Received this via email:
Quote
From the National Conference
USAF STYLE
Eliminate double breasted jacket
No other changes
Field Uniform
NCSA specific uniforms to be added to 39-1 rather than exemptions on a yearly basis
ABUs recommended by committee and approved through USAF now awaiting waiver from DoD as to regulation that prohibits use by NON ACTIVE DUTY USAF PERSONELL
ABU will have navy blue insignia with silver thread no American flag (like the Air Force wing patch right squadron and specialty patches the same as now
BOOTS WILL STILL BE BLACK.
Goretex Parka will be available.
REPEAT, THIS HAS NOT RECIEVED FINAL APPROVAL
CORPORATE
Eliminate the floppy bow tie
Increase the badges to 4
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/download.jpg) (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/USAFAUX2004/media/download.jpg.html)
Wish they would authorize a blue flight cap and military ribbons and insignia to the corporate uniform.
Looks like I might owe someone a steak... (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/sad/pouting-face-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 08:33:53 PM
Looks like I might owe someone a steak... (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/sad/pouting-face-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Was bound to happen sooner or later. In the case of new iPhone 1 wielding folks in 2006/07, this did not happen in 2007/08. :)
Quote from: NC Hokie on August 16, 2013, 08:33:41 PM
Wish they would authorize a blue flight cap and military ribbons and insignia to the corporate uniform.
As someone who still has 30lbs to go until fitting into a blue suit, I agree.
Does anyone have an active/live source of news for the conference and, more importantly, the changes being announced?
Thanks,
-r
My guess is we're seeing work-product information that may not be intended for release (yet).
Making my prediction: This thread will last approximately 13 pages at least
Quote from: JK657 on August 16, 2013, 08:45:25 PM
Making my prediction: This thread will last approximately 13 pages at least
13 pages of how many posts per page? Mine is set at 40 I think.
Good catch: 20 posts per page, 13 pages minimum...
A talk about uniform changes in general plus specific reference towards ABUs... this is CAPTALK gold
^ Here you go - someone needs to get Adsense on here and that could fund NCC!
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 08:59:41 PM
^ Here you go - someone needs to get Adsense on here and that could fund NCC!
Certainly a great idea!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/download.jpg) (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/USAFAUX2004/media/download.jpg.html)
Lord that's ugly.
I'm seeing a "CAP patch on the right shoulder?
And is that a Squadron patch or not? Almost looks like an NCSA patch. I think the dark blue tapes have a hint of an easter egg to them.
If that dark blue tape goes onto the BBDUs, then the uniforms will match the tapes...at least on THAT uniform.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
I'm seeing a "CAP patch on the right shoulder?
And is that a Squadron patch or not? Almost looks like an NCSA patch. I think the dark blue tapes have a hint of an easter egg to them.
If that dark blue tape goes onto the BBDUs, then the uniforms will match the tapes...at least on THAT uniform.
That's the Overseas units "Wing Patch".
Quote from: PHall on August 16, 2013, 09:11:25 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
I'm seeing a "CAP patch on the right shoulder?
And is that a Squadron patch or not? Almost looks like an NCSA patch. I think the dark blue tapes have a hint of an easter egg to them.
If that dark blue tape goes onto the BBDUs, then the uniforms will match the tapes...at least on THAT uniform.
That's the Overseas units "Wing Patch".
Maybe it it will be replacing the US flags. I'm digging the old WW2 design. Gotta bribe Big V somehow for all the things that will no longer be getting any love.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 09:04:50 PM
Lord that's ugly.
Acutally, it's not bad provided members don't try to sew every patch they own on it (BDUs can look every bit as much of a mess for this reason).
Keep the front pockets clean (those are all optional patches) and the Wing patch is optional, so get your Wing King to forego it, then it looks pretty good. A little surprised USAF didn't have a cow over the black boots, that was a point of contention early with ABUs - might have Airmen dressing like CAPers now. ;) But I won't hold my breath on it....USAF probably just kicked up to DOD so they didn't have to be the bad guys.
Quote from: A.Member on August 16, 2013, 09:25:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 09:04:50 PM
Lord that's ugly.
Acutally, it's not bad provided members don't try to sew every patch they own it (BDUs can look every bit as much of a mess for this reason).
Keep the front pockets clean (those are all optional patches) and the Wing patch is optional, so get your Wing King to forego it, then it looks pretty good. A little surprised USAF didn't have a cow over the black boots, that was a point of contention early with ABUs - might have Airmen dressing like CAPers now. ;)
The AF gave a waiver to airman in certain AFSC's that get dirty on a regular basis because the green boots hold in dirt and oil and all such of nasty stuff...
I think the ABU's look better than our current ultra blue BDU stuff
Quote from: NCRblues on August 16, 2013, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 16, 2013, 09:25:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 09:04:50 PM
Lord that's ugly.
Acutally, it's not bad provided members don't try to sew every patch they own it (BDUs can look every bit as much of a mess for this reason).
Keep the front pockets clean (those are all optional patches) and the Wing patch is optional, so get your Wing King to forego it, then it looks pretty good. A little surprised USAF didn't have a cow over the black boots, that was a point of contention early with ABUs - might have Airmen dressing like CAPers now. ;)
The AF gave a waiver to airman in certain AFSC's that get dirty on a regular basis because the green boots hold in dirt and oil and all such of nasty stuff...
I know, that was my point.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 08:26:12 PM
ABU will have navy blue insignia with silver thread no American flag (like the Air Force wing patch right squadron and specialty patches the same as now
BOOTS WILL STILL BE BLACK.
Goretex Parka will be available.
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/download.jpg) (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/USAFAUX2004/media/download.jpg.html)
So a couple of thoughts. First, I'm diggin' the navy blue tapes, great idea guys. But please tell me that the BBDU will also have navy blue tapes.
Second, I'm a little confused by the way that email quote is written in regards to ABU setup. Does it mean the setup will be like the Air Force, meaning no patches other than tapes and specialty badges; or does it mean it will be set up the same as the current BDU? I'll wear the minimum number of patches anyway, but I'm just curious. I'd like to see it set up like the current air force uniform rules, no extraneous patches/hats/t-shirts/laces.
As for the CAP shoulder patch, if they're going to make that a nationwide organizational patch for wear on the ABU to meet distinctiveness requirements, I'm cool with that. It's makes us distinctive and is actual heritage instead of the US flag.
As for black boots, I'd like to see us match the Air Force more closely, but I'd also like to not have to spend $150 on new boots, although by now I need new boots anyway.
I'm curious what shape these "NCSA Uniforms" are going to take in 39-1
Quote from: A.Member on August 16, 2013, 09:34:15 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 16, 2013, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 16, 2013, 09:25:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 09:04:50 PM
Lord that's ugly.
Acutally, it's not bad provided members don't try to sew every patch they own it (BDUs can look every bit as much of a mess for this reason).
Keep the front pockets clean (those are all optional patches) and the Wing patch is optional, so get your Wing King to forego it, then it looks pretty good. A little surprised USAF didn't have a cow over the black boots, that was a point of contention early with ABUs - might have Airmen dressing like CAPers now. ;)
The AF gave a waiver to airman in certain AFSC's that get dirty on a regular basis because the green boots hold in dirt and oil and all such of nasty stuff...
I know, that was my point.
Oops, my apologies..read you initial post wrong
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 09:36:31 PM
I'm curious what shape these "NCSA Uniforms" are going to take in 39-1
Most likely the shorts / t-shirts / knit golf shirts they are already wearing.
No actual "change", just putting it in the reg to negate having to get annual waivers.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 09:36:31 PM
I'm curious what shape these "NCSA Uniforms" are going to take in 39-1
My educated guess would be including the beret, ranger tab ext ext in the actually reg instead of an icl
Quote from: NCRblues on August 16, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 09:36:31 PM
I'm curious what shape these "NCSA Uniforms" are going to take in 39-1
My educated guess would be including the beret, ranger tab ext ext in the actually reg instead of an icl
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/awesome-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Quote from: NCRblues on August 16, 2013, 09:37:51 PM
Oops, my apologies..read you initial post wrong
No apology needed.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 09:44:24 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 16, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 09:36:31 PM
I'm curious what shape these "NCSA Uniforms" are going to take in 39-1
My educated guess would be including the beret, ranger tab ext ext in the actually reg instead of an icl
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/awesome-smiley-emoticon.gif)
I'm sorry, did I anger you or...?
Black boots?
ABU's?
??????
Quote from: NCRblues on August 16, 2013, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 09:44:24 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 16, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 09:36:31 PM
I'm curious what shape these "NCSA Uniforms" are going to take in 39-1
My educated guess would be including the beret, ranger tab ext ext in the actually reg instead of an icl
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/awesome-smiley-emoticon.gif)
I'm sorry, did I anger you or...?
I'm just super excited about the idea!!!
QuoteI'm diggin' the navy blue tapes, great idea guys.
This would be the best thing to happen to CAP field uniforms in years.
DIE AQUAMARINE DIE!
..and if it was not intended to be seen yet, showing it at the national conference, on the wall, is going about it the wrong way.
Quote from: a2capt on August 16, 2013, 10:08:17 PM
..and if it was not intended to be seen yet, showing it at the national conference, on the wall, is going about it the wrong way.
Right?
Quote from: a2capt on August 16, 2013, 10:08:17 PM
..and if it was not intended to be seen yet, showing it at the national conference, on the wall, is going about it the wrong way.
It's called keeping the CSAG and the Wing Commanders informed on the status of the request.
At the General Assembly. Okay. Gotcha.
Quote from: jeders on August 16, 2013, 09:35:50 PM
So a couple of thoughts. First, I'm diggin' the navy blue tapes, great idea guys. But please tell me that the BBDU will also have navy blue tapes.
Yes, the idea is to "homogenize" the name/branch tapes between the uniforms.
QuoteSecond, I'm a little confused by the way that email quote is written in regards to ABU setup. Does it mean the setup will be like the Air Force, meaning no patches other than tapes and specialty badges; or does it mean it will be set up the same as the current BDU? I'll wear the minimum number of patches anyway, but I'm just curious. I'd like to see it set up like the current air force uniform rules, no extraneous patches/hats/t-shirts/laces.
Sadly, no. The CAP version of the ABU will be essentially worn more or less like BDUs: Its a different colored underpinning than woodland camouflage (and different nametapes/background color) but with most of the usual bling-bling remaining (badges, NCSA stuff, etc).
I swear, though, I'm gonna knifehand the first dude in an ascot. No, seriously.
QuoteAs for the CAP shoulder patch, if they're going to make that a nationwide organizational patch for wear on the ABU to meet distinctiveness requirements, I'm cool with that. It's makes us distinctive and is actual heritage instead of the US flag.
You know, I hadn't seen that patch on the ABU photos before, and I think it looks pretty darn sporty. If EVERYBODY in the organization wore it, I'd be totally down with it.
QuoteAs for black boots, I'd like to see us match the Air Force more closely, but I'd also like to not have to spend $150 on new boots, although by now I need new boots anyway.
Don't disagree, but we need to think about cost. Shelling out $120-150 for special sage green boots is a little stupid when your $30 speedlacers that mom & dad already paid for will work fine. I'm OK with that. (plus, that means I can still wear my jump boots! w00t)
I knew this was in the pipeline and when I got active again in April, I made the decision to *not* get a new set of BDUs because I knew that the way my luck ran, I'd get BDUs, get them all setup with insignia (and I don't fool around with crappy old uniforms) and I'd wear them once and at the end of the meeting the commander would announce "Oh, by the way, ABUs have been approved for wear starting 1 October..." (this is totally how things happen to me)
So instead, I've bought a complete set of ABUs.
I'm just waiting on the insignia availability now. Yay.
Quote from: NIN on August 16, 2013, 11:55:13 PM
I knew this was in the pipeline and when I got active again in April, I made the decision to *not* get a new set of BDUs because I knew that the way my luck ran, I'd get BDUs, get them all setup with insignia (and I don't fool around with crappy old uniforms) and I'd wear them once and at the end of the meeting the commander would announce "Oh, by the way, ABUs have been approved for wear starting 1 October..." (this is totally how things happen to me)
So instead, I've bought a complete set of ABUs.
I'm just waiting on the insignia availability now. Yay.
And the Lord said unto thee:
"Phaaaaaaaase-iiiin periooooooood."
Well...its still not approved.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 11:59:58 PM
Well...its still not approved.
I didn't say I was WEARING it..
Quote from: Archer on August 16, 2013, 11:59:28 PM
And the Lord said unto thee:
"Phaaaaaaaase-iiiin periooooooood."
Pfft. When BDUs were first announced, EVERYBODY whined loudly about how it was going to look like crap with mixed formations of cadets in BDUs and pickle suits during the phase in period. "Two years of that!"
And it was like someone threw a switch at encampment that year: I think we had two cadets in pickle suits and EVERYBODY ELSE was in BDUs. Like
POW right now.
I've always been an early adopter, too :)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 17, 2013, 12:14:53 AM
Point is we still don't k ow when.
We didn't with BDUs, either. We knew they were coming, but we didn't have the Internet to help us opine back then.
I got rid of everything I own that was woodland camouflage when I retired in 2009. I only have my BDU cap. Also got rid of all my ultramarine blue insignia (grade, badges, branch tapes). I figure it would cost me about $150 to setup BDUs again.
So far I'm into ABUs for $55. And thats 1 shirt, three pair of trousers and a hat.
BTW, the "silver" is not like "honor guard cord silver" more like "a light grey" silver.
I'm REALLY digging the overseas patch on the set up.
I'm figuring the mandatory wear date will coincide with the start of the new multi-branch camo that Congress has required... and the history will repeat itself
Quote from: JK657 on August 17, 2013, 01:00:45 AM
I'm figuring the mandatory wear date will coincide with the start of the new multi-branch camo that Congress has required... and the history will repeat itself
Sadly, I think you're more right than I want to believe :)
^ Yep.
<Donning Nomex undies>
Susie Parker has said she expects the updated uniform manual to be released in Nov of this year. Yes, someone (not me) actually asked her "Nov of what year?" when she initially said Nov.
<throws the now empty gas can>
Quote from: NIN on August 17, 2013, 12:08:21 AM
When BDUs were first announced, EVERYBODY whined loudly about how it was going to look like crap with mixed formations of cadets in BDUs and pickle suits during the phase in period. "Two years of that!"
I think you're right about that. When the Coast Guard authorized the Aux to wear the ODU, the working blue was gone so fast that I've never even seen one worn -- and I joined within months of the switch.
Quote from: JK657 on August 17, 2013, 01:00:45 AM
I'm figuring the mandatory wear date will coincide with the start of the new multi-branch camo that Congress has required... and the history will repeat itself
You know...I don't really see much happening from this congressional requirement........The Navy just finished their utilities transformation. Unless Congress and the DOD wants to spend a huge boat load of money to start it all again.....I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
My guess is that it will be watered down to "no new uniforms unless it is a joint uniform" which means we should get a good 10 years out of the current set up.
But like Eclipse....I could be wrong about that. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on August 17, 2013, 02:25:30 AM
Unless Congress and the DOD wants to spend a huge boat load of money to start it all again.....I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
You forget that this is Congress and the military that we're talking about. The Navy already spent that money, so it doesn't matter anymore. Congress figures that the military is already wasting money on too many uniform variants and they're looking at the long term efficiencies of combining them even if there is some wastage in the short term.
Quote from: arajca on August 17, 2013, 01:26:59 AM
<Donning Nomex undies>
Susie Parker has said she expects the updated uniform manual to be released in Nov of this year. Yes, someone (not me) actually asked her "Nov of what year?" when she initially said Nov.
<throws the now empty gas can>
I understand the NUC has a draft that is presently sans photographs and diagrams. I'm led to believe it is a ground-up rewrite and laid out to (more or less) mirror the AFMAN.
The other thing to consider:
When BDUs were first introduced, we continued to wear white t-shirts underneath, like we did with the pickle suits.
Yes, it looked about as bad as you'd expect. Fairly quickly (a year or so) someone said "Uh, that looks TERRIBLE. Brown or black, like the AF. Uniformly." and thats what we have now.
So yeah, we might get stuck with the whole black t-shirts thing, but that could change eventually. And eventually, maybe even the boots.
Well, at least the navy blue nametapes, CAP tapes, and grade insignia would be available in very short order from Vanguard. The grade insignia is already stocked by Vanguard, as it is what is worn on the CAP Blue Flight Suit uniform, and the silver thread on navy blue nametapes are already being produced and sold by Vanguard as a U.S. Navy item, because those are the tapes that USN enlisted personnel E-1 through E-6 already wear on the USN coverall uniform. (These are also, BTW, the same colour nametapes that were worn by Col. Young and the USAF personnel on the television series "Stargate: Universe" on those dark blue uniforms that looked almost black under the studio lighting). So while it is still distinctive enough from the standard ABU tapes to meet the AF's "low light distinctiveness" requirement, it still matches the ABU better (in a complementary colour sort of way) than the ultramarine blue BDU tapes, is already producible in bulk since a sister service already wears the same thing, and has an Air Force connection (albeit from a television series portraying AF personnel in a distinctive uniform). It wouldn't be the first time a Stargate series type uniform item was adopted as a CAP uniform item; just look at the Cheyenne Mountain duty uniforms , and the CAP Blue BDU uniform and CAP blue flightsuit as examples.
"They" brought back the National Board to do this? >:D ;D
Well, nothing but BBDUs for me from now on.
Quote from: ol'fido on August 17, 2013, 02:07:56 PM
Well, nothing but BBDUs for me from now on.
I heard that about the smurf suit from a lot of folks about the time the pickle suits were headed out.
"I'll never wear BDUs!"
Heheh. Guess what? They did.
Still no explanation as to why wearing camouflage makes any sense. Did we ever decide who we were hiding from?
^^^^^ :clap:
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 17, 2013, 03:23:38 PM
Still no explanation as to why wearing camouflage makes any sense. Did we ever decide who we were hiding from?
Not hiding from anybody.
Wearing the uniform of the service of which we're the auxiliary.
Whats wrong with that?
I was going to post sarcasm, but Nin's reply is best.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Flyer
It is, what it is ::)
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 17, 2013, 03:23:38 PM
Still no explanation as to why wearing camouflage makes any sense. Did we ever decide who we were hiding from?
No explanation was needed for most members. Didn't realize there were any members that were confused about our relationship with the U.S. Air Force.
I recently attended Region Staff College. I wore the aviator shirt and polo uniforms, and was pleased with the way we were treated by the Military uniformed personnel. One thing I was told is that the AF would like to see CAP uniforms include a cover. I'll be interested to see what if any policy changes there are.
Quote from: billford1 on August 17, 2013, 05:07:09 PM
I recently attended Region Staff College. I wore the aviator shirt and polo uniforms, and was pleased by the way we were treated by the Military uniformed personnel. One thing I was told is that the AF would like to see CAP uniforms include a cover. I'll be interested to see what if any policy changes there are
I don't know how many others are in the same boat, but I can't wear a uniform that doesn't include a cap or hat. Besides the long-ago "cadet days mindset," I also take a medication that demands minimizing exposure to the sun. Add that to a receding hair line that is rapidly advancing on a growing thin spot (OK, bald patch) and the results are not kind. And, no, SPF whatever isn't the answer.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 17, 2013, 06:05:31 PM
Quote from: billford1 on August 17, 2013, 05:07:09 PM
I recently attended Region Staff College. I wore the aviator shirt and polo uniforms, and was pleased by the way we were treated by the Military uniformed personnel. One thing I was told is that the AF would like to see CAP uniforms include a cover. I'll be interested to see what if any policy changes there are
I don't know how many others are in the same boat, but I can't wear a uniform that doesn't include a cap or hat. Besides the long-ago "cadet days mindset," I also take a medication that demands minimizing exposure to the sun. Add that to a receding hair line that is rapidly advancing on a growing thin spot (OK, bald patch) and the results are not kind. And, no, SPF whatever isn't the answer.
There is no CAP uniform prohibits the wear of headgear.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:12:20 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 17, 2013, 06:05:31 PM
Quote from: billford1 on August 17, 2013, 05:07:09 PM
I recently attended Region Staff College. I wore the aviator shirt and polo uniforms, and was pleased by the way we were treated by the Military uniformed personnel. One thing I was told is that the AF would like to see CAP uniforms include a cover. I'll be interested to see what if any policy changes there are
I don't know how many others are in the same boat, but I can't wear a uniform that doesn't include a cap or hat. Besides the long-ago "cadet days mindset," I also take a medication that demands minimizing exposure to the sun. Add that to a receding hair line that is rapidly advancing on a growing thin spot (OK, bald patch) and the results are not kind. And, no, SPF whatever isn't the answer.
There is no CAP uniform prohibits the wear of headgear.
Mess Dress. ;D
Quote from: A.Member on August 17, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 17, 2013, 03:23:38 PM
Still no explanation as to why wearing camouflage makes any sense. Did we ever decide who we were hiding from?
No explanation was needed for most members. Didn't realize there were any members that were confused about our relationship with the U.S. Air Force.
I was thinking earlier what a certain former member here thinks of all this. His initials are RM. ;)
Semi formal as well for cadets, does not require or allow for a piece of headgear.
Not required and prohibited are not the same thing. Mess Dress allows for the wear of headgear in the winter, as least as far as the AFIs are concerned
last time I read them.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:26:41 PM
Not required and prohibited are not the same thing. Mess Dress allows for the wear of headgear in the winter, as least as far as the AFIs are concerned
last time I read them.
Me thinks that sun exposure on Bernie's head in the winter is the *least* of his worries! :)
Am I the only one who is NOT excited about the overseas patch on the right shoulder? I have a feeling I'm in the minority with the "less is more" approach Ma Blue presently prescribes, but I think if and when this happens I'll stick to tapes, wings and GT badge.
And...was there any mention of outerwear besides the GoreTex? The fleece is a darn nice alternative for all but the coldest months IMHO.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 17, 2013, 03:23:38 PM
Still no explanation as to why wearing camouflage makes any sense. Did we ever decide who we were hiding from?
I'll skip the "who are we hiding from?" dead and completely mutilated horse, and simply ask this: Who do you think you could actually hide from wearing that uniform?
Part of the reason the AF needs to get rid of the ABU is that it doesn't work. Probably dreaming, but would be nice if they'd make part of the uniform program.
I hope they allow us the wear of the ripstop uniforms, too. Provided they're AF legal ones. I know they have them, they were issuing them to troops in Iraq.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 17, 2013, 07:05:41 PM
Am I the only one who is NOT excited about the overseas patch on the right shoulder?
I'm not. Left shoulder I'd be OK with, not impressed with the right shoulder. Got no problem with a left shoulder "CAP" patch, and the right kept slick, it was probably too much as it was.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 17, 2013, 07:05:41 PM
Am I the only one who is NOT excited about the overseas patch on the right shoulder? I have a feeling I'm in the minority with the "less is more" approach Ma Blue presently prescribes, but I think if and when this happens I'll stick to tapes, wings and GT badge.
The pocket patches are planned to be optional. Just don't wear them. They were put on to show the AF where and what CAP'd like to have authorized. Reportedly, the AF asked for more patches for CAP.
QuoteAnd...was there any mention of outerwear besides the GoreTex? The fleece is a darn nice alternative for all but the coldest months IMHO.
The ABU request will cover the entire ABU kit, including all outerwear and accessories, except boots and t-shirts. Per Susie Parker.
It would mainly be nice to get the fleece to wear.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:12:20 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 17, 2013, 06:05:31 PM
Quote from: billford1 on August 17, 2013, 05:07:09 PM
I recently attended Region Staff College. I wore the aviator shirt and polo uniforms, and was pleased by the way we were treated by the Military uniformed personnel. One thing I was told is that the AF would like to see CAP uniforms include a cover. I'll be interested to see what if any policy changes there are
I don't know how many others are in the same boat, but I can't wear a uniform that doesn't include a cap or hat. Besides the long-ago "cadet days mindset," I also take a medication that demands minimizing exposure to the sun. Add that to a receding hair line that is rapidly advancing on a growing thin spot (OK, bald patch) and the results are not kind. And, no, SPF whatever isn't the answer.
There is no CAP uniform prohibits the wear of headgear.
So, what would I wear with the polo shirt, blazer and aviator shirt uniforms?
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 17, 2013, 07:22:08 PM
So, what would I wear with the polo shirt, blazer and aviator shirt uniforms?
A ball cap, or pretty much anything else you want
except a flight cap.
But do you normally wear a hat with a blazer or a dress shirt in your "civilian" life, say to a wedding?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 07:26:54 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 17, 2013, 07:22:08 PM
So, what would I wear with the polo shirt, blazer and aviator shirt uniforms?
