Is it a uniform if no one can see it?

[Dragoon]

Reinforcing a concept on the Uniform committee thread.

Let's say I'm taking a CAP airplane up for a little personal proficiency flying.  I take a friend along.  We decide to fly to some local beach town and get lunch as part of the trip.

We're wearing golf shirts, but since we don't want to stand out while walking down the boardwalk eating our hot dogs, before we start the flight, we both put civilian shirts on over our uniforms so no one can see the CAP golf shirt.

Are we within CAP regs?  After all, we have to be in uniform to fly, but we can wear any outerwear we want....

Personal thought is, yeah, this is "legal."  But it's wrong.  You aren't in uniform if no one else can see it.



Now, let's go the other way.  You get into a plane in BDUs.  You are wearing an unauthorized black Molly Hatchett T shirt under your BDU shirt.  The emblem doesn't show.

Are you "in uniform?"  By the regs, no.  You are not wearing a complete uniform.  But to anyone looking at you, you look like a squared away CAP airman.


The point - outerwear matters.  And CAP kinda ignores this.  We let cadets wear whatever they want.  We don't mandate outerwear with corporate uniforms.

Seems a little silly to me.  The public, USAFand other CAP members judge us on what they can see. Not what we're wearing under our Green Bay Packers jacket.

Thoughts?

[JohnKachenmeister]

I understand your point.  I personally always wear one of my black Harley-Davidson T-shirts under my BDU's.  The advantage is that if, after the CAP activity, a few of us want to pop out to a bar, I can strip my BDU shirt and I am "Instantly Civilian."  (In Florida, a guy wearing boots, BDU pants, and a biker shirt is considered well-dressed.  Depends, of course, on the bar.  A shaved head and tattoos completes the look, but one can still fit in without the whole fashion package!)

I have always assumed that what cannot be seen is not part of the uniform.  The regs say otherwise, so I don't know what our insurance carrier would say if I were killed on duty while wearing unauthorized underwear.

[JCW0312]

I really don't see a big deal with wearing a black t-shirt with a design under your BDU shirt as long as it's not seen. I know, I know, the regs say.... Just keep your BDU shirt on during CAP activities.

Keep the underwear talk to a minimum. I don't believe it, but some people think that Vanguard has a major role in our uniform regulations. I'd sure hate a new reg to come out and force me to make a choice whether I want to buy CAP boxers or CAP briefs. 

[Duke Dillio]

^Briefs....  easy choice

[JohnKachenmeister]

Boxers... with pictures of little airplanes on them.

Or... silk boxers with the same silly propller pattern as on the matching flight suit neck scarf!!!!!

[Duke Dillio]

Transformer briefs with the CAP logo in the center?

[MIKE]

Knock it off.

CAP Distinctive Uniforms authorize wear of civilian outerwear.   Corporate Uniforms (TPU) do not, and have specified outerwear.  I would caution anyone from using the term "corporate uniform" to describe what is actually a CAP Distinctive Uniform with different requirements.

If you are wearing a Harley t-shirt under your BDU, you are wrong.  CAPM 39-1 isn't intended to be a book of suggestions.

[Dragoon]

Knock it off.

CAP Distinctive Uniforms authorize wear of civilian outerwear. 

True.  But is the reg, as worded, the way things ought to be?

If no one can see that I'm in a uniform.....what good does the uniform do me?  Or CAP, for that matter?

If I wear a UCLA sweatshirt over my golf shirt while out looking for ELTs, I'm "in uniform" by 39-1.  But to anyone who sees me, I'm some just some guy in a UCLA sweatshirt with a funky looking radio.  Why wear the uniform shirt underneath at all?

[Eclipse]

If I wear a UCLA sweatshirt over my golf shirt while out looking for ELTs, I'm "in uniform" by 39-1. 

Not quite - you should be wearing a reflective vest over the UCLA sweatshirt.

And the aircrew have an airplane wrapped around them or near them which is usually the kicker that they are aircrew.

