Here it is....
Anyone wish to discuss the uniform issues? >:D
Item 9 - a well-researched common sense proposal to change required interval for safety training from monthly to quarterly. Good job Col. Vazquez! NHQ likes it. CAP-USAF doesn't. It will be interesting to see who prevails.
Sure is a lot of old business to finish up.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 02, 2011, 08:06:36 PM
Item 9 - a well-researched common sense proposal to change required interval for safety training from monthly to quarterly. Good job Col. Vazquez! NHQ likes it. CAP-USAF doesn't. It will be interesting to see who prevails.
Sure is a lot of old business to finish up.
I'm with CAP-USAF on that one, at least frequency wise. For record keeping, I don't see any reason to restrict who can input the data the way that it is.
The proposal mischaractarizes what happens out in corporations. I know where I work, we do a safety topic in every single meeting we have, whether it's 3 people sitting down for a 15 minute discussion, 20 people getting ready for their day on a jobsite, or 100 people on a multi-continent conference call. I can have 3 meetings with the same people on a single day, and each of those meetings WILL begin with a safety discussion. Personally, I'd like to see that made a rule that every activity, meeting, etc. begin with safety, period. Then record-keeping would be much simpler: on the roster for the event, you received a safety briefing.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 02, 2011, 08:13:10 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 02, 2011, 08:06:36 PM
Item 9 - a well-researched common sense proposal to change required interval for safety training from monthly to quarterly. Good job Col. Vazquez! NHQ likes it. CAP-USAF doesn't. It will be interesting to see who prevails.
Sure is a lot of old business to finish up.
I'm with CAP-USAF on that one, at least frequency wise. For record keeping, I don't see any reason to restrict who can input the data the way that it is.
The proposal mischaractarizes what happens out in corporations. I know where I work, we do a safety topic in every single meeting we have, whether it's 3 people sitting down for a 15 minute discussion, 20 people getting ready for their day on a jobsite, or 100 people on a multi-continent conference call. I can have 3 meetings with the same people on a single day, and each of those meetings WILL begin with a safety discussion. Personally, I'd like to see that made a rule that every activity, meeting, etc. begin with safety, period. Then record-keeping would be much simpler: on the roster for the event, you received a safety briefing.
What an incredible waste of time. Unless your industry is actually industrial safety you would be better off to spend that time producing a product.
Some organizations believe that the safety of their employees is actually worth something.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 02, 2011, 08:48:47 PM
Some organizations believe that the safety of their employees is actually worth something.
I've worked for some that only make noises about safety but don't actually fix the problems. Safety is not about talking safety, it's about actually being safe. If you waste time talking endlessly about it you remove time to actually do the mission and that frequently causes people to rush to meet deadlines thus causing the very thing you try to avoid.
Quote from: davidsinn on August 02, 2011, 09:11:34 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 02, 2011, 08:48:47 PM
Some organizations believe that the safety of their employees is actually worth something.
I've worked for some that only make noises about safety but don't actually fix the problems. Safety is not about talking safety, it's about actually being safe. If you waste time talking endlessly about it you remove time to actually do the mission and that frequently causes people to rush to meet deadlines thus causing the very thing you try to avoid.
The point with repeated safety discussions is to instill a culture of safety. It is always top-of-mind for you. Safety isn't a course you take, or a meeting you have to go to quarterly, it's ingrained as part of every work process, and every activity you do.
Moving safety education in CAP to once a quarter makes it just another box to check off, it does nothing to ingrain a culture of safety.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 02, 2011, 09:16:47 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on August 02, 2011, 09:11:34 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 02, 2011, 08:48:47 PM
Some organizations believe that the safety of their employees is actually worth something.
I've worked for some that only make noises about safety but don't actually fix the problems. Safety is not about talking safety, it's about actually being safe. If you waste time talking endlessly about it you remove time to actually do the mission and that frequently causes people to rush to meet deadlines thus causing the very thing you try to avoid.
The point with repeated safety discussions is to instill a culture of safety. It is always top-of-mind for you. Safety isn't a course you take, or a meeting you have to go to quarterly, it's ingrained as part of every work process, and every activity you do.
I understand what you're saying but I still disagree. Too much of it makes people blow it off. How many times can you hear the same briefing about winter weather before you tune it out? Talking about driving just bores the younger cadets.
Quote
...safety education in CAP...just another box to check off, it does nothing to ingrain a culture of safety.
That's more like the truth.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 02, 2011, 09:16:47 PMThe point with repeated safety discussions is to instill a culture of safety. It is always top-of-mind for you. Safety isn't a course you take, or a meeting you have to go to quarterly, it's ingrained as part of every work process, and every activity you do.
Yes. Mission First, Safety Third.
"Safety" is really about the core values of Integrity and Excellence - doing things properly because it's the proper way to do them and is respectful
of resources, life, and property. In almost all the 79's I read, and most unsafe situations I have encountered and caused in my happy life, the majority
were avoidable and ultimately caused by someone taking a shortcut or disrespecting their situation.
i.e...
"I know better..."
"Watch this..."
Quote from: JeffDG on August 02, 2011, 09:16:47 PM
Moving safety education in CAP to once a quarter makes it just another box to check off, it does nothing to ingrain a culture of safety.
Sadly, that is what it is today. Made worse by Safety Officers and others with no field experience and/or no ability to link a briefing to current operations, so we get 30 minute root canals of someone reading slides he's never seen about a topic he knows nothing about, to a room full of adults who understand to wear sunscreen and drink water when it is hot.
Then those same adults get into "heated" (pun intended) discussions about whether cadets should "man up" to the obstacle course even though the base is black-flagged. We cant instill common sense in adults, but we can insure people without it are removed from positions which put CAP at risk.
CAP will never get to the culture of Safety the USAF wants for us until it starts invoking visible ramifications for
inappropriate "unsafe" behavior. I would say that, for the most part, the performance expectations of our members are relatively clear, however
there is no anticipation of any negative consequences when thing go bad.
Quote from: davidsinn on August 02, 2011, 09:32:02 PM
I understand what you're saying but I still disagree. Too much of it makes people blow it off. How many times can you hear the same briefing about winter weather before you tune it out? Talking about driving just bores the younger cadets.
15 minutes/MONTH is such a minimal requirement that I don't understand the reluctance. NHQ has made it SO easy to meet the requirement, as well. And if you are talking about driving to the younger cadets, you are not tailoring your message. Put some effort into making a lively, engaging safety conversation with your group once a month. It's not hard. Why are you repeating topics over and over? That's just lackadaisical. Read the news, look for items that illustrate safety points and use them. Be topical, be current. No one's bored in my briefings.
And by the way, I think CAP-USAF tears down the time argument perfectly:
Quote
Individuals involved on a full-time basis, such as the 40 hour per week employee, are daily immersed in the work environment and safety culture. Conversely, CAP members that participate on a less frequent basis are more reliant on recurring training to maintain their safety focus and perishable skills. The less frequent a CAP member participates, the more vulnerable they become to mission related risks.
To me, the "safety education" aspect of what we do during the month interrupt the flow of the operations we conduct. Going through encampment, safety briefings were just integrated into the activity. Doing an obstacle course? This is how you do this obstacle, here, wear these gloves, the water is over there.
There was a living breathing safety culture. Flag condition changed, it was announced, the commanders made modifications - and the mission still got accomplished. The ONLY safety that people were rolling their eyes at was the one that interrupted the normal operational mission (i.e. "general safety briefings").
Integrating safety into what you are doing is a safety culture. Having "checkbox safety briefs" isn't.
Thousands of activities under my belt, safety is always on my mind. Of those activities, I've never had a mishap occur.
Quote from: AirDX on August 02, 2011, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on August 02, 2011, 09:32:02 PM
I understand what you're saying but I still disagree. Too much of it makes people blow it off. How many times can you hear the same briefing about winter weather before you tune it out? Talking about driving just bores the younger cadets.
15 minutes/MONTH is such a minimal requirement that I don't understand the reluctance. NHQ has made it SO easy to meet the requirement, as well. And if you are talking about driving to the younger cadets, you are not tailoring your message. Put some effort into making a lively, engaging safety conversation with your group once a month. It's not hard. Why are you repeating topics over and over? That's just lackadaisical. Read the news, look for items that illustrate safety points and use them. Be topical, be current. No one's bored in my briefings.
How do you tailor a message to a group that runs from 12-60? There are only so many safety topics out there.
Quote from: AirDX on August 02, 2011, 10:58:11 PM
And by the way, I think CAP-USAF tears down the time argument perfectly:
Quote
Individuals involved on a full-time basis, such as the 40 hour per week employee, are daily immersed in the work environment and safety culture. Conversely, CAP members that participate on a less frequent basis are more reliant on recurring training to maintain their safety focus and perishable skills. The less frequent a CAP member participates, the more vulnerable they become to mission related risks.
I'd say they've got it backwards. Familiarity breeds contempt. At my previous job I was more safety minded around the equipment when I went out on the floor than the people running it. They had weekly safety meetings too. Most of them were only tangentially related to work if they were related at all. It did little to nothing to stop injuries. Only when they started walking through the plant and writing people up for
stupidity safety violations did it start to have an effect. You want safety? Stop wasting my time in checkbox briefings and have real consequences for unsafe behavior.
