Why!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/_20141007_194113.jpg) (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/USAFAUX2004/media/_20141007_194113.jpg.html)
P.S. I am not judging our members...just the (lack of) standard.
The premise of the corporate uniform, per CAPM 39-1;
Quote1.1.1.2.2. CAP's Corporate-style uniforms facilitate a professional image for members who choose not to or cannot wear the USAF-style uniform. These uniforms are meant to complement, but not replace, the USAF-style uniform. They facilitate member uniformity while neither imposing nor authorizing a military uniform substitute for the USAF-style uniform. Corporate-style uniforms are simpler in design and cost is minimized by making most badges and devices optional for wear.
Wishful thinking on my part (and others that share the same feeling) - we really a specification set in stone for the shirt design and a uniform color shade for the gray trousers. I wouldn't have a major problem if Vanguard supplied it, but at least allow other major uniform vendors to stock the items that meet specifications. TLAR (that looks about right) won't fly in my book.
As I've said before - CAP is one of the few organizations where members can shop their closets
for uniforms and 5 people of the same age / duty / grade / authority can be sitting in a
room, in different uniforms and shades, and all of them be correct.
And then CAP wonders why it has identity and cohesion issues.
Find me a successful team, anywhere, where being an individual and "doing your own thing"
trumps the group's identity. (The Avengers don't count.)
No, dressing the same doesn't make people a team, per se, but it's one part of a greater
plan, and dressing differently doesn't help, in fact it pushes the needle in the opposite direction.
Full disclaimer, my pants didn't match any of these gentlemen either.
VG could supply a $20 pair of ANYTHING and make it an IMPROVEMENT of epic proportions.
I shudder to think what a $20 pair of pants from VG would look like.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2014, 04:28:02 AM
I shudder to think what a $20 pair of pants from VG would look like.
As long as it's at least 5% spandex, it's all good. :)
Seam-tested to 5000psi...
Not a bad idea for CAP blues pants in size 44 and up.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 08, 2014, 12:43:29 AM
Why!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/_20141007_194113.jpg) (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/USAFAUX2004/media/_20141007_194113.jpg.html)
P.S. I am not judging our members...just the (lack of) standard.
Four guys in gray slacks. That is what I see and I would recommend 'decaf' in the future. 8)
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 08, 2014, 09:56:09 AM
Four guys in gray slacks. That is what I see and I would recommend 'decaf' in the future.
And that's exactly what is in this photo. "Four guys in slacks."
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 08, 2014, 09:56:09 AM
Four guys in gray slacks. That is what I see and I would recommend 'decaf' in the future. 8)
For me it would not be "decaf" it would be DeSalad!! ;D ;D
The Air Force has a standard for ABUs and Multicams, etc. Yet, when you go to the clothing store you have to take special care to make sure that you get a "matching" set as they all have varying shades and color saturation. They even have a standard for things like nametags, yet even ordered from the same source, you can end up with varying fonts.
What about the shoes!?! Great jumpin' Jehoshaphat, I see (from left to right) a pair of some type of matt black hiking/walking shoe hybrid, unknown, a pair of Corframs and a pair of leather Oxfords. Sophisticated photographic analysis performed by the National Security Administration has been unable to exactly determine the origin of the 'unknown' shoes worn by the SM pictured second from left, but the resulting 118 page report's (including Appendices A thru E) conclusion summary indicates that the welt stitching may well be of Ashkanistanian origin. Very suspicious. I digress.
Just what kind of esprit de corps does CAP expect to see if everyone is allowed to wear whatever type of dark-toned footwear they dang well feel like!?! Good golly!!! No organization can possibly be expected to function effectively under these abominable conditions! Our organization definitely needs to set strict standards in this regard, so that SM's wearing the Corporate uniform are limited to one specific style of footwear, with one specific outer finish, one specific inner sole color, one specific size, one specific heel height, one specific sole thickness, one specific sole tread pattern and one specific shoelace material and length. I firmly believe that then (and only then) will CAP members be able to achieve optimal performance levels and attain their individual apogees of both personal and professional development.
We might even want to specify the font style, size and spacing on the footwear's inside tags, although that may be considered by some to be a bit excessive.
Hat tip to the OP, for going the extra mile and as such being extraordinarily successful in bringing not just slack pigmentation differentiation but also footwear diversity to the forefront of the attention of CAPTalk readers.
Quote from: Bobble on October 09, 2014, 05:06:34 AM
Our organization definitely needs to set strict standards in this regard, so that SM's wearing the Corporate uniform are limited to one specific style of footwear, with one specific outer finish, one specific inner sole color, one specific size, one specific heel height, one specific sole thickness, one specific sole tread pattern and one specific shoelace material and length.
That's all fine and dandy, but the folks who are most likely to be wearing the corporate uniform are also the ones more likely to be needing special footwear, for whatever reason(s). I myself wear two different kinds of shoes with my G/W uniform, depending on what I'll be doing during my event participation.
If I'm going to be mostly sitting (weekly meeting, class, etc.), I'll wear my regulation leather oxfords. OTOH, if I'm going to be doing a lot of walking around (instructing, etc.), I'll have my Reeboks on, so I don't totally kill my feet (plantar fasciitis). The corporate uniform gives me the latitude to be able to do this.
QuoteThe corporate uniform gives me the latitude to be able to do this.
And there is the problem... latitude.
When there is latitude, there's NOT really a uniform.
You have a legitimate medical condition, you should have have a waiver on file that allows a deviation to the uniform, not latitude.
Latitude allows a rag-a-muffin to wear black tennis shoes with a dress/service uniform instead of going out and buying a proper pair of military low quarters.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 10, 2014, 01:48:41 PM
QuoteThe corporate uniform gives me the latitude to be able to do this.
