Khaki Shorts Blue Golf Shirt Combo

[Nathan]

Where's the waiver? You keep stating that the National Commander is allowed to waiver things. I think most people would agree.

Now where is the actual waiver? Show it to us. Stating that the commander waivered the reg is not proof. Showing where she waivered it is what is being asked for. Can you show the proof? Otherwise, it's only hearsay, conjecture, or wishful thinking.

I don't think that an email from a region commander to subordinate commanders discussing policy can be considered "hearsay, conjecture, or wishful thinking." Again, you're asking the wrong people for the waiver. Have you tried emailing NHQ?

Faxing something takes more time than an Internet publish. "It was only faxed to me" sounds fishy. And "somewhere" should be where everyone can view it. Doesn't even matter if it only applies to a specific region.

"Sounds fishy"... ha. And we wonder where the hearsay comes from?

You missed the point. The regs that say that directives have to be publicly accessible were the same, I would imagine, before the internet became as important and popular as it is now. Unless the regs specifically say that the directive has to be made public VIA THE INTERNET, then you have NO basis upon which to base an assumption that the region commander or national commander is in error. None.

It doesn't matter if it takes more time, or is less efficient, or doesn't take advantage of the internet. As long as the directive is available to the members, then the directive would stand. And as far as I know, nobody has actually taken the time to try to REQUEST this directive. They are just assuming that because it isn't on the internet, it must not exist. Right...

The process is no different. When you load up a PDF, you're requesting access to the information contained in the PDF. When you call NHQ asking for them to send you a copy of the waiver, you're doing the same thing. One is just slower than the other, but no less valid. The waiver COULD be available for any commander that makes the request. Just because it isn't on the CAP website does not mean it does not exist, and it is borderline subordinate to assume that your commanders are breaking regulations just because they did not/could not immediately utilize a method that you consider to be the most efficient to make known their directives.

[Eclipse]

The National Commander waived the requirement and basically is requiring the glider program uniform.  That uniform has been approved by the Department of Labor as meeting their requirement for our pilots to have FECA coverage.

Prove it - Nathan is giving donuts....mmmm...donuts...
Show us where she can...

For the record, CAPR 5-4 says this (snipped).

(2) Some regulations and manuals require NHQ approval of all supplements or operating instructions pertaining to that publication (e.g.: CAPR 60-1, CAPR 173-2, etc.). Commanders will ensure such approvals are received prior to issuing the supplements or operating instruction. All supplements or OIs pertaining to Air Force Assigned Missions (i.e., CAPR 60-1, CAPR 60-3, CAPR 173-3, etc.) requiring NHQ approval must be coordinated with the State Director, CAP-USAF Liaison Region, and the CAP Region prior to submission to NHQ for approval.

This certainly pertains to AFAMS, so at a minimum it would have required two emails - one from the CAP-USAF Liason Region CC and one from Maj. Gen. Courter.

[Eclipse]

Nathan, are you seriously trying to argue that a wing / region's website is not the central point for publication of OI's and supplements?  So tacked to the wall at wing is enough?

That dog don't hunt...

[Hawk200]

Where's the waiver? You keep stating that the National Commander is allowed to waiver things. I think most people would agree.

Now where is the actual waiver? Show it to us. Stating that the commander waivered the reg is not proof. Showing where she waivered it is what is being asked for. Can you show the proof? Otherwise, it's only hearsay, conjecture, or wishful thinking.

I don't think that an email from a region commander to subordinate commanders discussing policy can be considered "hearsay, conjecture, or wishful thinking." Again, you're asking the wrong people for the waiver. Have you tried emailing NHQ?

You missed the point, I didn't.

Here's the way the info was presented to this board
1. Region commander sends email to National CC.
2. Region commander states that the National CC approved the waiver via email.

It should have been presented like this:

1. Region CC sends email to NHQ/CC.
2. NHQ/CC approves the request.
3. Region CC distributes waiver with its approval to lower echelons.

See the order? That was the problem. It wasn't even putting the cart before the horse, the horse was being skipped altogether. Nobody was showing us the horse.

