Better get used to the BDU - and some thoughts (rant?)

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

CAP has no need for any of it, though I would like to see them move the dark blue field uniform shirts to the slant pockets.

Negative.  Quantum mathematics have shown that there is a non-zero chance that Airman Billy may, in a hypothetical scenario where it is midnight in the middle of winter and there's a blizzard taking place, mistake a CAP member in Blue BDUs for a RealMilitary® officer, and may render a salute.

Airman Billy, fresh out of BMT and Tech School, and therefore knowing everything about the Air Force but nothing about CAP, could well be crewing in a Pave Hawk equipped with NVG's, FLIR and other assorted goodies.

If he uses said toys to pick out a CAP Major walking down the sidewalk of Bumfart AFB from about a half-mile away, he can complain to his First Shirt about this CAP Wannabe who he thought tried to use his radio to talk to Airman Billy and saying "Son, you'd better throw me a salute when you land!"  Of course, 1st Sgt Bigdiamond is going to believe 19 year old Airman Billy and goes through channels to complain about this Major Wannabe.

Complaint reaches CAP-USAF...who promptly direct National CC to issue a knuckle-rapping memo to CAP membership about not trolling for salutes and then starts wringing hands about how our uniform needs to be more "distinctive"...so as to avoid another such possible incident with an AF Lieutenant WSO in the back seat of an F-15E potentially thinking a CAP Captain is trying to make him salute.

[Panache]

Complaint reaches CAP-USAF...who promptly direct National CC to issue a knuckle-rapping memo to CAP membership about not trolling for salutes and then starts wringing hands about how our uniform needs to be more "distinctive"...so as to avoid another such possible incident with an AF Lieutenant WSO in the back seat of an F-15E potentially thinking a CAP Captain is trying to make him salute.

New 39-1:  "Effective immediately, all Civil Air Patrol Senior Members must, while acting in a CAP capacity on or near ("near" is defined as within a 50-mile radius) of any US military instillation (up to, and including, recruiting offices), must have a scarlet "C" branded upon their foreheads."

[LSThiker]

Complaint reaches CAP-USAF...who promptly direct National CC to issue a knuckle-rapping memo to CAP membership about not trolling for salutes and then starts wringing hands about how our uniform needs to be more "distinctive"

Obviously your post was sarcasm, but interestingly, I was reading an old newspaper article (1944 I think) that stated the 4th Air Force prohibited its service members from saluting CAP officers as they did not deserve the salute. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Obviously your post was sarcasm, but interestingly, I was reading an old newspaper article (1944 I think) that stated the 4th Air Force prohibited its service members from saluting CAP officers as they did not deserve the salute.

My sarcasm isn't really directed at the issu of saluting per se, except that there are so many apocryphal and outright Bravo Sierra "stories" of CAP officers trying to make military members salute us.  Then when one documented case actually does happen, the whole organisation gets its knuckles rapped because of the actions of one member who should certainly know better.

My sarcasm is directed much more at the inane, undefinable, unquantifiable, unenforceable "low-light/at-a-distance" clause in AFI 10-2701 that causes so much cognitive dissonance over what is "distinctive" and what is not.  To me, if someone, ANYONE, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, Coastie cannot read "CAP" on shoulder marks of whatever colour, and read what our nameplates say, then as far as I am concerned we do not own the problem.

Actually, I could care less if an enlisted person, NCO, warrant officer or commissioned officer decides not to salute me.  A friendly greeting goes as far with me as a salute does.  It's just an extra warm fuzzy if a military member decides to.

That is where my sarcasm is directed...at an undefineable standard.

I'm glad you recognised it as sarcasm.  My wife says I have the most acidic sarcasm of anyone she's ever met, as well as the darkest sense of humour...things like that don't come off easily on the 'net.

[Mitchell 1969]

My sarcasm isn't really directed at the issu of saluting per se, except that there are so many apocryphal and outright Bravo Sierra "stories" of CAP officers trying to make military members salute us.  Then when one documented case actually does happen, the whole organisation gets its knuckles rapped because of the actions of one member who should certainly know better.

Ever notice that most of those BS stories include some version of...."Then (s)he said 'see this/these bar(s)/oak leaf? ...'?"

Its almost as if CAP has us memorize a "trolling script."

[LSThiker]

My sarcasm isn't really directed at the issu of saluting per se, except that there are so many apocryphal and outright Bravo Sierra "stories" of CAP officers trying to make military members salute us.  Then when one documented case actually does happen, the whole organisation gets its knuckles rapped because of the actions of one member who should certainly know better.

I understand that.  However, it is interesting in that discussing the transition from metal rank to maroon epaulets, people always refer to salute trolling at some undefined location at some undefined time between two undefined people.  When in reality, such disdain was already found in the 1940s.

Misunderstandings in history have occurred on other items:

For example, the NRA badge for cadets when there other badges and programs.  Well, the NRA has been providing marksmanship training to seniors and cadets since 1942.  The medical officer is one of the first advance promotions that existed in CAP as medical officers were promoted to captain in the 1940s similar to the AAC.  The pilot wings, glider wings, and observer wings are essentially the same design since 1945. 