And there is the problem... latitude.
When there is latitude, there's NOT really a uniform.
You have a legitimate medical condition, you should have have a waiver on file that allows a deviation to the uniform, not latitude.
Latitude allows a rag-a-muffin to wear black tennis shoes with a dress/service uniform instead of going out and buying a proper pair of military low quarters.
How about diabetic shoes? http://www.wcbl.com/orthotics-2/diabetec-shoes/ (http://www.wcbl.com/orthotics-2/diabetec-shoes/)
The younger crowd wants one thing and the older crowd wants something else. Lets not even get started on people's mid-life crisis. 8)
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 11, 2014, 08:58:24 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 10, 2014, 01:48:41 PM
QuoteThe corporate uniform gives me the latitude to be able to do this.
And there is the problem... latitude.
When there is latitude, there's NOT really a uniform.
You have a legitimate medical condition, you should have have a waiver on file that allows a deviation to the uniform, not latitude.
Latitude allows a rag-a-muffin to wear black tennis shoes with a dress/service uniform instead of going out and buying a proper pair of military low quarters.
How about diabetic shoes? http://www.wcbl.com/orthotics-2/diabetec-shoes/ (http://www.wcbl.com/orthotics-2/diabetec-shoes/)
The younger crowd wants one thing and the older crowd wants something else. Lets not even get started on people's mid-life crisis. 8)
Again, if you have a legimate medical condition, then get a documented waiver to the uniform standard, a general "latitude" is the problem.
BTW, does 44 make me the "younger crowd"? :o
We have no business reviewing members' medical conditions for possible waivers, in order to determine which shoes we will permit them to wear. That's on par with homeowner association busy bodies crawling up everyone's rear ends with a microscope, obsessing about things that don't matter.
The regulation says:
"6.4.4.2. Shoes. Black shoes will be plain of a commercial design and without ornamentation such as buckles or straps."
When debating "law" vs "folk law," "law" wins every time. All the shoes in that photo are compliant. Case closed.
Yeah, everybody's got an "exception" and an "excuse" and a "reason" - NO ONE CARES.
You don't establish a uniform on the .0000000000001% of members who >MIGHT< have a problem.
You set it on mission and purpose and deal with the exceptions as exceptions.
This isn't about "law", this is about appearance and bearing, and CAP's lack of a uniform for the majority of
its adult members.
In the case above the do look like gaggle of people at a homeowner's association meeting.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
Yeah, everybody's got an "exception" and an "excuse" and a "reason" - NO ONE CARES.
You don't establish a uniform on the .0000000000001% of members who >MIGHT< have a problem.
You set it on mission and purpose and deal with the exceptions as exceptions.
This isn't about "law", this is about appearance and bearing, and CAP's lack of a uniform for the majority of
its adult members.
In the case above the do look like gaggle of people at a homeowner's association meeting.
And, as far as I can tell, they're all in complience with CAPM 39-1. So what's the point?
Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2014, 05:12:39 PM
And, as far as I can tell, they're all in complience with CAPM 39-1. So what's the point?
That
is the point...
Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2014, 05:12:39 PM
And, as far as I can tell, they're all in complience with CAPM 39-1. So what's the point?
I think you missed the point.
We're not complaining about the members non-compliance, they are within the current regulation/instruction.
We're complaining that the current CAPM39-1 promotes more
diversity than
uniformity in regards to the Corporate Grey Uniform.
Grey, Gray, Smoke Grey, Medium Grey, Light Grey, Dove Grey, Dark Grey, Gunmetal Grey... and so on.
Now lets add in the various fabrics, cotton, polyester, wool, rayon, blends, etc.
How many different styles of black belts and black shoes do want to add to that mix too? :-\
How about this, we expect members, who wear the USAF style uniform to buy a uniform that meets certain standards... is it too much to expect the same of those members that wear the corporate uniform?
The White Shirt will be one authorized brand and style.
The Grey Trousers will be one authorized brand and style. Here's a Federal Standard Color Chart... pick a Grey, any Grey, and make that the standard.
(http://www.mach-dynamics.com/images/595-4.png)
Shoes are simple, military issue low quarters... same as authorized with the USAF Style uniform.
Belt is simple too, adopt the US Navy's Enlisted Trouser Belt... same silver buckle and belt tip as the USAF's but the belt itself is black in color.
Now you have a uniform,
not the thread bare grey Z-cavariccis pants with a beat up pair of black Vans tennis shoes you pulled out of your 1983 closet that we currently have now.
Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2014, 05:12:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
Yeah, everybody's got an "exception" and an "excuse" and a "reason" - NO ONE CARES.
You don't establish a uniform on the .0000000000001% of members who >MIGHT< have a problem.
You set it on mission and purpose and deal with the exceptions as exceptions.
This isn't about "law", this is about appearance and bearing, and CAP's lack of a uniform for the majority of
its adult members.
In the case above the do look like gaggle of people at a homeowner's association meeting.
And, as far as I can tell, they're all in complience with CAPM 39-1. So what's the point?
Exactly. Thank you sir :clap:
Get over yourselves, everybody knows 50 shades of gray is very popular. What really irritates me is that some bozos wear a watch on the left arm, some on the right arm, some on both arms and some on neither arm, What is with that? I mean really, is it too complicated to get the watches where they go?? This smacks of a conspiracy that is quickly getting out of control. Why oh why can we not be civilized and use pocket watches??
Quote from: AirAux on October 13, 2014, 04:11:02 AMWhy oh why can we not be civilized and use pocket watches??
World Communism!
Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2014, 04:23:11 AM
Quote from: AirAux on October 13, 2014, 04:11:02 AMWhy oh why can we not be civilized and use pocket watches??
World Communism!
