CAP Talk

What year is Civil Air Patrol going to switch to ABUs because I think that we have really used BDUs for a long time and they are getting very old?

Welcome to CAPTalk. Not to be harsh but, the search button is your best friend. This has been discussed a bunch.

Quote from: capmaj on December 26, 2011, 04:25:52 PM
the search button is your best friend. This has been discussed a bunch.

Yeah... there are several very long threads about this. Just search "ABU" and you'll find them.
As for your question: there are very many varying answers that you will get from this website, and none of them are absolute or definitive in any way.
So, I guess my final answer is: I don't know.  :D
Welcome to CAP Talk!

A compound answer: "IF/When it happens".

Simple answer: "Never Will".

doing a quick search I came up with 30 topics regarding ABUs... the one common thing found in all: No one has any idea if/when ABUs will be approved

To borrow something from Blizzard Entertainment when they talk about release dates for their products: Soon™

Quote from: JK657 on December 26, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
doing a quick search I came up with 30 topics regarding ABUs... the one common thing found in all: No one has any idea if/when ABUs will be approved

Exactly.
Like I said before,

Quote from: titanII on December 26, 2011, 04:43:35 PM
there are very many varying answers that you will get from this website, and none of them are absolute or definitive in any way... I don't know.

If your BDU's are old, order new ones.

My commander told me yesterday that he got word from national that the switch will be this year, no joke

Quote from: gcountry on December 30, 2011, 09:51:03 PM
My commander told me yesterday that he got word from national that the switch will be this year, no joke

It's not happening. There is a link in eServices saying that it's not happening so I don't know what he's talking about but he's wrong.

Quote from: gcountry on December 30, 2011, 09:51:03 PM
My commander told me yesterday that he got word from national that the switch will be this year, no joke

Cool story bro!

Quote from: eaker.cadet on December 30, 2011, 10:10:36 PM

Quote from: gcountry on December 30, 2011, 09:51:03 PM
My commander told me yesterday that he got word from national that the switch will be this year, no joke

Cool story bro!

You should tell it at parties...
;D

Well sorry for posting then

So.... were getting ABU's tomorrow?  :o

Hate to pile it on, but I couldn't resist.

Quote from: davidsinn on December 30, 2011, 10:00:46 PM

Quote from: gcountry on December 30, 2011, 09:51:03 PM
My commander told me yesterday that he got word from national that the switch will be this year, no joke

It's not happening. There is a link in eServices saying that it's not happening so I don't know what he's talking about but he's wrong.

They got an excuse - they're Pineys!   ;) >:D

Quote from: SarDragon on December 30, 2011, 10:53:38 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on December 30, 2011, 10:00:46 PM

Quote from: gcountry on December 30, 2011, 09:51:03 PM
My commander told me yesterday that he got word from national that the switch will be this year, no joke

It's not happening. There is a link in eServices saying that it's not happening so I don't know what he's talking about but he's wrong.

They got an excuse - they're Pineys!   ;) >:D

Wrong. He's up there in the North East corner ;)  >:D

(http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/nj1015.com/files/2011/12/Pwnf4-e1323285987110.jpg)

Much higher res here (http://i.imgur.com/Pwnf4.jpg)

Sorry, anyone north and/or east of Gloucester County that isn't in an urban area is a piney. I've lived in, or had family in, NJ since 1959.

Besides, that map has some issues with boundaries.

Well... I hate to get back to the topic, but it looks like CAP is NOT going to switch to ABU after all. In fact, we are going to go away from a USAF style uniform altogether to comply with new DoD regulations about control of supply of digital uniforms.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 03, 2012, 12:50:22 AM
In fact, we are going to go away from a USAF style uniform altogether to comply with new DoD regulations about control of supply of digital uniforms.

I'm not sure that's really relevant.  We are not part of the DoD and wouldn't be receiving them from the Air Force anyway.  We would have to buy them from a third party vendor like we do now.  We would just be changing the pattern of the uniform.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 03, 2012, 12:50:22 AM
Well... I hate to get back to the topic, but it looks like CAP is NOT going to switch to ABU after all. In fact, we are going to go away from a USAF style uniform altogether to comply with new DoD regulations about control of supply of digital uniforms.

A source or cite would be helpful. (ie. The DoD reg mentioned). This seems a tad nebulous.

While I was getting uniform supplies issued, I heard from a few people that we may be getting them in 4 years or so. I really doubt that's going to happen though.

Quote from: NIN on January 03, 2012, 01:03:19 AM

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 03, 2012, 12:50:22 AM
Well... I hate to get back to the topic, but it looks like CAP is NOT going to switch to ABU after all. In fact, we are going to go away from a USAF style uniform altogether to comply with new DoD regulations about control of supply of digital uniforms.

A source or cite would be helpful

I can't speak for afgeo4, but I think that was just his prediction

I think we are getting ABU's sooner than you think. Why? It is as simple as we are an auxillary to the US Air Force. They are going to miss their BDU's so much that they are going to make us wear ABU's so we can suffer with them  >:D

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 03, 2012, 12:50:22 AM
Well... I hate to get back to the topic, but it looks like CAP is NOT going to switch to ABU after all. In fact, we are going to go away from a USAF style uniform altogether to comply with new DoD regulations about control of supply of digital uniforms.

That's quite a leap there, since the eServices announcement only dealt with the ABU and not any other uniform.  Besides, the reasoning behind that decision is in question (at least here at CAP Talk).

I don't think it's such a leap. It is in accordance with the following: https://www.capnhq.gov/news/news28Dec11.htm (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/news28Dec11.htm)

"DoD policy prevents the transfer, donation, and sale of digitized camouflage pattern uniforms to anyone outside the USAF with very few exceptions. Unfortunately Civil Air Patrol is not one of the exceptions. This prohibition is necessary to protect the unique technologies used in developing the uniform.

The National Board has placed a hold on all uniform changes pending a review of the entire CAP uniform structure. This review is ongoing by the CAP National Uniform Committee and a draft report will be presented to the Summer National Board Meeting in Baltimore in August 2012. The presentation will be available online via web stream but all CAP members are encouraged to attend."

The whole thing about a review of the entire CAP uniform structure means there is enough evidence that the current uniform structure isn't working to warrant a review. The outcome of the review is unknown, but given NHQ's stance on the DoD policy, I think it's safe to assume the end result will not be a USAF style uniform, at least not for the field. It might be something completely new. It might be a switch to either the BDU or the Blue Field Uniform for everyone or it might be to leave things as they are and request the Air Force to no longer consider the BDU a "USAF style uniform." Since it isn't. We will see.

Quote from: Littleguy on January 03, 2012, 02:40:10 AM
I think we are getting ABU's sooner than you think. Why? It is as simple as we are an auxillary to the US Air Force. They are going to miss their BDU's so much that they are going to make us wear ABU's so we can suffer with them  >:D

We are only an Auxiliary of the Air Force during assigned missions with orders. Given that, we are a non-profit civilian corporation about 99.999% of the time. Since most of our operations do take place in field uniforms and since the VAST majority of those operations are not as the USAF Auxiliary, it is more logical to assume that we will not receive ABUs any time soon, especially given the DoD's stance on us being a civilian non-profit, which excludes us from their policy.

By the way, using Air Force JROTC as an example doesn't work either. The JROTC is a regular part of the actual Air Force and are covered by the DoD policy. We are not.

No.....we are always the USAF Auxillary.

We are only a instrument of the government and covered by FECA and FTCA during Air Forced Assigned missions.

AFJROTC is NOT part of the regular air force.....it is part of the school.  The instructors are school employees.  The only thing that the USAF does is recommend instructors, control the curricumn and provide uniforms.

Now AFROTC is a differen matter.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 12, 2012, 06:41:45 PM
The whole thing about a review of the entire CAP uniform structure means there is enough evidence that the current uniform structure isn't working to warrant a review.

No.  Nothing about a review of the uniform structure should be taken as "evidence that the current uniform structure isn't working."

Because we review and update the uniform regulations regularly.  Just as we have done for the last 60 years or so.  Even successful programs should be reviewed and updated periodically.

Obviously, our current uniforms "work" by almost any conceivable definition.  Missions are accomplished.  Membership is up.  IOW, even if we made no changes, we could continue to do our jobs as volunteer professionals.

Could we improve our uniforms?  Of course.  And even if no changes are made, the regulation itself badly needs updating.  Our leaders have tasked the National Uniform Committee to review our uniforms and suggest any needed changes.  There have been previous Uniform Committees, and I am confident that there will be many future Uniform Committees long after you and I are gone. 

I wish future NUC members the same joy and inner satisfaction I have received.   ;)


Ned Lee
Member, National Uniform Committee

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2012, 07:02:07 PM
No.....we are always the USAF Auxillary.

We are only a instrument of the government and covered by FECA and Torp Protection during Air Forced Assigned missions.

AFJROTC is NOT part of the regular air force.....it is part of the school.  The instructors are school employees.  The only thing that the USAF does is recommend instructors, control the curricumn and provide uniforms.

Now AFROTC is a differen matter.

NOT true. Please look up Public Law 106-398 passed in October 2000 where the Congress provides that, "The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the federal government."

As a matter of procedure, funding and authorization, branches of the federal government must make the request for CAP via the Air Force and the Air Force then issues us orders for the missions. Thus, we are only the official Air Force Auxiliary when used by a department or agency in any branch of the federal government and issued orders to do so by the Air Force. At all other times, we operate as the Civil Air Patrol, a non-profit corporation.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 12, 2012, 06:41:45 PM"DoD policy prevents the transfer, donation, and sale of digitized camouflage pattern uniforms to anyone outside the USAF with very few exceptions.

Does it prevent the sale / transfer of uniform items from the DOD to "other", or is it supposing that it prevents the sale / transfer from / between anyone,
regardless of their civilian status or being a retail manufacturer or sale?

Because if it is the latter, then there are hundred of sources violating this prohibition.

If it's the former, then it's fairly irrelevant to CAP because we never got field uniforms from the USAF, anyway.

Quote from: Ned on January 12, 2012, 07:04:29 PM

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 12, 2012, 06:41:45 PM
The whole thing about a review of the entire CAP uniform structure means there is enough evidence that the current uniform structure isn't working to warrant a review.

No.  Nothing about a review of the uniform structure should be taken as "evidence that the current uniform structure isn't working."

Because we review and update the uniform regulations regularly.  Just as we have done for the last 60 years or so.  Even successful programs should be reviewed and updated periodically.

Obviously, our current uniforms "work" by almost any conceivable definition.  Missions are accomplished.  Membership is up.  IOW, even if we made no changes, we could continue to do our jobs as volunteer professionals.

Could we improve our uniforms?  Of course.  And even if no changes are made, the regulation itself badly needs updating.  Our leaders have tasked the National Uniform Committee to review our uniforms and suggest any needed changes.  There have been previous Uniform Committees, and I am confident that there will be many future Uniform Committees long after you and I are gone. 

I wish future NUC members the same joy and inner satisfaction I have received.   ;)


Ned Lee
Member, National Uniform Committee

Sir, I hate to say it, but I think there may be a HUGE disparity between what you see at those NHQ meetings and what most of us see at the squadrons.

1. I don't know about the regular reviews of the uniform structure, because we are still working with a CAP uniform regulation that is decades old with less than a handful of tiny ICL changes, many of which were made in the last 5 years and only exist to rescind each other.

2. I understand that while there may be discussions and/or partial reviews of particular uniform items, as it may happen during a uniform review board, but full organizational uniform structure reviews are something that do not and should not happen often. In my understanding, the review planned will be a top to bottom review of the SYSTEM of uniforms and not any particular uniform items. At least that's what the statement in eServices says.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 12, 2012, 07:10:18 PM

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 12, 2012, 06:41:45 PM"DoD policy prevents the transfer, donation, and sale of digitized camouflage pattern uniforms to anyone outside the USAF with very few exceptions.

Does it prevent the sale / transfer of uniform items from the DOD to "other", or is it supposing that it prevents the sale / transfer from / between anyone,
regardless of their civilian status or being a retail manufacturer or sale?

Because if it is the latter, then there are hundred of sources violating this prohibition.

If it's the former, then it's fairly irrelevant to CAP because we never got field uniforms from the USAF, anyway.

In my personal opinion, it is a recent policy that will restrict the distribution of such uniform items, period. There is a huge increase in the availability of "U.S. style" uniforms abroad and many have the same IR features and I think the DoD will restrict both, the distribution to civilians and the transfer/sale from the DoD to other groups/agencies. For example, the DHS heavily restricts the availability of the current Coast Guard operational dress uniforms and one cannot purchase them through civilian outlets. They have Coast Guard emblems on them to aid in the verification, similar to what the USMC and Navy have on theirs. Those uniforms are also not allowed to be sold by Coast Guard members. They are to be turned in or destroyed in accordance with USCG regulations. I believe the entire DoD is moving toward the same type of policies.

Now... that's my personal opinion and I do not claim to be "in the know" or anything, but I think it is a logical one based on the development of uniforms clearly marked with official, trademarked logos and on the fact that more and more we see the enemy wearing uniforms like ours and using them to attack us. The Marines were the first ones with such policies. Their MARPAT uniforms cannot be sold anywhere. The only thing you will find is replicas without the USMC prints in it. Now the Navy and Coast Guard have their logos in their uniforms too and restrict their sales to civilians. Seems like it is now being adapted for the entire DoD. Makes sense to me. The problem is that we are technically civilians.

George,

In my 22 years with the USAF (86-08)....the utility uniform went through 3 major changes and the blues went through two major changes.

There is an office at the Pentagon that does nothing but discuss unifroms....and there was a major propsal for yet another change to the blues.....and it was only put on hold because of the war and the fiasco of the MC Peak uniform.

Organsations should ALWAYS be reviewing their policies, image, logos, buisness model, processes, market, everything.

Reviewing does not mean you have to change a thing....but it means you have to be looking to see where improvements can be made.  If you don't the next company/organisation/country will and they will surpass you.

Now.....UNIFORMS are a touchy subject.  We got three major uniforms available to senior members....and it is like poltical parties.  Each uniform camp hates the other two.

The majority of CAP I think (CT and CS not withstanding) don't care one way or the other.  I personally are in the fourth camp "I don't care what we ware.....so long as everyone looks the same!"

If nothing else...as Ned said...we need to update the regulation and make some clarfications on some topics (like CAP NCO's in the aviator shirt).  We need to "unify" the uniform rules....so that wear instuctions are as identical as possible (such as no military badges on whites and grays....but white and grays get to wear more badges then on USAF blues).

YMMV

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2012, 07:32:29 PMThe majority of CAP I think (CT and CS not withstanding) don't care one way or the other.

I think the truth is that the majority of members have the same frustrations expressed here, they just have no real avenue to express their frustrations,
so they move on...

Quote from: Eclipse on January 12, 2012, 07:34:17 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2012, 07:32:29 PMThe majority of CAP I think (CT and CS not withstanding) don't care one way or the other.

I think the truth is that the majority of members have the same frustrations expressed here, they just have no real avenue to express their frustrations,
so they move on...

+1 almost
except we dont move on we keep bringing it up whenever we can find a way to work it into a posting- because it is a way to release frustration >:D

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 12, 2012, 07:14:59 PM
Sir, I hate to say it, but I think there may be a HUGE disparity between what you see at those NHQ meetings and what most of us see at the squadrons.

Is that really surprising? 

While after over 30 years at the squadron level, I hope I have some idea of what goes on on Tuesday nights, I don't pretend to know exactly what is going on in each unit.  Or any unit for that matter.

It does seem like the reverse is also likely to be true.  I think it would be very difficult for anyone working primarily at the local level to know what is going on at the National level, at least in any detail.  We try (with varying levels of success) to be as open and transparent as possible, but there is a lot going on at any one time.

