CAP Talk

Being relatively new to CAP, and trying to get an understanding about how we ended up with a white aviator shirt & grey pants, grey epaulets combination perhaps someone "in the know" could explain this a bit better, as to how this color combination evolved.

Personally, I would have thought that CAP would have stayed with it's colors as was in the original CAP logo (red, white, & blue),
(Interestingly the AF also actually provides the proper color codes for our logos at:  http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187)     

So perhaps we could have gone with blue pants, keep the white shirt, but have bright red epaulets (that match CAP's original logo red paint) as well as a bright red name tag with white lettering.

Maybe the Blue pants color as displayed in the logos would be difficult to get commercially.   Perhaps the current AF uniform pants sold in the BX would work best. 

Perhaps add a hat requirement, likely a flight CAP that would be like the new CAP red propeller lapel pin on the vanguard website.

Coat wise it could be the Blue flight jacket or any other blue style to include military jacket.  Anything military type coat/overcoat would have to have the red CAP epaulets.

I guess from my point, we need more bright color in our uniforms, and perhaps this greater distinctiveness would allow transition into a completely supplied BX uniform in the distant future.

RM

Upon reading this post, I thought this was a drive-by by a troll.

Then I saw it was Radioman. Really? Trying to start an argument? That's obvious, given you propose to add the Triangle Thingy to SM uniforms.

You say you're new to CAP. Hmm. In that case, I'll let the SM on CAPTalk argue with you on one condition- if you're new to CAP (and you retired from the RM, I believe I saw on another post) then leave cadet uniforms alone. You've proposed changes to them elsewhere. Yet you don't seem to have been a cadet. So leave our unis alone- we like them!

The "whites and greys" were developed as an offshoot of the IACE blazer uniform.  This uniform goes back to the late 60's at least.  I don't remember when it became a "CAP distinctive " uniform. 

Our CAP Historian, btw, would love us to go back to red epaulets..... ahh, tradition :D

What you propose would be stupid . Reading youur post ,I wonder why you are in CAP. Why dont you just get out all together and stop putting CAP down                                                                                                                                                 

Quote from: eaker.cadet on June 26, 2010, 10:45:12 PM
What you propose would be stupid .... Why dont you just get out all together and stop putting CAP down                                                                                                                                                 

Hey now, you kids play nice.  >:(

Quote from: FW on June 26, 2010, 10:36:15 PM
The "whites and greys" were developed as an offshoot of the IACE blazer uniform.  This uniform goes back to the late 60's at least.  I don't remember when it became a "CAP distinctive " uniform.

Makes sense - considering a previous version of the grey & white was the white shirt with the blazer nameplate.  Probably started with a hot weather version of the blazer uniform and evolved from that to what we have now.

On a similar idea - I'm guessing the Polo/golf shirt replaced the Guyaberra shirt.  I still have mine but I don't remember what pants were worn with it.  Probably grey....

If we did the blue pants, white shirt, and red epaulette slides would the Salvation Army object? ::) ::)

First of all, PLEASE, PLEASE no red epaulets, not unless we readopt pinks and greens!  That would be as bad as berry boards were! It looked OK with pinks and greens, but to imagine it with white, blue, or grey...

When I joined CAP in 1993, it was soon after the Air Force took our blue shoulder boards and metal rank away, something that I personally believe damaged CAP identity-wise, and we have never recovered from it (witness the often-acrimonious uniform debates of the past 20 years).

My first squadron, which I was a member of for six years, only wore AF type uniforms and wore them correctly, thanks to a sizeable percentage of prior-service commanders.  I never saw a white shirt, guyabera, polo shirt, etc., until I started attending Wing activities.  I only saw them in the CAP Bookstore catalogue.

G/W became a "CAP-distinctive" uniform somewhere around the mid-90s, when we got the grey shoulder boards (better than the bloody awful "berry boards," if not as good as blue) and the "U.S." cutouts (inexplicable to me that we can have those, but can't have blue epaulettes).  I think it was an attempt at compromise for those who can't/won't wear AF-style to have something to wear their CAP ribbons on, because they couldn't on prior non-AF unis.

The grey/white scheme completely baffles me.  It does not bring "aviation" to mind (civilian or military) and the only connection it has to CAP history is the aforementioned IACE setup.  Yet there are those who are very zealous for it and want CAP to ditch anything blue in favour of it...I don't get it...

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the orkin man yet!  ;)

Quote from: DakRadz on June 26, 2010, 09:49:06 PM
...
Then I saw it was Radioman. Really? Trying to start an argument? That's obvious, given you propose to add the Triangle Thingy to SM uniforms.
...

I can't believe anyone would propose adding the Triangle Thingy to the uniform considering how the members clearly feel about said Triangle Thingy.

There has been much discussion of the Triangle Thingy here and it became a topic offline among many after it disappeared from the magazine cover.  People were wondering (and hoping, apparently) that the disappearance signaled its demise, but my theory is that either they just continue the usual inconsistency that has gone on for years now or someone discovered there is no "A" in "volunteer."  Members here mentioned that as soon as it replaced the seal on the magazine cover but it generally takes some time for National to respond to things.

Radioman's dream uniform sounds like the costumes worn by the "Liberty Belles," the acapella singing trio that travels with USO tours to entertain troops.

That uniform looks way better on them than it would on me.

Quote from: DakRadz on June 26, 2010, 09:49:06 PM
Upon reading this post, I thought this was a drive-by by a troll.

It's possible considering he hasn't reposted.

Regarding the arguements against making the various AF logistically supported Blue dress uniforms more distinctive.   My only effort in this debate/discussion is so that everyone in the organization can wear the same "blue" uniform.  That also includes utility uniforms being blue (unfortunately, BDU's & ABU's/ABD's (whatever) are not the way to go for a non combat organization specifically limited by AF Regulation). 

Those of you that bring up the federal law on uniform wear, need to remember that IF you are wearing everything like the military than that does come under a potential violation of the law.  HOWEVER, if you are wearing a "distinctive" blue type uniform, that leaves no question in anyones mind that you are NOT a military member than much of the regulation (e.g. weight, hair length, beards (neatly trimmed),  might be successfully argued as mute.    The grey in my opinion is not differentiating enough from a distance and even in close proximity.  Red is a better offset/distinctive color.  We already use this with cadet rank, so the transition to red background name tags (for all) & red rank epauletts for senior members would be consistent with our cadet uniform "uniqueness" and offer uniformity of appearance.

So If I own a appliance repair business and decided I'd like to wear the AF blue shirt & pants as my uniform.  IF I put a logo patch on it that's says "Mike's Applicance Repair" than it isn't a military uniform any more, it is just logistically something I've bought that I like.  Surely the Hock Shop can buy these goods for resale so there is a source other in AFFES/BX, even if CAP decided to go "rogue" from the AF with a "more distinctive" blue type uniform.

I really think the reason this is a "hot button" topic for many is that too many people in CAP focus on wearing a very close to "military"  uniform and just have a difficult time understanding their actual place.  The AF Regulations are very specific about Civil Air Patrol membership and what we are and are not.   Clearly CAP members are not in the military when performing CAP duties.    We can focus on all our missions in whatever "distinctive" uniforms can pass the muster with the USAF. However, again if the blue uniforms become much more distinctive as a Civil Air Patrol uniform (again not a military uniform, but logistically supported via AF channels),  perhaps the entire membership can wear it.  The USCG Aux seems to allow beards & heaviness; (this doesn't seem to get in the way with them directly supporting the USCG in many missions) why is there such inconsistency with auxiliaries?

Is the entire blue uniform wear issue a problem with the Air Force or is it a problem with Civil Air Patrol not presenting more significant uniqueness for blue uniform wear?

RM
       

QuoteThose of you that bring up the federal law on uniform wear, need to remember that IF you are wearing everything like the military than that does come under a potential violation of the law.

Keep in mind that the military can authorize people to wear just about anything and also that military auxiliary uniforms are protected with the exact same federal law as the "real military" uniforms are. 

Red for cadet rank?   Cite please.  There is no place in 39-1 where that is authorized. Under the old 52-16, cadets on staff at encampment could wear a background color cloth under the encampment rank insignia which was a temporary grade. But that policy was dropped when cadets could no longer have temporary grade, and must wear earned grade insignia.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 27, 2010, 03:40:17 PM
(Blah blah blah) ...would be consistent with our cadet uniform "uniqueness" and offer uniformity of appearance.
   

Ok, I finally call troll here, and leave the thread with one comment:

Since it's USAF that requires the distinctiveness, why can't you just let them decide what they consider distinct enough?

Now, back under your bridge.

Good boy.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 27, 2010, 03:40:17 PM
The grey in my opinion is not differentiating enough from a distance and even in close proximity.  Red is a better offset/distinctive color.  We already use this with cadet rank, so the transition to red background name tags (for all) & red rank epauletts for senior members would be consistent with our cadet uniform "uniqueness" and offer uniformity of appearance.

First off, cadets look more like the AF than SM's do.  Their collar stripes are AF with the shield superimposed on them, and they still have blue shoulder boards for officers.  In 17 years in CAP I have not seen red as a significant colour in cadet uniforms, other than on the hard shoulder boards for cadet officers...and that's just a thin stripe.

I don't understand what your fixation with red is.

Quite frankly, the whole "distinctiveness" thing is a red herring as far as I'm concerned, and there are Australia-size holes in AFI 10-2701.

1.3.4. CAP Distinctive Uniforms and Insignia. The emblems, insignia, and badges of the CAP Air Force-style uniform will clearly identify an individual as a CAP member at a distance and in low-light conditions. The Air Force must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform. CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not occur.

"Confusion" can be many things to many people.  As I've said before, a big share of the blame, if any is given, should go to the Air Force for not making their membership familiar with what CAP is.  One two-hour session in BMT, with a PowerPoint, taught by a CAP member would go a long way toward that and would be a lot better than yet another two hours spent doing dorm maintenance.  Trainees learn about the ANG and AFRES.  There is absolutely no reason they should not learn about their Auxiliary.

That "distance/low-light" thing is a cop-out as far as I'm concerned.  If some E-1 who hasn't cleaned his/her glasses that day encounters a CAP officer and don't know who s/he is, it's up to the E-1 to take two minutes and ASK the CAP member rather than go whine to their first shirt that "someone's wearing our uniform and playing officer."

