I have been gone from this site for some time. Does anyone know if there will be a new 39-1 anytime soon? Thank you in advance and God Bless.
I'm sure when it hits .. the evidence of it won't be hard to find. :)
The date can be found here:
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8396/47pd.jpg)
Quote from: a2capt on October 24, 2013, 01:42:18 AM
I'm sure when it hits .. the evidence of it won't be hard to find. :)
The melted, smoking ruin of the CAP Talk server will be your first clue.
I have contracted USAFAUX2004's Bratva compatriots to light up a botnet that is triggered the pico second any file resembling a new 39-1
is found on any server in the world. It will be downloaded continuously for 120 days, thereby presenting anyone from seeing it.
(http://images.wikia.com/gtarg/images/0/08/Russian-mafia.jpg)
All your uniform are belong to us...
I roll with a Brigada, but close enough.
(http://cs9571.vk.me/v9571788/12d7/rhmJb870odA.jpg)
Quote from: alexalvarez on October 24, 2013, 01:06:18 AM
I have been gone from this site for some time. Does anyone know if there will be a new 39-1 anytime soon? Thank you in advance and God Bless.
The last intel I saw was December 2013.
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on October 24, 2013, 02:10:39 AM
Quote from: a2capt on October 24, 2013, 01:42:18 AM
I'm sure when it hits .. the evidence of it won't be hard to find. :)
The melted, smoking ruin of the CAP Talk server will be your first clue.
(http://fc08.deviantart.net/images/i/a/7/c/Building_on_fire.jpg)
"Oh, the new 39-1 must be out."
Think about the things in 39-1 .. that support it. Like the newly released NCO stuff.
Gotta figure that they'll want to "get it right". For all intents, it's been 10+ years with the exception of a few patches and tweaks.
Right. The 2005 copy was a "fixer". What was the one before it?
Quote from: SarDragon on October 24, 2013, 04:09:08 AM
Quote from: alexalvarez on October 24, 2013, 01:06:18 AM
I have been gone from this site for some time. Does anyone know if there will be a new 39-1 anytime soon? Thank you in advance and God Bless.
The last intel I saw was December 2013.
+1 I just got a reply from a "Ask the National Commander" question that said they expect the new 39-1 out in December.
July 1997. Someone was actually trying to cite a manual at a color guard competition, and when I said "show it to me" the page said 1997 on it. "..and if you were using the right regulation, you'd know that wasn't true". This was last January.
Actually I said "that manual is older than some of these cadets!", too.
Quote from: a2capt on October 24, 2013, 07:13:34 AM
July 1997. Someone was actually trying to cite a manual at a color guard competition, and when I said "show it to me" the page said 1997 on it. "..and if you were using the right regulation, you'd know that wasn't true". This was last January.
Actually I said "that manual is older than some of these cadets!", too.
That is so funny. :clap:
I think it is due out sometime in mid-2007....
Some people here say it will be out in December but I feel it will be when the cows come home...
???
Flyer
Cows? There are cows?
Quote from: THRAWN on October 24, 2013, 03:29:09 PM
Four score, and seven years ago, the last time a 39-1 was approved.....
Quote from: Panache on October 24, 2013, 03:26:42 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on October 24, 2013, 03:11:11 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 24, 2013, 02:50:11 PM
Cows? There are cows?
Do they wear blue or gray?
Civil War reenactment cows?
Oh, don't say that. Otherwise PAWG will want to move Hawk Mtn. to Gettysburg.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2013, 02:02:30 AMThe date can be found here:
The Frantics - The Human Race (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAa2UeuIMu0#)
39-1 is intended to be out by the end of the year.
The photography/graphics are being worked right now, especially after the bru-haha in the last one over pics that were really, really not well done (ie. discrepancies, etc)
I suspect that we'll see a draft copy circulated in the next 30 days or so, but you have to realize that its probably going to be 99% locked in at that point, so it may not be a "Draft for comment."
(I think we all realize that circulating a 39-1 draft for public comment would result in a volume of feedback, both accurate and relevant and specious and irrelevant, that would overwhelm any human being attempting to sift thru it. Uniforms are going to be one of those "you can't satisfy everybody" kinds of things, and if we want a new uniform manual any time in the next 12-18 months, we are probably not going to get a lot of comment on it)
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 04:25:38 PM
39-1 is intended to be out by the end of the year.
The photography/graphics are being worked right now, especially after the bru-haha in the last one over pics that were really, really not well done (ie. discrepancies, etc)
I suspect that we'll see a draft copy circulated in the next 30 days or so, but you have to realize that its probably going to be 99% locked in at that point, so it may not be a "Draft for comment."
(I think we all realize that circulating a 39-1 draft for public comment would result in a volume of feedback, both accurate and relevant and specious and irrelevant, that would overwhelm any human being attempting to sift thru it. Uniforms are going to be one of those "you can't satisfy everybody" kinds of things, and if we want a new uniform manual any time in the next 12-18 months, we are probably not going to get a lot of comment on it)
OTOH, we could sort and pick apart said discrepancies/issues/errors unlike the last version.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 24, 2013, 04:30:22 PM
OTOH, we could sort and pick apart said discrepancies/issues/errors unlike the last version.
You don't think that's been done already, ad infinitum?
At a certain point, since uniforms are the third-rail of CAP, you're not going to get "discrepancies" and you're going to get "I don't like this"
Which are different.
And separating the wheat from the chaff is going to be a real pain.
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 04:36:38 PM
You don't think that's been done already, ad infinitum?
I really don't. Mistakes keep popping up on TESTS. That's 50 questions they have to get right. I just administered an Earhart Leadership Test, Dated March 2012, that we received last month from NHQ, and one of the questions had 2/4 possible answers as the same answer. I know that they've floated copies out to a number of members during the process, but lets face it, most probably weren't REALLY reading down to every detail. If you crowdsource it, even just for typos and logic errors, it would be done in less than a week.
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 04:36:38 PM
At a certain point, since uniforms are the third-rail of CAP, you're not going to get "discrepancies" and you're going to get "I don't like this"
Easy fix. We're not looking for suggestions, we're looking for proofreading on typos/logic errors.
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 04:36:38 PM
Which are different.
Agreed.
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 04:36:38 PM
And separating the wheat from the chaff is going to be a real pain.
We had this one covered in the old Leadership for 2000 and Beyond books. Shouldn't take more than a few seconds to see when someone is pointing out a typo/logic issue and when they submit an essay on the Merits and Value of the Pink Tutu with White Pistol Belts.
Yep, there are mostly black cows with white spots.
Flyer
The solution for both issues is imply insuring that regulations, manuals, and other documents are "alive".
Once they are published, there should be a simple process for pointing out and correcting errata. And by "simple" I literally
mean a group of trusted agents who are authorized to correct and republish the document(s) when legitimate typos
or other similar errors are found.
In this day and age, anything found in a document that is either an error or legitimately "wrong" should not live more then a week or two
after it's been pointed out.
Same-day corrections aren't unreasonable, either. Businesses do it all the time. Check with a Pharma company on their disclaimers. Talk
about real-time updating.
I'm sure that would be opening the flood gates of opinionated members, but you're right- there needs to be a way to correct those problems in an official capacity, including times outside the cycle of normal publications.
Heck, the Army has a form for submitting recommended changes to manuals (http://armypubs.army.mil/eforms/pdf/A2028.PDF (http://armypubs.army.mil/eforms/pdf/A2028.PDF)), I bet CAP NHQ could implement something similar. Maybe the effort of having to fill out and submit a form through the chain of command might cut down on some of the noise of submissions and get to the real issues.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 24, 2013, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 04:36:38 PM
You don't think that's been done already, ad infinitum?
I really don't.
<snippage>
I know that they've floated copies out to a number of members during the process, but lets face it, most probably weren't REALLY reading down to every detail. If you crowdsource it, even just for typos and logic errors, it would be done in less than a week.
That was July & August. Took more then a week.
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 08:46:17 PM
That was July & August. Took more then a week.
No telling tales out of school.
Quote from: UH60guy on October 24, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
I'm sure that would be opening the flood gates of opinionated members, but you're right- there needs to be a way to correct those problems in an official capacity, including times outside the cycle of normal publications.
Heck, the Army has a form for submitting recommended changes to manuals (http://armypubs.army.mil/eforms/pdf/A2028.PDF (http://armypubs.army.mil/eforms/pdf/A2028.PDF)), I bet CAP NHQ could implement something similar. Maybe the effort of having to fill out and submit a form through the chain of command might cut down on some of the noise of submissions and get to the real issues.
Somehow I get a mental picture of 30 reams of paper arriving at NHQ that all say "The period after the 4th word in CAPM 39-1 para 1.2.3.4.a.1 should be a comma"; with each one appropriately stamped and signed by the Squadron admin officer, the SQ/CC, GP/CC WG/CC & Region/CC >:D
^ And IG complaints when someone suggests a semi-colon and is ignored.
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 24, 2013, 09:10:57 PM
Somehow I get a mental picture of 30 reams of paper arriving at NHQ that all say "The period after the 4th word in CAPM 39-1 para 1.2.3.4.a.1 should be a comma"; with each one appropriately stamped and signed by the Squadron admin officer, the SQ/CC, GP/CC WG/CC & Region/CC >:D
I would truly hope paper would not be required. A simple eServices form (I typed it w/out laughing) that gets passed up the CoC. You know, the exact opposite of ask the National CC.
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on October 24, 2013, 09:25:20 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 24, 2013, 09:10:57 PM
Somehow I get a mental picture of 30 reams of paper arriving at NHQ that all say "The period after the 4th word in CAPM 39-1 para 1.2.3.4.a.1 should be a comma"; with each one appropriately stamped and signed by the Squadron admin officer, the SQ/CC, GP/CC WG/CC & Region/CC >:D
I would truly hope paper would not be required. A simple eServices form (I typed it w/out laughing) that gets passed up the CoC. You know, the exact opposite of ask the National CC.
For typos or factual errors you don't even need chain approval, just point them out.
Put up a wiki with comments and explanations.
I tend to agree with Bob: Our regulations and other pubs need to be more dynamic, less monolithic.
Waiting 7 years for a legitimately updated uniform manual is silly.. And handing someone the uniform manual and 5 pages of ICLs (not "page insert changes") is just... silly too!
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 09:49:28 PM
I tend to agree with Bob: Our regulations and other pubs need to be more dynamic, less monolithic.
Waiting 7 years for a legitimately updated uniform manual is silly.. And handing someone the uniform manual and 5 pages of ICLs (not "page insert changes") is just... silly too!
The Air Force went 7 years before updating their uniform manual.
We're just doing what Big Blue taught us to do! >:D
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 24, 2013, 05:28:27 PM
Yep, there are mostly black cows with white spots.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/M2MAat5yQdA/hqdefault.jpg)
Got to love a Top Secret! reference. ;D ;D ;D ;D
The number of people that are going to read any brand new regulation with a sharp enough eye to catch legitimate mistakes is probably going to be fewer than 100.
They should probably plan on doing a secondary revision within 6 months to fix the errors that will be in it and then they should be able to leave it alone for a while.
In order to do that, they need to stop messing with the uniform.
Multiform.
Quote from: PHall on October 25, 2013, 12:54:01 AM
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 09:49:28 PM
I tend to agree with Bob: Our regulations and other pubs need to be more dynamic, less monolithic.
Waiting 7 years for a legitimately updated uniform manual is silly.. And handing someone the uniform manual and 5 pages of ICLs (not "page insert changes") is just... silly too!
The Air Force went 7 years before updating their uniform manual.
We're just doing what Big Blue taught us to do! >:D
Back in the 35-10 days it was longer then that! Heck the BDU's were NEVER in 35-10..let alone the Air Crew Style Name Tapes, and the switch back...we got a how new AFI system first!
spell cow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhkyBYiDaqQ#)
Surprised no one has brought up the fact that the new 39-1 was mentioned in the message from National Commander.
Quote from: a2capt on October 28, 2013, 11:07:32 PM
spell cow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhkyBYiDaqQ#)
I spelled it B-E-E-F. ;D
Quote from: 38ffems on December 03, 2013, 02:05:51 AM
Surprised no one has brought up the fact that the new 39-1 was mentioned in the message from National Commander.
Still waiting for the CAPTalk servers to catch on fire.
Quote from: alexalvarez on October 24, 2013, 01:06:18 AM
I have been gone from this site for some time. Does anyone know if there will be a new 39-1 anytime soon? Thank you in advance and God Bless.
Chaplain, a bit of divine intervention on the matter wouldn't go amiss.
Until then, this is the best date I can give you:
Johnny Mathis - 12th of Never (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PnPnSjCUnc#)
Quote from: 38ffems on December 03, 2013, 02:05:51 AM
Surprised no one has brought up the fact that the new 39-1 was mentioned in the message from National Commander.
When you hear that a new 39-1 is coming soon enough times you don't get very excited about hearing it again.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2013, 01:00:18 PM
Quote from: 38ffems on December 03, 2013, 02:05:51 AM
Surprised no one has brought up the fact that the new 39-1 was mentioned in the message from National Commander.
When you hear that a new 39-1 is coming soon enough times you don't get very excited about hearing it again.