QuoteF. September 2010 National Board Meeting: Agenda Item 23
Extension of Professional Appointments and Promotions to Include Homeland Security and Emergency Management Professionals
A big non-concur from me. In fact, I'd tighten all the professional appointments quite a bit, adding a requirement to complete ES quals/specialty track requirements before getting a promotion.
For example, the Comm/CFI pilot that joins I would give at the completion of Level 1, 1LT on completion of a Form 5, and CPT on being appointed a CAP Instructor Pilot.
Health/Finance/Legal - link the promotion to completing the specialty track (if there is one) or serving in the staff position.
Quote from: davidsinn on August 02, 2011, 11:33:08 PM
I'd say they've got it backwards. Familiarity breeds contempt. At my previous job I was more safety minded around the equipment when I went out on the floor than the people running it. They had weekly safety meetings too. Most of them were only tangentially related to work if they were related at all. It did little to nothing to stop injuries. Only when they started walking through the plant and writing people up for stupidity safety violations did it start to have an effect. You want safety? Stop wasting my time in checkbox briefings and have real consequences for unsafe behavior.
Blaming a program because individuals execute it poorly is a fallacious argument. We expect a pilot to be able to operate an aircraft safely throughout the envelope of its performance, and test to that standard. Why do we allow safety officers to present boring, irrelevant briefings? Demand performance from them - demand it from yourself.
Quote from: davidsinn on August 02, 2011, 11:33:08 PM
How do you tailor a message to a group that runs from 12-60? There are only so many safety topics out there.
Use your imagination, man! There are all kinds of ways. Read the newspaper. Read the Internet. Use News of the Weird. I love those stories where some idiot gets stuck in a chimney trying to burglarize a house. Use that - conduct an ORM analysis of burglarizing a house through the chimney. Get some audience participation going.
Did you use the Zombie Apocalypse briefing from CDC? http://www.bt.cdc.gov/socialmedia/zombies_blog.asp (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/socialmedia/zombies_blog.asp) That was a godsend, an instant briefing just in time for hurricane season.
Did you use the Fukushima problems to talk about radiation hazards and safety?
Be topical, be current, and remember that 90% of your audience are not pilots, so detailed briefings on GA vacuum pumps are not that appropriate... EXCEPT you can rope in the AE aspect and discuss WHY the vacuum instruments are important. Bring it down to an appropriate level.
Be enthusiastic, use audience participation and your 15 minutes of monthly fame will fly by for you AND your audience.
The safety requirement in particular is one that has good intentions, but there is no real way to analyze whether it is actually doing any good. All we care about is that some sort of monthly safety "training" is done but have no care at all at the organizational level about what that training is. It would be perfectly ok by CAP if the squadron safety officer gave a briefing every month on chainsaw, ATV, motorcycle, skateboard, etc. safety that have no relevance to CAP. So, we've got 1000 different safety briefings going on every month that could be covering anything under the sun rather than things that can actually bring down CAP accident rates.
Basically we're throwing every possible safety topic against the wall and hoping that some of them stick and actually reduce CAP accidents. The program needs more focus. And if we switch to quarterly briefings, it should be a breeze for NHQ to develop a series of very high quality and very CAP-relevant briefings for use across CAP.
A good start for briefings would be to simply pull the 79's from your wing and discuss.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 03, 2011, 03:15:36 AM
A good start for briefings would be to simply pull the 79's from your wing and discuss.
That, right there, is far better than a formal presentation on some pre-defined topic.
I would suggest actually loosening the safety topic restriction somewhat to eliminate the need for it to be tied to CAP operations. The goal is to get people thinking about safety, and such topics can come from home, work, school, anywhere. Want to get people thinking, try looking up the latest nominees for the Darwin Awards!
Of course, if you're doing the in-brief for a SAREX, the safety topic that is obvious is a discussion of the hazards and mitigation strategies for that event, but for a weekly meeting, more variety is called for. A culture of safety is about making safety integral, not a box you check off. A culture of safety means that safety doesn't stop when the event does, so your topics of discussion shouldn't be boxed in either.
I get Safety emails from FAA or AOPA almost daily. These should be considered as qualifying for the monthly or quarterly safety sessions. There are several external to CAP Safety subjects available to CAP members if they only look around and such briefings would qualify for the current CAP requirements.
This is very strange. People did not jump the the uniform-related topics. Is everyone feeling ok?
Col. W.
If it were not too late, I would suggest the following related to uniform changes.
There needs to be a fiscal impact considered of the membership and more specifically what the individual member would bear in terms of cost if the uniform change were implemented. That figure needs to be included with any NHQ-prescribed uniform change. Wing and local commanders take that into consideration during those types of special events by offering a t-shirt or baseball cap, explaining the cost, and giving the member the option of voluntarily purchasing the item.
In regard to the CSU, too often on these pages, the most common argument as to why the uniform needed to be retained was due to the cost incurred by the member. In my own experience, assorted senior wing/region/NHQ leadership would show up at wing or region conferences and push the uniforms almost to the point of intimidation.
When the command patch changed four times in just as many years, and there were changes to name tapes twice on the BDU or utility uniforms, nobody ever factored the cost incurred on the individual member. Those costs should include the cost of the badge or uniform item and/or the cost of replacement of a uniform item damaged by the previous patch's removal. These days when wing/national dues are increasing to a point close to $100 a year, these small costs add up and create a burden on the membership that has a direct bearing on whether they renew or not.
I would also suggest that NHQ develop a form, complete with routing/approval process, so that the individual member could recommend a change or design a badge or patch.
And, although not part of the agenda items, I suggest that CAP formally adopt the Air Force's healdry standards and procedures for FUTURE changes to things like wing patches.
I didn't mean for people to start...
The current process he is tossing about is an online solution for what you are saying. Individual member costs would be factored in that as well as in all NB proposals, as it is being discussed.
The problem we may have, as I see it, is that if we make leaps to standardize the uniform and get things in order for a BIG fix, it could be that there might be higher costs. That can be reduced a bit by allowing a decent transition period, but the thing we have going on here is OUT OF CONTROL. We have a CRAP LOAD of versions of just the golf shirt! And that's the simplest uniform!
The thing is that most of the uniform changes are so minor that the member cost is insignificant. For example, changing a patch is not going to cost enough to really be a factor.
Now, if we're talking about a major change (eliminating CSU or changing BDUs) then the cost is probably enough to be worth mentioning. But, even then cost is going to be a relative factor. To some members, spending $200 on a new dress uniform isn't a big deal while to others it just isn't worth it. There is no way to objectively look at cost given those different perspectives.
If it is helpful, every single session of the National Uniform Committee I have attended have included discussions about costs (or savings) to members when considering changes.
Ned Lee
Member, National Uniform Committee
Quote from: JC004 on August 03, 2011, 03:43:54 PM
This is very strange. People did not jump the the uniform-related topics. Is everyone feeling ok?
HA! I was waiting for someone to notice, but, this IS "the lobby". We would have to start yet a nother thread in the uniforms and awards area . . . .
I agree with JC0004. A lengthy phase in/out period would help with member costs. Buying one item here and there spaced out over time is a lot more budget friendly than spending $200.00 at once. Just look at the AF and how long there phase in/out period is.
Quote from: Ned on August 03, 2011, 05:06:32 PM
If it is helpful, every single session of the National Uniform Committee I have attended have included discussions about costs (or savings) to members when considering changes.
Ned Lee
Member, National Uniform Committee
Man Ned, your on every committee... how do us worker peons get put on committees?
That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members. No commanders, no NEC or NB members, no BOG members. Just your average CAP officer for real input and real feedback.....
Quote from: NCRblues on August 04, 2011, 12:48:05 AM
That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members.
...
;D
Quote from: JC004 on August 04, 2011, 01:30:29 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 04, 2011, 12:48:05 AM
That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members.
...
;D
Anyone going to point out he put an "f" instead of a "v"?
(JC004, am I on the right track?)
Quote from: DakRadz on August 04, 2011, 01:35:18 AM
Quote from: JC004 on August 04, 2011, 01:30:29 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 04, 2011, 12:48:05 AM
That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members.
...
;D
Anyone going to point out he put an "f" instead of a "v"?
(JC004, am I on the right track?)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rank+and+file
?
Quote from: NCRblues on August 04, 2011, 01:52:08 AM
Quote from: DakRadz on August 04, 2011, 01:35:18 AM
Quote from: JC004 on August 04, 2011, 01:30:29 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 04, 2011, 12:48:05 AM
That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members.
...
;D
Anyone going to point out he put an "f" instead of a "v"?
(JC004, am I on the right track?)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rank+and+file
?
Sorry, I was kidding around. Understood what you meant, sir.
Upon further reflection, I have no idea what JC is aiming his smiley at.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 04, 2011, 12:48:05 AM
That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members. No commanders, no NEC or NB members, no BOG members. Just your average CAP officer for real input and real feedback.....
Actually, I fully agree with you. (Although I still think of myself as a worker bee.)
The Uniform Committee is mostly current and former wing commanders and would benefit from having a few "uniform wonks."
And most of the other National Committees tend to be mostly corporate officers as well.
Well, you'd expect that most national-level committees would primarily be made up of those that have worked in CAP at the national level and that is mostly going to be your Colonels. However, I think its pretty clear that most active Colonels have a lot of stuff on their plate and when you are talking about getting into the nitty-gritty of regulation sausage making you need some staff involved. Its not like Senators and Congressmen actually write our laws. In our case NHQ paid staff do most of the writing, but it would make sense to have some folks involved who are actually normal CAP members who would be impacted by those regs.
