Uniform Tape Test

[Eclipse]

Ned, you can't have one or a few units / activities holding everyone to the full standard and the rest of CAP
openly ignoring the rules.  It needs to be consistent across the board or it's essentially meaningless.

These things have to be top-down mandates, with real consequences, or they never get any traction.

Why not have a mandatory weigh-in on a specific date each year?  All hands?  Or probably more then once a year.

I absolutely guarantee if the standards were enforced, top-down, consistently, we'd see rapid change in the
uniforms, either a different combo, or different weight standards.

[RiverAux]

By and large I trust our commanders to get the job done.  It sounds like you may not.

Well, I think its clear that in this particular area they aren't getting the job done.  Yes, each individual commander has the ability to start a weigh-in program, but the fact that most have not done this on their own tells us something about their interest in ensuring compliance with this regulation. 

Now CAP does have a lot of regulations and I certainly wouldn't suggest that we try to micromanage compliance with all of them.  Heck, we have a hard enough time checking on compliance with the "important" ones that are part of our wing and squadron inspection program. 

But, the fact that the AF takes fat people in their uniforms to be a big enough no-no that they won't let them wear AF-style uniforms means to me that it is important enough that we should take the extra step of having a compliance program for it on a national basis.

Maybe then they would start to take us a bit more seriously.

And yes, I'd be fine with doing a formal uniform inspection at the same time as the weigh-in (two birds with one stone). 

If it isn't important enough to require inspection then no one is going to pay much attention to it and thats where we're at now. 

The idea that this is only something impacting a tiny number of CAP members is belied by a visit to any CAP activity where AF uniforms are worn. 

[Devil Doc]

I have a feeling if there was a "Mandatory" weigh in, that 1/6 of people would not meet H/W standards. I also have a feeling the reason its not being done is because it will bump alot of people out of the Blues Standards. So, why would a Whatever rank, want to weight in, when he just sunk x amount of money into a uniform he now cannot wear?

[Ned]

Gentlemen, I hear you.  I really do. 

But to do a snarky paraphrase, you guys are saying "you guys at National Headqurters aren't telling us loudly enough to do what you already told us to do.  That's why we haven't done it."

Since 95% of the membership is at the squadron level, this has to be a bottom-up thing, not the other way around.  We could put a scale in every wing and region headquarters and it will not affect the issue you are seeing. 

Most squadron commanders do just fine at taking questionably-sized members aside and doing a quick counseling.  Obviously, not all of them.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but this sounds a little like a gun-control argument.  If you have members (and commanders) who disobey the current clear guidance, why do you think a new regulation mandating a yearly weigh-in will now make them obey?

As an Army company commander, we did twice yearly weigh-ins and PT tests.  They pretty much consumed an entire training day.  People need time to dress and undress; the clipboard guy and the scale can only handle so many people at a time, etc.  huge consumption of time.

And any student of human nature can predict what happens:  for some reason, larger people tend to be ill or away on weigh-in day.  So the very people who most need to be weighed are the least likely to show up to be weighed.  You have to chase them down and in the meantime we waste a significant amount of time weighing the people who don't need to be weighed.

So, if we have a "commanders need a backbone implant" problem, I honestly disagree that a time-consuming new rule will sve the problem that needs to be solved.

[Devil Doc]

Understandable Ned. I can tell you my job in the Military was to help with the weigh ins since i was a medic. I actually almost failed the weigh in twice, but because of the Tape, and being put in the Fat Guy PT Group they let me stay. I can tell you, being a disabled vet, it is rough trying to keep this weight off.

[Eclipse]

Ned, with deference to the majority who comply, it can be very difficult to try and make the case for compliance when we have
a fair number of high-visibility members at various echelons who fudge or ignore the regs.

A national weigh-in day, or a memo from the national commander mandating strict enforcement of the standards removes the
ability of a member to point up, down, or sideways and say "What about them? ", and it also relieves the reluctant ones
from taking the blame.

How about 2 months of the year as the safety briefing we do a weigh-in?  Spring and Fall.  Bounce the number and the blues stay in the closet until
the next weigh-in, or you do one personally.  Don't want to weigh-in, show up in whites.

[RiverAux]

You have to chase them down and in the meantime we waste a significant amount of time weighing the people who don't need to be weighed.

No need to chase them down.  Just say that they can't wear the AF-style uniform if they don't complete the annual weigh-in.  No muss, no fuss.  If they show up to the next meeting in an AF style you start the disciplinary process. 

