What would you like to see done for Civil Air Patrol uniforms?

Started by Hawk200, October 13, 2018, 09:48:58 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

Quote from: francisderosa16 on October 18, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
I disagree. I think having our senior wear USAF style uniforms are good especially in emergency situations, [SAR, disaster relief, etc.] That way wee all look like we are on the same team.

Except seniors aren't in the same uniform, there are actually five (5) field uniform variants right now, and most of the
world performs SAR in golfs shirts these days.

"That Others May Zoom"

hamburgee

I don't know if other people posted this already, however:

- Removal of (the majority of) patches from ABUs (and in turn BBDUs), such as organizational patches & NCSA patches, IMO it should be kept to a minimum. The Air Force never permitted the wear of patches on ABUs (save for about 2, 4 counting Fire Protection and Security badges), and it's just silly that they were authorized on our uniform.

- This probably will not happen, but allow wear of earned military awards on corporate uniforms, same as AF-style uniforms. Or, at the least, badges, such as parachutist badges, AF occupational badges, et cetera.

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Eclipse on October 18, 2018, 10:46:54 PM
Quote from: francisderosa16 on October 18, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
I disagree. I think having our senior wear USAF style uniforms are good especially in emergency situations, [SAR, disaster relief, etc.] That way wee all look like we are on the same team.

Except seniors aren't in the same uniform, there are actually five (5) field uniform variants right now, and most of the
world performs SAR in golfs shirts these days.

I think there's an issue in breaking down what "SAR" is---SAR is a mission, not a functional task.

The person driving the van is most likely going to be in a golf shirt. The person out in the woods should be in fatigues. You should be in an appropriate tactical-style uniform that protects you from the elements of the environment in which you operate.

Having a number of uniform options isn't inappropriate. But they should be worn dependent on the conditions of the task. The one thing for certain is that a common set of fatigues is equally appropriate to field use and "office wear." But a short-sleeved polo really isn't appropriate in woodland or 'back country' which may require you to be able to clip things onto your blouse, utilize those fancy pockets, add an extra-thick layer of clothing, and keep your sleeves down.


All that said, this topic has turned into the usual 5 pages of challenging points.

GroundHawg

Quote from: Eclipse on October 18, 2018, 10:46:54 PM
Quote from: francisderosa16 on October 18, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
I disagree. I think having our senior wear USAF style uniforms are good especially in emergency situations, [SAR, disaster relief, etc.] That way wee all look like we are on the same team.

Except seniors aren't in the same uniform, there are actually five (5) field uniform variants right now, and most of the
world performs SAR in golfs shirts these days.

I have not found that to be the case, and honestly couldn't tell you the last time I saw someone in a polo outside of CAP.  Most ES, Police, Fire, SAR, DR, etc... teams that I have come in contact with wear some type of brightly colored top with cargo pants. Usually a tshirt in summer and a bdu or similar top in spring and fall with a coat or turnout gear in winter. Many of the smaller fire departments and generally the more rural and less well funded, will wear jeans. I have seen some wearing a coverall/flight suit, but they are a minority. All wear a helmet of some type, the more professional units wearing teamwendy, petzl, etc.. and fire units usually wearing their bullard wildfire helmets on double duty.

GroundHawg

Quote from: Eclipse on October 17, 2018, 07:03:49 PM
Quote from: supertigerCH on October 17, 2018, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: arajca on October 15, 2018, 01:20:11 AM
A real service jacket for the corporate uniforms, not a security guard jacket.


Overall I agree with the idea of an actual service coat for the grey corporate (aviator) uniform.  A number of people over the years... have sometimes made the claim that it isn't absolutely necessary... since as a "corporate" uniform, it is not a military uniform... and therefore doesn't "need" a jacket.

My response to that is... take a look at the great number of corporations, airlines, and other pilot / aviation related organizations in the civilian world... and many of their pilots/personnel can be seen often wearing pilot/aviator "service type" of coat.  It is completely acceptable in the civilian world as well... and there is no doubt that it sends the message to the public... that your organization values professionalism and high standards.

Some people also point out that creating a service coat for the grey corporate (aviator) uniform would cost members extra money.  It seems like very few members would end up being forced to buy both... because the standards make it pretty clear which uniform a member should buy.  Depending on where each member falls in regards to height & weight / grooming standards... they should plan to purchase either the U.S. A. F. style blue service uniform, or the grey/white corporate aviator style service uniform. 