So, yeah, I would expect a bit of a disparity between what I see going on and what the average member sees.  Nothing evil in that, it is just sort the nature of a complex national organization.

Quote1. I don't know about the regular reviews of the uniform structure, because we are still working with a CAP uniform regulation that is decades old with less than a handful of tiny ICL changes, many of which were made in the last 5 years and only exist to rescind each other.

Like I said, I agree that the regulation badly needs updating, even if we never made another uniform change. 

I'm sure there are some uniform wonks out there who can tell us when every single change or update has been made to our uniform regulations.  But my point is that - in the big scheme of things - CAP regularly and periodically reviews and updates our uniforms and supporting regulations.  While we may be a little overdue, it is a leap to suggest that we are doing so now because anyone in particular thinks our uniforms "don't work."  It is just as logical to suggest that we have gone on for so long without a uniform update simply because our uniforms are fine as they are and do not need to change with the times.

Quote2. I understand that while there may be discussions and/or partial reviews of particular uniform items, as it may happen during a uniform review board, but full organizational uniform structure reviews are something that do not and should not happen often. In my understanding, the review planned will be a top to bottom review of the SYSTEM of uniforms and not any particular uniform items.

Again, while I agree that the NUC was asked to review all of our uniforms, that is nothing really unusual or out of the mainstream.  Any periodic review should be comprehensive and not some sort of a piecemeal review.  Again, one could argue that piecemeal reviews of just one uniform may be the cause of the current angst over things like the CSU.

The NB has tasked the NUC to study our uniforms and to make recommendations.  Not because the sky is falling, the AF hates us, or any other particular reason.  But because it has probably been too long since our last comprehensive review and regulation update.

If it helps, I was in the room when the purpose of the committee was discussed and when the vote to establish the committee was taken.  I (along with a very distinguished group of CAP officers) was appointed to the committee, and have attended all the committee meetings permitted by my schedule.

The NUC will submit our recommendations to the NB next summer, and our volunteer leaders will then take such actions that they - in their collective wisdom - believe are necessary.

The very nature of committees being what they are (speaking both of the NUC and the NB), I would not normally expect to see major or surprising changes to our existing uniform scheme.

But I've been wrong before . . .

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2012, 07:32:29 PM
George,

In my 22 years with the USAF (86-08)....the utility uniform went through 3 major changes and the blues went through two major changes.

There is an office at the Pentagon that does nothing but discuss unifroms....and there was a major propsal for yet another change to the blues.....and it was only put on hold because of the war and the fiasco of the MC Peak uniform.

Organsations should ALWAYS be reviewing their policies, image, logos, buisness model, processes, market, everything.

Reviewing does not mean you have to change a thing....but it means you have to be looking to see where improvements can be made.  If you don't the next company/organisation/country will and they will surpass you.

Now.....UNIFORMS are a touchy subject.  We got three major uniforms available to senior members....and it is like poltical parties.  Each uniform camp hates the other two.

The majority of CAP I think (CT and CS not withstanding) don't care one way or the other.  I personally are in the fourth camp "I don't care what we ware.....so long as everyone looks the same!"

If nothing else...as Ned said...we need to update the regulation and make some clarfications on some topics (like CAP NCO's in the aviator shirt).  We need to "unify" the uniform rules....so that wear instuctions are as identical as possible (such as no military badges on whites and grays....but white and grays get to wear more badges then on USAF blues).

YMMV

Well the problem is that CAP does not schedule regular uniform boards and they do not update their uniforms regularly, thus we still used the decades old regulations.

However, the point is that NHQ is saying they want a "review of the entire CAP uniform structure" and not of CAP uniforms. That is a BIG distinction as I see it. That's a strategic review vs. a tactical one. Those should not be regular. Those require much thought, time and wisdom or they can end up destroying an organization.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to change our uniforms and our regs and that we need a regular uniform board to address items that were forgotten, mistakes that were made and possible improvements that are suggested. I also agree that uniforms are a big problem for CAP and that they are often the source of a lot of frustration and disagreement and may even cause a difference in philosophy among our members and I think that is a REAL problem. Our identity is at stake. That's why a review such as the one being proposed is I think a good idea and probably will result in some changes.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 12, 2012, 07:34:17 PM
I think the truth is that the majority of members have the same frustrations expressed here, they just have no real avenue to express their frustrations,
so they move on...

Yes...imagine what it would have been like during the berry boards era.

But Eclipse is right.  In my own unit the feeling is very much that we don't know what to do uniform-wise much of the time because of the antediluvian 39-1 and the myriad of ICL's.  Some in my unit wear G/W's when they could, and would like to, wear the AF blues but don't because they just consider the G/W's to be the path of least resistance in terms of 39-1 compliance, because there are very little restrictions/specifications on that particular order of dress.

There is also a feeling that we (the membership) are not listened to in uniform matters because NHQ is still in the same mindset they have been in ever since the berry board era...they killed a popular uniform (CSU) with an "I cannot tell you, you have no need to know" attitude toward the membership and a fear that (cue Mr Bill voice) "Oh, noooooo!  The Air Force will be mad if we try to change this!"

To that end, as I've said, I have a complete, drawn up proposal for a uniform to gradually replace the G/W with off-the-rack civilian items and ZERO AF content, but I haven't forwarded it up the chain because the mindset mentioned above would kill it before it even drew breath.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 12, 2012, 06:46:04 PM

Quote from: Littleguy on January 03, 2012, 02:40:10 AM
I think we are getting ABU's sooner than you think. Why? It is as simple as we are an auxillary to the US Air Force. They are going to miss their BDU's so much that they are going to make us wear ABU's so we can suffer with them  >:D

We are only an Auxiliary of the Air Force during assigned missions with orders. Given that, we are a non-profit civilian corporation about 99.999% of the time. Since most of our operations do take place in field uniforms and since the VAST majority of those operations are not as the USAF Auxiliary, it is more logical to assume that we will not receive ABUs any time soon, especially given the DoD's stance on us being a civilian non-profit, which excludes us from their policy.

By the way, using Air Force JROTC as an example doesn't work either. The JROTC is a regular part of the actual Air Force and are covered by the DoD policy. We are not.

Heh, guess someone had a rough night that left their humor nonexsistant.

Quote from: SARDOC on January 03, 2012, 12:59:44 AM

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 03, 2012, 12:50:22 AM
In fact, we are going to go away from a USAF style uniform altogether to comply with new DoD regulations about control of supply of digital uniforms.

I'm not sure that's really relevant.  We are not part of the DoD and wouldn't be receiving them from the Air Force anyway.  We would have to buy them from a third party vendor like we do now.  We would just be changing the pattern of the uniform.

If such a DoD policy does exist, it is sure to limit the distribution of DoD contracted uniforms to authorized personnel only. That is, if this is a new(ish) policy, it may not have reached the retailers yet, but may do so soon. It will not stop the production of replica uniforms that look like ABUs, ACUs, MAPATS, etc, but it will restrict the actual contracted uniforms from being sold to the public. It will not be a law, but rather a part of all future uniform contractors with manufacturers.

^ A DOD "policy" not backed up by law or enforced as such is pretty meaningless to anyone with a financial interest in the conversation.  Without stolen valor to give things a little nudge, I don't see how what the DOD does, or doesn't want people sell is going t matter much to people not in the DOD's chain.

DoD policy does restrict certain items of issued organizational clothing from being released to those outside of Government circles.  These are uniforms purchased by the DoD for DoD uses.  Any release of these items outside of those authorized would be considered a government subsidy to that outside organization.  We are not currently on that list as far as ABU's are concerned.  This regulation keeps us from going to DRMO (or whatever it's called now) and getting surplus ABU's.  Because of the government expenditures purchasing these uniforms they are trying to get the taxpayers money out of the supply they have before doling them to outside organizations.

If the Government were to restrict private industry from selling the pattern which is feasible but typically doesn't happen then the government price would increase.  Most of the manufacturers make little money on the production of these uniforms for the government contract.  Trying to be the low bid contract in the hopes they get to sell some civilian sales to make a reasonable profit.  It's the American way.

As far as I can remember, WIWOAD all Organizational Items had to be returned...that may be the case here.  Air Force policy may restrict unauthorized dissemination of organizational items.  Doesn't really impact us because we don't get ABU's or BDU's from the Air Force...as CAP member's we would buy them ourselves from an outside vendor.

As far as controlling the supply or the technology involved..I think that's like closing the gate after the cows are gone.  We missed that bus years ago.  This argument doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 12, 2012, 08:34:27 PM
^ A DOD "policy" not backed up by law or enforced as such is pretty meaningless to anyone with a financial interest in the conversation.  Without stolen valor to give things a little nudge, I don't see how what the DOD does, or doesn't want people sell is going t matter much to people not in the DOD's chain.

Even SV doesn't mean a lot in terms of manufacturing.  You can still buy pretty much any U.S. medal you want (with the exception of the MOH) quite easily, some from reputable sources and others from not-so-reputable sources.  It's wearing them where if one gets caught out they can have trouble.  But with digital camouflage uniforms, unless there is some sort of inspector who has an infra-red scanner or knows what else to look for, it's going to be nearly unenforceable.

I have heard that some other squadrons are already all wearing ABUs. I went ahead and bought them and I am currently wearing them.

Quote from: Basher on January 12, 2012, 10:42:12 PM
I have heard that some other squadrons are already all wearing ABUs. I went ahead and bought them and I am currently wearing them.

???

(http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/troll%20face/grand/s4xqhk.jpg.gif)

Quote from: Basher on January 12, 2012, 10:42:12 PM
I have heard that some other squadrons are already all wearing ABUs. I went ahead and bought them and I am currently wearing them.

HAHAHAHAHAH  >:D

Good Troll!!

Quote from: Basher on January 12, 2012, 10:42:12 PM
I have heard that some other squadrons are already all wearing ABUs. I went ahead and bought them and I am currently wearing them.

I hope you got the fire proof version!

a) Don't wear them! 
b) Report any other squadron/member who you know are wearing them to the wing CC....through channels.

I don't think anything else needs to be said.

Why should I not wear them? :o

Quote from: Basher on January 12, 2012, 10:53:24 PM
Why should I not wear them? :o

Back under the bridge, please.

What's the OK-103 squadron?

I've been resisting the urge but now feel the need to jump in. WIWOAD (mid 90's) we all had to buy our uniforms. There was nothing issued, in the sense of them being given to us. We received our general issue at MCRD, but certainly had to pay for them. We received an annual uniform allowance that hardly covered the costs of keeping in uniform throughout an enlistment. There was nothing given. When we got out, we took them with us because, well... they were ours (we bought them). The only items we turned in were those that were truly issued to us (ie, we signed for them, they would be replaced if broken through normal wear and tear, etc). As I udnerstand it the AF did have a period where they issued ABU's to airmen deployed in a zone where they were the required uniform, but that practice stopped when the mandatory wear date became effective. The Navy had (may still have) the same type of issuance policy for those deployed to OIF/OEF because the DCU was the prescribed uniform but it was outside of the minimum uniform requirements of the service. I am sure that practice will also cease (if it hasn't already) once the new DIGI pattern uniforms (AOR1 for spec warfare/ support and AOR2 for woodland environments for all) become mandatory or we cease combat operations in areas that require their wear.

There is no lack of used official issue MARPAT at any given surplus store or online auction site. Same goes for ACU. ABUs are starting to pop up as well. While I understand the DOD policy, it doesn't hold water and I don't see how this can even remotely be enforced. I am rather on the fence regarding the ABU, with the strongest argument so far IMO being the need to be aligned with the AF for cadet programs. I think we are really making a mountain out of a mole hill, however. When the UC makes their recommendations to the NB, if ABU's are part of them, I am sure the next steps would be to work through the authorization chain to ensure we can PURCHASE them from an approved source just like the rest of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out there do. If AFJROTC units can obtain ABUs it can be made to happen for CAP if/ when the time is right.

Quote from: HGjunkie on January 12, 2012, 10:55:11 PM
What's the OK-103 squadron?

SWR-OK-103 is the Stillwater Composite Squadron in Oklahoma Wing.

Thank you for the introduction. :clap:

Quote from: Eclipse on January 12, 2012, 10:54:46 PM

Quote from: Basher on January 12, 2012, 10:53:24 PM
Why should I not wear them? :o

Back under the bridge, please.

Don't be retarded.

Basher,

As a Cadet Officer, you should show a little more respect for members of this board, the majority of us are Senior Members with far more experience in CAP matters than yourself.

I would also refrain from personal attacks of that nature, "retarded" is not a term you should be using when addressing anyone, let alone a CAP Officer.

Alright, I apologize. I am just looking for clearer answers.

Quote from: Basher on January 12, 2012, 11:11:40 PM
Alright, I apologize. I am just looking for clearer answers.

Clear answer: At this time, the Airman's Battle Uniform (ABU) is NOT authorized for Civil Air Patrol members.

Not-so-clear answer: At sometime in the future it MAY be authorized, HOWEVER, no one knows when or if that will happen.

My squadron commander said that we could wear the ABUs now. So I don't really know what is going on. :o

Quote from: Basher on January 12, 2012, 11:28:33 PM
My squadron commander said that we could wear the ABUs now. So I don't really know what is going on. :o

Your commander apparently can't read because eservices states we can't have them.

Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Basher on January 12, 2012, 11:28:33 PM
My squadron commander said that we could wear the ABUs now. So I don't really know what is going on. :o

Sure you can wear them, just not for CAP, as they are not authorized anywhere.  Look for an ICL (Interm Change Letter) on EServices.  I guarantee that there isn't one.



as of 16:36 MST

If you guys are wearing them I'd like to see some pictures.... Need to see some proof or I'm going to throw the BS flag

...and you sewed what insignia on, against what manual, that shows what photos?

Next.

Either OK wing has a rouge squadron.....

or more than likely, you are all getting PROFESSIONALY trolled!!

(http://static.mamamia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg)

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 12, 2012, 07:14:59 PM1. I don't know about the regular reviews of the uniform structure, because we are still working with a CAP uniform regulation that is decades old with less than a handful of tiny ICL changes, many of which were made in the last 5 years and only exist to rescind each other.

Decades? Really?

Taken directly from the current manual: CAP MANUAL 39-1, 23 MARCH 2005

According to my arithmetic, it will be all of seven years old in two months. Not quite even one decade.

When you start throwing numbers arouns like that, it tends to reduce the credibility of anything else you might have to say in a post.

Quote from: NCRblues on January 13, 2012, 01:50:06 AM
Either OK wing has a rouge squadron.....

or more than likely, you are all getting PROFESSIONALY trolled!!

I prefer the teal, myself.

Quote from: SarDragon on January 13, 2012, 02:38:45 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on January 13, 2012, 01:50:06 AM
Either OK wing has a rouge squadron.....

or more than likely, you are all getting PROFESSIONALY trolled!!

I prefer the [/color]teal, myself.

Wops... rogue

I guess they could have a rouge squadron as well  >:D

Quote from: NCRblues on January 13, 2012, 02:45:36 AM

Quote from: SarDragon on January 13, 2012, 02:38:45 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on January 13, 2012, 01:50:06 AM
Either OK wing has a rouge squadron.....

or more than likely, you are all getting PROFESSIONALY trolled!!

I prefer the [/color]teal, myself.

Wops... rogue

I guess they could have a rouge squadron as well  >:D

For the record, I do NOT lead it. Despite my board name.

Quote from: NCRblues on January 13, 2012, 01:50:06 AMor more than likely, you are all getting PROFESSIONALY trolled!!

Hence the "Next." after a Stealth BS flag is thrown down.

Basher, one thing I hope you will learn as a cadet is the INTEGRITY part of our Core Values.

I don't believe for a minute that your squadron CC authorised your squadron to wear ABU's...at least not in a CAP context, and certainly not with CAP insignia.  Said CC would have to know that such an aberration would very soon become known to Group, then Wing CC...and that'd be a whole lotta trouble.

