Class B minimum requirements

[SarDragon]

I'm guessing that it got carried over verbally from the Army, and never went away. YMMV.

[majdomke]

To further stir the hornets nest of the terminology police out there (said in complete satire)...

If we drop the Class A, B, C, D or whatever... how do we differentiate between uniforms when we call the blue uniforms nothing but "Service Dress" as so many think is the only way of thought? Since there are several variances to this uniform, how do people know if they are to wear the service coat or not since that's what makes a Class B a Class A?

Again, the whole idea of Class A, B or C being nothing but a nickname for what version/form of uniform we are wearing, where is the harm? Really??? As long as people know its called the "Service Uniform" and what we are then doing is simplifying what exact flavor is expected for the UOD, its saving time and space being brief and using nicknames. My guess is, this is why the branches of service all do this. Just a guess mind you, I mean I've only been in CAP a total of 8 years with a 20+ year gap while I split my cadet and SM days with active duty AF and all. I think rather than jumping down people's throats every time they use the nickname perhaps we should just be more informative with new members, in the squadron and on this board, what the official names are versus what members have nicknamed them. Seems fair right?

[Eclipse]

If we drop the Class A, B, C, D or whatever... how do we differentiate between uniforms when we call the blue uniforms nothing but "Service Dress" as so many think is the only way of thought? Since there are several variances to this uniform, how do people know if they are to wear the service coat or not since that's what makes a Class B a Class A?

You tell them what to wear in more detail.

Service dress with jacket

Service dress, short sleeve, no tie

Service dress, long sleeve w/ tie

Not really much of a challenge...

[majdomke]

I understand that of course... but when making up a weekly schedule with numerous columns, sometimes abbreviations do help. That's most like the source of how this all began. Brevity...

[Hawk200]

I understand that of course... but when making up a weekly schedule with numerous columns, sometimes abbreviations do help. That's most like the source of how this all began. Brevity...

Just say something like "blues" or "BDUs".

There's also a lot of disconnect on what "class" means what. "Class C" means something different to one person than it does to another. No branch of service even uses the term of "Class D", but some people have made up their own definition. Hence the problem.

There are terms that everyone knows, but when you make them up terms, that's where problems start, and then continue.

[MIKE]

If we drop the Class A, B, C, D or whatever... how do we differentiate between uniforms when we call the blue uniforms nothing but "Service Dress" as so many think is the only way of thought? Since there are several variances to this uniform, how do people know if they are to wear the service coat or not since that's what makes a Class B a Class A?

You tell them what to wear in more detail.

Service dress with jacket

Service dress, short sleeve, no tie

Service dress, long sleeve w/ tie

Not really much of a challenge...

Eclipse obviously doesn't know what service dress is from the looks of that post.

Service dress is the service uniform combination that includes the coat.  Class A's for you rebels.

Just say something like "blues" or "BDUs".

Saying "blues" is just as bad as saying "Class B's."  Each configuration of the service uniform has a proper name, and if you want your people in a specific uniform "blues" ain't gonna cut it.

[majdomke]

  Exactly...

[Hawk200]

Saying "blues" is just as bad as saying "Class B's."  Each configuration of the service uniform has a proper name, and if you want your people in a specific uniform "blues" ain't gonna cut it.

"Blues" will do just fine if you want people in some kind of blues. If you want them in service dress, you tell them: "wear service dress". If you want them in long sleeves, tell them that. Telling folks "Class B" isn't any clearer, because it covers a great deal. There are still specifics missing.

Now tell me something, Mike, if you're specifying a specific uniform combination, are you going to be doing heavy abbreviation on your directive? I'd hope not.

But back to other questions: What is a "Class A"?

What is a "Class B"?

What is a "Class C"?

What is a "Class D"?

I'm curious how many different answers will show up. I know the Army designations, but somehow I doubt the various opinions here will match.

[majdomke]

A=Service Coat
B=Short/Long Sleeve w/o Coat
C=Utilities ie BDU's
D=No clue

[SarDragon]

A=Service Coat
B=Short/Long Sleeve w/o Coat
C=Utilities ie BDU's
D=No clue

OK, here's some sort of definition. Now, how do we get the other 48, 597 (±5,000) members to embrace and use that definition?

Until it's codified and published in an official directive, it shouldn't be used. This whole "class" thing is just as wrong as Hawk bling, first sergeant whistles, and boonie hats, and has no official basis that I can find.

[Hawk200]

A=Service Coat

The Army uses that, so I know it. Fairly consistent.

B=Short/Long Sleeve w/o Coat

OK, also consistent. To an extent. Is a tie worn with the short sleeve? What about ribbons/badges, or RDI/DUI?

C=Utilities ie BDU's

It could be. AR 670-1 states in Para 1-6. e that "Class C uniforms are the utility, field, hospital duty, food service, and other organizational uniforms."

If someone were to say "Class C", which uniform is that? It's not mentioned, but that includes a flightsuit. Context is important.

D=No clue

Neither do I, but a claim was made in thread that there are AF Reserve units that use A,B,C, and D terminology. What does the "D" desegnator stand for?

Does it really simplify things if there are inconsistencies? And what purpose does it serve to use the terminology of the Army? We're not Army, we haven't been associated with them for decades. Why use their terms?

[Major Carrales]

A=Service Coat
B=Short/Long Sleeve w/o Coat
C=Utilities ie BDU's
D=No clue

OK, here's some sort of definition. Now, how do we get the other 48, 597 (±5,000) members to embrace and use that definition?