There always might end up being a smaller number of members... who decide on their own to purchase both, but for the most part that's their own decision.  The vast majority of members will usually fall into one category or the other.  Below is an example (just an example) from the Polish Air Force... that shows that a grey aviator type uniform can definitely work (not to mention all the grey service coats that almost certainly can be bought from civilian/commercial sellers of aviation uniforms).



Something ignored in the "We don't need it" argument is the demonstrable fact that at least 50% of the adult membership,
some of the most active members and the ones running much of the organizaiton, are not eligible to wear the USAF-Style
Service uniform, which leaves them with no alternative to be compared to their peers, including now being presented
decorations they aren't even allowed to wear.

Further to this many in that 50%+ wear blues anyway for "reasons".

You can't make an argument that the blues are "important" to affinity, recruiting, and appearance, and then deny those
same benefits to the very members holding up the corners, and not expect to be accused of hypocritical attitudes.

The uniform is either important, or it isn't.


Could not agree with this more.  :clap:

Eclipse

Quote from: GroundHawg on October 19, 2018, 03:07:17 PM
I have not found that to be the case, and honestly couldn't tell you the last time I saw someone in a polo outside of CAP.  Most ES, Police, Fire, SAR, DR, etc... teams that I have come in contact with wear some type of brightly colored top with cargo pants. Usually a tshirt in summer and a bdu or similar top in spring and fall with a coat or turnout gear in winter. Many of the smaller fire departments and generally the more rural and less well funded, will wear jeans. I have seen some wearing a coverall/flight suit, but they are a minority. All wear a helmet of some type, the more professional units wearing teamwendy, petzl, etc.. and fire units usually wearing their bullard wildfire helmets on double duty.

In what context, and are you talking urban or rural.

Because in my parts, in the ICP, it's nothing but golf shirts and t-shirts on fire guys, and golf shirts or typical daily PD uniforms on the LEOs.
EMA managers and government officials are all golf, all the time unless they have a suit on for the cameras.

Even in the field it's mostly golf shirts or t-shirts.  Yes, tac pants and robust shoes if you're in the woods, but for the typical
day-to-day ops, it's golfs and t's.

CAP invests a lot of time and effort in equipping and training its members for missions for that it gets on a statistically zero
basis, while ignoring the day-to-reality of what it really does.

Members don't need battle-rattle to man a POD, or tromp in the woods for a few hours looking for a lost child.

In the few places those missions are more common, then use common sense.

"That Others May Zoom"

CAPCom

In response to the original post re: "Looking for the ideas. What would you change? Add? Remove?"

The aviator shirt uniform, in my opinion, should include a cover, such as the senior member flight cap worn by those eligible to wear the USAF-style uniform.

Fubar

Quote from: SCoonts on October 19, 2018, 06:27:19 PMThe aviator shirt uniform, in my opinion, should include a cover, such as the senior member flight cap worn by those eligible to wear the USAF-style uniform.

I assume by "cover" you mean a cap or headgear. Currently our rules prohibit mixing USAF-style uniform parts with corporate uniform parts (not that our current rules should impact what you'd like to see). For whatever reason, the USAF is being persnickety on which volunteers in CAP can wear uniform parts styled after their uniforms.

Fubar

I'd like to see the requirement to spend hard earned money on a uniform I don't want or need removed from the rules. Have members purchase uniforms they need based upon the work they do.

Unenforceable rules that waste people's money should be the easiest low-hanging fruit to pick.

For the field where you're *actually* in the field, our BBDU uniform with some sort of bright ANSI undershirt and bright ANSI stripes built into the BBDU jacket, along with some sort of reflective headgear would seem the most appropriate for search and rescue work. It certainly would align us with other SAR agencies across the country. Camouflage with a ANSI vest over it is a ridiculous example of military intelligence.

The corporate working uniform is actually pretty good. It's flexible (dress pants for formal meetings, tactical pants for missions and such). My only complaint has been durability, which seems to have been solved with the new material. Nothing really to change there.

Flight suits for our type of flying is for appearances only as they don't provide any real safety value (especially on their own without gloves, helmets, and so forth). But they're also universal in professional flying, from military, law enforcement, medical, and even the war birds guys. Keeping the patch count minimal is important, let's not look like NASCAR. The USAF also needs to acknowledge that they don't own the market on sage green bags.

As for the formal uniform stuff, the only change I'd like to see is everyone in the same uniform. If we can't get the USAF to treat everyone in CAP the same, then it's time to say thanks, but we'll do something on our own that's more inclusive. The USAF has to stop telling us how awesome we are as volunteers, but not awesome enough to wear a uniform based on theirs.

