Personal Appearance and CAP

[A.Member]

Continued discussion from this thread:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1004.40

My point being....if the option is long haired CFI or nothing....do you go with nothing?

Yes, if that person wasn't interested in conforming to the standards, perhaps I would.  And if my other option was nothing, then I'd examine my recruiting/marketing process.  Keep in mind, the question asked what our opinion was - we obviously have a corporate uniform for this reason and the fact that little old me disagrees isn't going to change that. 

That is not fulfilling your CP mission.  This has nothing to do with being a flying club and they are putting service before self....this is an individual who wants to work, wants to do some part for the organisation...but you would turn them out because of weight and grooming issues. 

And I'd argue that you're not leading by example.  PT is part of the cadet program and they don't have the luxury of a "corporate uniform".  What message is sent when a member shows such in difference to their own personal appearance? 

Ah...asumptions....asumptions.....I am also a MSgt in the USAF and have the NCO Academy and SNCO Academy credited to me....ergo Course 13 is not required.

I also have not been to SLS too.....are you going to make an assumption about that too?  There are several ways to make Capt with out going up the standard line.

I made no assumptions.  I very much understand there are numerous ways to acheive an advanced rank.  What I did do, however, is suggest that you consider reviewing AFIADL 13.  Volume 2 ("Professional Knowledge"), Unit 4 discusses meeting weight and physical fitness standards. When discussing "setting the example", Volume 4 ("Leadership"), Unit 2 specifically points out:

"You must set the standard for the unit because actions speak louder than words.  People, especially youth like the CAP cadets, will emulate your standards of personal conduct and appearance...

...Self-discipline also pertains to physical fitness.  People who are in good physical condition are better prepared for any mission.  Military leaders must be positive examples of professional conduct, physical conditioning, and appearance.  As members of the Air Force's auxillary corps, Civil Air Patrol members should take pride in their appearance and wear their uniforms proudly at formal military functions.  Remember, CAP's community contributions should stand as a shining example of the Air Force."

Okay...so be it.  What you are forgetting is your mission is NOT to look professional.

I respectfully disagree.  True, it's not a "mission".  However, it is our obligation - see above.

We simply could not survive cutting off 30 percent of membership and maybe another 10 percent just because they see it as unfair.

Really?  I think we could.   

[Pylon]

I don't agree.  Civil Air Patrol's founding was behind the idea the people who might not be able to serve the nation in the military could still serve in another capacity.  Don't forget our heritage.

I don't agree that people who don't meet strict height-weight standards, or whom have facial hair, cannot contribute to this organization.  That is simply ignorant.  We have three, equal missions and individuals of all walks of life, all ages, all physical abilities, and all limitations can contribute to each of our missions.   

I also think that, while we are the sometimes Auxiliary of the US Air Force, we are not the military.  We don't follow the same set of rules that govern our life in and out of uniform (UCMJ), nor are we expected to do the types of things that members of the military need to -- we don't need to be fit to fight.

Being "slim and trimmed" won't increase our effectiveness on our missions, nor our public image.  People taking care of themselves properly, people keeping up with their training, people wearing the uniform properly (corporate or USAF-style) and people presenting themselves in a professional manner is what will make us a better organization.

[A.Member]

I don't agree that people who don't meet strict height-weight standards, or whom have facial hair, cannot contribute to this organization.  That is simply ignorant.  We have three, equal missions and individuals of all walks of life, all ages, all physical abilities, and all limitations can contribute to each of our missions. 

How about those with tattoos or body piercings?  They're prohibited by 39-1.  From Table 2-5:

7.  Excessive tattoos/brands will not be exposed or visible (includes
visible through the uniform) while in uniform. Excessive is defined as
any tattoo/brands that exceeds 1/4 of the exposed body part and those
above the collarbone and readily visible when wearing an open collar
uniform.

8.  Members are prohibited from attaching, affixing or displaying objects,
articles, jewelry or ornamentation to or through the ear, nose, tongue,
or any exposed body part (includes visible through the uniform) when
in uniform.

Are these people also inherently incapable of performing missions?  Of course not.

I understand your point and, as I mentioned in a previous post, that doesn't mean these people are not capable.  It simply means they don't conform to the standards set by the organization for the image they wish to present.  CAP Knowledge Base topics 1546, 1542, and 211 address this as well.