MG Carr stated that "professional pictures" still need to be taken. So given that this message may have been written before the long weekend, that is still not a lot of time to get that done to meet his own goal of out by the end of the year.
Still, I don't want my skin color to match CAP ultramarine blue, so I won't hold my breath. :P
Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2013, 01:00:18 PM
Quote from: 38ffems on December 03, 2013, 02:05:51 AM
Surprised no one has brought up the fact that the new 39-1 was mentioned in the message from National Commander.
When you hear that a new 39-1 is coming soon enough times you don't get very excited about hearing it again.
I have it on pretty good authority that the draft was going to be published yesterday until it was decided that without the photos being complete it would be a moot point.
Quote from: NIN on December 03, 2013, 05:47:31 PM
I have it on pretty good authority that the draft was going to be published yesterday until it was decided that without the photos being complete it would be a moot point.
:clap: I will wait for that. LOL
It ABsolUtely would have not been a moot point.
.. it's a -DRAFT-
Or so they claim .. it was to be able in draft first.
Oh well.
Quote from: NIN on December 03, 2013, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2013, 01:00:18 PM
Quote from: 38ffems on December 03, 2013, 02:05:51 AM
Surprised no one has brought up the fact that the new 39-1 was mentioned in the message from National Commander.
When you hear that a new 39-1 is coming soon enough times you don't get very excited about hearing it again.
I have it on pretty good authority that the draft was going to be published yesterday until it was decided that without the photos being complete it would be a moot point.
How long does it take to get the photos? I'm sure if they sent pointed requests to a few units say we need a cadet/senior in ****** uniform done according to <this> standard and the photo must have a plain white/grey/pink/whatever color background and be #Mpixel, you'd have them in a week.
And why use people? All the examples should be on mannequins to avoid personalities and odd facial expressions, etc.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 06:48:20 PMAnd why use people? All the examples should be on mannequins to avoid personalities and odd facial expressions, etc.
.. like the smiley guy in the current one?
Quote from: arajca on December 03, 2013, 06:35:50 PMHow long does it take to get the photos?
If the manual has revisions, as it's purported to .. it's very likely that those drafting it are probably the only ones that may have the needed items to make some of these uniform photos. At least, making them in the -intended- mannor.
And now we can safely conclude that the "most thankless job" in CAP is going to be creating the photographs to illustrate the new manual. And finding the "most thankless job" in CAP is actually a pretty tough competition.
The preparation for the photos is daunting, regardless of whether we use models or mannequins. The photographer has to have ready access to all the possible uniform combinations and most of the badges and insignia, and far more importantly, the detailed knowledge of a uniform wonk to get every detail perfectly. We can be sure that each of dozens of detailed photographs will be minutely examined by experts with magnifying glasses looking for every possible error.
If the photography team gets every single detail right, we will just accept it as normal job performance. But get just one detail wrong out of 30 or 40 possible minute details in a typical photo, CAPTalk will go wild . . . .
When I make a typo in a regulation or pamphlet, it is an easy fix. Re-shooting a photograph because of a ribbon out of sequence will take far more time and effort.
We collectively owe the photography team a drink (or two) for just undertaking the "most thankless job in CAP."
;)
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 07:06:00 PM
We collectively owe the photography team a drink (or two) for just undertaking the "most thankless job in CAP."
;)
Absolutely.
But, why not just release the draft publication with empty boxes of place of the photos and then release the photos as a separate item a week or two later? Gives the membership time to digest the new uniform issues and find typos in the manual while giving the photo team a little more time to get everything perfect. Just a thought.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 06:48:20 PMAnd why use people? All the examples should be on mannequins to avoid personalities and odd facial expressions, etc.
The Air Force used real people, but cropped their heads for the uniform photographs on its most recent revision of AFI 36-2903. It think the pictures look just fine.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 03, 2013, 07:16:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 06:48:20 PMAnd why use people? All the examples should be on mannequins to avoid personalities and odd facial expressions, etc.
The Air Force used real people, but cropped their heads for the uniform photographs on its most recent revision of AFI 36-2903. It think the pictures look just fine.
And since they cropped the heads off, they essentially have super-realistic mannequins. The problem that sometimes can arise is the personality that is introduced by the face which then detracts from the true subject, the uniform.
A simple dress makers mannequin with a cravat covering the neck would look a million times better. It never moves, it stays exactly the right angle, you can always have the same size uniform, etcetera.
If you really want to be saucy, simple line diagrams would be best since all the photographs are really showing you are the approximate layout of the uniform. It is truly unnecessary to have actual people models. These are not official photographs or anything like that.
By the way, as for putting out a request for units to provide photos, if you think there are crazy variations in the photos in the current manual, think about what you would get if every Tom, Dick and Harry send photos taken with their new Nokia phone. Cuz you know, the commercial says that the camera is the best one out there.
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 07:06:00 PMThe preparation for the photos is daunting,
No, it's not, even a little, and the idea that it
is is why this is taking so long.
I could go down into >MY< closet and shoot 90% of the photos, and with two phone calls nail the rest.
One mannequin, a few lights and one of the decent aerial cameras and its done in an afternoon.
Next problem.
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 07:06:00 PM
regardless of whether we use models or mannequins. The photographer has to have ready access to all the possible uniform combinations and most of the badges and insignia, and far more importantly, the detailed knowledge of a uniform wonk to get every detail perfectly. We can be sure that each of dozens of detailed photographs will be minutely examined by experts with magnifying glasses looking for every possible error.
No, they don't need "all the badges". Why? They all go in the same spot. One of each type is all you need.
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 07:06:00 PM
If the photography team gets every single detail right, we will just accept it as normal job performance. But get just one detail wrong out of 30 or 40 possible minute details in a typical photo, CAPTalk will go wild . . .
Yep, so get it right.
But CT isn't going to "go wild" - we'll point it out, you shoot a single photo, recompile the .pdf. Move on.
Anything that appears in the draft is expected to have issues, once it's been posted for comment, if
the comments are ignore, different deal, but either way, No cost, no big whoop.
[/quote]
Why not shoot this at Vanguard?
They have everything, literally, and I'm sure they have mannequins.
Quote from: NIN on December 03, 2013, 08:43:43 PM
If you really want to be saucy, simple line diagrams would be best since all the photographs are really showing you are the approximate layout of the uniform. It is truly unnecessary to have actual people models. These are not official photographs or anything like that.
Truly, 100% unnecessary, and just making things harder.
As I recall, an esteemed no longer active member of CT did a beautiful set of uniform one-sheets a few years back. I have them somewhere.
No need for the actual insignia, people, lights, changes take minutes, and zero cost.
That's what should be used.
Honestly, the Army's uniform manual, AR 670 - 1 has been line diagrams since before I can remember. even chowderheaded soldiers such as myself could figure out what to do.
The whole purpose of a uniform manual is to remove ambiguity. Reduce the opportunity to be non uniform. Make everybody look as much like they belong to the same organization as possible. ( yes, yes, CAP distinctive... I get it ).
Simple, straightforward, to the point, easy to manipulate, one dude with a copy of Adobe Illustrator in an hour could be knocking out dozens of diagrams.
NIH .. "Not Invented Here". it's a killer, and it seems to be policy at Maxwell.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 07:06:00 PMThe preparation for the photos is daunting,
No, it's not, even a little, and the idea that it is is why this is taking so long.
I could go down into >MY< closet and shoot 90% of the photos, and with two phone calls nail the rest.
One mannequin, a few lights and one of the decent aerial cameras and its done in an afternoon.
Next problem.
You're right, of course. Where do those guys get off trying to convince us that commercial photography is some sort of skill or craft? Perhaps they do not have your background or skill in taking photographs for publication. 8)
QuoteWhy not shoot this at Vanguard?
They have everything, literally, and I'm sure they have mannequins.
Undoubtedly true, I'll pass the suggestion along to the team. Hope they live close by.
I had not thought of mannequins, but I believe it is a good idea.
With past editions of the elusive manuscript (has anyone thought of looking in the cave where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found; maybe there is a 39-1 lurking in some ancient clay pot?) I knew people in CAP who claimed to know this, that or the other person who modelled the uniforms.
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 10:31:12 PM
You're right, of course. Where do those guys get off trying to convince us that commercial photography is some sort of skill or craft? Perhaps they do not have your background or skill in taking photographs for publication. 8)
Colonel, my brother-in-law is a semi-pro photographer and I am sure he would be willing to contract out his services...for a price, of course.
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 10:31:12 PMYou're right, of course. Where do those guys get off trying to convince us that commercial photography is some sort of skill or craft? Perhaps they do not have your background or skill in taking photographs for publication.
Perhaps they don't.
However you're not actually saying CAP is going to >pay< someone for this, are you?
Please tell me you're not saying that.
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 07:06:00 PMThe preparation for the photos is daunting,
No, it's not, even a little, and the idea that it is is why this is taking so long.
I could go down into >MY< closet and shoot 90% of the photos, and with two phone calls nail the rest.
One mannequin, a few lights and one of the decent aerial cameras and its done in an afternoon.
Next problem.
You're right, of course. Where do those guys get off trying to convince us that commercial photography is some sort of skill or craft? Perhaps they do not have your background or skill in taking photographs for publication. 8)
QuoteWhy not shoot this at Vanguard?
They have everything, literally, and I'm sure they have mannequins.
Undoubtedly true, I'll pass the suggestion along to the team. Hope they live close by.
All the more reason for line diagrams. If we sent a photo studio all of our items ready to go, a mannequin could be wearing it all and done in a day.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 10:48:49 PM
However you're not actually saying CAP is going to >pay< someone for this, are you?
Please tell me you're not saying that.
Wait, were you going to charge us for this?
Quote from: EclipseI could go down into >MY< closet and shoot 90% of the photos, and with two phone calls nail the rest.
One mannequin, a few lights and one of the decent aerial cameras and its done in an afternoon.
I figured at most, I was only going to have to pay maybe 10% of the cost. ;)
Seriously, as many have pointed out in so many threads here, CAP volunteers include professionals with many skills. It is my understanding that one or more highly skilled member-photographers are donating their talents for this important project.
As a retired Army guy, I also appreciated the clarity of line drawings in the AR. Maybe we should have a combination of both.
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 11:01:39 PMWait, were you going to charge us for this?
Quote from: EclipseI could go down into >MY< closet and shoot 90% of the photos, and with two phone calls nail the rest.
One mannequin, a few lights and one of the decent aerial cameras and its done in an afternoon.
I figured at most, I was only going to have to pay maybe 10% of the cost. ;)
Just a 108 for the phone calls (comm costs).
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 11:08:28 PM
Just a 108 for the phone calls (comm costs).
You still pay for long distance?
Quote from: jeders on December 03, 2013, 07:15:26 PM
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 07:06:00 PM
We collectively owe the photography team a drink (or two) for just undertaking the "most thankless job in CAP."
;)
Absolutely.
But, why not just release the draft publication with empty boxes of place of the photos and then release the photos as a separate item a week or two later? Gives the membership time to digest the new uniform issues and find typos in the manual while giving the photo team a little more time to get everything perfect. Just a thought.
Because we want the photos to be QC'ed by the general membership just like we want every I, T, Comma, semi colon, et al.
Why send out the draft with out pictures.....then published the manual just have 300 people go "the photo in fig 4.2 is wrong".
You all waited this long....a few more weeks is not going to kill anyone.
Um, yes, doesn't everyone?
Just $2.50 a minute plus $3.00 connection cost and $5.00 a month to keep my card active.
The guy at 7-11 said those were the best rates anywhere!
Quote from: lordmonar on December 04, 2013, 12:17:09 AM
Because we want the photos to be QC'ed by the general membership just like we want every I, T, Comma, semi colon, et al.
Why?
NHQ has basically stopped posting draft regulations for comment for the past year. Notice the section on the website is even gone.
They got all huffy with me when I asked to see a draft of the new 173-1 as a Wing/DC, sometime before the day that a major change went into effect...got even huffier when I pointed out they'd completely screwed up the way they'd written it, and what they thought it meant isn't what they actually put in there.
QuoteWhy not shoot this at Vanguard?
They have everything, literally, and I'm sure they have mannequins.
Everything? Do they have khaki uniforms? :P
The major cadet regs have all been posted for comment, and many of those comments
incorporated into the subsequent revisions.
Perhaps a much less "NIH" mindset? Or maybe those department heads are more experienced and more comfortable
with delegation and collaboration?
In my experience, the less baked an idea, the more you anticipate pushback, or the less confident someone
is in their work, the more inclined they are to hold it close to the vest. I have to admit finding myself
in that midset sometimes, too.
In the words of Mike Rowe "Done" is better then "perfect", especially when things are still in draft form and
fixing them costs zero dollars.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 04, 2013, 01:20:26 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 04, 2013, 12:17:09 AM
Because we want the photos to be QC'ed by the general membership just like we want every I, T, Comma, semi colon, et al.
Why?
NHQ has basically stopped posting draft regulations for comment for the past year. Notice the section on the website is even gone.
They got all huffy with me when I asked to see a draft of the new 173-1 as a Wing/DC, sometime before the day that a major change went into effect...got even huffier when I pointed out they'd completely screwed up the way they'd written it, and what they thought it meant isn't what they actually put in there.
