Poll
Question:
Do you think the new 39-1 will be released before 01 June 2014?
Option 1: Yes. I have faith.
votes: 12
Option 2: No. It won't happen.
votes: 41
Option 3: Kinda. It'll be another draft version released for comments.
votes: 7
Option 4: I hope not, as that is one of the pre-ordained signs of the Apocalypse.
votes: 10
As we're more than halfway through May, and (as of the time of this posting) the new 39-1 hasn't been released by NHQ yet (despite unofficially having a target month of May 2014), do you think it will be released before the month is up?
Quote from: Panache on May 20, 2014, 09:42:54 AM
As we're more than halfway through May, and (as of the time of this posting) the new 39-1 hasn't been released by NHQ yet (despite unofficially having a target month of May 2014), do you think it will be released before the month is up?
Some are having difficulty transitioning from Office 2010 to Office 2013 .... ;)
Although I'm not sure, I'll bet it has a lot to do with what will happen with our organization in the next several coming months.
Quote from: flyboy1 on May 20, 2014, 11:50:32 AM
Although I'm not sure, I'll bet it has a lot to do with what will happen with our organization in the next several coming months.
Do tell...
Quote from: NC Hokie on May 20, 2014, 01:32:12 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on May 20, 2014, 11:50:32 AM
Although I'm not sure, I'll bet it has a lot to do with what will happen with our organization in the next several coming months.
Do tell...
New commander and vice, expansion of the "nco corps"....
I think it will be released in conjunction with the National Conference in August. Hopefully with the NCO program.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 20, 2014, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on May 20, 2014, 01:32:12 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on May 20, 2014, 11:50:32 AM
Although I'm not sure, I'll bet it has a lot to do with what will happen with our organization in the next several coming months.
Do tell...
New commander and vice, expansion of the "nco corps"....
I wouldn't bet the ranch on the NCO corps...the new commander might care less about that. Personally, I still consider it a solution in desperate search of a problem.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 20, 2014, 02:24:09 PM
wouldn't bet the ranch on the NCO corps...the new commander might care less about that. Personally, I still consider it a solution in desperate search of a problem.
More like a new problem that exacerbates an existing one which will in turn need an actual solution.
Quote from: MSG Mac on May 20, 2014, 02:21:23 PM
I think it will be released in conjunction with the National Conference in August. Hopefully with the NCO program.
You would think you would want to give everybody enough time to comply with the new regs and look all purty for the National Convention.... /shrugs
My guess is that we'll see the new reg come out next month. Maybe even 1 June itself, a day shy of the target of this month. But then again at one point I had heard talk we would have it last year in time for Christmas.
I've seen threads on here from 2008 talking about the "new NCO program"...
I don't put much hope in that, and why I don't care to be just a SM instead of a Staff Sergeant.
Quote from: The14th on May 20, 2014, 06:47:20 PM
I've seen threads on here from 2008 talking about the "new NCO program"...
I don't put much hope in that, and why I don't care to be just a SM instead of a Staff Sergeant.
Why can't you just be a member instead of...anything....
I've said this before and it bears repeating: adopt the CGAUX system. It's simple. And the only people wearing "rank" are in command or select staff slots. And when they're done, they go back to being "Joe"....
Well keep in mind the Air Force doesn't care about May. We are not waiting on CAP folks at this point
Quote from: THRAWN on May 20, 2014, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: The14th on May 20, 2014, 06:47:20 PM
I've seen threads on here from 2008 talking about the "new NCO program"...
I don't put much hope in that, and why I don't care to be just a SM instead of a Staff Sergeant.
Why can't you just be a member instead of...anything....
I've said this before and it bears repeating: adopt the CGAUX system. It's simple. And the only people wearing "rank" are in command or select staff slots. And when they're done, they go back to being "Joe"....
Because the grade structure for SMs reflects well on the CP. They see us advancing along side them and motivates them to do the same. CGAUX should have grade and rank as well, since they are even more a part of their parent service than we are. But it's really just apples and oranges comparing CAP and them. Different missions altogether.
Quote from: The14th on May 20, 2014, 10:43:46 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 20, 2014, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: The14th on May 20, 2014, 06:47:20 PM
I've seen threads on here from 2008 talking about the "new NCO program"...
I don't put much hope in that, and why I don't care to be just a SM instead of a Staff Sergeant.
Why can't you just be a member instead of...anything....
I've said this before and it bears repeating: adopt the CGAUX system. It's simple. And the only people wearing "rank" are in command or select staff slots. And when they're done, they go back to being "Joe"....
Because the grade structure for SMs reflects well on the CP. They see us advancing along side them and motivates them to do the same. CGAUX should have grade and rank as well, since they are even more a part of their parent service than we are. But it's really just apples and oranges comparing CAP and them. Different missions altogether.
You do know there is no requirement for seniors to advance right? And that hardly motivates cadets. You are right about the CGAUX having a mission. Unlike the fond memory of the missions CAP used to have.
Quote from: NIN on May 20, 2014, 07:36:29 PM
Well keep in mind the Air Force doesn't care about May. We are not waiting on CAP folks at this point
Really? Do tell....
I thought that everything that was in the draft 39-1 was already approved by Ma Blue. Especially since ABUs are no longer in the equation.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 21, 2014, 03:24:46 AM
You do know there is no requirement for seniors to advance right? And that hardly motivates cadets. You are right about the CGAUX having a mission. Unlike the fond memory of the missions CAP used to have.
I guess we don't need your services then anymore....thanks for contributing.
I got to go plan a cadet leadership week end, get ready for my next SAREX, prep the ground equipment to support a Broken Arrow Exercise, and clear my schedule for the next Green Flag Mission.
Good night.
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 04:02:27 AM
Really? Do tell....
I thought that everything that was in the draft 39-1 was already approved by Ma Blue. Especially since ABUs are no longer in the equation.
Not much to tell really. Even though most/all of what went into the uniform manual has been seen and approved by CAP-USAF ( at least as far as USAF style uniforms ) as OK , there have been some changes in the interim based on the feedback from the membership.
After that, it has to go to the Air Staff for final approval before it can be published.
Quote from: NIN on May 21, 2014, 11:14:49 AM
there have been some changes in the interim based on the feedback from the membership.
Hear that, guys? NIN says we're all getting ABUs! ;)
(or maybe not...)
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
(or maybe not...)
^^^ this is the most likely. Occam's Razor and all.
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 21, 2014, 02:07:48 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
(or maybe not...)
^^^ this is the most likely. Occam's Razor and all.
Or Murphy's Law.
Right now you could even say we have a case Schrodinger's CAPM39-1. Until it comes out we may have changes and we may have no changes.
Quote from: Angus on May 21, 2014, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 21, 2014, 02:07:48 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
(or maybe not...)
^^^ this is the most likely. Occam's Razor and all.
Or Murphy's Law.
Right now you could even say we have a case Schrodinger's CAPM39-1. Until it comes out we may have changes and we may have no changes.
So 39-1 exists in a superposition of multiple states?
Quote from: JeffDG on May 21, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 21, 2014, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 21, 2014, 02:07:48 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
(or maybe not...)
^^^ this is the most likely. Occam's Razor and all.
Or Murphy's Law.
Right now you could even say we have a case Schrodinger's CAPM39-1. Until it comes out we may have changes and we may have no changes.
So 39-1 exists in a superposition of multiple states?
Grrr...this thread is both alive and dead.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 21, 2014, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 21, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 21, 2014, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 21, 2014, 02:07:48 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
(or maybe not...)
^^^ this is the most likely. Occam's Razor and all.
Or Murphy's Law.
Right now you could even say we have a case Schrodinger's CAPM39-1. Until it comes out we may have changes and we may have no changes.
So 39-1 exists in a superposition of multiple states?
Grrr...this thread is both alive and dead.
My thread has gone quantum!
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 21, 2014, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 21, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 21, 2014, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 21, 2014, 02:07:48 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 21, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
(or maybe not...)
^^^ this is the most likely. Occam's Razor and all.
Or Murphy's Law.
Right now you could even say we have a case Schrodinger's CAPM39-1. Until it comes out we may have changes and we may have no changes.
So 39-1 exists in a superposition of multiple states?
Grrr...this thread is both alive and dead.
Not anymore, it's been observed.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 21, 2014, 02:56:49 PM
Grrr...this thread is both alive and dead.
Schrodinger's cat :)
Quote from: NIN on May 20, 2014, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: Panache on May 20, 2014, 09:42:54 AM
As we're more than halfway through May, and (as of the time of this posting) the new 39-1 hasn't been released by NHQ yet (despite unofficially having a target month of May 2014), do you think it will be released before the month is up?
Some are having difficulty transitioning from Office 2010 to Office 2013 .... ;)
I still use
OFFICE 97!
I loathed Windows XP service pack 3, too bad they dont support it anymore :(
I love that wooshing sound as things go sailing over everybody's heads
The song "In The Year 2525" goes through my mind...
Quote from: NIN on May 21, 2014, 06:58:51 PM
I love that wooshing sound as things go sailing over everybody's heads
When things go that high in the sky ... they should have flight attendants on them.
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 22, 2014, 11:30:25 AM
When things go that high in the sky ... they should have flight attendants on them.
And conform to RVSM..
Quote from: NIN on May 21, 2014, 11:14:49 AM
Not much to tell really. Even though most/all of what went into the uniform manual has been seen and approved by CAP-USAF ( at least as far as USAF style uniforms ) as OK , there have been some changes in the interim based on the feedback from the membership.
Are you at liberty to tell us (or even hint) at to what these changes are?
Quote from: Panache on May 22, 2014, 01:27:20 PM
Are you at liberty to tell us (or even hint) at to what these changes are?
I don't think I have a canonical list of the post-member comment changes. I do know that a couple were added (Circled US for NCOs, embroidered CAP emblem on blue windbreaker like the USAF, tweaks to the National Staff Badge) before it went to CAP-USAF, but I don't know about all the 20-ish suggested changes that came about after the comment period.
I've only really heard about a few thru casual conversation (remove cutouts from field jacket epaulets, for example).
Guess I'm as in the dark as anybody on this until it comes out.
Quote from: NIN on May 22, 2014, 04:13:34 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 22, 2014, 01:27:20 PM
Are you at liberty to tell us (or even hint) at to what these changes are?
I don't think I have a canonical list of the post-member comment changes. I do know that a couple were added (Circled US for NCOs, embroidered CAP emblem on blue windbreaker like the USAF, tweaks to the National Staff Badge) before it went to CAP-USAF, but I don't know about all the 20-ish suggested changes that came about after the comment period.
I've only really heard about a few thru casual conversation (remove cutouts from field jacket epaulets, for example).
Guess I'm as in the dark as anybody on this until it comes out.
From anything you've heard or seen any change with the Aeronautical ratings on the Distinctive Field Uniform? The whole light blue patch thing doesn't sound like it will look that great.
Quote from: Angus on May 22, 2014, 05:34:08 PM
From anything you've heard or seen any change with the Aeronautical ratings on the Distinctive Field Uniform? The whole light blue patch thing doesn't sound like it will look that great.
Honestly don't recall. I know when ABUs was in the mix, the consideration was for dark blue tapes on both ABU & BluDUs (lol), but those went away when ABUs were removed from the mix. Since distinctive field uniform is not really something I own, I didn't pay close attention when I read that part!
Quote from: NIN on May 22, 2014, 05:38:28 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 22, 2014, 05:34:08 PM
From anything you've heard or seen any change with the Aeronautical ratings on the Distinctive Field Uniform? The whole light blue patch thing doesn't sound like it will look that great.
Honestly don't recall. I know when ABUs was in the mix, the consideration was for dark blue tapes on both ABU & BluDUs (lol), but those went away when ABUs were removed from the mix.
Dang it!
Quote from: NIN on May 22, 2014, 05:38:28 PM
I know when ABUs was in the mix, the consideration was for dark blue tapes on both ABU & BluDUs (lol), but those went away when ABUs were removed from the mix.
The more I think about this, the more aggravated I get.
Okay, fine, they insist we continue to wear that butt-ugly white shirt that
nobody likes. They took away the authorization to wear the flight cap with the blue flight suit and made no attempt to resolve our lack of headgear with the aviator shirt outfit (and, no, the baseball cap doesn't count as it's wildly inappropriate with that outfit). But at least we could wear navy blue tapes and insignia with the BBDUs, so the entire "walking billboard" effect would be lessened. At the very least, we would look sharp in the BBDUs.
Well, we couldn't have that, could we?
So they apparently took the time and effort to take that out once ABUs weren't in the future. But that's okay, because they tweaked the National Staff Badge! And added circles to the US insignia on the USAF-style coats for the handful of NCOs that we have! And got rid of those bothersome CAP cutouts on BDU field jackets! And finally,
finally, ended our long national nightmare and got embroidery on the USAF-style windbreaker.
But let's make sure we get one final dig into the those fat and furries.
I am now convinced that, present company excepted, the attitude of The Powers That Be towards the "Distinctive Corporate Uniform" members is, at best, passive-aggressive, if not outright hostile.
Sorry, but I'm growing weary of donating my time, energy, and money to an organization that not only considers me a 2nd-class member, but makes sure I don't forget it. A couple of things in CAP have been irking me as of late, and this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I'm done. I'm out. I'll meet my obligations until my membership runs out, but I will not be renewing.
You're quitting over the uniform? Really? :o
Thanks for playing.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 05:18:51 AM
You're quitting over the uniform? Really? :o
Please read the second-to-last paragraph.
These are not the uniforms you are looking for. Move along. Move along.
Quote from: Panache on May 23, 2014, 05:29:57 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 05:18:51 AM
You're quitting over the uniform? Really? :o
Please read the second-to-last paragraph.
You're quitting over the uniform? Rally? :o
I think you are taking it a little too seriously.
I do not think Panache is leaving over the uniform, per se.
I think he is leaving because of a contemptuous attitude he senses from our "leadership" over those who cannot wear the USAF uniform, many due to circumstances beyond their control (medical issues, medication side effects, thyroid issues, among many others).
All right, viz. the USAF uniform, that can easily be blamed on the USAF, as it is "their" uniform. A completely different attitude than the USCG takes toward their Auxiliary, and different to many State Defence Forces, and to similar organisations in Commonwealth countries (who actually grant their cadet organisational leadership a Queen's Commission), but, nonetheless, it is their uniform and they can choose to restrict who wears it, and how.
However, Panache is correct when he says that CAP forces those who cannot wear this uniform, and who want to wear a uniform, to wear a colourless, frankly ugly, pale (in every sense of the word) imitation. No other military auxiliary/cadet service does that.
I have yet to find anyone, here on CT, or in the almost-20 years I have been in CAP, who likes the grey/white/blazer uniform. Really likes, as in "proud to wear it."
Of course, those of the Polo Shirt Brigade will differ on that, but I suspect those members are looking for convenience more than anything else: the "I can throw that and some grey slacks in a bag in the back seat of my car and change on the way to the meeting."
Convenience, yes, but not much in the way of esprit de corps.
I think what Panache is getting at is that the uniform is the most visible manifestation of a general attitude toward many CAP members by the organisation itself.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 23, 2014, 06:28:09 AM
I do not think Panache is leaving over the uniform, per se.
I think he is leaving because of a contemptuous attitude he senses from our "leadership" over those who cannot wear the USAF uniform, many due to circumstances beyond their control (medical issues, medication side effects, thyroid issues, among many others).
^^ This. And, as I mentioned before, there are other things in CAP that are broken, but this is probably one of the most visible symptoms of this dysfunction.
It's also a lack of integrity from our "leadership". They shove the white aviator shirt combo down our throats, and yet hypocritically exclude themselves from it. I'm willing to bet that everybody on CAPTalk knows somebody who, according to the regs, shouldn't be in USAF blues but wears them anyway. And I'm willing to bet that person is in some sort of leadership or higher staff position.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, lordmonar, so don't take it as such, 'cause I respect your input. But your reply pretty much sums up my frustration. "Well, yeah, I don't have to wear it, but I don't see why those who do are so upset about it. How immature!"
Much like how we're always going on about how much churn we have and how difficult it is to keep competent SMs around. But when one quits in frustration and tells you why, his/her concerns are completely marginalized and discounted as irrelevant.
Quote
However, Panache is correct when he says that CAP forces those who cannot wear this uniform, and who want to wear a uniform, to wear a colourless, frankly ugly, pale (in every sense of the word) imitation. No other military auxiliary/cadet service does that.
Yup. And they're feet-dug-in resistant to even a suggestion of change by those who have to wear it. It's not Status Quo Is God, it's flat-out arrogance.
Quote
Of course, those of the Polo Shirt Brigade will differ on that, but I suspect those members are looking for convenience more than anything else: the "I can throw that and some grey slacks in a bag in the back seat of my car and change on the way to the meeting."
Well, don't forget that the Polo Shirt Brigade will be getting a smackdown as well in the new 39-1, as the new regs seem to restrict when it can be worn. Unless that was taken out, too.
Let's just get rid of the uniform for SMs. Or make is something like a CAP oxford-style shirt that everybody can wear. No USAF-blues. No G/Ws. No BDUs or BBDUs. No more castes.
Quote from: Panache on May 23, 2014, 07:31:04 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 23, 2014, 06:28:09 AM
I do not think Panache is leaving over the uniform, per se.