Being "slim and trimmed" won't increase our effectiveness on our missions, nor our public image.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one - although this statement seems to be a bit contradictory to your statement below.

People taking care of themselves properly, people keeping up with their training, people wearing the uniform properly (corporate or USAF-style) and people presenting themselves in a professional manner is what will make us a better organization.

[mawr]

I believe you will find that CAPM 39-1, table 2-5 does not apply to Corporate uniforms. 

I don't believe that tattoos will limit one's participation.  Piercings can be removed if needed while participating in CAP and replaced later.  It's done all the time in the work place.

[Pylon]

Being "slim and trimmed" won't increase our effectiveness on our missions, nor our public image.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one - although this statement seems to be a bit contradictory to your statement below.

People taking care of themselves properly, people keeping up with their training, people wearing the uniform properly (corporate or USAF-style) and people presenting themselves in a professional manner is what will make us a better organization.

We'll have to disagree, but what I said was not intended to sound contradictory.  People can "take care of themselves" (i/e: showered, combed hair, proper personal hygenie, etc.) and wear a well-ironed, clean, and accurate uniform regardless of weight, well-maintained facial hair, or length of their hair and easily present a positive, professional image. 

People in the corporate world and many public and government agenices are capable of effectively doing their jobs and presenting a fully professional image without height-weight standards; we're capable of the same.

[A.Member]

I believe you will find that CAPM 39-1, table 2-5 does not apply to Corporate uniforms. 

You may be right. 

However, there is a standard for those in corporate uniforms, even if it is more subjective.  And that was really my point.  Where do you draw the line?  It's a slippery slope.  This topic was the result of a hypothetical question but, regardless, IMO, members really should strive to adhere to the requirements for the USAF style uniforms (which actually allows 10% more leeway than the actual USAF req.).  Uniforms and grooming standards exist for a reason - to present a consistent image.  And that is important to morale as well as to the agencies we work with.

[BillB]

LCol Hasha, check the policy letter for the TPU it does require meeting hair standard but not the height and weight.

[lordmonar]

I got to say....if we always had the same standards as the USAF then that would be a little different. (not much but a little).

I do know if you have ever done any real heavy recruiting.  I mean creating a unit from scratch.  Volunteers don't just grow on trees.  Volunteers with the skills we need, the extra cash and the extra time are even fewer.

So now you got a guy who has the skills, time, and money to devote to your program and you don't want him because he is a little (or a lot) fat?

I understand setting an example, I understand fitness means readiness.  But bottom line is that we already are losing people left and right due to all sorts of stupid things.  Now you want to kick out 30%+ more because they fit your basic definition of "professional"?

If you required everyone to meet grooming and weight standards.....then the AE program would fail.  At a guess 10-20% of the cadet units would no longer have leadership.  30% of composite and senior squadron members would no longer be able to participate.

You really think that CAP nationally could continue to do it's mission with a 30% cut in manning?

Sorry...I just don't see it.

[mawr]

BillB, you are correct.  I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I was referring to tatoos and piercings while in corporate uniform as oppossed to AF syle uniforms.

[ELTHunter]

I don't agree.  Civil Air Patrol's founding was behind the idea the people who might not be able to serve the nation in the military could still serve in another capacity.  Don't forget our heritage.

I agree.  Personally, I meet the weight and grooming standards.  However, I know several members that do not meet the standards, but yet are some of the most devoted, skilled and dedicated "professionals" I know in the organization.

Sometimes I believe that some of the members that want to get rid of the Corporate uniform and kick members out that don't meet a physical standard are just wishfull that CAP was a military organization.  Perhaps the Guard or Reserves would be a more appropriate place for them to be?  Not saying that in a mean spirited way, just saying that maybe their expectations of what CAP should be isn't realistic with what it's mission and purpose are.

Whats next, an age limit?

[lordmonar]

Whats next, an age limit?

PT for seniors!

[ELTHunter]

Actually, some Wings are promoting the Presidents Challenge program to try to get senior members active.  I set up a group for our Group on the PC website but never got around to announcing it.  I didn't set it up for weight and grooming standards reasons, but because I think if the ES folks are more fit, it helps our ability to carry out the mission.