A ball cap, or pretty much anything else you want except a flight cap.
But do you normally wear a hat with a blazer or a dress shirt in your "civilian" life, say to a wedding?
So, I can wear a mariachi-type sombrero, then? Or a (gasp) beret?
And, as to wearing hats/caps in "civilian" life, uh, yes, I do, as a matter of fact. Usually a fedora of some sort, whether Panama or felt. Or a "Tilley" hat. Like I said, I need to keep covered.
There's one ball cap for the AFSOC that looks great. If the same supplier did one like that for "Air Force Auxillary" it might be worth buying for the aviator uniform. Who knows it might look good enough that they would authorize it. Hopefully they wouldn't want it in grey. ;D
http://www.zazzle.com/air_force_special_operations_command_mesh_hat-148340600789494947 (http://www.zazzle.com/air_force_special_operations_command_mesh_hat-148340600789494947)
If not they might like this one.
http://www.zazzle.com/usaf_civil_air_patrol_cap_auxilliary_hat-148727013756654511 (http://www.zazzle.com/usaf_civil_air_patrol_cap_auxilliary_hat-148727013756654511)
I wasnt around when the pickle suit transition occurred. I was active duty and already had many BDUs and just changed some for CAP. Any chance the Air Force will provide this uniform for the cadets? Without help someone is going to pay.... I think this question will add a few more pages to this!
Once it goes live...new cadets will be instructed to get ABUs. Simple.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 17, 2013, 07:41:02 PM
So, I can wear a mariachi-type sombrero, then? Or a (gasp) beret?
And, as to wearing hats/caps in "civilian" life, uh, yes, I do, as a matter of fact. Usually a fedora of some sort, whether Panama or felt. Or a "Tilley" hat. Like I said, I need to keep covered.
The wear that / those.
Quote from: ironputts on August 17, 2013, 08:25:57 PM
I wasnt around when the pickle suit transition occurred. I was active duty and already had many BDUs and just changed some for CAP. Any chance the Air Force will provide this uniform for the cadets? Without help someone is going to pay.... I think this question will add a few more pages to this!
Have your wing commander or cap-USAF person be proactive with any local AF base or unit about getting ABU's.
I know WIWAD every airman that got out before the end of their contract was forced to hand over all uniforms including ABUs. With the massive draw down that the AF Is calling for, the local units may (key word here may) have a flood of uniforms. It does not hurt to ask. I got my first set of ABU's in 07 while on AD so there should be ample supply.
Quote from: A.Member on August 17, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 17, 2013, 03:23:38 PM
Still no explanation as to why wearing camouflage makes any sense. Did we ever decide who we were hiding from?
No explanation was needed for most members. Didn't realize there were any members that were confused about our relationship with the U.S. Air Force.
Oh, that would explain the blue golf shirt.
Quote from: ironputts on August 17, 2013, 08:25:57 PM
I wasnt around when the pickle suit transition occurred. I was active duty and already had many BDUs and just changed some for CAP. Any chance the Air Force will provide this uniform for the cadets? Without help someone is going to pay.... I think this question will add a few more pages to this!
I know for a fact that at least one ANG wing has been chomping at the bit to give its "excess" ABUs (the turn ins that are still serviceable) to CAP, but of course, couldn't.
We thought the same thing back in 1991: "How are cadets gonna afford BDUs?" (and honestly, the cost difference between fatigues & BDUs was pretty big back then)
Amazingly, people ran right the hell out and got BDUs like *fast*.
I know for a fact that you can get ABUs in great shape on eBay for fairly cheap. The only thing I've bought new was the hat ($9). I got 3 pairs of trousers for $30 and the shirt for $14.
:)
Quote from: arajca on August 17, 2013, 07:17:44 PM
The ABU request will cover the entire ABU kit, including all outerwear and accessories, except boots and t-shirts. Per Susie Parker.
I missed something: Which T-shirts are being proposed?
You figure the black boots are just gonna be a phase-in allowable thing or is it just the way it's gonna be until the end of time(our next uniform transition)?
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 17, 2013, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 17, 2013, 07:17:44 PM
The ABU request will cover the entire ABU kit, including all outerwear and accessories, except boots and t-shirts. Per Susie Parker.
I missed something: Which T-shirts are being proposed?
Same as now, Brown or Black. I'd say brown. It's my preference anyways.
YMMV
I am about the only person here who is against the switch to navy blue tapes. The switch to those tapes is for ALL field uniforms. I do not feel like shelling out big bucks to buy all new name tapes and insignia for all of my field uniforms. Plus, there is an actual, historical, connection of the ultramarine blue to the Air Force: 1. They wore the same color tapes until 1980 and 2. The USAF colors are ultramarine blue, gold, and white.
Also, I much prefer wing patches to the overseas patch. I just hope that we don't replace the flag with the overseas patch. The last I heard and saw, the reverse flag was going to be phased out and all activity patches currently worn on the left pocket were going to return to the right sleeve. And, to add fuel to the fire, pursuant to CAPR 900-2, the CAP roundel was retired. Seeing as though the overseas patch is the roundel, are we now to believe that we will be forced into a uniform item that is no longer authorized by a different regulation?
I also saw that there was no phase out date for the BDUs, but rather the BDUs would be reclassified as CAP Distinctive, and allowed to be worn in the same manner as the BBDUs (except I want to say grooming standards would still apply, but not weight??), so military badges would need to be removed by a specific date.
Or, DOD could just not authorize CAP to wear ABUs, and we could keep the ultramarine tapes and lose the flag patch authorized by HWSRN.
Quote from: kd8gua on August 17, 2013, 09:39:48 PM
I am about the only person here who is against the switch to navy blue tapes. The switch to those tapes is for ALL field uniforms. I do not feel like shelling out big bucks to buy all new name tapes and insignia for all of my field uniforms. Plus, there is an actual, historical, connection of the ultramarine blue to the Air Force: 1. They wore the same color tapes until 1980 and 2. The USAF colors are ultramarine blue, gold, and white.
Also, I much prefer wing patches to the overseas patch. I just hope that we don't replace the flag with the overseas patch. The last I heard and saw, the reverse flag was going to be phased out and all activity patches currently worn on the left pocket were going to return to the right sleeve. And, to add fuel to the fire, pursuant to CAPR 900-2, the CAP roundel was retired. Seeing as though the overseas patch is the roundel, are we now to believe that we will be forced into a uniform item that is no longer authorized by a different regulation?
I also saw that there was no phase out date for the BDUs, but rather the BDUs would be reclassified as CAP Distinctive, and allowed to be worn in the same manner as the BBDUs (except I want to say grooming standards would still apply, but not weight??), so military badges would need to be removed by a specific date.
Or, DOD could just not authorize CAP to wear ABUs, and we could keep the ultramarine tapes and lose the flag patch authorized by HWSRN.
I'm sorry, where are you getting your information?
I have seen nothing nor heard even a rumor that BDUs would be kept in any fashion...
Just like the pickle suit, it would go away at the end of the phase out date...
Quote from: kd8gua on August 17, 2013, 09:39:48 PM
Also, I much prefer wing patches to the overseas patch.
It's my guess that they just used the Overseas Patch to show placement on the uniform. I would seriously doubt that they are abandoning Wing patches for the Overseas Patch.
As all unit overseas are attached directly to NHQ, the Overseas Patch
IS their Wing Patch.
As for the colors being Air Force colors; they still are, but they have no place (IMHO) on a utility uniform.
I would prefer to go by AF standards on ABU's: nametape, branch tape, grade, and up to two specialty badges (ie GBD and MO wings.) Again, less is more, and JMHO.
Does anybody know if the ABU is proposed for ALL members? If not, is the BBDU the corporate version or will there be a BABU? :angel:
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 17, 2013, 07:10:37 PMI hope they allow us the wear of the ripstop uniforms, too. Provided they're AF legal ones. I know they have them, they were issuing them to troops in Iraq.
Ripstop ABUs (colloquially termed RABUs) are now available for sale online and in AFB uniform shops.
The rainbow is too much. What would be great is if they would take all the PD badges (safety, ES, comm, etc) and turn them into a specialty/qualification badge to be worn on the left breast, like GT and aircrew ratings. There are essentially 4 or 5 of those right now, so it's easily expandable.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 17, 2013, 11:02:06 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 17, 2013, 07:10:37 PMI hope they allow us the wear of the ripstop uniforms, too. Provided they're AF legal ones. I know they have them, they were issuing them to troops in Iraq.
Ripstop ABUs (colloquially termed RABUs) are now available for sale online and in AFB uniform shops.
Yeap, the ripstop version (actually many versions) available at www.bdu.com (http://www.bdu.com) and many other sources.
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 17, 2013, 11:00:08 PM
Quote from: kd8gua on August 17, 2013, 09:39:48 PM
Also, I much prefer wing patches to the overseas patch.
It's my guess that they just used the Overseas Patch to show placement on the uniform. I would seriously doubt that they are abandoning Wing patches for the Overseas Patch.
As all unit overseas are attached directly to NHQ, the Overseas Patch IS their Wing Patch.
As for the colors being Air Force colors; they still are, but they have no place (IMHO) on a utility uniform.
I would prefer to go by AF standards on ABU's: nametape, branch tape, grade, and up to two specialty badges (ie GBD and MO wings.) Again, less is more, and JMHO.
Its on the right shoulder - where we currently wear the flag, not left shoulder. If we are to wear anything there, I prefer the patch to the flag.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 17, 2013, 11:08:44 PM
Its on the right shoulder - where we currently wear the flag, not left shoulder. If we are to wear anything there, I prefer the patch to the flag.
Right. If we had to wear patches on our shoulders; I would keep our wing patches on the left, and Special Activity patches on the right shoulder.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 17, 2013, 08:52:39 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 17, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 17, 2013, 03:23:38 PM
Still no explanation as to why wearing camouflage makes any sense. Did we ever decide who we were hiding from?
No explanation was needed for most members. Didn't realize there were any members that were confused about our relationship with the U.S. Air Force.
Oh, that would explain the blue golf shirt.
Yeah, the one with the CAP Seal with the words "United States Air Force Auxiliary"? If you aren't able to reconcile this simple notion, then you're well beyond any explanation that can be offered up here.
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 17, 2013, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 17, 2013, 11:08:44 PM
Its on the right shoulder - where we currently wear the flag, not left shoulder. If we are to wear anything there, I prefer the patch to the flag.
Right. If we had to wear patches on our shoulders; I would keep our wing patches on the left, and Special Activity patches on the right shoulder.
I quite like having my NCSA patch on the left breast pocket. YMMV
The other option (and one I would prefer) would be to do away with all unit, specialty, and activity patches altogether. Wear nametapes, insignia, and qualification badges and that's it.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 17, 2013, 11:32:39 PM
The other option (and one I would prefer) would be to do away with all unit, specialty, and activity patches altogether. Wear nametapes, insignia, and qualification badges and that's it.
That's still an options, but I think MOST folks will be against killing off unit patches/NCSA patches.
Well, only about 10 have to be convinced, and they generally don't wear BDUs anyway. ;)
The CAP emblem was retired. The tri-prop and triangle "roundel" design remains a part of the seal, logo, and command emblem. I just looked through some olde versions of 900-2, and there's no reference anywhere to a roundel, so I think that issue is moot.
Quote from: kd8gua on August 17, 2013, 09:39:48 PM
I am about the only person here who is against the switch to navy blue tapes. The switch to those tapes is for ALL field uniforms. I do not feel like shelling out big bucks to buy all new name tapes and insignia for all of my field uniforms. Plus, there is an actual, historical, connection of the ultramarine blue to the Air Force: 1. They wore the same color tapes until 1980 and 2. The USAF colors are ultramarine blue, gold, and white.
There is a phase in period to account for the switch. If you have fairly new nametapes and/or uniforms, don't switch until necessary.
CAP tends to use longer phaseout periods (3-4 years) to allow members to get the most use out of recently purchased uniforms (and for Vanguard's stocks to be winnowed down thru attrition rather than buy-back) . You don't have to switch your BBDUs (if thats what you wear) the day the change becomes effective.
Quote
Also, I much prefer wing patches to the overseas patch. I just hope that we don't replace the flag with the overseas patch. The last I heard and saw, the reverse flag was going to be phased out and all activity patches currently worn on the left pocket were going to return to the right sleeve. And, to add fuel to the fire, pursuant to CAPR 900-2, the CAP roundel was retired. Seeing as though the overseas patch is the roundel, are we now to believe that we will be forced into a uniform item that is no longer authorized by a different regulation?
That photo was the first time I saw that patch on that uniform. Nothing I've heard from people in the know mentioned that patch so either a) its a fairly recent change/addition; or b) it was just thrown on the graphic for illustrative purposes.
BTW, thats not a roundel. Thats the "Civil Air Patrol Emblem" I guess they got rid of that while I was retired and I didn't notice. Drat. I need to fix up the squadron website now, cuz I used a "retired" element.
(thanks for pointing that out, BTW. Learn something new every day!)QuoteI also saw that there was no phase out date for the BDUs, but rather the BDUs would be reclassified as CAP Distinctive, and allowed to be worn in the same manner as the BBDUs (except I want to say grooming standards would still apply, but not weight??), so military badges would need to be removed by a specific date.
Where did you see that? Thats not something I've heard in the works at all. Was it part of the briefing package at the Command Council?
Quote
Or, DOD could just not authorize CAP to wear ABUs, and we could keep the ultramarine tapes and lose the flag patch authorized by HWSRN.
Honestly, I doubt that will happen. JROTC is wearing ABUs right now
(they fall under the Holm Center but are actually considered a part of the USAF for those purposes), and all it will take for CAP to be authorized is a brief "exception to policy" letter. If the Air Staff requests an exception to policy for CAP from the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (apparently they've changed the title in the interim), they'll get it in short order.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 09:02:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2013, 08:59:41 PM
^ Here you go - someone needs to get Adsense on here and that could fund NCC!
Certainly a great idea!
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/download.jpg) (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/USAFAUX2004/media/download.jpg.html)
I'm looking at it, and realize that our patches all have the ultramarine blue on them...
I read the statement about BDUs becoming CAP Distinctive in the draft of 39-1. No, I don't have a copy to quote and share, but I did read it, and so the changes being discussed are not new to me, I just chose not to discuss them here prior to the announcements at Denver.
And yes, almost all CAP activity or specialty patches have some amount of ultramarine in them. That's why changing the tape/insignia color is just a bit weird. And has anyone considered that using navy/silver tapes on the BBDU would make us look a lot more like the navy in low light conditions?
AF doesn't care if we look like CG.
Quote from: kd8gua on August 18, 2013, 12:31:23 AM
And has anyone considered that using navy/silver tapes on the BBDU would make us look a lot more like the navy in low light conditions?
I have not noticed if the Navy has worried about us looking like them in low light conditions, only the Air Force. Have you?
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 18, 2013, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: kd8gua on August 18, 2013, 12:31:23 AM
And has anyone considered that using navy/silver tapes on the BBDU would make us look a lot more like the navy in low light conditions?
I have not noticed if the Navy has worried about us looking like them in low light conditions, only the Air Force. Have you?
No. That's true.
kd8gua, what does this mean for your nametape search? >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:26:41 PM
Not required and prohibited are not the same thing. Mess Dress allows for the wear of headgear in the winter, as least as far as the AFIs are concerned
last time I read them.
From AFI36-2903:
4.1.8.
Headgear. The only authorized headgear for the formal dress uniform is the blue winter cap. The blue winter cap will only be worn with a full
length outer garment. For wear and description see applicable paragraphs 6.2.6 through 6.2.6.3.
So there is an allowance for it but there must be an outer garment worn as well and not just the mess dress uniform itself.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 01:07:03 AM
kd8gua, what does this mean for your nametape search? >:D
Well, I have a supplier who still has the old machinery, so I can get some old style last name tapes in the new colors. Obviously they won't do CAP itself, but at any rate...
...and... I will be putting out requests for all of the old style CAP tapes I can find! Should get them for next to nothing now!
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 18, 2013, 01:17:38 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:26:41 PM
Not required and prohibited are not the same thing. Mess Dress allows for the wear of headgear in the winter, as least as far as the AFIs are concerned
last time I read them.
From AFI36-2903:
4.1.8.
Headgear. The only authorized headgear for the formal dress uniform is the blue winter cap. The blue winter cap will only be worn with a full
length outer garment. For wear and description see applicable paragraphs 6.2.6 through 6.2.6.3.
So there is an allowance for it but there must be an outer garment worn as well and not just the mess dress uniform itself.
AFI 36-2903 doesn't apply to us.
Quote from: Archer on August 18, 2013, 02:44:58 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 18, 2013, 01:17:38 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:26:41 PM
Not required and prohibited are not the same thing. Mess Dress allows for the wear of headgear in the winter, as least as far as the AFIs are concerned
last time I read them.
From AFI36-2903:
4.1.8.
Headgear. The only authorized headgear for the formal dress uniform is the blue winter cap. The blue winter cap will only be worn with a full
length outer garment. For wear and description see applicable paragraphs 6.2.6 through 6.2.6.3.
So there is an allowance for it but there must be an outer garment worn as well and not just the mess dress uniform itself.
AFI 36-2903 doesn't apply to us.
He never said it did. Most experienced leaders have realized that when 39-1 does not cover what we need to know, we look at the relevant AFI and use that for guidance as to how we can best do something. When in Rome. . . .
While we can not be giged for having a cover in Mess Dress without a full length coat in CAP, it could get some interested looks/questions by AF personnel.
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 18, 2013, 03:03:48 AM
Quote from: Archer on August 18, 2013, 02:44:58 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 18, 2013, 01:17:38 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:26:41 PM
Not required and prohibited are not the same thing. Mess Dress allows for the wear of headgear in the winter, as least as far as the AFIs are concerned
last time I read them.
From AFI36-2903:
4.1.8.
Headgear. The only authorized headgear for the formal dress uniform is the blue winter cap. The blue winter cap will only be worn with a full
length outer garment. For wear and description see applicable paragraphs 6.2.6 through 6.2.6.3.
So there is an allowance for it but there must be an outer garment worn as well and not just the mess dress uniform itself.
AFI 36-2903 doesn't apply to us.
He never said it did. Most experienced leaders have realized that when 39-1 does not cover what we need to know, we look at the relevant AFI and use that for guidance as to how we can best do something. When in Rome. . . .
While we can not be giged for having a cover in Mess Dress without a full length coat in CAP, it could get some interested looks/questions by AF personnel.
Just need to make sure our members understand 2903 is advisory in nature; not regulatory.
Quote from: Archer on August 18, 2013, 03:18:10 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 18, 2013, 03:03:48 AM
Quote from: Archer on August 18, 2013, 02:44:58 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 18, 2013, 01:17:38 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:26:41 PM
Not required and prohibited are not the same thing. Mess Dress allows for the wear of headgear in the winter, as least as far as the AFIs are concerned
last time I read them.
From AFI36-2903:
4.1.8.
Headgear. The only authorized headgear for the formal dress uniform is the blue winter cap. The blue winter cap will only be worn with a full
length outer garment. For wear and description see applicable paragraphs 6.2.6 through 6.2.6.3.
So there is an allowance for it but there must be an outer garment worn as well and not just the mess dress uniform itself.
AFI 36-2903 doesn't apply to us.
He never said it did. Most experienced leaders have realized that when 39-1 does not cover what we need to know, we look at the relevant AFI and use that for guidance as to how we can best do something. When in Rome. . . .
While we can not be giged for having a cover in Mess Dress without a full length coat in CAP, it could get some interested looks/questions by AF personnel.
Just need to make sure our members understand 2903 is advisory in nature; not regulatory.
Most won't even know what that is.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 03:28:12 AM
Quote from: Archer on August 18, 2013, 03:18:10 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 18, 2013, 03:03:48 AM
Quote from: Archer on August 18, 2013, 02:44:58 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 18, 2013, 01:17:38 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2013, 06:26:41 PM
Not required and prohibited are not the same thing. Mess Dress allows for the wear of headgear in the winter, as least as far as the AFIs are concerned
last time I read them.
From AFI36-2903:
4.1.8.
Headgear. The only authorized headgear for the formal dress uniform is the blue winter cap. The blue winter cap will only be worn with a full
length outer garment. For wear and description see applicable paragraphs 6.2.6 through 6.2.6.3.
So there is an allowance for it but there must be an outer garment worn as well and not just the mess dress uniform itself.
AFI 36-2903 doesn't apply to us.
He never said it did. Most experienced leaders have realized that when 39-1 does not cover what we need to know, we look at the relevant AFI and use that for guidance as to how we can best do something. When in Rome. . . .
While we can not be giged for having a cover in Mess Dress without a full length coat in CAP, it could get some interested looks/questions by AF personnel.
Just need to make sure our members understand 2903 is advisory in nature; not regulatory.
Most won't even know what that is.
Well, I mean when it's being used in discussion.
Aaaaaah, too much tunnel quoting.
I seriously cannot believe that HQAF signed off on the black boots. Prolly laughing plenty at us, though.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 03:59:23 AM
Aaaaaah, too much tunnel quoting.
I seriously cannot believe that HQAF signed off on the black boots. Prolly laughing plenty at us, though.
Why? Even some AFSCs in the AD world still use the black boots...
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 03:59:23 AM
Aaaaaah, too much tunnel quoting.
I seriously cannot believe that HQAF signed off on the black boots. Prolly laughing plenty at us, though.
You do realize that there are a certain number of USAF personnel that still wear black boots, where conditions would regularly des0troy the suede boots; right?
Anything but black would be a terrible idea in CAP, and wholly unnecessary.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 03:59:23 AM
Aaaaaah, too much tunnel quoting.
I seriously cannot believe that HQAF signed off on the black boots. Prolly laughing plenty at us, though.
The ABU has NOT been signed off on for CAP. The proposal is still being finalized. What was shown was a mock up taking the AF's comments into account and put forth in a preview, a "Is this what you're thinking of" manner prior to the official proposal being submitted.
I'm aware black boots were still worn in USAF with ABUs, however the situations are general mechanics, maintenance, and engineering sectors. There are no such fields in CAP that I'm aware of that would require that.
(http://www.charleston.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/090422-F-5586B-102.jpg)
I'm not sold.
From what was said earlier by the person who took the picture, HQAF has signed off on it, but it has to be approved by DOD. Was that mistaken?
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 04:24:34 AM
I'm aware black boots are still worn in USAF, however the situations are general mechanics, maintenance, and engineering sectors. There are no such fields in CAP that I'm aware of that would require that.
Why would you want anything but black? What's to be sold on?
The average cadet would ruin suede boots the second time they wore them, not to mention they are
much more expensive then typical black boots, and can't be purchased in normal retail channels.
Black boots wouldn't bother me. Black T-shirt? No biggie, I guess, even though I've got a couple dozen of tan ones for the Army. I could make it work.
Well, it's not the boot that was aesthetically designed to match ABUs for one...
Second, *good* black boots are getting harder to find surplus. Jungle boots are poor quality, and your average new black boot price will run about the same as new sage or tan boots. Only one service really truly wears black boots with the uniform as intended, and that's the Navy, meaning your surplus will dry up relatively fast.
Third, sage and tan boots are flooding the market at extraordinarily low prices. You can go on Ebay right now and find good boots for good prices. You can also find awful boots for awesome prices, which is basically what most cadets and a lot of senior members are doing anyway with jungle boots and jump boots.
Those who are looking for quality black boots are finding fewer and fewer options available. Belleville only makes one or two models anymore. Danner's cost over $200 last I checked. I just paid $120 for a set of Tactical Research Khybers in black for my BDUs. Those same boots in green or tan are available surplus for far, far cheaper. Heck, at the local surplus stores there are literally piles taller than I am of tan and green boots, with one or two pairs of black boots in there.
Your same logic can be applied to ABUs as well. Your average BDUs can be gotten easily under $20 a set, but ABUs generally will run you about $90 a set not including boots. From what I've heard, many people brought up that same concern when CAP went to BDUs, but people went out and shelled out for their new uniform.
I'm curious how cadets can ruin suede boots that quickly. I've had mine for going on two years, and as long as I brush and rinse them off, they're fine. I'm not dumping oil on them, but I have trekked through mud, ice, snow, water, sand, and so on in them.
In short, the green boots were/are designed to match the ABUs. Tan is another option as a transition item because USAF did that as well
Black boots make sense to me. Everybody has em. The tan boots wouldn't work with anything else I have.
Quote from: billford1 on August 18, 2013, 04:54:25 AM
Black boots make sense to me. Everybody has em.