You can claim that people were questioning the validity of the NHQ/CC being allowed to waiver pubs all you want, but that is not what was being done. People were asking for proof that it was done. Red herrings are a prime way to lose in an argument.

That being said, I've since seen the email. I agree that Courter's permission is valid. Now, it just needs to be typed up, all proper like, and published to all concerned in an accessible manner.

Which sounds more professional: "According to the 1 January supplement to 39-1, we can wear the following uniform....", or "Well, I've got a copy of an email..." ?

[Short Field]

^OK boys and girls....
First point:  They are not "her" regulations.  They are "our" regulations; passed and approved by the National Board.

I'll concede this point. 

Third point: "the Department of Labor"?  Now I've heard everything....

From Knowledgebase: 

2.  Why do I have to wear a uniform?  When the U.S. Department of Labor agreed to allow FECA coverage (workman's compensation insurance) to CAP pilots, it's only demand was that our pilot population look like a uniformed corps.  After that decision the CAP adopted a uniform much like the U.S. Air Force.  However, CAP realizes special activities such as soaring demand comfortable loose fitting clothes, therefore the uniform in question number one was approved.  Bottom line: the wear of the soaring type uniform, as minimal as it is, fulfills the Department of Labor's requirement, while allowing glider activities the flexibility to wear clothing appropriate to the activity.

[Short Field]

It should have been presented like this:
1. Region CC sends email to NHQ/CC.
2. NHQ/CC approves the request.
3. Region CC distributes waiver with its approval to lower echelons.

What part of

I have requested and been granted a waiver

is different than what you stated?  Is it the part where you don't trust the Region CC and believe he is lying and you want to see the waiver yourself before you will believe it?

[Eclipse]

What part of

I have requested and been granted a waiver

is different than what you stated?  Is it the part where you don't trust the Region CC and believe he is lying and you want to see the waiver yourself before you will believe it?

He doesn't have to be lying to be mistaken regarding the approval process.  Not everything has to be personal.

Commanders are not infallible and occasionally they overstep they authority or make mistakes.

[Nathan]

Nathan, are you seriously trying to argue that a wing / region's website is not the central point for publication of OI's and supplements?  So tacked to the wall at wing is enough?

That dog don't hunt...

I'm arguing that it doesn't matter where or how the directive is distributed, as long as it is done by the regulations. Unless the regulations dictate that the directive MUST be posted to the internet, then it really doesn't matter if it's sitting on her desk, signed and ready for distribution. As long as people do have access to it, then the directive is valid. And, as I said, if the distribution method is a notification by email confirming the valid authorization of the uniform, then that's fine.

The only difference is that the commander has to request a copy of it personally, rather than requesting it by clicking a button in the internet. As long as the regulation doesn't dictate the method of dispersal, then this particular amendment may be freely available to anyone who wants a copy. They just need to stop arguing about it on CAPTalk and actually make an effort to ask for it.

You missed the point, I didn't.

Here's the way the info was presented to this board
1. Region commander sends email to National CC.
2. Region commander states that the National CC approved the waiver via email.

It should have been presented like this:

1. Region CC sends email to NHQ/CC.
2. NHQ/CC approves the request.
3. Region CC distributes waiver with its approval to lower echelons.

See the order? That was the problem. It wasn't even putting the cart before the horse, the horse was being skipped altogether. Nobody was showing us the horse.

Nobody seems to be asking... including you. BTW, have you sent the email asking for the signed directive yet? Or are you happier assuming that you've been slighted and prefer to argue that it doesn't exist, with no reason to believe that?

Regardless, I find it mildly amusing that you are judging how this process went about by the way "it was presented to this board." How it was presented to this board is pretty much irrelevant. The email plainly says that the measure was approved. You have nothing that says it wasn't. You've seen one email, and assume that, I suppose, that email is the only piece of written evidence that this measure was approved. I certainly don't expect this board to get presented with every gory detail. That's actually, I imagine, WHY a quick email was sent out.

Again, if you want to prove me wrong, simply ask for a copy of the directive. If you don't get it, or it doesn't exist, you were right. If you get a copy, it was always freely available, and therefore, the region commander's email was valid. Pretty simple.