As for me, I usually participate in PT with the Cadets, at least in everything but the running.  At 41, my knees prefer the elliptical trainer or the treadmill to running on the track.

[aveighter]

The theme of this discussion mirrors the society at large.  A general disdain for standards is rampant these days and the examples trotted out of those who don't meet the "standard" yet perform at a stellar level are legion. 

The funny thing is that in a few instances that is true.  For the vast majority of cases though, it is not true.  Lets be honest about this.  The underlying issue here is the fact that over the last twenty years, America has become a nation of whales.  For the 40+ crowd, the very guys that made hay with the disgusting fatbody jokes when they were kids have themselves become those disgusting fatbodies.  For the under 40 bunch, many of you have grown up that way and obesity is perceived as sort of normal.

I'm not talking about a few extra pounds many of us struggle with.  I clock in with twenty one pounds more than when I left basic training yet still fall with in the guidelines (demonstrates the leeway already built in to them).  I'm talking about the hanging over the belt big gut sticking out can't see your shoes while standing at attention and looking down completely out of shape types so common today.  On the history and physical form at work thats called obese.  And it's everywhere.

Fact is, it's not normal, it's not healthy and it does not in any way, shape or form look professional in uniform.  The entire purpose of a uniform is to look, well...uniform.  The same as a group with which one identifies and shares a common identity, purpose so on and so forth.

Lets be clear, I'm not saying that all the above should be summarily dismissed.  I'm saying we need to stop with the excuses and rationalizations, recognize the realities and make the commitment to change for our individual health, that of the organization and, indeed, the nation.

In similar discussion in other venues several of the guys writing here have made the commitment to do the hard work to make a change for themselves.  For several the ability to wear the uniform to "standard" was the motivating force.  Creating a uniform mechanism to circumvent the "standard" is referred to in another discipline as enabling and co-dependent type behavior.

Disclaimer:  I feel so passionate about this because for several decades of my professional life I have been dealing with the end results of this exploding epidemic of obesity in America.  The havoc being wreaked on our men in their 30s, 40s and 50s+ when they should still be vital and strong is criminal but, quite frankly, still a matter of personal choice.  We need to get a grip on this thing and do something about it for all our sakes.

By the way, I take as personal insult the notion that the founders of CAP were also misfits so it is alright for us to not "measure up" to the so-called military man.  An examination of the historical record will reveal that those great men were, in many instances, beyond the age of military service, were pilots that didn't meet the qualifications for military aviation as written at the time or were awaiting placement in a military training environment of some sort.  No lardasses have I yet found in any measurable quantity.  Those guys may have had a few too many years on them, wore glasses or had flat feet but they most assuredly measured up.  They had the courage of lions and the eye of the tiger.  Surely we can lose a few pounds without crying about it.

Interestingly, my younger son, 1st Lt. aveighter who is currently piloting a C-17 to points redacted for OPSEC purposes would not have met the pilot standards for WWII and would likely have found himself dropping bombs on subs from fabric covered wheezers of the CAP or hitting the beach with the ground pounders.

[BillB]

One thing you really don't take into consideration is the ageing process. I have developed a "beer gut" over the years (incidently I do not drink beer, just never liked the taste). However I am still five pounds under the USAF weight for my height, to say nothing about the CAP 10% difference. As we age, most males, and females for that matter, develop a midriff bulge. So how you consider that?

[aveighter]

Bill, you're quite right.  As I am well into the aging process, I know what you mean.  I mentioned those twenty pounds accumulated over the years since basic.  I once had an upper body that women adored and men feared.  It has since redistributed itself more so around the middle.  Graciously, Mrs. aveighter pretends not to notice.

As we age the awareness of our diet, how we supplement it with vitamins, minerals and amino acids becomes very important.  That and exercise of some sort.  Walk, bike, pump iron, whatever but do it.  I think Chuck and Christies Total Gym is a miracle machine but thats my opinion.  One thing is for sure, however, you absolutely must get away from the sugar-based diet of most Americans.  That and lack of proper supplementation is probably at the root of the explosion in mass-index.  That and the almost complete lack of meaningful exercise.

We, just like the aircraft we fly, require regular, definitive maintenance.  And as we age that process becomes even more important lest corrosion and cracks beset the old fuselage.

