Looks like the NEC just passed a motion to get rid of the corporate uniform, effective Jan 2010!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
This is the Blue Slack, blue epaulet uniform.
The Grey Slack/white shirt uniform will still be in effect. Also, as a sidebar, they passed a motion allowing cadets over 18 that don't meet the weight standards to wear the Grey slack combo.
Actual phase out date is Jan 2011.
Seems like the clarified to immediately, all I know is I'm throwing a party!
the uniform has been rescinded immediately. As with everything there is a phaseout period, which in this case is Jan 2011 being the mandatory no-wear date.
As an aside, black leather jackets and brown nametags were not originally created with this uniform, thus not rescinded.
Some sort of accident, I am sure. They have never meant to simplify our uniforms.
Wow. Of the two uniforms I thought the grey/white would be the one to go...
I know there are going to be quite a number of unhappy people who just dropped some coin on black sweaters, light weight jackets, service coats, etc...
NB just authorized black sweater, NEC does away with the entire uniform. Tell me this isn't a government operation!
Quote from: EMT-83 on November 07, 2009, 11:32:59 PM
NB just authorized black sweater, NEC does away with the entire uniform. Tell me this isn't a government operation!
The left hand doesn't even know there
is a right hand, let alone what it's doing. Welcome to CAP.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 07, 2009, 11:30:17 PM
Wow. Of the two uniforms I thought the grey/white would be the one to go...
I know there are going to be quite a number of unhappy people who just dropped some coin on black sweaters, light weight jackets, service coats, etc...
Yeah, I was looking to start wearing that uniform & had been slowly assembling it. But I guess I'm lucky, as all I'm really 'out' is a nametag and epaulet slides. And now (since I have a flight cap and no authorized uniform with which to wear it) I guess I have a little more incentive to lose some weight & get into blues.
I want my money back.
Quote from: Lancer on November 07, 2009, 11:40:28 PM
I want my money back.
Word.
Farewell,
Tedda's
Pimpin
Uniform :'(
So, did they elaborate as to why? (Obviously I missed the webcast).
Quote from: Pylon on November 07, 2009, 11:33:59 PM
The left hand doesn't even know there is a right hand, let alone what it's doing. Welcome to CAP.
WIN.
I am disappointed by this decision. I was hoping (I know it was perhaps a long shot) that they'd drop the grooming standards for the CSU and go with that in favor of the grey and whites, especially as there were no grooming standards for the CSU when it was first released.
I know many had a bad opinion of the uniform due to how it was introduced. And I do disagree that the double-breasted coat is not the best - especially with silver sleeve braids. But the white aviator shirt and AF blue pants combination looks much more uniform than the white aviator shirt and any grey-ish pants combination - I've seen many say that it actually looks quite good!
Also, as many in this threat have already pointed out, a lot of members have spent a lot of money on these, and now have components they will be unable to reuse.
I am all for reducing CAP's uniform closet, I had just hoped it would be by dropping grey and whites instead.
Oh well, personally I liked the CSU, the Blue looked more uniform than gray, and I looked better in it. I wish they would standardize the gray slacks. All I am out is a couple of pairs of pants, a flight cap and blue epaulettes. I never shelled out the big bucks for the Service Coat. Maybe I'll get a couple more wearings out of it (I'm teaching at an SLS next weekend) before I pick up some gray trousers and epaulettes. I still have a gray name plate around here somewhere. I guess I'll go ahead and get a couple of polo shirts too.
Oh well, salute and excecute :-\
So wait the TPU is gone??? Im upset not that its going away but for the members who spent hard earned money to purchase this uniform just to have it pulled away.
From the discussion, the reason behind dropping this uniform seems two-fold. NOTE: this is just my impression of the discussion, and may or may not represent the truth.
1) Many of the members expressed a desire to simplify our uniforms. The fact that we have both the USAF uniform, the grey corporate uniform, and the blue corporate uniform all fill the same purpose. So they wanted to go with one USAF-type uniform, and one corporate equivalent uniform. The point about presenting a uniform, recognizable presence was raised a couple of times.
2) This uniform seems to have been a bit of a point of contention with the USAF. Having a uniform that SO closely resembled an active duty Air Force officers uniform was confusing on a lot of occasions. Which is the reason (again, my opinion based on their discussion) that this corporate uniform was dropped, and not the grey slacks uniform.
Also, one of the items that they discussed shortly after approving dropping this uniform was clarifying who actually has the power, and ability to approve uniform changes, among other things. Unfortunately, I missed most of that discussion, otherwise I would relate the discussion coming out of that end. It does seem to be that they are quite aware of many of our general concerns in the uniform department- having so many combinations, and different ways to wear them, confusing regs, and constant, stupid little changes in everything that we wear. Hopefully, the discussion today will lead to a better implemented uniform policy and guidance; however, I wasn't able to listen closely to what was raised so I'm not sure. Did anyone else catch that portion of the conference?
I am really P.O.ed. I am one of the many senior members that does not meet the h/w requirements. I shelled out $260 for the coat not to speak of what the rest of the uniform costed. Who do I complain to when the NEC are the ones who commit waste and abuse of its membership.
If they are really only allowing 13 months to phase it out, what's the rush? Just about everything else was given three years.
Ever get the feeling they just want it gone? and fast? I really am upset that this is going to hurt our membership... I guess after all we have seniors laying around that we can use.
This is the last time I try to be uniformed in something with a sharp appearance. I watched the NEC stream. Most the the bird colonels looked like slobs in the grey and whites. Now they take away the only sharp uniform I can wear. If I wanted to dress like a rotory club member in the blue blazer I would have joined them. I am also getting tired of ranking officers telling me I can not wear the AF uniform because of h/w requirements when it is obvious that their Fat A.. doesn't either.
I bet Vanguard is going to be bent. I am pretty sure those TPU coats costs them a pretty penny.
Paper pusher, I hate to say it but i agree, the generals looked pretty good but everyone else just seemed well... I hate to say it but sloppy.
Quote from: JC004 on November 08, 2009, 01:23:11 AM
I bet Vanguard is going to be bent. I am pretty sure those TPU coats costs them a pretty penny.
Not really...they can sell their stock to the US Ranger Corps ;D ::) >:D
In regards to who is authorized to make changes to the uniforms, this is what the current CAPM 39-1 says:
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 para 1-4New or changed uniform items may not be authorized without the approval of the National Commander/National Board and/or National Headquarters (except as specified in Table 1-3 of this manual).
Not really clear here. The NEC is not listed. Sounds like anybody but them can make a change, though.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Once again CAP does a number on its uniform
Once again, polos and grays, solid blue BDU'and woodland BDU's and Real AF blue for the weight height non challenged
You folks really seriously did not think this was going to happen? Sorry to hear about alllll of those who dropped coin for ANOTHER SILLY ARSED CAP uniform. Get ready for the indecisive and poorly written 39-1 to be riding again ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
IT IS reallly time PAPA AF tells us to get our own uniform...this really makes CAP look like an indecisive organization...Now will they stop wasting time in St Louis?
Are this constant changes in uniforms and 39-1 really make us look professional??? It really does make us look like a bunch of third world and wanna be military dictators to keep the boyz at Vanguard in biz.
If only the REAL ES world knew about the crap we do...oh wait... they already know about CAP and their variations in uniforms :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
I cant stop smiling ;D :clap: thank god
Paper Pusher
Did not get to watch all of the streaming...So some of those CAP Col were wearing greys and whites??
Maybe there ought to be a CAP REG.... When you LT COL and COLs show up to these functions..you will show up IN SHAPE and the PROPER USAF type or style uniform
All the past posts here on CAPTalk about being criticizing the word 'volunteer" and what not.
It time these "professional CAP leaders" lead by example and really make some useful time out of these NEC meetings.
But if rescinding a clown uniform is a major event....imagine what the local hotel bars will be looking like tonite ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I never purchased a single item of that UNIFORM, was going to though. Now...yikes.
Will this end all the UNIFORM shenanigans? Signs point to no. Unless we have a clear moratorium on uniform changes for a good five years, I suspect that the CSU will be followed by some other thing...then another until we wasted money enough to outfit a small European nation's Air Force.
I would not be surprised if a good many of us "walked," in fact, I will not hold any member who leaves CAP because of this wanton waste of money in any spite.
Quote from: heliodoc on November 08, 2009, 02:10:26 AM
Paper Pusher
Did not get to watch all of the streaming...So some of those CAP Col were wearing greys and whites??
<snip>
This was the first NEC meeting that I did not see a CPU worn....either they were wearing the USAF-style or the white aviator/grey slack combo.
On a side note...some of those on the NEC had purchased and wore the CPU, so they too would have to feel the pain that some are speaking about members of the organization feeling.
That is a pain that I am not feeling because I never purchased the uniform because of the contraversy surrounding its origins -- and I never felt that I needed to wear a "corporate" uniform since I did wear the blazer/grey slack combo when acting in a corporate responsibility.
Quote from: Chappie on November 08, 2009, 02:20:03 AM
Quote from: heliodoc on November 08, 2009, 02:10:26 AM
Paper Pusher
Did not get to watch all of the streaming...So some of those CAP Col were wearing greys and whites??
<snip>
This was the first NEC meeting that I did not see a CPU worn....either they were wearing the USAF-style or the white aviator/grey slack combo.
On a side note...some of those on the NEC had purchased and wore the CPU, so they too would have to feel the pain that some are speaking about members of the organization feeling.
That is a pain that I am not feeling because I never purchased the uniform because of the contraversy surrounding its origins -- and I never felt that I needed to wear a "corporate" uniform since I did wear the blazer/gray slack combo when acting in a corporate responsibility.
What in blue blazers? (sorry, couldn't resist)
I don't think I will ever purchase the Blazer either. Maybe now it will be safe to by the white-grays.
I know it's been the most ridiculed uniform combination .. I do have to say, I'm sorry to see it go vs. the gray combo.
At least there was a common item to get vs. the gray. There is nothing uniform at all about the gray combination as you can just buy pants anywhere seemingly as long as they are gray and not denim.
It did present a nice appearance, somehow the gray combination does not, to me. But alas, the two remaining uniform options that use rank/devices can use all the same items.
I'm actually disappointed with this decision as well. CSU was a true uniform, everyone wearing one was wearing a standardized item. Not so true with the white/gray combo.
Quote from: a2capt on November 08, 2009, 02:43:27 AMBut alas, the two remaining uniform options that use rank/devices can use all the same items.
If that had been done in the first place, there would have been a lot more uniformity.
I'm wondering what the Vanguard backlash is going to cost us. It would be nice if they can find a nice little loophole for it. It shouldn't cost the membership itself any more than it already has.
Glad that hundreds-if not thousands-of hard working members who are now out a crapload of money could provide you guys with an evening's worth of free entertainment.
I sure hope I'm around to witness the outcries and butt pain if/when Ma Blue yanks the AF style uniforms out from under all of you.
Quote from: Slim on November 08, 2009, 03:02:10 AM
Glad that hundreds-if not thousands-of hard working members who are now out a crapload of money could provide you guys with an evening's worth of free entertainment.
I sure hope I'm around to witness the outcries and butt pain if/when Ma Blue yanks the AF style uniforms out from under all of you.
Pretty broad brush there.
Hawk200,
That's simple the NEC made the choice without input from the membership let them (personally) foot the bill from Vanguard.
If the NEC was truely concerned about the members that don't meet h/w requirements, the corporate uniform coats alternatives would be sized acordingly. Most don't meet the 3x or 4 x sizes.
Well how about that?
I wonder if it has anything to do with the Army going to blue pants and white shirts.
The double breasted coat looked like hammered dog-doo IMHO, but take away the coat and it was a sharp uniform (if worn properly).
This is getting to be real costly for our members. Change the uniforms (members spend money)......wait, we are changing them again (members go out and spend money) WAIT.....we are changing them again. This has to stop, I liked the Blue and whites, looked sharp, much better than the grey and whites. I was going to get the new corp jacket but I am glad I did not spend the money.
I think this makes us look like we do not know what we are doing, and can not make up our mind at all. Let's get something and stick with it.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 03:05:13 AM
Hawk200,
That's simple the NEC made the choice without input from the membership let them (personally) foot the bill from Vanguard.
If the NEC was truely concerned about the members that don't meet h/w requirements, the corporate uniform coats alternatives would be sized acordingly. Most don't meet the 3x or 4 x sizes.
Simple in principle; a court of law is a different story, which is where this could easily end up.
I'd have no problem with someone personally footing the bill if it was even possible. But I don't see that happening or doable.
I've begun to think that a lot of the downhill slide for CAPMart was when they started introducing so much new stuff. Did we really need a badge for every specialty? Not really. Did we really need so many patches? Nope. Was it really necessary for almost every uniform to have a wing patch on it? No. CAPMart could have probably remained viable if a lot of stuff hadn't been produced.
There's a lot of talk about "We should have a badge for this, and for this, and this too." Kinda looks like we created our own problem.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 08, 2009, 03:10:09 AMI wonder if it has anything to do with the Army going to blue pants and white shirts.
Interesting point. The two uniforms would look very similar, especially considering the outergarments were the same ones.
To the uninformed, one could simply be a variation of the other.
Glad to hear that they are getting ready of the blue pants and white shirt.
Why do alot of you hate the blue and white, can you please expalin?
^^^^
Absolutely
Folks here may criticize the miltary....but you know what ..They / we are getting paid to make adjustments and some clothing allowances are out there for the Real Military
With ALL the CLOWNING around CAP does with this and these uniforms, how can anyone profess to claim pride with the circus atmosphere of these so called leaders changing with the wind.
It is a SHAME that adults volunteering or getting paid at these NEC events or NB for completely lame decisions. And there were plenty of these folks around in the Pineda era kissing fanny and buying in on this crap. Too bad CAP isn't adult enough in refunding the money to ALLLL those who bought those silly uniforms.
Maybe its time for CAP to reaaaally look inside itself for what is when it comes to uniforms. Being from the RM....this is really looks bad and the leadership who let this go on for the years. It DOES look like a circus of people who reallly CAN NOT get it together on a SIMPLE volunteer uniform
CAP is a mockery of the military uniform in all aspects when it shows lame decision making.
Maybe they will come up with a even sillier replacement uniform to keep their cronies happy at Vanguard..you goooooooooCAP booouuuyz! WOW!
I'm trying to understand this. The CSU and the TPU were authorized. Members shelled out a lot of money in an attempt to look more like they belong with the folks in wearing AF Blue. Now it's back to pre Pineda days which wouldn't be so bad except for what people have gone through to wear something that looked good like a uniform. I have been a CAP member in 3 states. I've seen grays in so many shades and styles including cargo pants that together they look ridiculous. I really wonder what these NEC folks are thinking.
^^^^
"Thinking they are leaders and doing "something constructive" for a volunteer organization ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No wonder why we lose so many membes per month more than we gain.
^^^^
Especially when one is shelling out coin for silly uniform decisions
Folks, no matter which of the two uniform combos was discontinued, SOMEONE would be out some money. I'm willing to bet that in terms of sheer numbers, there are fewer people in the CSU than in the gray/whites, so this probably hurts the fewest people.
And if its true that the AF is still giving us grief over the CSU, get rid of it ASAP. We don't need to be doing anything that makes them mad and from the start they have apparently disliked this idea.
Personally, I think the CSU actually looks better, but in this case it makes sense to get rid of it. I would probably have gone with a longer phase-out period though.
Hawk200
I was not serious. I know the NEC can't be made to pay, personally. After Vanguard sues and wins, we will be the ones who pay.
But the NEC can't seem to see off the end of their colective noses. They just went over a reduction in budget. What is the first thing they do? Stick it to the members, finacially, that is why I bought the CBU in order to have a professional looking uniform, which the grey and whites are not!
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 03:05:13 AM
Hawk200,
That's simple the NEC made the choice without input from the membership let them (personally) foot the bill from Vanguard.
If the NEC was truely concerned about the members that don't meet h/w requirements, the corporate uniform coats alternatives would be sized acordingly. Most don't meet the 3x or 4 x sizes.
The people I've seen who have gone out and paid the price for the CSU are all really high value, hard working members who really don't deserve to be treated in this high handed insensitive way. If many of them walk a lot of things wont get done anymore. It's kinda like "YEA WE KNOW WE AUTHORIZED THE UNIFORM AND YOU SPENT YOUR MONEY BUT NOW WE"VE CHANGED OUR MINDS". The people I know who bought that uniform don't deserve this.
Quote from: argentip on November 08, 2009, 01:38:22 AM
In regards to who is authorized to make changes to the uniforms, this is what the current CAPM 39-1 says:
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 para 1-4New or changed uniform items may not be authorized without the approval of the National Commander/National Board and/or National Headquarters (except as specified in Table 1-3 of this manual).
Not really clear here. The NEC is not listed. Sounds like anybody but them can make a change, though.
Who authorized the TPU (aka CSU) in the first place, the NB or the NEC? If I remember correctly it was the NEC which would make the uniform illegal in the first place according to your reasoning.
The CSU was authorized by the NB at the winter 2006 meeting. I was not in favor of it then because of the plethera of uniforms we already had. It seemed to be popular however and many members seem to like it.....
The question now is..... What will happen at the 2010 winter NB meeting? There is a strong possiblity this subject may be brought before the NB for consideration. I don't think this is the last we will hear of it.
Got it billford
CAP in the 1970's and 1980's did have its own crap going on.....but surely NOT 4 different types of uniforms. Got nothing against any of the ht/wt challenged groups. CAP ought to have recognized this trend YEARS AGO and saved any trouble from AF and DECIDED on their own for a complete organizational clothing change... but no CAP historians would be keeling over at that uniform blasphemy
IT IS time for the USAF to kick ALLL of CAP's uniforms and say to them...."find your own organizational cloth and we will continue to support you in our current status." How'd that settle with the 39-1 monikers, huh?
Save ALOT of print and confusion amongst the already CAP....Confusion Amongst People. It is time for a complete change in CAP's uniform future
Today's CAP...... time for a COMPLETE non military organizational clothing for all to settle this completely. Its just too bad the AF isn't quick enough to do this in the next fiscal year.
It's about a lot more than just money. While I feel for people who are now out a lot of money, it's about more than just that.
FWIW, my change into the CSU cost me about $20. All I had to buy was the epaulets and nameplate, I already had blue pants, belt, flight cap, and the white shirts.
What it's about to me is a slap in the face. With the CSU, at lease we all looked like we belonged to the same organization. Some wore white shirts, some wore blue; everyone wore the same pants, and the flight cap. And the service jacket, though I agree that it looked awful with the silver braid.
Now we're back to the white/grey (along with a hundred different definitions of grey pants), which means it looks like two different organizations, and the belief that people not meeting height/weight and grooming are second class members who don't deserve the respect and fellowship of sharing a very similar uniform with the rest of the team.
This whole mess could have been solved with some minimal alterations:
- Get rid of the white/grey combo
- Authorize neatly trimmed beards and conservative length hair, and
- Authorize blue epaulet sleeves with CAP emroidered in silver, or
- Authorize grey epaulet sleeves and the grey nameplate on the CSU
From where I sit tonight, I feel like CAP just took 5 giant leaps back in the member satisfaction department. Quite a few of the folks I've talked to tonight have said the same thing.
^^^^
Makes the USCG Aux look like a more organized bunch EVERRRRRRY day!!
I know CAPTAlk flamers will be ALLLL over this one..... but I have never let any door kick me in the fanny ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
As you can tell from earlier posts, I am angered by the lack of consideration the NEC had toward members like myself. I just renewed, I am considering asking for my money back. They can find someone else to fill my wing and region jobs.
Quote from: heliodoc on November 08, 2009, 04:04:12 AM
^^^^
Makes the USCG Aux look like a more organized bunch EVERRRRRRY day!!
I know CAPTAlk flamers will be ALLLL over this one..... but I have never let any door kick me in the fanny ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
If losing a uniform is enough to make you leave, then why were you here in the first place?
Heck, the Salvation Army has a flashier uniform then CAP has.
Don't do it Paper Pusher
Work from with inside just beat em up with suggestions........fill their in boxes
Have fun with it at CAP's expense. CAP has angered alot of folk now it is just time for them to put up with us and we be as professional as we can and just needle the bejeesus out of those "decision makers"
I'm just having fun tonite seeing how a some stellar decison making has been going on.. From some real "professionals" I might add. Professionals who probably will have to answer to somebody, namely the CAP organization itself. Hopefully those "pros" have some "professional" answers ::) ::) ::)
Sorry PHall
I'm here for the duration.... uniforms or not. After all the silliness in the past year getting updated in another Wing for the G1000. I think I'd just rather be in CAP for the ES missions and free flying. It surely isn't because of the FLASHY CAP uniform. I wore a REAL RM uniform, rather proudly, in an aviation unit no less. I know when and when not and how to wear one properly. CAP does not even worry me. I still met my ht / wt stds.
It is still CAP come to grip with itself after 68 yrs and stop embarrassing the membership and AF over their wind driven decision making
A uniform would be the last thing I'd leave over
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 04:10:25 AM
I am considering asking for my money back. They can find someone else to fill my wing and region jobs.
Thats not going to solve anything. Thats sticking it to those around you who have no power (individually) over any of this. Plus the NEC, NHQ, etc .. are not going to even feel a blip with your vacancy, nor will they care - thats someone else's directorate to worry about. Someone else who you'll be giving grief to.
Wow. There are a lot of folks on here that must have highly stressful lives, or just enjoy complaining. There's been some constructive stuff posted in between a lot of pet rants by certain members. Give it a break.
Quote from: Slim on November 08, 2009, 03:59:31 AM
Now we're back to the white/grey (along with a hundred different definitions of grey pants), which means it looks like two different organizations, and the belief that people not meeting height/weight and grooming are second class members who don't deserve the respect and fellowship of sharing a very similar uniform with the rest of the team.
This whole mess could have been solved with some minimal alterations:
- Get rid of the white/grey combo
- Authorize neatly trimmed beards and conservative length hair, and
- Authorize blue epaulet sleeves with CAP emroidered in silver, or
- Authorize grey epaulet sleeves and the grey nameplate on the CSU
From where I sit tonight, I feel like CAP just took 5 giant leaps back in the member satisfaction department. Quite a few of the folks I've talked to tonight have said the same thing.
I'll start out here saying that I've never liked the CPU- not the politics that got it approved in the first place, or the details of the uniform. I have wanted it gone since it first got approved.
What I did REALLY LIKE about the CPU was what was mentioned above- it looked enough like the USAF-style uniform that we all looked the same. That's a good thing, especially with the cadets that are over height/weight and over 18. The CPU allowed them to still wear a similar looking uniform (though I only know of one cadet that this actually applied to).
So, I completely agree with the above. A better option here would have been to keep the basics of the CPU, but changed the parts that were more objectionable to the USAF- namely take away the USAF rank marks, and the USAF-style blue nameplates. Use the same rank and nameplates that we use for everything else, but on the CPU. That way, we all look similar, while still maintaining a difference between the USAF and Corporate uniforms. I could hope that we could get something like this on the agenda for the NB meeting coming up.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 04:10:25 AM
As you can tell from earlier posts, I am angered by the lack of consideration the NEC had toward members like myself. I just renewed, I am considering asking for my money back. They can find someone else to fill my wing and region jobs.
I know this wasn't proposed out of a disregard for the members who wear this uniform, for whatever reason. I do think that there was a better option for making the necessary changes however. The core sentiment behind this proposal was to eliminate some of the many and varying uniform options that we have, which is very admirable, and something that the vast majority of the membership supports. However, I think we do need to have a way to have a little bit more input on this type of change, because it is ultimately the membership (or at least some portion of it) who has to support the cost of the changes.
All that said, I doubt this is the last that we have heard of the issue. And, despite the mileage that the issue has received in this board, uniform issues comprised a very, very small portion of the time of the NEC. I'm hoping that will be the case for the NB as well.
You know, I could swear that I have seen our National Commander in the CSU in the past. Does she meet the weight requirements for AF Blues or will we see her in Grey/Whites? Also, we should enforce the weight/height standards on all of our highly visible leaders. I see more violations with them than with the rank and file.
^^^^
Yes and leading by example in CAP has some major malfunctions
It is not the loss of a uniform. That has me considering leaving. It is the lack of real leadership at the national level. Why follow people who are running in circles and throwing away my money in the process. Many years ago I was a cadet that gained from the CAP cadet program. I came back to give back to that program what I got from it.
How can I continue to follow leadership that acts on a whim. I have spent large amounts of my own money to support my duty assignments because my budgets from the Wing and Region were zero or near zero. They can't even fund their own mandates but they can waste my cash.
^^
The current leadership is just trying to bring cap back into good standing after the past "leadership" fiasco
Stick around Paper Pusher
This is my 2nd time around CAP and was a cadet, also
This has turned into a pretty lackluster organization leadership wise in many areas the uniform, welll that is where everybody, including myself, seems to be ranting. It is time for CAP just to give up the mil uniform.
Its time for them to lead up, man up and get a uniform to identify the CIVIL in CAP. I am now thoroughly convinced. The CAP's constant change in uniforms is a mockery and the NB meeting this winter just ought face up to it now and show some real leadership and NOT show up in any military uniform until they can make 1) a real decision and 2) Never write another 39-1 until EVERYTHING Uniform is settled once-n-for all.
DO NOT WASTE any more time until the leadership can demonstrate true leadership in decision making. They apparently are so back and forth at NEC that I predict the NB meeting is not going to show much more productivity than the past regarding uniform issues
I, like many here have spent copious amounts of cash for this silliness that now I am in CAP just for the fun and flyin
But this is CAP and now its just for fun.....
I think I should step away from posting until I cool down. I appreciate everyones input. I think your cooler heads may have prevailed. I too understand the NEC's intent. They still should have asked for input from the membership instead of a newly appointed CAP- USAF member that hasn't learned hardly anything about CAP yet. Besides the AF pays for his uniform unlike us larger folk.
Those of us who think that this decision was the right one to make do need to acknowledge that this will make some people upset, and I do think that is not an unreasonable response. And yes, we might lose a very small number of good people over this (but not enough to worry about in my book).
However, those of you who will have wasted money on this uniform also need to acknowledge that reducing the number of CAP uniforms, especially those that are duplicative of each other like the CSU and gray/whites is a good decision for the organization as a whole even if you disagree with which uniform is getting dropped.
Yep
I too am going to step away from this CAP uniform sensitive board of fun, frivolity, and triviality of all things CAP uniform wise in turn to watch something o the tube about wildland fire..
I KNOW there will be paragraphs written overnite for more fun and frivolity of the uniform decision makers at NEC. Like I said before, it would sure be interesting to see all those NEC types lined up at the hotel bars afetr a long day of "making decisions." :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::)
Trying to make a good moment out of bad does anyone know of a good seemstress that can convert the expensive fashion statement into a single breasted, replace braid and buttons? It might retain most of it's size? But one thing for sure, could wear military decorations on it. Just trying to think pleasant thoughts. Tony's coat served to brand those no longer young enough to comply in H/W standards due to disability or health reasons that come with age as well as way too many who had served their country and had supporting paperwork and assorted scars to prove it. We will never have a CAP that suits all our pet interests buy this is a step. We are here to serve anyway and pay well for that opportunity.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 05:05:12 AM
I think I should step away from posting until I cool down. I appreciate everyones input. I think your cooler heads may have prevailed. I too understand the NEC's intent. They still should have asked for input from the membership instead of a newly appointed CAP- USAF member that hasn't learned hardly anything about CAP yet. Besides the AF pays for his uniform unlike us larger folk.
Not trying to be rude, just pointing out, that the Cap-USAF you speak of is a commissioned officer who has to buy his own uniforms.
Let me just add my two cents here.
I am happy, and I'll tell you all why.
I never felt that the white/gray uniform made those who didn't meet standards feel like second class members.
....at least, until they introduced the corporate uniform.
If you are too large or too fuzzy, you can't wear the USAF style, I get that, that makes sense to me, and that is fine.
I wear facial hair for religious reasons. It is neat and well trimmed, and my haircut is within regs. But if I have to wear whites/grays because of it, fine.
Enter the corporate uniform. Must meet grooming standards but not weight standards? That's ridiculous. The corporate uniform set three distinct classes of members.
1) Those who fully comply with AF weight and grooming standards
2) Those who comply with grooming standards but not weight standards
3) And the rest
The fact that someone wearing size 72 pants is saluted because he/she wears the corporate uniform while I am without because I happen to have a neatly trimmed goatee, that makes me feel like less of a member.
That makes me feel like a weight problem is not a barrier to full customs and courtesies but a religious observance is. And I didn't like it.
Let me also add that the Corporate uniform is hideous.
It doesn't look military. It looks like an airline pilot uniform. The only truly military element that the uniform had was the AF officer grade. And I've said this before, and I shall say it again. We are not AF Officers. Our grade has "CAP" above it so there is no confusion. We have no business wearing AF grade when we are CAP Officers.
That being said, let me say that I truly feel for those who purchased this uniform (especially those who purchased it in its entirety). This is a pretty expensive uniform! But it didn't help in making us more uniform. As a matter of fact, it made us less uniform. It divided our membership further.
I would have also supported them simply creating modified grooming standards for those in the corporate. Let's face it, a cropped goatee is different from a big Santa beard that goes down to your belly button. But then what would the CAP member with the Santa beard wear?
I think we should develop the white/gray uniform further. Why not add headgear? I'm sure we could standardize the pant color and style and get vanguard to sell a gray flight cap. But we have to have a uniform that is uniquely CAP, and one that anyone can wear. Otherwise, you are pushing certain people to the fringes. And we need all the quality members we can get, even if they have a bigger waistline or a little more fuzz than their AF counterparts.
I guess in order to "truly" be fair to all the senior members of this organization, we should then have ALL senior members wear the gray and whites. That is the only option that takes in everyone and makes us uniformed.
Of course we will have to ALL have to buy our grey slacks from one source and buy the blue jacets from one source. Then for the first time we could say we have a uniform.
Grey pants - polo for flying
Grey pants - white shirt for working with Cadets
Grey pants - white shirt, blue jacket for dress
Grey pants - white shirt, blue jacket black bow tie for semi formal dress
No need to buy all those ribbons and minture medals, just think how much this would save our membership.
As we have learned that we are really only the USAF AUX when we are on USAF assigned missions then it would hold that we should only wear USAF type uniform when we are acting in that role.
Farewell TPU - ahem - CSU, we hardly knew ye.
Oh well, I guess I just have to add three more silver 'piston rings' to the sleeves, cut off the epaulets and I got me a airline pilot costume for Halloween! ::) At least I can still wear AF-style. If they standardize - and it ain't hard to do, people; you can get Vanguard to stock a standardized color gray trouser/slack/skirt.
I've got a feeling that this decision may be rescinded once they get enough complaints and people leaving the organization in droves... I've got too much time and money invested in CAP to vote with my feet - and as it is with my current job here in Kwajalein, I can't actively participate in most of CAP's missions, except pay dues.
Hmm...torn here.
I would have liked to see the grey slacks gone.
Put the grey slides on the shirt and coat.
Put the grey nameplate on the shirt.
Put the metal AF nameplate on the coat.
Put the black sleeve braids on the coat/cap.
Let the fat and fuzzies wear it.
Bam...a combo that looks uniform to the AF combo's but is still distinct and is simple to switch to and from. Buy a white shirt and a coat (and maybe some bigger pants) if you get out of reg weight or grooming, and the change is quick.
That would simplify it tons and present a much better uniform presence.
I think the goal of the change is sound, but the result may be poor.
Mt 2 cents for what it is worth.
It does not matter what we want, it is a bunch of arm chair leaders who get to where they are at by way of the peter principle. Who in their right mind wants to deal with the enormous problems we have in CAP. It is like Congress. Lets just make thing up because we have so many things messed up.
Why is it the United States Coast Guard allows their Auxiliary members to be fat and in a Coast Guard Uniform. They save thousands of lives a year in the Coast Guard. Maybe we should just move over to the Coast Guard Leadership. That way we get rid of the entire CAP Corporation, all of the USAF Officers getting paid to be ??? What is it they do ?. we could save the US Taxpayer millions by doing it and we could get back to the business of being a Search and rescue organization, Border protection, Drug control aerial platforms. These are all things the coast Guard does anyway.
Quote from: wingnut55 on November 08, 2009, 05:04:49 PM
It does not matter what we want, it is a bunch of arm chair leaders who get to where they are at by way of the peter principle. Who in their right mind wants to deal with the enormous problems we have in CAP. It is like Congress. Lets just make thing up because we have so many things messed up.
Why is it the United States Coast Guard allows their Auxiliary members to be fat and in a Coast Guard Uniform. They save thousands of lives a year in the Coast Guard. Maybe we should just move over to the Coast Guard Leadership. That way we get rid of the entire CAP Corporation, all of the USAF Officers getting paid to be ??? What is it they do ?. we could save the US Taxpayer millions by doing it and we could get back to the business of being a Search and rescue organization, Border protection, Drug control aerial platforms. These are all things the coast Guard does anyway.
Yes, in some areas the USCG Aux does a whole lot. But in other areas (where the nearest body of water is a rather small lake) they are boat clubs with uniforms.
In some areas, CAP is actively engaged. In some others, they are a flying club, with uniforms.
Here's the problem. Take NYS for example. New York State does not need CAP to be a SAR organization. They just don't. In addition to having a National Guard, we have a state militia chomping at the bit for something to do. We volunteer firefighters and volunteer ambulance corps that fill in any other gap. There are more government agencies and non-profits with clear cut missions than CAP.
So don't delude yourself into thinking we are something we are not. The only thing CAP brings to the SAR community that your average volunteer fire department does not is aircraft.
IF you think that CAP is only SAR and border patrol (something I very strongly think we should not be doing anyway), then maybe you should reconsider your membership. There is more to CAP than those three things you mentioned and the grass is ALWAYS greener on the other side of the fence.
QuoteThe only thing CAP brings to the SAR community that your average volunteer fire department does not is aircraft.
They may be able to find people in a burning house, but generally have no training in lost person SAR and are not equipped for it either. Any lost person SAR training that they have is a bonus and not the norm.
Start a new thread about the need for SAR organizations in each state ... ;)
Hopefully NHQ will quickly issue a decisive and unambiguous memo with instructions.
Sadly the result of this will be:
1) Disgruntled members who did nothing more than try to look professional and spent a fair amount of money
only to see it wasted (though, frankly, if they are early-adopters and active enough, the stuff will likely be starting to look thread-worn, anyway).
2) Members who will not only continue to wear the uniform past the sundown (whatever that turns out to be), but also some who will likely buy one after the announcement because of poor communication in their chain.
3) A large (no pun in tended) percentage of the membership will simply hang up the CSU and unzip the dust bags on their service dress and start wearing it again, with no heat, or even comment on the issue.
That's better?
I have no issue with the whites, but they are not formal enough for ceremonial use at encampment graduations and similar events which include pomp and circumstance. Sorry, folks, in every photo of you standing in a row with fellow members, including cadets, who are in their service coat, you look like an eighth grader who forgot it was picture day.
The blazer.
No.
First, the blazer's are not a replacement for the service dress, any more than the mess dress. They are not the same garment, and do present a 2nd-class appearance for those who can't wear them. CAP awards all manner of jelly beans and bling to its members as the only "reward" for their incredible, sometimes tireless service, and then says "you can't wear them". Nice.
Second, most members wearing blazers look like rolled dinosaur droppings on a hot day. They grab something off the rack, or out of their closet, slap that pocket protector on it, and wear it over a short-sleeve shirt. Sweet. There needs to be a special place in purgatory for people wearing that pocket protector - at least have the commitment to put the insigina ON THE COAT.
We have only ourselves to blame (ourselves in the grand sense). The implementation of a corporate-option, military-style uniform is something CAP needs to normalize the ranks and make us feel like one team, but as usual, it was handled incorrectly from the start, and done by the wrong person for the wrong reasons.
There were any number of ways a compromise could have been properly reached with the USAF, documented properly and implemented properly.
None of that was done.
Sundown of the CSU needs to be done at the same time as a full error-correction of 39-1, as well as a full-press, once and for all, "comply or you're out" attitude regarding the uniforms.
Its not fair to those of us who spend countless hours and dollars trying to follow the rules to change them on us and then look the other way when members don't comply.
The CSU is gone. :-\
Now, we need to bring back The Legend. :)
We desire the benefits of The Leisure. ;)
We want The Allure. ;D
We demand its return. ;D
The Guayabera Shirt! :clap:
Quote from: Robert Hartigan on November 08, 2009, 06:38:28 PM
The Guayabera Shirt! :clap:
OY GEVALT!!! I can see it now!!! :-X
What is it?
Great decision to drop this uniform! :clap:
It never should've been implemented in the first place. Glad to see it go.
Or worse yet... THE BLUE SMURF SUIT!!!! (Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!) ;D
I like wearing 'Latin American/Filipino formal dress' - aka guayaberas - but they should have NEVER been made part of any uniform!
Regardless of the... ahem... haphazard manner in which this uniform coalesced, there were a non-trivial number of CAP officers that sank serious coin into the uniform, and were very proud to wear a uniform that allowed them to look a little more like their USAF-uniform-wearing brethren.
I guess it's to be expected that the uniform gets phased out with the same fog of confusion that it was developed in, but still, the NEC just made a whole bunch of good volunteers really upset with no apparent forethought.
Apparently the days of hidden agenda items and rash decisions are not behind us. :-\
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 08, 2009, 07:18:03 PM
Or worse yet... THE BLUE SMURF SUIT!!!! (Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!) ;D
You people are giving them ideas!
Quote from: dwb on November 08, 2009, 07:27:29 PM
Regardless of the... ahem... haphazard manner in which this uniform coalesced, there were a non-trivial number of CAP officers that sank serious coin into the uniform, and were very proud to wear a uniform that allowed them to look a little more like their USAF-uniform-wearing brethren.
I guess it's to be expected that the uniform gets phased out with the same fog of confusion that it was developed in, but still, the NEC just made a whole bunch of good volunteers really upset with no apparent forethought.
Apparently the days of hidden agenda items and rash decisions are not behind us. :-\
You got that right! CAP now has the equivalent of 'McPeakination'. Except those of us who sunk some money in this uniform now have perfectly serviceable Halloween costumes. Perhaps we can all go trick-or-treating at the NEC members' houses next Halloween wearing 'historical uniforms'? ::) ;D
We sure are!!
Because it appears plenty-o-leadership is incapable of REAL workable, practical uniform items without going historical or is that uniform hysterical on us.
Watch.... some of these suggestion WILL probably rear their ugly heads again. Somewhat like movie and TV remakes 30 years later. Lame repeats...
Quote from: Robert Hartigan on November 08, 2009, 06:38:28 PM
The CSU is gone. :-\
Now, we need to bring back The Legend. :)
We desire the benefits of The Leisure. ;)
We want The Allure. ;D
We demand its return. ;D
The Guayabera Shirt! :clap:
OMFG!!!!
They couldn't decide on a shirt color for that either.
They kept changing colors on the shirt until they got rid of it as well.
JH
Quote from: dwb on November 08, 2009, 07:27:29 PM
Regardless of the... ahem... haphazard manner in which this uniform coalesced, there were a non-trivial number of CAP officers that sank serious coin into the uniform...
Really? Do you have any hard numbers to support that claim or is your comment just anecdotal? If so, how did you arrive to such a conclusion? I've not seen a "non-trivial number" of CAP members with this uniform. As a matter of fact, I could could on one hand, with several fingers to spare, the number of members I've seen in that uniform - and I've been to every Wing conference over the past several years.
The lesson here is not a new one. If you're truly concerned about costs in CAP, then you don't want to be the first to jump aboard uniform changes.
Eliminating this uniform (correcting this "wrong") was one of the better uniform decisions I can recall.
Quote from: A.Member on November 08, 2009, 08:01:57 PM
Quote from: dwb on November 08, 2009, 07:27:29 PM
Regardless of the... ahem... haphazard manner in which this uniform coalesced, there were a non-trivial number of CAP officers that sank serious coin into the uniform...
Really? Do you have any hard numbers to support that claim or is your comment just anecdotal? If so, how did you arrive to such a conclusion? I've not seen a "non-trivial number" of CAP members with this uniform. As a matter of fact, I could could on one hand, with several fingers to spare, the number of members I've seen in that uniform - and I've been to every Wing conference over the past several years.
The lesson here is not a new one. If you're truly concerned about costs in CAP, then you don't want to be the first to jump aboard uniform changes.
Eliminating this uniform (correcting this "wrong") was one of the better uniform decisions I can recall.
If even only ten people bought the service coat that is about $1600, in waste on the service coat, if 100 people bought it that is $16,000, if 1000 people bought it (likely the most likely number) then that is $160,000. Plus add in the name tags (which a similar number purchased, shoulder marks, and the all the stuff that was approved for like 5 months and then rescinded (rank of flight caps et al) and even less than "hard" numbers are substantial.
The point is that this represent a waste of volunteer resources that could have been used in the execution of the mission and are now awaiting the flushing of the toilet because of agendistic infighting and posturing of CAP politics.
This is no time to celebrate, you should all be demanding satisfaction and accountability.
Quote from: A.Member on November 08, 2009, 08:01:57 PM
Really? Do you have any hard numbers to support that claim or is your comment just anecdotal?
Anecdotal. I suppose we could ask Vanguard for their numbers.
I've seen more than a handful wearing the uniform, though. At the activities I've attended, the majority of the CAP distinctive uniform wearers were donning the CSU.
Quote from: dwb on November 08, 2009, 08:25:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on November 08, 2009, 08:01:57 PM
Really? Do you have any hard numbers to support that claim or is your comment just anecdotal?
Anecdotal. I suppose we could ask Vanguard for their numbers.
I've seen more than a handful wearing the uniform, though. At the activities I've attended, the majority of the CAP distinctive uniform wearers were donning the CSU.
The numbers of people I have seen have not constituted a handful. While service coats were not as plentiful, long.short sleeve combos were rampant by those not meeting height-weight regulations.
I strongly suggest that any policy makers reading this thread come to the conclusion to conclude this uniform shenanigans and adopt standard uniform items that can apply to both USAF Style and CAP Distinctive.
Thus, standardization of the gray pants and shirt is a must. Standardized pants will accommodate the golf shirt as well as white-gray. Keeping them both is necessary. The golf shirt for flying/operations and the white shirt with ribbons for more formal application. That is the best of it.
If the uniform requires hemming and tailoring (attaching the sleeve band certainly) the price of this uniform goes to $300-$350 easy. I own one. I have a blueberry Nomex flightsuit which it will sit next to -- so that's $600 total. Add the Full size Wings and ribbon set up while you are at it.
I don't care so much which uniforms are implemented. I've been in for only a few years and I have a lot of un-usable uniforms over this brief time. I think that is unfortunate. It makes me think I won't be buying anymore uniforms for awhile and just participate in those things that appeal to me - dressed as I like in a suit and thereby not represent myself as a member or fall under uniform regulations. I don't need to keep purchasing temporary items. The trouble is these items were never said to be temporary when I purchased them. Your ID card and wearing a civilian suit lets you attend most formal/semi-formal/dress functions.
So is the Black Army Sweater, Black Trench Coat, Black light weight jacket gone too? I own those also. So that's a bunch of money.
Quote from: A.Member on November 08, 2009, 08:01:57 PM
Quote from: dwb on November 08, 2009, 07:27:29 PM
Regardless of the... ahem... haphazard manner in which this uniform coalesced, there were a non-trivial number of CAP officers that sank serious coin into the uniform...
Really? Do you have any hard numbers to support that claim or is your comment just anecdotal? If so, how did you arrive to such a conclusion? I've not seen a "non-trivial number" of CAP members with this uniform. As a matter of fact, I could could on one hand, with several fingers to spare, the number of members I've seen in that uniform - and I've been to every Wing conference over the past several years.
Your limited personal scope does not remotely agree with the facts.
You only need to look at photographs from various activities on any level and you will almost always see
at least 1-2 people that have invested in the CSU on some level.
I'd say it is more like 25% or more of the membership is wearing it in some flavor, if not more.
My numbers are as insupportable as your limited scope...
Is there a link or something official-like for all of this? The phase-out itself, that is? I can't find anything that even remotely indicates that the corporate uniform is going away besides this thread.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 08, 2009, 09:01:47 PM
Quote from: A.Member on November 08, 2009, 08:01:57 PM
Quote from: dwb on November 08, 2009, 07:27:29 PM
Regardless of the... ahem... haphazard manner in which this uniform coalesced, there were a non-trivial number of CAP officers that sank serious coin into the uniform...
Really? Do you have any hard numbers to support that claim or is your comment just anecdotal? If so, how did you arrive to such a conclusion? I've not seen a "non-trivial number" of CAP members with this uniform. As a matter of fact, I could could on one hand, with several fingers to spare, the number of members I've seen in that uniform - and I've been to every Wing conference over the past several years.
Your limited personal scope does not remotely agree with the facts.
You only need to look at photographs from various activities on any level and you will almost always see
at least 1-2 people that have invested in the CSU on some level.
I'd say it is more like 25% or more of the membership is wearing it in some flavor, if not more.
My numbers are as insupportable as your limited scope...
I made absolutely no claim on numbers. So you're barking up the wrong tree. I merely asked someone else to support their claim.
And really, I will always see at least 1 or 2 people in photographs of activites wearing the CSU?! Don't be silly. FWIW, a cursory review of 3 editions of Volunteer magazine from the past year or so as well as a copy of our most recent Wing magazine reveal a combined total of possibly 2 whole instances of CSU (neither with coat). My observations were admittedly anecdotal as are clearly yours. As indicated, neither my observations nor yours do nothing to support a claim that the numbers are 25% or any other "non-trivial" number. Thus, I asked someone to support their claim.
Quote from: Ollie on November 08, 2009, 09:02:29 PM
Is there a link or something official-like for all of this? The phase-out itself, that is? I can't find anything that even remotely indicates that the corporate uniform is going away besides this thread.
Expect - but don't hold your breath - another uniform ICL stating the changes adopted.
Indeed I will. But for the moment, I am curious as to how this information made it to our humble forum without there being some sort of official word about it otherwise.
Are there minutes to this meeting posted? Something? Anything?
Do we have any sort of verification that this did, indeed, occur or are people getting all worked up over scuttlebutt?
I believe this was originally reported by someone watching the NEC live stream. I have since spoken with someone else who was watching the NEC live stream, who got the same take-away. I was not watching the stream myself.
All right, that's fine. I missed the stream myself. I just wanted to see a source. Whenever I see a bold statement that seems to be upsetting people and no little footnote, I tend to get nervous.
I suppose I just spend too much time on Wikipedia...
Given the track record of official communications and regulations updates from NHQ (slower than molasses in January) I still wouldn't hold my breath... >:D
The "exact figures" of how much money was wasted on the CSU is not as important as the principle of having wasted that money at all.
I estimate that anywhere from 200,000 to 300,000 collective dollars were shelled out on this, what seems now to be, folly. Those estimates can be as low as 100,000 and as high as 350,000...money that could have been collected to host SARexs, or spend on gas to go to SARexs or bought equipment that could have been used at REDCAPS.
So long as a uniform is required by regulation, money will be shelled out on them and they will be a point of continued contention. Thus, arbitrary changes in Uniform Policy MUST be AVOIDED at all COSTS. Forget being "unfair" to those that buy, but I submit that the practice is a "waste, fraud and abuse" of member funds better applied to other things.
How exactly was this arbitrary? Just because you disagree with their apparent reasons for a decsion doesn't mean it was arbitrary. Just what process would you recommend to avoid what you call "arbitrary" changes in uniforms?
How about "It was not on the agenda." for arbitrary.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 08, 2009, 10:45:03 PM
How exactly was this arbitrary? Just because you disagree with their apparent reasons for a decsion doesn't mean it was arbitrary. Just what process would you recommend to avoid what you call "arbitrary" changes in uniforms?
Spare me...
Any process where people submit changes for the purpose of changes is referred to as arbitrary This is what has occurred in this entire process. A uniform was created arbitrarily to fill a need that did not exist (uniforms existed prior and still do after that met the need), then, after members shelled out money on it, suddenly, it is removed.
What is the reason for removing the uniform and was there even any warning? The reason is to simplify CAP uniforms? Really? What warning was there of this? As far as I and anyone in my unit can tell, there was none. Some person just got up there and made the suggestion...was there even discussion? Was it more than 30 seconds long?
That is arbitrary...it was done for the sake of "because." Because schmucks didn't like it and those that bought it be [darn]ed.
My suggestion has been pretty clear...a moratorium on CAP uniforms for a period of 5 years. Have a committee determine what uniforms are needed for what purpose, create them, stamp them in place for 5 to ten years. Make it to where USAF uniforms are adopted upon approval from the USAF with only minor CAP input into how they are worn by CAP Officers and Cadets.
Stop designing badges and the like, keep the existing ones and make it a metaphorical FEDERAL ACT to add or change things out of the 5 to 10 year cycle.
Hm... so people are upset, that they CHOSE to spend their money ( not the corporations which would be fraud, waste and abuse that they speak of) on a uniform that was never promised to be permanent, and now that the leader's of the corporation that we all volunteer for says no more, they cry afoul? I am sorry i don't understand the reasoning. One of the arguments stated members bought it to look more like AF blues, so that was a choice, no one forced you to spend the money on that uniform.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 08, 2009, 11:15:28 PM
Hm... so people are upset, that they CHOSE to spend their money ( not the corporations which would be fraud, waste and abuse that they speak of) on a uniform that was never promised to be permanent, and now that the leader's of the corporation that we all volunteer for says no more, they cry afoul? I am sorry i don't understand the reasoning. One of the arguments stated members bought it to look more like AF blues, so that was a choice, no one forced you to spend the money on that uniform.
Not to mention that it was an
optional uniform.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 08:24:01 PM
This is no time to celebrate, you should all be demanding satisfaction and accountability.
Pulease....give it rest. ::)
Quote from: NCRblues on November 08, 2009, 11:15:28 PM
Hm... so people are upset, that they CHOSE to spend their money ( not the corporations which would be fraud, waste and abuse that they speak of) on a uniform that was never promised to be permanent, and now that the leader's of the corporation that we all volunteer for says no more, they cry afoul? I am sorry i don't understand the reasoning. One of the arguments stated members bought it to look more like AF blues, so that was a choice, no one forced you to spend the money on that uniform.
When CAP fully outfit every member with items (uniforms, basic gear et al), then I can subscribe to your points.
Your problem is that you are looking at CAP as it if it were the type of corporation one might find in the capitalist marketplace where decisions are made to effect profits and loses. That is a mistake, this is a Volunteer organization where some 70% of the spending done to accomplish the missions comes from individuals that outfit themselves. This action is likely a travesty of that ideal. If you screw with the membership in this manner, then how can one expect loyalty?
To take the ground floor out from members over policies is a horrible precedent. This outrages me more on that matter than on anything else, save likely the incredible waste of resources.
Quote from: A.Member on November 08, 2009, 11:52:06 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 08:24:01 PM
This is no time to celebrate, you should all be demanding satisfaction and accountability.
Pulease....give it rest. ::)
Bupkes
QuoteAny process where people submit changes for the purpose of changes is referred to as arbitrary This is what has occurred in this entire process. A uniform was created arbitrarily to fill a need that did not exist (uniforms existed prior and still do after that met the need), then, after members shelled out money on it, suddenly, it is removed.
So, you're mad that they decided to fix something that you don't think was done properly in the first place?
QuoteWhat is the reason for removing the uniform and was there even any warning? The reason is to simplify CAP uniforms? Really?
Apparently, yes.
QuoteWhat warning was there of this? As far as I and anyone in my unit can tell, there was none. Some person just got up there and made the suggestion...was there even discussion? Was it more than 30 seconds long?
The warning is when they make the announcement that the uniform will no longer be authorized after a certain period of time.
Would it have been better for this to be an announced agenda item and would it have been better to follow their unofficial policy of doing uniform changes at the winter NB? Sure. But, they're under no obligation to do so. And even if it did, CAP is not a democracy and they could have gotten 99% negative comments from the field and still made the decision.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2009, 12:03:13 AM
And even if it did, CAP is not a democracy and they could have gotten 99% negative comments from the field and still made the decision.
I will remember this when you start ranting that we need to democratize CAP. In any case, I have it from a good source that this may be revisited.
Electing your leaders doesn't guarantee that they'll always make the same decision you would if you were in that job. It is our current un-elected leadership, which is not beholden to the members in any way, that that has made this decision that you are complaining about.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 11:55:25 PM
Quote from: A.Member on November 08, 2009, 11:52:06 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 08:24:01 PM
This is no time to celebrate, you should all be demanding satisfaction and accountability.
Pulease....give it rest. ::)
Bupkes
It's spelled "bupkis," the definition is something uncountable or literally "nothing."
As in, "I went to the track and bet on a sure thing but came home with bupkis!"
Your usage seems to be more as an interjection meaning "BS" this is an improper use of the word.
Thus ends your yiddish lesson for the day.
Next up on the agenda, let me say this.
CAP is not going to furnish uniforms to seniors. CAP should not furnish uniforms to seniors. Why? Because if you think getting a uniform item back from a kid is a chore, try getting one back from a disgruntled adult who exhibits less maturity than said kid (like quitting because the uniform changed).
You and I are volunteers in a non-profit organization. Just like the Red Cross or the Boy Scouts or any number of other organizations. IF CAP had been changing the primary uniform regularly, I'd say something must change.
That CAP only wants to change an optional uniform that we all lived without before the founder of the U.S. Ranger Corps instituted it (because he couldn't legally pack himself into AF blues) is perfectly fine with me. The uniform had no business being created in the first place. The politics behind it are sickening. Get rid of it.
And lastly, I will say that the Corporate uniform (sans service coat) can be recycled. The pants can be used in the AF style, and the white aviator shirt can be worn with gray pants. So, a service coat and a hat are pretty much the only components that cannot be re-purposed. At least you can take it off of your taxes.
The decision by the NEC to rid us of the "CSU" was not on the agenda. Why it was brought up at this meeting is anyones guess however, the NB voted just 2 months ago to table this, and all uniform issues, until the winter 2011 meeting. This was done to assess a rational strategy in forming an understandable uniform policy. I guess the NEC thought it could bypass the process.....
It seems the NEC has decided to make a statement about the powers of the entire national board. Seems like we're in for an interesting few months... >:D
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:16:51 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 11:55:25 PM
Quote from: A.Member on November 08, 2009, 11:52:06 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 08:24:01 PM
This is no time to celebrate, you should all be demanding satisfaction and accountability.
Pulease....give it rest. ::)
Bupkes
It's spelled "bupkis," the definition is something uncountable or literally "nothing."
As in, "I went to the track and bet on a sure thing but came home with bupkis!"
Your usage seems to be more as an interjection meaning "BS" this is an improper use of the word.
Thus ends your yiddish lesson for the day.
Next up on the agenda, let me say this.
CAP is not going to furnish uniforms to seniors. CAP should not furnish uniforms to seniors. Why? Because if you think getting a uniform item back from a kid is a chore, try getting one back from a disgruntled adult who exhibits less maturity than said kid (like quitting because the uniform changed).
You and I are volunteers in a non-profit organization. Just like the Red Cross or the Boy Scouts or any number of other organizations. IF CAP had been changing the primary uniform regularly, I'd say something must change.
That CAP only wants to change an optional uniform that we all lived without before the founder of the U.S. Ranger Corps instituted it (because he couldn't legally pack himself into AF blues) is perfectly fine with me. The uniform had no business being created in the first place. The politics behind it are sickening. Get rid of it.
And lastly, I will say that the Corporate uniform (sans service coat) can be recycled. The pants can be used in the AF style, and the white aviator shirt can be worn with gray pants. So, a service coat and a hat are pretty much the only components that cannot be re-purposed. At least you can take it off of your taxes.
I try to honor Yiddish when I use it, when English, Spanish and Italian just don't have the word I need
...but my usage was actually just that "nothing." It is better to say "bupkis" than what I intended to say.
Sparky, remember, you're supposed to be our calm voice of reason here....
Quote from: FW on November 09, 2009, 02:20:37 AM
The decision by the NEC to rid us of the "CSU" was not on the agenda. Why it was brought up at this meeting is anyones guess however, the NB voted just 2 months ago to table this, and all uniform issues, until the winter 2011 meeting. This was done to assess a rational strategy in forming an understandable uniform policy. I guess the NEC thought it could bypass the process.....
It seems the NEC has decided to make a statement about the powers of the entire national board. Seems like we're in for an interesting few months... >:D
We don't have uniforms. There is nothing unified about our uniforms. Right now, the boy scouts look more professional than the fashion show we parade about town in. Personally, I would gladly eat the cost of all of my uniforms, let them scrap the whole system and institute a simplified, common sense uniform system if they need to.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2009, 02:26:11 AM
Sparky, remember, you're supposed to be our calm voice of reason here....
I am honored, and humbled...I will return to regularly scheduled programming. Thanks for the reminder. Its only that I know that CAP officers in my unit and area devote money and energy (lots of it from personal funds and sometimes I think if we didn't three would be no operational CAP in the area) to accomplish the missions in our area and wastes of money like this...which destroy some of that...makes me angry...yes, angry.
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:26:15 AM
We don't have uniforms. There is nothing unified about our uniforms. Right now, the boy scouts look more professional than the fashion show we parade about town in. Personally, I would gladly eat the cost of all of my uniforms, let them scrap the whole system and institute a simplified, common sense uniform system if they need to.
And what would be the fun of that? >:D ;D
Quote from: FW on November 09, 2009, 02:31:32 AM
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:26:15 AM
We don't have uniforms. There is nothing unified about our uniforms. Right now, the boy scouts look more professional than the fashion show we parade about town in. Personally, I would gladly eat the cost of all of my uniforms, let them scrap the whole system and institute a simplified, common sense uniform system if they need to.
And what would be the fun of that? >:D ;D
Thinking fun... With our huge collection of uniforms and associated uniform violations, we could emulate the "People of WalMart" website. A "People of CAP" website might be just as scary. >:D
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:16:51 AM
And lastly, I will say that the Corporate uniform (sans service coat) can be recycled. The pants can be used in the AF style, and the white aviator shirt can be worn with gray pants. So, a service coat and a hat are pretty much the only components that cannot be re-purposed. At least you can take it off of your taxes.
How do you re-purpose a 50 inch waist pair of AF pants? I've got an officer in that situation.
I understand why the blue/ white is gone. Frankly, I was very surprised when I came back from college and saw AF slides on a CAP uniform. I bought the jacket in August 2008, more than two years after it was authorized, because there really was no option for those of us who don't meet h/w standards look near as professional as those who can wear AF style. Blazer? Don't make me laugh.
If the big problem with the Service Coat is the hard rank...
Quote from: SilverEagle2 on November 08, 2009, 04:07:10 PM
Put the grey slides on the shirt and coat.
This would be the quickest solution to save members from losing 300ish dollars on a uniform.
DN
I like the idea of Vanguard having one standard grey pant and a matching flight cap.
Why not take it one step further and have the current AF service coat made in the same material?
And add a gray service cap.
These items already exist in the Law Enforcement world and all vanguard would have to do is pick a supplier.
This way we can have a military style uniform that meets our needs and is VERY distinctive, yet is similar to the AF uniform, just Grey instead of blue.
I of course would only support this if military awards and ribbons authorized on the AF style uniform would be authorized.
Stop slapping this disabled veteran who cannot meet height and weight standards because of his service connected disability in the face please.....
Quote from: cap235629 on November 09, 2009, 02:41:18 AM
I like the idea of Vanguard having one standard grey pant and a matching flight cap.
Why not take it one step further and have the current AF service coat made in the same material?
And add a gray service cap.
These items already exist in the Law Enforcement world and all vanguard would have to do is pick a supplier.
This way we can have a military style uniform that meets our needs and is VERY distinctive, yet is similar to the AF uniform, just Grey instead of blue.
I of course would only support this if military awards and ribbons authorized on the AF style uniform would be authorized.
Stop slapping this disabled veteran who cannot meet height and weight standards because of his service connected disability in the face please.....
It would take getting used to. I don't think it would fly. Gray uniforms might look more like East German ones than an American uniform of an Auxiliary service.
Can we stop slamming the NEC for making this decision. Honestly, stop the whining. I have seen just as many individuals wear the TPU poorly as I have seen people wearing the grays questionably. Do you realize how many different white police shirts are out there...not to mention two or three different styles of blue name plates. Besides, that uniform represented one of the worst periods in our organization's recent history. Why not sack it and move on to a new era. I am so glad that it's gone. As a retired AF NCO, I cringed when that uniform was approved; talk about thumbing your nose at the Air Force...let alone making our organization look un-professional on the outside because of the multitude of uniform combinations. If we as an organization are supposed to be fiscally responsible than how could this uniform have been approved in the first place. Ever consider who paid the set up and the special order costs for uniform items that were not part of the traditional Air Force stock pile? Are you guys sure that the black leather jacket stays?
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 09, 2009, 02:46:16 AM
Are you guys sure that the black leather jacket stays?
You can wear any sort of jacket with the white-grays from brown leather jacket to, what was mentioned one time, a HELLO KITTY pink bomber jacket. So, if there is no more CSU...and the white grays stay, who is to say that the black jacket is not authorized with the white grays.
Quote from: davidsinn on November 09, 2009, 02:37:10 AM
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:16:51 AM
And lastly, I will say that the Corporate uniform (sans service coat) can be recycled. The pants can be used in the AF style, and the white aviator shirt can be worn with gray pants. So, a service coat and a hat are pretty much the only components that cannot be re-purposed. At least you can take it off of your taxes.
How do you re-purpose a 50 inch waist pair of AF pants? I've got an officer in that situation.
They're blue pants. Tell him to get a sport coat and wear them when he goes to church. It isn't like the pants are forever marked as being uniform. They are just blue dress pants.
Just because something cannot be repurposed into a CAP Uniform doesn't mean it is garbage (Corporate Service Coat excepted unless you become an airline pilot)
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 09, 2009, 02:46:16 AMEver consider who paid the set up and the special order costs for uniform items that were not part of the traditional Air Force stock pile?
I did, as did everyone else who bought one.
Please send me your address and I will send you the receipt. Its a couple of years old, now, so I'm good with 80%.