CAPCom

Quote from: Fubar on October 20, 2018, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: SCoonts on October 19, 2018, 06:27:19 PMThe aviator shirt uniform, in my opinion, should include a cover, such as the senior member flight cap worn by those eligible to wear the USAF-style uniform.

I assume by "cover" you mean a cap or headgear. Currently our rules prohibit mixing USAF-style uniform parts with corporate uniform parts (not that our current rules should impact what you'd like to see). For whatever reason, the USAF is being persnickety on which volunteers in CAP can wear uniform parts styled after their uniforms.

Yes, "cover" is common parlance for "hat" in miliary-type settings and references.

As far as your point re: "USAF-style uniform parts with corporate uniform parts", I don't see how that would apply to a particular style of cover when you consider that the aviator shirt contains epaulets, also used on the USAF-style uniform.  Not to mention that flight caps (ala the USAF, USN, USMC) have been used by non-military entities as part of their uniforms as well.

In my opinion, the aviator shirt uniform looks and feels incomplete without a cover.  I'd be interested to know if this was ever discussed among the powers that be who decide on CAP uniforms and why the flight cap was done away with for senior members.

CAPCom

Quote from: Fubar on October 20, 2018, 08:22:38 AM
The USAF has to stop telling us how awesome we are as volunteers, but not awesome enough to wear a uniform based on theirs.

Agree 100%.

Hawk200

Quote from: Fubar on October 20, 2018, 08:22:38 AM
I'd like to see the requirement to spend hard earned money on a uniform I don't want or need removed from the rules. Have members purchase uniforms they need based upon the work they do.

Unenforceable rules that waste people's money should be the easiest low-hanging fruit to pick.

For the field where you're *actually* in the field, our BBDU uniform with some sort of bright ANSI undershirt and bright ANSI stripes built into the BBDU jacket, along with some sort of reflective headgear would seem the most appropriate for search and rescue work. It certainly would align us with other SAR agencies across the country. Camouflage with a ANSI vest over it is a ridiculous example of military intelligence.

The corporate working uniform is actually pretty good. It's flexible (dress pants for formal meetings, tactical pants for missions and such). My only complaint has been durability, which seems to have been solved with the new material. Nothing really to change there.

Flight suits for our type of flying is for appearances only as they don't provide any real safety value (especially on their own without gloves, helmets, and so forth). But they're also universal in professional flying, from military, law enforcement, medical, and even the war birds guys. Keeping the patch count minimal is important, let's not look like NASCAR. The USAF also needs to acknowledge that they don't own the market on sage green bags.

As for the formal uniform stuff, the only change I'd like to see is everyone in the same uniform. If we can't get the USAF to treat everyone in CAP the same, then it's time to say thanks, but we'll do something on our own that's more inclusive. The USAF has to stop telling us how awesome we are as volunteers, but not awesome enough to wear a uniform based on theirs.

You've got a few things in there.

To reduce it to bullet statements, I'm thinking the following:

1. Eliminate the "minimum basic uniform" requirement, and allow members to obtain a uniform appropriate to their job functions.
2. Develop a field based uniform with high visibility markings.
3. Allow the sage green flightsuit for all members. (Eliminate blue, perhaps?)
4. Allow the wear of the Air Force variant (blues) by all members.

Would that be fairly representative of what you're trying to say?

Hawk200

It's been a week, and I'll probably start compiling a list tonight, and post it in a day or so. I'm considering tonight the "closeout."

The list will be in the order that things were posted in this thread, and numbered based on that.

If there are any other ideas that people would like to add, today is the time.

I'm compiling everything that was in this thread, agreed with or not, or even things that probably won't fly because the Air Force wouldn't approve. But, since it was placed here, it will be included. 

etodd

Quote from: Eclipse on October 18, 2018, 10:46:54 PM


..... most of the world performs SAR in golfs shirts these days.


Thats certainly what I see in my Wing at Mission Base, most pilots, and then camo for ground teams.

It seems to all be so regional (Wings).  Some are more "casual" than others with the uniform issue.  Hence the options.  If you took away options and made it all limited by National ... then yes, you'll have half the members ticked off.

Incident Commanders already have the power to say "wear this or don't show".  But they'd rather have a full turnout.

Bottom line, its always going to be contentious no matter what gets proposed and implemented.

Give folks choices, so they can wear what they are comfortable wearing for the tasks.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

supertigerCH


Here's my original posting... with the picture that I originally intended to add to it (as an example) =





Quote from: supertigerCH on October 17, 2018, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: arajca on October 15, 2018, 01:20:11 AM
A real service jacket for the corporate uniforms, not a security guard jacket.