But that logic breaks down the second we realize we're talking about transitioning to a uniform that nobody has anyway. :/
Black leather is no longer authorized for the AF as they have the sage leather available now for those fields that were initially authorized black. And the while the AFI may not apply to CAP a good chunk of CAPR39-1 is taken from it. It was posed that mess dress allowed for a cover and the source was provided.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 04:46:22 AM
Second, *good* black boots are getting harder to find surplus. Jungle boots are poor quality, and your average new black boot price will run about the same as new sage or tan boots. Only one service really truly wears black boots with the uniform as intended, and that's the Navy, meaning your surplus will dry up relatively fast.
Surplus?
Who buys their boots "surplus"?
There are eleventy 12teen sources for boots, retail, internet, MCSS. The last place most people buy uniform items is a surplus store.
Spend whatever you like for yourself, but your expectations are unrealistic for the average member.
Quote from: billford1 on August 17, 2013, 08:16:33 PM
There's one ball cap for the AFSOC that looks great. If the same supplier did one like that for "Air Force Auxillary" it might be worth buying for the aviator uniform. Who knows it might look good enough that they would authorize it. Hopefully they wouldn't want it in grey. ;D
http://www.zazzle.com/air_force_special_operations_command_mesh_hat-148340600789494947 (http://www.zazzle.com/air_force_special_operations_command_mesh_hat-148340600789494947)
If not they might like this one.
http://www.zazzle.com/usaf_civil_air_patrol_cap_auxilliary_hat-148727013756654511 (http://www.zazzle.com/usaf_civil_air_patrol_cap_auxilliary_hat-148727013756654511)
I like the pink one
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 06:52:00 AMSurplus?
Who buys their boots "surplus"?
There are eleventy 12teen sources for boots, retail, internet, MCSS. The last place most people buy uniform items is a surplus store.
Spend whatever you like for yourself, but your expectations are unrealistic for the average member.
So what is the problem with doing the exact same thing for green and tan boots?
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 04:46:22 AM
In short, the green boots were/are designed to match the ABUs. Tan is another option as a transition item because USAF did that as well
Someone above our pay grades decided:
1) Continuing to wear black boots was more cost-effective for members in the transition, especially cadets;
2) Black boots are still likely more available than the sage-green ones. (and we've never worn tan, so #1 applies for now);
3) Wearing ABUs with black boots will make us more "distinctive" from USAF personnel.
(BTW, I'm still not finding legit USAF sage green boots for less than about $60 or $90 new online and the ones on the lower end of the spectrum are Wellcos, etc. Buying footwear on Ebay is kind of hit or miss, so the $20-30 used boots there, black or sage green, are sort of a "last-ditch" item. Last time I was in a surplus store, black was still pretty predominant.)
Quote from: NIN on August 18, 2013, 09:53:59 AMSomeone above our pay grades decided:
1) Continuing to wear black boots was more cost-effective for members in the transition, especially cadets;
The transition period is purposed to allow for time for people to buy their new uniforms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard cost-efficiency wasn't much of a concern during the BDU switch.
2) Black boots are still likely more available than the sage-green ones. (and we've never worn tan, so #1 applies for now);
I'd say they're about equivalent-to-less-available in the current market. My hobby that I've been extremely involved in over the last 4 years is military gear collection and flipping, and the market for black 8" leather combat boots is drying up since 3/4 branches have phased them out. Even the aforementioned minorities have phased them out, as was addressed earlier.
And tan would be a transitional item, or it could be made standard. USAF authorized tan boots for wear with the ABUs during the phase-in period, it is absolutely reasonable to allow for tan boots for both budget and availability reasoning.
3) Wearing ABUs with black boots will make us more "distinctive" from USAF personnel.
We're the Air Force Auxiliary as chartered by Congress for ES. We already have our extraordinarily distinctive tapes, insignia, and if this proposition passes as it stands now (I hope to high heaven it doesn't) we'll have full color patches on a uniform that was not even remotely designed to allow for such a thing.
In addition to that, it just looks bad. It's a fashion thing, black shoes on very light clothes clashes/looks bad. That is generally overwhelmingly accepted in the fashion world. Dark boots with dark clothes, light boots with light clothes.
This can be considered a con, our distinction from the Air Force. Our last two field uniforms have been very similar, and we wear essentially the same exact dress uniform. In fact, the pickle suit with blue tapes was *exactly* what the Air Force wore for some time. Yes, CAP has pulled some nasty stunts in the past decade or so, and USAF didn't really appreciate it much, but I don't think it will help to turn ABUs into something akin to what a rodeo clown wears.
(BTW, I'm still not finding legit USAF sage green boots for less than about $60 or $90 new online and the ones on the lower end of the spectrum are Wellcos, etc. Buying footwear on Ebay is kind of hit or miss, so the $20-30 used boots there, black or sage green, are sort of a "last-ditch" item. Last time I was in a surplus store, black was still pretty predominant.)
What was the general quality and MSRP of those black boots?
I hope I'm not coming across as condescending, that is not my intent. Only to be forward, sir. :)
I doubt the USAF is going authorize this frankenuniform any time soon. Look at it, it is ugly. It doesn't look right at all.
One of the reasons put forth by some about why we should not transition to the ABU is cost. While that might have been the case when these uniforms originally came out, that is most certainly NOT the case now. Even a cursory look at price lists from sources such as the U.S. Cavalry Store or AAFES Military Clothing Sales for items that both stock, show about the same prices for both. All I can say is, good luck trying to actually locate any new Woodland BDUs though any official sources; everything the major retailers in the field has is either old stock they still had left over and haven't sold, or Far East-produced knockoff copies (of dubious quality) of Woodland-pattern BDUs.
BDU Uniforms the US Cavalry Store:
Tru-Spec Military BDU/DCU Coat
http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=5385&TabID=548&cs=1 (http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=5385&TabID=548&cs=1)
$41.99 - $44.99
Tru-Spec Military BDU/DCU Trousers
http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=5384&TabID=548&cs=1 (http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=5384&TabID=548&cs=1)
$41.99 - $44.99
______________________________________________________________________
Propper Men's ABU Coat
http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=16433&tabid=548&catid=2227 (http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=16433&tabid=548&catid=2227)
$34.99
Propper Mens Air Force ABU Trousers
http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=16434&TabID=548&cs=1 (http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=16434&TabID=548&cs=1)
$47.99 - $49.99
And the prices for the ABU uniforms and sage (or black) boots from AAFES Military Clothing Sales are still in the same price range from that source, as referenced below:
General uniform item pricing:
https://shop.aafes.com/shop/Search/default.aspx?category|category_root|11998=Military&category|cat_3000|3009=Men%27s+Uniforms (https://shop.aafes.com/shop/Search/default.aspx?category%7Ccategory_root%7C11998=Military&category%7Ccat_3000%7C3009=Men%27s+Uniforms)
Black vs. Sage Boot pricing:
http://shop.aafes.com/shop/Search/default.aspx?category|category_root|11998=Military&category|cat_16500|16529=Boots (http://shop.aafes.com/shop/Search/default.aspx?category%7Ccategory_root%7C11998=Military&category%7Ccat_16500%7C16529=Boots)
Now, I can understand the CAP leadership authorising black boots and brown t-shirts in the interim, as an initial cost-saving measure since members who already own a current, complete BDU uniform already have these items. I would be willing to bet money, however, that in the not too distant future, that some ICL or other addendum to 39-1 will come out authorising sage boots, if for no other reason that quality military-spec issue black boots at a decent price are no longer available in bulk from the usual sources. Just try walking into an AAFES MCSS and try to even find black boots in stock; our local MCSS can only get them through special order, with a 4-6 week wait.
A few observations and notes from the presentation.
The overseas patch in the pic is merely there to represent placement of a wing patch.
The use of black boots was noted as both a cost effectiveness and a CAP distinctiveness item. Black boot with canvas will be OK. "Tactical boots" if you will. Those are readily available at uniform shops serving cops, guards, EMS, etc.
Permitting numerous patches is also an intentional CAP distinctiveness item. U.S. flag is not proposed for a CAP ABU.
Thread on the name tapes and insignia will be silver, not bright white. Vanguard still has a lot of ultramarine fabric on hand, just for us.
"If BDUs become CAP distinctive, will weight and grooming standards change for BDU wear?" If I understood the answer correctly, current standards will still apply. Did anyone else in the room understand that differently? (That room was seriously CROWDED. Don't tell the fire marshal.)
The new 39-1 is coming soon. It is on Gen. Carr's desk, pending resolution of a couple of questions. ABU's are NOT included in that draft.
The ABU proposal is currently at CAP-USAF.
The new 39-1 will specifically authorize, but not require, tactical/cargo pants for the polo shirt uniform. Vanguard will carry those pants...all in the same shade of grey. Buying "indeterminate grey" pants will still be permitted to keep costs down and preserve ready availability.
The Vanguard rep said they are not happy with the quality of the current polo. Supplier availability of polo shirts with pockets is very low. He said they could find better shirts if we lose the pocket. Status TBD.
I might remember more later.
Quote from: AngelWings on August 18, 2013, 01:11:01 PM
I doubt the USAF is going authorize this frankenuniform any time soon. Look at it, it is ugly. It doesn't look right at all.
Actually, the pictured combo already HAS been approved by the Air Force for CAP. Wear of the ABU items by CAP has, however, NOT yet been approved by DOD, because it requires a change in the DOD's own regulations to specifically authorise CAP to wear ABUs. While it is extremely likely that DOD regulation change will occur in the very near future (since the AF itself has already approved it, and all Active AF, AF Reserve, Air National Guard troops, as well as most ROTC and JROTC cadets are already authorised), CAP must still wait for final DOD approval before the combo can be worn. The Air Force has no problem with the combo, but the AF still has to wait for DOD approval, and that is what is holding everything up ABU-wise.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 18, 2013, 01:38:00 PMPermitting numerous patches is also an intentional CAP distinctiveness item. U.S. flag is not proposed for a CAP ABU.
Just to note, the lack of a US flag patch on garrison uniforms is already a policy that 3 of 4 branches have adopted. Only the Army wears US flags full time, so the lack of a flag isn't a CAP-distinctive thing. Dunno if that's what you were implying or not.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 01:55:43 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 18, 2013, 01:38:00 PMPermitting numerous patches is also an intentional CAP distinctiveness item. U.S. flag is not proposed for a CAP ABU.
Just to note, the lack of a US flag patch on garrison uniforms is already a policy that 3 of 4 branches have adopted. Only the Army wears US flags full time, so the lack of a flag isn't a CAP-distinctive thing. Dunno if that's what you were implying or not.
The comment about flag wear was just a "by the way" tacked on at the end of the line.
Quote from: skymaster on August 18, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on August 18, 2013, 01:11:01 PM
I doubt the USAF is going authorize this frankenuniform any time soon. Look at it, it is ugly. It doesn't look right at all.
Actually, the pictured combo already HAS been approved by the Air Force for CAP. Wear of the ABU items by CAP has, however, NOT yet been approved by DOD, because it requires a change in the DOD's own regulations to specifically authorise CAP to wear ABUs. While it is extremely likely that DOD regulation change will occur in the very near future (since the AF itself has already approved it, and all Active AF, AF Reserve, Air National Guard troops, as well as most ROTC and JROTC cadets are already authorised), CAP must still wait for final DOD approval before the combo can be worn. The Air Force has no problem with the combo, but the AF still has to wait for DOD approval, and that is what is holding everything up ABU-wise.
I recall comments from the meeting stating that some Air Force stakeholders have yet to approve, or even see, the CAP ABU proposal shown in the image. I don't know how that squares with the request for a DoD waiver. Perhaps they are concurrent tasks.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 18, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
A few observations and notes from the presentation.
The overseas patch in the pic is merely there to represent placement of a wing patch.
The use of black boots was noted as both a cost effectiveness and a CAP distinctiveness item. Black boot with canvas will be OK. "Tactical boots" if you will. Those are readily available at uniform shops serving cops, guards, EMS, etc.
Permitting numerous patches is also an intentional CAP distinctiveness item. U.S. flag is not proposed for a CAP ABU.
Thread on the name tapes and insignia will be silver, not bright white. Vanguard still has a lot of ultramarine fabric on hand, just for us.
"If BDUs become CAP distinctive, will weight and grooming standards change for BDU wear?" If I understood the answer correctly, current standards will still apply. Did anyone else in the room understand that differently? (That room was seriously CROWDED. Don't tell the fire marshal.)
The new 39-1 is coming soon. It is on Gen. Carr's desk, pending resolution of a couple of questions. ABU's are NOT included in that draft.
The ABU proposal is currently at CAP-USAF.
The new 39-1 will specifically authorize, but not require, tactical/cargo pants for the polo shirt uniform. Vanguard will carry those pants...all in the same shade of grey. Buying "indeterminate grey" pants will still be permitted to keep costs down and preserve ready availability.
The Vanguard rep said they are not happy with the quality of the current polo. Supplier availability of polo shirts with pockets is very low. He said they could find better shirts if we lose the pocket. Status TBD.
I might remember more later.
Are we talking silver as in silver gray like the shoulder sleeves or [shirt] name tag or metallic silver? Also are the wing patches optional like the in the current policy or is this going to be a mandatory thing again? I though the current policy was wing or special activity patch was optional?
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 18, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
The overseas patch in the pic is merely there to represent placement of a wing patch.
So wing patches are moving shoulders?
From what I have gathered, the navy and silver thread combination is supposed to be similar in appearance to the USAF enlisted chevrons. Not a metallic silver but rather a light silver gray.
I know we are all commenting on the details of the pending ABU change. I would just like to say that this will be great for CAP! Our relationship and identity with the US Air Force is imperative going forward. Our uniform shell should always remain the same but in the end will be distinctive from the military because we are a civilian organization. The logistics of this transition will take time and the less items initially we have to purchase will be better for all. Availability of supply should always be a consideration for our organization. After this transition we will then begin writing about the next uniform when the Air Force switches from the ABU.
(this is longer than I intended)
QuoteThe transition period is purposed to allow for time for people to buy their new uniforms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard cost-efficiency wasn't much of a concern during the BDU switch.
Cost to the membership is always a consideration in uniform changes. I think you'll find the opinions on whether or not a change is costly or inexpensive varies wildly based on location, the economy, unit composition, etc. What I find to be "reasonable" you might find to be "not reasonable" based on, say, whether your cadets have easy access to uniforms, a large base of unit-owned items, a really awesome surplus store, etc.
Longer phase-in periods give members the opportunity to maximize the life of the items they've already purchased, allows the introduction of a new item in sufficient time for people to plan for its acquisition to replace a phased out item, and allow Vanguard to "sell-down" stocks of manufactured insignia that may be rendered obsolete. Our agreement with Vanguard, as I understand it, is that if we eliminate an item, we have to pay Vanguard for the unsold stock of remaining insignia. (Seems kind of a dis-incentive to streamline/make changes, huh?) I mean, lets face it: most of us wear our uniforms for about 3 hrs a week. You might average 200 hrs of uniform wear a year if you go to encampment. Our uniforms are not wearing out at the same rate as our active-duty counterparts, so our phase out periods tend to be a little longer, too.
I don't know about the CAP and CAP-USAF decision making processes in 1990-1990 surrounding BDUs, since before the Internet the so-called "echelons above reality" were usually just past Group for most of us (LOL!). But if you look at the way the changeover was conducted, the only parts of the uniform that really changed were the shirt, trousers & cap. We continued to wear the same (ultramarine & white) insignia & patches, belt, t-shirts, and boots, as we did with fatigues (well, the boots & belt were the same in the USAF, so it would have been no change either way).
BDUs were more costly (IIRC, about $25/each for shirt & trousers back then) than the fatigue uniform, and I'm sure that cost difference was a decision-making factor as it related to insignia & accouterment changes. (honestly, the white t-shirt in BDUs? Blech. We all screamed about that one, too..)
(here, have a pic from 1991. Yes, thats me on the far right. MI Wing Summer Encampment at Wright Patterson AFB)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/15856_100929863268128_315075_n.jpg)
Now, that being said about cost, I'm here to tell you that the switchover was pretty freakin' immediate from my 22 year remembery. We wailed and gnashed our teeth that encampment that year was going to be an unmitigated disaster because people we're going to be in different uniforms. I remember
these discussions, and how absolutely silly they seem now. Really? Like it matters? Of course, the services were not playing "musical uniforms" back then like they are now, so I think today we're a little more inured to the concept that people might not be in precisely the same uniform during a period of time.
Like I said before, I think we might have had 2-3 cadets in fatigues at that encampment. It was literally like someone flipped a switch from fatigues to BDUs. (I also think cadets were more highly motivated to pick up "camouflage" which, up until that point in CAP, was essentially strictly
verboten)
Regarding availability of boots, I don't know where you live, but where I'm at I have a fair availability of black boots vice sage green. Like I said, I don't frequent surplus stores as much as I did, since the place I have "nearby" are pretty "meh." I'm not paying "close to new" prices for crap that is "clearly well-used" when I can get better deals elsewhere. Now, I have not been to an MCSS since the switchover to ABU, so I can only imagine that the 5 styles of black boots on the shelf have been replaced by 7 styles of sage green "secret sneakers". LOL.
But heck, even the local "big lot-style" store here had tan & black Wellcos for $20
(they're alright for probably 60-70% of the cadets, since they're likely going to outgrow those boots in 12-18 months anyway, but I'm not 100% sure how good those boots were going to be over the long term) so there are "more inexpensive boots" available out there.
I own 3 pair of Army tan boots, and I wouldn't be sad to wear those with ABUs if authorized, but I really doubt its going to happen. I still have a pair of speedlace boots, jump boots, flight boots and a wonderful pair of Rockys with Thinsulate that are all in black, so I'm OK that I don't have to go out and get sage green boots now, too. :) (call me selfish, its OK)
Keep in mind, too: sometimes the USAF-made decision on a uniform item, like a combat uniform, is based more on "availability in the current logistics channels or possessed by airmen already." If airmen had tan boots due to wearing DCUs for years before ABUs, then thats why they allowed it. Like we're allowing black boots.
Personally, I disagree with whether they contribute to our "distinctiveness," but thats my personal opinion. I think it falls under the "if it looks wrong, it is wrong" concept, but hey, its not my decision and we have bigger fish to fry than the color of the boots.
That being said:
a) My unit has stocks of black boots. Lots. Dozens of pairs in supply and dozens of pairs on feet. If we went to sage green immediately, there is no way my unit would be able to accommodate assisting cadets with completing their BDUs. EVERYBODY would be on their own until we could score some DRMO'd boots; and
b) Just like the white t-shirts with BDUs, once we get this out in the field I wonder if there won't be pushback from both the membership and the USAF who go "Ugh, what were we thinking? That looks like crap. Here, you can have sage boots, too. We'll allow that."
BTW:
QuoteWe're the Air Force Auxiliary as chartered by Congress for ES. We already have our extraordinarily distinctive tapes, insignia, and if this proposition passes as it stands now (I hope to high heaven it doesn't) we'll have full color patches on a uniform that was not even remotely designed to allow for such a thing.
ES is just ONE of the THREE Congressionally chartered missions, and really doesn't have much bearing on the discussion of boots, so why bring it up? You think BDUs were designed to have full-color patches & ultramarine nametapes put on 'em? LOL.
I won't address the fashion issues, but suffice to say that I do not believe we're attempting to gain Tim Gunn's approval on this.
Quote from: kd8gua on August 18, 2013, 12:31:23 AM
I read the statement about BDUs becoming CAP Distinctive in the draft of 39-1.
Had to read back, it was a later post that referenced.
Anyway, someone needs a refresher. The BDU is an
Army designed uniform, CAP can't just "adopt" it as their own simply because the Army isn't currently using it. That's the same issue as HWSNBN deciding that he would include Army uniform items for a CAP uniform. Didn't go over too well then, and even with short memory, that's gonna present an issue again.
Who decided that BDU's were going to "CAP distinctive?"
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 18, 2013, 02:57:58 PM
Anyway, someone needs a refresher. The BDU is an Army designed uniform, CAP can't just "adopt" it as their own simply because the Army isn't currently using it. That's the same issue as HWSNBN deciding that he would include Army uniform items for a CAP uniform. Didn't go over too well then, and even with short memory, that's gonna present an issue again.
Who decided that BDU's were going to "CAP distinctive?"
I think you'll find that the Army is like "Hey, man, don't blame us for that!"
Like the Marines say "Sorry, MARPAT is ours only!"
:)
BTW, according to well-placed sources, neither draft of the uniform manual suggests BDUs as a new "Corporate-only" uniform. BBDUs, still.
Well, I read the draft, and it stated that BDUs, BBDUs, and ABUs will all be allowed. There was no phaseout date for BDU or BBDU, but there was a phaseout of 1 Jan 2015 for the reverse flag patch and the change to navy/silver name tapes.
If we are to say that because the Army used/designed Woodland BDUs that we can't use that as a Corporate uniform, then we shouldn't be allowed to use BBDUs since the Coast Guard uses them.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 18, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
The overseas patch in the pic is merely there to represent placement of a wing patch.
So wing patches are moving shoulders?
I hope that wasn't a serious comment.
If this thread is any indication, uniform discussions/disagreement will safely continue to be at the forefront of CAPTalk for years to come. This isn't even a reg yet, for cryin' out loud! :(
Quote from: A.Member on August 18, 2013, 03:31:18 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2013, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 18, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
The overseas patch in the pic is merely there to represent placement of a wing patch.
So wing patches are moving shoulders?
I hope that wasn't a serious comment.
If this thread is any indication, uniform discussions/disagreement will continue to be at the forefront of CAPTalk for years to come. This isn't even a reg yet, for cryin' out loud! :(
If the picture (at the start of the thread( is any indication; yes; the wing patch will move to the other shoulder. I really hope it doesn't, not that I wear my wing patch anyways. . .
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 18, 2013, 03:41:24 PM
If the picture (at the start of the thread( is any indication; yes; the wing patch will move to the other shoulder. I really hope it doesn't, not that I wear my wing patch anyways. . .
I think that may have been a "placeholder" patch.
I'm seeing a fair number of people on this thread talking about what's in the draft of the new 39-1. In what locked bunker in Area 51 is this draft being kept...? I'm not seeing it anywhere drafts would normally be posted for comments.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 18, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
I'm seeing a fair number of people on this thread talking about what's in the draft of the new 39-1. In what locked bunker in Area 51 is this draft being kept...? I'm not seeing it anywhere drafts would normally be posted for comments.
I'm led to believe that the bunker is located somewhere near Maxwell. :)
("if I told you, I'd have to kill you, yadda, yadda, yadda, actual mileage may vary, Reg. US. Pat. Off.")
I believe these drafts have been circulated among the NUC members and the their respective region commanders to ensure that they're mostly ready for prime time before being placed in front of the membership for comment.
Having done similar, without some massive scrubbing in advance what you get for feedback 9/10 times is "you need a period in the third sentence of the 2nd paragraph on page 3-7" not "What? Black rigger belts? Are you crazy?"
Gotcha. I'm eager to read it, especially if the tactical pants thing stays. One of the reasons I detest the polo shirt uniform is the grey polyester pants+black loafers aspect of it. Personally, though my kids are grown and one of them is married, I'm still not ready for polyester trousers pulled up to my sternum. Tactical pants, however, I'd wear.
The person who let me view the draft stated that the NUC was not looking at putting out a public draft for comment. It was basically just going to be updated, approved, and released.
Not all regs and manuals go through a public draft.
I'm surprised no one is commenting about the changes to the SMWOG uniform wear that were proposed...
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 18, 2013, 05:02:36 PMTactical pants, however, I'd wear.
Tactical pants you already
may wear, and always could.
Quote from: kd8gua on August 18, 2013, 05:04:18 PM
I'm surprised no one is commenting about the changes to the SMWOG uniform wear that were proposed...
Which were...?
I'll be sticking with the Blue BDU's as long as they are authorized. Even if the BDU is determined to be CAP distinctive and I have a number of the BDU's from my prior service days. I still think the BBDU looks better and if I'm not within grooming standards when the ES call comes in, I don't have to worry about Shaving or a haircut. I think for the volunteer organization that we are with our Civilian Role in Emergency Services, The BBDU is a great fit for our organization.
As far as the Boots, black are way more prevalent and available in my AOR. Even the Public Safety type tactical boots which are currently authorized with the BBDU. Another Plus for this uniform by the way.
I know that there is a "heritage" aspect as being the USAF Auxiliary but I think that the functionality of the uniform trumps the associative property with our "parent service" who during an ES scenario we very rarely see.
When it comes to heritage we should display that in the appropriate venues using our Air Force Style Dress and Service uniforms and not necessarily the utility uniform.