So you are mad when the just ignore you and print the regs as they see fit....and you are mad when they post the regs for comments.....sound like it is a no-win scenario for NHQ.
The question is why are the holding on to the draft, waiting for the pictures....the answers is that they only want to have to do the comment and correction cycle once.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 04, 2013, 01:34:29 AM
QuoteWhy not shoot this at Vanguard?
They have everything, literally, and I'm sure they have mannequins.
Everything? Do they have khaki uniforms? :P
Oh, boy... Here we go again. :-\
Quote from: NIN on December 03, 2013, 09:33:05 PM
Honestly, the Army's uniform manual, AR 670 - 1 has been line diagrams since before I can remember. even chowderheaded soldiers such as myself could figure out what to do.
The whole purpose of a uniform manual is to remove ambiguity. Reduce the opportunity to be non uniform. Make everybody look as much like they belong to the same organization as possible. ( yes, yes, CAP distinctive... I get it ).
Simple, straightforward, to the point, easy to manipulate, one dude with a copy of Adobe Illustrator in an hour could be knocking out dozens of diagrams.
Sir,
As everyone likes to point out to me... CAP is not the Army.
Such comparisons are "Max Verboten". ;)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 04, 2013, 01:44:58 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 04, 2013, 01:34:29 AM
QuoteWhy not shoot this at Vanguard?
They have everything, literally, and I'm sure they have mannequins.
Everything? Do they have khaki uniforms? :P
Oh, boy... Here we go again. :-\
I was kidding. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on December 04, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on December 04, 2013, 01:20:26 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 04, 2013, 12:17:09 AM
Because we want the photos to be QC'ed by the general membership just like we want every I, T, Comma, semi colon, et al.
Why?
NHQ has basically stopped posting draft regulations for comment for the past year. Notice the section on the website is even gone.
They got all huffy with me when I asked to see a draft of the new 173-1 as a Wing/DC, sometime before the day that a major change went into effect...got even huffier when I pointed out they'd completely screwed up the way they'd written it, and what they thought it meant isn't what they actually put in there.
So you are mad when the just ignore you and print the regs as they see fit....and you are mad when they post the regs for comments.....sound like it is a no-win scenario for NHQ.
The question is why are the holding on to the draft, waiting for the pictures....the answers is that they only want to have to do the comment and correction cycle once.
Nope.
They were nice enough to tell us a couple weeks out "There's a new reg coming out in two weeks which you will need to implement the next day."
So, I asked "Hey, can we see a draft so we can get our folks leaning the right dirrection." and was told "You don't need that, you'll get it when we publish it."
So, they publish it the afternoon before we have to implement it. Except the wording they used didn't do what they thought it did. When that was pointed out (which would have been done if we'd gotten a draft before they published), the response was "Just do it the way we thought it was, not how we actually published it, and STFU"
Quote from: JeffDG on December 04, 2013, 02:15:22 AM"Just do it the way we thought it was, not how we actually published it, and STFU"
Which is why in a lot of cases,
nothing is done.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 04, 2013, 02:17:20 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on December 04, 2013, 02:15:22 AM"Just do it the way we thought it was, not how we actually published it, and STFU"
Which is why in a lot of cases, nothing is done.
I think they were more peeved that I ran the interpretation of what they wrote through our JA for his opinion, and he told me "Yep, it doesn't say what they think it says", and I so advised my commander.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 04, 2013, 02:18:33 AM
I think they were more peeved that I ran the interpretation of what they wrote through our JA for his opinion, and he told me "Yep, it doesn't say what they think it says", and I so advised my commander.
No, they were probably peeved because your "that guy"! I have to ask...you have a JA?? The dudes that rock the boat just to rock the boat always end up alienating themselves and/ or wet.
They have to pass it to see what's in it... >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on December 04, 2013, 12:17:09 AM
Quote from: jeders on December 03, 2013, 07:15:26 PM
Quote from: Ned on December 03, 2013, 07:06:00 PM
We collectively owe the photography team a drink (or two) for just undertaking the "most thankless job in CAP."
;)
Absolutely.
But, why not just release the draft publication with empty boxes of place of the photos and then release the photos as a separate item a week or two later? Gives the membership time to digest the new uniform issues and find typos in the manual while giving the photo team a little more time to get everything perfect. Just a thought.
Because we want the photos to be QC'ed by the general membership just like we want every I, T, Comma, semi colon, et al.
Why send out the draft with out pictures.....then published the manual just have 300 people go "the photo in fig 4.2 is wrong".
You all waited this long....a few more weeks is not going to kill anyone.
You misunderstand me, I never said not to release the photos for comment as well. I simply said get the reg out there for comment while you finish the photos. It doesn't add any time to the already delayed timeline, and it doesn't add any more revision cycles.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 04, 2013, 01:54:28 AM
As everyone likes to point out to me... CAP is not the Army.
Such comparisons are "Max Verboten". ;)
I have been there and even said that.
That being said, simple line diagrams are not the sole province of the Army.
I'm not sure what the Navy & Marine Corps do, but I'm sure they have similar issues.
Simplicity is key. Simplicity should be paramount.
A diagram can be as detailed and or as simple as you want it to be, and adjustments to one for an update don't require a model, a studio, a complete set of uniforms, etc. Wing patches no longer on blue shirts? Click-delete. Publish. Done.
Its not as if we're measuring the dimensions for placement from the photographs. The photo is there it provide a generalized "this is what it looks like" idea. A diagram can do the same. So, you don't have a qualification badge. Then it is not worn in that location, drive on.
But from the diagram you can see: OK, the nametag is clearly resting on the pocket, and is centered. Got it. Clear from the diagram. You can't necessarily even see that level of detail in photo printed in the manual.
BTW, for anybody who suggested Vanguard do the photos it: Shame on you.
In 2005, CAP still had the Bookstore. The photos in the 2005 manual were taken (supposedly) by NHQ and they had access to everything they needed right there, too. And still, these images were goofed up. Vanguard would do it with a big fat watermark across every image! ;D
I would like to see the uniform manual migrate to a web-based entity with all the information resident on the site. If you want to see where to wear a badge, mouse over it and a text box would pop up telling you where it goes on that particular uniform. When is a specific uniform suitable for wear? Select the hyperlink and the rules are right there.
If the governing entities change a uniform or uniform item, edit that particular screen with the new standard and publicize as before.
Or, we can publish a document that will be woefully outdated again in 3-5 years and not updated for 10-15 years.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on December 04, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
I would like to see the uniform manual migrate to a web-based entity with all the information resident on the site. If you want to see where to wear a badge, mouse over it and a text box would pop up telling you where it goes on that particular uniform. When is a specific uniform suitable for wear? Select the hyperlink and the rules are right there.
If the governing entities change a uniform or uniform item, edit that particular screen with the new standard and publicize as before.
Or, we can publish a document that will be woefully outdated again in 3-5 years and not updated for 10-15 years.
I'm looking for Marine Corps uniform info. MCO P1020.34G is substantially text (http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/mcub/pages/uniform%20regs%20chapters/Uniform%20Regs%20Index.asp (http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/mcub/pages/uniform%20regs%20chapters/Uniform%20Regs%20Index.asp)) and the figures that are in the online version (not many) are POWER POINT SLIDES.
No kidding. Not embedded images. Not PDFs. PPTs!! Welcome to, you know, 2001, Marine Corps!
I started on something similar earlier in the year, with the intent of making a list of devices and text for each one, "it goes here" and to be followed up by a photo of it in-place on a uniform., though with having "too much of everything else" to do.. it's kinda sidelined. About the time I disassembled the 39-1 and turned it into editable text. Initially done for the purpose of being able to capture text easily, I then thought .. "what about a group effort to remake this.. " .. PM's came saying "we're about 1/3rd complete with a rewrite of it.. "
Not to stir the pot, but in this case the Army 670-1 and CAPR 39-1 are very similar , both filled with error, vague is most chapters , open to interpretation by both command and lower ranks, and never quite finished. And example would be the current AR 670-1 dates 2005 which has multiple additions done with All Army Activities messages called (ALARACTS ) and one poor draft of the supposed changes. A regulation should be clear enough for MOST leadership and ranks to follow with minimal questions but that never happens. This is why most leaders fear new publications, they know that it can only get worse and the powers that be don't want to hear criticism.
Quote from: DennisH on December 04, 2013, 06:17:10 PM
Not to stir the pot, but in this case the Army 670-1 and CAPR 39-1 are very similar , both filled with error, vague is most chapters , open to interpretation by both command and lower ranks, and never quite finished. And example would be the current AR 670-1 dates 2005 which has multiple additions done with All Army Activities messages called (ALARACTS ) and one poor draft of the supposed changes. A regulation should be clear enough for MOST leadership and ranks to follow with minimal questions but that never happens. This is why most leaders fear new publications, they know that it can only get worse and the powers that be don't want to hear criticism.
Yeah, I forgot that ACUs are completely covered in ALARACTS, as is ASU.
Hehe, the similarities are uncanny!
But again: the diagrams are fairly unambiguous. Nobody is distracted by the facial expression on MAJ Disaster's face..
I always thought the biggest problem with 39-1 is that those most in need of it either never read it or choose to do it their way anyway. Though you ain't gonna fix that with diagrams and revisions...
Quote from: UH60guy on December 04, 2013, 06:41:52 PM
I always thought the biggest problem with 39-1 is that those most in need of it either never read it or choose to do it their way anyway. Though you ain't gonna fix that with diagrams and revisions...
Personally I don't get into a twist about arcane stuff like whether the Loeing is upside down. What get's me a bit upset is when someone looks like a slob by normal civilian workplace standards. Tuck your shirt in, shave, iron out the wrinkles, get your pants hemmed. If we could get the worst offenders to just try to "look sharp," even if their command patch is outdated, I'd be happy.
Maybe because we have so many arcane rules, so many possible combinations, the whole system is too complex and so people sort of give up. If we had a much simpler number of combinations, badges, etc., more stability, then it'd be "less is more." Less rules means more attention to the few really important rules.
ymmv
Quote from: SamFranklin on December 04, 2013, 07:10:19 PM
Personally I don't get into a twist about arcane stuff like whether the Loeing is upside down. What get's me a bit upset is when someone looks like a slob by normal civilian workplace standards. Tuck your shirt in, shave, iron out the wrinkles, get your pants hemmed. If we could get the worst offenders to just try to "look sharp," even if their command patch is outdated, I'd be happy.
Maybe because we have so many arcane rules, so many possible combinations, the whole system is too complex and so people sort of give up. If we had a much simpler number of combinations, badges, etc., more stability, then it'd be "less is more." Less rules means more attention to the few really important rules.
I dunno about less rules, but it would just be nice if we had less possible permutations and variations. :) But I do get your point about wearing it right.
Years ago, we had a gent in my group who showed up to an airshow in BDUs. His hair was always too long, his mustache not right, seldom cleanly shaved other wise. And at the airshow, he's wandering around with a radio or something or other hanging out of EVERY pocket on his BDU shirt.
"Hey, there, Lieutenant. You need to fix yourself."
"What do you mean?"
"You can't have all that crap hanging out of your pockets like that."
"Why?"
"Cuz it looks like hell at the very least. Nothing is supposed to be just hanging out of the pockets and all unbuttoned and the like."
"Well, if they didn't want me to put things in them, why did they put pockets on the uniform?"
The knifehand wasn't a thing back then, but he came close to getting it.
(he was in the unit that met on the ANG base that the airshow was hosted at. I can only imagine he was "that guy" who gave CAP a bad name among the Guard folks... "I saw some CAP guy shambling around by the BX with crap hanging out of his pockets looking like a bearded commie hippie!")
Quote from: SamFranklin on December 04, 2013, 07:10:19 PM
Maybe because we have so many arcane rules, so many possible combinations, the whole system is too complex and so people sort of give up. If we had a much simpler number of combinations, badges, etc., more stability, then it'd be "less is more." Less rules means more attention to the few really important rules.
That's just it - the rules are neither arcane nor ambiguous
as written.
The combination of local custom and adaptation along with simply ignoring the rules is the real problem.
Quote from: SamFranklin on December 04, 2013, 07:10:19 PM
What get's me a bit upset is when someone looks like a slob by normal civilian workplace standards. Tuck your shirt in, shave, iron out the wrinkles, get your pants hemmed. If we could get the worst offenders to just try to "look sharp," even if their command patch is outdated, I'd be happy.
I get your point (I think) because some of the uniform regs are just nonsensical and likely to stay that way because there is so much inertia, and in some cases dogged resistance, against changing them. Not necessarily from the AF, but from CAP.
However, some of the
worst offences I see are from those who wear the G/W kit, thinking that since it's not an AF uniform, it doesn't matter how it looks. I've seen sets of rumpled, worn pyjamas that look worse than some of the G/W uniforms I see:
Absolutely filthy and frayed ribbons (replacing them doesn't cost THAT much, and a shot of Scotchgard goes a long way toward preserving them).
Unauthorised blingage (military ribbons and badges).
Last pressed (if at all) during the Administration of George Bush SENIOR.
Pockets full of pens (some with the dreaded "ink explosions" in pocket), pencils, glasses, cigarettes, etc.
Grey trousers so threadbare you can almost see through them (honest guv, I've seen it, and it sure ain't pretty).