I think he is leaving because of a contemptuous attitude he senses from our "leadership" over those who cannot wear the USAF uniform, many due to circumstances beyond their control (medical issues, medication side effects, thyroid issues, among many others).
^^ This. And, as I mentioned before, there are other things in CAP that are broken, but this is probably one of the most visible symptoms of this dysfunction.
It's also a lack of integrity from our "leadership". They shove the white aviator shirt combo down our throats, and yet hypocritically exclude themselves from it. I'm willing to bet that everybody on CAPTalk knows somebody who, according to the regs, shouldn't be in USAF blues but wears them anyway. And I'm willing to bet that person is in some sort of leadership or higher staff position.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, lordmonar, so don't take it as such, 'cause I respect your input. But your reply pretty much sums up my frustration. "Well, yeah, I don't have to wear it, but I don't see why those who do are so upset about it. How immature!"
Much like how we're always going on about how much churn we have and how difficult it is to keep competent SMs around. But when one quits in frustration and tells you why, his/her concerns are completely marginalized and discounted as irrelevant.
Quote
However, Panache is correct when he says that CAP forces those who cannot wear this uniform, and who want to wear a uniform, to wear a colourless, frankly ugly, pale (in every sense of the word) imitation. No other military auxiliary/cadet service does that.
Yup. And they're feet-dug-in resistant to even a suggestion of change by those who have to wear it. It's not Status Quo Is God, it's flat-out arrogance.
Quote
Of course, those of the Polo Shirt Brigade will differ on that, but I suspect those members are looking for convenience more than anything else: the "I can throw that and some grey slacks in a bag in the back seat of my car and change on the way to the meeting."
Well, don't forget that the Polo Shirt Brigade will be getting a smackdown as well in the new 39-1, as the new regs seem to restrict when it can be worn. Unless that was taken out, too.
Let's just get rid of the uniform for SMs. Or make is something like a CAP oxford-style shirt that everybody can wear. No USAF-blues. No G/Ws. No BDUs or BBDUs. No more castes.
Or put all SMs in the GW and BBDU. Aside from "feeling closer to our parent organization", what really is the point of SMs in the AF uni?
I understand.......he is quitting over a uniform.
Bottom line, brass tacks, BLUFF, Takeaway..........he is upset because he cannot wear the "good" uniform.
I understand. I just want to be perfectly clear on this though. What he needs to do is write a long letter to the BoG and Gen V.....as sort of "exit" interview. Be nice, be polite.....but if there is any chance for change you have to let the boss know what is pissing you off.
Thanks for playing.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 12:49:01 PM
Bottom line, brass tacks, BLUFF, Takeaway..........he is upset because he cannot wear the "good" uniform.
If that's all you're taking away from this... (/shrug) so be it.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 12:49:01 PM
I understand.......he is quitting over a uniform.
Bottom line, brass tacks, BLUFF, Takeaway..........he is upset because he cannot wear the "good" uniform.
I understand. I just want to be perfectly clear on this though. What he needs to do is write a long letter to the BoG and Gen V.....as sort of "exit" interview. Be nice, be polite.....but if there is any chance for change you have to let the boss know what is pissing you off.
Thanks for playing.
Since reading comprehension is an issue with you, let me attempt to make it perfectly clear: he is not leaving only over uniform issues. Mostly it's due to condescending narcissists like you who are so wrapped up in their own self importance that they find it hard to address the issues that are facing their organization. Weren't you the one that was going on about how much training and exercise planning (but no real real world operations...) that you had to do? Go do it. I feel sorry for the personnel under your supervision, since they would most certainly come second to your concept of how things should be...
Panache. I'm sorry that the uniform is the straw that broke the camel's back. Thank you for your service.
Thrawn....just go away.
No no no Patrick. Note the uniform. The name tags for the uniform.
Good thing somebody didn't change, I don't know, the belt buckle or something. We might have a full on rampage on our hands at that point.
Panache, if the name tags on the blue BDUs are pushing you over the edge, I submit to you that perhaps there are other things going on. Because in the grand scheme of straws that breaks the camel's back, these are pretty small.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 12:49:01 PMBottom line, brass tacks, BLUFF, Takeaway..........he is upset because he cannot wear the "good" uniform.
Somewhat condescending from someone who presumably has a choice in the matter.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 03:58:11 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 12:49:01 PMBottom line, brass tacks, BLUFF, Takeaway..........he is upset because he cannot wear the "good" uniform.
Somewhat condescending from someone who presumably has a choice in the matter.
+1
We've been over this. I wear the G/Ws. I've got an extra tire or two on my body. So be it, life is full of choices. But then, if I'm following the rules, and my superiors aren't it somewhat grinds my gears. It somewhat grinds my gears when I'm told "well you can pull it off". I couldn't, actually. But I'll look better than some of the masses I see in blues and BDUs today.
But my situation is my own...I don't know of any reason besides my lifestyle that I can't become skinny(er). Some people, it's medical. A lot of VETERANS, it is medical. So then, they get to wear G/Ws, while some goober 30-50lbs over, who's never served, and looks like a toolbag in ANY uniform just disobeys the rules?
And the wheel keeps turning . . .
The fact that this is an important and occasionally emotional issue does not change the basic nature of the problem which is both highly complex and inextricably interelated to other critical issues.
Beyond the basic issues of aesthetics (upon which there will never be consensus, ever), there are important issues including CAP-USAF relationships, internal CAP governance issues, and respect shown to the growing diversity of our membership. To name just a few. You can't "solve" one without creating new or additional problems with the others.
But the real problem here is
- The solution depends on how the problem is framed and vice-versa (i.e., the problem definition depends on the solution)
- Stakeholders have radically different world views and different frames for understanding the problem.
- The constraints that the problem is subject to and the resources needed to solve it change over time.
- The problem is never solved definitively.
Which is what academics call a "wicked problem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) precisely because it is almost impossible to resolve to everyone's satisfaction.
We've talked about this before, of course, here (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17973.100).
Unfortuneately, this is one of the areas where a significant number of members feel passionately that their particular view is correct, and another significant group of members feel just as passionately that they are correct - and the viewpoints are incompatible. We talk about it a lot. We talk about it emotionally. Sometimes we disparage other members simply because they hold a different opinion about the "solution."
And as we have noted before, there are methods used in these kinds of political situations (in the sense of trying to influence opinion to try to reach consensus): collaborative approaches like the NUC (and all of its various predecessors), authoritative approaches (that National Commander just decides, and that's it); and competative stategies (some sort of national election / poll, and the losers just suck it up.)
Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages to each of these startegies. Someone will always think of themselves as a "loser" and oppressed by the (NUC, CC, majority, etc.).
So we will continue to talk about it here on CAPTalk until the sun grows dim and dies.
Quote from: Ned on May 23, 2014, 05:08:18 PM
So we will continue to talk about it here on CAPTalk until the sun grows dim and dies.
Or until the National leadership provides a solution, which for whatever reason seems to be the only option never explored.
Lord and Nin-
You are behaving like bullies to Thrawn and Panache. I thought you were better than that.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
Or until the National leadership provides a solution, which for whatever reason seems to be the only option never explored.
Ahh, yes. The Magic Solution To Make Everyone Happy.
Should have thought of that while I was still part of the leadership.
Darn.
(For everyone else, the current uniform constellation is the compromise "solution." No one is very happy with it, but that is sort of the nature of compromises. But it will have to do until a significant number of members magically change the opinions of the rest of the membership. So let's keep debating it right here on CAPTalk - where less than 1% of the membership participates. That'll work.)
Saying things are "hard" does nothing to actually address the problem except give those charged with
the fix the ability to disavow the responsibility.
To say the multiform is a compromise is being benevolent, however if the choice is
who should be happier, the membership or the USAF, the "win" should be towards the
percentage of the membership most greatly affected on which CAP relies on for its very existence.
One >easy< fix in the interim is to actually enforce the existing regulations, across the board,
with ramifications for non-compliance, especially willful or repeated. As I have said before,
if the willful offenders in the leadership (at all levels) were actually held to the standard they espouse,
things would change overnight.
Seeing photos of the National Commander handing flags and awards to members in USAF-style uniforms
who are clearly not in compliance, not to mention photos posted by NHQ on the national feeds that
regularly show blatant violations doesn't exactly generate a warm and fuzzy for the hardworking average member
trying to do the right thing, nor does it tend to support the idea that NHQ actually cares at all.
Quote from: Ned on May 23, 2014, 05:25:20 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
Or until the National leadership provides a solution, which for whatever reason seems to be the only option never explored.
Ahh, yes. The Magic Solution To Make Everyone Happy.
Should have thought of that while I was still part of the leadership.
Darn.
(For everyone else, the current uniform constellation is the compromise "solution." No one is very happy with it, but that is sort of the nature of compromises. But it will have to do until a significant number of members magically change the opinions of the rest of the membership. So let's keep debating it right here on CAPTalk - where less than 1% of the membership participates. That'll work.)
Ouch. That stings a bit. >:D And I don't even have a dog in this fight.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 23, 2014, 05:19:35 PM
Lord and Nin-
You are behaving like bullies to Thrawn and Panache. I thought you were better than that.
I'm not seeing it that way. Panache has a list of grievances that culminate in his decision to leave, which is his right, and Thrawn, both here and in other threads, can seem a bit belligerent at times.
AT TIMES, I say. I am not defending anyone or going against anyone. People have gripes and opinions, and when said grievances, opinions, and/or gripes are aired, personalities come out. Some, like the ever-popular Lord/Eclipse "feud" seem to take on a life of their own. And then there are always threads and issues that make most people's blood boil. At times, I have written a response to something that p****s me right the ***k off and I have to re-write and re-write and re-write until it resembles nothing of the hot-headed reply I had originally set out to do. Not always, but often.
This is a message board. No policy, that I know of, has been enacted because of the opinions or "fact" presented here, so it really is just a place to vent, discuss, and on occasion, argue to the point of a stroke when blood pressure rises. I don't see bullying, I just see people arguing, standing their ground, sometimes slinging mud, but at the end of the day, the only option is to take a deep breath, suck it up, realize we are for the most part adults, and move on.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 05:32:43 PM
One >easy< fix in the interim is to actually enforce the existing regulations, across the board,
with ramifications for non-compliance, especially willful or repeated. As I have said before,
if the willful offenders in the leadership (at all levels) were actually held to the standard they espouse,
things would change overnight.
I agree.
Interestingly, however, enforcement is a prickly issue not just with the leadership, but also the rank and file. You may recall that I wrote some language about weigh-ins that was included in a draft of the 39-1 that was released for comment. I tried to make it as gentle and non-threatening as possible (weigh-ins publicized in advance, optional, done privately, etc.) and there was quite a negative reaction right here on CT. So strong, in fact, was the feedback from both here and the field that the language was removed.
It seems like enforcement is only popular in the third person "he, she, or they" should have the h/w/grooming standards enforced. Not quite so popular in the first person.
But I agree that enforcement is certainly both an individual and command responsibility that could be greatly improved.
Quote from: Ned on May 23, 2014, 06:27:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 05:32:43 PM
One >easy< fix in the interim is to actually enforce the existing regulations, across the board,
with ramifications for non-compliance, especially willful or repeated. As I have said before,
if the willful offenders in the leadership (at all levels) were actually held to the standard they espouse,
things would change overnight.
I agree.
Interestingly, however, enforcement is a prickly issue not just with the leadership, but also the rank and file. You may recall that I wrote some language about weigh-ins that was included in a draft of the 39-1 that was released for comment. I tried to make it as gentle and non-threatening as possible (weigh-ins publicized in advance, optional, done privately, etc.) and there was quite a negative reaction right here on CT. So strong, in fact, was the feedback from both here and the field that the language was removed.
It seems like enforcement is only popular in the third person "he, she, or they" should have the h/w/grooming standards enforced. Not quite so popular in the first person.
But I agree that enforcement is certainly both an individual and command responsibility that could be greatly improved.
There's your problem. It was wishy washy, apparently. And now it's been removed.
If it was an annual thing, required (if you choose to wear AF Style uniforms), and to be recorded in Eservices, that's fine. But leaving it "optional" with "non-threatening" language would have guaranteed the measures failure anyway.
Quote from: Ned on May 23, 2014, 06:27:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 05:32:43 PM
One >easy< fix in the interim is to actually enforce the existing regulations, across the board,
with ramifications for non-compliance, especially willful or repeated. As I have said before,
if the willful offenders in the leadership (at all levels) were actually held to the standard they espouse,
things would change overnight.
I agree.
Interestingly, however, enforcement is a prickly issue not just with the leadership, but also the rank and file. You may recall that I wrote some language about weigh-ins that was included in a draft of the 39-1 that was released for comment. I tried to make it as gentle and non-threatening as possible (weigh-ins publicized in advance, optional, done privately, etc.) and there was quite a negative reaction right here on CT. So strong, in fact, was the feedback from both here and the field that the language was removed.
It seems like enforcement is only popular in the third person "he, she, or they" should have the h/w/grooming standards enforced. Not quite so popular in the first person.
But I agree that enforcement is certainly both an individual and command responsibility that could be greatly improved.
Part of that sounds like you're channeling Ben Franklin.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 23, 2014, 06:42:20 PM
But leaving it "optional" with "non-threatening" language would have guaranteed the measures failure anyway.
To be fair, as written it was only "optional" if you were under 18 and/or did not want to wear the AF-style uniforms. Otherwise it was required.
But as you note, in any event it is moot at this point.
And FWIW, I'm one of the few CAP officers that has both required and conducted weigh-ins for folks wanting to wear USAF style uniforms. I thought it worked out pretty well.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 23, 2014, 05:19:35 PM
Lord and Nin-
You are behaving like bullies to Thrawn and Panache. I thought you were better than that.
Thanks, although it's hardly bullying. If they stole my milk money, maybe....
Eclipse, you said that one "easy" fix, would be to enforce the existing regs. Agreed. However, wouldn't an easier fix be to drop the AF service uniform for SMs all thogether? Let's face it. That's the only AF style uniform on the list right now. Put all SMs in a common corporate style uniform (as much as it pains me, the Pineda suit comes to mind), and all members in a single style utility.
usafaux2004, you hit on the weigh ins and some of the key issues surrounding the wear of the GW kit. Sure you and I could "get away with it", but something about integrity prevents that. Single non AF uniform, CAP distinctive, eliminates the need for weigh ins, and doesn't have to put commanders in the "Well Joe's a nice guy and my pencil isn't sharp" position...
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Agreed. However, wouldn't an easier fix be to drop the AF service uniform for SMs all thogether? Let's face it. That's the only AF style uniform on the list right now. Put all SMs in a common corporate style uniform (as much as it pains me, the Pineda suit comes to mind), and all members in a single style utility.
Semi-agreed...on the grounds that it isn't the bloody awful current "corporate" suit. I want to look like someone with something to do with
aviation, not a security guard, a Realtor, a corporate executive, a volunteer in a hospital who gives people directions (again, no offence to any of those)...at least something that has a connection with our heritage and/or the AF and/or aviation in general.
I have the blue uniform but currently cannot wear it due to medical issues (medication side effects) that put me over the limit. I
could wear it, but I won't. So I wear the uniform I loathe, out of integrity issues. However, I'll be [darn]ed if I ever wear that blazer getup. IIRC (Colonel Lee, please feel free to correct me), that kit was designed for IACE originally. I am not on IACE, not yet anyway.
Even the regs for the G/W are illogical enough to make a Vulcan's blood boil bilious green. It is supposed to be a "civilian" kit but there are at least two military items authorised with it that I know of - the AF blue cardigan and the AF blue tie.
Colonel Lee, I do not expect an explanation from you...you are no longer on the national leadership and it would be illogical to vent at someone who is powerless to change things.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Thanks, although it's hardly bullying. If they stole my milk money, maybe....
The last person who tried to steal my milk money (actually, lunch money, since as a kid I was violently allergic to dairy products) way back in elementary school ended up having a lengthy "session" with the school nurse. >:D I don't suffer bullies, which is one reason I got involved in CAP, to try and give kids a bully-free environment.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
I would expect nothing less in a Chiss Grand Admiral..but I did say at times. We call can be. Even an alky chief of security...
Quote from: Ned on May 23, 2014, 06:27:12 PM
Interestingly, however, enforcement is a prickly issue not just with the leadership, but also the rank and file.
So? Its a baseline requirement, and generally as visible as hangar rash.
Enforcement is required today, yet it's almost universally ignored at many of the highest levels.
Enforcement today requires no new regs, special language, or any other changes, it only requires command imperative.
We have plenty of time for CGMs, new grade structures, and other pet projects, but running the actual program seems
to be too much to ask.
And for the record, the >only< people for whom it's "prickly" are those who are violating the regulations,
so why do we care what they think or if they are uncomfortable?
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 23, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
I would expect nothing less in a Chiss Grand Admiral..but I did say at times. We call can be. Even an alky chief of security...
Literally lol-ing out loud. Wonder how many even get that reference...
That was pretty good!
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:49:41 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 23, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
I would expect nothing less in a Chiss Grand Admiral..but I did say at times. We call can be. Even an alky chief of security...
Literally lol-ing out loud. Wonder how many even get that reference...
