The New CAPM 39-1 Now Available

Started by MisterCD, June 26, 2014, 05:25:56 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lordmonar

So....the solution is to add to our already over burdened work load.

Now wing has to deal with a bunch of "the squadron scale lies" complaints.

We reduce further our readiness because our mission crews are "out of date" on their weigh ins.

Finally......to a particular point.....all of our regulations are optional with regard to accomplishing the mission.   It is why we have leaders.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Alaric

Quote from: Ned on June 30, 2014, 05:10:47 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on June 30, 2014, 04:48:46 PM
Out of curiosity, what were the arguments/negative reactions that caused its removal?

Privacy / Dignity ("I don't want to have to stand in some line so a CAP officer can weigh me and write down the results that go God knows where)
Fear that commanders would hound folks and only selectively enforce the weigh-in requirments
Additional record-keeping burders on the unit
Loss of training time for the unit
Lack of trust in accepting a member's word
Lot's of dicussion about how the scales would be standardized / calibrated - possibility of being stigmatized by a scale that was only 98% accurate
Expense to units to purchase an acceptable scale ("Unfunded mandates.")
Local unit members had little faith that higher headquarters staffers would be required to meet the same mandate


and probably some others that I can't recall just now.

I'm one of the one's that have little faith higher headquarters staffers would be required to meet the same mandate.  I've looked up people's ops quals and their own input information shows them out of regs, but here they come in Green Flightsuits or Woodland BDUs

Eclipse

Except that Commanders at all levels "won't do it".

And NHQ posts the photos as evidence.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 05:24:34 PM
Finally......to a particular point.....all of our regulations are optional with regard to accomplishing the mission.   It is why we have leaders.

100% BS.

100%.

No, they are not, and the attitude that some are "optional" is a HUGE problem in CAP.

CAP does not train its leaders consistently or in some cases even at all, at a level to allow
them to filter the regs.

They are there to define the organization and culture, not be ignored.

"That Others May Zoom"

arajca

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2014, 05:15:12 AM
Either way someone is pissed.  Honestly IMHO the org has done a good job of having some type of alternate uniform for all of membership. 
Second BS flag on this. We had one that was showing broad scale acceptance, even by some of the folk who met the H/W standards. It got unceremoniously yanked.

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 05:30:51 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 05:24:34 PM
Finally......to a particular point.....all of our regulations are optional with regard to accomplishing the mission.   It is why we have leaders.

100% BS.

100%.

No, they are not, and the attitude that some are "optional" is a HUGE problem in CAP.

CAP does not train its leaders consistently or in some cases even at all, at a level to allow
them to filter the regs.

They are there to define the organization and culture, not be ignored.
Not ignored.
I ask you.....that there is NO situation where you would violate a regulation?

Even to save a life?
Even to make sure that the mission got accomplished?
Even to save the reputation of the organization?

Absolutism is not leadership.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Give me a break.

This discussion, nor 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of CAP's universe never rises to that level.

Ever.

Discuss the issue and don't try to inject nonsense.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: arajca on June 30, 2014, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2014, 05:15:12 AM
Either way someone is pissed.  Honestly IMHO the org has done a good job of having some type of alternate uniform for all of membership. 
Second BS flag on this. We had one that was showing broad scale acceptance, even by some of the folk who met the H/W standards. It got unceremoniously yanked.
Well.....I would question the "showing broad scare acceptance" but I agree with you that the CSU was a step in the right direction to fix the heart burn that people have over the G/W uniform.

I agree with abdsp51 that the organization is doing a good job with at bad situation.   There is still a lot of work that needs to be done.  The current NUC's job was not to go that far.  Their primary job was to match up out standards with USAF standards and to match up the corporate uniform standards with the USAF uniform standards.  They were also supposed to fix all the discrepancies and unclear wording in the old manual and to fix the illustrations.

As far as that goes...BZ to the NUC. 

Now it is the time for you who think we need to farther....to write up your white papers....make your suggestions and forward them up your chain of command.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 05:38:54 PM
Give me a break.

This discussion, nor 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of CAP's universe never rises to that level.

Ever.

Discuss the issue and don't try to inject nonsense.
No...sorry can't and won't.

I teach leadership.  That's what I do in CAP and in my old life as an NCO.

One of the lessons in leadership is the importance of rules and regulations.  What they are there for....why we have them.....and ultimately when you should and how you should go about violating them.

If our leaders are not trained up to that level.....then we need to get training or provide the oversight that they need to get our mission done.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

JeffDG

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 05:36:07 PM
Not ignored.
I ask you.....that there is NO situation where you would violate a regulation?

Even to save a life?
Even to make sure that the mission got accomplished?
Even to save the reputation of the organization?

Absolutism is not leadership.

Yeah...I'd like to see the ORM that was done by ever member ever awarded CAP's highest decoration, the Silver Medal of Valor.  They all did an ORM analysis before commuting "a conspicuously heroic act at considerable risk to their own life", right?

Or should we staple a 2B for violating regulations to the CAPF120 for the SMV?

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 05:46:22 PM
If our leaders are not trained up to that level.....then we need to get training or provide the oversight that they need to get our mission done.

Agreed.  When does that start?

After ignoring / not enforcing simple, baseline regulations?

Should we change the motto to "Do As I Say, Not As I Do?"

"That Others May Zoom"

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: sarmed1 on June 30, 2014, 04:32:59 PM
What amazes me about the weight issue is,despite an effort to "follow the footsteps of the AFI", CAP perpetuated the height/weight chart rather than USAF updated thinking of "a reasonable military appearance while in uniform" or however the AFI words it.....
That simple change seemingly would solve most peoples angst over grey vs blue......with the exception of small section of the membership it would be a "choice" rather than the only choice.