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 27, 2010, 03:40:17 PM
...even if CAP decided to go "rogue" from the AF with a "more distinctive" blue type uniform...

Good luck on getting that bird to fly with NHQ.

We had a perfectly fine, distinctive blue uniform with the CSU that could more easily be mistaken for a Soviet Air Force dress blue uniform or TSA uniform than anything the AF wears, especially with the modifications General Courter directed, and STILL they're deep-sixing it.  I think NHQ is allergic to anything blue that isn't the AF-type uniform, because they're so afraid that we're going to tick the AF off with anything blue and/or the fact that the CSU was a product of the previous Generalissimo.

Doing away with the modified CSU makes absolutely no sense.

I also don't buy the "it looks too much like the Army's blue uniform" argument.  If you can't differentiate the CSU from this (http://www.army.mil/asu/changes.html) you need your eyes checked, better education or just pay better attention.

NOAA and USPHS are not military (they are uniformed services, but not Armed Forces) and they wear uniforms nearly identical to the Navy.

http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/PersonnelPages/noaacorpsdirbailey.html
http://www.optoblog.com/2008/02/10/usphs-changes-uniform-rules/

I see those uniformed officers and I think "Navy" a lot more than most who see us think "Air Force."

For that matter, the NSCC looks a lot more like the Navy than we do the AF and I don't know of any hair-splitting among them about "distinctiveness."

http://www.seacadets.org/public/officer/trifold-faq-officer-low.pdf

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 27, 2010, 03:40:17 PM
We can focus on all our missions in whatever "distinctive" uniforms can pass the muster with the USAF.

Agreed - to a point.  The point of disagreement is there are some in the USAF who still remember the fiascoes of the late '80s and don't want us looking anything like them and who frankly could care less about us.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 27, 2010, 03:40:17 PM
The USCG Aux seems to allow beards & heaviness; (this doesn't seem to get in the way with them directly supporting the USCG in many missions) why is there such inconsistency with auxiliaries?

Different service, different rules.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 27, 2010, 03:40:17 PM
Is the entire blue uniform wear issue a problem with the Air Force or is it a problem with Civil Air Patrol not presenting more significant uniqueness for blue uniform wear?

Ignorance on the AF's part and National being scared of anything blue.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on June 27, 2010, 04:33:23 PM
Since it's USAF that requires the distinctiveness, why can't you just let them decide what they consider distinct enough?

Good luck on that one.

Outside of CAP-USAF and the relatively few AF personnel who have dealt directly with us, most of them don't even know who we are.

My beef with the corporate gray-and-whites:

No uniformity with the shirt and trouser specification. Don't just specify 'aviator' or 'medium gray'; specify a specific brand to be worn for the shirt (Van Heusen Aviator (available through Vanguard) or Pilot House Relaxed Oxford (my preference)) and a uniform color shade and style for the trousers or skirt (plain front heather gray with no cuffs, for example). I've seen so many variations of shirts and trousers that uniformity in the grays goes out the window.

The one attempt at wearing a blue corporate service uniform got eighty-sixed because of internal CAP politics. The Air Force didn't mind the uniform after some changes were made. It's going to be a sad day when that uniform sunsets - I may wind up making it into a banana republic dictator Halloween costume.

I wouldn't specify a particular brand/model, except as an example. As with the trousers, specific features:
White shirt, functional epaulets, non-pleated pointed pockets with pointed full flaps, and full placket (the part where the button holes are).
That spec opens up where you get them from - I can't wear the Van Husen shirts because I have a large neck (19.5) and I need a tall shirt. Van Husen doesn't make them in that size.

Quote from: CyBorg on June 27, 2010, 04:39:13 AMThe "U.S." cutouts (inexplicable to me that we can have those, but can't have blue epaulettes).

Could someone explain that?  They want us looking distinctive from the USAF and put "US" cutouts on the coat?  Huh?

Quote from: arajca on June 27, 2010, 07:23:57 PM
I wouldn't specify a particular brand/model, except as an example. As with the trousers, specific features:
White shirt, functional epaulets, non-pleated pointed pockets with pointed full flaps, and full placket (the part where the button holes are).

That spec opens up where you get them from - I can't wear the Van Husen shirts because I have a large neck (19.5) and I need a tall shirt. Van Husen doesn't make them in that size.

I like that spec description. Sucks that neither VH nor Pilot House sell larger neck sizes than 19. :(

True, but Quartermaster Uniforms (http://www.qmuniforms.com) does - although it has a pleated back, since they sell it as an EMT shirt. And for less the Van Husen or Pilot House cost.

Quote from: CyBorg on June 27, 2010, 05:57:04 PMGood luck on getting that bird to fly with NHQ.

We had a perfectly fine, distinctive blue uniform with the CSU that could more easily be mistaken for a Soviet Air Force dress blue uniform or TSA uniform than anything the AF wears, especially with the modifications General Courter directed, and STILL they're deep-sixing it.  I think NHQ is allergic to anything blue that isn't the AF-type uniform, because they're so afraid that we're going to tick the AF off with anything blue and/or the fact that the CSU was a product of the previous Generalissimo.

Doing away with the modified CSU makes absolutely no sense.

In point of fact, it was the USAF that had major concerns regarding the CSU, and they were the ones requesting its elimination by CAP.

Well, on second thought, 'requesting' might be putting it mildly!!

^Sorry about this but, the Air Force had absolutely nothing (officially) to do with the demise of the "CSU".  And, after some pretty good research, I find that it happened entirely due to internal fears.  I don't want to rehash the arguments of a previous thread however, I'm getting tired of the mis- information filtering down from some. 

Let's just say, for me, this is a very sore subject (and I was against this uniform from the start).

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 28, 2010, 05:47:49 PM
In point of fact, it was the USAF that had major concerns regarding the CSU, and they were the ones requesting its elimination by CAP.

Cite please.

FW is 100% correct, but I'm curious what you will respond with.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on June 27, 2010, 04:33:23 PM
Ok, I finally call troll here, and leave the thread with one comment:

Most uniform threads are troll treads.  Once in a blue moon there is a real question that a quick review of the regs and ICLs will not answer.  This forum keeps the soap box manufacturers in business.    ;D

Sounds like another example of the three most dangerous words in CAP:  "somebody told me" or " I seem to remember seeing that somewhere".

For larger sizes in the Aviator Shirt you may wish to look at http://www.magandson.com/

Quote from: FW on June 28, 2010, 06:48:06 PM
Sorry about this but, the Air Force had absolutely nothing (officially) to do with the demise of the "CSU".  And, after some pretty good research, I find that it happened entirely due to internal fears.

And it's really silly in the long run.  It is an attractive uniform that is well-liked by most CAP members.  I received several compliments on mine.

But I do think that the blue epaulettes should have had "CAP" embroidered on them (like in the "old days") and worn on both the shirt and service coat.

From what I know, it's demise came about for two reasons, both intrinsic to CAP:

NHQ wanted to rid itself of anything to do with the previous Generalissimo.

NHQ was afraid that the Air Force would be ticked off, when it had been in existence already for a few years, AF input was sought, received and acted on (i.e., metal grade on flight cap).

About the only area I know of where the AF was actually involved was some junior NCO's and Airmen who didn't know anything about CAP (which is the fault of the Air Force in not educating them) made some grumbles that "someone's playing officer with our uniform" to their first shirts.  National got wind of it and went into overreaction damage control at Warp 9, cure a headache with a guillotine mode.

Since it's being phased out, I don't understand why General Courter ordered the modifications that she did in her ICL.  If the modifications were kept in place and the uniform was kept, honestly you'd have to be a bit of a dullard to confuse it with an AF uniform.

I do hope, probably fruitlessly, that NHQ will rescind the phase-out order.

Quote from: CyBorg on June 30, 2010, 12:15:40 AM

Quote from: FW on June 28, 2010, 06:48:06 PM
Sorry about this but, the Air Force had absolutely nothing (officially) to do with the demise of the "CSU".  And, after some pretty good research, I find that it happened entirely due to internal fears.

I do hope, probably fruitlessly, that NHQ will rescind the phase-out order.

Get the February 2010 National Board minutes and read Agenda item 3C.  Its very specific on exactly what happened.

In addition on page 22 it gives a full history of how the grey & white uniform came to be.

It also makes me want to trade wing commanders with Michigan.

Do you mean the National Board Agenda?

I read that, including the well-stated remarks of Colonel Saile.

However, I still maintain that the "low-light/distance/distinctiveness" of AFI 10-2701 can be made to say whatever one wants it to say.  It is poorly-worded, inaccurate and open to wide interpretation, including the canard that the CSU looked too similar to the Army blue service dress.

The grey-white is very similar to the German Bundeswehr's service uniform...confusion with that could occur!

http://tinyurl.com/2uaq5sb

Look especially at p. 9-11.

Basically, I take it to say that anything other than the grey/white will be disallowed if it has any sort of blue in it, which is a bit of a crock.

Quote from: RVT on June 30, 2010, 12:39:46 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on June 30, 2010, 12:15:40 AM

Quote from: FW on June 28, 2010, 06:48:06 PM
Sorry about this but, the Air Force had absolutely nothing (officially) to do with the demise of the "CSU".  And, after some pretty good research, I find that it happened entirely due to internal fears.

I do hope, probably fruitlessly, that NHQ will rescind the phaseout order.

Get the February 2010 National Board minutes and read Agenda item 3C.  Its very specific on exactly what happened.

In addition on page 22 it gives a full history of how the grey & white uniform came to be.

It also makes me want to trade wing commanders with Michigan.

The Winter NB minutes are a good read (I was present at the meeting and know full well what transpired there).  However, you must look at the November '09 NEC minutes if you wish to know how the "CSU" was axed.   Plus, for more insight on this topic, you need to know the players and history a bit closer. You also need to read the exhange between the Board of Governors and the CSAF.   I may no longer be on the NB or NEC but, I still know quite a few current members and, have quite a number of "contacts"....

What is; is.  We're not going to change anything now so, don't cry over it.  The CSU is finished.  The NEC spoke, the NB spoke and, it's over.  Live with it. However, my heart burn is on a different level. And, unless present trends change, I don't think we will be dealing with "better" options soon.

Oh, and by the way, the Michigan Wing/CC has been relieved, and, is under investigation....