Quote from: Ned on August 04, 2011, 02:15:14 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 04, 2011, 12:48:05 AM
That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members. No commanders, no NEC or NB members, no BOG members. Just your average CAP officer for real input and real feedback.....
Actually, I fully agree with you. (Although I still think of myself as a worker bee.)
The Uniform Committee is mostly current and former wing commanders and would benefit from having a few "uniform wonks."
And most of the other National Committees tend to be mostly corporate officers as well.
I know someone who would love to be on the uniform committee.... me
Quote from: DakRadz on August 04, 2011, 01:55:57 AM
...
Upon further reflection, I have no idea what JC is aiming his smiley at.
Why not? Anyone who has been around for a while should know I am all about tapping all this potential that we have in the field but goes only slightly used.
Committees made up of corporate officers miss the whole point of a committee.
Someone at the wing CC level should not be turning the wrench on where insignia should be placed, or which shade of blue the pants should be. They should be finding an appointing competent people with proven experience to consider the questions and then submit a recommendation. Obviously they can inject their opinions, but they should not be the ones sitting in a room with swatches and badges.
These are the kinds of things CAC's are supposed to do as well - not plan cadet picnics, but wrench-turn issues and questions submitted to them by CC.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 04, 2011, 04:15:12 AM
Committees made up of corporate officers miss the whole point of a committee.
Someone at the wing CC level should not be turning the wrench on where insignia should be placed, or which shade of blue the pants should be. They should be finding an appointing competent people with proven experience to consider the questions and then submit a recommendation. Obviously they can inject their opinions, but they should not be the ones sitting in a room with swatches and badges.
These are the kinds of things CAC's are supposed to do as well - not plan cadet picnics, but wrench-turn issues and questions submitted to them by CC.
My god, a snowball was just made in hell.... :clap:
AGREE 100%
A commitee made up of colonels to decide uniform wear....OMG.......
WTF were they thinking......after observing the NB & NEC at their meetings (both in person and on the web) and the disfunctional nature at times....we will probably end up with polka dot pants, striped shirts ( and big floppy shoes) so as to be distinctive enuf for the AF!!!!!!!!!!
But then again Radioman would be thrilled.............
With all due respect to the hard work of Ned Lee and his colleagues, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, I do not see the point of making uniform suggestions.
Why?
Because it seems to me, and to others I have spoken to, that, especially in the aftermath of the CSU, NB doesn't care what the membership thinks regarding uniforms. If they did, they wouldn't have axed the popular CSU out of nowhere the way they did, with seemingly no explanation other than the "distinctiveness" cliche, which really has no meaning in hard-and-fast terms.
The way that came down was "you can't have it, and if you can't fit into the AF uniform, you have to make do with the colourless grey/white and wear a blazer that makes you look very un-aviator, and forget about any of your decorations on it."
If the AIR FORCE would have done it that way, the Tony McPeak uniform would be the standard AF service dress today. Don't like those Navy/Airline Pilot sleeve piston rings? TOUGH. WEAR IT.
At one time I had several uniform ideas to send up the chain, but what's the point?
I am sorry if this sounds overly bitter, but honesty is my only excuse.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 04, 2011, 04:15:12 AM
Committees made up of corporate officers miss the whole point of a committee.
Technically, these are committees of the National Board. Sort of like how Congress has comittees made up of Senators and Congressmen. Staff and/or the general public aren't on the committees.
HOWEVER, the committees do have dedicated staff personnel who actually do most of the work. That is what we need here, but I still would think you'd need corporate officers to be the official committee and decide what gets passed on to the NB.
That's the point of focusing on working groups and task forces. Then you have your committees that cover a whole subject matter like Professional Development. The work gets submitted to them, they look at it, send it to the full NB for approval.
The "Solutions" document focuses a lot on that and while it's not included I think that on this topic specifically, if elected, Col Weiss was planning on standing up a Uniform Board like the AF has - which, I think (but am not 100% sure) is a working group as opposed to a National Board committee. I think he'll be back, though, since he started the topic.
Since college gave me a nice boost...in weight, I've been following the CAP weight chart, and wear the Grey/Whites and BBDUs.
To be honest, BOTH look great, but the Grey/Whites do not live up to the Blues for two reasons: lack of a proper cover and lack of proper Service dress option.
Add those two things, and at least it won't feel like a completely secondary outfit.
Some interesting NON-Uniform items:
AGENDA ITEM 8
QuoteIn February 2011, a CAPF 27 was submitted to change the name of Puerto Rico Wing to Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Wing.
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on August 04, 2011, 03:54:41 PM
Some interesting NON-Uniform items:
AGENDA ITEM 8
QuoteIn February 2011, a CAPF 27 was submitted to change the name of Puerto Rico Wing to Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Wing.
I think it's probably a good change, but I wish they'd choose a shorter name. Maybe something like Caribbean Wing.
Quote from: JC004 on August 04, 2011, 11:37:47 AM
That's the point of focusing on working groups and task forces. Then you have your committees that cover a whole subject matter like Professional Development. The work gets submitted to them, they look at it, send it to the full NB for approval.
The "Solutions" document focuses a lot on that and while it's not included I think that on this topic specifically, if elected, Col Weiss was planning on standing up a Uniform Board like the AF has - which, I think (but am not 100% sure) is a working group as opposed to a National Board committee. I think he'll be back, though, since he started the topic.
A uniform board, IMO, will not be a committee. It would be a working group, commissioned by the National Board to make
comprehensive reccommendations for our uniforms; styles, wear direction and, appropriate uses to the NB. I would propose it be comprised of NB members, CAP-USAF representitives and, interested members who have real experience in our history and uniform wear(most likely 1 representitive from each region). I would hope, if constituted, it will address all uniform issues and concerns addressed here and, thru official channels. The recomendations will be based on member and Air Force input/approval. When the work of the board is done; it should be disbanded. I see no other way out of this uniform debate...
Quote from: FW on August 04, 2011, 04:47:12 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 04, 2011, 11:37:47 AM
That's the point of focusing on working groups and task forces. Then you have your committees that cover a whole subject matter like Professional Development. The work gets submitted to them, they look at it, send it to the full NB for approval.
The "Solutions" document focuses a lot on that and while it's not included I think that on this topic specifically, if elected, Col Weiss was planning on standing up a Uniform Board like the AF has - which, I think (but am not 100% sure) is a working group as opposed to a National Board committee. I think he'll be back, though, since he started the topic.
A uniform board, IMO, will not be a committee. It would be a working group, commissioned by the National Board to make comprehensive reccommendations for our uniforms; styles, wear direction and, appropriate uses to the NB. I would propose it be comprised of NB members, CAP-USAF representitives and, interested members who have real experience in our history and uniform wear(most likely 1 representitive from each region). I would hope, if constituted, it will address all uniform issues and concerns addressed here and, thru official channels. The recomendations will be based on member and Air Force input/approval. When the work of the board is done; it should be disbanded. I see no other way out of this uniform debate...
Hm, only one member at large from each region? Well, how do we sign up? ;D
Quote from: NCRblues on August 04, 2011, 05:00:38 PM
Hm, only one member at large from each region? Well, how do we sign up? ;D
Well, it's a good plan- we want more communication and effectiveness than Congress, right?
September 2010 National Board Meeting: Agenda Item 22
CAP Chaplain Qualifications
Finally lowering the requirements to be able to add on CAP Chaplains as opposed to AF ready Chaplains. While I don't see much use of the whole program, I think that's a good move. I think the Chaplain Corps is full of it when their opinion is "This is one of the uniquely distinctive ways that Civil Air Patrol is known to be an exceptional organization." I don't think many within CAP, or those impacted by our three missions, or the general public think that the Chaplain requirements is what makes this an exceptional organization. Then again, I think the CC has too much influence as is.
Quote from: jeders on August 04, 2011, 04:02:36 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on August 04, 2011, 03:54:41 PM
Some interesting NON-Uniform items:
AGENDA ITEM 8
QuoteIn February 2011, a CAPF 27 was submitted to change the name of Puerto Rico Wing to Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Wing.
I think it's probably a good change, but I wish they'd choose a shorter name. Maybe something like Caribbean Wing.
If you read that one more closely, they've previously approved the change, but then someone realized that it was beyond the authority of the NB to do so.
That's because PRWG's unique status in the Constitution and Bylaws (ie. not being a "state"). This means that the NB now needs to forward a reco to the BoG to amend the C&B to make this happen. I predict relatively little controversy on this one!
Quote from: FW on August 04, 2011, 04:47:12 PM
A uniform board, IMO, will not be a committee. It would be a working group, commissioned by the National Board to make comprehensive reccommendations for our uniforms; styles, wear direction and, appropriate uses to the NB. I would propose it be comprised of NB members, CAP-USAF representitives and, interested members who have real experience in our history and uniform wear(most likely 1 representitive from each region). I would hope, if constituted, it will address all uniform issues and concerns addressed here and, thru official channels. The recomendations will be based on member and Air Force input/approval. When the work of the board is done; it should be disbanded.
A temporary uniform board will only work if along with that the NB and BoG are prohibited from initiating uniform-related regulations without having run them through a new uniform board. Otherwise we will just be right back in the same situation in a few years. Unfortunately, that sort of restriction wouldn't have any real teeth unless it was part of the CAP Constitution, and even that can be changed relatively easily.
