Main Menu

Losing the Auxiliary Name

Started by captrncap, May 19, 2006, 12:47:56 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

captrncap

I just want to point out that all the Air Force seems to be removing their name (US Air Force Auxiliary) from all of our CAP related identifications such as the new ID cards and flight patches.

If the AF thinks so highly of us because of the recent events (Katrina, etc.), why would they disassociate themselves from us?

Also, if they are doing this, why do we need to get their permission so often for so many things?

I understand that we only "Auxiliary" when we perform AF missions. Why bother being "Auxiliary" at all? Wouldn't it be better to act as a consultant to the AF when they need us? maybe even a DOD civilian agency?

Isn't the military supposed to provide support to youth groups (our cadets) because they are directed to and it doesn't matter if they are CAP or another agency?

mikeylikey

Speak to your Senator and Representative in Washington.  Write a letter, call them up, stop for a visit.  Let them know what you think, and express your dissatisfaction with the situation.

I do agree with you, in the past 30 years, the AF has slowly moved CAP away as it's "official auxiliary".  I have been picking up the rumor that DHS has their eyes on CAP, and may extend an invitation to become a "volunteer" part of their family.  DHS and its subordinate agencies are moving forward on becoming the eighth uniformed service in the US.  It would be a great move to align the organization under DHS, only if the whole rumor were true though.
What's up monkeys?

captrncap

Quote from: mikeylikey on May 19, 2006, 01:51:29 PM
Speak to your Senator and Representative in Washington.  Write a letter, call them up, stop for a visit.  Let them know what you think, and express your dissatisfaction with the situation.

Since I am not writer, would anyone like to volunteer and draft a letter to Congress? CAP Members could then print, sign and send

Chris Jacobs

you have to remember that some congress men may already support us and others on varring degrees.  I think writing a generic letter to every congress man would be hard.  I would have to first find out what my congress men thought about CAP, then i could ask them to do more.  I would feel stupid writing them asking them to do more when they already do a lot.
C/1st Lt Chris Jacobs
Columbia Comp. Squadron

SarDragon

As a slightly off-topic reminder, each of you has three people in Congress to write to - two Senators, and a Representative (commonly called Congressman).
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

BillB

Looking at uniform changes, I don't see where the CAP uniform is being moved away from the Air Force uniform. I DO see where the CAP coroprate uniform is moving away. What is the difference between the basic  Air Force Service dress and CAP?  Only the grey epaulets. The name tags are the same, the U.S. cutouts are the same, so where is this big change from the Air Force uniform?
The major uniform changes have all been in the multitude of corporate uniforms.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

Earhart1971

I don't believe its a good idea to write a Congressman or Senator for  internal CAP-USAF differences (not this time), write the ATC Commander instead.

I think the Air Force will finally wake up to the fact that we want the Blue eps back and the metal Rank for Class "A"s back.

The Uniform differences are generated by the CAP side, so our uniform cannot be changed by the whim of an Air Force General, we have our own uniform.

I know this from speaking with the National Commander, he wants the metal rank back on Class "A"s and the Grey Eps gone, and back to Blue.

Grey eps ruins the entire uniform, its almost as awful as the retro choker uniform the Air Force just announced.

I think its the Air Force, they screwed up our uniform and now they are proceeding with screwing up the Air Force Uniform.

The Generals involved need to be arrested for bad taste in uniform fashion.







SarDragon

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 12:28:17 AM
I don't believe its a good idea to write a Congressman or Senator for  internal CAP-USAF differences (not this time), write the ATC Commander instead.

I think the Air Force will finally wake up to the fact that we want the Blue eps back and the metal Rank for C back.

The Uniform differences are generated by the CAP side, so our uniform cannot be changed by the whim of an Air Force General, we have our own uniform.

I know this from speaking with the National Commander, he wants the metal rank back on Class "A"s and the Grey Eps gone, and back to Blue.