Quote from: FW on June 30, 2010, 01:45:02 AM
The Winter NB minutes are a good read (I was present at the meeting and know full well what transpired there).  However, you must look at the November '09 NEC minutes if you wish to know how the "CSU" was axed. Oh, and by the way, the Michigan Wing/CC has been relieved, is now a LT Col and, is under investigation....

There was a motion to eliminate it and it carried.  If there was much debate about it it's not in the minutes.  I don't think I'm privy to the other conversations you refer to, if they were ever published at all.  I was just curious.  Its starting to sound like I should probably not be curious anymore.

I'm 5'10 and 174 Lb, I'll be wearing the McPeak jacket anyway, though it looks like I should be handing out little drinks & bags of peanuts in this thing.

Database must not have been updated yet, he still shows as an O6 and in unit 001, which is probably wing HQ.  But it was probably not a good idea to refer to the CG's briefing slides and say they were substantially wrong.  If the CSU did not exist for those who did not meet height/weight & grooming standards - why DID it exist?

In my case, all it would be for is if I looked in the mirror prior to a meeting and my hair had grown out of spec, which it often is.  But its a lot more work to keep a white shirt looking good than a blue one, it would never be my first choice.  Probably just grab the same polo shirt everybody else wears when that happens.

I assume when they referred to the "black jacket" as being retained they were referring to the leather one.

IIRC, the CSU existed for those not meeting h/w, but are meeting grooming standards.

That is correct. And RVT, you're talking about the wrong Tony. It's Pineda, not McPeak.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 30, 2010, 04:42:00 AM
That is correct. And RVT, you're talking about the wrong Tony. It's Pineda, not McPeak.

The McPeak uniform was never intended to have anything on the shoulder and apparently was also not intended to have anything at all worn on the right side of it.  Trying to adapt it to look like the coat it replaced really didn't work.  Why didn't they just go back to the old coat after the "converted mistakes" wore out?  Or for that matter just ditch the whole thing.

The USAF botched their new uniform way before CAP ever did.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 30, 2010, 04:42:00 AM
That is correct. And RVT, you're talking about the wrong Tony. It's Pineda, not McPeak.

Sorry I wasn't clear there.  I don't even HAVE a TPU coat.  I have the regular USAF coat that makes me look like a Braniff airline steward.

OK, help me out here.

We started with the Aviator shirt uniform, and then moved on to the Corporate Service Uniform (CSU, aka TPU). All of a sudden, Tony McPeak got into the discussion. Where did that come from?

We're talking about this:

(http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/CSU.png)

Not this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Gen_Merrill_McPeak_1993.jpg/220px-Gen_Merrill_McPeak_1993.jpg)

The current service jacket was designed by Gen. McPeak - before that it was the 4-pocket Tony Nelson style.

While the McPeak uniform was only worn in limited areas after the wear tests, and was changed almost immediately after he
stepped down, the jacket is still his legacy - especially for NCO's, it is little more than a regular sportcoat with USAF buttons.

Unlike most other services, if you changed the buttons no one would know it was a USAF uniform item.

Nothing against anyone on the forums here... but is anyone else tired of hearing about uniforms?  It seems every day in CAP Life we focus on uniforms this and here's an idea for a new CSU that... Im just tired of uniforms... lets all go to polo shirts and slacks and be done with ranks, badges, awards and PD. Solves alot of problems in CAP..



Ok ill get off my soap box now and let the salvos start.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 30, 2010, 06:04:18 AM
OK, help me out here.  We started with the Aviator shirt uniform, and then moved on to the Corporate Service Uniform (CSU, aka TPU). All of a sudden, Tony McPeak got into the discussion. Where did that come from?

Its Merrill McPeak, and I was just trying to say that the TPU actually looks better than the USAF uniform.  Had there been none of this uniform controversy & debate, I just might have gotten the thing anyway, despite the fact I am within standards to wear AF blue.  If I have to shell out $170 for a coat, might as well be the better looking one.

But really, they BOTH suck, and I want the "Tony Nelson" jacket back.

Quote from: Nolan Teel on June 30, 2010, 02:27:08 PMOk ill get off my soap box now and let the salvos start.

This isn't a Communist forum. No one forced you to click the link. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Quote from: Nolan Teel on June 30, 2010, 02:27:08 PM
Nothing against anyone on the forums here... but is anyone else tired of hearing about uniforms?  It seems every day in CAP Life we focus on uniforms this and here's an idea for a new CSU that... Im just tired of uniforms... lets all go to polo shirts and slacks and be done with ranks, badges, awards and PD. Solves alot of problems in CAP..



Ok ill get off my soap box now and let the salvos start.

Don't mistake CAPTalk for Cap reality - we talk a lot about uniforms because that's what this is, a discussion board - most units I visit
just wear them and move on, adjusting as necessary.

However with that said, the reason(s) for all the discussion are that the regs can be challenging to negotiate and in many cases contradict each other, and despite the basic uniform choices being relatively simple to configure, we still have way too many members
who won't take the time to do things right, and in some cases whole wings just making up their own rules (which causes issues mostly when members from those wings play in someone else's sandbox).

The entire uniform situation is fixable with a one-day meeting and some decisions that make everyone equally unhappy.

Quote from: Nolan Teel on June 30, 2010, 02:27:08 PM
Nothing against anyone on the forums here... but is anyone else tired of hearing about uniforms?  It seems every day in CAP Life we focus on uniforms this and here's an idea for a new CSU that... Im just tired of uniforms... lets all go to polo shirts and slacks and be done with ranks, badges, awards and PD. Solves alot of problems in CAP..



Ok ill get off my soap box now and let the salvos start.

Sir, I'm not firing any "salvos," but I notice you have earned quite a bit of chest candy yourself.

If we do what you suggest, then we may as well disconnect from the Air Force entirely and become a pilots' club that does ES only.

And if that day comes, many (including me) will be gone.

If you want to wear just polos and slacks, that is your option.

But you need to take into consideration that there are others who are proud of our Air Force links and the feeling of esprit de corps that comes with wearing the uniform.

It may "solve a lot of problems" but it would also create new ones.

The CAP you envision would have very little place for non-aircrew or non-ground teams, or those who didn't join just to "fly, fly, fly."

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2010, 01:50:10 PM
The current service jacket was designed by Gen. McPeak - before that it was the 4-pocket Tony Nelson style.

Unlike most other services, if you changed the buttons no one would know it was a USAF uniform item.

All too true, and for that reason I don't see the confusion between the CSU and the AF uniform, unless one completely ignores such things as cut and insignia and only focusses on the fact that they are both blue.

I saw a grand total of one officer wearing the sleeve-ringed version (a Ch/Capt), in 1995.

I wore my "Tony Nelson" style (good description, but Jeannie's master's version also had the "Kaptain Kangaroo" pockets) until nearly the very end...now it hangs in my closet, complete with blue nameplate.

There was a proposal floated for CAP to keep that uniform and go back to metal grade, since it would no longer be a USAF uniform.  Other than running out of uniform supplies, I wouldn't have minded that at all.

Some of the cadets in my unit still wear that uniform, and it looks good.

Quote from: CyBorg on June 30, 2010, 11:43:43 PM
All too true, and for that reason I don't see the confusion between the CSU and the AF uniform, unless one completely ignores such things as cut and insignia and only focusses on the fact that they are both blue.

How anyone could mistake a double-breasted jacket with six bright buttons and a silver braid for a single-breasted jacket with three subdued buttons and a blue braid is beyond me (not to mention the white shirt, different nametags, weird ribbons, and of course the "CAP" all over it).

The CSU looks more Navy than USAF, and probably more Fire department than military.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2010, 03:19:13 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on June 30, 2010, 11:43:43 PM
All too true, and for that reason I don't see the confusion between the CSU and the AF uniform, unless one completely ignores such things as cut and insignia and only focusses on the fact that they are both blue.

How anyone could mistake a double-breasted jacket with six bright buttons and a silver braid for a single-breasted jacket with three subdued buttons and a blue braid is beyond me (not to mention the white shirt, different nametags, weird ribbons, and of course the "CAP" all over it).

The CSU looks more Navy than USAF, and probably more Fire department than military.

T minus 10 seconds for someone to be offended that the FIRE DEPARTMENT was MENTIONED...

9...

8...

7...

Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2010, 03:19:13 AM
The CSU looks more Navy than USAF, and probably more Fire department than military.

I grew up around firefighters (and respect them highly)...if one were to add a white service cap, there would be a resemblance (watch a few old episodes of Emergency!).

A closer comparison would be the Soviet Air Force's parade dress:

http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-Photos7/sovietchiefmarshal.jpg

Hell's teeth, I'd even be good with this (with matching trousers and standard CAP blingage) with the aviator whites, replacing the very non-aviation looking blue blazer.

http://www.americanuniform.com/fire_dress.htm

Quote from: CyBorg on July 01, 2010, 06:31:02 AM
Hell's teeth, I'd even be good with this (with matching trousers and standard CAP blingage) with the aviator whites, replacing the very non-aviation looking blue blazer.http://www.americanuniform.com/fire_dress.htm

The Blazer uniform dates back to 1957 and fills a very specific purpose.  Even the CGA, with about 1/8 the uniform inventory that we have, has that.  We don't need to change that at all.

What you HAVE found though, is an off the shelf replacement for the CSU with no development time (since the only modification would be to take the badge fob off). and a built in defense for it - its already designated a fire/police uniform.  They can't complain that it looks like USAF.  And when you stick the CAP "bling" on it it won't look like a cop jacket either.

And we would wear that over the existing aviator white & grey - so you even avoid the "bring back / retain the CSU" problem.  And since its a civillain jacket, technically you already CAN wear it over the white& grey - just not put any insignia on it.

Almost anything would be good as long as its not the blazer we already have. The blazer to me is a casual jacket and just doesn't look aviation like and certainly isnt military. On top of that cadets hate to see senior members in it.

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 01, 2010, 01:57:27 PMAnd we would wear that over the existing aviator white & grey - so you even avoid the "bring back / retain the CSU" problem.  And since its a civillain jacket, technically you already CAN wear it over the white& grey - just not put any insignia on it.

Yep - a black police or fire service jacket over the grays would be a great solution.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2010, 03:08:55 PM

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 01, 2010, 01:57:27 PMAnd we would wear that over the existing aviator white & grey - so you even avoid the "bring back / retain the CSU" problem.  And since its a civillain jacket, technically you already CAN wear it over the white& grey - just not put any insignia on it.