Col Weiss....Let me disagree on several points. With your makeup of the Uniform Committee, 50% of the votes are "corporate votes". 50% would be from average members (who selects them by the way?) with the CAP-USAF member having the deciding vote. It's been shown that the NEC has more or less made a shambles of uniform regulations over the past ten years. May I suggest that the National CC appoint 8 members joined by a Representative from the NEC, a Representative of the National Board, The representative of CAP-USAFand Susie Parker (who had knowledge of prior uniform items better than most NB,NEC members)
Rather than disband the committee at the end of their labors, retain the committee. Any Uniform changes from the NEC goes to the Uniform Committee then to the National Board. This will give the membership a voice in uniform matters. Further, no uniform changes would come from the NEC until the Committee completed it work. (meaning the NEC bypassing the Committee)
Of course a possible change from BDU to ACU might occur while the Committee in working. And with emails, Skype and conference calls, the committee never has to physically meet to start with.
Why the ACU? its ARMY Do mean ABU? ITS AIR FORCE
Also, I wouldn't recommend having CAP-USAF on the uniform board primarily because they appear to not to want to get involved in most corporate uniform issues.
Riv; Let me clarify my position.
The National Board will authorize this group to make the decisions/recommendations with Air Force approvals. The BoG will not interfere with uniforms unless the SECAF/CSAF orders it. The NEC will not deal with uniforms unless the NB refers it. And, the National Commader would ensure all groups work together. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is a function of a National Commander.
BillB; the make up of the Board would be made with consultation of the NB. I would hope for a fair representation of all parties. However, I think the commander would have significant influence in its make up and charter. The key, IMO, is in getting member input and distilling all the "wants" into concrete recommendations for the NB.
In three years, another commander may initiate another board however, that's another story...
Makes sense ........I would recommend all uniform modifications be tested before changing(like the USAF).
For PR Wing, what along name (could use Southern Territorial Wing) STWG
Quote from: FW on August 04, 2011, 05:41:46 PM
Riv; Let me clarify my position.
(. . .) The BoG will not interfere with uniforms unless the SECAF/CSAF orders it. The NEC will not deal with uniforms unless the NB refers it. And, the National Commader would ensure all groups work together. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is a function of a National Commander.
I'm not sure how the National Commander can do this.
While the BoG has displayed absolutely no interest in dealing with uniform issues, they do not take "orders" from SECAF, CSAF, or the CAP CC. Nor does the National Commander get to set the BoG's agenda unless he/she happens to be the current Chair. The National Commander is just 1 vote out of 11. The BoG was deliberately set up so that no one stakeholder (CAP, USAF, or outside directors) can control. Thus, the stakeholders need to work together.
Similarly, absent a change to the CAP constitution, the NB does not have the power to restrict the NEC from considering uniform issues. (Actually, I think the constitution should forbid
either group from dealing with uniforms, but that's just me.)
The National Commander certainly chairs the NB and NEC and has significant influence over the agendas of each body, but individual wing and region commanders are still entitled to put agenda items forward for consideration by the group.
IOW, it is not a "function" of the National Commander to control the BoG.
Maybe possible governance changes lie in our future.
Ned Lee
Quote from: Ned on August 04, 2011, 06:24:36 PM
Similarly, absent a change to the CAP constitution, the NB does not have the power to restrict the NEC from considering uniform issues. (Actually, I think the constitution should forbid either group from dealing with uniforms, but that's just me.)
Really? My understanding is that the NEC is empowered with, essentially, the same powers as the NB. It functions as, essentially, a committee of the NB when the NB is not in session.
Generally, a parent body (which is what I would consider the NB in this relationship), can reserve certain authority to their, and only their, consideration. A subordinate committee would then not have the authority to consider such actions.
<Note, this is from a general understanding of similar organizations, not any detailed reading of CAP's C&B...I post it hoping someone can educate me on why I'm wrong!>
Quote from: Ned on August 04, 2011, 06:24:36 PM
Quote from: FW on August 04, 2011, 05:41:46 PM
Riv; Let me clarify my position.
(. . .) The BoG will not interfere with uniforms unless the SECAF/CSAF orders it. The NEC will not deal with uniforms unless the NB refers it. And, the National Commader would ensure all groups work together. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is a function of a National Commander.
I'm not sure how the National Commander can do this.
While the BoG has displayed absolutely no interest in dealing with uniform issues, they do not take "orders" from SECAF, CSAF, or the CAP CC. Nor does the National Commander get to set the BoG's agenda unless he/she happens to be the current Chair. The National Commander is just 1 vote out of 11. The BoG was deliberately set up so that no one stakeholder (CAP, USAF, or outside directors) can control. Thus, the stakeholders need to work together.
Similarly, absent a change to the CAP constitution, the NB does not have the power to restrict the NEC from considering uniform issues. (Actually, I think the constitution should forbid either group from dealing with uniforms, but that's just me.)
The National Commander certainly chairs the NB and NEC and has significant influence over the agendas of each body, but individual wing and region commanders are still entitled to put agenda items forward for consideration by the group.
IOW, it is not a "function" of the National Commander to control the BoG.
Maybe possible governance changes lie in our future.
Ned Lee
Exactly, the BoG has no interest (as far as I know) in uniform issues and, IMHO, would not deal with them unless asked by the SECAF/CSAF (like in 2006).
Until 2009 it was the policy of CAP to keep uniform issues to the Winter NB meeting. That changed in Nov 2009. If it becomes policy to implement this Uniform Board by the NB. It will be the National Commander's duty to enforce this policy until it is changed. The NEC could bring up an exception however, it would be the Commander's prerogative to refer it to the NB; as it was the body so initiating it. While postponing isn't guaranteed, the commander's wishes usually prevail in these cases.
Oh, did I say the National Commander would control the BoG? I thought I said ensure everyone works together. To me there is a difference between the two statements... but, I'm not an attorney; I only "create smiles" for a living... ;D
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on August 04, 2011, 05:06:24 PM
September 2010 National Board Meeting: Agenda Item 22
CAP Chaplain Qualifications
Finally lowering the requirements to be able to add on CAP Chaplains as opposed to AF ready Chaplains. While I don't see much use of the whole program, I think that's a good move. I think the Chaplain Corps is full of it when their opinion is "This is one of the uniquely distinctive ways that Civil Air Patrol is known to be an exceptional organization." I don't think many within CAP, or those impacted by our three missions, or the general public think that the Chaplain requirements is what makes this an exceptional organization. Then again, I think the CC has too much influence as is.
I'm very sorry you feel this way. :(
I earnestly and honestly believe that most CAP Chaplains want to be of service to the organization and it's constituents in the most positive manner possible. I know that we are not universally well thought of by the membership...and I know that there are those chaplains' who are to big for their britches!! I hope that Chaplains who are innappropriate and members who have a low opinion of Chaplains are minorities.
Quote from: FW on August 04, 2011, 06:48:50 PM
Until 2009 it was the policy of CAP to keep uniform issues to the Winter NB meeting. That changed in Nov 2009.
Sir, I have been suspicious ever since then what motivated the NEC to believe they had to act with such alacrity in November 2009 on an issue that had not been dealt with in such a fashion until then...with no input from the rank-and-file that I know of.
WRT USVI/Puerto Rico...I have often wondered about the status of not just CAP personnel, but military personnel in general, especially National Guard. PR has an Army and an Air National Guard,
and an SDF, yet they are not a State...I believe the USVI has a nonflying ANG unit. I'm not sure of the Constitutional authority of this; but I remember the phrase "the National Guard of the several States..." ah, well, what do I know.
I know the PRANG flies C-130s and at one time flew F-16's, A-7's and F-104's...probably as a deterrent to Warsaw Pact operations out of Cuba.
I don't know the geography well enough to know how far apart physically the USVI and PR are, but would there be logistical problems "getting there from here" for personnel from both locales? What is their mission, since the USCG is well established in Puerto Rico (CGAS Borinquen) and I imagine they have SAR in hand...but again my knowledge of that area is very limited.
FW is correct he creates smiles. But he BRACES for the conflicts in CAP. and tries to get to the ROOT of the problems. It's something he can sink his teeth into.
People still get lost on land, even on islands. Hurricanes seem to come through there regularly. Then, of course there is still cadet programs and AE.
Quote from: DogCollar on August 04, 2011, 07:08:43 PM
I'm very sorry you feel this way. :(
So am I.
I have only served in one squadron which had a chaplain, a Presbyterian minister.
This guy was as GTG as any I've seen. Not only was he an exceptional "sky pilot" but he also had several ES quals and actively reached out to AFRES and ANG units nearby to see how he could help their Chaplains out.
We were very sorry to lose him when he took a call to a congregation in another state.
Quote from: BillB on August 04, 2011, 07:19:13 PM
FW is correct he creates smiles. But he BRACES for the conflicts in CAP. and tries to get to the ROOT of the problems. It's something he can sink his teeth into.
While applying his WISDOM, right? 8)
Quote from: CyBorg on August 04, 2011, 07:16:53 PM
Quote from: FW on August 04, 2011, 06:48:50 PM
Until 2009 it was the policy of CAP to keep uniform issues to the Winter NB meeting. That changed in Nov 2009.
Sir, I have been suspicious ever since then what motivated the NEC to believe they had to act with such alacrity in November 2009 on an issue that had not been dealt with in such a fashion until then...with no input from the rank-and-file that I know of.