Until it's codified and published in an official directive, it shouldn't be used. This whole "class" thing is just as wrong as Hawk bling, first sergeant whistles, and boonie hats, and has no official basis that I can find.

Hold on there, there is lots of stuff that is CAP culture that is on codified in CAP regs.  Things such as CAP meeting templates, the prohibition on the wear of a tie with short sleeve service dress, the blasphemy that results from people who wear service caps, posting on CAP related forums and a whole lot of other things that are as "CAP" as the three bladed propeller, but that cannot be found in regs.

There are many here that show righteous indignation about things they don't like that are not in the regs, but also show ambivalence to or even support for things they do like that are subject to the same "its not in the regs" conundrum.

[SarDragon]

Hold on there, there is lots of stuff that is CAP culture that is on codified in CAP regs.

Should that read "not codified"?

We're talking about antique, outdated, and undefined terminology that hasn't had any official status since at least 1968. Until it becomes such, it shouldn't be used, because of the inconsistencies involved. The other examples I gave have similar issues.

[Hawk200]

Hold on there, there is lots of stuff that is CAP culture that is on codified in CAP regs.

Should that read "not codified"?

We're talking about antique, outdated, and undefined terminology that hasn't had any official status since at least 1968. Until it becomes such, it shouldn't be used, because of the inconsistencies involved. The other examples I gave have similar issues.

You might want to read the rest of it. I can see the sarcasm.

As Sparky points out, there is a lot of "Everyone knows that" which usually translates to "That's what I want".

[Major Carrales]

Hold on there, there is lots of stuff that is CAP culture that is on codified in CAP regs.

Should that read "not codified"?

We're talking about antique, outdated, and undefined terminology that hasn't had any official status since at least 1968. Until it becomes such, it shouldn't be used, because of the inconsistencies involved. The other examples I gave have similar issues.

Never forget that printed policy and practice seldom jive in totality.  Recent legislation in our Congress shows that to be true (most Senators and Representatives don't even read everything they vote on).   It is likely 60% of the things you, Sir,  and I do are likely against some code, ordinance, State/Commonwealth law or even those of the National government.  Many times the "write one thing, do another" goes on and is only brought to life during times of blatant serious and public violation.

Also, remember that the goal of communication is based on relaying the mental image in a persons mind to that of another.  If someone says "class A" or the like and another person knows what has been said, has not the above been satisfied?  People new to CAP are not inborn with CAP regs in their mental lexicon of knowledge. 

Furthermore, if it were not for adobe PDF files, "cut and paste" and certain search functions inherent in modern computer information systems...it would not be possible for some of the regs to be so instantaneously accessed.

Odds are, most CAP officers do not have ALL the REGS memorized, I doubt many active duty types do for their published instructions as well.

[SarDragon]

Well, I think I'm done peeing into the wind.

Y'all can have more fun without me.

[Major Carrales]

Well, I think I'm done peeing into the wind.

Y'all can have more fun without me.

Couldn't address the issues...eh?  Pity, I was hoping you would make an argument that would sway me into thinking the use of uniform "classes" posed a clear and present "danger" to the future of CAP.

Instead you have proven the whole thing as it really is...a NON-ISSUE.  The terminology and "slang" of the Civil Air Patrol exist...despite any personal pet-peeves.

[SarDragon]

Just because it's widespread, that doesn't make it "right". I think I clearly explained my reasoning, and the impact of the issue on the organization. Further discourse seems futile, since I'm probably at the point where I will only be repeating myself.

Like I said, have fun without me.

[Major Carrales]

Just because it's widespread, that doesn't make it "right". I think I clearly explained my reasoning, and the impact of the issue on the organization. Further discourse seems futile, since I'm probably at the point where I will only be repeating myself.

Like I said, have fun without me.

What I don't understand is why this bother's you so.  it seems trivial...like people having a debate over that I should be called "Joe Ely" or "Jose Ely" or even "Sparky," in then end it is the same person.

Service dress and "Class A" means something to some people and, while it may not be correct, it is what they have come to call it.  I was referring to that combination in Jr High School, before I even heard of CAP or of the nomenclature of the Army as "Class A."  That meant you had a formal jacket and tie on.  I didn't hear it in military parlance until I was in high school, late high school, and a friend of mine's father had been Army and referred to that uniform as Class A.

I want to understand why you choose to make this an issue...understanding so might lead me to better understand your frustrations and learn more about what those issues are important.  I suspect you think people refer to it thus because they want to be somehow "hardcore" and use that jargon to appear somehow more "military."

[SarDragon]

It hinders good communication.

On more than a few occasions, I have been with a group of cadets from more than one unit, and heard and seen confusion when one cadet talks about Class As, and other cadets ask, "What's that?" I have seen the same thing in groups of SMs.

When cadets go to encampment, they are given standards to follow. The concept of standards is reinforced all week. Sadly, these standards vary from wing to wing, and even from year to year within the same wing. But the concept is still there. Now you, and others, seem to advocate the perpetuation of a non-standard nomenclature, that has never really been a standard since I joined CAP.

"We've always done it that way", has, IMHO, never been a good reason for doing something. Taken to extremes, it has killed people in the aviation arena among others, so why encourage that attitude in the first place? It may be a tough nut to chew, but change is not impossible. It does, however, only come about when there is willingness for it to happen.