Only if you had blue skin. :P
Quote from: Angus on May 23, 2014, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:49:41 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 23, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
I would expect nothing less in a Chiss Grand Admiral..but I did say at times. We call can be. Even an alky chief of security...
Literally lol-ing out loud. Wonder how many even get that reference...
Only if you had blue skin. :P
Well I am holding my breath in anticipation of the 39-1 release....
Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2014, 07:49:31 PM
And for the record, the >only< people for whom it's "prickly" are those who are violating the regulations, so why do we care what they think or if they are uncomfortable?
Slight addendum: I would say that it is also "prickly" for those who
do obey the regulations by wearing a uniform they dislike but have no other options (within regs)...even though they
could break regulations and wear the one they
want to wear.
(Which is why I wear the BlBDU/blue flight suit whenever possible, so I can at least feel good about what I am wearing.)
Quote from: NIN on May 23, 2014, 03:33:44 PM
Panache, if the name tags on the blue BDUs are pushing you over the edge, I submit to you that perhaps there are other things going on.
There are, as I've shared with some other folks. If you want, I'll PM you. I think I've used up my Public Ranting ration for the week.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 23, 2014, 05:19:35 PM
Lord and Nin-
You are behaving like bullies to Thrawn and Panache. I thought you were better than that.
I thank you for your concern, sir, but I don't feel as if they're bullying us. We've all gotten into more, um, "strongly worded discussions" on CAPTalk before.
Quote from: Ned on May 23, 2014, 06:27:12 PM
You may recall that I wrote some language about weigh-ins that was included in a draft of the 39-1 that was released for comment. I tried to make it as gentle and non-threatening as possible (weigh-ins publicized in advance, optional, done privately, etc.) and there was quite a negative reaction right here on CT. So strong, in fact, was the feedback from both here and the field that the language was removed.
CyBorg was right. Status Quo
is God.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 23, 2014, 07:27:40 PM
I want to look like someone with something to do with aviation, not a security guard, a Realtor, a corporate executive
If it came with the perks of being a corporate executive, I may be more open to the idea....
Quote from: Panache on May 24, 2014, 03:47:02 AM
CyBorg was right. Status Quo is God.
Well, I would leave the theological terminology out...but the status quo
is the status quo, and looks to
remain the status quo:
"Can't wear the AF uniform? OK, we've got this ugly, colourless 'uniform'...suck it up and wear it."
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:49:41 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 23, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
I would expect nothing less in a Chiss Grand Admiral..but I did say at times. We call can be. Even an alky chief of security...
Literally lol-ing out loud. Wonder how many even get that reference...
(http://blogtarkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/grandadmiral-theessentialatlas.jpg)
;D
All kidding aside, if I a patron member, with, as many here like to point out, no horse in this race, can figure it out... why can't your leadership?
You have hard working volunteers, who put in hundreds of hours, but get treated like second class citizens. Why? Because of weight issues or grooming issues? Seriously? It's amazing that CAP retains as many of these volunteers as it does.
But I'm wrong for pointing out the gorilla in the room.... because I'm an outsider.
CAP needs to come up with one service/dress uniform, one feild/working uniform, and one flight uniform for ALL senior members. This two class system needs to end... its just wrong.
Quote from: shuman14 on May 24, 2014, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:49:41 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 23, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
I would expect nothing less in a Chiss Grand Admiral..but I did say at times. We call can be. Even an alky chief of security...
Literally lol-ing out loud. Wonder how many even get that reference...
(http://blogtarkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/grandadmiral-theessentialatlas.jpg)
;D
The other reference in that comment. I get the reference to the Empire's last Grand Admiral...
Quote from: THRAWN on May 24, 2014, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on May 24, 2014, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:49:41 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 23, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
I would expect nothing less in a Chiss Grand Admiral..but I did say at times. We call can be. Even an alky chief of security...
Literally lol-ing out loud. Wonder how many even get that reference...
(http://blogtarkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/grandadmiral-theessentialatlas.jpg)
;D
The other reference in that comment. I get the reference to the Empire's last Grand Admiral...
(http://www.inigo.com/images/babylon5/b5-146.jpg)
Sorry my Bad. ;D
Quote from: Angus on May 23, 2014, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:49:41 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 23, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 23, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Garibaldi, I haven't been called belligerent in weeks. Thank you.
I would expect nothing less in a Chiss Grand Admiral..but I did say at times. We call can be. Even an alky chief of security...
Literally lol-ing out loud. Wonder how many even get that reference...
Only if you had blue skin. :P
And glowing red eyes, plus blue-black hair. . . .
Quote from: shuman14 on May 24, 2014, 04:50:10 PM
CAP needs to come up with one service/dress uniform, one feild/working uniform, and one flight uniform for ALL senior members. This two class system needs to end... its just wrong.
Agreed. However, it is not going to happen, because positions have hardened, even calcified, into the status quo. The chances are,
if such a thing were to happen, that the "single uniform" would just be the current "corporate" non-uniforms as they now stand and all USAF uniforms would be deleted.
At my relatively-brief tenure at a
flying club senior squadron, where uniforms were (cough) optional, I was virtually ridiculed for wearing the AF blue uniform...I remember being asked "why do you have that getup when you could just have a polo shirt and grey slacks?"
Conversely, and as has been documented here on CT, there are those who wear the G/W kit (many not out of choice) who stick out like the proverbial sore thumb at Wing activities in a roomful of blue.
And finally, there are those who wear the "corporate" uniform (usually the polo shirt) and say "I don't need to play at looking like the Air Force. I'm about the
mission (as if those who wear the USAF uniform
aren't)."
Trying to distill that down into one set of uniforms that everyone will be able to wear with some sense of pride will be like herding rattlesnakes.
I actually saw some coming together with the CSU. I know a several 'fuzzies' got un-fuzzied to wear it and a few AF-style wearers made the transition to the CSU. Of course that last one may have been what killed off.
Quote from: arajca on May 25, 2014, 01:07:27 AM
I actually saw some coming together with the CSU. I know a several 'fuzzies' got un-fuzzied to wear it and a few AF-style wearers made the transition to the CSU. Of course that last one may have been what killed off.
Now you see what happens in this organisation when something that actually begins to
work comes down the pike. ::) >:(
Quote from: shuman14 on May 24, 2014, 04:50:10 PM
You have hard working volunteers, who put in hundreds of hours, but get treated like second class citizens. Why? Because of weight issues or grooming issues? Seriously?
I agree that we have tens of thousands of hard-working volunteers. And they are terrific.
But it goes too far to suggest that a minority are treated as "second class citizens" simply because of the required duty uniforms. There is no limitation on awards, promotions, duty assignments, or anything else in CAP that are based on h/w or grooming issues.
Heck, our last national commander wore corporates. I don't remember anyone calling her a second class citizen. Certainly, she never self-identified as such. Last time I looked at a command council meeting, almost half of the wing commanders were wearing corporates. I've never heard them complain about being second class citizens.
The "dual track" uniforms are a direct result of the
USAF holding us to the same standards they hold themselves (plus some slack.) No more, and no less.
You or I might have made a different choice about that, but neither of us is the AF Chief of Staff. And in any event, it is certainly not an unreasonable decision, and one that they are absolutely entitled to make.
(If you take our maximum h/w for males from the 39-1 and track it against the CDC BMI standards (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html?s_cid=tw_ob064), you will find that only men classified as "obese" (their definition; BMI 30 and above) are restricted from AF-style uniforms.)
The AF separates airmen who cannot come into [their equivalent of h/w] within a reasonable period of time. We, OTOH, allow our volunteers to serve and contribute regardless of h/w & grooming. And we always have, since CAP was created. Indeed, there is a good argument to be made that CAP exists only because of the ability and willingness to serve of heroic volunteers that were unable to meet the military's age & physical requirements of the era.
The CAP leadership -- rather than being the villains in this drama -- actually deserve credit for creating professional, military style uniforms for members restricted from the AF-style. For most of the history of CAP, the only alternative to the AF-style was the blazer uniform, which did not accommodate badges, awards, etc. (At the time, however, most members were not required to wear a uniform unless flying or dealing with cadets, and further there were no h/w restrictions in either the AF or CAP.) Shortly after the AF imposed h/w restrictions on themselves, they imposed them on us. Rather that leave the large and hirsute members in civvies, the leadership created the aviator shirt combination which allowed all members to wear their grade on the shoulders, as well as their earned CAP badges and decorations.
And at least partly in response to member concerns that the aviator shirt combination did not have a "formality equivalent" to service dress, the CAP leadership created the CSU. which when created allowed members to wear metal grade and other desired details.
But because of competing concerns (see the comments about this being a "wicked problem," above), the leadership deauthorized the CSU (with a sunset provision).
The leadership has tried very, very hard to balance competing (and some would say irreconcilable) concerns.
And the fact the CAP continues to function much as we always have (lives saved, cadets trained, aerospace educated) without a significant change in membership numbers suggests that they have been able to walk the tightrope fairly well.
QuoteCAP needs to come up with one service/dress uniform, one feild/working uniform, and one flight uniform for ALL senior members.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Assuming that you don't mind wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars that the majority of CAP members have invested in AF-style uniforms, and assuming for the sake of argument that you can get a rough consensus on the aesthetics of any new uniform (both huge assumptions),
No other organization on Earth has come up with any sort of professional appearing uniform set that supports their mission (identifies their members, not too similar to other organizations, and professional in appearance) that looks acceptable on members:
12 - 90 years of age
weighing 85 - 385 pounds (or more)
4 feet to 6.5 feet tall
at least two genders
with varying disabilities and capabilities
who perform duties in
climates from tropical to arctic with sun, rain, snow
office work, field work, and flying
and occasional formal events.
For bonus points, it should have a military type appearance, perhaps even identifiable as an aviation-centric organization.
If you can do that with just three uniforms (service, field, and flying), you will have done a better job than any of our armed forces (who each have about the same number of uniform combinations as we do).
Bottom line - we have a lot of uniform combinations precisely because we need a lot of uniform combinations to do our Congressionally assigned missions, and given our outside constraints (AF policy, costs, etc.)
Until a change in our missions or AF policy, there isn't much to be done, except to concentrate on doing our jobs as best we can.
Oh, and debating uniform policy here on CAPTalk when we should be BBQ some animal and enjoying our long weekend.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AMOh, and debating uniform policy here on CAPTalk when we should be BBQ some animal and enjoying our long weekend.
"Shack"
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
But it goes too far to suggest that a minority are treated as "second class citizens" simply because of the required duty uniforms. There is no limitation on awards, promotions, duty assignments, or anything else in CAP that are based on h/w or grooming issues.
It's >not< a "minority", it's at least 50% of the adult membership, and probably more if the rules were actually enforced.
No limitation on awards? Which service coat can you wear your ribbons on with the whites?
How about medals on the corporate equivalent for mess dress?
Let's not play pretend there aren't two groups in CAP.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
The "dual track" uniforms are a direct result of the USAF holding us to the same standards they hold themselves (plus some slack.) No more, and no less.
Not. True.
The USAF has one uniform, and there are thousands of airman and officers serving in it that
are well outside the H/W. They may be an a reduction program, they may be waiting on
separation, but they have a single uniform.
But again, the worst part of this is seeing people charged with enforcing the
regulations receiving a flag or decoration from the national commander when
they, themselves, are not in compliance.
Fix that, and you'll have a lot less heartburn from the masses (pun intended).
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
Heck, our last national commander wore corporates. I don't remember anyone calling her a second class citizen. Certainly, she never self-identified as such.
General Courter also wore the CSU until that was kiboshed.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
The CAP leadership -- rather than being the villains in this drama -- actually deserve credit for creating professional, military style uniforms for members restricted from the AF-style. For most of the history of CAP, the only alternative to the AF-style was the blazer uniform, which did not accommodate badges, awards, etc. (At the time, however, most members were not required to wear a uniform unless flying or dealing with cadets, and further there were no h/w restrictions in either the AF or CAP.) Shortly after the AF imposed h/w restrictions on themselves, they imposed them on us. Rather that leave the large and hirsute members in civvies, the leadership created the aviator shirt combination which allowed all members to wear their grade on the shoulders, as well as their earned CAP badges and decorations.
Sir, can you actually call the grey-and-white "military-style?" Perhaps only in relation to the previous grey-and-white, which only allowed the blazer nameplate.
I know of no airline/air force/civil air organisation in the world that wears grey and white, except for the Swiss Luftwaffe.
(http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home.parsysrelated1.71707.Image.gif)
Generalleutnant Aldo C. Schellenberg
And, there is still no equivalent of a service dress, with the blazer remaining the only choice. No badges, awards, etc, except for a single miniature medal, can be worn with that.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
And at least partly in response to member concerns that the aviator shirt combination did not have a "formality equivalent" to service dress, the CAP leadership created the CSU. which when created allowed members to wear metal grade and other desired details.
But because of competing concerns (see the comments about this being a "wicked problem," above), the leadership deauthorized the CSU (with a sunset provision).
Not to doubt you, sir, but unless it is classified, I would like to
see the Air Force's "wicked letter" on the subject. I know we have discussed this privately, but unless it is classified or NTKB, I think we deserve to be able to see it.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
The leadership has tried very, very hard to balance competing (and some would say irreconcilable) concerns.
Again, not to doubt or impugn your word, sir, but how is leaving a status-quo "uniform" that many only wear
because they have to and has no aviation flavour to it doing that?
What concerns are "irreconcilable?"
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
For bonus points, it should have a military type appearance, perhaps even identifiable as an aviation-centric organization.
Which the current kit does not.
Sir, I have an on-paper proposal that I have posted on here, a minimum-change to the current kit. I will post it here again for all to see, critique and review.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
Heck, our last national commander wore corporates.
She also wore the USAF-Style uniform well past being in grooming compliance.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 02:03:49 AM
It's >not< a "minority", it's at least 50% of the adult membership, and probably more if the rules were actually enforced.
Yeah, you keep saying that. But it isn't true. To adopt your oft-used phrase, "Cite, please."
I've shown you why it is almost certainly less than 50%. The average American male BMI is 26.6, according to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/databriefs/adultweight.pdf), well below the CAP max weight standards for AF-style (which calculate out to 30.5 to 34.3 when converted to BMI). Unless you can show that CAP members, are somehow on average significantly larger than the average American, most adult CAP members are perfectly good to go with the AF style.
But I don't mean to suggest that it is not a significant number of our members. But it is a minority of seniors, and a relatively small minority of the overall membership when you include cadets. (Who are members, after all, some of whom are subject to the same h/w restrictions as the seniors.)
QuoteNo limitation on awards?
Yup, no limitation on awards. Which award can you not receive because of your size? Which CAP ribbons can you not wear on your corporate uniform shirt?
QuoteLet's not play pretend there are[. . .] two groups in CAP.
FTFY.
Quote
The USAF has one uniform, and there are thousands of airman and officers serving in it that
are well outside the H/W. They may be an a reduction program, they may be waiting on
separation, but they have a single uniform.
Actually, the AF has nearly two dozen uniform combinations. And every single airman is tested and measured twice a year. Any service member will tell you that being outside of their h/w equivalent issues has a severely negative effect on their career. Their very livelihood. They get a chance to come into standard, but if they don't they become "former airmen."
Unlike our paid colleagues in the AF, our dual track uniform system allows larger members to continue their service.
QuoteShe also wore the USAF-Style uniform well past being in grooming compliance.
Really? Based on your calibrated eyeball? Even assuming you meant h/w, I don't think you are in a position to be tossing stones, sir.
But I assume we can agree that compliance and enforcement are critical for all CAP rules, including uniforms.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
But it goes too far to suggest that a minority are treated as "second class citizens" simply because of the required duty uniforms. There is no limitation on awards, promotions, duty assignments, or anything else in CAP that are based on h/w or grooming issues.
Just a minor point of order....there is a weight restriction for the Green Flag West mission.....due to limitations of the aircraft and the duration of the mission.....but that is the only one I know of.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 02:20:14 AM
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
Heck, our last national commander wore corporates.
She also wore the USAF-Style uniform well past being in grooming compliance.
And stopped...when she was call out on it. Yes...even our leaders fail sometimes.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 02:35:35 AM
Unlike our paid colleagues in the AF, our dual track uniform system allows larger members to continue their service.
How nice...for the service. You say that as if it was some advantage or benefit for those members.
CAP would fold the next day if it said only those who could wear USAF-Style uniforms could serve.
Those people with an itch to serve would move on to "other", with CAP smoldering behind them.
Ned, giving people awards and bling they can't wear, or wear equally is the issue, not whether they can earn them.
The next thing you'll assert is that wearing them isn't really the point, yet it seems to
be somewhat "important" to those with the choice, and a significant source of revenue
for that vendor we all use.
For those forced to wear the Realtor jacket, they are restricted from wearing their
grade, awards, and badges of office in the same way as others. If that's not a separate class,
I don't know what is.
And frankly, I don't care what "other organizations", including the USAF wear. This is a
conversation about CAP, and the CAP multiform mess. What other organizations wear is irrelevant,
since, as you state, CAP is unique in the universe.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 02:35:35 AM
Really? Based on your calibrated eyeball? Even assuming you meant h/w, I don't think you are in a position to be tossing stones, sir.