[lordmonar]

Fact is, it's not normal, it's not healthy and it does not in any way, shape or form look professional in uniform.  The entire purpose of a uniform is to look, well...uniform.  The same as a group with which one identifies and shares a common identity, purpose so on and so forth.

Well....define normal.  As you stated in your opening paragraph...America is becoming a nation of whales.....ergo....being over weight is normal.   It's not healthy?  Okay.....I grant you that to a point....but why does CAP care?  The military cares because they have to pay the medical bills, replace the sick and dead Airmen ect and so on but CAP pays none of those things unless the guy drops dead on a mission.

And finally uniformity is exactly what we are talking about.  We have two uniforms. One for that anyone can wear and one that is limited only to those who meet the "standard" (a standard imposed by the USAF not CAP).

So....we have two options...one...impose the USAF standard on to all of our people or two...eliminate the USAF uniform and go corporate only.

And for the record....no one ever said that CAP was originally made up of misfits...only that it was made up of people who for one reason or another could not serve in the active military.  Some were too old, some were medically ineligible, some were in some vital service deemed too important to allow them to join the military.

If this is your definition of "misfit" then so be it.

[CAP428]

Well, I will be annoying and offer no solution, but I will say that CAP cares, [or at least should care] because it is a simple fact that regardless of good intentions or a want to serve, overweight people are usually not as apt to performing physical missions than in-shape/"normal" weight people are.  Not to say that they can't do anything in our organization, but it is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed.

I have my own opinions on how this could be handled, but I'd rather not start here, as I'm sure they would raise some hell  .

[aveighter]

Captain Harris, this is a serious issue.  Please don't diminish it or yourself with foolish arguments.  Obesity is common, it is not normal, certainly not from a medical perspective.

CAP has created the Health Services Officer specialty track and is working to develop it into a functional program that can have an actual impact on the membership and their quality of life as it relates to health issues.  Similar to aspects of the USAF program.  They have done so for a good reason and that reason extends beyond the need for an occasional bandaid at a cadet function.

[Pylon]

There seems to be a misleading here that every CAP member that joins needs to be ready to dash out the door and trudge through a physically-demanding ground search, or an individual needs to be able to comfortably fly in our aircraft to contribute to our organization.

Not everybody wants to contribute by being directly involved with our operations missions.  There are a plethora of other ways members can contribute.  For a person who has a well-maintained beard or wears their corporate uniform cleaned, pressed, and accurately, why should their weight matter in a number of duties?  Are they not capable of maintaining your units finances?  Ordering supplies?  Keeping track of administrative records?  Operating radios?  Guiding other senior members on professional development issues?  Performing maintenance on your van?  Advising the unit on legal matters, if they're a legal professional?  Performing Chaplain's duties?  Writing a press release?  Checking people in at a mission base?  Writing grant proposals?  Logging issued squadron property and equipment?  Properly destroying test materials?  The list goes on...

Is everyone fit to go rucking it through the woods on an intensive ground search?  No.

But if you try to tell me that an individual can't balance your books or order your supplies or carry out any one of those duties regardless of their weight, physical or developmental disability, or underlying, related health issues, then you're seriously misguided.  You also seriously misunderstand how a volunteer organization operates.  You also would seem to have an issue with discrimination.

Civil Air Patrol needs people to be effective.  We will never be an effective, widespread organization if we only want to tap the resources of slim, fit, fully-shaven, fully healthy people.  Sorry; that's only one segment of our population and only one lifestyle.  If that's the organization you want to be in, you need to check out joining your local Guard or state militia or maybe a SAR team or something.

If you are so worried about our ability to perform our mission, you might want to worry about how diminished our capability would be without these valuable personnel.  Everybody contributes in their own way. 

Respect for other individuals and their particular abilities, not disabilities, will go along way in increasing our organizational effectiveness.  Hopefully you haven't already disenfranchised some of our better members.

[lordmonar]

Captain Harris, this is a serious issue.  Please don't diminish it or yourself with foolish arguments.  Obesity is common, it is not normal, certainly not from a medical perspective.

CAP has created the Health Services Officer specialty track and is working to develop it into a functional program that can have an actual impact on the membership and their quality of life as it relates to health issues.  Similar to aspects of the USAF program.  They have done so for a good reason and that reason extends beyond the need for an occasional bandaid at a cadet function.