As for shaving...one of the reasons people wear the G/W is because they don't have to meet AF grooming standards. However, I don't believe that gives one licence to go around looking like Ted Kaczynski. I have a beard occasionally, and when I do I wear the G/W (even though I hate it), but I at least try to keep it trimmed so it doesn't look like something a gaggle of pterodactyls could nest in.
Quote from: NIN on December 04, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
I dunno about less rules, but it would just be nice if we had less possible permutations and variations. :) But I do get your point about wearing it right.
About a week ago I saw a CAP Lt. Col. with a wing patch on his blues. Okay. Fine. He was talking to a Maj. who was, at most, 5'6" and 300 lbs. Also in blues.
I just sighed and walked away.
Quote from: Panache on December 05, 2013, 04:58:54 AM
Quote from: NIN on December 04, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
I dunno about less rules, but it would just be nice if we had less possible permutations and variations. :) But I do get your point about wearing it right.
About a week ago I saw a CAP Lt. Col. with a wing patch on his blues. Okay. Fine. He was talking to a Maj. who was, at most, 5'6" and 300 lbs. Also in blues.
I just sighed and walked away.
Seriously? Where do you find a USAF uniform in that size? :o
Quote from: shuman14 on December 05, 2013, 05:27:24 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 05, 2013, 04:58:54 AM
Quote from: NIN on December 04, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
I dunno about less rules, but it would just be nice if we had less possible permutations and variations. :) But I do get your point about wearing it right.
About a week ago I saw a CAP Lt. Col. with a wing patch on his blues. Okay. Fine. He was talking to a Maj. who was, at most, 5'6" and 300 lbs. Also in blues.
I just sighed and walked away.
Seriously? Where do you find a USAF uniform in that size? :o
I was seriously tempted to ask. But discretion got the better of me and I just left it alone.
Quote from: Panache on December 05, 2013, 04:58:54 AM
About a week ago I saw a CAP Lt. Col. with a wing patch on his blues.
Old style ("Tony Nelson") or current? If memory serves, wing patches were never authorised for the current service dress. I know I never had a wing patch on mine, though my old "Tony Nelson" hanging in the closet has one, as well as blue nameplate.
Quote from: Panache on December 05, 2013, 04:58:54 AM
He was talking to a Maj. who was, at most, 5'6" and 300 lbs. Also in blues.
Without sounding snarky, those would have to have been "tailored," "let out," etc. to fit someone of that build.
Quote from: Panache on December 05, 2013, 04:58:54 AM
I just sighed and walked away.
I'm not so sure I could. It is because
we let this kind of thing go on, and don't police
ourselves, that is the core of a lot of our uniform problems, especially viz. the USAF.
To the Lt. Col. I may have said, "Sir, wing patches have been discontinued on any Air Force order of dress since March 2006."
To the Major I may have said, "Sir, with all due respect, you are inappropriately uniformed. In your position, I would be wearing one of the CAP-distinctive uniform options."
From CAPM 39-1, 1-July 1997:
9. Shoulder Patch: Worn centered, 1/2 inch below shoulder seam on left sleeve.
Figure 2-3. Men's Old-style Service Dress (Senior Members)
(Phaseout Date - 1 October 1999)
.....
8. Shoulder Patch: Worn centered 1/2 inch below shoulder seam on left sleeve.
Figure 2-6. Men's Long-sleeve Shirt (Senior Members)
.....
7. Shoulder Patch: Worn centered 1/2 inch below shoulder seam on left sleeve.
Figure 2-9. Men's Short-sleeve Shirt (Senior Members)
The current CAPM 39-1 sans the Infinite Change Letter parade also has the "Shoulder Patch" (Wing Patch) and is the replacement for this 1997 edition.
I recently had an encounter with someone who .. didn't read the ICL.. and only just the week previous, had gotten a wing patch sewn on .. because "it's 'back' in the manual". (as if they thought it was not in there.. ) :-\
Quote from: CyBorg on December 05, 2013, 07:00:09 AM
I'm not so sure I could. It is because we let this kind of thing go on, and don't police ourselves, that is the core of a lot of our uniform problems, especially viz. the USAF.
To the Lt. Col. I may have said, "Sir, wing patches have been discontinued on any Air Force order of dress since March 2006."
To the Major I may have said, "Sir, with all due respect, you are inappropriately uniformed. In your position, I would be wearing one of the CAP-distinctive uniform options."
No disagreement with the self policing aspect. Really.
But when you lead off any statement with "With all due respect," what you're really saying is "With no respect whatsoever."
I don't know Panache's rank or status (cadet or senior), but if a cadet came up to me and said "Sir, with all due respect, you're inappropriately uniformed" (note: I am not) I'd be a little surprised. My battalion commander was a bit of a "big guy," and I'm pretty sure he didn't meet weight standards. There was *no* way I was ever going to say "Sir, with all due respect.." and tell him he was out of line.
Same thing with my wing or region commander (a few of which I knew who did not meet the standards, either. I might make a comment in private if I knew the wing or region commander well enough).
Quote from: NIN on December 05, 2013, 12:01:57 PM
I don't know Panache's rank or status (cadet or senior)
Senior Member, 1st Lt. And since I would like to make Captain in a couple of months, I figure antagonizing two Wing staff officers probably wouldn't be the way to do it, even if I was technically right.
Quote from: Panache on December 05, 2013, 12:12:53 PM
Quote from: NIN on December 05, 2013, 12:01:57 PM
I don't know Panache's rank or status (cadet or senior)
Senior Member, 1st Lt. And since I would like to make Captain in a couple of months, I figure antagonizing two Wing staff officers probably wouldn't be the way to do it, even if I was technically right.
You are wise beyond your years! As they say, discretion is the better part of valor.
I've seen some crazy things as well. When I was a cadet, we had a wing commander that was very big and I saw him wearing AF-style blues in a wing conference. They must have been custom made because there's no way AAFES sold those sizes, even back in the early '90s.
During my last wing conference, I saw a major looking pretty sharp in his short sleeves blues, except... he was wearing 4 specialty track badges; one on each pocket, one above the ribbons and another above the name tag. :o
Quote from: shuman14 on December 05, 2013, 05:27:24 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 05, 2013, 04:58:54 AM
Quote from: NIN on December 04, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
I dunno about less rules, but it would just be nice if we had less possible permutations and variations. :) But I do get your point about wearing it right.
About a week ago I saw a CAP Lt. Col. with a wing patch on his blues. Okay. Fine. He was talking to a Maj. who was, at most, 5'6" and 300 lbs. Also in blues.
I just sighed and walked away.
Seriously? Where do you find a USAF uniform in that size? :o
Our squadron was assisting at a MDANG base last month and a MSG who was retiring gave us some of his old, but clean and wearable uniforms-50XXXL
Quote from: NIN on December 05, 2013, 12:01:57 PM
But when you lead off any statement with "With all due respect," what you're really saying is "With no respect whatsoever."
I don't know Panache's rank or status (cadet or senior), but if a cadet came up to me and said "Sir, with all due respect, you're inappropriately uniformed" (note: I am not) I'd be a little surprised. My battalion commander was a bit of a "big guy," and I'm pretty sure he didn't meet weight standards. There was *no* way I was ever going to say "Sir, with all due respect.." and tell him he was out of line.
Same thing with my wing or region commander (a few of which I knew who did not meet the standards, either. I might make a comment in private if I knew the wing or region commander well enough).
Off the cuff wording, which is why I said in my post, "I MAY have said."
If someone of junior rank, including a cadet, came to me and said, "Captain, you are inappropriately uniformed," my response MAY be:
"Indeed? Please cite the regulation I am violating."
If I am indeed out of compliance, I can easily acknowledge my error and correct it at soonest opportunity without being angry. I haven't got that kind of ego.
The
only time I can think of when I was out of compliance was at a Wing staff soiree when an observant Major told me my Loening ribbon was upside down. I went to the gents', took my service dress coat off, corrected the ribbon, and all was well. Yes, he outranked me but I would have done the same thing if a Cadet AB would have said so.
I have always appreciated when someone finds something I'm wearing incorrectly, if one person notices,
5 others do as well. I'd rather be told I have an issue then walk around the whole night with the
equivalent of toilet paper on my shoe.
Be prepared though, cause if you challenge me, the odds are you're wrong.
As an example, I carry the page from 39-1 regarding the proper wear of the corporate semi-formal in
the jacket pocket because so many people want to make an issue of that combo, the bow tie, especially.
I let one esteemed fellow officer work himself up a couple rounds of disagreeing with me the last
time it happened before I showed him the page.
We all have our hobbies...
Quote from: CyBorg on December 06, 2013, 03:02:36 AM
Quote from: NIN on December 05, 2013, 12:01:57 PM
But when you lead off any statement with "With all due respect," what you're really saying is "With no respect whatsoever."
I don't know Panache's rank or status (cadet or senior), but if a cadet came up to me and said "Sir, with all due respect, you're inappropriately uniformed" (note: I am not) I'd be a little surprised. My battalion commander was a bit of a "big guy," and I'm pretty sure he didn't meet weight standards. There was *no* way I was ever going to say "Sir, with all due respect.." and tell him he was out of line.
Same thing with my wing or region commander (a few of which I knew who did not meet the standards, either. I might make a comment in private if I knew the wing or region commander well enough).
Off the cuff wording, which is why I said in my post, "I MAY have said."
If someone of junior rank, including a cadet, came to me and said, "Captain, you are inappropriately uniformed," my response MAY be:
"Indeed? Please cite the regulation I am violating."
If I am indeed out of compliance, I can easily acknowledge my error and correct it at soonest opportunity without being angry. I haven't got that kind of ego.
The only time I can think of when I was out of compliance was at a Wing staff soiree when an observant Major told me my Loening ribbon was upside down. I went to the gents', took my service dress coat off, corrected the ribbon, and all was well. Yes, he outranked me but I would have done the same thing if a Cadet AB would have said so.
I like to start with light criticism of the offender's violation. Something like, "Oh hey, Bill, I noticed you had a wing patch on your blues. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they phased those out about 10 years ago."
"Oh really?"
"Yeah, I think it was when they authorized the new style service coats. There were a lot of changes."
"Oh, I must have missed it, I'll fix it when it's convenient."
A lot of times it'll be at a conference or something and they'll come back 5 minutes later sans wing patch, or ribbons back in order. Most people don't like to be the odd man out, and if you phrase things in a helpful way and show genuine desire to help, most people take the criticism just fine, fix it and move on.
Then there are the people who aren't "most people." I remember when the TPU came out. It was sometime around our encampment graduation and the Commandant of Cadets was going to wear it. He didn't read the guidelines correctly and went and bought a complete AF SS Blues Uniform. He was walking towards the banquet hall and I was like, "Whoa, there Jim. I didn't know you were an AF major." "I'm not, it's the new CAP uniform." "No, you're definitely supposed to have a white shirt and a nametag that says 'Civil Air Patrol' for that thing. What you're doing now is dressing up like an active duty officer."
He got all bent out of shape, started swearing at me about being a know-it-all little punk and maybe I should get my facts straight first. Considering he was the one in the wrong, I just passed my thoughts to the encampment commander. For the parade the next day, he was back in his aviators.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 05, 2013, 01:54:38 PM
I've seen some crazy things as well. When I was a cadet, we had a wing commander that was very big and I saw him wearing AF-style blues in a wing conference. They must have been custom made because there's no way AAFES sold those sizes, even back in the early '90s.
During my last wing conference, I saw a major looking pretty sharp in his short sleeves blues, except... he was wearing 4 specialty track badges; one on each pocket, one above the ribbons and another above the name tag. :o
I remember being a bit awe-struck at the L. A. AFB BX in 1998 where I saw a pair of blue uniform trousers, sized 52. Under the USAF weight standards, they must have been for a guy about 9 feet tall.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 06, 2013, 03:25:11 AM
He got all bent out of shape, started swearing at me about being a know-it-all little punk and maybe I should get my facts straight first. Considering he was the one in the wrong, I just passed my thoughts to the encampment commander. For the parade the next day, he was back in his aviators.
I am a 3rd-degree master black belt "know it all
little punk". Someone who came back at me like that would be on my radar
for "every little thing" from that point on.
No reason to prove him wrong.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on December 06, 2013, 04:07:55 AM
I remember being a bit awe-struck at the L. A. AFB BX in 1998 where I saw a pair of blue uniform trousers, sized 52. Under the USAF wright standards, they must have been for a guy about 9 feet tall.
Or a famous Army General from DS1...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2013, 04:10:26 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on December 06, 2013, 04:07:55 AM
I remember being a bit awe-struck at the L. A. AFB BX in 1998 where I saw a pair of blue uniform trousers, sized 52. Under the USAF wright standards, they must have been for a guy about 9 feet tall.
Or a famous Army General from DS1...
Is that like SG1?
My CAP boss refers to it as WWDS.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 06, 2013, 03:02:36 AM
If I am indeed out of compliance, I can easily acknowledge my error and correct it at soonest opportunity without being angry. I haven't got that kind of ego.
Sure, you don't have that kind of ego. And maybe the Lt. Col. and Maj. I saw didn't either, but I don't know that. I've never met them before in my life.