Yep - a black police or fire service jacket over the grays would be a great solution.

Or dark-blue airline uniform service coat...though many of them don't have epaulettes...

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 01, 2010, 01:57:27 PM
The Blazer uniform dates back to 1957 and fills a very specific purpose.  Even the CGA, with about 1/8 the uniform inventory that we have, has that.  We don't need to change that at all.

I have seen very few Auxies who wear their blazer.

What "specific purpose" does ours fulfill, other than IACE?

When I see it, I think "Realtor" (no offence to Realtors!), not "aviator."

Quote from: CyBorg on July 01, 2010, 07:02:56 PM
When I see it, I think "Realtor" (no offence to Realtors!), not "aviator."

Most folks see "security" since the standard 'soft' uniform for security guards is...grey pants, navy blue blazer w/patch and name tag, white shirt, blue or black tie, black shoes.

I don't mind the uniforms at all.  The problem I have, is with what they are called. 

The word corporate --to describe these uniforms-- is (at best) dopey... And at worst idiotic.   

"Distinctive" is more appropriate, and is the term that should be used.     

This is just like the problem where Air Force uniforms are designated by CAP as Air Force Style uniforms.  Well sorry National; no such animal.  They are not (I say again not) Air Force Style uniforms. 

An Air Force Style uniform is the little green flightsuit-looking costume kids wear on Halloween.  Or the little blue service dress jackets on the stuffed teddy bears they sell at the BX.   

 

Quote from: arajca on July 01, 2010, 07:07:31 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on July 01, 2010, 07:02:56 PM
When I see it, I think "Realtor" (no offence to Realtors!), not "aviator."

Most folks see "security" since the standard 'soft' uniform for security guards is...grey pants, navy blue blazer w/patch and name tag, white shirt, blue or black tie, black shoes.

Really?  Now that you mention it, I see sorta what you mean, except that I'm thinking of the gents that volunteer at the local hospital to direct people around and make sure kids don't get too rambunctious.

I also think of community service organisations like Rotary, Jaycees, etc.

I was mistaken for a department store security guard once - in the blue AF short sleeve uniform with grey nameplate and epaulettes...the young lady who did so was very apologetic once she read my nameplate.

I actually really like the idea of an APU (Airline Pilot Uniform?). Add in the CSU service cap, but with the WWII-era device, and that would be my CAP uniform for the rest of my CAPpy days.

Granted, that would give pretty much every airline pilot I've met another reason to hate CAP.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 01, 2010, 07:01:08 PM
Or dark-blue airline uniform service coat...though many of them don't have epaulettes...

McPeak already gave us that.

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 02, 2010, 03:26:31 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on July 01, 2010, 07:01:08 PM
Or dark-blue airline uniform service coat...though many of them don't have epaulettes...

McPeak already gave us that.

And Fogleman fixed it.

Actually, I can't see much of a downside to an airline-style coat for CAP.  The ones I have seen tend to be fairly conservative in cut and present a professional appearance without looking too "military".  Do I necessarily advocate altering our rank presentation to fit with the sleeve rings?  No.  There seems to be a great deal of backlash on these forums against that. 

An airline-style coat would likely be more middle of the road, especially if you go with the "ribbons on/ribbons off" styles that used to be in use on the aviator greys.  It would certainly be in keeping with our identity as an aviation organization.

Quote from: CCSE on July 01, 2010, 08:17:41 PM
I don't mind the uniforms at all.  The problem I have, is with what they are called. 

The word corporate --to describe these uniforms-- is (at best) dopey... And at worst idiotic.   

"Distinctive" is more appropriate, and is the term that should be used.     

This is just like the problem where Air Force uniforms are designated by CAP as Air Force Style uniforms.  Well sorry National; no such animal.  They are not (I say again not) Air Force Style uniforms. 

An Air Force Style uniform is the little green flightsuit-looking costume kids wear on Halloween.  Or the little blue service dress jackets on the stuffed teddy bears they sell at the BX.   

Then you obviously have never read AFI 10-2701. They use the term "Air Force Style uniform".

1.3. Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the
UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer
upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active,
reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its
members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not
apply to CAP members.


1.3.2. Uniform Wear and Personal Appearance. CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air
Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations (civilian clothing may be worn when specific
missions dictate). The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn
by CAP members.



You may not like the term, but National is correct in using the term "Air Force Style".

Darrell R. McMillan, Lt Col, CAP
Vice Commander, NEWG

Quote from: andysum15 on July 01, 2010, 02:39:11 PM
Almost anything would be good as long as its not the blazer we already have. The blazer to me is a casual jacket and just doesn't look aviation like and certainly isnt military. On top of that cadets hate to see senior members in it.

I like the blazer combination.  It is flexible:  can be worn normally or with a bowtie for that semi-formal occasion.  Even the Grey/White combination needs to look neat and presentable in public.  I think it's easier to pull this off with the blazer combination than with the grey/whites.  If I had to represent CAP and meet with some outside people, I feel that the blazer would give a more dignified impression than the grey/whites.

The blazer combination is a cheaper uniform to purchase than most of those off-the-shelf fire department type uniforms referenced above.  If Vanguard became involved (in order to ensure standardization) the price would be even higher.

I think that cadets would like to see an overweight senior officer wearing the blazer uniform rather than the overweight senior trying to wear the air force style uniform or a disheveled grey/white uniform.  Even the Grey/White combination is difficult to keep neat with a belly roll.  I say this as a currently overweight member who sees my potbelly destroy the originally neat appearance of the grey/white uniform after a few hour's work.  I wear shirt stays to avoid this but I doubt that many seniors will routinely do this

A disheveled, ill-fitting, off-the-rack blazer looks no better than any other uniform, and for ceremonial occasions the blazer makes the members wearing it "different" from everyone else.

The secret to the belly roll is getting pants that fit, no matter that uniform you are wearing.

Quote from: TeamBronx on July 02, 2010, 03:03:11 PM
The blazer combination is a cheaper uniform to purchase than most of those off-the-shelf fire department type uniforms referenced above.  If Vanguard became involved (in order to ensure standardization) the price would be even higher.

Sir, your opinion is noted and appreciated.  I'm sure you (or I) are not the first to grouse about the cost of uniforms in the C(ome) A(nd) P(ay).

However, I, and many others, believe that the blazer jacket to have nothing to do with our "branding," if you like, as an aviation orientated organisation, and it shows nothing of our Air Force tradition.

Plus, many who cannot wear the AF combination (full disclosure: I can and do, though I'm wearing the CSU until the very last second) want something formal that looks "military," on which they can wear the awards they've earned.  We had it with the CSU, and that got shot down.

I think the ideas being offered up are trying to standardise on something that builds on the grey-white, yet goes along with National's dictum of tiptoeing around anything that is too "Air Force-like."

Quote from: BGNightfall on July 02, 2010, 08:54:40 AM
Actually, I can't see much of a downside to an airline-style coat for CAP.  The ones I have seen tend to be fairly conservative in cut and present a professional appearance without looking too "military".  Do I necessarily advocate altering our rank presentation to fit with the sleeve rings?  No.  There seems to be a great deal of backlash on these forums against that. 

An airline-style coat would likely be more middle of the road, especially if you go with the "ribbons on/ribbons off" styles that used to be in use on the aviator greys.  It would certainly be in keeping with our identity as an aviation organization.

My only problem with an airline uniform is that very few of them have epaulettes.  I'm not in favour of the rings round the cuff either.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 02, 2010, 08:58:51 PMMy only problem with an airline uniform is that very few of them have epaulettes.  I'm not in favour of the rings round the cuff either.

Blazer Nameplate (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_400_401&products_id=7067). Put it on the right, ribbons on the left. Wings/badges over ribbons.

Use the above on an airline uniform. Easy. (Probably too easy).

Quote from: Hawk200 on July 03, 2010, 02:34:14 AM
Blazer Nameplate (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_400_401&products_id=7067). Put it on the right, ribbons on the left. Wings/badges over ribbons. Use the above on an airline uniform. Easy. (Probably too easy).

Makes sense - but I just went poking around looking at airline pilots uniforms, and they all look similar to the CSU jacket

Why don't we just use the existing CSU coat over the white & grey?

No development cost, no time involved, existing stocks are probably still around in storage somewhere.  Saves a lot of waste, both of uniforms already bought and the unsold stock.  All that would get tossed is a pair of blue rank slides you are about to throw out anyway.

The people who want to keep the coat probably already have it.  Don't need to write new regs - the current configuration with grey rank slides would actually make MORE sense if used this way.

You get a very distinctive uniform that doesn't look like anything else.  The whole issue could be fixed with the stroke of a pen.

And now that I think about it - when the coat ceases to be a uniform item, it becomes a civilian jacket - and under the current regulations you can wear it over the whites & greys anyway  So all they really need to do is let you leave the existing insignia on it.

Seriously?  Nobody thought of this?

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 03, 2010, 03:21:49 AMAnd now that I think about it - when the coat ceases to be a uniform item, it becomes a civilian jacket - and under the current regulations you can wear it over the whites & greys anyway  So all they really need to do is let you leave the existing insignia on it.

Civilian outergarments don't have insignia. Wearing the CSU coat after the phaseout would simply be wearing a phased out (and no longer authorized) uniform item.

Quote from: Hawk200 on July 03, 2010, 04:11:50 AM

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 03, 2010, 03:21:49 AMAnd now that I think about it - when the coat ceases to be a uniform item, it becomes a civilian jacket - and under the current regulations you can wear it over the whites & greys anyway  So all they really need to do is let you leave the existing insignia on it.

Civilian outergarments don't have insignia. Wearing the CSU coat after the phaseout would simply be wearing a phased out (and no longer authorized) uniform item.

As long as you change the buttons.

For the record, unlike the blazer, the CSU jacket is not a "civilian garment" - it is a purpose-built uniform item for a specific service.  There is only one source for it - VG.

Quote from: Hawk200 on July 03, 2010, 02:34:14 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on July 02, 2010, 08:58:51 PMMy only problem with an airline uniform is that very few of them have epaulettes.  I'm not in favour of the rings round the cuff either.

Blazer Nameplate (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_400_401&products_id=7067). Put it on the right, ribbons on the left. Wings/badges over ribbons.

Use the above on an airline uniform. Easy. (Probably too easy).

