Standardized G/W

[AlphaSigOU]

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.

[Garp]

BS or not, i was just quoting from the manual

[PHall]

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.

[Garp]

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.






(and I do not necessarily advocate adopting sleeve striping)


Even an "Ike" jacket would be a nod to our heritage.

[riffraff]

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.

[Spaceman3750]

By all means, let's go back in time 30 years in picking a uniform... Because that won't look weird

[Eclipse]

Cadets are wearing a 30+ year old jacket. (Literally and figuratively).

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

By all means, let's go back in time 30 years in picking a uniform... Because that won't look weird

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.

[supertigerCH]

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?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^Did you mean to include a photo/graphic?