WRT USVI/Puerto Rico...I have often wondered about the status of not just CAP personnel, but military personnel in general, especially National Guard. PR has an Army and an Air National Guard, and an SDF, yet they are not a State...I believe the USVI has a nonflying ANG unit. I'm not sure of the Constitutional authority of this; but I remember the phrase "the National Guard of the several States..." ah, well, what do I know.
I know the PRANG flies C-130s and at one time flew F-16's, A-7's and F-104's...probably as a deterrent to Warsaw Pact operations out of Cuba.
I don't know the geography well enough to know how far apart physically the USVI and PR are, but would there be logistical problems "getting there from here" for personnel from both locales? What is their mission, since the USCG is well established in Puerto Rico (CGAS Borinquen) and I imagine they have SAR in hand...but again my knowledge of that area is very limited.
U.S.V.I. is around 50 miles east of Puerto Rico. Yes, there are logistics problems because any visit involves a flight and there is not much money for that. Also, there are cultural and language hurdles. I surveyed many members (in P.R.) and they oppose the name change. They told me that, despite "an alleged majority opposition, the CC is going ahead with the name change to secure funding from U.S.V.I." and that is a quote. Same missions as in CONUS: AE, Cadet Programs, SAR/DR both Inland (100%) and over water (assisting USCG), and lots of CD...lots of it.
Quote from: CyBorg on August 04, 2011, 07:20:32 PM
Quote from: DogCollar on August 04, 2011, 07:08:43 PM
I'm very sorry you feel this way. :(
So am I.
To clarify, I have no issues with most Chaplains, but the write up of reasons to keep (lay?) ministers, etc from CAP chaplain status was just pure bunk. Almost every paragraph had something that in my experience is not true. I have yet to meet a SINGLE CAP Chaplain who did not lead a CHRISTIAN prayer. It's all semantics I suppose, but there are those who believe in monotheism, polytheism, atheism and some don't even fall under any of those categories.
Character Development aka Moral Leadership, as I remember was even a battle to allow CDI, and even that I think is all bull. There are SO many religious values that it's almost counterproductive to use them for something like character development. We all live by different religious values, but we all live (and are expected to) live by the same social values.
I learned my morals/built my character based on my family and friends, not my once a month session with someone at CAP. Along those lines, since we DON'T claim to prefer any religion, the topics of discussion are not religious but actually related to societal values - something just about everyone can guide and lead cadets in discussing.
Quote from: BillB on August 04, 2011, 07:19:13 PM
FW is correct he creates smiles. But he BRACES for the conflicts in CAP. and tries to get to the ROOT of the problems. It's something he can sink his teeth into.
You're nuts.
Quote from: JC004 on August 04, 2011, 10:51:44 PM
Quote from: BillB on August 04, 2011, 07:19:13 PM
FW is correct he creates smiles. But he BRACES for the conflicts in CAP. and tries to get to the ROOT of the problems. It's something he can sink his teeth into.
You're nuts.
That's actually hilarious - well played!
Moderator says no talking about teeth cuz his teeth hurt and need work done! >:D
I very much support limiting the uniform stuff - even with Ned's approach. I do not care to have my money expended for the purpose of sending 66 people from across the country to talk about random uniform changes that get VERY out of control. We'd probably still be in a horrible situation had we not had the moratorium and I'm glad they placed that. I pushed that one for a long while. We have MANY MANY issues and MANY MANY areas where CAP can grow, partner, build, and the like. That's the stuff we need them to be talking about - not the stupid nameplate changes.
Silver nameplate with just name, silver nameplate with "Civil Air Patrol," silver nameplate with "U.S. Civil Air Patrol," back to silver nameplate without "U.S.," then back to just the silver nameplate with name. Round corporate seal FDU patch, USAF Auxiliary shield FDU patch, "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" FDU patch, "Civil Air Patrol" FDU patch... Really, folks? Important issues, not nameplates and patches. I REALLY hope that's what happens when that moratorium is done soon.
Quote from: JC004 on August 05, 2011, 10:05:14 AM
Important issues, not nameplates and patches. I REALLY hope that's what happens when that moratorium is done soon.
Well actually a good decision to make would be to continue the moratorium. I don't think in the uniform area, there's a big drum beating to force any changes at this point. The way the economy is, don't need forced changes just for the sake of changes. ALL of our missions are being completed successfully with the current wide variety uniforms we have.
Too much time at all of these board meetings is spent on trivia, when they really need to be focusing on goals, long, medium, and short periods, and ensure the membership is fully aware of these and a mechanism is established so the general membership knows where we stand in relation accomplishing these goals.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 05, 2011, 05:33:00 PMI don't think in the uniform area, there's a big drum beating to force any changes at this point.
Of course you don't.
However the issues of field uniforms, and the upcoming retirement of the CSU are significant issues that effect a lot of our most active members.
As of 1 Jan, we will no longer have a full set of corporate uniforms that meets mission requirements.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 05, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 05, 2011, 10:05:14 AM
Important issues, not nameplates and patches. I REALLY hope that's what happens when that moratorium is done soon.
Well actually a good decision to make would be to continue the moratorium. I don't think in the uniform area, there's a big drum beating to force any changes at this point. The way the economy is, don't need forced changes just for the sake of changes. ALL of our missions are being completed successfully with the current wide variety uniforms we have.
Too much time at all of these board meetings is spent on trivia, when they really need to be focusing on goals, long, medium, and short periods, and ensure the membership is fully aware of these and a mechanism is established so the general membership knows where we stand in relation accomplishing these goals.
RM
How else exactly are we going to get the red nametapes?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 05, 2011, 05:55:00 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 05, 2011, 05:33:00 PMI don't think in the uniform area, there's a big drum beating to force any changes at this point.
Of course you don't.
However the issues of field uniforms, and the upcoming retirement of the CSU are significant issues that effect a lot of our most active members.
As of 1 Jan, we will no longer have a full set of corporate uniforms that meets mission requirements.
What mission requirements were met by the CSU that couldn't be handled by the original CDU equivalent to the AF Style Blues (short sleeve, long sleeve and Service Dress combinations)?
Short Sleeve blues == White shirt/grey pants
Long Sleeve blues == White shirt/grey pants
Service Dress == White shirt/grey pants/Blazer
Mess Dress/Semi-formal == White shirt/grey pants/Blazer in semi-formal configuration
CSU was a way to add a set of uniforms that did NOT need to be added as we already had a CAP Distinctive equivalent to the AF Style blues.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 05, 2011, 06:27:16 PMCSU was a way to add a set of uniforms that did NOT need to be added as we already had a CAP Distinctive equivalent to the AF Style blues.
No. We did not.
The blazer is in no way equivalent in form or function to the CSU or USAF-style service dress jacket(s), especially if you are involved in
activities which interact with the military in formal situations such as encampments, NCSA's, award banquets, etc.
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on August 04, 2011, 09:11:50 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on August 04, 2011, 07:20:32 PM
Quote from: DogCollar on August 04, 2011, 07:08:43 PM
I'm very sorry you feel this way. :(
So am I.
To clarify, I have no issues with most Chaplains, but the write up of reasons to keep (lay?) ministers, etc from CAP chaplain status was just pure bunk. Almost every paragraph had something that in my experience is not true. I have yet to meet a SINGLE CAP Chaplain who did not lead a CHRISTIAN prayer. It's all semantics I suppose, but there are those who believe in monotheism, polytheism, atheism and some don't even fall under any of those categories.
Character Development aka Moral Leadership, as I remember was even a battle to allow CDI, and even that I think is all bull. There are SO many religious values that it's almost counterproductive to use them for something like character development. We all live by different religious values, but we all live (and are expected to) live by the same social values.
I learned my morals/built my character based on my family and friends, not my once a month session with someone at CAP. Along those lines, since we DON'T claim to prefer any religion, the topics of discussion are not religious but actually related to societal values - something just about everyone can guide and lead cadets in discussing.
Having had previous experience in law enforcement chaplaincy ... the requirements that the agencies that I served with used the same requirements as CAP -- there was a recognized standard approved by the DoD which gave some degree of validation to the person's education and experience. In that, the CAP Chaplain Corps has served as a model for other organizations/institutions who have volunteer or paid chaplains. Hence: "This is one of the uniquely distinctive ways that Civil Air Patrol is known to be an exceptional organization."
One of these days, I trust that you have the opportunity to be in a setting where I pray -- I am very cautious to the audience to whom is there and would not characterize my prayer as "Christian" (if you mean by that the closing before the "Amen"). In my 15 years of serving as a CAP, the content of my prayers has never been an issue.
In the past couple of years, there have significant measures in the training of the Chaplains -- an honest to goodness Specialty Track with requirements for ratings; no waivers for SLS and CLC; etc. Look for similar changes in the CDI specialty track as well.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 05, 2011, 06:37:51 PM
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 05, 2011, 06:27:16 PMCSU was a way to add a set of uniforms that did NOT need to be added as we already had a CAP Distinctive equivalent to the AF Style blues.
No. We did not.
The blazer is in no way equivalent in form or function to the CSU or USAF-style service dress jacket(s), especially if you are involved in
activities which interact with the military in formal situations such as encampments, NCSA's, award banquets, etc.
It worked for years prior to the CSU, what changed? I see NO problem with a blazer at those types of events, heck that is practically what the USAF Service Dress jacket really is.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 05, 2011, 08:35:00 PMIt worked for years prior to the CSU, what changed? I see NO problem with a blazer at those types of events, heck that is practically what the USAF Service Dress jacket really is.