Quote from: NIN on August 18, 2013, 02:35:50 PM(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/15856_100929863268128_315075_n.jpg)
In 1991 we all looked good, but then everybody looks better 20 years younger. Of course that is why plastic surgeons make big money.
I see people in ABUs everyday. I am not impressed. When I was in the Marines we still had the pickle suits. A sharp indiviual will starch it and iron it, same with the BDUs. Slackers wear fluff dry. The ABUs look like it is "fluff dry". I am in McDonalds and 12 Airmen come in for lunch and they look like average joes. From my POV the ABU only looks good on men with fresh haircuts, i.e., crew cut, flat top, high and tight or a buzz cut #3.
JMHO since I am flame proof, ten foot tall and bullet proof too ;)
If, for arguments sake, copies of a draft of 39-1 were distributed to members for their confidential comments and input,
then perhaps we should all consider respecting that confidence and not discuss things which were not intended for public discussion?
Just sayin'
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 18, 2013, 05:08:29 PM
Quote from: kd8gua on August 18, 2013, 05:04:18 PM
I'm surprised no one is commenting about the changes to the SMWOG uniform wear that were proposed...
Which were...?
The aviator and polo shirt wearing types are easy to appease. 8)
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 18, 2013, 05:14:40 PM
The aviator and polo shirt wearing types are easy to appease.
You know, you would think so, yet some of the highest-pitched whining noise comes from that crowd.
Keeping that in mind, I won't go into specifics on the SMWOG uniforms, but I was pleased to see that there was actual care and thought put behind what members of CAP wear before they are promoted to 2d Lt or the NCO grades should they choose it. The current 39-1 just sort of throws SMWOG into a sort of limbo with no clear direction. This takes care of that!
In general, aside from the current discussion over boots and patches, the 39-1, whenever it gets released, is miles ahead of the last one! The manual actually answers the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How of CAP uniforms.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 05:12:14 PM
If, for arguments sake, copies of a draft of 39-1 were distributed to members for their confidential comments and input,
then perhaps we should all consider respecting that confidence and not discuss things which were not intended for public discussion?
Just sayin'
Good point. But if I was National Staff, CAP Talk would be a good place to get feedback from a variety of sources with varying degrees of background in CAP. And as we know CT is the source for all things "uniform" in CAP ;)
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 18, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
I'm seeing a fair number of people on this thread talking about what's in the draft of the new 39-1. In what locked bunker in Area 51 is this draft being kept...? I'm not seeing it anywhere drafts would normally be posted for comments.
NHQ constantly reaches out to the field for comment/review. Some of those folks like to share not only their selection, but apparently also the content.
Interesting that the Big V. isn't happy with the current polo shirt quality. That's one of the biggest reasons I refuse to buy into it. The cheap stuff at the big box store is better.
Perhaps they might look into buying a name branded athletic/wicking variety. Those keep their color, shape and over all look indefinitely, vs. the typical variety. Very similar to the ones that were sold in the ends of the Bookstore to CAPMart era.
Quote from: kd8gua on August 18, 2013, 03:18:09 PMIf we are to say that because the Army used/designed Woodland BDUs that we can't use that as a Corporate uniform, then we shouldn't be allowed to use BBDUs since the Coast Guard uses them.
Actually, the Coast Guard does not use blue bdus. Yes, they are blue, but there are differences -- for example, the Coast Guard symbols embedded in the fabric in various places.
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 18, 2013, 05:20:12 PM
Good point. But if I was National Staff, CAP Talk would be a good place to get feedback from a variety of sources with varying degrees of background in CAP. And as we know CT is the source for all things "uniform" in CAP ;)
I think you'll see a draft pretty quick. Don't forget, the process isn't usually "shove the first draft out the door for comments from everybody," but rather that they circulate a couple drafts around the committee for refinements, then past the stakeholders for some buy in/confirmation that the guidance/policy is keeping with the commander's intent, etc. THEN it gets put in front of the membership.
So I don't think there is any intent to NOT include the membership, but I think that rather its entirely appropriate that the National Commander review what would potentially go out over his signature first,
before putting it out for comment to the general membership.
Remember, as much as we'd like, CAP is
not a democracy.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 05:12:14 PMIf, for arguments sake, copies of a draft of 39-1 were distributed to members for their confidential comments and input, then perhaps we should all consider respecting that confidence and not discuss things which were not intended for public discussion?
Considering things were posted here already, without any such disclaimers, and a lot of questions were thrown back and forth in that room, and a lot of information was disseminated.
I think the genie is out of the bottle, and the bottle has been turned in for redemption, smashed and smelted into 16 other new bottles by now. It's too late.
Well, NHQ clearly made a choice to allow a number of things to get out publicly, that's was their choice.
If and when they want to release the whole thing, that's on them too.
Quote from: a2capt on August 18, 2013, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 05:12:14 PMIf, for arguments sake, copies of a draft of 39-1 were distributed to members for their confidential comments and input, then perhaps we should all consider respecting that confidence and not discuss things which were not intended for public discussion?
Considering things were posted here already, without any such disclaimers, and a lot of questions were thrown back and forth in that room, and a lot of information was disseminated.
I think the genie is out of the bottle, and the bottle has been turned in for redemption, smashed and smelted into 16 other new bottles by now. It's too late.
What was shared at the conference isn't quite the drift to sharing the draft 39-1.
They will, eventually, and we'll all find out if our sacred cows are slain or not.
Its not inappropriate that the command council is briefed on the progress of the uniform manual rewrite and the potential upcoming changes. Not at all. But that doesn't mean that concurrent to this briefing that the entire briefing package is placed in front of the membership for their approval.
Some people have some pretty heavy duty opinions based on nothing more than a cell phone snappie of a slide in a powerpoint presentation. Abraham Zapruder would be *proud*
Quote from: NIN on August 18, 2013, 02:35:50 PM
ES is just ONE of the THREE Congressionally chartered missions, and really doesn't have much bearing on the discussion of boots, so why bring it up? You think BDUs were designed to have full-color patches & ultramarine nametapes put on 'em? LOL.
I brought it up because it's when we actually claim the title "Auxiliary to the US Air Force". As well, ES is the primary portion of the program one would need good boots anyway, of which the selection of sage is about equivalent to the price of and selection of black.
For comparison-
Belleville (10/10)
-32 models of sage green boot ranging from $96 to $234
-12 models of black boot ranging from $96 to $222, with one model of TR boot at $75
Rocky (9/10)
-4 models of sage green boot ranging from $135 to $253
-9 pairs of black boot ranging from $99 to $195
Danner (10/10)
-8 models of sage green boot ranging from $140 to $330
-2 models of black boot ranging from $190 to $210
Corcoran (a favorite of many NCOs, I find, and generally poor-to-mediocre quality boots) (4.5/10)
-5 models of sage green boot ranging from $156 to $310
-20 models of black boot ranging from $95 to $292
Wellco (3.5/10)
-8 models of sage green boot ranging from $140 to $219
-7 models of black boot ranging from $90 to $219
Bates (4/10)
-5 models of sage green boot ranging from $125 to $250
-6 models of black boot ranging from $82 to $255
Oakley (2.5/10)
-2 models of black boot at $130
I'm missing a couple brands, but that's about where it's at. Edit: Decided to throw in my personal opinion of each brand name. Not much, but I've found it's a relatively accurate reference to quality over the last few years.
Quote from: kd8gua on August 18, 2013, 03:18:09 PMIf we are to say that because the Army used/designed Woodland BDUs that we can't use that as a Corporate uniform, then we shouldn't be allowed to use BBDUs since the Coast Guard uses them.
Completely inaccurate. The Army designed, produced, and fielded the Woodland Camouflage Battle Dress Utility (which is the original terminology,) and the Desert Camouflage Utility. It's their design. The basic pattern moved into the public domain, so it was available in other colors, and that's the reason why the Army Combat Uniform is available under other names that aren't in ACUPAT. The Army could create a stink about it, but it doesn't present any value for them to do so, and no one tries wearing those other colors with their Army uniforms. If they did, there would definitely be an issue.
The Blue BDU was one of those knock offs that the Army doesn't have any issue with, so anyone can use it.
Additionally, the Coast Guard doesn't wear BBDU's. Their uniform is a design rather specific, and probably carries the same kind of labels that the Air Force requires on their dress uniforms.
Overall, we can't just decide "Oh, no one is using it, so we can do whatever we want with it." We've already had issues with that, more are just going to create more problems.
We can make our own input on things, make requests, but we still have to accept the final word when it's given.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 06:10:02 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 18, 2013, 02:35:50 PM
ES is just ONE of the THREE Congressionally chartered missions, and really doesn't have much bearing on the discussion of boots, so why bring it up? You think BDUs were designed to have full-color patches & ultramarine nametapes put on 'em? LOL.
I brought it up because it's when we actually claim the title "Auxiliary to the US Air Force". As well, ES is the primary portion of the program one would need good boots anyway, of which the selection of sage is about equivalent to the price of and selection of black.
For comparison-
Belleville (10/10)
-32 models of sage green boot ranging from $96 to $234
-12 models of black boot ranging from $96 to $222, with one model of TR boot at $75
Rocky (9/10)
-4 models of sage green boot ranging from $135 to $253
-9 pairs of black boot ranging from $99 to $195
Danner (10/10)
-8 models of sage green boot ranging from $140 to $330
-2 models of black boot ranging from $190 to $210
Corcoran (a favorite of many NCOs, I find, and generally poor-to-mediocre quality boots) (4.5/10)
-5 models of sage green boot ranging from $156 to $310
-20 models of black boot ranging from $95 to $292
Wellco (3.5/10)
-8 models of sage green boot ranging from $140 to $219
-7 models of black boot ranging from $90 to $219
Bates (4/10)
-5 models of sage green boot ranging from $125 to $250
-6 models of black boot ranging from $82 to $255
Oakley (2.5/10)
-2 models of black boot at $130
I'm missing a couple brands, but that's about where it's at. Edit: Decided to throw in my personal opinion of each brand name. Not much, but I've found it's a relatively accurate reference to quality over the last few years.
Walmart - one pair of black boots ~$30, which to the average member is all they care about and will ever need.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 07:50:22 PM
Walmart - one pair of black boots ~$30, which to the average member is all they care about and will ever need.
At the end of the day, black boots that lace up and are polishable are pretty much what I've seen, yep.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Interceptor-Men-s-Work-Boot-Black/26135730 (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Interceptor-Men-s-Work-Boot-Black/26135730)
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Men-s-Soft-Toe-Kenway-Work-Boot/21672646 (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Men-s-Soft-Toe-Kenway-Work-Boot/21672646)
http://www.walmart.com/ip/KENTIN/21998397 (http://www.walmart.com/ip/KENTIN/21998397)
For 75%+ of our cadets, those boots work just fine.
By the national retention rate, 50% or so of our cadets leave after the first year, anyway, so spending $90-120 on special sage green boots that only half of them are even going to wear, what, 2-3 dozen times is silly.
Alright then, you'll still have a significant phase-in period for the ABUs, during which you'll continue to have BDUs be authorized. I believe it was mentioned 3 years for seniors, 5 for cadets. During that time, you can continue to wear your BDUs with black boots, while the surplus and online markets open up to a similar plethora of inexpensive sage boots. At the end of 5 years, you'll have a similar market for sage boots to the one for black boots now.
I mean, JROTC does it, and their cadets are in the same boat ours are in.
(http://beta.txwgcap.org/images/_2011/110418/110418_%20c_4-9-11_9.jpg)
At the end of the day this remains a point-counterpoint. I honestly would be absolutely shocked if NHQ and CAP-USAF did not authorize green boots at some point with whatever ABU combination eventually makes the cut.
Why is the focus on the secondhand market? Most members get their stuff new, not from GIJoes Military Surplus.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 08:14:20 PM
I mean, JROTC does it, and their cadets are in the same boat ours are in.
No, they are not.
How so? The ones I know here are, at least.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 08:23:34 PM
How so? The ones I know here are, at least.
Who pays for JROTC uniforms?
Are JROTC cadets issued their uniforms the same as university ROTC cadets? When I took my two years of college ROTC it was Uncle Sam who paid for the uniforms. I had to pay for the boots. Even the shoes were issued...
Flyer
NO American flag? How much is National going to give each member to pay for new uniforms? NO American Flag??? Or since we're the AF Auxiliary, they can provide the uniforms. NO American flag?? Parents going to cough up $400-$600 for uniforms per cadet? NO American flag?
Quote from: 22pilot on August 18, 2013, 09:09:30 PM
NO American flag? How much is National going to give each member to pay for new uniforms? NO American Flag??? Or since we're the AF Auxiliary, they can provide the uniforms. NO American flag?? Parents going to cough up $400-$600 for uniforms per cadet? NO American flag?
Feel better?
Drive-bys speak more about the poster then the subject.
Where do you get $400-$600?
I estimated about $160 at one store.
Shirt, $49 or so. Pants the same. Hat about $10. Winter coat not more than $50.
Boots about $100.
Total $260.
New name patches, CAP tapes, may add not more than $20!
I can post the link later, prices are for the RABU.
Flyer
Quote from: 22pilot on August 18, 2013, 09:09:30 PM
NO American flag? How much is National going to give each member to pay for new uniforms? NO American Flag??? Or since we're the AF Auxiliary, they can provide the uniforms. NO American flag?? Parents going to cough up $400-$600 for uniforms per cadet? NO American flag?
You're at about a 10 right now, I'm gonna have to ask you take it down to at least a 6.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 05:18:08 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 18, 2013, 05:14:40 PM
The aviator and polo shirt wearing types are easy to appease.
You know, you would think so, yet some of the highest-pitched whining noise comes from that crowd.
Is it confirmed no changes for SMWOG folks?
Quote from: Archer on August 18, 2013, 09:25:04 PM
You're at about a 10 right now, I'm gonna have to ask you take it down to at least a 6.
"I'm gonna have to ask you to come in on Saturday, too, mmkay? Great."
Quote from: billford1 on August 18, 2013, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 05:18:08 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 18, 2013, 05:14:40 PM
The aviator and polo shirt wearing types are easy to appease.
You know, you would think so, yet some of the highest-pitched whining noise comes from that crowd.
Is it confirmed no changes for SMWOG folks?
Nothing is confirmed. This was a presentation regarding proposed uniform updates and changes.
It's all wet clay.
It's simple. Pick a uniform you like. Confirm that are eligible to wear it under regs. Wear it.
Quote from: 22pilot on August 18, 2013, 09:09:30 PM
NO American flag? How much is National going to give each member to pay for new uniforms? NO American Flag??? Or since we're the AF Auxiliary, they can provide the uniforms. NO American flag?? Parents going to cough up $400-$600 for uniforms per cadet? NO American flag?
USAF doesn't wear the flag on their uniforms.
Quote from: capmaj on August 18, 2013, 10:41:57 PM
It's simple. Pick a uniform you like. Confirm that are eligible to wear it under regs. Wear it.
This, a thousand times this.
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 18, 2013, 05:20:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2013, 05:12:14 PM
If, for arguments sake, copies of a draft of 39-1 were distributed to members for their confidential comments and input,
then perhaps we should all consider respecting that confidence and not discuss things which were not intended for public discussion?
Just sayin'
Good point. But if I was National Staff, CAP Talk would be a good place to get feedback from a variety of sources with varying degrees of background in CAP. And as we know CT is the source for all things "uniform" in CAP ;)
Funny you should say that, because Maj Gen Carr said he checks CAPTalk every day!
(I'm not kidding either, he did say that)
All the more reason to use good grammar, proper spelling, and some decorum.
Quote from: flyer333555 on August 18, 2013, 09:17:15 PM
Where do you get $400-$600?
I estimated about $160 at one store.
Shirt, $49 or so. Pants the same. Hat about $10. Winter coat not more than $50.
Boots about $100.
Total $260.
New name patches, CAP tapes, may add not more than $20!
I can post the link later, prices are for the RABU.
Flyer
I can get a brand-new set of ABUs, minus boots, for $30 or so, minus shipping. Accouterments for 1 set will cost about $20? So, I'm only looking at an outlay of $50 or so for my one set. Used sets, even less. It's not really that big of a deal, if you know where to look. I actually found a set of ABUs and ACUs at Goodwill, and I really regret not having the $20 to get both. Still makes me mad.
$30 jungle boots may get you through your first year, but for any member who will spend long periods in your boots (full days, weekends, week long activities) the benefit of quality footwear cannot be overstated.
I have a pair of those $200 GTX Danners (though they weren't quite that expensive at the time) and at 2 years old I am looking at having the insoles redone. I like my feet to be comfy, if they're not I get real unhappy really quickly.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on August 19, 2013, 12:19:20 AM
$30 jungle boots may get you through your first year, but for any member who will spend long periods in your boots (full days, weekends, week long activities) the benefit of quality footwear cannot be overstated.
I have a pair of those $200 GTX Danners (though they weren't quite that expensive at the time) and at 2 years old I am looking at having the insoles redone. I like my feet to be comfy, if they're not I get real unhappy really quickly.
I got those $105 bates side zippers. After wearing the same pair of surplus store used jungle boots for eight(!) Years....what a difference.
Hang on a minute...did I miss something, or has no one out there said:
HEY! WE GETS TEH DIGITALS!!1!!!!!!!111!!!!
I'll be ecstatic as soon as it stops looks like a clown's work suit.
Was there anything in the briefing about boonies with BDUs or ABUs? The other thread was talking about it, and I'm wondering if we'll get those this time around.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 19, 2013, 12:54:43 AM
I'll be ecstatic as soon as it stops looks like a clown's work suit.
Was there anything in the briefing about boonies with BDUs or ABUs? The other thread was talking about it, and I'm wondering if we'll get those this time around.
Really doesnt look any more odd than BDUs with ultramarine.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 19, 2013, 12:54:43 AM
I'll be ecstatic as soon as it stops looks like a clown's work suit.
If you don't like it, then don't wear it. Simple as that.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on August 19, 2013, 12:19:20 AM
$30 jungle boots may get you through your first year, but for any member who will spend long periods in your boots (full days, weekends, week long activities) the benefit of quality footwear cannot be overstated.
No argument, however the average CAP member spends about 8 hours a month,
maybe in their boots, not to mention a cadet will grow out of
at least one pair a year if not more.
I spent a good chunk of money on Corcoran jump boots (twice) because they were shiny and "kewl", tore the heck out of my feet whenever I wore them.
The $80 pair of Bates sidezips I wear now are water and BBP proof, super comfortable and well-suited to CAP use, in the office or in the field.
They are duel -purposed for riding my bike, and with
heavy use will last for several years, even more if properly cared for.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 19, 2013, 12:54:43 AM
I'll be ecstatic as soon as it stops looks like a clown's work suit.
Was there anything in the briefing about boonies with BDUs or ABUs? The other thread was talking about it, and I'm wondering if we'll get those this time around.
Nothing better than a cadet telling you his uniform looks like a clown suit, or that he has strong opinions about boots and hats.
Seriously.
BDUs with full color patches and blue tapes looks fine. ABUs with blue tapes and insignia would/will be fine. But as soon as all those bright and neon colors get tossed in it just starts to clash, which seems to be the general consensus to those who actually wanted ABUs. :(
There's a reason USAF is fully-subdued on their uniforms. And my question is if it's recognized that BDUs with color patches looks odd, why does that force us to continue with bright patches on the new uniform?
Eclipse, I haven't posted a strong opinion about hats anywhere. Or that my uniform looks like a clown suit, considering I'm talking about the proposal and not the current uniform.
Then.
Don't.
Wear.
Them.
Aaaalright. I've already got BlueDUs, I don't mind that. But then I'll be with people who are wearing them by mandate, as it's a uniform change, not addition, and looking silly that way. From what I've observed, the opinions against the current proposition strongly outweighs the opinions for it.
Either way I'll bail now. The general attitudes won't change and we don't know what the final draft will hold anyway, so until we know more the point is moot. I'm out.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 19, 2013, 01:36:14 AM
Aaaalright. I've already got BlueDUs, I don't mind that. But then I'll be with people who are wearing them by mandate, as it's a uniform change, not addition, and looking silly that way. From what I've observed, the opinions against the current proposition strongly outweighs the opinions for it.
Either way I'll bail now. The general attitudes won't change and we don't know what the final draft will hold anyway, so until we know more the point is moot. I'm out.
::) ::) ::)
Quote from: DeSoto on August 19, 2013, 01:36:14 AMwearing them by mandate, as it's a uniform change, not addition,
Um, what?
What I don't understand is the logic behind the whole "distinctive" features, like having navy blue tapes. I liked the idea of green and white, ABU, etc. but Navy blue is hideous on the uniform IMO. The patches make it look nothing short of a boy scout uniform. The black boots, while understandably kept because ABU boots can be expensive, are ridiculous looking with ABUs.
It's not distinctive, it's nothing short of hilarious.
Quote from: AngelWings on August 19, 2013, 01:50:52 AM
What I don't understand is the logic behind the whole "distinctive" features, like having navy blue tapes. I liked the idea of green and white, ABU, etc. but Navy blue is hideous on the uniform IMO. The patches make it look nothing short of a boy scout uniform. The black boots, while understandably kept because ABU boots can be expensive, are ridiculous looking with ABUs.
It's not distinctive, it's nothing short of hilarious.
Not hardkewl enough?
I'll probably regret this...
Oh well, full speed ahead!
Quote from: DeSoto on August 19, 2013, 01:25:41 AM
There's a reason USAF is fully-subdued on their uniforms. And my question is if it's recognized that BDUs with color patches looks odd, why does that force us to continue with bright patches on the new uniform?
You're right, there IS a reason that the USAF uses fully subdued insignia. That reason is because they wear those uniforms in a combat environment, not because they look good. Looking good is just a happy byproduct of that reality.
To answer your question, the USAF requirement that our uniforms be distinctive is among the reasons that we get to use full color insignia on our versions of their uniforms.
Angel, and DeSoto-
Commenter 1: And now stepping off from the van, in snappy sage green boots, Ground Members of Team 1!
Commenter 2: But wait, they are outshined by Ground Team 2 who had perfectly shiny silver-threaded name tapes and CAP tapes in Navy Blue!
Commenter 1: ...and you see that? One of the grade insignias are off...
NOT!!!
We are not performing in a fashion show.
Don't like them? Just do as Eclipse said.
Don't wear them.
Flyer
Screw it.
Quote from: NC Hokie on August 19, 2013, 02:14:25 AM
I'll probably regret this...
I already regret coming on here again. :/
You're right, there IS a reason that the USAF uses fully subdued insignia. That reason is because they wear those uniforms in a combat environment, not because they look good. Looking good is just a happy byproduct of that reality.
To answer your question, the USAF requirement that our uniforms be distinctive is among the reasons that we get to use full color insignia on our versions of their uniforms.
The ABU hasn't been used outside the wire in years, even since before it was being phased in. The airmen on patrol there had them for those patrols, but then they started wearing the OCP ACUs anyway, negating any need for subdued anything.
Except, military uniforms are a fashion show. How do you think the ABU and NWU even came into actual military service, because I'll tell you how they didn't: functionality.
It's too bad that our cadets' collective time will continue to be wasted trying to put a mirror polish on their Rothco jungle boots...
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
What's not distinctive enough about ABU-patterned tapes that say "CIVIL AIR PATROL" in midnight-blue thread? Need to step it up a notch? Use silver-reflective thread on ABU-pattern.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
USAF doesn't wear the flag on their uniforms.
Yes they do. Do your homework before spouting off. The flag is worn the flight suit and OCPs when down range.
Quote from: AngelWings on August 19, 2013, 01:50:52 AM
The black boots, while understandably kept because ABU boots can be expensive, are ridiculous looking with ABUs.
I wonder.....how much of the objection is due to an actual judgement of ridiculousness, as opposed to just comparing the look to what USAF has? I mean, suppose USF had never gone with green boots?
Don't recall any CAP Ground Teams going "Outside the Wire"... Matter of fact, they're not even in the AOR...
So what's your point?
Quote from: Archer on August 19, 2013, 02:28:46 AM
What's not distinctive enough about ABU-patterned tapes that say "CIVIL AIR PATROL" in midnight-blue thread? Need to step it up a notch? Use silver-reflective thread on ABU-pattern.
That would be essentially invisible.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 19, 2013, 02:29:03 AM
Quote from: DeSoto on August 18, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
USAF doesn't wear the flag on their uniforms.
Yes they do. Do your homework before spouting off. The flag is worn the flight suit and OCPs when down range.
On
ABUs. We're talking about ABUs, logically I'd be referencing an AF-specific uniform. Flight suits were never brought up, but I will clarify for future reference I suppose.
Quote from: PHall on August 19, 2013, 02:30:01 AM
Don't recall any CAP Ground Teams going "Outside the Wire"... Matter of fact, they're not even in the AOR...