I don't understand why you would cover your shirt on the boardwalk, seems a bit misguided to me, but regardless, there is no need for identification while eating your hot dog anyway, so its a non-issue.

I'm not a big fan of non"uniform" items as outerwear duing missions, but its also not the biggest uniform issue we have.

[Dragoon]

If I wear a UCLA sweatshirt over my golf shirt while out looking for ELTs, I'm "in uniform" by 39-1. 

Not quite - you should be wearing a reflective vest over the UCLA sweatshirt.

It might be a good idea, but it ain't required.  Vests are only required with the BDU for "Ground Team Activities." They are authorized (but not required) with BBDUs for wooded areas.  They aren't required (or indeed authorized) for any other uniform or situation.  Walking around an airfield in a UCLA sweatshirt over a golf shirt seems well within regs (although kinda silly).

And the aircrew have an airplane wrapped around them or near them which is usually the kicker that they are aircrew.

And yet we require uniforms in our planes at all times.  Funny that.

I don't understand why you would cover your shirt on the boardwalk, seems a bit misguided to me, but regardless, there is no need for identification while eating your hot dog anyway, so its a non-issue.

The point was that I've completely hidden my uniform from the public, and yet by the current 39-1 definition, I'm still in uniform. And I did it before the flight ever began, but somehow I was still "in uniform" for the flight.   That just doesn't pass the common sense test.

I'm not a big fan of non"uniform" items as outerwear duing missions, but its also not the biggest uniform issue we have.

I'd say it's pretty high on the list.  We can spend all day trying to get everyone "in uniform"  or even just "in A uniform", but the minute the civilian coats go on (and they're on a LOT in half the country) the whole effort is wasted.  Might as well just wear jeans and t shirts.

[Eclipse]

If I wear a UCLA sweatshirt over my golf shirt while out looking for ELTs, I'm "in uniform" by 39-1. 

Not quite - you should be wearing a reflective vest over the UCLA sweatshirt.

It might be a good idea, but it ain't required.  Vests are only required with the BDU for "Ground Team Activities." They are authorized (but not required) with BBDUs for wooded areas.  They aren't required (or indeed authorized) for any other uniform or situation.  Walking around an airfield in a UCLA sweatshirt over a golf shirt seems well within regs (although kinda silly).

Reflective vests are required for both GT and UDF teams during any mission activity, ditto for flight line.  Check the tasking guides for this requirement.

[Dragoon]

Pls site where a CAP reg requires wear of a vest for ramp checks?  I only see that where you have to have one on your person - when to wear it is on the UDF team leader.

[Eclipse]

Pls site where a CAP reg requires wear of a vest for ramp checks?  I only see that where you have to have one on your person - when to wear it is on the UDF team leader.

Um, yeah.  OK.

[ddelaney103]

There is nothing that says the reflective vest has to have any CAP specific marking.  Therefore, even if you are required to wear the vest, combining it with a sweatshirt and ballcap and you're going to look like roadcrew, not CAP.

Considering the number of uniforms we have, it would make sense to have some shell-type outerwear that will make us look like we're all on the same team while allowing for additional linings for colder weather.

"One Team, One Suit, One Fight"

[Eclipse]

Some of this comes back to attitude and professionalism.

Anyone who is so inclined can run through our regs and using legalistic and "1%" cases look and act like a goober.

Dragoon - you indicate a situation where for some reason you cover up your uniform because you don't want people to know you are in CAP while eating lunch, that's fine, but then don't complain when people don't know you're in CAP.

If you're going to start with an argument that a piece of gear (vest) is only required "on your person" but not actually worn, well, you're making things harder on yourself just to argue.

[Dragoon]

Some of this comes back to attitude and professionalism.

Anyone who is so inclined can run through our regs and using legalistic and "1%" cases look and act like a goober.

Dragoon - you indicate a situation where for some reason you cover up your uniform because you don't want people to know you are in CAP while eating lunch, that's fine, but then don't complain when people don't know you're in CAP.