Grey eps ruins the entire uniform, its almost as awful as the retro choker uniform the Air Force just announced.

I think its the Air Force, they screwed up our uniform and now they are proceeding with screwing up the Air Force Uniform.

The Generals involved need to be arrested for bad taste in uniform fashion.


WTF are Class "A"s?
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

captrncap

I would like to see the blue epaulets back on the shirt but the gray aren't as bad as the maroon. They do look very dumb on the service jacket. Even if the metal never came back, blue epaulets would still be better.

arajca

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 12:28:17 AM
The Generals involved need to be arrested for bad taste in uniform fashion.

Call Clinton and Stacy from TLC's What NOT to Wear. >:D

BillB

Dave   The service dress including the service coat used to be called Class A uniform. The class B uniform was the short or long sleeve shirt, no service coat.  The name Class A was dropped years ago, but is still in fairly common use.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

Earhart1971

Quote from: arajca on May 20, 2006, 01:50:22 AM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 12:28:17 AM
The Generals involved need to be arrested for bad taste in uniform fashion.

Call Clinton and Stacy from TLC's What NOT to Wear. >:D

Ok, the Choker Uniform, I saw a picture somewhere, of the retro uniform (inspired by Billy Mitchell and the pre WWII era)  it looks like the Marine Dress Uniform, except it has a cloth belt.

I should have posted a link but cannot find it.

If anybody finds it might be fun to start a thread and let people post their opinions on it.

SarDragon

Quote from: BillB on May 20, 2006, 02:05:51 AM
Dave   The service dress including the service coat used to be called Class A uniform. The class B uniform was the short or long sleeve shirt, no service coat.  The name Class A was dropped years ago, but is still in fairly common use.

I remember that usage from WIWAC (mid 60s), but it's been at least 38 years since that may have been any sort of official designation for CAP uniforms. I just acquired a 1968 vintage CAPM 39-1 and there is no mention of Class [anything] uniforms in it. I know that old habits die hard, but isn't it time to quit using outdated terminology? I find this view no more or less pedantic than much of the other stuff discussed on this and other forums. YMMV.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Earhart1971

Ok, everybody do a google on Class A and B Uniforms, with Air Force, and read all the hits. Found a AFJROTC site that uses the terms.

"US Air Force Military Spec Uniform Nameplate for Class A/B Uniforms. Name tag. Blue finish with White Letters. Size 5/8" "

Comes up for Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.


shorning

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 08:13:02 AM
Ok, everybody do a google on Class A and B Uniforms, with Air Force, and read all the hits. Found a AFJROTC site that uses the terms.

"US Air Force Military Spec Uniform Nameplate for Class A/B Uniforms. Name tag. Blue finish with White Letters. Size 5/8" "

Comes up for Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.



Well, heck...if it's on the interweb it must be true... ::)

SarDragon

#15
Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 08:13:02 AM
Ok, everybody do a google on Class A and B Uniforms, with Air Force, and read all the hits. Found a AFJROTC site that uses the terms.

"US Air Force Military Spec Uniform Nameplate for Class A/B Uniforms. Name tag. Blue finish with White Letters. Size 5/8" "

Comes up for Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.


I just looked at 15 hits on Yahoo! search, at random from the 60 or so listed, and while the hit text had Class A/B and Air Force highlighted, when I went to the specific page, the Class A/B was always associated with Army uniforms.

Even if there is some association found between AF and Class A/B on the 'Net, does that make it proper terminology that we should be teaching new members? It's not in the current AF Uni Manual, and it hasn't been in a CAP Uni Manual since before 1968. Get your head out of the forties and fifties, and move into the 21st century.

[edited to add]   I just looked at the 1800nametape.com site on the Navy page. Here's the listing for a black plastic name tag:

"Engraved plastic name plates for Class "A" and "B" uniforms.  The plates are 3/4 inch tall by 3 inches wide with beveled edges."