[Eclipse]

^ These are the fault of the regulation author for writing the spec too tight and not accommodating
flexibility or changes.

I can't even imagine what it must have been like 25 years ago when one person in the unit could
squirrel away all the hardcopy regulations and become the Oracle - talk about knowledge being power.

In some ways CAP still acts that way.  Regulations are no longer stone tablets, inconsistencies, conflicts
and typos can and should be fixed on the fly, but it appears that is still not possible,

[Salty]

If you had the "big blue binder of death" you were the go to person for almost every aspect of Civil Air Patrol.  In my early experience the only two regulations that were common knowledge were the uniform manual and the flight program manual.  Everything else was left to the Oracle.

[Eclipse]

If you had the "big blue binder of death" you were the go to person for almost every aspect of Civil Air Patrol.  In my early experience the only two regulations that were common knowledge were the uniform manual and the flight program manual.  Everything else was left to the Oracle.

I joined at the tail end of that and it was horrible.  Wive's tales abounded, as did interpretations by those not
authorized to interpret.  Ask to "see it" and you got "the look".

There were people in CAP whose whole existence was based on the care and feeding of those binders.
It gave me a fair amount of pleasure when they went in the round file when I assumed command.

[LSThiker]

If you had the "big blue binder of death" you were the go to person for almost every aspect of Civil Air Patrol.  In my early experience the only two regulations that were common knowledge were the uniform manual and the flight program manual.  Everything else was left to the Oracle.

I remember the big blue bible.  I threw mine out a few years ago when I got sick and tired of moving it on my bookshelf.

[Storm Chaser]

My sarcasm is directed much more at the inane, undefinable, unquantifiable, unenforceable "low-light/at-a-distance" clause in AFI 10-2701 that causes so much cognitive dissonance over what is "distinctive" and what is not.

That's easy. "Distinctive" and "at a distance and in low-light conditions" is defined as whatever the U.S. Air Force says it is (cf. AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4). They approve changes to the Air Force-style uniform, so they decide whether a proposed change meets this criteria or not.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I was once the keeper of the Big Blue Binder (and earned my Master's in Administration in large part keeping it updated).  I never hoarded it, but I did a lot of hours on the floor of my apartment living room keeping the bloody thing updated.

[Storm Chaser]

^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I agree that the terms used in AFI 10-2701 are a bit subjective, but my point is that defining those terms is not something that we, CAP members, need to worry about as we have no control over that; the U.S. Air Force does.

Now, to answer your question, CAPM 39-1, Para. 13.2.7.3 states that uniform changes requiring USAF approval are "forwarded to CAP-USAF for their review and approval." AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4 states that "CAP-USAF/CC must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform."

Since the CAP-USAF/CC has to approve any changes to the AF-style uniform, that makes him (or her) the final authority on defining what constitutes "sufficiently different" "at a distance and in low-light conditions".

[PHall]

^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I was once the keeper of the Big Blue Binder (and earned my Master's in Administration in large part keeping it updated).  I never hoarded it, but I did a lot of hours on the floor of my apartment living room keeping the bloody thing updated.

That "someone" is the OPR for the AFI. Should be on the bottom right corner of the title page.

[Panache]

^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I agree that the terms used in AFI 10-2701 are a bit subjective, but my point is that defining those terms is not something that we, CAP members, need to worry about as we have no control over that; the U.S. Air Force does.

Now, to answer your question, CAPM 39-1, Para. 13.2.7.3 states that uniform changes requiring USAF approval are "forwarded to CAP-USAF for their review and approval." AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4 states that "CAP-USAF/CC must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform."

Since the CAP-USAF/CC has to approve any changes to the AF-style uniform, that makes him (or her) the final authority on defining what constitutes "sufficiently different" "at a distance and in low-light conditions".

But the G/Ws and Blue BDUs are not "AF-style uniforms", are they?  Yet it appears that Ma Blue keeps a pretty tight leash on how those are set up, as well.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I agree that the terms used in AFI 10-2701 are a bit subjective, but my point is that defining those terms is not something that we, CAP members, need to worry about as we have no control over that; the U.S. Air Force does.

Now, to answer your question, CAPM 39-1, Para. 13.2.7.3 states that uniform changes requiring USAF approval are "forwarded to CAP-USAF for their review and approval." AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4 states that "CAP-USAF/CC must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform."

Since the CAP-USAF/CC has to approve any changes to the AF-style uniform, that makes him (or her) the final authority on defining what constitutes "sufficiently different" "at a distance and in low-light conditions".

Oh, I know that we have no control over the changes themselves.  My point was exactly as you said: the description is subjective, not objective, and to me a regulation of such importance should be clearly delineated.  Too many years as an IT/programmer and too many psychology courses, I guess.

I will accept your position that CAP-USAF/CC is the final authority on the matter; it seems the most logical and I do not have a more probable counter-argument.