Anyone near this squadron that can do some follow up on this?

I'm sill trying to understand the hype over getting ABUs.  Outside of the fire resistant ones authorized for certain AFSCs there is really nothing different about them than the BDUs outside of the fact you do not iron them or polish the boots.  Outside of that they can be just as hot if not hotter than BDUs and take a few washes to soften up. 

...and they're somewhat easier to get for some people, certainly a lot more than it used to be.  ... and the current uniform is becoming a bit harder to get .. for some people. Otherwise - not much different.

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 13, 2012, 08:30:30 AM
I'm sill trying to understand the hype over getting ABUs.  Outside of the fire resistant ones authorized for certain AFSCs there is really nothing different about them than the BDUs outside of the fact you do not iron them or polish the boots.  Outside of that they can be just as hot if not hotter than BDUs and take a few washes to soften up.

It's called wanting to be in the same uniform as our parent service. Some want them for the cool factor.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 13, 2012, 05:15:15 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 13, 2012, 08:30:30 AM
I'm sill trying to understand the hype over getting ABUs.  Outside of the fire resistant ones authorized for certain AFSCs there is really nothing different about them than the BDUs outside of the fact you do not iron them or polish the boots.  Outside of that they can be just as hot if not hotter than BDUs and take a few washes to soften up.

It's called wanting to be in the same uniform as our parent service. Some want them for the cool factor.

Some don't want to polish or iron.

I just want a uniform everyone can wear so that we can at least try to look like a professional consistent organization.  I don't care if it's green, blue, orange whatever.  One Field/Utility uniform for everybody.

If it's ABU's fine...BDU's Okay, BBDU's Dealio...don't really care.  Just wear it professionally and it should help towards the Objectives of our organization.  We don't share a field uniform with our parent service now and won't for the foreseeable future.  Their doing...Not Ours.  Why not try to establish our own identity so people know who we are?  Do that with our Field uniforms and maintain our historically heritage ties with our Dress uniforms.

Quote from: SARDOC on January 13, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
I just want a uniform everyone can wear so that we can at least try to look like a professional consistent organization.  I don't care if it's green, blue, orange whatever.  One Field/Utility uniform for everybody.

If it's ABU's fine...BDU's Okay, BBDU's Dealio...don't really care.  Just wear it professionally and it should help towards the Objectives of our organization.  We don't share a field uniform with our parent service now and won't for the foreseeable future.  Their doing...Not Ours.  Why not try to establish our own identity so people know who we are?  Do that with our Field uniforms and maintain our historically heritage ties with our Dress uniforms.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZhds-P2lW8YJJQG4T70HLFrIuwQe9MDPcxSxJv2or-Cm1uwi14g)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZD0oMWPvipGw92efi6tQjrr1eTugmdHaM_uhN_NvZHXzvxEU0)

Imagine that with our blue tapes..

Quote from:
/quote]Some don't want to polish or iron.

Okay this brings up an intersting question.
Boots should be polished and look good as should shoes. No argument there from me....
BUT ;D

Uniforms should not have loose threads or be frayed and wrinkled.
CAP Regs specifically prohibit "military creases" and say NOTHING about ironing being required whatsoever that i have ever found.
Can you please point to where outside of a a "neat and professional appearance" the regs state a uniform must be ironed? >:D

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 13, 2012, 10:18:10 PM
Imagine that with our blue tapes..

Who said we needed to use the Blue tapes...we can use whatever we want.  Just Has to be approved by Ma Blue.

Quote from: rustyjeeper on January 13, 2012, 11:43:44 PMthat i have ever found.
Can you please point to where outside of a a "neat and professional appearance" the regs state a uniform must be ironed? >:D

I never ironed my BDU's or OD's WIWOAD......I took them to the dry cleaners.

Quote from: rustyjeeper on January 13, 2012, 11:43:44 PM

Quote from:
/quote]Some don't want to polish or iron.

Okay this brings up an intersting question.
Boots should be polished and look good as should shoes. No argument there from me....
BUT ;D

Uniforms should not have loose threads or be frayed and wrinkled.
CAP Regs specifically prohibit "military creases" and say NOTHING about ironing being required whatsoever that i have ever found.
Can you please point to where outside of a a "neat and professional appearance" the regs state a uniform must be ironed? >:D

I can't always run out and dry clean my BDUs. An Iron is so much easier to carry.

If we don't iron, and can't dry clean, then we won't look professional. Besides, don't your units ever do inspections?

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 14, 2012, 12:22:43 AM
I can't always run out and dry clean my BDUs. An Iron is so much easier to carry.

If we don't iron, and can't dry clean, then we won't look professional. Besides, don't your units ever do inspections?

I missed the part where a lack of ironing for a combat / field uniform leads to unprofessionalism.

No combat ready unit ever passes inspection no inspection ready unit ever survives combat.

Someone asked, does my unit not do inspections. And the answer to that is yes it does. And the ironing was an issue recently. I questioned what regulation was violated specifically and no answer was provided to that. I am playing devil's advocate here since ironing was brought up.
Personally I dont iron other than to make pockets lay flat. If I did iron I would want military creases and double starch- that's just me.
I beleive in a professional appearance and as I said wrinkles and rumpled is not okay. But if certain types of creases are specifically disallowed and no requirement is listed in the regs for any kind of ironing aside from "neatness and professionalism". Without a unit commanders written policy dictating those specific requiremnets within the unit, it is not something for which I would accept a gig. It is time to update the uniforms and the regulations. Truth of the matter is that the military has gotten away from the old ways of shine and starch and some of us for whatever reason just cant accept that things change. Even our BDU's were not supposed to be ironed when worn in the 90's (except for the REMF's that had nothing better to do with their time) Why do some here insist on that NOT REQUIRED now when it is not a clear regulation?
As I stated previously I am a firm beleiver in a cared for uniform with pockets buttoned and laying flat as well as polish on boots. I think pride needs to be taken in the uniform by all. But I can be proud with no wrinkles and my iron safely tucked away until I get ABU's :-\

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 14, 2012, 01:49:19 AM
No combat ready unit ever passes inspection no inspection ready unit ever survives combat.

+1
Well said and my preferance is for a productive use of time and effort! We might not be combat ready or even "troops" but we are mission prepared hopefully!

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 14, 2012, 01:49:19 AM
No combat ready unit ever passes inspection no inspection ready unit ever survives combat.

Disagree... Patton's 3rd army was ALWAYS in inspection order....and if my history degree is worth anything (debatable) than his army did VERY well in combat....

Patton's own uniform was not exactly regulation was it?
I am not saying his army was not effective 8)
But as I recall history, unless mistaken I beleive he was releived of his command for some minor technicality or other wasnt he?
And I happen to like Patton's style but he could be a CSSOB :o

Quote from: NCRblues on January 14, 2012, 02:01:29 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 14, 2012, 01:49:19 AM
No combat ready unit ever passes inspection no inspection ready unit ever survives combat.

Disagree... Patton's 3rd army was ALWAYS in inspection order....and if my history degree is worth anything (debatable) than his army did VERY well in combat....

Ok one exception to the old saying.

Quote from: rustyjeeper on January 14, 2012, 02:04:21 AM
But as I recall history, unless mistaken I beleive he was releived of his command for some minor technicality or other wasnt he?

Which time?  >:D

Quote from: NCRblues on January 14, 2012, 02:06:40 AM

Quote from: rustyjeeper on January 14, 2012, 02:04:21 AM
But as I recall history, unless mistaken I beleive he was releived of his command for some minor technicality or other wasnt he?

Which time?  >:D

good point >:(

Well now that there is some insight, I say wait and see.  Honestly ABUs are way to expensive to come out of pocket on.

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 14, 2012, 01:49:19 AM
No combat ready unit ever passes inspection no inspection ready unit ever survives combat.

Did I miss the memo that we are a combat unit? I was under the impression we were a group of volunteers. I've been wrong before...

Which are more professional, a group of people with BDUs that are wrinkly and boots that aren't polished. Or maybe ironed wrinkle-free BDUs, and polished boots.

Yes, it isn't in the regs. Does it really matter? Shouldn't we look our very very best? At encampment no one was polishing their boots, so (after I asked the TAC and flight staff) I took everyones boots and polished them to mirror finish. (or as close as I could[take care of your boots, people!])

It wasn't in the regs, but it sure made us look good. Better than all the other flights

Some of you guys are very selective on regs...

Some of you guys are very selective on regs...
[/quote]

Thank you, I take that as a compliment ;D
and for the record ....
although I played devil's advocate it is for a reason. To demonstate that our regulations are woefully inedaquate concerning uniforms.
The intent is clear
"All commanders will ensure that all members, individually and
collectively, present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP as the
auxiliary of the United States Air Force."
However there is also clear indication in other publications prohibiting certain ironing practices. So each and every command has the authority to impose differing standards. This leads to an organization wheere one unit looks sharp and another not so sharp. We need to get on the same page. To me it seems as if the real military has gotten away from uniform maintenance to a large degree, at one time soldiers actually sewed their own patches on- imagine that, now it is peel and stick ;)
I am hoping that whenever a change comes down the pike (and I hope not soon I like the BDU's) the regulations are updated well in advance and not to be released "in a short while" (which we all know likely means years).
And I am totally in agreement that CAP is not a combat unit, nor will it ever be one. We do have a role to play in support of the armed forces and we should look good but lets not get to hung up in creases and spit shines. A simple brush shine and a BLACK not raw leather boot is better than what we currently see on a regular basis.

Quote from: NIN on January 14, 2012, 01:37:15 AM

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 14, 2012, 12:22:43 AM
I can't always run out and dry clean my BDUs. An Iron is so much easier to carry.

If we don't iron, and can't dry clean, then we won't look professional. Besides, don't your units ever do inspections?

I missed the part where a lack of ironing for a combat / field uniform leads to unprofessionalism.

I missed the part where looking like a pile of dogcrap leads to getting things done.

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:02:23 AM

Quote from: NIN on January 14, 2012, 01:37:15 AM

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 14, 2012, 12:22:43 AM
I can't always run out and dry clean my BDUs. An Iron is so much easier to carry.

If we don't iron, and can't dry clean, then we won't look professional. Besides, don't your units ever do inspections?

I missed the part where a lack of ironing for a combat / field uniform leads to unprofessionalism.

I missed the part where looking like a pile of dogcrap leads to getting things done.

According to your rules, all of the troops in Afghanistan must be unprofessional piles of dogcrap then.
But somehow they manage to get the job done...  Despite their unironed, wrinkled uniforms and dusty, dirty boots.

Quote from: PHall on January 14, 2012, 05:52:27 AM

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:02:23 AM

Quote from: NIN on January 14, 2012, 01:37:15 AM

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 14, 2012, 12:22:43 AM
I can't always run out and dry clean my BDUs. An Iron is so much easier to carry.

If we don't iron, and can't dry clean, then we won't look professional. Besides, don't your units ever do inspections?

I missed the part where a lack of ironing for a combat / field uniform leads to unprofessionalism.

I missed the part where looking like a pile of dogcrap leads to getting things done.

According to your rules, all of the troops in Afghanistan must be unprofessional piles of dogcrap then.
But somehow they manage to get the job done...  Despite their unironed, wrinkled uniforms and dusty, dirty boots.

Sir, I am talking about a professional volunteer SAR organization. Not the military.

Who wants to help/talk to a bunch of guys that look like crap?

I missed the part where we no longer care about how we represent ourselves. You are a representitive of CAP. Your uniform, your grooming, and your attitude all affect how we are viewed.

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:02:23 AM
I missed the part where looking like a pile of dogcrap leads to getting things done.

Lets dispel a couple of myths, shall we?

** "Modern" utility/combat uniforms in the US Armed Forces are "no-iron" uniforms (well, unless you're an E-9 in the AF.. I've seen more E-9s with creases thru their stripes that I could cut myself on .. Old habits apparently die very hard when you're a senior NCO). Pull 'em out of the wash, hang them up. Done.

** If done correctly, when you wear a uniform like that, it does not "look like a pile of dogcrap" just because it does not get near an iron. (don't take almost 6 years of wearing ACUs from me: when I go to AUSA in DC, I see literally -thousands- of dudes in ACUs in one place, none of whom iron or press their ACUs and somehow, magically, none of them "look like dogcrap.")

** If you take a "wash and wear" uniform, wad it up, jam it into the corner of your b-hut or into the bottom of your duffel bag, wait 7-10 days, pull it out, put it on, and then try to go out into the mountains of Afghanistan with a ruck, weapon, radio, armor and helmet, your ability to "get things done" does not magically leak out of you like Superman's powers near kryptonite.

Why?  Because:

• With all that crap on, its hard to tell whether your uniform "looks like dogcrap or not";
• You *will* still "get things done," even if you "look like dogcrap" (there tends to be a lot of "hands-on leadership" that ensures that you will "get things done," and I'm pretty sure that apart from an E-5 or E-6 saying "hey, did you sleep in that uniform?" nobody is going to recognize any loss of efficiency in "getting things done" due to "looking like dogcrap");
• You might actually kneel/sit/lie in actual "dogcrap." Therefore, by extension, you may actually *look* like "dogcrap" when people see you post-kneeling/sitting/lying in "dogcrap."  Does said "dogcrap" obviate your abilities? Does it change your weapon zero?  Knowledge of grid coordinates?  Adjust your ability to call for fire?  No, it might cause your teammates to laugh & point, and perhaps say a foot or two further away than normal, but "looking like dogcrap" should not hinder your ability to "get things done" if you have the training and ability to "get things done."

** Just because someone "looks like dogcrap" does not mean they're not skilled, don't have abilities, and can't "get things done."   (this is the old "don't read a book by its cover" thing)

Seriously here for a minute, I think this is really the crux of the whole thing:

Is it just me, or is CAP unreasonably hung up on "form over function," especially within the cadet program?


I've been a unit commander in two wings, been a wing DCP, traveled around a little beyond that, and visited countless units in 28 years in CAP, and I was a cadet for almost 6 years too.

What I saw was a lot (and by "a lot" I mean almost a preponderance) of units that placed "looking good" over "doing good."

Units with a ton of emphasis on making sure everybody was in the same uniform, yet their cadet NCOs could not tell me who was in their element/flight, or where everybody was at a particular time (ie. basic NCO leadership).

Units that could not operate a recall roster/call tree, from top to bottom, yet found it more important to judge C/SSgt Smith on his ability to position his nametag on his own uniform as a factor of his upcoming promotion.

Really now: look at your own unit schedule. I bet you have 15 minutes in there EVERY week for uniform inspection, but in a MONTH, how much time do you devote to specific "NCO training?" (and by "NCO training" mean an actual "NCO-specific professional development training event for NCOs, not "Flight Drill".  "Flight Drill" != "NCO Training")

There is a lot of emphasis on this kabuki theater of "picture perfect uniform wear" and "near flawless drill execution" over actual literal hands-on leadership training, application of that training, day-to-day NCO and officer leadership (and by that I mean *appropriate* NCO & Officer leadership), and the accomplishment of the mission at hand. A mission that is not "razor sharp creases and well-starched work uniforms" (remember: BDUs are a work/field uniform, not a parade ground-quality uniform). 

Sure the mission gets done, but how many times have we heard of stories of a guy showing up to an event or activity in a "less than optimal uniform" and being sent packing?  Thats helpful for the activity and the guy.  Super.  Nice leadership there, guys.   (than again, how many times have you been to an event or activity where the activity director looks like 150lbs of chewed bubble gum, but if you looked like that, you'd be sent home.  Really creates a lot of "cognitive dissonance" in your belly, doesn't it?  Sort of sets up a "some people are so important they can ignore the standards."  And I *know* thats not in the leadership texts *anyplace*. Cadet or senior)

I guess my point here is that there is a LOT of situations where people are actually graded on how they look and not how they actually perform.  The sentence quoted above reinforces this: "I missed the part where looking like a pile of dogcrap leads to getting things done." 