And if I knew them, I would have pointed it out in a non-confrontational way, much like jimmydeano suggested.
Maybe it was the coward's way out, but I didn't want to take the chance of sabotaging my career in CAP by getting two staff officers at Wing torqued at me. Yeah, I would have been in the right, but everybody knows that if they wanted to, they could find ways to yank my chain.
I'm not saying that these two were that kind of person. That's my point: they could be.
Then again, when I first moved here, I went to a wing conference and was in a group having a conversation in the lobby. The wing commander of the wing immediately to our south was standing there edging behind the CAP guy across from me, like he was hiding.
I finally said "Sir, what are you doing?"
He says "I want to be out of the line of fire when the buttons on that service coat your're wearing let go.."
I was *mortified*.
I went home, joined Weight Watchers on that following Monday. To be fair to him, I was 11 lbs over the weight limit for my height, and that service coat (old style) was probably a size too small.
But man, what a great way to handle it, Colonel. NOT.
Quote from: NIN on December 06, 2013, 11:28:29 AM
But man, what a great way to handle it, Colonel. NOT.
Having battled weight my entire life, and being "that guy" who split his pants during an opening formation, I know that feeling. After that mortifying experience, I went to BBDUs and the Grey/Whites. It took me years to loose the 80 lbs I needed to get back into H/W requirements, but I am there now. Now I have to buy all new uniforms. ;)
However, while a little childish and less than comporting to bearing of his position/grade, the Colonel's actions did seem to work. He may have had a similar situation that changed his life too. I wasn't there, and don't know if it was meant to be playful or hurtful (could be either and hard to tell in the telling).
Just food for thought.
Quote from: NIN on December 06, 2013, 11:28:29 AM
Then again, when I first moved here, I went to a wing conference and was in a group having a conversation in the lobby. The wing commander of the wing immediately to our south was standing there edging behind the CAP guy across from me, like he was hiding.
I finally said "Sir, what are you doing?"
He says "I want to be out of the line of fire when the buttons on that service coat your're wearing let go.."
I was *mortified*.
I went home, joined Weight Watchers on that following Monday. To be fair to him, I was 11 lbs over the weight limit for my height, and that service coat (old style) was probably a size too small.
But man, what a great way to handle it, Colonel. NOT.
You owe me a new keyboard and another cup of hot chocolate.
Quote from: NIN on December 06, 2013, 11:28:29 AM
Then again, when I first moved here, I went to a wing conference and was in a group having a conversation in the lobby. The wing commander of the wing immediately to our south was standing there edging behind the CAP guy across from me, like he was hiding.
I finally said "Sir, what are you doing?"
He says "I want to be out of the line of fire when the buttons on that service coat your're wearing let go.."
I was *mortified*.
I went home, joined Weight Watchers on that following Monday. To be fair to him, I was 11 lbs over the weight limit for my height, and that service coat (old style) was probably a size too small.
But man, what a great way to handle it, Colonel. NOT.
Agreed, Darin ... the Colonel's handling of the situation left a bit to be desired. (That being said, not having been there I wouldn't know if the Colonel was being sarcastic, funny, or hurtful - no way to read the tone of the comment.)
I have a similar story that triggered my weight loss. I went to my niece's wedding a few years back in uniform (her fiancee was in the Air Force and it was a military-themed wedding - my brother-in-law was retired AF and he asked me to be there in uniform, and I was my squadron commander so it was okay with me ;) ) and my service coat was a bit tight...the cleaners had shrunk it, right, that's what happened. Nobody was hiding from my buttons popping but I did notice one young fellow doing a rather good job of mocking the way I looked.
I didn't wear my blues after that, not until I lost weight.
Jack
Quote from: NIN on December 06, 2013, 11:28:29 AM
Then again, when I first moved here, I went to a wing conference and was in a group having a conversation in the lobby. The wing commander of the wing immediately to our south was standing there edging behind the CAP guy across from me, like he was hiding.
I finally said "Sir, what are you doing?"
He says "I want to be out of the line of fire when the buttons on that service coat your're wearing let go.."
I was *mortified*.
I went home, joined Weight Watchers on that following Monday. To be fair to him, I was 11 lbs over the weight limit for my height, and that service coat (old style) was probably a size too small.
But man, what a great way to handle it, Colonel. NOT.
It worked, didn't it? ;)
Off to Mexico tomorrow so I'm sure since I got the rep for being a uniform fascist, it will come out while I'm gone...making me the last to know...
Part of the issue in both stories is being overweight and not wearing clothes of the proper size.
Far too many of our members think they can still wear their cadet uniforms, and are too cheap to consider the
next size up, and the same goes for, and in some cases is worse for corporates.
A big part of looking sharp is simply wearing clothes that fit properly and if they shrink, replace them.
I love all the photos of guys wearing BBDUs which have clearly shrunk, especially the shirts, and
are now at least a size too small, assuming they ever fit properly, as if it's a non-issue.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 06, 2013, 02:22:04 PM
It worked, didn't it? ;)
Yep. I ordered aviators right after that, too, and did not get back into service dress until I got a properly sized "new style" service coat a number of months later and I was under the weight for my height.
In my case, it was not paying attention to my weight ("I thought I was OK.."), and having a service coat that was nearing the end of its operational life.
And yes, the good colonel was not really sarcastic. More like biting. He was known being kind of abrasive like that.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2013, 04:03:05 PM
Part of the issue in both stories is being overweight and not wearing clothes of the proper size.
Far too many of our members think they can still wear their cadet uniforms, and are too cheap to consider the
next size up, and the same goes for, and in some cases is worse for corporates.
A big part of looking sharp is simply wearing clothes that fit properly and if they shrink, replace them.
I love all the photos of guys wearing BBDUs which have clearly shrunk, especially the shirts, and
are now at least a size too small, assuming they ever fit properly, as if it's a non-issue.
I'm right on the edge of this. I'm a few pounds safe on H/W and my BDUs fit well, but the last time I wore my service dress it was noticably tighter. Not button's ready to fly tight, but I'm sure people could tell. So faced with the choice of spending bucks to get the next size up or losing 8-10 pounds. I'm choosing to drop the weight. Luckily with the holidays our schedule doesn;lt have the next blues night until the end of January, so I have some time to work on it.
I did buy a bigger size flight suit, though. I was doing aircrew training and the guy I was teaching with is very fit and I realized when I saw myself next to him that my bag didn't look right. The next size up looks much, much better.
I struggle to stay below H/W. I have a polo combo I wear for those times I pigged out for a little and go over. I weight my self pretty regularly to make sure I'm not out of regs.
Bwahahaha!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Screenshot_2013-12-06-16-45-30.png)
I don't think it would be possible to more perfectly encapsulate the totality of the situation discussed
in this and related threads then what is said in and by that graphic.
I'm literally at a loss.
This must be what Indy felt like when he actually found the Grail.
You're seeing it, you know it's real, but your brain just can't process its existence.
Too funny. Pegged it. On the nose.
Well, there's your chance to be immortalized. (or at least decade-ized based on the mean time between updates >:D)
CAP doesn't have a lock on the whole H/W issue. I was at a fly-in once where I saw a ARNG Blackhawk pilot about ready to split open what I'm assuming was the biggest green bag he could find. As for me, I'm perfectly happy in my BBDUs and G/Ws. It means that I can keep my network administrator goatee/I hate shaving beard (sometimes present, sometimes not) and I can keep eating this delicious Jimmy John's cookie.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 07, 2013, 05:50:22 PM
CAP doesn't have a lock on the whole H/W issue. I was at a fly-in once where I saw a ARNG Blackhawk pilot about ready to split open what I'm assuming was the biggest green bag he could find. <snip>
Those poor T700s.
Quote from: NIN on December 07, 2013, 07:41:12 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 07, 2013, 05:50:22 PM
CAP doesn't have a lock on the whole H/W issue. I was at a fly-in once where I saw a ARNG Blackhawk pilot about ready to split open what I'm assuming was the biggest green bag he could find. <snip>
Those poor T700s.
More like those poor gearboxes! :o
Quote from: PHall on December 07, 2013, 09:41:06 PM
Quote from: NIN on December 07, 2013, 07:41:12 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 07, 2013, 05:50:22 PM
CAP doesn't have a lock on the whole H/W issue. I was at a fly-in once where I saw a ARNG Blackhawk pilot about ready to split open what I'm assuming was the biggest green bag he could find. <snip>
Those poor T700s.
More like those poor gearboxes! :o
They keep the guy around so they can do topping checks without having to climb too high.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 06, 2013, 10:51:58 PM
Bwahahaha!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Screenshot_2013-12-06-16-45-30.png)
Is... Is this a joke or... ?
Quote from: NCRblues on December 07, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 06, 2013, 10:51:58 PM
Bwahahaha!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Screenshot_2013-12-06-16-45-30.png)
Is... Is this a joke or... ?
The things I could do [insert evil laugh here] >:D
Quote from: NCRblues on December 07, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 06, 2013, 10:51:58 PM
Bwahahaha!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Screenshot_2013-12-06-16-45-30.png)
Is... Is this a joke or... ?
No it's not, just found this on the IL FB Page.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=177478149126101&set=a.177374835803099.1073741830.102320466641870 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=177478149126101&set=a.177374835803099.1073741830.102320466641870)
(http://i.imgur.com/hpTlXvs.png)
Yay. Yellow hotel lighting. ;)
So no changes, just new photos. Got it
Published next year huh? So by the end of this year is a hope I guess?
And nothing new, just new pictures is my guess from this way of doing them.
Quote from: cap235629 on December 08, 2013, 06:29:22 AM
So no changes, just new photos. Got it
No, no, not just new photos.
The new 39-1 will incorporate all the
Infinite Interim Change Letters issued against the current 39-1. I believe you're going to see a number of clarifications of wear policies, some adjustments to confusing or outright contradictory info, re-alignment of the manual to the parent serivice's uniform manual format and chapter structure, the inclusion of images of badges and such created since 2005, etc.
Just spitballing here, I wouldn't be surprised if you see paragraphs in, say, the utility uniform section that are inexplicably "empty" or "reserved." You know, maybe for something like "future use" ...
Another thing you *might* see (on a long lead/phaseout) is the migration from ultramarine-background nametapes and insignia to a dark navy blue for both BDUs (and "a uniform to be named later") and the CAP-distinctive field uniform.
I could be wrong.
Quote from: Bulls729 on December 08, 2013, 03:25:12 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 07, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 06, 2013, 10:51:58 PM
Bwahahaha!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Screenshot_2013-12-06-16-45-30.png)
Is... Is this a joke or... ?
No it's not, just found this on the IL FB Page.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=177478149126101&set=a.177374835803099.1073741830.102320466641870 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=177478149126101&set=a.177374835803099.1073741830.102320466641870)
(http://i.imgur.com/hpTlXvs.png)
That is my deputy group commander having her uniform adjusted in the background and her husband, CT's own SnakeDoctor, adjusting the uniform of one of my squadron commanders.
[redacted]
Quote from: arajca on December 08, 2013, 04:29:36 PM
So, seeing as the pictures were just being taken, the statements at the National Conference about a probable Nov. 2013 release were a lie. It took 4 months from "we just need the pictures" to actually getting the pictures. Maybe it'll be released by next National Conference, but I wouldn't count on it since the pictures probably still need to be reviewed and someone has to insert them into the manual, a glacial process given CAP's history.
I think "lie" is a bit harsh. Since when is it a crime to take the time to do the job right?
If they had rushed it out then you guys would whine about the crappy pictures/artwork.
Quote from: a2capt on December 08, 2013, 03:32:10 AM
Yay. Yellow hotel lighting. ;)
Probably not. If the photogs there know what they're doing, then there are a whole bunch of lights and shades and other paraphernalia in the part of the photo we do NOT see which will take care of the "yellow" lighting. No way for me to know from this...
The hell with it.
Quote from: arajca on December 08, 2013, 04:29:36 PM
So, seeing as the pictures were just being taken, the statements at the National Conference about a probable Nov. 2013 release were a lie. It took 4 months from "we just need the pictures" to actually getting the pictures. Maybe it'll be released by next National Conference, but I wouldn't count on it since the pictures probably still need to be reviewed and someone has to insert them into the manual, a glacial process given CAP's history.
OK, I'm with Phil: saying its a "lie" isn't precisely true.
The manual was on track for a November 2013 release (or, probably more accurately, a November 2013 review for release and a 1 January street date), assuming that everything on the critical path was on time. The photos did not get accomplished in time.
Last time I looked, the only two people on the NUC who get "paid" for their time are Ms. Parker and the CAP-USAF rep. Everybody else is a volunteer like you and me. So someone on the NUC got tasked (or, *gasp* volunteered) to do the photos, and they were expecting to get them done in time to insert into the manual in October (I'm guessing) so that the manual could be re-reviewed in November for release.
And then, surprise: Something happened and a volunteer couldn't get a tasking done in the required amount of time. Like that never happens.
Happens. Happens every day. Maybe the guy is a professional photographer and he got a crazy influx of senior portraits for September and October such that he couldn't devote as much time as he thought he could to the uniform project. Maybe her husband took ill unexpectedly and she spent more time at the hospital than on taking uniform pictures.
Who knows.
