Required Weigh-Ins

[Nathan]

This is what happens when we let regulations do our thinking for us

OK - let's walk down that road.  You're a Safety Officer.  Do you get to PICK which regs you follow?

Yes.

Wrong. Regs are rules. You want to play in CAP, you follow their rules, whether you like them or not. Honestly, how well does this travel over to the civillian world? Obey rules only if they make sense to you? Is that what the teach you in the military? If you don't like a rule, just ignore it? Jeezum crowe...

You cannot be a slave to the regulations.  If it were that easy then they would not need commanders at all.

You wouldn't need the regs in that scenario either, would you?

[smj58501]

....Is that what the teach you in the military? If you don't like a rule, just ignore it? Jeezum crowe...


They teach us as leaders in the military that regulations are for the guidance of commanders. They also teach us to recognize the purpose and intent of the regulation, and apply them in the spirit they were intended. In short, they expect us to use the brains and common sense God gave us and be leaders vs. regurgitators of "the book". Do we read "the book"... yes. Do we apply it in the vast majority of instances.... yes. Do we have a very good reason to deviate from it when we do, and can we pass the red face test.... yes. Do we understand some people may be upset if we don't follow the rules to the letter.... yes. Does it bother us.... no. Why, because as GEN (R) Colin Powell has said, leadership means sometimes you have to piss people off.

Are we bound by the book.... no. Why?? Because leaders realize that blindly following the book is just as dangerous as having no regard for it.

[Chaplaindon]

One of my great frustrations as a chaplain is with the foundations of the Moral Leadership program. What frustrates me is that we usually do not provide any instruction in ethics (morals and ethics mean exactly the same thing, one is just from Latin and the other from Greek). Furthermore, almost none of our non-clergy MLOs have any academic training in ethics/morals in advance of "leading" MLs.

The discussion about enforcing rules (and/or mandatory weigh-ins, etc.) is fundamentally an ethics discussion.

Follows is Ethics 101:

Ethics simply refer to the use of rational, deliberate, processes in making decisions. It's the opposite of flipping a coin. Good ethical decision-making is usually founded in a person's "stance" on a given issue. This stance serves as "magnetic north" in their moral "compass;" it's a fixed datum that helps that person navigate the maze of complex decisions each of us must negotiate in our lives. There are basically three (3) generic stances in formal ethics, rules, goals and virtues.

Rules as a stance for decision-making in CAP –or our broader life journeys—is called DEONTOLOGICAL ethics. If the speed limit says 35 mph, a deontological-stanced decision would direct its adherents to stay below 35 mph regardless of the situation. You do not drive 36mph even if your child is bleeding to death in the backseat and your car is the only way to reach help. In CAP, the Regs would be the final authority in any situation –PERIOD—no discussion. If you break a rule (even technically ... i.e. the USAF Airman who meets USAF standards to wear the USAF uniform BUT due to muscle-bulk is outside the letter of CAPM 39-1 h/w standards to wear essentially the same uniform in the CAP), you are (or should be) punished. Punishment, likewise would adhere to the "book" defining possible sanctions.

A deontological decision-making stance can be badly corrupted too; just look at the Nazi defense at Nuremberg, "I was just following orders." It would hold that Rosa Parks was due punishment for violating the 1950's-era law mandating African-Americans to sit at the back of a public transit bus. Likewise, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was due the death he was given for standing against Nazi-enacted (however codified) law requiring his preaching to adhere to the corrupt teaching of the Nazi church in 1940's Germany. Disgustingly, the SS/SA storm troopers considered themselves similarly justified in genocide because the "law of the land" (or at least the orders of their superiors) mandated it.

In short, a deontological stance might look good as one's "magnetic north," but can be easily corrupted to lead one astray.

The second generic stance is TELEOLOGICAL ethics. This is being goals oriented; goals focused. My moral compass is guided by the need to accomplish the mission. If I need to save a life and the weather is below VFR minimums, a teleological stanced IC might order a crew to launch anyway. A cadet whose goal is to be a Spaatz recipient by 14 might be more aggressive in testing and encampment attendance than another.

Teleological thinking can be badly corrupted too. In order to obtain useful military information, a teleological stanced intel operator might deem torture as a legitimate method of gleaning that info. Gen. Patton, to achieve a basically meaningless (IMHO) goal of reaching Messina before FM Montgomery, put troops in far greater peril than was necessary. Not to forget physically assaulting a combat stress victim – perhaps in hopes of "motivating" him back into combat. But the goal was important. Read Machiavelli's "The Prince." It espouses and "ends justify the means" strategy, as does Dr. Seuss' "Yertle the Turtle." If I want my Spaatz by 14, I cannot fail this test tonight so cheating on it could be seen as justified.