If you're suggesting that CAP paid the setup charges, then that is more reason to keep it, not get rid of it.
Perhaps in addition to being hyper-sensitive to offending the USAF every time we do something, perhaps we should concern ourselves, slightly, once in a while, with the membership.
Quote from: davidsinn
How do you re-purpose a 50 inch waist pair of AF pants? I've got an officer in that situation.
With persistence and a sewing machine. ;-)
Wow. This Sucks. 3 of my Officers purchased the "complete" CSU, days ago.
Now I look like a jackass for recommending it to them, and I bet at least 2 walk away.
This decision is one of the finest screw-ups I have seen in CAP in at least 10 years. This is actually hurting the members who want to be part of CAP.
I now hope that membership drops significantly. Until we hear the TRUE reasons behind this, the leadership should be prepared to explain to everyone they come across, why and how something like this is cool.
Oh ya, I also get to tell the State Representative that attends my meetings (although assigned to a "legislative SQD") that the cash he dropped 7 months ago on the uniform was for nothing.
I can wear either uniform, but the CSU (minus) the coat was my choice. It presented a better appearance than a uniform with gray anything on it.
While I have absolutely no inside knowledge -- in fact, didn't even know about it until I read this thread -- I find myself agreeing with the earlier poster who advised all to wait before beginning their celebrations (or mourning).
This item is very probably going to be revisited. And most probably modified, if not withdrawn. Too many people spent too much money on the CSU for it to be junked without so much as a by-your-leave.
My opinion ... free and worth what it costs. Your mileage may vary.
Jack
Quote from: Spike on November 09, 2009, 03:06:52 AM
I now hope that membership drops significantly.
I don't necessarily hope that but if it did occur, that wouldn't be the end of the world either because if this is actually the issue that someone is willing to fall on their sword for, then they're in the wrong organization.
Since we have a mild thread of Yiddish words in here...Can anyone define a Yenta? I see a few.
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:13:37 AM
I don't necessarily but if it did, that wouldn't be the end of the world either. If this is actually the issue that someone is willing to fall on their sword for, then they're in the wrong organization.
OUTSTANDING ATTITUDE!
There's a huge difference between quitting because you didn't make major, and quiting because you just dropped $300 on a uniform that was disallowed on a whim.
Especially when we know there will be members all over forced to revert to a golf shirt because they spent their dough on the CSU, who will sit and watch the thousands who are outside weight standards wearing the USAF uniform.
Think again, people, about who this is being done TO. Not some corporate employees earning their living
from CAP, or members of the military who are simply given their clothes to wear.
Volunteers, who, in an effort to present a proper appearance and FOLLOW THE RULES, are getting the shaft.
Volunteers, who were likely excited to represent their country in uniform, on their own time, at their own cost.
I'm the first in line about raising the bar, expecting performance before reward, and killing the "you're lucky I showed up at all" mentality.
But if you want THAT, you have to play fair.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 03:26:30 AM
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:13:37 AM
I don't necessarily but if it did, that wouldn't be the end of the world either. If this is actually the issue that someone is willing to fall on their sword for, then they're in the wrong organization.
OUTSTANDING ATTITUDE!
There's a huge difference between quitting because you didn't make major, and quiting because you just dropped $300 on a uniform that was disallowed on a whim.
Especially when we know there will be members all over forced to revert to a golf shirt because they spent their dough on the CSU, who will sit and watch the thousands who are outside weight standards wearing the USAF uniform.
Think again, people, about who this is being done TO. Not some corporate employees earning their living
from CAP, or members of the military who are simply given their clothes to wear.
Volunteers, who, in an effort to present a proper appearance and FOLLOW THE RULES, are getting the shaft.
Volunteers, who were likely excited to represent their country in uniform, on their own time, at their own cost.
I'm the first in line about raising the bar, expecting performance before reward, and killing the "you're lucky I showed up at all" mentality.
But if you want THAT, you have to play fair.
Justify it however you want, although I don't see what your "playing fair" comment has to do with this issue at all. I understand, you're part of a group that coughed up money for a uniform that was controversial from the beginning and now it's been discontinued. So, are you going to quit over it?
You've been around the organization for a little while, is this the first uniform change that ever impacted you? Do you think it will be the last?
As mentioned previously, perhaps this is an issue for every other wing (again, I see no real evidence to this) but in our wing I see the number of people impacted as very negligible because they didn't have the outfit to begin with.
Quote from: cap235629 on November 09, 2009, 02:41:18 AM
I like the idea of Vanguard having one standard grey pant and a matching flight cap.
Why not take it one step further and have the current AF service coat made in the same material?
And add a gray service cap.
These items already exist in the Law Enforcement world and all vanguard would have to do is pick a supplier.
This way we can have a military style uniform that meets our needs and is VERY distinctive, yet is similar to the AF uniform, just Grey instead of blue.
I of course would only support this if military awards and ribbons authorized on the AF style uniform would be authorized.
Stop slapping this disabled veteran who cannot meet height and weight standards because of his service connected disability in the face please.....
Just spent an hour googling uniforms.
how about this:
standardized gray pants.
standardized navy blue public safety style coat in place of navy blue blazer allowing ALL decorations and awards with gray epaulet sleeves.
navy blue round service cap to to be worn only with jacket
gray garrison cap.
honestly I would just prefer they just change the epaulet sleeves, commissioning braid (get rid of it completely) and name tags on the CSU, allow
ALL ribbons and decorations, and modify the grooming standards.
Looking forward to seeing this on the NB agenda!
As Jackie Gleason used to say
and away we go!
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
You've been around the organization for a little while, is this the first uniform change that ever impacted you? Do you think it will be the last?
My problem is not that the uniform was deleted from the "wardrobe". My problem is with the body who made the decision. The NEC should not have been involved, IMHO. The NB spoke up at the summer meeting and the issue was to be revisited at the 2011 winter meeting. As I previously stated, I think there is something more to this than just uniforms...... :-X
Quote from: FW on November 09, 2009, 03:57:32 AM
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
You've been around the organization for a little while, is this the first uniform change that ever impacted you? Do you think it will be the last?
My problem is not that the uniform was deleted from the "wardrobe". My problem is with the body who made the decision. The NEC should not have been involved, IMHO. The NB spoke up at the summer meeting and the issue was to be revisited at the 2011 winter meeting. As I previously stated, I think there is something more to this than just uniforms...... :-X
That's fair enough. Maybe you're right. I have yet to get real caught up in that level of the bureaucracy. Perhaps there is "more than meets the skies" with this issue. :) Who knows, maybe Tony filed a trademark infringement on that awful design...
Technically, the NEC has full authority to do almost anything the NB is authorized to do. I'm not quite sure I like this particular clause in the CAP Constitution that gives this very small body almost the same powers as the NB, but it is what it is.
QuoteThis item is very probably going to be revisited. And most probably modified, if not withdrawn. Too many people spent too much money on the CSU for it to be junked without so much as a by-your-leave.
Yes, either the NB or BoG could decide to go the other way. Which, of course, would encourage more charges of acting on whims.
So let's say the BOG or NB wants to undue this... then the next NEC it goes right back.... are we saying there is that large of a loophole in our bylaws and governance?
Yep, with a few specific exceptions the NEC is fully vested with the same authority as the NB. The BoG can overrule both of them if it wants to get involved.
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
...I don't see what your "playing fair" comment has to do with this issue at all.
Obviously.
Here's the Commander's Letter announcing the then new Corporate Uniform. It is dated June, 2006. That is 3 years 5 months ago.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5760868/OFFICE-OF-THE-NATIONAL-COMMANDER-NATIONAL-HEADQUARTERS-CIVIL-AIR
Quote from: JillCan anyone define a Yenta? I see a few.
"Seeing" them.. rules out "Your Espionage Network and Training Academy"...
Darn. ;-)
As for my thoughts on the un-uniform gray stuff, I've just never cared for them. It's always looked.. so.. well.. boring, just plain ugh.
What I keep failing to remember with the CSU was that the grooming standards still applied, where as with the grays practically anything goes.
So unless whatever CAP distinctive uniform is good for "everyone" (else), then it's the same problem we have now. (had). Three main choices.
I still stand by, at least it was uniform in appearance.
Quote from: Smithsonia on November 09, 2009, 04:13:48 AM
Here's the Commander's Letter announcing the then new Corporate Uniform. It is dated June, 2006. That is 3 years 5 months ago.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5760868/OFFICE-OF-THE-NATIONAL-COMMANDER-NATIONAL-HEADQUARTERS-CIVIL-AIR
That's the update to the already approved uniform that added the service coat and other changes.
The letter itself indicates many are already wearing it.
The actual CSU was created much earlier in the year. I have photos of myself and other staff receiving awards from the (then) Wing CC and all of us are wearing the new combo, probably in May. I want to say the uniform was originally approved in Feb 06
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:12:42 AM
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
...I don't see what your "playing fair" comment has to do with this issue at all.
Obviously.
Perhaps next time you can offer up something other than a straw man argument.
The most "uniformity" you'll ever see in most CAP situations, is a mission staff in mostly golf shirts while the pilots (and pretenders) are in flight suits.
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 04:20:00 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:12:42 AM
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
...I don't see what your "playing fair" comment has to do with this issue at all.
Obviously.
Perhaps next time you can offer up something other than a straw man argument.
Perhaps you can wiki straw man and get back to us, since my points are completely valid in
the context of dealing with volunteers.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:26:04 AM
(...) while the pilots (and pretenders) are in flight suits.
Careful now. No need to keep throwing stones just to see if one hits something...
Quote from: Pingree1492 on November 09, 2009, 04:29:01 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:26:04 AM
(...) while the pilots (and pretenders) are in flight suits.
Careful now. No need to keep throwing stones just to see if one hits something...
I've never been to a mission base where there weren't plenty of people who weren't going near
an airplane that day who were still wearing a flight suit.
Quote from: Pingree1492 on November 09, 2009, 04:29:01 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:26:04 AM
(...) while the pilots (and pretenders) are in flight suits.
Careful now. No need to keep throwing stones just to see if one hits something...
Obviously he's too emotionally attached to the issue.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:30:44 AM
I've never been to a mission base where there weren't plenty of people who weren't going near
an airplane that day who were still wearing a flight suit.
If you think that's odd or CAP-specific, you must never have been on an Air Force base then.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:30:44 AM
Quote from: Pingree1492 on November 09, 2009, 04:29:01 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:26:04 AM
(...) while the pilots (and pretenders) are in flight suits.
Careful now. No need to keep throwing stones just to see if one hits something...
I've never been to a mission base where there weren't plenty of people who weren't going near
an airplane that day who were still wearing a flight suit.
Which has no bearing on the recent canning of the CPU. This topic has already pretty much run it's course, let's not resurrect other long beaten to death arguments to add to it.
Even those of us who are glad to see this uniform go recognize that some members are out of luck with it. Was there a better solution to this? Some worth considering have been proposed here.
There are still several board meetings between now and the phase-out date of Jan 2011. The only thing to do now if you don't agree with this is take the comments constructively up the chain. I'm sure this isn't the last we will hear about this uniform.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:27:56 AM
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 04:20:00 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:12:42 AM
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
...I don't see what your "playing fair" comment has to do with this issue at all.
Obviously.
Perhaps next time you can offer up something other than a straw man argument.
Perhaps you can wiki straw man and get back to us, since my points are completely valid in
the context of dealing with volunteers.
You're really shotgunning all over the place...and missing. Probably a good time to step away from the keyboard for a bit...I know I'm going to. I spent far too much time discussing this issue. It's simply not deserving of this level of attention. There are far more important issues to address.
I love how you guys think that the average member has a say in this.
If they didn't ask for your input before they made this decision, what makes you think they will pay attention to your input now?
Quote from: Pylon on November 09, 2009, 04:35:08 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:30:44 AM
I've never been to a mission base where there weren't plenty of people who weren't going near
an airplane that day who were still wearing a flight suit.
If you think that's odd or CAP-specific, you must never have been on an Air Force base then.
CAP members wearing flightsuits to unit staff meetings make that comment all the time.
Last I checked we are not in the Air Force, and their uniform wear policies are irrelevant to CAP.
Most aircrew, and many other MOS' have a specification that there normal uniform, regardless of
duty, is the flightsuit, which is why you have a lot of CAP-RAPS driving to meetings in the green bag.
Our regs say "when flying".
Most people in the USAF are also required to wear their blues on Mondays, but somehow that's escaped those same people who think the flight suit is fine for a an SLS/CLC. ::)
Hey Eclipse
How come your not on this thread telling/asking folks if they've quit like you addressed me in another thread for me rapping CAP...
How come you are not rapping the folks here telling them they are full of nonsense like you told me ;D ;D ;D ;D
Joker
You got an answer for everyone on this thread, don't you
Go on keep telling me I full of non sense I think there a lot of folks thinking maybe you fall into the same category, huh?
I guess it's a little of that left over hope and change spirit.... ;) but good point, I'm sure pressure to remove this uniform was not from your average member, more than likely (and let's be honest with ourselves) ma blue.
Quote from: PHall on November 09, 2009, 04:43:20 AM
I love how you guys think that the average member has a say in this.
If they didn't ask for your input before they made this decision, what makes you think they will pay attention to your input now?
They won't, which
is the point.
I can't tell you how many times I have been solicited for an opinion by my Wing CC on issues which have far-less immediate and direct member-impact than something like this. Do my views get passed up the chain? No idea, but the illusion pacifies me.
CAP is not a democracy, I get that (neither is the US of A), but it is also not a top-down command structure. It is a participative process involving a board of directors with more than 50 people on it.
And those people are supposed to represent the best interest of the corporation and the membership (I grant in that order). I fail to see how this does either.
Frankly its the blind-sidedness that gets me the most. Something on the agenda which indicates that a change is coming allows me as a member to consider whether I should spend my money (ala Narrow band).
If I choose to by a VX-150 knowing full well that in 30 days its a door stop, that's my decision, otherwise...
Quote from: heliodoc on November 09, 2009, 04:47:57 AM
Hey Eclipse
How come your not on this thread telling/asking folks if they've quit like you addressed me in another thread for me rapping CAP...
How come you are not rapping the folks here telling them they are full of nonsense like you told me
Joker
You got an answer for everyone on this thread, don't you
Go on keep telling me I full of non sense I think there a lot of folks thinking maybe you fall into the same category, huh?
Yes, Helio, you're entirely right.
I guess there's never a time when you can support an organization, but still find issue with an individual decision.
You got me. I'm full of it. Well played.
Quote from: Smithsonia on November 09, 2009, 04:13:48 AM
Here's the Commander's Letter announcing the then new Corporate Uniform. It is dated June, 2006. That is 3 years 5 months ago.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5760868/OFFICE-OF-THE-NATIONAL-COMMANDER-NATIONAL-HEADQUARTERS-CIVIL-AIR
It was apparently actually officially promulgated in March of 2006 according to details in that letter.
^^^
Now there's a worthwhile document to save in docstoc. now isn't it
That piece of paper will get a cup of joe just about anywhere won't it??
Guess it's time to shelve that piece of history...
OOPs wait a moment....it will be another claim to fame for CAP...just like its SILLY smurfsuit
Now that piece of uniform is what really ID'd CAP's silliness in the late 70's and 80's and there were plenty o takers on that silly suit
Once again, this little exercise this past weekend at NEC, proves once again, CAP is a the helm of uniform changes for any given day, any given circumstance, any dog and pony show and usually at the cost of any given member.
I can see now, even more why we DO look like some Third World banana republic dictators .... Should the AF really take us seriously???
Now will the real CAP stand up and GET to work...isn't there some Homeland Security support mission we can be at.. maybe handing out the left over CSU's at the Goodwill. There could be some welll dressed less fortunate folk out there.. Then there would be more worry about CAP posers...I guess ;D ;D ;D
I am not going to argue that May or March is any less precipitous than 3 years and 5 months. Three years a 7 months is too narrow a time frame to make a change. Obviously none of us have had a chance to wear these things out. Also, it seems to me that I couldn't get the Coat in 2006 and had to wait to early 2007 to buy my CSU. BUT, I could be off by a month or two. So for me, I've had mine under 3 years. Taken all together the expense was about $40. per wearing. I can rent a tuxedo for that.
The Air Force has a Virtual Uniform Policy Board so lowly airmen can comment on uniform changes. It still may not be a democracy but there is a period of comment open for consideration.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123089413
Quote from: Smithsonia on November 09, 2009, 05:41:18 AM
I am not going to argue that May or March is any less precipitous than 3 years and 5 months. Three years a 7 months is too narrow a time frame to make a change. Obviously none of us have had a chance to wear these things out. Also, it seems to me that I couldn't get the Coat in 2006 and had to wait to early 2007 to buy mine. BUT, I cold be off by a month or two. So for me, I've had mine under 3 years. Taken all together the expense was about $40. per wearing. I can rent a tuxedo for that.
The Air Force has a Virtual Uniform Policy Board so lowly airmen can comment on uniform changes. It still may not be a democracy but there is a period of comment open for consideration.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123089413
If I recall, vanguard offered a discount for early orders.
Quote from: FW on November 09, 2009, 02:20:37 AM
The decision by the NEC to rid us of the "CSU" was not on the agenda. Why it was brought up at this meeting is anyones guess however, the NB voted just 2 months ago to table this, and all uniform issues, until the winter 2011 meeting. This was done to assess a rational strategy in forming an understandable uniform policy. I guess the NEC thought it could bypass the process.....
It seems the NEC has decided to make a statement about the powers of the entire national board. Seems like we're in for an interesting few months... >:D
That's why at the end of the Agenda is an item for "New Business"
Quote from: Smithsonia on November 09, 2009, 05:41:18 AM
The Air Force has a Virtual Uniform Policy Board so lowly airmen can comment on uniform changes. It still may not be a democracy but there is a period of comment open for consideration.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123089413
While plenty of people have pointed out that CAP is not a democracy, certainly neither is the Air Force. The virtual board for comments is not the only difference the Air Force has between how we each handle our uniform policies.
CAP typically has either seen motions come to the floor during new business, out of left field, without any prior time for uniform changes to be researched, considered, debated, or field tested (this is how the CSU was born, and it's exactly how it died also); Or sometimes uniform changes make it on an agenda, proposed by any member of the NB if they so choose, and the agenda is out there for a few weeks, maybe a month, before the same people who proposed the idea vote on it.
The Air Force on the other hand has a well-reasoned and thought-out process. They have a committee for that: The Air Force Uniform Board. They receive suggestions from the field as well as receive taskings to explore, research, investigate, or develop from above.
The Air Force Uniform Board then has the ability to take their time with each proposed uniform change. They research how changes impact
all of the members in the Air Force. For example, they don't forget they have members in cold climates, forget they have females, forget they have NCOs, or any number of other things that CAP
has actually done when they've made uniform decisions. They discuss the impact each change will have, debate pros and cons and then make well-thought-out decisions.
This is what CAP is missing. It's not about what type of coats we should or shouldn't have. It's not about the color of epaulets, name plates, or sleeve braid looks best. The problem is with the process. The problem is that Civil Air Patrol refuses to use any sort of process by which to make decisions. Instead, our "leaders" pull the fly-by-the-seat-of-our-pants maneuver over and over again.
This uneducated and unrefined habit shows itself in just about every other arena of CAP's leadership, as well. The shenanigans is not limited to just uniforms. We're not just complaining because the changes are to the cool duds we can wear. How many times has Civil Air Patrol changed our logo (or just added a new logo to the pile) without any clear justification of why we needed a logo change or needed an additional emblem? How many times have we changed the decals on our vans and planes? And then changed them back again? How many Internet domains do we have for Civil Air Patrol now – eight? More than ten? And at least three complete changes to our main website's address in under six years?
Any regular company would be considered to be having a complete identity crisis and breakdown if it's corporate leadership kept making these types of changes every few months.
All of the rash, unreasonable changes continue to make members irate. If it's not the CSU, maybe it was the fourth chest patch in under 5 years that CAP pilots and aircrew had to buy to keep their AF-style flight suit current. If that didn't push some over the edge, maybe it was changing decals on the planes. Twice. No wait, three times and meanwhile, we don't have enough money to fly all of our cadets on O-flights or get in the training our aircrew could use. So while it's easy to say "If you're willing to quit over a uniform, then good riddance" -- the truth of the matter is that everyone has a breaking point. And CAP's leadership continues to make series and series of easily irksome, knee-jerk decisions that can, yes, eventually irritate plenty of our otherwise hardworking volunteers to the point of throwing up their hands.
I'm not a wearer of the CSU. I didn't like the way it was conceived, and I'll admit that I'm a wearer of AF-style uniforms pretty much exclusively. But as I mentioned, for me this isn't about corporate uniform wearers. This is about how CAP insists on doing business. Because no matter what uniform you wear, if any, this type of decision making will affect all of us. Actually, it already has whether you realize it or not.
The change we need is in the unreasonable actions of our leadership who fail to see that their current model of governance is bad for Civil Air Patrol, not because it makes unpopular changes to our uniforms, but because it's an entirely idiotic way to run a huge organization. Stop micromanaging, stop making decisions without any research or time put into them (and a few nights writing an agenda item doesn't count), stop and THINK. Stop, consult, talk, research, read, and think before making decisions. Leverage our huge volunteer base (who constantly volunteer their services to NHQ to see them fall on deaf ears) to do some of that work for you. In the meantime, start looking into things that can actually move CAP forward. How about looking into what CAP is going to do in the long-term for permanent meeting facilities for units and headquarters? How about working on developing planned giving from all of our tens of thousands of CAP members and CAP alumni across the nation so we can one day enjoy the benefits of a large funding endowment? How about working on unifying our missions and taskings? Developing more and better training? Clearer manuals, meatier pamphlets, and updated regulations that reflect present day CAP?
Anything that makes more of a difference than spur-of-the-moment decisions about the clothes we wear to work.
Great job, Mike. One of the best posts I've ever seen on this board.
I hope a copy of those comments finds its way into the hands of the BoG.
Does anyone else think there's more to this than we're seeing? I've seen the CAP/CC, CV, and CS wearing the corporate uniform in some variety, and now the NEC votes suddenly to get rid of it. The circumstances lead me to believe that something occurred behind the scenes (other than wanting to scale back the closet) to bring this on.
Quote from: Pylon on November 09, 2009, 08:22:41 AM
The change we need is in the unreasonable actions of our leadership who fail to see that their current model of governance is bad for Civil Air Patrol, not because it makes unpopular changes to our uniforms, but because it's an entirely idiotic way to run a huge organization. Stop micromanaging, stop making decisions without any research or time put into them (and a few nights writing an agenda item doesn't count), stop and THINK. Stop, consult, talk, research, read, and think before making decisions. Leverage our huge volunteer base (who constantly volunteer their services to NHQ to see them fall on deaf ears) to do some of that work for you. In the meantime, start looking into things that can actually move CAP forward. How about looking into what CAP is going to do in the long-term for permanent meeting facilities for units and headquarters? How about working on developing planned giving from all of our tens of thousands of CAP members and CAP alumni across the nation so we can one day enjoy the benefits of a large funding endowment? How about working on unifying our missions and taskings? Developing more and better training? Clearer manuals, meatier pamphlets, and updated regulations that reflect present day CAP? Anything that makes more of a difference than spur-of-the-moment decisions about the clothes we wear to work.
Excellent, Mike. This paragraph should be framed on the wall of every NB member and repeated at every board meeting untill we see some real progress. Even if this has happened in the past, it is a forgotten practice now. Maybe someone will take this to heart and.....
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
You've been around the organization for a little while, is this the first uniform change that ever impacted you? Do you think it will be the last?
There is a difference in replacing insignia with different insignia that costs $3.50 AND dumping upwards of $400.00 two weeks ago on a uniform that can only be worn for a short time.
BTW.....
Vanguard is NOT taking back any CSU items. Called this morning.
Quote from: FW on November 09, 2009, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: Pylon on November 09, 2009, 08:22:41 AM
The change we need is in the unreasonable actions of our leadership who fail to see that their current model of governance is bad for Civil Air Patrol, not because it makes unpopular changes to our uniforms, but because it's an entirely idiotic way to run a huge organization. Stop micromanaging, stop making decisions without any research or time put into them (and a few nights writing an agenda item doesn't count), stop and THINK. Stop, consult, talk, research, read, and think before making decisions. Leverage our huge volunteer base (who constantly volunteer their services to NHQ to see them fall on deaf ears) to do some of that work for you. In the meantime, start looking into things that can actually move CAP forward. How about looking into what CAP is going to do in the long-term for permanent meeting facilities for units and headquarters? How about working on developing planned giving from all of our tens of thousands of CAP members and CAP alumni across the nation so we can one day enjoy the benefits of a large funding endowment? How about working on unifying our missions and taskings? Developing more and better training? Clearer manuals, meatier pamphlets, and updated regulations that reflect present day CAP? Anything that makes more of a difference than spur-of-the-moment decisions about the clothes we wear to work.
Excellent, Mike. This paragraph should be framed on the wall of every NB member and repeated at every board meeting untill we see some real progress. Even if this has happened in the past, it is a forgotten practice now. Maybe someone will take this to heart and.....
They should all recite it
before they say the Safety Pledge
Does anyone remember the days of the NHQ uniform committee? What happened to that? It should be a standard response -- any uniform item presented at an NB/NEC meeting should be immediately referred to committee for them to bring back a conclusive study and recommendation at the next meeting.
With the exception of changes due to safety reasons, there is no reason we must implement an immediate uniform change.
Quote from: Spike on November 09, 2009, 02:40:42 PM
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
You've been around the organization for a little while, is this the first uniform change that ever impacted you? Do you think it will be the last?
There is a difference in replacing insignia with different insignia that costs $3.50 AND dumping upwards of $400.00 two weeks ago on a uniform that can only be worn for a short time.
BTW.....Vanguard is NOT taking back any CSU items. Called this morning.
Call your credit card and refuse the package.
I think its too late, and he already has it.
I assumed that, but if the order was two weeks ago, that certainly was a fast delivery.
That said, I would expect NHQ to address this issue. If this information (about the potential canning of a uniform) been posted/sent out to the membership BEFORE the meeting, a number of people wouldn't be out half a grand here or there.
I'd give them a call and ask them to credit the $400 on your membership dues - only way I see them ever "reimbursing" this type of action.
Quote from: Pylon on November 09, 2009, 08:22:41 AM
...This is what CAP is missing. It's not about what type of coats we should or shouldn't have. It's not about the color of epaulets, name plates, or sleeve braid looks best. The problem is with the process. The problem is that Civil Air Patrol refuses to use any sort of process by which to make decisions. Instead, our "leaders" pull the fly-by-the-seat-of-our-pants maneuver over and over again.
This uneducated and unrefined habit shows itself in just about every other arena of CAP's leadership, as well. The shenanigans is not limited to just uniforms. We're not just complaining because the changes are to the cool duds we can wear. How many times has Civil Air Patrol changed our logo (or just added a new logo to the pile) without any clear justification of why we needed a logo change or needed an additional emblem? How many times have we changed the decals on our vans and planes? And then changed them back again? How many Internet domains do we have for Civil Air Patrol now – eight? More than ten? And at least three complete changes to our main website's address in under six years?
Any regular company would be considered to be having a complete identity crisis and breakdown if it's corporate leadership kept making these types of changes every few months.
All of the rash, unreasonable changes continue to make members irate. If it's not the CSU, maybe it was the fourth chest patch in under 5 years that CAP pilots and aircrew had to buy to keep their AF-style flight suit current. If that didn't push some over the edge, maybe it was changing decals on the planes. Twice. No wait, three times and meanwhile, we don't have enough money to fly all of our cadets on O-flights or get in the training our aircrew could use. So while it's easy to say "If you're willing to quit over a uniform, then good riddance" -- the truth of the matter is that everyone has a breaking point. And CAP's leadership continues to make series and series of easily irksome, knee-jerk decisions that can, yes, eventually irritate plenty of our otherwise hardworking volunteers to the point of throwing up their hands.
I'm not a wearer of the CSU. I didn't like the way it was conceived, and I'll admit that I'm a wearer of AF-style uniforms pretty much exclusively. But as I mentioned, for me this isn't about corporate uniform wearers. This is about how CAP insists on doing business. Because no matter what uniform you wear, if any, this type of decision making will affect all of us. Actually, it already has whether you realize it or not.
The change we need is in the unreasonable actions of our leadership who fail to see that their current model of governance is bad for Civil Air Patrol, not because it makes unpopular changes to our uniforms, but because it's an entirely idiotic way to run a huge organization. Stop micromanaging, stop making decisions without any research or time put into them (and a few nights writing an agenda item doesn't count), stop and THINK. Stop, consult, talk, research, read, and think before making decisions. Leverage our huge volunteer base (who constantly volunteer their services to NHQ to see them fall on deaf ears) to do some of that work for you. In the meantime, start looking into things that can actually move CAP forward. How about looking into what CAP is going to do in the long-term for permanent meeting facilities for units and headquarters? How about working on developing planned giving from all of our tens of thousands of CAP members and CAP alumni across the nation so we can one day enjoy the benefits of a large funding endowment? How about working on unifying our missions and taskings? Developing more and better training? Clearer manuals, meatier pamphlets, and updated regulations that reflect present day CAP? Anything that makes more of a difference than spur-of-the-moment decisions about the clothes we wear to work.
Now, this is a well reasoned post that presents an argument that I can agree with. Well said.
^^^
It is a beautiful and succinct post... Too bad the NEC boys and girls won't have or have the capability to make sense of it!!
Hey guys, Lets remember that it's lonely at the top. It's not easy making decisions that affect thousands. We may not always agree with the leadership but we need to support them. With that said. I really wish members of the NEC and NB read these posts to have a barometer on the membership. I just hope they remember were volunteers.
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 09, 2009, 03:07:26 PM
Quote from: Spike on November 09, 2009, 02:40:42 PM
Quote from: A.Member on November 09, 2009, 03:43:20 AM
You've been around the organization for a little while, is this the first uniform change that ever impacted you? Do you think it will be the last?
There is a difference in replacing insignia with different insignia that costs $3.50 AND dumping upwards of $400.00 two weeks ago on a uniform that can only be worn for a short time.
BTW.....Vanguard is NOT taking back any CSU items. Called this morning.
Call your credit card and refuse the package.
Done and Done. I told MasterCard the size was incorrect and the merchant refuses to accept it back, per their written policies. I just saw my credit, and MasterCard told me to hold on to all items until they work it out with Vanguard. Was this shady on my part? Not as shady as Vanguard knowing the next business day that this uniform combination is obsolete. I am sure they knew well in advance.
I did not lie, as the jacket is about 1 size too big. I was assuming I had to go 1 size larger, because that is how the AF uniforms run (1 size smaller). All I wanted to do was return the jacket, but now I don't want any of it (pants, shirt etc.)
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 09, 2009, 04:10:02 PM
Hey guys, Lets remember that it's lonely at the top. It's not easy making decisions that affect thousands. We may not always agree with the leadership but we need to support them. With that said. I really wish members of the NEC and NB read these posts to have a barometer on the membership. I just hope they remember were volunteers.
They rarely make decisions that are for the good of the membership. The decisions are political and for their own sake.
Quote from: Spike on November 09, 2009, 04:19:10 PM
Done and Done. I told MasterCard the size was incorrect and the merchant refuses to accept it back, per their written policies. I just saw my credit, and MasterCard told me to hold on to all items until they work it out with Vanguard. Was this shady on my part? Not as shady as Vanguard knowing the next business day that this uniform combination is obsolete. I am sure they knew well in advance.
I did not lie, as the jacket is about 1 size too big. I was assuming I had to go 1 size larger, because that is how the AF uniforms run (1 size smaller). All I wanted to do was return the jacket, but now I don't want any of it (pants, shirt etc.)
Quote
Returns/Refunds - If you're not satisfied with your purchase, return it in good condition within 15 days for refund or exchange. Please call or email for authorization to return merchandise. We cannot accept returns or refunds on custom or personalized orders unless it is to correct a mistake on Vanguards part.
They are still selling the coats, with no notice of the change. I don't see this being "custom or personalized", so they have no argument, unless it was more than 15 days since delivery.
Are we REALLY surprised? More than a couple people associated the Pineda-CAP uniform era to the McPeak-USAF era.
Remember all the assorted uniforms, parts and pieces authorized in the early 90s - then almost immeadiately reneged? Although not volunteers, those hardworking Air Force folk probably shelled out more than us on their DAILY USE uniforms.
I hope someday someone will a manuscript entitled "CAP Uniforms: The Pineda Regime" for their Master Historian specialty rating.
Anyway...
Quote from: Eclipse & Smithsonia
Here's the Commander's Letter announcing the then new Corporate Uniform. It is dated June, 2006. That is 3 years 5 months ago.
I want to say the uniform was originally approved in Feb 06
I've been pretty astute in grabbing and saving every change and policy letter out of National for the last five years. The 29 June 2006 letter is the first official document regarding the TPU I have. If by chance I am missing something, PLEASE pass it along!
The CAP uniform document library thus far...
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html)
I've also saved the NB/NEC minutes there, and eventually will go through them all and note on the website what uniform related issues are discussed for easier reference.
ACE!!!!!! Good to see yea!
Quote from: FW on November 09, 2009, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: Pylon on November 09, 2009, 08:22:41 AM
The change we need is in the unreasonable actions of our leadership who fail to see that their current model of governance is bad for Civil Air Patrol, not because it makes unpopular changes to our uniforms, but because it's an entirely idiotic way to run a huge organization. Stop micromanaging, stop making decisions without any research or time put into them (and a few nights writing an agenda item doesn't count), stop and THINK. Stop, consult, talk, research, read, and think before making decisions. Leverage our huge volunteer base (who constantly volunteer their services to NHQ to see them fall on deaf ears) to do some of that work for you. In the meantime, start looking into things that can actually move CAP forward. How about looking into what CAP is going to do in the long-term for permanent meeting facilities for units and headquarters? How about working on developing planned giving from all of our tens of thousands of CAP members and CAP alumni across the nation so we can one day enjoy the benefits of a large funding endowment? How about working on unifying our missions and taskings? Developing more and better training? Clearer manuals, meatier pamphlets, and updated regulations that reflect present day CAP? Anything that makes more of a difference than spur-of-the-moment decisions about the clothes we wear to work.
Excellent, Mike. This paragraph should be framed on the wall of every NB member and repeated at every board meeting untill we see some real progress. Even if this has happened in the past, it is a forgotten practice now. Maybe someone will take this to heart and.....
Mike: :clap:
"and....."?! THE BLACK VAN GOT FW!
You go, Spike!
There is no ethical reason Vangaurd should not apply their return policy as it was when the TPU items were purchased.
IF they were to add or change that policy, only items purchased AFTER the fact should be affected.
If they don't stick to their purchase and return policies, that's grounds for BBB retaliation - maybe even the state attourney general?
QuoteThe change we need is in the unreasonable actions of our leadership who fail to see that their current model of governance is bad for Civil Air Patrol, not because it makes unpopular changes to our uniforms, but because it's an entirely idiotic way to run a huge organization. Stop micromanaging, stop making decisions without any research or time put into them (and a few nights writing an agenda item doesn't count), stop and THINK. Stop, consult, talk, research, read, and think before making decisions. Leverage our huge volunteer base (who constantly volunteer their services to NHQ to see them fall on deaf ears) to do some of that work for you. In the meantime, start looking into things that can actually move CAP forward. How about looking into what CAP is going to do in the long-term for permanent meeting facilities for units and headquarters? How about working on developing planned giving from all of our tens of thousands of CAP members and CAP alumni across the nation so we can one day enjoy the benefits of a large funding endowment? How about working on unifying our missions and taskings? Developing more and better training? Clearer manuals, meatier pamphlets, and updated regulations that reflect present day CAP? Anything that makes more of a difference than spur-of-the-moment decisions about the clothes we wear to work.
Bravo! But, there are a couple of important implementation difficulties.
First, CAP is an organization without measurable output. No goods, no services, no revenue, no profit. Nothing really to be measured. IMHO it is common to all organizations of this type that they ultimately become consumed with politics. After all, if there is no way to measure whether a person is successful in his job, then I must evaluate him/her based on whether I like him/her or not. (The US education system is going through an agonizing transition right now; introduction of measures is forcing huge changes in the way the system is managed.) So ... CAP by its nature is almost inevitably political.
Second, CAP is a volunteer organization. IMHO it is common to all volunteer organizations that they attract a fairly large number of people who are there to satisfy needs for power and prestige that are not being satisified in their day jobs. This is a two-edged sword. On one hand, the organization needs their efforts and dedication. On the other, there is usually a reason why they do not have power and prestige in their day jobs. In particular, they are not experienced and trained managers but they are seeking and filling management positions in the volunteer organization. So -- dysfunction. You get micromanagement, hip-shooting decisions, a parent-child organizational paradigm, etc.
So, the kind of change that is needed is probably impossible.
QuoteThey rarely make decisions that are for the good of the membership. The decisions are political and for their own sake.
Exactly my point, but more succinctly put.
Quote from: alamrcn on November 09, 2009, 04:30:33 PM
You go, Spike!
There is no ethical reason Vangaurd should not apply their return policy as it was when the TPU items were purchased.
IF they were to add or change that policy, only items purchased AFTER the fact should be affected.
If they don't stick to their purchase and return policies, that's grounds for BBB retaliation - maybe even the state attourney general?
And once again, add the fact that they are still selling them with no note about this change.
Quote from: airdale on November 09, 2009, 04:31:09 PM
First, CAP is an organization without measurable output. No goods, no services, no revenue, no profit. Nothing really to be measured. IMHO it is common to all organizations of this type that they ultimately become consumed with politics. After all, if there is no way to measure whether a person is successful in his job, then I must evaluate him/her based on whether I like him/her or not. (The US education system is going through an agonizing transition right now; introduction of measures is forcing huge changes in the way the system is managed.) So ... CAP by its nature is almost inevitably political.
Second, CAP is a volunteer organization. IMHO it is common to all volunteer organizations that they attract a fairly large number of people who are there to satisfy needs for power and prestige that are not being satisified in their day jobs. This is a two-edged sword. On one hand, the organization needs their efforts and dedication. On the other, there is usually a reason why they do not have power and prestige in their day jobs. In particular, they are not experienced and trained managers but they are seeking and filling management positions in the volunteer organization. So -- dysfunction. You get micromanagement, hip-shooting decisions, a parent-child organizational paradigm, etc.
So, the kind of change that is needed is probably impossible.
I wish I could find a way to disagree with the above, but I can't...
I dropped a lot of coin a couple of years a go for the CSU jacket, trench coat ectc... I have been in this orginization for 18 years amd they can even get uniforms right. I think come next August I am done.... I need to find a orginization that does not worry every year how the uniforms are going to change or look. >:(
Idea ............any person who bought and has the recipt for he CSU mail it to NHQ with your membership renewal papers without payment ;D
Given that Wing King and up are basically full time jobs, who fills the slots?
Retired Folks.
"Old" Folks.
Successful Business people who can take that much time? Probably not.
Quote from: Strick on November 09, 2009, 04:46:42 PM
Idea ............any person who bought and has the recipt for he CSU mail it to NHQ with your membership renewal papers without payment ;D
I would actually suggest calling up NHQ and asking if that is a viable option. If this affects only a limited number of members, then NHQ won't loose anything by giving someone 4-5 years renewal.
Quote from: alamrcn on November 09, 2009, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: Eclipse & Smithsonia
Here's the Commander's Letter announcing the then new Corporate Uniform. It is dated June, 2006. That is 3 years 5 months ago.
I want to say the uniform was originally approved in Feb 06
I've been pretty astute in grabbing and saving every change and policy letter out of National for the last five years. The 29 June 2006 letter is the first official document regarding the TPU I have. If by chance I am missing something, PLEASE pass it along!
The CAP uniform document library thus far...
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html)
I've also saved the NB/NEC minutes there, and eventually will go through them all and note on the website what uniform related issues are discussed for easier reference.
I happened to have a copy of the 15 Mar 2006 letter which first mentions the CSU.
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 09, 2009, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: alamrcn on November 09, 2009, 04:30:33 PM
You go, Spike!
There is no ethical reason Vangaurd should not apply their return policy as it was when the TPU items were purchased.
IF they were to add or change that policy, only items purchased AFTER the fact should be affected.
If they don't stick to their purchase and return policies, that's grounds for BBB retaliation - maybe even the state attourney general?
And once again, add the fact that they are still selling them with no note about this change.
If they haven't been officially notified by CAP, there's no reason for them to change anything about it.
Contrary to what some may think, CAPTalk is not an official source, and not everyone watches the NEC. And, since the NB put off uniform changes until the winter board, Vanguard probably had no notice of reason to expect this change.
If Iam not mistaken, a Nanguard rep always attend the meetings?
I wonder if CAP will have to buy out the remaining Vanguard stock of CSU items? My guess is....most likely.
Quote from: Westernslope on November 09, 2009, 05:45:22 PM
I wonder if CAP will have to buy out the remaining Vanguard stock of CSU items? My guess is....most likely.
And if they don't I'm sure they will pay for it from the 'profits' they receive from all other item sales.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 04:45:31 AM
CAP members wearing flightsuits to unit staff meetings make that comment all the time.
[...]
Our regs say "when flying".
Where do our regs say they may only be worn when flying?
It's the really obscure wording under Figure 2-19 that says: "(Flight Crews Only)". It's not actually a written directive.
The previous revision of the uniform manual had a paragraph that explicitly stated you could only wear the USAF flight suit while flying, or traveling to/from a flying activity, and strongly discouraged you from making any stops along the way.
That language has since been removed.
I ordered a new pair of the CSU pants 3 wks before I went to NSC. They did not show up until a week of NSC. I ordered the Jacket last week at NCR conference. When I called them this morning to cancel the order, I was told it should be here tomorrow.
Funny how fast things move when they don't want to get stuck with clearance goods.
Quote from: RickFranz on November 09, 2009, 06:42:35 PM
I ordered a new pair of the CSU pants 3 wks before I went to NSC. They did not show up until a week of NSC. I ordered the Jacket last week at NCR conference. When I called them this morning to cancel the order, I was told it should be here tomorrow.
Funny how fast things move when they don't want to get stuck with clearance goods.
The pants are the same exact thing as the Blues so you're not out any morey there. Just transition over to the Blues.
Quote from: RickFranz on November 09, 2009, 06:42:35 PM
I ordered a new pair of the CSU pants 3 wks before I went to NSC. They did not show up until a week of NSC. I ordered the Jacket last week at NCR conference. When I called them this morning to cancel the order, I was told it should be here tomorrow.
Funny how fast things move when they don't want to get stuck with clearance goods.
Again, decline the shipment. They should take the item back.
Quote from: Angus on November 09, 2009, 06:55:17 PM
Quote from: RickFranz on November 09, 2009, 06:42:35 PM
I ordered a new pair of the CSU pants 3 wks before I went to NSC. They did not show up until a week of NSC. I ordered the Jacket last week at NCR conference. When I called them this morning to cancel the order, I was told it should be here tomorrow.
Funny how fast things move when they don't want to get stuck with clearance goods.
The pants are the same exact thing as the Blues so you're not out any morey there. Just transition over to the Blues.
Not an otion for everyone...
I do realize that. I'm just saying.
Can anyone tell me who brought up this agenda item and if there was any discussion on the floor?
Quote from: Westernslope on November 09, 2009, 08:36:42 PM
Can anyone tell me who brought up this agenda item and if there was any discussion on the floor?
Making a hit list? ;D
Quote from: davidsinn on November 09, 2009, 08:57:17 PM
Quote from: Westernslope on November 09, 2009, 08:36:42 PM
Can anyone tell me who brought up this agenda item and if there was any discussion on the floor?
Making a hit list? ;D
LOL. No, but it may shed some light on why it was proposed. Was it from NHQ staff? If so, that may explain why, according to other sources, the National Commander stated on a conference call that this was "forced" on us by CAP-USAF.
Methinks there's something dark and nefarious behind the 86-ing of the CSU - or the RealAirForce took off it's blinders and realized the extent of HWSNBN's nose-thumbing at the AF Uniform Board. To which the AFUB had kittens sideways.
Believe it or not; the AF was officially neutral on the CSU except for the "US" lapel pins and metal grade on the flight cap (origninal proposal). Let's just say the uniform left us as it came to us.....
Without prior knowledge >:D
Quote from: Westernslope on November 09, 2009, 08:36:42 PM
Can anyone tell me who brought up this agenda item and if there was any discussion on the floor?
It was a region commander, but I can't remember which one. There was a fairly spirited discussion, but the final vote was nearly unanimous.
It was definately not proposed by a NHQ staffer. All agenda items must be proposed or sponsored by an actual NEC member.
Quote from: FW on November 09, 2009, 09:46:10 PMLet's just say the uniform left us as it came to us.....
Without prior knowledge >:D
Have to agree with that one. HWSRN wore it to the Armed Services Committee hearing, and no one had ever seen it before.
Even when military generals make up a new uniform, someone knows about them long before we see them. When it comes to general only type of items, those things aren't drastically different from what the rank and file is wearing.
Quote from: Ned on November 09, 2009, 09:53:22 PM
Quote from: Westernslope on November 09, 2009, 08:36:42 PM
Can anyone tell me who brought up this agenda item and if there was any discussion on the floor?
It was a region commander, but I can't remember which one. There was a fairly spirited discussion, but the final vote was nearly unanimous.
It was definately not proposed by a NHQ staffer. All agenda items must be proposed or sponsored by an actual NEC member.
Thanks. I now have a strong feeling which Region CC it was but w/o verification it is only speculation. And we already have enough speculation. It is not like it was a secret meeting, so it will be known at some point. Perhaps we will even get the real story and we can stop speculating.
Given the amount of money that has been expended, I think we are really owed an explanation.
Quote from: alamrcn on November 09, 2009, 04:25:09 PM
I've been pretty astute in grabbing and saving every change and policy letter out of National for the last five years. The 29 June 2006 letter is the first official document regarding the TPU I have. If by chance I am missing something, PLEASE pass it along!
The CAP uniform document library thus far...
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html)
I've also saved the NB/NEC minutes there, and eventually will go through them all and note on the website what uniform related issues are discussed for easier reference.
Great site! Well done, sir!
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 09, 2009, 09:29:36 PM
Methinks there's something dark and nefarious behind the 86-ing of the CSU - or the RealAirForce took off it's blinders and realized the extent of HWSNBN's nose-thumbing at the AF Uniform Board. To which the AFUB had kittens sideways.
No...I just think it was a high speed push to "simplify the uniform choices".
Not the way I would have gone....but it was the easiest choice to make....no new regs to write, no new grooming standards, its been around for a long long time, make the USAF breath easier, no need to fix the silver braid.
All in all I think the NEC did a pretty good job with a lousy situation.
Now...we start the push to get the USAF to let the fat and fuzzies wear USAF style uniforms and/or we push all Officers to the corporate uniforms.
^^
Wasn't one of the main arguments against this recent decision that many officers spent copious amounts of money on this uniform? So wouldn't pushing all officers to a corporate uniform cost many more officers much more money? I know I spent a lot on AF blues and bdus...
Whew. I just about dropped money on it. I'll keep my USAF style uniform until I don't meet standards.
Now we see the wisdom of governing by ICL -- not only did they save the hassle of incorporating the CSU into it by never doing it, getting rid of it can be done without taking it out of 39-1!
Well, it certainly ends the dilemma of what to do about the braid, doesn't it??
Okay, so new year's day 2011, we shake off the fog from the night before, take our blue nametags, blue epaulets & CSU jackets to the dumpster (please don't bury them, polyester takes centuries to biodegrade) observe a moment of silence and let it pass to a minor footnote in CAP history...
Too bad we couldn't keep the anodized buttons as a 'CAP-distinctive item" for the USAF blues. I really liked them.
USAF probably wouldn't approve it anyway-shiny buttons are reserved for Honor Guard.
Soooooo, until then, the CSU will probably be my costume of choice-just to make the 'wear-out date' a literal term.
Reminds me of Sept 30, 1985 when we who had them observed "Khaki uniform day" throughout the Army (they officially phased out the next day.)
Quote from: NCRblues on November 10, 2009, 02:13:50 AMSo wouldn't pushing all officers to a corporate uniform cost many more officers much more money? I know I spent a lot on AF blues and bdus...
Much...much....much cheaper....and the uniform is multi functional. A blue blazer is a handy thing every professional should have in their closet. Gray pants cost about $15 at wall mart. The tie is even okay for wear outside of CAP.
So because the NEC got rid of a controversial uniform, you want to ditch all military style uniforms and forget our very rich history? This is not the answer to our uniform problems.
Any bets on when the first official word on this starts coming out?
Quote from: lordmonar on November 10, 2009, 03:32:13 AM
Much...much....much cheaper....and the uniform is multi functional. A blue blazer is a handy thing every professional should have in their closet. Gray pants cost about $15 at wall mart. The tie is even okay for wear outside of CAP.
That's one of the things that so many, myself included, don't like about this "uniform" - it is in no way uniform. Sure you can get $15 grey pants from many places, but they won't all be the same style or even close to the same shade. Blue blazers come in different cuts, some with blue buttons and some with gold buttons. The only "uniform" items are the tie (though I've seen members substitute civilian ties of similar, or sometimes not so similar, color), the name plate, the devices, etc.
I don't disagree that it's cheaper though.
Quote from: Westernslope on November 09, 2009, 09:20:25 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on November 09, 2009, 08:57:17 PM
Quote from: Westernslope on November 09, 2009, 08:36:42 PM
Can anyone tell me who brought up this agenda item and if there was any discussion on the floor?
Making a hit list? ;D
LOL. No, but it may shed some light on why it was proposed. Was it from NHQ staff? If so, that may explain why, according to other sources, the National Commander stated on a conference call that this was "forced" on us by CAP-USAF.
If this is CAP/USAF it makes me curious as to why CAP/USAF let the CSU uniform combo go forward in the first place. It would have been more sensible to just say no without a 3 year delay. Besides, it looks good.
Because cap-usaf has say only on Air Force style uniforms, dress blues and bdus. Technically we can make as many corporate uniforms as we want, in basically any form we want as long as it doesn't look like an active duty uniform.
Quote from: jacob on November 10, 2009, 04:03:18 AM
That's one of the things that so many, myself included, don't like about this "uniform" - it is in no way uniform. Sure you can get $15 grey pants from many places, but they won't all be the same style or even close to the same shade. Blue blazers come in different cuts, some with blue buttons and some with gold buttons. The only "uniform" items are the tie (though I've seen members substitute civilian ties of similar, or sometimes not so similar, color), the name plate, the devices, etc.
I don't disagree that it's cheaper though.
Yep and often a cheap pair of $15 pants looks cheap.
Another problem is with the female uniforms. Finding gray slacks or a gray skirt is not easy. The female members that I know have always complained about this. There is a Region Chief of Staff who wears gray Dockers jeans because she cannot find anything else. BUT she always uses shirt garters which, in my opinion, is very seldom used by male or females wearing the grays.
we need to get rid of the grays as well.................
Quote from: NCRblues on November 10, 2009, 03:52:26 AM
So because the NEC got rid of a controversial uniform, you want to ditch all military style uniforms and forget our very rich history? This is not the answer to our uniform problems.
No...I want to get our organisation into a single uniform......first choice would be to get the USAF to allow the fat and fuzzies into USAF blue......if that can't happen....then we should all get into a SINGLE CAP uniform.
History is all well and good.....but a uniformed organisation is much more desirable.
The Air force will never, ever, allow "fat and fuzzies" into their service style uniforms. So those of us that can fit into, and shave (and I shave because I have to for my job) I must give up my uniforms to look more in line with overweight or unshaven members? I have nothing against these members; I just don't believe those members that can wear the Air force style should be penalized by being forced over to a corporate uniform.
Quote from: Strick on November 10, 2009, 04:24:29 AM
we need to get rid of the grays as well.................
And what do you propose to replace them with? Understanding that there is no option for "Forcing" everyone in CAP to meet weight standards or leave the organization.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 10, 2009, 04:40:16 AM
The Air force will never, ever, allow "fat and fuzzies" into their service style uniforms.
I think this is something we can all agree on.
Quote from: NCRBlues"So those of us that can fit into, and shave (and I shave because I have to for my job) I must give up my uniforms to look more in line with overweight or unshaven members?
Hey, if finding a set of Air Force blues that fit is the only requirement, there are plenty of sources available. Unfortunately, it's not. What would you do if the next NEC meeting had a secret agenda item to take all CAP senior members out of the AF style uniforms?
Quote from: NCRBluesI have nothing against these members; I just don't believe those members that can wear the Air force style should be penalized by being forced over to a corporate uniform.
In much the same vein, "Us" members don't want to be punished by having to wear a uniform that is completely different from the rest of the organization. The one nice thing about the CSU is that it puts everyone on a fairly equal playing field; we all look like we belong to the same organization. That won't happen with a good chunk of the members wearing grays again.
For us, it's not about being a wannabe, a has been, or a never will be. It's about being identified as part of the organization.
I understand your point's sir; I just do not believe that forcing everyone to a corporate uniform is a good idea for the membership.
Quote from: Slim on November 10, 2009, 05:37:56 AMIn much the same vein, "Us" members don't want to be punished by having to wear a uniform that is completely different from the rest of the organization. The one nice thing about the CSU is that it puts everyone on a fairly equal playing field; we all look like we belong to the same organization.
The flip side of that same coin is that every one could shave, drop weight and we could all wear the Air Force uniform. Nobody would be different at all.
Doubt it's going to happen. I wouldn't advocate such a thing either. But the argument carries both ways for the sake of uniformity.
I don't have a problem with people that choose to wear the grays. But I don't feel it's fair to force everyone into the "non-mold".
Quote from: NCRblues on November 10, 2009, 04:40:16 AM
The Air force will never, ever, allow "fat and fuzzies" into their service style uniforms. So those of us that can fit into, and shave (and I shave because I have to for my job) I must give up my uniforms to look more in line with overweight or unshaven members? I have nothing against these members; I just don't believe those members that can wear the Air force style should be penalized by being forced over to a corporate uniform.
How is wearing the unfiorm of the organisation a penalty? This is one of the main reasons why I want to get us all into one uniform.
Obviously some clown and other clowns in this organization (CAP) voted to some facsimile, got a bunch of people in the CSU and other clowns at Vanguard benefited from the deal due to a bunch of folks who really do not understand the uniform process at all. CAP personnel can defend themselves and say they understand the process. Just voting willy nilly on something is what CAP is currently good at. I do not foresee a change unless the AF puts a directive out and gets CAP out and away from the USAF uniform
All the folks here can defend whatever uniform it wants for the organization and I know its hard for the die hard veterans of CAP who hang on the 68 yr sub hunter history and the "rich and colorful" uniforms that we come to love and endure. But that seems to be the one thing that can get a heated debate going on .. on CAPTAlk.
It sure isn't a place I come to learn about anything mission oriented or flying wise. I come here to comment and put my .02 forward and get my fun from the commentary
Hopefully the AF will say that we have to get our own uniforms. I personally would love to see a change to a more Civil in Civil Air Patrol. A COMPLETELY new uni with the "corporate seal" is needed....because whether anyone here wants to admit it or not.... CAP IS a corporation with "parallels" to the military in the things we do form so called STANDARDIZATION and form letters and cadet learning how to drill
CAP....Parallels to the military NOT the military
Time for a new uniform, to once and for all, to keep "CAP opinion" to Shut the....... about fat and fuzzies, weight and height standards.... None of CAP unless you've been attached to the RM in some form or another have really but nothing but variations of uniforms that will not or can not keep 55,000 personnel happy/\.
Because all 55,000 are not on CAPtalk...you won't get everyones opinion , that is for sure....it is only the few here.
So I am for a completely new uni and when MAMA or PAPA 1 AF come after us and changes it (and it probably will some day) I personally will not shed nary a tear for any of the CAP uniforms that people here seem Sooooooo passionate about. Change is coming, someday, as they say, and when the day comes for CAP to get a new marching order from the AF, hopefully there's a lot of beer for CAPTAlkers to cry in.
Military uniforms change from Administration, from year to year, and from mission to mission. CAP ought likewise and away from any military uniform. The CSU and CAP's process has made a mockery for the last 30 yrs of all sorts. Smurf suits, copies of the BBDU, CSU's, etc.
Ask CERT, NASAR, etc there plenty-o-Public Safety catalogs that CAP and CAPers can dream from to get new threads and it is time the good ol CAP Corporate "501(c)3" find new threads and stop embarassing (sp) itself and the military itself with its pompous use of its versions.
There is my .02.....start flaming........ the day will come unis will change and the die hards will not like the change
As several have already suggested, I'm fully in support of simply removing the AF slides and blue nameplate from the CSU (OR, we go back to the original blue slides with the embroidered CAP on them and keeping the blue nameplate...which I like even better), and adopting the grey slides and grey nameplate as the new Standard CSU. This is clearly the best and cheapest way to salvage what is the best looking of the two corporate style uniforms. The service coat can remain unchanged with the exception that the US should come off and the original CAP cutouts go back on the lapel. The military style metal insignia is easily obtained from multiple civilian public safety sources.
There are many however, that will not want to pony up the coin for the service coat, so the blazer should still be a viable option. The only question becomes, will a civilian 'navy blue' blazer still look good with a mil-spec AF blue pair of slacks?
I fully support dropping the grey slacks/white shirt combination in favor of the blue pants/white shirt combination with the grey slides and grey nameplate (OR, as mentioned above, going back to the original, blue CAP slides and keeping the blue nameplate). Either is acceptable.
I could also get my head around dropping the Air Force style uniform, IF we could get everyone into the modified CSU (grey slides/grey nameplate), because I also believe we should be a one-uniform organization.
Cheers,
They greys have to go, we look silly wearing military grade with this combo, they should jut go backto using the black name tag. + noribbons on this combo
Quote... there plenty-o-Public Safety catalogs that CAP and CAPers can dream from to get new threads ...
Yup. Golf shirt and 511-style khaki pants would be fine with me. Not criticizing those who did, but personally I did not join CAP because I wanted to play soldier. I joined for the opportunity to fly with some kind of useful purpose. I read these uniform threads for the same reason I read "News of the Weird." YMMV, of course.
Quote from: tinker on November 10, 2009, 05:55:06 PM
Quote... there plenty-o-Public Safety catalogs that CAP and CAPers can dream from to get new threads ...
Yup. Golf shirt and 511-style khaki pants would be fine with me. Not criticizing those who did, but personally I did not join CAP because I wanted to play soldier. I joined for the opportunity to fly with some kind of useful purpose. I read these uniform threads for the same reason I read "News of the Weird." YMMV, of course.
You know............. back in WWII we were not playing soldier, being uniformed is a big part of CAP heritage. We are not a flying club. We also do more than flying(Cadet Program).
+1 Uniforms, and the discipline to wear them properly, are supposed to be part of making us a professionalized group.
Those that think they are too much hassle, are both missing the point and making the point at the same time. A lot of our members would fly in shorts and flip-flops, while scribbling their releases on the back of a bar napkin if we let them.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 10, 2009, 06:48:49 PMA lot of our members would fly in shorts and flip-flops, while scribbling their releases on the back of a bar napkin if we let them.
Didn't think anyone would recognize us. Must remember to wear sunglasses next time.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 10, 2009, 03:53:46 AM
Any bets on when the first official word on this starts coming out?
Now:
Quote from: Col Chuck Carr CC/GLR on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:02 PMGentlemen,
Needless to say there are plenty of upset members (probably pissed-off and downright hostile is a better description) over the NEC's action to eliminate the Corporate Uniform (TPU). Some because they invested hard earned money purchasing the uniform, some because they felt only the NB has the authority to make uniform decisions, and others for various reasons.
The following is a synopsis of information presented by Col Joe Vazques, MER/CC, on the NEC's action.
1. Something had to be done. The Air Force has one basic uniform and CAP has three. No matter how you slice it, somebody was going to be disappointed when we started consolidating. Either the white and gray goes, the white and blue goes, or the blue and blue goes (ie – we get completely out of the Air Force Uniform).
2. Knowing something had to be done, it is better to decide that issue now than wait 4 months and have that many more senior members potentially buying the wrong uniform.
3. The Air Force does NOT like our very over weight senior members showing up at Air Force bases in a near approximation of the Air Force uniform. Nobody wants to clearly say that out loud, but that is behind much of the feedback going to Col. Ward.
4. Col. Ward is not going to back down. His public comments "my only surprise is that it took CAP 18 months to act on this" indicate he was close to acting on his own. His private comments during the closed sessions back that up.
The Winter NB can of course vote this back in. If they do, we will be lucky if the reaction is merely to put red epaulets on everything. The options open to the Air Force include banning CAP senior members entirely from wearing a blue uniform (ie – everybody gets to wear the white and grays), to simply enforcing the decision the NEC already made. I have reminded some of my commanders that the last time CAP went to war with the Air Force we lost, and got a Board of Governors. The NEC has provided cover to the NB by taking on this explosive issue, and they should be grateful they did not have to make it.
Please feel free to relay this information to your personnel.
Thanks,
Chuck Carr
Even more reason to ditch the AF uniform and keep the CSU. I always feels like the AF does not care for us.
Quote from: Strick on November 10, 2009, 09:10:32 PM
I always feels like the AF does not care for us.
Feel free to cite anything you've heard, know, seen, or smelled on that.
Saying it doesn't make it
true, but doesn't help the situation, either.
Quote from: Strick on November 10, 2009, 09:10:32 PM
...I always feels like the AF does not care for us.
Further perpetuating the perceived 'red-headed step-child' attitude CAP senses is coming from Ma Blue. Granted, we've probably torqued them off plenty of times; uniform wear being but one of the many posterior irritants.
I wouldn't be surprised if we get a divorce from the RealAirForce® and get picked up by Homeland Security.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 10, 2009, 09:24:28 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if we get a divorce from the RealAirForce® and get picked up by Homeland Security.
Please don't start that again. Its starting to feel like 2006/7 around these parts.
PM and I will give you a particular situation
Quote from: Strick on November 10, 2009, 09:33:01 PM
PM and I will give you a particular situation
Hit the link to the left and send it...