If you're going to start with an argument that a piece of gear (vest) is only required "on your person" but not actually worn, well, you're making things harder on yourself just to argue.

Dude, you are SOOOOO far off base.  I guess I wasn't clear.

The original case was hypothetical  - hence the phrase "Let's say..." at the beginning of the sentence.  Specifically to note "this hasn't happened - it's a fictitious statement designed to illustrate a point."

So...I created a case where someone would have a motive to NOT wear a CAP uniform, and yet be in a situation where the regs require one.  (if I was in that boat myself, I'd just change clothes).

The point, which somehow you missed (and I apologize if my phrasing didn't cut it) was "how in the heck can a uniform be completely hidden from sight and still count as being a uniform."

Does that make sense?

(And by the way, I'm very happy to debate the "are the Task books directive in nature" in a different thread.  Feel free to start one.  But in the meantime, the uniform manual does not require, or indeed even allow, orange vests with the golf shirt.  Perhaps it should.  But it doesn't.  This thread is about hiding uniforms under other clothing)

The original question remains - does it make any sense to claim someone is "in uniform" when no one can see the uniform?

[Eclipse]

(And by the way, I'm very happy to debate the "are the Task books directive in nature" in a different thread. 

I'm not - in my world they are.

The original question remains - does it make any sense to claim someone is "in uniform" when no one can see the uniform?

I'll leave this to others, my feelings are above.

[Dragoon]

To summarize your position, is it safe to say that, while you're not a "big fan" of the concept,  you believe that it's acceptable to have CAP members in uniforms that are completely covered by civilian clothing, and that nothing needs to change?

[Eclipse]

To summarize your position, is it safe to say that, while you're not a "big fan" of the concept,  you believe that it's acceptable to have CAP members in uniforms that are completely covered by civilian clothing, and that nothing needs to change?

Yes, with the caveat that anyone involved in ground ops is going to be wearing a vest, so they aren't going to be completely anonymous.

[CAP_truth]

What would you do with a person who wears a CDU or AFU and does not own a proper coat for weather conditions that are freezing comes to the meeting with a civilian heavy winter coat. When the coat is worn no one could tell that the person is wearing a uniform under the coat. What would you do. I have witness this many times during my career in CAP.

[MIKE]

Members can be suspended for "regulatory infractions."  You can counsel and write them up before it comes to that.

[Eclipse]

What would you do with a person who wears a CDU or AFU and does not own a proper coat for weather conditions that are freezing comes to the meeting with a civilian heavy winter coat. When the coat is worn no one could tell that the person is wearing a uniform under the coat. What would you do. I have witness this many times during my career in CAP.

I would do the same thing I do anytime I see an infraction, correct the member in a good-natured, positive way.

If its a long-time member I know personally and who I know "knows better", it might be some public ribbing, but with anyone who is new, or sensitive to being singled out, I do it privately or as a general "reminder" to the whole group.

With cadet infractions I inform their superior and allow the chain to handle it, which is a good experience for everyone.

This issue of "what if its cold", etc., holds no weight.  There is simply no excuse for the easy stuff like outerwear, etc., especially for senior members.

We have simple uniform options that allow for civilian outerwear - if you can't afford or be bothered to get the correct jacket, or its simply too cold for what you have, wear the golf shirt or civvies and be safe.

[SStradley]

What would you do with a person who wears a CDU or AFU and does not own a proper coat for weather conditions that are freezing comes to the meeting with a civilian heavy winter coat. When the coat is worn no one could tell that the person is wearing a uniform under the coat. What would you do. I have witness this many times during my career in CAP.

I think the answer depends on what he does once he is in the room.  Does he only wear it from the car to the get inside and then take it off and stow it away, or does he continue to wear it once he is inside.  Attitude is also a factor. If it is truly freezing then the Members safety trumps the uniform regs.