I see this evidenced EVERY day here on CAP-Talk, in EVERY discussion that goes from "Subjects Alpha thru Tango" to "Subject Uniform." 

Example? Just a week or so ago:

Subject: "A CAP Pilot performed an excellent emergency landing on a Texas street. Dinged the plane, but walked away."
Eventual subject: "She was clearly doing something wrong with her aviating, because I saw a photo and it did not look like she was wearing the right uniform."

HOLY.DOG.CRAP. Really?  The intimation was that the pilot was clearly a gigantic screwup because she didn't appear to have a flight suit/polo shirt, etc on. 

Who are we kidding here, people?

There is a difference between "doing things correctly" and "overdoing things to the point of incorrect emphasis on the wrong message/lesson."

Years ago, I stopped doing inspections with a stitch gauge and instructed my cadet officers and NCOs to stop using them.

Why? Because my NCOs, cadet officers and adult officers should know enough about the uniform to be able to look at something and know its wrong.

A nameplate that's 1/32nd of an inch too far one way?

Yes, you are correct, that is NOT centered.  But when I stand back and look and the cadet's uniform looks correct, and from 2 1/2-3 ft away his/her nameplate looks right, does 1/32nd of an inch really matter? 

No. That's hair splitting and creating a standard that cannot always be met. By anybody.

(using my example above: Over the years, I saw that male cadets were frequently dinged for nameplate violations using a stitch gauge, but female cadets were not held to the same standards because it was far more difficult to actually stand in front of a female cadet and measure to that kind of standard without invoking a CPP violation or just basic "Bad Touch". So more often than not a female cadet's nameplate was eyeballed for correctness and they didn't get any kind of a nameplate gig except for really egregious misplacement.  Sauce for the goose, Mr. Savvik.  Why aren't we just eyeballing these things for everybody?  If I stand two cadets side by each and one has a nameplate placed with a micrometer and the other has one thats eyeballed, and is also correct, I doubt you can really tell the difference. More often than not, the problem with the cadet's uniform isn't that his nameplate is 1/16th of an inch off, its that his nameplate doesn't sit on the pocket, or, in the case of the female nameplate, its too far to one side or the other or its crooked. If its not crooked and it looks like its centered, then hey, its probably right.  Time to move on.)



You're probably thinking from my stitch gauge revelation: "Oh my god, Ninness, you must have had the absolute most slack unit in CAP"

Yeah, sure did.  Slack as hell.  Real bunch of dogcrap covered dirtbags.  Last unit I commanded, nary a stitch gauge in sight and we were Wing Squadron of Merit three times in 5 years and Region Squadron of Distinction once.  Yep. Thats a *really* slack unit. (and has since gone on to Region Squadron of Distinction again since the first 5 years I was commander)

You see, somehow in 28 years in CAP, I missed the part in the 52-16 and the leadership lab that says "Only a guy who doesn't look like 'dogcrap' can get things done in CAP."

Folks, step back and think about what you're saying for a minute. 

>Is it just me, or is CAP unreasonably hung up on "form over function," especially within the cadet program?
You see, somehow in 28 years in CAP, I missed the part in the 52-16 and the leadership lab that says "Only a guy who doesn't look like 'dogcrap' can get things done in CAP."<

Quote from: NIN on January 14, 2012, 02:45:46 PM

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:02:23 AM
I missed the part where looking like a pile of dogcrap leads to getting things done.

Lets dispel a couple of myths, shall we?

** "Modern" utility/combat uniforms in the US Armed Forces are "no-iron" uniforms (well, unless you're an E-9 in the AF.. I've seen more E-9s with creases thru their stripes that I could cut myself on .. Old habits apparently die very hard when you're a senior NCO). Pull 'em out of the wash, hang them up. Done.

** If done correctly, when you wear a uniform like that, it does not "look like a pile of dogcrap" just because it does not get near an iron. (don't take almost 6 years of wearing ACUs from me: when I go to AUSA in DC, I see literally -thousands- of dudes in ACUs in one place, none of whom iron or press their ACUs and somehow, magically, none of them "look like dogcrap.")

** If you take a "wash and wear" uniform, wad it up, jam it into the corner of your b-hut or into the bottom of your duffel bag, wait 7-10 days, pull it out, put it on, and then try to go out into the mountains of Afghanistan with a ruck, weapon, radio, armor and helmet, your ability to "get things done" does not magically leak out of you like Superman's powers near kryptonite.

Why?  Because:

• With all that crap on, its hard to tell whether your uniform "looks like dogcrap or not";
• You *will* still "get things done," even if you "look like dogcrap" (there tends to be a lot of "hands-on leadership" that ensures that you will "get things done," and I'm pretty sure that apart from an E-5 or E-6 saying "hey, did you sleep in that uniform?" nobody is going to recognize any loss of efficiency in "getting things done" due to "looking like dogcrap");
• You might actually kneel/sit/lie in actual "dogcrap." Therefore, by extension, you may actually *look* like "dogcrap" when people see you post-kneeling/sitting/lying in "dogcrap."  Does said "dogcrap" obviate your abilities? Does it change your weapon zero?  Knowledge of grid coordinates?  Adjust your ability to call for fire?  No, it might cause your teammates to laugh & point, and perhaps say a foot or two further away than normal, but "looking like dogcrap" should not hinder your ability to "get things done" if you have the training and ability to "get things done."

** Just because someone "looks like dogcrap" does not mean they're not skilled, don't have abilities, and can't "get things done."   (this is the old "don't read a book by its cover" thing)

Seriously here for a minute, I think this is really the crux of the whole thing:

Is it just me, or is CAP unreasonably hung up on "form over function," especially within the cadet program?


I've been a unit commander in two wings, been a wing DCP, traveled around a little beyond that, and visited countless units in 28 years in CAP, and I was a cadet for almost 6 years too.

What I saw was a lot (and by "a lot" I mean almost a preponderance) of units that placed "looking good" over "doing good."

Units with a ton of emphasis on making sure everybody was in the same uniform, yet their cadet NCOs could not tell me who was in their element/flight, or where everybody was at a particular time (ie. basic NCO leadership).

Units that could not operate a recall roster/call tree, from top to bottom, yet found it more important to judge C/SSgt Smith on his ability to position his nametag on his own uniform as a factor of his upcoming promotion.

Really now: look at your own unit schedule. I bet you have 15 minutes in there EVERY week for uniform inspection, but in a MONTH, how much time do you devote to specific "NCO training?" (and by "NCO training" mean an actual "NCO-specific professional development training event for NCOs, not "Flight Drill".  "Flight Drill" != "NCO Training")

There is a lot of emphasis on this kabuki theater of "picture perfect uniform wear" and "near flawless drill execution" over actual literal hands-on leadership training, application of that training, day-to-day NCO and officer leadership (and by that I mean *appropriate* NCO & Officer leadership), and the accomplishment of the mission at hand. A mission that is not "razor sharp creases and well-starched work uniforms" (remember: BDUs are a work/field uniform, not a parade ground-quality uniform). 

Sure the mission gets done, but how many times have we heard of stories of a guy showing up to an event or activity in a "less than optimal uniform" and being sent packing?  Thats helpful for the activity and the guy.  Super.  Nice leadership there, guys.   (than again, how many times have you been to an event or activity where the activity director looks like 150lbs of chewed bubble gum, but if you looked like that, you'd be sent home.  Really creates a lot of "cognitive dissonance" in your belly, doesn't it?  Sort of sets up a "some people are so important they can ignore the standards."  And I *know* thats not in the leadership texts *anyplace*. Cadet or senior)

I guess my point here is that there is a LOT of situations where people are actually graded on how they look and not how they actually perform.  The sentence quoted above reinforces this: "I missed the part where looking like a pile of dogcrap leads to getting things done." 

I see this evidenced EVERY day here on CAP-Talk, in EVERY discussion that goes from "Subjects Alpha thru Tango" to "Subject Uniform." 

Example? Just a week or so ago:

Subject: "A CAP Pilot performed an excellent emergency landing on a Texas street. Dinged the plane, but walked away."
Eventual subject: "She was clearly doing something wrong with her aviating, because I saw a photo and it did not look like she was wearing the right uniform."

HOLY.DOG.CRAP. Really?  The intimation was that the pilot was clearly a gigantic screwup because she didn't appear to have a flight suit/polo shirt, etc on. 

Who are we kidding here, people?

There is a difference between "doing things correctly" and "overdoing things to the point of incorrect emphasis on the wrong message/lesson."

Years ago, I stopped doing inspections with a stitch gauge and instructed my cadet officers and NCOs to stop using them.

Why? Because my NCOs, cadet officers and adult officers should know enough about the uniform to be able to look at something and know its wrong.

A nameplate that's 1/32nd of an inch too far one way?

Yes, you are correct, that is NOT centered.  But when I stand back and look and the cadet's uniform looks correct, and from 2 1/2-3 ft away his/her nameplate looks right, does 1/32nd of an inch really matter? 

No. That's hair splitting and creating a standard that cannot always be met. By anybody.

(using my example above: Over the years, I saw that male cadets were frequently dinged for nameplate violations using a stitch gauge, but female cadets were not held to the same standards because it was far more difficult to actually stand in front of a female cadet and measure to that kind of standard without invoking a CPP violation or just basic "Bad Touch". So more often than not a female cadet's nameplate was eyeballed for correctness and they didn't get any kind of a nameplate gig except for really egregious misplacement.  Sauce for the goose, Mr. Savvik.  Why aren't we just eyeballing these things for everybody?  If I stand two cadets side by each and one has a nameplate placed with a micrometer and the other has one thats eyeballed, and is also correct, I doubt you can really tell the difference. More often than not, the problem with the cadet's uniform isn't that his nameplate is 1/16th of an inch off, its that his nameplate doesn't sit on the pocket, or, in the case of the female nameplate, its too far to one side or the other or its crooked. If its not crooked and it looks like its centered, then hey, its probably right.  Time to move on.)



You're probably thinking from my stitch gauge revelation: "Oh my god, Ninness, you must have had the absolute most slack unit in CAP"

Yeah, sure did.  Slack as hell.  Real bunch of dogcrap covered dirtbags.  Last unit I commanded, nary a stitch gauge in sight and we were Wing Squadron of Merit three times in 5 years and Region Squadron of Distinction once.  Yep. Thats a *really* slack unit. (and has since gone on to Region Squadron of Distinction again since the first 5 years I was commander)

You see, somehow in 28 years in CAP, I missed the part in the 52-16 and the leadership lab that says "Only a guy who doesn't look like 'dogcrap' can get things done in CAP."

Folks, step back and think about what you're saying for a minute. 

Sir,
You have done an OUTSTANDING job of clearly identifying what is wrong with our organization in general as well as here at Captalk specifically. For a long time I lurked here, reading and wondering to myself just who some of these uniform and detail concerned chicken farmers were and why they had no lives--- to me it was much like watching Jerry Springer reruns. I entertained myself for several months listening and watching until I was no longer entertained by reading. Now I poke at the hornets nest on occasion when I think it may do some good and cause someone to just stop and think for a moment.
Your reply shows me that there are in fact some very good people here on Captalk,  and I thank you for the thought and effort which you put into your post, I agree completely with it! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Now, if only others here will read it and think about what you said .........
I hope someday things change it has always been  "unreasonably hung up on "form over function," especially within the cadet program" that I can recall even way back in the late 70's and early 80's

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:02:23 AM

Quote from: NIN on January 14, 2012, 01:37:15 AM

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 14, 2012, 12:22:43 AM
I can't always run out and dry clean my BDUs. An Iron is so much easier to carry.

If we don't iron, and can't dry clean, then we won't look professional. Besides, don't your units ever do inspections?

I missed the part where a lack of ironing for a combat / field uniform leads to unprofessionalism.

I missed the part where looking like a pile of dogcrap leads to getting things done.

Are you even involved in SAR? I am, and as a GTL I know it is important for my teams to be presentable as we interface with the public; however, my BBDUs have NEVER been ironed, and my boots are NOT shiney (they've had two coats put on for protective purposes, that's it), yet I still manage to do my job every time. Presentable means a clean uniform (assuming we haven't just navigated through some mysterious swamp that popped up in IL) and in good repair with no unauthorized patches and you are wearing the correct uniform for your weight and grooming. Beyond that, any ironing will likely be covered up by gear or go to hell in the first hour of boots on the ground.

Okay......well I think we have all reached that point in the conversation....
Yes Function over Form.
Yes a good image is imporatant.
And yes.....cadets and CP'ers have a tendancy to stress form over function.

Are you even involved in SAR? I am, and as a GTL I know it is important for my teams to be presentable as we interface with the public; however, my BBDUs have NEVER been ironed, and my boots are NOT shiney (they've had two coats put on for protective purposes, that's it), yet I still manage to do my job every time. Presentable means a clean uniform (assuming we haven't just navigated through some mysterious swamp that popped up in IL) and in good repair with no unauthorized patches and you are wearing the correct uniform for your weight and grooming. Beyond that, any ironing will likely be covered up by gear or go to hell in the first hour of boots on the ground.
[/quote] SPACEMAN
---------------

I am also involved in GT and you are right on the money. A boot kit is part of our 72 hour kit (rarely used in the field but for someone to have one is a good thing/ everyone NO that is just silliness but it is required). Despite the inclusion of a boot shine kit which does serve a purpose (waterproffing/leather protection and emergency fuel source LOL) I notice that there is NO PROVISION for a butane powered iron or a Generator and conventional Iron in the gear; perhaps this is something that our appearance oriented RE members would like to address for the future so as to further hinder our actual operational capabilities so that we can look good doing nothing :angel:

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 14, 2012, 06:20:59 AMSir, I am talking about a professional volunteer SAR organization. Not the military.

Who wants to help/talk to a bunch of guys that look like crap?

I missed the part where we no longer care about how we represent ourselves. You are a representitive of CAP. Your uniform, your grooming, and your attitude all affect how we are viewed.

Hey, next time you're out on an ACTUAL MISSION as a Ground Team member, take a look around at the folks from the other agencies.
You're probably not going to see any razor sharp creases or spit shined boots.

Why is that you ask? Beacuse a razor sharp crease or a super shiny boot does absolutely nothing to further their ability to find the object of the search.

Their uniform is just another piece of equipment to them. It protects them and identifies them. All it needs to be is clean and in good repair.
Just like all of the other equipment they use...

Quote from: PHall on January 14, 2012, 04:36:00 PM

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 14, 2012, 06:20:59 AMSir, I am talking about a professional volunteer SAR organization. Not the military.

Who wants to help/talk to a bunch of guys that look like crap?

I missed the part where we no longer care about how we represent ourselves. You are a representitive of CAP. Your uniform, your grooming, and your attitude all affect how we are viewed.

Hey, next time you're out on an ACTUAL MISSION as a Ground Team member, take a look around at the folks from the other agencies.
You're probably not going to see any razor sharp creases or spit shined boots.

Why is that you ask? Beacuse a razor sharp crease or a super shiny boot does absolutely nothing to further their ability to find the object of the search.

Their uniform is just another piece of equipment to them.  It protects them and identifies them. All it needs to be is clean and in good repair.
Just like all of the other equipment they use...

the sentance in red says it all to me, the rest I agree with but I am tired of beating my head against the wall arguing for common sense, where I know from experience some will never get it....

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 14, 2012, 04:04:50 PM
Are you even involved in SAR? I am, and as a GTL I know it is important for my teams to be presentable as we interface with the public; however, my BBDUs have NEVER been ironed, and my boots are NOT shiney (they've had two coats put on for protective purposes, that's it), yet I still manage to do my job every time. Presentable means a clean uniform (assuming we haven't just navigated through some mysterious swamp that popped up in IL) and in good repair with no unauthorized patches and you are wearing the correct uniform for your weight and grooming. Beyond that, any ironing will likely be covered up by gear or go to hell in the first hour of boots on the ground.