You know, that idea did jump into my head...but I thought, "nah, too easy!" :-[

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 03, 2010, 03:21:49 AM
Makes sense - but I just went poking around looking at airline pilots uniforms, and they all look similar to the CSU jacket

Why don't we just use the existing CSU coat over the white & grey?

It's been thought of and Photoshopped here before by those more creative than I am.

National, for reasons illogical but best known to themselves, are trying to put the CSU in the "it was the most horrible idea since CAP was founded" category.

Vanguard took the CSU coat down long before General Courter's ICL.  Unless you can find one used, you're pretty much SOL.

Not all the airline jackets are double-breasted:

http://www.tallyhouniforms.com/p_jacket.htm

http://www.tallyhouniforms.com/wp_jacket.htm

They also have pullover sweaters that would be good for us, since they are not USAF issue:

http://www.tallyhouniforms.com/flight_jsw.htm#sweaters

I still haven't figured out the issue of a headdress, unless we'd get a bunch of German Bundesluftwaffe ones, take off the German roundel on the front and put the flight cap device on it... :-\

http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/586/58688.jpg.htm

Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 04:21:25 AMAs long as you change the buttons. For the record, unlike the blazer, the CSU jacket is not a "civilian garment" - it is a purpose-built uniform item for a specific service.  There is only one source for it - VG.

Well now the official source for it is probably Ebay.  I don't own any CAP distinctive uniforms and the only one I've ever seen anyone else use is the polo shirt.  I was approaching this from an efficiency point of view.

Just seems odd that the grey & white uniform now has rank, ribbons and badges on it - and the only uniform outergarment authorized for it is a blazer.  When you take your coat off its like Clark Kent turning into superman or something.

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 03, 2010, 03:21:49 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on July 03, 2010, 02:34:14 AM
Blazer Why don't we just use the existing CSU coat over the white & grey?

No development cost, no time involved, existing stocks are probably still around in storage somewhere.  Saves a lot of waste, both of uniforms already bought and the unsold stock.  All that would get tossed is a pair of blue rank slides you are about to throw out anyway.

The people who want to keep the coat probably already have it.  Don't need to write new regs - the current configuration with grey rank slides would actually make MORE sense if used this way.

You get a very distinctive uniform that doesn't look like anything else.  The whole issue could be fixed with the stroke of a pen.

And now that I think about it - when the coat ceases to be a uniform item, it becomes a civilian jacket - and under the current regulations you can wear it over the whites & greys anyway  So all they really need to do is let you leave the existing insignia on it.

Seriously?  Nobody thought of this?
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_400_401&products_id=7067)

Now if we could just come up with a standard pant to with it.  It should also past the low light test as well... ;D

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 03, 2010, 05:01:05 AM
Just seems odd that the grey & white uniform now has rank, ribbons and badges on it - and the only uniform outergarment authorized for it is a blazer.  When you take your coat off its like Clark Kent turning into superman or something.

If its a "blazer night" I don't wear any accouterments on the shirt under neath - not much point.

Though many people wear them as if they were, they are actually not the same uniform variant.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 03:36:12 PM
Though many people wear them as if they were, they are actually not the same uniform variant.

The white shirt worn only with the blazer nameplate was - but its gone.

Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2010, 03:45:26 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2010, 03:19:13 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on June 30, 2010, 11:43:43 PM
All too true, and for that reason I don't see the confusion between the CSU and the AF uniform, unless one completely ignores such things as cut and insignia and only focusses on the fact that they are both blue.

How anyone could mistake a double-breasted jacket with six bright buttons and a silver braid for a single-breasted jacket with three subdued buttons and a blue braid is beyond me (not to mention the white shirt, different nametags, weird ribbons, and of course the "CAP" all over it).

The CSU looks more Navy than USAF, and probably more Fire department than military.

T minus 10 seconds for someone to be offended that the FIRE DEPARTMENT was MENTIONED...

9...

8...

7...

I resemble that comment - seriously, the TPU *does* look a lot like my fire department class-A uniform.

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 01, 2010, 01:57:27 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on July 01, 2010, 06:31:02 AM
Hell's teeth, I'd even be good with this (with matching trousers and standard CAP blingage) with the aviator whites, replacing the very non-aviation looking blue blazer.http://www.americanuniform.com/fire_dress.htm (http://www.americanuniform.com/fire_dress.htm)

The Blazer uniform dates back to 1957 and fills a very specific purpose.  Even the CGA, with about 1/8 the uniform inventory that we have, has that.  We don't need to change that at all.

What you HAVE found though, is an off the shelf replacement for the CSU with no development time (since the only modification would be to take the badge fob off). and a built in defense for it - its already designated a fire/police uniform.  They can't complain that it looks like USAF.  And when you stick the CAP "bling" on it it won't look like a cop jacket either.

And we would wear that over the existing aviator white & grey - so you even avoid the "bring back / retain the CSU" problem.  And since its a civillain jacket, technically you already CAN wear it over the white& grey - just not put any insignia on it.

I've been off board for a few weeks now (encampment, etc), but I can't resist:    BOOM
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=96)
You regulars know that I couldn't resist plugging what I and others think woudl be a great SM uniform.

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on July 04, 2010, 10:47:48 PM

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 01, 2010, 01:57:27 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on July 01, 2010, 06:31:02 AM
Hell's teeth, I'd even be good with this (with matching trousers and standard CAP blingage) with the aviator whites, replacing the very non-aviation looking blue blazer.http://www.americanuniform.com/fire_dress.htm (http://www.americanuniform.com/fire_dress.htm)

The Blazer uniform dates back to 1957 and fills a very specific purpose.  Even the CGA, with about 1/8 the uniform inventory that we have, has that.  We don't need to change that at all.

What you HAVE found though, is an off the shelf replacement for the CSU with no development time (since the only modification would be to take the badge fob off). and a built in defense for it - its already designated a fire/police uniform.  They can't complain that it looks like USAF.  And when you stick the CAP "bling" on it it won't look like a cop jacket either.

And we would wear that over the existing aviator white & grey - so you even avoid the "bring back / retain the CSU" problem.  And since its a civillain jacket, technically you already CAN wear it over the white& grey - just not put any insignia on it.

I've been off board for a few weeks now (encampment, etc), but I can't resist:    BOOM
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=96)
You regulars know that I couldn't resist plugging what I and others think woudl be a great SM uniform.

You know, I always hated the idea. But seeing it, it doesn't look too bad.

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on July 04, 2010, 10:47:48 PM

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 01, 2010, 01:57:27 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on July 01, 2010, 06:31:02 AM
Hell's teeth, I'd even be good with this (with matching trousers and standard CAP blingage) with the aviator whites, replacing the very non-aviation looking blue blazer.http://www.americanuniform.com/fire_dress.htm (http://www.americanuniform.com/fire_dress.htm)

The Blazer uniform dates back to 1957 and fills a very specific purpose.  Even the CGA, with about 1/8 the uniform inventory that we have, has that.  We don't need to change that at all.

What you HAVE found though, is an off the shelf replacement for the CSU with no development time (since the only modification would be to take the badge fob off). and a built in defense for it - its already designated a fire/police uniform.  They can't complain that it looks like USAF.  And when you stick the CAP "bling" on it it won't look like a cop jacket either.

And we would wear that over the existing aviator white & grey - so you even avoid the "bring back / retain the CSU" problem.  And since its a civillain jacket, technically you already CAN wear it over the white& grey - just not put any insignia on it.

I've been off board for a few weeks now (encampment, etc), but I can't resist:    BOOM
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=96)
You regulars know that I couldn't resist plugging what I and others think woudl be a great SM uniform.

Looks bad without a really dark grey, or even blue pants and cover.

PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new members. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

Random facts of life. Attention to detail! :D

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 04:38:06 AM
PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new CAPpers. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

Random facts of life. Attention to detail! :D

What the bloody heck is a "CAPper"?  What's wrong with the term "new member".

I said new member, see?  ::)  :angel:

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 04:38:06 AM
PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new members. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

Random facts of life. Attention to detail! :D

Cadet -
You are correct; this image was taken from the uniform poster where she modeled the uniform of a cadet airman (which is a public domain document).  I chose to use this "model" to best illustrate the intended uniform.  It does not matter who she is "in real life," the object was to find the best picture to Photoshop.  Now you may think, in you exalted status as a Cadet CMSgt, that this is inherently wrong, but too bad. So please do not lecture me about "Attention to detail."

***
The whole idea of this uniform proposal is to simplify the corporate dress uniform.  If it had blue trousers, then it would fall in the same path as the CSU.  Also, the cover is a black garrison cap, which is currently being produced for the US Navy & Public Health service.  Everything is "off-the-shelf" and, as such, substantially lower the cost to CAP members.  This way, the Gray/Whites can easily have just this service coat (Flying Cross), add a black tie, and Viola! – A service coat that is CAP-Distinctive.

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on July 05, 2010, 06:01:57 AM

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 04:38:06 AM
PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new members. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

Random facts of life. Attention to detail! :D

Cadet -
You are correct; this image was taken from the uniform poster where she modeled the uniform of a cadet airman (which is a public domain document).  I chose to use this "model" to best illustrate the intended uniform.  It does not matter who she is "in real life," the object was to find the best picture to Photoshop.  Now you may think, in you exalted status as a Cadet CMSgt, that this is inherently wrong, but too bad. So please do not lecture me about "Attention to detail."
[/snip]

Excuse me, sir, but I was merely pointing that out- as in my attention to detail led me to share a funfact with everyone.
If you'll view my signature, which should not take too awful much time, you will see I have been twice a cadet officer (both JROTC programs made me prove myself), I am about to accomplish this yet again, and I was GAWG Honor Cadet at Encampment 2010. I have quite a bit of common sense and tact, I believe, and my instructors agree (though they keep me improving all the time)

Now, I had a slight speedbump my first day or two on CAPTalk, but since then I haven't attacked anyone. I apologized for the one screwup.

I know better to attack a senior member, especially for such a trivial matter. Had you asked, instead of accusing:
1) I would have clarified to you my true intent, as I never considered you would take that as a reprimand.
2) I would have made sure the other posters understood this as well..

Random fact of life- I thought that made it clear I was just posting out of boredom, something which occurred to me.

I don't believe it to be "inherently wrong"- I thought you did a dern fine job of photoshopping, and I wouldn't even mind wearing the uniform too much.