I'm beginning to smell a big, fat, commie rat... :)
Quote from: AirAux on October 13, 2014, 04:11:02 AM
Get over yourselves, everybody knows 50 shades of gray is very popular. What really irritates me is that some bozos wear a watch on the left arm, some on the right arm, some on both arms and some on neither arm, What is with that? I mean really, is it too complicated to get the watches where they go?? This smacks of a conspiracy that is quickly getting out of control. Why oh why can we not be civilized and use pocket watches??
Time to standardize? ;D ;D
Quote from: AirAux on October 13, 2014, 04:11:02 AM
Why oh why can we not be civilized and use pocket watches??
Good idea...we could be uniform once we settle on open faced, hunter, half hunter or trench watch style..??
;)
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on October 13, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Quote from: AirAux on October 13, 2014, 04:11:02 AM
Why oh why can we not be civilized and use pocket watches??
Good idea...we could be uniform once we settle on open faced, hunter, half hunter or trench watch style..??
;)
My good friend, hunter of course. 8)
Yes.......but how long should the fob be?
Silver, gold or silk? :)
Silver of course, to match the one attached from the belt to wallet and to match the corresponding one that attaches the keys and doodads to the belt on the other side. Geeeesh, do I have to set all of the standards??????
I, of course, mean the same color of silver as on the swagger stick, you know the butt and the point. Also, should the length of said chains exceed the length of one's swagger stick? That is a conundrum. And should it measure from when it folds in half to return upward to the pocket from the belt or total length. Perhaps we need a committee on this one. Do I have any volunteers? Eclipse??
Forget about standardising anything on the grey uniform...after all, isn't that the uniform meant for its wearers to be "flexible" in obtaining parts for?
CAP does ANYTHING to standardise and you'll hear one almighty H-bomb raised from the membership who like it that they can go to Goodwill, St Vince's, etc., and buy a white shirt (any white shirt, as long as it has epaulettes) and grey trousers (any grey trousers) for under $10.00 and it will be "in compliance."
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:29:40 AM
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on October 13, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Quote from: AirAux on October 13, 2014, 04:11:02 AM
Why oh why can we not be civilized and use pocket watches??
Good idea...we could be uniform once we settle on open faced, hunter, half hunter or trench watch style..??
;)
My good friend, hunter of course. 8)
Ignore my reply...my riposte was so funny when I saw it in writing..!
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on October 15, 2014, 01:21:40 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:29:40 AM
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on October 13, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Quote from: AirAux on October 13, 2014, 04:11:02 AM
Why oh why can we not be civilized and use pocket watches??
Good idea...we could be uniform once we settle on open faced, hunter, half hunter or trench watch style..??
;)
My good friend, hunter of course. 8)
Ignore my reply...my riposte was so funny when I saw it in writing..!
Epee or saber? I prefer the katana 日本刀 8)
(http://u.jimdo.com/www9/o/seecd9dabc1b89a30/img/ib341d7eba10a3c06/1280297758/std/d-k-tagh.jpg)
Is it me? Or am I the only one who bought gray slacks, tried to match the color of the same color gray in the book of the guy wearing them? I think a Dark Gray looks better than a Light gray :)
I matched mine to the slides.
I think the Slides and the book, are the same guy, lol.
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 15, 2014, 04:37:12 PM
I think the Slides and the book, are the same guy, lol.
Grade* Slides.
Actually, the desired trouser color is darker than the grade slides. There was a lame graphic with Light, Medium, and Dark Grey online some time back, and the Medium was darker than the slides. Personally my trousers match the slides.
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/IMG_3070.jpg)
captalk.net/index.php?topic=13181.msg238551#msg238551
Of course I have slides in 3 colors as well...
Blue, Maroon and Grey? ;)
Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 01:26:35 PM
Blue, Maroon and Grey? ;)
Right here.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Target sells pairs that are a near-exact match to the grey slides. I think they might actually be the pair Capt Harkvich is displaying...in case anyone is looking for a reasonable pair of slacks that are a good resemblance.
Quote from: BFreemanMA on October 16, 2014, 02:29:45 PM
Target sells pairs that are a near-exact match to the grey slides. I think they might actually be the pair Capt Harkvich is displaying...in case anyone is looking for a reasonable pair of slacks that are a good resemblance.
I was looking at something at target early on, but went to macys for the final purchase. Nice material, "stretchy" waist. Perfect for shirt garters and adjusting when necessary.
Yes. I wear shirt garters with my G/Ws. At least 4, sometimes 8.
Careful, you'll put your eye out...
Quote from: AirAux on October 16, 2014, 02:50:36 PM
Careful, you'll put your eye out...
It's not my eyes I'm worried about if one gets loose...
Quote from: BFreemanMA on October 16, 2014, 02:29:45 PM
Target sells pairs that are a near-exact match to the grey slides. I think they might actually be the pair Capt Harkvich is displaying...in case anyone is looking for a reasonable pair of slacks that are a good resemblance.
Sears also sells pants that are a very close match, or at least they did a few years ago when I had to go grey.
Yes, but wouldn't it be... nice ... if there was a designated pair that you knew... exactly... what to buy and wear?
I'm just saying.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 03:45:48 PM
Yes, but wouldn't it be... nice ... if there was a designated pair that you knew... exactly... what to buy and wear?
I'm just saying.
And it would cost at least 20% more and would still have shade variations based on dye lots.
And would only go up to 44 waist size, completely defeating the WHOLE thing...
Jeders and AirAux I think those are assumptions on both your parts and not facts.
I know of several Police departments that wear grey trousers and I know plenty of 45+ waist size officers on said departments, so I think you are mistaken.
Strange thee were no weight requirements in the past, or we would have lost a true leader, Gen. Curtis LeMay, father of SAC... You know General Schwarzkopf wasn't too small either, another great leader.. Maybe we should rethink this political correctnes thing??