So what's your point?
I was responding to his reasoning why USAF has subdued patches....
I'm making the switch to BlueDUs because I'm approaching a chance in my life to wear a different Blue uniform that goes under a tan and silver reflective striped protective outfit. I'll be in ABUs soon enough, the Air Guard isn't too far away either.
Does it matter? No, I'll enjoy watching a bunch of little kiddos (like I used to be when I joined CAP) getting the ABUs. They'll enjoy them, and hopefully CAP will let younger kids in the program (taking back earlier statements I've made before). I think they'll appreciate the CAP version of the ABUs the most. They make toddler and child sized ABUs that'd fit most young kids perfectly. I'll certainly get a good smile. Senior Members wearing the CAP ABU? Now that will be a true sight to see.
Quote from: DeSoto on August 19, 2013, 02:22:39 AM
The ABU hasn't been used outside the wire in years, even since before it was being phased in. The airmen on patrol there had them for those patrols, but then they started wearing the OCP ACUs anyway, negating any need for subdued anything.
Except, military uniforms are a fashion show. How do you think the ABU and NWU even came into actual military service, because I'll tell you how they didn't: functionality.
Shows again what you know. The ABU was worn outside the wire until 2011/2012 in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Do your homework before spouting off on what you don't know.
Orange covers with ABUs? Horrible...?
I feel the same about orange vests with both BDUs and BBDUs.
Now having said that, it is a safety issue, and you are ordered to do it by an IC. If you want to participate, you follow those safety rules. So your Wing may have a supplement requiring their wear based on the state law.
Probably this will not change after ABU adoption. If your Wing wants to play, it has to follow the leader.
So even if I feel the vests look horrible with the BDUs, I have one in my 24-hour pack, and four others in the trunk of my car. In case I go as a member of a ground team that needs any.
Flyer
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 02:28:06 AM
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
Sorry, that's not a State Law!! It is strictly a "PAWG RANGER LAW" that has not been allowed to die by Wing Commanders who are scared of upsetting the Hawk Mountain Group!
Quote from: AngelWings on August 19, 2013, 02:35:56 AM
I'm making the switch to BlueDUs because I'm approaching a chance in my life to wear a different Blue uniform that goes under a tan and silver reflective striped protective outfit. I'll be in ABUs soon enough, the Air Guard isn't too far away either.
Does it matter? No, I'll enjoy watching a bunch of little kiddos (like I used to be when I joined CAP) getting the ABUs. They'll enjoy them, and hopefully CAP will let younger kids in the program (taking back earlier statements I've made before). I think they'll appreciate the CAP version of the ABUs the most. They make toddler and child sized ABUs that'd fit most young kids perfectly. I'll certainly get a good smile. Senior Members wearing the CAP ABU? Now that will be a true sight to see.
Condescend much?
Oh, he's just doing his Cher Horowitz imitation again. ;)
I've been on a GT a few times when there were at least four different uniforms. It helps to have a sense of humor when we don't look like a team. Nowadays when I call a team together I ask if they can wear the polo and the outcome is a little better.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 19, 2013, 02:47:53 AM
Oh, he's just doing his Cher Horowitz imitation again. ;)
Now THAT is condescending.
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 02:28:06 AM
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
There is a state law that mandates the color of CAP uniform caps? I am both intrigued and skeptical. Can you cite the statute, please?
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 19, 2013, 03:00:48 AM
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 02:28:06 AM
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
There is a state law that mandates the color of CAP uniform caps? I am both intrigued and skeptical. Can you cite the statute, please?
Yeah just like it's state law the CAP Ground Teams wear an orange shirt in Ca for SAR. >:D
QuoteWe are not performing in a fashion show.
Military Fashion show - And One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O__i1b6GBmQ#)
>:D
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 19, 2013, 03:00:48 AM
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 02:28:06 AM
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
There is a state law that mandates the color of CAP uniform caps? I am both intrigued and skeptical. Can you cite the statute, please?
Quote§ 2524. Protective material required.
(a) General rule.--Unless further restricted by regulations
of the commission, every person hunting for or assisting to hunt
for deer, bear or woodchucks shall wear either a minimum of 250
square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material on
the back and front combined or, in lieu thereof, a hat of the
same color material. The material shall be worn so it is visible
in a 360-degree arc. Unless otherwise specified by regulations
of the commission, the provision of this section shall not apply
to any season for using muzzle-loading firearms only or season
for using bows and arrows only.
We ain't hunting, that out doesn't apply. The only other two references in PA state law to that section is about wildlife officers (Section 901) and Section 2701, which deals with hunting licenses. All of which come under Title 34, "Game". I don't think CAP is in the hunting business.
I'm averaging a check back on this thread about every three pages. Now we are up to twelve. That's one short of the lucky thirteen. And still nothing important or earth shattering. See you all in around page fifteen. ;D
Quote from: ol'fido on August 19, 2013, 03:25:03 AM
I'm averaging a check back on this thread about every three pages. Now we are up to twelve. That's one short of the lucky thirteen. And still nothing important or earth shattering. See you all in around page fifteen. ;D
We've beat a dead horse to the point it became alive >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on August 19, 2013, 02:31:48 AM
Quote from: Archer on August 19, 2013, 02:28:46 AM
What's not distinctive enough about ABU-patterned tapes that say "CIVIL AIR PATROL" in midnight-blue thread? Need to step it up a notch? Use silver-reflective thread on ABU-pattern.
That would be essentially invisible.
Darn, you're right. Still, what's wrong with the midnight-blue thread? Big Blue seems to manage AFJROTC and AFROTC doing it without the earth spinning off its axis.
I had never seen the statute myself. I was informed by a staff member in my squadron that it was because of the popularity of hunting in my state, I had thought that he also told me that it was required by state law, but I suppose that I could have made that part up. Funny I had just found the statute when I came back to CAPtalk and saw someone had already beat me to the punch.
The Overseas Wing Patch was a stand-in for any wing patch. They had to pick one, that's the one they used as a place holder.
Essentially, the ABUs would be set up identically to the BDUs. Just changing the color of the tapes, and removing the US Flag.
Additionally they stated they would push to use the same tapes on both BBDUs and ABUs.
Quote from: Archer on August 19, 2013, 03:30:32 AM
Darn, you're right. Still, what's wrong with the midnight-blue thread? Big Blue seems to manage AFJROTC and AFROTC doing it without the earth spinning off its axis.
Different organizations, both with more direct lineage to their parent service, staffed by
military personnel, and funded by the DOD as either direct or indirect recruiting endeavors.
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 02:28:06 AM
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
I have been really enjoying this thread.....however this one has made me laugh the most.
mk
Quote from: ol'fido on August 19, 2013, 03:25:03 AM
I'm averaging a check back on this thread about every three pages. Now we are up to twelve. That's one short of the lucky thirteen. And still nothing important or earth shattering. See you all in around page fifteen. ;D
Its only page 5 by my settings! >:D
Great! YahoOOOOO!!!
At long last this uniform thread HAS BEEN derailed into HOW LONG it will be. 8)
Remember? All threads about other topics degenerate into messages about uniforms, except those about uniforms which degenerate into other topics. Albeit referring to a uniform thread, it is morphing into how long this thread can be "without any importance," not being "Earth shattering," and computer settings.
Bravo, bravo! :clap:
Flyer
Earth Shattering Kaboom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNEBLXgWhtM#ws)
Page 5 for me, too. :)
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 19, 2013, 02:36:58 AMShows again what you know. The ABU was worn outside the wire until 2011/2012 in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Do your homework before spouting off on what you don't know.
Thread is dead, wahey. Point/counterpoints can be fun. :D
I will take a step back and admit error: ABUs were worn outside the wire. However, it was to a fairly limited extent, as Airmen were using the ABSG fatigues rather than the actual "Airman Battle Uniform". The ABSG was used for a short time until the Army started issuing OCP, at which point most if not all airmen leaving compound were wearing those instead.
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 03:34:19 AM
I had never seen the statute myself. I was informed by a staff member in my squadron that it was because of the popularity of hunting in my state, I had thought that he also told me that it was required by state law, but I suppose that I could have made that part up. Funny I had just found the statute when I came back to CAPtalk and saw someone had already beat me to the punch.
Since when? That orange hat has been a STANDARD PA WING RANGER uniform item since I was a cadet in the 1960s. It has nothing to do with hunting. As an aircrew member, though I can tell you that survival orange what-ever stands out in the field -- whether your like it or not.
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on August 19, 2013, 03:35:42 AM
The Overseas Wing Patch was a stand-in for any wing patch. They had to pick one, that's the one they used as a place holder.
Essentially, the ABUs would be set up identically to the BDUs. Just changing the color of the tapes, and removing the US Flag.
Additionally they stated they would push to use the same tapes on both BBDUs and ABUs.
No one has yet to really answer if the wing patch is going to be optional or not -- or whether the same rule applies as with the BDUs -- that its optional and the space is also where special activities patches can be worn?
As far as the flag patch is concerned, that was a product of the Hurricane Katrinia operation. Either or, it doesn't matter to me. However, I'm in favor of limiting (by personal choice) what would be worn on this uniform.
Either way you cut it, this is a cool uniform development. I would hope that people would show some restraint and limit what insignia is worn. Too much bling on what is essentially a utility or field uniform and it really doesn't look that professional.
Quote from: AngelWings on August 19, 2013, 01:50:52 AM
What I don't understand is the logic behind the whole "distinctive" features, like having navy blue tapes. I liked the idea of green and white, ABU, etc. but Navy blue is hideous on the uniform IMO. The patches make it look nothing short of a boy scout uniform. The black boots, while understandably kept because ABU boots can be expensive, are ridiculous looking with ABUs.
It's not distinctive, it's nothing short of hilarious.
And ultramarine on green, brown, tan and black was "complimentary?"
So how many will be running out to buy ABUs today?? >:D >:D
Just as a point of comparison, here are examples of the Air Force's own ABU tape versus the proposed CAP-distinctive tape.
Here is the Air Force ABU pattern tape below:
(http://i.imgur.com/xwkJGkF.jpg)
And here is the proposed CAP-distinctive tape:
(http://i.imgur.com/Nvtuqq1.jpg)
The colour of blue on the proposed CAP-distinctive tape actually looks better (on a uniform that is mostly different shades of grey, with a little green thrown in), than the ultramarine and white tapes we wear now. While I personally think that ABU-coloured tapes on the appropriate locations on the uniform, that clearly say "CIVIL AIR PATROL" and the wearer's name are distinctive enough, this more CAP-distinct version actually doesn't look too bad. Also, the Navy blue of colour of the tape material is actually almost the same colour as the embroidered letters on the ABU pattern tapes, and the colour of silver thread used on the CAP-distinctive tapes is really a shade of grey, that is virtually the same shade of grey most predominant in the material of the ABU pattern tape itself. So really, if you think about it, it is actually all the same colours on both, just with the background and thread colours reversed for distinctiveness.
Is there any announcement of this out there? Nothing on CAP's site that I can see....maybe I'm missing it.
No, there is no announcement as it does not have final approval. It was an informational piece presented at the National Conference that someone decided to post here.
Because members had been speculating about this for a loooong time, they are now gaga about this.
Flyer
Thanks Flyer, that's what I thought. Just making sure I'm not in expanded Monday Morning Mode :o
Quote from: Patterson on August 19, 2013, 11:33:46 AM
So how many will be running out to buy ABUs today?? >:D >:D
Too late. :)
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 19, 2013, 10:31:56 AM
Either way you cut it, this is a cool uniform development. I would hope that people would show some restraint and limit what insignia is worn. Too much bling on what is essentially a utility or field uniform and it really doesn't look that professional.
(Emphasis mine)
Which Civil Air Patrol are YOU in? 8)
You *know* that people are gonna clown suit the hell out of this. Because they can.
Used to be that the AFMAN (back when it was an AFI, I think) talked about the concept of the AF uniform being a neat, professional uniform with a minimum of gee-gaw, etc. (thats not quite what it said.. I wish I could remember the verbiage)
The AFMAN no longer states anything of the sort. And CAP, well...
Can't wait till people show up wearing this:
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/US-Tiger-Stripe-Special-forces-ABU-fire-resistant-combat-shirt-All-sizes-/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/$(KGrHqJ,!m!E5ey7mKw0BOcdNe6M5Q~~60_35.JPG)
and this:
(http://www.opsgear.com/common/images/products/large/ATL-2562_01_lg.jpg)
And go "What? Its ABU pattern!"
(The first is the fire-resistant ABU, cousin to the Army's FRACU. Note the sleeve pockets and velrco name patch. Its a nomex uniform, not 50/50 NyCo. The second is the combat shirt, designed for wear underneath BODY ARMOR. Not load bearing vests. BODY ARMOR..)
I think we would look really great in Realtree camo.
It can be purchased at any good truck stop and you can even purchase matching underwear that way there wouldn't need to a fight over what color of t-shirt we would wear under the uniform, everyone would wear Realtree.
Think of the hats, oh the many hats that could be worn with Realtree.
Quote from: 4fhoward on August 19, 2013, 01:34:21 PM
I think we would look really great in Realtree camo.
It can be purchased at any good truck stop and you can even purchase matching underwear that way there wouldn't need to a fight over what color of t-shirt we would wear under the uniform, everyone would wear Realtree.
Think of the hats, oh the many hats that could be worn with Realtree.
I want a CAT hat. I'll wear a Peterbilt hat in the field.
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
You *know* that people are gonna clown suit the hell out of this. Because they can.
Like this.
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
You *know* that people are gonna clown suit the hell out of this. Because they can.
Like this.
"I don't go out with girls anymore, I live a life of danger (the rest is unsuitable for CAPTalk)... Wheee! I'm a Ranger!" ;D
A correct and up to date CAPM 39-1, IMHO, is a lot more important than us switching to the ABU.
I hope the discussion about the ABU won't distract the NUC in releasing a meaningful and useful CAPM 39-1.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on August 19, 2013, 01:50:55 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
You *know* that people are gonna clown suit the hell out of this. Because they can.
Like this.
"I don't go out with girls anymore, I live a life of danger (the rest is unsuitable for CAPTalk)... Wheee! I'm a Ranger!" ;D
We need to get Johnny Rivers on the phone NOW!
Quote from: vento on August 19, 2013, 06:00:12 PM
A correct and up to date CAPM 39-1, IMHO, is a lot more important than us switching to the ABU.
I hope the discussion about the ABU won't distract the NUC in releasing a meaningful and useful CAPM 39-1.
And hopefully which allows for corrections of errors and omissions my staff without a board action.
Also...
>All< the illustrations need to be redone, in the same style, and with up to date graphics.
The photos should be taken on mannequins to remove any "personality" in the images.
The entire document should be online, searchable, and linkable.
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 18, 2013, 11:39:30 PM
Funny you should say that, because Maj Gen Carr said he checks CAPTalk every day!
(I'm not kidding either, he did say that)
Have a link for that? I believe you, I just want to read that myself.
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
You *know* that people are gonna clown suit the hell out of this. Because they can.
Like this.
I dunno. If the orange cap is "state law," maybe the white belt is "county ordinance." The scarf, of course, is simply "the rule of way cool."
Quote from: Peeka on August 19, 2013, 06:55:43 PMHave a link for that? I believe you, I just want to read that myself.
.. and where does that statement imply that it's in writ, on the interwebs, et al?
..and just because it is on the internet, doesn't mean it's true.
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/788/i9f6.png)
^^True. It was an assumption that the source was on the web or written down somewhere. I was hoping for a credible source from HGJunkie.
Obviously, the screenshot is not credible source. Anybody could have registered under that username.
Not finding an MGCarr registered...
You can read without registering.
Or request that the username be hidden.
Quote from: Peeka on August 19, 2013, 08:08:10 PM
^^True. It was an assumption that the source was on the web or written down somewhere. I was hoping for a credible source from HGJunkie.
Obviously, the screenshot is not credible source. Anybody could have registered under that username.
He said it to a room full of Cadets, National Staff, AF Personnel etc. at COS this year.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 19, 2013, 08:14:01 PMNot finding an MGCarr registered...
..and you won't. Can't believe everything you see.
Live page edit.. ;)
Point was, just because it's there..
Quote from: a2capt on August 19, 2013, 08:54:38 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 19, 2013, 08:14:01 PMNot finding an MGCarr registered...
..and you won't. Can't believe everything you see.
Live page edit.. ;)
Point was, just because it's there..
Oh, I knew it was shopped. Just saying. :)
I've had any number of conversations with people IRL regarding this board, some who know of my alter-ego and some who do not.
Some have been encouraging, some have been disappointing, some misinformed, but all making it apparent that this is a very well-traveled site by members of all levels and echelon, which is why proper decorum and behavior should observed.
No, it's not an "official" site, but neither is walking down the street, and people's impression of your behavior, and the ramifications of same, are just as fair game in both situations.
And has been noted here a number of times, there no such thing as "anonymous" on the internet.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 19, 2013, 08:18:03 PM
You can read without registering.
That's true, but you have to register to get a user name.
I find the graphic suspicious, for several reasons:
The newest member - CAP Member Charlie does not appear on the member list.
My name is not on the Users Online list. I'm almost always logged on, and if this is from yesterday, I was on at that time.
There is one less member today than yesterday.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 19, 2013, 07:02:01 PM
I dunno. If the orange cap is "state law," maybe the white belt is "county ordinance." The scarf, of course, is simply "the rule of way cool."
^^ This is a factual statement :)
Quote from: SarDragon on August 19, 2013, 09:10:35 PMMy name is not on the Users Online list. I'm almost always logged on, and if this is from yesterday, I was on at that time.There is one less member today than yesterday.
Yup, and it was actually snapped about 30 seconds before I posted it, as in today, and the screen time on it was from today. CT is one hour ahead of Eastern time. I made changes in the html and then captured the screen. Same way that RM got "Squelched" on his little bit of the screen. If you don't refresh the window in increments of 15 minutes or less, there are times when your name will fall off the list.
A few things were changed, one of which was the number of members.
Quote from: vento on August 19, 2013, 06:00:12 PM
A correct and up to date CAPM 39-1, IMHO, is a lot more important than us switching to the ABU.
I hope the discussion about the ABU won't distract the NUC in releasing a meaningful and useful CAPM 39-1.
You know...that just triggered an idea...
Why do all the uniforms need to go into ONE CAPM 39-1? Why not have a CAPM 39-2 for Flight Suits (AF and distinctive), etc. etc.
Would make updating them much simpler...ABUs are approved, poof: CAPM 39-X: ABU Uniform, no change necessarily needed to any other.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 19, 2013, 09:39:31 PM
Quote from: vento on August 19, 2013, 06:00:12 PM
A correct and up to date CAPM 39-1, IMHO, is a lot more important than us switching to the ABU.
I hope the discussion about the ABU won't distract the NUC in releasing a meaningful and useful CAPM 39-1.
You know...that just triggered an idea...
Why do all the uniforms need to go into ONE CAPM 39-1? Why not have a CAPM 39-2 for Flight Suits (AF and distinctive), etc. etc.
Would make updating them much simpler...ABUs are approved, poof: CAPM 39-X: ABU Uniform, no change necessarily needed to any other.
They kinda do that to the large .pdf on the national website, breaking it down by chapter. I think the issue is that you may WANT to have the whole thing in front of you for some reason (and I know I've had reasons in the past).
Personally, I"d prefer it if the entire library was one document.
That makes finding what you need, cross-referencing, not to mention conflicts, a lot easier.
These days there's no issue with file size, so I'm all for the moves to consolidate things.
1 Manual to rule them all!
Maybe this is a dumb question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Why is the Flag being removed from the uniform? I could understand it not being required of the international units, however, why do so many on this thread seem happy not to wear it? :-\
I am a new member, so maybe it's my inexperience showing through...but I am proud to wear our nation's flag on my BBDUs.
I have no issue with the flag either, especially at the level some others do, however it has generally not
been a part of military tradition, especially for the USAF, to wear a US flag on their uniforms, and especially again when stationed in the CONUS (though interestingly few have an issue with it being on the flight suits).
At least part of the angst is due to the when and how of it being added. HWSRN added the flag during a period of controversial change in CAP's history, and that fact alone is enough for some people to have uber-angst. Couple that with a wives tale that it was added because CAP was confused with an international force during Hurricane Katrina relief ops.
Some just don't like the fact that it's a reversed flag like the Army wears, etc., etc.
Considering that the flag is a ubiquitous symbol of patriotism, and can be found on just about every other agency from LEO's to FDs, and in between, well, that angst is probably better spent elsewhere.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 19, 2013, 10:00:59 PM
Couple that with a wives tale that it was added because CAP he was confused with an international force during Hurricane Katrina relief ops.
FTFY. LOL.
(Contributing to the wives tale..)
Nice.
Quote from: JK657 on August 16, 2013, 08:45:25 PM
Making my prediction: This thread will last approximately 13 pages at least
Close but no cigar.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 19, 2013, 09:54:08 PM
1 Manual to rule them all!
Thank you Gandalf the Blue. ;) :P
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 19, 2013, 03:11:24 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 19, 2013, 03:00:48 AM
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 02:28:06 AM
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
There is a state law that mandates the color of CAP uniform caps? I am both intrigued and skeptical. Can you cite the statute, please?
Yeah just like it's state law the CAP Ground Teams wear an orange shirt in Ca for SAR. >:D
Nope, not a State Law. Just a regulation of the State Agency we work for.
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 12:18:37 AM
Nope, not a State Law. Just a regulation of the State Agency we work for.
Does it say they need to be crumpled up so they look like they got stuck in the drier door, too?
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 19, 2013, 10:31:56 AM
Either way you cut it, this is a cool uniform development. I would hope that people would show some restraint and limit what insignia is worn. Too much bling on what is essentially a utility or field uniform and it really doesn't look that professional.
(Emphasis mine)
Which Civil Air Patrol are YOU in? 8)
You *know* that people are gonna clown suit the hell out of this. Because they can.
Let the clowning begin >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on August 19, 2013, 10:00:59 PMAt least part of the angst is due to the when and how of it being added. HWSRN added the flag during a period of controversial change in CAP's history, and that fact alone is enough for some people to have uber-angst.
My issue was that HWSRN talked of "one CAP, not a bunch of little CAP's" removed wing patches from one shoulder, and added the flag to the other. If he wanted to show a single national organization,
replacing wing patches with a flag would have been more appropriate. We could have used the same flags that we used on flightsuits. (I do know one individual that took the flag off the left shoulder of his flightsuit and put one on the right. It was a bit of a bear to get him educated as to which
uniforms this change applied to.)
Quote from: Eclipse on August 19, 2013, 10:00:59 PMSome just don't like the fact that it's a reversed flag like the Army wears, etc., etc.
Wasn't really an issue to me. Just pulled Velcro off a couple Army flags and sewed them on. It was a win in that I didn't have to go buy anything else, but I still think left handed flags would have been a better choice.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on August 19, 2013, 01:50:55 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
You *know* that people are gonna clown suit the hell out of this. Because they can.
Like this.
"I don't go out with girls anymore, I live a life of danger (the rest is unsuitable for CAPTalk)... Wheee! I'm a Ranger!" ;D
Yeah we used that about the Pennsylvania Ranger program back in the early 80s.
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 12:18:37 AMNope, not a State Law. Just a regulation of the State Agency we work for.
Is it actually a regulation, or was it someone's pet project to push it through so we "looked like the agency"? Because it certainly did -not- stop us from working with them before, and at least from my vantage point I've not seen a pickup in missions because of it.
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 20, 2013, 01:06:39 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 19, 2013, 10:00:59 PMAt least part of the angst is due to the when and how of it being added. HWSRN added the flag during a period of controversial change in CAP's history, and that fact alone is enough for some people to have uber-angst.
My issue was that HWSRN talked of "one CAP, not a bunch of little CAP's" removed wing patches from one shoulder, and added the flag to the other. If he wanted to show a single national organization, replacing wing patches with a flag would have been more appropriate. We could have used the same flags that we used on flightsuits. (I do know one individual that took the flag off the left shoulder of his flightsuit and put one on the right. It was a bit of a bear to get him educated as to which uniforms this change applied to.)
I believe he tried that and a lot of Wing CC's wouldn't go for it. Even today we have wings with required wing patches.
I can't begin to imagine why anyone thinks that's important enough to waste a sheet of paper on a supplement.
Quote from: a2capt on August 20, 2013, 03:00:01 AM
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 12:18:37 AMNope, not a State Law. Just a regulation of the State Agency we work for.
Is it actually a regulation, or was it someone's pet project to push it through so we "looked like the agency"? Because it certainly did -not- stop us from working with them before, and at least from my vantage point I've not seen a pickup in missions because of it.