Quote from: Eclipse on November 10, 2009, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: Strick on November 10, 2009, 09:33:01 PM
PM and I will give you a particular situation
Hit the link to the left and send it...
The example Strick cited was hearsay from the early '90's.
Not relevant in today's post 9/11/Katrina/Challenger CAP.
Our uniform issues are an itch the USAF would probably like to scratch once and for all, as would we. Nothing more.
Those of use with real-world experience at a scope outside CAPTalk know that in most cases these issues are rarely discussed much in the "wet" world.
I guarantee you there are still members wearing smurf suits to missions, and some that never heard of the CSU, let alone the stand down.
Performance people. That's all the USAF and 1AF actually cares about.
The rest is coffee-house fodder, nothing more.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 10, 2009, 09:14:46 PM
Quote from: Strick on November 10, 2009, 09:10:32 PM
I always feels like the AF does not care for us.
Feel free to cite anything you've heard, know, seen, or smelled on that.
One thing I just read, proported to be from a region/CC, was:
"The Air Force does NOT like our very over weight senior members showing up at Air Force bases in a near approximation of the Air Force uniform. Nobody wants to clearly say that out loud, but that is behind much of the feedback going to Col. Ward."
I am not sure how to read that. Either the AF is telling our leaders directly, your people are fat and we dont want them in a uniform. And our leaders are afraid to relay that message to the membership....OR the AF is afraid to bring the issue out into the open with our leaders and whispers it into the ears of a few staffers.
Either way, is a problem in my book.
The bottom line: If there was a deep respect for CAP and what we do by AF leaders, then they would not be concerned with fat CAP members wearing corporate uniforms on bases. They would be thanking them for stepping up and volunteering their time and money to complete AF missions.
Quote
Performance people. That's all the USAF and 1AF actually cares about.
I wish this topic was on CAP's performance. It is not. It is about the elimination of a military style uniform for our overweight members apparently because "The Air Force does NOT like our very over weight senior members showing up at Air Force bases in a near approximation of the Air Force uniform."
I'll bet ol' Curt LeMay would stand up for us, buy us a cigar, a brandy and toast us and what our fatties can do..
I've for the most part refrained from jumping into the conversation because of all the angst and conjecture taking place. All I'll say is that I tend to agree with the AF side of things. CAP has no need for multiple corporate uniforms and the blue/white corporate combo -did- bear a close resemblance to the air force blues.
There are many places where wearing an AF style uniform isn't appropriate, such as fund raising. Per reg's we can't wear BDU's/Blues while fundraising. If you swap out the air force uniform for the blue/white corporate uniform and wear that instead while fundraising there will be many still that draw the conclusion that we're associated with the air force. Many people just aren't familiar with the AF uniforms.
I'll admit that I've seen my share of slobs wearing both the AF style uniforms and the corporate uniforms. For the most part, there's no regular uniform inspection for senior members although I think it would do a lot of good. I don't blame them one bit.
Honestly, I don't get what the uproar is about. I'm going into my 3rd year as a senior member with a break between year two and the present. I've never purchased nor worn the blue/white corporate uniform. For events that the AF style uniforms aren't appropriate I wear the polo. I always thought the white/blue's looked too much like an airline pilot's garb. Yes, I understand that some members spent money on the uniform and they won't be able to wear it.
Some of the people here on captalk have gone right off the deep end about them getting rid of a corporate uniform. Do everyone a favor and at least think before you post. Is this a side of Civil Air Patrol that you want the public seeing when they go looking for other people's experiences? I'm not saying that captalk should be censored but at least try to remember that captalk's a publicly accessible forum. Recruiting new members for your squadron doesn't do any good if you turn around and trashtalk the organization later on and drive others away. Unfortunately, when you post about CAP being the "redheaded step child", question the NB/BOG/NEC's decision making abilities and spout unsubstantiated nonsense that's exactly what you're doing.
If you're ticked off enough that you're considering leaving the organization over a uniform change there's something wrong to begin with. If you think you'd do a better job than the current people holding office at NHQ then put your nose to the grindstone and advance. Work toward fixing what you perceive is wrong. At the very least save your comments for a well worded, civil letter of comment and send it up through the chain.
*walks away shaking his head*
All valid points. Which merely points out this is a complex issue. The overriding issue above all is the haphazard way the national leadership has conducted itself regarding uniform development over the past many years.
There are many who have purchased the spendy blue service coat, including at least one in my unit. I have put together the shirt/pants combo. He's out a whole lotta money, and my wife and I both are now out money as well.
Having been around during the maroon epaulet debacle, this just re-opens a festering wound, and really diminishes my respect for the Air Force (I can say this having had multiple family members in blue including one deployed to the sand box right now.).
If the Air Force has that much say over what we wear, then let them take over all uniform development, take it totally out of CAPs hands.
If not, and one of the corporate uniforms goes, then as I said before, let it be the greys and simply replace the blue slides/nameplate with the greys or let us go back to the original blue slides with the CAP embroidered, remove the US off of the service jacket, and put the CAP cutouts in their place.
It is a stability problem that is causing the membership hard earned money, this is far from the first time, and it needs to stop. Now.
::)
Cheers,
Quote from: RicL on November 10, 2009, 10:18:50 PM
Honestly, I don't get what the uproar is about. I'm going into my 3rd year as a senior member with a break between year two and the present. I've never purchased nor worn the blue/white corporate uniform. For events that the AF style uniforms aren't appropriate I wear the polo. I always thought the white/blue's looked too much like an airline pilot's garb. Yes, I understand that some members spent money on the uniform and they won't be able to wear it.
Obviously.
Congratulations on (presumably) not being overweight, having a beard, or long hair, nor ever being in a situation where you put in hours/weeks/months of effort into a CAP project or duty, only to feel like a second-class citizen because you have a thyroid condition which will not allow you to shed enough weight to get into spec.
Congratulations on never having to visit a military base commander to beg for resources, surrounded by your
subordinates in service dress, and having to explain why you are wearing a golf shirt or plain jacket.
Congratulations on not making the extra effort and incurring the extra expense to look presentable and follow the rules for your country and then being told "eh, not so much".
This is a situation the ACA, USCGAux, and NSCC do not find themselves in, and it apparently needs to be noted
again, that we are now holding ourselves to a higher standard than the Army and USAF in that the grooming standard for those services are performance based, not height/weight.
As someone who appreciates the military affiliation, perhaps it really is time to drop the pretense, the ribbons, and the other bling, and just move to the golf shirt for all and business attire for formal occasions and move on.
Col. Carr's comments on the issue are surprisingly (and refreshingly) blunt. Apparently this has been an issue for almost a year and a half that CAP has chosen not to address until now. So, there has been plenty of opportunity to bring this up and give everyone a say, but that was not done.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 10, 2009, 11:15:40 PM
Col. Carr's comments on the issue are surprisingly (and refreshingly) blunt. Apparently this has been an issue for almost a year and a half that CAP has chosen not to address until now. So, there has been plenty of opportunity to bring this up and give everyone a say, but that was not done.
Actually it was Col Vasquez NER/CC. Col Carr merely sent it to his subordinate commanders who, at least in the case of INWG's Col Reeves, forwarded it to the members.
Quote from: Strick on November 10, 2009, 09:10:32 PM
Even more reason to ditch the AF uniform and keep the CSU. I always feels like the AF does not care for us.
The AF here at Pope AFB loves us here, and has made some nice accomadations to us.
It's not universal.
This is really silly. Another case of let's blame Mother Air Force. The Air Force does not let fat people wear their uniform, they throw them out. We as CAP can wear the USAF uniform if we meet the height and weight standards, and they even give us a little slush fund tha they do not give their own people. If we don't meet the AF standards all they do is ask us to wear a uniform that is clearly not theirs. Several years ago our own meglomanic (HWMNBN) wanted to wear nmetal rank on the USAF uniform and was told no. Therefore he asked the USAF if we could have another corproate uniform, They did not care, but then again they did not know he was going to design an Air Force Wanna-be suit. He did and we are only lucky they did not shoot us then. If there is anybody out there that think our last leader did that to do anything but stick his finger in the Air Forces eye, you're wrong. If anybody thought this wanna-be suit would last the long term you don't pay enough attention. If we want to make the real corporate uniform look better, then let's do it, but lets not build another wanna-be suit. If we wanna wear the USAF uniform lets hit the treadmill and salad bar.
Someday I wish real operational issues got as much attention as what we are allowed to wear. I did not join for the uniform, I joined for the Missions. The costal patrol guys are turning in their graves.
The AF auxiliary without the Air Force uniform? Come on.
How do you intend to stay competitive with the US Ranger Corps?
Quote from: Eclipse on November 10, 2009, 11:14:58 PMCongratulations on (presumably) not being overweight, having a beard, or long hair, nor ever being in a situation where you put in hours/weeks/months of effort into a CAP project or duty, only to feel like a second-class citizen because you have a thyroid condition which will not allow you to shed enough weight to get into spec.
Bob, are you seriously suggesting that we should base our uniform decisions on specific diseases or disabilities that affect a tiny percentage of the population?
That seems . . . problematic.
Quote
Congratulations on never having to visit a military base commander to beg for resources, surrounded by your subordinates in service dress, and having to explain why you are wearing a golf shirt or plain jacket.
I've never been a base commander, but if a member is outside of height/weight or grooming standards, my guess is the base commander will not need the member to explain their uniform choices.
And will respect your choices. And she/he will also respect you, if your meeting is professional and helpful.
QuoteCongratulations on not making the extra effort and incurring the extra expense to look presentable and follow the rules for your country and then being told "eh, not so much".
Sir, this is neither the first nor the last time that CAP has phased out uniforms that members have already purchased.
If you look far enough back into my closet, you will find considerable investments in shade 1505 khakis, olive green fatigues, blue short-sleeved jump suits, black and white mess dress, and the odd guyaberra shirt.
(And a modest investment in portions of the CSU.)
And I was particularly reluctant to part with my fatigues and khakis, which I firmly believed presented a more professional appearance than what we derisively called the "bus driver" suit - the current blue service uniforms.
But times change. Uniforms come and go.
And it is worth remembering that the great majority of members will never need to wear a service coat - either USAF or CSU - to perform their duties.
(I get the fact that you are a group commander and almost certainly need to have a "service-coat level" uniform. And, BTW, thank you for your service. But comparatively few members ever serve as commanders or as staffers above the squadron level.)
QuoteThis is a situation the ACA, USCGAux, and NSCC do not find themselves in, and it apparently needs to be noted again, that we are now holding ourselves to a higher standard than the Army and USAF in that the grooming standard for those services are performance based, not height/weight.
But CAP didn't set the height/weight limits. Big Blue did.
Their ball, their rules.
Quote
As someone who appreciates the military affiliation, perhaps it really is time to drop the pretense, the ribbons, and the other bling, and just move to the golf shirt for all and business attire for formal occasions and move on.
Bob, you have always been free to do that.
That's why we have a golf shirt combo and a blazer uniform.
No one will criticize you for your uniform choices.
Surely you won't criticize mine?
You're right, its dead and out of our hands - same circle, different day.
Salute and execute - that's what I do.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 10, 2009, 11:15:40 PM
Col. Carr's comments on the issue are surprisingly (and refreshingly) blunt. Apparently this has been an issue for almost a year and a half that CAP has chosen not to address until now. So, there has been plenty of opportunity to bring this up and give everyone a say, but that was not done.
I respect what Col. Carr has written however, the facts about how the "CSU" came into existance and, the Air Force's acceptance is a little different than he explained:
This is a quote from a source who wishes not to be identified however, I did verify the statements from those CAP (and former) members mentioned."Pineda came up with the uniform without permission from the Air Force. The Air Force sent a letter telling CAP to not wear the uniform because they owned the fabric. Research showed that the fabric was actually owned by the US Coast Guard not the Air Force. Mr. Michael Dominguez, the acting SECAF, flew to Maxwell where he was greeted by Pineda. He was very upset to see Pindea in that uniform ,especially upset of him wearing 2 stars on the hat. Mr. Dominguez, who was also the BOG chair at the time, sent a letter to Gen. Carol Chandler, the A-3 (new name for XO). Gen Chandler sent CAP a letter and demanded that the uniform could not be worn any longer. At the BOG meeting Pineda fought back and said he would go to congress because they had NO authority over a corporate uniform . Gen. Bergman, a BOG member at the time, sent word back that maybe there could be a compromise. Pineda got a letter from Gen. Roger Berg asking him to come to the Pentagon to discuss the uniform. Pineda and others went to DC. Gen Bergman had told us in advance that the biggest problem they had was the rank on the hat and then "US" on the collar. We made a proposal to Gen. Berg that we would wear the CAP hat device and replace then "US" with the CAP cutouts. We were informed by Col Kurt Sheldon of the CAP shop in the Pentagon that they (the Air Force) accepted the changes and we could wear the uniform. The BOG was also informed of the decision and they backed off."
Take this for what it's worth. I don't think there is any more to be said on the subject.
This stinks.
I hadn't shelled out for the service coat, and thankfully I got my trousers from stores my squadron had. But I did buy a flight cap, blue nameplate and blue epaulettes.
I wore the uniform for the first time two weeks ago (most of the time I wear the utility jumpsuit) and received a number of compliments on how good it looked. A lot of our Wing staff were also wearing it.
I don't like the white/greys or polo shirts at all - no offence to those who do.
In shirtsleeve mode I thought I looked more like an airline pilot.
I am just slightly over the limit to wear the AF blue uniform, and I will not go the white/grey route, so I guess I'd better invest in some Alli.
I am not going to quit wearing this uniform until someone flat-out orders me to. I'm going to get all I can for what I shelled out for it.
I have been in CAP off-and-on since 1993. I don't think I have ever seen a definitive 39-1 that the brass at the top have decided on and not done a shineola load of ICL's.
Even my first squadron's deputy commander told me "we have way too many uniforms."
Good cripes, how could someone mistake us for the AF? An admiral maybe, a Russian Air Force officer maybe, a Chesley Sullenberger wannabe maybe, but not the AF...
Quote from: NCRblues on November 10, 2009, 04:40:16 AM
The Air force will never, ever, allow "fat and fuzzies" into their service style uniforms. So those of us that can fit into, and shave (and I shave because I have to for my job) I must give up my uniforms to look more in line with overweight or unshaven members? I have nothing against these members; I just don't believe those members that can wear the Air force style should be penalized by being forced over to a corporate uniform.
I'm thinking of all the "fat and fuzzies" I've seen in the USCG Auxiliary wearing the modified CG uniform, which looks a heck of a lot closer to the actual CG uniform than the TPU does to the Air Force uniform...the CG doesn't raise a stink about that, do they?
Quote from: LTC Don on November 10, 2009, 05:07:51 PM
As several have already suggested, I'm fully in support of simply removing the AF slides and blue nameplate from the CSU (OR, we go back to the original blue slides with the embroidered CAP on them and keeping the blue nameplate...which I like even better), and adopting the grey slides and grey nameplate as the new Standard CSU. This is clearly the best and cheapest way to salvage what is the best looking of the two corporate style uniforms. The service coat can remain unchanged with the exception that the US should come off and the original CAP cutouts go back on the lapel. The military style metal insignia is easily obtained from multiple civilian public safety sources.
The US cutouts were replaced with CAP cutouts on the Corporate Service Coat a while ago. See "Changes to CAPM 39-1" dated 25 January 2008 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2008_01_25_Uniforms.pdf), paragraph 3.d
Well, cyborg, we are not the coast guard Aux. so..... Who cares?
Quote from: MIGCAP on November 10, 2009, 11:32:37 PM
The Air Force does not let fat people wear their uniform, they throw them out.
Not really true. They want you to beleive that...and they MAY be moving toward that goal with their new PT program.....but I have seen a lot of overweight people not only stay but progress in the USAF.
Quote from: Fuzzy on November 10, 2009, 11:42:37 PM
The AF auxiliary without the Air Force uniform? Come on.
How do you intend to stay competitive with the US Ranger Corps?
We have a budget? A mission? A real sponsor? ;D
Details, details I assure you! When you've got a Lieutenant General leading your organization you need not worry about such trivial things.
Were lucky that we can still maintain any operational effectiveness with the Ranger Corps as an alternative to our membership.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 11, 2009, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: Fuzzy on November 10, 2009, 11:42:37 PM
The AF auxiliary without the Air Force uniform? Come on.
How do you intend to stay competitive with the US Ranger Corps?
We have a budget? A mission? A real sponsor? ;D
Heh...
Quote from: Fuzzy on November 11, 2009, 12:45:40 AMWere lucky that we can still maintain any operational effectiveness with the Ranger Corps as an alternative to our membership.
Huh?
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 11, 2009, 12:48:35 AM
Quote from: Fuzzy on November 11, 2009, 12:45:40 AMWere lucky that we can still maintain any operational effectiveness with the Ranger Corps as an alternative to our membership.
Huh?
He forgot the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags. ;)
Quote from: FW on November 11, 2009, 12:07:26 AM
I respect what Col. Carr has written however, the facts about how the "CSU" came into existance and, the Air Force's acceptance is a little different than he explained:
I didn't see where he said anything about how we got the uniform in the first place.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 11, 2009, 01:06:14 AM
Quote from: FW on November 11, 2009, 12:07:26 AM
I respect what Col. Carr has written however, the facts about how the "CSU" came into existance and, the Air Force's acceptance is a little different than he explained:
I didn't see where he said anything about how we got the uniform in the first place.
I just realized he called it the TPU. I wonder if the good Colonel is a member/lurker of our fine board?
Quote from: NCRblues on November 11, 2009, 12:37:11 AM
Well, cyborg, we are not the coast guard Aux. so..... Who cares?
No, we are not.
I was attempting an analogy.
I believe SDF's are also more relaxed with weight standards, the ones I've seen anyway.
But I know enough of military/government culture to know that trying to protest this isn't going to go anywhere.
Now where's that Alli...
Quote from: RiverAux on November 11, 2009, 01:06:14 AM
Quote from: FW on November 11, 2009, 12:07:26 AM
I respect what Col. Carr has written however, the facts about how the "CSU" came into existance and, the Air Force's acceptance is a little different than he explained:
I didn't see where he said anything about how we got the uniform in the first place.
He didn't however, he implied the Air Force was not in agreement with it. As the statement makes clear; after some serious negotiating, they agreed to it's use.
Now, it may be said it shoudn't have come to us like that however, IMHO, getting rid of it in the same quick and secretive manner is no better. All this does is muddy the waters and give the "Tums" employees some overtime..... ::)
Its not been a secret that there was some serious issues between AF and CAP over the introduction of this uniform, though your information is by far the most detailed I've ever seen on it.
Well, everyone else has weighed in, I guess I'll include my two cents:
Keep in mind, I am writing this from the perspective of a relatively new member, having only been in CAP for a few months and not having experienced much of the history of these uniform issues.
1. I agree completely with Pylons earlier post about the haphazard manner in which the CAP leadership seems to make decisions, and the lack of visibility that the majority of the membership has into those decisions and the reasoning behind them. I need to (as others said) print that post out and keep it as a reminder.
2. I personally thought the CSU looked better than the Grey/White, BUT I could live with the Grey/White happily if it was just a complete uniform system. No coat, no headgear, no standardization, means it isn't really a uniform alternative to the AF Blues. I'm using the weight standard for the AF Blues as a weight-loss target to keep me motivated, but in the meantime I'd like a complete uniform option.
3. As a relatively new member, I don't know anything about the history of how the CSU was adopted, and I DON'T CARE. I shouldn't need to know about politics from 3 YEARS AGO in order to know how to spend my money as a new member. And, as a point of information, the materials that they send to new members now are splattered with equal representation of the CSU with the Grey/White uniform, if not slightly more pics of the CSU. So, you'll have a lot of new members, who have no knowledge of the history behind any of this, who see the materials and think, gosh the CSU is more complete, and has more pics, I should probably get that!
Finally, I am OK with the Air Force forcing us to get rid of the CSU, IF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. And, if so, JUST TELL US. I'm a big boy, I can take it if the AF was just PO'd about hefty CAP officers in a close facsimile of the AF Blues. But be honest, and tell us that is why you did it.
Any chance they'll try to 'fluff up' the Grey/White option with a complete set of standards and headgear and outergarments now? Ok, I can dream.
Thom
Lieutenant Hamilton:
I've seen CAP go through a lot of uniform changes in the 16 years I've been involved on and off. Very rarely have I seen a cogent explanation as to "why," but most of us just suck it up and get on with things.
However, I do share your opinion that we should be told the "why and how"...not that we'll get it, but it's a good idea.
It isn't even the issue of getting rid of it. It's the issue of getting rid of a nice looking uniform.
The CSU looks great with or without the service coat. If it had to come down to this, then it should have been to dumping the coat, not the whole uniform. If the Air Force didn't like the design of the coat, fine, go to gray slides for it, no braid etc.
I was very impressed by it when I first saw it, and it most definitively looked that much better than any other uniform SMs have the option of wearing besides the blues.
On the other hand, in 2010 a who bunch of SM will go to Halloween parties dressed up as MGen TP
Just a guess, but I'm wondering if they're trying to do away with anything reminiscent of Pineda.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 11, 2009, 07:25:21 PM
Just a guess, but I'm wondering if they're trying to do away with anything reminiscent of Pineda.
SHHHHH we don't speak his name. ;)
Quote from: davidsinn on November 11, 2009, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on November 11, 2009, 07:25:21 PM
Just a guess, but I'm wondering if they're trying to do away with anything reminiscent of Pineda.
SHHHHH we don't speak his name. ;)
OK then...trying to get rid of anything associated with the former National CC of CAP who designed a uniform that seems to have cheesed-off the AF...
I would say you nailed it on getting rid of teddy's pimp uniform. I mean, he stepped on so many toes inside AND outside the organization why would this shock anyone?
Quote from: CyBorg on November 11, 2009, 07:34:15 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on November 11, 2009, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on November 11, 2009, 07:25:21 PM
Just a guess, but I'm wondering if they're trying to do away with anything reminiscent of Pineda.
SHHHHH we don't speak his name. ;)
OK then...trying to get rid of anything associated with the former National CC of CAP who designed a uniform that seems to have cheesed-off the AF...
The correct term is "He Who Shall Remain Nameless" or HWSRN for short. The terminology was added officially to CAPR 20-1 in early 2008.
Looks like Vanguard is already acting on the corporate jacket. On it's website, the banner is still there, but when you click on it, the page is blank.
They probably didn't have that many on the rack - costs too much to keep that much stock on something that probably didn't exactly "fly" off the rack at any given time.
I was getting ready to order one, but had a nagging feeling to wait a couple of weeks. Looks like it was a pretty good feeling. My group commander told me he has one he'll let me get since he's leaving CAP at the end of the month.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 11, 2009, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on November 11, 2009, 07:34:15 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on November 11, 2009, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on November 11, 2009, 07:25:21 PM
Just a guess, but I'm wondering if they're trying to do away with anything reminiscent of Pineda.
SHHHHH we don't speak his name. ;)
OK then...trying to get rid of anything associated with the former National CC of CAP who designed a uniform that seems to have cheesed-off the AF...
The correct term is "He Who Shall Remain Nameless" or HWSRN for short. The terminology was added officially to CAPR 20-1 in early 2008.
Got it.
Now, if we take the limited information we have about this change at face value -- that it was prompted by the Air Force, shouldn't we be putting a little more blame on the AF for this whole fiasco?
Apparently at one point they did say to CAP that the CSU was good enough for them, right? They apparently demanded changes in the original proposal, which were made, right?
So, at some point after the CSU was approved by the USAF powers that be and by CAP, the AF MUST have changed their minds about it. According to an earlier post, CAP-USAF has apparently been upset by it for 18 months -- but its been in use for over THREE YEARS!
So, if this change was prompted primarily by AF concerns, then it seems to me that the burden of anger here should be on the AF, not on the CAP leadership.
Now, one possibility is that CAP is trying to lay the blame for this change off on the AF and that they really haven't been upset by the adoption of this uniform. Perhaps the primary reason behind the change is to reduce uniform combinations and they're just using the AF to redirect anger away from themselves. I don't really believe that though.
River, I have no idea what the real reason was for ridding us of the CSU however, I have personally asked the last 2 CAP-USAF commanders if there was any further objection "up the chain" to this issue. Each answer was, "NO".
As far as I'm concerned, this is - and always was- an internal CAP matter. :-X
Quote from: RiverAux on November 12, 2009, 01:32:02 PM
Now, if we take the limited information we have about this change at face value -- that it was prompted by the Air Force, shouldn't we be putting a little more blame on the AF for this whole fiasco?
Apparently at one point they did say to CAP that the CSU was good enough for them, right? They apparently demanded changes in the original proposal, which were made, right?
So, at some point after the CSU was approved by the USAF powers that be and by CAP, the AF MUST have changed their minds about it. According to an earlier post, CAP-USAF has apparently been upset by it for 18 months -- but its been in use for over THREE YEARS!
So, if this change was prompted primarily by AF concerns, then it seems to me that the burden of anger here should be on the AF, not on the CAP leadership.
Now, one possibility is that CAP is trying to lay the blame for this change off on the AF and that they really haven't been upset by the adoption of this uniform. Perhaps the primary reason behind the change is to reduce uniform combinations and they're just using the AF to redirect anger away from themselves. I don't really believe that though.
Like you said, the information we have is limited, and I'm really doubtful if we're going to get anything more.
However, Colonel Dave Winters, OHWG CC, posted this on his Wing's site, and it would indicate that there was indeed AF pressure:
Elimination of the double breasted uniform combination
Members of Ohio Wing,
At the most recent National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting the NEC voted to eliminate the double breasted corporate uniform effective 1 January 2011. The NEC choose to act now rather than have the Air Force impose a change on us. And believe me when I tell you, we were not very far from having that happen. So, after 1 January 2011 the only uniform combination's authorized for CAP senior members will be the Air Force style (blue epaulet shirt with blue slacks/skirt) or the white aviator shirt with grey slacks/skirt.
Please wait for the interim guidance to be published before you make additional uniform purchases. When that guidance is published I will forward it through your chain of command.
Thank you!
Dave Winters, Colonel, CAP
Commander, Ohio WingSo it would seem to me that Col. Winters has some information that the AF was, indeed, unhappy.
However, River, I second what you said. If the AF was so hot about the uniform, why wait until it was in such wide circulation and after a lot of CAP'ers had dropped coin to buy the thing?
As far as reducing uniform combinations...I'll believe that when I see a definitive 39-1 without a load of ICL's attached, along with a
minimum five-year moratorium on any uniform changes.
When I first joined back in '93, there were fewer uniform combinations than there are now (on the SM side, anyway):
AF-style (four-button coat), blue nameplate, berry boards, CAP cutouts only
BDU's
Smurf suit
Flight suits in green, royal blue and orange (aircrew only)
Guyabera shirt
Grey/white/blazer, no epaulettes, no ribbons, black nameplate with grade attached
Polo shirt
Now, we have:
AF-style, grey boards, U.S. and CAP cutouts, depending on grade
Grey, blue and brushed silver nameplates (latter two in both AF-type and CAP-distinctive)
TPU/CSU until 2011
Grey/white, ribbons, rank slides
BDU's
BBDU's
Utility jumpsuit (which I mostly wear; worlds better than the "Smurf suit")
Green flight suit and flight jacket
Blue flight suit and flight jacket
Black A-2 jacket
Gore-Tex outergarment
(If I left any out, put it down to age-related brain deterioration)
And many in CAP are pushing for the ABU, which I really don't think we need. For field ops, I'm good with the utility jumpsuit or BBDU's.
Back when the AF changed its service dress, I remember there was talk of us keeping the old four-button with CAP buttons, blue CAP nameplate, CAP cutouts, hard rank, no commissioning stripe, etc. That would have been perfectly OK with me. My old one is hanging upstairs in my closet.
The concept of reducing uniform combinations is a bit like pollies saying they're going to cut government spending...a lot of talk but very little action.
^ Where would new members get jackets no longer in production?
I would imagine from the guy who up until a few days ago was making CSU Service Coats.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 12, 2009, 05:55:06 PM
The concept of reducing uniform combinations is a bit like pollies saying they're going to cut government spending...a lot of talk but very little action.
A good comment.
BTW, Col Winter's letter just paraphrased Col Carr's words about this subject.
Unless the Air Force makes an official statement to the contrary, I still stand by my opinion this is strictly an internal CAP (NEC) decision.
Sorry I'm late to the party, and I wish I'd have seen this sooner, but I have to say...
The "corporate service uniform" is gone? It's GONE?!?
YES!
(Also, to CyBorg: It's not just the uniform that HWSRN peed in the Air Force's corn flakes about. At least 40 other reasons that I'm aware of, through semi-official, semi-corroborated RUMINT.)
Quote from: FW on November 12, 2009, 07:42:51 PM
Unless the Air Force makes an official statement to the contrary, I still stand by my opinion this is strictly an internal CAP (NEC) decision.
Obviously CAP made the decision, the question is whether it was something the AF was pressuring us to do.
Now, if this was done as a regular agenda item, CAP-USAF would have been forced to put some sort of comment on it and we would know what their position was. But, that wasn't the case.
I wonder what the CAP-USAF comments are in the official meeting notes when the CSU was originally approved?
Incidentally, with Buckeye's post this thread has popped into the top 10 threads (by replies) of all time on CAPTalk. First new entry on the list in almost two years.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 12, 2009, 10:35:41 PM
I wonder what the CAP-USAF comments are in the official meeting notes when the CSU was originally approved?
Was it ever run through channels? I thought it was basically a last-minute, no agenda deal.
Ok guys, you've really beat this one to death. You act like kids with their hands caught in the cookie jar and then you respond the same way everytime. You thrive at the quazi-military affiliation/status and the moment someone says "no" or standards are imposed, you yell, I'm a civilian, you can't treat me like that and you run home screaming all the way. I really think Ma Blue was very patient about this whole thing. Remember, we are still the Air Force auxiliary by federal law...even with the most recent Aux On/Off legislation. That pretty much places us in a similar (sic) vein as the Air National Guard (federal status only when activated; a governor's big stick the rest of the time). So the Air Force has imposed a standard if you want to wear their uniform. What's wrong with that...imagine HEALTHY CAP members? At the recent National Staff College, one or more AF officers complained about the multitude of uniform combinations. Those officers in the know at the college knew in October that the uniform was on its way out. The TPU/CSU represents a horrible time for this organization and HWSRN still is the Air Force poster child on how we are perceived. Do you really want to look like him? Finally, instead of complaining, remember that we are supposed to be mentors/supervisors/leaders of cadets, who, for the most part, laugh at us because of our lack of military bearing and poor appearance. We need to work at chaging that and losing this uniform is a good start. The only positive I would hope to come from this is that National organize a uniform/badge/ribbon board and test things before getting Ma Blue's permission.
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 13, 2009, 12:23:23 AM
That pretty much places us in a similar (sic) vein as the Air National Guard (federal status only when activated; a governor's big stick the rest of the time). So the Air Force has imposed a standard if you want to wear their uniform.
Please feel free to cite any evidence you have in this matter relating to the CSU.
Also, last I checked, the Guard issued uniforms and paid their members, swore them in as commissioned officers, and provided them with a whole host of benefits. Therefore not
exactly the same situation, right?
What a lot of people seem to forget is that military service is not a one-way street of benefit with the soldier or airman providing their skills and time for free. When you raise your hand in the military, you agree to obey your superiors, perform your duties, and make yourself ready, in exchange for pay, benefits, clothing, shelter, and health care. In that case, it is expected and reasonable to salute and execute in nearly all manners.
CAP's paradigm, by design, is somewhat different, with its members providing their outside skills, time, and money, for altruistic satisfaction of service to the country. In most cases the scale of service and benefit is heavily tipped to the member's side, in the country's favor, which is why in all things the impact to the membership should be considered as the paramount factor.
The last time I checked, a National Guard or Reserve officer/enlisted was a civilian unless they were activated that's what the (sic) meant. That's why that get four pay periods for two-day UTA weekends. Care to challenge that one?
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 13, 2009, 12:38:31 AM
The last time I checked, a National Guard or Reserve officer/enlisted was a civilian unless they were activated that's what the (sic) meant. That's why that get four pay periods for two-day UTA weekends. Care to challenge that one?
No, because you are missing the point.
Okay.....let's just let this one die.
I didn't miss your point and I do agree with some of your comments. I understand that this dramatic uniform change has a substantial impact on those CAP officers who chose to wear the TPU/CSU, but the impact seems to be focused on the cost of the service coat that a lot of people couldn't afford in the first place, not the shirts or the pants, etc. What does that have to do with a military officer you ask? You should know that a military officer isn't issued his or her dress or utility uniforms. They have to pay for them, too. Change also happens dramatically in the Air Force. In my Air Force career, I think I was one of the last group of airmen issued 1505s and rather short-lived long sleved light blue shirts in basic training. I think I got to wear the 1505s one month and only one of those long-sleved shirts before they were phased out pretty much at the same time. I had to buy the new uniform items, four each, out of pocket, on the pay scale of an airman basic (about $250 a month in the 70s). My uniform allowance didn't kick in yet, and if I remember correctly, it was only about $5 a month. The current Air Force uniform was implemented in a similiar way. Existing supplies were depleted and you had to buy the whole new uniform even if you were only replacing a tie or flight cap. That was $350 to $500 all at once. The new mess dress was the same way....mine cost $500 when the medals and metalic-embroidered rank was added. I had to buy the uniform, I was a senior NCO and it was required. The point is that change always comes at a cost, it's your choice what to do or how to proceed. Are we strong and willing to move forward over the obstacle, or stuck on a treadmill of complaints?
Quote from: RiverAux on November 12, 2009, 10:35:41 PM
I wonder what the CAP-USAF comments are in the official meeting notes when the CSU was originally approved?
I just checked the March 2006 NB minutes and it was not a regular agenda item -- brought up during the Development Committee report. There were no CAP-USAF comments noted in the minutes.
Normally, CAP-USAF would also provide comments on new regulations, but as we all know, 39-1 hasn't been modified since the adoption of the CSU, so that eliminated another possible way to get official word of CAP-USAF's opinion on the matter.
The TPU was brought into existence under shall we say dubious circumstances. It 'might' look good, but it was still ill conceived. If I remember correctly when it first came out, these forums were rather hostile towards them. (lest we forget)
I say good riddance, it is time to erase to let this one die the death it deserves.
Maybe HWWSNM will adopt if for his Ranger Corps now.
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 13, 2009, 12:23:23 AM
Ok guys, you've really beat this one to death. You act like kids with their hands caught in the cookie jar and then you respond the same way everytime. You thrive at the quazi-military affiliation/status and the moment someone says "no" or standards are imposed, you yell, I'm a civilian, you can't treat me like that and you run home screaming all the way. I really think Ma Blue was very patient about this whole thing. Remember, we are still the Air Force auxiliary by federal law...even with the most recent Aux On/Off legislation. That pretty much places us in a similar (sic) vein as the Air National Guard (federal status only when activated; a governor's big stick the rest of the time). So the Air Force has imposed a standard if you want to wear their uniform. What's wrong with that...imagine HEALTHY CAP members? At the recent National Staff College, one or more AF officers complained about the multitude of uniform combinations. Those officers in the know at the college knew in October that the uniform was on its way out. The TPU/CSU represents a horrible time for this organization and HWSRN still is the Air Force poster child on how we are perceived. Do you really want to look like him? Finally, instead of complaining, remember that we are supposed to be mentors/supervisors/leaders of cadets, who, for the most part, laugh at us because of our lack of military bearing and poor appearance. We need to work at chaging that and losing this uniform is a good start. The only positive I would hope to come from this is that National organize a uniform/badge/ribbon board and test things before getting Ma Blue's permission.
I agree with you that we have a poor appearance and and lack Military Bearing. CAP has what it started with for uniforms and organizational structure. A lot of people in CAP wear the AF uniform and I agree they should in many cases exercise more care with how they wear it. As far as organizing a uniform/badge/ribbon board would that be different that the "Uniform Team" I've heard about? What kind of outcome would you envision for what uniform CAP members should wear?
Quote from: billford1 on November 13, 2009, 03:12:46 AMI agree with you that we have a poor appearance and and lack Military Bearing. CAP has what it started with for uniforms and organizational structure. A lot of people in CAP wear the AF uniform and I agree they should in many cases exercise more care with how they wear it. As far as organizing a uniform/badge/ribbon board would that be different that the "Uniform Team" I've heard about? What kind of outcome would you envision for what uniform CAP members should wear?
I really think one of those uniforms has been locked in place by the Air Force. As for other options, I would hope the uniform team/board would come up with suggestions, test them in field wearing periods and then seek approval up the chain. That's the way the Air Force does it now. That's part of the reason why the sleve braid rank for officers got shot down when the new uniform was designed. It wasn't popular in the field. I would hope that charging the uniform board to operate the same way, would stop the knee jerk type of changes that we have now. Do you realize that lack of input was how most of the speciality badges were designed? The membership needs to be able to make input on such changes. You know I was angry at the four changes made to the organizational/command patch. Then I found out afterward that the AF didn't want anything showing Air Force Auxiliary on uniform items worn during our "special missions." I read about that somewhere in some official Air Force document. Would that knowledge have softened the harsh critism that followed the latest patch change? I would hope I am optimistic about the organization. I keep hearing about strategic planning concepts. When you are at Maxwell for a school, you see things from a strategic concept. Yet, when you return to the field, you sense a disconnect and membership that are disgruntled because they are out of touch and focusing on local problems. In reality, that has been what was echoed here with the frustration behind this vote.
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 13, 2009, 03:52:32 AMThen I found out afterward that the AF didn't want anything showing Air Force Auxiliary on uniform items worn during our "special missions." I read about that somewhere in some official Air Force document. Would that knowledge have softened the harsh critism that followed the latest patch change?
Wive's tale. Cite please.
Much of the CAP vs. USAF/Aux issues are holdover procedures from HWSRN's famous attempt to move us to HLS.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 13, 2009, 04:13:31 AM
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 13, 2009, 03:52:32 AM
Much of the CAP vs. USAF/Aux issues are holdover procedures from HWSRN's famous attempt to move us to HLS.
Wive's tale. Please cite.
Quote from: Gunner C on November 13, 2009, 04:18:25 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 13, 2009, 04:13:31 AM
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 13, 2009, 03:52:32 AM
Much of the CAP vs. USAF/Aux issues are holdover procedures from HWSRN's famous attempt to move us to HLS.
Wive's tale. Please cite.
I'll capitulate, I have nothing to cite, though I think his budgetary battles and the threats to move us to HLS are fairly common knowledge on this board.
No more, or less, than what it says on our aircraft or patches changes our PC status.
I don't think I've ever heard that TP tried or even threatened to try to move us to HLS and I'm here every now and again ;)
Certainly moving CAP to HLS has been discussed here, but only by us lowly CAPTalkers. Can't recall anyone ever mentioning that this was something NHQ was "threatening" the AF with.
I think we all can agree that TP pee'ed into one too many coffees, but threatening the air force with the homeland security? I have never heard of this, from any form, either it be here or just the basic word of mouth rumor mill. I do believe that the TP era antics played a role in this but maybe not the main role.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 13, 2009, 04:28:21 AM
I don't think I've ever heard that TP tried or even threatened to try to move us to HLS and I'm here every now and again ;)
Certainly moving CAP to HLS has been discussed here, but only by us lowly CAPTalkers. Can't recall anyone ever mentioning that this was something NHQ was "threatening" the AF with.
The coffee-house fodder that came to me, through a source I trust, was that this was around the time CAP was embroiled in a budget crisis because the DOD was hitting everybody with "war taxes" - look at the boards in the Dec 2006 timeframe.
This is also the general timeframe when there were talks about making us a MAJCOM (thus the patch), or at least moving us up the chain from AETC.
Anyway, the scuttle was that when told of the budget cuts, he had a shouting match with whoever it was he thought was taking his money and stormed out threatened to restructure under DHS, which then prompted a lot of the discussion here and elsewhere.
An increased role in HLS and/or LE then started the buzz about PC issues and the insignia.
Rinse, repeat.
Ding.
My feeling is that the blue/white combination is a more uniform outfit to be worn in conjunction with cadets wearing the AF style uniform. There is no standardization among the grey pants, so how can that be a "uniform" without any uniformity? If it is to be a uniform item, then Vanguard should offer everything in CAPR 39-1 that is listed as a uniform item and approved for wear as part of the CAP senior member uniform. The interesting thing to see is what National Commander/National Board and/or National Headquarters (uniform approving authority IAW CAPR 39-1) says about the corporate uniform being removed from the inventory.
I would hate to see something that looks more inline with what the cadets are wearing is discarded indiscrimately. I feel the grey/white uniform is worn in a more slovenly and less uniformly manner than the blue/white combination.
Quote from: llahan on November 17, 2009, 03:27:43 AMI feel the grey/white uniform is worn in a more slovenly and less uniformly manner than the blue/white combination.
If by less "uniformly", you mean that not everyone would have the exact same pattern, shade, material as anyone else, I would agree.
As to slovenly (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slovenly), that is not what "not uniform" means. Sloven (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sloven) is a different concept.
Just out of curiosity, how did this thread get unlocked?
QuoteJust out of curiosity, how did this thread get unlocked?
shhh...Mike must be sleeping....
Anyway, as I suspect that there will be more news on this issue, I suspect we will still have need for this thread (or another one with the same subject) soon...
Quote from: llahan on November 17, 2009, 03:27:43 AMThe interesting thing to see is what National Commander/National Board and/or National Headquarters (uniform approving authority IAW CAPR 39-1) says about the corporate uniform being removed from the inventory.
39-1 won't say anything about it (unless its restored in some form) - it was never added to 39-1, so it doesn't have to be removed.
Quote from: llahan on November 17, 2009, 03:27:43 AM
I feel the grey/white uniform is worn in a more slovenly and less uniformly manner than the blue/white combination.
I would agree, but its likely because at its core its civilian items being worn as a uniform, so its takes a lot less mental effort to put together, thus less respect in general. My CAP clothes, including the corporates, are dedicated to CAP, but for a lot of folks (and by design), they are just everyday clothes with some extra pins.
I won't leave the house without them, but I'd be curious to know how many members wear shirt garters with their whites...
Quote from: RiverAux on November 17, 2009, 04:14:15 AM
QuoteJust out of curiosity, how did this thread get unlocked?
shhh...Mike must be sleeping....
Anyway, as I suspect that there will be more news on this issue, I suspect we will still have need for this thread (or another one with the same subject) soon...
No, just working on a solution to either consolidate or better organize the concurrent discussions on the CSU going away and the various ideas of what to do going forward. There probably will be some sort of change shortly.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 17, 2009, 04:28:53 AM
Quote from: llahan on November 17, 2009, 03:27:43 AMThe interesting thing to see is what National Commander/National Board and/or National Headquarters (uniform approving authority IAW CAPR 39-1) says about the corporate uniform being removed from the inventory.
39-1 won't say anything about it (unless its restored in some form) - it was never added to 39-1, so it doesn't have to be removed.
Quote from: llahan on November 17, 2009, 03:27:43 AM
I feel the grey/white uniform is worn in a more slovenly and less uniformly manner than the blue/white combination.
I would agree, but its likely because at its core its civilian items being worn as a uniform, so its takes a lot less mental effort to put together, thus less respect in general. My CAP clothes, including the corporates, are dedicated to CAP, but for a lot of folks (and by design), they are just everyday clothes with some extra pins.
I won't leave the house without them, but I'd be curious to know how many members where shirt garters with their whites...
+1
Personally, I have tried shirt garters, and can never make the bloody things work right. However, I'm constantly checking to make sure I'm properly tucked and neat appearing.
First off, thank you for unlocking this one. Second, since some on the board think this decision will be overturned, don't you think that will present an even bigger problem for cap? IMHO it will make us look like, well a bunch of amateurs, and during this time of um..."unsettlement" in our nations time do we want to present something like that?
Quote from: NCRblues on November 17, 2009, 04:45:04 AM
First off, thank you for unlocking this one. Second, since some on the board think this decision will be overturned, don't you think that will present an even bigger problem for cap? IMHO it will make us look like, well a bunch of amateurs, and during this time of um..."unsettlement" in our nations time do we want to present something like that?
Well, the only folks who can overturn the decision are the Board of Governors. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
And I wouldn't bet on the National Board revisiting this decision either. Those Wing Commanders do work for those Region Commanders and making them look bad is probably not in their best interest.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 17, 2009, 04:45:04 AM
First off, thank you for unlocking this one. Second, since some on the board think this decision will be overturned, don't you think that will present an even bigger problem for cap? IMHO it will make us look like, well a bunch of amateurs, and during this time of um..."unsettlement" in our nations time do we want to present something like that?
You're giving too much and too little credit, respectively to the various parts of this issue.
As of today, there has been no official word, including the sundown, from NHQ in any form outside of downstream messages from Region CC's.
Until the official word, it's status quo, and at a minimum there appears to be a difference of opinion between the governing bodies on whether the CSU lives or dies (the NB enhanced it with a sweater only a few months ago).
This may result in a 3000psi "discussion" between the bodies as to who has the power for which decisions, no comment from the NB, or anything in between.
Plenty can happen up to and even after an sundown. The fact that we're debating what is essentially unofficial hearsay doesn't mean a whole lot to the majority of the membership and means nothing to our outside customers.
I know a lot of folks don't like the CSU and some of us do. If the BOG does step back and reverse the decision I know some people who will be pleased. I've seen them in both aviator shirt uniforms and the blue one just looks better compared to the variation of gray trousers I've seen. If you wear the grays there's less emphasis on how well it's worn. If the TPU is worn expectations are much higher and that's a good thing.
Quote from: PHall on November 17, 2009, 04:54:48 AM
Well, the only folks who can overturn the decision are the Board of Governors. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
How do you figure? The NEC does this...
Quote"1. When the National Board is not in session, the National Executive Committee shall be vested with all the powers of the National Board, except those powers which may be reserved exclusively to the National Board."
The National Board, when in session, can overturn this NEC decision. Then in the next NEC meeting, they could turn over the NB decision. Fun isn't it?
Nowhere in our Constitution and Bylaws does it say that the NEC is a board of "higher authority" than the National Board.
^ Absolutely correct. The NEC only acts when the NB is NOT in session. When the NB is in session, it has full authority to act. It is very possible it will revisit the CSU issue. Yes, the Wing/CC's report to the Region/CC's however, when the NB is in session, each member has an equal voice and an equal vote; fun isn't it?
BTW after a year's probation, a wing commander is tenured and can not be relieved except for "cause" which is defined and, a set process is in place for removal.
I think we need to mandate that if you meet height and weight you wear a USAF style uniform. If you dont meet height and weight. CAP needs "one" altenate uniform. I dont care which one it is. Although I do like the white shirt /blue pants combo. Its looks similar to the USAFstyle one.
Come on folks. We are one organization yet have tons of unifoms. I dont get it.
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 17, 2009, 02:26:49 PM
I think we need to mandate that if you meet height and weight you wear a USAF style unifor. If youdont meet height and weight. CAP needs "one" altenate uniform. I don tcare which one it is. Althouhg I do like the white shirt /blue pants combo. Its looks similar to the USAFstyle one.
Come on folks. We are one organization yet have tons of uniroms. I dont get it.
What about the people that have facial hair?
I meet H/W but I wear BBDU normally because my wife is fond of my goatee.
Quote from: davidsinn on November 17, 2009, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 17, 2009, 02:26:49 PM
I think we need to mandate that if you meet height and weight you wear a USAF style unifor. If youdont meet height and weight. CAP needs "one" altenate uniform. I don tcare which one it is. Althouhg I do like the white shirt /blue pants combo. Its looks similar to the USAFstyle one.
Come on folks. We are one organization yet have tons of uniroms. I dont get it.
What about the people that have facial hair?
I meet H/W but I wear BBDU normally because my wife is fond of my goatee.
Ok, I meant height and weught AND facial hair. The BBDU is perfect for that.
BBDUs are fine for field wear. What about a more formal uniform to match the AF Service Dress combination? That's what all the heartburn is about.
Breaking News......
Just got a fax containing corespondance between SEC/MIR and the BoG regarding the CSU dated between Aug - Sept 2006. The letters ask that the (then) distinctive uniform would be made more distinctive with USAF participation in the discussions. The response from the BoG was to inform the Air Force that the requested changes to the uniform has been made and to contact NHQ/EX to "address any (furhter) Air Force concerns".
My sources inform me the Air Force was satisfied with the changes made at the time and no further action was required.
So.......?
That doesn't mean that the air force could not change their minds. From what we have heard in my area, from air force sources, is that once the general population of the air force started to encounter the CSU on military instillations, confusion reigned. Was this person in some navy unit with the braid on the sleeve? Was this person some sort of general's aide? Was this person a foreign officer? So I think the natural progression was that complaints finally made their way to the top, and they asked us to sideline it.
As FDR once said, "I have their hearts and minds today, but tomorrow, well who knows?"
^very true however, there is no evidence other than some hearsay that verifies it.....
The point is to make major decisions in the open. This type of thing should have been in the agenda, vetted and responded to prior to the meeting. It was not. I just was hoping things would be different from the past... :(
Oh I completely understand sir. Do I support the CSU going away, yes, do I support the way it left, absolutely not. I think we all had that little candle of hope in us that the ways of old were gone, but...
Quote from: SarDragon on November 17, 2009, 10:17:44 PM
BBDUs are fine for field wear. What about a more formal uniform to match the AF Service Dress combination? That's what all the heartburn is about.
Oh, I would say desin a coat similar to the TPU coat. I actually liked that uniform except for the bright sliver braid.
But here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards. Rightnow we make "accomadations" for people that are over weight. We dont want to discriminate or leave these folks out. But inthe name of fitness and health why not "motivate" them to want to get insgaoe. I dont meanthey have to be a marathin man, but just enough to be healthy. I mean part of CAP is promoting a healthy lifestyle isnt it? So a good start could be mandating that members be in a certain height and weight range. It makes the unit look better overall and its good for the individual member.
One thing I notice on here. Everybody has their little "my sources" going on. There is not much unity cause everyone wants to trump everyone else with "thier special sources that nobody else has"
Again. like I always say if we are going to be an organization, we have to work together as a team and stop trying to one up each other
I am not trying to one up anyone. My sources are the men and women in the U.S. Air Force that I serve with every day. I'll let you know exactly my source on the CSU was, the command chief of Whiteman AFB. He told me directly when he found out I was a cap member that he (along with other influence people in the command structure) received varied complaints on the CSU jacket about the hard rank, sleeve braid and several other items on the CSU. He asked me my personnel opinion on it, which I politely told him that I don't think it was my place for such a thing. This was during a post check that was supposed to be for the welfare of the active duty men and women, yet turned to cap once he asked what I did in my free time. This is a HUGE problem in cap, we blow off simple nudges (that are meant to save us face) until the air force TELLS us this is how its ganna be. By listening to those "sources" people have, maybe oh god just maybe, we would have a better overall relationship with ma blue. MHO. rant over flame away
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 03:17:40 AM
But here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards. Rightnow we make "accomadations" for people that are over weight. We dont want to discriminate or leave these folks out. But inthe name of fitness and health why not "motivate" them to want to get insgaoe. I dont meanthey have to be a marathin man, but just enough to be healthy. I mean part of CAP is promoting a healthy lifestyle isnt it? So a good start could be mandating that members be in a certain height and weight range. It makes the unit look better overall and its good for the individual member.
Seems to me that is a slippery slope for a volunteer organization.
So after we mandate ht/wt requirements are we going to mandate a degree to be an officer, periodic physicals especially for the over 40s or have some sort of PHA? What do you think the mandated retirement age should be? Mandate progression in the PD program or be non retained? >:D
To try to enforce weight standards on members is worse that unfair. I say that because such a mandate would affect more than just the individuals themselves. Most of the strong players in our wing are older, overweight people who couldn't manage to diet and exercise their way into meeting someone else's ideals. The organization would lose them and the huge contribution they make to CAP for almost nothing in return. Weren't there overweight people in CAP before all the uniform diversity started in the 1990s?
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 03:17:40 AMBut here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards.
That policy will drive out at least a third of our functioning members, perhaps more. Outside of GT members (addressed elsewhere on here or CS), nothing we do requires the level of physical condition or appearance require by the military.
What are you going to do when "middle age spread" hits you, and you migrate into the group you are trying to reject from membership?
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 03:20:47 AM
One thing I notice on here. Everybody has their little "my sources" going on. There is not much unity cause everyone wants to trump everyone else with "thier special sources that nobody else has"
Again. like I always say if we are going to be an organization, we have to work together as a team and stop trying to one up each other
I think a point is being missed. The object of the discussion, IMO,
is unity. Unity based on a set process, proper ethics and a true belief and practice of our core values as CAP members.
I'm getting major heart burn over the way things are being "explained" to the membership with out proper "back up". We, as members, agree to abide by the decisons of our leaders. However, it becomes increasingly difficult to perform when we are given the wrong information. How can we follow when we are misinformed or given less than full instructions before making decisions or taking action?
It seems our double standard is alive and well. It seems we have gone back to the days of secret votes, threats and, character assasination. If this is true, we need a major overhaul and, it needs to start with the top and go all the way down to the newest SM and cadet. Our core values need to be more than just words. We need to honor them as well as each member who volunteers; at any level.
A very close friend once told me to stick to the "high road" and do what was right. All I can do is try to live by this advice. I believe that every one of our leaders tries to do what is in the best interests of CAP and the membership however, there must be a free and open debate with full information given. Anything less should be unacceptable to us; as members, as taxpayers, as citizens of this great country.
As far as the enforcement of height/weight/facial hair standards...I don't see it happening, not without us losing a heck of a lot of members, who, as has been pointed out, contribute quite a bit. Even State Guards, who have state military authority on their side, are a bit more "loose" on this than the actual Army and Air Guard.
As far as the formal end of the CSU...one thing I have learned over many years of dealing with both CAP and the AF, is that until something is in writing, it hasn't happened. Once an ICL is issued and/or someone higher up the food chain than me orders me not to wear mine, I will continue to wear it. However, I am not going to be investing in a service coat any time soon.
Incidentally, is there an official guide on how the black sweater is to be worn? With the blue epaulettes, or not? I checked the CAP Knowledgebase and couldn't find anything.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 18, 2009, 03:44:46 AM
I'll let you know exactly my source on the CSU was, the command chief of Whiteman AFB. He told me directly when he found out I was a cap member that he (along with other influence people in the command structure) received varied complaints on the CSU jacket about the hard rank, sleeve braid and several other items on the CSU.
No flames here.
Usually SNCO's, especially a Command Chief, first shirt, etc. are a pretty good barometer of what's going on in their corner of the world.
I agree with him about the sleeve braid. I don't think it was necessary and to me it looked garish, and was an extra expense to purchase and have affixed. But I also don't think we need a commissioning stripe on the AF uniform (we're not commissioned) and I'd be satisfied for all members to wear the airman's flight cap with blue braid. I remember an AFRES NCO in a former squadron who was also a CAP officer, and he said he sometimes got some odd looks at MCSS when purchasing "officer" items.
As far as the hard rank...again, a lot of other agencies wear it so I'm a bit puzzled on that one, especially since the uniform had CAP cutouts and nameplates. I'd also be interested to know their position on encountering a CAP CMSGT wearing the uniform with his/her stripes on the service coat...seems to me that would cause a bit of confusion too.
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 03:17:40 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on November 17, 2009, 10:17:44 PM
BBDUs are fine for field wear. What about a more formal uniform to match the AF Service Dress combination? That's what all the heartburn is about.
Oh, I would say desin a coat similar to the TPU coat. I actually liked that uniform except for the bright sliver braid.
But here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards. Rightnow we make "accomadations" for people that are over weight. We dont want to discriminate or leave these folks out. But inthe name of fitness and health why not "motivate" them to want to get insgaoe. I dont meanthey have to be a marathin man, but just enough to be healthy. I mean part of CAP is promoting a healthy lifestyle isnt it? So a good start could be mandating that members be in a certain height and weight range. It makes the unit look better overall and its good for the individual member.
The reality is that if we did....about 25-45% of CAP would have to go away...about 10% more would walk just because we were kicking out their buddies.
I know in my squadron about 50% of the SM do not/cannot meet weight standards.
The mission will suffer.
QuoteBut here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards. Rightnow we make "accomadations" for people that are over weight. We dont want to discriminate or leave these folks out. But inthe name of fitness and health why not "motivate" them to want to get insgaoe. I dont meanthey have to be a marathin man, but just enough to be healthy. I mean part of CAP is promoting a healthy lifestyle isnt it? So a good start could be mandating that members be in a certain height and weight range. It makes the unit look better overall and its good for the individual member.
It's hard for me to decide whether it's the arrogance or the astonishing lack of good judgment that is more objectionable in this post.
Quote from: PA Guy on November 18, 2009, 03:52:16 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 03:17:40 AM
But here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards. Rightnow we make "accomadations" for people that are over weight. We dont want to discriminate or leave these folks out. But inthe name of fitness and health why not "motivate" them to want to get insgaoe. I dont meanthey have to be a marathin man, but just enough to be healthy. I mean part of CAP is promoting a healthy lifestyle isnt it? So a good start could be mandating that members be in a certain height and weight range. It makes the unit look better overall and its good for the individual member.
Seems to me that is a slippery slope for a volunteer organization.
So after we mandate ht/wt requirements are we going to mandate a degree to be an officer, periodic physicals especially for the over 40s or have some sort of PHA? What do you think the mandated retirement age should be? Mandate progression in the PD program or be non retained? >:D
I'm just saying other "volunteer" organizations do it. How do they do it?
Quote from: airdale on November 18, 2009, 05:57:54 PM
QuoteBut here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards. Rightnow we make "accomadations" for people that are over weight. We dont want to discriminate or leave these folks out. But inthe name of fitness and health why not "motivate" them to want to get insgaoe. I dont meanthey have to be a marathin man, but just enough to be healthy. I mean part of CAP is promoting a healthy lifestyle isnt it? So a good start could be mandating that members be in a certain height and weight range. It makes the unit look better overall and its good for the individual member.
It's hard for me to decide whether it's the arrogance or the astonishing lack of good judgment that is more objectionable in this post.
Its not arrogance. I sincerely want our organization to look good and feel good about itself. I read on here about how ma blue doesnt respect us. Well, in my opinion I think this is one reason why.
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 11:37:32 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on November 18, 2009, 03:52:16 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 03:17:40 AM
But here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards. Rightnow we make "accomadations" for people that are over weight. We dont want to discriminate or leave these folks out. But inthe name of fitness and health why not "motivate" them to want to get insgaoe. I dont meanthey have to be a marathin man, but just enough to be healthy. I mean part of CAP is promoting a healthy lifestyle isnt it? So a good start could be mandating that members be in a certain height and weight range. It makes the unit look better overall and its good for the individual member.
Seems to me that is a slippery slope for a volunteer organization.
So after we mandate ht/wt requirements are we going to mandate a degree to be an officer, periodic physicals especially for the over 40s or have some sort of PHA? What do you think the mandated retirement age should be? Mandate progression in the PD program or be non retained? >:D
I'm just saying other "volunteer" organizations do it. How do they do it?
Which ones?
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 11:39:01 PM
Its not arrogance. I sincerely want our organization to look good and feel good about itself. I read on here about how ma blue doesnt respect us. Well, in my opinion I think this is one reason why.
Ma Blue has a stick up her FPOC and forgets that we were formed by those that couldn't fight but still wanted to contribute to the effort.
QuoteIts not arrogance.
What if someone told you your grammar, spelling, and typing skills were inadequate for membership in CAP because they would make us look bad? Would that be arrogance? Your presuming to tell others what is healthy for them, that their elimination would make their unit look better, and that they aren't respectable is far worse.
Quote from: davidsinn on November 18, 2009, 11:43:21 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 11:37:32 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on November 18, 2009, 03:52:16 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 03:17:40 AM
But here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards. Rightnow we make "accomadations" for people that are over weight. We dont want to discriminate or leave these folks out. But inthe name of fitness and health why not "motivate" them to want to get insgaoe. I dont meanthey have to be a marathin man, but just enough to be healthy. I mean part of CAP is promoting a healthy lifestyle isnt it? So a good start could be mandating that members be in a certain height and weight range. It makes the unit look better overall and its good for the individual member.
Seems to me that is a slippery slope for a volunteer organization.
So after we mandate ht/wt requirements are we going to mandate a degree to be an officer, periodic physicals especially for the over 40s or have some sort of PHA? What do you think the mandated retirement age should be? Mandate progression in the PD program or be non retained? >:D
I'm just saying other "volunteer" organizations do it. How do they do it?
Which ones?
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 11:39:01 PM
Its not arrogance. I sincerely want our organization to look good and feel good about itself. I read on here about how ma blue doesnt respect us. Well, in my opinion I think this is one reason why.
Ma Blue has a stick up her FPOC and forgets that we were formed by those that couldn't fight but still wanted to contribute to the effort.
Thats true. and i am an example of that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot but I couldnt due to my vision. (I didn join the army as a grunt though) So I completely understand where you are comming from.
But just like we tell people that we are professional volunteers. we should look professional too.
Thats why I propose an alternate uniform for those that dont meet ht and wt or grooming. There is nothing wrong with that. The Coast Aux has strict standards why shouldnt we/
You have to look and act professionally to precieved as professional. Not only that but its also about health. I want my fellow senior members tolive a long and healthy life. so mandated weight standards would only serve to help them in the long run.
Quote from: airdale on November 19, 2009, 12:04:36 AM
QuoteIts not arrogance.
What if someone told you your grammar, spelling, and typing skills were inadequate for membership in CAP because they would make us look bad? Would that be arrogance? Your presuming to tell others what is healthy for them, that their elimination would make their unit look better, and that they aren't respectable is far worse.
Just lookin out
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 19, 2009, 12:06:30 AM
Thats true. and i am an example of that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot but I couldnt due to my vision. (I didn join the army as a grunt though) So I completely understand where you are comming from.
But just like we tell people that we are professional volunteers. we should look professional too.