I do not live in a glass house, you held her as the example, not I.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 02:35:35 AM
But I assume we can agree that compliance and enforcement are critical for all CAP rules, including uniforms.
Agreeing on this is meaningless in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is lip service only.
We're not supposed to post "bad uniform photos" anymore, but Google is your friend here, it won't take more then
a single search. In many cases Wing & Region CCs, not to mention national staff, are the worst offenders in
regards to uniform wear, both in regards to grooming and also proper wear.
If you are really going to assert that the majority of adult CAP members are allowed to
wear the USAF-style combinations, I will take that bet any day of the week.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 03:12:00 AM
How nice...for the service. You say that as if it was some advantage or benefit for those members.
CAP would fold the next day if it said only those who could wear USAF-Style uniforms could serve.
Those people with an itch to serve would move on to "other", with CAP smoldering behind them.
Some already have, to places like the CGAUX and NSCC.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 03:12:00 AM
Ned, giving people awards and bling they can't wear, or wear equally is the issue, not whether they can earn them.
The next thing you'll assert is that wearing them isn't really the point, yet it seems to be somewhat "important" to those with the choice, and a significant source of revenue
for that vendor we all use.
For those forced to wear the Realtor jacket, they are restricted from wearing their grade, awards, and badges of office in the same way as others. If that's not a separate class,
I don't know what is.
Said quite well, sir. I have had university-level courses in logic and to try and equate the Realtor jacket with "service dress" is at best, commission of false equivalence and false analogy fallacies.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 03:12:00 AM
And frankly, I don't care what "other organizations", including the USAF wear. This is a conversation about CAP, and the CAP multiform mess. What other organizations wear is irrelevant, since, as you state, CAP is unique in the universe.
I think some, maybe not Colonel Lee, but some, would try and justify the current "uniformess" with an appeal to argumentum ad temperantiam (which, oddly enough, is sometimes called in English the "grey fallacy!"), suggesting that what we have now is the only possible "middle ground/compromise." Some may suggest an appeal to the "low-light/at-a-distance" undefineable/unenforceable fallacy (causal oversimplification) that the Air Force has set down. It is unenforceable and undefineable for the following reasons:
1. How "low" is "low-light?"
2. How far is "at-a-distance?"
3. Who is making the determination of "distinctive?" Is it an E-1 fresh out of Lackland who knows nothing of CAP or CC AETC?
4. What is the visual acuity of the person making the observation?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 03:12:00 AM
Agreeing on this is meaningless in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is lip service only. We're not supposed to post "bad uniform photos" anymore, but Google is your friend here, it won't take more then a single search. In many cases Wing & Region CCs, not to mention national staff, are the worst offenders in regards to uniform wear, both in regards to grooming and also proper wear.
I personally know a CAP Lt. Col. who wears the blue windbreaker and rank shoulder marks with the grey/white.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 03:12:00 AM
Ned, giving people awards and bling they can't wear, or wear equally is the issue, not whether they can earn them.
OK, let's take you at your word, and define the issue as "whether or not members get awards they can't wear or wear equally." (I don't think that is anywhere near the most important uniform issue, but let's go with it for the moment.)
If that is what we are really talking about -- if that is what all of this continuing angst is really about -- let's take a close look.
As near as I can tell, we are talking about roughly 4% of seniors (or about 2% of the entire membership) that are affected by the issue as you define it.
Stay with me for a bit, and let's assume a round number of 30,000 seniors and 26.000 cadets to make the math easy for a lawyer like me.
We start with the best evidence that suggests that significantly less than 50% of seniors are so large that they cannot wear the AF-style uniform. (See previous CDC data). I don't have a good way to refine that further, so let's spitball and call it 40% of the seniors, or roughly 12,000 members. Still a pretty big number, to be sure.
It sounds like we agree that all members wearing the aviator shirt can wear their earned CAP decorations, badges, and awards. So that isn't the problem. Clearly, the problem only affects the seniors who need or would wear the service dress coat (or equivalent).
So what percentage of "AF-style capable seniors" do you think need or own a service dress coat? Obviously there is no data, but I would be very surprised if the figure is over 10%. Most of us simply don't need the coat, and it is rather expensive for something that gets worn very rarely. I certainly didn't have one for at least 10 years after turning senior. The overwhelming majority of us perform our duty in long/short sleeve shirt combinations when not wearing a field or flight uniform. Or polos.
And there is certainly no reason to believe that "non AF-style capable" seniors need a service dress coat equivalent at a higher rate than AF-style eligible members.
So assuming a 10% "service dress coat" rate of the 12,000 seniors restricted from AF-style uniforms, we are talking about 1,200 senior members out of 30,000 total seniors that face the issue that you are concerned about.
Restated, that is about 4% of the seniors, and a little over 2% of the total membership.
But I can only agree that my figures are (charitably put) rough estimates. If we adopt your assertion that a majority of seniors are restricted, that sets the universe of affected members at something like 16,500. And let's be generous and assume that 20% of them would go out and buy whatever service dress coat equivalent we could imagine. Then we are talking about 3,300 seniors that are potentially affected.
(30,000 * .55 * .20 = 3,300)
Or about 11% of seniors.
Or about 6% or the total membership.
Now I don't mean to suggest for a moment that every single member does not deserve a professional uniform, and the ability to wear their earned CAP awards, badges, and decorations. Those are important to all of us, regardless of size.
But before making wholesale changes in our uniform policy, we should carefully consider the size and scope of the problem.
QuoteThe next thing you'll assert is that wearing them isn't really the point, yet it seems to
be somewhat "important" to those with the choice, and a significant source of revenue
for that vendor we all use.
It is clearly important to many CAP members, regardless of uniform style. Which is why our leadership has provided a uniform that allows the wear of all CAP badges, awards, and decorations regardless of the wearer's eligibility for the AF-style uniform.
QuoteIf you are really going to assert that the majority of adult CAP members are allowed to
wear the USAF-style combinations, I will take that bet any day of the week.
So I take it you do not accept the CDC evidence. How do you propose to find some alternative data to settle the bet?
I'd like to chime in and state that there are no H/W for USAF personnel. There is a H/W matrix for initial entry but once you are in and have graduated basic then they no longer apply.
The AF separates personnel who fail their pt tests 4 times within 2 years. And while for the longest time the waist measurement was a huge killer for many that has since changed. Currently if failing the waist measurement is the only failing factor the member then does a BMI.
The AF has not had the weight management program for 10 years or more as a result of the pt test that was implemented back in 2004.
18.5% of those voted have faith... Eighteen point Five percent have faith National will do something "right."
scary
Ned...not taking into account empty shirts and 000 (10% of SMs)...you really think only 10% have a need for a service coat?
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 05:07:23 AM
18.5% of those voted have faith... Eighteen point Five percent have faith National will do something "right."
scary
No....18% have said that it will get done my 1 june.
"right" is a value loaded statement.
I would rather NHQ get it right....then get it "on time".
74.1% thing that NHQ is working hard at at...and with either be published 1 June or come back to field for more comments....Oh! And another 18.4% think it will happen....they just don't want to.
So...that is over 92.6% think NHQ is going to do it "right".
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
Ned...not taking into account empty shirts and 000 (10% of SMs)...you really think only 10% have a need for a service coat?
Actually, I think 10% is generous. I didn't get one until I was an encampment commander. Certainly few, if any, members need it at the squadron level, and over 90% of our seniors work at the squadron level.
It is expensive, about $180 at the exchange website. Of course, some folks get it for free from a friend or a CAP source. And how often would the average squadron person wear it, even if they bought one? Three time a year, maybe?
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 04:59:53 AM
It sounds like we agree that all members wearing the aviator shirt can wear their earned CAP decorations, badges, and awards. So that isn't the problem. Clearly, the problem only affects the seniors who need or would wear the service dress coat (or equivalent).
There is no equivalent.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 04:59:53 AM
So what percentage of "AF-style capable seniors" do you think need or own a service dress coat? Obviously there is no data, but I would be very surprised if the figure is over 10%. Most of us simply don't need the coat, and it is rather expensive for something that gets worn very rarely. I certainly didn't have one for at least 10 years after turning senior. The overwhelming majority of us perform our duty in long/short sleeve shirt combinations when not wearing a field or flight uniform. Or polos.
I bought one (old "Tony Nelson" style) when I first joined CAP in 1993. I have a current style one hanging in my closet that I desperately wish I could wear, but I cannot currently do so.
I avoid "formal" type activities because I don't want to wear that bloody horrible blazer...and I do not own a civilian suit, nor do I plan to.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 04:59:53 AM
And there is certainly no reason to believe that "non AF-style capable" seniors need a service dress coat equivalent at a higher rate than AF-style eligible members.
Colonel, there are different levels of "need." I'm sure you have heard of Maslow's "self-actualisation" pyramid. At this level
esprit de corps comes into play. I do not claim to speak for anyone else, but I certainly do not feel much of that, being a member of the AF's Auxiliary, forced to wear a uniform I loathe (say at a Wing banquet) while many, many of my colleagues are resplendent in their AF blues...as I used to be.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 04:59:53 AM
Now I don't mean to suggest for a moment that every single member does not deserve a professional uniform, and the ability to wear their earned CAP awards, badges, and decorations. Those are important to all of us, regardless of size.
Which we currently do not have.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 04:59:53 AM
But before making wholesale changes in our uniform policy, we should carefully consider the size and scope of the problem.
Without wishing to sound like a broken record, that certainly did not seem to be the case with the CSU. NEC said it was gone, and it was given a sunset date, later extended, but gone nonetheless. That is a "wholesale change."
I wish to know why so many seem to be resistant to (for example) changing the white shirt to a blue,
civilian, Van Heusen aviator shirt, which costs
exactly the same as the white one, and devising
some sort of headgear.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2014, 04:41:24 AM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 21, 2014, 03:24:46 AM
You do know there is no requirement for seniors to advance right? And that hardly motivates cadets. You are right about the CGAUX having a mission. Unlike the fond memory of the missions CAP used to have.
I guess we don't need your services then anymore....thanks for contributing.
I got to go plan a cadet leadership week end, get ready for my next SAREX, prep the ground equipment to support a Broken Arrow Exercise, and clear my schedule for the next Green Flag Mission.
Good night.
Ye gad, do they still have Broken Arrows and Bent Spears? A little SAC talk there.
Quote from: Grumpy on May 25, 2014, 05:37:50 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2014, 04:41:24 AM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 21, 2014, 03:24:46 AM
You do know there is no requirement for seniors to advance right? And that hardly motivates cadets. You are right about the CGAUX having a mission. Unlike the fond memory of the missions CAP used to have.
I guess we don't need your services then anymore....thanks for contributing.
I got to go plan a cadet leadership week end, get ready for my next SAREX, prep the ground equipment to support a Broken Arrow Exercise, and clear my schedule for the next Green Flag Mission.
Good night.
Ye gad, do they still have Broken Arrows and Bent Spears? A little SAC talk there.
We still got the nukes.....we still got to exercise. :)
I keep meaning to go see the Broken Arrow here in town:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Bluff,_South_Carolina#Nuclear_bomb_accident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Bluff,_South_Carolina#Nuclear_bomb_accident)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Atomic_bomb_crater_site.jpg/640px-Atomic_bomb_crater_site.jpg)
Ned,
Lawyering around the question, re-framing it as "need", etc., etc., just shows the typical response
that these members get whenever the issue is brought up.
Those members do the same, if not more work for CAP, and their efforts and involvement should
be respected equally, including their choice to wear a service coat.
The majority of the adult membership is not allowed to wear the USAF style uniform because
of being too heavy. I stand by that based on personal experience, not to mention plenty of anecdotal
evidence.
When NHQ starts pushing enforcement on the standards we have, you can start reshaping the
question, etc. Until then, it's irrelevant, since clearly it's not a priority.
"Saying it's important", etc., etc., flies in the face of evidence right in front of us
and a years of the same to the contrary.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
Heck, our last national commander wore corporates. I don't remember anyone calling her a second class citizen. Certainly, she never self-identified as such. Last time I looked at a command council meeting, almost half of the wing commanders were wearing corporates. I've never heard them complain about being second class citizens.
And that seems to have gone by the wayside when BG Carr took the office. He wears the AF-blues (as he appears to be within the regulations), and so does everybody else around him (whether they are in regs or not.)
Quote
The CAP leadership -- rather than being the villains in this drama -- actually deserve credit for creating professional, military style uniforms for members restricted from the AF-style.
Sir, I think we have drastically different definitions of what the phrase "professional, military style uniform" means.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 05:33:38 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
Ned...not taking into account empty shirts and 000 (10% of SMs)...you really think only 10% have a need for a service coat?
Actually, I think 10% is generous. I didn't get one until I was an encampment commander. Certainly few, if any, members need it at the squadron level, and over 90% of our seniors work at the squadron level.
It is expensive, about $180 at the exchange website. Of course, some folks get it for free from a friend or a CAP source. And how often would the average squadron person wear it, even if they bought one? Three time a year, maybe?
I bought one new in 2001 or so, and I think I've worn it maybe 5 times? I even used it in Air Force ROTC more. Living in the South does have its benefits. Never even put on the long sleeve shirt and tie. I don't do ceremonies or anything that would require me to dress up anymore.
Quote from: Ned on May 25, 2014, 05:33:38 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 25, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
Ned...not taking into account empty shirts and 000 (10% of SMs)...you really think only 10% have a need for a service coat?
Actually, I think 10% is generous. I didn't get one until I was an encampment commander. Certainly few, if any, members need it at the squadron level, and over 90% of our seniors work at the squadron level.
It is expensive, about $180 at the exchange website. Of course, some folks get it for free from a friend or a CAP source. And how often would the average squadron person wear it, even if they bought one? Three time a year, maybe?
Strange, I see a lot of cadets in service dress. I see a lot of squadron and group folks in service dress. At encampment, most of the SMs had service dress. At banquets/wing conferences I saw a lot of service dress. At a 10% rate, it would be quite a rare sight. At the rates I've seen them locally, in my wing, and in the Volunteer, I'd say you're well underestimating.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 05:20:15 AM
Quote from: mkenyonpvs on May 25, 2014, 05:07:23 AM
18.5% of those voted have faith... Eighteen point Five percent have faith National will do something "right."
scary
No....18% have said that it will get done my 1 june.
"right" is a value loaded statement.
I would rather NHQ get it right....then get it "on time".
74.1% thing that NHQ is working hard at at...and with either be published 1 June or come back to field for more comments....Oh! And another 18.4% think it will happen....they just don't want to.
So...that is over 92.6% think NHQ is going to do it "right".
You have me there.
QuoteIf you can do that with just three uniforms (service, field, and flying), you will have done a better job than any of our armed forces (who each have about the same number of uniform combinations as we do).
LTC Lee,
I understand you are/were much closer to this problem than I am ever likely to be...
BUT
... for arguements sake, I would submit to you that two of the three (feild and flying) are already there. Its solely the service uniform that needs to be addressed.
Also, take the cadets out of the picture. Like JROTC, the uniform is the biggest recruiting draw. Let the kids continue to wear the USAF style serice uniform and the BDU and/or the ABU or the new "combine services" combat uniform.
As to the Senior Members, when the USAF changed service uniform coats and corporate did away with the CSU, there was a "sunset" period when old uniforms could be worn and then a drop dead date that you had to switch over.
I suggest that be done with the BDUs and the Sage Green flight suits give a reasonably long period to switch over and then make all Senior Members go to BBDUs and the blue flight suit.
Two of three complete. ;)
As to the Service uniform, pick something, be it blue, grey, tan, maroon and go with it. Again, give a reasonably long period to switch and allow both the USAF style and the white/grey uniforms to be worn and then all Senior Members switch to the
one Service uniform.
I'm pretty fond of khaki tan as a uniform choice but others (i.e. Cyborg) have had other suggestions that are equally valid for discussion but the consensus is the uniform must have a service coat and headgear to make it equal to the current USAF style uniform.
QuoteSir, I think we have drastically different definitions of what the phrase "professional, military style uniform" means.
I concur. I have worn many different uniforms over the years (NROTC, USMC, US Army, USCGAux, several civilian police agencies and "numerous" private security uniforms) and I can tell that the CAP grey/white combo is NOT...
professional looking...
para-military in look and cut...
or even UNIFORM in wear and style!!! :o
No two CAP members I have ever met, who were forced into grey/white, have ever worn the same cut/style of white shirt or the same cut/style and/or
shade of grey trousers. :-[
The problem....If I may speak for Ned.......is that if we eliminate the USAF service, service dress and mess dress uniforms.....you will have just as many people complaining as you do as you currently have for those who can't wear USAF uniforms complaining about the lack of a service coat, a lack of a hat, inability to wear USAF ribbons, et al.
The NUC is in a [darn]ed if you do [darn]ed if you don't situation.
He was pointing out that the compromise is two uniform sets.
Every individual is going to have their preference.....and any change that does not reflect their personal opion is going to generate [censored]ing and moaning......hence the reason why the status quo has so much inertia.
So...we got four basic options.
1) leave everything alone and continue to hear the same complains that have been going on for years.
2) Switch everyone to the current corporate uniforms and increase the number of people who don't like gray, think it is too military, think it is not military enough, who think we are becoming too corporate, that the USAF hates us, that we are disrespecting the USAF, "CAP is telling me to pay for more uniforms", etc.