Events occur. You adjust fire and drive on. Its not like some gigantic criminal conspiracy designed to rob us of our uniform manual, or someone decided that they wanted to have a little fun with the membership by dangling the 39-1 carrot for November.
The schedule projection was that the manual with photos would be ready by November. Its not. Nobody dies because the photos for the uniform manual are a month and a half later than expected.
The 39-1 is coming. Just because its not in your hot little hands right now doesn't mean anybody is lying, it means that an optimistic timeline slipped to the right.
ETA:
Quote from: arajca
I can't believe they couldn't have done a random drawing for each uniform photo needed and requested a unit to provide it. Send an email to the unit specifying the uniform required, background, standards (specific page from uniform manual) including photo resolution, and date needed by.
Have you seen some of the god awful CAP ID card photo that units take
every single day? Please. Those are tiny 1" x 1" photos where they published fairly specific standards, too! And still, we can't get decent quality, lighting, consistent backgrounds, uniforms, framing, poses, out of the field units.
Quote from: NIN on December 08, 2013, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: arajca
I can't believe they couldn't have done a random drawing for each uniform photo needed and requested a unit to provide it. Send an email to the unit specifying the uniform required, background, standards (specific page from uniform manual) including photo resolution, and date needed by.
Have you seen some of the god awful CAP ID card photo that units take every single day? Please. Those are tiny 1" x 1" photos where they published fairly specific standards, too! And still, we can't get decent quality, lighting, consistent backgrounds, uniforms, framing, poses, out of the field units.
I have. I've tried to find the standards a few times and they weren't exactly easy to find. I ended up using Google to find them. Of course that was a couple years ago, so they may have put them in an easier to find place. There's also the notion of a direct email to a unit commander vs an annoucement made once or twice several years ago.
With turn over, the folks who did know about the standards are probably gone from the unit, either to another unit, higher HQ, or gone from CAP. The ID photo standards were probably a minor point to them and they didn't think about mentioning them to anyone else.
Quote from: NIN on December 08, 2013, 05:27:00 PMHave you seen some of the god awful CAP ID card photo that units take every single day? Please. Those are tiny 1" x 1" photos where they published fairly specific standards, too! And still, we can't get decent quality, lighting, consistent backgrounds, uniforms, framing, poses, out of the field units.
You know, it's actually pretty tough to take a good ID card photo. Especially if you're indoors and don't have overhead lighting (and sometimes all that does is cast shadows).
As it happens, I just did a new CAP ID card photo. My membership renewal was due, and I wanted a better picture for my card. After rearranging a couple lamps and 15 failed attempts to get a decent photo (and a patient wife), here's what I ended up with:
(http://www.cadetstuff.org/images/dwb.jpg)
The original was a little sharper, but it got resized and a little blurred when I uploaded to eServices. So even the perfect photo might not look perfect once it gets mangled by the photo uploader.
Even looking at it now, I should have tried to photoshop the door I'm standing in front of to make the background flat. It looks like I have an arrow through my head. :) Oh well.
arajca - The NHQ photo guidelines (http://capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/membership_card_guide.cfm) are linked on the page where you upload your photo, which isn't an illogical place to put the link.
1. As I said, it was a few years ago I was looking for them.
2. I don't need them now as that is not in my pervue.
3. Does it really make sense to put them where you upload the picture to if you don't go there until you have your picture ready to upload?
Maybe. I figure that is the "center" of the activity for that, and the way CAP has everything (dis)organized, I'd at least expect it to be there, or a reference to where it really is, that might even work. How many links in online tests are no good anymore? But you can at least find a document name to google for.
Google site: *cap.. is the best way to find stuff. Between CAP's multitude of domains and hokey SiteVis CMSs. Blech.
I hope whoever did that stuff is at least proud of it.
Your local Walgreen's can take a decent ID photo in 5 minutes.
(http://static.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43233%3Eju%3Dfqqurnh%3Dduvgwu%3EErducqfbYDNJTHGQU%3Ekpcjg%3Er%3Erduvrrtwasjrvraecfmjtrwqfb5bthxb3%3A%3B54327%3D30mrj)
The manual will come out when the manual comes out. Complaining about delays is just futile wailing and gnashing of teeth. Granted, I on occasion see violations of the current manual when I go to activities. Most, if not nearly all, are small, easily correctable problems that the member was unaware of the regulation or the member had not noticed that something had "moved" on their uniform such as ribbons shifting on the holder, nameplates losing pinch clips, etc. I do not frequently see the "egregious" uniform violations that are apparently rampant in some areas given the stories I see on here.
Wearing the blues, the BDUs, flight suits, and their "corporate" equivalents is not rocket science. Yes, we occasionally have members come on this forum and ask questions about whether they can wear this or that or whether they can wear this or that in this or that manner and the answer is usually forthcoming in rapid response. Sometimes, these are legitimate queries and sometimes they trolls looking to stir the pot. I notice that many times we answer the replies from seemingly legitimate members in a somewhat curt and discourteous manner. At other times, we let the trolls herd us like cattle into multi-page threads where splitting hairs seems to be the order of the day(See ABUs, HMRS gear, and blue berets, et al).
However, in 999 times out of 1000 situations the answers are pretty straight forward. Again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to use the material already provided to get the answers we may need. Our missions are not going to come to a screeching halt because we don't have a up to date uniform manual. Get a little perspective, please.
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 06:40:19 PM
(http://www.cadetstuff.org/images/dwb.jpg)
Dude, you totally made my point! :)
Nice arrow. I think Steve Martin had that trademarked. Your C&D letter is on its way.
Quote from: NIN on December 08, 2013, 07:13:08 PM
Dude, you totally made my point! :)
Nice arrow. I think Steve Martin had that trademarked. Your C&D letter is on its way.
Well, unless you're suggesting that NHQ purchase portrait studio-quality equipment for all of its units, then this kind of photo is the best you can hope for.
Quote from: ol'fido on December 08, 2013, 07:07:28 PMHowever, in 999 times out of 1000 situations the answers are pretty straight forward. Again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to use the material already provided to get the answers we may need. Our missions are not going to come to a screeching halt because we don't have a up to date uniform manual. Get a little perspective, please.
No, of course not, however the issue is a symptom of the larger problem. Not to mention even that even what we have isn't properly or evenly enforced
How about ES curriculum? Outdated pamphlets? Internally self-conflicting regulations which are simple to fix, pointed out and ignored?
Any one of these things is minor and par for the course of a larger organization, but taken together and they add up to a general malaise,
not to mention a gradual and but increasing chipping away of our credibility.
It also contributes significantly to our churn - new members come in the door excited to get started, ask what to the average person
ar simply questions, and the answers are "complicated, conflicting, or simply incorrect".
It's unnecessary and ridiculous for nationally, congressionally funded organization with 60k members, half of them adults, and
which encompass largely professional and military background.
Can you get digitals? Not every unit has a scanner.
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:27:02 PM
Can you get digitals? Not every unit has a scanner.
Yes, and
every unit has a scanner.
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:22:04 PM
Well, unless you're suggesting that NHQ purchase portrait studio-quality equipment for all of its units, then this kind of photo is the best you can hope for.
A 3ft piece of white butcher paper would solve your "arrow thru the head" problem.
My larger point is: the standards are there, yet almost nobody follows them. so you get people who upload a scanned copy of their senior photo (and it gets approved), they're not square to the camera, they're standing in front of a brown wall. They're in civvies. The shot is them from the waist up (not ribbons or badges up), etc, etc, etc.
^ Not precisely 1" x 1", which is why they get scaled weird.
Quote from: NIN on December 08, 2013, 07:37:24 PM
A 3ft piece of white butcher paper would solve your "arrow thru the head" problem.
DWB, in your entire hour there isn't one wall without a texture or pattern on it? Why would you stand in front of a door with panels?
Those will not only show through, but the dimension will produce shadows.
Though even that is a simple enough fix.
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6936/smku.jpg)
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:27:02 PM
Can you get digitals? Not every unit has a scanner.
I would like the digitals.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 07:39:07 PMThough even that is a simple enough fix.
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6936/smku.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6936/smku.jpg)
Looks worse, IMO. I look like Max Headroom.
And yeah, besides the doors, I don't have any white/offwhite walls I could stand in front of where I could get the lighting right.
Quote from: NIN on December 08, 2013, 07:42:24 PM
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:27:02 PM
Can you get digitals? Not every unit has a scanner.
I would like the digitals.
Dork. :)
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:27:02 PM
Can you get digitals? Not every unit has a scanner.
That's interesting because every unit was
supposed to get a combination fax/scanner/printer a couple of years ago from National.
I admit I could be operating on outdated information. Maybe every unit does have a scanner now.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 07:36:40 PM
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:27:02 PM
Can you get digitals? Not every unit has a scanner.
Yes, and every unit has a scanner.
My Squadron doesn't have a scanner...but I'd be willing to trade a "Like New" Overhead Projector.
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Looks worse, IMO. I look like Max Headroom.
No,
Now you look like Max Headrorom.
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/6855/hrq7.jpg)
Quote from: SARDOC on December 08, 2013, 07:50:15 PM
My Squadron doesn't have a scanner...but I'd be willing to trade a "Like New" Overhead Projector.
Then it's because they have issues with tracking property, or refused the issue.
("Well, if we don't take no stuff, we don't got to do no inventory..." BTDT with some misguided units.)
Either way, it can't be used as an excuse, because they made their own problem, and there's plenty of
people in the unit with scanners, cell phone cameras, and probably a few courtroom artists.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 07:55:14 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on December 08, 2013, 07:50:15 PM
My Squadron doesn't have a scanner...but I'd be willing to trade a "Like New" Overhead Projector.
Then it's because they have issues with tracking property, or refused the issue.
("Well, if we don't take no stuff, we don't got to do no inventory..." BTDT with some misguided units.)
Either way, it can't be used as an excuse, because they made their own problem, and there's plenty of
people in the unit with scanners, cell phone cameras, and probably a few courtroom artists.
Actually, we never refused Issue. We've had two that have both been retired but never replaced with no offer for a new one. I like to see that you think it's the unit problem and not a problem coming from somewhere else. We would love to have one.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Looks worse, IMO. I look like Max Headroom.
No, Now you look like Max Headrorom.
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/6855/hrq7.jpg)
And not a single cadet has any idea what this means.
Quote from: SARDOC on December 08, 2013, 07:58:00 PM
Actually, we never refused Issue. We've had two that have both been retired but never replaced with no offer for a new one. I like to see that you think it's the unit problem and not a problem coming from somewhere else. We would love to have one.
Did you ever ask? You can't imagine how much stuff is DRMO'ed by wings every year because it's "old" - the scanner / printer I most recently
gave up with my cold, dead fingers (new guy got my job) is still cranking strong after 10 years of heavy use, and the one I got to replace it is nearly as old.
Notebooks, printers, radios, etc. Sitting on the shelf, until someone gets tired of looking at it.
That or ask other units for equipment they aren't using - many have several issued.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Looks worse, IMO. I look like Max Headroom.
No, Now you look like Max Headrorom.
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/6855/hrq7.jpg)
This is going into eServices pronto.
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on December 08, 2013, 07:59:47 PMAnd not a single cadet has any idea what this means.
Paranoimia and
Perestroika. Both for the history books.
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 08:12:38 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Looks worse, IMO. I look like Max Headroom.
No, Now you look like Max Headrorom.
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/6855/hrq7.jpg)
This is going into eServices pronto.
You show me a bona-fide CAPID with that photo on it from NHQ and I will send you a $10 Starbucks gift card!
Quote from: a2capt on December 08, 2013, 08:15:24 PM
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on December 08, 2013, 07:59:47 PMAnd not a single cadet has any idea what this means.
Paranoimia and Perestroika. Both for the history books.
...doesn't even rhyme...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 08:21:15 PMYou show me a bona-fide CAPID with that photo on it from NHQ and I will send you a $10 Starbucks gift card!
Ha! I assume my commander would not approve. Although I could buy him a cup of joe if he does... ;D
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 07:55:14 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on December 08, 2013, 07:50:15 PM
My Squadron doesn't have a scanner...but I'd be willing to trade a "Like New" Overhead Projector.
Then it's because they have issues with tracking property, or refused the issue.
("Well, if we don't take no stuff, we don't got to do no inventory..." BTDT with some misguided units.)
Either way, it can't be used as an excuse, because they made their own problem, and there's plenty of
people in the unit with scanners, cell phone cameras, and probably a few courtroom artists.
In my experience, the issued Multi-Function Copiers issues tended to be on the cheap (sub-$200) end. They can last 10 years, or they can last two, or six months, or 1,000 copies, basically a total crapshoot quality-wise. I don't recall if it came down from National, or from my Wing, but we were told that since MFC's had gotten so cheap as to be basically disposable, they would no longer be issues and would need to be purchased by the unit itself.
SARDOC's unit may have had one at some point, that crapped out and was never replaced. SARDOC's unit may have decided it would be better to spend their money on Cadet or ES activities instead of on a machine that several staffers had at home already and didn't need to have an extra of at the unit.
Remember what happens when you assume.
I wasn't making an assumption, I was making a point.
