Previous Post About USAF Uniforms

[NIN]

Yesterday, I posted a thing here about the wear of the USAF uniforms that contained a missive from General Smith. 

What I didn't realize at the time was that the General's message was not directed at the broader membership. It came to me from my wing commander (as part of his command team).

I have removed that message as it was inappropriate to post it here, in whole or in part.

[JohhnyD]

A buddy in another wing said his wing CC sent that out to everyone, so you are not alone in your misunderstanding. FWIW.

[Stonewall]

I don't think it was a devastating mistake by any stretch. I'd call it an admin error or misunderstanding.

The cool part is you demonstrated how to own it.

:clap:

[PHall]

Actually it was kinda nice to know that the Boss expects everyone, even if you have eagles on your collar, to follow the rules.

[N6RVT]

Actually it was kinda nice to know that the Boss expects everyone, even if you have eagles on your collar, to follow the rules.

+1

I see nothing but benefit from that being leaked.

[Ozzy]

Quite a few Wing Commanders have been proactively lately on addressing  overweight members wearing USAF-style uniforms. Georgia especially and with Colonel V. moving up to SER, I don't doubt that we might be seeing a similar memo getting pushed out one day soon.

[Spam]

Quite a few Wing Commanders have been proactively lately on addressing  overweight members wearing USAF-style uniforms. Georgia especially and with Colonel V. moving up to SER, I don't doubt that we might be seeing a similar memo getting pushed out one day soon.

Hopefully you'll have a skinnier CV to replace me (grin). I didn't relish our first Commanders Call, where I brought the digitial bathroom scale and personally demonstrated to the assembled commanders and staff how to use it with a printout of the height/weight page from 39-1. Yet, as you say, we wanted to lead from the front, despite the embarrassment of announcing my weight and balance.

Compliance here is a leading indicator of attitudes towards compliance with flight safety, et al.

V/r
Spam

[NIN]

I see nothing but benefit from that being leaked.

I prefer the term "inadvertently disseminated."

[N6RVT]

I see nothing but benefit from that being leaked.

I prefer the term "inadvertently disseminated."

Fits better - after all it wasn't classified information.

Personally I am right at the limit by USAF standards (194) - which puts me 19 Lb under the CAP limit (213) - but at 5' 10" I should actually weight 170, and I LOOK fat.

The only time I wear blues is at the Wing conference.  And if there was a service coat for the aviator whites I probably would not wear blues at all.  Nor would any of the people that memo was directed to, the same people who could actually do something about the fact we have 30+ uniforms but not the one item that is seriously needed.

[arajca]

I see nothing but benefit from that being leaked.

I prefer the term "inadvertently disseminated."

Fits better - after all it wasn't classified information.

Personally I am right at the limit by USAF standards (194) - which puts me 19 Lb under the CAP limit (213) - but at 5' 10" I should actually weight 170, and I LOOK fat.

The only time I wear blues is at the Wing conference.  And if there was a service coat for the aviator whites I probably would not wear blues at all.  Nor would any of the people that memo was directed to, the same people who could actually do something about the fact we have 30+ uniforms but not the one item that is seriously needed.

But, but you have the BLAZER!

[Eclipse]

I see nothing but benefit from that being leaked.

I prefer the term "inadvertently disseminated."

Fits better - after all it wasn't classified information.

Personally I am right at the limit by USAF standards (194) - which puts me 19 Lb under the CAP limit (213) - but at 5' 10" I should actually weight 170, and I LOOK fat.

The only time I wear blues is at the Wing conference.  And if there was a service coat for the aviator whites I probably would not wear blues at all.  Nor would any of the people that memo was directed to, the same people who could actually do something about the fact we have 30+ uniforms but not the one item that is seriously needed.

But, but you have the BLAZER!

[Mitchell 1969]

I see nothing but benefit from that being leaked.

I prefer the term "inadvertently disseminated."

And if there was a service coat for the aviator whites I probably would not wear blues at all. 

Service cost? As nice as that would be, I'd settle for a uniform cap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ColonelJack]

Well, I'll be that guy, then.

We had that uniform for those who were not within USAF guidelines.  Service coat, cover, everything.  But - whether it was because of the person who instituted it (HWSRN), or the way he did it, or just because it rankled some eagle-wearing people - it went away.

It had its own set of drawbacks, true.  Double-breasted coats generally don't look all that great on people who are, shall we say, vertically challenged.  But it was distinct enough that nobody would actually confuse us with active-duty Air Force, and to all reports (unless you know something I don't), the Air Force didn't really have a problem with us wearing it, as long as we followed guidelines.