3) Switch everyone to USAF uniforms and we get complains of "now I got to give SCAMGUARD more money", pissing off USAF personnel (not CAP-USAF) because we are letting Fat and Fuzzies wear "their" uniform, people who think CAP is to military, people who think want to seperate CAP from the USAF, etc.
4) Switch everyone to a NEW corporate uniform.....all the above arguments, plus those who think their pet color is much better then the one the NUC comes up with.
Ned tried to explain all this and he gets attacked for lawyering and be an apologist for NHQ.
We are all volunteers....the NUC as well as all of us. We attack those problems that need to be attack and we have a chance to handle.
No wonder why NHQ is reluctant to get "feedback from the field" because it just makes things that much harder.
Add to that the elephantine memory some people have and we keep going back to arguments like "what happened to the CSU and why won't they let us see the source documents and decision making process".
Makes you want to scream sometimes. ;D
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:39:32 PM
Every individual is going to have their preference...
Irrelevant.
It's a uniform, not a fashion statement. If it's not "uni" it fails from zero.
It could also be handled incrementally for the uniforms >all< the membership actually needs.
Make the golf shirt the MBU, not the whites or the blues.
Swap over the field and flight uniforms to a single garment for all.
That eliminates a significant percentage of the problem, is acknowledgement from NHQ that this
is actually an issue vs. the current stance, and lastly...
...actually enforce the regulations as written, which frankly is the #1 actual problem.
Jan 1 every member affected has a choice, "weigh in or change their uniform" this is a
zero-cost initiative, already mandated by the regs, just ignored across the board.
Since there has not been a change to the standard in decades, no one will be caught
off guard, forced to incur any unnecessary expense, nor will their be any room for complaints,
since the rules are clear and simple.
Comments about "who's scale" are an attempt to distract, not a legitimate concern.
If it's a real issue, take $30k of that VG money and buy every unit a scale at Walmart.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 06:46:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:39:32 PM
Every individual is going to have their preference...
Irrelevant.
it's a uniform, not a fashion statement. If it's not "uni" it fails from zero.
That's the only thing you are harping on?!?!
The problem with trying to get a single UNIFORM is that everyone has a different idea of what it should look like.
Should it be gray? Should it be brown? Should it be AF Blue? Or should it be some other color?
That single question right there is going to end up with 3, 4, 5 different camps....and when the NUC chooses one.......the other four camps will be all butt hurt.
That's my point.
The NUC is going to favor the status quo because....at least they know what those butt hurt camps are going to say. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 06:46:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:39:32 PM
Every individual is going to have their preference...
Irrelevant.
it's a uniform, not a fashion statement. If it's not "uni" it fails from zero.
That's the only thing you are harping on?!?!
Obviously not, but it also can't be discounted.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:57:34 PM
The problem with trying to get a single UNIFORM is that everyone has a different idea of what it should look like.
Should it be gray? Should it be brown? Should it be AF Blue? Or should it be some other color?
That single question right there is going to end up with 3, 4, 5 different camps....and when the NUC chooses one.......the other four camps will be all butt hurt.
That's my point.
The NUC is going to favor the status quo because....at least they know what those butt hurt camps are going to say. :)
Leaders make the difficult decisions and hard choices which are ultimately best for the organization.
Look around at the other organizations that we constantly compare ourselves to, rightly or otherwise.
Most of them seem to have been able to figure this out, it's not rocket science.
And again, the decision about a
uniform, has little to do with the issue of enforcement.
When you get to make rules for "other people" that you feel free to ignore, either for yourself
or those in your charge, it's a lot easier to just ignore the problem.
Well....then there you go.
NHQ via the NUC made the hard decision and decided to stick with the status quo with all its warts and issues.
Enforcement is another issue that I was not addressing in my comments....although...the NUC did address that by clearing up some of the ambiguities in the old 39-1.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 08:15:21 PM
NHQ via the NUC made the hard decision and decided to stick with the status quo with all its warts and issues.
I do not call that "making the hard decision," by leaving a calcified position in place.
No
You would not because you disagree with the division and would have to accept that the NUC was doing their best with a crappy situation
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 12:34:18 AM
No
You would not because you disagree with the division and would have to accept that the NUC was doing their best with a crappy situation
Please tell me: what is "good" about the current situation?
Quote from: CyBorg on May 26, 2014, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 12:34:18 AM
No
You would not because you disagree with the division and would have to accept that the NUC was doing their best with a crappy situation
Please tell me: what is "good" about the current situation?
Well....I never said the current situation was "good"....but here is my WAG.
We don't simply kick out the fat and fuzzies. We have some sort of "uniform" for them....BITD the only alternative was the blazer combo and the SMURF suit.
Remember your good, my good, the NUC's Good and CAP's good are all different things. Which was my point. Now way is the NUC going to make everyone happy......and they chose to keep the same batch of unhappy people instead of trading them for another bunch of unhappy people or increasing the number of unhappy people.
Master Sergeant, I believe you take the position you do because you are able to.
To my knowledge, and please correct me if I am incorrect, you are able to wear the USAF type uniform, and you do not have medical conditions prohibiting you from doing so. I am glad for that. I would not wish what I have on anyone.
I used to be able to. Now I cannot. I have a medical condition (medication side effects) that has made me gain way too much weight (and my doctor confirmed this is the cause). I could stop taking the medication and watch the pounds drop off, but chances are if I did that my wife would be all-too-soon burying me.
To the best of my knowledge, other similar organisations (NSCC, CGAUX, even some SDF's) don't kick out "fat and fuzzies" either, nor do they put them in a separate uniform.
I have a useless uniform hanging in my closet...a uniform I was proud to wear...hanging alongside a uniform I loathe wearing. If that sounds bitter, guilty as charged and no apologies given.
I feel no connection with the history of CAP, no connection with the Air Force, no connection with aviation, period, and certainly no esprit de corps with a colourless uniform. Granted, it is marginally better than the former colourless uniform in that rank/badges can be worn on it...but the powers that be chose to keep the same colourless configuration. Just a change of shirt colour and adding headgear would add a lot to it, but they say, "no, you can't have that."
I thoroughly disagree with your take that NUC did the best for the "overall good." They killed a popular uniform for apocryphal reasons (Colonel Lee, I know you and I have discussed this privately) and absolutely refuse to make any changes to the present "alternative" uniform.
That is not "making the best compromise." It is, at best, argumentum ad temperantiam, and, as some do, to blame it on the Air Force ("eek! any change we make will tick the Air Force off!), is again, at best, argumentum e silentio.
Evidence proves otherwise. CAP instituted BBDU's and a blue flight/utility suit, which, while not universally popular, are nonetheless well-liked...and there is no confusion with the Air Force, even though the blue jumpsuit is virtually identical to a SAC missileer's suit (I know, I have one).
They have the ability and power to achieve an intelligent compromise, which will not please everyone (as you correctly said), though will likely certainly reduce the "batch of unhappy people." I reject such a notion anyway...what good is there for an organisation to keep a subset of people who are unhappy and actively make them stay unhappy?
I was in the ANG. I know how the military works: "do it/wear it/don't ask questions, etc." My dad hated it when the Army switched from the Ike jacket to the green "Vietnam-era" service dress and wore his Ike until the last possible day he could (I have it in my closet) without disobeying orders.
When the Coast Guard switched from very-slightly-modified Navy uniforms to their current dress, they kept an eye on the history of the CG/Revenue Cutter Service and its other predecessors. I have not met anyone in the CG who would want to go back to wearing Navy uniforms.
However, as many point out, CAP is not the military...we are a group of volunteers who give of our time, talent and (especially!) treasure.
To knowingly take actions that negatively impact esprit de corps is either just wrong or else beyond my ability to comprehend.
I realise that, just as Colonel Lee comes from the background of being a barrister and solicitor, I come from the seemingly-incongruous backgrounds of psychology (especially social psychology, as in Stanley Milgram) - trying to figure out the impact of action/lack of action on subsets/subcultures (and less so cultures as a whole) and information technology (where virtually everything is 1 or 0, on or off, "is" or "ain't").
Also, I attempt to employ Socratic questioning to get answers...even though answers may not be immediately present, or at all.
Asking probing questions can be annoying to those who do not share such a mindset. I realise that, although it is not my intent to annoy (I do well enough with that on my own without trying!), and I will never intentionally demean someone else, whether on CT or in the "real" world.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 26, 2014, 01:10:46 AM
Master Sergeant, I believe you take the position you do because you are able to.
No I take my position because I'm a leader in a volunteer organization and I know how we think. Who wants to hear a bunch of whinny kids complain when their pet peeve is not adopted. Who wants to wade through 100 pages of "I think we need to bring back the CSU".
My position on what uniform we should wear....has always been.....we all need to wear the USAF uniform....if the USAF will not let us....we all need to wear the SAME uniform. My uniform preference is the same as your. I got not problem with the Grey and Whites....excpet we need to get Vanguard to make a set of gray slacks that are the same color and fabric.
If you go back to the beginning of my activity on CT or Cadet Stuff....that has always been my stance.
So.....it is not because I meet weight and grooming standard. I defend the NUC because I understand where they are comming from and why they made their decision.....and I don't take it personally.
QuoteTo my knowledge, and please correct me if I am incorrect, you are able to wear the USAF type uniform, and you do not have medical conditions prohibiting you from doing so. I am glad for that. I would not wish what I have on anyone.
I used to be able to. Now I cannot. I have a medical condition (medication side effects) that has made me gain way too much weight (and my doctor confirmed this is the cause). I could stop taking the medication and watch the pounds drop off, but chances are if I did that my wife would be all-too-soon burying me.
To the best of my knowledge, other similar organizations (NSCC, CGAUX, even some SDF's) don't kick out "fat and fuzzies" either, nor do they put them in a separate uniform.
I don't know what NSCC is...but CGAUX and SDF's are not associated with the USAF.....and this all stems from the fact that a) the USAF does not want our fat and fuzzies to ware their uniforms....and b) A lot of people in CAP want to wear USAF uniforms. What the CG does...or what a particular state says is okay.....is up to them. I agree we could use those arguments when you are talking to the USAF and trying to convince them to change their policy.....but CAP must suffer the pleasure of the USAF when it comes to uniforms.
QuoteI have a useless uniform hanging in my closet...a uniform I was proud to wear...hanging alongside a uniform I loathe wearing. If that sounds bitter, guilty as charged and no apologies given.
I feel no connection with the history of CAP, no connection with the Air Force, no connection with aviation, period, and certainly no esprit de corps with a colourless uniform. Granted, it is marginally better than the former colourless uniform in that rank/badges can be worn on it...but the powers that be chose to keep the same colourless configuration. Just a change of shirt colour and adding headgear would add a lot to it, but they say, "no, you can't have that."
I understand your pain......I don't care....but I understand it. You hate the Gray and Whites and you take it personally that "no one" is listining to you and your suggestions.
QuoteI thoroughly disagree with your take that NUC did the best for the "overall good." They killed a popular uniform for apocryphal reasons (Colonel Lee, I know you and I have discussed this privately) and absolutely refuse to make any changes to the present "alternative" uniform.
First the NUC did not kill the CSU......a) it was not popular with the USAF nor was it popular with a lot of CAP people. It was gaining popularity (at least as far as I could see) when it was killed.....but there you go.
Second....yes they refused to make any changes to the current uniform....because they did not see a need for it. The "costs" outweigh the "benifits". It is simple as that. You may not like it...but there you go.
QuoteThat is not "making the best compromise." It is, at best, argumentum ad temperantiam, and, as some do, to blame it on the Air Force ("eek! any change we make will tick the Air Force off!), is again, at best, argumentum e silentio.
Evidence proves otherwise. CAP instituted BBDU's and a blue flight/utility suit, which, while not universally popular, are nonetheless well-liked...and there is no confusion with the Air Force, even though the blue jumpsuit is virtually identical to a SAC missileer's suit (I know, I have one).
There is no such thing as a "best compromise" someone always gets screwed on a compromise. I said it was a compromise to a crappy situation between the USAF's wants and needs and CAP (us not the corporation) wants and needs.
Also.....it is hard to figure out the logic of anything that the USAF thinks some time....the USAF (in general) hated the fact that the missileers (and others) wore the blue flight bag. When they all got forced to switch they were pissed...then the USAF flier types got bent that non "fliers" are wearing the green flight bag......so those same people probably cared less that we got blue flight bags.
QuoteThey have the ability and power to achieve an intelligent compromise, which will not please everyone (as you correctly said), though will likely certainly reduce the "batch of unhappy people." I reject such a notion anyway...what good is there for an organization to keep a subset of people who are unhappy and actively make them stay unhappy?
Welll.....I guess I got say....when you are on the CSAG or the National Commander then what you reject or don't reject may mean something. Look I don't mean to say your opinion is not important or invalid, it is just that you keep forgetting to add the lines "From where I sit..." to that statement. Capt CyBorg sees XYZ as the most important issue....but the NUC or the National Commander my have access to other information or other points of view that don't match with yours.
QuoteI was in the ANG. I know how the military works: "do it/wear it/don't ask questions, etc." My dad hated it when the Army switched from the Ike jacket to the green "Vietnam-era" service dress and wore his Ike until the last possible day he could (I have it in my closet) without disobeying orders.
When the Coast Guard switched from very-slightly-modified Navy uniforms to their current dress, they kept an eye on the history of the CG/Revenue Cutter Service and its other predecessors. I have not met anyone in the CG who would want to go back to wearing Navy uniforms.
However, as many point out, CAP is not the military...we are a group of volunteers who give of our time, talent and (especially!) treasure.
To knowingly take actions that negatively impact esprit de corps is either just wrong or else beyond my ability to comprehend.
Well that's where you are wrong...they did not take action that negatively impacted esprit de corps......they took action, that in their opinion provided the best outcome for ALL the players involved.
Some times you got to do stuff that will not make you a well liked individual. The NUC may have made changes that would make you and people who feel like you happy....but then that same action may piss off a whole other bunch of people. Did you ever think of that....how would YOUR propose changes affect other people?
QuoteI realise that, just as Colonel Lee comes from the background of being a barrister and solicitor, I come from the seemingly-incongruous backgrounds of psychology (especially social psychology, as in Stanley Milgram) - trying to figure out the impact of action/lack of action on subsets/subcultures (and less so cultures as a whole) and information technology (where virtually everything is 1 or 0, on or off, "is" or "ain't").
Also, I attempt to employ Socratic questioning to get answers...even though answers may not be immediately present, or at all.
Asking probing questions can be annoying to those who do not share such a mindset. I realise that, although it is not my intent to annoy (I do well enough with that on my own without trying!), and I will never intentionally demean someone else, whether on CT or in the "real" world.
Look I know.....it sucks....it sucks bad. IIWGFAD (If I Were God For A Day)....I would have us into a single USAF uniform with just enough distinctiveness to keep the USAF happy is a heart beat.
I also agree that the multi-gray pants reduces our "professional" appearance.....and again IIWGDAD I would develop a set of acceptable Gray Shade 121xx pants and skirts for us (assuming I did not get us all into USAF uniforms).
But I'm not God.
Like wise neither is the NUC. The NUC had nothing to do with the CSU fiasco...so stop harping on that.
The NUC had a big big problem on its plate.....and the tackled it as best they could...considering there were all sort of personalities on the committee...each with their pet ideal. What they did though.....was to focus THIS round of changes to doing what really really really needed to be done with the uniform.......FIX THE FREAKING MANUAL....which by the Drafts I have see....they have done an excellent job.
Still not happy with the uniforms......the new 39-1 has a clear method for suggesting improvements......knock yourself out.
But please....please....stop implying that the NUC does not care about the rank and file membership....because IMHO that is simply not the case.
YMMV
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 06:46:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:39:32 PM
Every individual is going to have their preference...
Irrelevant.
it's a uniform, not a fashion statement. If it's not "uni" it fails from zero.
That's the only thing you are harping on?!?!
This actually happened today, a couple of hours ago:
CAP was invited to be at the center stage for a Memorial Day service by a coalition of Vet groups. Our squadron was the primary, but we also had members from surrounding squadrons taking part. The local media was covering the event.
It was "requested" by the VFW leadership that those members in G/Ws stand off to the side, because "two different uniforms was confusing" and "you aren't wearing the same uniform as your cadets." Since we were the invited guests, the CC (himself in G/Ws) agreed.
As such, those in the corporate uniform, many of themselves who were actual vets, were not able to take part except as observers off to the side.
^^^That is unacceptable, though you'll no doubt find those on CT who say "that's just the way it is...suck it up."
Quote from: Panache on May 26, 2014, 08:03:50 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 06:46:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:39:32 PM
Every individual is going to have their preference...
Irrelevant.
it's a uniform, not a fashion statement. If it's not "uni" it fails from zero.
That's the only thing you are harping on?!?!
This actually happened today, a couple of hours ago:
CAP was invited to be at the center stage for a Memorial Day service by a coalition of Vet groups. Our squadron was the primary, but we also had members from surrounding squadrons taking part. The local media was covering the event.
It was "requested" by the VFW leadership that those members in G/Ws stand off to the side, because "two different uniforms was confusing" and "you aren't wearing the same uniform as your cadets." Since we were the invited guests, the CC (himself in G/Ws) agreed.