There are several ways you could go about implementing the system -- not sure a 1-shot annual weigh in for all members would be my choice. 

I've heard it said many times that wearing the AF-style uniform is a privilege.  Asking our members to earn that privilege by standing on a scale doesn't seem like asking for much.

I don't think this is a squadron commander backbone problem.  It is a process problem.  We don't have a process for ensuring compliance and don't even suggest one to our leaders.  Heck, putting in a sentence in the new 39-1 saying that squadron commanders may conduct routine weigh-ins would be satisfactory to me.  And I fully realize the implications of using may instead of shall.  I just don't think most squadron commanders think they have that authority or an idea of how to use it. 

Give that a shot and if it doesn't work, then maybe we should move on to a mandatory program. 

[NC Hokie]

As an Army company commander, we did twice yearly weigh-ins and PT tests.  They pretty much consumed an entire training day.  People need time to dress and undress; the clipboard guy and the scale can only handle so many people at a time, etc.  huge consumption of time.

There's really no need to have members dress and undress during any theoretical weigh-ins.  The notes section of Attachment 1 of CAPM 39-1 contains the following statements:

2. A weight allowance of up to 3 pounds for clothing (excluding footwear) is authorized.
3. Height measurements do not include footwear.

In practice, you can have members show up in their Blues, remove their shoes to be measured and weighed, and just add those three pounds to the Maximum Allowable Weight for their height.

[PA Guy]

As long as we have wing and region CCs ignoring the height and weight requirements it will be an up hill battle to get the troops to adhere to the ht/wt standards.

[PHall]

All it takes is a Squadron Commander with some guts and the will to enforce the regs.
You might get some disgruntled types who might threaten to quit CAP but the majority of our members will comply with the regs.

[Ned]

A national weigh-in day, or a memo from the national commander mandating strict enforcement of the standards removes the
ability of a member to point up, down, or sideways and say "What about them? ", and it also relieves the reluctant ones
from taking the blame.

Well, as I mentioned, having been through a hundred or so weigh-ins, I again point out that by definition they are essentially a waste of precious time for units simply because most people make weight and those who don't tend to avoid "National Weigh In Day".  It just seems silly to impose an hour or two of (mostly) wasted time on units that already vigorously complain that they don't have the time to do what we already ask of them.  Just look at the threads here on CT complaining about mandatory safety briefings.

And it is not "evidenced-based" in the sense that we have nothing to suggest that it will be any more effective than the current system of relying on commanders to enforce existing regulations.  By and large commanders already know who is too large, and if they are not enforcing it now, why are they going to enforce it then?

No need to chase them down.  Just say that they can't wear the AF-style uniform if they don't complete the annual weigh-in.  No muss, no fuss.  If they show up to the next meeting in an AF style you start the disciplinary process.

With respect, even the Army is a little ahead of you on this one.  Uncle Sam has more administrative coercion available to help encourage large wayward soldiers to weigh in than CAP can ever hope for (not getting paid for the drill, bar to favorable personnel actions (schools, promotions, awards, etc), and even the UCMJ). 

My point is that even with all that, the Army experiences some difficulty getting people to weigh in, especially when they are motivated to not weigh in.  It still takes time to figure out who has and who hasn't weighed in and start taking all those adminsitrative sanctions.  CAP will inevitably experience at least some of that, and it will present a significant burden on commanders and units.  Never underestimate human nature.

Heck, putting in a sentence in the new 39-1 saying that squadron commanders may conduct routine weigh-ins would be satisfactory to me.

That seems reasonable and doable.  Let me see what I can do through the NUC.  We have most of the 39-1 rewrite in draft form, and a meeting coming up. 


And to all of you happily pointing out all the overweight region and wing commanders, was your Mom pursuaded to buy you a motorcycle when you told her that all the kids down the street has one?

[CAP4117]

In my 2-year CAP career, I have encountered 2 commanders who actually advised members who were out of H/W standards to buy BDUs instead of BBDUs. I think there is sometimes the misconception that the standards don't really matter for BDUs, just blues.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

CAP should either get serious about this issue and have mandatory weigh-ins on a regular basis for all those that choose to wear AF-style uniforms or convince the AF to drop the height/weight requirements or drop the AF uniform entirely.   

And if we drop the AF uniform entirely, what do we replace it with?  The current, no-change G/W blazer combo?  I'm on the way out if that happens.  You can say that I'm just in for the uniforms if you like; go ahead, even though it is untrue.