Your recollection matches mine, however in a world where people carry 8Mp cameras in their pocket and
everything has to be uploaded to eServices, WMIRS, next echelon, etc.,
saying "We don't have a scanner." is a silly assertion to make about ID pics, etc.
It also on change that he are required for anyone over 18.
Quote from: NIN on December 08, 2013, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: dwb on December 08, 2013, 06:40:19 PM
(http://www.cadetstuff.org/images/dwb.jpg)
Dude, you totally made my point! :)
Nice arrow. I think Steve Martin had that trademarked. Your C&D letter is on its way.
Custer, did anyone else survive? ;)
But can he do "King Tut?"
I wish we could all have professional photographers to do our mug shots photos in EServices.
Mine is awful. It looks like it could be hanging on a bulletin board at your local post office.
I doubt very much that the new 39-1, whenever it comes out, will solve all our uniform problems, and that's not a knock on Colonel Lee and the people helping to re-do the bloody thing. There are always going to be those who look for/find loopholes.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2013, 07:00:22 PM
Your local Walgreen's can take a decent ID photo in 5 minutes.
(http://static.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43233%3Eju%3Dfqqurnh%3Dduvgwu%3EErducqfbYDNJTHGQU%3Ekpcjg%3Er%3Erduvrrtwasjrvraecfmjtrwqfb5bthxb3%3A%3B54327%3D30mrj)
No, they can't. The photographer is a High School Junior working in the evenings, using a 3-5 year old point-and-shoot, and can't even get them NOT to be blurry. My passport picture is complete crap.
Quote from: ol'fido on December 08, 2013, 07:07:28 PM
The manual will come out when the manual comes out. Complaining about delays is just futile wailing and gnashing of teeth. Granted, I on occasion see violations of the current manual when I go to activities. Most, if not nearly all, are small, easily correctable problems that the member was unaware of the regulation or the member had not noticed that something had "moved" on their uniform such as ribbons shifting on the holder, nameplates losing pinch clips, etc. I do not frequently see the "egregious" uniform violations that are apparently rampant in some areas given the stories I see on here.
Seen at the ILWG Conference yesterday - a Cadet Captain, a bunch of bling, and a wing patch on service coat. :)
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/whatthe.jpg) (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/USAFAUX2004/media/whatthe.jpg.html)
^ You might consider the source material may be an issue.
Gotta love the wing patch - takes the time to attach the cord, misses the patch.
Where are his adult leaders?
That appears to be an old type service coat, that is infinitely authorized for cadets. Perhaps someone never took the patch off and it's still being interpreted that the patch should be on there, since it was on there with the regulation that setup that service coat.
Sure. The one Earhart cadet in the state who doesn't know how to wear a Service coat? This never came up? He has more than one encampment clasp.
Quote from: cap235629 on December 08, 2013, 06:29:22 AM
So no changes, just new photos. Got it
While I will admit disappointment that they're just starting to take pictures now, I think we all knew (or strongly guesstimated*) that there were no changes coming to the AF-style blue uniforms and, I assume, the G/W's (other than being allowed to wear more qualification pins on the white aviator shirt). I'm hoping that the use of the blue flight cap and earned military ribbons will be authorized with the G/W's, but I'm not holding my breath on that.
(* Oddly enough, my spell-checker is telling me that "guesstimated" is a legitimate word.)
Quote from: Panache on December 10, 2013, 08:58:34 AM
I think we all knew (or strongly guesstimated*) that there were no changes coming to the AF-style blue uniforms and, I assume, the G/W's (other than being allowed to wear more qualification pins on the white aviator shirt). I'm hoping that the use of the blue flight cap and earned military ribbons will be authorized with the G/W's, but I'm not holding my breath on that.
I believe you to be correct, and in the aftermath of the CSU, the powers-that-be are even more entrenched in "no-change-is-best-change."
Other than what people have said about the ABU, I don't look for
any changes to the AF uniform, nor to the H/W/grooming standards. I think that the
general attitude throughout CAP is "what we have now isn't what we had before 1990, but it's a lot better than the berry boards."
I see
no changes in the aviator kit...again, in the aftermath of the CSU. I believe NHQ, the NUC, whoever, believes that a "corporate" uniform has to be
so vastly different from the AF uniform that they're going to keep it exactly as is: looking like a colourless mall cop/security guard in shirtsleeve order, and like a Realtor with the blazer.
I personally would have liked to have seen a
civilian blue shirt replace the white shirt, with a more airline-cut service coat, and a
civilian wooly-pully, but they didn't ask me.
I doubt very, very much that the flight cap would ever be authorised for anything but the USAF uniform, though paradoxically it is authorised for the blue flight suit (and there is
NO difference between that and the blue utility suit, except fabric). I also used to see it worn with the "smurf suit" way back in the day, though I don't know if it was actually authorised.
If anything, the West Point grey cap made by Bernard Cap would be better, for consistency at least, but I don't see
that happening either.
(http://bernardcap.com/caps/images/2450.jpg)
Quote from: a2capt on December 10, 2013, 03:27:09 AM
That appears to be an old type service coat, that is infinitely authorized for cadets. Perhaps someone never took the patch off and it's still being interpreted that the patch should be on there, since it was on there with the regulation that setup that service coat.
There was a period of time, I distinctly recall this, where there was ambiguity on whether the Wing patch was supposed to remain on the old-style service coat. Whoever
rushed out wrote the ICL failed to mention that coat, so we genuinely didn't know what to do.
This became an issue when a cadet with the old-style coat had a Wing-level review board to attend. I read all the ICLs, went through all the meeting minutes I could find, and I didn't have a good answer. So I told her to leave it on. Then she got dinged in the review board for wearing it.
I sprung into action, E-mailing the review board all the ICLs and meeting minutes and my thought process and walked them through why there was no clarity on the issue and why the cadet should not have been marked off for NHQ's failure to think before they published. I won that round. :)
Of course, that was years ago, and the ICL guidance that has come out since then has been pretty clear on the matter. A cadet in 2013 has no excuse for not knowing. Especially a cadet officer who should be learning to read the regs for themselves.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 10, 2013, 09:24:32 AM
If anything, the West Point grey cap made by Bernard Cap would be better, for consistency at least, but I don't see that happening either.
(http://bernardcap.com/caps/images/2450.jpg)
You know, I'm going to wear this hat one day with my G/W's just to see what sort of reaction I get.
(Disclaimer: yes, I know I'll be in the wrong.)
(http://bernardcap.com/caps/images/2450.jpg)
That looks like something the WWII Luftwaffe would wear.
The Luftwaffe uniform was a light blue. Some call it Blue-Grey but was more blue than grey.
Also the uniform of the Army was called Field Grey but was more green than grey.
In any event, USMA cadets have been wearing grey uniforms including that cap. Are you saying that West Point cadets wear German-styled uniforms?
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 10, 2013, 01:31:21 PM
In any event, USMA cadets have been wearing grey uniforms including that cap. Are you saying that West Point cadets wear German-styled uniforms?
Flyer
No, I said this.
Quote from: TexasCadet on December 10, 2013, 01:15:38 PM
That looks like something the WWII Luftwaffe would wear.
I did not say this.
Quote from: TexasCadet
That looks like something West Point cadets would wear.
Quote from: TexasCadet on December 10, 2013, 01:39:36 PM
I did not say this.
Quote from: TexasCadet
That looks like something West Point cadets would wear.
But it
is something West Point cadets wear.
Oh no! Somebody might confuse us with West Point Cadets in low light conditions... >:D
Quote from: Panache on December 10, 2013, 01:55:24 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on December 10, 2013, 01:39:36 PM
I did not say this.
Quote from: TexasCadet
That looks like something West Point cadets would wear.
But it is something West Point cadets wear.
Exactly. However, I
never said the West Point cadets look like the Luftwaffe. This is what I said.
Quote from: TexasCadet on December 10, 2013, 01:15:38 PM
That looks like something the WWII Luftwaffe would wear.
Yet that is what you are implying...
Someone that knows West Point cadets wear those hats, and I am sure other military academy cadets as well, will think of them wearing those hats when you say wrongly that it looks like something the Luftwaffe would.
Because the Luftwaffe never wore that color...
Flyer
So... that new 39-1... no grey flight caps. West Point, Luftwaffe or otherwise.
Just saying
196 comments on a reg that has yet to hit the street!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
I am not implying anything, except the fact that I thought it looked like something the Luftwaffe would wear.
Luftwaffe uniform:
(http://www.replicaters.com/ww2%20German%20Luftwaffe%20uniforms/waffenrock.jpg)
Hat:
(http://bernardcap.com/caps/images/2450.jpg)
Very similar color.
If saying "That looks like something the Luftwaffe wears." means that West Point cadets look like the Luftwaffe, consider this. If someone had a sword, and I said it looked like a samurai sword, would that mean I called them a samurai?
Are you calling the patient "stupid", Doctor Bob?
Are you calling the patient, Stupid Doctor Bob?
Look at the colors.
The blouse is bluer than the hat!
Flyer
Does this mean Godwin's Law has been invoked?
I don't believe so. The German Air Force is currently called the Luftwaffe. No Godwin issues there.
Direct copy from Post #188:
Quote
...like something the WWII Luftwaffe would wear.
Emphasis mine, of his written words. Now, can I invoke Godwin's Law?
Flyer
Okay, I'll say this again. I never said that West Point cadets look like the Luftwaffe. I said that hat looked like a hat the Luftwaffe might wear. The colors for the hat and the Luftwaffe uniform look similar. I might have been wrong. However, I will repeat myself: I NEVER SAID WEST POINT CADETS LOOK LIKE THE LUFTWAFFE.
My quote:
Quote from: TexasCadet on December 10, 2013, 01:15:38 PM
(http://bernardcap.com/caps/images/2450.jpg)
That looks like something the WWII Luftwaffe would wear.
^This is what I said. No more, no less.
So, yeah, how about them photographs?
The photographs for the new 39-1? I hope they are better. For lack of a better term, the ones in the current 39-1 look like crap.
My personal hope for the new 39-1 is that they allow ABUs (I know I'm a minority about this on this forum). At least allow us to wear Velcro patches. Easy on, easy off. (Again, I am a minority.)
Quote from: NIN on December 10, 2013, 10:59:56 PM
So, yeah, how about them photographs?
Still looking for a Fotomat...
Quote from: TexasCadet on December 10, 2013, 11:04:36 PM
The photographs for the new 39-1? I hope they are better. For lack of a better term, the ones in the current 39-1 look like crap.
My personal hope for the new 39-1 is that they allow ABUs (I know I'm a minority about this on this forum). At least allow us to wear Velcro patches. Easy on, easy off. (Again, I am a minority.)
Not crap, just way too outdated to be of anything but very selective use.
And you're the minority for good reason my friend, you want us to switch to a uniform that looks 'cooler' in your opinion, but is of little use to us any way. There is no supply for us to leech off of like we do the BDU's, it isn't any safer for us to use, and velcro doesn't offer us any useful purpose either. Our patches have set locations and once sewn on, rarely need to be taken off again. Unless you change wings every month or go to twenty special activities per year, there isn't any good reason to use velcro.
Not bashing your opinions, cadet, merely showing you the other side of the fence. :D
Quote from: The Infamous Meerkat on December 10, 2013, 11:18:58 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on December 10, 2013, 11:04:36 PM
The photographs for the new 39-1? I hope they are better. For lack of a better term, the ones in the current 39-1 look like crap.
My personal hope for the new 39-1 is that they allow ABUs (I know I'm a minority about this on this forum). At least allow us to wear Velcro patches. Easy on, easy off. (Again, I am a minority.)
Not crap, just way too outdated to be of anything but very selective use.
And you're the minority for good reason my friend, you want us to switch to a uniform that looks 'cooler' in your opinion, but is of little use to us any way. There is no supply for us to leech off of like we do the BDU's, it isn't any safer for us to use, and velcro doesn't offer us any useful purpose either. Our patches have set locations and once sewn on, rarely need to be taken off again. Unless you change wings every month or go to twenty special activities per year, there isn't any good reason to use velcro.
Not bashing your opinions, cadet, merely showing you the other side of the fence. :D
I didn't think you were bashing my opinion. There's always more than one side.
Okay, so skip the Velcro. ABUs are pratical for SAR. We aren't hiding, so why not wear something so we stand out against [insert terrain]?
Quote from: The Infamous Meerkat on December 10, 2013, 11:18:58 PM
And you're the minority for good reason my friend, you want us to switch to a uniform that looks 'cooler' in your opinion, but is of little use to us any way. There is no supply for us to leech off of like we do the BDU's, it isn't any safer for us to use, and velcro doesn't offer us any useful purpose either. Our patches have set locations and once sewn on, rarely need to be taken off again. Unless you change wings every month or go to twenty special activities per year, there isn't any good reason to use velcro.
Not bashing your opinions, cadet, merely showing you the other side of the fence. :D
Your side of the fence differs from reality a little. Who said there is no supply for CAP to leech off of? Have you walked into a DLA Reutilization activity lately? I have been in two during the past five months and have seen thousands of ABUs sitting on pallets waiting to be disposed of. BDUs are dead, the local stock your unit may have might be an exception, but the DoD has not processed BDUs through Reutilization or disposition facilities for over a year. Eventually the BDU stock will dry up and members will be forced to purchase BDU style uniforms at prices higher than currently offered.