As such, those in the corporate uniform, many of themselves who were actual vets, were not able to take part except as observers off to the side.
The proper response would be to walk out.....but that's just me. :)
Without making a scene and taking away from the real intent.. I would have been out of there so fast. Even if I was -not- in G/Ws.
Yea sorry, that's crap. Good on the CC for working it, but the proper response probably would be to explain what you just said, and give them an all or nothing.
Quote from: a2capt on May 26, 2014, 09:38:24 PM
Without making a scene and taking away from the real intent.. I would have been out of there so fast. Even if I was -not- in G/Ws.
+1
What about the cadets who haven't done anything? Are you going to take them with you because your feelings are hurt. I have to wear the G/W and hate and resent it to the depths of my heart so I sometimes have to remind myself of why I'm in CAP.
Quote from: PA Guy on May 26, 2014, 10:47:07 PM
What about the cadets who haven't done anything? Are you going to take them with you because your feelings are hurt. I have to wear the G/W and hate and resent it to the depths of my heart so I sometimes have to remind myself of why I'm in CAP.
Yes. It's a teachable moment. You have veterans "off to the side", while cadets get to participate, but it's OK? Really?
The question, and the teachable moment, becomes "Is this about honoring veterans or getting a sweet shot for the 5pm cycle..."
Most of these types of events are generally a "gaggle", anyway, between all the civilians, the various organizations involved,
historical uniforms of both veterans and renactors, etc., etc. It's doubtful anyone would be "confused" in any meaningful way.
In the moment, I would likely have done the same thing as Panache, and then we would likely decline future invitations to participate
with that group.
Quote from: PA Guy on May 26, 2014, 10:47:07 PM
What about the cadets who haven't done anything? Are you going to take them with you because your feelings are hurt. I have to wear the G/W and hate and resent it to the depths of my heart so I sometimes have to remind myself of why I'm in CAP.
The Squadron CC briefly discussed it with the Seniors. We agreed that we didn't want to "make a scene" which we would probably regret later (we get donations from several vet groups in the area) and, yes, we didn't want to leave after the cadets had come out. What sort of lesson would that teach them?
Ironically enough, out of all the SMs who were in AF-blues, only one was a vet, and he did not look very comfortable up there when the rest of us were on the sidelines. I actually felt sorry for him!
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 27, 2014, 02:07:38 AM
Quote from: PA Guy on May 26, 2014, 10:47:07 PM
What about the cadets who haven't done anything? Are you going to take them with you because your feelings are hurt. I have to wear the G/W and hate and resent it to the depths of my heart so I sometimes have to remind myself of why I'm in CAP.
Yes. It's a teachable moment. You have veterans "off to the side", while cadets get to participate, but it's OK? Really?
Yes. The CC made the right call under the circumstances.
I already said it was a good on the spot call. But having seen what vet groups wear, the G/Ws wouldn't stand out at all. Perhaps addressing it with said organizer would have helped, even "after the fact". As far as a teachable moment, we didn't have all the details, the cadets apparently were already up there. I would have at least declined any SM direct participation. We're a team, all or none. That's that.
(http://detroitirish.org/jim_price/images/memorial/DSC02063.jpg)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 27, 2014, 04:49:39 AM
I already said it was a good on the spot call. But having seen what vet groups wear, the G/Ws wouldn't stand out at all. Perhaps addressing it with said organizer would have helped, even "after the fact". As far as a teachable moment, we didn't have all the details, the cadets apparently were already up there. I would have at least declined any SM direct participation. We're a team, all or none. That's that.
(http://detroitirish.org/jim_price/images/memorial/DSC02063.jpg)
Apologies, I misunderstood your post.
No problem. Understandably a crappy situation for our own, so of course we get pulled into the memorial day - veterans - don't make a scene situation.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
No I take my position because I'm a leader in a volunteer organization and I know how we think. Who wants to hear a bunch of whinny kids complain when their pet peeve is not adopted. Who wants to wade through 100 pages of "I think we need to bring back the CSU".
What
all of said volunteer organisation thinks?
I do not know if you are targeting me when you say "whinny kids"...if not, please explain yourself. If so, you are way out of line. I will be 50 sooner rather than later and I am not a "whinny kid" just because I call you on some of your opinions.
And if you can find a quote where I said "I think we need to bring back the CSU," I welcome you to do so.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
My position on what uniform we should wear....has always been.....we all need to wear the USAF uniform....if the USAF will not let us....we all need to wear the SAME uniform. My uniform preference is the same as your. I got not problem with the Grey and Whites....excpet we need to get Vanguard to make a set of gray slacks that are the same color and fabric.
We agree on the USAF uniforms and we agree that it is unlikely to happen. If I had my way, we would all be in the USAF blues with metal grade, CAP lapel cutouts, blue nameplates and blue shoulder marks with embroidered "CAP" as before.
Unlike you, I do have a problem with the grey/white and find it thoroughly illogical that we retain said colour scheme when it would be just as easy to adopt the civilian Van Heusen blue aviator shirt...exact same colour, exact same price and it would look much better with the grey trousers, shoulder marks, etc.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
If you go back to the beginning of my activity on CT or Cadet Stuff....that has always been my stance.
I will take your word for that as I was never on Cadet Stuff and have only been on CT since 2009.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
I defend the NUC because I understand where they are comming from and why they made their decision.....and I don't take it personally.
Were you a member of the NUC?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
I don't know what NSCC is...but CGAUX and SDF's are not associated with the USAF.....and this all stems from the fact that a) the USAF does not want our fat and fuzzies to ware their uniforms....and b) A lot of people in CAP want to wear USAF uniforms. What the CG does...or what a particular state says is okay.....is up to them. I agree we could use those arguments when you are talking to the USAF and trying to convince them to change their policy.....but CAP must suffer the pleasure of the USAF when it comes to uniforms.
NSCC is the Navy Sea Cadet Corps. http://www.seacadets.org/ (http://www.seacadets.org/) My first CAP unit was co-located at an Armed Forces Reserve Centre with one of their units. They were aghast at the changes we had to make in uniforms (berry boards era).
And you said it right when you said "suffer the pleasure" of the USAF on uniforms...an undefinable, unenforceable "low-light/at-a-distance" rubric.
The USAF
could very easily control how SDF Air Units wear their uniform, as you say correctly, it is
their uniform, just as the Army and handful of Naval SDF units wear
their uniforms. I have read on CT where the AF could not control such things, which I disagree with. If nothing else, they could make it clear through State Adjutant Generals that these Air units need to be more "distinctive."
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
I understand your pain......I don't care....but I understand it. You hate the Gray and Whites and you take it personally that "no one" is listining to you and your suggestions.
You do not have to "care," but you would do well to recognise that many, many others in CAP feel as I do.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
First the NUC did not kill the CSU......a) it was not popular with the USAF nor was it popular with a lot of CAP people. It was gaining popularity (at least as far as I could see) when it was killed.....but there you go.
Again, apocryphal evidence about the AF opinion of it.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
Second....yes they refused to make any changes to the current uniform....because they did not see a need for it. The "costs" outweigh the "benifits". It is simple as that. You may not like it...but there you go.
What "costs" and what "benefits?" Be specific, please, with sourced information.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
Welll.....I guess I got say....when you are on the CSAG or the National Commander then what you reject or don't reject may mean something. Look I don't mean to say your opinion is not important or invalid, it is just that you keep forgetting to add the lines "From where I sit..." to that statement. Capt CyBorg sees XYZ as the most important issue....but the NUC or the National Commander my have access to other information or other points of view that don't match with yours.
It is good that you at least acknowledge I have a valid opinion. My opinion is no less valid because I have railway tracks instead of stars. I am no more or less equal than any other CAP volunteer, from Nat CC down to the newest C/AB.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
Well that's where you are wrong...they did not take action that negatively impacted esprit de corps......they took action, that in their opinion provided the best outcome for ALL the players involved.
How am I wrong, especially given the new revelations in this thread about how those in the G/W's were treated on Memorial Day?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
The NUC may have made changes that would make you and people who feel like you happy....but then that same action may piss off a whole other bunch of people. Did you ever think of that....how would YOUR propose changes affect other people?
Which is why I have solicited opinions and posted a full synopsis of suggested changes. It is there for you to see and critique as well.
How many people do you honestly believe would be honked-off by changing the G/W/blazer?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
Look I know.....it sucks....it sucks bad. IIWGFAD (If I Were God For A Day)....I would have us into a single USAF uniform with just enough distinctiveness to keep the USAF happy is a heart beat.
I believe you.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
I also agree that the multi-gray pants reduces our "professional" appearance.....and again IIWGDAD I would develop a set of acceptable Gray Shade 121xx pants and skirts for us (assuming I did not get us all into USAF uniforms).
I agree to a point, except that I believe the entire G/W kit makes us look unprofessional, in the sense of being an aviation-related organisation.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
The NUC had nothing to do with the CSU fiasco...so stop harping on that.
I should have said NEC, but I refuse to believe the NUC had absolutely
nothing to do with it. The CSU was a uniform.
And my opinions are no less valid than anyone else's, so please do not characterise them as "harping."
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
The NUC had a big big problem on its plate.....and the tackled it as best they could...considering there were all sort of personalities on the committee...each with their pet ideal. What they did though.....was to focus THIS round of changes to doing what really really really needed to be done with the uniform.......FIX THE FREAKING MANUAL....which by the Drafts I have see....they have done an excellent job.
If said manual ever comes out. I will concede that they closed some loopholes, but there will always be others. Example: What is meant by the "CAP baseball cap?" Is it only the ones sold by Vanguard? Or if someone takes a CAP crest and sticks it on a baseball cap, is that also a "CAP baseball cap?"
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
Still not happy with the uniforms......the new 39-1 has a clear method for suggesting improvements......knock yourself out.
If I thought it had a fart's chance in a hurricane of making it past Wing, or even Group, I would, with feedback (even if somewhere along the line someone were to say "Captain, your proposal stinks and it's not going anywhere," I could live with that).
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 02:48:07 AM
But please....please....stop implying that the NUC does not care about the rank and file membership....because IMHO that is simply not the case.
YMMV
And does vary, Master Sergeant.
Quote from: PA Guy on May 26, 2014, 10:47:07 PM
I have to wear the G/W and hate and resent it to the depths of my heart so I sometimes have to remind myself of why I'm in CAP.
Well, there's at least one other CAP member who feels as I do...
Quote from: CyBorg on May 27, 2014, 04:41:49 PMAnd if you can find a quote where I said "I think we need to bring back the CSU," I welcome you to do so.
With all the times you've said "they" (Took, stole, whatever) "it from us".. It's become a broken record.
That essentially means the same thing.
Quote from: a2capt on May 27, 2014, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 27, 2014, 04:41:49 PMAnd if you can find a quote where I said "I think we need to bring back the CSU," I welcome you to do so.
With all the times you've said "they" (Took, stole, whatever) "it from us".. It's become a broken record.
That essentially means the same thing.
Logical fallacy of false equivocation.
And I have never said "stole."
I'd like to add 3 points.
- At both my Wing HQ by suggestion and at National Staff College last week by order ribbons were not worn on the blue or white shirts.
It's been suggested this stems from AF officers not wearing ribbons on the shirt, only on the service coat. So if we start removing the option to wear ribbons on the white shirt then the G&W folks don't ever get to wear them. (Can you say 2nd class?)
- There seems to be a legal trend that obesity caused by a medical condition is covered under disability discrimination which CAP, USAF and DoD all have policies against.
DoD Directive 1020.1 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of Defense
AFI 36-2707 NONDISCRIMINATION IN PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ASSISTED OR CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
CAPR 36-1 CIVIL AIR PATROL NONDISCRIMINATION PROGRAM (which references the 2 above) - Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.
Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.
Quote from: PHall on May 27, 2014, 05:51:36 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.
Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.
Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else."
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason.
"You won't let me fly the CAP plane without a Form 5! Thats HAZING!"
Quote from: NIN on May 27, 2014, 05:55:01 PM
Quote from: PHall on May 27, 2014, 05:51:36 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.
Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.
Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."
"Sorry Lieutenant Matt, we understand you're in a wheelchair, but you're slowing down everybody else, so just stay home, okay? Hey, you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."
Cyborg.....I was not singling anyone out when I was talking about the whiny kids.......But it the shoe fits.
Second...your post is just a rehash of everything you have said...."I hate the gray and whites"....okay we get it. Have you by chance done a white paper on what you think the corporate uniform should look like....and forwarded it up the chain of command to the NUC?
If not.....then you might be a whiny kid.
As for the comment about costs and benefits of not doing anything with the corporate uniforms......the costs are actual costs of everyone having to change, the management costs of having to listen to everyone who just loved the Gray and whites [censored]ing about the new Pink and Greens or Blue and Purples or Black and Scarlet.....and I can't see any benefit of making a change to the gray and whites.
Cyborg...you are certainly entitled to your opinion....but sorry.......your opinion does not count as much as the national commander....it just does not work that way.
Bottom line Cyborg....is that you are only looking at this from YOUR point of view...without even trying to understand what the NUC has to go through. Then when the NUC does make a decision or not....you take it personally as if they did it just to spite you.
I'm not a psychologist....but I remember something in my PSYCH 101 course about that. :)
Quote from: Panache on May 27, 2014, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 27, 2014, 05:55:01 PM
Quote from: PHall on May 27, 2014, 05:51:36 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.
Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.
Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."
"Sorry Lieutenant Matt, we understand you're in a wheelchair, but you're slowing down everybody else, so just stay home, okay? Hey, you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."
Which rule is that? There is an established rule about hair cuts......I seemed to miss the one about slowing people down.
Try again.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 27, 2014, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 27, 2014, 05:55:01 PM
Quote from: PHall on May 27, 2014, 05:51:36 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.
Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.
Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."
"Sorry Lieutenant Matt, we understand you're in a wheelchair, but you're slowing down everybody else, so just stay home, okay? Hey, you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."
Which rule is that? There is an established rule about hair cuts......I seemed to miss the one about slowing people down.
Try again.
Big, BIG difference between trying to enforce h/w and grooming standards and violating the ADA. Jeez.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 27, 2014, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 27, 2014, 05:55:01 PM
Quote from: PHall on May 27, 2014, 05:51:36 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.
Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.
Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."
"Sorry Lieutenant Matt, we understand you're in a wheelchair, but you're slowing down everybody else, so just stay home, okay? Hey, you're voluntarily here. Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.
That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."
Which rule is that? There is an established rule about hair cuts......I seemed to miss the one about slowing people down.
Try again.
And if I can medically prove that I can't get a hair cut because of valid medical reasons (say, I'm a direct decedent of Samson and without my hair I'm powerless), then you can be darn sure ADA protections would apply. A Federal court wouldn't care one whit about CAP's "rule".
Try telling the judge "Oh, well, he can just go somewhere else!" Go ahead.
Try.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 27, 2014, 06:17:23 PM
Big, BIG difference between trying to enforce h/w and grooming standards and violating the ADA. Jeez.
NIN was the one who equated uniform regulations to Form 5's.
My give up. /jarjar
Not every medical condition is ADA-applicable.
Per HDS Wisconsin (which popped up first).
"Under ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; OR (2) has a record of such an impairment; OR (3) is regarded as having such an impairment."
Having long hair (for whatever reason) doesn't "substantially limit" anything.
Further, It would only be discriminatory (I think), if it weren't the standard for everyone.
And to have fun with this discussion, here are documents pertaining to the development of CAP uniforms ... from November 1941.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2014, 06:27:03 PM
Not every medical condition is ADA-applicable.
Per HDS Wisconsin (which popped up first).
"Under ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; OR (2) has a record of such an impairment; OR (3) is regarded as having such an impairment."
Having long hair (for whatever reason) doesn't "substantially limit" anything.
Further, It would only be discriminatory (I think), if it weren't the standard for everyone.
A long while ago, I seem to recall there being an exception in 39-1 regarding beards. IIRC it read something along the lines of "beards are forbidden unless there is a valid medical excuse for having one." At the time, there was no religious exception.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2014, 06:27:03 PM
Not every medical condition is ADA-applicable.
Per HDS Wisconsin (which popped up first).
"Under ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; OR (2) has a record of such an impairment; OR (3) is regarded as having such an impairment."
Having long hair (for whatever reason) doesn't "substantially limit" anything.
Further, It would only be discriminatory (I think), if it weren't the standard for everyone.
I never brought up hair. All the comments were weight related.
So a weight standard is not discriminatory because it's the standard for those who meet it.
As far as the ADA, is allowing a larger size uniform a reasonable accommodation?
If our regulations
may be violating AFIs, DoD Directives and Federal Law, does the core value of integrity requires us to ask the question?
All things are waiver-able.....in the USAF we routinely get shaving waivers for people with Pseudo foliculitis barbie (sp?), Shoe waivers of all kinds. I have seen hair cut waivers for everything from healing scalp injuries to covering dis figuration of the ears and face.
So the argument that we hold people accountable to meeting the regs......and maybe not being able to meet those regs due to medical issues is not discrimination.
It is a good thing CAP has got a uniform those people can wear.
Look.....we keep circling around the same thing.......the fat and fuzzies have no choice.....and it is true......it's not CAP's fault. What is CAP's fault is their reluctance to piss off those member in CAP who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform.