The Navy, in all the time I've had an association with them (childhood through the present), has NEVER referred to uniforms as Class anything. It seems that this source is now essentially discredited. I'll stick to the official sources if you don't mind.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Earhart1971

#16
Sorry to disappoint you, I am not from the 40s, LOL

I found five web sites that associated Class A and B uniforms with, the Navy, Marines, Army and the Air Force. 

And just for fun I am going to call an Air Force Recruiter and ask them.

It will be interesting to find out what they say.

I think Class A and B, are easier designations, but how many times have regulations been amended to make it easier! NEVER


Chris Jacobs

I like the A/B system.  It seemed to work.  It was really easy to explain to cadets what the difference was and then for an activity to just give them a letter name for the uniform.

C/1st Lt Chris Jacobs
Columbia Comp. Squadron

md132

I'll have to agree with sardargon.  From what a friend of mine who is a Captain in the Air Force, he told me that AF dropped the Class A/B designation in the 70's.  Another friend who was a Marine told me that they NEVER referred there service uniforms as Class A/B.  I don't know about Navy.  Army is pretty much the only one who still uses Class A/B designations for their service uniforms.  Besides if the AF approves a new service uniforms the current designations (Service Blues and Summer Blues) might no longer apply. 


Earhart1971

#19
CAPM39-1 refers to Service Dress (its just too fem, LOL), and Long Sleeve and Short Sleeve (and long sleeve or Short Sleeve is not a designation, its a NOTHING, BLAH description of  the shirt), it just doesn't work for me, and I bet it was written by some secretary at Maxwell AFB, that was a temp from Kelly Girl.

Now, I know why I never use the above terms, its just too limp wrist.

Watch for the release of the new CAPM39-1


Becks

*Looks at the thread name...looks at the posts...* wait, how did we get back to uniforms again?

BBATW

shorning

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 11:49:15 AM
I found five web sites that associated Class A and B uniforms with, the Navy, Marines, Army and the Air Force. 

Okay, I'm convinced you can't read.  Authoritative sites?  Or just some random site on the internet?  You've got to be careful, not all sites are credible sources.  Any smackwad can post any garbage they want on the internet.  That doesn't make it authoritative.  Usually your best option is the uniform manual.

As it's been pointed out several times, the US Army is the only one that refers to their uniforms by the "Class X" system.  The USMC has a similar system.  The Navy uses their own which is nothing like the other services.  The AF just happens to use a simple version and call things what they are.  Sorry you don't like that but we don't really get hung up on it.


Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 11:49:15 AM
And just for fun I am going to call an Air Force Recruiter and ask them.

It will be interesting to find out what they say.

Why?  Yeah, the might answer your question, but they aren't a uniform expert.  Their job is to bet people in the military.  Calling them is no different than asking me or any of the other AF-types here.  You want to contact someone in the know?  The POC for uniforms is at the Air Force Personnel Center at Randolf AFB, TX.  Give them a call...


Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 11:49:15 AMI think Class A and B, are easier designations, but how many times have regulations been amended to make it easier! NEVER

We can always create an easier way, but would it be better?  According to my Army coworkers, even their system has some confusion.

Again, what you're complaining about ties back to CAP's false sense of being military.  It's a distorted view of what "military" means.

Earhart1971

Shorning, you are posting alot of HOT AIR, and I don't think its necessary.

I was critized for using a commonly used designation, still used now, by many, if you are NEW, then sorry you are confused, or upset.

And in addition the Major used "WTF" in his orignal reply.

Very unprofessional language.

And the subject has been BEAT to Death, you guys just want to sit there and look for ways to burn people.






shorning

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 08:47:09 PM
Shorning, you are posting alot of HOT AIR, and I don't think its necessary.

Who are you to criticize everyone?  Every time someone challenges your comments you whine about it.  So you don't like your inaccurate information challenged?  Or is your "opinion" gospel?  Hot air?  Have your read your posts?  You're babbling on about stuff that is nonsense which leads me to believe that you really don't understand any of it.  I'm sorry that not everyone here agrees with you on some of your silly ideas.  Some here are to new to realize what you're really saying.  Others either don't care, or are ignoring you.  I'm beginning to think the latter is a good idea.  Personally, I think you have your own agenda and I don't think it's compatible with CAP.

