New Uniform update from NHQ 11/13/06

[DNall]

Sure I understand that. Like I've said before, there would have been no issue at all if it'd said "Civil Air Patrol" from the start, but to giveth & then taketh away is worse than to never have had it at all.

Ff you're the AF General sitting there with this to approve or not & CAP has already produced & implemented it for corporates, I realize you could still kill it, but doesn't the fact that they've gone ahead tend to make you feel like the bar to turn it down is a bit higher than it should have been. I'm not of the opinion that CAP should treat General officers like that. It's not exactly good for the long run.

Also, the speculation when this first came out was that this & the name on the tail of planes were ordered by the AF. This seems to prove the AF had nothing to do with it. That in turn will lead a lot of members to see corporate chasing off on its own & running away from teh AF for no reason at all.

[mikeylikey]

AGREED!  Corporation once again takes one more step away from the AF.

[lordmonar]

I keep seeing this as a recurring thread.  CAP somehow wanting to push away from the USAF and that this some how is an evil conspiracy.

First...with out the USAF, CAP has no budget.  So why would we want to push them away?  What does CAP gain by being with out the USAF.

Second....by removing the USAF-AUX label in going with just CAP, we position ourselves to have access to other missions and other sources of funding.

So...by my take of this, it is a win-win situation.  We are still CAP (the Official Auxiliary to the USAF) and we can start tapping into more missions.  USAF still has the SAR/DR capability we bring to the table and we provide that same and expanded service to other federal, state, and local customers.

So...please....someone explain how it is we are pushing away the USAF by putting our name on our aircraft and uniforms (because we are always the CAP but only sometimes the USAF-AUX) and why this is a bad thing.

[Major_Chuck]

The problem as I see it (and it crosses many threads and topics) is that we've allowed two separate camps to form within CAP.  One to be more like the AF and the other Corporate.  We set ourselves up for our own fall everytime we classify something as either "Air Force" or "Corporate" rather than just one, "Civil Air Patrol".

I know it may just be a matter of terminology but when you start making huge distinctions such as Corporate Funded Mission versus Air Force Funded Mission, or Corporate Uniform  verus Air Force Style Uniform you are dividing the organization and creating a lot of confusion (not only within the rank and file but to outsiders looking in).

It may sound simplistic but instead of refering to Air Force Style Service Uniform and Corporate Uniform just call them Civil Air Patrol Uniform Combo One, Combo Two, Flight Suit A, Flight Suit B.    Regardless of the style or who wears it they all start off with Civil Air Patrol.

When I joined CAP in 1990 I didn't join to belong to a corporation nor did I join to serve on active duty (for the record I am AF prior service and current ARNG).  I joined Civil Air Patrol which just happened to be the Auxiliary of the United States Air Force.

We are doing ourselves in and probably not even aware of it.