The cut of the cloth, nor the color is the issue. It is the fact that members are not allowed to display their accomplishments
and standing in the same, equal way as everyone else (you knew that, but if you want to pursue this conversation, fine).
Members in blazers look like insurance salesmen next to those in the USAF-style jackets.
There's nothing wrong with the white / grays. Just give us a hat, and a proper jacket that allows for everyone to be equal in plumage.
The CSU and TPU would have been fine if left in place with the grey name tag and slides. I know People who spent the money. These are some high value folks.
Quote from: JC004 on August 05, 2011, 10:05:14 AM
Moderator says no talking about teeth cuz his teeth hurt and need work done! >:D
I very much support limiting the uniform stuff - even with Ned's approach. I do not care to have my money expended for the purpose of sending 66 people from across the country to talk about random uniform changes that get VERY out of control. We'd probably still be in a horrible situation had we not had the moratorium and I'm glad they placed that. I pushed that one for a long while. We have MANY MANY issues and MANY MANY areas where CAP can grow, partner, build, and the like. That's the stuff we need them to be talking about - not the stupid nameplate changes.
Silver nameplate with just name, silver nameplate with "Civil Air Patrol," silver nameplate with "U.S. Civil Air Patrol," back to silver nameplate without "U.S.," then back to just the silver nameplate with name. Round corporate seal FDU patch, USAF Auxiliary shield FDU patch, "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" FDU patch, "Civil Air Patrol" FDU patch... Really, folks? Important issues, not nameplates and patches. I REALLY hope that's what happens when that moratorium is done soon.
YES!!!!! THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!! Multiply that problem when you have a family of four in the program and two of them are cadets; all with two or more uniforms that have to be changed!!!! That's exactly what I meant by fiscal impact on the member.[/size]
Another question: How many members are in USVI. Are there pilots and GTs there? What is the cadet and AE program like?
I work with non-profits and I do a lot of volunteer things elsewhere. Many times in answering questions about CAP, I've heard things along the lines of "You pay that much to volunteer?" or "I would do that if it didn't cost so much."
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 05, 2011, 06:27:16 PM
CSU was a way to add a set of uniforms that did NOT need to be added as we already had a CAP Distinctive equivalent to the AF Style blues.
Um, no.
I do not see how the CSU can realistically be equated to the G/W and especially the bloody awful blazer/pocket protector.
I have not yet met anyone in CAP who actually
likes the G/W as a uniform - usually I hear the following reasons as to why a member wears it:
1. I have to since I can't wear the AF uniform (weight/grooming)
2. It's cheap (probably the most common)
3. It's easy to take care of (just throw it in the wash)
4. No-one will come down on me if a badge/gigline/whatever isn't "just so"
5. I don't have to do customs & courtesies
6. It won't get me/us in trouble with the Air Force
7. Well, I've got to have it as at least a basic uniform
Hardly ringing endorsements, I would say.
If you go back and look the supplements to 39-1 about the CSU, several of them acknowledge its popularity and that more members were wearing it. It was actually a
uniform. The G/W isn't "uniform" in most senses of the word.
Quote from: CyBorg on August 06, 2011, 02:12:08 PM
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 05, 2011, 06:27:16 PM
CSU was a way to add a set of uniforms that did NOT need to be added as we already had a CAP Distinctive equivalent to the AF Style blues.
I do not see how the CSU can realistically be equated to the G/W and especially the bloody awful blazer/pocket protector.
It CAN be realistically equated, the CSU and Aviator/Blazer uniform, they are both CAP Distinctive Uniforms. One, the Aviator/Blazer, served its purpose, as a CAP Distinctive Uniform for many years. The CSU merely duplicated that effort at a LARGE cost to the membership (especially the jacket).
Whether one likes the uniform or not is not the issue, heck just read comments about the ABUs or even the blues from those currently in the AF, many hate the uniform combinations we currently have. However they serve their purpose.
As for it looking "bloody awful", I chalk that up to the wearer, if they have pride in how they look they will make it look good. Nothing says you can't tailor the shirt a little, nothing says you can't get the CAP Crest as a separate pin instead of using the magnetic "pocket protector" (this is what I use), and NOWHERE does it say you don't have to use customs & courtesies. It is the little things that help you take pride in the uniform and make it look sharp. If SM Bag-o-doughnuts is saying "well I can get away with not keeping my gigline straight because I'm wearing the Aviator uniform" then they are going to look like fecal matter along with showing they don't have pride in how they look.
The only thing not uniform about the Aviator Shirt Uniform is the style/shade of the pants, however at one point that issue was solved because CAPMart/Bookstore had sold the pants, and if I recall a blazer too.
Just a note, I've been known to wear the Aviator shirt uniform and Blazer, even with being within weight standards, simply because I like the uniform. Do I make it look like I just rolled out of bed with it on? No, I hold it to the same maintenance and care standard as I would my blues.
You are the first person I've encountered who actually says they LIKE the G/W.
Seriously.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 06, 2011, 02:34:08 PMIt CAN be realistically equated, the CSU and Aviator/Blazer uniform, they are both CAP Distinctive Uniforms. One, the Aviator/Blazer, served its purpose, as a CAP Distinctive Uniform for many years. The CSU merely duplicated that effort at a LARGE cost to the membership (especially the jacket).
"Equated" and "equivalent" do not mean the same thing. "Equated" is generally an equivocation.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 06, 2011, 02:34:08 PM
Just a note, I've been known to wear the Aviator shirt uniform and Blazer, even with being within weight standards, simply because I like the uniform. Do I make it look like I just rolled out of bed with it on? No, I hold it to the same maintenance and care standard as I would my blues.
Oh course you do, because you take pride in your appearance, but that's not the point here.
The fact that you have a choice is the point.
For those who, for whatever, reason choose to downplay the paramilitary nature of CAP and out connection to the USAF, those who "couldn't be bothered", regardless, and for the cases where a more corporate appearance is either appropriate or necessary, the blazer is fine.
But supposing the blazer is equivalent to the CSU jacket or the USAF-style service coat is a silly argument. We all know they aren't the same thing, and if you're going to be a paramilitary organization, and present paramilitary decorations and badges, why would you then prohibit a large portion of your membership from wearing those same decs and badges formally, and in equal stead with their peers?
Not to mention or appearance in relation to our USAF brethren.
"Who's that? The line judge?"
"Um..no, that's the commmander..."
"Really, hm."
That's the crux of the argument.
I've become used to the G/W; at least it allows one to wear grade insignia, a badge, some ribbons.
The blazer, however, makes us look like business people...nothing against entrepreneurs, but that's not our function!
On all these uniform discussions. I may have missed something (those minutes have a lot of changes on the composition of the Uniform Board) but basically hasn't ANY uniform changes been put on hold for 2 years ???
Unfortunately, with any of these Boards or Committee, they always have to change something (otherwise they all would think they are wasting their time). Hopefully there will be NO mandatory uniform changes for at least 3 to 4 years or longer.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 06, 2011, 05:53:52 PM
On all these uniform discussions. I may have missed something (those minutes have a lot of changes on the composition of the Uniform Board) but basically hasn't ANY uniform changes been put on hold for 2 years ???
Unfortunately, with any of these Boards or Committee, they always have to change something (otherwise they all would think they are wasting their time). Hopefully there will be NO mandatory uniform changes for at least 3 to 4 years or longer.
RM
That will partially work to your purposes, and partially not.
First, it will ensure that those who cannot/do not wear the AF uniform are SOL as far as having a truly aviation-styled uniform to wear for at least the period of that moratorium.
Second...it means that you cannot push your agenda for Salvation Army-modelled accoutrements for at least the period of that moratorium.
Quote from: CyBorg on August 06, 2011, 08:46:03 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 06, 2011, 05:53:52 PM
On all these uniform discussions. I may have missed something (those minutes have a lot of changes on the composition of the Uniform Board) but basically hasn't ANY uniform changes been put on hold for 2 years ???
Unfortunately, with any of these Boards or Committee, they always have to change something (otherwise they all would think they are wasting their time). Hopefully there will be NO mandatory uniform changes for at least 3 to 4 years or longer.
RM
That will partially work to your purposes, and partially not.
First, it will ensure that those who cannot/do not wear the AF uniform are SOL as far as having a truly aviation-styled uniform to wear for at least the period of that moratorium.
Second...it means that you cannot push your agenda for Salvation Army-modelled accoutrements for at least the period of that moratorium.
I think CAP has got much more organizational problems, and will have even more problems with the upcoming revised DOD budget. due to cuts being imposed due to the deficit, to be even considering any major changes to our uniforms. Everything is working fine the way it is, except for a small vocal minority.
Uniforms are not a burning issue for me, I will continue to wear my various type of golf shirts to most CAP activities :angel:
RM
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 07, 2011, 07:46:20 PMI think CAP has got much more organizational problems, and will have even more problems with the upcoming revised DOD budget. due to cuts being imposed due to the deficit,
Cite the specific cuts which affect CAP.
Regardless, budget buts have no effect on efforts to streamline, correct, and deconflict regulations, nor on uniform issues, since CAP doesn't pay for them.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 07, 2011, 07:50:33 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 07, 2011, 07:46:20 PMI think CAP has got much more organizational problems, and will have even more problems with the upcoming revised DOD budget. due to cuts being imposed due to the deficit,
Cite the specific cuts which affect CAP.