Understand I am a Florida Boy.  We might have one night a year where it is cold enough that a member needs a winter coat.  Therefore, I would not require anyone to purchase a M-65 or other winter gear just to be in uniform for 1 of 52 meetings (and once inside they can remove the offending garmet.)

For last weeks meeting it was real cold, (at least 60 degrees) out.  I confess that I wore a plaid wool jacket over my TPU in the truck.  However, I left it in the truck, and dashed through the cold to get inside in my TPU. 

[JCW0312]

For last weeks meeting it was real cold, (at least 60 degrees) out.

Wow! How'd you survive?

[mikeylikey]

For last weeks meeting it was real cold, (at least 60 degrees) out.

Wow! How'd you survive?

OMG.  If it were 60 here I would throw on shorts and a T-shirt.  This past week it fell below 11 with a wind chill of -4.  I would love to have fall weather all year. 

Heck, not until it drops below 40 do people in my parts even wear a jacket.  For anything above 40 is nice in the winter.

[JCW0312]

For last weeks meeting it was real cold, (at least 60 degrees) out.

Wow! How'd you survive?

OMG.  If it were 60 here I would throw on shorts and a T-shirt.  This past week it fell below 11 with a wind chill of -4.  I would love to have fall weather all year. 

Heck, not until it drops below 40 do people in my parts even wear a jacket.  For anything above 40 is nice in the winter.

I spent four hours directing traffic in sub-freezing temps the other morning thanks to a drunk who swears the light pole and fire hydrant ran out in front of him. With the winds kicking I would have given anything for 60 degree weather!

[SStradley]

For last weeks meeting it was real cold, (at least 60 degrees) out.

Wow! How'd you survive?

Well it was tuff, but somebody has to do it. 

I have once been in Nebraska for a day and it was -1.  Everytime we get a cold snap the kids put out cups of water to try to "make ice".  Have not had any serious frost here for two or three years.  But once in 86 or 87 we spent the whole day and it never got above 32.

[JCW0312]

^Must be nice. But on the upside of living in Tennessee, I can't think of the last hurricane to make landfall here...

[SStradley]

OK, Back on topic.  Was I out of uniform with the plaid coat?  Of course I was, but did I committ a violioation of the reguliations worthy of being counciled?  I don't think so.  If a member take off his non-regulation coat at the door I think it is best to smile and thank them for comming to the meeting on a night when the weather is so bad.

If the two members who want to eat a $100 burger cover up or change their shirts to go into the restraunte I think that OK under the regulations.  They are not flying a CAP aircraft, and they are not on a mission or anyother CAP activity at that time.

If Kach wants to have a black Harley picture under his BDU so what?  In fact I work with Kach all the time and I never knew ...

[Dragoon]

If the two members who want to eat a $100 burger cover up or change their shirts to go into the restraunte I think that OK under the regulations.  They are not flying a CAP aircraft, and they are not on a mission or anyother CAP activity at that time.

Let's take those same two guys and look at it through the public's eye.  And let's assume they are in CAP distinctive uniforms, so their "cover ups" are legal within regs.


Two guys in UCLA sweatshirts over CAP uniforms in a restaurant - the public can't tell they're in CAP.  For all practical purposes they are not in uniform.

The same two guys in the same outfits at a mission base.  The public can't tell they're in CAP.  For all practical purposes they are not in uniform.

And yet our regs say they are.  Does this make any sense.

What good is a uniform if no one can see it?  Why not just show up at the mission in the UCLA sweatshirt without the CAP uniform under it - what difference would it make?

This just doesn't make sense.  We don't wear uniforms for ourselves.  We wear them for others who look at us.

[ddelaney103]

Concur.  Uniforms are, to use an old school term, "An outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace."  If we think they are to be worn, then they should be seen as well.  Otherwise, let's issue lapel pins or orange vests and be done with it.

[Eclipse]

Let's take those same two guys and look at it through the public's eye.  And let's assume they are in CAP distinctive uniforms, so their "cover ups" are legal within regs.