Wonder why CAP is "Losing the Auxiliary Name"?  It's because CAP members have this hyper-reality of what it means to be in the "military".  On top of that, add a dash of "wannabe" attitude and you have CAP members coming up with some outlandish things that don't even begin to fit into the military image.  Don't like the way things are supposed to be?  Okay, start your own program.  You don't have to be in CAP.  Find something else to occupy your time.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 08:47:09 PM
I was critized for using a commonly used designation, still used now, by many, if you are NEW, then sorry you are confused, or upset.

Commonly used?  Perhaps by you.  Not in my squadron.  Not in any squadron I've been in over the past ten years.  Just because it's used by CAP members that are (or were) in the Army, and perpetuated by others, doesn't make it right.  That's one of the (small) problems with CAP today.

New?  Not hardly.  Confused? Not on my part.  I just don't perpetuate bad training.  I know your glory days of CAP mean a lot to you, but they are gone.  If you can't step into the 21st century...then I'm sorry for you.  I've been doing this for quite a while (not as long as some, but longer than many), but even I have had to learn to adapt as our program has changed.  The problem is that many members are stuck in a rut and are unwilling to change.  But that's what is holding our organization back from being a truly great one.



NIN

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 20, 2006, 08:47:09 PM
Shorning, you are posting alot of HOT AIR, and I don't think its necessary.

I was critized for using a commonly used designation, still used now, by many, if you are NEW, then sorry you are confused, or upset.

And in addition the Major used "WTF" in his orignal reply.

Very unprofessional language.

And the subject has been BEAT to Death, you guys just want to sit there and look for ways to burn people.

Unprofessional?  Excuse me?   

Pot, this is kettle. Black, over.

I've read three of your posts thus far and I see nothing BUT unprofessionalism.  Phrases like "too fem" and "limp wrist."  The uniform manual "written by a temp from Kelly Girl?"

Sir, where do you get off?  You need to get your [fourth point of contact] into the early part of the 21st century or risk being labeled a specious, chauvanistic dinosaur.

Oops, too late.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN

Quote from: shorning on May 20, 2006, 09:22:14 PM
Others either don't care, or are ignoring you.  I'm beginning to think the latter is a good idea.  Personally, I think you have your own agenda and I don't think it's compatible with CAP.

Amen, Steve.  Amen.

QuoteWonder why CAP is "Losing the Auxiliary Name"?  It's because CAP members have this hyper-reality of what it means to be in the "military".  On top of that, add a dash of "wannabe" attitude and you have CAP members coming up with some outlandish things that don't even begin to fit into the military image.  Don't like the way things are supposed to be?  Okay, start your own program.  You don't have to be in CAP.  Find something else to occupy your time.

You know, I spend tons of time at encampments correcting the "hyper-militarism" or "pseudo-realism" that is being perpetuated in units. Everything from "Class A & Class B uniforms" (and one cadets who patently refused to call his BDUs anything but "fatigues, 'cuz that's what my commander calls 'em" Hello! Those uniforms went out in the early 1990s!) to "If you see an officer on the street and you're walking by, you stop, snap to attention and salute, because thats the RealMilitary™ way to do it!" (hint: you keep moving, salute and render the greeting of the day BUT DON'T STOP AND 'HIT THE WALL')

And much of this is perpetuated by fellows whose sole experience with the military was either as a draftee in 1971, or from watching late night re-runs of the Sands of Iwo Jima, Porkchop Hill, The Green Berets and Apocalypse Now on cable.    Or they were a cadet in 1971, so they're eminently qualified to comment on the "current reality" of CAP.  Sure, buddy, sure. 