Thats why I propose an alternate uniform for those that dont meet ht and wt or grooming. There is nothing wrong with that. The Coast Aux has strict standards why shouldnt we/
You have to look and act professionally to precieved as professional. Not only that but its also about health. I want my fellow senior members tolive a long and healthy life. so mandated weight standards would only serve to help them in the long run.
Of course they'll live long lives, because with your idea the only one's left are the thin healthy people! You institute that and my unit goes away tomorrow because all we'd have left are three officers.
It is just not possible to keep cap viable if we were to implement weight standards. How would it look to go up to a SM that has served, oh 20 years in cap, and say, "hey, we understand you're an older gentleman, and losing weight is tuff for you, but uh to bad, bye bye!" What an insult to the members.
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 19, 2009, 12:06:30 AM
Thats true. and i am an example of that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot but I couldnt due to my vision. (I didn join the army as a grunt though) So I completely understand where you are comming from.
But just like we tell people that we are professional volunteers. we should look professional too.
Thats why I propose an alternate uniform for those that dont meet ht and wt or grooming. There is nothing wrong with that. The Coast Aux has strict standards why shouldnt we/
You have to look and act professionally to precieved as professional. Not only that but its also about health. I want my fellow senior members tolive a long and healthy life. so mandated weight standards would only serve to help them in the long run.
......unless the mission failed in the short.
I agree that we need to ACT and look professional to be percieved as professionals. A single uniform will help with that.
Weight and groom standards could help with that as well....but.....unlike AD USAF we don't have the benefit of a professional recruiting and training system to replace those who no longer meet the standards. We have to relie on volunteers to fill our ranks and getting people who can do the job well is more important than getting people who look good doing the job well.
USAF weight standards are all about looks......not health, not mission accomplishment, but looks. And the USAF paid a lot of lip service to the weight managment program while still letting by those who were overweight but critical to their mission.
I'm not against manditory weight standards....but we must be prepared for the FACT that we will fail in our mission if we kick out those who don't meet standards.
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 03:17:40 AM
But here is another ideal idea. Whats wrong with enforcing weight standards.
Nothing - and we also need to start enforcing USAF education standards and entrance testing standards. Want to be a CAP 2Lt - get a bachelors' degree. Master's recommended for field grade officers. That would greatly improve our leadership! ;D Pilots would have to meet USAF vision standards.
Look I am not going to sttop to thelevel of ignorance for having an opinion.
I amnot saying get rid of al the overweight members. I am saying that we should instill a healthy physical fitness program. DO we not do the same for cadets? Do we not encourage cadets to eat right and maintain a healthy lifestyle? Why not do the same for seniors?
What we are doing now is making conscessions and trying to please everyone. But hey if thats the way CAP wants to do it so be it. Its just a suggestion. I take it all back how about that? Make a billion uniform styles I dont really care.
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 11:39:01 PM
I read on here about how ma blue doesnt respect us. Well, in my opinion I think this is one reason why.
You need to spend less time on this board and get out and interface with ma blue if you want to know what they think about us. Just finished a weekend supporting a major air show where the Cadets were fully integrated in USAF activities. Cudos for the Cadets were received from several general officers, various unit commanders, politicians, a ton of retired senior officers, and the Secret Service. I saw one SNCO get a weird look on his face after asking if we were going with his folks to the next activity - we were doing such a great job he forgot we were using Cadets.
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 19, 2009, 12:29:43 AM
I amnot saying get rid of al the overweight members. I am saying that we should instill a healthy physical fitness program. DO we not do the same for cadets? Do we not encourage cadets to eat right and maintain a healthy lifestyle? Why not do the same for seniors?
And all seniors are forced to "retired" after a max of 10 years....just like cadets.
Plus Female SM couldn't be pregnant, Sm couldn't be married. We have more stringent rules for the cadets because we are trying to instill into them a good life style and work ethic. By the time you're a SM if you don't have a good work ethic or healthy lifestyle I am not sure cap regs would change it.
Also, the air force is transitioning to an all contracted oversight of the PT testing and program because when the squadrons were in charge of PT testing, the testing was not always honest. People in critical positions were not being tested fairly because of a fear that failing them and having to (eventually) kick them out would put an undue burden on the squadrons. Don't you think this would happen in cap? You don't think that some (some not all) CC's would just let bob or Tim that are the pilots or GT leader's slide just a little? I think it would happen.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 12:57:06 AM
Also, the air force is transitioning to an all contracted oversight of the PT testing and program because when the squadrons were in charge of PT testing, the testing was not always honest. People in critical positions were not being tested fairly because of a fear that failing them and having to (eventually) kick them out would put an undue burden on the squadrons. Don't you think this would happen in cap? You don't think that some (some not all) CC's would just let bob or Tim that are the pilots or GT leader's slide just a little? I think it would happen.
Not contractors, civilian employees.
Quote from: Short Field on November 19, 2009, 12:38:29 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2009, 11:39:01 PM
I read on here about how ma blue doesnt respect us. Well, in my opinion I think this is one reason why.
You need to spend less time on this board and get out and interface with ma blue if you want to know what they think about us. Just finished a weekend supporting a major air show where the Cadets were fully integrated in USAF activities. Cudos for the Cadets were received from several general officers, various unit commanders, politicians, a ton of retired senior officers, and the Secret Service. I saw one SNCO get a weird look on his face after asking if we were going with his folks to the next activity - we were doing such a great job he forgot we were using Cadets.
I am just repeating WHAT I read onhere. Why pick on me? I get it.
We're not "picking on you".
You asked a Q. We responded. You proceeded to push your viewpoint. We pushed back.
Quote from: flyguy06I amnot saying get rid of al the overweight members. I am saying that we should instill a healthy physical fitness program.
We already do that. A significant chunk of ECI13 covers just exactly that. Segue to something about horses and water and drinking.
Does this "training" happen early enough in a SM's career? Probably not. But it's there.
BTW, you still haven't answered this Q:
What are
you going to do when "middle age spread" hits
you, and
you migrate into the group you are trying to reject from membership?
Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2009, 12:20:54 AM
USAF weight standards are all about looks......not health, not mission accomplishment, but looks. And the USAF paid a lot of lip service to the weight managment program while still letting by those who were overweight but critical to their mission.
If the USAF standards are cosmetic, it would be very difficult to maintain that CAP standards derived from them were "mission related"...any action of this sort could be opening CAP to a discrimination lawsuit.
I still think the NEC's decision on the CSU was shortsighted and wrong. It was clear that the AF approved of the CSU after HWSRN took off the "U.S." insignia and the grade from the flight cap. The then-Secretary of the Air Force (I believe) signed off on it, as did the CSAF.
So where does the sudden disapproval of the CSU come from?
And in the face of Vanguard having a stock of CSU jackets that it won't be able to sell to members (who's going to pay $175 for a service coat that they can't wear more than a year or so?), who's going to pay for that?
I still see the CSU being revisited by the NB at their next meeting. If the Wing Kings buck the NEC and reinstate the CSU, it will make for an ... interesting ... turn of events.
Don't discard your CSU just yet.
Jack
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 19, 2009, 05:41:24 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2009, 12:20:54 AM
USAF weight standards are all about looks......not health, not mission accomplishment, but looks. And the USAF paid a lot of lip service to the weight managment program while still letting by those who were overweight but critical to their mission.
If the USAF standards are cosmetic, it would be very difficult to maintain that CAP standards derived from them were "mission related"...any action of this sort could be opening CAP to a discrimination lawsuit.
Over weight is not a protected class.
Quote from: ColonelJack on November 19, 2009, 04:08:48 PM
So where does the sudden disapproval of the CSU come from?
Col, maybe you should read my post about my conversation with a command chief. The "sudden" disapproval came from once the general population of the Air force started to encounter the CSU jacket on instillations. Why is it so hard for people to understand that things change? If the leadership of the air force received enough complaints (as I was lead to believe by command chief Hornbeck) from air force members, it’s not a very far jump to think maybe they revisited their decision.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
Quote from: ColonelJack on November 19, 2009, 04:08:48 PM
So where does the sudden disapproval of the CSU come from?
Col, maybe you should read my post about my conversation with a command chief. The "sudden" disapproval came from once the general population of the Air force started to encounter the CSU jacket on instillations. Why is it so hard for people to understand that things change? If the leadership of the air force received enough complaints (as I was lead to believe by command chief Hornbeck) from air force members, it's not a very far jump to think maybe they revisited their decision.
Sounds like an education issue to me. Maybe if the AF taught their people about us this wouldn't be a problem.
You guys continue to amaze me. I just got spent 4 days working my ass off looking for a downed airplane, two days flying and two running Air Branch.
You know what? Not a single person at mission base was strutting around in a double-breasted jacket. And a large fraction of our most valuable people were not the sort who would make their squadrons "look good."
The mission is not about "looking good" or wearing fancy soldier suits. IMHO people for whom those are paramount would be better off finding a good drum and bugle corps to join. There you also get to wear hats with tall feathers on them.
Quote from: tinker on November 19, 2009, 04:24:45 PM
You guys continue to amaze me. I just got spent 4 days working my ass off looking for a downed airplane, two days flying and two running Air Branch.
You know what? Not a single person at mission base was strutting around in a double-breasted jacket. And a large fraction of our most valuable people were not the sort who would make their squadrons "look good."
The mission is not about "looking good" or wearing fancy soldier suits. IMHO people for whom those are paramount would be better off finding a good drum and bugle corps to join. There you also get to wear hats with tall feathers on them.
First off,Thank you for working the mission.......Second, I hope no one would be wearing the corporate service jacket at a mission base unless they were in the PA ROLE. Third, is it necessary to use profane language in your post?
Well tinker, thanks you that rant. I would hope someone wouldn't be looking for a down aircraft in full dress blues. There is a time to look good, and that's what we are discussing. The CSU was a good looking uniform, but it had some problems from the get go. Did I like the CSU, no, did I like the way it was sent away, no.
Davidsinn, how would you propose educating every Air force personnel about every aspect of cap? We would have to brief everyone in the air force on every uniform combination we have. We can't even get it right for our members let alone the world's largest air force! Then what do you do about the Air force personnel that don't like us wearing anything that remotely looks like an active duty uniform?
Quote from: tinker on November 19, 2009, 04:24:45 PM
You guys continue to amaze me. I just got spent 4 days working my ass off looking for a downed airplane, two days flying and two running Air Branch.
You know what? Not a single person at mission base was strutting around in a double-breasted jacket. And a large fraction of our most valuable people were not the sort who would make their squadrons "look good."
The mission is not about "looking good" or wearing fancy soldier suits. IMHO people for whom those are paramount would be better off finding a good drum and bugle corps to join. There you also get to wear hats with tall feathers on them.
Last time I checked, ES operations were only 1/3rd of our total mission, and we have several appropriate, inexpensive, options for our members to execute that mission.
The other two are generally executed in more formal classroom and/or military environments, and in a lot of the CAP world, AE & CP are a larger part of the program than ES.
Tunnel-visioning your personal square of the universe just makes you seem uninformed. Likewise marginalizing the service of others in an effort to make your own service more "important". The above is very typical of the single-focus operator mentality. "If its not in my world, its not important."
I'm not going to get in the middle of this one, but I wanted to pass along a document sent down the chain (stated to be from CAP/CC in the email) to provide clarification over the decision.
I apologize if this has already been posted elsewhere.
^ For starters, point #2 is gross oversimplification to make a point which is ultimately incorrect. The uniform was both reviewed and approved by the USAF.
"Approved" does not necessarily equal "preferred".
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 04:37:18 PM
Davidsinn, how would you propose educating every Air force personnel about every aspect of cap?
Maybe do it at BMT and then with press releases instead of not telling anyone about us?
Quote
We would have to brief everyone in the air force on every uniform combination we have. We can’t even get it right for our members let alone the world’s largest air force!
A simple pictorial chart would work
Quote
Then what do you do about the Air force personnel that don’t like us wearing anything that remotely looks like an active duty uniform?
Tell them to shut up and color? Seriously, the only members of the AF who's opinion matters is CC/CAP-USAF, CSAF, and SECAF and anyone in the middle of that chain that I missed.
Eclipse, how do you know it was vetted and approved? Can you site something? Or do you just "know?
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 04:59:00 PM
Eclipse, how do you know it was vetted and approved? Can you site something? Or do you just "know?
Who do you think told us to make the changes?
There are citations and notes in this thread and others that reference the USAF's directives for change and
ultimate approval.
Guys, I just took a little "blue" pill and feel much better now ;D
The powerpoint presentation is interesting however, is full of factual errors and poor research (timeline is off as well as some facts).
Second, what happens in the next few months is up to the NB. After 20 pages of comments, I don't really know if we can add new information to this exiting and very interesting field of knowledge. I do know than an agenda item is being written for the next NB meeting concerning this issue. Whether or not it sees publication is anyone's guess.
Third, it does feel better knowing "I'm not in Kansas anymore" Maybe, if I tap my laptop cover three time and say; "I want to go home, I want to go home" over and over, I'll wake up and, it will all have been a bad dream 8)
If the NB revisits this, we are going to look so bad.....
So wait, the NB still has to make it final?
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:15:33 PM
So wait, the NB still has to make it final?
Technically no. But they can reverse it.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:15:33 PM
So wait, the NB still has to make it final?
No, the NEC decision is a decision with standing. The National Board, being the same authoritative level as the NEC has the ability to reverse the decision should they choose.
Then, at the next NEC meeting, the NEC could reverse the reversal in a never ending loop of insanity.
All the decisions from the NEC and NB are final unless the other decides to make it temporary.
Keep it simple, you have the air force uniform and 1 corporate uniform alternate... Why is that so hard to go with?
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:19:37 PM
Keep it simple, you have the air force uniform and 1 corporate uniform alternate... Why is that so hard to go with?
Because it's not so simple. The gray uniform is not and never has been equal to the AF uniform in any sense of the word. It's not even uniform in the first place. The CSU was equal in almost every way to the AF uniform. They killed the wrong one and in an unethical way.
Who said the corporate dress uniform had to be equal? ??? And what exactly would make it equal in your eyes? Then again in someone else's it won't be equal in your version either.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 05:26:23 PM
Who said the corporate dress uniform had to be equal? ??? And what exactly would make it equal in your eyes? Then again in someone else's it won't be equal in your version either.
If it's an alternate it stands to reason that it would be equal.
It's missing:
A standard style of shirt
A standard style of pants
A jacket
A hat
Standard shoes
A formal/semi formal version (no the blazer does not count as it's a completely different uniform)
You get those and then it's an equal uniform.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 05:11:47 PM
If the NB revisits this, we are going to look so bad.....
To whom?
The majority of the membership is unaware of this issue. CAPTalk ≠ CAP.
The assertions that the USAF cares enough about this to force an NEC action outside the normal course of business have not been substantiated by anyone.
Is every decision in your world, including mistakes, "final"?
There may well be full consensus between the NB and NEC on this and its a done deal but the the
public information is that the NB was enhancing the uniform and the NEC decided unilaterally to disavow it.
That's the only thing we actually know, and even that is only from info here and through the chain - there still has been no official word from NHQ.
I don't have all the facts but if the Air Force is unhappy about that uniform then get rid of it. Also let's remember that the Grey Uniform is a corporate type uniform, not a military uniform. If CAP wants all members to be in the same uniform then lets all go Greys or polos.
Honestly I'm tired of all the uniform rants that spawn out of national's decision making. It's hurting our members.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 05:26:23 PM
Who said the corporate dress uniform had to be equal?
Most people when you ask them.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 05:31:18 PM
There may well be full consensus between the NB and NEC on this and its a done deal but the the public information is that the NB was enhancing the uniform and the NEC decided unilaterally to disavow it.
That's the only thing we actually know, and even that is only from info here and through the chain - there still has been no official word from NHQ.
Does that bother anyone else as much as it bothers me? It's been two weeks now and the wear out date is 13.5 months out. People could join tomorrow and drop major coin on this thing and only get to wear it for a year.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:32:38 PM
national's decision making. It's hurting our members.
Yes NHQ's decision making or lack of same in some cases is hurting our members.
Im telling our members to not buy that uniform.
Is every decision in your world a mistake? Why is this a mistake? I think the majority of the cap populace is aware of this. Do you think cap members that don't post on here are somehow living in the dark? And most people I have asked don't think that a corporate uniform needs to be somehow "equal" but you're always right eclipse... ::)
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:38:10 PM
Im telling our members to not buy that uniform.
Good. What about the less technically savvy among our membership that haven't heard yet? I've got two letters to describe this decision for you but I don't want to meet Mike's Banhammer so I'll leave it to you imaginations.
Every day I feel that CAP should just go Polo Shirts... Most members wear only that anyways... Keep It simple... It would be cheap, everyone would have it and after many years CAP would be uniform!
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:42:29 PM
Every day I feel that CAP should just go Polo Shirts... Most members wear only that anyways...
I'm pretty sure I've only seen 10-20% of members who ONLY wear that.
Not to mention those pesky cadets...
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 05:11:47 PM
If the NB revisits this, we are going to look so bad.....
If CAP could survive raids on NHQ by the FBI and OSI, the resignation of a CAP/EX for "playing with employees", congress totally messing with our leadership structure, the resignation of 1 national commander, the removal of another, major tax issues with gaming in a certain large wing and, who know what other great things we've done; I think we'll survive this uniform issue if it is revisited.....
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 19, 2009, 05:47:18 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:42:29 PM
Every day I feel that CAP should just go Polo Shirts... Most members wear only that anyways...
I'm pretty sure I've only seen 10-20% of members who ONLY wear that.
Not to mention those pesky cadets...
Come to Texas, all you see is polos.
Quote from: davidsinn on November 19, 2009, 05:36:46 PM
Does that bother anyone else as much as it bothers me? It's been two weeks now and the wear out date is 13.5 months out. People could join tomorrow and drop major coin on this thing and only get to wear it for a year.
At last check, the jackets had been yanked off VG's site and they were the only source. The other parts could be sourced elsewhere (in fact should be), but with the exception of the parade strap for the hat and the nametag could be used with other combos
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
Come to Texas, all you see is polos.
I think sparky, for starters, would have an issue with the factual nature of that statement.
And despite your assertion that polos are the best choice, you're displaying a rack in your signature. Not much point in awarding ribbons and grade if you can't wear them anywhere? Hm...?
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 05:53:46 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
Come to Texas, all you see is polos.
I think sparky, for starters, would have an issue with the factual nature of that statement.
And despite your assertion that polos are the best choice, you're displaying a rack in your signature. Not much point in awarding ribbons and grade if you can't wear them anywhere? Hm...?
Sparky??
I didnt say I was a fan of the polos but rather saying if CAP wants to get everyone in a uniform there yea go. Also keep things simple dont yea think?
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 05:39:44 PM
Is every decision in your world a mistake? Why is this a mistake? I think the majority of the cap populace is aware of this. Do you think cap members that don't post on here are somehow living in the dark? And most people I have asked don't think that a corporate uniform needs to be somehow "equal" but you're always right eclipse...
There are more than 50K members in CAP, there are less than 2k member on Captalk, and only a few hundred that hang around here on a regular basis.
These conversations do not even remotely resemble the level of "informed" of the general CAP population.
Go to just about any encampment or large exercise and you'll see members with uniform issues that were changed and actually published in the last rev of 39-1, let alone the various ICL's, some of which are years old.
There are still members with wing patches on their blues, and NHQ spends a fair amount of time shopping out the seal from flightsuits on members who can't be bothered to change them.
Considering that this has not been communicated officially in any form from NHQ, most of the general membership are completely unaware, guaranteed.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 05:39:44 PM
you're always right eclipse...
Thank you...
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
Come to Texas, all you see is polos.
I'm just about sure that 99.99% of that statement is BS. I've seen pictures from Texas, and that is not all that people wear.
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but most definitely not the whole state, region or the nation.
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 19, 2009, 06:01:59 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
Come to Texas, all you see is polos.
I'm just about sure that 99.99% of that statement is BS. I've seen pictures from Texas, and that is not all that people wear.
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but most definitely not the whole state, region or the nation.
Im not into the business of BS, Come to an exercise in Texas... You will see a sea of Polos. We have an exercise this weekend. Come to Dallas and look me up, ill show you what im talking about.
Eclipse, you consistently speak down to anyone that doesn't agree with you 100%. I truly believe that the majority of cap members are aware of this just from the simple fact it is controversial. Thank you so much for taken my post literally and not full of sarcasm like it was meant to be... once again you are always right...even when you're not. ::)
Nolan, Texas is a big state. I remember going across it on I-10 as a kid, and then there's always memories of lovely Lackland. I really doubt a random sample of all the many Texan CAP membership would yield a 10% figure of those who wear polos only and nothing else. Besides, it may be good in that fine Texan sun, but up here in the frozen Great Lakes, not so good. ;D
I think that if a "polos-only" directive came down, it would have much the same effect as a "grey/white-only" or even a "AF uniform-only" (for those meeting H/W/G standards) would...a fair bit of the membership would become disinterested.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 06:05:54 PM
Snip
Google Search for TXWG (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=civil+air+patrol+texas+wing+pictures&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=aokFS-nAE8b8nAf39fS-Cw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQsAQwAA)
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 06:05:54 PMIm not into the business of BS, Come to an exercise in Texas... You will see a sea of Polos. We have an exercise this weekend. Come to Dallas and look me up, ill show you what im talking about.
The CSU isn't an operational uniform, what people where during missions doesn't have much to do with this conversation.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 19, 2009, 06:08:35 PM
Nolan, Texas is a big state. I remember going across it on I-10 as a kid, and then there's always memories of lovely Lackland. I really doubt a random sample of all the many Texan CAP membership would yield a 10% figure of those who wear polos only and nothing else. Besides, it may be good in that fine Texan sun, but up here in the frozen Great Lakes, not so good. ;D
I think that if a "polos-only" directive came down, it would have much the same effect as a "grey/white-only" or even a "AF uniform-only" (for those meeting H/W/G standards) would...a fair bit of the membership would become disinterested.
Agreed about the Sun.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 06:07:47 PMI truly believe that the majority of cap members are aware of this just from the simple fact it is controversial.
Considering you don't have a single piece of evidence to support that assertion, it real nice you're taking me to task for disagreeing.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 06:07:47 PMThank you so much for taken my post literally and not full of sarcasm like it was meant to be.
If you try to post with sarcasm when you are misinformed on a topic, do not be surprised at the results.
Quote from: tinker on November 19, 2009, 04:24:45 PM
The mission is not about "looking good" or wearing fancy soldier suits. IMHO people for whom those are paramount would be better off finding a good drum and bugle corps to join. There you also get to wear hats with tall feathers on them.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Short Field on November 19, 2009, 06:13:02 PM
Quote from: tinker on November 19, 2009, 04:24:45 PM
The mission is not about "looking good" or wearing fancy soldier suits. IMHO people for whom those are paramount would be better off finding a good drum and bugle corps to join. There you also get to wear hats with tall feathers on them.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Since you agree so whole-heartedly, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the mission
is?
And you're supporting evidence that the majority of cap doesn't know this came from...? Oh that's right it's your opinion.....
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 19, 2009, 06:08:41 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 06:05:54 PM
Snip
Google Search for TXWG (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=civil+air+patrol+texas+wing+pictures&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=aokFS-nAE8b8nAf39fS-Cw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQsAQwAA)
Lots of Cadets, not to many seniors. But im done talking about this. As I said, If CAP wants a cheap, simple way to make everyone uniform there yea go... KISS right?
Quote from: davidsinn on November 19, 2009, 04:23:32 PM
Sounds like an education issue to me. Maybe if the AF taught their people about us this wouldn't be a problem.
It wasn't always this way. I think that up until the early/mid-'90s, the relationship with the AF was a lot better. Around that time is when a lot of push-pulling started, with some in the CAP "governing structure" wanting to "do our own thing" and be more independent of the AF...but with others wanting to
look like the AF.
And then there was all the scuttlebutt I heard around that time about the self-promoted Major General, SNCO's getting PO'd at CAP members trying to dress them down for not saluting...again, this was all going down around the time I first joined ('93) so I don't know the truth or otherwise of these things. However, I do remember a lot of the other things that happened.
I also remember when Senator John S. McCain, CAPT USN(ret), in the zeal to "cut government" in the mid-'90s, almost brought CAP under the axe.
The AF used to make CAP more widely-known than we are now...but I think it's down to more than just uniforms that they don't now...sometimes we haven't done a very good job of self-policing, and the CSU is just one example of that.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 06:14:06 PM
[
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
[/quote]
Since you agree so whole-heartedly, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the mission
is?
[/quote]
Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education, and Emergency Services.
Yes, thank you for making my point.
The CP stresses discipline, appearance, and military bearing. The majority of our membership is involved in someway or shape with cadets. Having a formal uniform which presents a proper example is a program requirement.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 04:55:11 PM
^ For starters, point #2 is gross oversimplification to make a point which is ultimately incorrect. The uniform was both reviewed and approved by the USAF.
"Approved" does not necessarily equal "preferred".
Which is what I (erroneously?) understood. When I first saw photos with the "U.S." collar devices I thought "uh, oh...," but then they were removed, as was the grade insignia on the flight cap. I had thought that was at the behest of the Air Force, so as to get their consent.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 19, 2009, 06:29:22 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 04:55:11 PM
^ For starters, point #2 is gross oversimplification to make a point which is ultimately incorrect. The uniform was both reviewed and approved by the USAF.
"Approved" does not necessarily equal "preferred".
Which is what I (erroneously?) understood. When I first saw photos with the "U.S." collar devices I thought "uh, oh...," but then they were removed, as was the grade insignia on the flight cap. I had thought that was at the behest of the Air Force, so as to get their consent.
Correct.
The uniform was presented to them, they reviewed it, directed change, and I assume went to lunch.
Whether it rubbed some random NCO's or officers who don't understand CAP the wrong way is basically irrelevant. That doesn't mean our image, bearing and performance isn't important, just that we can't waste calories worrying about every nook and cranny of every other service, LEA, FD, HLS, etc., that happens to also wear a uniform.
There are only so many reasonable color choices and styles of clothing.
Yet, contrary to eclipse’s adamant posting, I can’t find a single peace of actual evidence that cap-usaf or any air force leadership approved the CSU….
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 06:35:31 PM
Yet, contrary to eclipse's adamant posting, I can't find a single peace of actual evidence that cap-usaf or any air force leadership approved the CSU....
Look harder. (or don't, it won't change the facts).
I did, there is nothing that says the air force approved that uniform. Other than you and some others that say oh yes they did. I guess I missed that point when you were on the Nb's during that time.....
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 06:38:44 PM
I did, there is nothing that says the air force approved that uniform. Other than you and some others that say oh yes they did. I guess I missed that point when you were on the Nb's during that time.....
So you're actually going to assert and believe that the National Commander has been wearing a uniform for several years that the USAF never approved?
Just trying to see how far you will take this reasoning...
Sure she has, because she was doped by pineda just like oh, the rest of cap...unless you think pineda was a good and decent leader that followed the proper procedure to place this new uniform in cap.
^ I'm done.
I'm still waiting for proof that the air force approved this uniform, I mean you say it's out there. I can't find it, if I am wrong help me out and give me a link to the proof.
Arguing about Air Force approval of the CSU is a moot point. I have copies of the letters from Gen Chandler and Nick Kehoe where in the uniform issue was "negotiated". Mr. Rowland (our executive director) has copies also. Le'ts not worry about that any more, ok? The larger issue, IMHO, as I and a few others have stated, is better governance and transparency in the decisons of our leaders.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 06:28:59 PM
Yes, thank you for making my point.
The CP stresses discipline, appearance, and military bearing. The majority of our membership is involved in someway or shape with cadets. Having a formal uniform which presents a proper example is a program requirement.
Which reg did I miss that requirement in? Cite please as I really thought I owned all the required uniforms.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 05:42:29 PM
Every day I feel that CAP should just go Polo Shirts...
Your feelings and $.25 won't even get you a cup of coffee. Just because some people wear it doesn't mean it's a good or even appropriate uniform for the particular event.
Quote from: Short Field on November 19, 2009, 08:46:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 06:28:59 PM
Yes, thank you for making my point.
The CP stresses discipline, appearance, and military bearing. The majority of our membership is involved in someway or shape with cadets. Having a formal uniform which presents a proper example is a program requirement.
Which reg did I miss that requirement in? Cite please as I really thought I owned all the required uniforms.
You do if you own either blues or whites...
The rest has been asked and answered by me and others 6 times in this thread alone.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 06:14:06 PM
Quote from: Short Field on November 19, 2009, 06:13:02 PM
Quote from: tinker on November 19, 2009, 04:24:45 PM
The mission is not about "looking good" or wearing fancy soldier suits. IMHO people for whom those are paramount would be better off finding a good drum and bugle corps to join. There you also get to wear hats with tall feathers on them.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Since you agree so whole-heartedly, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the mission is?
I don't think you want to go there..... >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on November 19, 2009, 06:28:59 PM
Yes, thank you for making my point.
The CP stresses discipline, appearance, and military bearing. The majority of our membership is involved in someway or shape with cadets. Having a formal uniform which presents a proper example is a program requirement.
The cadets have one....we are not talking about cadet uniforms at all.
So Eclipse, I have looked through this thread, and I just can't find any post or cite's of evidence that it is a requirement to posses, let alone the 6 times you say is in there. Actually, I believe the requirement to work with cadets is A uniform not a "formal" one. Please cite your information on this, as you like to say to others constantly.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 19, 2009, 06:35:31 PM
Yet, contrary to eclipse's adamant posting, I can't find a single peace of actual evidence that cap-usaf or any air force leadership approved the CSU....
Do you access to NHQ's corrospondance? HWSRN's E-mail records. The fact is that corporate uniforms do not have to be approved by the USAF. That they communicated their wishes to NHQ and NHQ made changes is an indication that they did approve of them. They may have had some misgivings but they had little power to do anything. HWSRN is gone now and they recommunicated their misgivings and the NEC acted on those.
If you are so all fired up about finding proof of authorisation......find something that says the USAF approved of the USAF style uniforms.
^^
here ya go
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/uniform_information/
"find something that says the USAF approved of the USAF style uniforms"
Done
I'd like to have two armies: One for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their colonel's piles, an Army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflaged uniforms, who would not be put on display but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the Army in which I should like to fight. – Jean Larteguy, The Centurions
Quote from: olefido on November 20, 2009, 01:41:37 AM
I'd like to have two armies: One for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their colonel's piles, an Army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflaged uniforms, who would not be put on display but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the Army in which I should like to fight. – Jean Larteguy, The Centurions
I've always hated that quote. When I was a young NCO in a black unit, I thought it fit. But after becoming a senior NCO and then an officer, I realized that both the guy covered with mud in a cammie uniform had to be able to sell his skills to those who made the decisions by dressing up in fancy uniforms, showing off his ribbons and badges, and convincing them that services he was offering were the only logical course of action. IOW:
- The mission is the brief
- Before the decision is made, it's not how you play, it's how you look.
I'm pretty convinced that the USAF either approved or accepted the blue TPU/CSU uniform that was introduced in 2006. They could have deliberated and just said "NO" but it appears that the answer was "Ok". The uniform was introduced and modified a little to make some folks happy. When I saw the introduction of the TPU/CSU it seemed like there was an upgrade to the Corporate Uniform in an effort to look more unified and professional. I bought the blue slacks and the blue name tag. I don't know when they modified the eligibility standard to exclude those of us with beards but it was disappointing. I've just continued to wear the gray slacks but I've seen the numbers of members wearing the new uniform increasing. Many of those folks also wear the AF uniform as they choose. The one I like the best is a retired AF Col. What I understand is that there some AF people who of late have seen some who wear the blue Corporate Uniform and are uncomfortable with how those members have looked and acted. Many CAP Members who wear the CSU have no military training or experience. The fact remains that the USAF either accepted the uniform or allowed it but nonetheless after 3 years the TPU/CSU has taken hold. If there are some in the AF who are disturbed by this uniform their issues should be dealt with in a positive way. If CAP members are on a Military installation they should be counseled about wearing the uniform or a uniform choice should be made by the Military Base Authority for the CAP members there. If the uniform is worn outside a Military Base why should they care? ALL CAP Seniors who are willing to wear the uniform as prescribed should be encouraged to do so. As a 55 year old 255 Lb guy with a goatee any uniform I wear is worn with care because I care a lot about what people see especially the Cadets. I really hope the blue Corporate Uniform stays because it makes CAP Members look better. When CAP is considered by the Military or others in Government the Mission and the People should factor equally.
FYI, when last given the formal, open opportunity to comment on a change regarding the CSU (at the Feb 2009 NB), CAP-USAF said "No comment", and that was in response to a proposal to replace the silver braid with the blue braid found on the AF service coat. At that same meeting they also "no comment"ed the proposal for the Army sweater with the CSU.
Keep in mind that this on the same agenda where CAP-USAF replied to the idea of fabric rank insignia on flight suits with this:
Non-concur. Green fabric background insignia with blue
rank will not be approved because it too closely resembles the active-duty Air Force
rank.
Thereby indicating that they certainly aren't adverse to speaking up when a CAP uniform "infringes" on the AF too much. So, they passed up a golden opportunity to say that blue braid on a blue suit would look too much like the AF service coat which to me says that they had taken a really hands-off approach on the CSU. Providing further evidence that if the AF was the cause of this change, it was because of a fairly recent change in attitude rather than some long-simmering negativity towards the CSU.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 20, 2009, 04:13:50 AM
Thereby indicating that they certainly aren't adverse to speaking up when a CAP uniform "infringes" on the AF too much. So, they passed up a golden opportunity to say that blue braid on a blue suit would look too much like the AF service coat which to me says that they had taken a really hands-off approach on the CSU. Providing further evidence that if the AF was the cause of this change, it was because of a fairly recent change in attitude rather than some long-simmering negativity towards the CSU.
If the Air Force had a change of opinion regarding the CSU, it would have been in writing and addressed to the BoG. The BoG would have dealt with the issue by instructing the CAP/CC to make the changes. There would have been no appeal, no change by the NEC or NB and the discussion would have been over. This did not happen. More reason to believe the Air Force had no part in the NEC's decision.
CAll the ASPCA, This horse has been flogged to death.
Michael, The horse will keep coming back.
Quote from: billford1 on November 20, 2009, 05:25:06 AM
Michael, The horse will keep coming back.
Only because it's a zombie horse!
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 20, 2009, 12:35:29 PM
Quote from: billford1 on November 20, 2009, 05:25:06 AM
Michael, The horse will keep coming back.
Only because it's a zombie horse!
You got to shoot them in the head or burn them up....to be sure. :)
Well we definitely are burning up the bandwidth with the topics.
Reminder: Until an ICL comes down from above, all the speculation about the fate of the CSU is just that.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 21, 2009, 04:31:48 AM
Reminder: Until an ICL comes down from above, all the speculation about the fate of the CSU is just that.
Not really. Just because the ICL hasn't come out (and at times they take months), doesn't mean that the end isn't happening. Any of these live feed events always transferred into policy down the line, unless it was overwritten.
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 21, 2009, 04:34:25 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on November 21, 2009, 04:31:48 AM
Reminder: Until an ICL comes down from above, all the speculation about the fate of the CSU is just that.
Not really. Just because the ICL hasn't come out (and at times they take months), doesn't mean that the end isn't happening. Any of these live feed events always transferred into policy down the line, unless it was overwritten.
Agreed. But what is in the live feed may not necessarily reflect what will be in the final ICL. My first squadron commander had a lot of contacts at National (he knew General Anderson personally) and there used to be a lot of talking and speculation around there but it didn't mean anything until it was put in writing.
When I see a wear-out/sunset date, then I'll take that as The Word From Above. I'll continue to wear the CSU up until then, kind of like the way I did with the four-pocket service coat (which is still hanging in my closet, complete with blue nameplate). At midnight on the phase-out date, my CSU will be hung up for the last time.
Posted on the thread Design a new CAP-distinctive Uniform, but applicable here.
Folks, we are actually more in-line with Ma Blue then we think. What we are experiencing is the same thing that the AF went through a couple of years ago. I have included an excerpt from the article posted on "The Air Force Times" in May, 2007. If you were to change the names of the leaders to CAP leaders, and change "Air Force" to "Civil Air Patrol," it could have been an article written about us.
TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE SURVEYED PREFER CURRENT UNIFORM
With field tests nearing, many airmen are still cold to the Air Force's latest old-school revamp to its service dress uniform, according to an informal Air Force Times survey.
...Ever-changing uniform
New uniforms tend to define Air Force leaders. McPeak is synonymous with the present-day business suit look. Tight collars go hand in hand with Billy Mitchell, the World War I pilot widely considered the father of the Air Force. The history-revisited look, provided it isn't altered, may be forever associated with Moseley.
"Every time we get a new chief of staff, we're reinventing ourselves," said retired Maj. Joe Kelley. "These changes, sometimes they seem like whims."
This is where Booth, [New York ANG TSgt who loathes the current uniform, which debuted during former Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak's tenure]. a supporter of the new coat, sides with many of the suit's critics. He wants the vintage style cemented once and for all.
"If you see a Marine, everyone in the world knows that's a U.S. Marine. We can't just be hell-bent on changing the uniform for the sake of change," Booth said. "We need to find something and stick with it."
(Link to entire story: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/05/airforce_dressuniform_070527/ )
All that to say this – We are all tired of uniform changes; we all desire stability. IMHO, we are at the stage now where if we, the membership, take the initiative to design a corporate uniform that reflects the membership and then we act decisively to institute it, we may very well get the stability of uniform we desperately need. If you think it is a waste of time, fine. You don't have to participate, but please do not deride those of us that are working for that stability. On the thread mention above, we are having a productive discussion, throwing around ideas, etc. Fell free to visit. If you have comments, please make them constructive comments. We are supposed to be on the same team, the CAP team. Let's act like the professionals we are supposed to be.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 21, 2009, 04:47:44 AM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 21, 2009, 04:34:25 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on November 21, 2009, 04:31:48 AM
Reminder: Until an ICL comes down from above, all the speculation about the fate of the CSU is just that.
Not really. Just because the ICL hasn't come out (and at times they take months), doesn't mean that the end isn't happening. Any of these live feed events always transferred into policy down the line, unless it was overwritten.
Agreed. But what is in the live feed may not necessarily reflect what will be in the final ICL. My first squadron commander had a lot of contacts at National (he knew General Anderson personally) and there used to be a lot of talking and speculation around there but it didn't mean anything until it was put in writing.
When I see a wear-out/sunset date, then I'll take that as The Word From Above. I'll continue to wear the CSU up until then, kind of like the way I did with the four-pocket service coat (which is still hanging in my closet, complete with blue nameplate). At midnight on the phase-out date, my CSU will be hung up for the last time.
We really need not to go backwards. Again I say away with the gray.
I apologise for not being clearer in my previous posts. Let me once again try to explain my position.
The National Board, in September, agreed to table all uniform discussions until 2011. They did this to have a broad based committee discuss the issue and come up with a way to solve our great dilemma with uniforms. They are to study the issue carefully and find a path through all this mi shegash. I agree with this proposal. Until we come up with a "uniform" uniform policy, optain ownership with the process, and provide broad based support for it, we will never get satification.
Of course, if we do come up with a way through the darkness, we won't have much to discuss here on CT..... :)
Quote from: FW on November 21, 2009, 02:57:58 PMThe National Board, in September, agreed to table all uniform discussions until 2011.
Which is basically a moot point if other bodies with equal authority choose to act unilaterally...
^yes. ain't life just grand? :)
Quote from: FW on November 21, 2009, 08:10:53 PM
^yes. ain't life just grand? :)
Not really......just shows how screwed up the governance in CAP is. We need a change in how the Corporation is run. Lets call it a hostile takeover!
Quote from: Spike on November 23, 2009, 02:59:55 AM
Quote from: FW on November 21, 2009, 08:10:53 PM
^yes. ain't life just grand? :)
Not really......just shows how screwed up the governance in CAP is. We need a change in how the Corporation is run. Lets call it a hostile takeover!
Given our para-military nature, won't it be seen as a coup?
Mutiny - like when Fletcher Christian took over the Bounty.
It has been approximately eighteen days since the original posting of this information and I have yet to see any "official" news forthcoming from National Headquarters on this issue; did I miss it or has our National officers' left to the grapevine to disseminate this information once again?
I got an email from my WG/CC that came from our RG/CC that was originally written by another RG/CC. ::) Other than that nothing "official" has come down.
Quote from: davidsinn on November 25, 2009, 03:56:59 PM
I got an email from my WG/CC that came from our RG/CC that was originally written by another RG/CC. ::) Other than that nothing "official" has come down.
My squadron CC didn't know about it, and she is normally very well informed as to what is going on.
Has anyone called NHQ and simply asked?
Way too logical!!!
You guys are special. I spoke to the CAP/EX and the CAP/CV. Both confirmed the loss. The "CSU" is gone....... at least until the winter NB meeting. (http://captalk.net/Themes/classic/images/post/wink.gif)
Understanding there are approximately 35,000 Senior Members currently in CAP, I would not recommend for anyone to call National with a uniform question directly. Especially when it is in reference to a possible uniform change, which by all logic, could have been dealt with by an immediate Interim Change Letter (ICL), at the very least. After all, there are several types of media at their disposal and utilizing any one or more of them to accomplish this task would have been effective.
Further, whether this uniform was liked or disliked by the membership does not detract from the fact it was an authorized uniform, which purportedly had received the blessing from our parent organization for wear. A great number of our membership has spent a considerable amount of funds on this uniform combination and for our senior leadership to simply dispense with it without officially notifying the membership (along with the reason why) is simply unacceptable.
I believe it is not too much to ask or expect from our leadership, they would expect no less from us if the decision were ours.
"Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes." --Henry David Thoreau :)
Quote from: CAPOfficer on November 25, 2009, 11:33:19 PM
Understanding there are approximately 35,000 Senior Members currently in CAP, I would not recommend for anyone to call National with a uniform question directly. Especially when it is in reference to a possible uniform change, which by all logic, could have been dealt with by an immediate Interim Change Letter (ICL), at the very least. After all, there are several types of media at their disposal and utilizing any one or more of them to accomplish this task would have been effective.
Further, whether this uniform was liked or disliked by the membership does not detract from the fact it was an authorized uniform, which purportedly had received the blessing from our parent organization for wear. A great number of our membership has spent a considerable amount of funds on this uniform combination and for our senior leadership to simply dispense with it without officially notifying the membership (along with the reason why) is simply unacceptable.
I believe it is not too much to ask or expect from our leadership, they would expect no less from us if the decision were ours.
I don't know about you....but I was offically notified of it's loss. My wing CC breifed all his commanders at a commander's call who passed it down to the unit.
As for having a reason........Because we said so is a reason......but the reason beifed at commander's call was that the USAF had problems with it....they asked 18 months ago for changes and someone at the NEC brought it to the floor for action.
The USAF may have gruggingly given their approval of it back under HWSRN.....but now that we have a new leader they pushed again.
I trust that the NEC took into account the cost members will incure, and that a number of us liked the uniform.....but I also trust that they looked at the whole picture and made and informed decision.
Bottom line is that the decison has been made. If you disagree do a white page proposal, send it up your chain of command and get it put back on the agenda at a future time.
OK guys, after 24 pages of replies to this fantastic topic, we've been through every possible combination of argument. Don't you think it's time to put this to bed and concentrate on other threads, like conjuring up a new "CSU" or discussing the color gray in our pants? I know there is no horse too dead to beat but..... (http://captalk.net/Themes/classic/images/post/cheesy.gif)
Moo?
Quote from: CAPOfficer on November 25, 2009, 11:33:19 PM
Understanding there are approximately 35,000 Senior Members currently in CAP, I would not recommend for anyone to call National with a uniform question directly. Especially when it is in reference to a possible uniform change, which by all logic, could have been dealt with by an immediate Interim Change Letter (ICL), at the very least. After all, there are several types of media at their disposal and utilizing any one or more of them to accomplish this task would have been effective.
Further, whether this uniform was liked or disliked by the membership does not detract from the fact it was an authorized uniform, which purportedly had received the blessing from our parent organization for wear. A great number of our membership has spent a considerable amount of funds on this uniform combination and for our senior leadership to simply dispense with it without officially notifying the membership (along with the reason why) is simply unacceptable.
I believe it is not too much to ask or expect from our leadership, they would expect no less from us if the decision were ours.
Why shouldn't a member call National for a uniform question? Even in 39-1 it says call about unlisted badges, so why could i call about one thing and not the other? I understand that their is a chain of command, but when you get your answers split down the middle, with half saying yes its going, other half say maybe, wait for the NB's, what is a member to do? Call and ask directly, what's the harm? I take up maybe 5 minutes of a staffers time? maybe.
I'm willing to let the pony rest in peace, and look for a good quality pair or HEATHER GRAY pants. Wal-mart specials are okay for Golf shirts, but aviator's deserve a little extra. On another thread someone posted a linky for a pair of Sears wash 'n wears that merits looking into. . .
Nonetheless, I'm surprised that there is no ICL out yet: that's when it becomes 'real' for me.
Quote from: O-Rex on November 26, 2009, 02:46:30 AM
Nonetheless, I'm surprised that there is no ICL out yet: that's when it becomes 'real' for me.
Me too.
One thing I learnt over the years dealing with both CAP and the AF, not to mention having been a state civil service employee some years ago, is that until it's in writing, it isn't so.
When I see an ICL and/or someone higher up the food chain than me orders me not to wear it any more, I'll go from there.
Until then I'm going to get everything out of the money I invested in it.
Dsiclaimer: I have not read everyones post in this thread. Just my idea.
Keep CSU jacket. Replace silver braid with blue and put the Grey Epaulets on it. People have invested alot and there are still more hanging at Vanguard.
Quote from: caphistorian on November 26, 2009, 01:21:37 PM
Dsiclaimer: I have not read everyones post in this thread. Just my idea.
Keep CSU jacket. Replace silver braid with blue and put the Grey Epaulets on it. People have invested alot and there are still more hanging at Vanguard.
So you're advocating wearing an "unauthorized uniform? No wonder the Air Force is not happy with us.
Jeez, can't you assume that he meant getting AF approval (or at least not disapproval) for his suggestion? Did he say he was going to start wearing this on his own initiative? Apparently the AF didn't like the CSU in its current format, but there is no reason to believe that they might not go along with one that has certain alterations to the existing one.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2009, 05:08:03 PMApparently the AF didn't like the CSU in its current format
Cite please.
Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. No one has produced a single piece of evidence beyond hearsay that the USAF had any concern whatsoever regarding re the CSU in its current form.
Well, if you prefer to think that our leaders are lying to us, I suppose that your right, but there is no evidence of that either.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2009, 05:49:20 PMWell, if you prefer to think that our leaders are lying to us, I suppose that your right, but there is no evidence of that either.
I wouldn't even worry about it, River. Some people refuse to accept anything other than their own opinion, try to stir things up, or blatantly misrepresent facts. I'd let it go, it's a brick wall argument.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2009, 05:49:20 PM
Well, if you prefer to think that our leaders are lying to us, I suppose that your right, but there is no evidence of that either.
There's no "lying" here, there hasn't
been any official communication from anyone. The stuff we're seeing are hearsay messages downstream that don't even include a hard sundown date.
I'll believe the decision is "final" when I see something from NHQ that says when we should knock it off.
As to the "why's?" we may never know, but no one has presented anything at all that the USAF cared except for side conversations or their own assumptions.
Email from a member of the NEC explaining that it was done in part because of AF objections seems like pretty good evidence to me and is a better explanation than we usually get for such actions.
You know very well that ICLs and the like take an unreasonably long time to process, but the vote has been made and unless reversed by the BoG or NB it is a done deal, just as much as any other decision. Sure, some wings have not sent out official word, but others have. Just a standard example of poor information transfer within the organization, nothing more.
I don't understand why you're being so obstinate on this matter. Its not like its something that has any immediate impact anyway.
Concur w/ RiverAux. I've gotten emails from my Wing/CC regarding it. Somewhere in there was something about the AF not being happy w/ the uniform.
And I don't believe my commander is one to be spreading hearsay.
Oh, hum.... some people just wish to go on and on.
The bottom line is the NEC made a decision. It really no longer matters why. I think there are other things to deal with now.....
BTW, Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 26, 2009, 07:09:11 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2009, 05:49:20 PM
Well, if you prefer to think that our leaders are lying to us, I suppose that your right, but there is no evidence of that either.
There's no "lying" here, there hasn't been any official communication from anyone. The stuff we're seeing are hearsay messages downstream that don't even include a hard sundown date.
I'll believe the decision is "final" when I see something from NHQ that says when we should knock it off.
As to the "why's?" we may never know, but no one has presented anything at all that the USAF cared except for side conversations or their own assumptions.
My chain of command is about as offical as you can get. The Regional CC, breifed the wing CC who breifed my commander....I was there well.
We do have a hard sundown date it is 1 Jan 2011.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2009, 05:08:03 PM
Jeez, can't you assume that he meant getting AF approval (or at least not disapproval) for his suggestion? Did he say he was going to start wearing this on his own initiative? Apparently the AF didn't like the CSU in its current format, but there is no reason to believe that they might not go along with one that has certain alterations to the existing one.
I've thought of that too - possible modification.
Either lose the hard rank on the service coat or put (yet another!) CAP cutout on the epaulette above the hard rank. However, I think the replacement by the grey epaulette would be more likely. Lose the silver/grey cuff striping and visor on service cap.
Either replace the blue AF epaulettes with grey ones (more likely) or get pre-1990's CAP blue epaulettes authorised for that uniform only (less likely). Replace the two-line nameplate with either the current grey or the older blue style (pre-1990's).
Maybe a distinctive belt buckle with the CAP crest?
Of course, this is all speculation, but I wonder if the AF would be willing to meet us halfway on this - remove the things they find objectionable and in return we still get a good-looking uniform that many like.
One thing I have never thought was good was having grey epaulettes on outergarments (trenchcoat, etc), because if it gets soaked and the epaulette gets soiled beyond cleaning then you're out the money for the epaulette. I'm wondering if the current hard rank/CAP cutout would still be tenable for the black outergarments.
I'm not arguing that the uniform was removed, I'm saying that no one knows why, beyond hearsay, and in most cases the email messages are all quoting back to random comments.
We may never know why, and we may never know what the reason for expediting the removal really was, but assuming comments made off-handedly by Region CC's or others are "canonical" won't help.
Considering that said Region CC was a member of the group that made the decision, I'd say thats pretty good. I also wouldn't consider an email sent announcing the decision and trying to explain it as "off hand". Its not like someone heard it in the hallway. He sent it out to try to head off a mad uproar.
This was published on the OH wing webpage: http://ohwg.cap.gov/ (http://ohwg.cap.gov/)
QuoteElimination of the double breasted uniform combination
Members of Ohio Wing,
At the most recent National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting the NEC voted to eliminate the double breasted corporate uniform effective 1 January 2011. The NEC choose to act now rather than have the Air Force impose a change on us. And believe me when I tell you, we were not very far from having that happen. So, after 1 January 2011 the only uniform combination's authorized for CAP senior members will be the Air Force style (blue epaulet shirt with blue slacks/skirt) or the white aviator shirt with grey slacks/skirt.
Please wait for the interim guidance to be published before you make additional uniform purchases. When that guidance is published I will forward it through your chain of command.
Thank you!
Dave Winters, Colonel, CAP
Commander, Ohio Wing
I think maybe we should wait for the ICL
I've never worn the CSU. Since this thread is still alive I'd like to again remind those who handed this decision down that there are some who do so much more than others like myself. They devote an awful lot of their time and heart to things that really matter in CAP. They spend long hours taking responsibility for CAP assets, Cadet Programs and many other things that matter a lot and are very costly to those members who really care enough to do those jobs. I know people who give too much of their life to CAP and nobody should laugh at that if they don't know what these people do. An AF TSgt LO told me he could hardly believe what he's heard about people who spend over $10.000 a year on CAP activities. Many of these folks had to switch to a different uniform in the 90's that makes them look different than the most of the crowd. To make matters worse many Cadets refuse to salute them because somewhere there's a rule about saluting only seniors who are wearing an AF uniform. These unselfish folks just keep on going. Three and a half years ago the corporate uniform change was an upgrade for them. It was announced and encouraged by NHQ. I've seen these people spend a lot of money for this uniform that the National Leadership endorsed. The Leaders who have made this decision should think about the people who are impacted by it. It really is a slap in the face. For the rule makers to make this choice and then not offer a strong reason why is truly unacceptable.
^^ I believe that region and wing CC's saying the air force was en route to make us change is a pretty good explanation. Now, you can choose to not believe the wing and region kings, but I'm pretty sure they are better informed than say oh the average captalk poster on this subject. (sometimes *wink wink*) Is it a slap in the face? Sure, but what honestly would you rather have, our own governing body change it, or the air force storm in one day and say " you can no longer have this this and this, have a nice day"?
Although, to be very strict, hair-splitting and pedantic, the only things the AF could have taken away from the CSU are things that exclusively belong to them.
Headgear (finding another match would be difficult, but not impossible)
Trousers (maybe the formal grey ones others have suggested?)
Tie (another shade of blue wouldn't be difficult)
Belt (black, grey or non-AF issue blue)
Epaulettes (existing grey, or new blue with CAP embroidery)
The Air Force does not own hard rank, nor do they own the CSU service coat (though I'm not sure about the cloth itself).
Is it feasible to modify the CSU to take away anything that is AF-proprietary? I don't know.
There are otheways they could make their displesure known......like maybe reducing CAP from USAF bases? Withholding funds? Reducing missions? Emplacing different members to the BoG who would force the changes they want?
I don't know what the USAF really said at the NEC....but I am sure that the NEC did what was best for CAP.
I'm not going to argue the point on the Air Force's position on the CSU anymore because it really doesn't matter. I'm not going to argue on the NEC's decision anymore because it also, doesn't matter. Barring any information to the contrary, it's a dead issue at this point. IF the NB wishes to revisit the issue, it will. Bigger guns than those writing on CT are going to figure it out. All I can say is "good shooting"
Quote from: CyBorg on November 27, 2009, 07:53:58 PM
Although, to be very strict, hair-splitting and pedantic, the only things the AF could have taken away from the CSU are things that exclusively belong to them.
The Air Force does not own hard rank, nor do they own the CSU service coat (though I'm not sure about the cloth itself).
Personally I see the uniform as violating AFI 10-2701 para 1.3.4 in that it looked too much like an AF uniform in low light conditions, etc.
Not sure who in the Air Force signed off on this corporate uniform, but hopefully ANY CAP distinct uniform changes in the future will get an approriate AF level coordination/approval signoff
This was an expensive uniform, and I'd be surprised if there were more 150 to 200 people that bought this uniform.
It is unbelievable the amount of posts & how many read the postings on this subject. Way too much time is spent by CAP on uniforms :(.
I think we should suspend ANY changes to CAP uniforms for a 3 to 5 year period, unless it can be shown that the supply of a particular uniform is no longer available!
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2009, 02:04:30 AMThis was an expensive uniform, and I'd be surprised if there were more 150 to 200 people that bought this uniform.
Be surprised.
I'd say at least 1/2 that number in my wing alone are wearing it, and at least 1/3rd of the corporate officers nationwide, judging by photos.
The CSU was becoming an increasingly popular uniform at wing staff meetings and regional activities.
I know of a lot of members who did or were making the transition from the USAF to the CSU in recognition that they would not have the metabolism of a 12 year old forever.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2009, 02:04:30 AM
It is unbelievable the amount of posts & how many read the postings on this subject. Way too much time is spent by CAP on uniforms :(.
And yet you read and posted as well.......what does that say?
Quote from: Eclipse on November 28, 2009, 02:42:53 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2009, 02:04:30 AMThis was an expensive uniform, and I'd be surprised if there were more 150 to 200 people that bought this uniform.
Be surprised.
I'd say at least 1/2 that number in my wing alone are wearing it, and at least 1/3rd of the corporate officers nationwide, judging by photos.
The CSU was becoming an increasingly popular uniform at wing staff meetings and regional activities.
I know of a lot of members who did or were making the transition from the USAF to the CSU in recognition that they would not have the metabolism of a 12 year old forever.
Believe it.
I personally saw the wing CC wearing one, as well as other wing-level brass.
The only silver lining for me personally is that I didn't shell out for the service coat.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2009, 02:04:30 AM
Personally I see the uniform as violating AFI 10-2701 para 1.3.4 in that it looked too much like an AF uniform in low light conditions, etc.
Not sure who in the Air Force signed off on this corporate uniform, but hopefully ANY CAP distinct uniform changes in the future will get an approriate AF level coordination/approval signoff
I just re-read AFI 10-2701 para 1.3.4.
The wording about "low light conditions" and "confusion will not occur" is kind of vague, as I see it.
Even from a distance the AF-type uniform (short or long sleeves) looks like an AF officer is approaching and the distinctive items aren't apparent until you're within fairly close visual range.
"Confusion" is kind of subjective too, if you don't know what you're looking for. Coast Guard personnel can look like AF personnel in certain circumstances, and like Navy personnel in others.
1.3.4 says that "the Air Force must approve any changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform" - which the CSU was not, though it used probably too many AF items. That is why I believe we should take not using any AF items into any sort of uniform modification/redesign, if such a thing ever happens beyond the pages of this forum.
Does anyone know if viewing the NEC meeting, again, is available?
Nope, they aren't archived online. I wonder if however recordings of the meeting are saved for historical purposes?
All I can say is that I am thankful for CapTalk because I am glad I learned of this deauthorization action, before I bought the uniform.
The uniform looked good, and I was very close to putting out the shekels.
Thank you CapTalk.
Agree. Such passionate communications in this thread. Perhaps the lesson here for all of us is to be more actively involved, with ears to the ground, on what is going on in our higher chains of command. I've aways thought that the opinions in the field don't seem to count much to the commanders at the NEC/NB level because they are so wrapped up in the politics of the moment. Also, I think there is a broader issue of the "culture" of our organization and where we as a group intend to head in the future. Sometimes, I think we really get hung up on uniforms, badges and ribbons and it saddens me because it saps the energy out of the membership. It has always bugged me that we do something right that has broad acceptance like the first AF Aux command patch and then it's changed. Thank all of you for your insight even when it got a little heated.
This was in my email this morning. It's got Courter's name on it. Seems to be all we really need. According to the file, the Air Force has the right to approve any corporate uniforms as well.
I don't see this as authoritative. Just briefing slides.
Quote from: Gunner C on November 28, 2009, 04:43:47 PM
I don't see this as authoritative. Just briefing slides.
No, but it certainly provides information on the factors as national leadership saw them, their reasoning behind the decision, and the level of CAP-USAF, BOG, and USAF involvement.
The briefing slides really bothered me. There is something about the slides that strike a skeptical chord in me – I would need to know who these slides were made to be presented to. I'm not sure I buy it w/o knowing more about them. It seems to contain an awful lot of flavor from the thread discussions here on CT.
I'm also skeptical of the sentence "USAF owns the approval of militarily-styled uniforms...." If that was the case, police, fire, etc could not use military-style uniforms w/o DOD approval (or a small-town police chief ludicrously using 4-stars as his rank).
I took the flavor of the slides to be a pre-emptive strike against us "fat & fuzzies". To me, it is saying that if you do not meet H/W, you don't deserve to wear a military-style uniform. (Rather arrogantly). It seems to inherently prevent fat & fuzzies from wearing a smart uniform wear they can display their achievements with pride instead of a dumpy coat.
I do not think that those of us working for a change should take this as a set-back. We should still continue our work – to develop a CSU that all members could wear with pride, and to recognize the fact that we ALL contribute to the missions, not just those that can wear the AF-style. It is as if the AF is saying, "OK guys, for those that can wear our uniform, good job. Those of you that can't, who cares what you have accomplished, you need to hide under a "blue" rock so that no one knows you are associated with the AF." Instead of what they should be saying, "OK guys, we are proud of all of you that support our missions, and for those of you can't wear our uniform, here is a different uniform that is totally non-AF that you can still wear proudly."
I hate to say it, but those slides make me really unappreciated by the AF and HQ CAP. "Fat & Fuzzies don't deserve a good-looking uniform to reflect the pride they have in our organizations"
Even though I said I wouldn't argue these points, I thought I would chime in one more (fruitless) time....
The powerpoint presentation by Gen Courter is interesting and more factual than the original one presented previously by some (NER/CC).
However, to my knowledge, the Air Force was not silent on the CSU as changed by the NB in 2006. Both Gen. Chilton and then Sec. Dominguez did approve the changes and found the uniform acceptable. Now, whether or not there was a change of mind; I have no idea. But, any official Air Force response would have gone to the Chairman of the BoG, Gen Hopper. To date, there has been no official request for any action on the "CSU"; at least until the summer NB meeting (Sept 2009).
So, as I've said previously, who knows what will happen next.
Corporate Uniform may not be military in style? Then why aren't all members required to have a corporate uniform? Why is it encouraged for members to make contact with local gov/agencies/etc wearing dress blues?
That's all BS. Have their blazer, but make a military style uniform as well.
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 28, 2009, 08:19:03 PMThen why aren't all members required to have a corporate uniform?
All senior members not wearing the USAF-style blues are required to have the aviator whites.
Before anyone hits the "cite please" button - read Page 8 of 39-1.
Now, if the assertion is that the aviator whites are not to be "military style", so be it - remove the grade, ribbons, and badges, and go back to the black name tag and be done with it.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 28, 2009, 08:31:39 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on November 28, 2009, 08:19:03 PMThen why aren't all members required to have a corporate uniform?
All senior members not wearing the USAF-style blues are required to have the aviator whites.
Before anyone hits the "cite please" button - read Page 8 of 39-1.
Now, if the assertion is that the aviator whites are not to be "military style", so be it - remove the grade, ribbons, and badges, and go back to the black name tag and be done with it.
The slides stated that corporates should be non-military because of the need of a 'suit' in a suit meeting. Well in that case, I expect that to be a required uniform and suggested one over Dress blues.
Reading through the post, I'm not sure this point has been made yet. The aviator whites without the blazer does look professional. You put on the blue blazer you now look like the security gaurd at the Chase bank. Airline pilots and even Customer Service Representatives have a more professional looking uniform when it comes to wearing a coat/blazer. Being a flying organization, with all the corporate branding going on, they would have put that same effort into our apperance.