Two guys in UCLA sweatshirts over CAP uniforms in a restaurant - the public can't tell they're in CAP.  For all practical purposes they are not in uniform.

And there is no reason anyone needs to know they are in CAP - we do not do walk-up service.

The same two guys in the same outfits at a mission base.  The public can't tell they're in CAP.  For all practical purposes they are not in uniform.

Mission bases are not open to the public, so again, no issue.  If you want to argue that MIOs, PAOs, LOs, and ALs, need to wear something more "exciting", so be it, no argument from me but the two cases cited are not even a situation where the public needs to know who we are.

[ddelaney103]

Let's take those same two guys and look at it through the public's eye.  And let's assume they are in CAP distinctive uniforms, so their "cover ups" are legal within regs.

Two guys in UCLA sweatshirts over CAP uniforms in a restaurant - the public can't tell they're in CAP.  For all practical purposes they are not in uniform.

And there is no reason anyone needs to know they are in CAP - we do not do walk-up service.

The same two guys in the same outfits at a mission base.  The public can't tell they're in CAP.  For all practical purposes they are not in uniform.

Mission bases are not open to the public, so again, no issue.  If you want to argue that MIOs, PAOs, LOs, and ALs, need to wear something more "exciting", so be it, no argument from me but the two cases cited are not even a situation where the public needs to know who we are.

So is it your opinion that uniforms are unnecessary unless the public is there?  So the overnight shift at mission base could be jammies and bunny slippers as long as no visitors are allowed?

[Eclipse]

So is it your opinion that uniforms are unnecessary unless the public is there?  So the overnight shift at mission base could be jammies and bunny slippers as long as no visitors are allowed?

No, what I am saying is that the examples being raised are not a justification for citing this as a problem.

[Dragoon]

Actually, I believe you intimated uniforms are not important at a mission base except for key personnel.

Which is patently absurd.

All kinds of "visitors" come in to mission bases.  Including the agencies we're working with.  Sometimes family members.  Sometimes spectators hanging around the airport.  All people that CAP care about.

Plus, that approach ignores the value of uniforms to the members of the organization (emphasizing teamwork, esprit de corps, attention to detail).  Uniforms are just for others - they also can have a positive impact on us.  If implemented correctly.

Based on your analysis, USAF shouldn't require uniforms for members on closed bases either.  After all, the public can't see them....  But it seems USAF doesn't agree with your logic.

[Eclipse]

Please make your own arguments and not mine - I said nothing of the kind.

The examples you cite, for the reasons you cite, are not "problems" enough to support changing the regs.

[Dragoon]

Your quote was....

Mission bases are not open to the public, so again, no issue.  If you want to argue that MIOs, PAOs, LOs, and ALs, need to wear something more "exciting", so be it, no argument from me but the two cases cited are not even a situation where the public needs to know who we are.

Seems pretty clear to me.  No public = no issue with not having uniforms.  Which I (and probably a large number of CAPers) find a bit incredulous. 

[Hawk200]

Your quote was....

Mission bases are not open to the public, so again, no issue.  If you want to argue that MIOs, PAOs, LOs, and ALs, need to wear something more "exciting", so be it, no argument from me but the two cases cited are not even a situation where the public needs to know who we are.

Seems pretty clear to me.  No public = no issue with not having uniforms.  Which I (and probably a large number of CAPers) find a bit incredulous. 

I would have to agree. If you're at a mission base, you need to have a reason. For us, the reasons are obvious and the uniform serves as your ID. For those not in CAP, the reasons need to be known.
People not in uniform need to be identified, and kept in a specified area with someone with them. Preferably a chaplain. Who would be identified by his uniform. It probably wouldn't hurt to issue some type of ID to the family.

Either way, there will probably be people present that could impede a mission. Press, for example. Although "the public has a right to know", that doesn't trump the safety and efficiency of the mission. And the familiy that needs to know are the only ones that really need to be kept in the loop.

Everyone present at a base should have something identifying them. Easiest way is a proper uniform.