You can claim that people were questioning the validity of the NHQ/CC being allowed to waiver pubs all you want, but that is not what was being done. People were asking for proof that it was done. Red herrings are a prime way to lose in an argument.

I've argued nothing of the sort. I'm saying that people are asking the WRONG people for proof. Asking the original poster is unlikely to get the results you want. The email was sent out to acknowledge the existence of this authorization, which, to ME, states pretty obviously that it would therefore be available to commanders who want it. Perhaps it will be posted at a later date, but for now, it is authorized, and if you want proof, just ask THEM for proof. Asking people here is doing nothing but trying to keep an argument going that could be solved with a couple of emails.

That being said, I've since seen the email. I agree that Courter's permission is valid. Now, it just needs to be typed up, all proper like, and published to all concerned in an accessible manner.

Which is my point. YOU DO NOT DEFINE ACCESSIBLE. Just because it is not on the internet does not mean it is not accessible, and therefore does not mean that the directive is invalid. You're just expecting them to let you click a button to get it instead of having to type an email to get it. That's absolutely ridiculous. The internet is not the sole definition of accessibility, and that's been my point all along. Things did get done before there were wing websites.

[RiverAux]

Nathan, I think you are radically discounting the level of suspicion normal CAP members have in regards to issues like this.  Probably everyone here has been burned at some point by someone telling them that it was ok to do something that violated a clear regulation because "someone" had approved it.  There are countless examples here on CAPTalk of someone thinking it was ok to do something in violation of the regulations because it was the standard practice in their unit because "someone" said it was ok. 

Now, in this case, that "someone" is pretty high ranking and I think everyone probably believes it was a legit move (even if we disagree with the action itself), but because proper procedures have not been followed in regards to modifying a national regulation for a local area, it just reinforces the tendency in CAP to avoid doing things the official way. 

[Nathan]

Nathan, I think you are radically discounting the level of suspicion normal CAP members have in regards to issues like this.  Probably everyone here has been burned at some point by someone telling them that it was ok to do something that violated a clear regulation because "someone" had approved it.  There are countless examples here on CAPTalk of someone thinking it was ok to do something in violation of the regulations because it was the standard practice in their unit because "someone" said it was ok. 

I discount any suspicion that can be alleviated simply by asking nicely for proof. Ask NHQ, and if it exists, you'll get it. If it doesn't exist, then the suspicions are proven to be valid. Either way, this could have been ended a long time ago if someone within the issue just shot an email asking for a copy of the directive. So yeah, I have no problem discounting this suspicion when it's only perpetuated by the unwillingness of a CAP member within the region to just ask for a copy.

Now, in this case, that "someone" is pretty high ranking and I think everyone probably believes it was a legit move (even if we disagree with the action itself), but because proper procedures have not been followed in regards to modifying a national regulation for a local area, it just reinforces the tendency in CAP to avoid doing things the official way.

The lack of the directive being posted to the internet is not an indication that proper procedures were not followed. Again and again, I will continue to say that the internet is not the only way that something can be considered "freely available." If you want to prove it's not freely available, request a copy, and post the email saying that you either can't have it or it doesn't exist. Once that happens, your proof will pretty much end the conversation.

[Eclipse]

The lack of the directive being posted to the internet is not an indication that proper procedures were not followed. Again and again, I will continue to say that the internet is not the only way that something can be considered "freely available." If you want to prove it's not freely available, request a copy, and post the email saying that you either can't have it or it doesn't exist. Once that happens, your proof will pretty much end the conversation.

Pretend all you want that, but this is now the SOP for wings, and is noted as such on SUI's and CI's.
I have no idea why you insist on standing on this incorrect conclusion, but its obvious you still have a lot to learn about how CAP really works today.

As someone who shares an office with an SD and has completed a number of SUI's for my and other commander's units,
I can assure you this is the case.

[arajca]

Regardless, I find it mildly amusing that you are judging how this process went about by the way "it was presented to this board." How it was presented to this board is pretty much irrelevant.

For the purposes of THIS discussion, how it was presented to this board is 100% absolutely relevant.

The email plainly says that the measure was approved. You have nothing that says it wasn't. You've seen one email, and assume that, I suppose, that email is the only piece of written evidence that this measure was approved. I certainly don't expect this board to get presented with every gory detail. That's actually, I imagine, WHY a quick email was sent out.