That "someone" is the OPR for the AFI. Should be on the bottom right corner of the title page.

Another good point for which I have no counter-argument.

Nicely posited, gentlemen.

But the G/Ws and Blue BDUs are not "AF-style uniforms", are they?  Yet it appears that Ma Blue keeps a pretty tight leash on how those are set up, as well.

I think that the AF only started taking a serious interest in those uniforms after the kerfuffle over the CSU.

Now, my position is well-known: it was a very attractive uniform and (mostly) very well-liked, and I know a lot of people besides myself that were/are very displeased with CAP (and it was CAP, not the Air Force, that disallowed it) disallowing it.  However, I concede a big point: the way it was introduced no doubt caused some consternation with the AF, when the former Generalissimo just showed up at some sort of staff meeting with a lot of AF higher-ups present wearing it (someone please correct me if I have facts wrong with that).

It could well be that, had the AF been contacted first, rather than after the fact, we would still have the uniform today.

I think that incident caused a double-whammy: it resulted in a (generally) popular uniform being discontinued, after some members had sunk considerable cash into purchasing it, and it has probably made the powers that be within CAP take a hard line of "no change" to the "CAP-distinctive" uniform, even though the GW/Blazer is not an equivalent to the service dress.

I believe they are much less likely to even consider suggesting modifications to the GW/blazer setup to bring them more in line with service dress; i.e., real headgear (not the nebulous "CAP baseball cap") and a service coat that CAP badging can be worn upon.

[lordmonar]

You miss the point that the writers of the AFI wanted it to subjective.    That means they can change their minds when/if they need to.  It also means that they don't ever paint themselves into a corner.  "low light and at a distance means XYZ"......if CAP makes a uniform change that meets that definition then USAF must approve....or worse yet we can go around their approval...."it meets the reg!".

[Storm Chaser]

^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I agree that the terms used in AFI 10-2701 are a bit subjective, but my point is that defining those terms is not something that we, CAP members, need to worry about as we have no control over that; the U.S. Air Force does.

Now, to answer your question, CAPM 39-1, Para. 13.2.7.3 states that uniform changes requiring USAF approval are "forwarded to CAP-USAF for their review and approval." AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4 states that "CAP-USAF/CC must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform."

Since the CAP-USAF/CC has to approve any changes to the AF-style uniform, that makes him (or her) the final authority on defining what constitutes "sufficiently different" "at a distance and in low-light conditions".

But the G/Ws and Blue BDUs are not "AF-style uniforms", are they?  Yet it appears that Ma Blue keeps a pretty tight leash on how those are set up, as well.

That's probably because of the requirement in AFI 10-2701 that states:

CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not occur.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^Point taken, but nonetheless a great deal of it is in the eye of the beholder.

I've mentioned this before, but I think it is germane to the topic.  Years ago I made a quick stop at a department store on my way home from a CAP meeting.  I was in the AF short-sleeve blue shirt, grey shoulder marks and nameplate.  A young woman came up to me and asked me if I was a store security guard.

I remember a story from years ago in Reader's Digest "Humour In Uniform" section.

A young cadet at Annapolis passed an Air Force Captain and did not salute.  The Captain scolded the young plebe for not saluting an officer.  The young plebe said, "Sir, seriously, I thought you were a mailman!"  The Captain was so taken aback by this that he dismissed the cadet without further discipline.

As has been pointed out, our BBDU's are very close to USCG ODU's (and I see Coasties quite frequently in this uniform), at least for the illiterates who cannot read "CIVIL AIR PATROL" v. "U.S. COAST GUARD."

At a quick glance, the G/W kit could be confused with Army Class B's, though that is a stretch.  It can also be confused very easily with West Point cadet uniforms (if not for the hat).  This could quite easily be a CAP Technical Flight Officer.



I still believe there is a way to alter our "distinctive" uniforms (along the lines of civilian airline uniforms) so that we do not look like mall cops and Realtors (no offence to either).

After all, in my opinion at least, the BBDU and blue flight suit are attractive and consistent with our heritage; there is no reason I see that we cannot do similarly with our "distinctive" uniforms while still meeting the Air Force's standards.

[Storm Chaser]

The problem is that while many (maybe most) agree that there are shortcomings with the corporate aviator shirt uniform, not many can agree on the solution to fix it. You've mentioned adding a headgear, but there are members that are happy that the uniform doesn't have one. You mentioned changing the color of the pants to something other than gray. Well, some members like gray. Other members like that they can wear the same pants with their Aviator or Polo shirt. Heck, we've all talked about standardizing the style and color, but some members would then complain that they can't wear existing pants or that they favorite brand or vendor can't be used. Adding a service coat, while welcome by many, would add another expense that others don't want to have to incur. And then you have the issue with the pants not all being the same color (what the heck is medium gray anyway?). That's really the problem.

I don't think the Air Force is stopping CAP from improving the corporate "service" uniform, as long as it remains distinctive. And they've already determine that our current uniform is distinctive enough. The issue with the CSU is more complicated. I don't think will see something like that in a long time, but who knows?