But I love how these said same folks will take the extra time to completely denegrate a currently serving war veteran because they're "new" (not!) or "I've been in CAP longer, so I obviously know more than you."  Uh huh. Right.

QuoteCommonly used?  Perhaps by you.  Not in my squadron.  Not in any squadron I've been in over the past ten years.  Just because it's used by CAP members that are (or were) in the Army, and perpetuated by others, doesn't make it right.  That's one of the (small) problems with CAP today.

Or he read it on some website someplace that perhaps has no basis in reality. I was unaware of anything in CAP or Air Force regulations that specifies that a phrase or term is "more valid" based on the number of Google hits it has. 

Mr. Earhart1971: If you'd set aside your know-it-all attitude for a little bit, put your nose back into the "written by a Kelly Girl temp" uniform manual  (or any other current CAP publication that pertains) and actually try to learn something, we'd all be in much better shape.

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Earhart1971



I notice a pattern here, some of you High Time People on this site, don't disagree directly with what is said, you go after a minor detail and flame away.

Who picked uniform designation.

Major " @#$" did,

And these threads are for OPINIONS, I have one, but I do not use "WX@", anywhere, its unprofessional, not on any blog.

I am not worried about being confused by differing designations for uniforms.

NEXT ISSUE!.












pixelwonk

Quote from: Earhart1971 on May 21, 2006, 12:48:52 AM


I notice a pattern here, some of you High Time People on this site, don't disagree directly with what is said, you go after a minor detail and flame away.

Who picked uniform designation.

Major " @#$" did,

And these threads are for OPINIONS, I have one, but I do not use "WX@", anywhere, its unprofessional, not on any blog.

I am not worried about being confused by differing designations for uniforms.

NEXT ISSUE!.


  Off topic I know...  but I do use "WX..."
as in WX9AUX, my Amateur Radio Callsign  ;D

PhoenixRisen

Well, to get this (original) topic, well, back on topic...

Quote from: mikeylikey on May 19, 2006, 01:51:29 PM
I have been picking up the rumor that DHS has their eyes on CAP, and may extend an invitation to become a "volunteer" part of their family.  DHS and its subordinate agencies are moving forward on becoming the eighth uniformed service in the US.  It would be a great move to align the organization under DHS, only if the whole rumor were true though.

Could you post some information about that?  I'd like to hear more abou it.

Smokey

We sure are losing the Aux name.....take a look at the recent policy letters in 60-1 dated in April and May 2006.  On the letterhead the line "United States Air Force Auxiliary" has been removed. Now it only reads "Civil Air Patrol". 

Also there is no reference to "Auxiliary" on the new photo ID card.

I feel our association as the AF Aux is about to disappear as we become more more quasi law enforcement and less quasi military. That coupled with the recent talk about our possee commitus status, it appears the powers at NHQ would prefer to have us involved in police work rather than military activities.

Some may find that desirable (there are those in CAP who really do not care for the military, but grudgingly accept our assocation wit the AF so they can be in the "flying club.").  Others like me, prefer to be associated with the AF, the military, and in touch with our roots as defenders of the home front, ala sub chasers and such.

The new letterhead is not only on the National Commanders letters but on NHQ letterhead as well.

Anyone care to comment?


If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
To err is human, to blame someone else shows good management skills.

shorning

Quote from: Smokey on May 24, 2006, 05:16:29 PM
We sure are losing the Aux name.....take a look at the recent policy letters in 60-1 dated in April and May 2006.  On the letterhead the line "United States Air Force Auxiliary" has been removed. Now it only reads "Civil Air Patrol". 

Really?  Or are we getting worked up for nothing? 

I looked at a half dozen of the "May 06" policy letters.  Of the ones I looked at, only two did not have the "United States Air Force Auxiliary" line.  In fact, of the six letters, there were three different variations to the letterhead.  Seems it might vary with the drafter, not by any policy. 