Just like deontological ethics, teleological one's can also lead someone astray.

I prefer ARETOLOGICAL ethics; it is VIRTUES-based. It asks a simple question, "what kind of a [CAP Member, husband, student, etc.] would I be if I did this versus doing that?" What kind of CAP member would I be if cheated on my Aerospace test, or my CAPF-5 checkride? What kind of a commander would I be if I 2b'd a member for a uniform violation? What kind of an IC would I be if I permitted excessive time to be wasted completing mountainous pre-sortie paperwork, only to learn that the victim expired during this delay? And so forth ...

I suggest that although we do –usefully and positively—engage both goals and rules in our personal and corporate ethics, a moral compass based upon virtues is the overall best way to go.

As we look at adding or subtracting regulations (weigh-ins, PT, uniform standards, whatever), let's ask "what kind of a CAP would we have if we all did this or that?" That raises the dialog above our own personal pettiness and interests and ennobles the whole discussion.

Will there ever be a time when violating (at least the "letter of the law") of a CAPR ever be justified, that's for each individual to decide –individual/situational ethics—but I hope that we would use the virtuous route in determining the answer.

Let's be thoughtful and circumspect in all of our CAP decision-making and rely on what President Lincoln called, "The better angels of our nature" in the process.

Shalom.

[Jerry]

Ahem,    This kind of reminds me of a story from before we HAD  weigh-ins and governing regulations, AND I could easily fit into my uniforms at 168 lbs.
We had an annual evaluated SAR up in Raleigh, and it was a long drive from my home. Even the interstates were not finished in those days! 
So on Friday evening we all gathered at the unit commander's house to "convoy" up to Raleigh--one field kitchen truck, generator(s), support pickup, and a Dodge communications van.  Everything went wrong from that point!  We que'd up and started out. From the time the Field kitchen truck turned the corner, it was the LAST time I saw it until I pulled into the mission base after midnight--or any OTHER CAP vehicle for that matter. Due to traffic and a bee that invited himself along, I and one cadet were alone. So we drove up the road that I "assumed" we would take (the one I always took from the Charlotte area to Raleigh, and when I arrived we endured the usual recriminations about---------------

"WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?"

"WHY DID YOU LEAVE US BEHIND?"

"BUT I THOUGHT YOU WERE WITH.........................?

WHERE IS THE COMM VAN?"

"DUNNO, I THOUGHT HE WAS WITH YOU!!"

Then we settled down to checking the equipment for the night and discovered that the generator that was to run the field kitchen wouldn't start!   Tired and a bit grumpy, we began to work on the genny.  And it turned to an all night deal. Blamed thing ran fine back at home, but after the trip, not a lick!   Grumpier still!

Trash in the carburetor, requiring almost a complete tear-down due to the way the thing was designed.  So dawn arrived and the generator was purring away.  The reason we put all the effort in it was 1) it was our food for the weekend, and 2) USAF was putting a lot of emphasis on equipment that year. If you had equipment that was "junk"--and there was a LOT of that back in 1970---or stuff at the SAR that wouldn't work, we'd be downgraded.  SO!   Tired after an all night ordeal,  greasy from head to foot, and a bit rumpled, I started across the tarmac to wash up and change into a fresh uniform prior to formation and briefing.  And the WORST possible thing that I could have happen at that time happened!

You see, even then there were, "uniform compliance officers" or "Personnel Officers" that were in charge of such matters, and I was about to run into the worst of the worst of these, a Capt. XXXXXX and this lady took herself and her job WAAAAAY too seriously.  Give her a job, and she thought she was Jehovah complete with fire and brimstone! I had seen this lady in action before and I was about to encounter this nightmare, this witch spelled with a capital "B"!! 

"Oh crap", I muttered, gritting my teeth. I tried to avoid her and she actually SIDESTEPPED to ensure our collision course! So when we drew near and I pretended to ignore her (as if one couldn't know what she was after).....................................................

"LIEUTENANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  HALT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I stopped at attention while this dragon lady glared at me for a moment in almost hatred. *I* gritted my teeth and I was in NO mood for this (censored).

'FRANKLY, LIEUTENANT," SHE ALMOST SCREAMED AT ME, "YOU ARE OUT OF UNIFORM AND A DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Then I glared back and said,  "AND , FRANKLY CAPTAIN, *I* AM OUT OF SLEEP, OUT OF TIME, OUT OF PATIENCE, AND MOREOVER, I DON'T REALLY GIVE A (CENSORED) RIGHT NOW."


