Quote from: NIN on April 20, 2024, 02:19:35 PM

Quote from: Ned on April 20, 2024, 05:50:41 AMFWIW, using height/weight information is far less intrusive than actually having to tape members at a weekly meeting.

Not everyone would be comfortable with having another member measure their waist size using the USAF/DoD standards.

Then again, Ned: We currently rely on our member's integrity to determine whether or not they "meet the standards" to wear the USAF-style uniform. We don't measure their height and have them step on a scale once a year in the presence of their commander to verify that they meet the standard.

Using the AF's own current standard (which, admittedly, requires some maths) vs a super outdated chart might, you know, bring us into the 21st century and in line with our Total Force partner's published standards (with an appropriate factor of some sort like we currently have). 

That still requires our member's integrity to say "nope, I don't meet the standards, I'll wear corporate".

Alas, there are too many people who join for the wrong reasons, and the Venn diagram of those folks and wearing uniforms they are out of regs for is almost a perfect circle. 

I have been asked to co-write an article on Volunteer Rewards and Recognition. The focus is supposed to be on the impacts and influence of "Recognition" on volunteers in VOADs and the pitfalls and benefits vs time invested. I have been presenting on VOADs at both universities for the last year for the Civil Air Patrol, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and State Guard Association of the United States. I have a format for approaching, but I am curious about those in my network and their opinions.

This is not about what you have or have not received but more about recognizing volunteers.

Quote from: Ned on April 20, 2024, 05:50:41 AMFWIW, using height/weight information is far less intrusive than actually having to tape members at a weekly meeting.

Not everyone would be comfortable with having another member measure their waist size using the USAF/DoD standards.

Then again, Ned: We currently rely on our member's integrity to determine whether or not they "meet the standards" to wear the USAF-style uniform. We don't measure their height and have them step on a scale once a year in the presence of their commander to verify that they meet the standard.

Using the AF's own current standard (which, admittedly, requires some maths) vs a super outdated chart might, you know, bring us into the 21st century and in line with our Total Force partner's published standards (with an appropriate factor of some sort like we currently have). 

That still requires our member's integrity to say "nope, I don't meet the standards, I'll wear corporate".

FWIW, using height/weight information is far less intrusive than actually having to tape members at a weekly meeting.

Not everyone would be comfortable with having another member measure their waist size using the USAF/DoD standards.

Quote from: skymaster on April 19, 2024, 08:59:49 PMI find it somewhat ironic that, as a officer of the Georgia State Guard Air and Space Force (whose uniform policies follow USAF and Air National Guard standards), I can wear a minimally distinctive OCP uniform NOW and still be in fully within State DOD regs, but must wear Corporate uniforms when performing Federal CAP duties. I sincerely hope that the day comes when I can wear the same OCP uniforms and just change out the velcro name, branch, and grade to wear it performing CAP duties

For what it's worth, the draft from last spring basically just said for grooming standards "refer to the DAFI." I don't think there was anything about height/weight, but it stands to reason that we would do the same with that, and just say "refer to the USAF regs."

Quote from: SierraOneThree on April 06, 2024, 07:27:33 AM

Quote from: farsightusf2017 on April 05, 2024, 01:02:58 PMYup tracking assuming by the name of FDU it was nomex. As I realize now the 2PFDU is the nomex OCP not the green two piece we have in the Navy. I wonder if the blue 2P massifs were considered?

Doubtful. I found that likely a good portion of the people involved with uniform policy outside of general members making recommendations are....somewhat ignorant of current uniforms in real world applications and related technological advances. The only reason Massif flight jackets were added was because of a few people who wear them were able to be involved with one of the drafts.

Oh yeah, Massif jackets both green and OCP were in the draft. I believe they were retained.

     There is a lot of truth in a lot of policies adopted by CAP in the last 10 years or so. As an example, I personally spoke one of the leading members of the committee whose deliberations resulted in the restructuring of the CAP grade restructuring a few years ago, that made promotions to the higher grades further out of reach for many members. He was himself a retired USAF Lt Colonel who was a CAP Colonel, and pushed hard for additional roadblocks for promotion to Colonel because the grade of Colonel when he was in the service post-Vietnam was nigh impossible, and he thought that was still the case in the 2010s and after. Even though that the Secretary of the Air Force himself publicly stated that there is no reason why any officer in any specialty that does his job dutifully and completes all appropriate PME should not be able to retire from the USAF as a full Colonel. In other words, it is literally more difficult to get promoted to full Colonel in an Auxiliary of the USAF than it is in the actual Active Duty USAF. Prior to this change, it was at least possible to achieve the grade full colonel in CAP by becoming the National HQ Department Head (e.g. National Health Services Officer, National Historian, National Director of Safety, National Chief of Staff, etc.)  without also having previously served as at least a CAP Wing Commander.
    Along these lines, many well-meaning members of various committees discussing things such as uniform changes seem to have something of a similar view. CAP still uses an outdated height-weight standard that is no longer used in the actual USAF. It was replaced by a Body Mass Index (BMI) system over a decade ago, and even that was tweaked in early 2023 to increase the allowed percentage of body fat in male troops to be increased from 20 to 26 percent, and for females the allowed percentage of body fat was increased from 28 percent to 36 percent. (The Air Force Academy still uses a height/weight chart because of their specially tailored uniforms, but that is an Academy standard, not a Service standard). The current USAF standard for members of both the Air Force and Space Force actually uses a measurement of the ratio of the measurement of the smallest part of the waist (essentially, your trouser size) divided by your height in inches. People meet the AFI 36-2903 standards if the ratio is any number less than 0.55 . If that number exceeds 0.55, then the individual does not meet the current AF standard. If this actual current USAF standard were adopted by CAP as well for members to wear the USAF-style uniform such as the new OCP uniform, then a LOT more CAP members that must wear Corporate uniforms because of not meeting a obsolete USAF height/weight chart standard intended for late teens/early 20s age Initial Entry Basic Trainees and Officer Candidates, could wear a (appropriately distinctive) same uniform as our parent service.
    I find it somewhat ironic that, as a officer of the Georgia State Guard Air and Space Force (whose uniform policies follow USAF and Air National Guard standards), I can wear a minimally distinctive OCP uniform NOW and still be in fully within State DOD regs, but must wear Corporate uniforms when performing Federal CAP duties. I sincerely hope that the day comes when I can wear the same OCP uniforms and just change out the velcro name, branch, and grade to wear it performing CAP duties

Quote from: farsightusf2017 on April 19, 2024, 03:54:58 PMThere we go that's exactly what I was looking for.

I thought there was a reg but wouldn't have expected it there and not one of the more common operational regulations

That's because the 60-1 is the Cadet Programs regulation. O Flights are part of the cadet program.

There we go that's exactly what I was looking for.

I thought there was a reg but wouldn't have expected it there and not one of the more common operational regulations

Quote from: Mobius1_Fox2 on April 18, 2024, 08:05:28 PMWhile there isn't a specific CAP regulation that pointedly prevents logging orientation flights as flight instruction time...

There actually is a reg that says exactly that.

Quote from: CAPR 60-1, Para 8.3.1.3Orientation flights will not be credited toward any pilot ratings (solo, private pilot, etc.).

Emphasis mine.

So no, a CFI may not sign off orientation flights as training and a cadet may not count orientation flights in their hour total.

I'm too young to really remember the guayabera but I remember seeing it in old CAP literature when I was a wee cadet. I'd 100% wear one now if I could and I would pull it off.

I recently learned about the turtleneck option for corporate service dress. I am going to order a blazer nametag and patch just to rock that sometime next winter.