Involved in SAR? Hmmm. Let me think.

GTM from 1981 on. Missed a couple-three years while I was overseas, then GTL from about 1989 to 2009 with some dalliances in other base staff/GSAR/Air Ops functions. Both in a Flatland state and in a mountainous state.

Schooling included Drummond Island & Hawk Mtn, taught at several others.

I probably have more time on the crapper on SARs than.... oh, nevermind.

Quote from: NIN on January 14, 2012, 04:45:28 PM

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 14, 2012, 04:04:50 PM
Are you even involved in SAR? I am, and as a GTL I know it is important for my teams to be presentable as we interface with the public; however, my BBDUs have NEVER been ironed, and my boots are NOT shiney (they've had two coats put on for protective purposes, that's it), yet I still manage to do my job every time. Presentable means a clean uniform (assuming we haven't just navigated through some mysterious swamp that popped up in IL) and in good repair with no unauthorized patches and you are wearing the correct uniform for your weight and grooming. Beyond that, any ironing will likely be covered up by gear or go to hell in the first hour of boots on the ground.

Involved in SAR? Hmmm. Let me think.

GTM from 1981 on. Missed a couple-three years while I was overseas, then GTL from about 1989 to 2009 with some dalliances in other base staff/GSAR/Air Ops functions. Both in a Flatland state and in a mountainous state.

Schooling included Drummond Island & Hawk Mtn, taught at several others.

I probably have more time on the crapper on SARs than.... oh, nevermind.

Sorry NIN, I wasn't referring to you. I thought I quoted a post above you. I know you have been quite active through your many years and have been in places crappier than the forest in some backwoods state :).

Well, all I can see in all of the replies pushing extremes. I hope CAP is never deployed to war, because clearly now we are somehow on the same level of our warriors. And I wonder what wing has so much SAR action that they are always wearing their gear. I have had many great friends who have served in the military, friends in all branches, and they always had a presentable uniform when I saw them in uniform while not on deployed, whether it be a picture or me actually meeting them while they are in uniform. I seriously don't care if you iron your uniform or not, spit shine your boots or not, but I do expect that your uniform does not look like it was rolled out of a duffle bag, that your boots atleast are all one color of black, and that there are not so many threads you could rappel all of the 101st AA. Simply said, I do not ever see a happy medium between us. Some of us spend practically whole day on our BDU's while others of us only spend 2 seconds throwing it in the wash or the dryer and not hanging it up when it is done drying. Another thing, there is the domino effect to a consistent leader. If all of the dominos fall, then you are proficent in all aspects of being a leader. You take out the uniform domino, it is going to be hard for the dominos to keep falling into place. It is also suggested under this theory that one domino can be missing but still work, but it is going to be noticable that it is missing because you have a gap in your dominos. I stress competence across the spectrum with my fellow cadets. I noticed in the replies that have popped up that there is a stressing of SAR. I am getting worried, is there a huge amount of missions happening that you guys are always out with your gear on?

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:03:29 PMis there a huge amount of missions happening that you guys are always out with your gear on?

You assume that we all wear BDUs at meetings. I only wear BDUs on missions, I'm one of the polo-shirted rebels the rest of the time (sometimes I'm a polo shirted rebel at missions too!)

You also assume that uniforms are part of the "leadership domino effect" (as you put it). In the CP world, they are, but in mine, they aren't really that big of a factor. Like someone else said, it's mostly there to protect and identify me. I lead from my email behind a desk more than I do in a uniform at an activity (a side effect of being a group staffer and living an hour away from your squadron of record).

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:03:29 PM
Well, all I can see in all of the replies pushing extremes. I hope CAP is never deployed to war, because clearly now we are somehow on the same level of our warriors. And I wonder what wing has so much SAR action that they are always wearing their gear. I have had many great friends who have served in the military, friends in all branches, and they always had a presentable uniform when I saw them in uniform while not on deployed, whether it be a picture or me actually meeting them while they are in uniform. I seriously don't care if you iron your uniform or not, spit shine your boots or not, but I do expect that your uniform does not look like it was rolled out of a duffle bag, that your boots atleast are all one color of black, and that there are not so many threads you could rappel all of the 101st AA. Simply said, I do not ever see a happy medium between us. Some of us spend practically whole day on our BDU's while others of us only spend 2 seconds throwing it in the wash or the dryer and not hanging it up when it is done drying. Another thing, there is the domino effect to a consistent leader. If all of the dominos fall, then you are proficent in all aspects of being a leader. You take out the uniform domino, it is going to be hard for the dominos to keep falling into place. It is also suggested under this theory that one domino can be missing but still work, but it is going to be noticable that it is missing because you have a gap in your dominos. I stress competence across the spectrum with my fellow cadets. I noticed in the replies that have popped up that there is a stressing of SAR. I am getting worried, is there a huge amount of missions happening that you guys are always out with your gear on?

Neat and professional.........there is a lot of space between Dirt Bag Duffle Bag and Honor Guard Razor Sharp that fills the description of "neat and professional".

I think that is where the disconnect is.

Someone mentions that "wrinkle free" is not the same as "40 layers of starch" and then we get argument about capabliities.

Yes....many people in the military and in CAP have forgotten the difference between Function and Form.  Somewhere there is a balance where function and form gives us the best of both.....it's pretty and it works.

This is not a new argument. 
This argument has been going on in the military for as long as I have been associatied with the USAF.  It has included everthing from uniforms, shoe shines, hair cuts, weight managment, PT.

So....let's all agree....that Form is not Not always Function.....but that presenting a good image is generally a good thing.

I stress uniform compliance, neat, clean and serviceable to my cadets and seniors.  Anyone who comes and shows me the three hours they spend on their boot and ironing their BDU just right.....I complement them on their efforts, then ask them how they stand are their promotion tests, or how their subordinates are doing and what their uniforms look like.

It is not that a perfect uniform is a bad thing.....but you reach a point of diminishing returns.  I can spend 5 hours preping my uniform...starch and iron everthing, polish shoes, measure rank, name and ribbons to within 1/64".

Or I can take my uniforms to the dry cleaners.  Spend 5 minutes using windex on my Corfams, 10 minues getting my name tage and ribbons centered and grounded and I'm good.

WIWOAD.....I polished my boots once a week.....that is Monday morning when I got in to work...I took the kiwi and gave them a quick once over....10 mins max.  Maybe during the week....if I was working outside a lot and they got extra dirty I would take the buffing brush to them.

When we switched to ABUs.......I loved it....saved me $8/week in dry cleaning bills.  Wash the uniform, hang it up as soon as the dryer pings......brush off the boots every few days......cool!  It's a work uniform, no one should be expecting you to pass and inspcetion in them.  But that does not mean you can allow yourself to look like a pig either.  Neat and professional.

I am glad we all came to agreement on that ;D

Now lets get some more SAR mission activity so we can roll around like pigs in the mud in our "neat and presentable" BDU's. :o
kidding :)
My entire point was that a uniform should look good, not too good we are not the Old Guard at the Tomb of the Unknown....
We have a job to train for or to do and that is what it is all about.
Anyone who does not care about their appearance does not belong here. That said we dont need a bunch of primma donnas either- there needs to be a balance and our uniform appearance is not the end all be all as it often appears to be what so many are here for.

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:03:29 PM
Well, all I can see in all of the replies pushing extremes. I hope CAP is never deployed to war, because clearly now we are somehow on the same level of our warriors. {A} And I wonder what wing has so much SAR action that they are always wearing their gear. I have had many great friends who have served in the military, friends in all branches, and they always had a presentable uniform when I saw them in uniform while not on deployed, whether it be a picture or me actually meeting them while they are in uniform. I seriously don't care if you iron your uniform or not, spit shine your boots or not, but I do expect that your  {B} uniform does not look like it was rolled out of a duffle bag, that {C} your boots at least are all one color of black, and that there are not so many threads you could rappel all of the 101st AA. Simply said, I do not ever see a happy medium between us. Some of us spend practically whole day on our BDU's while {D} others of us only spend 2 seconds throwing it in the wash or the dryer and not hanging it up when it is done drying. Another thing, there is the domino effect to a consistent leader. If all of the dominos fall, then you are proficent in all aspects of being a leader. You take out the uniform domino, it is going to be hard for the dominos to keep falling into place. It is also suggested under this theory that one domino can be missing but still work, but it is going to be noticable that it is missing because you have a gap in your dominos. I stress competence across the spectrum with my fellow cadets. I noticed in the replies that have popped up that there is a stressing of SAR. I am getting worried, is there a huge amount of missions happening that you guys are always out with your gear on?

First of all, please use your return/enter key a bit more often. Reading this stuff all in one big paragraph sucks.

Second, none of us ever really said {A}, {B}, {C}, and {D}. What we did say was that a utility uniform doesn't need to be starched, pressed, and creased to meet minimum appearance standards.

Third, consistency for consistency's sake is not usually a good thing. If there's a good reason that something must be 'just so', then it needs to be that way. But usually there's a margin of error that allows for reasonable uniformity without resorting to extreme measures.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 14, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
Sorry NIN, I wasn't referring to you. I thought I quoted a post above you. I know you have been quite active through your many years and have been in places crappier than the forest in some backwoods state :).

No worries. I get confused easily in my old age, these days...

"You whippersnappers! In my day we didn't use starch, we used sweat. Our own sweat! That's how we made our creases so good! And a hot rock! That was how we pressed 'em. And we really did use a hot Hershey bar before that Kiwi guy got his start..."

Two words: cotton sateen. Mmmmmmm.

Quote from: NIN on January 15, 2012, 12:13:20 AM
"You whippersnappers! In my day we didn't use starch, we used sweat. Our own sweat! That's how we made our creases so good! And a hot rock! That was how we pressed 'em. And we really did use a hot Hershey bar before that Kiwi guy got his start..."

ROFL  ;D

Quote from: SarDragon on January 14, 2012, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Littleguy on January 14, 2012, 05:03:29 PM
Well, all I can see in all of the replies pushing extremes. I hope CAP is never deployed to war, because clearly now we are somehow on the same level of our warriors. {A} And I wonder what wing has so much SAR action that they are always wearing their gear. I have had many great friends who have served in the military, friends in all branches, and they always had a presentable uniform when I saw them in uniform while not on deployed, whether it be a picture or me actually meeting them while they are in uniform. I seriously don't care if you iron your uniform or not, spit shine your boots or not, but I do expect that your  {B} uniform does not look like it was rolled out of a duffle bag, that {C} your boots at least are all one color of black, and that there are not so many threads you could rappel all of the 101st AA. Simply said, I do not ever see a happy medium between us. Some of us spend practically whole day on our BDU's while {D} others of us only spend 2 seconds throwing it in the wash or the dryer and not hanging it up when it is done drying. Another thing, there is the domino effect to a consistent leader. If all of the dominos fall, then you are proficent in all aspects of being a leader. You take out the uniform domino, it is going to be hard for the dominos to keep falling into place. It is also suggested under this theory that one domino can be missing but still work, but it is going to be noticable that it is missing because you have a gap in your dominos. I stress competence across the spectrum with my fellow cadets. I noticed in the replies that have popped up that there is a stressing of SAR. I am getting worried, is there a huge amount of missions happening that you guys are always out with your gear on?

First of all, please use your return/enter key a bit more often. Reading this stuff all in one big paragraph sucks.

Second, none of us ever really said {A}, {B}, {C}, and {D}. What we did say was that a utility uniform doesn't need to be starched, pressed, and creased to meet minimum appearance standards.

Third, consistency for consistency's sake is not usually a good thing. If there's a good reason that something must be 'just so', then it needs to be that way. But usually there's a margin of error that allows for reasonable uniformity without resorting to extreme measures.

Sorry, I was writing fast.
When people were writing their responses, they made it seem like the sloppier the better.

Quote from: NIN on January 15, 2012, 12:13:20 AM

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 14, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
Sorry NIN, I wasn't referring to you. I thought I quoted a post above you. I know you have been quite active through your many years and have been in places crappier than the forest in some backwoods state :).

No worries. I get confused easily in my old age, these days...

"You whippersnappers! In my day we didn't use starch, we used sweat. Our own sweat! That's how we made our creases so good! And a hot rock! That was how we pressed 'em. And we really did use a hot Hershey bar before that Kiwi guy got his start..."

Two words: cotton sateen. Mmmmmmm.

Hot Hershey bar..........Luxery!

In my day we had to get up 30 minutes before we got to bed, PT 14 hours, KP for 10 hours, marching up and down the parade ground for 12 hours, and then we polished our boots with a pieced of donkey droppings wrapped in a wet klenex....then the TI would shoot us just before we to bed.

And if try to tell that to young kids today.....they won't believe you!

(a tip o'the hat to Monty and his circuits).

Too bad we couldn't wear the DCU.

Quote from: NIN on January 14, 2012, 04:45:28 PM
I probably have more time on the crapper on SARs than.... oh, nevermind.

"Hey, I saw you check into the mission, but where have you been all this time?"

Quote from: NIN on January 15, 2012, 12:13:20 AM

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 14, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
Sorry NIN, I wasn't referring to you. I thought I quoted a post above you. I know you have been quite active through your many years and have been in places crappier than the forest in some backwoods state :).

No worries. I get confused easily in my old age, these days...

"You whippersnappers! In my day we didn't use starch, we used sweat. Our own sweat! That's how we made our creases so good! And a hot rock! That was how we pressed 'em. And we really did use a hot Hershey bar before that Kiwi guy got his start..."

Two words: cotton sateen. Mmmmmmm.

You, Sir, are a steely-eyed Auxiliaryman of the Old School. :clap:

Quote from: Basher on January 24, 2012, 06:13:44 PM
Too bad we couldn't wear the DCU.

you stupid bro?

Quote from: shoresfinest on January 25, 2012, 02:01:37 AM

Quote from: Basher on January 24, 2012, 06:13:44 PM
Too bad we couldn't wear the DCU.

you stupid bro?

Really?

Quote from: ol'fido on January 24, 2012, 11:48:53 PM
You, Sir, are a steely-eyed Auxiliaryman of the Old School. :clap:

In the words of a former commander "I'd appreciate it if you didn't let that get around... " ;)

Quote from: shoresfinest on January 25, 2012, 02:01:37 AM

Quote from: Basher on January 24, 2012, 06:13:44 PM
Too bad we couldn't wear the DCU.

you stupid bro?

What is up with the influx of just down right rude and disrepectful posters?  It seems to me that they are generally cadets (i may be totally off base, its late and sleep medication is kicking in) who should really know better.  I am not sure if it is indicative of how children are raised these days or just bored captalkers stirring up excitement with 'alter-ego' profiles.   Either Way Please, please, please knock it off and think twice before hitting that post button.   

And in the case that these are real people, here is some advice.  Read your own post as if someone lese had posted it towards you.  If it gets an emotional reaction perhaps you should wait to post it and rewrite it.

If it's cadets, bored CAPTalkers or whatever, insults are not cool.

Quote from: Ground_Pounder on January 25, 2012, 05:12:00 AM

Quote from: shoresfinest on January 25, 2012, 02:01:37 AM

Quote from: Basher on January 24, 2012, 06:13:44 PM
Too bad we couldn't wear the DCU.

you stupid bro?

What is up with the influx of just down right rude and disrepectful posters?  It seems to me that they are generally cadets (i may be totally off base, its late and sleep medication is kicking in) who should really know better.  I am not sure if it is indicative of how children are raised these days or just bored captalkers stirring up excitement with 'alter-ego' profiles.   Either Way Please, please, please knock it off and think twice before hitting that post button.   

And in the case that these are real people, here is some advice.  Read your own post as if someone lese had posted it towards you.  If it gets an emotional reaction perhaps you should wait to post it and rewrite it.