It came down from Cal OES. As in "if you wish to participate in missions for us then you need to follow our regulation."
So the Wing then came out with the CAWG Ground Team uniform which has been approved IAW CAPM 39-1 by the PACR/CC and the CAP/CC.
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 12:18:37 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 19, 2013, 03:11:24 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 19, 2013, 03:00:48 AM
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 02:28:06 AM
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
There is a state law that mandates the color of CAP uniform caps? I am both intrigued and skeptical. Can you cite the statute, please?
Yeah just like it's state law the CAP Ground Teams wear an orange shirt in Ca for SAR. >:D
Nope, not a State Law. Just a regulation of the State Agency we work for.
Not even close! PAWG wears orange ballcaps because the Hawk Mountain Rangers wore orange ballcaps, rangers took control of the wing and the current wing commander is too afraid to go against the ranger group and their demands.
You need to sort your quotes. They are mixing commentary about Hawk, and CAWG. HPall's quote was addressing CAWG policy, not HAWK.
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 12:18:37 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 19, 2013, 03:11:24 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 19, 2013, 03:00:48 AM
Quote from: C/CMSgt Collins on August 19, 2013, 02:28:06 AM
Ok so I have seen a lot of uniform statements and questions, but I have one that I believe is unique to PA Wing. We are required by state law to wear orange covers because of the common hunting in our state. Because the colors of the ABU's are not designed for a woodland environment will we be allowed to wear the ABU cover? or would we be required to keep our orange covers, which to be honest would be horrific if combined with the ABU's.
There is a state law that mandates the color of CAP uniform caps? I am both intrigued and skeptical. Can you cite the statute, please?
Yeah just like it's state law the CAP Ground Teams wear an orange shirt in Ca for SAR. >:D
Nope, not a State Law. Just a regulation of the State Agency we work for.
I've heard that, but never actually seen any regulation or directive. Would you happen to know where I can find it?
Apparently I'm the only one who is super excited about this:
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 16, 2013, 08:26:12 PM
Received this via email:
Quote
CORPORATE
Eliminate the floppy bow tie
Increase the badges to 4
Is it being replaced by the tie tab?
Either way, there will be much rejoicing :clap:
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 03:15:12 AM
Quote from: a2capt on August 20, 2013, 03:00:01 AM
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 12:18:37 AMNope, not a State Law. Just a regulation of the State Agency we work for.
Is it actually a regulation, or was it someone's pet project to push it through so we "looked like the agency"? Because it certainly did -not- stop us from working with them before, and at least from my vantage point I've not seen a pickup in missions because of it.
It came down from Cal OES. As in "if you wish to participate in missions for us then you need to follow our regulation."
So the Wing then came out with the CAWG Ground Team uniform which has been approved IAW CAPM 39-1 by the PACR/CC and the CAP/CC.
That's the part where I have trouble understanding this. I can't picture OES telling a Sheriff or Fire Chief that regulations require them to wear a uniform mandated by OES. And, like I said earlier, I can't find it anywhere - the trail always seems to lead from a CA Wing ES type to a vague reference to "OES insists," but nothing actually from OES. Eventually, the rest of us take it on face value.
Yup, and if you look at the various Sheriff Dept SAR units, you'll find a mix of uniforms, as well as the Explorer units through California. Mostly dark green pants and light tan shirt, some use orange, but a great many of them don't. You'd think they'd have a lot more pull with agencies where there's payroll involved. Plus the words "it's been suggested" have been used from Wing, not "we were required", and I'm pretty convinced that was because a few people made a big deal, and the squeaky wheel got the oil.
After all, you've got to take the top off at the mission base, and you can -not- do anything else while in that uniform, and that part is actually in a regulation.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 20, 2013, 04:02:24 AM
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 03:15:12 AM
Quote from: a2capt on August 20, 2013, 03:00:01 AM
Quote from: PHall on August 20, 2013, 12:18:37 AMNope, not a State Law. Just a regulation of the State Agency we work for.
Is it actually a regulation, or was it someone's pet project to push it through so we "looked like the agency"? Because it certainly did -not- stop us from working with them before, and at least from my vantage point I've not seen a pickup in missions because of it.
It came down from Cal OES. As in "if you wish to participate in missions for us then you need to follow our regulation."
So the Wing then came out with the CAWG Ground Team uniform which has been approved IAW CAPM 39-1 by the PACR/CC and the CAP/CC.
That's the part where I have trouble understanding this. I can't picture OES telling a Sheriff or Fire Chief that regulations require them to wear a uniform mandated by OES. And, like I said earlier, I can't find it anywhere - the trail always seems to lead from a CA Wing ES type to a vague reference to "OES insists," but nothing actually from OES. Eventually, the rest of us take it on face value.
+1 I think it is the story that CAWG told the NB way back when.
A quick google search for California Volunteer Search and Rescue.....comes up with a number of county level volunteer organizations......with a multitude of uniforms. Some of them are the orange shirt and pants....but Ventura countl SAR has a red/black coat, an a brown shirt in some of their team photos. Orange county SAR reserves are all wearing black T-shirts and dark green police uniforms. San Jose wears blue shirts with white lettering.
So.....I call the BS flag on "it came down from OES".
The SAR team in CA that I belong to uses bright red shirts and khaki pants. If anyone really cares, I know the deputy chief of LE for CA OEM and I could ask him about this orange shirt thing. I haven't cared enough up to this point to even bother asking him. The CAWG "uniform" came about under a previous CC and you all know how things change with the seasons(?).
My question is why do we wear BDU's, ACU's or any other camo uniform? We are not a combat organization: we save people, not kill them. And we don't need to hide from anyone: we want to be seen. Ditch all camo uniforms. Bring back the ultramarine jump suit or maybe a lighter-colored version of the field uniform.
Quote from: R Nolen on August 20, 2013, 06:33:34 AM
My question is why do we wear BDU's, ACU's or any other camo uniform? We are not a combat organization: we save people, not kill them. And we don't need to hide from anyone: we want to be seen. Ditch all camo uniforms. Bring back the ultramarine jump suit or maybe a lighter-colored version of the field uniform.
1. We're the Air Force Auxiliary, that is our heritage and it's ingrained in our history.
2. The main proponents of BDUs I find are cadets. Many (not all or even most) SMs I encounter don't really care so much, and wear the polos, flight suits, or corporate uniforms (by choice) anyway. I've seen people wearing blues with full ribbon racks serving at SAREX mission bases, which albeit hilarious, does convey a view on the uniforms.
3. The uniforms are plentiful and available, along with footwear. Combat boots are excellent for field activities.
4. It's an easily attainable standardized look if properly worn, whereas with other field uniforms people will generally try to get away with 32345 brands of "grey trousers" or "orange tactical shirt".
5. It maintains a modicum of self-discipline at a low level. Shine your shoes, press your uniform, build up on that to build up on bigger things.
Here's the text from the current supplement:
QuoteCal EMA (aka Cal OES) has suggested that in the interest of increased safety CAP members participating in
ground search activity wear the commonly adopted SAR uniform recognized by law enforcement
nationwide. In March 2008, the CAP National Board approved a conditional exception allowing
for alternate uniforms to those defined in CAPM 39-1. In February 2009, PCR/CC and
CAWG/CC made the determination that the suggestion made by Cal EMA meets the criteria of
the exception.
Until it's revoked, it's a done deal. Suck it up. Move on. Find a different dead horse to flail on for a while.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 12:23:19 AM
Does it say they need to be crumpled up so they look like they got stuck in the drier door, too?
Coffee. Nose. Keyboard.
Just curious, were there any other uniform changes coming out of the National Board?
Any new badges? Any new ribbons? Anything else new?
I'm waaaaay late on this deal with ABUs. But I think the key is the fewer patches on the ABUs the better.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 06:51:10 AM
Quote from: R Nolen on August 20, 2013, 06:33:34 AM
My question is why do we wear BDU's, ACU's or any other camo uniform? We are not a combat organization: we save people, not kill them. And we don't need to hide from anyone: we want to be seen. Ditch all camo uniforms. Bring back the ultramarine jump suit or maybe a lighter-colored version of the field uniform.
1. We're the Air Force Auxiliary, that is our heritage and it's ingrained in our history.
2. The main proponents of BDUs I find are cadets. Many (not all or even most) SMs I encounter don't really care so much, and wear the polos, flight suits, or corporate uniforms (by choice) anyway. I've seen people wearing blues with full ribbon racks serving at SAREX mission bases, which albeit hilarious, does convey a view on the uniforms.
3. The uniforms are plentiful and available, along with footwear. Combat boots are excellent for field activities.
4. It's an easily attainable standardized look if properly worn, whereas with other field uniforms people will generally try to get away with 32345 brands of "grey trousers" or "orange tactical shirt".
5. It maintains a modicum of self-discipline at a low level. Shine your shoes, press your uniform, build up on that to build up on bigger things.
I thought our heritage as the Air Force Auxiliary is to wear Air Force blue... Then, again, our (recent) heritage is to wear any acceptable combination we can think of... >:D
Quote from: flyboy1 on August 20, 2013, 11:45:20 AM
Just curious, were there any other uniform changes coming out of the National Board?
Any new badges? Any new ribbons? Anything else new?
I doubt we will be seeing any changes from the National Board.... as it no longer exists. However, I'm sure the Command Council or CSAG may reccomend, or request such changes via the National Uniform Committee, to the BoG.
Quote from: R Nolen on August 20, 2013, 06:33:34 AM
My question is why do we wear BDU's, ACU's or any other camo uniform? We are not a combat organization: we save people, not kill them. And we don't need to hide from anyone: we want to be seen. Ditch all camo uniforms. Bring back the ultramarine jump suit or maybe a lighter-colored version of the field uniform.
Welcome back, RM. >:D
We wear them because our parent organization wears them. By your logic, USAF shouldn't wear them outside of combat zones because they are not killing people and should want to be seen.
We wear them because they help to identify us as part of the Air Force team. This can be more valuable than you know when working with other agencies. It conveys a message of professionalism and purpose, the same one you get when you see an member of the AD military.
We wear them because we have been granted a privilege to wear the same uniform as our AD brethren, and we should be thankful to be associated with them, not questioning the trust, recognition, and honor bestowed upon us by USAF in permitting us to wear WHATEVER uniform they wear.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 20, 2013, 07:19:31 AM
Here's the text from the current supplement:
QuoteCal EMA (aka Cal OES) has suggested that in the interest of increased safety CAP members participating in
ground search activity wear the commonly adopted SAR uniform recognized by law enforcement
nationwide. In March 2008, the CAP National Board approved a conditional exception allowing
for alternate uniforms to those defined in CAPM 39-1. In February 2009, PCR/CC and
CAWG/CC made the determination that the suggestion made by Cal EMA meets the criteria of
the exception.
Until it's revoked, it's a done deal. Suck it up. Move on. Find a different dead horse to flail on for a while.
If I was in that Wing, I'd recommend that supp be revoked - it's full of fail. Further evidence that most supps really aren't needed.
Quote from: R Nolen on August 20, 2013, 06:33:34 AM
My question is why do we wear BDU's, ACU's or any other camo uniform? We are not a combat organization: we save people, not kill them. And we don't need to hide from anyone: we want to be seen. Ditch all camo uniforms. Bring back the ultramarine jump suit or maybe a lighter-colored version of the field uniform.
Asked and answered eariler in the thread. Please read more before posting.
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 02:42:35 PM
If I was in that Wing, I'd recommend that supp be revoked - it's full of fail. Further evidence that most supps really aren't needed.
100% +1
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 02:42:35 PM
If I was in that Wing, I'd recommend that supp be revoked - it's full of fail. Further evidence that most supps really aren't needed.
So wait. A Wing is told by its State SAR coordination agency "We'd prefer you wore this.." and the Wing goes to National and says "Hey, our state really wants us to be dressed like this when tramping around in the woods looking for ELTs, etc. Can we get an exception here?" and NHQ says "Hmmm, well, if the state is requesting it.." and thats evidence that supplements aren't needed? Huh?
(apart from the question of whether or not other SAR groups wear this, whether its still required, etc, of course. Apparently at one point, it _was_ required, otherwise the wing bucking a request for an exception based on a non-requirement would probably have gotten noticed. I'd bet the request was accompanied by documentation of the requirement from the SAR agency, and since then maybe the requirement has been removed/recinded/OBE)
It probably wasn't full of fail when it was written/approved, but it probably should have been reviewed semi-frequently for validity.
BTW, it really was more of an "exception to policy that allowed that particular part of a wing supplement" rather than a whole supplement being bogus.
Quote
Asked and answered earlier in the thread. Please read more before posting.
:clap:
:clap:
:clap:
Flyer
The other piece of this issue is the fairly constant assertion from CAWG folks that they never get any missions, especially on the ground.
If it meant some sort of commitment to being called, I'd consider a reasonable request by our state to make uniform changes, but it would have to be
more then "we suggest" especially if they aren't calling.
Also, I'd expect to see every other volunteer helper agency in the same situation, which in this case it clearly isn't.
Also this:
Quote...wear the commonly adopted SAR uniform recognized by law enforcement
nationwide.
No such animal exists, so one seriously has to ask where CAWG got the idea that orange BDUs are the "national standard" (top, bottom, or otherwise),
and further, assuming it's a good idea, why out grade and insignia can't be worn on them.
So much wasted time.
Quote from: R Nolen on August 20, 2013, 06:33:34 AM
My question is why do we wear BDU's, ACU's or any other camo uniform? We are not a combat organization: we save people, not kill them. And we don't need to hide from anyone: we want to be seen. Ditch all camo uniforms. Bring back the ultramarine jump suit or maybe a lighter-colored version of the field uniform.
Your first post, and this is the one you make? I don't know if you're jumping in before checking the waters or if you're flamebaiting.
There is a search function on this board. Probably be a good idea to make use of it before post number 2.
Quote from: FW on August 20, 2013, 01:45:21 PM
I thought our heritage as the Air Force Auxiliary is to wear Air Force blue... Then, again, our (recent) heritage is to wear any acceptable combination we can think of... >:D
FTFY.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 03:27:23 PM
The other piece of this issue is the fairly constant assertion from CAWG folks that they never get any missions, especially on the ground.
If it meant some sort of commitment to being called, I'd consider a reasonable request by our state to make uniform changes, but it would have to be
more then "we suggest" especially if they aren't calling.
Also, I'd expect to see every other volunteer helper agency in the same situation, which in this case it clearly isn't.
Also this:
Quote...wear the commonly adopted SAR uniform recognized by law enforcement
nationwide.
No such animal exists, so one seriously has to ask where CAWG got the idea that orange BDUs are the "national standard" (top, bottom, or otherwise),
and further, assuming it's a good idea, why out grade and insignia can't be worn on them.
So much wasted time.
Sir,
This has stemmed from the perception that bright orange was a requirement per state law to participate in SAR. This is not the case nor has ever been the case. This has always been a case of a "best" "recommended" practice for emergency services and search and rescue in the state of California. As with most places in CONUS the Sheriff is responsible for SAR in the state of Ca and can set his/her uniform policy. CAEMA has put this out to try and guide a standard for ES in the state.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 03:39:31 PM
Sir,
This has stemmed from the perception that bright orange was a requirement per state law to participate in SAR. This is not the case nor has ever been the case. This has always been a case of a "best" "recommended" practice for emergency services and search and rescue in the state of California. As with most places in CONUS the Sheriff is responsible for SAR in the state of Ca and can set his/her uniform policy. CAEMA has put this out to try and guide a standard for ES in the state.
We get that, but to what end?
Is CAP the "first called" for ground search? Have missions increased since the adoption?
Do other agencies in similar circumstances wear the same uniform?
When I was in CA, everyone on ground SAR in my county and the surrounding counties wore orange shirts. Nobody would be hitting the search area dressed in camo. Arriving on scene looking like the rest of the kids goes a long way considering the Sheriff can send you home.
When CAWG GTs started wearing the orange it made them look more professional. It was a good step in the right direction. As I mentioned in earlier discussions, my area doesnt use CAP GTs because of an issue a CAP member created 10+ yrs ago that hasnt been forgotten. As far CD, High Bird and other aviation missions CAP seems to be a lot more accepted.
..and it's not the Uniform that matters. It's what's in the Uniform. If the agency has a 10 year grudge, and is letting that get in the way, then a "we wanna be like you" pet project uniform change isn't going to fix it.
It's both sides' loss.
But I'm sure that Joe Average Sheriff's Dep't. has never had anyone inside it's ranks be a total screw up either, right?
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 20, 2013, 04:03:48 PM
As I mentioned in earlier discussions, my area doesnt use CAP GTs because of an issue a CAP member created 10+ yrs ago that hasnt been forgotten.
So what you're saying is that it has absolutely nothing to do with uniforms and everything to do with individual personalities.
Just for kicks, and out of curiosity to see how much conflict can stir up...
Put these together using old patches I had laying around.
Proposed uniform:
(http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s643/Alex_DeSoto/Photo0699_zpsb63994f6.jpg)
vs
Seemingly preferred version (leaning this way):
(http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s643/Alex_DeSoto/Photo0698_zpsc384e7db.jpg)
Why do you have ABUs?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Why do you have ABUs?
To be completely blunt: Why does it matter? If someone wants to buy and play with ABU's, it's their business.
It's only anyone else's business
if they try to wear them when not authorized.
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 20, 2013, 04:42:44 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Why do you have ABUs?
To be completely blunt: Why does it matter? If someone wants to buy and play with ABU's, it's their business.
It's only anyone else's business if they try to wear them when not authorized.
Because it goes to their inclination and intention.
For example, in this case, I'd hazard one of the reasons Cadet Desoto has an opinion regarding suede boots is that he already bought them.
As seniors we're supposed to be helping cadets make good decisions.
A cadet buying uniform items he can't use is not focused where he needs to be. Yes, they do it all the time, yes they
play airsoft, yes they like to have Army toys, etc., etc. Doesn't mean it's a good decision, especially in a CAP context.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 04:45:11 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 20, 2013, 04:42:44 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Why do you have ABUs?
To be completely blunt: Why does it matter? If someone wants to buy and play with ABU's, it's their business.
It's only anyone else's business if they try to wear them when not authorized.
Because it goes to their inclination and intention.
For example, in this case, I'd hazard one of the reasons Cadet Desoto has an opinion regarding suede boots is that he already bought them.
As seniors we're supposed to be helping cadets make good decisions.
I own multiple pairs of desert camo uniforms, ABUs, BDUs, older Blues uniforms, multiple types of boots, k-pots, gas masks, IBAs, etc. etc. etc.
Do I have intentions to wear or use these uniforms? No. I collect military uniforms as a hobby. I own a pair of tan boots for JROTC, I own a pair of Sage boots because they were steel toe and good for some things I've been doing. Does that mean I want CAP to wear suede boots? No.
I would have the same "concerns" regarding your collection if it came to light locally.
People can and will spend their money and time as they like, doesn't make it a good idea, especially for cadets.
And my experience is that these "collections" tend to start popping up in CAP circumstances, again, especially with
cadets. BTDT.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 04:54:01 PM
I would have the same "concerns" regarding your collection if it came to light locally.
What about mine?
Really......just let it go.
In all honestly because I can, it's legal, and I collect military uniforms.
Seriously? You may be a senior member, but I'm also an adult and can make decisions for myself. With all due respect sir, it is none of anybody's business what I own or do outside of CAP until I try to go against CAP regulations. Which I won't.
And no, I don't have sage boots. I have had them in the past, but I don't now. I made a fuss about it because it looks (in my and many other peoples' opinion) idiotic.
I have ABU's.
... I've had multiple chances over the last couple years to get free stuff. I utilized one of the opportunities. Similarly to the motivation that Nin expressed.
Now I'm full of intent and whatever, or is that Nintent? ;)
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, we get to use them.
As for the least patches on said uniform, here's the deal. If the manual says that unit patch goes here, and wing patch goes here, and you don't want to put them on, the you're out of uniform.
Goofy and the 8 ball are not required. Don't like the added color? Then don't put them on. But if your unit has a patch and it's supposed to be there, then you need to set the example and wear -the- uniform properly, as specified. Like it or not. The manual does not say "only if you like it."
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 04:54:01 PM
I would have the same "concerns" regarding your collection if it came to light locally.
What about mine?
Really......just let it go.
You're an adult, and they were likely issued.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 04:55:31 PM
In all honestly because I can, it's legal, and I collect military uniforms.
For the sake of argument, why?
It's one thing to collect vintage uniforms that are clearly no longer in use for their historic or cash value,
but buying current-issue items just to look at them starts to get real close to the Don Shipley / TAH Funzone.
Rarely do people spend money on things they don't intend to use, somewhere.
So am I right that you already bought the boots?
I edited my above response.
Quote from: a2capt on August 20, 2013, 04:55:56 PM
I have ABU's.
... I've had multiple chances over the last couple years to get free stuff. I utilized one of the opportunities. Similarly to the motivation that Nin expressed.
Now I'm full of intent and whatever, or is that Nintent? ;)
Whoa. How'd I get dragged into this? :)
I do have ABUs. On a hangar. In my closet. Put them on the check fit and then hung them up to await the day when they're approved and insignia is available.
And there they remain. Right next to my ACUs, dress blues and a bunch of other uniform items that I either can or can't wear for a variety of reasons (including ABDUs, nomex two-piece Vietnam-era flight suits, a pretty spiffy Royal Blue CWU-73/P flight suit and a nice missile bag....)
Now if I can just find an APECS goretex in ABU for "the right price." >:D (not really, but if one came across my transom for less than $50, I'd buy it)
QuoteIt's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, we get to use them.
Well, we can all assume that, based on some educated guesses and discussions with people "in the know." But the green light has not come from above at all. Yet. We *think* it will, and we're *hearing* that it will, but in that same vein: if you jump thru the red light at an intersection, telling the cop "I was *certain* it would turn green just as I did that.." won't get you out of a ticket!!
QuoteAs for the least patches on said uniform, here's the deal. If the manual says that unit patch goes here, and wing patch goes here, and you don't want to put them on, the you're out of uniform.
If you have a unit patch and your wing is one that continues to wear wing patches, of course!
Imagine if the Pickle Suit collectors bought new stuff then, so they'd have a set to keep as a reference for later.
As for ABUs and the other services similar uniforms, in some parts of the country, there's a surplus of them already. Service members never used all the ones they were issued, washouts from bootcamp, just like BDUs were once prevalent.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 04:55:31 PM
In all honestly because I can, it's legal, and I collect military uniforms.
Seriously? You may be a senior member, but I'm also an adult and can make decisions for myself. With all due respect sir, it is none of anybody's business what I own or do outside of CAP until I try to go against CAP regulations. Which I won't.
And no, I don't have sage boots. I have had them in the past, but I don't now. I made a fuss about it because it looks (in my and many other peoples' opinion) idiotic.
If you are a cadet, then you are not yet an adult in a CAP context.
And you are correct, it's your business what you do with your money. My point was that the fact that you
have made it known that you already own ABUs, with no reason to, will color your opinion on the subject.
People can take that in whatever way they wish.
It was also important to you that we all
know you already have ABUs, so consider that.
Redacted.
I admit I have been too forward, I will tone it back.
Cadet DeSoto, careful you are getting close to the line if you haven't crossed it already. You may be an adult in the legal sense but you are still a cadet within the organization and as one and especially a C/Maj I would expect more from you in regards to your verbage and your behavior here. Irregardless of what you feel is idiotic or clownish, those above your level have made the choices they made and have submitted them. If they are approved it is then part of your responsibility to enforce that decision. You are suppose to be setting an example for your junior cadets to follow.
And actually it is not legal for you to own ABUs in any aspect as is current DOD policy.
I am going to strongly advise you to think before you speak and especially get more experience under your belt before acting like a know it all and self declared expert. You may voice your opinion but you have tried to force your opinion on others and that is unacceptable as a cadet officer especially a Phase IV cadet.
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 05:04:37 PMIf you have a unit patch and your wing is one that continues to wear wing patches, of course!
Yes, of course. That bit 'o context got left out. FWIW, I have yet to encounter a unit w/o a patch, though that is not saying there isn't one, and I'm pretty sure that while most Wing's opted to require the Wing patch on the BDUs, it's my understanding that there's at least some examples of it being made optional, or not wanted at all.
Would that have meant they'd have had to buy them out from the Big V? ;-)
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PMAnd actually it is not legal for you to own ABUs in any aspect as is current DOD policy.
Good point, I missed that.
Sierra-
I guess that was not the kind of argument you were thinking when you posted those photos, right?
:D
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 04:54:01 PM
I would have the same "concerns" regarding your collection if it came to light locally.