[Eclipse]

Everyone present at a base should have something identifying them. Easiest way is a proper uniform.

As is required by the regs.

How Dragoon could believe I am advocating not wearing a uniform in a mission base, I don't know.

[ddelaney103]

Everyone present at a base should have something identifying them. Easiest way is a proper uniform.

As is required by the regs.

How Dragoon could believe I am advocating not wearing a uniform in a mission base, I don't know.

You advocated it was OK to cover up the uniform so no one could see it - while I suppose that is a difference, the end result is the same.

[Hawk200]

You advocated it was OK to cover up the uniform so no one could see it - while I suppose that is a difference, the end result is the same.

I would have to concur here as well. If someone rolls up to a mission base, and I don't see an actual uniform, I'm going to challenge them. If they're taking off a jacket to show me their in uniform, they're already impeded themselves.

It may be doubtful that the 30 seconds taken to take off a jacket to identify themselves is going to get anyone killed, or cause death, but it's still inefficient.

When it comes to other scenes, an off duty cop can roll up on a crime scene, but unless he's known, he's probably not going to be allowed in. Same with firefighters. As well as EMS. And HazMat responders. Or any kind of other agency.

How about reporting to an Incident Commander? If you're not wearing something recognizable as uniform, you might not even be allowed to sign in. CAP is probably not going to be doing all its missions completely alone anymore.

Something else to think about: You can do the greatest job in the world, but if you look like crap, that's all anyone is going to remember. Including the public that supposedly never sees us. And a Raiders jacket over your CAP uniform isn't going inspire confidence.

[Eclipse]

You advocated it was OK to cover up the uniform so no one could see it - while I suppose that is a difference, the end result is the same.

My last round on this nonsense.

All active members while involved in mission activity are required to wear a reflective vest per the respective curriculum, unless dictated by the client other wise (i.e. CN). Futher they >should< be displaying their credentials on an arm band or clip.

During lunch this is not necessary.

While involved in base operations, in positions not generally charged with meeting the public or other agencies, if you are cold, and the uniform allows it, a sweater or jacket is fine.  For those charged with meeting outside parties, they should be >encouraged< to wear a uniform which has outward affiliation of their status, however operations will not grind to a halt if they do not.

Requiring specific outerwear with the golf shirt uniform negates one of the reasons for its existiance - namely an inexpensive, easy to wear uniform for members not interested in more complicated alternatives, or as an easy to carry get-up in your go-kit.

It conforms to uniforms worn by similar agencies, especially during prolonged engagements, including many PD/FD's, the ARC, and many 3&4 letter agencies.

IMHO the consternation with the golf shirt is a misguided attitude towards the person in it, versus the uniform itself.  Because it is easy to wear, many of our lowest-speed, GOB types wear only that combo, and can't even be bothered to wear it correctly.  Making compliance more difficult by prescribing specific outerwear isn't going to fix that.

And dismissing the way this is already addressed in the curriculm is just an excuse to argue.

[ddelaney103]

Something else to think about: You can do the greatest job in the world, but if you look like crap, that's all anyone is going to remember. Including the public that supposedly never sees us. And a Raiders jacket over your CAP uniform isn't going inspire confidence.

That might be excessive, but it is true that making a good first impression is important and it can be difficult to overcome presenting a bad image.

I talked to someone about uniforms today and I described a good uniform as a way to buy time so you get the chance to show them your professionalism.

[Hawk200]

All active members while involved in mission activity are required to wear a reflective vest per the respective curriculum, unless dictated by the client other wise (i.e. CN).

First I've heard of that. I know it's needed for ground pounders, but never thought of it as mandatory for mission base staff. Would like to see a reference.

Requiring specific outerwear with the golf shirt uniform negates one of the reasons for its existiance - namely an inexpensive, easy to wear uniform for members not interested in more complicated alternatives, or as an easy to carry get-up in your go-kit.

It conforms to uniforms worn by similar agencies, especially during prolonged engagements, including many PD/FD's, the ARC, and many 3&4 letter agencies.