"WHAAAAAAT DID YOU SAY TO ME?"


"YOU HEARD EVERY WORD!!!! WHILE  PRISSY LITTLE SELF-IMPORTANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU WERE SLEEPING IN YOUR COZY MOTELS AND SIPPING YOUR DAINTY BREAKFAST COFFEE,  PEOPLE LIKE ME WERE DRIVING 200 MILES, AND WERE OUT HERE TO GET EQUIPMENT WORKING!! IT TAKES MORE THAN CRACKERJACK CAPTAINS PRANCING AROUND TRYING TO LOOK IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE MISSION GO. *THAT'S WHY I AM GREASY. *THAT'S* WHY I AM RUMPLED. SO LEAVE ME ALONE!"

"WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE'LL JUST SEE ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!," SHE HISSED, "ILL HAVE YOU UP ON INSUBORDINATION CHARGES!"    )

I went on and retrieved my OD's and went into the bathroom. Sure enough, it wasn't long until I was summoned to the MC's trailer. This little
witch with the capital B was standing there tapping her foot just knowing that that little smart--- Lt was gonna get his, yessiree!!

"So what happened, Lt?"

So I explained that I haddriven 3 hours, been up all night, worked on equipment until dawn, had had NO sleep, and this, this firebreathing dragon had jumped on me before I could even go clean up!

His face turned from stern warning to a gradual lightening like the dawn that had recently crept over the hills and valleys.  When I finished, the Col was smiling--almost chuckling out loud while the dragon lady looked on in horror that her "I'm gonna tell the teacher" tirade was rapidly falling apart.

"Jerry", he waved me away, "Get outta here! I knew there had to be more to it than that!"

Captain XXXX  merely said in indignation, "OH"!!  And marched out the door.

So what's the point?  Only that people often take CAP and themselves WAAAY too seriously! It ain't the Army, it ain't the Air Force, and  WE aren't that important. I've seen PLENTY of people like that wanna-be "officer" that acted that way.  So it's about time for a chill pill on this subject. And even that 1970 incident turned out all right! Years later, this lady had left CAP then rejoined. I was on Wing Staff and she was STILL a Captain. So was I! But she had mellowed------a LOT!  And she recalled the incident and mentioned how SILLY she had been in those days. And I received an opology for a forgotten incident. Like I said, I will still continue to serve, continue to wear the aviator suit that I don't like (until I can lose those pounds that make me look gaunt in the face) and still offer the commander the benefit of long years of service and communications experience. To *some* people, that means something--at least in this Wing it does!

[lordmonar]

This is what happens when we let regulations do our thinking for us

OK - let's walk down that road.  You're a Safety Officer.  Do you get to PICK which regs you follow?

Yes.

Wrong. Regs are rules. You want to play in CAP, you follow their rules, whether you like them or not. Honestly, how well does this travel over to the civilian world? Obey rules only if they make sense to you? Is that what the teach you in the military? If you don't like a rule, just ignore it? Jeezum crowe...

Yes Nathan...that is exactly what they teach us in the military.  I would not tell you other wise.  When you get 20 years experience working with the real military and see how they use the regulations (actually instructions but I digress) you will understand what I am saying.


What do you do when you have two different instructions/regulations that contradict each other?  What do you do if a regulation does not allow you to do something that you MUST do to compete the mission?

Do you think just because the Safety regs says every Airman has the right to refuse to do something he feels is unsafe, that there are always followed?  Heck NO!  I cannot count the number of times we had to go to the commander/leader and say we cannot do something because if violated a regulation or policy and he said to do it anyway.

It happens everyday, and it is expected to happen.  It is why we have commanders and SNCOs.  Our job is to get the mission done.  We have to wade through literally hundreds of regulations, technical orders, policy letters and operating instructions.  Often we have to violate those reg and we do it knowing we are violating them.  We violate them on purpose for the purpose of completing the mission.

As the chaplain said.  Leadership in the Air Force is a balance between three ethical stances.  We have the rules, the goal and the virtue.  We pay Officers and SNCOs lots of money (and if you believe that I got a bridge for sale ) to make it work.  We stress the mission and the spirit of the regs over the letter of the law, but you are graded on how well you follow the regs (crossing the I's and Dotting the T's).

Once you go through a couple of ORIs or UCIs you will understand the old maxim "No combat ready unit ever passed inspection and no inspection ready unit is ready to deploy to combat".