I am not diminishing the dangers of obesity.....but forcing people out of CAP for being obese is NOT how you make them fitter.

We should be encouraging our people to be healthy....and I am all for that.  We should be trying to stay in shape to be better prepared to fulfill our mission.

But...the crux of this thread is that we should force out the obese and long haired because they embarrass us!

My point is....if you are going to come up to a volunteer and then start hammering them about their weight and how bad it is for them.....they are going to quit the organization instead of getting into shape.

CAP is already a hassle without the Squadron Health Service Officer reading the riot act about their diet, physical activity, smoking, off duty recreational activities.

I mean....I got to listen to that at work all the time (I'm active duty USAF) and I have to listen to it from my wife.  I sure a heck don't want to hear it on my "free" time, when all I want to do is fly missions, teach cadets, and be a service to my community.

I know what you are trying to do, and I know that you mean well.....but it will kill the organization.  You will drive out more people than you will convert and you will do this to the detriment to the organization.

[aveighter]

But if you try to tell me that an individual can't balance your books or order your supplies or carry out any one of those duties regardless of their weight, physical or developmental disability, or underlying, related health issues, then you're seriously misguided.  You also seriously misunderstand how a volunteer organization operates.  You also would seem to have an issue with discrimination.

Respect for other individuals and their particular abilities, not disabilities, will go along way in increasing our organizational effectiveness.  Hopefully you haven't already disenfranchised some of our better members.

Sorry Mike, you have completely missed the point.  This discussion has nothing to do with dashing and trudging, beards or physical or developmental disabilities.  It is obvious that there are many roles to be fulfilled by hirsute individuals incapable of dashing, trudging or flying for that matter.

I think your point that CAP needs people to be effective is also a generally accepted premise.

I was discussing obesity.  It matters.  Its an epidemic and the toll it takes on the body is significant.  I see more hypertension, heart disease and diabetes in younger people (30s on up) than ever before.  It is precisely because I have respect for individuals that I seek to not sweep the facts under the table.  My comments are not meant to be derogatory or mean spirited so don't react as if they were.

Your comments indicate you care greatly about the organization and it's personnel.  I am certain that if you knew a man was willfully destroying himself from whatever mechanism you would not look the other way and call it respect.  Nor, I suspect, would you cover it up with a nice set of threads and call it leadership.

[aveighter]

I'm not talking about forcing anyone out, Patrick.  I'm talking about doing something for our people that makes a difference.  For us as an organization and them as an individual.

Hammering?  No.  Riot acts?  No.  Nuts, grains and berries?  Ohhellno.

[freeflight]

After reading this thread I have come to a conclusion.  There are two different groups of people posting responses in this thread, those who want military standards in fitness and grooming and those who are fine without it.  I will use an analogy to get my thought across, they are both standing on opposite sides of a dead horse "yelling" at each other and beating it at the same time. Remember were all working for the same organization and we might have to work together.

[aveighter]

Interesting analogy Freeflight.  I pretty much agree with you.  Let us substitute the dead horse with the untimely end result of our overly portly members. 

I and others are on one side calling out "Lets help this fellow before he gets to this point.  We need him".  The others are on the opposite side yelling "He's a dead man, get over it!  Move on and find a new one"

[Pylon]

But if you try to tell me that an individual can't balance your books or order your supplies or carry out any one of those duties regardless of their weight, physical or developmental disability, or underlying, related health issues, then you're seriously misguided.  You also seriously misunderstand how a volunteer organization operates.  You also would seem to have an issue with discrimination.

Respect for other individuals and their particular abilities, not disabilities, will go along way in increasing our organizational effectiveness.  Hopefully you haven't already disenfranchised some of our better members.

Sorry Mike, you have completely missed the point.  This discussion has nothing to do with dashing and trudging, beards or physical or developmental disabilities.  It is obvious that there are many roles to be fulfilled by hirsute individuals incapable of dashing, trudging or flying for that matter.

I think your point that CAP needs people to be effective is also a generally accepted premise.

I was discussing obesity.  It matters.  Its an epidemic and the toll it takes on the body is significant.  I see more hypertension, heart disease and diabetes in younger people (30s on up) than ever before.  It is precisely because I have respect for individuals that I seek to not sweep the facts under the table.  My comments are not meant to be derogatory or mean spirited so don't react as if they were.