You're right. We've only seen the ONE email and NOTHING else. What the h-e-double-toothpicks else are we supposed to base our discussion on? Someone's insistance that it was approved? Benefit of the doubt? Given some of our recent history, it is perfectly understandable to be suspicious. We've all seen things that were supposedly approved, that weren't because the proponent didn't bother to FOLLOW THE PROCESS. CC'ing someone doesn't indicate approval.

[RiverAux]

The suspicion isn't that approval hasn't been granted in this case, it is the fact that they're not doing things the way they should be done according to the regulations through a supplement.  It is round-about decisions like this that CAUSE all sorts of problems. 

The chain of command is not for normal CAP membes to contact NHQ for a copy of emails between the National and Regional Commanders.  The proper way to distribute word of a modfication to the national uniform regulation within a region is to publish a supplement to that effect.  No supplement=improper procedure. 

Perhaps they're working on the supplement as they should, but if so, they should have just waited a few days to get that ironed out. 

No, I don't believe they are required to put a supplement on their web site, but common sense says that they should, or at a minimum email the supplement to the wing commanders for distribution down to the membes until such time as it is posted. 

[FW]

From Knowledgebase: 

2.  Why do I have to wear a uniform?  When the U.S. Department of Labor agreed to allow FECA coverage (Workman's compensation insurance) to CAP pilots, its only demand was that our pilot population look like a uniformed corps.  After that decision the CAP adopted a uniform much like the U.S. Air Force.  However, CAP realizes special activities such as soaring demand comfortable loose fitting clothes, therefore the uniform in question number one was approved.  Bottom line: the wear of the soaring type uniform, as minimal as it is, fulfills department of Labor's requirement, while allowing glider activities the flexibility to wear clothing appropriate to the activity.

OK, like I said, now I've heard everything.  The Department of Labor does NOT approve our uniforms; it is the National Board and the US Air Force which does that.  I appreciate the fact the D.O.L. has granted us FECA benefits however, it is our status as "an instrumentality of the U.S. Government" which grants us the privilege of getting them.  And, it is the Air Force which decides if the mission is valid before authorizing the payments to the recipients.  One of the requirements is wearing a proper uniform.

Now, as to the topic being discussed here; if there is no "official" document allowing the SER to fly in the "glider combo", there will be trouble. 

The email in question references the waiver for Mississippi Wing.  The region commander states in the email the CAP/CC has extended the waiver to all of SER.  There should be an addendum to the original or, a new one signed and published to SERHQ.  Copies should be made available to every squadron/cc in the region.  I'm sure (?) this was done.....

[Hawk200]

It should have been presented like this:
1. Region CC sends email to NHQ/CC.
2. NHQ/CC approves the request.
3. Region CC distributes waiver with its approval to lower echelons.

What part of

I have requested and been granted a waiver

is different than what you stated?  Is it the part where you don't trust the Region CC and believe he is lying and you want to see the waiver yourself before you will believe it?

I see now. You're not going to address the fact that the waiver WAS NOT SHOWN. The bullets you quoted were an example of how it should have been done, but wasn't.

It was never about calling the Region CC a liar, no matter how much you wish to believe that. A smart commander would have said, "Here's the waiver," instead of "We've got a waiver." It's just smart business. If you show the materials UP FRONT, no one is going to challenge it in the first place. Seems like you choose not to acknowledge that simple fact.

Nobody seems to be asking... including you. BTW, have you sent the email asking for the signed directive yet? Or are you happier assuming that you've been slighted and prefer to argue that it doesn't exist, with no reason to believe that?

I didn't ask, so I have no reason to see it? Is that what you're arguing? If that's not what you're arguing, I really don't know what it is that you are.

A smart person would have just posted up the appropriate documentation, and it would have been done. Then again, you wouldn't have been able to accuse people of calling the various chains of command of liars. Or else, claiming that the general didn't have the authority she does.