Exalted status as a cadet Chief? Maybe I'll get hit with that "exalted status" feeling once I've got my Eaker or Spaatz, but in CAP C/CMSgt is not all that high.

Respectfully, sir, please calm down. I'm just quite random; as stated before, I felt an urge to share my observation- my *personal* attention to detail, as I remembered her from the charts and was proud when I realized where I knew the face from.

With clarification, I can understand your statement.  However, please remember that you still have to be tactful with everyone on the board.  I have had several disagreements with people on this board (one of whom is now on the Board of Goevenors), but I am always tactful and present my argument with as much logic as I can muster.  (There have been a couple of times I was not as tactful as I should have been and had my hand slapped for it).

Just keep in mind that people will treat you how you treat them.  I just had to post another reminder on the Sq T-Shirt page to another cadet who (I felt) was not tactful.

Bottom line - No worries.  I am pretty easy-going and don't hold a grudge (unlike some).  I have noticed that you are a prolific poster and I am thrilled to see that in a cadet.  I wish more cadets would post (although I know sometimes it gets discouraging when you have some senior members disparge everyone who disagrees with them).  Also, I would encourage you to try posting at CadetSTUFF forums.  A lot of good info on the boards there.

MODS:  OK.  I'm done going off the beaten path.

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 04:38:06 AM
PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new members. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

39-1 is really old.  She probably IS a Captain at this point.

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on July 05, 2010, 06:01:57 AM
The whole idea of this uniform proposal is to simplify the corporate dress uniform.  If it had blue trousers, then it would fall in the same path as the CSU.  Also, the cover is a black garrison cap, which is currently being produced for the US Navy & Public Health service.  Everything is "off-the-shelf" and, as such, substantially lower the cost to CAP members.  This way, the Gray/Whites can easily have just this service coat (Flying Cross), add a black tie, and Viola! – A service coat that is CAP-Distinctive.

Sounds good to me - satisfies the existing moratorium on changing any existing item too.  Really the only thing we are missing is a decent jacket for the white & grey.  From what I understand, we presently have (1)the blazer  (2)that light blue snappy CAP windbreaker and (3)for inexplicable reasons, the USAF blue cardigan.

That last one makes no sense to me.  The only piece of USAF uniform authorized to be worn over a CAP distinctive outfit - and its that thing?

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 05, 2010, 02:01:16 PM

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 04:38:06 AM
PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new members. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

39-1 is really old.  She probably IS a Captain at this point.

Ahahahaha! Wonderful point- Now THAT is attention to detail

High Speed Low Drag- I say we agree with this very statement and make it our truce, sir ;D

Quote from: PHall on July 05, 2010, 05:13:36 AM

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 04:38:06 AM
PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new CAPpers. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

Random facts of life. Attention to detail! :D

What the bloody heck is a "CAPper"?  What's wrong with the term "new member".

Seriously - we are not in "cap" (as in hat), we are in the "C-A-P".

Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2010, 03:23:32 PM

Quote from: PHall on July 05, 2010, 05:13:36 AM

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 04:38:06 AM
PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new CAPpers. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

Random facts of life. Attention to detail! :D

What the bloody heck is a "CAPper"?  What's wrong with the term "new member".

Seriously - we are not in "cap" (as in hat), we are in the "C-A-P".

Thank you.  I hate that.

I think that uniform is on the right track.  Just not quite there.  If they did some wear testing and force commenting, about five years worth, and tweeked it, then we might have something.  We need to have a 5 year moratorium on any uniform changes.  Then make the changes and have another 5 year breather.

Quote from: Gunner C on July 05, 2010, 10:58:23 PMWe need to have a 5 year moratorium on any uniform changes.  Then make the changes and have another 5 year breather.

Agree, but not even the active services have had that for a decade if not longer...

There is a very fine line between attention to detail and nit-picking.

Quote from: ol'fido on July 05, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
There is a very fine line between attention to detail and nit-picking.

If that's in reference to me, sir, I explained later on in the topic. Attention to detail doesn't need to be negative.

<evil feelings>

But... (I have to do this)... The FAA says we're CAP as in the thing on my head... And I think the FAA knows a little bit more than you!

</evil feelings>

Bwahaha  >:D

Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2010, 03:23:32 PM

Quote from: PHall on July 05, 2010, 05:13:36 AM

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 04:38:06 AM
PS- the girl in that uniform proposal picture thing? She's a cadet one-striper in the uniform guides they send to new CAPpers. So that's just a thought, since her face is now promoted to Captain.

Random facts of life. Attention to detail! :D

What the bloody heck is a "CAPper"?  What's wrong with the term "new member".

Seriously - we are not in "cap" (as in hat), we are in the "C-A-P".

Geez, Bob, why did you need to start that? CAP v. C.A.P. is a 46+ year olde battle that has no winners. None! Zero! Nada! Zip!

Put that dog right back to sleep.

Quote from: SarDragon on July 06, 2010, 12:43:17 AM
Geez, Bob, why did you need to start that? CAP v. C.A.P. is a 46+ year olde battle that has no winners. None! Zero! Nada! Zip!

Put that dog right back to sleep.

As someone who goes OCD over apostrophes, you know it(')s never too late to put people on the correct path.

CAP vs. C.A.P.  fine. But "CAP'ers"?  No way.

I was comparing the other word for hat - cap - to C.A.P, spelled out. I learned, and prefer the latter, as do you. But it seems to be one of those battles not worth fighting. When I point out the difference to some folks in my unit, they use the :wrong" term just to push my buttons, so I don't bother any more.

Hence, my request to just drop the issue. It's really no different than the Class A issue.

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on July 05, 2010, 06:01:57 AM
The whole idea of this uniform proposal is to simplify the corporate dress uniform.  If it had blue trousers, then it would fall in the same path as the CSU.

Despite what the nervous Nellies at National seem to believe (CAP distinctive - grey, grey and grey), there is one salient fact:

The United States Air Force does not have a monopoly on blue cloth, nor on uniforms cut from blue cloth.

Shade 1620 and Shade 1550 - those are theirs, and if someone tries to make a uniform out of that, as was done with the CSU, they have every right to raise unholy Hades.

But if we do not use those, there is no reason we cannot have a CAP-distinctive uniform that is blue.  I have already mentioned airline pilot uniforms that are listed as "dark navy."  Civilian designed, civilian made, for civilians.

If we would go lighter in shade, there is no way that the AF could (credibly) say that confusion would result.

Something like RAF blue-grey, or even similar to the US Postal Service, would have blue in it, and would not clash with the extant grey shoulder boards.

This looks closer to our grey than any sort of blue worn by the USAF:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/caswo.cfm

Or even going darker, like the RAAF has done (midnight blue, looks almost black):

http://www.raaf.gov.au/Leaders/caf.aspx

Of course, I'm not blind to the possibility that the AF can invoke the very vague "low-light/at a distance" simply because they don't like something.

My point is, we should not limit ourselves to the extant grey when we do have a wide range to choose from for proposals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_force_blue (bottom of page)

Quote from: DakRadz on July 05, 2010, 11:48:23 PM

Quote from: ol'fido on July 05, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
There is a very fine line between attention to detail and nit-picking.

If that's in reference to me, sir, I explained later on in the topic. Attention to detail doesn't need to be negative.

No, I was not referring to you in particular. However, there are a lot of posts on this forum where a reference is made to "attention to detail" that in my opinion cross over that line into nit-picking. I saw where you had mentioned that you were speaking in jest. It's just that you provided me with the opportunity to drop that line in there. I hope that you will continue to pay attention to detail, but remember  that sometimes.."perfect is the enemy of good enough". ;)

Here's an idea: Why don't we ask the Air Force what they'd like to see in our alternate uniforms? Seems to be a little too much of, "The Air Force can't tell us what to do!".

I have a feeling that working with them, instead of trying to tell them what they aren't allowed to do with us, will be far more rewarding.

This corporate mindset seems to be creating more problems than it solves. From what I saw in the beginning, the point of the corporate side was so we could shop around our abilities, and gain missions in that manner. It wasn't designed to create a break from the Air Force.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2010, 02:11:49 PM

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on July 05, 2010, 06:01:57 AM
The whole idea of this uniform proposal is to simplify the corporate dress uniform.  If it had blue trousers, then it would fall in the same path as the CSU.

Despite what the nervous Nellies at National seem to believe (CAP distinctive - grey, grey and grey), there is one salient fact:

The United States Air Force does not have a monopoly on blue cloth, nor on uniforms cut from blue cloth.

Actually, in the CAP context, they do.

It doesn't matter what the USAF, DOD, or Federal Government can enforce outside of CAP, or that the local PD or SDF wears a uniform that looks "too military", as far as CAP members are concerned, we wear what is authorized by the USAF.  Period.

To Hawk's point, I agree 100%.

I have said for years that the best course for our national leaders is to meet with the USAF, hat in hand, mea culpa the slate clean, and
ask them for the top 5 or ten things the USAF needs from us, and their top 5 or ten annoyances about us, and then go and fix those things immediately, regardless of the internal gnashing of teeth, and not come back to the table until they are fixed, or our avenues for the fixes are exhausted.

1 year and done.

Then we can sit as partners with other services without a bunch of animosity and angst hanging over the conversations.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 06:12:13 PM
Actually, in the CAP context, they do.

It doesn't matter what the USAF, DOD, or Federal Government can enforce outside of CAP, or that the local PD or SDF wears a uniform that looks "too military", as far as CAP members are concerned, we wear what is authorized by the USAF.  Period.

Blue of any shade automatically equates to "too military?"

Actually, if you would take the same grey cloth that our epaulettes are cut from, and fashion it into a service coat identical in cut to the Tony Nelson AF uniform, that would look a lot more "military" than even the CSU did.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 06:12:13 PM
I have said for years that the best course for our national leaders is to meet with the USAF, hat in hand, mea culpa the slate clean, and ask them for the top 5 or ten things the USAF needs from us, and their top 5 or ten annoyances about us, and then go and fix those things immediately, regardless of the internal gnashing of teeth, and not come back to the table until they are fixed, or our avenues for the fixes are exhausted.

Forgive my cynicism here, since I agree with much of what you have to say, especially the part of asking the AF what they need of us.

But it seems to me that beyond the cadet program providing warm bodies for Lackland, they really don't need us a lot.

Many, many Airmen in this age don't even know who we are.