But ... it went away.

Can it be brought back?  That question, alas, is way beyond my pay grade.

Jack

[SarDragon]

There are two groups of members who aren't allowed to wear the AF-style uniform - the bulbous, and the barbate. I fall into the latter category. The HWSRN uniform could only be worn by the bulbous, leaving the rest of us out in the cold. I think that cause a bit of controversy. I know I wasn't too happy about the situation. Until that disparity is fixed, IMHO, it can stay gone.

[N6RVT]

There are two groups of members who aren't allowed to wear the AF-style uniform - the bulbous, and the barbate. I fall into the latter category. The HWSRN uniform could only be worn by the bulbous, leaving the rest of us out in the cold. I think that cause a bit of controversy. I know I wasn't too happy about the situation. Until that disparity is fixed, IMHO, it can stay gone.

That was because it was some odd combination of corporate and USAF - and wound up with some odd combination of corporate and USAF rules.

We need, for the EXISTING aviator uniform, a service coat & hat that are ONLY corporate, and therefor follow the corporate rules.  And there are plenty of existing public service uniforms that could work without any design or development cost.  It would look nothing like what we had before and only an idiot would think it was continuity with, well whatever you want to call that.

I no longer consider this mere inaction - its not happening because someone at national deliberately does not want it to.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Some people here have proposed a baseball hat for the Aviator shirt.

Baseball hat? ? ? ? ! ! ! !     

A baseball hat is a play hat, a non-professional design! And it looks atrocious with a coat. 

On the other hand, I would not be opposed to a kepi for the Aviator shirt. A kepi is military looking. It is used by French soldiers with their service coats.

On the other hand, the French Legionnaire equivalent to the AF Blues is: Khaki pants, White shirt, green tie, and White kepi. Don't know if they have a grey coat. Ours could still be black...

But doubt the kepi will be accepted. Too foreign to be accepted by many here...

[xyzzy]

Previous posts have mentioned the corporate uniform as being for those who either do not meet height and weight guidelines, or choose to not meet USAF grooming standards. Although only beards were mentioned, corporate and USAF-style grooming requirements differ on hair length and wigs/hairpieces that are not related to a temporary medical condition.

A reason not mentioned so far is economy. Consider the case of a member who complies with USAF-style height, weight, and grooming standards, lives in a state that touches Canada, and owned a nice wardrobe before joining CAP. This member already owns a blue blazer, gray trousers, black polishable shoes, and white shirt. All the member needs to complete the corporate blazer uniform is a nameplate and blue tie (because anyone with any sense of style wears a brighter tie, such as red).

If our hypothetical member decides to go with a USAF-style uniform, the shopping list includes

• rank emblems
• ribbons and badges
• service coat and trousers or skirt
• USAF blue shirt
• all weather coat
• wool topcoat

If bought new, that's going to cost 4 figures.

Perhaps the new member might like to spend discretionary money on things that actually benefit CAP, such as pilot training, travel to CAP training, or, in my case, electronic tools and instruments that support the communications mission.

[Eclipse]

Service dress is by no means required, and many members never even consider the purchase.

Any activity which requires service dress or formal wear could also be performed in that civilian jacket he already owns,
even if he wears USAF-style the rest of the time.

[Gunsotsu]

Eliminate USAF uniform for seniors and you eliminate the problem.
Until that happens, members not meeting the (overly generous) published standard will continue to be a feature, not a bug.

[N6RVT]

Service dress is by no means required, and many members never even consider the purchase.

Any activity which requires service dress or formal wear could also be performed in that civilian jacket he already owns,even if he wears USAF-style the rest of the time.

Fine - lets go there too.

A few years back there was actually a presentation at the national conference about adapting civilian black tie to be the corporate mess dress equivalent.  As a retired US Army officer I can put my jump wings & medals on civilian black tie and wear that anywhere a uniform is appropriate.  CAP could follow the same rules - and with no effort, you have corporate mess dress.

I have civilian black tie I got on Ebay for $20, and thats just what I do.  Rental shops surplus that stuff out all the time.  Because surprise - my US Army mess dress from 18 years ago doesn't fit anymore for some reason.

My point is a committee at the National conference could fix all of this in a one hour session.  Its not cost or effort thats stopping them.  They obviously do not want to fix it.  There has to be an actual real reason why this is the case, but for all the thought I've given it, I can't think of what that might be.