The fact is, as most know here on CT, I loathe that bloody "uniform."  I find it unattractive, monochromatic, not connected to aviation in any sense and if that is my only option...why stay in an organisation where, when I have to "dress-up" for a semiformal occasion, I have to wear a uniform that I loathe?  If that sounds selfish, let it be so.

Now if there's any chance of making changes to that combo, that's another matter (but so is my winning the lottery, and I have more chance at that than CAP does at making significant uniform changes; no offence to Sir Ned and his diligent work).  I know a lot of people just like it as is.  Whatever trips your trigger.  I am not one of them.

No need to chase them down.  Just say that they can't wear the AF-style uniform if they don't complete the annual weigh-in.  No muss, no fuss.  If they show up to the next meeting in an AF style you start the disciplinary process. 

So you would exclude/discipline those who, through no fault of their own, do not meet H/W standards?  There are more of those than you may think.

But, the fact that the AF takes fat people in their uniforms to be a big enough no-no that they won't let them wear AF-style uniforms means to me that it is important enough that we should take the extra step of having a compliance program for it on a national basis.

If they do it for their own membership, fine.  I have seen members of the Air Force - AD, Guard, and Reserve - who likely would not meet CAP H/W standards, to say nothing of Air Force standards.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

Maybe then they would start to take us a bit more seriously.

They'd have to learn who we are first.

I was trying to get a consensus on the uniforms as a whole.

Good luck with that one.

[Private Investigator]

All it takes is a Squadron Commander with some guts and the will to enforce the regs.
You might get some disgruntled types who might threaten to quit CAP but the majority of our members will comply with the regs.

+1000

On active duty we call it 'moral courage'. That guy might be your buddy but you corrected him when needed. Here it is more of the 'good ole boy' syndrom. You correct somebody in CAP and ten years later they are still upset you corrected them.

[RiverAux]

I again point out that by definition they are essentially a waste of precious time for units simply because most people make weight and those who don't tend to avoid "National Weigh In Day".

Most people make weight in the Army and other services because it is something that is checked and there are consequences if they don't.  That is not the situation in CAP where it is not checked at all. 

And if we drop the AF uniform entirely, what do we replace it with? 

I didn't say it was my preferred option, just that it was one of three ways we can approach the issue. 

So you would exclude/discipline those who, through no fault of their own, do not meet H/W standards?  There are more of those than you may think.

Uh, I would discipline those who don't meet the standard we've had for 30 plus years.  Nothing new here.  Not saying that all CAP members have to meet some height/weight standard, just that the one we already have isn't being enforced. 

And if someone can't meet the height/weight standard for wear of the AF uniform it doesn't matter whether it is something they can control or not. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

And if someone can't meet the height/weight standard for wear of the AF uniform it doesn't matter whether it is something they can control or not.

That really creates a two-tier among our membership.

I have to fight to stay in limits...and it's a constant struggle for me because of two things:

Side effects of medication that I have to take.  I was a literal beanpole until I got put on medication.

It is not easy for me to do regular, vigorous exercise.  I have issues resulting from old injuries that sometimes make moving painful, to say nothing of trying to exercise.  And as I age (I'm coming up on 47 later this month), it ain't getting any better.

But I do my best.  Why?  Because I don't want to be relegated to wearing an ugly (in my opinion, one that is not shared universally) uniform.

To do what you are suggesting could create an "elitist" class...those who have the ability and aren't restricted by factors beyond their control to wear the AF uniform and everyone else who may well think, "gee, I'd really like to wear the AF uniform, but my body won't cooperate."

The CSU for a brief while was my "salvation"...but we know what happened with that.

[Eclipse]

Simple, easy question.

Which serves the mission and the member better?

1) Having everyone in one "uniform", regardless of which it is?

2) Having some in one dress and some in another?

Answer this simple question and takes the steps necessary to make that happen, whatever that means.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^^The question is...which uniform would that be?

It's not going to be the AF uniform.  No way are the AF going to relent on their H/W standards.

What does that leave us?

[Eclipse]

^^^The question is...which uniform would that be?

No, that's not the question.  That's not a factor until after the question I posted is answered.

You first answer what is best for the mission and the member, and then you take steps from there.  We've been doing it
backwards and with pre-dispositions all along because the answer leads to ramifications which are unpleasant or hard.

The current state of the uniform is not good for the mission or the member, it serves a subjective, unattainable standard of the
parent service to no net gain for anyone, to the detriment of the members and the mission.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^^But how would we answer that question, given that we are so divided on those who want to show us as the Air Force Auxiliary, and those who just want to show us as a glorified flying ES group?