Regardless, budget buts have no effect on efforts to streamline, correct, and deconflict regulations, nor on uniform issues, since CAP doesn't pay for them.
Ok I'll cave in on getting all the administrative mumbo jumbo in a more effective & efficient form, it would be nice to just look at a publication and not have to look at policy letters, etc.
HOWEVER, we are going to see a budget cut in support to CAP. It's going to be DOD wide. Here's how I see it -- It's unclear how much in FY 12 will be affected, but likely anything involving hardware acquisition, that doesn't have a firm contract signed is going to get deferred/cancelled. Likely they are going to look at the overall O&M expense/commitment level at mid point (March 2012). There are some specific expenses that likely will have a ceiling imposed or even eliminated. End of fiscal year "fallout" money may actually be expected to be returned to treasury rather than spent. FY 13/14/15 and beyone will see much more Operations & Maintenance type funding cuts, likely they will look at reducing total aircraft authorizations (likely C130's, KC135's, C5's, F16's, F15's) and thus the number of flying squadrons and base will be affected. Look for an almost total pull out of military forces from Europe. I would also look for a personnel reduction in force both officer and enlisted, as well as civilians. There also is going to be an ongoing review of any military leased facilities, and contracts coming up for renewal will have organizations looking to move onto military bases, so it is possible that CAP's footprint on a base (square footage available for offices) might be reduced, so other active units can move on base. Retirees/dependents/survivors will be paying more for their health care.
Civil Air Patrol, needs to at the top of their game at all times. IF it's radio equipment, better be having at least quarterly nationwide exercises. IF it's aircraft, be sure we are maxing out the time and that time is for actual missions, practice missions, and reasonable proficiency flying --- we've got to get out an market ourselves to other potential customers. IF it's vehicles, they are being used and not just parked. It's going to be difficult, because more people are going to loose their jobs and/or get reduced benefits, so they may have to pull back on their participation level or perhaps not even renew their membership.
RM
OK, so there's going to be a DoD budget cut. The impact may be that CAP is asked to do more wih less. It could be a chance for our organization to shine and set the standard for higher funding in the future; especially if it is possible for a re-writing of the law that started the Aux On/Aux Off nonsense.
It could be a real opportunity to be the force multiplier that everyone talks about, but you never really see.
The problem with this organization now is that we've created empires at NHQ and at other echelons of command where the dues keep growing to pay for a lot of things the individual member never sees. It is also the fact that and deals are made with things like Vanguard, which brings in a small percentage of revenue for the corporation, but again on the backs again of the individual members.
You may even see a return to flying missions with private aircraft......wouldn't that be something.....
Having spent some time dealing wiith the vagaries of the DOD funding system, I can tell you that: If you shine by doing more with less; you will get a nice thank you, maybe an award, and also a slashed budget allotment, since you didn't spend it all and ask for more...
Quote from: Al Sayre on August 08, 2011, 12:27:47 PM
Having spent some time dealing wiith the vagaries of the DOD funding system, I can tell you that: If you shine by doing more with less; you will get a nice thank you, maybe an award, and also a slashed budget allotment, since you didn't spend it all and ask for more...
The logic being if you didn't use it all you didn't need it so we slash your budget to what you did need and we'll put the rest somewhere else. Saving money and cutting costs is admirable but when you consider it in the bigger picture it only causes others to realize that you don't need that extra money and reallocate it to someone more willing to spend it. Therefore, the only person you're serving by cutting costs unless your budget has already been cut is the guy getting your excess cash.
That's not exclusive to the DoD - it happens everywhere in the government and probably in corporations as well.
The Air Force budget rule that I remember was that if you didn't use it, you'd lose it.
However, I was speaking Air Force-wide, not the CAP or related line item.
The thing is, back in the 1970s when DoD spending was slashed under the Carter Administration, CAP ended up doing more because the Air Force couldn't fund it's own forces doing the same stuff....that's my experience with this situation.
I guess, just like the rest of the federal fiscal situation, we need to sit back and watch because the decisions are being made by powers that be that are higher than my CAP paygrade ;)
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 08, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
...
The thing is, back in the 1970s when DoD spending was slashed under the Carter Administration, CAP ended up doing more because the Air Force couldn't fund it's own forces doing the same stuff....that's my experience with this situation.
...
What are some examples of this?
Find the 1978 and 79 Reports to Congress.
In 1978, the CAP started flying more Air Force assigned missions -- 896 to be precise -- 79 more than the year before. There were also 16 Air Force assigned "natural disaster" missions in 11 states.
In 1979, a close "beneficial" relationship between the CAP and USAF was cited. That same year, at the request of the Air Force. CAP flew an airman who overdosed from Clear AFS to Fairbanks for treatment.
I was assigned with the Alaskan Air Command when that occurred. I can also tell you that during period, cuts in defense spending resulted in a loss of acquisitions for parts, so the Air Force had a lot of Class III hangar queens because they were scavanging parts from aircraft in maintenance to keep other aircraft mission capable.
As I remember, from the rescue side alone, 71st ARRS at Elmendorf had 4 HC-130s and 10 HH-3s. At any given time during that era, only two of the HC-130s and six of the helicopters were fully mission capable -- and that was a combat-ready unit. Elmendorf at the time was home to the 21st Composite/Tactical Fighter Wing and equipped with F-4s and T-33s. The statistics were similar.
The CAP on the other hand, maintained a very close working relationship with what was then the Alaskan Air Command, to the point that there was even a radio net station on the base.
My personal favorite is the blue rank sleves on senior member uniforms during that era.
My most important question is what can we take to the Auxiliary office at the Pentagon and say to the Air Staff, "we can offer this in the budget cuts"? Based on the lessons of history, capabilities of today, and the modernizing Air Force?
If we can answer this, there is a very real possibility, depending on who is elected National CC, that those items would be taken right to where they need to go.
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 09, 2011, 11:32:49 AM
In 1979, a close "beneficial" relationship between the CAP and USAF was cited. That same year, at the request of the Air Force. CAP flew an airman who overdosed from Clear AFS to Fairbanks for treatment.
I cannot even imagine that happening in today's CAP/AF...
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 09, 2011, 11:32:49 AM
The CAP on the other hand, maintained a very close working relationship with what was then the Alaskan Air Command, to the point that there was even a radio net station on the base.
Nor that...someone would probably say, "No, you/we are CIVILIANS...no business operating a radio net station on an Air Force base...after all, some CAP member would probably start trolling for salutes and/or trying to use the Commissary/BX/Shopette/Class Six/gas station, etc....besides, we don't want to bother with uniforms/C&C's."
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 09, 2011, 11:32:49 AM
My personal favorite is the blue rank sleves on senior member uniforms during that era.
I just missed that. I came in during the "berry boards" era. :'(
The ironic thing is, that now many in CAP who have known nothing but the grey epaulettes, or who don't want us in the AF uniform at all (hi Radioman!), are the often the ones who speak out the strongest against us even
proposing to get the blue epaulettes back! Usually the tired argument of "distinctiveness" is wheeled out...but if an observer cannot see that an individual wearing the AF type uniform with blue epaulettes that say
CAP on them and a blue nameplate that says
CIVIL AIR PATROL UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY is indeed "distinctive," then the problem is not the colour of the epaulettes...it is that the person observing cannot read. After all, older cadets wearing their blue epaulettes arguably look more like actual AF personnel than any CAP officer!
Quote from: CyBorg on August 09, 2011, 08:02:36 PM
After all, older cadets wearing their blue epaulettes arguably look more like actual AF personnel than any CAP officer!
Wearing a blue uniform, with blue rank slides, with United States Air Force Auxiliary on my name plate- I get more "So are you in the Army?" than anything else.
These civilians don't understand things like the fact that blue means USAF/USCG, epaulets mean (cadet) officer for both of these, USCG doesn't have many personnel in the land-locked center of Ohio, and
we are at the Dayton Airshow greatly staffed by the Air Force/Civil Air Patrol!
Sorry, I'm just not the Army type and it's getting old.... :P >:D
Seriously, the only people who would really confuse SMs in uniform for USAF personnel (as opposed to just any service) are those with prior service or strong military ties- and then they can read the nameplate to see
Auxiliary. The General Public is going to either accept what we say or completely ignore us- lowlight/at a distance doesn't matter, if they want to know who we are we tell them.
Cadets typically look more AF because of their smaller guts. Maybe that's the hint?
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on August 09, 2011, 09:22:21 PM
Cadets typically look more AF because of their smaller guts. Maybe that's the hint?
That, plus the lack of grey hair/any hair.
But even with a fit-and-trim SM in the USAF-type uniform and a 19-year-old C/Capt...who's more likely to be confused with an AF officer?
Quote from: CyBorg on August 09, 2011, 08:02:36 PM
I cannot even imagine that happening in today's CAP/AF... Nor that...someone would probably say, "No, you/we are CIVILIANS...no business operating a radio net station on an Air Force base...after all, some CAP member would probably start trolling for salutes and/or trying to use the Commissary/BX/Shopette/Class Six/gas station, etc....besides, we don't want to bother with uniforms/C&C's.
The sad part of the very tired argument is that a Reservist or National Guardsman/woman is actually a civilian unless they are on active duty like IADT, mobilizations or annual tours... all under federal law. That's the reason why they are paid four pay periods on a weekend and no BAS/BAQ or separate rations.
The truth of the matter is that we need to be prepared and ready to accept those opportunities if offered.