Glad to hear the uniform will be gone!
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on November 28, 2009, 07:18:30 PM
The briefing slides really bothered me. There is something about the slides that strike a skeptical chord in me – I would need to know who these slides were made to be presented to. I'm not sure I buy it w/o knowing more about them. It seems to contain an awful lot of flavor from the thread discussions here on CT.
I'm also skeptical of the sentence "USAF owns the approval of militarily-styled uniforms...." If that was the case, police, fire, etc could not use military-style uniforms w/o DOD approval (or a small-town police chief ludicrously using 4-stars as his rank).
I took the flavor of the slides to be a pre-emptive strike against us "fat & fuzzies". To me, it is saying that if you do not meet H/W, you don't deserve to wear a military-style uniform. (Rather arrogantly). It seems to inherently prevent fat & fuzzies from wearing a smart uniform wear they can display their achievements with pride instead of a dumpy coat.
I do not think that those of us working for a change should take this as a set-back. We should still continue our work – to develop a CSU that all members could wear with pride, and to recognize the fact that we ALL contribute to the missions, not just those that can wear the AF-style. It is as if the AF is saying, "OK guys, for those that can wear our uniform, good job. Those of you that can't, who cares what you have accomplished, you need to hide under a "blue" rock so that no one knows you are associated with the AF." Instead of what they should be saying, "OK guys, we are proud of all of you that support our missions, and for those of you can't wear our uniform, here is a different uniform that is totally non-AF that you can still wear proudly."
I hate to say it, but those slides make me really unappreciated by the AF and HQ CAP. "Fat & Fuzzies don't deserve a good-looking uniform to reflect the pride they have in our organizations"
IF the powerpoint is really the output of NHQ and Maj Gen Courter, I would consider myself HIGHLY insulted and offended. It says to me, and a lot of others, that sense of duty, honor, service to community and country, and pride are really meaningless as military attributes, as long as one has the metabolism of a 19 year old airman or GQ cover boy.
If the USAF really has say over corporate uniforms, can we expect to see some enforcement of standards. At a recent SAREX, I saw CAP officers, who looked like they got their AF flightsuits out of mothballs, complete with cloth subdued grade and cloth name patches with AF wings,. I flew with a 5'8" Lt Col in a green zoom bag, who W&B the AC at 240 lbs. I saw woodland BDUs with tapes and grade that looked like they were sewn on by a hyperactive 12 year old on a sugar high.
I may just be a dumb, weak willed overweight 51 year old, but I wear WHATEVER uniform I'm authorized CORRECTLY. Usually BBDU or CSU. I don't own a polo shirt, but I might as well buy one now, because hey, what's the point.
I am not sure what you all are being offended by. Is it this line, "Corporate style uniforms do not exist to allow those who may not wear the USAF--‐style to have a military--‐looking alternative", and if so, why? Can anyone cite where cap or AF regs says that cap must provide a military looking dress uniform for those that don't qualify for USAF style wear? I have never seen such regs. Also, it is a little funny to me that some of those that are offended by the uniform leaving, are also the ones that want to take away the AF style uniforms all together. Kind of funny that it's ok to you, to take away my military style but when it comes to yours you cry foul. Flame away....
FLAME ON!
I'm one of those offended by both the withdrawl of the CSU and the comment that "corporate uniforms do not exist...". I am not one of those suggesting, recommending, of encouraging dumping the AF uniform. And if you look at those wanting to drop the AF uniform, it was to provide uniformity among seniors and DID include a military style dress uniform.
To tell me that I am not good enough to wear the awards I earned from CAP on a dress uniform is insulting. What's the point in have those awards if we cannot wear them!
You're right. Neither CAP nor AF regs say CAP must provide a miliatry style uniform for the second class members who keep the organization running. They also do not say CAP has to provide a military style uniform for the AF posterchildren. CAP is 'permitted' to wear the AF uniform, but not required by regs to provide it.
I guess it's golf shirt time for EVERY CAP function for me from now on. Before someone starts in with minimum required service uniform, NOTHING requires a member to wear it.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 28, 2009, 09:42:43 PM
I am not sure what you all are being offended by. Is it this line, "Corporate style uniforms do not exist to allow those who may not wear the USAF--‐style to have a military--‐looking alternative", and if so, why? Can anyone cite where cap or AF regs says that cap must provide a military looking dress uniform for those that don't qualify for USAF style wear? I have never seen such regs. Also, it is a little funny to me that some of those that are offended by the uniform leaving, are also the ones that want to take away the AF style uniforms all together. Kind of funny that it's ok to you, to take away my military style but when it comes to yours you cry foul. Flame away....
I don't want to see the Air Force uniform go away. Call me a tradtionalist, but we always have been a uniformed organization. Being a person who is now in the not "the meeting grooming standards" condition due to a medical reasons, like some of the others on this board, I would like to see us keep a non-Air Force uniform that presents a professional appearence.
Quote from: arajca on November 28, 2009, 10:05:24 PM
To tell me that I am not good enough to wear the awards I earned from CAP on a dress uniform is insulting. What's the point in have those awards if we cannot wear them!
My sqaudron commander during my time as a cadet and early on as a senior, who was a retired Air Force Master Sergeant, told me many times the way we pay back the people for the effort they put into CAP is the awards, since they couldn't be paid a salary. I joined the organization as a cadet, so I've been a proponent of the organizations goals from day one. But I'm with Andrew, if I can't display the awards, given to me by others because they appreciated the sweat and elbow grease (sometimes literally) I put into the organization, that stinks.
Hmmm...I wonder what will happen if we somehow unearth an ES organisation somewhere that wears white shirt and grey trousers?
Too much confusion...jack the uniform.
Its amusing that people are equating being obese (which is basically the cutoff between being allowed to wear the AF uniform and not under CAP regulations) with NOT being a 19 year old or model. You can still be pretty overweight and wear the AF-style uniform. Just because you're not 19 doesn't mean that you are obese.
I am so sick of hearing "second class members who keep the organization running". There are plenty of members who wear the air force style that keep their little portion running, actually I'm sure there are more people in cap that wear the Air force style than corporate. If you are overweight, for whatever reason, than I am sorry, tough luck. When I go over the weight limit, I will make the switch and carry on like nothing has changed. I know this is going to make me out to be the bad guy, but no one ever said life was fair. You also say Air Force poster child likes it a bad thing. My apologies for keeping myself in shape and wanting to provide cap with a good appearance when in uniform. Unfortunately when you joined you agreed to follow caps rules, and the leadership decided it was better for cap as a whole not have the air force crawl up our !@#@$ again. Those of you that deny the air force is not happy with us are blind. The air force litteraly only deals with us because congress said they had to. Again there are those desk jockeys that monitor this site way too much, and treat others on here like dogs, that will say I am wrong, or some other wikipediaed word how I am stupid and that the air force does really care for us. *rolls eyes* This CSU debacle, is just a small glimpse into the horrors we are still facing from pineda and his cronies, and I just won't blame that time, also the continued politicking that runs RAMPENT through this organization. Wear the Grays and whites with pride, make that uniform look good. That is a choice you can make, or wear the polo, but don't drag those members who can wear the Air force style down with you in your lackluster view of the uniform situation. Pick up, move on and continue to make a difference where ever you are.
Where I currently live and work (Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands) the only CAP uniform I put on (and only for special occasions such as Veterans' Day and Memorial Day) is the polo shirt and gray trousers combination. Until I get written authorization from NHQ CAP and the commanding officer of USAKA (U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll) - an Army colonel - to wear my uniform for off-duty activities I won't wear any other uniform combination, USAF style or corporate. I don't want to run afoul of any SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) problems; one of these days regulations may change and we might get an overseas cadet squadron on Kwaj, and I don't want to jinx the opportunity if it is offered in the near future.
Obviously, this issue will not die. I have a suggestion (probably an echo of some posts already).
Just give your opinion to your commander and make sure it goes up the chain to your wing/cc.
I've already talked to my "deputy" and, he informed me he will relay my thoughts on this subject to my "unit" commander. I wonder what response I'll get?
I'm eagerly awaiting the winter NB meeting. Maybe we'll learn something by the BoG meeting in about 10 days..... Oh, joy.
Quote from: FW on November 28, 2009, 11:08:18 PM
Obviously, this issue will not die. I have a suggestion (probably an echo of some posts already).
Just give your opinion to your commander and make sure it goes up the chain to your wing/cc.
I've already talked to my "deputy" and, he informed me he will relay my thoughts on this subject to my "unit" commander. I wonder what response I'll get?
I'm eagerly awaiting the winter NB meeting. Maybe we'll learn something by the BoG meeting in about 10 days..... Oh, joy.
Well said, sir! Until I'm directed to the contrary, I will 'salute and execute'. I don't particularly like losing the corporate blue but we all took an obligation to obey our superior officers in CAP.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 28, 2009, 09:42:43 PM
I am not sure what you all are being offended by.
Obviously the idea escapes you that its unfair to expect volunteers to be treated fairly and equally for the work and effort they put into the same organization.
The guy who is 20-over H/W but is still putting in 20+ hours a week for CAP, flying O-rides, and sacrificing his time and treasure deserves to show off his plumage and bling the same as the guys who are under
the max. Otherwise its the plumage and bling that should go.
Either its important or its not. It should not be 1/2 measures in either direction.
Alienating the overweight members risks 30-40%(+) of the membership deciding they have better ways to spend their time, including similar organizations with much less "excitement" in the area of dress. And before you say "meh, good riddance..." bear in mind that this large percentage of members is also a large portion of your most active and engaged members - the ones actually running the show. One only needs to flip through the volunteer to see how many corporate officers and people in charge all up and down the chain wear a corporate variant of one kind or another.
And that doesn't even include the far too many wearing the USAF-style uniforms who shouldn't be. Start putting people on scales at meetings and see how long it is until yo no longer need to worry about uniforms or anything else.
Anything that devalues, or differentiates, one volunteer's accomplishments and time vs. another is a bad thing for any organization which lives and dies by those volunteers.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 28, 2009, 11:05:46 PM
Where I currently live and work (Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands) the only CAP uniform I put on (and only for special occasions such as Veterans' Day and Memorial Day) is the polo shirt and gray trousers combination. Until I get written authorization from NHQ CAP and the commanding officer of USAKA (U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll) - an Army colonel - to wear my uniform for off-duty activities I won't wear any other uniform combination, USAF style or corporate. I don't want to run afoul of any SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) problems; one of these days regulations may change and we might get an overseas cadet squadron on Kwaj, and I don't want to jinx the opportunity if it is offered in the near future.
Is there an active unit there? You're kind of a special case, regardless (as is anyone in a unit outside CONUS).
I suggest everyone who wants their voices heard to break out the "Tongue and Quill" and send your memo through the chain of comand using the proper format IN WRITING.
QuoteAlienating the overweight members risks 30-40%(+) of the membership deciding they have better ways to spend their time, including similar organizations with much less "excitement" in the area of dress. And before you say "meh, good riddance..." bear in mind that this large percentage of members is also a large portion of your most active and engaged members - the ones actually running the show. One only needs to flip through the volunteer to see how many corporate officers and people in charge all up and down the chain wear a corporate variant of one kind or another.
I'm going to use one of your favorite lines eclipse. Cite please. Where did you get the 30-40% numbers? How do you know these members are the ones running things around here? Actually it's the opposite, most of the members around here that are active don't wear the CSU or the ones that did don't feel as you say Alienated by this move.
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 28, 2009, 03:54:33 PM
This was in my email this morning. It's got Courter's name on it. Seems to be all we really need. According to the file, the Air Force has the right to approve any corporate uniforms as well.
I read this and as I think more and more, I get more and more angry.
If this is in fact from our National Commander, I would cry Hypocrite!
MG Courter is a former board member of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. She is an advocate against discrimination for one group of people but advocates discriminating against 30-40% of the organization she has been elected to lead. Also I would love for her to step on a scale!
Sorry, just a bit ticked off...........
also, if you don't believe me about SDLN
http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/sldn-board-member-achieves-milestone-for-women2/
So your argument that is she is a hypocrite is that she is on a legal defense board? You don't think that if she could, she would allow everyone to be in air force blues? Of course she would but oh wait she can't, the AIR FORCE says no. This is not discrimination; this is the air force protecting its image, which they have every right to do. Pretty weak argument and taking a shot at her weight, way to go as a fellow officer. Tsk tsk
Quote from: NCRblues on November 29, 2009, 12:23:53 AM
taking a shot at her weight, way to go as a fellow officer. Tsk tsk
Just pointing out that those in glass houses......
If the regs are to be enforced, they are to be enforced at the top also
This has absolutely nothing to do with the organization mentioned.
Absolutely nothing, and the comparison is inappropriate.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
This has absolutely nothing to do with the organization mentioned.
Absolutely nothing, and the comparison is inappropriate.
Why because she advocates no discrimination on one hand yet purportedly promulgated a document that smacks of discrimination? I think it is relevant and appropriate to point this out. Members who do not meet H/W DO IN FACT feel like they are treated as second class citizens and look to their leadership to RECTIFY the situation rather than FOSTER it. I was in no way taking a swipe at the SDLN or it's mission nor her affiliation, just the apparent paradox the affiliation seems to create in light of a document she supposedly authored. You can't have it both ways.
If it's all about displaying the bling, here's an idea:
Standardize on a specific blue blazer, and specific gray pants for uniformity reasons. Allow ribbons and a badge or two on the blazer, use the black nameplate with rank on it. Keep the crest, or don't. Problem solved.
The blazer's appearance isn't really that much different from the AF service coat that McPeak brought in. It's basically a standard suit coat. We put ribbons, badges, stars, bars, birds and leaves on it already, and no one thinks it's bad looking.
Uses an existing uniform, just changes the rules a little for it. People in blazers get to wear decs. Even across the board.
Well it looks by the link above that the MG is trying to work with a protected class.. Homosexuals... Weight is not a protected class.
I will be transferred to a ghost squadron soon as I relocated out of NY. I am in serious debate if I am going to bother renewing my membership. The quote below expresses my thoughts..
Anything that devalues, or differentiates, one volunteer's accomplishments and time vs. another is a bad thing for any organization which lives and dies by those volunteers.
The AF has been "discriminating" against those CAP volunteers that are overweight since the early 1980s, so this isn't anything new.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 28, 2009, 11:47:19 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 28, 2009, 11:05:46 PM
Where I currently live and work (Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands) the only CAP uniform I put on (and only for special occasions such as Veterans' Day and Memorial Day) is the polo shirt and gray trousers combination. Until I get written authorization from NHQ CAP and the commanding officer of USAKA (U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll) - an Army colonel - to wear my uniform for off-duty activities I won't wear any other uniform combination, USAF style or corporate. I don't want to run afoul of any SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) problems; one of these days regulations may change and we might get an overseas cadet squadron on Kwaj, and I don't want to jinx the opportunity if it is offered in the near future.
Is there an active unit there? You're kind of a special case, regardless (as is anyone in a unit outside CONUS).
Nope. Working on getting a change to CAPR 35-4 to allow one in Kwaj (it's an Army post, but largely run by civilian contractors).
I will never fully know just how General Courter herself believes about this issue, so I'm not going to try, or level "discrimination" charges. I am not happy about the way this has been handled either, but it is not "discrimination." It would be discrimination if those who are outside H/W standards for the AF-type uniform were not allowed to be in CAP at all.
Plus, she is a Major General and I am a Captain, so I have to show her the respect due her rank and position as National CC. I don't know her, I've never met her, but as a CAP officer I have to salute and execute just the same as any other CAP member.
You never know. She may have intervened and said we (CAP) would give up this uniform ourselves to prevent direct action by the Air Force...remember the berry boards days? And I've seen photos of the General wearing the CSU, so she's going to have to stop wearing hers too.
Having said that, there are aspects of the whole uniform kerfuffle that I don't get and probably never will...like how we are allowed to wear "U.S." cutouts which are definitely an Air Force item.
At this point, I wonder if there's any chance of a compromise, such as being allowed to wear the CSU service coat with the white/greys, without hard rank, and lose the black Army outerwear and go to the A-2 (I got mine for about $40 on Evilbay)? It wouldn't look all that bad, especially if a standard cut and shade of trousers was decided upon, and some form of headgear. That way, those who have shelled out for the service coat won't be completely SOL cash-wise.
I'm not going to waste my time taking complaints about the CSU being gone up the chain, but the kind of compromise that I've mentioned might be a possibility.
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 29, 2009, 01:25:42 AM
If it's all about displaying the bling, here's an idea:
Standardize on a specific blue blazer, and specific gray pants for uniformity reasons. Allow ribbons and a badge or two on the blazer, use the black nameplate with rank on it. Keep the crest, or don't. Problem solved.
The blazer's appearance isn't really that much different from the AF service coat that McPeak brought in. It's basically a standard suit coat. We put ribbons, badges, stars, bars, birds and leaves on it already, and no one thinks it's bad looking.
Uses an existing uniform, just changes the rules a little for it. People in blazers get to wear decs. Even across the board.
Is the Blazer Combo really considered a uniform? I've always considered it a substitute. I don't mind wearing mine because I could spend a little extra and get the nicest looking navy blue blazer I could find and combine it with dress slacks that aren't the same shade as the gray slides. If new rules for the Blazer combo are applied I think what you'll see is a lot of Seniors take off the CAP crest and name plate for whatever occasion and just show up with the suit and tie to stand along side the rest of the crowd in Class A's. If new standards are applied for the Blazer my bet is most will not purchase it. I wonder how some AF folks who may be reading this forum are reacting to it. As I say this let me state that I mean no disrespect to anyone on this forum. It's just that what many years ago we looked like one CAP. If CAP/USAF Ok'd the CSU in 2006 what could have happened that has made the CSU look like such a mistake that making the decision to make it go away has such urgency?
Quote from: NCRblues on November 28, 2009, 09:42:43 PM
I am not sure what you all are being offended by. Is it this line, "Corporate style uniforms do not exist to allow those who may not wear the USAF--‐style to have a military--‐looking alternative", and if so, why? Can anyone cite where cap or AF regs says that cap must provide a military looking dress uniform for those that don't qualify for USAF style wear? I have never seen such regs. Also, it is a little funny to me that some of those that are offended by the uniform leaving, are also the ones that want to take away the AF style uniforms all together. Kind of funny that it's ok to you, to take away my military style but when it comes to yours you cry foul. Flame away....
I have never advocated taking away the AF uniform, but rather arriving at a compromise that we can all wear, that reflects our AF heritage, but recognizes that we are a service of our own, with our own traditions and mission that predates the Air Force.
The arrogance and condesension of the AF purists never ceases to amaze me. If you are so in love with the AF uniform, there is an organization that will allow you to wear it anytime you please. It's called the United States Air Force.
The position that the Air Force is now taking that they can dictate our CORPORATE uniforms, says to me that our honor, duty and patriotism are not valid because we don't meet their weight standards. The statement that we can not have ANY military looking uniform, and must not look like any other service basically is saying to me, "OK fatboy, wear your polo shirt, shut up and do as your told, we don't care that you spend countless dollars of your own going to exercises and missions, paying dues, proficiency flying on your own dime, spending time away fro your family and sometimes your PAYING job. respect is reserved for those who make us LOOK good, not those who DO good".
I know what you're going to say, "lose weight you worthless slug" , believe me, I'm trying, but at 51 it ain't as easy as it was at 21.
And with this renewed interest in our appearance, is the AF and NHQ going to start enforcing the standards across the board, or are the connected and high ranking going to get to do as they please?
One last thought, the folks who are listed as stakeholders, put the membership pretty far down the list, after Vanguard (and that's assuming that "Member Services" is meant to be the voice of the membership, and that's a pretty big leap of faith).
Guess I know where the members of this organization stand.
Quote from: billford1 on November 29, 2009, 04:48:34 AMIs the Blazer Combo really considered a uniform? I've always considered it a substitute.
It's considered an alternative. Considering how broad the idea of what the combo can be, it's basically a close enough to everybody else uniform. I've seen some pretty well tailored coats alongside some cheap off the rack stuff worn, so even as a uniform, the differences can be glaring.
I would advocate a standard coat, and standard pants. I would also pose that it should be permitted to be worn without insignia. You end up with more usability. A lot of people could probably use something a little more formal in their closet, I know I could. Shoot, I'd buy something like it so I'd have something else to wear for occasions.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 29, 2009, 04:33:49 AM...like how we are allowed to wear "U.S." cutouts which are definitely an Air Force item.
That was Air Force approved, they made more of a big deal out of it than we did.
Billford1, from everything I have heard and was told (some of you will jump me by saying "oh buts it's not official") was that the air force leadership approved it, but when average active duty personnel starting encountering the CSU on bases, complaints were sent up the chain and was apparently heard in the top levels. Apparently confusion reigned on military instillations across the nation. Was this person navy because of the silver braid? Was this person a general's aide, or a foreign officer? Were some of the complaints that were sent up through Whiteman AFB alone.
Photogpilot, I am in the air force and just to let you know, we can't wear our uniforms anytime we please, there are regs stating when and why a uniform can be used. I would never tell you to lose weight, but I am of the strong opinion that complaining on captalk, is not going to help anyone in the slightest. It's over and done with, the CSU is going the way (thank god) of the berry boards, and I say good riddance. Wear the white and grays, wear them with pride and make them look good. It's all about how you present yourself. I am not an "air force purist" as you say, just an advocate for the air force style, because their seems to be a lack of those supporters on captalk. I never said you were the one advocating for the removal of the air force style, but there on here and vocal about it (sometimes). And about your comment on the connected and high ranking, continuing to do whatever they want, yes they will. That is a big BIG problem in cap. The good ol boy club runs rampant.
Blues, Whites, Greys....Why not go back to the CAP and USAF uniform of the 60's. It's no longer a USAF uniform. Wear khaki uniforms with AF blue belt and flight cap. Wear metal rank on the right side of the collar and CAP cutout on the left. And is required a shoulderpatch, either a wing patch of national patch.
While it still looks military to an "outsider" it is not a current USAF uniform so there should be no problem with AF authorization. Such a khaki uniform also shows part of the history of CAP. The problem is what service coat would be worn with this uniform.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 29, 2009, 05:33:27 AMThat is a big BIG problem in cap. The good ol boy club runs rampant.
BRAVO! On target.
Quote from: BillB on November 29, 2009, 12:24:02 PMit is not a current USAF uniform so there should be no problem with AF authorization.
Actually, regardless of whether it is no longer authorized, it is still the Air Force uniform -- 1505s, 505s, Shade 84 or 1549 blues, et al. Retirees/veterans are authorized by law to wear those uniforms at certain days or events. Remember also that we are federally chartered and report to the Air Force under federal law so the Air Force would still control the shots. The sad part is that the ol' good old boys club designed a uniform that fit their egos and the result was a big WWF slap down and now the Air Force is going to control the uniform changes because we couldn't do it ourselves.
Quote from: Pylon on November 28, 2009, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on November 28, 2009, 04:43:47 PM
I don't see this as authoritative. Just briefing slides.
No, but it certainly provides information on the factors as national leadership saw them, their reasoning behind the decision, and the level of CAP-USAF, BOG, and USAF involvement.
You are correct. Here's the way I see it as set forth in the timeline:
- Aug 2006 USAF/A3 complained that there was a problem. The BoG replied they were ready to dialog with EX as POC; EX heard nothing so did nothing.
- Nov 2009 Someone gets told that the AF is pissed about our uniforms.
1. CAP/EX dropped the ball. He gets paid WAY too much to let anything drop through the cracks. He needs to be fired.
2. When the BoG offered to talk with AF/A3, he should have done so. We have someone in that office (an AD 0-6) - it shouldn't have gotten this far.
It sounds to me that the AF wasn't that worried about it, but it finally got to the bottom of the "in-box" and there was our stuff. But three years? Really? Come on. No one stays in a job at the Pentagon that long! We have some n^tless wonders in both offices.
If folks would just say what they mean, there would be a great deal more harmoney between CAP and USAF.
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 29, 2009, 12:36:09 PM
Remember also that we are federally chartered and report to the Air Force under federal law so the Air Force would still control the shots.
That was how it used to be, CAP no longer reports to USAF unless carrying out an AFAM.
Quote from: Gunner C on November 29, 2009, 01:13:01 PM
It sounds to me that the AF wasn't that worried about it, but it finally got to the bottom of the "in-box" and there was our stuff. But three years? Really? Come on. No one stays in a job at the Pentagon that long!
Sounds like a "end of tour" thing where somebody was getting ready to PCS/Retire and didn't want to leave it for their replacement.
Quote from: PHall on November 29, 2009, 05:20:19 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on November 29, 2009, 01:13:01 PM
It sounds to me that the AF wasn't that worried about it, but it finally got to the bottom of the "in-box" and there was our stuff. But three years? Really? Come on. No one stays in a job at the Pentagon that long!
Sounds like a "end of tour" thing where somebody was getting ready to PCS/Retire and didn't want to leave it for their replacement.
If that is the truth it is really lame. And now we're told that some in the AF have complained and expressed their feelings about CAP members in that uniform. I've met many real (RM) USAF Officers. I've never seen even a hint of indecisiveness on their part. They pay a price to get where they are and when something get's to their desk for review there is deliberation and decisions are made and rendered. I have a hard time with the notion of something being stuck in someone's inbox without being ever seen by the right decision makers. In the Military I'm familiar with somebody would lose some pay for this. I may be wrong but if I were in that office I would be calling for further deliberation that would be affected by more than the input of just a few. Someone there may not feel that this is significant. Some body way up the food chain might have said oops and then reacted by slamming the gavel but such a scenario is hard for me to grasp if involves the USAF. The RM folks are extremely accountable and always work for the correct outcome that won't need fixing later. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: billford1 on November 29, 2009, 06:49:20 PM
Quote from: PHall on November 29, 2009, 05:20:19 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on November 29, 2009, 01:13:01 PM
It sounds to me that the AF wasn't that worried about it, but it finally got to the bottom of the "in-box" and there was our stuff. But three years? Really? Come on. No one stays in a job at the Pentagon that long!
Sounds like a "end of tour" thing where somebody was getting ready to PCS/Retire and didn't want to leave it for their replacement.
If that is the truth it is really lame. And now we're told that some in the AF have complained and expressed their feelings about CAP members in that uniform. I've met many real (RM) USAF Officers. I've never seen even a hint of indecisiveness on their part. They pay a price to get where they are and when something get's to their desk for review there is deliberation and decisions are made and rendered. I have a hard time with the notion of something being stuck in someone's inbox without being ever seen by the right decision makers. In the Military I'm familiar with somebody would lose some pay for this. I may be wrong but if I were in that office I would be calling for further deliberation that would be affected by more than the input of just a few. Someone there may not feel that this is significant. Some body way up the food chain might have said oops and then reacted by slamming the gavel but such a scenario is hard for me to grasp if involves the USAF. The RM folks are extremely accountable and always work for the correct outcome that won't need fixing later. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Of course they're not going to tell you to your face that they don't like your uniform, they'll bring it up to their Commander and/or First Sergeant/Command Chief.
And everybody's In Box is usually sorted by priority, CAP uniforms would probably be a rather low priority item.
What Phall said is spot on. With the Air force going through mass changes internally, cap uniforms would be very very low on the list of things to be done. It doesn't surprise me one bit it took this long. You got to think about this, after the Minot incident, the air force almost tore itself to pieces. Everyone was blaming everyone else. The DOE and DOD decided it was time to take us back to a more SAC style system with nukes and combat aircraft, so they decided to stand up global strike command. Half of ACC is moving over to GSC, AETC is being revamped again, early retirements are up almost 15%, and retention rates are down. So out of all this, cap, and our uniform fiasco is pretty low man on the totem pole. Also like Phall said, they won't tell you to your face that they don't like your uniform, but they will make it know to their first shirt, who answers to the command chief, who has the ear of the wing king, who has the ear of the numbered air force commander who has the ear of..... You get the picture.
If someone has a bee in their bonnet and they don't say something for three years . . . That's just stupidity. This is obviously came at a high level. Something else happened - things just don't reappear after three years. Beep and a rush . . .
Quote from: PHall on November 29, 2009, 07:19:01 PMOf course they're not going to tell you to your face that they don't like your uniform, they'll bring it up to their Commander and/or First Sergeant/Command Chief.
Most people in the Air Force know that telling you doesn't mean anything anyway. You won't do anything about it if they do, after all you spent the money on it, and one person by themself doesn't make a difference. Only when something grows and expands to like minded thinker does something happen.
I still think it was the Air Force epaulets and the use of Army uniform pieces that were part of the "triggering event". I seriously doubt this would have happened if the same epaulets and nametag had been used for the CSU. It wouldn't have looked "pseudo Air Force", and probably would have been accepted that way with less of an issue.
Something else that no one seems to be considering is that it may not have been the Air Force as the primary complaintant on this. Any one paid attention to the fact that the CSU lite version looks very similar to the new Army Class B? The Army may have had issues with it, and sent the Air Force a nasty gram. Their trenchcoat, their sweater, their windbreaker could have just have easily been ammo for that battle. CAP members could have been shopping in the Army Mil Clothing, and had plenty of people saying "Civil Air Patrol? Air Force Auxiliary? How come you're not shopping at the Air Force uniform store?"
Very good point hawk. Maybe not even on army instillations, we have an army unit at Whiteman, and there is one at Scott as well, they could just have easily been perturbed by the options on the uniform.
The new Army uniforms are not being received in a very good way by the people in the army. When they first announced the new army uniforms, every issue of the Army Times had letters denouncing them. I know that I personally don't like them either. Glad I didn't have to wear them when I was AD. i think about the only thing they disliked more was the beret.
As far as our uniforms, I just wish someone would grow a pair and decide something. I don't have a problem with blues for cadets and white/gray for seniors since it seems that seniors are who the USAF has problems with. Just my 2 cents worth.
One more time guys: If anyone had a major heart ache over the "CSU" (on the military side), it would have gone thru channels and landed at the desk of the BoG Chairman via the CAP/EX.
BTW; In the reply to the Air Force, the BoG instructed Gen Chandler and Mr. Goodwin (SECAF/MIR) to contact the EX directly if there was a further issue with the uniform. No contact was made; in writing. Verbal contact was made saying the uniform was acceptable.
No official comments to the BoG or CAP/EX were ever made to date with a change of attitude or direction. And even if there was a recent request for change, The first letter to the BoG from the Air Force said it would be done with "cooperation and dialog" with the CAP. It would not have been "gone or else".
The only other scenario would have been a private talk between the CAP/CC and the SECAF/MIR or CSAF during a face to face meeting. That may have happened however, if it did, the CAP/CC would have put it in her power point to the membership.
(I must be getting Alzheimer's. I'm starting to repeat myself)
Just an observation rereading the powerpoint, Factors Slide 1, point 2, and Factors Slide 3 point 7, somewhat imply USAF displeasure. Taking that with what information FW has provided us, to me it it would show NEC didn't have the fortitude to just say look, we were reducing the number of uniforms and this is the one we chose. They didn't need to provide all the extra points.
I would like to know why it is so hard for some people to think maybe just maybe the air force wanted us to save face, or even they wanted to save face. Things don't always go through "official channels". Maybe instead of the letter going to the cap leadership saying we think you should change it, maybe there was communication from person to person, saying hey change is coming down the line, maybe you all should step up and take the incentive t fix it now before we officially ask you to. It happens all the time in the military and politics. Why is it so hard for some to believe that it can happen in cap? I really enjoy the "if their isn't an official letter with letter heard and signatures it didn't happen" people. Also maybe the air force wanted to save their own face, because if you remember, there has been a new SECAF, and new chief of staff for the air force, since the CSU was given the go ahead (maybe) from the air force, did you ever stop and think maybe they didn't want to come outright and say we don't like it, maybe they wanted to help cap out instead of slapping us in the face again.
^anything's possible however, the Air Force loves to write papers and letters about stuff. I remember a "white paper" in '98 talking about some changes.....
And, then there was the letter to the BoG chairman in '06 about the "CSU".
At least the last letter spoke of "cooperation" in making a final decision. I would expect the same dialog for any future changes; uniform or otherwise.
No, I don't see a major decision like this coming from an "unnamed source". After 20 years in the military and, over 30 years in CAP, this is something new. And, with the major heart ache the decision seems to have caused the membership; saving face is the last thing I would be worried about.
But, hey, what do I know about anything.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 29, 2009, 10:11:00 PM
Maybe instead of the letter going to the cap leadership saying we think you should change it, maybe there was communication from person to person, saying hey change is coming down the line, maybe you all should step up and take the incentive t fix it now before we officially ask you to. It happens all the time in the military and politics. Why is it so hard for some to believe that it can happen in cap? I really enjoy the “if their isn’t an official letter with letter heard and signatures it didn’t happen” people. Also maybe the air force wanted to save their own face, because if you remember, there has been a new SECAF, and new chief of staff for the air force, since the CSU was given the go ahead (maybe) from the air force, did you ever stop and think maybe they didn’t want to come outright and say we don’t like it, maybe they wanted to help cap out instead of slapping us in the face again.
Unacceptable...I am going to hold everyone to the same standards. There was a time when "General's Aide-du-camps" in cap were sporting a silver shoulder cord. Also, a search of CAPTALK discussions will reveal several occasions where a "verbal" nod from past and present National Commanders of CAP allowed the wearing of some doo-dad or some mitigation of CAP policy.
The outcry about "seeing things in writing" and "proper procedure" on such things were a daily posting on this forum. Now, people seem to be reversing those sentiments because it is now something that fits their opinions and personal whims. IF IT WAS WRONG THEN, it IS WRONG NOW.
I'm call you people out now. We are either going to adhere to CAP policy and the established standards of objectivity or we are not.
So FW, what you are saying is. The Air Force did not voice a problem with the uniform? Is that correct.
I heard from a source on the scenario of the start of the Aviator and the Blue Slacks. It was the refusal of the Air Force to let CAP return to Blue Epaulets.
The Source was high in the CAP Chain, does not matter who it was.
I personally liked the White on Blue Uniform.
This all comes down to whether CAP is in control of a NON Air Force Uniform. It still seems the Air Force pulls the strings on our choice of Corporate Uniform.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 10:57:58 PM
So FW, what you are saying is. The Air Force did not voice a problem with the uniform? Is that correct.
I heard from a source on the scenario of the start of the Aviator and the Blue Slacks. It was the refusal of the Air Force to let CAP return to Blue Epaulets.
The Source was high in the CAP Chain, does not matter who it was.
I personally liked the White on Blue Uniform.
This all comes down to whether CAP is in control of a NON Air Force Uniform. It still seems the Air Force pulls the strings on our choice of Corporate Uniform.
I am going to say this with some impunity. I too have heard from high sources in CAP that the USAF had no problem with said uniform. The matter of this having been so is a speculation made "fact" through repetition.
People, choruses of "it makes perfect sense" and "it is logical" and "I read it ad infinitum times on the INTERNET" does not make something FACT in terms of CAP policy.
Even when a letter comes down officially nixing the CSU, unless it contains some justification (which letters of policy rarely do) no one will know the real "why."
So, at this point, absent any "facts" on the matter... the reasons "The USAF didn't like it" and "Citizen Pineda's sitting opponents wanted to remove any vestige of his past administration" are equally valid and invalid points.
Wow, didn't expect Sparky to be calling a Region Commander a liar. Will wonders never cease.
I saw the Squadron Commanders discussion email. It said the Blue/Uniform created "confusion" as in mistaken ID as an Air Force Officer. Please - Police and Fire Departments use a similar uniform.
Folks, can we have a heart to heart on CAP, and WHY it would be so bad for the CAP Officer to be mistaken for an Air Force Officer.
By the way I am an Air Force Veteran, and I am tired of the problem or supposed problem with the Uniforms.
It is my understanding that the orginal statement by the RMR CC regarding the uniform was to eliminate the Number of uniform options. I wonder if there also discussion at the NEC about the AF being unhappy or did that come later - after the decision was made to reduce the number of uniforms?
Quote from: RiverAux on November 29, 2009, 11:08:35 PM
Wow, didn't expect Sparky to be calling a Region Commander a liar. Will wonders never cease.
Your flair for theatrics insults our intelligence.
Oh really, where did I call anyone a "liar." My point is, absent any official policy letter or statement from the CAP-USAF or real "Q&A" session with their representatives, this discussion on CAPTALK is riddled with speculations, distortions and stretches of the imagination.
At present, it is quite clear that the issues surrounding the previous administration are far from resolved. There are those who seem to have it as their duty to purge CAP of any and everything "good or bad" from that period. Fine, I can understand that.
It is also clear that some people have an extreme dislike for the CSU...mostly those that still occasionally refer to it as the "TPU." There is a mixing of the first and latter set in that occasion.
However, I must raise an eyebrow when the activities of the a fore mention group starts to cost a good portion of the general membership money with out so much as a collective voice from the governing body as to "why."
Instead we have bits and pieces of "Regional" and out right speculation in place of a tactile, issue resolving statement that would end these FOUR threads once and for all.
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 29, 2009, 05:03:24 AM
I have never advocated taking away the AF uniform, but rather arriving at a compromise that we can all wear, that reflects our AF heritage, but recognizes that we are a service of our own, with our own traditions and mission that predates the Air Force.
The arrogance and condesension (sp?) of the AF purists never ceases to amaze me. If you are so in love with the AF uniform, there is an organization that will allow you to wear it anytime you please. It's called the United States Air Force.
If you won't say, I will say it.
Do away with the USAF Style uniform.
And then let's get out to the flight line and get to work. Doing the excellent work that we do.
Do away with the USAF Style uniform.
Quote from: DG on November 29, 2009, 11:18:32 PM
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 29, 2009, 05:03:24 AM
I have never advocated taking away the AF uniform, but rather arriving at a compromise that we can all wear, that reflects our AF heritage, but recognizes that we are a service of our own, with our own traditions and mission that predates the Air Force.
The arrogance and condesension (sp?) of the AF purists never ceases to amaze me. If you are so in love with the AF uniform, there is an organization that will allow you to wear it anytime you please. It's called the United States Air Force.
If you won't say, I will say it.
Do away with the USAF Style uniform.
And then let's get out to the flight line and get to work. Doing the excellent work that we do.
Do away with the USAF Style uniform.
Why, so that the other half of CAP can have wasted their money on uniform items now to be deemed obsolete?
I can, however, raise a glass to your second point..."let's get out to the flight line and get to work."
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 10:57:58 PM
This all comes down to whether CAP is in control of a NON Air Force Uniform. It still seems the Air Force pulls the strings on our choice of Corporate Uniform.
The AF
does have control of the wearing of
their uniform items, which the trousers were.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 29, 2009, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 10:57:58 PM
This all comes down to whether CAP is in control of a NON Air Force Uniform. It still seems the Air Force pulls the strings on our choice of Corporate Uniform.
The AF does have control of the wearing of their uniform items, which the trousers were.
Really...control over blue trousers. So, if we all switch to J.C. Penny's slacks we can keep the CSU? Amazing...why hadn't we thought of this sooner.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 29, 2009, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 10:57:58 PM
This all comes down to whether CAP is in control of a NON Air Force Uniform. It still seems the Air Force pulls the strings on our choice of Corporate Uniform.
The AF does have control of the wearing of their uniform items, which the trousers were.
The Air Force cannot own the blue trousers.
Coast Guard wears the same trousers.
So do some Fire and Police Departments.
The Blue/White Uniform is different and cannot be mistaken for anything but what it is, a CAP Uniform!
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 29, 2009, 11:18:10 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 29, 2009, 11:08:35 PM
Wow, didn't expect Sparky to be calling a Region Commander a liar. Will wonders never cease.
Your flair for theatrics insults our intelligence.
Oh really, where did I call anyone a "liar." My point is, absent any official policy letter or statement from the CAP-USAF or real "Q&A" session with their representatives, this discussion on CAPTALK is riddled with speculations, distortions and stretches of the imagination.
You are quite well aware of the email copied earlier in this thread from a Region Commander, which cited AF objections as one of the reasons for the elimination of this uniform. As a member of the body that voted on the decision, he is in a position to know the facts behind why they made this decision. By refusing to accept this as the truth, you're calling him a liar.
Major carrales,
Like I have said before, my sources behind the air force not being happy, was the at the time command chief of Whiteman AFB, Chief Hornbeck who is now the command chief 8th AF. Now I know what you will say, that it is speculation, but I have to trust my command chief. It's not like he hunted me down to tell me this, he was on post checks as part of our NORE, and when he found out I was a cap member he asked me my opinion on it (to which I told him I don't think it was my part to stress one to him) and then told me that he along with others in the higher commands were receiving complaints about the CSU on military instillations. Now is this officially from cap-usaf, nope but like I said I have to trust the command chief on this one, can't really think of a reason for him to lie.....
We don't even need NCRs statements here. We have the word of a Region Commander that AF objections was one of the reasons that the change was made. As a voting member of the body that made the decision, he is in a position to know the truth. By saying that this is "speculation", you're calling him a liar.
All of the services have specific rules on which items can be worn with civilian clothes. Since the trousers were specified as the AF item, The AF is well within regulation to deny their usage as a part of a CAP uniform.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 11:31:44 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on November 29, 2009, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 10:57:58 PM
This all comes down to whether CAP is in control of a NON Air Force Uniform. It still seems the Air Force pulls the strings on our choice of Corporate Uniform.
The AF does have control of the wearing of their uniform items, which the trousers were.
The Air Force cannot own the blue trousers.
Why not? They have a specific design and fabric that are part of the applicable Mil-Spec.
QuoteCoast Guard wears the same trousers.
And they have the same control of their version.
Whenever I have worn a "military-style" uniform, I have always been aware of the limitations and restrictions of wear defined by the regulations.
When it came to transgressions by individuals, enforcement has been selective, as it is even today in CAP. In the case of CAP's wholesale violation, the AF finally decided that it was time to do something about it.
YMMV.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 29, 2009, 11:34:00 PM
We have the word of a Region Commander that AF objections was one of the reasons that the change was made.
When your statement reads...
Quote
We have the word of the NATIONAL Commander (...or Commader CAP-USAF) that AF objections was one of the reasons that the change was made.
...then you will have my undivided support. Until that time...all we have is speculation and hearsay.
Major, how would you feel if you gave an order and a reason for that order to your second in command at your squadron, your 2nd in command then tells everyone else the order and a reason for it, yet some of your people refuse to believe it because it didn't come from your mouth?
Quote from: NCRblues on November 29, 2009, 11:32:49 PM
Major carrales,
Like I have said before, my sources behind the air force not being happy, was the at the time command chief of Whiteman AFB, Chief Hornbeck who is now the command chief 8th AF. Now I know what you will say, that it is speculation, but I have to trust my command chief. It's not like he hunted me down to tell me this, he was on post checks as part of our NORE, and when he found out I was a cap member he asked me my opinion on it (to which I told him I don't think it was my part to stress one to him) and then told me that he along with others in the higher commands were receiving complaints about the CSU on military installations. Now is this officially from cap-usaf, nope but like I said I have to trust the command chief on this one, can't really think of a reason for him to lie.....
All you have said is that a Command Chief Master Sgt of a USAF facility stated that "he along with others in the higher commands were receiving complaints about the CSU on military installations." That does not equate to the whole of the USAF having an official opinion on the matter. I think you are correct to trust your Command Chief on the matter, but what you have relayed is not the same as the USAF Command frowning on the CSU.
For that matter, the same statement could be better made for inappropriate wear of the USAF style uniform, a complaint that USAF personnel have relayed to me and we don't meet on any sort of Federal Reserve, as do some 85% of all CAP units.
Where did you get that 85% figure?
Quote from: NCRblues on November 30, 2009, 12:03:16 AM
Major, how would you feel if you gave an order and a reason for that order to your second in command at your squadron, your 2nd in command then tells everyone else the order and a reason for it, yet some of your people refuse to believe it because it didn't come from your mouth?
Totally different animal to this...
In this situation there is no "direct" chain of command at work. There is an ambiguous letter from a region commander stating that the number of uniform combination is to be reduced not stating that the CAP-USAF requested or ordered the CSU gone for any reason.
If the letter in question said exactly what is being proported and was from the Commander of CAP-USAF to the NEC, NB or National Commander-CAP then your analogy would have merit.
In addition, any member of my unit could ask me directly my reasons, which I usually give or post in our newsletter. Those not believing me only have to ask. Can we do that this occasion?
And, by the way, what "orders" can a CAP Squadron commander issue that anyone is bound to follow? Only Corporate Officer in CAP can issue edicts of the sort you imply.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 30, 2009, 12:10:43 AM
And, by the way, what "orders" can a CAP Squadron commander issue that anyone is bound to follow? Only Corporate Officer in CAP can issue edicts of the sort you imply.
Commanders at each echelon have command authority over their respective people, within the bounds of the program, and for any facilities or resources they may have under their control.
Corporate officers are the only ones who can make legal commitments to other organizations or businesses, change regulations, and execute other actions specific to their station, but I can think of a lot of things I can tell my subordinates that they are bound to follow.
As long as a directive doesn't violate a regulation or go outside the scope of my AOR, there's no limitation to command authority internal to CAP.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 30, 2009, 12:06:27 AM
Where did you get that 85% figure?
So, you are wishing to make the argument that most CAP units meet on a USAF Federal Reserve?
Let's take just the units in my Group of my Wing...
LACKLAND CADET SQDN- USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
CORPUS CHRISTI COMP SQDN- International Airport
BROWNSVILLE COMP SQDN- International Airport
RANDOLPH COMP SQDN-USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
ALAMO COMP SQDN- Brooks City Base- No longer USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
WILD HORSE DESERT COMP SQDN- International Airport
VICTORIA COMP SQDN- International Airport
BEXAR COUNTY SENIOR SQDN- Stinson Airport
DAVID LEE "TEX" HILL COMP SQDN- Municipal Airport
KERRVILLE COMP SQDN-Kerrville-Kerr County Airport at Louis Schreiner Field
MID VALLEY SENIOR SQUADRON- Edinburg Airport
BANDERA CADET SQDN- School
2 our of 12 units do not meet at a USAF Installation, that is actually 83.3%. My bad!!!
Quote from: SarDragon on November 29, 2009, 11:52:20 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 11:31:44 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on November 29, 2009, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 10:57:58 PM
This all comes down to whether CAP is in control of a NON Air Force Uniform. It still seems the Air Force pulls the strings on our choice of Corporate Uniform.
The AF does have control of the wearing of their uniform items, which the trousers were.
The Air Force cannot own the blue trousers.
Why not? They have a specific design and fabric that are part of the applicable Mil-Spec.
QuoteCoast Guard wears the same trousers.
And they have the same control of their version.
Whenever I have worn a "military-style" uniform, I have always been aware of the limitations and restrictions of wear defined by the regulations.
When it came to transgressions by individuals, enforcement has been selective, as it is even today in CAP. In the case of CAP's wholesale violation, the AF finally decided that it was time to do something about it.
YMMV.
What transgressions? The Air Force having a problem in the first place is a little over reaching. Its not an Air Force Uniform. Trousers are not a Uniform combination. Color is not exclusive.
The Air Force did not decide. It was CAP Leadership.
Our Leadership decided, and for what reasons not completely explained.
Let them explain it.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2009, 12:19:40 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 30, 2009, 12:10:43 AM
And, by the way, what "orders" can a CAP Squadron commander issue that anyone is bound to follow? Only Corporate Officer in CAP can issue edicts of the sort you imply.
Commanders at each echelon have command authority over their respective people, within the bounds of the program, and for any facilities or resources they may have under their control.
Corporate officers are the only ones who can make legal commitments to other organizations or businesses, change regulations, and execute other actions specific to their station, but I can think of a lot of things I can tell my subordinates that they are bound to follow.
As long as a directive doesn't violate a regulation or go outside the scope of my AOR, there's no limitation to command authority internal to CAP.
Thanks Eclipse, I guess I have always worked off the the idea that we work together to accomplish the mission. I have never once had to give a "direct order" to anyone in the style of a "swagger stick carrying" sort.
I have always issued the necessary directives with reasons given based on the cadet airman lesson that says that good attitude comes from knowing the reasons "why." This occasion goes against that...if the reason truly the USAF requested we remove that uniform item and the authority makes that known to us, then all is resolved.
I do not know why that is so hard for people here to understand. How is it so difficult to expect people to be upfront in their dealings this occasion? The matter is simple, until someone from CAP-USAF, the NEC/NB as a whole or the National Commander confirms these reasons, they are not possessing of the level of standing that the same people who are clamouring against this demand of everything else.
If I accept this based on those standings, then I must also accept any other speculations of that same style and modus operandi. I just have to be able to apply the same "rules" to all...not some...beliefs.
I see no reason why someone who refuses to take the word of a region commander would accept the word of the national commander. The region commander was sitting right there at the SAME TABLE as the national commander when it was discussed and voted upon.
Gentlemen, please.
It's difficult to read these posts from members, whose opinions and experience I've come to respect, sniping at each other over... uniforms.
The horse was dead on page 12 – time to end the flogging.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 30, 2009, 12:45:36 AM
I see no reason why someone who refuses to take the word of a region commander would accept the word of the national commander. The region commander was sitting right there at the SAME TABLE as the national commander when it was discussed and voted upon.
So, you are asserting that a discussion saying that the USAF requested or ordered the removal of the CSU took place at that time? Did you make that up as a work of historical fiction or are you the liar?
I think you are making the assumption that I don't consider the removal of the CSU valid? You must be blinded by emotionalism if that is the case.
My assertion is that the idea that we know the "reasons" behind the removal are suspect and the result of speculation, hearsay and fictional account based on what people "want to have" happen instead of what did is not fact.
By the way, I have spoken with my Region Commander about this and nothing of what you are saying, CAP-USAF conspiracy, was mentioned. Was he not at that "table" as well?
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 30, 2009, 12:27:19 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on November 30, 2009, 12:06:27 AM
Where did you get that 85% figure?
So, you are wishing to make the argument that most CAP units meet on a USAF Federal Reserve?
Let's take just the units in my Group of my Wing...
LACKLAND CADET SQDN- USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
CORPUS CHRISTI COMP SQDN- International Airport
BROWNSVILLE COMP SQDN- International Airport
RANDOLPH COMP SQDN-USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
ALAMO COMP SQDN- Brooks City Base- No longer USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
WILD HORSE DESERT COMP SQDN- International Airport
VICTORIA COMP SQDN- International Airport
BEXAR COUNTY SENIOR SQDN- Stinson Airport
DAVID LEE "TEX" HILL COMP SQDN- Municipal Airport
KERRVILLE COMP SQDN-Kerrville-Kerr County Airport at Louis Schreiner Field
MID VALLEY SENIOR SQUADRON- Edinburg Airport
BANDERA CADET SQDN- School
2 our of 12 units do no meet at a USAF Installation, that is actually 83.3%. My bad!!!
Quote... we don't meet on any sort of Federal Reserve, as do some 85% of all CAP units.
Well, you made a general comment, apparently encompassing the entirety of CAP, and, in the bargain, it was unclear, and subject to misinterpretation. I took it to mean that, while your unit doesn't meet on a Federal Reserve, most of the rest of CAP does.
Additionally, the bolded text above, especially the underlined part, is equally unclear, and appears to conflict with what you have detailed in the list.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 30, 2009, 12:52:04 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 30, 2009, 12:27:19 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on November 30, 2009, 12:06:27 AM
Where did you get that 85% figure?
So, you are wishing to make the argument that most CAP units meet on a USAF Federal Reserve?
Let's take just the units in my Group of my Wing...
LACKLAND CADET SQDN- USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
CORPUS CHRISTI COMP SQDN- International Airport
BROWNSVILLE COMP SQDN- International Airport
RANDOLPH COMP SQDN-USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
ALAMO COMP SQDN- Brooks City Base- No longer USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
WILD HORSE DESERT COMP SQDN- International Airport
VICTORIA COMP SQDN- International Airport
BEXAR COUNTY SENIOR SQDN- Stinson Airport
DAVID LEE "TEX" HILL COMP SQDN- Municipal Airport
KERRVILLE COMP SQDN-Kerrville-Kerr County Airport at Louis Schreiner Field
MID VALLEY SENIOR SQUADRON- Edinburg Airport
BANDERA CADET SQDN- School
2 our of 12 units do no meet at a USAF Installation, that is actually 83.3%. My bad!!!
Quote... we don't meet on any sort of Federal Reserve, as do some 85% of all CAP units.
Well, you made a general comment, apparently encompassing the entirety of CAP, and, in the bargain, it was unclear, and subject to misinterpretation. I took it to mean that, while your unit doesn't meet on a Federal Reserve, most of the rest of CAP does.
Additionally, the bolded text above, especially the underlined part, is equally unclear, and appears to conflict with what you have detailed in the list.
I may have been confused in my original postings, the result of some miss-written syntax.
Should read...
Quote... we don't meet on any sort of Federal Reserve, which is the same for some 85% of all CAP units .
What I mean to say is that, in my area (and I expect in a majority of CAP) some 85 percent or so of CAP units do not meet at a USAF reservation. Due to base closures and the abundance of CAP units in areas far removed from USAF posts, the vastly greater majority of units never step foot on a USAF post.
As a matter of fact, in 12 years of CAP service I have never stepped foot on a USAF installation (unless you count Brooks-City Base which is transitioned out of Federal service in favor or Municipal use) for a CAP activity. I have spent lot of time on Naval Air Stations...but those personnel have nothing to say about CAP uniforms.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 29, 2009, 11:31:44 PM
Coast Guard wears the same trousers.
Wrong.
Quote from: COMDTINST M1020.6F 3.C.7. TrousersAir Force trousers are not authorized for men or women.
Not wrong, where do you think the double breasted coat came from?
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 30, 2009, 01:14:07 AM
Not wrong, where do you think the double breasted coat came from?
You may be mistaken on this point.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 29, 2009, 10:57:45 PM'm call you people out now. We are either going to adhere to CAP policy and the established standards of objectivity or we are not.
Fair enough, Joe.
Although I'm not sure exactly what "CAP standards of objectivity" are, I assume they have something to do with following our established rules and regulations in a fair and objective manner.
Which can only be a Good Thing.
The NEC made a decision. Although they haven't published the minures or an ICL yet, I was in the room when the vote was taken and assure you that they did so.
It seems clear that the NEC has the authority to make such a decision, whether or not your or I agree with it. And whether or not they explain the reasons for their decision to us.
But beyond that, we have two separate communications that purport to explain some or all of the reasons. The aforementioned region commander email, and the MG Courter ppt set, both published in this very thread.
I can only agree that NHQ needs to publish the ICL that implements the decision, and I expect that they will do so shortly.
But as long as we are discussing "standards" allow me to remind all of us of a couple:
Quote from: USAF Core Values (Little Blue Book)
(Under "Service Before Self")
- Rule Following. To serve is to do one's duty, and our duties are most commonly expressed through rules. While it may be the case that professionals are expected to exercise judgment in the performance of their duties, good professionals understand that rules have a reason for being, and the default position must be to follow those rules unless there is a clear, operational for refusing to do so.
- Faith in the System. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. Leaders can very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt "the system", then subordinates might follow suit.
[/list]
Major, may I respectfully suggest that you and all of the other leaders in this thread are not displaying much "faith in the system."
A decision has been made. We may not all personally agree with it, and may personally wish that there had been a better statement of reasons.
But it is now time for us to salute and assist our leadership in implementing their decision.
I would expect nothing less of a field grade officer.
Wouldn't you agree?
Ned, as you were in the room, would you also attest that this vote was made in part due to AF concerns?
Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2009, 01:16:43 AM<snip>
A decision has been made. We may not all personally agree with it, and may personally wish that there had been a better statement of reasons.
But it is now time for us to salute and assist our leadership in implementing their decision.
I would expect nothing less of a field grade officer.
Wouldn't you agree?
Wow. That was.. magical.
Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2009, 01:16:43 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 29, 2009, 10:57:45 PM'm call you people out now. We are either going to adhere to CAP policy and the established standards of objectivity or we are not.
Fair enough, Joe.
Although I'm not sure exactly what "CAP standards of objectivity" are, I assume they have something to do with following our established rules and regulations in a fair and objective manner.
Which can only be a Good Thing.
The NEC made a decision. Although they haven't published the minures or an ICL yet, I was in the room when the vote was taken and assure you that they did so.
It seems clear that the NEC has the authority to make such a decision, whether or not your or I agree with it. And whether or not they explain the reasons for their decision to us.
But beyond that, we have two separate communications that purport to explain some or all of the reasons. The aforementioned region commander email, and the MG Courter ppt set, both published in this very thread.
I can only agree that NHQ needs to publish the ICL that implements the decision, and I expect that they will do so shortly.
But as long as we are discussing "standards" allow me to remind all of us of a couple:
Quote from: USAF Core Values (Little Blue Book)
(Under "Service Before Self")
- Rule Following. To serve is to do one's duty, and our duties are most commonly expressed through rules. While it may be the case that professionals are expected to exercise judgment in the performance of their duties, good professionals understand that rules have a reason for being, and the default position must be to follow those rules unless there is a clear, operational for refusing to do so.
- Faith in the System. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. Leaders can very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt "the system", then subordinates might follow suit.
[/list]
Major, may I respectfully suggest that you and all of the other leaders in this thread are not displaying much "faith in the system."
A decision has been made. We may not all personally agree with it, and may personally wish that there had been a better statement of reasons.
But it is now time for us to salute and assist our leadership in implementing their decision.
I would expect nothing less of a field grade officer.
Wouldn't you agree?
I do agree, however, y'all are missing my point. My point, for the third time, is not that the removal of the CSU is not valid; but rather, that the speculations being offered as to "why" are not valid unless they are from an official source.
The CSU is canned, unless it is revisited, it will remain so. Yes, I know some hated the uniform and that I have voiced my opposition to the action since it deemed expensive CAP purchases moot.
But my point has not been that this removal of the uniform is not REAL, but rather that there is no proof of this "speculation turned fact" that people are proposing as a FACT (you know, that the USAF was so disgusted they ordered it removed). Until some statement on that issue is made in a public first person (not hearsay, "smoky backroom" discussion or creative interpretation of some thing provided)
What is happening here to me is scary. I am pointing out things and, instead of people counting my points, they are attacking what they think I have said. Either they are not reading my posts or they are consistently drawing the wrong conclusion.
Well, when you refuse to accept an official communication from a region commander or a powerpoint originating from NHQ as "official", how are we supposed to counter your point that no offiicial reasoning has been provided?
I suppose that in a few months the minutes of this meeting will be posted and I'm fairly sure that like with most proposals, reasons will be given for it and they will include "AF concerns" as one of them. Will that be enough? Because we never get much more than that in terms of an explanation for any change in CAP regulation, nor is any required.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 30, 2009, 01:14:07 AM
Not wrong, where do you think the double breasted coat came from?
Wrong.
It comes from Vanguard, exclusively. It is a custom-made jacket from a company called Warren Sewell Clothing. It is not a mil-spec item and has no direct connection to the CG or any other service.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 30, 2009, 01:30:25 AM
Well, when you refuse to accept an official communication from a region commander or a powerpoint originating from NHQ as "official", how are we supposed to counter your point that no offiicial reasoning has been provided?
I suppose that in a few months the minutes of this meeting will be posted and I'm fairly sure that like with most proposals, reasons will be given for it and they will include "AF concerns" as one of them. Will that be enough? Because we never get much more than that in terms of an explanation for any change in CAP regulation, nor is any required.
I have already posted that I will accept "official" postings and communiques; what I will not accept are people's postings here that are based more on fantasy than fact. And misinformation presented as real because it was repeated so many times that "it had to be true."
The fact is that most of us on here, unless tethered to an inside source, know nothing meaningful on the matters and supply/accept speculation, assumption and popular belief in the stead of said information. Many times, these are done to further lies and taint the opinion of worthy persons on this board. Some border on the ridiculous as the hyperbole below will demonstrate.
Some of these include the hearsay that brings us...
1) We WILL, for sure, have ABUs in 2012
2) There is a conspiracy in CAP working against the USAF
3) Citizen Pineda's minions wait in hiding in KEY units to strike to establish a NEW ORDER over the Civil Air Patrol. (ooooh...scary stuff)
4) Major General Courter is an invading alien from the future sent here to assist Agent Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln to prevent the rise of Khan Noonien Singh, thus prevent the destructive Eugenics wars of Colonel Green during the mid the 21st Century.
All I want is for opinion and speculation to have their place...as a belief, not a FACT!!!
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 30, 2009, 01:40:11 AM
4) Major General Courter is an invading alien from the future sent here to assist Agent Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln prevent the rise of Khan Noonien Singh, thus prevent the destructive Eugenics wars of Colonel Green of the 21st Century.
heh - that'd be sweet...
Wow, 31 pages of comments on this thread and, over 9000 views. Who would have thought this would be such a popular topic here on CT.
Ned, very well said. However, I don't think anyone is advocating a refusal to obey any ICL or future directive.
I will note though, there is a major perception problem. Our national leaders have pledged an "openness and transparency" when it comes to governance. We should expect full disclosure on certain major decisions thru the chain of command. It looks like this would be an excellent time to disclose fully the "who and why" which caused a need to make this decision not 2 months after the summer NB meeting; wherein this topic was tabled for at least one year.
There seems to be some conflicts. I would think it best for the membership to get a full disclosure of the processes which led to this vote; for the sake of the whole membership.
"Openness and Transparency".... are they just words?
Quote from: FW on November 30, 2009, 01:46:19 AMNed, very well said. However, I don't think anyone is advocating a refusal to obey any ICL or future directive.
Well, at this point there isn't even an ICL to obey or not.
But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread is that a fair number of CAP officers are not displaying "faith in the system", but rather actively and publicly griping, whining, and criticising the senior leadership because they (presumeably in good faith) either
a) personally disagree with the decision,
b) feel as if their personal needs were not adequately considered, or
c) feel as if the explanations offered by the NEC are somehow "inadequate."
And it just seems to me that public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership is not helpful (in the sense that it is unlikely to change the decision in question), and seems inconsistent with some of our Core Values.
Especially on the part of CAP officers.
Ned Lee
Quote from: SarDragon on November 29, 2009, 11:41:26 PM
All of the services have specific rules on which items can be worn with civilian clothes. Since the trousers were specified as the AF item, The AF is well within regulation to deny their usage as a part of a CAP uniform.