Supply and demand my friend, it's all about economics in regard to the upcoming decision to begin transitioning to the ABU.
I would also like to address your "safer" statement. The temperature at which ABUs burn/ melt is considerably higher than the temperature BDUs burn/ melt. Technology is a fantastic thing, and the ABU was created with knowledge and technologies 30 years after the BDU was undergoing R&D.
Please explain how the ABU is of little prospective use to the CAP?
DLA may have pallets of ABUs, but CAP cannot - at this time - draw them. CAP is not authorized, per DoD policy, to use the ABU. Therefore, there is no supply for CAP to leech off. There's a whole 'nother discussion about this.
By far the vast majority of members, including cadets, purchase their uniforms from commercial sources. Sources which are no
more, or less, plentiful or expensive today then they have been in the recent past.
DLA and DRMO are not currently allowed for CAP in regards to any field uniforms, and even if that restriction were lifted,
would still be a non-factor for the majority of units because they aren't anywhere near those facilities. Even those states
which are able to take advantage of DRMO / DLA cast-offs have their own logistical issues. A pallet of used uniforms
6-8 hours away is functionally useless to a member who needs a uniform in a reasonable amount of time, and there's
no guarantee of size, etc. Those opportunities are a nice-have which may or may never return.
Fire? Seriously? That's like the nomex argument for GA flying. Technically correct, and irrelevant. And in this case "less flammable does
not equal innonflammable".
The only purpose that ABUs would serve is service affinity, and at the sacrifice of safety in regards to field use for GTs (which isn't
even he majority of embers, so why do they need field uniforms to start with).
Flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.
!@#$%! Latin!
Quote from: arajca on December 10, 2013, 11:54:41 PM
DLA may have pallets of ABUs, but CAP cannot - at this time - draw them.
Very True
Quote from: arajca on December 10, 2013, 11:54:41 PMCAP is not authorized, per DoD policy, to use the ABU.
Not exactly. DOD is Prohibited from supplying them to us under the current interpretation of the Memo that is being cited. We aren't restricted from using them. We could get them from a NON-DoD source (or at least an undistiguishable replica.) The only thing that restricts us from using them is CAP's current uniform policy and CAP/USAF approval procedure.
Technical difference, but yes, has the same overall impact.
Quote from: The Infamous Meerkat on December 10, 2013, 11:18:58 PM
...and velcro doesn't offer us any useful purpose either. Our patches have set locations and once sewn on, rarely need to be taken off again. Unless you change wings every month or go to twenty special activities per year, there isn't any good reason to use velcro.
Well, it's handy to be able to remove all identifying patches on our uniforms when a CAP plane is shot down and the pilot and crew are taken prisoner.
{closed captions for the humor-impaired: ;) }
Quote from: Panache on December 11, 2013, 03:43:40 AM
Well, it's handy to be able to remove all identifying patches on our uniforms when a CAP plane is shot down and the pilot and crew are taken prisoner.
Or their Rascal Scooter runs out of batteries and they find themselves in a hostile environment (like a Dunkin with an empty gift card).
Quote from: Panache on December 11, 2013, 03:43:40 AM
Quote from: The Infamous Meerkat on December 10, 2013, 11:18:58 PM
...and velcro doesn't offer us any useful purpose either. Our patches have set locations and once sewn on, rarely need to be taken off again. Unless you change wings every month or go to twenty special activities per year, there isn't any good reason to use velcro.
Well, it's handy to be able to remove all identifying patches on our uniforms when a CAP plane is shot down and the pilot and crew are taken prisoner.
{closed captions for the humor-impaired: ;) }
You don't want to remove the patches, they're what makes the difference between a POW/Internee and an unaccredited guerrilla, who can be shot on capture.
As someone fluent auf Deutsch, the Luftwaffe Uniformenfarben is not grey...not in WWII, and not in today's Bundesluftwaffe.
The Bundesluftwaffe uniform is Graublau (grey-blue), very similar in cut and colour to their WWII counterparts, de-Nazified of course.
This is a close-up photo of a Bundesluftwaffe service dress of an Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel), with de-Nazified WWII ribbons.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-klHhHbmKre4/T94-72Hn7II/AAAAAAAAANc/tZxHtTcq1so/s1600/DSCF3085.JPG)
This Deutsche Demokratische Republik Luftstreitkräfte Oberstleutnant's Dienstuniform is Steingrau (stone grey), with the only "air force"element being the piping and collar devices.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g-46dM_VDpQ/UANCIXBL_CI/AAAAAAAABVg/5CBw-K8HEqY/s400/DSCF3608.JPG)
The Schiffchen currently worn by the Luftwaffe is clearly Graublau as well.
(http://themarshallwiki.wiki-site.com/images/6/68/Luftwaffe_Service_Uniform.PNG)
How does all this relate to CAP?
Well, the East Germans, as illustrated, were equally enamoured with grey as CAP seems to be.
A CAP service dress could roughly follow the East German model (in colours only, NOT insignia) in being grey with blue accoutrements...though I wonder if even that would be too much for the "low-light" fundamentalists.
Of course, we know that will not happen.
As for "getting away" with wearing the West Point cap...one would probably do better at getting an East German flight cap (dirt cheap on Evilbay), removing the national insignia and wearing that. The grey is almost identical to our rank slides and nameplate.
Quote from: ol'fido on December 10, 2013, 10:25:55 PM
I don't believe so. The German Air Force is currently called the Luftwaffe. No Godwin issues there.
"Luftwaffe" simply means "air force."
The Swiss Air Force uses the same term for its German-speaking members.
Quote from: Panache on December 10, 2013, 11:40:19 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on December 10, 2013, 09:24:32 AM
If anything, the West Point grey cap made by Bernard Cap would be better, for consistency at least, but I don't see that happening either.
(http://bernardcap.com/caps/images/2450.jpg)
You know, I'm going to wear this hat one day with my G/W's just to see what sort of reaction I get.
(Disclaimer: yes, I know I'll be in the wrong.)
No badge, and you'd have a mighty fine looking civilian cap.....
Other than tweaking TexasCadet's tail-feathers, it's probably safe to say that many military and para-military / police uniforms across the world share elements with the WWII European Axis powers. Some uniform concepts, even those by the Nazis, are just "classics". I mean, heck, just look at the uniform worn by the NJ State Police...
(http://www.writeonnewjersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NJ-State-Police.jpg)
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/belgrade-news.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/aa/aaaff7e6-040e-11e0-bdb5-001cc4c03286/4d01a03a74b38.image.jpg)
Mein Führer indeed.
Maybe our cadets can show some of those policemen how to march in step... Another state MOU?
Flyer
Quote from: TexasCadet on December 10, 2013, 09:11:16 PM
I am not implying anything, except the fact that I thought it looked like something the Luftwaffe would wear.
Luftwaffe uniform:
(http://www.replicaters.com/ww2%20German%20Luftwaffe%20uniforms/waffenrock.jpg)
Hat:
(http://bernardcap.com/caps/images/2450.jpg)
Very similar color.
If saying "That looks like something the Luftwaffe wears." means that West Point cadets look like the Luftwaffe, consider this. If someone had a sword, and I said it looked like a samurai sword, would that mean I called them a samurai?
The blouse shown here seems to be made up to be a Fallschirmjager(Paratrooper) blouse. They were under the Luftwaffe, but may have worn the Feld Grau for combat service. Just me speculating.
So yeah, that new uniform manual. I'm guessing it won't feature any Luftwaffe uniforms.
Quote from: NIN on December 11, 2013, 03:46:10 PM
So yeah, that new uniform manual. I'm guessing it won't feature any Luftwaffe uniforms.
Well, you said the new pictures were being taken in Illinois. And, well.... (http://youtu.be/-ukFAvYP3UU)
Quote from: Panache on December 11, 2013, 10:29:22 AM
Other than tweaking TexasCadet's tail-feathers, it's probably safe to say that many military and para-military / police uniforms across the world share elements with the WWII European Axis powers. Some uniform concepts, even those by the Nazis, are just "classics". I mean, heck, just look at the uniform worn by the NJ State Police...
(http://www.writeonnewjersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NJ-State-Police.jpg)
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/belgrade-news.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/aa/aaaff7e6-040e-11e0-bdb5-001cc4c03286/4d01a03a74b38.image.jpg)
Mein Führer indeed.
Not sure who told you that was NJ State Police, that's Mass State Troopers.
The top image is MASS State Troopers....note the blue cap and the blue stripe on the pants.....the lower image is NJ State Troopers...note the yellow patch with NJ, Yellow Stripe on pants, and the gray cap.
Quote from: Angus on December 11, 2013, 05:26:42 PM
Not sure who told you that was NJ State Police, that's Mass State Troopers.
That's what I get for relying on Google.
Buy the second one is most definitely NJ, as evidenced by their god-awful triangle "STATE POLICE NJ" patches.
Can we all at least agree that Texas State Troopers have the uniform least likely to be confused for Nazis?
(http://gov.texas.gov/multimedia/photos/2012-12-19-Capitol-TrooperGraduation-4.jpg)
Quote from: jeders on December 11, 2013, 06:02:06 PM
Can we all at least agree that Texas State Troopers have the uniform least likely to be confused for Nazis?
(http://gov.texas.gov/multimedia/photos/2012-12-19-Capitol-TrooperGraduation-4.jpg)
(looks at picture)
I will never complain about CAP uniforms again.
^ We wear blue tapes and color patches on woodland BDUs. With some members asking for a khaki uniform, something like this would not be so far fetched. >:D
I just hope I never have to wear something like that.
Quote from: Panache on December 11, 2013, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: Angus on December 11, 2013, 05:26:42 PM
Not sure who told you that was NJ State Police, that's Mass State Troopers.
That's what I get for relying on Google.
Buy the second one is most definitely NJ, as evidenced by their god-awful triangle "STATE POLICE NJ" patches.
I left both only because I didn't know how to take out the NJ State Police picture. With my luck I would have deleted the wrong one and made my point moot. :)
Quote from: Panache on December 11, 2013, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: jeders on December 11, 2013, 06:02:06 PM
Can we all at least agree that Texas State Troopers have the uniform least likely to be confused for Nazis?
(http://gov.texas.gov/multimedia/photos/2012-12-19-Capitol-TrooperGraduation-4.jpg)
(looks at picture)
I will never complain about CAP uniforms again.
Yes you will.
Quote from: NM SAR on December 11, 2013, 07:00:05 PM
Quote from: Panache on December 11, 2013, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: jeders on December 11, 2013, 06:02:06 PM
Can we all at least agree that Texas State Troopers have the uniform least likely to be confused for Nazis?
(http://gov.texas.gov/multimedia/photos/2012-12-19-Capitol-TrooperGraduation-4.jpg)
(looks at picture)
I will never complain about CAP uniforms again.
Yes you will.
I'll still take the MA State Trooper Uniform over that.
The poster that stated the WWII Luftwaffe blouse was paratroopers...
Not sure from that photo alone. The yellow waffenfarbe which was used for the same purpose as the US Army uses the colored piping in insignias and uniforms denotes the assignment the wearer was assigned to. It is shown on both the collar lapel and the sleeve on the epaulette, and means the wearer could be either aircrew or paratroopers.
Paratroopers initially wore the blue-grey colored uniform of the rest of the Luftwaffe with a smock over it colored feldgrau or fieldgrey. Like the Army. Later the smock was camouflaged.
See the uniform in this Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP0eBuN5pIk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP0eBuN5pIk)
From a store that makes reproductions of WWII German paratroopers:
http://www.hessenantique.com/Luftwaffe_Fallschirmj_ger_Uniforms_Uniforms_s/660.htm (http://www.hessenantique.com/Luftwaffe_Fallschirmj_ger_Uniforms_Uniforms_s/660.htm)
Flyer
Did you know that the new uniform manual finally authorizes the wear of tan boots and t-shirts with BDUs?
Quote from: NIN on December 11, 2013, 10:04:49 PM
Did you know that the new uniform manual finally authorizes the wear of tan boots and t-shirts with BDUs?
No, because unlike you, the rest of were not deemed worthy of such knowledge.
The Fallschirmjäger were only part of the Luftwaffe because Hermann Göring was in charge of the Luftwaffe and he thought that anything that flew belonged to him. As has been pointed out, the Luftwaffe Graublau was very ill-suited to field conditions.
The blouse that TexasCadet originally pointed out was not a field uniform; it was a service dress, very much like what Col. Klink wore on "Hogan's Heroes."
(http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/770/wk2.JPG)
Fallschirmjäger usually wore the same Fliegerbluse that Luftwaffe aircrew wore. It was more or less equivalent to the American Ike jacket and the Commonwealth battledress blouse.
(http://www.fallschirmjager-militaria.com/Uniforms/Jackets-Shirts/fliegerbluse1.jpg)
But, again, in a CAP context, using a grey garrison/side cap without insignia for the G/W...it would be much easier to use an East German cap sans insignia.
(http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/1/3/6/2/2/webimg/548584577_tp.jpg)
I personally like the South African Air Force's flight cap...but no way would the grey/corporatist/low-light fundies allow it.
(http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_images/421/384421/384421_120713173630_IMG_5647.JPG)
Death from above.