Your comments indicate you care greatly about the organization and it's personnel.  I am certain that if you knew a man was willfully destroying himself from whatever mechanism you would not look the other way and call it respect.  Nor, I suspect, would you cover it up with a nice set of threads and call it leadership.

I may have missed your point.  Those of us who have been posting here and on other CAP discussion boards for years are used to the discussion of "let's kick out people who aren't skinny, shaved, and like me!" cropping up about every 4-6 months.

I agree that overall healthiness and fitness of Americans is a worrisome problem and addressing it through a pro-active health services program within CAP, for the benefit of our members, is certainly a great idea and one worth pursuing.  Not everybody has full health insurance, a gym membership, and a personal trainer so providing information and assistance that our members may not have otherwise received would be great.  Certainly, I don't think we, as an organization, could force anything upon our valuable members, but even just offering the service would be going a lot farther than we've ever gone before. 

The well-being of our valuable personnel is certainly something that we benfit from as an organization.  I just think we'd have to implement and design such a program extremely carefully so as not to disenfranchise or drive away contributing volunteer professionals.  Just for example, you don't want to gear the program only towards advising people about obesity, as the program would quickly get labeled as a program to harass our heavier members.  A well-rounded health advisory and assistance program for all members, however, may go a long way to helping members and would even be something we could list as a membership benefit.

So, sorry if I had mis-read your message.  Let quality volunteers of all shapes, sizes, and backgrounds be a member of CAP?  Sure.  But let's advise all members of health risks and offer sound advise and programs for their benefit, if they choose to take advantage of that for the long-term benefit of everyone, CAP included - that I like.

[aveighter]

Well said Michael.  I agree.  I focus on the overly apportioned fellows because I see how devastating it is on the system just a short distance down the road for most folks.

It is frustrating because a few changes in life style and behavior just a few years earlier can make such a dramatic difference in outcomes and quality of life.

[davedove]

The well-being of our valuable personnel is certainly something that we benfit from as an organization.  I just think we'd have to implement and design such a program extremely carefully so as not to disenfranchise or drive away contributing volunteer professionals.  Just for example, you don't want to gear the program only towards advising people about obesity, as the program would quickly get labeled as a program to harass our heavier members.  A well-rounded health advisory and assistance program for all members, however, may go a long way to helping members and would even be something we could list as a membership benefit.

There is another situation that must be avoided:  any such program would have to be done seriously, as well as not harassing to the heavier members.  In the Army, I was always borderline heavy and I recognized that.  What always irritated me was the fact that one of the main doctors in the clinic always seemed to be the one to counsel about weight control, and this guy must have been carrying around at least an extra 200 pounds.  Certainly not the best role model.

I am trying to lose my extra weight and I will one day be able to fit into the service uniform regs.  It's slow going though, and in the meantime I can still contribute to CAP.  I've lost two and a half inches from my waist so far, so I'm on my way.

[Psicorp]

The only thing I've ever had a problem with is people looking sloppy in uniform, whichever uniform that may be.  To me it doesn't matter if you are anorexically thin or clinically overwieght, uniforms can be tailored and worn well enough (with hidden accessories if needed) to look professional.  Take pride in your service and take equal pride in how you look. 

[mmouw]

I am not sure I want to venture into this conversation or not, but here goes. I recently rejoined CAP after a short brake. At the time I was over the weight standard. I made a personal decision to lose the weight to be able to wear the AF style uniform. I am former Air Force and was always on and off the fat boy program. I started to lose weight last December and to this date I have lost 58 pounds. I am not running marathons or spending hours at the gym. I am working out three times a week for 45 mins a time. I have watched what I eat (no ice cream in almost a year)  and it is working. I feel better and am more active.

This past summer I went on a mission here in the Black Hills for a missing person. The terrain was rugged to say the least. In the mountains we had to do a line search. We covered that mountain 5 times that day. I started to think that if I had not made the choice to get healthy, then I wouldn't have been able to perform my service to the community. I do understand that we have other jobs that people can perform with out physical activity. My question is what happens when you don't have anyone able to perform the other missions that we all agree to perform when we sign on? The last thing we need to happen is to have someone who is looking for a victim become a victim.