MK

I see by your signature line you are in the AFRES.  I was in the ANG.  I remember not a few people in my unit (including some senior NCO's) who would not have met the CAP criteria for H/W to wear the blue uniform.  Of course, this was years ago, and I believe the standards have changed from what some AF people have said here on CT.  Can you corroborate this?

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on June 30, 2014, 05:03:07 PM
I'm throwing the BS flag on this.

G/W are not uniform. A few weeks ago I saw 12 people wearing them and 13 shades of medium gray.

Those of us stuck with the G/W all but got down on our knees and begged for a gray hat. That alone would have gone a long way toward feeling included. No hat for you!

Taking the Flight Cap from the Blue flight uniform. No hat for you!

Obesity caused by an underlying medical condition has been treated as a disability in some courts. I don't think the alternate uniform options are a reasonable accommodation.

The release of the new 39-1 would seem to reset the 60 day clock on a discrimination complaint.

No, they are not "uniform," on that you are correct.  Ideally the colours should match our shoulder marks/nameplate.  However, I have seen "grey" trousers that run the gamut from the grey that would closely match "German grey" (current Bundesheer or past Wehrmacht) to an almost-RAF grey/blue.

The regulation is written so wide-open that I once considered acquiring a pair of East German Air Force trousers, which are grey but have thin blue piping.



However, I did not do so...again, because I know it would have been wrong, at least to me.

I would not ever have expected the AF to allow the blue flight cap on the "mixing civilian and military" items grounds.  However, that argument is nullified by the fact that the Air Force blue tie is allowed with the long-sleeved white aviator shirt.

I would have been quite satisfied with a grey flight cap (matching the colour of our shoulder marks/nameplate), piped in AF blue (for all ranks), with the standard flight cap device.

However much I agree with you on these points, I have to say that invoking the disability option on this issue is very, very probably a non-starter.  I know from experience.  I filed an ADA complaint against a former employer some years ago, and after said employer lawyered-up with a slick shyster (sorry, Colonel Lee) and submitting a written statement that basically did everything but call me a straight-out liar it went in the CS file on the hallowed grounds of "employment-at-will."  I doubt very much it would carry any weight in this context.

Exiled from GLR-MI-011

lordmonar

The USAF no longer has H/W standards per say. 

The new PT standards have a BMI component.

But here is the rub with with me on that.    An Airman who has failed his PT test for what ever reason is still required to wear his uniform.

Yes in most circumstances that Airman is on his way out.....but there are lots of exceptions to that rule.

Currently the USAF is getting really hard in limiting those exceptions....but that is always cyclical.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#273
^ Which is a point that has been made on a number of occasions, that the USAF standards,
as practiced, are actually less rigid then CAP's.   There are likely any number of Airman serving
right now who would be out of CAP's standards, but go to work every day in ABUs or blues.

The same goes even moreso to for the Air Guard and Reserve.

Yes, many of these people are on terminal leave, fat boy programs, or waivered because of some short-term disability,
that doesn't change the image or the fact of the matter.

With that said, I don't personally care >what< we wear, just that it is uniform in both appearance and compliance.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 05:48:04 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 05:46:22 PM
If our leaders are not trained up to that level.....then we need to get training or provide the oversight that they need to get our mission done.

Agreed.  When does that start?

After ignoring / not enforcing simple, baseline regulations?

Should we change the motto to "Do As I Say, Not As I Do?"
I'm doing the training right now.....as I have always done.   I'm a PD NCO.   

And again.....it is not ignoring regulations....I have never said to simply ignore regulations.
Nor have I ever said "Do as I say, not as I do" (unless it applies to the situation/standard).

I am simply pointing out in some cases regulations are in fact optional.

There is a time, place and way to violate regulations when the need arises.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

But we're not talking about >you< (or me) for that matter, are we?

Together we will save the world, and then destroy each other in the final battle, what about the
actual organizational leadership?

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

On the subject of just the G/Ws.

I agree that the ONE change I would make to them today IIWG....would be to find a supplier for a standard gray slacks and skirt and a set of tactical style pants and make that the only ones that could be worn.

That ONE change would fix a lot of heart burn for those who want the G/Ws to be more uniform.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

sardak

QuoteThat's cow-towing to people who are...
     

cow-towing vs kowtowing

Mike

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 06:07:52 PM
But we're not talking about >you< (or me) for that matter, are we?

Together we will save the world, and then destroy each other in the final battle, what about the
actual organizational leadership?
I can't fix the world.
I can work on my little part of it and move on.

I will fight anyone who wants to try to make my life harder....hence why I hate the idea of mandatory weigh ins.  Not necessary at my level.   Just like when you were boss you policed your AOR.  That is all we can ask of any leader.

Making more rules does not guarantee better compliance and enforcement.

I have always said that you want people to follow the rules....then it must come from above.
The CAP/CC on down must set the example and expect their subordinates to do the same.

That's what I do at my level.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 06:16:02 PM
I have always said that you want people to follow the rules....then it must come from above.
The CAP/CC on down must set the example and expect their subordinates to do the same.

That's what I do at my level.

Agreed - but this discussion is not about "your level".  Honestly, is that literally the NCO mentality?
"Not my problem."?  Just because it might make your life "harder" doesn't mean it wouldn't make your
Commander's life easier.

We're talking about this on an organizational scale, and at that level, because of inconsistent training
and lack of command imperative, enforcement is going to be an issue until HEADCAP says "knock it off"
and means it.

"That Others May Zoom"