Yes, we bear some of the blame for that, with the "corporatist" mindset and distancing ourselves from the AF at the National level, but not all.  It would be virtually nothing for the AF to educate trainees at BMT about us, along with the ANG and AFRES.

So, I think the first question should be the one some are afraid to ask the AF:

DO you need us? Are we still relevant to the Air Force in 2010?

Quote from: Hawk200 on July 06, 2010, 06:05:22 PM
Here's an idea: Why don't we ask the Air Force what they'd like to see in our alternate uniforms? Seems to be a little too much of, "The Air Force can't tell us what to do!".

I have a feeling that working with them, instead of trying to tell them what they aren't allowed to do with us, will be far more rewarding.

This corporate mindset seems to be creating more problems than it solves. From what I saw in the beginning, the point of the corporate side was so we could shop around our abilities, and gain missions in that manner. It wasn't designed to create a break from the Air Force.

I agree with you.  I never intended to imply I wanted any sort of break from the AF.  I don't.  In the 17 years I've been in CAP the drift away from the AF has been distressing for me.

My point is that the "low light/at a distance" issue of "distinctiveness" needs to be revisited, along with many other aspects of our relationship.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2010, 07:09:26 PM
Forgive my cynicism here, since I agree with much of what you have to say, especially the part of asking the AF what they need of us.

But it seems to me that beyond the cadet program providing warm bodies for Lackland, they really don't need us a lot.

Until the USAF is no longer responsible for inland SAR, they need us a LOT, especially considering the continues cutbacks in the military and local governments.  Our services could not be replicated in the private or military sector for less than 10x's what we cost today.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2010, 07:09:26 PM
Many, many Airmen in this age don't even know who we are.

Many Airman today could not name the Secretary of Defense or the CJCS, either, that doesn't lessen our value, just presents more opportunity.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 07:23:17 PM
Until the USAF is no longer responsible for inland SAR, they need us a LOT, especially considering the continues cutbacks in the military and local governments.  Our services could not be replicated in the private or military sector for less than 10x's what we cost today.

I'm not disputing that...but outside of CAP-USAF and 1st Air Force, how many in the AF know that is one of our missions?

Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2010, 07:23:17 PM
Many Airman today could not name the Secretary of Defense or the CJCS, either, that doesn't lessen our value, just presents more opportunity.

Are they not still required to learn that in BMT?  I know both of those and I'm not in the military.  Heck, our cadets are required to learn that (Chain of Command).

What I mean by education, trying to get back on track here, is that Airmen should know as much about us as they do the ANG and AFRES...I think more education would ameliorate a lot of the problem with new E-1's seeing a 50+ y.o. Second Lieutenant and wondering what this "old guy" is doing wearing "our" uniform and complaining about it.

As to "distinctive" uniforms, I think it's probably an exercise in futility to ask the AF what our "distinctive" uniforms should look like...because the answer will, in all probability, be the grey/white as is, no alteration.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2010, 08:43:48 PMWhat I mean by education, trying to get back on track here, is that Airmen should know as much about us as they do the ANG and AFRES...

I would hope they would know more than that. I didn't know much about the Guard/Reserves just out of BMT, other than the basic facts. Even many of the Guardsmen/Reservists were a little in the dark. Actual information wasn't that in depth. Yes, I went to Air Force Basic.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2010, 08:43:48 PM
I think more education would ameliorate a lot of the problem with new E-1's seeing a 50+ y.o. Second Lieutenant and wondering what this "old guy" is doing wearing "our" uniform and complaining about it.

I would agree. Probably wouldn't hurt for the Air Force to teach a little more about all the other uniformed services. Too much "Joint Ops" talk, but little action. There's even issues with joint Active/Reserve units. Although in some of the melded units I've seen, the people worked well together in spite of some of the issues.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2010, 08:43:48 PMAs to "distinctive" uniforms, I think it's probably an exercise in futility to ask the AF what our "distinctive" uniforms should look like...because the answer will, in all probability, be the grey/white as is, no alteration.

But you'll never know if you don't ask. At least asking indicates that we would like to work a little more closely with them. That could even garner a few more missions. The idea that CAP is independent really needs to go away. If someone has a problem with being told what to do, they need to find a hobby and leave CAP. We're not here for ourselves, never were. Our history is of service, one way or another.

Quote from: Hawk200 on July 06, 2010, 08:54:41 PM
But you'll never know if you don't ask. At least asking indicates that we would like to work a little more closely with them. That could even garner a few more missions. The idea that CAP is independent really needs to go away. If someone has a problem with being told what to do, they need to find a hobby and leave CAP. We're not here for ourselves, never were. Our history is of service, one way or another.

I don't hold the idea that CAP is independent of the AF, and, as I've said, since I've been in CAP (1993), I've noticed a worrying trend toward "all we do is fly SAR, and the only way we want the AF involved is to assign mission numbers so we can get funded, reimbursed, etc.  Cadet programs, Aerospace Education, uniforms?  Don't need 'em.  Just put gas in the 172."

I'm sure you remember, as I do, the dark days of 1995, when John McCain wanted us taken away from the AF entirely.  The bad thing is, a surprising amount of the CAP membership agreed!

My idea as far as uniforms go is not to tell the AF "this is what we wear and get stuffed if you don't like it."  My idea is for CAP to come up with several different combinations, ranging from building on the extant G/W to an airline derivative to some of the "police/fire" styles some have presented and asking the AF what they're good with.

I just don't believe an option should be taken off the table simply because it's blue: "Oh, Jeez-Louise, they'll think we're trying to bring back the CSU!!!!"  That's over-reacting as far as I'm concerned.

I'd even be happy with a derivative of the pinks and greens...that is a connection to our history.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 07, 2010, 12:08:11 AMI don't hold the idea that CAP is independent of the AF, and, as I've said, since I've been in CAP (1993), I've noticed a worrying trend toward "all we do is fly SAR, and the only way we want the AF involved is to assign mission numbers so we can get funded, reimbursed, etc.  Cadet programs, Aerospace Education, uniforms?  Don't need 'em.  Just put gas in the 172."

That's local, or in your circle - by no means is that universal or a trend anywhere I go.

My reading of what USAF prefers in terms of CAP uniforms (based on CAP-USAF CC comments at Winter Board):

1) cadets in USAF style uniforms (after all, it's a recruiting tool for them)

2) seniors (and I suspect they would rather all seniors do this, to "end the confusion") in gray & whites or blue BDU...too many of us simply do not look like the AF ideal for one of its members, and as long as we're in the USAF style uniform some CAP seniors will be mistaken for AF personnel.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2010, 12:12:40 AM
That's local, or in your circle - by no means is that universal or a trend anywhere I go.

I have witnessed it, in senior squadrons especially.

You are fortunate that you haven't.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 07, 2010, 02:55:37 AM
My reading of what USAF prefers in terms of CAP uniforms (based on CAP-USAF CC comments at Winter Board):

1) cadets in USAF style uniforms (after all, it's a recruiting tool for them)

2) seniors (and I suspect they would rather all seniors do this, to "end the confusion") in gray & whites or blue BDU...too many of us simply do not look like the AF ideal for one of its members, and as long as we're in the USAF style uniform some CAP seniors will be mistaken for AF personnel.

• I believe that would prove my hypothesis that the cadet program trumps everything else, at least as far as the AF goes.
• Finally taking away the AF uniform that we have been allowed to wear with pride for 50-odd years...they might as well take away the status of the AF Auxiliary from us.  I for one have considered it an honour to wear the AF uniform and to be forced to chuck that, especially because of the actions of a few (just like the berry boards era), especially for the bloody awful grey/white uniform...I believe not a few people would finally say "that's it" - and these aren't people who are in just to wear the uniform, despite what some may think...they're in for the whole package.
• There are AF people who do not meet the "AF ideal."  And if CAP personnel are mistaken for AF personnel, it is not CAP's fault.  There are plenty of identifiers on our modified AF uniform to make us identifiable.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 07, 2010, 03:06:01 AM
I have witnessed it, in senior squadrons especially.

One of the top reasons why we should do away with them - they tend to get inbred and forget what CAP is really about.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 07, 2010, 03:06:01 AM
You are fortunate that you haven't.

Believe me, I know.  When I hear some of the stories here, it makes me all the more appreciative of the low-level dysfunctions I have, which pale compared to many of you.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 07, 2010, 02:55:37 AM
My reading of what USAF prefers in terms of CAP uniforms (based on CAP-USAF CC comments at Winter Board):
2) seniors (and I suspect they would rather all seniors do this, to "end the confusion") in gray & whites or blue BDU...too many of us simply do not look like the AF ideal for one of its members, and as long as we're in the USAF style uniform some CAP seniors will be mistaken for AF personnel.

Hmm, I don't recall hearing that unless you are talking about a private conversation you had with him rather than what was in the public sessions.  I'm pretty sure we would have been talking about it non-stop if CAP-USAF made such a statement.

Quote from: RiverAux on July 07, 2010, 03:22:15 AM
Hmm, I don't recall hearing that unless you are talking about a private conversation you had with him rather than what was in the public sessions.  I'm pretty sure we would have been talking about it non-stop if CAP-USAF made such a statement.

Agreed.  Something that drastic would certainly have bubbled up through the rumour mill by now.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2010, 02:11:49 PM

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on July 05, 2010, 06:01:57 AM
The whole idea of this uniform proposal is to simplify the corporate dress uniform.  If it had blue trousers, then it would fall in the same path as the CSU.

Despite what the nervous Nellies at National seem to believe (CAP distinctive - grey, grey and grey), there is one salient fact:

The United States Air Force does not have a monopoly on blue cloth, nor on uniforms cut from blue cloth.

Shade 1620 and Shade 1550 - those are theirs, and if someone tries to make a uniform out of that, as was done with the CSU, they have every right to raise unholy Hades.

But if we do not use those, there is no reason we cannot have a CAP-distinctive uniform that is blue.  I have already mentioned airline pilot uniforms that are listed as "dark navy."  Civilian designed, civilian made, for civilians.

If we would go lighter in shade, there is no way that the AF could (credibly) say that confusion would result.

Something like RAF blue-grey, or even similar to the US Postal Service, would have blue in it, and would not clash with the extant grey shoulder boards.