Then ... why didn't they when the CSU was first proposed?
Jack
Quote from: Ned
But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread i
I've seen several posts referencing some huge number of pages, and views, and at some point back I too remember this thing being at like 15 pages, and it sure seems like it was even locked. Then I looked one day and it was not locked anymore, and the page count was back to near 10.
This is what I see now:
"Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]"
Where are these 29, 31, etc, pages?
..and on topic, I recall several Wing Conferences ago, talking to someone with VG and they were saying how the whole thing with stocking uniform items was something they as a company never wanted to deal with in the past, but that it was part of the deal with NHQ and they had to get used to it, work it out, etc. So the whole double breasted coat thing must be leaving them stinging. At least the AF trousers can be sold still, and the aviators shirt is the same as we used. Everything else they already sell.
Quote from: a2capt on November 30, 2009, 02:43:07 AM
Quote from: Ned
But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread i
I've seen several posts referencing some huge number of pages, and views, and at some point back I too remember this thing being at like 15 pages, and it sure seems like it was even locked. Then I looked one day and it was not locked anymore, and the page count was back to near 10.
This is what I see now:
"Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]"
Where are these 29, 31, etc, pages?
..and on topic, I recall several Wing Conferences ago, talking to someone with VG and they were saying how the whole thing with stocking uniform items was something they as a company never wanted to deal with in the past, but that it was part of the deal with NHQ and they had to get used to it, work it out, etc. So the whole double breasted coat thing must be leaving them stinging. At least the AF trousers can be sold still, and the aviators shirt is the same as we used. Everything else they already sell.
You can change the amount of posts per page viewed. If they have that set at half the amount you have it set at they would have twice as many pages. I have mine set all the way up and it's only page 13 for me.
Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2009, 02:13:52 AM
Quote from: FW on November 30, 2009, 01:46:19 AMNed, very well said. However, I don't think anyone is advocating a refusal to obey any ICL or future directive.
Well, at this point there isn't even an ICL to obey or not.
But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread is that a fair number of CAP officers are not displaying "faith in the system", but rather actively and publicly griping, whining, and criticising the senior leadership because they (presumeably in good faith) either
a) personally disagree with the decision,
b) feel as if their personal needs were not adequately considered, or
c) feel as if the explanations offered by the NEC are somehow "inadequate."
And it just seems to me that public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership is not helpful (in the sense that it is unlikely to change the decision in question), and seems inconsistent with some of our Core Values.
Especially on the part of CAP officers.
Ned Lee
I don't believe people are complaingin because their "needs" haven't been adequately met, but rather because It seems like NHQ is ignoring their own processes. E-mails, postings on a message board and powerpoint slideshows of unknown origin are not substitutes for ICLs and official communications.
This link: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/uniform_information/ is still working on the NHQ website as of 2037 local on Sunday night. How hard would it be for the webmaster to take the page down?
How hard would it be to issue an ICL? It seems to me NHQ is trying to lead by floating trail baloons. "I got this email from a Region Commander" "This powerpoint is from Amy Courter herself" does not constitute orders. And the ppt was offensive and insulting to a lot of people, myself included.
As far as refusing to follow orders, no one here has suggested that. I would put on a Noriega shirt if the order came on MG Courter's letterhead. Instead, we get backchannel chatter and speculation as official communicaiton, and NHQ has allowed this to continue for over a week. Thanksgiving break is over kids, time to put out something OFFICIAL.
Jack, the Air Force did make known their displeasure when the uniform was first "proposed".
Ned, I agree with you however, if there is a growing perception the leadership has been less than honest with the membership. this needs to be corrected and, corrected fast; with complete openness. The many comments already posted seem to show a growing dissatisfying approach to the issue. If this "infection" spreads, we may be in for a tough future.
For now, the uniform is allowed to be worn until Jan, 2011. Everyone will be expected to follow the decision. No one however, needs to be satisfied with it. No one expects anything written on CT will change the course of events. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
BTW; it all started out so innocently back in 1998.....
Quote from: flyboy1 on November 29, 2009, 12:36:09 PM
<snip>The sad part is that the ol' good old boys club designed a uniform that fit their egos and the result was a big WWF slap down and now the Air Force is going to control the uniform changes because we couldn't do it ourselves.
Newsflash: As it pertained to the USAF-style uniform, the AF always controlled the shots. As far as corporate uniforms, yeah, they didn't control the shots, but if things got out of hand (as we could surmise happened), they certainly could exercise some control/direction.
Lets face it: If I were to postulate a uniform that looked suspiciously like the USAF uniform, claiming "Well, its our
corporate uniform.. you don't have a say" when the AF came a'calling, you can bet big mother Blue still has the ability to say things like "Well, hmmm, maybe you don't need to wear the USAF uniform if your
corporate uniforms suffice..."
I would have to take a wild guess and say, anyone outside the normal span of posting on here, would look at the evidence and conclude that there was at least some pressure from the air force on this issue. With the letter from the region cc, letters from wing kings saying so as well, and the slide show from cap/cc, it's pretty obvious there was some. With those things and the other "unsubstantiated" rumors (which I will include my own story in their to keep you "rumor only" guys happy) when you break it down, you have one set of people who conclude that air force pressure (whiter it be back door politics or not) more than likely forced the hand on this, then you have the others who say until the cap/cc says General so and so told me in this official letter to can the CSU, they won't believe the air force pressured cap. The evidence that has come to light so far shows that somewhere, somehow, the air force did not like the CSU. Flame away
P.S. Even though we may disagree on this issue i think no less of anyone at all. Sometimes our ideas leave through our fingers before we stop to think about the reactions.
Quote from: NIN on November 30, 2009, 03:33:16 AM
Newsflash: As it pertained to the USAF-style uniform, the AF always controlled the shots. As far as corporate uniforms, yeah, they didn't control the shots, but if things got out of hand (as we could surmise happened), they certainly could exercise some control/direction.
Which is what happened with the berry boards.
Quote from: NIN on November 30, 2009, 03:33:16 AMLets face it: If I were to postulate a uniform that looked suspiciously like the USAF uniform, claiming "Well, its our corporate uniform.. you don't have a say" when the AF came a'calling, you can bet big mother Blue still has the ability to say things like "Well, hmmm, maybe you don't need to wear the USAF uniform if your corporate uniforms suffice..."
However, I still wonder about allowing the CSU service coat with grey rank slides with the white/greys. I don't think it would look horrible, and people who have shelled out for the coat wouldn't be out the money. Lose the Army outergarments and go to the A-2 jacket.
As far as headgear goes, I don't know.
WOW – I take my wife in to the hospital yesterday & she ends up having emergency surgery. I get back on CT and there are over 100 new msgs. (Attempt at humor) I am glad I didn’t have CT emailing me every new message; she would think for sure I was up to something (Attempt at humor now complete)
There are some big-wigs on here, some very vocal. Maj. Carrales, FW, NCRBlues, Ned, and other recognizables (as well as those of us that are not big-wigs) have all voiced thoughts. After reading so many in so short a time, from an outside perspective, it looks like they are in the same book, and all have some similarities.
Very nicely put FW regarding the openness and transparency. I think that one thing everyone agrees on is that it is a huge leadership problem. I’m not specifically talking about THE leadership, I’m talking about the very basic definition of leadership; we have not been motivated to accept the decision handed down.
I never took Maj Carrales comments to mean that he would refuse to follow orders. I don’t think a single one of us would even consider doing that. I think all he was saying is that he wanted to just know the reason why. People do not learn from a mistake if they are told “NO” to something but are never told why.
Ned, I respect you highly – every comment I have ever seen posted and your personal messages to me oozed respect and dignity. That’s why I was surprised to see your posts to Maj. Carrales. I am also going to have to disagree with you to a point – the USAF Core Values and the CAP Core Values.
Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2009, 01:16:43 AM
Quote from: USAF Core Values (Little Blue Book)
(Under "Service Before Self")
- Rule Following. To serve is to do one's duty, and our duties are most commonly expressed through rules. While it may be the case that professionals are expected to exercise judgment in the performance of their duties, good professionals understand that rules have a reason for being, and the default position must be to follow those rules unless there is a clear, operational for refusing to do so.
- Faith in the System. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. Leaders can very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt "the system", then subordinates might follow suit. [/l][/l]
Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2009, 02:13:52 AM
And it just seems to me that public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership is not helpful (in the sense that it is unlikely to change the decision in question), and seems inconsistent with some of our Core Values.
CAP Core Values are Respect, Integrity, Excellence, and Volunteerism. Nowhere did I see the USAF Core Value “Faith in the System” in there and I believe there is a reason why. We are not strict military – we are not subject to UCMJ. We are para-military. And our leadership is no longer military, it is ‘para-military / para-corporate’ (we are a dysfunctional blend of the two completely different style of big bureaucracies). While I have come to believe that is one of the reason our head leadership is having difficulties, it plays out here where the “public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership” is not going against a CAP Core Value – this discussion actually is about us striving for Excellence. We cannot achieve excellence if we don’t have a way to provide feedback (or if we don’t have a way to vent frustrations).
What has been discussed on this thread, and more on others, is to become a unified organization. But in order to do that, we have to know why this move was done so we can avoid making the same mistake in the future.
NCRblues, I wish I could quote everything, but it would be really long, so here are some excerpts.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 28, 2009, 10:49:54 PM
I am so sick of hearing “second class members who keep the organization running”. … If you are overweight, for whatever reason, than I am sorry, tough luck.
… but no one ever said life was fair. You also say Air Force poster child likes it a bad thing. My apologies for keeping myself in shape and wanting to provide cap with a good appearance when in uniform. …
Sir, I find your comments pretty offensive. I know that you have read many other threads & also estimate that only 30% of SMs cannot wear AF-style uniform. By your numbers, that would mean that affects 10,500 SMs. Wouldn’t you say that is a pretty significant number (1/3 of our members). It concerns me that the morale of 10,500 members is not important to you (as seems to be evidenced by your posts).
other comment removed (See also a post I made here:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9298.100)
Like a good volunteer, I will follow orders. But I do feel that the leadership is not adhereing to our core value of Respect: Respecting the membership.
Now the question is how on earth can we make a para-military / para-corporation leadership model work with an all-volunteer organization?[/list]
It's true our leadership is handling this matter in a most inept fashion. It's also probable they were given marching orders and had no choice in the matter. If that's the case one must wonder why they just don't say it.
Perhaps it's the Air Force who doesn't want our rounder and fuzzier folks running around in ANY military style uniform, corporate or otherwise. If that's an accurate assessment then it's quite possible we can't do anything to the CSU to make them happy.
They have made it quite clear they don't want "non-compliant" types wearing their uniform so it's not a stretch to think they want to prevent the same folks from looking "too military." Further, I suspect they aren't worried about military folks mistaking our people for officers, rather they are worried about their public image. After all, they don't seem too worried about our non-fat & non-fuzzy folks looking almost identical to AF officers.
At the end of the day, it seems the Air Force style variant will be the only approved military style service uniform. It's most unfortunate for those who are unable to wear it and display much of their CAP blingage. Remember though, many volunteer organizations have engaged members without using uniforms or gobs of awards. Organizations with uniforms are almost always under the thumb of their parent organization. They wear what they are allowed and they get the job done.
I don't mean any disrespect to those who can't wear the AF variant, I just think we've been given our direction and no amount of negotiating will change our direction. It's the disparity that is problematic here since we / they have created "haves and have-nots." However, Mama Blue has spoken and they run the show. Ultimately we are here for the mission, not uniform wear.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 30, 2009, 04:10:36 AM
With the letter from the region cc, letters from wing kings saying so as well, and the slide show from cap/cc, it's pretty obvious there was some.
What letters? What slide show? I am lost here.......
If the Air Force was truly behind this change, you would think that they would have gone through the CAP Commander, and she would have put out a letter?
Quote from: Spike on November 30, 2009, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on November 30, 2009, 04:10:36 AM
With the letter from the region cc, letters from wing kings saying so as well, and the slide show from cap/cc, it's pretty obvious there was some.
What letters? What slide show? I am lost here.......
SLIDE SHOW: http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9272.0;attach=4189
I have talked to some Squadron Commanders and they want to comment and discuss this.
The gist of the email appeared to request comments from Commanders and membership, although after the fact.
My point of the matter is: I don't think the Air Force should have a say in our Corporate Uniform Policy. The orignal idea for the Uniform, was it was substantially different from the Air Force Uniform. It is different, there is no way you can mistake white for light blue, even across a BX Parking lot.
I am not pleased with the decision, but will comply with it in 2011.
And I understand that it might come back for review, which I hope it does.
If the Air Force has complaints I want to hear the complaints. Nothing should be hidden.
Lets get the problem out in the open. And stop the Ivory Tower stuff.
Okay, let's take a moment an actually look at the Air Force Directive or Air Force Instruction (AFI) that stipulates what our parent organizations authority is in regards to the uniform(s). Excerpts of AFI AFI 10-2701, "ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE CIVIL AIR PATROL" provides the following,
1.3. Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active, reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not apply to CAP members.
1.3.2. Uniform Wear and Personal Appearance. CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations (civilian clothing may be worn when specific missions dictate). The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn by CAP members.
1.3.3. Grooming Standards. CAP members that choose to wear the Air Force-style uniform must maintain weight, appearance, and grooming standards comparable to the Air Force. Variations in these standards are subject to Air Force approval. CAP ensures that all members wearing Air Force-style uniforms adhere to these standards. CAP senior members who do not meet these standards are restricted from wearing the Air Force-style uniform but are not barred from membership or active participation in CAP. In these circumstances the senior members may only wear authorized CAP uniforms, or civilian attire as appropriate.
1.3.4. CAP Distinctive Uniforms and Insignia. The emblems, insignia, and badges of the CAP Air Force-style uniform will clearly identify an individual as a CAP member at a distance and in low-light conditions. The Air Force must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform. CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not occur.
And then we have the Civil Air Patrol Constitution and Bylaws, which states,
ARTICLE XVIII - ADOPTION PROVISIONS
1. The insignia, uniforms, copyrights, emblems and badges, descriptive or designating marks and words or phrases used by the Civil Air Patrol, on or before the date of this revision of the Constitution, are appropriated to the Corporation.
2. Except as otherwise restricted by law, the Corporation may develop and adopt such insignia, uniforms, emblems and badges, descriptive and designating marks, and words and phrases for use by the members of the Civil Air Patrol as it may consider necessary or advisable in carrying out the objects and purposes of the Corporation.
Now, if someone will "please" show me where the Air Force derives its authority to control our CAP Distinctive uniforms, utilizing their directives, and where we relinquish our control of them in our own constitution, I will be happy to listen and learn.
Please do not say because the General says so; that does not change their regulations anymore than it would ours. Arguing the phrase "sufficiently different" is not valid either; considering one could reasonably debate that the gray epaulets on the current Air Force style uniform does not make it sufficiently different; the CSU has more significant differences than what they have already approved (in my opinion).
Please do not forget to provide your source documentations.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 30, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
My point of the matter is: I don't think the Air Force should have a say in our Corporate Uniform Policy.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking the Air Force is within their rights to say which military lookin' uniform their auxiliary can wear when running around on Air Force bases. True, we aren't always on their bases, but I think blood might shoot out of my eye sockets if we create a uniform explicitly for "off-base wear."
If we don't mind our P's & Q's we might find ourselves in polo shirts full time. The Air Force could easily do that. Truth is, we can function as CAP without any seniors in military style uniforms. Most service organizations already do that.
I personally liked the white and blue (except for that coat...hurl...) and sympathize with those who spent money on them, just to have the carpet pulled out from under them.
Quote from: CAPOfficer on November 30, 2009, 05:48:50 PM
Okay, let's take a moment an actually look at the Air Force Directive or Air Force Instruction (AFI) that stipulates what our parent organizations authority is in regards to the uniform(s). Excerpts of AFI AFI 10-2701, "ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE CIVIL AIR PATROL" provides the following,
1.3. Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active, reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not apply to CAP members.
1.3.2. Uniform Wear and Personal Appearance. CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations (civilian clothing may be worn when specific missions dictate). The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn by CAP members.
1.3.3. Grooming Standards. CAP members that choose to wear the Air Force-style uniform must maintain weight, appearance, and grooming standards comparable to the Air Force. Variations in these standards are subject to Air Force approval. CAP ensures that all members wearing Air Force-style uniforms adhere to these standards. CAP senior members who do not meet these standards are restricted from wearing the Air Force-style uniform but are not barred from membership or active participation in CAP. In these circumstances the senior members may only wear authorized CAP uniforms, or civilian attire as appropriate.
1.3.4. CAP Distinctive Uniforms and Insignia. The emblems, insignia, and badges of the CAP Air Force-style uniform will clearly identify an individual as a CAP member at a distance and in low-light conditions. The Air Force must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform. CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not occur.
And then we have the Civil Air Patrol Constitution and Bylaws, which states,
ARTICLE XVIII - ADOPTION PROVISIONS
1. The insignia, uniforms, copyrights, emblems and badges, descriptive or designating marks and words or phrases used by the Civil Air Patrol, on or before the date of this revision of the Constitution, are appropriated to the Corporation.
2. Except as otherwise restricted by law, the Corporation may develop and adopt such insignia, uniforms, emblems and badges, descriptive and designating marks, and words and phrases for use by the members of the Civil Air Patrol as it may consider necessary or advisable in carrying out the objects and purposes of the Corporation.
Now, if someone will "please" show me where the Air Force derives its authority to control our CAP Distinctive uniforms, utilizing their directives, and where we relinquish our control of them in our own constitution, I will be happy to listen and learn.
Please do not say because the General says so; that does not change their regulations anymore than it would ours. Arguing the phrase "sufficiently different" is not valid either; considering one could reasonably debate that the gray epaulets on the current Air Force style uniform does not make it sufficiently different; the CSU has more significant differences than what they have already approved (in my opinion).
Please do not forget to provide your source documentations.
I think they derive their authority from the golden rule: "he has the gold makes the rules."
Remember USAF is the most political of the armed forces and does everything possible to get their way even to the detriment to the other services (USA's lack of fixed wing assets,
USS United States, etc.)
Highspeedlowdrag,
My apologies for offending you, but you also took my quotes out of context. The first quote was about how some claim that only the "fat and fuzzies" that make cap run". This is wrong in so many ways. The second was just as it read if you are overweight; than I am sorry that you can't wear the air force style, but I am saying right now the air force will never ever let overweight members wear AF style. (I know this hurts some member's feelings but there's nothing I can or want to do about it, I agree with it) I work pretty hard keeping myself in shape to keep in AF style, there are some members that are just plain fat, they don't work out, never eat healthy and present a bad appearance an any uniform not just CSU/corporate. Other members have a medical issue or age, unfortunate, but it's going to happen to us all at one point in the future, and when it does to me, I'm going to make the switch to the authorized alternate uniform and carry on with the good work. Some (let me stress some) of those that are overweight does more complaining about not being able to wear the AF style than anything else. So once again if you are offended by my ideas than my apologies, but this does not make me a bad member. You have no right to call another member worthless, you have no clue my position, what I do, how much I do it, or how much time I sacrifice to cap. I don't say you are a bad member for your ideas you post on a non official idea board, so why would you. I am offended by that comment.
Congress has the gold and not the Air Force in the matter of funding.
CAP is a Private Corporation, that is FUNDED by Congress, Congress funds CAP not the Air Force. We are a line item in the Air Force Budget. I want to get to the bottom of the complaints and their origin. Bottom Line, lets find out if there is a problem and what exactly it is. I think it goes deeper than a problem with the Uniform.
The Corporate Blue White has been around a while, that supports the theory that we have a Corporate Uniform, that is seperate and different from the USAF Uniform. I want to know why that is not acceptable now?
The compliance with the NB is not an issue, we must comply. The CAP NB seemed to act on something that was not clearly stated in the Slide Show. WHAT WAS IT?
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 30, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking the Air Force is within their rights to say which military lookin' uniform their auxiliary can wear when running around on Air Force bases. True, we aren't always on their bases, but I think blood might shoot out of my eye sockets if we create a uniform explicitly for "off-base wear."
If we don't mind our P's & Q's we might find ourselves in polo shirts full time. The Air Force could easily do that. Truth is, we can function as CAP without any seniors in military style uniforms. Most service organizations already do that.
I personally liked the white and blue (except for that coat...hurl...) and sympathize with those who spent money on them, just to have the carpet pulled out from under them.
I like (and wear) the blue/white too, and I'm miffed at what's happened. But I am powerless to change it. The AF and NB aren't going to care about what some CAP Captain who has never served above squadron level thinks. So, until I hear officially otherwise, I'll wear my blue/whites up until midnight, 31 Dec 2010. I wear the blue utility jumpsuit most of the time anyway, and, as I've said, I'm just glad I didn't yet shell out for the CSU service coat.
The blue/white CSU reminds me more of TSA screeners than the Air Force, but it's not up to me.
The Air Force has every right to dictate what we wear on their bases...just as they have the right to dictate if we
have access to their bases. That's why they can say that the CAP assistance personnel have to wear the blue polo/khakis. Personally, I think that either the AF blue or white/greys with plain grey epaulettes might be a better choice (kind of like the USCG directing CGAUX augmenters to wear the Auxiliary crest rather than bars/leaves/chickens/stars), but again it's not up to me.
To put on my Freud hat for a minute, part of our uniform difficulties
may be related to the fact that the AF itself has had so many uniforms in its relatively short history...just in the past 20 years there have been several variations on the Tony McPeak uniform, and now they're going to the ABU (though operational considerations played in there) and are considering
yet another service dress.
Compare that to the other four services. I don't know the dates that other services have made changes, but my dad was in the Army when they changed from the Ike jacket to the greens (which he hated, but had to wear nonetheless), and the greens are just now being phased out.
Personally, I don't see how my suggestion of the CSU service coat with grey epaulettes and grey/whites could be mistaken for anything AF, in bright light or otherwise, but again it's not up to me...
Quote from: NCRblues on November 30, 2009, 06:12:24 PM
Highspeedlowdrag,
My apologies for offending you, but you also took my quotes out of context. The first quote was about how some claim that only the “fat and fuzzies” that make cap run”. This is wrong in so many ways. The second was just as it read if you are overweight; than I am sorry that you can’t wear the air force style, but I am saying right now the air force will never ever let overweight members wear AF style. (I know this hurts some member’s feelings but there’s nothing I can or want to do about it, I agree with it) I work pretty hard keeping myself in shape to keep in AF style, there are some members that are just plain fat, they don’t work out, never eat healthy and present a bad appearance an any uniform not just CSU/corporate. Other members have a medical issue or age, unfortunate, but it’s going to happen to us all at one point in the future, and when it does to me, I’m going to make the switch to the authorized alternate uniform and carry on with the good work. Some (let me stress some) of those that are overweight does more complaining about not being able to wear the AF style than anything else. So once again if you are offended by my ideas than my apologies, but this does not make me a bad member. You have no right to call another member worthless, you have no clue my position, what I do, how much I do it, or how much time I sacrifice to cap. I don’t say you are a bad member for your ideas you post on a non official idea board, so why would you. I am offended by that comment.
You are correct. Previous to reading this post, I edited my original post becasue I realized that I had stepped over the line. So I apologize to you for the original comment, (which has been removed).
NCRblues - I hope that you have read the link post I put in. I agree, SMs all make contributions, regardless if they wear they wear the AF style or not. But the eating healthy, working out, etc, should not diminsh their value one way or another. You do it - Good for you. But does that mean those who don't are not of the same value and don't deserve the same rights? It seems to me (and others) that there is a group on this board that are the Fat/Fuzzy Police. Actually, I hate to say, it reminds me of high school where the jocks make fun of the nerds. Here we have the AF-style wearers that do their best to diminsh those that can't wear the AF-style.
I think that most members are not complaining because they can't wear an AF uniform, they are complaining that they don't have a sharp-looking uniform to wear themselves. Personally, I wish I could wear AF-style, but can't. Do I complain about it - no. I complain that there is not a sharp uniform that I can wear. Size does not make the uniform look good or bad, it is how a soneone takes care of it. I have seen plenty of fit people in AF and AF-style that look worse than an overweight who takes pride in theirs.
However, again, I do aplogize for the comment to you personally.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 30, 2009, 06:58:48 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on November 30, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
I like (and wear) the blue/white too, and I'm miffed at what's happened. But I am powerless to change it. The AF and NB aren't going to care about what some CAP Captain who has never served above squadron level thinks.
We are not necessarily powerless. This item may come up again at the NB. Let me give you a little insight on the how it is in the regular Air Force. Air Force personnel make comments on uniforms against National Guard and Reservists too. Its standard Bowl of Milk stuff that goes on, its not just CAP targeted.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on November 30, 2009, 07:07:35 AM
Ned, I respect you highly – every comment I have ever seen posted and your personal messages to me oozed respect and dignity. That's why I was surprised to see your posts to Maj. Carrales. I am also going to have to disagree with you to a point – the USAF Core Values and the CAP Core Values.
CAP Core Values are Respect, Integrity, Excellence, and Volunteerism. Nowhere did I see the USAF Core Value "Faith in the System" in there and I believe there is a reason why. We are not strict military – we are not subject to UCMJ. We are para-military. And our leadership is no longer military, it is 'para-military / para-corporate' (we are a dysfunctional blend of the two completely different style of big bureaucracies). While I have come to believe that is one of the reason our head leadership is having difficulties, it plays out here where the "public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership" is not going against a CAP Core Value – this discussion actually is about us striving for Excellence.
Joe posted that he agreed with my points, but felt that I was missing his point concerning the quality (or lack thereof) of the provided information concerning the NECs reasoning.
I agree that "Faith in the System" is a bullet under the AF Core Value of "Service Before Self" which is why I pointed out that it came from the USAF Little Blue Book.
While CAP doesn't have a Little Blue Book (we do have a shorter pamphlet, but they are not the same thing), as you point out we have a Core Values of Respect, Integrity, Excellence, and Volunteerism.
Are you suggesting that it is not inherent in the first three to have Faith in the System?
Restated, is it your position that it is perfectly ethical for CAP officers and leaders to publicly question and criticisize the decisions of our duly appointed superior officers? Isn't that part of the "salute and execute?"
I hope you would agree with me that it is improper for a squadron commander to stand in front of the formation and say "those clowns at group have ordered us to have an SUI, but they never gave us a good reason."
And if you can't do it in front of the formation, why is it OK to do it publicly and permanently on the internet?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Faith in the System is not a CAP value. Let's just look at our very own Core Value of Respect.
Which of these comments do you feel meet the Core Values of Respect? Which are part of a legitimate search for excellence?
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 12:58:42 AM
I am really P.O.ed. [ . . .]. Who do I complain to when the NEC are the ones who commit waste and abuse of its membership.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 01:17:16 AM
I watched the NEC stream. Most the the bird colonels looked like slobs in the grey and whites. [ . . .] I am also getting tired of ranking officers telling me I can not wear the AF uniform because of h/w requirements when it is obvious that their Fat A.. doesn't either.
Quote from: heliodoc on November 08, 2009, 03:24:11 AM
With ALL the CLOWNING around CAP does with this and these uniforms, how can anyone profess to claim pride with the circus atmosphere of these so called leaders changing with the wind.
It is a SHAME that adults volunteering or getting paid at these NEC events or NB for completely lame decisions. And there were plenty of these folks around in the Pineda era kissing fanny and buying in on this crap. Too bad CAP isn't adult enough in refunding the money to ALLLL those who bought those silly uniforms.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 03:36:00 AM
But the NEC can't seem to see off the end of their colective noses.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 04:45:27 AM
It is the lack of real leadership at the national level. Why follow people who are running in circles and throwing away my money in the process. [ . . .] How can I continue to follow leadership that acts on a whim.
Quote from: wingnut55 on November 08, 2009, 05:04:49 PM
It does not matter what we want, it is a bunch of arm chair leaders who get to where they are at by way of the peter principle.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 10:12:43 PM
Thus, arbitrary changes in Uniform Policy MUST be AVOIDED at all COSTS. Forget being "unfair" to those that buy, but I submit that the practice is a "waste, fraud and abuse" of member funds better applied to other things.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 10:57:56 PMThat is arbitrary...it was done for the sake of "because." Because schmucks didn't like it and those that bought it be [darn]ed.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 11:54:35 PM
This action is likely a travesty of that ideal. If you screw with the membership in this manner, then how can one expect loyalty?
To take the ground floor out from members over policies is a horrible precedent. This outrages me more on that matter than on anything else, save likely the incredible waste of resources.
Quote from: Spike on November 09, 2009, 03:06:52 AM
Wow. This Sucks. [ . . .]
This decision is one of the finest screw-ups I have seen in CAP in at least 10 years. [. . .]
I now hope that membership drops significantly.
Quote from: Spike on November 09, 2009, 04:20:13 PM
They rarely make decisions that are for the good of the membership. The decisions are political and for their own sake.
Quote from: heliodoc on November 10, 2009, 04:22:06 PM
Obviously some clown and other clowns in this organization (CAP) voted to some facsimile, got a bunch of people in the CSU and other clowns at Vanguard benefited from the deal due to a bunch of folks who really do not understand the uniform process at all. Just voting willy nilly on something is what CAP is currently good at.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 10, 2009, 11:14:58 PM
Congratulations on (presumably) not being overweight, having a beard, or long hair, nor ever being in a situation where you put in hours/weeks/months of effort into a CAP project or duty, only to feel like a second-class citizen because you have a thyroid condition which will not allow you to shed enough weight to get into spec.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 28, 2009, 10:49:54 PMIf you are overweight, for whatever reason, than I am sorry, tough luck. [ . . .] the continued politicking that runs RAMPENT through this organization.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 28, 2009, 11:45:52 PM
Obviously the idea escapes you that its unfair to expect volunteers to be treated fairly and equally for the work and effort they put into the same organization.
Quote from: cap235629 on November 29, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
MG Courter is a former board member [. . .] I would love for her to step on a scale!
Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 30, 2009, 12:36:32 PM
It's true our leadership is handling this matter in a most inept fashion.
Hmmm. "Slobs", "Clowns", "arm chair leaders", accusations of fraud and corruption, cheap shots at General Courter about her weight, etc.
That cannot be what you meant when you said this conversation was about the pursuit of excellence.
But it was what I was referring two when I wrote about "public griping, whining, and personal criticism of our leadership." And also what I meant when I said that these kinds of comments are inconsistent with our core values.
Like, say, Respect.
I have absolutely no problems with a legitimate discussion of the issues. And folks are certainly free to agree and disagree with any person or decision in CAP.
But publicly insulting our leadership is out of bounds for current CAP leaders who take their oath and core values seriously.
And this is just a decision about
uniforms, for Goodness sakes. Think what might have happend if the decision affected something truly important.
Ned Lee
HEY!
Don't lump me in with that crowd insulting the leadership! My responses were directed to others on this board, and neither you quote above do I view as disrespectful or outside the core values.
Ned –
I agree with you that insulting the leadership on a personal basis is wrong. Pointing out errors by the leadership is not. Having faith in the system is a value – as long as the system can have faith in it. It is an inherent American Core Value to question our leaders, even in the military. It is that very questioning that allows us to have faith in a system – because it withstands the questioning that is directed at it.
The revolutionaries had lost faith in the Monarchial System, they spoke out against it, then they took action against the system they had lost faith in. Remember that at one time (particularly during the Civil War), officers of the U.S. Army were elected to their positions. This ended up being an un-manageable system and was changed because people had lost faith in it.
Gen. McPeak proposed a new service uniform that put the USAF in an uproar – so much so that the AF removed the uniform before it reached the mandatory wear date. There were letters written to the AF Times, various articles published about it, etc. Did the USAF collapse as a result of the questioning in the system?
The membership has lost a lot of faith in the system of how CAP is being led – not necessarily the leaders themselves, but in the system that it has evolved into. That has been the one repeated comments on the board – is the WAY in which decisions were being made and by whom. CAP suffers from not having a clear head of agency – Is it the BoG, the NEC, the NB, the National CC, Cap-USAF, Executive Director?????????
Many previous posts have pointed this out. We do not have a clear-cut high leadership Chain of Command like the military does. Heck the National CC & National CV is elected by their subordinates. Where does that happen in the military? Even the official organization chart in 20-1 (Fig 1) is a box shape and the top label is BOTH the NEC & NB. I didn't even see the BoG on a chart. As I said in a previous post, we are a 'para-military / para-corporate' structure (we are a dysfunctional blend of the two completely different style of big bureaucracies).
Basic Leadership 101: We all know that if a person is delegated the responsibility, they must be delegated the authority to fulfill that responsibility. Where do we have that at CAP? At Region and below. IMHO, the NatCC does not have the authority that they should. CAP has responsibility, but it does not have the all of the authority it needs. Hence, the leadership quandry with which we are faced.
Do you propose that we turn our backs on an American Value of free speech, of questioning the leadership, of proposing new ideas, of trying to improve the system?
Ned, I don't think that a single person will refuse to carry out an order that is handed down. Dec 31, 2010, will be the last day I wear my CSU and I will enforce that with my subordinates, as I expect it to be enforced upon me. I will salute and execute.
Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2009, 08:30:26 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on November 30, 2009, 07:07:35 AM
Ned, I respect you highly – every comment I have ever seen posted and your personal messages to me oozed respect and dignity. That's why I was surprised to see your posts to Maj. Carrales. I am also going to have to disagree with you to a point – the USAF Core Values and the CAP Core Values.
CAP Core Values are Respect, Integrity, Excellence, and Volunteerism. Nowhere did I see the USAF Core Value "Faith in the System" in there and I believe there is a reason why. We are not strict military – we are not subject to UCMJ. We are para-military. And our leadership is no longer military, it is 'para-military / para-corporate' (we are a dysfunctional blend of the two completely different style of big bureaucracies). While I have come to believe that is one of the reason our head leadership is having difficulties, it plays out here where the "public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership" is not going against a CAP Core Value – this discussion actually is about us striving for Excellence.
Joe posted that he agreed with my points, but felt that I was missing his point concerning the quality (or lack thereof) of the provided information concerning the NECs reasoning.
I agree that "Faith in the System" is a bullet under the AF Core Value of "Service Before Self" which is why I pointed out that it came from the USAF Little Blue Book.
While CAP doesn't have a Little Blue Book (we do have a shorter pamphlet, but they are not the same thing), as you point out we have a Core Values of Respect, Integrity, Excellence, and Volunteerism.
Are you suggesting that it is not inherent in the first three to have Faith in the System?
Restated, is it your position that it is perfectly ethical for CAP officers and leaders to publicly question and criticisize the decisions of our duly appointed superior officers? Isn't that part of the "salute and execute?"
I hope you would agree with me that it is improper for a squadron commander to stand in front of the formation and say "those clowns at group have ordered us to have an SUI, but they never gave us a good reason."
And if you can't do it in front of the formation, why is it OK to do it publicly and permanently on the internet?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Faith in the System is not a CAP value. Let's just look at our very own Core Value of Respect.
Which of these comments do you feel meet the Core Values of Respect? Which are part of a legitimate search for excellence?
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 12:58:42 AM
I am really P.O.ed. [ . . .]. Who do I complain to when the NEC are the ones who commit waste and abuse of its membership.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 01:17:16 AM
I watched the NEC stream. Most the the bird colonels looked like slobs in the grey and whites. [ . . .] I am also getting tired of ranking officers telling me I can not wear the AF uniform because of h/w requirements when it is obvious that their Fat A.. doesn't either.
Quote from: heliodoc on November 08, 2009, 03:24:11 AM
With ALL the CLOWNING around CAP does with this and these uniforms, how can anyone profess to claim pride with the circus atmosphere of these so called leaders changing with the wind.
It is a SHAME that adults volunteering or getting paid at these NEC events or NB for completely lame decisions. And there were plenty of these folks around in the Pineda era kissing fanny and buying in on this crap. Too bad CAP isn't adult enough in refunding the money to ALLLL those who bought those silly uniforms.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 03:36:00 AM
But the NEC can't seem to see off the end of their colective noses.
Quote from: Paper Pusher on November 08, 2009, 04:45:27 AM
It is the lack of real leadership at the national level. Why follow people who are running in circles and throwing away my money in the process. [ . . .] How can I continue to follow leadership that acts on a whim.
Quote from: wingnut55 on November 08, 2009, 05:04:49 PM
It does not matter what we want, it is a bunch of arm chair leaders who get to where they are at by way of the peter principle.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 10:12:43 PM
Thus, arbitrary changes in Uniform Policy MUST be AVOIDED at all COSTS. Forget being "unfair" to those that buy, but I submit that the practice is a "waste, fraud and abuse" of member funds better applied to other things.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 10:57:56 PMThat is arbitrary...it was done for the sake of "because." Because schmucks didn't like it and those that bought it be [darn]ed.
Quote from: Major Carrales on November 08, 2009, 11:54:35 PM
This action is likely a travesty of that ideal. If you screw with the membership in this manner, then how can one expect loyalty?
To take the ground floor out from members over policies is a horrible precedent. This outrages me more on that matter than on anything else, save likely the incredible waste of resources.
Quote from: Spike on November 09, 2009, 03:06:52 AM
Wow. This Sucks. [ . . .]
This decision is one of the finest screw-ups I have seen in CAP in at least 10 years. [. . .]
I now hope that membership drops significantly.
Quote from: Spike on November 09, 2009, 04:20:13 PM
They rarely make decisions that are for the good of the membership. The decisions are political and for their own sake.
Quote from: heliodoc on November 10, 2009, 04:22:06 PM
Obviously some clown and other clowns in this organization (CAP) voted to some facsimile, got a bunch of people in the CSU and other clowns at Vanguard benefited from the deal due to a bunch of folks who really do not understand the uniform process at all. Just voting willy nilly on something is what CAP is currently good at.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 10, 2009, 11:14:58 PM
Congratulations on (presumably) not being overweight, having a beard, or long hair, nor ever being in a situation where you put in hours/weeks/months of effort into a CAP project or duty, only to feel like a second-class citizen because you have a thyroid condition which will not allow you to shed enough weight to get into spec.
Quote from: NCRblues on November 28, 2009, 10:49:54 PMIf you are overweight, for whatever reason, than I am sorry, tough luck. [ . . .] the continued politicking that runs RAMPENT through this organization.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 28, 2009, 11:45:52 PM
Obviously the idea escapes you that its unfair to expect volunteers to be treated fairly and equally for the work and effort they put into the same organization.
Quote from: cap235629 on November 29, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
MG Courter is a former board member [. . .] I would love for her to step on a scale!
Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 30, 2009, 12:36:32 PM
It's true our leadership is handling this matter in a most inept fashion.
Hmmm. "Slobs", "Clowns", "arm chair leaders", accusations of fraud and corruption, cheap shots at General Courter about her weight, etc.
That cannot be what you meant when you said this conversation was about the pursuit of excellence.
But it was what I was referring two when I wrote about "public griping, whining, and personal criticism of our leadership." And also what I meant when I said that these kinds of comments are inconsistent with our core values.
Like, say, Respect.
I have absolutely no problems with a legitimate discussion of the issues. And folks are certainly free to agree and disagree with any person or decision in CAP.
But publicly insulting our leadership is out of bounds for current CAP leaders who take their oath and core values seriously.
And this is just a decision about uniforms, for Goodness sakes. Think what might have happend if the decision affected something truly important.
Ned Lee
Respectfully, the uniform may have been born out of ego, but it created a sense of pride in the organization and an ability to display it. Taking that ability away is causing the uproar.
Quote from: FARRIER on November 30, 2009, 10:11:13 PM
Respectfully, the uniform may have been born out of ego, but it created a sense of pride in the organization and an ability to display it. Taking that ability away is causing the uproar.
Based on the way the TPU was born, this monstrosity should have never seen the light of day.
That being said, the way it is being pulled is disrespectful and costly to the members that invested in it.
I agree though that the "Non compliant" members should have a sharp uniform. Ultimately, it would behoove CAP to switch to a singular uniform that is sharp and bling can be displayed on and have the same effect as the AF uniform.
Personally, I think the AF style uniform with the gray slides looks hideous... but that is just my clothier styling selfs opinion...
Quote from: Pumbaa on November 30, 2009, 10:23:58 PM
I agree though that the "Non compliant" members should have a sharp uniform.
Or we could embrace the ideals of the EOT training and simply do away with the notion that anyone who volunteers their time in
service to their country is "non-compliant", and then rework the program from there...
Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2009, 10:32:40 PM
Or we could embrace the ideals of the EOT training and simply do away with the notion that anyone who volunteers their time in
service to their country is "non-compliant", and then rework the program from there...
Agreed Eclipse...
I am overweight again. I am bone on bone with my knees so I am limited in running, walking, bending, lifting, etc.... Until I get my knees replaced there is not a lot I can do... I also choose to have a neatly trimmed goatee that covers a scar.
CAP does need to embrace EOT training ideals...
I'm a cadet, so I'm a little biased.
It seems ridiculous to have two uniforms for members who, for whatever reason, can't wear AF uniforms. It's unfortunate that many members wasted money...but the sooner they pulled the plug on this uniform, the better. It's a shame they didn't do so sooner though.
I'm also appalled at the attacks at our National Commander on this thread. Even though you may be anonymous on this forum, you still should not resort to personal attacks of leaders.
Another thing-a big part of the Cadet Program is Physical Fitness. Although SMs don't have physical standards other than weight, shouldn't they still strive to lose any excess weight and demonstrate a healthy lifestyle for members, especially cadets they deal with? I appreciate some have injuries etc that preclude weight loss, but it's still excessive to have 3 uniform combos for SMs.
I have always wondered why on non-assinged AF missions we can wear the AF style uniform but we hd to take USAF AUX off are planes becuse of fedreal PC LAWS.. We also have a coporate uniform (grey and whites that has a name tag with AF auxiliary on it. It is just my opiion thatthe AF cant stand us being in a proffesional looking uniform. At this point I would say ditch the AF uniform and just have a corporate uniform that is backed by congress. There are so many other counties around the world with a program like CAP and the thier parent orginization has no problem with them wearing uniforms. I an so tired of the speculation has to why we have to ditch the CSU.Give me the hard facts. I am so sickof CAP having to kiss the Air Forces butt, I have seen it for the last 18 years........
Quote from: Strick on November 30, 2009, 11:18:35 PM
I have always wondered why on non-assinged AF missions we can wear the AF style uniform but we hd to take USAF AUX off are planes becuse of fedreal PC LAWS.. We also have a coporate uniform (grey and whites that has a name tag with AF auxiliary on it. It is just my opiion thatthe AF cant stand us being in a proffesional looking uniform. At this point I would say ditch the AF uniform and just have a corporate uniform that is backed by congress. There are so many other counties around the world with a program like CAP and the thier parent orginization has no problem with them wearing uniforms. I an so tired of the speculation has to why we have to ditch the CSU.Give me the hard facts. I am so sickof CAP having to kiss the Air Forces butt, I have seen it for the last 18 years........
Comments and tone like this don't help the situation.
Quote from: Strick on November 30, 2009, 11:18:35 PM
It is just my opiion thatthe AF cant stand us being in a proffesional looking uniform.
It's a lack of professional appearance that has been a problem in the past. I have had issues with many members that are sloppy in appearance in any of our uniforms. You want a professional looking uniform? Look professional in one.
I've been on installations and saw CAP members that looked like dog squeeze in what they were wearing. Unauthorized T-shirts, inappropriate belts and boots, lack of an iron, unauthorized patches and so on.
It's even more embarrassing when someone that knows I'm CAP says "Hey, aren't you with them, too?" I've approached more than a few members in such an environment, and explained that their appearance is unacceptable. More than a few times, I've gotten an "F you!". I've followed up with more than a few commanders about it too. I shouldn't have to, and I really shouldn't have to make these corrections in the first place.
Quote from: Strick on November 30, 2009, 11:18:35 PM
At this point I would say ditch the AF uniform and just have a corporate uniform that is backed by congress.
May as well ditch the Air Force. If you don't want the Air Force telling you what to do, then give up the benefits of being associated with the Air Force. No more State Directors to get aircraft rides for cadets. No more space on military installations. No more free uniforms to cadets. No more base liaisons. No more free flying. You don't want the accountability, then have the guts to give up
everything.
As to kissing tail, we should quit stepping on their toes. Going straight to Congress when the Air Force tells us "no" isn't much different than going to Grandma when Mommy tells you "no". The same level of immaturity is present here.
Many people here seem to think that they're
entitled to whatever uniform they want, whatever support they want, whatever answers they want. But many don't seem to think that they should be told what they can or can't do.
Yeah, there are volunteers here. I did the same thing when I joined the military, I volunteered. The difference between CAP and the military is that the military pays me and with the military, I may be called to give my own life in defense of this country. CAP asks for a
lot less, but many members seem to demand a lot more.
Quote from: Strick on November 30, 2009, 11:18:35 PMI am so sickof CAP having to kiss the Air Forces butt, I have seen it for the last 18 years........
Easy way around that. The 2B has a voluntary resignation option. Turn over your ID card and it's done.
Wow.
Who needs reality TV when there's CAPTalk...
I had blind faith in the system when I joined cap as a little middle schooler. Now I can't. How can I have faith in the system when we have very politically powered corrupt governance? Things are trying to be fixed now, but we are still feeling the damage from past underhandedness. In NCR alone, most state governments don't want to even talk to us because they are afraid of getting dragged into the next tony pineda scandal that comes along. Repeated attempts to make contact with the Missouri government are meat with "thanks for calling, the (enter elected officials name here) is very busy and will get back to you in the near future". I still go out and try everyday (almost) to make cap look great, but it is so hard when cap made national news about the pineda incident, then dropped off the map. Most potential customers only know us from that time. Unfortunate it is but there it is. Then we have a governance body that brings in a uniform (under shadowy circumstances) and 3 years later, bam its gone.....with little explination. I am happy about the uniform leaving, not the way it left. No one really knows who runs cap nowadays, were divided on which way to take cap in the future (which is now no longer the future, it's here and were lost...) uniform problems, archer problems, funding cuts, unhappy air force. Faith in the system for me is shaken.
Highdpeedlowdrag, no harm no foul, sometimes we let ourselves get carried away, when we love something as much as we both love cap. Carry on sir.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on November 30, 2009, 09:58:32 PM
Ned –
I agree with you that insulting the leadership on a personal basis is wrong. Pointing out errors by the leadership is not. Having faith in the system is a value – as long as the system can have faith in it. It is an inherent American Core Value to question our leaders, even in the military. It is that very questioning that allows us to have faith in a system – because it withstands the questioning that is directed at it.
It sounds like we agree on more than we disagree, but in this context semantics are important.
I agree that mere "pointing out of errors by leadership" is not inherently improper, but context and setting can be critical here.
Example: If you and I are sitting in a lounge enjoying a Guinness, there is certainly nothing improper about your sharing a perceived error by your wing commander with me. (Although it would certainly be more effective if you shared your perceptions with the wing commander her/himself.)
Example: You are standing in front of a squadron formation and announce "the Wing Commander is in error and this is why . . . .". This is problematic.
The reason is that you have a duty as an officer and subordinate leader to publicly support your superiors and their decisions, even when you personally feel they are in error.
Similarly, I cannot agree that it is always an inherent American right to question our leaders. Sometimes we forego that right as a condition of government service or membership in an organization.
Example: A reporter at a press conference, or an individual at a town hall meeting (or simply among friends) are both free to question their leaders, even pointedly.
Example: A junior State Department employee is not free to publicly question the actions and decisions of the Secretary of State and/or the President unless and until she/he resigns.
Officers and leaders in CAP have the very real duty to express their disagreements with their superiors, but it should done privately and through approprate channels.
And it sounds like we agree that many of the comments I excerpted were innapropriate and potentially in violation of one or more of our Core Values.
Quote from: Pumbaa on November 30, 2009, 10:42:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2009, 10:32:40 PM
Or we could embrace the ideals of the EOT training and simply do away with the notion that anyone who volunteers their time in
service to their country is "non-compliant", and then rework the program from there...
Agreed Eclipse...
I am overweight again. I am bone on bone with my knees so I am limited in running, walking, bending, lifting, etc.... Until I get my knees replaced there is not a lot I can do... I also choose to have a neatly trimmed goatee that covers a scar.
CAP does need to embrace EOT training ideals...
Get an elyptical exercise machine. You'll like it and so will your knees.
Quote from: Ned on December 01, 2009, 12:41:42 AM
Officers and leaders in CAP have the very real duty to express their disagreements with their superiors, but it should done privately and through appropriate channels.
And it sounds like we agree that many of the comments I excerpted were inappropriate and potentially in violation of one or more of our Core Values.
Wow...will you hold everyone to this, or just people who "side" with you? I can recall several dozen times where I have pointed out such issues and your "silence" the matter was "deafening." Such as when the tag line "More than Meets the Skies" was presented and people were far more vitriolic than have been on this issue making much more "fun" of that than was possible. And yes, I was at the 2007 PAO academy where it was unveiled by "professionals," and (YES AGAIN) Maj General Courter had a presented "plan" for CAP branding and marketing.
I have been trying to uphold standards of civility on here and have called for tempered judgment based on facts going back to the dark days of 2007.
To show the core value Integrity I will stand by my statements which you have pulled out of context, these are after all opinions on policy and the day when such opinions aren't allowed to be spoken in CAP arrives we will have lost something truly "American" in the CAP.
Arbitrary changes in Uniform Policy MUST be AVOIDED at all COSTS. (which began with a "thus," deleting the context of what this was the aimed at) Deleting the CSU caused a "waste" of member funds, was "fraud" in that no warning was given in over 2 years of compliance, and any waste of membership finance is "abuse" of member funds better applied to other things. To have done so with out official explanation, creating a culture of speculative association does us no service.
Arbitrary means thing were done for the sake of "because." The "schmucks" I am referring to are people that fail to take membership expenditure into account. Such expenditure is the life blood of CAP. When we "pony up" money for things, contribute to a unit property or buy uniforms (which are mandatory in most CAP missions) that is what make CAP function at the squadron level. People's desire to "see this that way in terms of 'bling'" or "I think we need to authorize this because the USAF, or name your agency here, has it" is unthinking of the overall expense. Removal of a uniform because it "bothers" a person (and the cheering that began this thread) are uncalled for.
I will say this for my over all point on the matter, most that say that they will "walk" because of this likely would not do so if they had a statement from National or CAP-USAF that said the USAF objected. Right now the "hodge-podge" of speculation and hearsay does not inspire a reversal of the a fore mentioned sentiments, which reinforces the idea that..."If you screw with the membership in this manner, then how can one expect loyalty?"
Removing the "ground floor" from members, many of whom had waited a significant time before purchase and (note: I asked CAP-USAF officials, and other did as well, if this uniform was objectionable or slated for removal) asked leadership if the CSU was a "keeper" and were either met with silence or "its up to you." That remains a horrible precedent becoming common in many CAP circles.
Last minute additions of pet projects and changes effecting the entire CAP, little visible planning. There was even a Uniform Committee that seems to have fizzled into CAP history... What was that? "opium for the masses?" To make us think we, CAP as an organization, had some control? CAP "Student Council?" It would have been glorious and demonstrated that some degree of PLANNING had taken place.
These are real issues that CAP needs to address and I would be remiss on the Core Value of Excellence of I failed to point them out.
Just my opinion, for what it is worth, reading the applicable AFI's I have come to the conclusion that the CSU must go away. It is too close to the Army Service Uniform to avoid conflict with AF Instructions...... Now as to why this has been handled in the way was, who knows what is going on. I just don't see any dark or nefarious plots in the shadows. I am also disgusted by all of the venom that I have seen expended on this issue. There issues with the Grey and White uniform combination, we can fix it if we work with the AF and other interested parties.
It is very easy to criticize members who "vent" on CT. I've noticed that we tend to get more upset when we are treated poorly or worse; ignored. It is a point that should be made and taken seriously. Behaviorists have studied this issue over and over. The consensus is unanimous. Ignore them and, they will leave; usually mad and, at many times, verbal. Make them feel wanted and, they will stay, be happy and productive. It's a pretty basic principle.
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 01, 2009, 01:10:00 AM
...
Arbitrary means thing were done for the sake of "because." The "schmucks" I am referring to are people that fail to take membership expenditure into account. Such expenditure is the life blood of CAP. When we "pony up" money for things, contribute to a unit property or buy uniforms (which are mandatory in most CAP missions) that is what make CAP function at the squadron level. People's desire to "see this that way in terms of 'bling'" or "I think we need to authorize this because the USAF, or name your agency here, has it" is unthinking of the overall expense. Removal of a uniform because it "bothers" a person (and the cheering that began this thread) are uncalled for.
...
Maybe in addition to the "Estimated Funding Impact" item on the agendas, they should have
"Estimated Cost to Members" or some such thing.
^^^^ That's a great idea!
I've said it before and I'll say it again 'til I see it on the agenda. >:D
This has to become part of the culture on the Board. They must consider the impact their decisions have on volunteers who are paying A LOT of money to volunteer. I dare say that'd have an impact on retention.
Quote from: JC004 on December 01, 2009, 02:26:29 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again 'til I see it on the agenda. >:D
This has to become part of the culture on the Board. They must consider the impact their decisions have on volunteers who are paying A LOT of money to volunteer. I dare say that'd have an impact on retention.
Amen :clap: Retention is a huge deal and that is one thing that we have not addressed before on this thread regarding uniforms. Good thought. A friend of mine just got back from NSC and according to what he learned there, we loose a member for every member we get. Why? Could this lack of focus, lack of a leadership system be contributory?
+1 JC004!!
From everything I have read and/or heard on the issue, the only thing that is clear is ... NOTHING about the decision to end the CSU is clear.
Now realize, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who shelled out some serious coin to make that uniform a part of my kit, because -- when I first considered rejoining CAP -- there was no way I could have worn the AF uniform. That no longer applies; I am now well within both CAP and AF guidelines for uniform wear.
But you know what? I, too, think the CSU was a sharp-looking uniform. Could it have been handled better? Yes. While I like the hard rank, I also don't have any issue with wearing gray epaulet sleeves on the CSU coat. And we never should have infringed on AF rank slides ... why was it so difficult to just put the gray slides on the aviator shirt for the CSU, as we do for the gray slacks?
All that aside, I'm not upset about the CSU being yanked because of the money I spent on it. I've spent a lot more on things that didn't get anywhere near the use, and I don't regret any of those, either. No, what upsets me is that the decision appears, as Sparky has said, totally arbitrary.
From here, it looks like someone on the NEC didn't like the uniform and saw the latest meeting as their chance to make a move. Add to that the current AF advisor (or whatever Col. Ward's title is) not liking the CSU as well, and it didn't matter that perhaps thousands of members had bought the outfit or that the current National CC wears it from time to time -- it had to go.
If that's the case, just say so. I still won't like the decision ... but I'll have a heck of a lot more respect for the "process" that made it. Just say that the uniform hacked you off and you wanted to get rid of it and found the right time ... don't give me any claptrap about "AF didn't like it" or "it was causing issues". Just say that you hated it and wanted it gone and had the power to make it so.
(I really shouldn't try to post when I'm on 2 1/2 hours of sleep. If any of this made sense to you, please explain it to me ...)
Jack
Ok simple question, does everyone believe that the emails from region cc's (and I believe there was one from a wing king but can't seem to find it) and the power point from cap/cc just a lie about the air force applying pressure? And if you think so can you explain your reasoning?
Quote from: NCRblues on December 01, 2009, 03:53:31 AM
Ok simple question, does everyone believe that the emails from region cc’s (and I believe there was one from a wing king but can’t seem to find it) and the power point from cap/cc just a lie about the air force applying pressure? And if you think so can you explain your reasoning?
Considering you don't even know the names of the sources and don't seem to know the exact content of the documents in question, I find your post most "unusual." Such a post requires research this occasion.
Show me these letters please that I might view them by your hand...
All it would take the end this is for CAP-USAF or the National Commander to make those statements and it all ends.
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 30, 2009, 02:46:49 AM
Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2009, 02:13:52 AM
Quote from: FW on November 30, 2009, 01:46:19 AMNed, very well said. However, I don't think anyone is advocating a refusal to obey any ICL or future directive.
Well, at this point there isn't even an ICL to obey or not.
But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread is that a fair number of CAP officers are not displaying "faith in the system", but rather actively and publicly griping, whining, and criticising the senior leadership because they (presumeably in good faith) either
a) personally disagree with the decision,
b) feel as if their personal needs were not adequately considered, or
c) feel as if the explanations offered by the NEC are somehow "inadequate."
And it just seems to me that public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership is not helpful (in the sense that it is unlikely to change the decision in question), and seems inconsistent with some of our Core Values.
Especially on the part of CAP officers.
Ned Lee
I don't believe people are complaingin because their "needs" haven't been adequately met, but rather because It seems like NHQ is ignoring their own processes. E-mails, postings on a message board and powerpoint slideshows of unknown origin are not substitutes for ICLs and official communications.
This link: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/uniform_information/ is still working on the NHQ website as of 2037 local on Sunday night. How hard would it be for the webmaster to take the page down?
How hard would it be to issue an ICL? It seems to me NHQ is trying to lead by floating trail baloons. "I got this email from a Region Commander" "This powerpoint is from Amy Courter herself" does not constitute orders. And the ppt was offensive and insulting to a lot of people, myself included.
As far as refusing to follow orders, no one here has suggested that. I would put on a Noriega shirt if the order came on MG Courter's letterhead. Instead, we get backchannel chatter and speculation as official communicaiton, and NHQ has allowed this to continue for over a week. Thanksgiving break is over kids, time to put out something OFFICIAL.
2200 Monday and NHQ website still has this page up. Just sayin'.
oh major, you make me laugh
The power point was posted on response #617 as well as #504. Response #296 from Ohio wing king, response #246 for glr/cc
My question still stands, are they lies?
Quote from: NCRblues link=topic=9272.msg170112#msg1701http://captalk.net/Smileys/default/clap.gif ;)12 date=1259640512
oh major, you make me laugh
The power point was posted on response #617 as well as #504. Response #296 from Ohio wing king, response #246 for glr/cc
Glad I could oblige...
Just making sure you're keeping up your end. ;)
Quote from: NCRblues on December 01, 2009, 03:53:31 AM
Ok simple question, does everyone believe that the emails from region cc’s (and I believe there was one from a wing king but can’t seem to find it) and the power point from cap/cc just a lie about the air force applying pressure? And if you think so can you explain your reasoning?
I didn’t see the Region CC’s email, so I can’t comment. As far as the slides from CAP/CC, I’m not sure that I believe that it came from her. From what I have seen, MG Courter seems to be a professional and interested in us all working together. The wording in the slides, especially with some of the key issues, makes it seem to me that someone prepared it and (at best) went out over her signature. Also, the briefing seems to be past tense as to what happened, as well as there were a lot of points included that were being very hotly debated on CT at the time. Honestly, just not enough evidence either way, but my 17 years of people not being truthful with me is making my neck hairs tingle. I would not be at all surprised if it was manufactured to “prove” a point, but at the same time I am not saying that it was manufactured. If it did come from National, then it just tells me that HQ classifies me as a second-class member b/c I am not worthy of wearing a nice uniform and that my opinion (and most everyone else’s) means diddly to them. Either scenario is bad. But – all this is pure speculation. Until HQ puts something out (which we are all desperately waiting for), we just have speculation. That is why there are groups actively working on proposals - to get this uniform stuff behind us once and for all. PS - In the time it took to me to write this and eat a sandwhich, 4 posts. It is hard to keep up
The multimedia presentation (which I had not analyzed in full until now) by Major General Courter (if they are genuine, Major General Courter is usually more "professional" in the generation of her multimedia) I would consider an official source, however, I must point out the most disturbing elements of this whole matter. Assuming this is real and not some clever chicanery)
March-Aug 2006, the uniform was approved by various actions of the NB and NEC including several changes after the "horse was out of the gate," i.e. the 1 line nameplate replaced with the 2 line. Jackets went into production. That is the first instance of "wasted member funds." The "US" lapel pins were replaced by CAP ones, (second waste of money) By November 2006 (three years ago) its protocols/customs/procedure was codified.
However, as early as August 2006
Quote"HQ USAF/A3/5 General Officer wrote to BoG
• Concerned that the blue/white uniform “does not meet the “does not meet the
letter and intent” of policy guidance
• Concerned that it “is not significantly different from the U.S. Armed Forces uniforms to
avoid confusion”
• Directed that all future corporate uniforms to be vetted through USAF, too.
(to ensure distinctiveness)
And here is where I am made even more irate... Despite this being known, more and more developments to the uniform were added up to as late as September 2009 (two months before the "surprised" nixing of it all. >:(
Why was this allowed to happen? Were talking three years here!!! :'( I submit that there is the "appearance" that policies of the NB and NEC "misrepresented" the situation to the general membership and maybe even Vanguard and lead to a flagrant significant waste of member resources. In my eye that sort of goes against the Core Value of Excellence. But that is, of course, opinion and speculation of the same sort I have been pointing out and will only entertain that as nothing more than blarney.
I am very very put out by this... I am throwing my support to all uniform proposals being put through a "member expense" caveat and research period and that all future proposals of the NB or NEC include research to determine the effects of these changes to members. Maybe making this extra step will prevent sudden uniform changes, additions and amendments to CAP Uniform Policy and avoid such debacles in the future.
This is sick...I may be physically ill!!! I hope much is learned from this and that a mitigation action be placed into effect to commence immediately.
Quote from: ColonelJack on December 01, 2009, 03:43:11 AM
If that's the case, just say so. I still won't like the decision ... but I'll have a heck of a lot more respect for the "process" that made it. Just say that the uniform hacked you off and you wanted to get rid of it and found the right time ... don't give me any claptrap about "AF didn't like it" or "it was causing issues". Just say that you hated it and wanted it gone and had the power to make it so.