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 10, 2011, 01:14:44 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on August 09, 2011, 08:02:36 PM
I cannot even imagine that happening in today's CAP/AF... Nor that...someone would probably say, "No, you/we are CIVILIANS...no business operating a radio net station on an Air Force base...after all, some CAP member would probably start trolling for salutes and/or trying to use the Commissary/BX/Shopette/Class Six/gas station, etc....besides, we don't want to bother with uniforms/C&C's.
The sad part of the very tired argument is that a Reservist or National Guardsman/woman is actually a civilian unless they are on active duty like IADT, mobilizations or annual tours... all under federal law. That's the reason why they are paid four pay periods on a weekend and no BAS/BAQ or separate rations.
The truth of the matter is that we need to be prepared and ready to accept those opportunities if offered.
Incorrect, a reservist is subject to the UCMJ 24/7/365. A guardsman isn't unless on Federal orders.
Quote from: cap235629 on August 10, 2011, 01:27:19 AM
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 10, 2011, 01:14:44 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on August 09, 2011, 08:02:36 PM
The sad part of the very tired argument is that a Reservist or National Guardsman/woman is actually a civilian unless they are on active duty like IADT, mobilizations or annual tours... all under federal law. That's the reason why they are paid four pay periods on a weekend and no BAS/BAQ or separate rations.
The truth of the matter is that we need to be prepared and ready to accept those opportunities if offered.
Incorrect, a reservist is subject to the UCMJ 24/7/365. A guardsman isn't unless on Federal orders.
A National Guardsmen though is subject to the States version of Military laws.
Quote from: JC004 on August 09, 2011, 04:43:07 PM
My most important question is what can we take to the Auxiliary office at the Pentagon and say to the Air Staff, "we can offer this in the budget cuts"? Based on the lessons of history, capabilities of today, and the modernizing Air Force?
We tried this with the VSAF program... that didn't appear to work too well.
Quote from: JC004 on August 09, 2011, 04:43:07 PM
My most important question is what can we take to the Auxiliary office at the Pentagon and say to the Air Staff, "we can offer this in the budget cuts"? Based on the lessons of history, capabilities of today, and the modernizing Air Force?
If we can answer this, there is a very real possibility, depending on who is elected National CC, that those items would be taken right to where they need to go.
The problem with this idea is that the amount of any potential budget savings, in comparison to the deficit, is like a fart in a hurricane. It just won't make a significant difference.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 10, 2011, 05:17:25 AM
Quote from: JC004 on August 09, 2011, 04:43:07 PM
My most important question is what can we take to the Auxiliary office at the Pentagon and say to the Air Staff, "we can offer this in the budget cuts"? Based on the lessons of history, capabilities of today, and the modernizing Air Force?
If we can answer this, there is a very real possibility, depending on who is elected National CC, that those items would be taken right to where they need to go.
The problem with this idea is that the amount of any potential budget savings, in comparison to the deficit, is like a fart in a hurricane. It just won't make a significant difference.
Very true, but it is also in how you spin it.
During the recent flooding in Missouri, Ks and Mo wings both flew several photography missions for the states and for FEMA. A state senator from Mo started to get haggled about spending soon after those missions, he immediately started saying how much "he" had saved the tax payers big $$$ by having caps small aircraft do it, rather than AF c-130s....
If we can get some "spin masters" to make it look great in certain key districts than we are golden. Every congressman out there wants to say "hey, look i saved you (insert ungodly amount here)" and what better way (for us) than with cap? ;D
Quote from: Fubar on August 10, 2011, 04:30:55 AM
Quote from: JC004 on August 09, 2011, 04:43:07 PM
My most important question is what can we take to the Auxiliary office at the Pentagon and say to the Air Staff, "we can offer this in the budget cuts"? Based on the lessons of history, capabilities of today, and the modernizing Air Force?
We tried this with the VSAF program... that didn't appear to work too well.
I do not really have an opinion of VSAF because I don't know much of it in practicality. That said, there are probably lessons learned there and there is perhaps a good list of things we can do to assist the AF. My interest is in what those things are.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 10, 2011, 05:17:25 AM
The problem with this idea is that the amount of any potential budget savings, in comparison to the deficit, is like a fart in a hurricane. It just won't make a significant difference.
I don't know that the deficit itself is our thing. Our thing is to see where we can assist our parent organization in being more effective and saving money. We can - and should - also examine what other possible missions we can take from other Federal entities since Civil Air Patrol acts as the US Air Force Auxiliary when performing missions for any Federal entity. That leaves a pretty broad range of mission possibilities.
Quote from: JC004 on August 10, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Quote from: Fubar on August 10, 2011, 04:30:55 AM
Quote from: JC004 on August 09, 2011, 04:43:07 PM
My most important question is what can we take to the Auxiliary office at the Pentagon and say to the Air Staff, "we can offer this in the budget cuts"? Based on the lessons of history, capabilities of today, and the modernizing Air Force?
We tried this with the VSAF program... that didn't appear to work too well.
I do not really have an opinion of VSAF because I don't know much of it in practicality. That said, there are probably lessons learned there and there is perhaps a good list of things we can do to assist the AF. My interest is in what those things are.
I think that the program came / comes with so many asterisks that those who would champion it were turned off from day one.
In a lot of cases it depended on people able to serve during normal working hours, doing things which were not remotely within the
scope of CAP's missions and which sometimes artificially "filled" a billet better served by a full-time Airman or civilian employee.
Like everything else CAP, there were a few high-visibility successes, but your marquee clients rarely make for a successful business.
As far agenda item 14 goes, I may have missed this answer in the thread so forgive me. But if this passes should we expect to see an updated 39-1 at some point sooner rather than the later we've been waiting on?
Let's not get crazy. We shouldn't be expecting a new uniform manual in a hurry.
What we DO NEED, HOWEVER (AND THIS IS DIRECTED AT WHATEVER OFFICER WINS NEXT WEEK AS CAP/CC) IS AN UPDATED ICL! For now, let's stop confusing our poor new members and let them have a fighting chance with all this confusion. They shouldn't have to print out the manual and every ICL, then go through the stuff with a marker to figure out which things still apply and which don't. The changes were NONSENSE and someone needs to simplify this for people. I've heard a lot about new members being TOTALLY confused by this silly set of ICLs. The next National CC should publish an updated ICL within a week and make it easy! One manual, one consolidated, updated ICL until we get stuff rolling with a new manual.
Quote from: JC004 on August 10, 2011, 09:56:19 PM
Let's not get crazy. We shouldn't be expecting a new uniform manual in a hurry.
What we DO NEED, HOWEVER (AND THIS IS DIRECTED AT WHATEVER OFFICER WINS NEXT WEEK AS CAP/CC) IS AN UPDATED ICL! For now, let's stop confusing our poor new members and let them have a fighting chance with all this confusion. They shouldn't have to print out the manual and every ICL, then go through the stuff with a marker to figure out which things still apply and which don't. The changes were NONSENSE and someone needs to simplify this for people. I've heard a lot about new members being TOTALLY confused by this silly set of ICLs. The next National CC should publish an updated ICL within a week and make it easy! One manual, one consolidated, updated ICL until we get stuff rolling with a new manual.
Just merge the ICL into the end of the PDF that is 39-1. Five minutes and you're done. Should have been done years ago.
We also need to clear any and all obsolete documents off the national servers.
More times than not I Google a reg and the first hit is to the old version of the regulation hosted on the official servers. You have to notice the
dates, and know there was a more recent one to catch the change. I did that earlier today with 52-16 and the question about review board.
I'm all for keeping old copies available, but the need to be watermarked "obsolete" or "superseded" or something, else removed.
Quote from: davidsinn on August 11, 2011, 12:31:36 AM
Just merge the ICL into the end of the PDF that is 39-1. Five minutes and you're done. Should have been done years ago.
Regardless of their physical location, one should not have to look through every change side-by-side to compare them and see if they are rescinded or themselves changed (or even changed several times). You should be able to look at the regulation, then look through the changes to see if there is anything you need to worry about. Simple and creates less issues.
I've been to activities in the past several years where SMs (esp new SMs) have said "well this is the regulation," when in actuality, it WAS, but changed even before they did their sewing or whatever. I've seen people VERY confused by the multitude of changes in the ICLs and there's no reason we can't fix it until there's an update. The ICLs are ALREADY outside their authorized operating age so WHATEVER. Let's just make it easier for people.
I am looking at them now. Then, next week, I shall sneak up behind whoever the new CAP/CC is, get them to sign it, run away, and get it on the interweb tubes!
Quote from: Eclipse on August 11, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
We also need to clear any and all obsolete documents off the national servers.
More times than not I Google a reg and the first hit is to the old version of the regulation hosted on the official servers. You have to notice the
dates, and know there was a more recent one to catch the change. I did that earlier today with 52-16 and the question about review board.
I'm all for keeping old copies available, but the need to be watermarked "obsolete" or "superseded" or something, else removed.
I suspect this is an issue with the dreadful CMS. It probably just saves stuff for all eternity and nobody manages the files.
Edit: I'm now working on what would be a consolidated and updated ICL for uniforms. I just wanted to say...THIS IS FREAKING RIDICULOUS.
I must know...I MUST KNOW what was going through these people's heads while they were doing this to us...seriously? I think that I now more fully understand the new SM who asked me for help understanding it and said something like "These people are really indecisive, aren't they?"