People can and will spend their money and time as they like, doesn't make it a good idea, especially for cadets.
And my experience is that these "collections" tend to start popping up in CAP circumstances, again, especially with
cadets. BTDT.
I've made more money buying and selling military uniforms than any part time minimum wage job will ever make me. It is lightly taxed, high stakes sometimes, and I've learned a lot about history selling uniforms than any school course would teach me.
I got ABUs free, and many other things free too. Sold them, and made marginal profits. I purchase items that are at least 25% cheaper than their current selling value. I make at least 25% on most of my sales.
One thing you may or may not know about collecting is that contract dates and variants of uniforms do increase or decrease value. The ABUs with the map pockets are going to be more valuable than those that lack it. A set of darker ABUs with another set of lighter ABUs will be valuable. If they're no longer manufactured, they will hold some value in the future. Getting them for cheap will be a good investment.
I don't plan on wearing ABUs for CAP.
I don't mind at all, actually. A good argument is a worthwhile one.
USAF policy is that issued ABUs may not be sold externally or worn as uniform outside USAF and select agencies, however you will not find a single CID or OSI agent who will pursue anything NY/CO. As well, they bluntly do not care, as airmen who get out keep their uniforms.
If I'm correct, also owning ACUs outside the armed forces is against Army policy. Same with them when people get out, and why both ABUs and ACUs are sold wholesale at surplus stores that are regularly checked by CID here locally.
To echo Angel's post, I've made several thousand dollars off of military clothing and equipment within the last two years, hence why I continue and own what I own.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PM
And actually it is not legal for you to own ABUs in any aspect as is current DOD policy.
Just as an FYI, its not permitted for CAP to
officially acquire DoD uniforms with IFF technologies in them per that policy.
There is some question about acquiring them thru private sale from non-DoD sources.
Someone really oughta tell the folks who are SELLING those uniforms on Ebay that they're probably helping people run afoul of the DoD.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:14:25 PM
I don't mind at all, actually. A good argument is a worthwhile one.
USAF policy is that issued ABUs may not be sold externally or worn as uniform outside USAF and select agencies, however you will not find a single CID or OSI agent who will pursue anything NY/CO. As well, they bluntly do not care, as airmen who get out keep their uniforms.
If I'm correct, also owning ACUs outside the armed forces is against Army policy. Same with them when people get out, and why both ABUs and ACUs are sold wholesale at surplus stores that are regularly checked by CID here locally.
To echo Angel's post, I've made several thousand dollars off of military clothing and equipment within the last two years, hence why I continue and own what I own.
Excellent - no point in actually adhering to the policy as set forth by the parent service of the uniform you actually wear.
"You can't stop me, therefore I will..."
Good luck with your Spaatz exam.
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 05:14:47 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PM
And actually it is not legal for you to own ABUs in any aspect as is current DOD policy.
Just as an FYI, its not permitted for CAP to officially acquire DoD uniforms with IFF technologies in them per that policy.
There is some question about acquiring them thru private sale from non-DoD sources.
Someone really oughta tell the folks who are SELLING those uniforms on Ebay that they're probably helping people run afoul of the DoD.
Many military items have restrictions. For example, MREs have a restriction on non-government sale. There was a huge witch hunt a few years back to stop people from selling MREs, until the DoD realized that they were wasting their resources hunting down their sale. Most DoD policies regarding sale and resale of military items are disregarded, ensuing a witch hunt, and ending with "this is a waste of our time" type of reaction.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 05:18:31 PM
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:14:25 PM
I don't mind at all, actually. A good argument is a worthwhile one.
USAF policy is that issued ABUs may not be sold externally or worn as uniform outside USAF and select agencies, however you will not find a single CID or OSI agent who will pursue anything NY/CO. As well, they bluntly do not care, as airmen who get out keep their uniforms.
If I'm correct, also owning ACUs outside the armed forces is against Army policy. Same with them when people get out, and why both ABUs and ACUs are sold wholesale at surplus stores that are regularly checked by CID here locally.
To echo Angel's post, I've made several thousand dollars off of military clothing and equipment within the last two years, hence why I continue and own what I own.
Excellent - no point in actually adhering to the policy as set forth by the parent service of the uniform you actually wear.
"You can't stop me, therefore I will..."
Good luck with your Spaatz exam.
You should tell this to all of the people who get out of the military who sell their uniforms too. They must be just as, if not more, disrespectful as this cadet and many people deserve the same admonishment and disgust as you share with this cadet.
I was just about to mention the MREs, you beat me to it...
Also, respectfully sir, if you're going to tell me to back down from being disrespectful I will. However, sarcasm does nothing to bolster your standing.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:21:35 PM
I was just about to mention the MREs, you beat me to it...
Also, respectfully sir, if you're going to tell me to back down from being disrespectful I will. However, sarcasm does nothing to bolster your standing.
I'm being serious. Ethics are what we do when no one is watching.
When you know you're doing something that you shouldn't, even if no one can stop you, how you react is a testament to your ethics.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:14:25 PM
I don't mind at all, actually. A good argument is a worthwhile one.
USAF policy is that issued ABUs may not be sold externally or worn as uniform outside USAF and select agencies, however you will not find a single CID or OSI agent who will pursue anything NY/CO. As well, they bluntly do not care, as airmen who get out keep their uniforms.
If I'm correct, also owning ACUs outside the armed forces is against Army policy. Same with them when people get out, and why both ABUs and ACUs are sold wholesale at surplus stores that are regularly checked by CID here locally.
To echo Angel's post, I've made several thousand dollars off of military clothing and equipment within the last two years, hence why I continue and own what I own.
Wrong it is DOD policy not AF policy, and it is not up to OSI what cases they pursue or do not pursue. Again you do not know what you are talking about. Your attitude sucks and is unbecoming of a C/Maj and frankly you have already admitted to going against the core values in this thread. Be thankful you are not in my squadron as we would definitely be having a long chat about your conduct here. And in fact you are setting a fine example of what a cadet officer should not be doing.
OK, I want to win a bet. Someone call someone else a Nazi so we can end this. :)
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 05:35:19 PM
OK, I want to win a bet. Someone call someone else a Nazi so we can end this. :)
People here are regulation nazis. They will dig for rules to say that they're right, you're wrong, even if they don't follow all of the rules themselves. Good enough? :)
You can't win that bet, for you've already unduly influenced the outcome and expressed your bias. Otherwise the thread is a valid debate.
Observer's Paradox.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:30:15 PMWrong it is DOD policy not AF policy, and it is not up to OSI what cases they pursue or do not pursue. Again you do not know what you are talking about. Your attitude sucks and is unbecoming of a C/Maj and frankly you have already admitted to going against the core values in this thread. Be thankful you are not in my squadron as we would definitely be having a long chat about your conduct here. And in fact you are setting a fine example of what a cadet officer should not be doing.
I sat through a fairly long session with CID about people selling stolen Army NODs. I got a fairly thorough briefing on the duties of CID and OSI, and they claimed otherwise.
Nothing in my last post was guided by emotion, merely fact. It is DOD policy yes, USAF no, mistake made (probably because I've gotten 2 hours of sleep and am on plenty of medication). Previously in this thread my exasperation leaked through. I did however admit it, which is more than most will do.
I have seen in this thread that people who have opinions are getting upset because people are standing by opinions that are contrary or different. I am all for respect as I think it's already strongly lacking. Syntax is key here, as I've admitted my disrespect, to be met with further disrespect from people who are under the impression that they themselves are being respectful. You want it, don't start out by rejecting different or contrary ideas, or by making gross suppositions. I'm attempting to be blunt, and if this is construed as disrespectful, oh well I guess.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PMAnd actually it is not legal for you to own ABUs in any aspect as is current DOD policy.
Well....that's a stretch. If they were not legal to own....then you certainly couldn't buy them at surplus stores.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 05:47:46 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PMAnd actually it is not legal for you to own ABUs in any aspect as is current DOD policy.
Well....that's a stretch. If they were not legal to own....then you certainly couldn't buy them at surplus stores.
EBay would have barred their sale already, which again, would be the case with what happened to MREs.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:45:01 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:30:15 PMWrong it is DOD policy not AF policy, and it is not up to OSI what cases they pursue or do not pursue. Again you do not know what you are talking about. Your attitude sucks and is unbecoming of a C/Maj and frankly you have already admitted to going against the core values in this thread. Be thankful you are not in my squadron as we would definitely be having a long chat about your conduct here. And in fact you are setting a fine example of what a cadet officer should not be doing.
I sat through a fairly long session with CID about people selling stolen Army NODs. I got a fairly thorough briefing on the duties of CID and OSI, and they claimed otherwise.
Nothing in my last post was guided by emotion, merely fact. It is DOD policy yes, USAF no, mistake made (probably because I've gotten 2 hours of sleep and am on plenty of medication). Previously in this thread my exasperation leaked through. I did however admit it, which is more than most will do.
I have seen in this thread that people who have opinions are getting upset because people are standing by opinions that are contrary or different. I am all for respect as I think it's already strongly lacking. Syntax is key here, as I've admitted my disrespect, to be met with further disrespect from people who are under the impression that they themselves are being respectful. You want it, don't start out by rejecting different or contrary ideas, or by making gross suppositions. I'm attempting to be blunt, and if this is construed as disrespectful, oh well I guess.
It's CAPTalk, don't take it personally. Look at most of the arguments, it happens a lot.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 05:47:46 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PMAnd actually it is not legal for you to own ABUs in any aspect as is current DOD policy.
Well....that's a stretch. If they were not legal to own....then you certainly couldn't buy them at surplus stores.
You and I both know that the average AF member either doesn't know or care and gets rid of things.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:51:59 PMYou and I both know that the average AF member either doesn't know or care and gets rid of things.
The airmen and women may not know, but I guarantee you that the surplus store owners do, at least the ones here locally. They get visiting by CID every few weeks and reject anything that isn't permitted by what the CID folks tell them.
One owner knew and didn't care, he's now out about $30,000 because of the NODs he had in his backroom, and everyone working in the shop was prior service, with two former SF airmen.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:45:01 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:30:15 PMWrong it is DOD policy not AF policy, and it is not up to OSI what cases they pursue or do not pursue. Again you do not know what you are talking about. Your attitude sucks and is unbecoming of a C/Maj and frankly you have already admitted to going against the core values in this thread. Be thankful you are not in my squadron as we would definitely be having a long chat about your conduct here. And in fact you are setting a fine example of what a cadet officer should not be doing.
I sat through a fairly long session with CID about people selling stolen Army NODs. I got a fairly thorough briefing on the duties of CID and OSI, and they claimed otherwise.Nothing in my last post was guided by emotion, merely fact. It is DOD policy yes, USAF no, mistake made (probably because I've gotten 2 hours of sleep and am on plenty of medication). Previously in this thread my exasperation leaked through. I did however admit it, which is more than most will do.
I have seen in this thread that people who have opinions are getting upset because people are standing by opinions that are contrary or different. I am all for respect as I think it's already strongly lacking. Syntax is key here, as I've admitted my disrespect, to be met with further disrespect from people who are under the impression that they themselves are being respectful. You want it, don't start out by rejecting different or contrary ideas, or by making gross suppositions. I'm attempting to be blunt, and if this is construed as disrespectful, oh well I guess.
1) CID does not dictate nor establish or are really in the know about what OSI does or does not do.
2) No one rejected different or contrary ideas, what was rejected was your presentation of said ideas. And you have a long way to go about learning to be blunt and to the point.
3) Again as has been stated before do your homework and research before speaking.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:55:50 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:51:59 PMYou and I both know that the average AF member either doesn't know or care and gets rid of things.
The airmen and women may not know, but I guarantee you that the surplus store owners do, at least the ones here locally. They get visiting by CID every few weeks and reject anything that isn't permitted by what the CID folks tell them.
One owner know knew and didn't care, he's now out about $30,000 because of the NODs he had in his backroom, and everyone working in the shop was prior service, with two former SF airmen.
FTFY
And your point being what other than these people have no common sense and a lack of ethics and integrity? And you if you are doing business with this establishment then you are aiding them.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:51:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 05:47:46 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PMAnd actually it is not legal for you to own ABUs in any aspect as is current DOD policy.
Well....that's a stretch. If they were not legal to own....then you certainly couldn't buy them at surplus stores.
You and I both know that the average AF member either doesn't know or care and gets rid of things.
Would you treat them the same as you've said you'd treat Sierra too? Or are they exempt?
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:55:50 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:51:59 PMYou and I both know that the average AF member either doesn't know or care and gets rid of things.
The airmen and women may not know, but I guarantee you that the surplus store owners do, at least the ones here locally. They get visiting by CID every few weeks and reject anything that isn't permitted by what the CID folks tell them.
One owner know and didn't care, he's now out about $30,000 because of the NODs he had in his backroom, and everyone working in the shop was prior service, with two former SF airmen.
OK, so now you're a dealer and have dealt with "CID"?
Eclipse, by any chance are you a politician?
Then why, pray tell, can they be bought from Propper and their associated distribution chain in many retail and online settings?
..and no where does it say, "Show us your card to buy"?
http://www.opticsplanet.com/propper-abu-coat-men-100-cotton-ripstop.html (http://www.opticsplanet.com/propper-abu-coat-men-100-cotton-ripstop.html)
http://www.uscav.com/ABU.aspx?TabID=548 (http://www.uscav.com/ABU.aspx?TabID=548)
http://www.nextdayuniforms.com/ (http://www.nextdayuniforms.com/)
https://www.kellac.com/h/ABU (https://www.kellac.com/h/ABU)
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=abu+uniform (http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=abu+uniform)
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/propper-coat-mens-p-12912.html (http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/propper-coat-mens-p-12912.html)
Where did I say anywhere that I was a dealer? Supposition and incorrect assumption.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:56:52 PM
1) CID does not dictate nor establish or are really in the know about what OSI does or does not do.
Assumption. The agent who interviewed me had transferred from OSI the year before.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 06:14:10 PM
Assumption. The agent who interviewed me had transferred from OSI the year before.
Why are you being "interviewed" by CID?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 06:21:23 PM
Why are you being "interviewed" by CID?
I *was* being interviewed because I filed a report about a person I knew who was selling Army NODs out of Ft Campbell.
Yeah, nah, that didn't work. Carry on.
:P
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 06:26:05 PM
Yeah, nah, that didn't work. Carry on.
:P
I'm out - the "Cadet Intrigue" here is too high even for me.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 06:14:10 PM
Where did I say anywhere that I was a dealer? Supposition and incorrect assumption.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 20, 2013, 05:56:52 PM
1) CID does not dictate nor establish or are really in the know about what OSI does or does not do.
AssumptionFact. The agent who interviewed me had transferred from OSI the year before.
I have dealt with OSI/CID far more than you have and they do not dictate what the other does nor have insight into each others day to day operations. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Let me get this straight. If you are not currently in the military it is illegal for you to own military uniforms? If that's the case I need to turn myself in. I own a complete set of ACUs, both kinds of MARPAT and the bottoms to some ABUs. I also still have a set of Service A's from the Marine Corps. Those I may be ok with. I bought them while in the reserves. None of the rest were issued.
Seriously? When I was a kid I had a pickle suit and then a set of bdus. I also had an old set of tiger strip jungles. This is crazy. And if this hasn't been a cadet y'all wouldn't have said a word to him. Should be ashamed of yourselves.
Quote from: stillamarine on August 20, 2013, 06:39:32 PM
Let me get this straight. If you are not currently in the military it is illegal for you to own military uniforms? If that's the case I need to turn myself in. I own a complete set of ACUs, both kinds of MARPAT and the bottoms to some ABUs. I also still have a set of Service A's from the Marine Corps. Those I may be ok with. I bought them while in the reserves. None of the rest were issued.
If you were in the military, then under certain circumstances you are still allowed to wear those uniforms, and you'd be surpised what is either illegal or against government policy. Most of the intrigue is regarding the current patterns and styles in an effort (misguided or not), to stem the instances of blue-on-blue attacks.
Quote from: stillamarine on August 20, 2013, 06:39:32 PM
Seriously? When I was a kid I had a pickle suit and then a set of bdus. I also had an old set of tiger strip jungles. This is crazy. And if this hasn't been a cadet y'all wouldn't have said a word to him. Should be ashamed of yourselves.
Search is your friend. A bad idea is a bad idea.
Quote from: stillamarine on August 20, 2013, 06:39:32 PM
And if this hasn't been a cadet y'all wouldn't have said a word to him. Should be ashamed of yourselves.
I take the same stance with Seniors as well.
Search is my friend. And if I wasn't on my phone I'd search for a thread from a couple years ago. I recall a senior member posting a picture he had of ABUs with CAP patches on it and nobody said anything about his owning them. It's his money. I've seen people spend money on dumber things.
And being a veteran may give me permission to own and wear Marine uniforms if I was still within height and weight standards. But I've never been in the Army or AF. Do I just turn myself into Leavenworth or should I just turn myself over to the FBI?
Quote from: stillamarine on August 20, 2013, 06:50:32 PMAnd being a veteran may give me permission to own and wear Marine uniforms if I was still within height and weight standards. But I've never been in the Army or AF. Do I just turn myself into Leavenworth or should I just turn myself over to the FBI?
No need to trouble yourself. The NSA is listening.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 06:51:59 PM
Quote from: stillamarine on August 20, 2013, 06:50:32 PMAnd being a veteran may give me permission to own and wear Marine uniforms if I was still within height and weight standards. But I've never been in the Army or AF. Do I just turn myself into Leavenworth or should I just turn myself over to the FBI?
No need to trouble yourself. The NSA is listening.
Haha! The gym full of kids just looked at me funny for breaking out in laughter. And I have my tin foil iPhone case so I'm safe. :-)
Edit: and my fiancée is actually FBI so I'm gonna turn myself in tonight. ;-)
Quote from: stillamarine on August 20, 2013, 06:50:32 PM
Search is my friend. And if I wasn't on my phone I'd search for a thread from a couple years ago. I recall a senior member posting a picture he had of ABUs with CAP patches on it and nobody said anything about his owning them. It's his money. I've seen people spend money on dumber things.
Yes - that senior is
in the Air National Guard.
But more to the point about cadets vs. seniors in discussions here. The decorum and relationship is different and seniors
are supposed to be pointing out foibles and mistakes, that's part of the reason cadets join CAP, for the leadership and guidance.
When one starts walking down the "I know better / all / everything." or the "You can't make me." road, then its all the more important.
Agreed. But to the point of questioning what the person owns as personal property is pushing it. (Im not excusing his behavior about knowing everything about CID and OSI). I am not a fan of motorcycles. Should I tell everyone I know that it's wrong for them to own a motorcycle? What someone chooses to own is their business.
This forum has had a rash of attacking cadets....granted many deserve it. But I really think that it should be done in private. I remember something from a leadership school I took many years ago. Praise in public, admonish in private. I was at a squadron awhile back and was speaking to the CDC about getting ideas for recruiting. I mentioned CT and she told me she had told her cadets to avoid this forum due to the way some cadets are treated. You can blow that off and say it's that members fault. But take this into account. She never had an account. She only read threads and felt it would do her cadets a disservice by joining.
I still stand by my original statement.
If it is illegal to own ABUs.....the it is illegal to sell them as well.
When I bought my first set of ABU's I ordered them from some third party vendor (not proper) and I can go out right now this instant and buy a full set of ABUs from all three of my local surplus stores.
Pulling the "It's illegal" is a little lame. As is attacking this cadet because he owns a set. So maybe he is a little weird wanting to have a set of ABUs sitting in his closet. It's not anything anyone here needs to get concerned about.
And defending your attacks by saying it's our job to provide "leadership and guidance" is also a cop out.
You stared attacking him and he started defending himself......then you pulled the "you're just a kid" card on him and he got upset about it.....with some justification.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
Pulling the "It's illegal" is a little lame. As is attacking this cadet because he owns a set. So maybe he is a little weird wanting to have a set of ABUs sitting in his closet. It's not anything anyone here needs to get concerned about.
Nor was it anything we needed to
know about. When you open the door, you're open to comment, positive or negative.
As to the idea of cadets being "attacked" on this site, I don't see it. They are involved in all discussions on an equal level, when they
say things that don't ring true, or start walking down the "cadet intrigue" alley, then those are fair game as well.
Holding people's feet to the fire? Yes. Attacking? I don't see it.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 07:16:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
Pulling the "It's illegal" is a little lame. As is attacking this cadet because he owns a set. So maybe he is a little weird wanting to have a set of ABUs sitting in his closet. It's not anything anyone here needs to get concerned about.
Nor was it anything we needed to know about. When you open the door, you're open to comment, positive or negative.
As to the idea of cadets being "attacked" on this site, I don't see it. They are involved in all discussions on an equal level, when they
say things that don't ring true, or start walking down the "cadet intrigue" alley, then those are fair game as well.
Holding people's feet to the fire? Yes. Attacking? I don't see it.
Of course you wouldn't see it......you are the one doing the attacking!
Quote from: stillamarine on August 20, 2013, 07:05:55 PM
Agreed. But to the point of questioning what the person owns as personal property is pushing it. (Im not excusing his behavior about knowing everything about CID and OSI). I am not a fan of motorcycles. Should I tell everyone I know that it's wrong for them to own a motorcycle? What someone chooses to own is their business.
This forum has had a rash of attacking cadets....granted many deserve it. But I really think that it should be done in private. I remember something from a leadership school I took many years ago. Praise in public, admonish in private. I was at a squadron awhile back and was speaking to the CDC about getting ideas for recruiting. I mentioned CT and she told me she had told her cadets to avoid this forum due to the way some cadets are treated. You can blow that off and say it's that members fault. But take this into account. She never had an account. She only read threads and felt it would do her cadets a disservice by joining.
While what someone chooses to own is their business when a person admits that they own property and they are not legally entitled to own said property that is an issue. The cadet in question has tried to come off as a know it all not only here but in another thread as well. His conduct and behavior is what has been called into question not the property he owns. And by his own admission he has tried to be "blunt" with people. While he may be legally an adult he is still a cadet and his conduct towards senior members is out of line especially for being a C/Maj.
You're right praise in public and admonish in private, but I am sure that it was also taught when capable. And sorry that the CDC doesn't want her cadets coming here but if you look at it every cadet who has come here and received a tongue lashing in one way or another deserved it rightfully so. There are a couple that come to mind from the get go. With this instance it was the know it all attitude, and the I'm going to scream and force my opinion approach that drew the attention.
Playing the illegal card lame maybe, but he's already admitted to purchasing and selling items and admitted to doing business with a ill reputable business in his area.
I don't understand the "cadet intrigue" thing. This issue applies to everyone on a national level.
Also, I do not care that anybody knows I have ABUs. The purpose behind my posting it was to show the comparison between a patched up uniform versus the basic version that is more akin to present USAF tradition and regulations, which perhaps we should stick by as they are our parent organization. That has been brought up earlier in this thread to reason through why we're going to ABUs anyway, and it applies further to this as well.
I do not recall nor can I find any post of mine where I claimed to know "everything" about OSI or CID. I merely claimed to have some knowledge which I do have reason to have because of my interests in buying and selling military equipment. One of the foundations of conflict management is to not exaggerate the opposite side's claims, which has been done by yourself, Eclipse, not more than 6 posts ago.
Also, if it's illegal for civilians to own ABUs, then someone should inform the MCSSs, considering I bought a brand new ABU cover using my CAPID just yesterday.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
I still stand by my original statement.
If it is illegal to own ABUs.....the it is illegal to sell them as well.
When I bought my first set of ABU's I ordered them from some third party vendor (not proper) and I can go out right now this instant and buy a full set of ABUs from all three of my local surplus stores.
Pulling the "It's illegal" is a little lame. As is attacking this cadet because he owns a set. So maybe he is a little weird wanting to have a set of ABUs sitting in his closet. It's not anything anyone here needs to get concerned about.
And defending your attacks by saying it's our job to provide "leadership and guidance" is also a cop out.
You stared attacking him and he started defending himself......then you pulled the "you're just a kid" card on him and he got upset about it.....with some justification.
Yeah. What he said.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
I don't understand the "cadet intrigue" thing. This issue applies to everyone on a national level.
Also, I do not care that anybody knows I have ABUs. The purpose behind my posting it was to show the comparison between a patched up uniform versus the basic version that is more akin to present USAF tradition and regulations, which perhaps we should stick by as they are our parent organization. That has been brought up earlier in this thread to reason through why we're going to ABUs anyway, and it applies further to this as well.