Regardless, I find it mildly amusing that you are judging how this process went about by the way "it was presented to this board." How it was presented to this board is pretty much irrelevant. The email plainly says that the measure was approved. You have nothing that says it wasn't. You've seen one email, and assume that, I suppose, that email is the only piece of written evidence that this measure was approved. I certainly don't expect this board to get presented with every gory detail. That's actually, I imagine, WHY a quick email was sent out.

Again, if you want to prove me wrong, simply ask for a copy of the directive. If you don't get it, or it doesn't exist, you were right. If you get a copy, it was always freely available, and therefore, the region commander's email was valid. Pretty simple.

In other words, you didn't even have proof that such a thing was authorized.

You can claim that people were questioning the validity of the NHQ/CC being allowed to waiver pubs all you want, but that is not what was being done. People were asking for proof that it was done. Red herrings are a prime way to lose in an argument.

I've argued nothing of the sort. I'm saying that people are asking the WRONG people for proof. Asking the original poster is unlikely to get the results you want. The email was sent out to acknowledge the existence of this authorization, which, to ME, states pretty obviously that it would therefore be available to commanders who want it. Perhaps it will be posted at a later date, but for now, it is authorized, and if you want proof, just ask THEM for proof. Asking people here is doing nothing but trying to keep an argument going that could be solved with a couple of emails.

Yes, you did throw a herring in there, and now you deny it. The progression of the thread was simple: "I saw people doing this. Is it legal?" Someone said yes. The OP asked for the proof.

You, on the other hand, started talking that it was approved and no one had a right to question it. Red herring.

That being said, I've since seen the email. I agree that Courter's permission is valid. Now, it just needs to be typed up, all proper like, and published to all concerned in an accessible manner.

Which is my point. YOU DO NOT DEFINE ACCESSIBLE. Just because it is not on the internet does not mean it is not accessible, and therefore does not mean that the directive is invalid. You're just expecting them to let you click a button to get it instead of having to type an email to get it. That's absolutely ridiculous. The internet is not the sole definition of accessibility, and that's been my point all along. Things did get done before there were wing websites.

Show me where I stated that it had to be posted on the Internet.

On second thought, I'll make it easy for you: I didn't state such a thing.

If something can't be proven, it's hearsay. If you can't prove something, it's not fact. People here want to be able to show anyone that challenges them for being in a non-standard uniform the proof that it is legitimate. That's what this whole thread has been about. It's not about calling the region CC a liar, or denying the general's authority.

"You can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

[Nathan]

Pretend all you want that, but this is now the SOP for wings, and is noted as such on SUI's and CI's.
I have no idea why you insist on standing on this incorrect conclusion, but its obvious you still have a lot to learn about how CAP really works today.

As someone who shares an office with an SD and has completed a number of SUI's for my and other commander's units,
I can assure you this is the case.

Whoa. You've now gone to telling me that something that is NOT in the regulations is actually regulatory? Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but it appears to be saying that it is, in fact, true that if the directive is not posted on the internet, that it is invalid, despite the fact that the regs do not specify that "freely accessible" is defined as an internet posting. Care to clarify?

You're right. We've only seen the ONE email and NOTHING else. What the h-e-double-toothpicks else are we supposed to base our discussion on? Someone's insistance that it was approved? Benefit of the doubt? Given some of our recent history, it is perfectly understandable to be suspicious. We've all seen things that were supposedly approved, that weren't because the proponent didn't bother to FOLLOW THE PROCESS. CC'ing someone doesn't indicate approval.

What do you do? You call up the chain for clarification. Seems pretty simple to me, especially since a region commander was the one to put out this "hearsay." There aren't that many chains left in the link when it comes from that high. This seems like CoC 101 stuff. CCing doesn't indicate approval, and as far as I can tell, I have NOT made the argument that it is. I have made the argument that just because the directive wasn't emailed out to everyone or posted on the internet does not mean it isn't freely available to anyone who asks.

The suspicion isn't that approval hasn't been granted in this case, it is the fact that they're not doing things the way they should be done according to the regulations through a supplement.  It is round-about decisions like this that CAUSE all sorts of problems.

The chain of command is not for normal CAP membes to contact NHQ for a copy of emails between the National and Regional Commanders.  The proper way to distribute word of a modfication to the national uniform regulation within a region is to publish a supplement to that effect.  No supplement=improper procedure.