+1

Thanks for backing me up.

Quote from: Basher on January 26, 2012, 11:56:06 PM
Thanks for backing me up.

Its not a matter of backing you up, i personally dont think the DCU is relevent to what we do in any way.  Its just a matter of having and SHOWING respect for others is all.

Quote from: Ground_Pounder on January 27, 2012, 04:02:27 AM

Quote from: Basher on January 26, 2012, 11:56:06 PM
Thanks for backing me up.

Its not a matter of backing you up, i personally dont think the DCU is relevent to what we do in any way.  Its just a matter of having and SHOWING respect for others is all.

That is what I meant. People should be more respectful on this site. I have been disappointed with some of the things people say to me.

I'm sure the feeling is mutual among other posters on this thread. You've also said some disrespectful things.

You asked a Q, and apparently didn't like the answers you got. Then you continued to push your POV on us, in spite of having been informed of the error of that position.

Suck it up, and move on. Tactfully discuss it with your CC. Discontinue wearing ABUs, until such time as they are truly authorized.

Remember - integrity is doing things right, even when no one's looking.

Quote from: SarDragon on February 07, 2012, 07:55:39 AM
I'm sure the feeling is mutual among other posters on this thread. You've also said some disrespectful things.

You asked a Q, and apparently didn't like the answers you got. Then you continued to push your POV on us, in spite of having been informed of the error of that position.

Suck it up, and move on. Tactfully discuss it with your CC. Discontinue wearing ABUs, until such time as they are truly authorized.

Remember - integrity is doing things right, even when no one's looking.

+1 you receive what you give however that was out of line.

Quote from: abdsp51 on February 07, 2012, 04:02:31 PM
[. . .] however that was out of line.

How so?

My apologies the statement/question posed to the Basher was out of line, not the qouted material in my last post.

As of now, the AF does not want CAP wearing the ABUs.  They are afraid CAP will "Look Air Force" and they do not want that.  Also the uniforms have a Tech side to them that the AF does not want to get into public hands and yes, you can find them and buy them from former AF members on Military Exchange ect.

Quote from: CAPsteve on February 10, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
As of now, the AF does not want CAP wearing the ABUs.  They are afraid CAP will "Look Air Force" and they do not want that.  Also the uniforms have a Tech side to them that the AF does not want to get into public hands and yes, you can find them and buy them from former AF members on Military Exchange ect.

Sorry....got to throw the BS flag on this.
If you know for sure the USAF is afraid of us looking too Air Force....I am going to ask for a name, date and place you got this information....and if your informant was not the Chief of Staff of the Air Force or the CMSGTAF.....It don't count.

Second....I again BS on the "technical" issue.  ANYONE.....ANYONE can buy ABU's direct from the vendor.  You can pick them up NEW from the surplus stores, you can order them fomr BQM and USCAV.

Hey, at least they didn't cite the "low light" excuse. ;)

Quote from: a2capt on February 10, 2012, 07:32:34 AM
Hey, at least they didn't cite the "low light" excuse. ;)

Which honestly surprises me.

I wonder who thought of such an asinine term.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2012, 06:42:17 AM
....I again BS on the "technical" issue.  ANYONE.....ANYONE can buy ABU's direct from the vendor.  You can pick them up NEW from the surplus stores, you can order them fomr BQM and USCAV.

Yup, I saw several pairs of new with tags ABUs at my local friendly surplus store last weekend - they weren't even knokoffs, had the "Made for the AF - DCSP" tag on them.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 25, 2012, 06:13:29 AM
If it's cadets, bored CAPTalkers or whatever, insults are not cool.

Any sort of "culture" in any social setting is generated by those who activitly participate in that society.  Thus, if we hold ourselves to a high standard by calling out and highlighting faux pas, then we can change the offending actions to a better athmosphere.

This can be done by simply removing the credibility of people who do this and "sending the to coventry," the practice of ignoring them.  The prior corrects the behavior by showing that unsavory comments destroy meaning and validity while the latter removes the "thrill factor" of a troll (who post for reaction...discontinue the reaction and the behavior joins the methphorical tree in the forest that no one hears)

Quote from: CyBorg on February 10, 2012, 07:38:52 AM

Quote from: a2capt on February 10, 2012, 07:32:34 AM
Hey, at least they didn't cite the "low light" excuse. ;)

Which honestly surprises me.

I wonder who thought of such an asinine term.

It's in the AFI, so that would be the USAF!  :o :(

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2012, 03:12:53 PM
It's in the AFI, so that would be the USAF!  :o :(

I know it's in the AFI.  I keep a copy of the AFI in my notebook.

It's still a silly and meaningless term and if some general thought of it...well, to put the best construction on it, I hope s/he was a lot more creative and sensible in other areas of his/her AF career.

At least JROTC is wearing them!  Nice to see a bunch of fat kids wearing ABU's outside of school, making fools of themselves at McDonald's.
It makes me think CAP is the Air Force's "oh ya them" organization or the forgotten project the crazy-eyed scientist left locked in his laboratory.

Is it any wonder why we are performing less AFAM's or loosing more Air Force Civilian employment positions at Liaison Region level than JROTC.

The Air Force knows the future is the JROTC program.  They will eventually move themselves as far as possible from CAP, until we collectively fold due to lack of support. 

It really is time to move CAP into the Parent Services uniform.  Enough beating around the bush and ask the Secretary for approval to begin transitioning.  It will begin costing members more money to stay in BDU's instead of transitioning to ABU's.

This is just another example of the Air Force (specifically CAP-USAF) doing nothing for the true volunteer Airman of this country!   

Quote from: Patterson on February 10, 2012, 11:24:37 PM
At least JROTC is wearing them!  Nice to see a bunch of fat kids wearing ABU's outside of school, making fools of themselves at McDonald's.
It makes me think CAP is the Air Force's "oh ya them" organization or the forgotten project the crazy-eyed scientist left locked in his laboratory.

Is it any wonder why we are performing less AFAM's or loosing more Air Force Civilian employment positions at Liaison Region level than JROTC.

The Air Force knows the future is the JROTC program.  They will eventually move themselves as far as possible from CAP, until we collectively fold due to lack of support. 

It really is time to move CAP into the Parent Services uniform.  Enough beating around the bush and ask the Secretary for approval to begin transitioning.  It will begin costing members more money to stay in BDU's instead of transitioning to ABU's.

This is just another example of the Air Force (specifically CAP-USAF) doing nothing for the true volunteer Airman of this country!

oops! jrotc is allowed to wear them, and i would like an apology since i am in JROTC and i am not one of these "fat kids" i wrestle run track and play lacrosse and have most of my unit in my local cap squadron. CAP complained about JROTC and the ABU so we're on standby until august when AFOATS and CAP meet with the usaf about the issue

^ a little punctuation is helpful, as I have no clear idea of what you were trying to say.

PM sent.

Quote from: Patterson on February 10, 2012, 11:24:37 PM
At least JROTC is wearing them!  Nice to see a bunch of fat kids wearing ABU's outside of school, making fools of themselves at McDonald's.
It makes me think CAP is the Air Force's "oh ya them" organization or the forgotten project the crazy-eyed scientist left locked in his laboratory.

Is it any wonder why we are performing less AFAM's or loosing more Air Force Civilian employment positions at Liaison Region level than JROTC.

The Air Force knows the future is the JROTC program.  They will eventually move themselves as far as possible from CAP, until we collectively fold due to lack of support. 

It really is time to move CAP into the Parent Services uniform.  Enough beating around the bush and ask the Secretary for approval to begin transitioning.  It will begin costing members more money to stay in BDU's instead of transitioning to ABU's.

This is just another example of the Air Force (specifically CAP-USAF) doing nothing for the true volunteer Airman of this country!

I am happy to know now that I am really a fat kid who makes a fool out of himself if/when I got to Micky D's. Just the other day I got a physical (which brought my doctor to tears over my sheer improvement of the past 2 years) and lost a huge portion of BMI, improved on my mile run from 15:00 to 8:00, and have improved my upper body strength a great deal. I must really be a fat kid who makes a fool out of himself because you say so. Do not generalize JROTC (which by the way is the common name for US Army JROTC, which I am a part of, you're looking for AFJROTC) as a bunch of fat kids.

There is a signifigant difference between CAP and AFJROTC, mission wise. We have three missions in CAP, which are CP, ES, and AE. AFJROTC is more centered on making better community citizens. Their chain of command is going to be different because of this. AFJROTC needs more liaison to help them complete their mission to standard (which is "Develop citizens of character dedicated to serving their nation and community"). We do not need all of what AFJROTC needs, and I bet their liasions have to kick and scream to get what they need to keep afloat just as much as we do, if not more.

If the USAF didn't want or like us, we already would have been dropped. Times are too tough to keep around unwanted programs. We provide a very valuable mission to the community, ES. They got benifits from the cadet programs inspiring more kids to enlist and commision into the USAF, and the AE classes suppliment this. Look at the USAFA, they have one out of ten people their being former or current members of CAP. If that doesn't speak for the worthiness of the CP, than I do not know what does.

I completely agree with you on the fact we need to be in ABU's ASAP. Also, we need to update the regs to allow us to wear the sand undershirts and sage green boots with the USAF style flightsuit, too. The more we wear the BDU's, the less of a click we make with the community has part of the USAF family.

I see a little animosity here.  From what I can see NHQ hasn't asked to wear them so give them the opportunity if it's not in the works already.  AFJROTC is a separate program and governed differently so to complain about them wearing ABUs and CAP not wearing them is a moot point.  ABUs are not cheap by any means at all and BDUs are way cheaper in the long run especially if you shop around.

AFJROTC doesn't wear them. They are not allowed until AFOATS, CAP, and USAF uniform committee meet in august. Then AFJROTC will have the official go/no go on the ABU's

Quote from: Littleguy on February 12, 2012, 06:54:17 PM
The more we wear the BDU's, the less of a click we make with the community has part of the USAF family.

Some in the CAP community would actually prefer we don't make that click.  I'm not one of them, but there are quite a few who would love nothing more than to see any uniform connection we have with the USAF disappear.  That is a dead horse severely beaten though and probably not worth further discussion.

I will say this though, I've been confused more and more as "foreign" than USAF due to the use of BDU's...???

Irregardless of whether or not one group or another wears what uniform.  AFJROTC and CAP play by separate rules and separate funding.  It's apples to oranges.

Quote from: abdsp51 on February 12, 2012, 10:50:50 PM
Irregardless of whether or not one group or another wears what uniform.  AFJROTC and CAP play by separate rules and separate funding.  It's apples to oranges.

Which is really, really senseless.

Quote from: Littleguy on February 12, 2012, 06:54:17 PM
Some in the CAP community would actually prefer we don't make that click.  I'm not one of them, but there are quite a few who would love nothing more than to see any uniform connection we have with the USAF disappear.  That is a dead house severely beaten though and probably not worth further discussion.

Those you refer to - and they know who they are ("we're a flying ES club," "all ES, all the time," "the uniform makes us a bunch of wannabes") - are largely responsible for the destruction of Civil Air Patrol esprit de corps.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 12, 2012, 11:40:33 PMThose you refer to - and they know who they are ("we're a flying ES club," "all ES, all the time," "the uniform makes us a bunch of wannabes") - are largely responsible for the destruction of Civil Air Patrol esprit de corps.

I've never seen this. Not once, not ever.

Quote from: EMT-83 on February 12, 2012, 11:43:39 PM

I've never seen this. Not once, not ever.

Not to sound like I am trolling, but honestly, you have never seen this?

Never seen a Senior squadron that wants nothing to do with anything other than flying?

Never seen the unit that does ES all the time and pencil whips or ignores the CP and AE portion of CAP?

Never seen the Composite squadron that does CP all the time and never touches ES or AE (other than the required AE to promote)?

I really am just shocked if you are being honest. I can show you each squadrons within 30 minutes of my home. I was even told by one pilot at the local Senior squadron that "CP is optional, and if they ever make it not optional I would leave and never return. I am here to fly, that's all."

Quote from: EMT-83 on February 12, 2012, 11:43:39 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on February 12, 2012, 11:40:33 PMThose you refer to - and they know who they are ("we're a flying ES club," "all ES, all the time," "the uniform makes us a bunch of wannabes") - are largely responsible for the destruction of Civil Air Patrol esprit de corps.

I've never seen this. Not once, not ever.

What?  Is this sarcasm?  You have never seen the uniform haters....or you have never seen the poor seprit de corps? 

I have never seen the attitude that the organization is going to hell in a hand basket because of uniforms.

I have never seen the flying club mentality destroy the esprit de corps. A member of a senior squadron doesn't want to participate in CP? Sounds like he's in the right unit.

There are units that are heavily into ES, others into AE or cadet programs that never see an aircraft or an Elper. So what?

Sorry if you guys are so miserable. Most CAP members I know actually like the organization.

Quote from: EMT-83 on February 13, 2012, 12:40:23 AM
I have never seen the attitude that the organization is going to hell in a hand basket because of uniforms.

I have seen it occasionally expressed right here on CT...with those who are proud of the AF uniform traditions labelled as "wannabes."

Quote from: EMT-83 on February 13, 2012, 12:40:23 AM
I have never seen the flying club mentality destroy the esprit de corps. A member of a senior squadron doesn't want to participate in CP? Sounds like he's in the right unit.

I have been a member of such a squadron, where non-pilots were treated as "excess baggage," and where members would BMW when asked by Wing to participate in cadet O-rides.  Not coincidentally, they would also BMW when taking part in an activity outside the unit calling for a certain order of dress.

Quote from: EMT-83 on February 13, 2012, 12:40:23 AM
There are units that are heavily into ES, others into AE or cadet programs that never see an aircraft or an Elper. So what?

So what?  All three of those are Congressionally-mandated.  They are not optional.

Quote from: EMT-83 on February 13, 2012, 12:40:23 AM
Sorry if you guys are so miserable. Most CAP members I know actually like the organization.

It's not a matter of "liking" or "not liking."  It's the matter that the organisation is increasingly dividing into the "corporate/ES" crowd and the more traditional membership.

Quote from: Captainbob441 on February 12, 2012, 10:46:20 PMThat is a dead house severely beaten

Care to rephrase, Sir?   ;D

^^

What, you've never seen someone beat a dead house before  ::)

Rephrased per your request. 

Quote from: EMT-83 on February 13, 2012, 12:40:23 AM
I have never seen the attitude that the organization is going to hell in a hand basket because of uniforms.

I have never seen the flying club mentality destroy the esprit de corps. A member of a senior squadron doesn't want to participate in CP? Sounds like he's in the right unit.

There are units that are heavily into ES, others into AE or cadet programs that never see an aircraft or an Elper. So what?

Sorry if you guys are so miserable. Most CAP members I know actually like the organization.

Oh.....okay...I agree with you.  I see the NO CP seniors and the CP only seniors and the polo only and the if you are not in a flight suit we don't want you guys.

But yes.....I agree with you that the members and organsiaiton are not being distroyed by it.

CyBorg....All three of those missions are mandated....for CAP to do......not mandated for each and every squadron and individual to do.

The USAF mission is has many many different parts....that cannot be accomplished by a single squadron and sometimes a single wing.

So....that argument is right out the door.
Squadrons come in all flavors and styles....it is up to the wing to make sure that our missions and customers are being properly served.

Thread_derail.jpg

<All mostly off topic>

It's clique, not click.

There are still GOB flying club squadrons out there. There's one in my group. It's one thing to not want to be involved on a week to week basis. It's entirely another to want to totally eschew contact with cadets, to the extent of not even wanting do do O-rides unless absolutely forced by the group commander.
The "Thread_derail.jpg" didn't work.

</ off topic>

Correct me if I'm wrong:

If they won't play nice, take away their big toys.

If they won't give O-rides, or help other squadrons, than that plane should go somewhere else.