We.....go to the change management thread.....and let's start effecting the change.....you think you have heard "unreasonable comments" here on CT.......just wait till you broach that one to the general membership. You will understand why I have been defending the NUC.
:)
^ It depends on which membership is asked.
We've already determined, scientifically, without a doubt, and all have agreed, that more then 50% of the adult membership
isn't allowed to wear the USAF-styles.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2014, 06:58:53 PM
^ It depends on which membership is asked.
We've already determined, scientifically, without a doubt, and all have agreed, that more then 50% of the adult membership
isn't allowed to wear the USAF-styles.
I don't agree with that.....just from my personal eyeball of those units near me....i would say that is definitely not true.
So...unless CAP requried a 100% weigh in with height cross check....I don't think we can say we have determined, scientifically with out a doubt.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2014, 06:43:03 PM
Look.....we keep circling around the same thing.......the fat and fuzzies have no choice.....and it is true......it's not CAP's fault. What is CAP's fault is their reluctance to piss off those member in CAP who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform.
I fail to see how making a couple of changes to the extant corporate uniform would anger those who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform...they would not be affected.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2014, 07:10:48 PM
I don't agree with that.....just from my personal eyeball of those units near me....i would say that is definitely not true.
In all seriousness, you're from Area51 Composite, presumably more then average military involvement, and
the civilians are essentially desiccated walking dead from too much time in the desert (or the casino)
your membership is probably not typical.
Though I'd really, really, like to know why we don't do weigh ins as a matter of course.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 27, 2014, 07:21:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2014, 06:43:03 PM
Look.....we keep circling around the same thing.......the fat and fuzzies have no choice.....and it is true......it's not CAP's fault. What is CAP's fault is their reluctance to piss off those member in CAP who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform.
I fail to see how making a couple of changes to the extant corporate uniform would anger those who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform...they would not be affected.
I thought we were talking about going to a single uniform.
As for making a few changes to the corporate uniform.......as much as as you hate it....there are probably just as many who love it more the life itself....or so it will seem when you suggest ditching the white shirt for another color.
You will have the "I Just bought this shirt" group, you will have the "but it makes us look to military" group, you will have the "why the hell are they making us change...change for changes sake" group. You will have the "I hate all the corporate uniform" group complaining we did not just ditch it all together.
Like I said......I can understand why the NUC took no major action.....at this time.....they are going to get enough [censored]ing and moaning from some of the more or less minor changes they have enacted.
If you can't make everyone happy, the next best thing is to make everyone equally unhappy...
Hi, I'm from NHQ .. we're here to help.
Just remember, we're not happy until your not happy! Got it? ;)
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 27, 2014, 08:22:48 PM
If you can't make everyone happy, the next best thing is to make everyone equally unhappy...
Which is really where this should come to.
Somehow it's "OK" for 1/2 the adult membership to be different because we don't want to risk making the smaller pool sad?
If a cadet over 18 is out of weight standards, their core values should clue them in...
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 27, 2014, 10:06:12 PM
If a cadet over 18 is out of weight standards, their core values should clue them in...
If its behavior based sure. I knew an outstanding cadet who had a medical issue which made him built like Lou Costello. Put all members in the same unis and this problem ends very quicky.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 27, 2014, 11:01:05 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 27, 2014, 10:06:12 PM
If a cadet over 18 is out of weight standards, their core values should clue them in...
If its behavior based sure. I knew an outstanding cadet who had a medical issue which made him built like Lou Costello. Put all members in the same unis and this problem ends very quicky.
I'm not sure how putting 18 year old army recruits in banana suits during basic if they don't meet h/w standards isn't hazing, but putting a 20 year old cadet is...
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 27, 2014, 11:05:38 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 27, 2014, 11:01:05 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 27, 2014, 10:06:12 PM
If a cadet over 18 is out of weight standards, their core values should clue them in...
If its behavior based sure. I knew an outstanding cadet who had a medical issue which made him built like Lou Costello. Put all members in the same unis and this problem ends very quicky.
I'm not sure how putting 18 year old army recruits in banana suits during basic if they don't meet h/w standards isn't hazing, but putting a 20 year old cadet is...
Because one is in the Army/Navy/Air Force/Coast Guard/Marine Corps and one is a Cadet in a service auxiliary. Apples and snow tires...sure they are both round....its also a visibility thing for the medics. If you cant pick out the husky cadet among the dozen at your meeting you might need new specs.
Quote from: PA Guy on May 26, 2014, 10:47:07 PM
I have to wear the G/W and hate and resent it to the depths of my heart so I sometimes have to remind myself of why I'm in CAP.
Well, there's at least one other CAP member who feels as I do...
CyBorg,
Yes, I hate the G/W uniform but that is where we part company. Unlike you I decided that what I DO in CAP is more important to me than my CAP wardrobe. I learned a long time ago that CAP isn't Burger King and I can't always have it my way.
Quote from: PA Guy on May 28, 2014, 12:04:21 AM
CyBorg,
Yes, I hate the G/W uniform but that is where we part company. Unlike you I decided that what I DO in CAP is more important to me than my CAP wardrobe. I learned a long time ago that CAP isn't Burger King and I can't always have it my way.
I never said that the uniform is more important than the mission - and for those who may infer that, please do not. I do not make inferences. I either say it, or I do not. Yes or no.
The disability issue in terms of uniforms is very, very probably a non-starter. If CAP would not allow members to join because of a disability, that would be very bad for the organisation (SDF's are permitted to, but I think their actually being military forces and, in some cases, armed, allows that) and CAP would be looking at Lawsuit Central. I have some experience with this having a disability and the ADA is full of Death Star-sized holes.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2014, 07:23:02 PM
In all seriousness, you're from Area51 Composite, presumably more then average military involvement, and the civilians are essentially desiccated walking dead from too much time in the desert (or the casino) your membership is probably not typical.
A similar thought occurred to me, given where the Master Sergeant's unit is located (one of the Air Force's major bases) and the usually sunny-and-warm climate, conducive to the outdoor exercise that doctors and nutritionists extol. However, I would not describe the civilians around Nellis AFB as necessarily "dessicated walking dead!" Eclipse, sir, I hope you were being facetious.
I live in the frozen Great Lakes. We have only now started having warmer weather permitting more outside activity. Except for a few Coast Guard stations, there are
no active military facilities in my state, so we do not have that environment.
However, speaking only for myself, even if I lived in the sunny climes of Nevada, I would be at a disadvantage with exercise. I have arthritis settling in my lower back and hips, and in some cases I cannot walk alongside my wife for very long in the supermarket without my hips locking up and/or being in intense pain. The chances are very good that within the next year or so I will require a cane to walk. That is frustrating, because in years gone by I loved to walk and ride bicycle with my wife.
This also pertains to my general involvement in CAP. I was once rated aircrew (Observer) and took active part in drilling, both teaching and participating, with the cadets (and seniors in my first unit).
I know CAP will not/cannot kick me out because of this. However, nonetheless, I do feel a "second-tier" member because I cannot wear the blue uniform anymore, and because I cannot do the activities I used to be able to do.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2014, 07:38:32 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 27, 2014, 07:21:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2014, 06:43:03 PM
Look.....we keep circling around the same thing.......the fat and fuzzies have no choice.....and it is true......it's not CAP's fault. What is CAP's fault is their reluctance to piss off those member in CAP who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform.
I fail to see how making a couple of changes to the extant corporate uniform would anger those who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform...they would not be affected.
I thought we were talking about going to a single uniform.
I have no desire to take away the USAF-Blues from our First Class Members. All I'm asking is changing the Corporate equivalent to something not terribad. A colored shirt, a duty hat, and a service coat. Done.
Quote from: Panache on May 28, 2014, 03:45:56 AM
I have no desire to take away the USAF-Blues from our First Class Members. All I'm asking is changing the Corporate equivalent to something not terribad. A colored shirt, a duty hat, and a service coat. Done.
Apparently it is too much to ask.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 28, 2014, 04:45:14 AM
Quote from: Panache on May 28, 2014, 03:45:56 AM
I have no desire to take away the USAF-Blues from our First Class Members. All I'm asking is changing the Corporate equivalent to something not terribad. A colored shirt, a duty hat, and a service coat. Done.
Apparently it is too much to ask.
Have you asked? No really....have you submitted a white paper to the NUC with your concerns and possible solutions?
That's not too much to ask, is it?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2014, 05:46:57 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 28, 2014, 04:45:14 AM
Quote from: Panache on May 28, 2014, 03:45:56 AM
I have no desire to take away the USAF-Blues from our First Class Members. All I'm asking is changing the Corporate equivalent to something not terribad. A colored shirt, a duty hat, and a service coat. Done.
Apparently it is too much to ask.
Have you asked? No really....have you submitted a white paper to the NUC with your concerns and possible solutions?
That's not too much to ask, is it?
We
did have a nicer corporate uniform however it went away because of the it's creator. If that had gone through the correct vetting process it might still exist in some shape or form today. But let's not forget HWSNBN had his on way of doing things.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2014, 06:43:03 PM
All things are waiver-able.....in the USAF we routinely get shaving waivers for people with Pseudo foliculitis barbie (sp?), Shoe waivers of all kinds. I have seen hair cut waivers for everything from healing scalp injuries to covering dis figuration of the ears and face.
So the argument that we hold people accountable to meeting the regs......and maybe not being able to meet those regs due to medical issues is not discrimination.
It is a good thing CAP has got a uniform those people can wear.
Look.....we keep circling around the same thing.......the fat and fuzzies have no choice.....and it is true......it's not CAP's fault. What is CAP's fault is their reluctance to piss off those member in CAP who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform.
We.....go to the change management thread.....and let's start effecting the change.....you think you have heard "unreasonable comments" here on CT.......just wait till you broach that one to the general membership. You will understand why I have been defending the NUC.
:)
How hard would it to be to have an Addendum to the AF Blues? If you have a No Shave Chit,Medical Chit, or Waiver or some sort, so the AF Blues could be worn?
Also, when it comes to ADA, im pretty sure I have alot of "Disabilities" that qualify, im sure majority of mine do. I think CAP does what it can to confrom to the ADA, but as stated above I think a "Waiver" should be able to be used to wear the AF blues.
It does not quite work that way in the USAF......but that is the crux of the problem. If USAF were to sign off on it....we could all be in USAF uniforms tomorrow.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2014, 02:49:54 PM
It does not quite work that way in the USAF......but that is the crux of the problem. If USAF were to sign off on it....we could all be in USAF uniforms tomorrow.
I wouldn't want to see it change and everyone be in Blues. But I do support waivers for medical and religious reasons. But for someone who doesn't have either and won't make an effort I say keep the corporate alternative.
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 02:56:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2014, 02:49:54 PM
It does not quite work that way in the USAF......but that is the crux of the problem. If USAF were to sign off on it....we could all be in USAF uniforms tomorrow.
I wouldn't want to see it change and everyone be in Blues. But I do support waivers for medical and religious reasons. But for someone who doesn't have either and won't make an effort I say keep the corporate alternative.
Why?
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 02:56:28 PMand won't make an effort I say keep the corporate alternative.
Define "effort" - like works 20-40 hours a week for CAP?
That's the only relevent "effort" the organization should concern itself with.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 28, 2014, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 02:56:28 PMand won't make an effort I say keep the corporate alternative.
Define "effort" - like works 20-40 hours a week for CAP?
That's the only relevent "effort" the organization should concern itself with.
No, I think he means you're fat. You have no (diagnosed) issues. So because you clearly don't diet right or exercise, you aren't a good member to wear blues.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 28, 2014, 04:52:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 28, 2014, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 02:56:28 PMand won't make an effort I say keep the corporate alternative.
Define "effort" - like works 20-40 hours a week for CAP?
That's the only relevent "effort" the organization should concern itself with.
No, I think he means you're fat. You have no (diagnosed) issues. So because you clearly don't diet right or exercise, you aren't a good member to wear blues.
That's exactly what I mean and for the fuzzy side someone who just doesn't want to shave.
As far as not having everyone in blues not everyone should be in blues. I will admit I don't think I should be in blues and I do meet the height and weight criteria. It's just a case of some people look good in blues and some don't. So having alternatives is a good thing. But yes I will admit that the current corporate uniform isn't the greatest. I think the TPU was a great idea just horribly implemented.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2014, 05:46:57 AM
Have you asked? No really....have you submitted a white paper to the NUC with your concerns and possible solutions?
That's not too much to ask, is it?
IF, IF, I post my White Paper for the
third time, will you please review and critique? I am asking this as a favour from a former enlisted ANG Airman and current CAP Captain to a retired USAF SNCO and current CAP SNCO.
It is very well organised, I think - I have done technical and business writing and am experienced with drafting proposals. It has explanations for
all my positions and photographs, phase-in/phase-out times (taken from my experience in systems analysis), and is relatively short and more minimum-change than you might think.
I am asking this to see if, in YOUR opinion, it would stand any sort of chance. I would not ask for your opinion if I did not want it.
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 01:42:16 PM
We did have a nicer corporate uniform however it went away because of the it's creator. If that had gone through the correct vetting process it might still exist in some shape or form today.
But it does not, unfortunately, and it is seeming to become The Uniform Topic That Shall Not Be Named.
I am not saying everyone should be in Blues, But....
There are people with legitimate Weight Issues, IE: Disability. If they can wear the uniform properly nice and neat and pressed etc, why should they not?
Quote from: CyBorg on May 28, 2014, 05:45:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2014, 05:46:57 AM
Have you asked? No really....have you submitted a white paper to the NUC with your concerns and possible solutions?
That's not too much to ask, is it?
IF, IF, I post my White Paper for the third time, will you please review and critique? I am asking this as a favour from a former enlisted ANG Airman and current CAP Captain to a retired USAF SNCO and current CAP SNCO.
It is very well organised, I think - I have done technical and business writing and am experienced with drafting proposals. It has explanations for all my positions and photographs, phase-in/phase-out times (taken from my experience in systems analysis), and is relatively short and more minimum-change than you might think.
I am asking this to see if, in YOUR opinion, it would stand any sort of chance. I would not ask for your opinion if I did not want it.
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 01:42:16 PM
We did have a nicer corporate uniform however it went away because of the it's creator. If that had gone through the correct vetting process it might still exist in some shape or form today.
But it does not, unfortunately, and it is seeming to become The Uniform Topic That Shall Not Be Named.
I'd be interested in seeing the proposal you have. PM it to me.
And yes the TPU does seem to be the uniform topic that doesn't get mentioned often.
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 28, 2014, 06:00:00 PM
I am not saying everyone should be in Blues, But....
There are people with legitimate Weight Issues, IE: Disability. If they can wear the uniform properly nice and neat and pressed etc, why should they not?
Quite frankly, if you make exemptions for one subset of the larger/whiskered crowd, you need to exempt them all, otherwise, you're just institutionalizing what we already have now re: some of those members wearing the blues while others in the same group do not. There's also this:
Outsider - "Why is that guy wearing a monochrome uniform?"
Member - "He can't wear the USAF style uniform because he does not meet the published height and weight requirements."
Outsider - "Oh. Why isn't that shorter, rounder guy in the same uniform?"
I don't recall >any< uniform combination referred to as the "TPU", of course them again
a lot of people still use the term "officer" as the generic for adult CAP members, even though that
was never adopted nor correct.
Quote from: NC Hokie on May 28, 2014, 06:46:22 PM
Outsider - "Oh. Why isn't that shorter, rounder guy in the same uniform?"
He's "Comprehensionally challenged".
Quote from: NC Hokie on May 28, 2014, 06:46:22 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 28, 2014, 06:00:00 PM
I am not saying everyone should be in Blues, But....
There are people with legitimate Weight Issues, IE: Disability. If they can wear the uniform properly nice and neat and pressed etc, why should they not?
Quite frankly, if you make exemptions for one subset of the larger/whiskered crowd, you need to exempt them all, otherwise, you're just institutionalizing what we already have now re: some of those members wearing the blues while others in the same group do not. There's also this:
Outsider - "Why is that guy wearing a monochrome uniform?"
Member - "He can't wear the USAF style uniform because he does not meet the published height and weight requirements."
Outsider - "Oh. Why isn't that shorter, rounder guy in the same uniform?"
You do realize that a blue shirt and blue pants are monochrome as well, right?
Why make exemptions for anyone? There are two roads: everybody in blue or everybody in something else. Nothing makes me grind my teeth more than seeing some guy who never wore a uniform in his life strutting around in his new blues with his shiny new railroad tracks (because he is a pilot, after all...) and being treated like he is the best thing since pockets. Meanwhile, some guy who weighs a few pounds over the max is relegated to the white shirt, never mind that he got a Silver Star and lost a leg at Khe Sahn.
My point? Get seniors into their own uniforms, out of the AF uni. What should it look like? Not my call. There have been quite a few good proposals floated over the past several months but institutional inertia keeps bringing us back here.
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 06:41:21 PM
I'd be interested in seeing the proposal you have. PM it to me.
I would, except that in PMs there doesn't seem to be a way to attach Word files, or else I just don't know how.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 28, 2014, 06:58:32 PM
My point? Get seniors into their own uniforms, out of the AF uni. What should it look like? Not my call. There have been quite a few good proposals floated over the past several months but institutional inertia keeps bringing us back here.