[Eclipse]

I just got back from ILWG Spring Enc, with limited time and bandwidth for board participation, and I see that this thread has taken a life of its own, and I apologize if I am repeating an already made point.

This is easy, leave the command ethics, poor leadership allegations, and nonsense about screwing up the program at the door.

Being out of uniform, whether literally (as in civvies), or in violation of a 39-1 and related documents, puts the member and the organization at risk.

Why would / should any commander allow that to occur simply to pacify an overweight member, when a $17 golf shirt solves the problem in 80%+ of the circumstances? To avoid hurting the members feelings?

How self-centered, egotistical, and self-esteem challenged do our members have to be before we as commanders say enough?

We are talking about ADULTS.  Who joined a SERVICE organization which has RULES.
Following the rules provides opportunities that no other organization can touch.  Despite the opinion of many of our members, regulations are not an ala carte menu.

And what is even more disappointing is how knee-jerk reactionary many of our members are.  When I suggested that if the overweight ones would just buy pants that fit properly half the cosmetic issue of professional image would go away, even THAT was too much to ask.

Bottom line, there is no requirement to wear a USAF Style uniform.  PERIOD.  If you choose to exercise the PRIVILEGE of wearing that uniform, wear it 100% correctly,
or leave it on the hanger.

[Chaplaindon]

As to Capt Bob's bizzare recommendation that we, " ... leave the command ethics, poor leadership allegations, and nonsense about screwing up the program at the door," I have two words to say to any actual or wannabe military organization or (so-called) leader that takes his advice  especially the part about "leav[ing] the command ethics ... at the door" (which is in itself a teleological stance, BTW)-- Abu Gharaib.

Adios.

[SarDragon]

It took me twice through to catch the heavy sarcasm in Bob's post. It probably could have been wordrd better, but I think the point was valid.

If I got it right, the dig was at the lack of command ethics that exists in some units that allows poor conditions to exist.

Right, Bob?

[Eclipse]

Yes, exactly.

This all started because my desire to raise the bar is being accused as being a lack of flexibility, command ethics, and will wreck the program. Plus I never said I was doing weigh-ins, or even in favor of it.

But you have to did pretty far back to where my posts were initially misread and a topic which should be about why we can't get members to follow simple rules (i.e. 39-1), and whether commanders should take steps to enforce the rules (i.e. weigh ins)
was appropriate.

I have no idea how you can reasonably interpret a commander asking a member to "step up" as no command ethics, leadership ability, etc.

EDIT - ADDED

And whether or not WE are military is not the issue.  A military service has granted us the PRIVILEGE of wearing THEIR uniform, ONLY if we follow ALL of THEIR rules.  Looks simple to me.

[Nomex Maximus]

Sooooooo...

I didn't read through EVERY post in this thread, but do any units actually perform weight checks of their senior members? I'd like to know as I am still 3 pounds over the limit for the green uniforms.

--Nomex

[RogueLeader]

Not that I've seen, but we rely on the Integrity of the member.  We would call it if it was obvious that you were over the line.  Would you allow a cadet or other person to "fudge" about where they were, or "cheat" only a "tiny, insignificant" amount on a test?

I hope that helps.

[mikeylikey]

Well when the leadership of the organization are violating the regs.......what do people expect.  The whole "do as I say not as I do" is getting old in CAP.  I think the weight standards should be even further relaxed, but that is me.  However when a person can't button their BDU top and it is an XL, and they are protruding 12 inches past the top of the pants........

[jimmydeanno]

It really is a simple solution to solve...during the level 1 training you bring up the different uniforms and say - to wear these you need to meet these standards.  It's an indirect way to say, "I'm not going to call you out on it during training, so here are the standards, you know if you don't meet them, go get a uniform."

Usually people are too afraid to say anything about peoples weight, so it never comes up, and if it does it's usually after they have purchased a uniform they technically can't wear.

Its a whole lot better than saying, "Hey, noticed you've got a few extra pounds, mind stepping on the scale?"

[RogueLeader]

Thats what the Honor system is for.  I was talking about the 5'2", 250 lb member in Blues.  That's an exaggeration, but the point is still the same. 

If we expect our cadets to follow the rules we should too.  Just because some superiors don't, that is no excuse for you to do it either.

