear date of 15 June 2021. Members are not required to change the tapes on existing uniforms until the mandatory wear date; however, all devices on the uniform must match. The attached wear instructions will constitute regulatory guidance on the wear of the ABU until a revision to CAP Manual 39-1 is released.
I'm not seeing anything about it in the latest ABU Wear Instructions. Where does NHQ make available previous versions for reference? Anyway, in general, doesn't a current release supersede previously published instructions?
Quote from: foo on December 21, 2016, 02:48:22 PM
I'm not seeing anything about it in the latest ABU Wear Instructions. Where does NHQ make available previous versions for reference? Anyway, in general, doesn't a current release supersede previously published instructions?
That is true but for whatever reason NHQ has gone about this in the worst possible way. I am still wondering why they didn't just publish an ICL. That is the proper way to do it. Also, having someone properly proofread it before publishing would be nice too.
Why isn't 39-1 just updated to reflect the changes in real time?
CAP is drifting into year 3 of it being published broken and then publishes ICLs in violation of the very reg that
defines ICLs as a "fix".
Just fix it and render a new .pdf.
EOY CY2016 is the perfect time - the flags and the historic wings have to come off - add-in the missing section for ABUs,
fix the bad graphics and other problems and hit "print".
It would take literally about an hour.
And further to that - why isn't there a live Wiki with all the CAP regs and info? A single source for all the info everyone
needs that can be updated as regs are changed and RSS'ed to the field? It's 2016.9672!
Quote from: Eclipse on December 21, 2016, 06:02:57 PM
Why isn't 39-1 just updated to reflect the changes in real time?
CAP is drifting into year 3 of it being published broken and then publishes ICLs in violation of the very reg that
defines ICLs as a "fix".
Just fix it and render a new .pdf.
EOY CY2016 is the perfect time - the flags and the historic wings have to come off - add-in the missing section for ABUs,
fix the bad graphics and other problems and hit "print".
It would take literally about an hour.
And further to that - why isn't there a live Wiki with all the CAP regs and info? A single source for all the info everyone
needs that can be updated as regs are changed and RSS'ed to the field? It's 2016.9672!
You are forgetting about the days it takes to compile a Word document into a PDF. Oh wait, that just takes a few minutes. Nevermind... >:D
Quote from: kwe1009 on December 21, 2016, 06:56:44 PMYou are forgetting about the days it takes to compile a Word document into a PDF. Oh wait, that just takes a few minutes. Nevermind... >:D
While I agree with the sentiment, I would caution against live documents or constant updates being published. Things are bad enough with all the regulations, don't go changing them on me on a weekly basis.
Quote from: Fubar on December 22, 2016, 06:23:01 AM
Quote from: kwe1009 on December 21, 2016, 06:56:44 PMYou are forgetting about the days it takes to compile a Word document into a PDF. Oh wait, that just takes a few minutes. Nevermind... >:D
While I agree with the sentiment, I would caution against live documents or constant updates being published. Things are bad enough with all the regulations, don't go changing them on me on a weekly basis.
Why? If you're being notified of the change there should be no issue. Be adaptive. When the whole Samsung issue was first starting out, we were getting multiple revs daily on policy updates. We read the new stuff, digested it, and put it in play until the next revision. Or we could just wait decades for updates and gripe about that...
Errors and omissions should be corrected as a matter of course, without necessarily even notifying the field, per se - certainly
grammatical and spelling errors, or things like graphics should be corrected as soon as they are noticed.
As to actual regulatory changes, there are any number of ways that major meaningful changes could called out in
important documents when they are accessed - summary pages, pop-ups, pass-through gateways, etc., etc.
Even just removing obsolete documents from the CSS would be a huge step in the right direction.
But considering a lot of CAP members waste bandwidth with real-time updates about cat videos, having live regs
shouldn't be more then an "of course".
CAP also needs to get lower echelons to stop re-posting copies of documents in their own web spaces as
if that makes things "easier or better" (it doesn't), and mentoring leaders at all levels that reading the regs shouldn't
be treated as a 1-time investment, never to be revisited.
To me, being as current as possible / reasonable on the regs and changes is a Unit CC's #1 job - he should be an
SME on the state of everything, so when members ask, he either knows, or knows where to check, and actually checks.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 22, 2016, 01:20:01 PM
Errors and omissions should be corrected as a matter of course, without necessarily even notifying the field, per se - certainly
grammatical and spelling errors, or things like graphics should be corrected as soon as they are noticed.
As to actual regulatory changes, there are any number of ways that major meaningful changes could called out in
important documents when they are accessed - summary pages, pop-ups, pass-through gateways, etc., etc.
Even just removing obsolete documents from the CSS would be a huge step in the right direction.
But considering a lot of CAP members waste bandwidth with real-time updates about cat videos, having live regs
shouldn't be more then an "of course".
CAP also needs to get lower echelons to stop re-posting copies of documents in their own web spaces as
if that makes things "easier or better" (it doesn't), and mentoring leaders at all levels that reading the regs shouldn't
be treated as a 1-time investment, never to be revisited.
To me, being as current as possible / reasonable on the regs and changes is a Unit CC's #1 job - he should be an
SME on the state of everything, so when members ask, he either knows, or knows where to check, and actually checks.
This is poetry. Too many units do this and too many units have info that is years if not decades out of date. You can't become an archmage if you read your spellbooks once. It requires constant study and review. That's how regs should be treated.
Quote from: THRAWN on December 22, 2016, 01:24:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 22, 2016, 01:20:01 PM
Errors and omissions should be corrected as a matter of course, without necessarily even notifying the field, per se - certainly
grammatical and spelling errors, or things like graphics should be corrected as soon as they are noticed.
As to actual regulatory changes, there are any number of ways that major meaningful changes could called out in
important documents when they are accessed - summary pages, pop-ups, pass-through gateways, etc., etc.
Even just removing obsolete documents from the CSS would be a huge step in the right direction.
But considering a lot of CAP members waste bandwidth with real-time updates about cat videos, having live regs
shouldn't be more then an "of course".
CAP also needs to get lower echelons to stop re-posting copies of documents in their own web spaces as
if that makes things "easier or better" (it doesn't), and mentoring leaders at all levels that reading the regs shouldn't
be treated as a 1-time investment, never to be revisited.
To me, being as current as possible / reasonable on the regs and changes is a Unit CC's #1 job - he should be an
SME on the state of everything, so when members ask, he either knows, or knows where to check, and actually checks.
This is poetry. Too many units do this and too many units have info that is years if not decades out of date. You can't become an archmage if you read your spellbooks once. It requires constant study and review. That's how regs should be treated.
My Wing used to do that too and one of the first things I did when I got selected for Wing Staff was to get them removed. Instead of reposting regs, there is not just a link to the NHQ pubs and forms site.
Quote from: Fubar on December 22, 2016, 06:23:01 AM
Quote from: kwe1009 on December 21, 2016, 06:56:44 PMYou are forgetting about the days it takes to compile a Word document into a PDF. Oh wait, that just takes a few minutes. Nevermind... >:D
While I agree with the sentiment, I would caution against live documents or constant updates being published. Things are bad enough with all the regulations, don't go changing them on me on a weekly basis.
I agree that regs should not be changed constantly but document errors and omissions should and can be changed frequently. The ABU guidance should be an ICL in my view as it is a change to current regulation. Once all of the bugs are worked out of that ICL it should be incorporated into CAPM 39-1. Since changes from the previous version of a regulation are summarized at the beginning and highlighted within the document, it shouldn't cause that much confusion. Also, sending these documents out for review by at least the Region OPR would be a good quality control step before publishing to the field.