Perhaps they're working on the supplement as they should, but if so, they should have just waited a few days to get that ironed out.

No, I don't believe they are required to put a supplement on their web site, but common sense says that they should, or at a minimum email the supplement to the wing commanders for distribution down to the membes until such time as it is posted.

I need to see this regulation that people are referring to that says that directives must be sent to the subordinates after authorization. There is a big difference between a regulation being freely available and a regulation being dropped into your inbox. If the requirement is that it had to be available, well, nobody's bothered to check and see if it IS available. They're just assuming it's not because they actually have to do work to get it.

Both you and Eclipse are now making the argument that they SHOULD have done something that was common sense and more efficient. Fine. They could have. But just because they didn't and chose to make life a little more difficult for whatever reason (and that reason is irrelevant), it doesn't invalidate the authorization. If the region commander says it is authorized without giving you a direct link to the directive, it doesn't mean that the properly-authorized directive doesn't exist, isn't available for you, or isn't on the way to being published. Until someone cites otherwise, I have no problem saying that the regs do not dictate that the commander has to use the most efficient method for making something "freely available." If she wants to leave it on her desk and have it faxed to anyone who asks, that's still available, and still authorized.

I see now. You're not going to address the fact that the waiver WAS NOT SHOWN. The bullets you quoted were an example of how it should  have been done, but wasn't.

It was never about calling the Region CC a liar, no matter how much you wish to believe that. A smart commander would have said, "Here's the waiver," instead of "We've got a waiver." It's just smart business. If you show the materials UP FRONT, no one is going to challenge it in the first place. Seems like you choose not to acknowledge that simple fact.

It doesn't matter if it's smart business or not. The regulations don't dictate that someone has to do things the way that works out best for YOU. For all we know, she sent it to be distributed officially, and the person who was supposed to do it was out with strep throat. But at the end of the day, it was STILL signed, STILL available to you if you wanted it, and STILL authorized. Whether or not it was presented on this board has no bearing upon that at all.

I didn't ask, so I have no reason to see it? Is that what you're arguing? If that's not what you're arguing, I really don't know what it is that you are.

A smart person would have just posted up the appropriate documentation, and it would have been done. Then again, you wouldn't have been able to accuse people of calling the various chains of command of liars. Or else, claiming that the general didn't have the authority she does.

...What? You didn't ask, so you aren't GOING to see it. Why? Because they don't know that you feel the need to see every directive with your own eyes before you trust an email from the region commander. If you need to see it, ask. It doesn't seem that difficult. I have NO idea how you managed to twist my argument that way.

In other words, you didn't even have proof that such a thing was authorized.

Nope! I have no proof that the authorization actually occurred, and I will be the first person to admit that. The only difference is that I have no problem looking at Gen Courter's record of pretty much not screwing these types of things up, look at the source (a region commander), and really have no qualms about believing that if he says something is actually authorized, it is. If my squadron commander told me that we're going to have a banquet at the local high school, I'm not going to call the school and verify our reservations just to double-check. He's the commander, and it's not my job to double-check his ability to do his job. It's just my job to check my own work.

My point isn't whether the thing exists or not. I don't know. I wasn't there, and unfortunately, I don't have the ability to ask myself. My entire point is that it's a little crazy how quickly people jump to the conclusion that proper procedures were not followed. There is NO evidence to support that. The lack of evidence here, on CAPTalk, of proper procedure being followed does not mean that someone screwed up. It just means we don't know, and given the people involved, I just don't understand why the paranoia seems to pop out so much.

You, on the other hand, started talking that it was approved and no one had a right to question it. Red herring.

Psh. You're reading what you want to read. I never said that people didn't have a right to question it. I said that people should probably have thought about whether it was possible that this was done RIGHT before automatically making accusations that this was done WRONG. It COULD have been done right. In fact, the region commander SAID it was done right. There is NO evidence of a screw-up. People just assume there is because they aren't seeing the entire chain of events that happened. If I were to tell my squadron commander that I was going to ignore a wing policy until I saw the original authorization in writing every time, I can tell you that my relationship with that commander would likely be quite strained.

Show me where I stated that it had to be posted on the Internet.