Isn't it possible, just possible, that someone high enough in the AF food chain came to the CAP/CC and said "I hate that uniform and it hacks me off, get rid of it"? Just like with the berry boards, don't expect a specific AF name to be attached to the edict the world doesn't work that way. This was an easy fix for the AF, I mean what possible pay back could there be for the AF? The AF doesn't give a tinker's *#(^ about CAP recruiting/retention, morale or cost to members. They can't fix their own uniform problems or effectively control their overweight personnel, been on a base lately or seen some of the ANG/Res folks walking around? CAP is an easy fix, they say jump and we ask "how high" and with no paybacks. It has always been that way, based on my 30+ yrs. membership, and I don't see it changing. I also don't require a detailed explanation from CAP/CC or the NEC. Enough information has been leaked to make it pretty clear who was driving this decision. But if you expect Col Ward or some other AF officer to take ownership for this decision it will be a long wait, why shoud they be the bad guy when they can dump it on the CAP/CC or NEC. For those who have forgotten or weren't around this is the berry board debacle all over again.
By the way. For all of those who have wanted increased AF control of CAP, well here you have it. For what it's worth I haven't worn the AF style uniform for the last 10 yrs.
Quote from: NCRblues on December 01, 2009, 04:08:32 AM
The power point was posted on response #617 as well as #504. Response #296 from Ohio wing king, response #246 for glr/cc
My question still stands, are they lies?
Lies? Probably not, but they aren't exactly authoritative. I think it's reasonable to expect an organization with a history of governing by ICL to do more than pass around a couple of memos and a set of briefing notes.
Quote from: NC Hokie on December 01, 2009, 04:41:07 AMI think it's reasonable to expect an organization with a history of governing by ICL to do more than pass around a couple of memos and a set of briefing notes.
Why? Instead of supplementing pubs like they should have been, they've been using ICL's. So many people here believe that NB/NEC meeting minutes are regulatory, so why shouldn't a powerpoint presentation be? Why bother with anything formal when people are gonna accept the first thing they see anyway?
If people think some type of official documentation is required, then this entire discussion is seriously jumping the gun.
Well, here's my 2 cents...
I bought the Corporate Uniform coat a few years back, had it tailored, the whole nine. I'm a little cheesed-off if the PowerPoint in Response #617 was from the Nov. 2009 NEC meeting and is to be taken as gospel. However, I've resigned myself that the corporate coat can still be salvaged with a little modification, if the USAF would allow. For example:
-Owners of the corporate coat can have the epaulets removed, the silver braid removed, CAP cutouts removed, silver brush name tag removed, ribbons and badges removed, and then wear the magnetic CAP "pocket-thingie" nametag that is presently approved for the blazer in the left breast pocket. No hard rank, no military "look-a-like" parts to the AF-style, and people could still salvage their CSU coats. Keep the CAP buttons already on the coat--too much of a PITA to replace, and they have the CAP corporate symbol anyways. It could still be worn with the white and grays combo already approved--who cares if it may look a little out of place--we'd have to wear the blue blazer with white and grays anyways. This would also allow adaptations to the CSU coats presently in Vanguards stock, and give a "uniform" blazer coat from stock we already have.
-Maybe a gray garrison cap when this "new" coat configuration is worn (no silver braid on cap--just a gray garrison cap, like an "enlisted"-style cap). CAP garrison cap insignia worn as presently authorized on USAF garrison cap. No service cap analog. [This gray garrison cap could also be used with the CAP navy blue flight suit too, if chosen and authorized].
If the CSU coat in its present configuration has to go, don't throw it out completely (especially because poor people like me dropped a lot of coin on it)--just change it's configuration. The membership wins out (OK, a little bit to have the tailor remove the braid and epaulets, but its a small price to pay for a coat that couldn't be used otherwise), Vanguard wins out, and CAP and Big Blue win out by not having to cheese-off the membership too badly.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water--just change the bath water! :)
Quote from: ColonelJack on December 01, 2009, 03:43:11 AM
From everything I have read and/or heard on the issue, the only thing that is clear is ... NOTHING about the decision to end the CSU is clear.
I haven't either, sir. But at this point I'm operating as if the last time I wear mine will be 31 Dec 2010.
Quote from: ColonelJack on December 01, 2009, 03:43:11 AM
But you know what? I, too, think the CSU was a sharp-looking uniform. Could it have been handled better? Yes. While I like the hard rank, I also don't have any issue with wearing gray epaulet sleeves on the CSU coat. And we never should have infringed on AF rank slides ... why was it so difficult to just put the gray slides on the aviator shirt for the CSU, as we do for the gray slacks?
Colonel, I've been saying much the same.
When I first saw this uniform with the blue slides and hard rank, I thought "uh oh, someone's going to throw one over this." I am surprised it lasted as long as it did. I thought that when the uniform's originator went out, so would the uniform.
As I've posted before, I would advocate a
modified version of this uniform (blending it with the grey/white):
Ditch the blue nameplate, replace it with the standard grey/white
Ditch the AF blue epaulets and hard rank; replace with standard CAP grey
Ditch all Army black outergarments; keep A2 leather and blue flight jacket
Ditch the AF blue trousers
Remove the sleeve striping
Adopt a standard grey trouser model, preferably one that looks like it
belongs with a uniform
Adopt a dark-blue (not AF blue or Army black) pullover (need not be V-neck) sweater with standard CAP rank slides
Keep the brushed-silver nameplate that says "Civil Air Patrol"
I am not skilled with Photoshop so maybe someone who is can do a graphic of the blue CSU service coat with the grey/white. It would look different but I don't think it would look horrible.
Maybe that way we can at least keep the CSU service coat...maybe not.
Just a suggestion.
Reply to PACAPSM:
So, you'd be happy with a bunch of folks with shreds of fabric on the top of the shoulder seam, off-color stripes on the sleeve, with holes along each edge, and still forbidding members from wearing their awards in a dress environment?
Before you start on tailoring, I can tell you exactly what most of the members will do, if they bother to keep wearing the coat. Unbutton epaulet, take scissors and cut off epaulet as clost to the seam as possible (maybe) while avoiding cutting the coat. They aren't going to take the coat to a uniform shop, tailor, or seamstress. They aren't going to carefully open the seam to remove the epaulet. When you ask them about, you'll get a response silimar to "Well, you wanted the epaulet off and it's off."
ajarca, it was just an idea thrown out there to use the CSU coat for SOMETHING. I absolutely don't want to see the CSU go AT ALL! I absolutely DON'T want to give up the privilege to wear my awards and badges, or to see others lose that privilege! Please don't make assumptions about what I want or don't want. Much to your surprise (maybe), I've been at this "CAP game" for a little while now. The tone of your post appears that you might be assuming that you're talking to a child, or a complete idiot, who may not have already considered the concerns you brought up. You don't like the idea--OK. Duly noted. Take you're venom, scolding and condescending elsewhere. This an open forum where everyone can post they're ideas openly. Those who don't like the ideas have posted (for the most part) they're likes/dislikes constructively.
Notice I said "take to a tailor...". A good tailor can hide a lot of the sins you're talking about. If other SMs want to do the work themselves and possibly look a mess, that's on them. But I, for one, am NOT going to drop that much coin on this coat only to have it sit in my closet. I'll use it for SOMETHING, CAP or not.
After reading more of the posts on possible combos in other threads, I agree-maybe the CSU could be used in its present configuration with the whites and grays "as is". Should not get any complaints from the AF (uses CAP cutouts already with the hard rank, or if they said gray slides with gray name tag on coat, fine by me).
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 01, 2009, 04:33:49 AM
The multimedia presentation (which I had not analyzed in full until now) by Major General Courter (if they are genuine, Major General Courter is usually more "professional" in the generation of her multimedia) I would consider an official source, however, I must point out the most disturbing elements of this whole matter. Assuming this is real and not some clever chicanery)
March-Aug 2006, the uniform was approved by various actions of the NB and NEC including several changes after the "horse was out of the gate," i.e. the 1 line nameplate replaced with the 2 line. Jackets went into production. That is the first instance of "wasted member funds." The "US" lapel pins were replaced by CAP ones, (second waste of money) By November 2006 (three years ago) its protocols/customs/procedure was codified.
However, as early as August 2006
Quote"HQ USAF/A3/5 General Officer wrote to BoG
• Concerned that the blue/white uniform "does not meet the "does not meet the
letter and intent" of policy guidance
• Concerned that it "is not significantly different from the U.S. Armed Forces uniforms to
avoid confusion"
• Directed that all future corporate uniforms to be vetted through USAF, too.
(to ensure distinctiveness)
And here is where I am made even more irate... Despite this being known, more and more developments to the uniform were added up to as late as September 2009 (two months before the "surprised" nixing of it all. >:(
Why was this allowed to happen? Were talking three years here!!! :'( I submit that there is the "appearance" that policies of the NB and NEC "misrepresented" the situation to the general membership and maybe even Vanguard and lead to a flagrant significant waste of member resources. In my eye that sort of goes against the Core Value of Excellence. But that is, of course, opinion and speculation of the same sort I have been pointing out and will only entertain that as nothing more than blarney.
I am very very put out by this... I am throwing my support to all uniform proposals being put through a "member expense" caveat and research period and that all future proposals of the NB or NEC include research to determine the effects of these changes to members. Maybe making this extra step will prevent sudden uniform changes, additions and amendments to CAP Uniform Policy and avoid such debacles in the future.
This is sick...I may be physically ill!!! I hope much is learned from this and that a mitigation action be placed into effect to commence immediately.
Sparky, don't hurl yet. I've heard rumblings from above and anything is still possible in this crazy world of ours.
BTW; here is the entire letter from the A3/5, Gen Chandler, dated 14 Aug 2006:
"Dear General Kehoe,
We have recently become aware of the new CAP distinctive uniform. While we applaud the CAP/CC's attempt to increase the professionalism and esprit de corps of his organization, we do not believe the uniform meets the letter and intent of AFI 10-2701. Specifically, the uniform is not significantly different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms to avoid confusion.
While it is well within the authority of the USAF to mandate that CAP members sease wearing the distinctive uniform, we are aware of the potential perceptions from a decison on our part.
Instead, we prefer to resolve the issue in the spirit of cooperation between the USAF and CAP senior leadership beginning with the Board of Governors. We request that you call a meeting of the Board of Governors to address this issue as soon as possible with the goal of directing the CAP National Commander to workd with the USAF to develop modifications to the new CAP corporate uniform or an entire new uniform acceptable to both the CAP and the USAF. To preclude this type of situation in the future, please submit all future CAP corporate uniform changes to HQ USAF/A3/5 for approval. Our staffs stand ready to provide assistance. Please contact SAF/GCM if you have any questions about Air Force authorities in this matter. For all other inputs, please contact AF/A3SHA.
Carol H. Chandler, Lt Gen, USAF Robert J. Goodwin
DCS Air, Space & Information Deputy Assitant Secretary of the Air Force
Operations, Plans & Programs (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) "
The letter seems to be circulating around now so, I think it is appropriate to reproduce it for your reading pleasure at this time.
That ("became aware") would seem to tell me that the Air Force was not consulted in any way, shape or form on the CSU...so I suppose it's natural that they would feel their toes were stepped on by appropriating several of their uniform items. It doesn't sound to me like General Chandler or Secretary Goodwin were trying to lower the boom.
However, I still say that the "low light," etc. provisions of AFI 10-2701 have a wide range of interpretation.
To an E-1 fresh out of Lackland, running across a CAP officer may scare the snot out of him/her that said Airman didn't render proper C&C, when said Airman is not obligated to. I think the issue there is that new Airmen are not educated about their service's Auxiliary. I've met Marines who know more about CAP than some Airmen.
Conversely, several years ago I was on my way home from a unit meeting wearing the short-sleeve AF style uniform. I made a quick (15 min.) stop on the way at a supermarket and a customer there thought I was a store security guard.
Almost any uniform, including the current grey/white, can conceivably be misinterpreted under AFI 10-2701 by those who don't know what they're looking at. This is a bit of a stretch but a John Q. Public who doesn't know what CAP is may think s/he is looking at a new Navy whites order of dress.
I am wondering how open to cooperation the AF still is on this issue...like maybe accepting a modified combination grey/whites with modified CSU service coat like I've suggested elsewhere.
Quote from: PA Guy on December 01, 2009, 04:36:16 AM
Quote from: ColonelJack on December 01, 2009, 03:43:11 AM
Isn't it possible, just possible, that someone high enough in the AF food chain came to the CAP/CC and said "I hate that uniform and it hacks me off, get rid of it"?
Edit: Wrote it and then thought better of it.There is a perception that no one is operating in the open. It
seems the AF is sending letters to CAP and it
seems CAP is doing things underhandedly.
I find it hard to believe that CAP-USAF didn't forward the proposal for the CSU up their food chain. If they did, I'll bet it died on someone's desk. If so, not our fault initially. If not, then the former CAP-USAF/CC needs to be brought back and have his dog-tags bent.
So, with this letter it is asked for a meeting of the BOG. According to the slides from Cap/cc, they didn't feel like it warranted a bog meeting. IMHO, let me say that again IMHO, we just got into a shoving match (again) with the Air force and lost....(again) >:(
Quote from: NCRblues on December 01, 2009, 05:19:41 PM
So, with this letter it is asked for a meeting of the BOG. According to the slides from Cap/cc, they didn't feel like it warranted a bog meeting. IMHO, let me say that again IMHO, we just got into a shoving match (again) with the Air force and lost....(again) >:(
That letter is 3 years old. The status quo was fine until just now? What changed?
^Always a possibility however, in Gen Kehoe's response, it looks like the uniform was changed to meet Air Force concerns hence, no further discussion was deemed warrented. It is important to note; the BoG is constituted by law. The Sec AF is responsible for appointing 4 members to it. The chairman, at the time, was a SECAF appointee. I wouldn't call the dialog "us vs. them".
Quote from: davidsinn on December 01, 2009, 05:29:38 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 01, 2009, 05:19:41 PM
So, with this letter it is asked for a meeting of the BOG. According to the slides from Cap/cc, they didn't feel like it warranted a bog meeting. IMHO, let me say that again IMHO, we just got into a shoving match (again) with the Air force and lost....(again) >:(
That letter is 3 years old. The status quo was fine until just now? What changed?
Maybe someone on the AF side decided they had been blown off for 3 yrs and decided to fix the prob. with a sledge hammer approach or this could all be over a non uniform issue. Remember, the berry board episode wasn't percipitated by a uniform issue but a personnel problem.
^And that personnel problem was caused by a disagreement between the CSAF and SECAF.
Note: Gen Harwell did NOT self promote. The promotion request was approved by the SECAF/MIR but, the CSAF said, "NO". End result: 2nd star for Harwell; maroon epaulets for all of us.
"the uniform is not significantly different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms to avoid confusion."
I want to know the history of the above Air Force catch phrase.
This is so LOOSE any new Air Force General can come up with this Objection on any CAP Uniform.
We can be playing this Uniform Confusion Game running in circles for years to come.
Let's wake up and smell this coffee!
I wonder if any CAP National Leader has really caught on to this?
Don't forget that Gen. Chandler is now the USAF Vice-Chief of Staff. This whole uniform thing is beginning to make sense.
And why CAP HQ has been so quiet on it. It appears that someone at HQ dropped the ball and ignored the AF.
Picture this: A 4-star General who happens to be VCSAF (as of AUG 2009) sees or hears about the CSU and how CAP hasn't done squat since the gentle note that he sent. One of his aides calls the CAP-USAF/CC and says "Hold for Gen Chandler," the CAP-USAF/CC promptly drops his coffee, and is then asked by the general about the status of the CSU. The general then expresses his displeasure about the whole thing, hangs up the phone, and deals with issues more along his level, such as the day-to-day running of the entire USAF.
CAP-USAF/CC more or less nicely tells CAP/CC and Ex. Director that at the next board meeting, CSU needs to disappear. Or else.
NEC drops uniform from use. NHQ has egg on thier face for not dealing with the issue in '06 and try to hush up the whole thing and slide blame somewhere else "Oh, the big mean AF is picking on us again." Meanwhile, the VCSAF thinks of CAP as a bunch of idiots.
*** This has been an exercise of pure speculation. *****
But it points out again about how CAP is run. There is no clear-cut person in charge - we are run by three different groups and some paid staffers. The paid folks do good jobs and the groups mean well, but we do not have a single person or small group that is the ultimate authority for CAP.
It also does not preclude the other threads from coming up with a truly CAP-distinctive uniform.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 01, 2009, 06:02:31 PM
"the uniform is not significantly different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms to avoid confusion."
I want to know the history of the above Air Force catch phrase.
This is so LOOSE any new Air Force General can come up with this Objection on any CAP Uniform.
We can be playing this Uniform Confusion Game running in circles for years to come.
Let's wake up and smell this coffee!
I wonder if any CAP National Leader has really caught on to this?
Yes, they have. Please take a look at either slide 11 or 12 of the CAP/CC briefing slides. It talks about how the corp. uniform doesn't exist to provide a MILITARY appearing uniform. The handwriting is on the wall. All the modifications in the world won't bring back the CSU. Corp. uniforms are not meant to have a MILITARY appearance which is apparently the way the AF wants it.
^^^^^^^ Where does it say, other than the alleged briefing slides, that there cannot be a military-style uniform? You key word was "apparantly." And, if those slides are legit, then should we roll over and play dead?
If we come up with a totally distinctive uniform, then I think the AF would not have a problem with it. The key being totally distinctive. It's not that they think CAP should not be in any military-style uniform, otheriwse we wouldn't have the AF-style. It's all about "The AF Image" - they dont want us fat/fuzzies wearing anything close to an AF style b/c they are so caught up on image.
Can someone send me a copy of the slides so I can see what they say?
screw it.
FW has been able to back his statements. At this point I'm willing to wait and see what does transpire here in the short term, as he suggest.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 01, 2009, 07:30:44 PM
And, if those slides are legit, then should we roll over and play dead?
A case of salute and execute. A paramilitary organization is not a democracy. We do what we're told, or we use the door.
Quote from: arajca on December 01, 2009, 07:38:32 PM
If CAP were to really get rid of the military style distinctive uniforms, the bbdu, utility uniform, and blue flight suit need to go away. They are all military style uniforms. The blue flightsuit violates the low light requirement, as does the utility uniform. When can we expect those unifomrs to be pulled?
The same argument extends to the AF style service uniform and the mess dress. The low light distinctiveness is nearly non-existent with those. AFI 10-2701, if applied across the board, would seem to apply to those even more than the Corporates.
I can only conclude the AF doesn't want our rounder and hairier folks in any military style uniform. They have no apparent problem with slim clean shaven folks looking nearly identical to AF officers. In that light I'm surprised the grey & whites remain.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 01, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 01, 2009, 07:30:44 PM
And, if those slides are legit, then should we roll over and play dead?
A case of salute and execute. A paramilitary organization is not a democracy. We do what we're told, or we use the door.
As I have said before - when the changout date takes effect I will salute and execute. What I am saying is that should we roll-over and play dead about not even attempting to push up a new CAP very-distinctive uniform?
I think some may have not understood my post or I failed to communicate clearly.
The AF doesn't have a problem, at this time, with CAP seniors wearing the AF style uniform as long as they aren't fat and or fuzzy. If you are of the fat/fuzzy persuasion they don't want you in any military appearing uniform in my opinion. The CSU just pushed all of their buttons.
Cadets wearing the AF style uniform has never been an issue, at least until they reach 18.
The AF could care less about CAP bling when it comes to protecting their image.
This whole thing revolves around the corporate uniforms and protecting the AF image. If you don't fit their physical image they don't want you in a military appearing uniform.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 01, 2009, 08:03:40 PMWhat I am saying is that should we roll-over and play dead about not even attempting to push up a new CAP very-distinctive uniform?
For the time being, yes. One is getting phased out, why add a fourth uniform type? It's just going to compound the problem. Trying for another is going to bring further issues. Sometimes patience can bear far more fruit.
From the looks of it, someone dropped the ball. As to your supposition in an earlier post, it very much seems like something that happens in todays world. If your supposition was proven to be fact, I wouldn't even blink to learn of it.
It may very well have been that the Air Force had a say in our corporate uniforms all along, but chose not to excercise that authority. Those options are not the options of the individual member, they're far above us when it comes to chain of command.
If the AF directed us to lose the CSU, how do you think they'll feel about us coming back to them and saying "Well, this is what we
want!" or "You're going to tell us why we can't have this!"? How do you think that is going to work?
It boils down to either you meet the requirements to wear a variation of their uniform, or they want you in something that doesn't look military. Too many people here feel that they shouldn't have to accept that, and they go on with accusations of being considered "second class citizens". I'm sure the same thing happened when the blazer was first introduced. A lot of folks feel entitled to a great deal of things in an organizaiton where membership is a privilege, not a right.
All in all, we've got a lot of cleaning up to do before we even think about asking the Air Force for anything. We carry a disgrace because of the actions of a few people, and we have some other stuff in our history that's unpleasant. We need to get our house in order. Once we do that, maybe then the Air Force might feel like like our
requests are worth listening to.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 01, 2009, 08:42:54 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 01, 2009, 08:03:40 PMWhat I am saying is that should we roll-over and play dead about not even attempting to push up a new CAP very-distinctive uniform?
For the time being, yes. One is getting phased out, why add a fourth uniform type? It's just going to compound the problem. Trying for another is going to bring further issues. Sometimes patience can bear far more fruit.
From the looks of it, someone dropped the ball. As to your supposition in an earlier post, it very much seems like something that happens in todays world. If your supposition was proven to be fact, I wouldn't even blink to learn of it.
It may very well have been that the Air Force had a say in our corporate uniforms all along, but chose not to excercise that authority. Those options are not the options of the individual member, they're far above us when it comes to chain of command.
If the AF directed us to lose the CSU, how do you think they'll feel about us coming back to them and saying "Well, this is what we want!" or "You're going to tell us why we can't have this!"? How do you think that is going to work?
It boils down to either you meet the requirements to wear a variation of their uniform, or they want you in something that doesn't look military. Too many people here feel that they shouldn't have to accept that, and they go on with accusations of being considered "second class citizens". I'm sure the same thing happened when the blazer was first introduced. A lot of folks feel entitled to a great deal of things in an organizaiton where membership is a privilege, not a right.
All in all, we've got a lot of cleaning up to do before we even think about asking the Air Force for anything. We carry a disgrace because of the actions of a few people, and we have some other stuff in our history that's unpleasant. We need to get our house in order. Once we do that, maybe then the Air Force might feel like like our requests are worth listening to.
Well said...and with that I think this thread should be locked and the key thrown away.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 01, 2009, 08:42:54 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 01, 2009, 08:03:40 PMWhat I am saying is that should we roll-over and play dead about not even attempting to push up a new CAP very-distinctive uniform?
For the time being, yes. One is getting phased out, why add a fourth uniform type? It's just going to compound the problem. Trying for another is going to bring further issues. Sometimes patience can bear far more fruit.
From the looks of it, someone dropped the ball. As to your supposition in an earlier post, it very much seems like something that happens in todays world. If your supposition was proven to be fact, I wouldn't even blink to learn of it.
It may very well have been that the Air Force had a say in our corporate uniforms all along, but chose not to excercise that authority. Those options are not the options of the individual member, they're far above us when it comes to chain of command.
If the AF directed us to lose the CSU, how do you think they'll feel about us coming back to them and saying "Well, this is what we want!" or "You're going to tell us why we can't have this!"? How do you think that is going to work?
It boils down to either you meet the requirements to wear a variation of their uniform, or they want you in something that doesn't look military. Too many people here feel that they shouldn't have to accept that, and they go on with accusations of being considered "second class citizens". I'm sure the same thing happened when the blazer was first introduced. A lot of folks feel entitled to a great deal of things in an organizaiton where membership is a privilege, not a right.
All in all, we've got a lot of cleaning up to do before we even think about asking the Air Force for anything. We carry a disgrace because of the actions of a few people, and we have some other stuff in our history that's unpleasant. We need to get our house in order. Once we do that, maybe then the Air Force might feel like like our requests are worth listening to.
So your point is for those of us who just got screwed to sit and shut up.
What would you say if the AF came out an said no more AF blues for senior members? Would take the same approach?
Quote from: arajca on December 01, 2009, 09:10:09 PMSo your point is for those of us who just got screwed to sit and shut up.
Since you want a blunt answer, yes. The Air Force didn't create the uniform, they didn't screw you over. We pretty much know that the person that created it did so out of defiance. He's responsible, not the Air Force. Blame the correct person for the fiasco, not the convenient one. I know it's easier, but it's also childish.
Quote from: arajca on December 01, 2009, 09:10:09 PMWhat would you say if the AF came out an said no more AF blues for senior members? Would take the same approach?
I'd be mature enough to whine about, and I'd take one of the two options I had available.
^I think I said to give your opinions to your unit commander so it can be sent up the chain of command. That is the best thing, IMO, to do. Otherwise, yes. There really isn't anything else we can do other than leave. I hope that won't be your choice.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 01, 2009, 08:42:54 PM
All in all, we've got a lot of cleaning up to do before we even think about asking the Air Force for anything. We carry a disgrace because of the actions of a few people, and we have some other stuff in our history that's unpleasant. We need to get our house in order. Once we do that, maybe then the Air Force might feel like like our requests are worth listening to.
CAP has never been in a position to demand anything from the Air Force. Not in 1947, not now.
A lot of the "souring" between us and the AF took place just before I joined in 1993. I would have liked to have served in CAP before then, but I didn't, so no use wishing for might-have-been's.
We wear
their uniform solely because they grant us the privilege to do so, and they can prescribe what is to be done with
their uniform.
Unfortunately, for reasons of ego or otherwise, certain individuals chose to abuse that privilege, and we are the ones who have to live with the consequences. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
The CSU was "introduced" under circumstances of which very few of us are fully aware...and, yes, it is odd it took the AF three years to act on it, but three years it was and three years it is. All of us who sank whatever amounts of money into it are out that. I can always try to sell my blue Captain's epaulettes on Evilbay.
The "military appearing uniforms" referenced in the AFI and by General Courter can cover a very wide range of uniforms, including the extant CAP-distinctive ones. About the only ones I don't see falling into that category are the polo shirts. No, CAP does not have to provide a military-style uniform for those who cannot/choose not to wear the AF-type uniform. However, I do not believe that means a CAP-distinctive uniform
has to go out of its way to be
non-military(ish) looking in any way. Even the Smurf suits had "military" aspects.
Most of you have read my hypothesis combining the extant grey/white uniform with a heavily modified CSU. I do not mean we should go to the Air Force and say "this is what we
want," or (far worse) introduce any sort of uniform change without clearing it with them first. Using my hypothesis as an example (though not of course the
only example), we (meaning the NEC, CC/CAP, BoG, etc) present a proposal to CAP-USAF for review, and then he takes it up the chain to the brass. We give them all the time they want to review any proposal and don't bug them about it.
If the AF gives a complete thumbs-down, then we leave it at that and don't complain.
If they say "maybe, but you'll have to do this-and-this to comply," we do this-and-this to comply.
If they say "it looks great!" and green-light it, then we thank them and do our best to wear it properly.
I know there is a mindset among some in CAP that since we predate the independent AF, that somehow gives us some sort of leverage. It doesn't. We are
their auxiliary (part-time, full-time, whatever...) and serve
them.
That may sound like butt-kissing. However, those who have spent time in the Real Military know that you do not always get things your own way in the Real Military - which is driven home the moment you arrive at basic training. In this case, the AF gives orders and CAP takes them. We are not equals.
Yes, we are volunteers. But any volunteer organisation has rules (BSA, CERT, etc.) and we have to deal with what we're dealt.
Quote from: FW on December 01, 2009, 09:39:07 PM
^I think I said to give your opinions to your unit commander so it can be sent up the chain of command. That is the best thing, IMO, to do. Otherwise, yes. There really isn't anything else we can do other than leave. I hope that won't be your choice.
It's not enough of an issue for me to ditch the off-and-on 16+ years I've put into CAP over blue epaulettes and hard rank.
However, I am completely unskilled with Photoshop, etc., so I don't really have any way to illustrate my proposal to my squadron CC for her to take up the chain.
^Well then, Cyborg, I guess it's "sit and shut up" >:D ;D
BTW; I'm lucky I can figure out how to post on CT :o
What confuses me is this:
If the Natl CC was aware that this was an issue with the AF, why did she not introduce the proposal at the NEC meeting or any other NEC/NB meeting?
REMEMBER, the issue was brought up by the RMR Region Commander saying that there were too many uniform combinations - not get rid of the uniform because of AF concerns.
Not that I expect it to matter or anything, but ...
Has anyone heard whether the hue and cry over this decision out there in the "real" CAP is as great as it is here on CAPTalk? And if so, is it catching the ear of anyone higher up the food chain than us?
Will it matter if it does?
Jack
Actually, I think the best tack would be for our leaders to sit down with the Air Force and try to work out a uniform that would allow our members to wear their awards etc. Maybe I'm living in dreamland, but I believe that the Ar Force actually does appreciate what we do for them and would probably be amenable to some military type uniform that we can wear. There is nothing wrong with submitting some proposals for consideration, and asking them for their input. I personally liked the dark grey police style that was on the other thread (YMMV). If we don't ask for their input and assistance, and keep handing them things like the CSU it's very easy for them to just say no.
Quote from: ColonelJack on December 01, 2009, 10:20:23 PM
Not that I expect it to matter or anything, but ...
Has anyone heard whether the hue and cry over this decision out there in the "real" CAP is as great as it is here on CAPTalk? And if so, is it catching the ear of anyone higher up the food chain than us?
Will it matter if it does?
Jack
Yes it is, at least in my Wing. I know for a fact it has been brought to the attention of the Wing Commander and other members of the NB, NEC, and the BOG. Yes it matters.
Quote from: PA Guy on December 01, 2009, 08:19:44 PM
This whole thing revolves around the corporate uniforms and protecting the AF image. If you don't fit their physical image they don't want you in a military appearing uniform.
I walk by Air Force members everyday who would not be allowed to wear the "Air Force Style" CAP Uniform because they are too FAT.
This is a good reason for CAP and Air Force to eliminate the weight tables and start doing "circumference measurements" like in the REAL Air Force.
Other than that.....this whole situation sucks. It sucks bad for my Senior Members who just bought the uniform, it sucks bad for those of us who liked the uniform, and it sucks for all of CAP, because to the "outside world", we look like CLOWNS with no idea how to operate.
Agree spike, agree big time. We look like big time clowns. I know some wish for the NB to revisit this issue, but can you image how we will look to everyone when our other set of leaders change it again.... I have to say this, with caps um not so squeaky clean past, can we afford to look like we are having a civil war within the organization? Like I said in an earlier post, cap made national news during the pineda incident, then dropped off the map. I really don't think we can withstand any more bad publicity.
No I am not accepting, with out discussion, the Air Force Dogma on their policy on supposed confusion with the Corp Uniform, and its harmful effects or imagined problems. I do not buy that policy. .
The Air Force needs to come clean with their reasoning. A short Letter will not work.
They are playing with the Morale of a large volunteer force, and everybody I have been in contact with has been livid about this little surprise.
I think the Air Force Policy is arbitrary and not acting in the interest of a better relationship with their fine Auxillary.
I object to the entire concept and reject the Air Force Generals opinion that the Corporate Uniform causes confusion. It does not. Again, will comply in 2011, but the membership I think needs to have detailed reason this policy came about, and I think the Air Force is a little confused, if they think this is going to go over well for the relationship.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 12:14:35 AM
No I am not accepting, with out discussion, the Air Force Dogma on their policy on supposed confusion with the Corp Uniform, and its harmful effects or imagined problems. I do not buy that policy.
The Air Force needs to come clean with their reasoning. A short Letter will not work.
It's not up to us to "buy" into their policy. We do as directed, or leave. We don't really have a right to any explanation, or to even demand one, if this comes from the Air Force. If such a thing that was in their purview came from the NEC/NB, I think an explanation wouldn't hurt.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 12:14:35 AMThey are playing with the Morale of a large volunteer force, and everybody I have been in contact with has been livid about this little surprise.
No, they're not. They wanted a uniform gone, and pushed buttons to do it. They're not playing with your morale or making you a "second class" citizen, except in your own mind. The issue is that the uniform was something that CAP had no need of. HWSRN asked for hard rank, was told no, and this new military styled uniform appeared. I doubt it would have existed if we'd been allowed hard rank on our Service coats. If the Air Force had said yes to hard rank, you wouldn't have had a military styled uniform anyway.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 12:14:35 AMI think the Air Force Policy is arbitrary and not acting in the interest of a better relationship with their fine Auxillary.
"Fine" auxiliary? That's kind of funny considering the crap our organization has had problems with in the past, and is probably generating now.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 12:14:35 AMI object to the entire concept and reject the Air Force Generals opinion that the Corporate Uniform causes confusion. It does not. Again, will comply in 2011, but the membership I think needs to have detailed reason this policy came about, and I think the Air Force is a little confused, if they think this is going to go over well for the relationship.
You may choose to reject reality, but you can't escape the consequences of rejecting reality. Including the ludicrous idea that you're entitled to a military style uniform.
I'll put forth this: any contributing member has value. But there are some facts in life. One is the fact that a miltary member is typically of moderate weight, with short hair, and is clean shaven. If you don't fit that mold, you don't look military, and you ruin any credibility you have trying to dress like it. The words people use are hypocrite, pretender, poser, fraud. Not pleasant, but fact.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 12:14:35 AM
No I am not accepting, with out discussion, the Air Force Dogma on their policy on supposed confusion with the Corp Uniform, and its harmful effects or imagined problems. I do not buy that policy. .
I don't buy it either, I think it's really about heavyset folks in what looks like a military uniform. But our opinions are probably completely irrelevant in the eyes of the AF. It appears they issued some marching orders. End of discussion for them.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 12:14:35 AM
The Air Force needs to come clean with their reasoning. A short Letter will not work.
Sure it will. They simply do not have to explain themselves to our satisfaction. Sure it would be nice, but even if they did so, it's not like we would get a vote on the matter. THEY OWN US. We can claim CAP corporation all day long and it will get us nowhere on this issue.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 12:14:35 AM
They are playing with the Morale of a large volunteer force, and everybody I have been in contact with has been livid about this little surprise.
I think the Air Force Policy is arbitrary and not acting in the interest of a better relationship with their fine Auxillary.
See my first comment above.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 12:14:35 AM
I object to the entire concept and reject the Air Force Generals opinion that the Corporate Uniform causes confusion. It does not. Again, will comply in 2011, but the membership I think needs to have detailed reason this policy came about, and I think the Air Force is a little confused, if they think this is going to go over well for the relationship.
Some members WANT to have a detailed reason for the change, but there is no real NEED. Face it, we are one speck of sand on their beach. No matter how much some of us complain, stamp our feet, or hold our breath, Dad simply isn't coughing up the car keys...so to speak. The AF is in charge of our uniforms, PERIOD, and
they simply don't answer to us. We can make requests and hope for the best. (Define "best!") Otherwise we need to cowboy up and serve to the best of our abilities, and perhaps earn a little respect, or we can piss and moan and further damage our image with the AF and everyone who views CAP Talk.
I AM sympathetic to the desire for everyone to have a professional uniform and the ability to proudly display their CAP accomplishments. In a perfect world we would all be in the same uniform and we would all look good in it. However, I do think we need to take a collective deep breath, chill out a little, recognize our place in the big picture, and act accordingly. We don't have anything close to a bully pulpit.
This thread just won't die a peaceful death. All we're doing now is repeat the same stuff over and over and over and over and; slap... sorry my fingers just wouldn't stop. :P
On a more serious note: The Board of Governors meeting is Weds. I wonder if this issue will be brought up. Maybe on Thursday we'll know.....
Until then, I'm gonna stay quiet about this subject.
Hawk, you are spending a lot of time typing and rebutting.
Take a break.
There will be a day in court on this trust me.
I have valid views shared by many.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 01:31:03 AM
Hawk, you are spending a lot of time typing and rebutting.
Take a break.
I'm not rebutting anything. I'm trying to get across that you don't have any place to demand an explanation of the Air Force for their actions. A fact that seems to escape you. You can dismiss reality all you want, it doesn't change it.
You're just like the guy at work that tells me he wants to join the Army, but doesn't want to carry a gun, doesn't want to go to boot, wants to work shifts that he chooses. He actually thinks he can do that. Joining CAP is like joining the military; you join the organization, it doesn't join you. You don't have the right to join an organization and tell them what you want.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 02, 2009, 01:31:03 AMThere will be a day in court on this trust me.
I have valid views shared by many.
You have opinions, many of which are not rooted in any kind of fact. As one of the posters above put it, you're stamping your feet and demanding that Daddy do what you want. and by doing so you're furthering the image of many CAP members as brattish children that have no self discipline.
And "many" does not equal all or even a majority no matter how much you claim.
"Day in court"? What are you gonna do? Sue the Air Force? Have fun. Let me know when so I can put the newspaper writeup next to the one of the guy that sued Santa Claus, and the kid that sued the Easter Bunny. 'Cause it's gonna give me and many other people the same laugh.
Why does it need it day in court?? What is it going to accomplish by revisiting it? You think cap leadership looks stupid or un open about things now, my god wait till someone tries to bring it back. If it is brought back, mark my words, berry boards will look like candy land. We no longer live in a time where games are accepted by the Military, after 9/11 they won't play with us anymore if we look like idiots. This uniform problem already looks like we're playing games, and if it's revisited.....I'm worried about cap now, truly worried. :-\
I really think the issue here is simple.
Those that wear the AF style, have invested in a uniform that makes them look like part of the AF team.
Those that invested in the Corporate Service Uniform also believed they were investing in a uniform that made them look like part of the AF team.
NOW....for those FAT members or those choosing not to wear AF style, that option is gone, and we are being told we are in fact second class citizens, you can find a quote in Courters PowerPoint that elaborates on that. The moment she wrote that those that can not wear AF style believed they had a right to something more military looking.....sealed the deal.
Maybe some members were tired of being forced to wear a uniform that set them apart from everyone else in a drastic way. Perhaps the Corporate Service Uniform gave those members an option to look more like those in AF style.
I believe that the real masterminds behind this were those members wearing AF style that hated the fact that those choosing to were the CSU had REAL Air Force ranks slides and metal rank insignia. I think that just ate away at them so much that they caused this.
Simple fix.....
Put everone in a mix of Army and Navy clothes and eliminate AF style all together. Heaven forbid some person mistakes a CAP member for a military member and says "hello".
How the heck did CAP get away with wearing air force EVERYTHING (rank, pants, shirt caps etc) and allowing overweight members in AF clothing for almost 50 years? The AF must have taken a HUGE public affairs hit during that time. Recruiting must have suffered, and I bet they could no longer fly their Aircraft.
This whole thing is ridiculous. Has any ever seen the "US Army Cadet Corps"?? You can not tell the difference between one of their members and a Soldier until you are 12 inches away reading the "Army Cadets" branchtape. How can a organization, not officially affiliated with the Army get away with that??
Heck, the Boy and Girl Scouts have more military looking uniforms than CAP.
To the poster that said "the Air Force owns us". You are wrong. The Air Force actually provides much less for CAP than is generally known. All we are for the AF is a pipe for recruits, and cheap way for them to carry out a Federal Mission of Inland Search and Rescue. If they could find a civilian contractor cheaper than CAP, we would be out in a second.
For the poster that said we should salute and execute......while we may play "military" we are not. We can express our displeasure about anything we want. When the phase out date comes, we will all obey the policy, but you better believe in the meantime we can and will make our dislike for this decision known to our local leaders, and in some cases the Air Force itself.
Sorry about such a long post. BTW, I wear AF Style and Corporate as well as the CSU. I like having options. But to be told you are less of a person than the skinny folks, and told to wear the "fat suits", that is just plain mean and uncalled for in 2009. The Air Force needs to realize they have many more fatties than CAP does, and loosen up a bit.
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 02:46:38 AMI believe that the real masterminds behind this were those members wearing AF style that hated the fact that those choosing to were the CSU had REAL Air Force ranks slides and metal rank insignia. I think that just ate away at them so much that they caused this.
Thanks for the direct insult spike. Oh yes it was a vast conspiracy of AF style wearing members, me included, we meet every 2nd Tuesday at the local VFW. ::)
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 02:46:38 AM
I believe that the real masterminds behind this were those members wearing AF style that hated the fact that those choosing to were the CSU had REAL Air Force ranks slides and metal rank insignia. I think that just ate away at them so much that they caused this.
Since I didn't do anything to motivate this whole conflict and I can confidently attest to that, I will say this ...
As an AF member, I had quite a bit of heartburn over wearing AF officer rank insignia. Had the CSU been a white shirt, AF blue trousers, AF flight cap, and the same gray rank insignia and nametag as worn by senior members in the AF uniform -- I would've been very content, and I suspect many others would have been as well. But when the only difference between a full-blown AF officer uniform and the CSU was the shirt (ok, and a second line on the name tag), it was a bit too close for call. And we saw the final result.
Edit: Moral of the story: We all know why this uniform was created. We all know it was done the wrong way. With a little more cooperation, flexibility and what not ... today we would have an alternate uniform acceptable to everybody. But no ... instead, we have a hot topic on the AF's radar and being debated at all levels in CAP (with 707 replies and 11,200 views on CAPTalk if that's any indication for you). All because of a frickin' uniform. Does this ring a bell to anyone (ca. early 1990's)?
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 02:46:38 AM
This whole thing is ridiculous. Has any ever seen the "US Army Cadet Corps"?? You can not tell the difference between one of their members and a Soldier until you are 12 inches away reading the "Army Cadets" branchtape. How can a organization, not officially affiliated with the Army get away with that??
Because the Army lets them. Naval Sea Cadets and Coast Guard Auxiliary are in the same boat, no pun intended. Perhaps others. The Air Force made a different decision and are within their rights to do so. The reason for their decision is in question, but not their right to make it.
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 02:46:38 AM
To the poster that said "the Air Force owns us". You are wrong. The Air Force actually provides much less for CAP than is generally known.
They get to control our uniforms. In that regard they do, in fact, "own us." Most of us, myself included, do understand the CAP corporation and the sometimes auxiliary status. Basic Level 1 stuff.
Gentlemen, and any ladies who may be reading this:
This is not worth descending into insults. We are fellow officers - CAP officers.
A decision has been made. Whether or not we like it, we have to live with it. Bickering about it is not constructive, and does not present any sort of professionalism to the Air Force or to the general public. This is a public forum. You do not know who may be reading this.
If I have to shell out for a new/used AF blue shirt and service coat, so be it. I wear the utility jumpsuit, blue BDU's or BDU's most of the time anyway. My paperwork does not care what uniform I'm wearing.
I am not happy about the decision either. But it is not worth having a go at one another like this.
It sounds like we are almost all on the same page. This is what a good discussion is does when it is allowed to play out and not get locked too early. I hope others can see it too.
*** Thanks to the mods for not locking this up 400 posts ago ****
I also agree that we should not revisit the issue of the CSU (TPU). (And I did shell out a lot of bucks for one) Let it die so that we may move forward with an even better uniform. I think CAP would get a lot more mileage out of the AF if we did. Sometimes you have to prune the branches to let the tree grow. BUT, at the same time, we should NOT give up what we believe in – a sharp uniform that even the AF’s plague (fat & fuzzies) would look good in.
Here are a couple of pics that has been discussed in Design a new CAP Distinctive uniform (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9282.0;topicseen).
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=84)(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=82)(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=86)
Current(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=81)
As you can see, it is not that radical and nothing like the AF uniform. Cyborg (and any others) I enjoy Photoshop and if you want to PM me, I can help you illustrate your words. ** Shout-out to kd8gua, these pics are collabrative.
To all – we have had a hard, difficult time on this thread, but in the end, we are more alike than different. Lets work together to coordinate a groundswell of support so the leadership will want to listen to us.
(Cum-by-ya playing gently in the background, a thousand lighters flaming, …)
high speed low drag,
On this sir, we can agree. Let's let the CSU/tpu version die to not rile up the air force (or anyone else for that matter) and in a few months (once everything has cooled) approach the air force with a well designed sharp looking DISTINCTIVE uniform. I would be behind that 100%!
Getting everyone in one professional looking uniform would be a huge win. The cynical part of me wonders if it is possible. The uniform police and branding guy in me says it should be a no-brainer for all of us to be, well, uniform. The zillion dollar question is the form it would take.
And the best thing I like about the uniform is that it hints - strongly - of the heritage 'pinks and greens' WWII Army Air Corps uniform, in gray and dark (LAPD) blue. It's distinctive, yet sharp in appearance.
Let's get on board with a proposal that will work for the membership and also keep Ma Blue happy.
Quote from: McLarty on December 02, 2009, 03:20:32 AM
..........I will say this As an AF member, I had quite a bit of heartburn over wearing AF officer rank insignia.
Wow. You would have had a heart attack if you were a member back in the 60's or 70's. Metal rank was everywhere, yet the AF seemed to be OK with it.
I seriously doubt the AF will ever let Fat or bearded into any "military style" uniform. For the poster making up neat pictures of different uniforms, go back and read Courter's PowerPoint, and understand that the AF as well as she, says that FAT and Fuzzies have no right to demand a uniform other than the blazer combo. That they will always be relegated to Polo's and Grays. (Honestly, I don't think Fatties demanded anything)
I am tired of this now, it is a disappointment, and makes me very unsure of the capabilities of our leadership and very sure of how the Air Force feels of CAP. Now it is back to AF style for me.
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 02:20:52 PMFor the poster making up neat pictures of different uniforms, go back and read Courter's PowerPoint, and understand that the AF as well as she, says that FAT and Fuzzies have no right to demand a uniform other than the blazer combo. That they will always be relegated to Polo's and Grays. (Honestly, I don't think Fatties demanded anything)
That's not what it said, and characterizing it that way is a deliberate attempt to raise ire about something for no reason.
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: McLarty on December 02, 2009, 03:20:32 AM
..........I will say this As an AF member, I had quite a bit of heartburn over wearing AF officer rank insignia.
Wow. You would have had a heart attack if you were a member back in the 60's or 70's. Metal rank was everywhere, yet the AF seemed to be OK with it.
It is now obvious that you're not, and never have been Air Force. Hard rank is not what McLarty was referring to.
It's also obvious that you're looking to create problems by deliberately lying about facts.
Right. I'm talking about blue shoulder marks (before anyone starts, yes I know CAP used to have those as well, but at least there was the CAP cutout on them to be distinctive). But, BITD around the 60's and 70's, there was a different culture (read: AD AF officers filling CAP billets) at CAP NHQ to vet this kind of stuff before it 1) ever got approved, 2) put on paper, and 3) mailed out to units as a supplement. These days all it takes is one person in the right position to email an ICL and it's treated as scripture... and since the 60's and 70's, we have had very turbulent periods with the AF due to uniform issues which those at the puzzle palace and Maxwell recall every time a uniform proposal or policy change comes up.
These days, thanks to history, this entire subject needs to be addressed and coordinated very carefully and not just shooting from the hip with a machine gun like with the CSU.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 02, 2009, 06:48:13 AM
*** Thanks to the mods for not locking this up 400 posts ago ****
But at post # 320? >:D
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 02, 2009, 03:46:25 PM
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: McLarty on December 02, 2009, 03:20:32 AM
..........I will say this As an AF member, I had quite a bit of heartburn over wearing AF officer rank insignia.
Wow. You would have had a heart attack if you were a member back in the 60's or 70's. Metal rank was everywhere, yet the AF seemed to be OK with it.
It is now obvious that you're not, and never have been Air Force. Hard rank is not what McLarty was referring to.
It's also obvious that you're looking to create problems by deliberately lying about facts.
OK Man, I get you don't like what I have to say. But calling me a liar and telling me what I was, is or am is rude, and ridiculous.
If McLarty had heartburn over "wearing AF Officer Rank insignia", he must be hurting wearing "US" cutouts on the CAP AF Style Uniform, along with the Uniform itself.
Post #322 :):):)
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 10:11:57 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 02, 2009, 03:46:25 PM
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: McLarty on December 02, 2009, 03:20:32 AM
..........I will say this As an AF member, I had quite a bit of heartburn over wearing AF officer rank insignia.
Wow. You would have had a heart attack if you were a member back in the 60's or 70's. Metal rank was everywhere, yet the AF seemed to be OK with it.
It is now obvious that you're not, and never have been Air Force. Hard rank is not what McLarty was referring to.
It's also obvious that you're looking to create problems by deliberately lying about facts.
OK Man, I get you don't like what I have to say. But calling me a liar and telling me what I was, is or am is rude, and ridiculous.
If McLarty had heartburn over "wearing AF Officer Rank insignia", he must be hurting wearing "US" cutouts on the CAP AF Style Uniform, along with the Uniform itself.
Unless I'm mistaken, McLarty is an enlisted man in the USAF............
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 10:11:57 PMOK Man, I get you don't like what I have to say. But calling me a liar and telling me what I was, is or am is rude, and ridiculous.
I didn't call you a liar, I said you were lying about the facts, even if it was by implication rather than bold faced. Your statement implies that General Courter directly and intentionally demeaned those not meeting weight as "Fatties".
You and a few others are deliberately, and willingly mispresenting facts and attributing thoughts to a level of the chain of command to which you are not privy to. It is one thing to speculate, it is another thing entirely to make the statement: "They're saying xxxx about us!" Making such a statement is a lie when you don't know better. Most of us with military background know that a single person might be foolish enough to make such a statement, but they would also be dealt with harshly. Considering Equal Opportunity laws, such a thing would never go unanswered.
Quote from: Spike on December 02, 2009, 10:11:57 PMIf McLarty had heartburn over "wearing AF Officer Rank insignia", he must be hurting wearing "US" cutouts on the CAP AF Style Uniform, along with the Uniform itself.
I don't know McLarty personally, but there's a few things I do know about him.
One thing is that he wears an Air Force uniform. Which means he has a service dress in his closet that had US insignia on it (along with some enlisted stripes). I would suspect that if the allowance for us to wear it occurred while he possesed that Air Force uniform, then he probably pulled them off that uniform to put on the CAP one until he acquired another set.
So, you're made up supposition that he was "having a heart attack wearing US cutouts" was blatantly malicious and foolish. It has the appearance of an immature attempt to belittle a persons veiwpoint so that it will be ignored. Such attempts usually backfire.
Now, I'm under the belief that you have no experience in the military due to the fact that you don't appear to know that the blue rank insignia epaulet slides are those of an Air Force officer. AF officers take them, put them on their shirts/blouses, wear it to work, and are in proper uniform. Hence any CAP officer that is wearing the CSU is wearing an official US Air Force insignia.
As of the this post, the countdown begins....
Not trying to be rude, and I agree with you hawk, but I can't seem to figure out what were counting down to? ???
I think the countdown is too a lock and or the sunset of the TPU...
And just think I have behaved in this thread!
Quote from: NCRblues on December 03, 2009, 02:02:13 AM
Not trying to be rude, and I agree with you hawk, but I can't seem to figure out what were counting down to? ???
Give it a little while.
And no, I'm not counting to a lock.
I would like to give some closure on this thread (even though I know it is hopeless :) )
There are several "bigwigs" writing out agenda items for the winter NB meeting which address many of the concerns of this and other very active uniform threads. It seems our activity on CT has reached the heavens and was heard. I hope they do see the light of day and can be fully vetted with members input, staff input and, Air Force input. If done right, it may be the start of something very good. We can only hope.
When is the winter NB meeting?
In about 3 months.
Something tells me the winter NB meeting is going to have a LARGE attendance of members.
If it's close to me I'll be there.
In 25 days, this thread has generated 730 posts, which is an average of 29 posts a day, or a little more than one an hour. It has also spawned a half-dozen other threads. This is what discussion does, it generates people thinking, talking, and agreeing to take action.
What does this tell us? That the uniform is a hot issue with a LOT of people, and people are passionate about it. What we wear says a lot about us. There are tons of studies done that reflect the psychology of how a police uniform effects people, but one of the big things found is that it didn't matter how fat the officer was, it was how the officer wore it that determined how they were percieved by people. Tall, short, skinny, overweight, clean shaven, and fuzzy, we all want to wear a good looking uniform that makes a positive impression on the people we are interacting with.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 03, 2009, 04:06:25 AMTall, short, skinny, overweight, clean shaven, and fuzzy, we all want to wear a good looking uniform that makes a positive impression on the people we are interacting with.
Spot on! And because these uniforms cost
us money, our needs, pocketbooks, and yes,
feelings need to be the first thing considered when adding, subtracting or changing what we can wear.
You know, as we went through these hundreds of post, I started out very happy the CSU was gone anyway it went. Then I started to change my mind. I am still against the CSU always have been and will be, but I am against how it left and the lack of forward thinking by our leadership. Some of you changed my mind, I really do believe that the members who can't wear the AF style need a uniform that looks decent and allows awards to be displayed.
I'm hoping that some folks at NB can sit down with AF folks and work something out. If they can slow down and make some changes without throwing the blue aviator uniform out it will help a lot. I realize there are some who don't understand this but it really matters a lot. Uniforms have been too much of a distraction for a long time.
Everyone that goes to the NB needs to wear the CSU and make sure they are *everywhere* ..
Quote from: NCRblues on December 03, 2009, 04:31:57 AM
the members who can't wear the AF style need a uniform that looks decent and allows awards to be displayed.
Which is the primary reason why the CSU has become as popular as it has despite how it brought in being.
Quote from: arajca on December 03, 2009, 05:25:43 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 03, 2009, 04:31:57 AM
the members who can't wear the AF style need a uniform that looks decent and allows awards to be displayed.
Which is the primary reason why the CSU has become as popular as it has despite how it brought in being.
FACT!
Speculation, rumor, weird noises, or facts aside, the CSU was created for one reason. HWSRN wanted metal grade insignia on service dress. The Air Force shot him down, so he created a distinctive, unique-to-CAP uniform featuring metal rank. He then proposed it to the NB in such a fashion that it was guaranteed to be approved (though I'm pretty confident that some dirty politics were hinted at at the time). So, he got his uniform with metal grade, it was changed two or three times (at the urging/suggestion of the Air Force) before it stabilized to what we have now.
In the grand scheme of things, what the uniform did was put everyone on a level playing field. We could all show off our accomplishments-our bling, if you will. But more than that, it brought us all one step closer to being
uniform. Though I'm sure it was unintentional, that's what it did. Although, when grooming standards were applied to it, I felt like it drove the membership further apart.
700+ posts later, I still don't like the decision, but I'll salute and execute when the time comes. In the meantime, I'm hoping that the NB can come up with something that will take the place of the CSU, without raising the ire of the Air Force.
I let this thread simmer on a bit before I responded, just because I wanted to see where it went.
Hawk's spot on ... I've been in a CAP uniform since 1997; an AF uniform since 2003. As the regs have changed, I have changed the US lapel insignia on my CAP service coat to the original CAP lapel insignia I wore as a cadet. Which lapel insignia I wore didn't bother me a bit, because...
CAP members are distinct in their rank by the epaulets they wear. We have had epaulets with distinctive CAP insignia since long before I had any knowledge of CAP (regardless of what color the epaulet was). All of a sudden, the CAP/CC (and entourage) decides that stock AF officer epaulets are sufficient for wear on a CAP uniform and implements that policy. I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass the sniff test for me, nor obviously did it for others in the AF/A3/5 community. THAT (and that alone) is my beef -- arbitrarily implementing a uniform that, for lack of a better term, steals the AF uniform to pass it off as their own, by simply changing out the shirt to be used. Like I have advocated many times previously, had the existing, approved CAP officer epaulet been used, I strongly suspect the backlash would have been much less than it actually was. That's all I was saying.
But I do thank everyone for drawing my own conclusions and advertising them for me.
Quote from: McLarty on December 03, 2009, 05:59:24 AM
I let this thread simmer on a bit before I responded, just because I wanted to see where it went... CAP members are distinct in their rank by the epaulets they wear. We have had epaulets with distinctive CAP insignia since long before I had any knowledge of CAP (regardless of what color the epaulet was). All of a sudden, the CAP/CC (and entourage) decides that stock AF officer epaulets are sufficient for wear on a CAP uniform and implements that policy. I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass the sniff test for me, nor obviously did it for others in the AF/A3/5 community. THAT (and that alone) is my beef -- arbitrarily implementing a uniform that, for lack of a better term, steals the AF uniform to pass it off as their own, by simply changing out the shirt to be used. Like I have advocated many times previously, had the existing, approved CAP officer epaulet been used, I strongly suspect the backlash would have been much less than it actually was. That's all I was saying.
I gotta agree with Nick; having been an old-school CAPer and prior AF enlisted, I always was a little 'hinky' about wearing RealAirForce® shoulder marks and U.S. cutouts on a CAP corporate uniform; it probably would not have been a problem if they went back to blue shoulder marks with CAP embroidered or using the existing gray shoulder marks. About the only difference between RealAirForce® and CSU was the cut of the jacket, silver sleeve braid and CAP cutouts on the lapel; something the powers that be on the blue side of the five-sided puzzle palace was giving 'em raging heartburn. Yes I bought one of the CSU service dress jackets and put it to good use; right now it's in a closet in Las Vegas - I didn't bring it with me when I moved to Kwaj, for obvious reasons. (SOFA being one of them.)
Maybe cooler heads will prevail when the NB meets in March and we can hash out this debacle to the satisfaction of CAP and Ma Blue. I don't think the CSU will totally die, but it'll probably undergo a radical transformation. I wouldn't be surprised if it is worn with gray trousers (to a better uniform spec) and gray shoulder marks, and the officer sleeve braid gets whacked. But that's only my opinion, and we all know what they say comparing about opinions.
Quote from: billford1 on December 03, 2009, 05:07:30 AMI'm hoping that some folks at NB can sit down with AF folks and work something out.
I think this will be the Prime Directive.
An adversarial relationship with the AF will only worsen with CAP saying "this is
our uniform, and we're really PO'd at what you did!"
The more we seem like petulant children the less the AF will want to work with us on
anything.
If the CSU was indeed forced through because of the desire to have metal rank (more on that later) and blue epaulettes again, then we have got to tread lightly with regard to
anything to do with uniforms, especially since the AF has made it clear that they will have authority over CAP-distinctive uniforms as well. The illustrations that have been posted here showing a blue service coat with the grey/white dress (with grey epaulettes) are quite good, but it won't mean a thing if CAP insists "we want this to replace the CSU" and the AF says "no."
Face it, we're not in a very good bargaining position right now.
I remember back around '95-'96 when we got the grey epaulettes, nameplates and "U.S." cutouts. My former squadron CC was quite well informed about doings at Maxwell (he knew General Anderson personally) told me that CAP had raised the issue of metal grade insignia, and the Air Force's reply was:
"You will never get metal rank back."Right now I'm in a "wait-and-see" mode as to what's going to happen...will the CSU be reinstated as is (sure, right), reinstated in a modified form (tossup), or indeed be headed for the sunset (most likely).
There was some pretty strong backchannel that the metal grade issue was being reconsidered benevolently by the USAF when HWSRN ram-rodded the CSU, which resulted in that benevolence evaporating.
I could not care less about what the grade looks like, or is made of. I just want a uniform that fits 100% of the needs of 100% of the membership, and makes us all look "uniform".
AMEN! :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2009, 06:50:24 AM
I could not care less about what the grade looks like, or is made of. I just want a uniform that fits 100% of the needs of 100% of the membership, and makes us all look "uniform".
I think that should be the goal we work towards!!!
Quote
I didn't call you a liar, I said you were lying about the facts, even if it was by implication rather than bold faced.
What?!?! I'm not calling you a liar, just saying that you lied? Reminds me of the old Richard Pryor act, "I wasn't running, I was walking REALLY fast..." ;D (paraphrased)
Come on, if someone makes a statement they honestly believe, they are NOT lying. They may be WRONG or even DEAD WRONG, but everyone we disagree with isn't a liar. I'm not making excuses for liars (I'm an honesty freak!) but use the term when it's appropriate.
There are some worthy conversations happening here, let them continue without the stone throwing. And...once you say something, own it, or correct it.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Having a uniform that can work for 100% of seniors and cadets is an admirable goal. How can CAP do that with the wide (no pun) range of sizes and shapes in CAP.? Many senior members can't wear the Air Force uniform due to either size or facial hair. Same problem with Air Force style flight suits. I have four in my closet that are too small because I'm out of shape. I know the argument about getting in shape. I've had that talk with myself many times. I've actually done it then reverted back to being too big again. Maybe next time it will work!
The CAP dark blue flight suit and field uniform is one solution already on the books. Making it exclusive would bring lots of arguments from those not wanting to give up the military style field uniform but everyone would look the same in the field. Next, non-filed uniformity offers few choices. It's either the Air Force style or corporate grey slacks/polo or white shirt. Those could be uniform if cadets and seniors had separate requirements for meeting (UOD). Cadets wear the Air Force style and seniors the corporate for UOD, more unhappiness I suspect.
Maybe a look to other services would provide help. How does the Coast Guard Aux handle out of shape members? Does it have uniform options for those who can't meet military height and weight requirements?
Quote from: sparks on December 03, 2009, 03:53:04 PM
Having a uniform that can work for 100% of seniors and cadets is an admirable goal. How can CAP do that with the wide (no pun) range of sizes and shapes in CAP.? Many senior members can't wear the Air Force uniform due to either size or facial hair.
Moving to a military-ized corporate uniform for all seniors, or adjusting the whites to have a military-ized jacket solves this issue.
Quote from: sparks on December 03, 2009, 03:53:04 PM
Maybe a look to other services would provide help. How does the Coast Guard Aux handle out of shape members?
They don't restrict uniform based on weight, though I believe grooming is an issue, which is probably the reasonable compromise we're going to have to make.
Quote from: sparks on December 03, 2009, 03:53:04 PM
Having a uniform that can work for 100% of seniors and cadets is an admirable goal. How can CAP do that with the wide (no pun) range of sizes and shapes in CAP.? Many senior members can't wear the Air Force uniform due to either size or facial hair. Same problem with Air Force style flight suits. I have four in my closet that are too small because I'm out of shape. I know the argument about getting in shape. I've had that talk with myself many times. I've actually done it then reverted back to being too big again. Maybe next time it will work!
The CAP dark blue flight suit and field uniform is one solution already on the books. Making it exclusive would bring lots of arguments from those not wanting to give up the military style field uniform but everyone would look the same in the field. Next, non-filed uniformity offers few choices. It's either the Air Force style or corporate grey slacks/polo or white shirt. Those could be uniform if cadets and seniors had separate requirements for meeting (UOD). Cadets wear the Air Force style and seniors the corporate for UOD, more unhappiness I suspect.