As pointed out on numerous occasions, there are plenty of service members
today, right now, in uniform, well out of weight.
And as it also been pointed out, the Air Force did away with H/W tables years ago. Maybe we should do the same for CAP and require instead that members pass a PFT twice a year.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 16, 2014, 05:32:34 PM
And as it also been pointed out, the Air Force did away with H/W tables years ago. Maybe we should do the same for CAP and require instead that members pass a PFT twice a year.
And those who can't pass the PFT are to leave CAP or wear the alternate uniform? The problem remains, just under a different subset of requirements.
The only UNIFORM will be the one that ALL members can wear without regard to one being too short or too tall.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 05:15:34 PM
Jeders and AirAux I think those are assumptions on both your parts and not facts.
I know of several Police departments that wear grey trousers and I know plenty of 45+ waist size officers on said departments, so I think you are mistaken.
My grey trousers were actually made by a firm in Britain that makes uniforms for British police departments. They look the part and are
very close to the rank slides' grey.
Quote from: vento on October 16, 2014, 05:58:15 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 16, 2014, 05:32:34 PM
And as it also been pointed out, the Air Force did away with H/W tables years ago. Maybe we should do the same for CAP and require instead that members pass a PFT twice a year.
And those who can't pass the PFT are to leave CAP or wear the alternate uniform? The problem remains, just under a different subset of requirements.
The only UNIFORM will be the one that ALL members can wear without regard to one being too short or too tall.
That was really my point.
We complain about the H/W requirement for the Air Force-style uniform, but many (most?) members (even those who meet H/W) wouldn't be able to pass a PFT, if required. Most members wouldn't want a PFT or mandatory weigh-ins or anything like that.
We talk about a single uniform that everyone can wear, but we don't want to give up the Air Force-style uniform. We talk about standardizing the corporate uniform (and making it more on par with the Air Force-style uniform), but then complain about cost, sources and availability.
We can't decide what we want, so we keep the status quo. The bottom line is we can't have it both ways. If we want true change, some members will be affected. There's no way around that.
Mostly agree, however:
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 16, 2014, 06:28:17 PM
We can't decide what we want, so we keep the status quo. The bottom line is we can't have it both ways.
I completely agree that we can't have it both ways - the "all corporate" and "all AF-style" models are mutually exclusive, and many members feel passionately about their personal preferences in the matter.
But we
have decided.
The current "corporate / AF-style" dual track is the compromise our leadership has determined best meets the needs of the organization and our membership.
And like any compromise, passionate people on both sides remain unhappy.
So we will continue to talk about it on CAPTalk.
Forever.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 07:22:44 PM
But we have decided.
"We?" The compromise was foisted on CAP 20 some years ago in the wake of the foibles of the then leadership.
Few, if any, national staff who were in place then are still in positions of influence today.
That poor status quo is maintained because it's the "path of least resistance" for those who came after.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 07:22:44 PM
Forever.
There are quick and easy solutions to end that conversation.
They begin by holding everyone in the organization accountable to the same set of standards for
behavior, appearance and performance.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 08:01:57 PM
"We?"
Yup. "we." CAP. By way of the elected and appointed leadership of the organization, which at times has included both you and me.
Quote
The compromise was foisted on CAP 20 some years ago in the wake of the foibles of the then leadership.
Few, if any, national staff who were in place then are still in positions of influence today.
"Foisted?"
Wow, your bitterness continues to run close to the surface on this issue, sir. But as I said, people on both sides of the issue have passionate (and seemingly unchangable) opinions.
And yes, parts of the compromise were put in place quite some time ago. About the time when it first became necessary to do so (which was when the AF first began to impose h/w restrictions on themselves and us.)
And you are certainly correct that normal turnover of our leadership means most of the original "compromisers" have moved to different positions. Kinda like all the leaders in the AF from that era. Or most of the leadership in any organization that is over 20 years old.
What's your point?
QuoteThere are quick and easy solutions to end that conversation.
Of course. Both sides sincerely and passionately believe that. If only the "other side" would see the wisdom of your personal aesthetic preferences, this conversation would indeed be done in a heartbeat.
Or perhaps if
you were to concede that the other side is correct and your personal aesthetic preferences were incorrect, the same result would ensue.
But until and unless that occurs, we will just have to live with the compromise.
And you will be able to post another 10,000 times on the issue. Please don't give up. I'm sure someone will be persuaded if you just keep repeating yourself.
They begin by holding everyone in the organization accountable to the same set of standards for
behavior, appearance and performance.
Quote"We?" The compromise was foisted on CAP 20
well the height/weight stuff came in during the early 1980s.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 09:05:03 PM
Quote
The compromise was foisted on CAP 20 some years ago in the wake of the foibles of the then leadership.
Few, if any, national staff who were in place then are still in positions of influence today.
"Foisted?"
Wow, your bitterness continues to run close to the surface on this issue, sir. But as I said, people on both sides of the issue have passionate (and seemingly unchangable) opinions.
Magna Carta was "foisted" on the King in 1215 by some angry noblemen, yet portions of it remain valid law to this day.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 09:05:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 08:01:57 PM
"We?"
Yup. "we." CAP. By way of the elected and appointed leadership of the organization, which at times has included both you and me.
Quote
The compromise was foisted on CAP 20 some years ago in the wake of the foibles of the then leadership.
Few, if any, national staff who were in place then are still in positions of influence today.
"Foisted?"
Wow, your bitterness continues to run close to the surface on this issue, sir. But as I said, people on both sides of the issue have passionate (and seemingly unchangable) opinions.
And yes, parts of the compromise were put in place quite some time ago. About the time when it first became necessary to do so (which was when the AF first began to impose h/w restrictions on themselves and us.)