[Walkman]

When I was at one of my first meetings before joining, one of the LTs took me aside (since I had a goatee and am a bit chubby) and told me about the weight regs (which he was sensitive to as he doesn't meet them). He showed me the weight table and I found out I had to lose about 10 pounds. So, 4 weeks and a crash diet later, I'm 3 lbs below the reg and clean shaven. I actually started a program to get down to the AF reg, as opposed to the CAP reg.

For me, being able to wear the AF style uniform is very important, so I did what I needed to do. LT handled it well, and I was not offended. Once I finish Level One and CPPT, I'm ordering my BDUs and will wear them with pride.

Personally, I'd love a little PT. After watching both my father and mother-in-law get bypasses this spring, my desk-job induced lard-butt has to go. I plan on joining in with the cadets when allowable to get in better shape.

[jimmydeanno]

^HOO-RAH!

[adamblank]

I think there have certainly been some noteworthy statements.  It is not so much the weight standards that I think is the problem, it is those who violate the weight standards that wear the AF uniform.  All that is required is just wear a CAP distinctive uniform.  No weigh-ins, no harassment.  I do think it is the commander's job to step in if their folks decide to wear AF style uniforms.  Allowing those out of regulations to wear AF style uniforms especially at major events just discredits us to the Air Force, and doesn't set a good standard for our cadets. 

Adam

[Dragoon]

There is a difference between the regulation itself and monitoring compliance with that reg.

For example, the regs tell us that there need to be two seniors at an overnight cadet activity.  The regs do not say "the Squadron Commander must personally inspect each overnight activity during the night to ensure two seniors are physically present."

The regs tell pilots to do a passenger briefing.  The regs do not mandate that the commander question the passengers afterwards to make sure the pilot did his job.

In both cases above, the leadership always has the option of inspecting.  You CAN show up in the middle of the night to check on seniors, and you CAN show up at the ramp to see if the pilot really did his weight and balance.  But you don't HAVE to.

But commander who suspects that  there is a problem can do so. Obviously, there's a hassle factor involved.  Plus, it can torque people off.

Weight is the same way.  You need to make sure everyone knows the rules.  You aren't required to do weigh ins.  But if you feel someone is over the limit, it would be within your rights to have them prove that they're "legal" to wear the USAF suit.

Because, after all, this isn't really about weight - it's about appearance.  USAF doesn't really care about the number on the scale - they care about our members looking reasonably similar to their own members when we wear the same suit. 

So if someone looks like they are above CAP weight standards, it's probably time for a commander to get involved.  Otherwise, probably not worth the hassle.

(Of course, this all assumes the commander understands the reg and actually cares whether or not it is complied with.  We all know CAP doesn't always provide us with those kind of commanders."

[Ned]

As one of the few commanders who has actually conducted a mandatory weigh-in, let me share our experiences.

I am the activity director for a high-profile NCSA, and saw a problem at another NCSA last year.  At that activity, an >18 member appeared with only USAF-style uniforms and was 25+ lbs outside the allowable weight, and did not have the funds to purchase a coporate-style uniform (which are not cheap, BTW).

IOW, that member arrived at the activity as a sort of fait accompli, unable to wear their uniform and with no alternatives available.  It was a . . . problem.

So for my activity, I resolved to prevent the problem while doing my best to maintain the dignity of all our members.

1.  The fact that there would be a weigh-in was publicized well ahead of the activity, along with the information that all members were welcome regardless of size, and this was just a matter of ensuring that everyone was wearing the appropriate uniform.

2.  Everyone 18 and older who wanted to wear the USAF-style uniforms was weighed, starting with me.  Cadets under 18, and members who chose to wear only corporate-style uniforms were not weighed.

3.  Each weigh-in was done privately, with only me (or a designated female senior) and the member present.  The scale was calibrated in the presence of the member.

4.  We had a copy of the 39-1 available for reference.

5.  An allowance was given for the weight of clothing worn.


Overall, after some initial concern that was raised after the first announcement, the process went well.  One member did not meet the standards for wearing the USAF-style uniforms, and was taken to a local mall to purchase corporate uniform components (shirt, slacks, blazer.)  I had taken the precaution have having several sets of blazer uniform insignia available (although the nameplate did not have the member's name.)

The feedback from the members was positive, with the exception of the member who had to wear the corporate uniform.  He/she indicated that the local commanders -- including the home wing commander -- were aware of the situation and had always been "OK" with the member wearing the USAF-style uniform despite being outside the allowable weight range.

I would welcome any suggestions as to how to improve our process for next year.

Ned Lee

[RogueLeader]

I think you did the right thing by enforcing the standards.  Besides, the member could indicate whatever he wanted, but it doesn't mean that it was right.