Typically, those other agencies do actually have prescribed outergear for the very purpose of identifying them. I seriously doubt you're ever going to see a serious incident site with people running around wearing sports team, Paris Hilton, or Star Wars related outerwear. Those people know they wouldn't be taken seriously if they did.

After all, how many places on the web will sell you a nice coaches jacket with just about any Incident Command System position silkscreened in four or five inch letters on it? And how many of those have you seen in various photos, including the ones in the DHS ICS online webtraining?

Something else to think about: You can do the greatest job in the world, but if you look like crap, that's all anyone is going to remember. Including the public that supposedly never sees us. And a Raiders jacket over your CAP uniform isn't going inspire confidence.

That might be excessive, but it is true that making a good first impression is important and it can be difficult to overcome presenting a bad image.

It may be excessive, but I've seen it done. Including a few weekends ago. It was a Panthers jacket, but I think the principle is obvious.

I talked to someone about uniforms today and I described a good uniform as a way to buy time so you get the chance to show them your professionalism.

I kinda like that. Mind if I borrow it?

[ddelaney103]

I talked to someone about uniforms today and I described a good uniform as a way to buy time so you get the chance to show them your professionalism.

I kinda like that. Mind if I borrow it?

Sure - I'm just glad to make my contribution.

[Eclipse]

All active members while involved in mission activity are required to wear a reflective vest per the respective curriculum, unless dictated by the client other wise (i.e. CN).

First I've heard of that. I know it's needed for ground pounders, but never thought of it as mandatory for mission base staff. Would like to see a reference.

Sorry, I left out the word GROUND - as in GT, UDF, FLM, etc.

Typically, those other agencies do actually have prescribed outergear for the very purpose of identifying them. I seriously doubt you're ever going to see a serious incident site with people running around wearing sports team, Paris Hilton, or Star Wars related outerwear. Those people know they wouldn't be taken seriously if they did.

Yes, and typically these agencies ISSUE the gear or provide uniform allowances, and in many cases actually >pay< the people wearing the stuff.

Also, for my money, the Hello Kitty Tactical Vest is the best value.  Paris' BDU's don't stand up to field use.

[Psicorp]

You do keep the Hello Kitty pins on it, right? 

[Eclipse]

You do keep the Hello Kitty pins on it, right? 

Pins?  Those, my friend are appliqués!

[Dragoon]

Something else to think about: You can do the greatest job in the world, but if you look like crap, that's all anyone is going to remember. Including the public that supposedly never sees us. And a Raiders jacket over your CAP uniform isn't going inspire confidence.

Bingo.

And you gotta ask - if it's okay for me to fly missions with a golf shirt completely hidden under my UCLA sweatshirt - they why make me wear the golf shirt at all?  To anyone looking, public, CAP or USAF, it looks exactly the same.  Ditto a plaid hunter's jacket over BBDUs or white and greys - who knows what the heck is under there?

We don't wear uniforms for us.  We wear them for people who look at us.  And if we cover them up - they serve no purpose at all.

[Eclipse]

My vest would go great with this little beauty:



(this is real): http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx

[mikeylikey]

^ Hello Kitty Indeed!

[RogueLeader]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

[RogueLeader]

But still cool, now that I think about it.

[smj58501]

Along a similar vein to this topic...

If a man speaks in the forest, and his wife is not there to hear him, does she still think he is full of B as in B, S as in S?

Ponder...

[SM-MADDOG]

Im sorry sir but i dont agree 100%. But then again this is CAP. My self being a security officer and i was a police explorer at times i had a shirt under the uniform which had a design but no one could see, and guess what sir I still do my duty, I still deal with the bad stuff going on in my shift, that shirt is not going to keep me safer nor make it more dangerous, but then again I guess if its an inspection it cane be different but in a misson who gives what is under your uniform shirt. Are we here to look pretty all the time or help serve our country and maybe save lives etc ? I dont know about others but im here to serve my country in my job and CAP, im not here to look pretty pretty, pretty pretty aint going to make you do your job better. Take a look at the Cincinnati Riots those police officers were in a bad war zone getting shot at daily and amoung other things i can bet you some of them probably had not so great looking uniforms and not so great looking under shirts which may or may have not had a design.