I do not recall nor can I find any post of mine where I claimed to know "everything" about OSI or CID. I merely claimed to have some knowledge which I do have reason to have because of my interests in buying and selling military equipment. One of the foundations of conflict management is to not exaggerate the opposite side's claims, which has been done by yourself, Eclipse, not more than 6 posts ago.
Also, if it's illegal for civilians to own ABUs, then someone should inform the MCSSs, considering I bought a brand new ABU cover using my CAPID just yesterday.
OK will do, I'm sure you will sleep knowing someone will receive some action because you threw them under the bus.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 07:25:59 PMAlso, if it's illegal for civilians to own ABUs, then someone should inform the MCSSs, considering I bought a brand new ABU cover using my CAPID just yesterday.
Then you just broke several CAP regulations as well as an AFI.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 07:28:07 PM
Then you just broke several CAP regulations as well as an AFI.
Legitimate question, which regulations? Because I'm not finding anything prohibiting it in 39-2.
Lord,
The cadet opened himself for the so-called "attack."
He posted a photo with the ABU with insignias, and opened himself asking "comment."
I think you are in the law enforcement. Think about this scenario:
You knock on someone's door. You tell that person "may I come in?" That person says "come in officer." You notice something suspicious after you come in. He says "get out, I do not want you here." What do you say in court? "He allowed us to enter."
The photo and his asking for comments/discussion was akin to that person letting you in the house. What you accuse Eclipse of "attack" is akin of arresting that person that let you in...
;)
Flyer
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 07:34:44 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 07:28:07 PM
Then you just broke several CAP regulations as well as an AFI.
Legitimate question, which regulations? Because I'm not finding anything prohibiting it in 39-2.
AFI 10-2701
CAPR 147-1
Short answer - military base access is only for official CAP business, and access to AAFES and MCSS is
only for uniform items allowed for wear by members.
You broke CAPR147-1 which states:
1. Privileges. The following privileges are accorded under the conditions specified and upon the presentation of the credentials stated:
a. Civil Air Patrol cadets and senior members are authorized to purchase at any time articles of uniform which are authorized for wear by Civil Air Patrol directives. When purchasing articles of uniform, members will be identified by the official Civil Air Patrol membership card which must be current.
ABUs are not authorized for us, and CAPR39-2 covers membership not AAFES privileges.
I smell the lock hammer coming...
Quote from: NCRblues on August 20, 2013, 07:45:57 PM
I smell the lock hammer coming...
Tick tock... can't stop the clock! :)
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 07:43:50 PMAFI 10-2701
Short answer - military base access is only for official CAP business, and access to AAFES and MCSS is
only for uniform items allowed for wear by members.
So no CAP regulations? I checked 10-2701 and did keyword searches for "base", "installation", "store", "shop", "uniform", and "access", and found no evidence to support your statement. Is it under some other wording?
Also, just pointing out you skipped over my other responses to address my statement regarding getting the hat.
Edit: Adpsp51, alright then. Fair enough. A technicality would be that it does not disallow for the purchase of other items, but that's nitpicking at this point.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 07:34:44 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 07:28:07 PM
Then you just broke several CAP regulations as well as an AFI.
Legitimate question, which regulations? Because I'm not finding anything prohibiting it in 39-2.
Here's some "guidance" for you that isn't picking on you.
1) You can't get out of a hole by digging the hole deeper.
2) When engaged in an online forum tug of war with another forum member with a post count of 5 digits and a comma, then you're better off respecting the comma. Because that comma represents skills, power and wit that you cannot yet overcome. (Trust me. I earned my comma here before it was a forum website).
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 07:48:58 PM
Edit: Adpsp51, alright then. Fair enough. A technicality would be that it does not disallow for the purchase of other items, but that's nitpicking at this point.
That is not a technicality, that is a critical part of our continued access to AAFES and MCSS, not to mention military bases in general.
Members acting like tourists and buying things they are not supposed to is one of the reasons we have issues on a lot of bases.
Also, AFI 10-2701 governs the relationship between CAP and the USAF and defines our organization. It essentially sets the stage
for all other regs and responsibilities. Whether or not 147-1 existed, 10-2701 fully governs the behavior of members.
Quote from: flyer333555 on August 20, 2013, 07:43:06 PM
Lord,
The cadet opened himself for the so-called "attack."
He posted a photo with the ABU with insignias, and opened himself asking "comment."
I think you are in the law enforcement. Think about this scenario:
You knock on someone's door. You tell that person "may I come in?" That person says "come in officer." You notice something suspicious after you come in. He says "get out, I do not want you here." What do you say in court? "He allowed us to enter."
The photo and his asking for comments/discussion was akin to that person letting you in the house. What you accuse Eclipse of "attack" is akin of arresting that person that let you in...
;)
Flyer
I'll answer that as an LEO. Unless what I saw was enough for probable cause and suspicious is not necessarily probable cause, then I get out. A resident always has the right to end consent.
Quote from: stillamarine on August 20, 2013, 08:02:20 PM
Quote from: flyer333555 on August 20, 2013, 07:43:06 PM
Lord,
The cadet opened himself for the so-called "attack."
He posted a photo with the ABU with insignias, and opened himself asking "comment."
I think you are in the law enforcement. Think about this scenario:
You knock on someone's door. You tell that person "may I come in?" That person says "come in officer." You notice something suspicious after you come in. He says "get out, I do not want you here." What do you say in court? "He allowed us to enter."
The photo and his asking for comments/discussion was akin to that person letting you in the house. What you accuse Eclipse of "attack" is akin of arresting that person that let you in...
;)
Flyer
I'll answer that as an LEO. Unless what I saw was enough for probable cause and suspicious is not necessarily probable cause, then I get out. A resident always has the right to end consent.
Yep.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 20, 2013, 07:56:31 PM
2) When engaged in an online forum tug of war with another forum member with a post count of 5 digits and a comma, then you're better off respecting the comma. Because that comma represents skills, power and wit that you cannot yet overcome. (Trust me. I earned my comma here before it was a forum website).
Whats that phrase? You can't win a war of words with someone who buys ink by the barrel?
But yeah, Bernie, you earned your comma WAY before. WAY.
:)
It does not govern any of the issues of card privileges, or as far as I can see membership issues outside of missions. The question was for regulations specifically concerning card privileges, which that has no realm on.
Mitchell 1969, that may be, however this is a simple debate/argument/contest which is easily continued by citing sources and making disagreements. One can let the experience show in the word of post, not just by assumption that the experience is there so there is no point to continue.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 07:57:19 PM
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 07:48:58 PM
Edit: Adpsp51, alright then. Fair enough. A technicality would be that it does not disallow for the purchase of other items, but that's nitpicking at this point.
That is not a technicality, that is a critical part of our continued access to AAFES and MCSS, not to mention military bases in general.
Members acting like tourists and buying things they are not supposed to is one of the reasons we have issues on a lot of bases.
Also, AFI 10-2701 governs the relationship between CAP and the USAF and defines our organization. It essentially sets the stage
for all other regs and responsibilities. Whether or not 147-1 existed, 10-2701 fully governs the behavior of members.
Strangely.....10-2701 is silent on the subject of members using AAFES on a normal basis....i.e. purchasing uniforms from MCSS. It talks about people on AFAMS and on orders (aka RSC and encampment and suchs) but specifically says this does not apply to units meeting on base in a normal sense.
So....I have yet to see in either a CAP or AF reg/AFI/PD that specifically says that they cannot buy anything except USAF-CAP uniform items.
So......yes it is nit picking....and a technicality......but so is your argument that Mr S13 pickup up an ABU is some how going to end CAP and USAF's relationship.
Again....this is all an out and out attack on a cadet who had the Gall to show what CAP insignia looked like on ABUs.
No one.....not one of you.......has commented on the subject at hand or his input to discussion on what ABUs look like with CAP patches.
No....we want to attack him...."Why do you have ABUs?" "You can't do that" "It's illegal" "its going to ruin our relationship with the USAF".
Suggestion......break off......get back tot he original (one of the original) topics of this thread and move on.
To S13. You are abusing your CAP privileges to use the MSCC to buy items not related to your CAP activities. Please refrain from doing this in the future.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
So....I have yet to see in either a CAP or AF reg/AFI/PD that specifically says that they cannot buy anything except USAF-CAP uniform items.
So......yes it is nit picking....and a technicality......but so is your argument that Mr S13 pickup up an ABU is some how going to end CAP and USAF's relationship.
CAPR 147-1 says that unless you are on an AFAM or official CAP activity, you are only allowed to buy uniform items, and those uniform
items must be for CAP use.
And again, this is not "attacking a cadet". Cadet Desoto clearly has a misunderstanding and a naive understanding of the regulations.
It is clear and obvious that a number of regs, policies, and realities about things he wants to discuss were news as of this discussion,
after he made incorrect assertions as fact.
In the last round, it was again very important to punctuate his knowledge and ability to "do whatever I want" by making sure we
knew he's bought unauthorized uniform items yesterday. Nothing any of us knew or cared about until cadet Desoto brought it up.
Also, for the record, he's already made the assertion that he is an adult, and established himself as a Phase IV cadet, so which vector are
we on here?
As to getting back on topic. His depliction of ABU's with all of the patches, I have been informed is how the AF wants them to be worn by CAP, they do not want the minimalist approach, which I favor. My source is a wing king who was at the actual presentation.
I also think that the inital discussion had degraded into a personal attack upon the cadet. He has a right to defend himself when attacked and provoked. He may have crossed an invisible line when doing so, but I suspect a few of the attacks / counter points did so as well.
Quote from: flyer333555 on August 20, 2013, 07:43:06 PM
Lord,
The cadet opened himself for the so-called "attack."
He posted a photo with the ABU with insignias, and opened himself asking "comment."
I think you are in the law enforcement. Think about this scenario:
You knock on someone's door. You tell that person "may I come in?" That person says "come in officer." You notice something suspicious after you come in. He says "get out, I do not want you here." What do you say in court? "He allowed us to enter."
The photo and his asking for comments/discussion was akin to that person letting you in the house. What you accuse Eclipse of "attack" is akin of arresting that person that let you in...
;)
Flyer
Flyer......He posted a picture..."look what I did". So what did he do? There is nothing suspicious.......because no one has yet cited a title or law that says he can't have the ABUs. I hear a lot of "but DoD policy" this and "AF Regs" that.........and yet as a LEO if someone were openly selling illegal items......you would be going after the seller would you not?
No......the Cadet offered something the discussion at had about ABUs and how CAP's patches would look. And he was attacked for even owning them. Eclipse openly showed his contempt towards cadets by using the double standard that me and my collection of uniforms is okay....but S13's are not because he is a cadet......
And then they justify their attack as saying it was a leadership teachable moment and that is why cadets join CAP!
Not buying it.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 08:12:50 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
So....I have yet to see in either a CAP or AF reg/AFI/PD that specifically says that they cannot buy anything except USAF-CAP uniform items.
So......yes it is nit picking....and a technicality......but so is your argument that Mr S13 pickup up an ABU is some how going to end CAP and USAF's relationship.
CAPR 147-1 says that unless you are on an AFAM or official CAP activity, you are only allowed to buy uniform items, and those uniform
items must be for CAP use.
That is not exactly what it say......but thanks for the Cite.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 08:18:44 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 08:12:50 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
So....I have yet to see in either a CAP or AF reg/AFI/PD that specifically says that they cannot buy anything except USAF-CAP uniform items.
So......yes it is nit picking....and a technicality......but so is your argument that Mr S13 pickup up an ABU is some how going to end CAP and USAF's relationship.
CAPR 147-1 says that unless you are on an AFAM or official CAP activity, you are only allowed to buy uniform items, and those uniform
items must be for CAP use.
That is not exactly what it say......but thanks for the Cite.
That's literally what it says. Do I have to actually copy the text? We both know the intention.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 03:27:23 PM
The other piece of this issue is the fairly constant assertion from CAWG folks that they never get any missions, especially on the ground.
If it meant some sort of commitment to being called, I'd consider a reasonable request by our state to make uniform changes, but it would have to be
more then "we suggest" especially if they aren't calling.
Also, I'd expect to see every other volunteer helper agency in the same situation, which in this case it clearly isn't.
Also this:
Quote...wear the commonly adopted SAR uniform recognized by law enforcement
nationwide.
No such animal exists, so one seriously has to ask where CAWG got the idea that orange BDUs are the "national standard" (top, bottom, or otherwise),
and further, assuming it's a good idea, why out grade and insignia can't be worn on them.
So much wasted time.
Agreed.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
So....I have yet to see in either a CAP or AF reg/AFI/PD that specifically says that they cannot buy anything except USAF-CAP uniform items.
Really? Right there in CAPR 147-1:
"3. Protection of Privileges. In order to protect the privileges which have been authorized, Civil
Air Patrol members not occupying government quarters as described in paragraph 1b will not attempt
to purchase items in base exchanges other than articles of uniform authorized for wear by CAP
members or to use the services of base exchange activities. To avoid any embarrassment, CAP
members seeking to make exchange purchases should contact the manager if a clerk or door checker
questions their authorization to enter the base exchange or to make specific purchases."
Stillamarine-
I meant by "suspicious," enough for "probable cause."
Others-
I agree with Eclipse in all.
The cadet opened himself to this exchange.
The issue of him owning or not an ACU, could have been raised ten years ago. Then it was not as specific as Tomasone points out. Back then you had people buying thermal suits and other items sold in the same sections where the BDUs were being sold. In response to this, the regs were made clearer.
Flyer
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 05:04:37 PM
If you have a unit patch and your wing is one that continues to wear wing patches, of course!
I'm curious as to whether there are any that don't require it.
Let's end this argument CAPR 1471 states:
1. Privileges. The following privileges are accorded under the conditions specified and upon the presentation of the credentials stated:
a. Civil Air Patrol cadets and senior members are authorized to purchase at any time articles of uniform which are authorized for wear by Civil Air Patrol directives. When purchasing articles of uniform, members will be identified by the official Civil Air Patrol membership card which must be current.
b. Members of the Civil Air Patrol on an official CAP activity are authorized to purchase any exchange item, except for State tax-free items, at the exchange where occupying government quarters. To make purchases of other than uniform items, members will be identified by their Civil Air Patrol membership card, USAF transportation authorization or military support authorization, and evidence that they are occupying government quarters on a military installation. (Evidence of occupation of government quarters will usually be furnished by the billeting officer.)
Paragraph b, states that the only time you are authorized to purchase non uniform items at the exchange is when you are staying in goverment quarters on base.
So based upon that, yes the cadet should not have purchsed the hat. However, there is not a single one of us who has not purchased at least one item that was not a uniform item from MCSS or the exchange at one time or another when we have been on a base and not in housing. Ever bought a water or a candy bar?
I have seen people in Michigan without Wing patches.
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 08:24:49 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 05:04:37 PM
If you have a unit patch and your wing is one that continues to wear wing patches, of course!
I'm curious as to whether there are any that don't require it.
I always hear that TXWG requires the wing patch, but in exactly 0 of the published supplements to 39-1 since the wing patch was dropped was it listed as a mandatory item.
Eclipse, drop it. Sierra, drop it. Bystanders, disperse; go back to your homes.
Can we bring this thread back to uniform change proposals from the National Conference? Please?
I'll (re)start:
Where will be able to get velcro navy blue grade insignia for the fleece if it is authorized? Will we just have to make it ourselves?
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 08:24:49 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 05:04:37 PM
If you have a unit patch and your wing is one that continues to wear wing patches, of course!
I'm curious as to whether there are any that don't require it.
It's optional in my wing, I'd say about 50/50 don't wear it.
Quote from: Archer on August 20, 2013, 08:30:02 PM
Eclipse, drop it. Sierra, drop it. Bystanders, disperse; go back to your homes.
Can we bring this thread back to uniform change proposals from the National Conference? Please?
I'll (re)start:
Where will be able to get velcro navy blue grade insignia for the fleece if it is authorized? Will we just have to make it ourselves?
I imagine Vanguard will sell it for about $30/ea.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on August 20, 2013, 08:27:00 PMSo based upon that, yes the cadet should not have purchsed the hat. However, there is not a single one of us who has not purchased at least one item that was not a uniform item from MCSS or the exchange at one time or another when we have been on a base and not in housing. Ever bought a water or a candy bar?
Why were you there?
On a CAP activity or as a tourist. If you were there on an activity, then you were inside the lines. If you went there for any other
reasons, and don't occupy quarters (such as having a billet on base), then you were outside the lines.
Quote from: jeders on August 20, 2013, 08:31:48 PMI imagine Vanguard will sell it for about $30/ea.
Don't think it'll be that much, but I can see it at about seven or eight bucks.
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
I have seen people in Michigan without Wing patches.
Is that because the Wing doesn't require it or is it from a lack of attention?
I will piggy back and that AAFES does allow for items that are consumable to be purchased by anyone. And Larry Magnum, I goto the BX and purchase items all the time and I do it when I am not on CAP business.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on August 20, 2013, 08:13:54 PM
As to getting back on topic. His depliction of ABU's with all of the patches, I have been informed is how the AF wants them to be worn by CAP, they do not want the minimalist approach, which I favor. My source is a wing king who was at the actual presentation.
I also think that the inital discussion had degraded into a personal attack upon the cadet. He has a right to defend himself when attacked and provoked. He may have crossed an invisible line when doing so, but I suspect a few of the attacks / counter points did so as well.
I think the relevant "cadet guidance" was packaged and delivered long ago. The bell has rung, punches still coming, but only because he keeps begging for them outside the cadet bubble and having jumped into the adult bubble.
Some lessons are harder learned, I suppose, than others.
(https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/17597_10152026856864409_2031701023_n.jpg)"oh, look, an ABU cap wrapped around a soup can"
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 08:58:28 PM
(https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/17597_10152026856864409_2031701023_n.jpg)"oh, look, an ABU cap wrapped around a soup can"
Now you did it!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/OH-6_Cayuse.jpg/800px-OH-6_Cayuse.jpg)
I couldn't find the bunny with a pancake pic... :)
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
I have seen people in Michigan without Wing patches.
Is that because the Wing doesn't require it or is it from a lack of attention?
I'm not sure, to be honest. I dont know what MIWG says, I just wear mine and forget about it. I have never considered not wearing a wing patch.
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
I have seen people in Michigan without Wing patches.
Is that because the Wing doesn't require it or is it from a lack of attention?
I'm not sure, to be honest. I dont know what MIWG says, I just wear mine and forget about it. I have never considered not wearing a wing patch.
Fair enough. I legitmately don't know how many have chosen to address it directly.
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
I have seen people in Michigan without Wing patches.
Is that because the Wing doesn't require it or is it from a lack of attention?
I'm not sure, to be honest. I dont know what MIWG says, I just wear mine and forget about it. I have never considered not wearing a wing patch.
I don't know why, but I was sipping some iced tea a minute ago and thought "Isn't it odd, we sew on wing patches that don't have wings, and we also sew on wings that aren't wing patches?"
Anyway, back to our show.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 20, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
I have seen people in Michigan without Wing patches.
Is that because the Wing doesn't require it or is it from a lack of attention?
I'm not sure, to be honest. I dont know what MIWG says, I just wear mine and forget about it. I have never considered not wearing a wing patch.
I don't know why, but I was sipping some iced tea a minute ago and thought "Isn't it odd, we sew on wing patches that don't have wings, and we also sew on wings that aren't wing patches?"
Anyway, back to our show.
From all of my experiences, only 3 or 4 people out of a group of 100 dont wear a wing patch.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 20, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
I don't know why, but I was sipping some iced tea a minute ago and thought "Isn't it odd, we sew on wing patches that don't have wings, and we also sew on wings that aren't wing patches?"
(http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tumblr_m26er3nhka1qlz5jj.gif)
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 20, 2013, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: RangerConlin on August 20, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
I have seen people in Michigan without Wing patches.
Is that because the Wing doesn't require it or is it from a lack of attention?
I'm not sure, to be honest. I dont know what MIWG says, I just wear mine and forget about it. I have never considered not wearing a wing patch.
NC, IA, and WY do not require patches. (as of: NCWG 2010, IAWY 2011, WYWG current.)
Quote from: Larry Mangum on August 20, 2013, 08:13:54 PM
As to getting back on topic. His depliction of ABU's with all of the patches, I have been informed is how the AF wants them to be worn by CAP, they do not want the minimalist approach, which I favor. My source is a wing king who was at the actual presentation.
So are they saying they prefer us to wear all the clown patches, or will it be mandated? In other words, right now I qualify for the ES patch but choose not to wear it. I got BISC and National Inland SAR school, too, but...they're in a box at home. Am I to understand that the proposal is to now require those things, or merely to "prefer" that we wear it all?
My preference, like yours, is minimalist.
I took it to mean that the USAF doesn't want to enforce a minimalist appearance, rather to allow for the
continued wear of patches as we do today.
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 09:11:10 PM
I couldn't find the bunny with a pancake pic... :)
Gotta Google
oolong bunny or
oolong rabbit.
(http://mimg.ugo.com/201110/1/9/0/212091/cuts/oolong_480_poster.jpg)
Bonjour?
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 20, 2013, 09:38:48 PM
So are they saying they prefer us to wear all the clown patches, or will it be mandated? In other words, right now I qualify for the ES patch but choose not to wear it. I got BISC and National Inland SAR school, too, but...they're in a box at home. Am I to understand that the proposal is to now require those things, or merely to "prefer" that we wear it all?
My preference, like yours, is minimalist.
Well, "prefer" and "allow" are two different things.
If you want to wear the ES patch, you can. I'm sure that if you didn't, nobody would scream "YOU BETTER PUT THAT PATCH ON MISTER!" :)
Same with Inland SAR and BISC (if BISC is authorized. Too lazy to look..)
Someone suggested at one point that the patches and such are an attempt to maintain the "distinctiveness."
However, if an officer comes from a unit without a patch, in a wing without a wing patch, and has never been to an NCSA or similar national-level training program, and is not ES qualified, is he or she sufficiently distinctive without those things? Are silver-on-dark-blue tapes and collar insignia and black boots sufficient to ensure "disinctiveness" ?
Because not everybody has or wears those things.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 04:36:01 PM
Just for kicks, and out of curiosity to see how much conflict can stir up...
Put these together using old patches I had laying around.
Proposed uniform:
(http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s643/Alex_DeSoto/Photo0699_zpsb63994f6.jpg)
vs
Seemingly preferred version (leaning this way):
(http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s643/Alex_DeSoto/Photo0698_zpsc384e7db.jpg)
I'm a minimalist so I prefer number 2 picture as well.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 07:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2013, 07:16:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
Pulling the "It's illegal" is a little lame. As is attacking this cadet because he owns a set. So maybe he is a little weird wanting to have a set of ABUs sitting in his closet. It's not anything anyone here needs to get concerned about.
Nor was it anything we needed to know about. When you open the door, you're open to comment, positive or negative.
As to the idea of cadets being "attacked" on this site, I don't see it. They are involved in all discussions on an equal level, when they
say things that don't ring true, or start walking down the "cadet intrigue" alley, then those are fair game as well.
Holding people's feet to the fire? Yes. Attacking? I don't see it.
Of course you wouldn't see it......you are the one doing the attacking!
Concur, seems like an attack to me as well. :(
Quote from: SarDragon on August 20, 2013, 09:50:15 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2013, 09:11:10 PM
I couldn't find the bunny with a pancake pic... :)
Gotta Google oolong bunny or oolong rabbit.
(http://mimg.ugo.com/201110/1/9/0/212091/cuts/oolong_480_poster.jpg)
NICE! :clap:
Aw, crap! I missed my page 15 check in. We're up to page 22!....and still nothing.
I was trying to kill it with fire before page 20, but I went into a customer site, came out, and *bam* the darn thing had *exploded*
BTW, speaking as to giving Cadet Desoto a hard time about ABUs:
Nobody seems to give _me_ a hard time that _I've_ got a set of ABUs.
Mentioned it at least twice, maybe more like three times. (sadly, no photos)
He gets his head handed to him, but nobody says 'boo' about a senior doing essentially the same thing.
If thats not the definition of "double standard" then I don't know what is.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
Also, if it's illegal for civilians to own ABUs, then someone should inform the MCSSs, considering I bought a brand new ABU cover using my CAPID just yesterday.
Quote from: SierraOneThree on August 20, 2013, 05:14:25 PM
To echo Angel's post, I've made several thousand dollars off of military clothing and equipment within the last two years, hence why I continue and own what I own.
This young man will be made an example of now. His posts when combined in context of wrong doing are very insightful. He is purchasing items he is expressly forbidden from purchasing and most likely reselling them. At the least I hope his membership is terminated, though I would prefer if he be charged and convicted of the crimes he most likely has committed.
He has no integrity and has admitted to it. Shame on him and shame on anyone that tolerates his continued service in CAP!