And you are certainly correct that normal turnover of our leadership means most of the original "compromisers" have moved to different positions. Kinda like all the leaders in the AF from that era. Or most of the leadership in any organization that is over 20 years old.
What's your point?
QuoteThere are quick and easy solutions to end that conversation.
Of course. Both sides sincerely and passionately believe that. If only the "other side" would see the wisdom of your personal aesthetic preferences, this conversation would indeed be done in a heartbeat.
Or perhaps if you were to concede that the other side is correct and your personal aesthetic preferences were incorrect, the same result would ensue.
But until and unless that occurs, we will just have to live with the compromise.
And you will be able to post another 10,000 times on the issue. Please don't give up. I'm sure someone will be persuaded if you just keep repeating yourself.
They begin by holding everyone in the organization accountable to the same set of standards for
behavior, appearance and performance.
Ned,
I have never been part of the "leadership" in any way relevent to this conversation. For you to infer I
was indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how CAP works, or disingenuousness to blame the messenger.
You and I both know better, not to mention the general disinterest in "opinions" from people without eagles,
especially when they run counter to the narrative.
In those areas where I have had command authority, I held my people to the proper standard in
a way which you have indicated is
impossible for NHQ to enforce and which anyone looking at the flicker
pool from the most recent national conference will see is viewed as "optional" for many who attended,
including some of the very staffers charged with enforcing those appearance regulations.
With that said, the effort to marginalize by being condescending, commenting about
my number of posts, my "bitterness" and pretending this has anything to do with "aesthetics" is just more of the same.
Is it any wonder the trendlines are negatives? People raise legitimate points and instead of accepting reality and
addressing them directly, we get rhetoric and deflection.
Counter with an argument and a point of view, not rhetoric. The deflection isn't working.
The glass
isn't half full, and we can all see the spoon.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 10:07:39 PM
Ned,
I have never been part of the "leadership" in any way relevent to this conversation.
Don't sell yourself short, sir. That's just false modesty and unhelpful to the discussion.
As a group commander with a large group in a large wing, you were a mere one level below where the decisions you complain about were made (the old NB). You had access to, and a duty to advise your boss, the corporate officer. With whom you met frequently, both in person and electroniclly.
Your command was larger than some wings. Restated, you had the position and responsibility to influence uniform policy more significantly than 99% of CAP members. Of course, I certainly understand that none of us can persuade our boss 100% of the time, but to say that you had little or no influence is inconsistent with the fact that the wing commander personally selected you for a position of great responsibility, which demonstrated faith in your abilities and common sense.
QuoteIn those areas where I have had command authority, I held my people to the proper standard
Of course. I know that could not have been easy, but it is certainly the duty of every commander.
Quote
Counter with an argument and a point of view, not rhetoric. The deflection isn't working.
It is not deflection to note that there are widely held, but opposing opinions in this area. And that despite a passionate discussion over many years,
nobody appears to be changing their opinons.
And until there is some change -- some shift -- some something -- discussions like this are inevitably circular. And by all objective measures, unproductive in the extreme.
(The search tool here is not particularly effective, but I have been unable to find a significant number of "Gosh, you're right. I'm changing my position whether we should be 'all corporate' or 'all AF-style' or 'something in between' to the opposite camp." If anything, people like yourself are more firmly entrenched and polarized than ever.)
Finally, I'm not the only person to notice and comment on your consistently negative posting style. Feel free to disregard me, or anyone else in this regard. Or you could take a moment and reflect.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 16, 2014, 09:10:04 PM
Quote"We?" The compromise was foisted on CAP 20
well the height/weight stuff came in during the early 1980s.
It actually goes back earlier than that, so to speak.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/q91/s526x395/7613_10102320699072278_6171142814565884356_n.jpg?oh=eff8a263daf6d98790e3d0d6570443bb&oe=54F6E574)
Quote from: MisterCD on October 17, 2014, 12:42:39 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 16, 2014, 09:10:04 PM
Quote"We?" The compromise was foisted on CAP 20
well the height/weight stuff came in during the early 1980s.
It actually goes back earlier than that, so to speak.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/q91/s526x395/7613_10102320699072278_6171142814565884356_n.jpg?oh=eff8a263daf6d98790e3d0d6570443bb&oe=54F6E574)
That's what happens when a 250lb bomb is riding shotgun.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 10:07:39 PM
The glass isn't half full, and we can all see the spoon.
No....the glass contains 500 ml of water. And of course you can see the spoon......but it is also not a spoon.
The point being.......it is what it is.
You want to change it.....it has to change when the general membership wants it to change.
That is why we have the compromise.
The USAF says "no fat and fuzzies".
The MAJORITY OF the membership would walk if we made the Gray and Whites THE uniform.
So.....to affect change....we either kick out all those unable or unwilling to meet the USAF standards, or we loose 50% of our adult membership.
So....who do we loose?
Ned stated we will continue talking about the uniform compromise forever.
There is an adage in Spanish that sums this up. Yerba mala no muere.
Translations could be, Weed can never die, or You will never be able to get rid of Crabgrass...
^ Crabgrass never dies...nor do uniform threads. This is a fact of CT life ;D
I'm not sure where this thread is weaving itself. Are we still talking about a standard shade of gray? Are we talking about g/w vs blue? Or, are we talking about blaming "leadership" for our current "multiform" situation?
In any event, this is "de ja vu" for me. I could have sworn we went thru this in another thread.. or 100. ::)
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 11:58:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 10:07:39 PM
Ned,
I have never been part of the "leadership" in any way relevent to this conversation.
Don't sell yourself short, sir. That's just false modesty and unhelpful to the discussion.