Now im not saying you should never do the correct things in unfirom im just saying when the stuff hits the fan you got to do what is needed to serve the issue at hand and not look pretty. Im sure a person in need is going to tell a police officer, firefighter and CAP member that oh your shirt dont look right a button is missing dont help me, come on, with all respect sir knock it off because we must do what we have to do in an emergency etc. If you dont think so I can give you a n example

NEW ORELEANS. A high ranking CAP Officer had his rank turned up side down on his shirt so by rules hes out of uniform ? Yes probably, but guess what he still nailed it down and did his duty with his fellow men & women and helped the very needy people in that disaster mission. As Larry cable guy say's Git-R-Done, Well Git-R-Done and help people not over worry about stupid clothing in my opinion.

Serving 1998 Since

Stay Safe Everyone

Knock it off.

CAP Distinctive Uniforms authorize wear of civilian outerwear.   Corporate Uniforms (TPU) do not, and have specified outerwear.  I would caution anyone from using the term "corporate uniform" to describe what is actually a CAP Distinctive Uniform with different requirements.

If you are wearing a Harley t-shirt under your BDU, you are wrong.  CAPM 39-1 isn't intended to be a book of suggestions.

[SM-MADDOG]

That's why police officers are issued Commission ID Cards as Comm Police Officers I.E. Federal, State, Local Agencies. And alot of police officers also have a police officer wallet badge along with the comm card. Here most police officers have powers 24/7 and are required to have certain things with them sometimes radios and wallet badge, weapon etc.

You advocated it was OK to cover up the uniform so no one could see it - while I suppose that is a difference, the end result is the same.

I would have to concur here as well. If someone rolls up to a mission base, and I don't see an actual uniform, I'm going to challenge them. If they're taking off a jacket to show me their in uniform, they're already impeded themselves.

It may be doubtful that the 30 seconds taken to take off a jacket to identify themselves is going to get anyone killed, or cause death, but it's still inefficient.

When it comes to other scenes, an off duty cop can roll up on a crime scene, but unless he's known, he's probably not going to be allowed in. Same with firefighters. As well as EMS. And HazMat responders. Or any kind of other agency.

How about reporting to an Incident Commander? If you're not wearing something recognizable as uniform, you might not even be allowed to sign in. CAP is probably not going to be doing all its missions completely alone anymore.

Something else to think about: You can do the greatest job in the world, but if you look like crap, that's all anyone is going to remember. Including the public that supposedly never sees us. And a Raiders jacket over your CAP uniform isn't going inspire confidence.

[SM-MADDOG]

My self if someone came to a meeting with a winter jacket that wasnt a uniform jacket I wouldnt say anything, because CAP doesnt issue them, if they are that worried about it, I say issue them and not have people pay for it them self. We have many members who are low income, my self being one of them, I cant right now buy a 160 uniform jacket that the national hq may decide to change or do away with one day after I buy the thing.

Another problem I have a small one is on the web site it says members may come in civilian clothes to meetings, but I think some wings are changing that saying that you must now be in uniform to attend the meeting. I think that is kinda false advertising for membership in a way. Say a new person joins today but dont have the money for the uniform and they are informed oh you cant come if your not in uniform to meetings etc. Then If i were that person I would say wow, time to change my mind and get my membership dues back. Im sorry but im a person that is for the people more than i'am the CAP etc. Im for CAP but im also for the CAP people. Afterall we are the ones that make it happen.

What would you do with a person who wears a CDU or AFU and does not own a proper coat for weather conditions that are freezing comes to the meeting with a civilian heavy winter coat. When the coat is worn no one could tell that the person is wearing a uniform under the coat. What would you do. I have witness this many times during my career in CAP.