By no means am I saying that we need PT or stricter standards, but those of us who are over weight and just chose not to do anything about it need to think about what is at stake. For your community and yourselves. I know we have members that are not able to perform PT, but those who can should think about it. It is a win win situation for you.

In regards to working with Cadets, we should lead by example. If we are expecting them to perform PT for achievements, then we should do what we can to show them there is no age limit on health and fitness. Again this is for those who can perform PT. Cadets are very influential and need proper leadership.

I believe that everyone is important to CAP. We all bring something to the table. This decision isn't one that anyone can force on you it has to be a personal one. As a society we often pass the buck on someone or something else. I did the very same thing until I realized that I am the one who has to live with the consequence of my actions. I am feeling great and want to lose another 15-20 pounds. I hope that some of you will make the same choice I made.

To better health!!!!

[A.Member]

There seems to be a misleading here that every CAP member that joins needs to be ready to dash out the door and trudge through a physically-demanding ground search, or an individual needs to be able to comfortably fly in our aircraft to contribute to our organization.

It could also be argued that there is a misleading argument being presented that indicates our presentation doesn't matter.  That is not true either.  Without question is does matter.  Again, not only to ourselves, for many of the reasons already pointed out, but to the agencies we work with.  As we try to sell our services and redefine our missions how we present ourselves is critical (of course there are many different aspects of this - it's not a weight only issue).  That may not be an answer that we like to hear but it is the reality.

Not everybody wants to contribute by being directly involved with our operations missions.

Agreed but if we're talking about senior members, why then did they join CAP?  There are a lot of other organizations out there that also do very good things.

There are a plethora of other ways members can contribute.  For a person who has a well-maintained beard or wears their corporate uniform cleaned, pressed, and accurately, why should their weight matter in a number of duties?  Are they not capable of maintaining your units finances?  Ordering supplies?  Keeping track of administrative records?  Operating radios?  Guiding other senior members on professional development issues?  Performing maintenance on your van?  Advising the unit on legal matters, if they're a legal professional?  Performing Chaplain's duties?  Writing a press release?  Checking people in at a mission base?  Writing grant proposals?  Logging issued squadron property and equipment?  Properly destroying test materials?  The list goes on...

Is everyone fit to go rucking it through the woods on an intensive ground search?  No.

But if you try to tell me that an individual can't balance your books or order your supplies or carry out any one of those duties regardless of their weight, physical or developmental disability, or underlying, related health issues, then you're seriously misguided. 

You argument never addresses this fact:

Volume 2 ("Professional Knowledge"), Unit 4 discusses meeting weight and physical fitness standards. When discussing "setting the example", Volume 4 ("Leadership"), Unit 2 specifically points out:

"You must set the standard for the unit because actions speak louder than words.  People, especially youth like the CAP cadets, will emulate your standards of personal conduct and appearance...

...Self-discipline also pertains to physical fitness.  People who are in good physical condition are better prepared for any mission.  Military leaders must be positive examples of professional conduct, physical conditioning, and appearance.  As members of the Air Force's auxillary corps, Civil Air Patrol members should take pride in their appearance and wear their uniforms proudly at formal military functions.  Remember, CAP's community contributions should stand as a shining example of the Air Force."

Curious to hear a rebuttal to that.

Civil Air Patrol needs people to be effective.  We will never be an effective, widespread organization if we only want to tap the resources of slim, fit, fully-shaven, fully healthy people.  Sorry; that's only one segment of our population and only one lifestyle.  If that's the organization you want to be in, you need to check out joining your local Guard or state militia or maybe a SAR team or something.

That's a bit of red herring and overstating the argument.  First, even the USAF regs. don't require that a person be "chiseled".   There is an allowance there.  Second, our regs. allow another 10% on top of that (= ~15-20 lbs. in most cases) leeway - we don't follow the USAF reg:
CAP Weight standards

To put it simply, as a matter of pride, all members should strive to meet the standard and not use the corporate uniform as an excuse not to adhere (take Capt. Mouw, above, as an example - well done BTW! (and if we had a salute smilie, I'd insert it here.  Instead, you get this:  :clap:  ).   Some members, possibly as evidenced by some of the reponses here, don't seem to be interested in even doing that.  I think that's the real point. 