Personally, I think CAP members are making up problems that don't really exist.  Sure there are some changes going on, but I don't think the AF is washing their hands of us.  I think some of us are attached to being "the United States Air Force Auxiliary" for the preceived prestige and are almost embarassed to be called "Civil Air Patrol".

iowacap

I agree personally I think the AF cannot afford to loose us we are their "cheap" to operate search and rescue force. I think we may be getting worked up for nothing.

Yes there may be changes but for whatever it is worth we should be proud either way of what WE all do and prove to the AF that they cannot afford to loose us. Just take it in stride and see what it brings but I don't think we should worry about it too much.

ZigZag911

My understanding is that AF most values Cadet Program, viewing it as essential recruiting tool for them.

Current CAP corporate interests seem most focused on emergency services & operations; I'm not saying the other two missions are not getting done, but that ES is getting lion's share of time and resources.

The particular focus, which makes sense in view of events during the past few years, has been on homeland security and disaster relief.

The problem is that most state emergency management agencies, state police organizations, and non-governmental ES groups, consider the presence and participation of minors (that is, cadets) a liability in virtually every way -- operationally as well as in terms of insurance risk.

Could the solution be a split??  ES folks go to Dept. of Homeland Security, cadets & cadet leaders stay with USAF??

I don't want to see this myself, but it does seem practical.


Al Sayre

What about those who do both?  Would the programs be mutually exclusive?
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Matt

Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 25, 2006, 06:23:22 PM
I don't want to see this myself, but it does seem practical.

Well, for all intent and purpose, look at the Coasties.  Peacetime they hail under the US DOT; wartime they hail the USN; either way they're under the DoD, but they utilize bi-agency abilities.

Perhaps, we should find a home and then be rented out at a nomial cost, as to increase our funding...
<a href=mailto:mkopp@ncr.cap.gov> Matthew Kopp</a>, Maj, CAP
Director of Information Technology
<a href=https://www.ncrcap.us.org> North Central Region</a>

MIKE

Quote from: Matt on May 25, 2006, 06:44:17 PM
Well, for all intent and purpose, look at the Coasties.  Peacetime they hail under the US DOT;

Not under DOT anymore... Department of Homeland Security.  Have U.S. Department of Homeland Security  stickers so we can use up old envelopes etc.
Mike Johnston

Matt

Quote from: MIKE on May 25, 2006, 07:23:44 PM
Quote from: Matt on May 25, 2006, 06:44:17 PM
Well, for all intent and purpose, look at the Coasties.  Peacetime they hail under the US DOT;

Not under DOT anymore... Department of Homeland Security.  Have U.S. Department of Homeland Security  stickers so we can use up old envelopes etc.

Butt-End of Gov't Spending?
<a href=mailto:mkopp@ncr.cap.gov> Matthew Kopp</a>, Maj, CAP
Director of Information Technology
<a href=https://www.ncrcap.us.org> North Central Region</a>

jacklumanog

Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 25, 2006, 06:23:22 PM
My understanding is that AF most values Cadet Program, viewing it as essential recruiting tool for them.

I would have to agree here.  We may see a dip in our Cadet Program with those who are really interested in working toward an appointment to USAFA. 
Ch, Lt Col Jon I. Lumanog, CAP
Special Assistant to the National Chief of Chaplains for Diversity of Ministry

ZigZag911

Quote from: Al Sayre on May 25, 2006, 06:29:54 PM
What about those who do both?  Would the programs be mutually exclusive?

Understand that this is sheer speculation to begin with.

Unfortunately my answer to your question is I honestly don't know how sharp the divide would be, if it came to pass....I imagine, to satisfy state agencies, insurance companies, and so forth, there would be no cadet involvement in actual ES operations, at the very least....

Could it be two 'divisions' of CAP, with those seniors who wished taking part in both....I suppose it could, but I fear a narrow, parochial view on the part of leadership (to the effect that "you have to choose us or them!")

I'm with you on this, I'm a former cadet myself, as well as fairly involved in ES