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on February 13, 2012, 06:44:08 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong:

If they won't play nice, take away their big toys.

If they won't give O-rides, or help other squadrons, than that plane should go somewhere else.

Unfortunately, CAP in general has trouble telling SM's who volunteer their time "NO". So... if you can find a commander that is willing to take away toys and slap hands than great. Just be ready for when that commander resigns and walks away from the  BS or gets suspended over an IG complaint because he took the wrong persons toy away.

^Or if said commander honks off the "wrong" person somewhere at Group or Wing level and finds a 2B staring them in the face.

All this is symptomatic of greater issues within the organisation than just whether or not we're going to get ABU's, whether or not we're going to wear grey or blue...

Frankly, it comes down to what is our raison d'etre?

Weird. All threads not about uniform items go to uniform items, and threads about uniform items go to the whacky ducks whose wings of lead try to hold down our organization.

I think the whole ABU is a good idea. But the blue tapes must go! Professional uniform with funky looking name tapes just isn't right.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 13, 2012, 01:43:55 AM
So what?  All three of those are Congressionally-mandated.  They are not optional.

Genuinely asking because I haven't seen it(them), but can you post the actual USC that specifies the specifics of these 'mandated' programs?

I know there are 'ambiguous' provisions in Title 10, and 36 but I haven't seen specifics naming the big three verbatim.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C403.txt (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C403.txt)

QuoteSec. 40302. Purposes

-STATUTE-
      The purposes of the corporation are as follows:
        (1) To provide an organization to -
          (A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in
        contributing their efforts, services, and resources in
        developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
          (B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary
        contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.

        (2) To provide aviation education and training especially to
      its senior and cadet members.
        (3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local
      communities.
        (4) To provide an organization of private citizens with
      adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national
      emergencies.
        (5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its
      noncombat programs and missions.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 01, 2012, 01:02:56 AM
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C403.txt (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C403.txt)

QuoteSec. 40302. Purposes

-STATUTE-
      The purposes of the corporation are as follows:
        (1) To provide an organization to -
          (A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in
        contributing their efforts, services, and resources in
        developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
          (B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary
        contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.

        (2) To provide aviation education and training especially to
      its senior and cadet members.
        (3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local
      communities.
        (4) To provide an organization of private citizens with
      adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national
      emergencies.
        (5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its
      noncombat programs and missions.

There you go folks. It's official >:D......

Fonzie Jumps the Shark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDthMGtZKa4#)

Quote from: SARDOC on January 03, 2012, 12:59:44 AM

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 03, 2012, 12:50:22 AM
In fact, we are going to go away from a USAF style uniform altogether to comply with new DoD regulations about control of supply of digital uniforms.

I'm not sure that's really relevant.  We are not part of the DoD and wouldn't be receiving them from the Air Force anyway.  We would have to buy them from a third party vendor like we do now.  We would just be changing the pattern of the uniform.

Sorry, I disagree.

Don't be surprised if CAP moves completely into the relm of blue BDUs and jump suits like those courrently offered. There's really no reason to be wearing even the BDU -- other than it is coming free from rapidly exhausted DoD stockpiles and dumpsters. We don't do combat so wy an ACU?

Our ES mission has changed away from SAR and more photography and things like disaster recovery. The common uniform among those involved in those types of things is a blue BDU. It's already being worn, anyway.

Quote from: flyboy1 on March 01, 2012, 11:45:57 AM

Our ES mission has changed away from SAR and more photography and things like disaster recovery. The common uniform among those involved in those types of things is a blue BDU. It's already being worn, anyway.

Uh, nope.  SAR is still a big part of our mission. 

Anyway we NEED a camouflage uniform when on the ground so we can hide in the bushes from those people we are searching for. Plus it makes so much sense to dress like a bush and then put on one of those ANSI class 2 vests and really look tactikewl!

I priced mine if we ever go ABUs it would cost me $307

USAF CAP-

If your BDU is getting old, there are places where you can buy a new one...

>:D

Flyer

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on February 13, 2012, 06:44:08 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong:

If they won't play nice, take away their big toys.

If they won't give O-rides, or help other squadrons, than that plane should go somewhere else.

There's a lot more to it than that.

In order for a plane to be moved there has to be hanger space and someone willing to do maintenance at the field you are moving toward.  These places also need to have adequate liability insurance as well. 

A plane does not simple just get parked in a new location.


I do agree with the sentiment though.  In a perfect world that would be what happens, and for the most part it does.

See:  http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf (http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf)

Specifically:
9.12.2.1. Uniforms indicate combatant status under the international laws of armed
conflict by distinguishing military members of the armed forces from civilians and other
noncombatants.

I don't think CAP members wearing the Airman Battle Uniform (or even the Battle Dress Uniform) in low light conditions, meet/would meet the provision of the AF regulation of distinguishing us as civilians/non combatants.

CAP's field uniform should be distinct with appropriate bright colors with no indication of attempt to conceal the member.  Neither current or proposed utility uniform meets this criteria.   Remember that we are non combat civilians.
RM

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 23, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
See:  http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf (http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf)

Specifically:
9.12.2.1. Uniforms indicate combatant status under the international laws of armed
conflict by distinguishing military members of the armed forces from civilians and other
noncombatants.

I don't think CAP members wearing the Airman Battle Uniform (or even the Battle Dress Uniform) in low light conditions, meet/would meet the provision of the AF regulation of distinguishing us as civilians/non combatants.

CAP's field uniform should be distinct with appropriate bright colors with no indication of attempt to conceal the member.  Neither current or proposed utility uniform meets this criteria.   Remember that we are non combat civilians.
RM

have you not said that enough times already?  WE KNOW.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on September 23, 2012, 04:35:55 PM

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 23, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
See:  http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf (http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf)

Specifically:
9.12.2.1. Uniforms indicate combatant status under the international laws of armed
conflict by distinguishing military members of the armed forces from civilians and other
noncombatants.

I don't think CAP members wearing the Airman Battle Uniform (or even the Battle Dress Uniform) in low light conditions, meet/would meet the provision of the AF regulation of distinguishing us as civilians/non combatants.

CAP's field uniform should be distinct with appropriate bright colors with no indication of attempt to conceal the member.  Neither current or proposed utility uniform meets this criteria.   Remember that we are non combat civilians.
RM

have you not said that enough times already?  WE KNOW.

where is that thing...oh. here it is:

(http://i.imgur.com/szzAA.gif)

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 23, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
I don't think CAP members wearing the Airman Battle Uniform (or even the Battle Dress Uniform) in low light conditions, meet/would meet the provision of the AF regulation of distinguishing us as civilians/non combatants.

CAP's field uniform should be distinct with appropriate bright colors with no indication of attempt to conceal the member.  Neither current or proposed utility uniform meets this criteria.   Remember that we are non combat civilians.
RM

At the risk of going against the admonition of "stop engaging miserable posters..."

What do you get out of riding this same horse over and over?

I think most people in CAP know that "low-light/at-a-distance" dictum is at best absurd and ill-defined, and at worst unenforceable.

You are NOT going to get your wish of CAP looking like the Salvation Army, so why keep flogging it and pissing people off?

I thought to myself earlier, after one of my "fights" with RM, that I could just do the sensible thing and block him, but, if I did that, I'd miss out on 75% of the posts here.

Who is up for putting ABU on the profanity list? I am! I've resigned myself to the fact that it probably will not happen in the near future, and the more that I look at the set I have in my closet, the more I wonder why I wanted them so badly.

Low light? Put all sorts of reflective stuff on your gear. If you go out in the field at night in nothing but your BDUs you're just asking for trouble anyway.

Distinctiveness? I think the bright blue-and-white is distinctive enough. I do NOT want to go through another uniform item change again like we did in the 90s with the maroon epaulets and the silver sleeve braid. The Air Force has agreed to the current uniform. I see no need to change it further to satisfy some whim.

Too many uniform options? We have the AF style, CAP corporate, 2 or 3 colors of flight suits, golf shirt, mess dress, and blazer. Sure, just a few more combinations than the Air Force, but look at the Army, with 4 different DRESS UNIFORM COMBINATIONS alone: Greens, whites, blues, and ceremonial. Am I wrong on this part?

Our uniforms are what they are, agreed upon by both CAP and the Air Force to provide distinctiveness and utility. I grant you that not every uniform is as utilitarian as it should be, but I've asked a few AD Army and Air Force personnel, and they have all said that the ACU and ABU are not as good as the BDU.

I would not be averse to staying in BDUs for a few more years. My love affair with the ABU, I sadly say, is over.

Greens are no longer around except for veterans like myself who Were in when they Were worn. I got lucky and was in during both greens and blues so I can wear either one on those appropriate days...

But the Army still uses every uniform they have ever worn, in ceremony of course, but everything from colonial reds to Vietnam tigers, the current and everything between. so... Yeah, the Army has A Lot of uniforms.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on September 23, 2012, 06:46:58 PM
Greens are no longer around except for veterans like myself who Were in when they Were worn. I got lucky and was in during both greens and blues so I can wear either one on those appropriate days...

I hate to be that guy, but not quite:

"THE WEAR OUT DATE FOR THE ARMY GREEN SERVICE UNIFORM WITH ACCESSORIES IS THE 4TH QUARTER OF FY 2014."
http://www.army.mil/asu/alaract.html (http://www.army.mil/asu/alaract.html)

While the ASU IS being issued as a clothing bag item to IET Soldiers, Greens are still authorized for wear. 

Quote from: 68w10 on September 23, 2012, 07:25:15 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on September 23, 2012, 06:46:58 PM
Greens are no longer around except for veterans like myself who Were in when they Were worn. I got lucky and was in during both greens and blues so I can wear either one on those appropriate days...

I hate to be that guy, but not quite:

"THE WEAR OUT DATE FOR THE ARMY GREEN SERVICE UNIFORM WITH ACCESSORIES IS THE 4TH QUARTER OF FY 2014."
http://www.army.mil/asu/alaract.html (http://www.army.mil/asu/alaract.html)

While the ASU IS being issued as a clothing bag item to IET Soldiers, Greens are still authorized for wear.

correct, but they're no longer issued.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on September 23, 2012, 06:46:58 PM
Greens are no longer around except for veterans like myself who Were in when they Were worn. I got lucky and was in during both greens and blues so I can wear either one on those appropriate days...

But the Army still uses every uniform they have ever worn, in ceremony of course, but everything from colonial reds to Vietnam tigers, the current and everything between. so... Yeah, the Army has A Lot of uniforms.

My dad was in during the transition from the Ike jacket (I have his) to the greens (which he hated).

When he made SP4, the shield was in the "new" green colour and sticks out like a sore thumb on the Ike jacket (the shield was a lot smaller and shaped differently then too).

Quote from: usafcap1 on September 23, 2012, 07:10:37 AM
I priced mine if we ever go ABUs it would cost me $307

You DO realize that the ABU is a waste of time and money, right?  You DO realize that it's a ridiculous uniform that serves no functional purpose (especially in SAR ops), right?  You DO realize that constantly asking for it makes offending CAP members look like they just want to play Air Force, in which case, they should just go join the Air Force.  You can have all the hot, useless ABUs you want, and wear them to all the friendly overseas locations that come with the honor of wearing them.

Sincerely,
Someone who has to suffer the ABU and would rather wear Blues

(double post)

Quote from: Go_Blue on September 24, 2012, 09:50:55 PM

Quote from: usafcap1 on September 23, 2012, 07:10:37 AM
I priced mine if we ever go ABUs it would cost me $307

You DO realize that the ABU is a waste of time and money, right?  You DO realize that it's a ridiculous uniform that serves no functional purpose (especially in SAR ops), right?  You DO realize that constantly asking for it makes offending CAP members look like they just want to play Air Force, in which case, they should just go join the Air Force.  You can have all the hot, useless ABUs you want, and wear them to all the friendly overseas locations that come with the honor of wearing them.

Sincerely,
Someone who has to suffer the ABU and would rather wear Blues

You DO realize that some of us think that we should be in the same uniform as the AF as we HAVE BEEN for many years.  You DO realize that some of us are BTDT, that have WORN ABU/ACU/MARPAT/NWU right.  You DO realize that a vast majority don't want to PLAY AF, we are too busy BEING CAP.

Sincerely,
Former Army Engineer

Quote from: Go_Blue on September 24, 2012, 09:50:55 PM

Quote from: usafcap1 on September 23, 2012, 07:10:37 AM
I priced mine if we ever go ABUs it would cost me $307

You DO realize that the ABU is a waste of time and money, right? 

You DO realize that the ABU is the current USAF uniform and that CAP has worn the current USAF uniform for a long time, right?

QuoteYou DO realize that it's a ridiculous uniform that serves no functional purpose (especially in SAR ops), right?

You do realize that NO CAP uniform is actually functional for SAR, right?

QuoteYou DO realize that constantly asking for it makes offending CAP members look like they just want to play Air Force, in which case, they should just go join the Air Force.

You do realize that it makes logical sense to look like the USAF when you're their Aux and that not all CAP members physically can enter the USAF OR are already in the USAF/military?

QuoteYou can have all the hot, useless ABUs you want, and wear them to all the friendly overseas locations that come with the honor of wearing them.

And that is great that they're hot, I don't like wearing uniforms much anyways so it doesn't make a difference to me if it is hot. Especially in my neck of the woods where it is cold in the winter.

QuoteSincerely,
Someone who has to suffer the ABU and would rather wear Blues

I respect your opinion and your service, however you're coming off rather negative to a kid you and I do not know (usafcap1. I want the ABU's, but I don't play USAF at all (even though I do plan to join the USAF in the next year or two unless I get enough money for college). CAP is full of traditions that I am proud of. One of them is looking like a part of the USAF family. I do not want to have a generation of Senior Members ruin a long standing tradition because they do not like a uniform.

Trust me, I know the ABU's are not the best uniform, but it is a uniform and I do not expect it to be pajamas. It is a work uniform.

Quote from: AngelWings on September 24, 2012, 10:30:08 PM

Quote from: Go_Blue on September 24, 2012, 09:50:55 PM

Quote from: usafcap1 on September 23, 2012, 07:10:37 AM
I priced mine if we ever go ABUs it would cost me $307

You DO realize that the ABU is a waste of time and money, right? 

You DO realize that the ABU is the current USAF uniform and that CAP has worn the current USAF uniform for a long time, right?

QuoteYou DO realize that it's a ridiculous uniform that serves no functional purpose (especially in SAR ops), right?

You do realize that NO CAP uniform is actually functional for SAR, right?

QuoteYou DO realize that constantly asking for it makes offending CAP members look like they just want to play Air Force, in which case, they should just go join the Air Force.

You do realize that it makes logical sense to look like the USAF when you're their Aux and that not all CAP members physically can enter the USAF OR are already in the USAF/military?

QuoteYou can have all the hot, useless ABUs you want, and wear them to all the friendly overseas locations that come with the honor of wearing them.

And that is great that they're hot, I don't like wearing uniforms much anyways so it doesn't make a difference to me if it is hot. Especially in my neck of the woods where it is cold in the winter.

QuoteSincerely,
Someone who has to suffer the ABU and would rather wear Blues

I respect your opinion and your service, however you're coming off rather negative to a kid you and I do not know (usafcap1. I want the ABU's, but I don't play USAF at all (even though I do plan to join the USAF in the next year or two unless I get enough money for college). CAP is full of traditions that I am proud of. One of them is looking like a part of the USAF family. I do not want to have a generation of Senior Members ruin a long standing tradition because they do not like a uniform.

Trust me, I know the ABU's are not the best uniform, but it is a uniform and I do not expect it to be pajamas. It is a work uniform.

Well Said.  The ABU isn't the best uniform out there, however, the approved footwear sure beats the tar out our "needs to be polished" black boots.  Footwear is were it all counts.

