Dear NHQ.

[lordmonar]

So.....to affect change....we either kick out all those unable or unwilling to meet the USAF standards, or we loose 50% of our adult membership.

So your solution is to discriminate against the other 50% of the membership?

And what about those people who didn't join because they didn't want to be force to wear the G/Ws in the first place?  Say, veterans who no longer met the H&W requirements?

Hence the compromise. 

[Devil Doc]

With all of these Eclectic Styles of Gray/Grey Pants, how will we justify the Multifarious ideas of CAP in Whole?

Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.

[RiverAux]

Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.

Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems.  And they failed.

[JeffDG]

Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.

Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems.  And they failed.

Yes, they failed to make a change in the uniform that has, within rounding error, zero impact on our ability to execute any of our missions, and which change would have imposed further uncompensated costs upon the membership.

Put in the balance, aesthetics vs volunteer money, I'll say I'm happy they passed on this perfect opportunity to impose a solution without a problem.

[RiverAux]

Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.

Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems.  And they failed.

Yes, they failed to make a change in the uniform that has, within rounding error, zero impact on our ability to execute any of our missions, and which change would have imposed further uncompensated costs upon the membership.

No this was a NEW set of uniform pants that no one was legally wearing in CAP at the time they approved this new option.  They could have set specific guidelines for "tactical" pants without putting anyone out since no one should have bought them for CAP purposes yet anyway. 

[Eclipse]

No this was a NEW set of uniform pants that no one was legally wearing in CAP at the time they approved this new option.

Disagree, as we've discussed, TAC pants fall well within the reg as it was published before, however, but considering a
relatively small number of members wore them, they should have taken the opportunity to prescribe a color.

I'd hazard, though, that there is less color variety in the tac pants then in the dress pants.

[JeffDG]

Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.

Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems.  And they failed.

Yes, they failed to make a change in the uniform that has, within rounding error, zero impact on our ability to execute any of our missions, and which change would have imposed further uncompensated costs upon the membership.

No this was a NEW set of uniform pants that no one was legally wearing in CAP at the time they approved this new option.  They could have set specific guidelines for "tactical" pants without putting anyone out since no one should have bought them for CAP purposes yet anyway.

But the insistence that the addition of new pants was an "opportunity" for NHQ to restrict everything else at the same time is the kind of solution-seeking--problems that is so prevalent.

[Eclipse]

But the insistence that the addition of new pants was an "opportunity" for NHQ to restrict everything else at the same time is the kind of solution-seeking--problems that is so prevalent.

Not "everything else" just the tac pants.

Even if you can't correct the past, you don't have to propagate the negligence.

[RiverAux]

Also, didnt "NHQ" just Authorize "Tactical" style pants to wear with the Polo Combo? Now, there is another problem on commingled ideas on which brand and or Color.

Here they had the perfect opportunity to designate an official standard for a new uniform item that would have prevented a lot of problems.  And they failed.

Yes, they failed to make a change in the uniform that has, within rounding error, zero impact on our ability to execute any of our missions, and which change would have imposed further uncompensated costs upon the membership.

No this was a NEW set of uniform pants that no one was legally wearing in CAP at the time they approved this new option.  They could have set specific guidelines for "tactical" pants without putting anyone out since no one should have bought them for CAP purposes yet anyway.

But the insistence that the addition of new pants was an "opportunity" for NHQ to restrict everything else at the same time is the kind of solution-seeking--problems that is so prevalent.

I didn't suggest any such thing.  I was only talking about the tactical pants.

And no, tactical pants are not slacks.  If they fell within the old regulation there would not have been a need to specifically authorize them in the new one.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The current "corporate / AF-style" dual track is the compromise our leadership has determined best meets the needs of the organization and our membership.

Colonel, perhaps this is restating the obvious, and restating what has been stated on CT for nearly-countless times.

We cannot modify the Air Force's uniform.  It is theirs.  We cannot make them change their standards.  They will not.  Both of those have been proven.

We had a much more intelligent "compromise" in the form of the CSU, and we all know the fate of that, but outside of a privileged few, will never know why.

We have much more leeway in modifying the "corporate" uniform, albeit less in the aftermath of the CSU.

What I do not, and will never, understand, is why our leadership is so insistent on keeping the "corporate" uniform in its current configuration.

It is not impossible to make changes to it, nor to introduce new elements.  If that were the case, the BBDU's and blue utility jumpsuit/flight suit would not exist.