On a somewhat related note (and I think I can veer off on a tangent since it's my topic ), another issue (ie. pet peeve) I've seen rather frequently is members in the corporate uniform demanding the same customs and courtises as those in the USAF-style uniform.  Members in a corporate uniform are not saluted!  As such, do not direct cadets to do so.

BTW:  Everyone here should be commended for keeping this discussion civil and mature.

[Chaplaindon]

Friends,

It's simple. As long as we are stuck a choice of uniforms, one demanding USAF h/w standards (+10%) & grooming standards, another demanding USAF grooming standards (only), and yet ANOTHER requiring none of the above we will continue to face two problems.

One: the total lack of any semblence of uniformity in our personnel.

Two: a never-ending litany of complaints about members who fail to meet another member's subjective ideal of what a member should look like.

Solutions:

One: Since the USAF won't budge on its requirments (nor should it have to) we should ditch the USAF uniform in favor of a professional CAP-distinctive uniform for ALL members. I have repeatedly suggested going to the 1950's-1960's 505/1505 USAF-style khaki uniform as a replacement for cadet and adult alike.

Two: for those members who see fit to rhetorically "bully" members who don't meet their ideals of "beauty" or "professional appearance" --- I say "GROW UP or GET OUT!" CAP would be a better organization without selfish and superficial people like you.

A CAP Chaplain

[A.Member]

Two: for those members who see fit to rhetorically "bully" members who don't meet their ideals of "beauty" or "professional appearance" --- I say "GROW UP or GET OUT!" CAP would be a better organization without selfish and superficial people like you.

Up to this point, I don't think anyone here was acting like a bully.  Boy, I hope a chaplain doesn't make me take back my comment about the civility of the discussion. 

[fyrfitrmedic]

Two: for those members who see fit to rhetorically "bully" members who don't meet their ideals of "beauty" or "professional appearance" --- I say "GROW UP or GET OUT!" CAP would be a better organization without selfish and superficial people like you.

Up to this point, I don't think anyone here was acting like a bully.  Please don't make me take back my comment about the civility of the conversation.

Here's a better idea: show a little courage and sign your posts.

"A. Member"? More like "A. Coward" IMHO.

Your previous attempts at contribution were more than a little snide at times, and the snark factor is magnified by your anonymity schtick.

[A.Member]

Here's a better idea: show a little courage and sign your posts.

"A. Member"? More like "A. Coward" IMHO.

Your previous attempts at contribution were more than a little snide at times, and the snark factor is magnified by your anonymity schtick.

Excellent Ad Hominem. 

Do you have any comments pertaining to the discussion topic?

Signed,
A.Member

[fyrfitrmedic]

Here's a better idea: show a little courage and sign your posts.

"A. Member"? More like "A. Coward" IMHO.

Your previous attempts at contribution were more than a little snide at times, and the snark factor is magnified by your anonymity schtick.

Excellent Ad Hominem. 

Do you have any comments pertaining to the discussion topic?

Signed,
A.Member

As a matter of fact, yes.

As has been stated previously by others, there seem to be two widely divergent schools of thought pertaining to this topic: those who want to encourage and support members becoming healthier and those who simply want to separate those from the organization who don't fit what they consider to be the 'standard'.

I'm firmly in the camp of those who wish to encourage and support members becoming healthier and potentially more mission-effective. Those who can lower their drag coefficient by all means should by whatever safe and effective means are available to them.

That being said...

Your continued lack of a valid signature merely illustrates and underscores my point - for whatever reason, you lack the simple courage to sign your posts. I'd be willing to hazard a guess that you were one of the anonymous posters that forced registration at Capblog and/or one of the various sockpuppets that appeared on occasion on Civil Air Portal.

Incidentally, if my sole intention was an ad hominem [by the way, way to use Google there, hero...] attack, I'd have been a little more creative in my commentary.

( Apologies to the rest of the readership if my comments offend; I'm just sick and tired of sockpuppets and the like.)

[Pylon]

This topic has degenerated a bit, and it's clear there are several camps of thought here.  None is conceding any points; everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I think all the major points of view have been offered.  In the interest of preventing this discussion from becoming any further offensive, and/or to save the dead horse's carcass from being beaten any further, I'm going to add a lock to this particular thread.

If you have something to say that hasn't yet been said and you're itching to post it, PM me or Jerry.