Well played, Counselor, but you and I know better and how CAP really works.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 11:58:34 PM
As a group commander with a large group in a large wing, you were a mere one level below where the decisions you complain about were made (the old NB). You had access to, and a duty to advise your boss, the corporate officer. With whom you met frequently, both in person and electronically.
Your command was larger than some wings. Restated, you had the position and responsibility to influence uniform policy more significantly than 99% of CAP members. Of course, I certainly understand that none of us can persuade our boss 100% of the time, but to say that you had little or no influence is inconsistent with the fact that the wing commander personally selected you for a position of great responsibility, which demonstrated faith in your abilities and common sense.
You and I, and most people reading this know exactly how CAP works. You constantly present things
as you'd like them to be, not as they are.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 11:58:34 PMFinally, I'm not the only person to notice and comment on your consistently negative posting style.
This is the core of the issue.
Facts are neither negative nor positive, they simply
are.
They only become negative when the person hearing them isn't happy about whatever those facts are, and perhaps feels
responsible for their state of being.
The best way to counter those facts is by disputing them with better information, a new plan, or a point of view that
justifies the behavior or situation, but that never seems to come out, only that the messenger must be blamed
because "we don't like his facts", so let's find a way to somehow make this his fault.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 11:58:34 PM
And until there is some change -- some shift -- some something -- discussions like this are inevitably circular.
So let's have a shift.
(http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090630225652/sliders/en/images/c/c9/1b060.jpg)
Which segment of the already undermanned CAP can you do without?
Quote from: lordmonar on October 17, 2014, 02:38:30 AM
Which segment of the already undermanned CAP can you do without?
I could think of a few places to demphasize, given the need.
But that's just it, there's no need, since the fix is more people, better program execution, and
consistent expectations for all members.
Start while the FY is still fresh, accept that FY15 and possibly 16 is a rebuilding year and get moving.
CAP comes out the other side lean, mean, and ready to take the next steps, those steps, BTW
developed during the rebuilding year(s), not >after< the rebuilding is done.
Or continue to ignore the issues, make excuses, rest on shrinking, aging laurels, and watch the right side of all the charts continue to drop.
You are avoiding answering the question.
Who are you going push out of CAP? Those who will leave if we lose the USAF uniforms or those who can't or won't meet USAF standards?
What is the plan to "fix" the organization when we lose 30-50% of our man power?
Quote from: lordmonar on October 17, 2014, 02:38:30 AM
Which segment of the already undermanned CAP can you do without?
The ones who'd leave bacause the AF uniform is gone?
One week we're told most seniors don't care for uniforms and would quit if one was required (and oh, hey, it is!), the next that they will quit if blues are gone.
If you're in it for the grade, or the uniforms, then you're in it for the wrong reasons.
It's nice to be rewarded for what you do, I get it. If you don't get the warm and fuzzies just for doing it, and need "extra" love to get there, perhaps it's not for you after all.
Okay.....now who is going to run the programs?
Announce today that the blues are gone in a year.....you will lose 30% next month.
Can your unit afford to lose 30%?
How many units will just shut down and disappear?
How many missions will we have to not do because we don't have any pilots to fly them?
Listen.....I get it.....and I agree that we "should" be in one uniform. But reality is.....we can't afford to make the hard decision.
We are severely undermanned....as Eclipse points out.
Does forcing everyone into one uniform actually help us?
Who said anything about forcing one uniform?
I said enforce the standard uniformly, there's a huge difference, though there would certainly
be some attrition when people accepted reality, it wouldn't be 30%.
Ultimately, yes, you want one uniform, but the uniform issue isn't the problem with CAP, it's a symptom.
Get CAP performing to the brochures and it would have plenty of leverage to ask for whatever
it wanted, not to mention it would have more manpower then it could handle.
P-S-E-A. More People, enforced Standards, consistent Expectations, Accountability.
Anyone with any management or leadership experience knows those are the keys
to a successful project, team, company, or sewing circle, yet of all the "ideas" NHQ has had in my 15 some years
these are the only ones they haven't actually tried.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 09:05:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 08:01:57 PM
"We?"
Yup. "we." CAP. By way of the elected and appointed leadership of the organization, which at times has included both you and me.
Elected? I don't remember voting for the new National Commander. Or anybody in NHQ. Or.... anybody, really.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 17, 2014, 12:57:46 AM
So.....to affect change....we either kick out all those unable or unwilling to meet the USAF standards, or we loose 50% of our adult membership.
So your solution is to discriminate against the other 50% of the membership?
And what about those people who didn't join because they didn't want to be force to wear the G/Ws in the first place? Say, veterans who no longer met the H&W requirements?
Quote from: Panache on October 17, 2014, 09:36:35 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 17, 2014, 12:57:46 AM
So.....to affect change....we either kick out all those unable or unwilling to meet the USAF standards, or we loose 50% of our adult membership.
So your solution is to discriminate against the other 50% of the membership?
And what about those people who didn't join because they didn't want to be force to wear the G/Ws in the first place? Say, veterans who no longer met the H&W requirements?
Hence the compromise.
With all of these Eclectic Styles of Gray/Grey Pants, how will we justify the Multifarious ideas of CAP in Whole?
Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 17, 2014, 01:42:06 PM
Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.
Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems. And they failed.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 17, 2014, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 17, 2014, 01:42:06 PM
Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.
Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems. And they failed.
Yes, they failed to make a change in the uniform that has, within rounding error, zero impact on our ability to execute any of our missions, and which change would have imposed further uncompensated costs upon the membership.
Put in the balance, aesthetics vs volunteer money, I'll say I'm happy they passed on this perfect opportunity to impose a solution without a problem.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 17, 2014, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 17, 2014, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 17, 2014, 01:42:06 PM
Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.
Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems. And they failed.
Yes, they failed to make a change in the uniform that has, within rounding error, zero impact on our ability to execute any of our missions, and which change would have imposed further uncompensated costs upon the membership.
No this was a NEW set of uniform pants that no one was legally wearing in CAP at the time they approved this new option. They could have set specific guidelines for "tactical" pants without putting anyone out since no one should have bought them for CAP purposes yet anyway.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 18, 2014, 03:40:54 AM
No this was a NEW set of uniform pants that no one was legally wearing in CAP at the time they approved this new option.
Disagree, as we've discussed, TAC pants fall well within the reg as it was published before, however, but considering a
relatively small number of members wore them, they should have taken the opportunity to prescribe a color.
I'd hazard, though, that there is less color variety in the tac pants then in the dress pants.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 18, 2014, 03:40:54 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 17, 2014, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 17, 2014, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 17, 2014, 01:42:06 PM
Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.
Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems. And they failed.
Yes, they failed to make a change in the uniform that has, within rounding error, zero impact on our ability to execute any of our missions, and which change would have imposed further uncompensated costs upon the membership.
No this was a NEW set of uniform pants that no one was legally wearing in CAP at the time they approved this new option. They could have set specific guidelines for "tactical" pants without putting anyone out since no one should have bought them for CAP purposes yet anyway.
But the insistence that the addition of new pants was an "opportunity" for NHQ to restrict everything else at the same time is the kind of solution-seeking--problems that is so prevalent.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 18, 2014, 04:39:54 AMBut the insistence that the addition of new pants was an "opportunity" for NHQ to restrict everything else at the same time is the kind of solution-seeking--problems that is so prevalent.
Not "everything else" just the tac pants.
Even if you can't correct the past, you don't have to propagate the negligence.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 18, 2014, 04:39:54 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 18, 2014, 03:40:54 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 17, 2014, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 17, 2014, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 17, 2014, 01:42:06 PM
Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.
Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems. And they failed.
Yes, they failed to make a change in the uniform that has, within rounding error, zero impact on our ability to execute any of our missions, and which change would have imposed further uncompensated costs upon the membership.
No this was a NEW set of uniform pants that no one was legally wearing in CAP at the time they approved this new option. They could have set specific guidelines for "tactical" pants without putting anyone out since no one should have bought them for CAP purposes yet anyway.
But the insistence that the addition of new pants was an "opportunity" for NHQ to restrict everything else at the same time is the kind of solution-seeking--problems that is so prevalent.
I didn't suggest any such thing. I was only talking about the tactical pants.
And no, tactical pants are not slacks. If they fell within the old regulation there would not have been a need to specifically authorize them in the new one.
Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2014, 07:22:44 PM
The current "corporate / AF-style" dual track is the compromise our leadership has determined best meets the needs of the organization and our membership.
Colonel, perhaps this is restating the obvious, and restating what has been stated on CT for nearly-countless times.
We cannot modify the Air Force's uniform. It is theirs. We cannot make them change their standards. They will not. Both of those have been proven.
We had a much more intelligent "compromise" in the form of the CSU, and we all know the fate of that, but outside of a privileged few, will never know
why.We have
much more leeway in modifying the "corporate" uniform, albeit less in the aftermath of the CSU.
What I do not, and will never, understand, is why our leadership is so insistent on keeping the "corporate" uniform in its current configuration.
It is not impossible to make changes to it, nor to introduce new elements. If that were the case, the BBDU's and blue utility jumpsuit/flight suit would not exist.
And there are many ways to do so without violating the nebulous "low-light/at-a-distance" regulation.
I know, I know, I know...if you've got an idea, submit it up the chain. I talked about it with my squadron CC. He was not interested. Brick wall. Jumping the chain is most uncool.
Unless I can absolutely not get away with attending events where the G/W is required, I don't, because I hate the way I look in it...and I have
never owned the blazer and never will.
However, I quite happily wear the BBDU and blue flight suit. Why? Because I look like part of an organisation that has a
mission in those, and one whose heritage is connected to our parent service.
Without the accoutrements, the G/W, and
especially the blazer, looks almost identical to a volunteer businessperson's group that addressed one of my high school classes way back in the mists of time (complete with blazer crest). I wish I could remember the name of it, but this has been 30 years ago.
Not to insult the members of this group, because they did a lot of good in the community, and the gent who spoke to us was truly dedicated to his group's "mission." And their "uniform" fit their "mission" - businesspeople making connections in the community.
It is illogical to have a set of uniforms (BBDU/flight suit) that
does reflect our mission, but another set (G/W/blazer) that is completely incongruous and is not aviation-orientated at all.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 17, 2014, 03:28:17 AM
You are avoiding answering the question.
Who are you going push out of CAP? Those who will leave if we lose the USAF uniforms or those who can't or won't meet USAF standards?
What is the plan to "fix" the organization when we lose 30-50% of our man power?
I agree there are some that CAP would lose if the USAF style uniform was removed and the Grey/White was the only uniform...
BUT
I think you would lose
less if there was a professional para-military style uniform for everyone.
Again I'll suggest khaki as the color of that uniform.
Let me throw one out there fore sake of arguement...
Suppose tomorrow the Air Force decided to do away with the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style for CAP would the membership "complain" that they have pay over $300.00 to buy a complete USAF style uniform?
Things that make you go hmmm. ;)
Come And Pay
Communication Always Problematic
Complain And Pout
CAP can be any and all, or at least the postings on here occasionally gravitate to the three listed variations on our acronym.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 18, 2014, 07:39:35 PM
Let me throw one out there fore sake of arguement...
Suppose tomorrow the Air Force decided to do away with the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style for CAP would the membership "complain" that they have pay over $300.00 to buy a complete USAF style uniform?