Overall I agree with the idea of an actual service coat for the grey corporate (aviator) uniform.  A number of people over the years... have sometimes made the claim that it isn't absolutely necessary... since as a "corporate" uniform, it is not a military uniform... and therefore doesn't "need" a jacket.

My response to that is... take a look at the great number of corporations, airlines, and other pilot / aviation related organizations in the civilian world... and many of their pilots/personnel can be seen often wearing pilot/aviator "service type" of coat.  It is completely acceptable in the civilian world as well... and there is no doubt that it sends the message to the public... that your organization values professionalism and high standards.

Some people also point out that creating a service coat for the grey corporate (aviator) uniform would cost members extra money.  It seems like very few members would end up being forced to buy both... because the standards make it pretty clear which uniform a member should buy.  Depending on where each member falls in regards to height & weight / grooming standards... they should plan to purchase either the U.S. A. F. style blue service uniform, or the grey/white corporate aviator style service uniform. 

There always might end up being a smaller number of members... who decide on their own to purchase both, but for the most part that's their own decision.  The vast majority of members will usually fall into one category or the other.  Below is an example (just an example) from the Polish Air Force... that shows that a grey aviator type uniform can definitely work (not to mention all the grey service coats that almost certainly can be bought from civilian/commercial sellers of aviation uniforms).



Fubar

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 20, 2018, 02:43:44 PM
To reduce it to bullet statements, I'm thinking the following:

1. Eliminate the "minimum basic uniform" requirement, and allow members to obtain a uniform appropriate to their job functions.
2. Develop a field based uniform with high visibility markings.
3. Allow the sage green flightsuit for all members. (Eliminate blue, perhaps?)
4. Allow the wear of the Air Force variant (blues) by all members.

Would that be fairly representative of what you're trying to say?

I think it would be a bit more nuanced for #4 to say one (optional) fancy uniform for everyone. I don't particularly care if it's the USAF-Style uniform or a in-house uniform, just pick one.

But thanks for demonstrating I'm clearly too long winded :D

Fubar

Quote from: SCoonts on October 20, 2018, 02:39:33 PM
Yes, "cover" is common parlance for "hat" in miliary-type settings and references.

It's not a CAP term (at least it doesn't exist in any of our documentation), so you may want to consider using CAP terminology when speaking to a CAP audience.

Quote from: SCoonts on October 20, 2018, 02:39:33 PMIn my opinion, the aviator shirt uniform looks and feels incomplete without a cover.

Maybe I misunderstood you, I thought you were suggesting you simply wanted to wear the flight cap currently worn with the USAF-style uniform with the aviator shirt uniform. That we can't do, but I suppose in theory a flight cap of a different color with different markings would be allowed. To that, I'd ask why? A flight cap is just a useful as a beret when it comes to headgear, if I'm going to wear a hat it's going to be useful (shade me from the sun).

Just for completeness, headgear is authorized for the aviator shirt uniform:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1Headgear. Headgear is not required with this uniform combination. However, the CAP baseball cap may be worn. Wing and region commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and/or emblem to be on the baseball cap. Appropriate civilian headgear may be worn during inclement weather.

Quote from: SCoonts on October 20, 2018, 02:39:33 PMI'd be interested to know if this was ever discussed among the powers that be who decide on CAP uniforms and why the flight cap was done away with for senior members.

Senior members can't wear flight caps? When did that happen?

Fubar

Quote from: etodd on October 20, 2018, 03:55:51 PMIncident Commanders already have the power to say "wear this or don't show".  But they'd rather have a full turnout.

A smart commander knows just how far their influence goes. Twice in my CAP career I've seen a leader try to implement "uniformity" at an activity only to issue a retraction when it became clear the majority of needed people weren't going to show.

QuoteBottom line, its always going to be contentious no matter what gets proposed and implemented.
Give folks choices, so they can wear what they are comfortable wearing for the tasks.

Good fashion, like good comedy, is such a personal reaction there's no way everyone will be happy. But giving people options will help in keeping more people happy and I'd argue CAP actually does a decent job with that when it comes to corporate uniforms.

Luis R. Ramos

Headgear other than the baseball cap when using the Aviator shirt. In my opinion, the baseball cap is not professionally looking enough to be combined with the Aviator shirt.

I would prefer the service cap, or a Kepi, to the baseball cap. The service cap is more distinguished than the baseball cap! Also protection is the same whether using a service cap or a baseball cap.



Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

foo

For corporate uniforms that currently allow the Black Fleece, also allow CAP rank tabs to be worn on any commercially available black ECWCS parka.