Maybe a look to other services would provide help. How does the Coast Guard Aux handle out of shape members? Does it have uniform options for those who can't meet military height and weight requirements?
But that is the crux of the problem.
The CG has no problems with the CGAUX wearing their uniform (with specific changes to rank and insignia). They don't seem to have a problem with their auxillary being out of weight and grooming standards. But unfortunately for CAP the USAF is not the CG. It is the USAF that has the problem with our fat and fuzzies.
I understand the heartburn people will feel about loosing their USAF uniforms. But it really comes down to a matter of priorities. When it comes to uniforms....what is our goal? Is the purpose of the uniform there to allow people to feel good about themselves or is it to help generate a sense in unity and professionalism?
That has always been my hang up with CAP uniforms....even before the CSU/TPU.
So....let the cadets keep the USAF style uniforms and the officers adopt some sort of uniform that makes the majority of our members and the USAF happy (trying to make EVERYONE happy just won't work so I'm not even going to try :) ).
Killing the CSU was not the way I would have gone.....but I understand and accept that is was probably the best decission in veiw of the USAF's concerns over the uniform. So far so good. Now we need to go the next step and get with the USAF and make a CAP uniform.....and move everyone to it.
Yes there will be some hurt feelings.....getting some members out of their USAF blues/flight suits/BDUs will be a PITA....but why are we here? We are here to do a mission. Uniforms are supposed to make our mission easier. If it does not (which I think is the case currently) it is time to dump it and get one that does).
Quote from: lordmonar on December 03, 2009, 04:11:21 PM
Yes there will be some hurt feelings.....getting some members out of their USAF blues/flight suits/BDUs will be a PITA....but why are we here? We are here to do a mission. Uniforms are supposed to make our mission easier. If it does not (which I think is the case currently) it is time to dump it and get one that does).
I don't think you'd even need to address the flightsuits or field uniforms.
The USAF will be off the BDU's soon, so just let us keep those, and a green flightsuit is so ubiquitous to GA that if you pulled the grade and
stay with leather patches (or a very distinctive cloth patch) you're good there, too.
The biggest point of contention and issue seems to be the formal dress uniforms, which is also where those of us who need that option have the most issue with non-uniformity.
I'd love to see a mission base with everyone in the same color and style, but its the formal pictures, formations, and related activities that make me cringe the most.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 03, 2009, 04:11:21 PM
The CG has no problems with the CGAUX wearing their uniform (with specific changes to rank and insignia). They don't seem to have a problem with their auxillary being out of weight and grooming standards. But unfortunately for CAP the USAF is not the CG. It is the USAF that has the problem with our fat and fuzzies.
IIRC, the uniforms go through the CG uniform board. The new standardized cloth insignia for the ODU is one example. I think more stuff comes down from the CG than goes up from Auxies requesting something. The AUXMAN has the flexibility to adjust built in when something new is added to the USCG uniform reg. The Chief Director (a CAPT) posts the uniform ALCOASTs because they apply to Auxies as well. And there is a CDR who serves as Director for each district who will also pass the stuff down.
Not to mention you will find the DIRAUX for district and staff will be present at a lot of events, and more CG brass show up at conferences and such. More-so than their counterparts would in the CAP context.
Is there anyone else out there tired of talking about the CSU? I think were due for a Command Patch change! Lets get a jump start on talking about that!
If the command patch thought doesn't jump start more discussion how about "aux on aux off" or whether to wear a wing patch.
Also, Jan 1 is only a few weeks away so it's time for a new 60-1 and 39-1, happy new year!
Quote from: wuzafuzz on December 03, 2009, 12:45:52 PM
What?!?! I'm not calling you a liar, just saying that you lied? Reminds me of the old Richard Pryor act, "I wasn't running, I was walking REALLY fast..." ;D (paraphrased)
Come on, if someone makes a statement they honestly believe, they are NOT lying. They may be WRONG or even DEAD WRONG, but everyone we disagree with isn't a liar. I'm not making excuses for liars (I'm an honesty freak!) but use the term when it's appropriate.
Lying is a verb, an action. Liar is a noun, a thing (a person to be specific). An action does not define an object.
The statement made about McLarty was "You would have had a heart attack if you were a member back in the 60's or 70's."
The statement was blatantly untrue, the person referenced did not and would not have such issues. The poster willingly maligned someone by claiming that McLarty had negative feelings that one, he couldn't know; and two, was an attempt to discount McLarty's input by twisting it into an unrelated issue. Can you tell me that the poster honestly believed it?
I am not sure if this was covered by an earlier post, but I am curious what Vanguard is thinking about all of this? I am not overly concerned with them but with the number of changes that the members have to contend with on a consistent basis, Vanguard also has to make available those items, which I only assume cost them much more money than the individual member. When will they make the decision to stop stocking items and have them made to order? It already takes enough time to get what I assume they have in stock. If uniform items where made to order, there would be a 2 month wait for each order.
I don't disagree with what happened, just thankful I waited this time before spending the money to get current with the uniforms.
Quote from: mmouw on December 03, 2009, 08:25:27 PM
I am not sure if this was covered by an earlier post, but I am curious what Vanguard is thinking about all of this? I am not overly concerned with them but with the number of changes that the members have to contend with on a consistent basis, Vanguard also has to make available those items, which I only assume cost them much more money than the individual member. When will they make the decision to stop stocking items and have them made to order? It already takes enough time to get what I assume they have in stock. If uniform items where made to order, there would be a 2 month wait for each order.
It was mentioned, but of course we have no one from VG to comment authoritatively.
The jackets were removed from their website, so you can't actually buy them right now, and someone commented here that CAP's agreement with them is such that CAP has to purchase overstock in situations like these.
From my experience and others', it appears that these jackets were made J-I-T or close to it, especially more unusual sizes. Wait times of weeks to months were not unusual.
QuoteThe CG has no problems with the CGAUX wearing their uniform (withspecific changes to rank and insignia). They don't seem to have aproblem with their auxillary being out of weight and groomingstandards. But unfortunately for CAP the USAF is not the CG. It isthe USAF that has the problem with our fat and fuzzies.
Just to be clear, there is a CG Aux regulation requiring that those in the CG Aux uniform present a trim, military appearance (or words to that effect), but they have no specific height/weight requirements. My personal feeling is that the reg is so vague that it is impossible to enforce. What is a military appearance in one person's eyes could be an obese slob to another. Since there is no objective criteria no one is willing to put themselves out on a limb and tell someone that they can't wear the uniform. I've been surprised that the CG hasn't enacted something more specific, but that would just start everyone down the same road CAP and the AF have followed regarding uniforms.
Maybe CG has seen what has/is happening at CAP and said "We don't want anything like that!"
You mean someone pays attention to cap......? your crazy man ;D
Quote from: Nolan Teel on December 03, 2009, 04:50:02 PM
Is there anyone else out there tired of talking about the CSU? I think were due for a Command Patch change! Lets get a jump start on talking about that!
Please; Just change the channel.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 03, 2009, 05:46:41 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on December 03, 2009, 12:45:52 PM
What?!?! I'm not calling you a liar, just saying that you lied? Reminds me of the old Richard Pryor act, "I wasn't running, I was walking REALLY fast..." ;D (paraphrased)
Come on, if someone makes a statement they honestly believe, they are NOT lying. They may be WRONG or even DEAD WRONG, but everyone we disagree with isn't a liar. I'm not making excuses for liars (I'm an honesty freak!) but use the term when it's appropriate.
Lying is a verb, an action. Liar is a noun, a thing (a person to be specific). An action does not define an object.
The statement made about McLarty was "You would have had a heart attack if you were a member back in the 60's or 70's."
The statement was blatantly untrue, the person referenced did not and would not have such issues. The poster willingly maligned someone by claiming that McLarty had negative feelings that one, he couldn't know; and two, was an attempt to discount McLarty's input by twisting it into an unrelated issue. Can you tell me that the poster honestly believed it?
OMG! Have you ever heard sarcasm before? You are now twisting my words to suit some weird fantasy playing out in your tiny brain. Stop telling people what I mean by what I type. You are NOT my interpret or. If I needed one, I would pay for a person worth more than you in terms of demeanor, skill and knowledge.
You just can't leave things lie pages ago can you?
This whole discussion is ridiculous, and even more so with people like you going off on tangents that have no relevance to the discussion about the CSU.
Grow up......for your sake and ours. I already took you to PM once, you just can't get enough can you??
sarcasm: 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
Almost 27 hours. Longer than I thought it would be.
ah.....countdown...i get it >:D
Quote from: NCRblues on December 04, 2009, 06:04:47 AM
ah.....countdown...i get it >:D
Yep. Didn't expect fireworks, though.
From "The Sentinel," 01 DEC 09:
" CAPR 62-1 is the guiding document for safety awards and it is
important for commanders at all levels in CAP to remember that awards
and recognition are the only "pay" we can offer our members. With that
said, here is a quick review of CAP safety awards as well as a few tips to
increase chances of success in winning one."
Should be amended to: "...that awards and recognition are the only "pay" we can offer our members – and only those that can wear the AF-style uniform"
Just a little venting at those that think the fat & fuzzies should not have a military-style uniform.
You can wear your CAP awards on white and grays. Just no mil stuff, which is impossed by CAP not the AF.
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 04, 2009, 04:47:14 PM
You can wear your CAP awards on white and grays. Just no mil stuff, which is impossed by CAP not the AF.
Yes, you can. Please reference my post regarding looking like an 8th grader who forgot it was picture day when you are standing in a line of fellow members in service jackets and you're in a shirt.
"Well, just wear the blazer, then."
Yep, except, you know, that ribbon / badge thing.
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 04, 2009, 04:47:14 PM
You can wear your CAP awards on white and grays. Just no mil stuff, which is impossed by CAP not the AF.
What you say it very true.
But if you walk into a room of folks wearing the AF style jacket with all their ribbons, wings and badges on. Then you walk in with a Blazer on, you feel under dressed. On the other had most folks that I have seen that where the AF style uniform when not wearing the jacket only wear miniature wings and badges. Well you walk in with the grey and whites with all your bling, now you feel over dressed.
There just does not seem to be a happy middle ground with two different style uniforms being allowed.
Then the commander should have wear guidence for awards. All Authorized awards/ badges/ just badges, or minimum.
Thats a Commanders job.
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 04, 2009, 05:03:02 PM
Then the commander should have wear guidence for awards. All Authorized awards/ badges/ just badges, or minimum.
Thats a Commanders job.
???
Badges and ribbons are required on service dress - at any formal event where a jacket is required you have the line of
military-esque guys with their finery, and the group of officials from the Kremlin (or Hogwarts, if you prefer), and/or worse the
guys with the plastic pocket protectors.
If jelly beans and badges are the only "pay", why is member "A's" finery more "important" than member "B's" who happens to be
fully slim and trim, but wears a neat beard?
So why not allow ribbons/badges on the blazer? Move nametag to the right side. Voila! Everybody has decorations.
Well, gee. That looks like the AF service coat, minus the epaulets. In low light, you'd never know the difference.
Quote from: arajca on December 04, 2009, 05:53:09 PM
Well, gee. That looks like the AF service coat, minus the epaulets. In low light, you'd never know the difference.
No worries, before long we'll probably be concerned the uniform sounds the same to legally blind folks.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 04, 2009, 05:10:35 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 04, 2009, 05:03:02 PM
Then the commander should have wear guidence for awards. All Authorized awards/ badges/ just badges, or minimum.
Thats a Commanders job.
???
Badges and ribbons are required on service dress - at any formal event where a jacket is required you have the line of
military-esque guys with their finery, and the group of officials from the Kremlin (or Hogwarts, if you prefer), and/or worse the
guys with the plastic pocket protectors.
If jelly beans and badges are the only "pay", why is member "A's" finery more "important" than member "B's" who happens to be
fully slim and trim, but wears a neat beard?
Even on the service coat, it says all or some. And if thats the case that Blues withService coats are the UOD, then the Greys put all of their blinage on.
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 04, 2009, 10:14:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 04, 2009, 05:10:35 PM
Even on the service coat, it says all or some. And if thats the case that Blues withService coats are the UOD, then the Greys put all of their blinage on.
You're missing the point entirely - wearing the ribbons under the blazer is silly - no one sees them - and a white shirt with ribbons is not equivalent to a service jacket in terms of formality or appearance, thus the "8th grader / picture day analogy".
The only way to display your finery is to stand in line wearing a shirt with no hat when all the others are in a jacket with a cover.
The gray slacks will always look screwed up.
Quote from: billford1 on December 04, 2009, 11:40:16 PM
The gray slacks will always look screwed up.
Seconded.
I have never been able to figure out why grey was chosen as an "alternative" uniform.
Instead of grey slacks why not dark blue or black? Someone wearing a polo and dark slacks would look more "uniform" when standing next to someone wearing the corporate dark blue flight suit or field uniform. Dark slacks and a blazer would look like a Navy uniform but it would be a small price to pay for uniformity.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 04, 2009, 05:10:35 PM
military-esque guys with their finery, and the group of officials from the Kremlin (or Hogwarts, if you prefer), and/or worse the guys with the plastic pocket protectors.
Don't forget welcoming Spock's Parents, Sarek and Amanda, on board the
USS Enterprise and those awkward times when Lando offers to host a spur of the moment dinner party to discuss cool "deal" he has made that will keep the Empire out of out hair.
Quote from: arajca on December 04, 2009, 05:53:09 PM
Well, gee. That looks like the AF service coat, minus the epaulets. In low light, you'd never know the difference.
Bring on the new WAL*MART greeter vests with ribbons, badges and pocket protector. Of course it has to be color 1625.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 04, 2009, 11:51:18 PM
Quote from: billford1 on December 04, 2009, 11:40:16 PM
The gray slacks will always look screwed up.
Seconded.
I have never been able to figure out why grey was chosen as an "alternative" uniform.
Seriously, Brig General Anderson told me that it was to reflect the gray in the CAP flag, the the change from maroon to gray shoulder marks. If you think about it, CAP's base colors on the USAF Style uniform are the shades of USAF Blue and Gray.
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 05, 2009, 01:34:26 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on December 04, 2009, 11:51:18 PM
Quote from: billford1 on December 04, 2009, 11:40:16 PM
The gray slacks will always look screwed up.
Seconded.
I have never been able to figure out why grey was chosen as an "alternative" uniform.
Seriously, Brig General Anderson told me that it was to reflect the gray in the CAP flag, the the change from maroon to gray shoulder marks. If you think about it, CAP's base colors on the USAF Style uniform are the shades of USAF Blue and Gray.
Sir, Perhaps the gray has some significance with CAP. The Gray epaulets are ok but the gray slacks were ill conceived.
It is not that that they are gray, they are the wrong color gray. A lot of people seem to be favoring a switch to a dark gray. (Think Charcoal Gray) It would still tie into the grade sleeves, but do away with the "washed out" look of the lighter grays.
I'd betcha when they originally spec'd out the corporate grays they either didn't know or deliberately made the specification for the trousers (except for the material) vague so that members could buy the uniform off the shelf at a big-box-store. The unintended consequence is that the gray variations vary widely.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 05, 2009, 05:12:36 PM
It is not that that they are gray, they are the wrong color gray. A lot of people seem to be favoring a switch to a dark gray. (Think Charcoal Gray) It would still tie into the grade sleeves, but do away with the "washed out" look of the lighter grays.
I see what you're getting at (I think). A lot of the problem with the current grey trousers (other than lack of consistency) is that (understandably) some members buy the cheapest trousers they can find. The fabric is not good, the stitching weak, and after a few spins through the wash they look rather bad.
However, rather than charcoal grey (though I wouldn't say no to that) I would personally prefer a grey-blue, maybe close to what the Post Office wears (in different fabric) or something like what the airline pilots wear (readily available, sharp-looking, and not at all close to the AF):
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/p_pants.htm
and pullover sweaters (not black, too close to the Army, but the dark navy might work):
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/flight_jsw.htm#sweaters
I would like us to look like
aviators. That doesn't necessarily mean
military aviators. I've seen some airline uniforms that are very sharp-looking. We already wear aviator shirts as part of the "alternative" uniform, so I see no reason not to go with aviator trousers as well (and for those choosing to wear the blazer, it would be a close match).
Psst...I'd also suggest the blue Van Heusen aviator shirt here...but that might be a bit close, even though it's not the same as the AF... :P
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/p_shirt1.htm
Quote from: CyBorg on December 05, 2009, 06:56:00 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 05, 2009, 05:12:36 PM
It is not that that they are gray, they are the wrong color gray. A lot of people seem to be favoring a switch to a dark gray. (Think Charcoal Gray) It would still tie into the grade sleeves, but do away with the "washed out" look of the lighter grays.
I see what you're getting at (I think). A lot of the problem with the current grey trousers (other than lack of consistency) is that (understandably) some members buy the cheapest trousers they can find. The fabric is not good, the stitching weak, and after a few spins through the wash they look rather bad.
However, rather than charcoal grey (though I wouldn't say no to that) I would personally prefer a grey-blue, maybe close to what the Post Office wears (in different fabric) or something like what the airline pilots wear (readily available, sharp-looking, and not at all close to the AF):
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/p_pants.htm
and pullover sweaters (not black, too close to the Army, but the dark navy might work):
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/flight_jsw.htm#sweaters
I would like us to look like aviators. That doesn't necessarily mean military aviators. I've seen some airline uniforms that are very sharp-looking. We already wear aviator shirts as part of the "alternative" uniform, so I see no reason not to go with aviator trousers as well (and for those choosing to wear the blazer, it would be a close match).
Psst...I'd also suggest the blue Van Heusen aviator shirt here...but that might be a bit close, even though it's not the same as the AF... :P
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/p_shirt1.htm
I can second going to a real aviator uniform for the corporate uniform.
Grey looks awful and will always look AWFUL no matter what the shade of grey.
I still think we can fight to keep the Blue/white, if we can adjust our regs so, morbid obese cannot wear the uniform.
However if the Air Force is so inclined about "Confusion" in ID of Uniforms and who they are.
There was a DARK BLUE SHIRT with Epaulets that was used by the Air Force in the late 60s and Early 70s. It looked sharp. It was used by my Squadron Drill Team at Kessler AFB, circa 1975. I wore it at work in Personnel at Tinker AFB in 1975. Its still around, but not an Air Force Uniform.
Dark Blue cannot be mistaken for an Air Force Uniform, even in Low Light.
Dark Blue Shirt/Blue Slacks/ Blue Epaulets. It cannot be confused with an Air Force Uniform.
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
Polo shirts and slacks for those that cannot fit the upper weight restrictions.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
Why?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2009, 07:55:56 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
Why?
What problem does this solve?
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
Grey looks awful and will always look AWFUL no matter what the shade of grey.
I still think we can fight to keep the Blue/white, if we can adjust our regs so, morbid obese cannot wear the uniform.
However if the Air Force is so inclined about "Confusion" in ID of Uniforms and who they are.
There was a DARK BLUE SHIRT with Epaulets that was used by the Air Force in the late 60s and Early 70s. It looked sharp. It was used by my Squadron Drill Team at Kessler AFB, circa 1975. I wore it at work in Personnel at Tinker AFB in 1975. Its still around, but not an Air Force Uniform.
Dark Blue cannot be mistaken for an Air Force Uniform, even in Low Light.
Dark Blue Shirt/Blue Slacks/ Blue Epaulets. It cannot be confused with an Air Force Uniform.
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
Polo shirts and slacks for those that cannot fit the upper weight restrictions.
Um...Dark blue uniforms can't be confused with Air force uniforms? Have you seen the dark blue trench coat that the air force issues? Their pretty dark blue, also ever seen an AF dress blues jacket when it's wet from rain? It's pretty dark blue. I think this is one of the problems, cap members just know it will never ever be confused for any uniform ::). We need to get away from that form of thinking.
Ugh, this thread lives! :o
I agree that if we just HAVE to have a civilian uniform (which I would never wear) then it should be a corporate pilot style uniform
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 08, 2009, 09:59:09 PM
I agree that if we just HAVE to have a civilian uniform (which I would never wear)
So you'd quit CAP before wearing a corporate variant?
These are the sorts of statements that perpetuate the status of the corporates as "second class".
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2009, 10:49:05 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 08, 2009, 09:59:09 PM
I agree that if we just HAVE to have a civilian uniform (which I would never wear)
So you'd quit CAP before wearing a corporate variant?
These are the sorts of statements that perpetuate the status of the corporates as "second class".
+1
Quote from: davidsinn on December 08, 2009, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2009, 07:55:56 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
Why?
What problem does this solve?
Since we don't know why the change is required, we don't know. The Air Force and NHQ are silent on the reason other than "confusion".
[quote/]
Um...Dark blue uniforms can't be confused with Air force uniforms? Have you seen the dark blue trench coat that the air force issues? Their pretty dark blue, also ever seen an AF dress blues jacket when it's wet from rain? It's pretty dark blue. I think this is one of the problems, cap members just know it will never ever be confused for any uniform ::). We need to get away from that form of thinking.
[/quote]
Therefore, another valid point. Anyone, can be confused on the Uniforms. Any Combination or color will confuse. Therefore, we could be at the mercy of the confused for a long time.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 09, 2009, 03:26:24 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on December 08, 2009, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2009, 07:55:56 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
Why?
What problem does this solve?
Since we don't know why the change is required, we don't know. The Air Force and NHQ are silent on the reason other than "confusion".
That wasn't the question, reread.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
And what about us bearded folks? How would you have us not fit in this time? :o
Quote from: SarDragon on December 09, 2009, 03:56:39 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
And what about us bearded folks? How would you have us not fit in this time? :o
There needs be to nobody excluded from wearing whatever the uniform is this time.
Quote from: billford1 on December 09, 2009, 04:12:42 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on December 09, 2009, 03:56:39 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
And what about us bearded folks? How would you have us not fit in this time? :o
There needs to nobody excluded from wearing whatever the uniform is this time.
Yep, and we all know there's only two ways to get there. Choose one and press here...
(http://solid-orange.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/easy_button.jpg)
Quote from: SarDragon on December 09, 2009, 03:56:39 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
And what about us bearded folks? How would you have us not fit in this time? :o
Bearded Folks? How much confusion can the Air Force Handle? I have a beard, on and off. Shaved it because I work with cadets. That was optional on my part.
If you looked like George Clooney in Uniform do you think the Air Force would complain? Then again the Air Force is not talking. I would like to get to the bottom of this. Before we go into another combination.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 09, 2009, 04:52:16 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on December 09, 2009, 03:56:39 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
But still, that is not the problem. We need upper weight restrictions, and you just cannot wear any uniform if you are 30% above Air Force Weight.
And what about us bearded folks? How would you have us not fit in this time? :o
Bearded Folks? How much confusion can the Air Force Handle? I have a beard, on and off. Shaved it because I work with cadets. That was optional on my part.
If you looked like George Clooney in Uniform do you think the Air Force would complain? Then again the Air Force is not talking. I would like to get to the bottom of this. Before we go into another combination.
I had a beard and long hair before joining CAP, but I shaved them off voluntarily. However, not everyone's going to be willing to do that.
I'd be very surprised if we hear anything more from the AF side about the CSU than we've already heard.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
Grey looks awful and will always look AWFUL no matter what the shade of grey.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PMDark Blue Shirt/Blue Slacks/ Blue Epaulets. It cannot be confused with an Air Force Uniform.
That's a tough one. I think I know what uniform you're referring to. It looks a bit like the Navy/CG (and Auxiliary) "Winter Dress Blue" uniform:
http://www.cgadivision26.org/flotillas/lexington/members_deck/uniforms/images/CGAUX-winter-dress-blue.gif
Interestingly, the local Army/Navy shop has some of those old AF blue shirts in mint condition.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 09, 2009, 06:43:54 PM
I'd be very surprised if we hear anything more from the AF side about the CSU than we've already heard.
Which, after the adjustments mandated right at implementation, (about 3 years ago) has been nothing further to date.
Quote from: FARRIER on December 06, 2009, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on December 05, 2009, 06:56:00 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 05, 2009, 05:12:36 PM
It is not that that they are gray, they are the wrong color gray. A lot of people seem to be favoring a switch to a dark gray. (Think Charcoal Gray) It would still tie into the grade sleeves, but do away with the "washed out" look of the lighter grays.
I see what you're getting at (I think). A lot of the problem with the current grey trousers (other than lack of consistency) is that (understandably) some members buy the cheapest trousers they can find. The fabric is not good, the stitching weak, and after a few spins through the wash they look rather bad.
However, rather than charcoal grey (though I wouldn't say no to that) I would personally prefer a grey-blue, maybe close to what the Post Office wears (in different fabric) or something like what the airline pilots wear (readily available, sharp-looking, and not at all close to the AF):
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/p_pants.htm
and pullover sweaters (not black, too close to the Army, but the dark navy might work):
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/flight_jsw.htm#sweaters
I would like us to look like aviators. That doesn't necessarily mean military aviators. I've seen some airline uniforms that are very sharp-looking. We already wear aviator shirts as part of the "alternative" uniform, so I see no reason not to go with aviator trousers as well (and for those choosing to wear the blazer, it would be a close match).
Psst...I'd also suggest the blue Van Heusen aviator shirt here...but that might be a bit close, even though it's not the same as the AF... :P
http://www.airlineuniforms.net/p_shirt1.htm
I can second going to a real aviator uniform for the corporate uniform.
I'd add a third on that one. And for all the people that want a hat, airline pilots usually have one. Instead of trying for a police or pseudo-military look uniform, go for the one that relates to, and is easily identified with, aviation overall.
I thought thta many didn't want anything that made us look like Airline Pilots.
I'm just saying. . . .
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 09, 2009, 08:10:25 PM
I thought thta many didn't want anything that made us look like Airline Pilots.
I'm just saying. . . .
Wasn't me. As for the appearance, why not? The blazer combo doesn't really associate with anything. It's a blazer with some insignia, none of which really screams "Aviation".
The Air Force variants show an association with aviation, why shouldn't the corporate combo as well?
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 09, 2009, 08:10:25 PM
I thought thta many didn't want anything that made us look like Airline Pilots.
I'm just saying. . . .
Yeah, I hate when people confuse our organization for one that is aviation related...
Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 09, 2009, 09:25:26 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 09, 2009, 08:10:25 PM
I thought thta many didn't want anything that made us look like Airline Pilots.
I'm just saying. . . .
Yeah, I hate when people confuse our organization for one that is aviation related...
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
(We need a laughing smiley)
I think there might be a problem with dark shirts.. it'll show dandruff...
...and crumbs.
Mmm...doughnuts
If we really want to look like aviators we could try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Lendrum_Mitchell_(full_shot).jpg
;D ;D ;D ;D
Dang I forgot that the powdered donuts will REALLY show up on the dark shirt!
Quote from: olefido on December 10, 2009, 01:35:38 AM
If we really want to look like aviators we could try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Lendrum_Mitchell_(full_shot).jpg
;D ;D ;D ;D
Sure ant tick off the state police
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2009, 10:49:05 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 08, 2009, 09:59:09 PM
I agree that if we just HAVE to have a civilian uniform (which I would never wear)
So you'd quit CAP before wearing a corporate variant?
These are the sorts of statements that perpetuate the status of the corporates as "second class".
Yup. And people wonder why I have posted vehemently about this very thing on other threads. If flyguy06, Earhart1971, and others could, they would hang out a sign "Fat & Fuzzies need not apply."
Quote from: CyBorg on December 09, 2009, 07:04:48 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
Grey looks awful and will always look AWFUL no matter what the shade of grey.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PMDark Blue Shirt/Blue Slacks/ Blue Epaulets. It cannot be confused with an Air Force Uniform.
That's a tough one. I think I know what uniform you're referring to. It looks a bit like the Navy/CG (and Auxiliary) "Winter Dress Blue" uniform:
http://www.cgadivision26.org/flotillas/lexington/members_deck/uniforms/images/CGAUX-winter-dress-blue.gif
Interestingly, the local Army/Navy shop has some of those old AF blue shirts in mint condition.
You guys are referring to the old Shade 1549 Long Sleeve shirt. Very popular uniform combination in cold areas during winter.
Until you came in from the outside and started sweating. I guess it would work fine in a lot of the office environments we have today that tend to always be on the cool side. Bit of a pain having to always wear a tie with it and you really needed to have it tailored well to look good. I only owned one but it did look nice.
Quote from: Short Field on December 10, 2009, 06:01:24 AM
Until you came in from the outside and started sweating. I guess it would work fine in a lot of the office environments we have today that tend to always be on the cool side. Bit of a pain having to always wear a tie with it and you really needed to have it tailored well to look good. I only owned one but it did look nice.
1549 Shade Shirt that is correct. Since its not used by the Air Force, we can find someone to Manufacture the Shirt in Short Sleeve and open Collar. Still would look great.
The Air Force will not be confused. I am afraid it looks so good, that the Air Force will readapt the Dark Blue Shirt. The Air Force as you know is looking for changes to make in their Uniform. The Airline Pilot and Billy Mitchell did not work for them.
Here's a whacky idea....
Why don't we just keep the white aviator shirt and blue pants to replace the whites/grays and maintain modified grooming standards?
Then only the corporate coat will have gone to waste and those who despise the grays will be appeased.
If you are attending a function that would necessitate a coat, then you have to wear the USAF and meet all standards, or wear the blazer uniform.
We don't have to make a new uniform. We don't have to create new uniform elements. We salvage the pants. Everyone wins.
Quote from: Ollie on December 14, 2009, 03:51:42 PM
Here's a whacky idea....
Why don't we just keep the white aviator shirt and blue pants to replace the whites/grays and maintain modified grooming standards?
Then only the corporate coat will have gone to waste and those who despise the grays will be appeased.
If you are attending a function that would necessitate a coat, then you have to wear the USAF and meet all standards, or wear the blazer uniform.
We don't have to make a new uniform. We don't have to create new uniform elements. We salvage the pants. Everyone wins.
This doesn't actually solve anything and perpetuates the separate standards for class of membership - slim and trims get to show off, fat-n-fuzzies get to wear the Hogwarts jacket with the pocket protector. There's no need to even bother with the additional uniform.
Any fix needs to provide the membership, as a whole, with clothing that fulfills the mission, and makes all of us, at least as a class (senior / cadet) look...wait for it..."uniform". Anything that separates the respective membership classes, for any reason, just reinvents what we already have and we might as well just leave things as-is.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2009, 03:55:37 PM
Any fix needs to provide the membership, as a whole, with clothing that fulfills the mission, and makes all of us, at least as a class (senior / cadet) look...wait for it..."uniform". Anything that separates the respective membership classes, for any reason, just reinvents what we already have and we might as well just leave things as-is.
I've been saying this for years: keep cadets in AF style uniforms (at least as long as USAF keeps giving them away!), develop something else for seniors...ALL seniors.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 14, 2009, 05:19:07 PMI've been saying this for years: keep cadets in AF style uniforms (at least as long as USAF keeps giving them away!), develop something else for seniors...ALL seniors.
And it doesn't matter if you have been. What does matter is that it's not up to us.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 14, 2009, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 14, 2009, 05:19:07 PMI've been saying this for years: keep cadets in AF style uniforms (at least as long as USAF keeps giving them away!), develop something else for seniors...ALL seniors.
And it doesn't matter if you have been. What does matter is that it's not up to us.
Actually it is up to us. If enough of us voice our concerns, complaints or desires for something, something will be done. If the Air Force did not demand this change, but a few NEC members thought it is best to do this, then we have a fighting chance to keep this uniform. Simply, shutting up and doing nothing is not an option for some of us.
Let me remind you that I had members save money to purchase this uniform days before the NEC made thier declaration. If we would have known this was a possibility, there would have been other options.
This matter is not as simple as changing nametapes or patches. Members money was invested, and I guarantee there will be some that walk away from CAP over this.
OK, since this topic isn't dead yet. I thought it would be interesting to throw another tidbit into the mix.
Section 14.8 of our bylaws gives the authority of the National Board to "limit" the ability of the NEC to make decisions......... >:D
"14.8 The National Executive Committee shall meet at least twice annually and, except as otherwise directed or limited by the National Board, may consider any business properly brought before it."
I wonder if the NEC realized what they were doing when they went against the NB's Sept. decison about uniforms???
That section wouldn't preclude changing a decision. If the NB had said "Only the National Board may enact changes to the CAP uniform." then that section would come into play.
Quote from: FW on December 14, 2009, 08:14:19 PM
OK, since this topic isn't dead yet. I thought it would be interesting to throw another tidbit into the mix.
Section 14.8 of our bylaws gives the authority of the National Board to "limit" the ability of the NEC to make decisions......... >:D
"14.8 The National Executive Committee shall meet at least twice annually and, except as otherwise directed or limited by the National Board, may consider any business properly brought before it."
I wonder if the NEC realized what they were doing when they went against the NB's Sept. decison about uniforms???
This has already been mentioned a number of times in
this thread...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2009, 08:34:02 PM
Quote from: FW on December 14, 2009, 08:14:19 PM
OK, since this topic isn't dead yet. I thought it would be interesting to throw another tidbit into the mix.
Section 14.8 of our bylaws gives the authority of the National Board to "limit" the ability of the NEC to make decisions......... >:D
"14.8 The National Executive Committee shall meet at least twice annually and, except as otherwise directed or limited by the National Board, may consider any business properly brought before it."
I wonder if the NEC realized what they were doing when they went against the NB's Sept. decison about uniforms???
This has already been mentioned a number of times in this thread...
But who is going to look thru 42 pages of posts?
Quote from: phirons on December 14, 2009, 08:48:19 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2009, 08:34:02 PM
This has already been mentioned a number of times in this thread...
But who is going to look thru 42 pages of posts?
Agreed - no point in actually reading the post you're responding to...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2009, 08:34:02 PM
Quote from: FW on December 14, 2009, 08:14:19 PM
OK, since this topic isn't dead yet. I thought it would be interesting to throw another tidbit into the mix.
Section 14.8 of our bylaws gives the authority of the National Board to "limit" the ability of the NEC to make decisions......... >:D
"14.8 The National Executive Committee shall meet at least twice annually and, except as otherwise directed or limited by the National Board, may consider any business properly brought before it."
I wonder if the NEC realized what they were doing when they went against the NB's Sept. decison about uniforms???
This has already been mentioned a number of times in this thread...
Actually, I don't think it has. Throughout the rest of this thread we have been assuming that the NB and NEC had equal powers (except for a few specific things in the constitution). It was that premise that led me to start a thread about changing the whole relationship of the NB and NEC. However, what FW has found shows that the NB can not only reverse the decision of the NEC but has the authority to prohibit the NEC from ever addressing that issue again.
^Exactly. The NB, in its Sept. 09 decision, said it would table all uniform decisions until a committee was formed, studied the issue and, gave a report for action in 2011. That may be considered a "limitation" to the NEC.
I bring this up because I do expect a "fun" winter NB meeting in D.C.
I wonder how much the "good seats" are going to cost? ;D
There's no point in quoting every message, but this issue was mentioned a dozen times at least.
And by a "dozen", I mean more than once...
The "issue" has been mentioned many times however, the conclusions made here seem to be based on less than complete information and may be incorrect; as Gen Courter's power point only mentioned the NEC has the powers of the NB when it is not in session (14.8 was not mentioned and, never was brought up before in this thread. In fact, based upon the powerpoint presentation, it was assumed the NEC could bring up this issue; and did properly).
The National Board made a decision to "table" any uniform discussion. According to 14.8, when an issue is tabled by the full NB; ONLY the full NB can bring it back. The NEC does NOT have that authority (maybe ::) ).
Bottom line, who knows what will happen at the NB meeting. However, I think things just got more interesting.
pinyin: níng wéi tàipíng quǎn, bù zuò luànshì rén
8) OH Yeah......
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2009, 10:43:21 PM
pinyin: níng wéi tàipíng quǎn, bù zuò luànshì rén
Now, the pointlessnes is complete.
Quote from: FW on December 14, 2009, 08:14:19 PM
OK, since this topic isn't dead yet. I thought it would be interesting to throw another tidbit into the mix.
Section 14.8 of our bylaws gives the authority of the National Board to "limit" the ability of the NEC to make decisions......... >:D
"14.8 The National Executive Committee shall meet at least twice annually and, except as otherwise directed or limited by the National Board, may consider any business properly brought before it."
I wonder if the NEC realized what they were doing when they went against the NB's Sept. decison about uniforms???
Good point, one if brought up previously, I missed in all the pages of posts. The underlined "except as otherwise directed or limited by the National Board, may consider any business properly brought before it" is the point. It had been directed that uniform items would be tabled. I don't think the NEC cared.
Yes, it will be an interesting winter board. I just hope the NB has the courage to stand up for the members. However, my guess is that they will do as they are told (execute and salute) or their positions will be in jeopardy. I have seen it happen too times.
Their positions won't be in jeopardy if there's a secret ballot. But then, even if they were, they need to fire the gutless wonders who won't stand up for the members in their wings.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2009, 10:43:21 PM
pinyin: níng wéi tàipíng quǎn, bù zuò luànshì rén
Quid Quid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur! Anything said in Chinese however, sounds like it came from Chairman Mao......I am not sure that our pointless debate about the uniforms created by Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters has much effect on anything except our livers....
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on December 15, 2009, 03:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2009, 10:43:21 PM
pinyin: níng wéi tàipíng quǎn, bù zuò luànshì rén
Quid Quid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7HDLwdzo9M
Quote from: Gunner C on December 15, 2009, 02:34:34 PM
Their positions won't be in jeopardy if there's a secret ballot. But then, even if they were, they need to fire the gutless wonders who won't stand up for the members in their wings.
True, but why would there be a secret ballot? Normally, it is a show of hands unless it is an election. Wing CCs often stand up to keep their positions rather than their members. I think that is why we are in the situation that we are in.
I know several Wing CCs have been inundated with comments/feedback from their members on this issue. I hope this time they will actually represent them with whatever opinion the members have.
They can ask for a secret ballot for any issue. It is usually (never in my experience) not challenged.
Again...I will wear this uniform until someone up the food chain tells me "don't wear it anymore."
Gunner C: those "guttless wonders" that you reference are likely still hiding behind their desks in order to not have to confront any tough decisions. Or they only go to Wing Hq once a month, in order to sign meaningless PAs.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 15, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
Again...I will wear this uniform until someone up the food chain tells me "don't wear it anymore."
So, you'll ignore the regs when you pass the phase-out date?
Quote from: bosshawk on December 15, 2009, 07:41:28 PM
Gunner C: those "guttless wonders" that you reference are likely still hiding behind their desks in order to not have to confront any tough decisions. Or they only go to Wing Hq once a month, in order to sign meaningless PAs.
Why do some of you have to resort to personal insults?
The people you are denigrating are volunteers, just like the rest of us, and with a lot more responsibility than the majority of the rest of the membership.
Quote from: Rotorhead on December 15, 2009, 09:05:55 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on December 15, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
Again...I will wear this uniform until someone up the food chain tells me "don't wear it anymore."
So, you'll ignore the regs when you pass the phase-out date?
What regs? There still is not an ICL stating it's dead.
Since the NEC seems to have been "out of order" in it's recent decision, I expect the NB will have a very healthy discussion on, first, procedures and, second, the uniform. I'm sure a secret ballot will be requested because 18 or 19 wing commanders do not have tenure. I don't think it is wise to assume what the outcome will be however, I know it will be a fair, open and well vetted one. It's time for our leaders to put closure on our uniform "problems" so we can concentrate on more important matters like our cadets, our missions and, our service.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 15, 2009, 09:08:42 PM
The people you are denigrating are volunteers, just like the rest of us, and with a lot more responsibility than the majority of the rest of the membership.
Actually, I think as a Squadron Commander, I spend WAY more time on CAP then they do. Some, if I am not mistaken have not only been in CAP many many many years LESS than a lot of us, but received "special appointments" that "regular" members do not. They made Major in the time it took many of us to make Captain, thus being eligible for board positions. Do not forget it is all political anyway. So if I am not good at playing politics, I will at best be a Group Commander one day.
What is so demanding of them? Attending
vacations meetings twice a year?? Maybe a monthly conference call??
Seriously, don't think one group is better than another just because they say there is "responsibility". I am responsible for the welfare of 87 people, 68 of them Cadets. You are a Commander right? I worry about each of my members each time there is a mission. I take the time to get know all of them. I am honestly interested in their lives. I try to provide a positive environment and create productive results. I meet deadlines (like ORM) that are thrown on the Squadrons last minute with a few weeks to get it done. I volunteer more hours each year than any other member I know of (personally).
So when I tell a member "oh yeah, you should save up for the new Corporate Service Uniform" and then turn around after they bought it to tell them "by the way it is being phased out", it makes me look like an idiot, and it down right bothers the hell out of me. So, adding up the figures at the meeting last week, just under $1700 was spent by new members in my unit on the CSU. I have three that told me they will not be renewing, and made me feel like [mess] before they left (never to be seen again).
So thank you NEC, for a job well done. Thank you General Courter for not giving any kind of heads up that this may be a possibility.
So, in conclusion, I am a terd, whose members believe betrayed them----- and I feel like a dirt-bag.
End of rant.
WOW I HAVE BEEN OFF FOR A FEW WEEKS AND WHAT DID I MISS???
sad WE ARE ROTTING AWAY
Quote from: Rotorhead on December 15, 2009, 09:05:55 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on December 15, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
Again...I will wear this uniform until someone up the food chain tells me "don't wear it anymore."
So, you'll ignore the regs when you pass the phase-out date?
Ummm...no.
Regs on a phase-out date,
when they are officially passed down, in the form of an ICL or otherwise, are someone (or many someones) up the food chain saying "don't wear it anymore."
One thing I've learnt from almost 16 years in CAP is "believe it when you see it in writing."
Quote from: davidsinn on December 15, 2009, 09:11:33 PM
Quote from: Rotorhead on December 15, 2009, 09:05:55 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on December 15, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
Again...I will wear this uniform until someone up the food chain tells me "don't wear it anymore."
So, you'll ignore the regs when you pass the phase-out date?
What regs? There still is not an ICL stating it's dead.
There will be, at some point.
Quote from: Rotorhead on December 16, 2009, 03:02:06 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on December 15, 2009, 09:11:33 PM
Quote from: Rotorhead on December 15, 2009, 09:05:55 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on December 15, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
Again...I will wear this uniform until someone up the food chain tells me "don't wear it anymore."
So, you'll ignore the regs when you pass the phase-out date?
What regs? There still is not an ICL stating it's dead.
There will be, at some point.
I would assume so. Until that point this whole discussion is academic.
Almost every person on here at one point in time or another has said things in cap take time, or give the higher ups a break, their just volunteers as well. But now you all want an answer right this second, what happened to things take time? ::) IF (and that's a big if) the NB revisits this, then so be it, but It won't happen today and It won't happen tomorrow. No one said you have to stop wearing the darn thing right now, so just rein yourselves in a little and wait. Anyone that has served in the military will know that things don't always happen the way they should or on the time they should.
Big difference between "right this minute" and "since 7 Nov". I think we could have reasonably expected something by now. Yes, I think "reasonable" is the operative word.
A little over a month, with one of the biggest traveling holidays of the year located in the middle. I still think we should just cool it a little while longer before riding that bull.
Quote from: NCRblues on December 17, 2009, 01:25:21 AM
A little over a month, with one of the biggest traveling holidays of the year located in the middle. I still think we should just cool it a little while longer before riding that bull.
^^^Yes.
Those who have served in the military, or at some length in time, know the Prime Directive:
HURRY UP AND WAIT!I'm on the "it ain't over until it's over" side.
It was the NEC that killed it. The NEC minutes do not mention the AF wishing it dead.
Quote
- 3. Elimination of the New Corporate Uniform
COLCORTUM/RMR stated that he would like to propose an agenda item to eliminate thenew corporate uniform that was instituted just a few years ago. It seems to have caused some consternationand real confusion about what is our real CAP uniform, as far as what iscorporate and what is the Air Force-style uniform that we can now wear. He made the following motion:
COLCORTUM/RMR MOVED and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded that theNational Executive Committee approve that the "New Corporate Uniform,"—NewCorporate Service Coat and all combinations thereof (blue)—be phased out as aCivil Air Patrol uniform because it is insufficiently distinctive from the AirForce-style uniform thus creating unnecessary confusion to the membership andthe general public, with a phase-out date of 31 January 2011.
Therewas clarification that elimination of the "New Corporate Uniform" includes theService Coat as well as the white aviator shirt and blue slacks, jackets,overcoats, sweaters—everything associated with the "New Corporate Uniform".
Therewas also clarification that the black jacket was originally authorized with thegray and white so continued wear of the black jacket would be authorized withgray and white and blue and white underneath.
THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ONACTION: Implementation of policy,notification to the field, and change to CAPM 39-1, Civil Air Patrol Uniform
4. Authorization of Wear of Gray Pants and White Aviator Shirts for Cadetsover 18
COLJENSEN/SWR MOVED and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded that theNational Executive Committee authorize wear of gray pants and white aviatorshirts as a uniform for cadets over the age of 18 years, effective immediately.
.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
FOLLOW-ONACTION: Implementation of policy,notification to the field, and change to CAPM 39-1, Civil Air Patrol Uniform
5. Uniform Process Action Team
COLCHAZELL/CS recounted that at the winter 2009 National Board meeting, theNational Commander authorized the Uniform Process Action Team to reviewprocedures for recommending, approving, and implementing changes to all CAPuniforms; to identify process deficiencies with the current system; andrecommend to the National Commander
arevised process. (A copy provided toNational Board members). He stated thatcurrently there are two systems in place for approving uniform items. The first one is a process defined by CAPM39-1, paragraph 1-4, which is problematic because there is ambiguous authorizefor national approval. The secondprocess is for members of the National Board to submit agenda items containingproposed changes to the uniform for consideration by the entire board. This process is problematic because it isn'tclear, based on the language of CAPM 39-1, that the National Board has theauthority to unilaterally approve changes to the uniform. Therefore, the team has developedrecommended changes to the National Commander for future uniform changes, andCol Chazell made the following motion:
COLCHAZELL/CS MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded that theNational Executive Committee approve a policy that, in order to improve andstreamline uniform change proposals, the official procedure for making changesto uniforms and their accoutrements shall be processed in accordance with theprocedure recommended by the Uniform Process Action Team by memo to theNational Commander dated 23 June 2009, effective immediately.
Therecommendations by the Uniform Process Team in the 23 June 2009 memo to theNational Commander to change CAPM 39-1, Paragraph 1-4, Changes to the Uniform,read as follows
"a. How to Recommend Changes to theUniform. New or changed uniform items may not be authorizedwithout approval of the National Commander, except as specified in Table 1-3 ofthis manual. This includes suchspecialty wear as distinctive shirts and other "informal" items worn by groupsof members performing similar specialty CAP functions and duties. Unit commanders will forward recommendedchanges to the uniform, insignia, accessories, or related items, from any CAPmember, through channels to National Headquarters/DP (Ms. Parker). The chain of command is the sole vehicle forcommunicating proposed uniform changes to National Headquarters/DP; anycommandeer in the chain can choose not to forward recommendations. Once received by National Headquarters/DP,recommended changes will be forwarded to the Uniform Committee for review andapproval. Recommended changes approvedby the Uniform Committee will then be forwarded to the National Commander witha recommended implementation process. The National Commander will then review the recommended changes. Recommended changes approved by the NationalCommander will be returned to National Headquarters/DP for announcement andimplementation.
"Recommendedchanges not approved at echelons below National will be communicated to theproponent at the discretion or method of the disapproving commander. Recommended changes not approved at Nationalwill be announced using a mechanism of mass distribution such as the UniformCommittee webpage or a nationally distributed electronic newsletter.
"Implementationof approved changes to Air Force-style uniforms will be held in abeyance untilthe recommended changes are approved by the proper USAF authority.
"Insofaras decorations, ribbons, badges, patches, and all other accoutrements to theuniform are concerned, it will remain the province of the National Board toenact their creation or abolition. However, their initial design, redesign, and proper wear requirementswill be processed in the same manner as all other uniform changes. Wing commanders may continue to approve unitorganizational patches as authorized by CAPM 39-1, Table 6-4.
"b.Composition of the Uniform Committee
TheChair of the Uniform Committee will be selected using the same procedure usedfor all other National Staff positions. The Uniform Committee, comprised of 5-10 officers, will report to theNational Commander through the National Chief of Staff and will be selected bythe Chair with prior approval by the National Chief of Staff and NationalCommander.
"Aswith other National Staff positions, the Uniform Committee, including theChair, will be selected based upon the relevant background and skill possessedby the candidate.
"Asmembers of the Uniform Committee, officers would be expected to hold themembership and overall program above parochial or unit-based loyalties.
"Individualswith substantive knowledge of uniforms either from US military or CAPbackgrounds will be sought. Variousmission areas will be represented on the committee. The National Historian, the CAP Chief Master Sergeant, and aCAP-USAF advisor, appointed by the CAP-USAF/CC, will serve ex-officio.
"Internaloperation of the Uniform Committee will be at the discretion of the Chair."
COLJENSEN/SWR MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL CHARLES/NC seconded thepostponement until the winter 2010 National Board meeting, with guidance.
THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Guidance was provided as a recommendation that at the timerecommended uniform changes go the National Commander they would also have tobe posted, in the same manner as items not approved, for a period of 30 days toreceive feed-back. After that 30-dayfeed-back period, then the National Commander would be permitted to confirm orreject a recommended change. Include inthe winter 2010 National Board agenda.[/l][/l]
Refer to my last post.
IMHO, the NB will be spending significant time revisiting the above issues at the winter meeting. I hope they can keep the discussions on a professional level and, an honest, fair and just conclusion will be made.
WHY?? Why are they going to waste cap's time revisiting this? You are only upset because you lost some money, im sorry but my god. Your are basically wishing for the NB to descend into a constant debate that will suck the time that could be used to make changes that are good for cap.
Several times in this thread, emails from Gen. courter, the GLR/CC and the Ohio wing cc, were shown, and those members of the NEC and NB told their members that the air force wanted this to go away. Why is it so hard to realize that the air force (this time) allowed us to save face, instead of slapping it??
Those of you that will come on here and say if the air force disliked the uniform, they would have said something. NO. It happens all the time in the real military as well as corporations. Instead of coming down and saying "cap you idiots get ride of that thing", someone called someone in the cap chain of command and STRONGLY suggested that it goes away.
This is like banging my head against the brick wall. I hope the NB does not revisit this. This will make us look like wannabe cry babies. I am so frustrated.
Easy, bro. Right now, the only problem, IMO, is the way the NEC handled the matter. There are specific rules that need to be followed; as to procedure in CAP. It looks like the NEC did not follow them.
The power points, letters, etc. are conflicting and are not definative. From every source I could contact. There was no official "change of mind" by the Air Force. There was no "unofficial" response either.
For better or worse, the NB will most likely revisit the issue.
We are not a "cult". We are an organization based on rules, policies and regulations. We must abide by them or else we become a rabble. Shame on those who can't or won't.
BTW, I did not spend any money on the "CSU", I was against it from the begining but, majority rules in CAP...
Oh my gosh, they want to put all authority for approving uniform changes in the hands of the National Commander? Didn't we just learn our lesson with having a National Commander push through a bunch of changes that have almost been entirely reversed? Just think if he had complete control over uniforms!
Quote from: NCRblues on December 22, 2009, 07:28:05 PM
This is like banging my head against the brick wall. I hope the NB does not revisit this. This will make us look like wannabe cry babies. I am so frustrated.
Save your head and go pop a couple of Anacin. :P
First of all, we don't
know what the endgame of this is going to be.
The best intell we have right now is that NEC has decided to phase it out, with a sunset date of January 2010, and all we have in writing on that (so far) is what has been cited on this board, including General Courter's PowerPoint.
I don't
know, and neither does anyone else, that the NB is going to resurrect the CSU in any way, shape or form. They may decide that the NEC overstepped its authority and take the issue on themselves. Or they may decide to let sleeping dogs lie.
In any case, it doesn't have to affect
you directly.
If the CSU comes back, in whatever form, you don't have to buy it.
If it goes away, and you haven't bought anything, you're not out any money, and those who are, like me, have to suck it up and get on with it.
We are a volunteer force run along paramilitary lines. Part of that means that we accept the authority of those over us, even when it sucks.
Can someone tell me what post# or page to look on to see the powerpoint on the CSU?
Thanks!!
Slowly but surely we creep toward 1000 posts on this :D
Quote from: phirons on December 23, 2009, 05:10:43 PM
Slowly but surely we creep toward 1000 posts on this :D
Think we'll make it?
Rehash,
grumble,
restate point made on previous page because I can't be bothered to read the thread
grumble
rehash
bring up things that happened to me WIWAC that have nothing to do with this but that I am still harboring a grudge about
bring up things that happened to me WIWASM that have nothing to do with this but that I am still harboring a grudge about
bring up things that I heard happened to someone else even though I have no personal knowledge and they have nothing to do with this
Think of the CHILDREN!
There, I've done my part.
Eventually we will if we keep feeding the monster... >:D :angel:
NHQ Uniform Committee (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3540.0) 1,121 "Corporate Uniform" Gone!! (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9272.0) 864 The Best of Squadron Patches (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=572.0) 594 official "I'm here!" thread. (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=135.0) 582 Show Yourself! (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3357.0) 447 CAP Aircraft Searching for Steve Fossett (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2935.0) 432 Changing Civil Air Patrol to U.S. Civil Air Patrol (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1684.0) 346 Winter Board 2008 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4413.0) 335 Show Us Your Rack! (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2284.0) 311 Design a new CAP-distinctive Uniform (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9282.0) 3096/10 top topics on this forum are uniform based. :)
It would seem this is an issue that just keeps on giving...a reason to write.
Seems odd that on this issue, when it was going one way, it was OK to break CAP protocol and procedures...however, when the National Board attempts to correct something the NEC did that was considered "out of line" suddenly it is not so kosher.
Let me point out that is happening here and why it is important to follow Constitutional type law...this concept extends beyond the realm of CAP into the world of politics.
In structures where there is a Constitution in place, such as our Federal government, it is important to understand that we are a Nation of Laws...not of people. Thus, when emotions hear up and tempers fly, decisions must be made based on the rule of law. That means, we throw out any and all of our emotionalism and adhere to what is written.
In our Federal judiciary, we have judicial review that is supposed to align the workings of government to the Federal Constitution. That is why, for example, if President Obama signs any climate treaty it will not become official until approved by the Senate. This is what tripped up President Woodrow Wilson in getting the US into the League of Nations. Despite anyone's opinions on the Climate issue or the League of Nations, the process has to follow.
The CSU was approved by the by the National Board despite its origins. It became a CAP uniform, the USAF had plenty of opportunities to directly block its inception and adoption but failed to do so. If the move to eliminate the CSU went beyond the authority of the NEC to act in situations of Emergency Action, then its actions were wrong.
The National Executive Committee is a smaller body within the National Board. The NEC makes suggestions for the National Board to act upon. Then, the National Board makes recommendations for action to the Board of Governors, which makes decisions by voting. At least that is my understanding.
What has happened in a good deal of this is that people are trying to circumnavigate the structures in place to get their agendas and wishes into CAP policy.
My recommendation for everyone is to adhere to the established policies in place.
Rehash,
grumble,
grumble,
rehash
I can't do this along, people!
Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2009, 06:50:59 PM
Rehash,
grumble,
grumble,
rehash
I can't do this along, people!
While growing "threads" like watching Chia-pets and sea-monkeys is good ole "send-in-your-money-from-a-comic-book-ad" fun, I agree with Eclipse. All that has been said on this matter has been said (even my last post). It may be time for the LOCK.
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 23, 2009, 07:08:08 PM
While growing "threads" like watching Chia-pets and sea-monkeys is good ole "send-in-your-money-from-a-comic-book-ad" fun, I agree with Eclipse. All that has been said on this matter has been said (even my last post). It may be time for the LOCK.
Come on fellas! We can make 1000! And we have to do it before Mike gets back from his Christmas haircut!
Put your backs into it.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2009, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 23, 2009, 07:08:08 PM
While growing "threads" like watching Chia-pets and sea-monkeys is good ole "send-in-your-money-from-a-comic-book-ad" fun, I agree with Eclipse. All that has been said on this matter has been said (even my last post). It may be time for the LOCK.
Come on fellas! We can make 1000! And we have to do it before Mike gets back from his Christmas haircut!
Put your backs into it.
Well, in that case...and we risk a ban for doing such a thing...
TEXAS WING ROCKS!!!Only 30 more to go to 900!!!!
Please don't get this thread locked. Just leave it alone for now, and if the issue is revisited (like many say it will) we can pick up where we left off.
Zombie Thread.. it keeps coming back from the dead...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_abe0p86QmVA/SQ6oVuqMtTI/AAAAAAAABKs/5NMnTMOpjJg/s320/zombie_front_image.gif)
I hate to see the CSU go............... Ihave been wearing it 2x a week... I am trying to figure out How to convert it . I heard a rumor that the AF did not want us to wear it because Vanguard sold the remaing stock to the new Iraqi Air Force. :D :D :D
Quote from: NCRblues on December 23, 2009, 07:20:12 PM
Please don't get this thread locked. Just leave it alone for now, and if the issue is revisited (like many say it will) we can pick up where we left off.
No, to some people this thread (and issue) has become a HOBBY. This one needs to die, when and if it is revisited it will do everyone good to start a new thread on the matter. Especially since new people to the matter will be "expected" to read all 900 plus replies by some of the more "incredulous" sorts here.
I am hungry :D
876!!!! Keep it going! And yes TXWG rocks!!!
One thin I like aboutt the CSU coat was that it is mad of 100 percent poly. I dislike the AF wool poly plend service coat. I wonder if there is a special order AF SJ in 100 percent poly.
I would have to agree with SPARKY...................TXWG ROCKS AND #@WG SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!.
Where is my CSU.............Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Some one stole my CSU, Call CSI
We should post pictures of us wearing the CSU
In all seriousness... It sucks what happened... but can we please stop this thread? I mean cant we focus on something more pressing.... I think we need to change our patches again! Who's in?!
I think the new logo would look good as a patch on the new pink flight uniform with purple grade and orange flight badges.. ;D
I concur, this topic has been exhausted so Best of Lock and I'll help it move closer to the magic 1000.
What does CSU stand for again! ???
885 any takers?
Quote from: Strick on December 23, 2009, 07:54:47 PM
What does CSU stand for again! ???
CSU stands for TPU, i.e. WHSRN Uniform.
Also, interesting perspective NOW is to look at this thread from two years back. http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3215.msg60737#msg60737
Sad to see how most members were proven wrong as to the CSU lasting effect, especially on the future historical potential of this uniform:
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 03, 2007, 05:32:34 PM
Aw, C'mon...
You KNOW there's about as much chance of "TPU" dropping out of the CAP lexicon as there is for getting Air Force pilots to stop calling the A-10 the "Warthog."
Besides, 20 years from now, when I'm sitting in a rocker doped up with medicine at the "Old CAP Pilot's Home" and somebody asks me why the TPU is called that, I'll know, because... we ALL were a part of CAP history and tradition in the making.
Quote from: Strick on December 23, 2009, 07:54:47 PM
What does CSU stand for again! ???
Well played.
Corporate Service Uniform
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on December 23, 2009, 08:20:10 PM
Sad to see how most members were proven wrong as to the CSU lasting effect, especially on the future historical potential of this uniform:
That's a reference to the derogatory term "TPU" not the uniform itself.
For the most part "TPU" had faded from general use, until recently.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2009, 08:26:55 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on December 23, 2009, 08:20:10 PM
Sad to see how most members were proven wrong as to the CSU lasting effect, especially on the future historical potential of this uniform:
That's a reference to the derogatory term "TPU" not the uniform itself.
For the most part "TPU" had faded from general use, until recently.
Most comments also came down with things like:
"I spent 500 bucks on this, I hope it doesn't go away anytime soon"
"I don't think this would go away before 5 years are over (2012 from then)"
"In 20 years this thing will still be around, and we may or may not be calling it the TPU"
Has anyone asked the following questions:
Q1 - If you don't want CAP personnel confused with real Air Force Officers, then why let CAP members wear the Air Force Uniform?
Q2 -Doesn't it occur more often that a CAP member is accidentally identified as a AF Officer while in AF Service Dress?
Q3 - From a distance of 15 feet, isn't it easier to determine a CAP CSU wearer from and CAP Air force Service Dress wearer from an actual AF Officer? The silver braids are certainly a tip-off.
Putting every CAP senior member in CSUs would be better, given this consideration, not worse. In this I am not asking for answers
from our members. I am asking for a logical answer from CAP/USAF or perhaps 2nd Air Force.
Awwl shucks, the world is going to end in 2012 anyway. Maybe we should just kick back and go flying ;D (in proper CAP uniform of course) >:D
If the CSU is phased out...........Can I wear it as a civilian attire?
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 23, 2009, 08:36:46 PM
Q3 - From a distance of 15 feet, isn't it easier to determine a CAP CSU wearer from and CAP Air force Service Dress wearer from an actual AF Officer? The silver braids are certainly a tip-off.
The silver braid is an issue because for many services that would denote a General Officer or equivalent, but the double-breasted jacket says "Navy" more than USAF.
Quote from: Strick on December 23, 2009, 08:49:57 PM
If the CSU is phased out...........Can I wear it as a civilian attire?
Change the buttons and lose the epaulets and its just a less-than-stylish blazer.
I can see it now, white scarf, pipe and yacht visor.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2009, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Strick on December 23, 2009, 08:49:57 PM
If the CSU is phased out...........Can I wear it as a civilian attire?
Change the buttons and lose the epaulets and its just a less-than-stylish blazer.
Add a large blue fedora wide brimmed hat, a black shirt and a silk tie and you could come out on the new Nickelodeon show "The Godfather: The Animated Series."
Don't look now...MIKE is meandering in the FORUM.
You can also try to sell your Service Coat to the US Ranger Corps.
Interesting read during the last 2 to 3 hours or so... now to set the record straight: CAWG ROCKS! :o
Did the post make it before Mike noticed what we are doing? 3 more for 900!
You couldn't just let it die?