On second thought, I'll make it easy for you: I didn't state such a thing.

By assuming that the proof isn't freely available to the public because you can't see it on your computer, there aren't many other conclusions to reach.

If something can't be proven, it's hearsay. If you can't prove something, it's not fact. People here want to be able to show anyone that challenges them for being in a non-standard uniform the proof that it is legitimate. That's what this whole thread has been about. It's not about calling the region CC a liar, or denying the general's authority.

That is beyond backwards. Just because something can't be proven immediately on CAPTalk doesn't mean it's not fact. It was almost impossible for us to prove germ theory for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean that microbiology didn't exist then. It's impossible for me to prove that time goes by slower for people as they reach the speed of light, since I am not Albert Einstein and do not understand it to that degree, but that doesn't mean it's not fact.

Likewise, I can tell you that I have dark hair. But the fact that you don't have a picture right now as proof that I have dark hair does NOT mean that whether or not I have dark hair is questionable. It is a FACT I have dark hair, and that fact does not change due to YOUR ignorance of it.

[RiverAux]

Since Nathan seems to be missing everybody's points, I'd say we let it drop. 

[Eclipse]

Since Nathan seems to be missing everybody's points, I'd say we let it drop.

Yep.

[arajca]

Let's look at where the OFFICIAL publication sets are maintained:
National - Online
Most (if not all) regions - Online
Most (if not all) wings - Online
Many units - Online

Do I detect a trend?

a. The CAP website is the official source for CAP National Headquarters forms and publications. They are available at www.gocivilairpatrol.com at [MEMBERS][FORMS AND PUBLICATIONS] or http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/. Use of this "official source" assures access to the most current policies, standards and information.
...
b. CAP units below the NHQ level should establish a distribution plan for publications issued by their respective headquarters that ensures the widest dissemination within their headquarters' respective span of authority. Commanders are encouraged to use their respective units' websites as the official source for their command level's publications. Commanders will ensure that a copy of each publication issued by their respective headquarters is forwarded to the next higher level of command for review immediately upon publication.

[CFI_Ed]

If anyone is interested...

9 June 2010
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL 2010 NESA, ATA AND FLIGHT ACADEMY ATTENDEES
FROM: CAP/CC
SUBJECT: ALTERNATE FLYING UNIFORM FOR 2010 ACTIVITIES
1. In addition to the traditional CAP flying uniforms outlined in CAP Manual 39-1,
alternate flying uniforms have been approved for wear during the period 11 June
through 26 July for the National Flight Academies, 9 though 29 June at the National
Emergency Services Academy (NESA) and 17 through 24 July at the Advanced
Technology Academy (ATA). For Flight Academies, this alternate uniform will consist of
khaki/tan shorts/pants or dark blue/black shorts and the activity T-shirt or polo shirt as
prescribed by the specific academy. For NESA, this alternate flying uniform will consist
of NESA T-shirts or Polo Shirts with khaki/tan or navy blue shorts, or the traditional
Navy Blue CAP Polo Shirt available from Vanguard, with khaki/tan shorts. For ATA, it
will be khaki/tan shorts and activity T-shirt with ATA logo. Appropriate footwear must be
worn at all activities and the NESA/ATA baseball cap is the authorized headgear for
these activities. Members choosing to wear these alternate flying uniforms must be well
groomed and ensure that their appearance reflects credit upon themselves and Civil Air
Patrol at all times. Activity directors may limit or specify which combinations will be
worn, or require traditional uniforms for specific events.
2. If there are any additional questions or comments you may direct them to Mr John
Desmarais, Deputy Director of Operations at jdesmarais@capnhq.gov, Ms Susan Parker,
Chief, Personnel and Member Records at sparker@capnhq.gov, or Lt Col Mike McNeely,
CAP, Director, Advanced Technology Academy at mmickman@aol.com.
Keep Safety First!
AMY S. COURTER
Major General, CAP
National Commander
cc:
CAP/EX/MD/DO/DP/CP
CAP-USAF/CC/XO/SE
NESA Staff
ATA Staff
Flight Academies Staffs
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COMMANDER
CIVIL AIR PATROL
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA 36112-6332