And that "institutional inertia" keeps bringing us back to the same point: Seniors HAVE a uniform, CAP has decided that WILL be the uniform...so suck it up and go get your grey/whites and blazer.
Anybody else notice that this topic was read like 2800 times? We really need to get to work on planning and training DR ops.....
That's all the F5s and look backs from the same people, generally following and posting.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 28, 2014, 06:48:01 PM
I don't recall >any< uniform combination referred to as the "TPU", of course them again
a lot of people still use the term "officer" as the generic for adult CAP members, even though that
was never adopted nor correct.
TPU was never the official name. This was the Corporate Service Uniform created by HWSNBN.
I remember calling it the TPU in "the field". Of course I picked up the term here on CAPTalk. :)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 28, 2014, 07:19:19 PM
I remember calling it the TPU in "the field". Of course I picked up the term here on CAPTalk. :)
I called it the "what the fudge is THAT?!!?"
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 07:15:02 PM
TPU was never the official name. This was the Corporate Service Uniform created by HWSNBN.
Which is how it should be referenced.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 28, 2014, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 07:15:02 PM
TPU was never the official name. This was the Corporate Service Uniform created by HWSNBN.
Which is how it should be referenced.
Why? It is not like it is a uniform anymore.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2014, 09:47:11 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 28, 2014, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 28, 2014, 07:15:02 PM
TPU was never the official name. This was the Corporate Service Uniform created by HWSNBN.
Which is how it should be referenced.
Why? It is not like it is a uniform anymore.
Actually, it will always be a CAP uniform, it just isn't approved for wear - no different then
the 4-pocket jacket for seniors, green fatigues, light blue nomex flight suit or even the woodland BDU
which will shortly be sundowned in favor of the blue field uniform.
Semantics, so it does not cause confusion in the future, if a similar uniform does get approved... Eclipse is right...
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 28, 2014, 10:25:43 PM
Semantics, so it does not cause confusion in the future, if a similar uniform does get approved... Eclipse is right...
Eclipse is a hypocrite.....but that's okay.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2014, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 28, 2014, 10:25:43 PM
Semantics, so it does not cause confusion in the future, if a similar uniform does get approved... Eclipse is right...
Eclipse is a hypocrite.....but that's okay.
Cite please.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 29, 2014, 12:11:02 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2014, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 28, 2014, 10:25:43 PM
Semantics, so it does not cause confusion in the future, if a similar uniform does get approved... Eclipse is right...
Eclipse is a hypocrite.....but that's okay.
Cite please.
Bahahahahaha!!!!
Quote from: Eclipse on May 29, 2014, 12:11:02 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2014, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 28, 2014, 10:25:43 PM
Semantics, so it does not cause confusion in the future, if a similar uniform does get approved... Eclipse is right...
Eclipse is a hypocrite.....but that's okay.
Cite please.
A....you have never brought anyone to task for saying TPU and I just searched there are at least 5 threads with TPU in the subject line.
B....you use the term BBDU all the time....when you really mean the Blue Field Uniform.
C....You must have said "blues" when you really meant USAF Service or USAF Service Dress Uniforms.
So....yeah....you are just trying to be "right" once again.
TPU is a derogatory term meant to denigrate the wearer (in most cases) and make a statement about
the uniform, those other terms are not.
I intended that post to make the point, not an issue with abbreviations in general.
Love it or hate it, the CSU is and always will be a CAP uniform, just as the McPeak jackets will
always be a USAF uniform.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 29, 2014, 12:25:30 AM
TPU is a derogatory term meant to denigrate the wearer (in most cases) and make a statement about
the uniform, those other terms are not.
I intended that post to make the point, not an issue with abbreviations in general.
Love it or hate it, the CSU is and always will be a CAP uniform, just as the McPeak jackets will
always be a USAF uniform.
Which jackets are those? The USAF Service Dress Uniform Jacket?
Get over yourself.
Someone said TPU....my FSM I think we need to call out the thought police because someone may be offended!
Someone is extra desiccated today...
Both of you need to quit it.
Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
(http://www.colganmarketing.com/img/clock1.gif)
Don't need a lock, just a couple of suspensions....
Blues or No Blues, that is the question.
Actually, I have a set of Blue Utes, i actually like them somewhat, exept, mine say U.S Civil Air Patrol on the Nameplate ;D
Quote from: Panache on May 26, 2014, 08:03:50 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 06:46:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:39:32 PM
Every individual is going to have their preference...
Irrelevant.
it's a uniform, not a fashion statement. If it's not "uni" it fails from zero.
That's the only thing you are harping on?!?!
This actually happened today, a couple of hours ago:
CAP was invited to be at the center stage for a Memorial Day service by a coalition of Vet groups. Our squadron was the primary, but we also had members from surrounding squadrons taking part. The local media was covering the event.
It was "requested" by the VFW leadership that those members in G/Ws stand off to the side, because "two different uniforms was confusing" and "you aren't wearing the same uniform as your cadets." Since we were the invited guests, the CC (himself in G/Ws) agreed.
As such, those in the corporate uniform, many of themselves who were actual vets, were not able to take part except as observers off to the side.
A stark example of the disfunction of the current CAP uniform situation. :(
I'm very sorry that happened to you.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2014, 09:18:37 PM
Quote from: Panache on May 26, 2014, 08:03:50 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2014, 06:46:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2014, 06:39:32 PM
Every individual is going to have their preference...
Irrelevant.
it's a uniform, not a fashion statement. If it's not "uni" it fails from zero.
That's the only thing you are harping on?!?!
This actually happened today, a couple of hours ago:
CAP was invited to be at the center stage for a Memorial Day service by a coalition of Vet groups. Our squadron was the primary, but we also had members from surrounding squadrons taking part. The local media was covering the event.
It was "requested" by the VFW leadership that those members in G/Ws stand off to the side, because "two different uniforms was confusing" and "you aren't wearing the same uniform as your cadets." Since we were the invited guests, the CC (himself in G/Ws) agreed.
As such, those in the corporate uniform, many of themselves who were actual vets, were not able to take part except as observers off to the side.
The proper response would be to walk out.....but that's just me. :)
You and Don Rickles... Mr. Warmth. ;)
But I do see your point.
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
I'd like to add 3 points.
- At both my Wing HQ by suggestion and at National Staff College last week by order ribbons were not worn on the blue or white shirts.
It's been suggested this stems from AF officers not wearing ribbons on the shirt, only on the service coat. So if we start removing the option to wear ribbons on the white shirt then the G&W folks don't ever get to wear them. (Can you say 2nd class?)
LTC Hirons,
Is that an actual USAF regulation or a "tradition" ?
There a simular example in the Army, traditionally Officers don't wear weapons qualification badges. The actual regulation says that "all personnel" will wear at least one.
I always wear mine and when questioned on it, I simply ask "Please show me that in the regulations." ;)[/list]
It's a tradition.
I had a supervisor who was a "mustang" and when he was commissioned he already had a voluminous ribbon rack from having been a Master Sergeant with several combat tours in SE Asia.
He said that on the occasions when he did wear his ribbon rack on his shirt he would occasionally get a few looks like "man, where did that second looie get all the chest candy?"
Quote from: MisterCD on May 27, 2014, 06:27:31 PM
And to have fun with this discussion, here are documents pertaining to the development of CAP uniforms ... from November 1941.
Maybe it's time for CAP to return to it's khaki roots.
Quote from: shuman14 on May 29, 2014, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on May 27, 2014, 06:27:31 PM
And to have fun with this discussion, here are documents pertaining to the development of CAP uniforms ... from November 1941.
Maybe it's time for CAP to return to it's khaki roots.
It'd be nice but it won't happen. The status quo is in an advanced state of petrification.
That's more of a tradition; there's nothing in the AFI prohibiting officers from wearing ribbons on the service uniform shirt. Traditionally, enlisted wear their ribbons on the shirt, while officers usually don't. An exception to that unwritten "rule" is that prior enlisted officers usually do wear ribbons. I used to wear mine when I was a lieutenant, but now I only do on my service dress uniform.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 29, 2014, 08:07:50 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on May 29, 2014, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on May 27, 2014, 06:27:31 PM
And to have fun with this discussion, here are documents pertaining to the development of CAP uniforms ... from November 1941.
Maybe it's time for CAP to return to it's khaki roots.
It'd be nice but it won't happen. The status quo is in an advanced state of petrification.
Maybe. Or maybe, it's just that the majority of us don't like khaki uniforms. ;)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 27, 2014, 10:06:12 PM
If a cadet over 18 is out of weight standards, their core values should clue them in...
Really? You have LTC and up who's core values haven't clued in yet. ::)
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 27, 2014, 11:05:38 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 27, 2014, 11:01:05 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 27, 2014, 10:06:12 PM
If a cadet over 18 is out of weight standards, their core values should clue them in...
If its behavior based sure. I knew an outstanding cadet who had a medical issue which made him built like Lou Costello. Put all members in the same unis and this problem ends very quicky.
I'm not sure how putting 18 year old army recruits in banana suits during basic if they don't meet h/w standards isn't hazing, but putting a 20 year old cadet is...
The Army hasn't had the yellow PT uniform in well over 30 years. :o
Overweight Soldiers wear the uniform of the day like any other Soldier.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 29, 2014, 12:14:52 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 29, 2014, 12:11:02 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2014, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on May 28, 2014, 10:25:43 PM
Semantics, so it does not cause confusion in the future, if a similar uniform does get approved... Eclipse is right...
Eclipse is a hypocrite.....but that's okay.
Cite please.
Bahahahahaha!!!!
:clap:
Quote from: shuman14 on May 29, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
I'd like to add 3 points.
- At both my Wing HQ by suggestion and at National Staff College last week by order ribbons were not worn on the blue or white shirts.
It's been suggested this stems from AF officers not wearing ribbons on the shirt, only on the service coat. So if we start removing the option to wear ribbons on the white shirt then the G&W folks don't ever get to wear them. (Can you say 2nd class?)
LTC Hirons,
Is that an actual USAF regulation or a "tradition" ?
There a simular example in the Army, traditionally Officers don't wear weapons qualification badges. The actual regulation says that "all personnel" will wear at least one.
I always wear mine and when questioned on it, I simply ask "Please show me that in the regulations." ;)[/list]
It is a tradition. When I was on AD...before the mandatory blues Mondays.....E's wore their ribbons and O's did not.
It is perfectly acceptable for an activity director to dictate his uniform of the day.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 29, 2014, 08:13:19 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 29, 2014, 08:07:50 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on May 29, 2014, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on May 27, 2014, 06:27:31 PM
And to have fun with this discussion, here are documents pertaining to the development of CAP uniforms ... from November 1941.
Maybe it's time for CAP to return to it's khaki roots.
It'd be nice but it won't happen. The status quo is in an advanced state of petrification.
Maybe. Or maybe, it's just that the majority of us don't like khaki uniforms. ;)
Cite please. ;D
Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2014, 08:33:44 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on May 29, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on May 27, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
I'd like to add 3 points.
- At both my Wing HQ by suggestion and at National Staff College last week by order ribbons were not worn on the blue or white shirts.
It's been suggested this stems from AF officers not wearing ribbons on the shirt, only on the service coat. So if we start removing the option to wear ribbons on the white shirt then the G&W folks don't ever get to wear them. (Can you say 2nd class?)
LTC Hirons,
Is that an actual USAF regulation or a "tradition" ?
There a simular example in the Army, traditionally Officers don't wear weapons qualification badges. The actual regulation says that "all personnel" will wear at least one.
I always wear mine and when questioned on it, I simply ask "Please show me that in the regulations." ;)[/list]
It is a tradition. When I was on AD...before the mandatory blues Mondays.....E's wore their ribbons and O's did not.
It is perfectly acceptable for an activity director to dictate his uniform of the day.
I agree 100% on the activity director's (or any CC's) ability to choose the uniform of the day. At NSC, those in Blues were restricted to 2 badges (which matches the current limit for the G&Ws) The orders produced as much uniformity at a CAP event as I've ever seen.
My point was that if we start following AF tradition in this then we will be eliminating the 1 option for those unable to wear the AF uniform to display our awards.
Yep...but in this case....no one can display their awards....so it is kind of a moot point.
Quote from: shuman14 on May 29, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
I always wear mine
For some reason, that wasn't surprising.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on May 29, 2014, 10:23:24 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on May 29, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
I always wear mine
For some reason, that wasn't surprising.
Why is that Sir?
Because I take the time to actually read the regulation and not follow the "tradition" most likely started by some school boy from upstate New York who couldn't shoot?
Earned is earned and worn within the regulations as written.
Okay....up until the time the Activity Director or commander says..."UOD is short sleeve service or corporate uniforms no tie, no ribbons."
As for scoffing the traditions of our parent service.......you wonder why some people think they may not like us sometimes.
^You really want it both ways, don't you?
The ability to pretend there are two "equal" uniforms, and then this nonsense about officers not wearing decorations?
Scoffing at the parent service's traditions? The parent service has said they don't want us to participate in their traditions.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 30, 2014, 12:59:46 AM
^You really want it both ways, don't you?
The ability to pretend there are two "equal" uniforms, and then this nonsense about officers not wearing decorations?
Scoffing at the parent service's traditions? The parent service has said they don't want us to participate in their traditions.
When we wear their uniform they would like us to follow their traditions. :)
And for the record.....who ever said I pretend there are two equal uniforms? I don't.....my avowed position is and always has been that we should be in a single uniform. Preferably USAF style....but Gray and White if we have to.
OK, fair enough, you've definitely said that.
Preferably USAF style, pre-1990s - metal grade, CAP lapel cutouts, blue nameplate and blue shoulder marks with "CAP" on them.
We had them once for many, many years and there is absolutely no logical reason we could not have them again.
Failing that, a minimum-change corporate uniform - blue VH (Van Heusen, not Van Halen...my very first concert many moons ago, Nov. 1980 ;D) civilian aviator shirt.
All insignia - shoulder marks, nameplate - would remain unchanged, as would the grey trousers, except for standardised colour as close to our insignia as possible and cut...no more Dickies, Dockers, etc.
http://www.flyingcross.com/Legend-Mens-4-Pocket-Pants.aspx (http://www.flyingcross.com/Legend-Mens-4-Pocket-Pants.aspx)
Grey flight cap with blue piping for all ranks.
Worry about service coat after basic uniform established.
Sunset period of two years on old uniform.
Well, it's now 01 June, and no new 39-1.
Whoever voted "nay" was correct.
Final count...
Total Members Voted: 70
Yes: 12 (17.1%)
No: 41 (58.6%)
A new draft for review: 7 (10%)
The end is nigh!: 10 (14.3%)
For the record, I was one of the "Yes" votes. Foolishly optimistic, it seemed.
I voted "yes" as well, but am hanging my hat on the fact that it is not 'quite' 2 June yet!
;)
Some people call me an optimist. The others claim I always wear rose colored glasses!!!
:angel:
CyBorg...
I read your uniform proposal and like it a lot. Being a bit beyond the USAF standards myself, I could easily be proud to wear the uniform combination you came up with.
Consider this a vote on your side of the ledger if the topic ever comes up!
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on June 02, 2014, 12:59:16 AM
CyBorg...
I read your uniform proposal and like it a lot. Being a bit beyond the USAF standards myself, I could easily be proud to wear the uniform combination you came up with.
Consider this a vote on your side of the ledger if the topic ever comes up!
Jack
Thank you, sir. I do appreciate that. However, it's about as likely to happen as my becoming Governor-General of Canada (JeffDG will know what I mean).
OK, let me throw this out there, since I always get shot down for suggesting khaki as an alternative corporate uniform, how about just an improvement of the grey/white uniform.
First standardize the color "grey". Not sure what "shade of fifty" your grey shoulder slides are but that should be the color.
Then find a uniform company that can produce the trousers in the same specifications as the current USAF trousers in material and weight but in CAP Grey shade.
Second standardize the white shirt by simply adopting the US Army ASU white shirt, which will be accessable to CAP members thru the AAFES at a reasonable price.
Third adopt a matching grey service coat in the same cut and specifications (material/weight) as the current USAF enlisted and officer coats.
Use the existing USAF-style blue combination and flight caps as the authorized headgear with appropriate CAP hat badges; and you already use the USAF blue necktie and belts, so you would then have an absolute equal uniform for those that do not meet the requirements to wear the USAF style uniform.
Everything award-wise, rank-wise and badge-wise would go on the exact same way on either uniform so there would be minimal re-write to the regulation/instruction.
Not a perfect solution but one that should make the USAF happy and over 50% of CAP's membership less unhappy.
^^^Any change at this point is probably regarded as "change for change's sake," and you know how the habitúes of CT feel about that.
You get shot down for suggesting khaki, I get shot down for suggesting a blue shirt to replace the white.
Bottom line: CAP likes the status quo and any changes suggested to that are going to get shot down.
QuoteBottom line: CAP likes the status quo and any changes suggested to that are going to get shot down
Sadly, I believe you are correct. :'(
Quote from: shuman14 on June 03, 2014, 06:07:15 PM
First standardize the color "grey". Not sure what "shade of fifty" your grey shoulder slides are but that should be the color.
I believe that's called "Rainy Day Grey".