And there are many ways to do so without violating the nebulous "low-light/at-a-distance" regulation.

I know, I know, I know...if you've got an idea, submit it up the chain.  I talked about it with my squadron CC.  He was not interested.  Brick wall.  Jumping the chain is most uncool.

Unless I can absolutely not get away with attending events where the G/W is required, I don't, because I hate the way I look in it...and I have never owned the blazer and never will.

However, I quite happily wear the BBDU and blue flight suit.  Why?  Because I look like part of an organisation that has a mission in those, and one whose heritage is connected to our parent service.

Without the accoutrements, the G/W, and especially the blazer, looks almost identical to a volunteer businessperson's group that addressed one of my high school classes way back in the mists of time (complete with blazer crest).  I wish I could remember the name of it, but this has been 30 years ago.

Not to insult the members of this group, because they did a lot of good in the community, and the gent who spoke to us was truly dedicated to his group's "mission."  And their "uniform" fit their "mission" - businesspeople making connections in the community.

It is illogical to have a set of uniforms (BBDU/flight suit) that does reflect our mission, but another set (G/W/blazer) that is completely incongruous and is not aviation-orientated at all.

[Shuman 14]

You are avoiding answering the question.

Who are you going push out of CAP?  Those who will leave if we lose the USAF uniforms or those who can't or won't meet USAF standards?

What is the plan to "fix" the organization when we lose 30-50% of our man power?

I agree there are some that CAP would lose if the USAF style uniform was removed and the Grey/White was the only uniform...

BUT

I think you would lose less if there was a professional para-military style uniform for everyone.

Again I'll suggest khaki as the color of that uniform.

[Shuman 14]

Let me throw one out there fore sake of arguement...

Suppose tomorrow the Air Force decided to do away with the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style  for CAP would the membership "complain" that they have pay over $300.00 to buy a complete USAF style uniform?

Things that make you go hmmm. 

[MisterCD]

Come And Pay
Communication Always Problematic
Complain And Pout

CAP can be any and all, or at least the postings on here occasionally gravitate to the three listed variations on our acronym.

[abdsp51]

Let me throw one out there fore sake of arguement...

Suppose tomorrow the Air Force decided to do away with the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style  for CAP would the membership "complain" that they have pay over $300.00 to buy a complete USAF style uniform?

Things that make you go hmmm. 

Your math is off.

[Shuman 14]

Let me throw one out there fore sake of arguement...

Suppose tomorrow the Air Force decided to do away with the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style  for CAP would the membership "complain" that they have pay over $300.00 to buy a complete USAF style uniform?

Things that make you go hmmm. 

Your math is off.

Going off the Army Air Force Exchange Website:

Male Officer Service uniform:

Coat              $179.95
Trousers        $43.22
Shirt ss          $13.77
Shirt ls          $18.17
Tie                $4.75
Belt               $2.57
Buckle           $4.39
Flight Cap      $14.50
Low Quarters $87.00

Total:            $368.32

[abdsp51]

Let me throw one out there fore sake of arguement...

Suppose tomorrow the Air Force decided to do away with the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style  for CAP would the membership "complain" that they have pay over $300.00 to buy a complete USAF style uniform?

Things that make you go hmmm. 

Your math is off.

Going off the Army Air Force Exchange Website:

Male Officer Service uniform:

Coat              $179.95
Trousers        $43.22
Shirt ss          $13.77
Shirt ls          $18.17
Tie                $4.75
Belt               $2.57
Buckle           $4.39
Flight Cap      $14.50
Low Quarters $87.00

Total:            $368.32

Math is still off, do it again.  I hope you write reports better than this.

[SarDragon]

How is the math off, unless you are only pricing one shirt, instead of both LS and SS?

[abdsp51]

How is the math off, unless you are only pricing one shirt, instead of both LS and SS?

Going off the guidelines set in 39-1 his math is off.  And even if he was trying to go for a full USAF issue the math is off. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Assuming his research and pricing for his materials is correct, his math is not off. I attained the same result.

However, I believe the uniform manual does list a few items he does not include in the list.

1. Underwear
2. Senior member officer's or NCO's insignias.
3. Ribbons.
4. Tie clips or pins.
5. Socks.

Adding this would have made his math off. Is this what you mean by his math being off? But he already covered it by stating "over $300."

[lordmonar]

After 10 posts about math.........you bet your 4th point of contact......as soon as we make the blues THE uniform.....we will have a bunch of people complaining.