Quote from: Jon Knapp on September 24, 2012, 10:53:21 PM

Quote from: AngelWings on September 24, 2012, 10:30:08 PM

Quote from: Go_Blue on September 24, 2012, 09:50:55 PM

Quote from: usafcap1 on September 23, 2012, 07:10:37 AM
I priced mine if we ever go ABUs it would cost me $307

You DO realize that the ABU is a waste of time and money, right? 

You DO realize that the ABU is the current USAF uniform and that CAP has worn the current USAF uniform for a long time, right?

QuoteYou DO realize that it's a ridiculous uniform that serves no functional purpose (especially in SAR ops), right?

You do realize that NO CAP uniform is actually functional for SAR, right?

QuoteYou DO realize that constantly asking for it makes offending CAP members look like they just want to play Air Force, in which case, they should just go join the Air Force.

You do realize that it makes logical sense to look like the USAF when you're their Aux and that not all CAP members physically can enter the USAF OR are already in the USAF/military?

QuoteYou can have all the hot, useless ABUs you want, and wear them to all the friendly overseas locations that come with the honor of wearing them.

And that is great that they're hot, I don't like wearing uniforms much anyways so it doesn't make a difference to me if it is hot. Especially in my neck of the woods where it is cold in the winter.

QuoteSincerely,
Someone who has to suffer the ABU and would rather wear Blues

I respect your opinion and your service, however you're coming off rather negative to a kid you and I do not know (usafcap1. I want the ABU's, but I don't play USAF at all (even though I do plan to join the USAF in the next year or two unless I get enough money for college). CAP is full of traditions that I am proud of. One of them is looking like a part of the USAF family. I do not want to have a generation of Senior Members ruin a long standing tradition because they do not like a uniform.

Trust me, I know the ABU's are not the best uniform, but it is a uniform and I do not expect it to be pajamas. It is a work uniform.

Well Said.  The ABU isn't the best uniform out there, however, the approved footwear sure beats the tar out our "needs to be polished" black boots.  Footwear is were it all counts.

(http://i.imgur.com/szzAA.gif)

Actually wanting the ABU is just ...wow....to me, especially when there are perfectly good, respectable, and professional looking options already in use that are better uniforms.  If that's negative, so be it.  As for the auxiliary bit...given that is not a full-time state for CAP, does that argument even apply?  What, just have ABUs for instances where the unit is tasked to go out and do their officially assigned mission?  Makes no sense.  Some people seem very bent out of shape that they don't look exactly like the AF.   Maybe I'm too much of a newbie to CAP, but while CAP is a valuable part of the AF family, it is not the AF.  There's no need for a uniform like the ABU aside from aesthetics (bad ones, at that).  I'm not even sure why woodland camo is the standard, because that seems equally out of place in a homeland SAR setting (only unlike the ABU, woodland actually blends into the surroundings it was designed for).

RL,  I don't know who has BTDT by reading stuff on message boards.  I do know I've seen a lot of "we want ABUs!" threads on this board and others, and what I posted is exactly the way it comes across.  Wait a few years and then petition to have whatever Multicam craziness gets adopted over the ABU.

Quote from: Go_Blue on September 25, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
Actually wanting the ABU is just ...wow....to me, especially when there are perfectly good, respectable, and professional looking options already in use that are better uniforms.  If that's negative, so be it.  As for the auxiliary bit...given that is not a full-time state for CAP, does that argument even apply?  What, just have ABUs for instances where the unit is tasked to go out and do their officially assigned mission?  Makes no sense.  Some people seem very bent out of shape that they don't look exactly like the AF.   Maybe I'm too much of a newbie to CAP, but while CAP is part of the AF family, it is not the AF.  There's no need for a uniform like the ABU aside from aesthetics (bad ones, at that).  I'm not even sure why woodland camo is the standard, because that seems equally out of place in a homeland SAR setting (only unlike the ABU, woodland actually blends into the surroundings it was designed for).

RL,  I don't know who has BTDT by reading stuff on message boards.  I do know I've seen a lot of "we want ABUs!" threads on this board and others, and what I posted is exactly the way it comes across.  Wait a few years and then petition to have whatever Multicam craziness gets adopted over the ABU.

We have about as much BTDT data in our profiles as you do...

So that makes me not qualified to state an opinion?  Trust me, when my message board postings influence CAP leadership and future uniform policy, then you have a right to complain.  If CAP gets the ABU, awesome for those who want it.  Personally I think it's totally pointless.  But fight the good fight for what gets the mission done.

Quote from: Go_Blue on September 25, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
Actually wanting the ABU is just ...wow....to me, especially when there are perfectly good, respectable, and professional looking options already in use that are better uniforms.  If that's negative, so be it.  As for the auxiliary bit...given that is not a full-time state for CAP, does that argument even apply?  What, just have ABUs for instances where the unit is tasked to go out and do their officially assigned mission?  Makes no sense.  Some people seem very bent out of shape that they don't look exactly like the AF.   Maybe I'm too much of a newbie to CAP, but while CAP is part of the AF family, it is not the AF.  There's no need for a uniform like the ABU aside from aesthetics (bad ones, at that).  I'm not even sure why woodland camo is the standard, because that seems equally out of place in a homeland SAR setting (only unlike the ABU, woodland actually blends into the surroundings it was designed for).

RL,  I don't know who has BTDT by reading stuff on message boards.  I do know I've seen a lot of "we want ABUs!" threads on this board and others, and what I posted is exactly the way it comes across.  Wait a few years and then petition to have whatever Multicam craziness gets adopted over the ABU.

Such as and don't give the multicam line.  Having worn BDUs, DCUs, and ABUs I prefer the ABU. Why it removes that perception that by looking good you can perform your job well and requires you to perform your job.  Boots are easier to care for and replace although the AF never should have chose sage green.  The ACU/ABUs are by far the most wash and wear uniform out there.  Being able to wear ABUs in this organization IMO is about maintaining the relationship with the AF.  Have you worn anything outside of ABUs or are you spouting of random things picked up from a supposed scientific study?

The BDU is perfectly respectable and professional looking, no scientific study needed.  I had BDUs and I prefer them (summer weight ABUs aren't bad, but I am not as impressed with the quality of the product).  And why not the multicam/future uniform line?  You know it's coming eventually.  The Army's already shopping, and I would put money on the AF doing the same.  If CAP ever gets the ABU, the AF will switch uni's again and folks in CAP are going to want the new one anyway.  Just seems futile to me.

Quote from: Go_Blue on September 25, 2012, 03:04:52 AM
The BDU is perfectly respectable and professional looking, no scientific study needed.  I had BDUs and I prefer them (summer weight ABUs aren't bad, but I am not as impressed with the quality of the product).  And why not the multicam/future uniform line?  You know it's coming eventually.  The Army's already shopping, and I would put money on the AF doing the same.  If CAP ever gets the ABU, the AF will switch uni's again and folks in CAP are going to want the new one anyway.  Just seems futile to me.

The Army is shopping because plain and simple because the ACU was a billion dollar mistake.  Now the AF leadership has already said the ABU is here to stay for the time coming.  So unless you have a nice memo signed by the CSAF or the CMSAF saying otherwise anything about the AF following suit is pure (gossip, hearsay, rumor, scuttlebutt) or whichever term you want to use.  And contrary to belief the AF does not always follow suit with what the Army does.  I have had 4 sets of ABUs for 4 years now and they have held up just fine and that's including a deployment to Iraq,  RTC training in TX and a deployment to Afghanistan as well as day to day wear at home station.  As with anything new there are bound to be flaws especially with initial runs.  And bottom line sooner or later BDU pattern supplies will run out and get more expensive.   

Quote from: Go_Blue on September 25, 2012, 02:56:40 AM
So that makes me not qualified to state an opinion?  Trust me, when my message board postings influence CAP leadership and future uniform policy, then you have a right to complain.  If CAP gets the ABU, awesome for those who want it.  Personally I think it's totally pointless.  But fight the good fight for what gets the mission done.

Just so you know, there's a member of the National Uniform Committee on here, as well as a couple of former and sitting wing commanders. In addition, there are many people on here with decades of experience at all levels in CAP, so the chances of high level movers and shakers being influenced by what appears here is higher than you might think.

Quote from: U.S.A.F. C.A.P. on December 26, 2011, 04:21:20 PM
What year is Civil Air Patrol going to switch to ABUs because I think that we have really used BDUs for a long time and they are getting very old?

Being a math nerd I factored in how long did it take us to go to BDUs. I am guestimating ABU 1st quarter FY 2024. 

Quote from: RogueLeader on September 24, 2012, 10:04:57 PM

Sincerely,
Former Army Engineer

Hey what do you know me too....  Essayons!

Let us try!!!

Quote from: Private Investigator on September 25, 2012, 04:32:27 AM
Being a math nerd I factored in how long did it take us to go to BDUs. I am guestimating ABU 1st quarter FY 2024.

By then most of the currently-issued ones will be worn out, the AF will have moved on to something else and won't care what happens to the ABU's.

Quote from: Private Investigator on September 25, 2012, 04:32:27 AM

Quote from: U.S.A.F. C.A.P. on December 26, 2011, 04:21:20 PM
What year is Civil Air Patrol going to switch to ABUs because I think that we have really used BDUs for a long time and they are getting very old?

Being a math nerd I factored in how long did it take us to go to BDUs. I am guestimating ABU 1st quarter FY 2024.

Show your work. I am getting 2050...

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on September 26, 2012, 01:24:43 AM

Quote from: Private Investigator on September 25, 2012, 04:32:27 AM

Quote from: U.S.A.F. C.A.P. on December 26, 2011, 04:21:20 PM
What year is Civil Air Patrol going to switch to ABUs because I think that we have really used BDUs for a long time and they are getting very old?

Being a math nerd I factored in how long did it take us to go to BDUs. I am guestimating ABU 1st quarter FY 2024.

Show your work. I am getting 2050...

2258. You forgot to carry the 1.

Quote from: Garibaldi on September 26, 2012, 04:08:34 AM

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on September 26, 2012, 01:24:43 AM

Quote from: Private Investigator on September 25, 2012, 04:32:27 AM

Quote from: U.S.A.F. C.A.P. on December 26, 2011, 04:21:20 PM
What year is Civil Air Patrol going to switch to ABUs because I think that we have really used BDUs for a long time and they are getting very old?

Being a math nerd I factored in how long did it take us to go to BDUs. I am guestimating ABU 1st quarter FY 2024.

Show your work. I am getting 2050...

2258. You forgot to carry the 1.

Exactly   :clap:

Screw ABU's!!!!

Our new field uniform should be Multicam!!!

(http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/110701-F-HF922-404.jpg)

Quote from: Equinox on September 26, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Screw ABU's!!!!

Our new field uniform should be Multicam!!!

(http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/110701-F-HF922-404.jpg)

Now we're talking

Not authorized for the AF unless in Afghanistan and going OTW. 

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 26, 2012, 12:58:18 PM
Not authorized for the AF unless in Afghanistan and going OTW.

So what you are saying is that only the kewl crowd gets these? ...kewl!


:angel:

Yep

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 26, 2012, 12:58:18 PM
Not authorized for the AF unless in Afghanistan and going OTW.

As of 1 April 2012 it is for all USAF personnel deployed for OEF.

Quote from: Private Investigator on September 25, 2012, 04:32:27 AM
Being a math nerd I factored in how long did it take us to go to BDUs. I am guestimating ABU 1st quarter FY 2024.

Well, that gives me a little more time to lose these last few pounds to be legit to wear 'em.  :D

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 26, 2012, 12:58:18 PM
Not authorized for the AF unless in Afghanistan and going OTW.

Guess what isn't authorized for the AF under any circumstances. . .

BDU's!!!!!!

(http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/08/air-force-camo-envy-airmen-jealous-of-roy-threads-081311w/081311af_roy_multicam_800.JPG)

Hasn't been since Oct of last year.

Jess, a phase-out period is inevetebeeble  >:D

Or at least should be....  :o

Here's the URL for the pic:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/08/air-force-camo-envy-airmen-jealous-of-roy-threads-081311w/081311af_roy_multicam_800.JPG (http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/08/air-force-camo-envy-airmen-jealous-of-roy-threads-081311w/081311af_roy_multicam_800.JPG)

It was published in August of last year! That means it was taken even earlier.

How about we do a little research before we start with the fangs?

FWIW, the URL also says multicam, so maybe this was a test wear situation. They sure don't look like woodland BDUs to me.

Quote from: Equinox on September 27, 2012, 11:18:52 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 26, 2012, 12:58:18 PM
Not authorized for the AF unless in Afghanistan and going OTW.

Guess what isn't authorized for the AF under any circumstances. . .

BDU's!!!!!!

(http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/08/air-force-camo-envy-airmen-jealous-of-roy-threads-081311w/081311af_roy_multicam_800.JPG)

Yeah...them's not BDUs. That's multicam. Which we will probably never ever get.

OECP is only authorized in Afghanistan per reporting instructions for the area it is not a test wear.   

Quote from: SarDragon on September 28, 2012, 04:33:11 AM
Here's the URL for the pic:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/08/air-force-camo-envy-airmen-jealous-of-roy-threads-081311w/081311af_roy_multicam_800.JPG (http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/08/air-force-camo-envy-airmen-jealous-of-roy-threads-081311w/081311af_roy_multicam_800.JPG)

It was published in August of last year! That means it was taken even earlier.

How about we do a little research before we start with the fangs?

FWIW, the URL also says multicam, so maybe this was a test wear situation. They sure don't look like woodland BDUs to me.

I don't recall stating anyone in the picture was wearing BDU's.

Just felt like throwing in an awesome semi-relevant pic is all.  8)

Quote from: Garibaldi on September 28, 2012, 04:41:26 AM

Yeah...them's not BDUs. That's multicam. Which we will probably never ever get.

See above ^^^

Quote from: Equinox on September 30, 2012, 12:50:16 AM

Quote from: SarDragon on September 28, 2012, 04:33:11 AM
Here's the URL for the pic:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/08/air-force-camo-envy-airmen-jealous-of-roy-threads-081311w/081311af_roy_multicam_800.JPG (http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/08/air-force-camo-envy-airmen-jealous-of-roy-threads-081311w/081311af_roy_multicam_800.JPG)

It was published in August of last year! That means it was taken even earlier.

How about we do a little research before we start with the fangs?

FWIW, the URL also says multicam, so maybe this was a test wear situation. They sure don't look like woodland BDUs to me.

I don't recall stating anyone in the picture was wearing BDU's.

Just felt like throwing in an awesome semi-relevant pic is all.  8)

Then why did you mention BDUs in the post at all? That just confused what you were trying to say.

Just read the posts leading up to that one.

Quote from: Equinox on September 26, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Screw ABU's!!!!

Our new field uniform should be Multicam!!!

(http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/110701-F-HF922-404.jpg)

and you  think that buying a set of ABU's is costly; for some reason there is an automatic $10-$40 increase pewr item to anything multicam.... easily

mk

Quote from: sarmed1 on September 30, 2012, 12:54:04 PM

Quote from: Equinox on September 26, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Screw ABU's!!!!

Our new field uniform should be Multicam!!!

(http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/110701-F-HF922-404.jpg)

and you  think that buying a set of ABU's is costly; for some reason there is an automatic $10-$40 increase pewr item to anything multicam.... easily

mk

Crye wants their royalties, most likely.

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on September 30, 2012, 02:09:32 PM

Quote from: sarmed1 on September 30, 2012, 12:54:04 PM

Quote from: Equinox on September 26, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Screw ABU's!!!!

Our new field uniform should be Multicam!!!

(http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/110701-F-HF922-404.jpg)

and you  think that buying a set of ABU's is costly; for some reason there is an automatic $10-$40 increase pewr item to anything multicam.... easily

mk

Crye wants their royalties, most likely.

Crye does want their royalties and so far, they are unwilling to to grant the US Government a license.

They want their money and that's it.