Things that make you go hmmm. ;)
Your math is off.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 18, 2014, 08:25:10 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 18, 2014, 07:39:35 PM
Let me throw one out there fore sake of arguement...
Suppose tomorrow the Air Force decided to do away with the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style for CAP would the membership "complain" that they have pay over $300.00 to buy a complete USAF style uniform?
Things that make you go hmmm. ;)
Your math is off.
Going off the Army Air Force Exchange Website:
Male Officer Service uniform:
Coat $179.95
Trousers $43.22
Shirt ss $13.77
Shirt ls $18.17
Tie $4.75
Belt $2.57
Buckle $4.39
Flight Cap $14.50
Low Quarters $87.00
Total: $368.32
Quote from: shuman14 on October 18, 2014, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 18, 2014, 08:25:10 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 18, 2014, 07:39:35 PM
Let me throw one out there fore sake of arguement...
Suppose tomorrow the Air Force decided to do away with the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style for CAP would the membership "complain" that they have pay over $300.00 to buy a complete USAF style uniform?
Things that make you go hmmm. ;)
Your math is off.
Going off the Army Air Force Exchange Website:
Male Officer Service uniform:
Coat $179.95
Trousers $43.22
Shirt ss $13.77
Shirt ls $18.17
Tie $4.75
Belt $2.57
Buckle $4.39
Flight Cap $14.50
Low Quarters $87.00
Total: $368.32
Math is still off, do it again. I hope you write reports better than this.
How is the math off, unless you are only pricing one shirt, instead of both LS and SS?
Quote from: SarDragon on October 18, 2014, 11:09:45 PM
How is the math off, unless you are only pricing one shirt, instead of both LS and SS?
Going off the guidelines set in 39-1 his math is off. And even if he was trying to go for a full USAF issue the math is off.
Assuming his research and pricing for his materials is correct, his math is not off. I attained the same result.
However, I believe the uniform manual does list a few items he does not include in the list.
1. Underwear
2. Senior member officer's or NCO's insignias.
3. Ribbons.
4. Tie clips or pins.
5. Socks.
Adding this would have made his math off. Is this what you mean by his math being off? But he already covered it by stating "over $300."
After 10 posts about math.........you bet your 4th point of contact......as soon as we make the blues THE uniform.....we will have a bunch of people complaining.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 19, 2014, 03:54:18 AM
After 10 posts about math.........you bet your 4th point of contact......as soon as we make the blues THE uniform.....we will have a bunch of people complaining.
And that's the point I was trying to make, regardless if everyone was allowed USAF Blues or one corporate para-Military was adopted for everyone, there would be some that will have the full kit the day it is authorized; some who will continue their current uniform choice up until the last minute it is authorized; and some who will bellyache about cost even if its the uniform that they want to wear.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on October 19, 2014, 01:47:15 AM
Assuming his research and pricing for his materials is correct, his math is not off. I attained the same result.
However, I believe the uniform manual does list a few items he does not include in the list.
1. Underwear
2. Senior member officer's or NCO's insignias.
3. Ribbons.
4. Tie clips or pins.
5. Socks.
Adding this would have made his math off. Is this what you mean by his math being off? But he already covered it by stating "over $300."
And don't forget the required tailoring for the service dress uniform - add sleeve braid and adjust the sleeve length on the jacket and trouser tailoring. And these are not free on the officer service dress uniform!
Either way you can not make everyone happy. Some Senior Squadrons live in their polo shirts and other Senior Squadrons love their Air Force blue no matter what they weight.
Now Cadet squadrons is another story ::)
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 19, 2014, 07:48:49 PM
Either way you can not make everyone happy. Some Senior Squadrons live in their polo shirts and other Senior Squadrons love their Air Force blue no matter what they weight.
I can only speak from experience in the one senior squadron I was part of.
Even
polo shirts was pushing it sometimes. It was usually just a CAP hat of some kind, or flight suits with no insignia other than leather nameplate.
Getting the unit into G/W caused grumbling, moreso with the blazer.
I was the only one who wore the blue uniform and BDU's (BBDU's didn't exist then).
On several occasions I was asked why I "wasted money" on all that when all I "needed" was the polo shirt (grey trousers were even somewhat of a rarity).
I do agree that, even if Hades were to register -115 degrees Kelvin and the AF would remove all limitations on their uniform, and CAP would make that the mandatory, sole uniform, there would be grumbling from people who think of CAP as basically a flying "Squad 51" (no offence;
Emergency! was one of my favourites as a kid) and actively dislike any military connections.
There are a fair amount of Mennonites around where I grew up who, frankly, I probably could have recruited to CAP because they liked the life-saving aspect...however, they most certainly did
not like the quasi-military aspects or young people in military-type uniforms (they disliked the BSA for the same reason).
You know, you can never make everyone happy, so the best you can do is make everyone equally unhappy...
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
You know, you can never make everyone happy, so the best you can do is make everyone equally unhappy...
Oh, you mean like the FAA?
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
You know, you can never make everyone happy, so the best you can do is make everyone equally unhappy...
Motto of Air Canada in my homeland: "We're not happy, until you're not happy."
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on October 21, 2014, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
You know, you can never make everyone happy, so the best you can do is make everyone equally unhappy...
Oh, you mean like the FAA?
Oh, I see what you did there....I love regulator jokes....
Before we start pointing fingers at Senior members uniformity (despite the fact they're all in compliance with 39-1) I can point to all kinds of pics of newbie cadets wearing all manner of uniform items to meetings, even to an encampment, that are so outside of regulation it makes your head spin.
Lay off the old guys until your own house is in order...
A senior member wearing his uniform improperly is the failure of a senior member.
A cadet wearing his uniform improperly is the failure of a senior member.
See how that works?