This looks closer to our grey than any sort of blue worn by the USAF:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/caswo.cfm

Or even going darker, like the RAAF has done (midnight blue, looks almost black):

http://www.raaf.gov.au/Leaders/caf.aspx

Of course, I'm not blind to the possibility that the AF can invoke the very vague "low-light/at a distance" simply because they don't like something.

My point is, we should not limit ourselves to the extant gray when we do have a wide range to choose from for proposals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_force_blue (bottom of page)

If we could we could swap out gray for Navy Blue that would result in less color diversity. Please no gray pant suit.

CAP-USAF had some pretty strong comments in writing on one of the agendas; I thought it was Winter Boards, could have been May NEC, but I really think it was earlier.

These were reinforced in person by CAP-USAF CC at the meeting, which I watched on my computer.

The statement was made essentially that NO military-appearing CAP distinctive uniform, regardless of color, would be acceptable to USAF.

After the Boards I spoke with someone who was there, who had reliable information that the CAP-USAF CC (Col. Ward?) was communicating the views of several senior USAF generals, including the 3 star commanding AU.

Some of this did get mentioned on CT at the time (in fact, I think I posted about it), but folks either missed the key comments or glossed over them.

Which is why, at the end of the CSU, I'll be exclusively wearing the golf shirt. I wouldn't want to offend any AF generals.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 07, 2010, 02:49:12 PM
CAP-USAF had some pretty strong comments in writing on one of the agendas; I thought it was Winter Boards, could have been May NEC, but I really think it was earlier.

Nothing anyone has been able to cite - the only thing anyone has ever quoted are "I heard", or restatements of the agenda item which contains several factual errors.

To this date, no one has been able to cite a single source as the USAF having any recent angst over the CSU, or even any recent interest in our uniforms at all.

It's all been hearsay and conjecture.

Gentlemen, let me help muddy the waters a bit.
First, the Air Force supports all our missions.
Second, the Air Force supports our "Air Force style" uniforms and wants us to wear it correctly.
Third, the "CAP distinctive" uniforms were developed for members not able to wear the "AF style" uniform. 
The current CAP-USAF/CC, Col Ward, has not made any public statements saying anything about the "style" of the distinctive uniforms HOWEVER, the CSAF, has made it clear; the Air Force is the final arbiter on ALL CAP uniforms.  That is in writing and, the official policy of the US Air Force.  Whatever stems from that comment, I will live with.

Quote from: arajca on July 07, 2010, 03:38:40 PM
Which is why, at the end of the CSU, I'll be exclusively wearing the golf shirt. I wouldn't want to offend any AF generals.

Isn't that a bit like using a guillotine to cure a headache?

No, since all the other distinctive uniforms have a military appearance, and I ain't gonna buy a blazer.

Quote from: FW on July 07, 2010, 03:46:03 PM
First, the Air Force supports all our missions.

Good. Sometimes I get the feeling that ES and AE could go down the spout and the AF wouldn't notice, as long as we had cadets for them to recruit.

Quote from: FW on July 07, 2010, 03:46:03 PM
Second, the Air Force supports our "Air Force style" uniforms and wants us to wear it correctly.

As we should.  However, the AF should also own up to the fact that many Active, Guard and Reserve airmen do not meet their own H/W guidelines.

Quote from: FW on July 07, 2010, 03:46:03 PM
Third, the "CAP distinctive" uniforms were developed for members not able to wear the "AF style" uniform. 

Understood.  However, does the CAP membership in general really find the current grey/white to be an attractive uniform that has anything to do with aviation?

It's cheap, and easy to obtain, and in the Come And Pay scheme of things that's good.  But certainly there are better colours that still look "distinctive" without just trying to copy the AF uniform.  BBDU's are a good example.

Also, and I'm trying to be tactful, for the larger members of CAP, grey and white are not "slimming" colours!

Quote from: FW on July 07, 2010, 03:46:03 PM
The current CAP-USAF/CC, Col Ward, has not made any public statements saying anything about the "style" of the distinctive uniforms.  HOWEVER, the CSAF, has made it clear; the Air Force is the final arbiter on ALL CAP uniforms.  That is in writing and, the official policy of the US Air Force.  Whatever stems from that comment, I will live with.

And those who know anything about the military knows that if it's in writing, that's the word.

Nonetheless, I do believe that the "low light/distance" bit needs to be clarified.  As it stands now, it can be used to DQ ANY CAP uniform...and that includes the grey/whites.

Quote from: arajca on July 07, 2010, 04:36:41 PM
No, since all the other distinctive uniforms have a military appearance, and I ain't gonna buy a blazer.

You think the grey/white looks "military?" ???

Quote from: CyBorg on July 07, 2010, 04:40:57 PM
You think the grey/white looks "military?" ???

Well to put this thread back on topic - there is only one word I want to change in 39-1.  Where it says "Medium Grey" change it to "Charcoal Grey".  From my observations there are  a wide variety of interpretations of "Medium" but pretty much the entire garment industry has the same idea what shade "Charcoal" is, and its probably the best looking choice as well.

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 07, 2010, 09:19:12 PM
Well to put this thread back on topic - there is only one word I want to change in 39-1.  Where it says "Medium Grey" change it to "Charcoal Grey".  From my observations there are  a wide variety of interpretations of "Medium" but pretty much the entire garment industry has the same idea what shade "Charcoal" is, and its probably the best looking choice as well.

Or "dark grey."

If we absolutely must stay with strictly grey, these law enforcement uniform trousers would be good:

http://www.uniformswarehouse.com/prostores/servlet/-strse-419/Elastique-Weave-Uniform-Slacks/Detail

My own preference, which doesn't amount to a hill of beans, would be for this shade:

http://www.uniformswarehouse.com/prostores/servlet/-strse-508/Elastique-Weave-Uniform-Slacks/Detail

It says "navy blue" but it looks to be more of a grey/blue.

And, as you can tell, they're cheap! :P

Quote from: CyBorg on July 08, 2010, 05:14:51 AM
Or "dark grey."

If the specification was "Charcoal" those would be close enough to pass.

The reason I say Charcoal is that its not arbitrary - its an actual industry standardized shade, specifically because some commercial uniforms call for it.  It would eliminate variance in uniform shades, the biggest beef I hear about this particular outfit.

If you do field work in the polo uniform, get the "Jesse James" brand.  Not only do they work for dress pants, but I spent 20 years in the Army, 8 of that in SF and those are tougher than anything I ever got issued.  And at less than $20 at Wal-Mart those are economical too.

QuoteUnderstood.  However, does the CAP membership in general really find the current grey/white to be an attractive uniform that has anything to do with aviation?

I have heard this argument beaten into the ground. How exactly does a white aviator shirt and charcoal gray slacks NOT look like it has something to do with aviation?

Have you ever been to an airport?

Let's set aside the fact that (prior to their switch to blue shirts) our White/Gray Uniform combination bore a striking resemblance to the uniforms of DHS Airport TSAs.

Just because we are the Civil Air Patrol, does not mean we need to dress like Commercial Airline Pilots (CSU) or like USAF Pilots (USAF Style).

The CSU was atrocious. I am eternally grateful that they got rid of it. CAP needs a distinctive uniform. But people keep complaining that it doesn't have enough of an "aviation" look to it.

Why don't we just switch over to khaki? Maybe the Air Force would get a kick out of our overweight, hairy folks strutting around looking like USN Officers.

Let's use some old version of the uniform that will make us look like WW2 Re-enactors!

Or, we can face the fact that a white aviator shirt is plenty "aviation related" and standardize the pants so that we don't have an endless parade of shades of gray every time a unit gets together.

So far I have seen people show up with everything from light blue to black, pleated, non-pleated and even sweatpants (for that Oh, so classy look).

The fact is we have people who are more interested in playing fashion show than actually doing anything. We have plenty of folks who refuse to wear the whites/grays "in protest" of the abolition of the CSU, the failure to implement some other uniform or even just because they didn't like the whites/grays when they came around the first time.

Let's get a grip.

Is the best option to eliminate ANOTHER uniform and introduce a BRAND NEW one? Or perhaps we should make the whites/grays look as good as they possibly can and help standardize it so that when people see it, they think "Civil Air Patrol."

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 11, 2010, 03:07:00 PMLet's set aside the fact that (prior to their switch to blue shirts) our White/Gray Uniform combination bore a striking resemblance to the uniforms of DHS Airport TSAs.

I wore that uniform the entire time it existed.  It looked like the white & blue.  In fact, I just compared my TSA trousers from that era against my actual USAF pants and they are close enough to use as such as long as you aren't wearing a service coat.  In fact for the next 17 months they are what I will be wearing with the aviator white shirt when my hair is too long to wear regular blues.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 11, 2010, 03:07:00 PMSo far I have seen people show up with everything from light blue to black, pleated, nonpleated and even sweatpants (for that Oh, so classy look).

With the aviator shirt?  I've seen a wide variance with the polo shirt, even in official videos (The one promoting the National Operations Center shows a guy in a polo and bluejeans) but with the Aviator shirt the grey dress pants rule is followed.  Pleated Vs Non Pleated, or even cuffed, is not an issue and 39-1 even says so.  Sweat pants is a surprise- though they were probably grey!

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 11, 2010, 04:50:56 PM
In fact for the next 17 months they are what I will be wearing with the aviator white shirt when my hair is too long to wear regular blues.

The same grooming standards apply to the CSU as to the AF-style uniform.

Quote from: bte on July 11, 2010, 06:31:38 PM

Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 11, 2010, 04:50:56 PM
In fact for the next 17 months they are what I will be wearing with the aviator white shirt when my hair is too long to wear regular blues.

The same grooming standards apply to the CSU as to the AF-style uniform.

OK so its grey pants then, no big deal.  Apparently the CSU is something I will never wear.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 11, 2010, 03:07:00 PM
I have heard this argument beaten into the ground. How exactly does a white aviator shirt and charcoal gray slacks NOT look like it has something to do with aviation?

Have you ever been to an airport?

Just because we are the Civil Air Patrol, does not mean we need to dress like Commercial Airline Pilots (CSU) or like USAF Pilots (USAF Style).

The CSU was atrocious. I am eternally grateful that they got rid of it. CAP needs a distinctive uniform. But people keep complaining that it doesn't have enough of an "aviation" look to it.

Or, we can face the fact that a white aviator shirt is plenty "aviation related" and standardize the pants so that we don't have an endless parade of shades of gray every time a unit gets together.

Point one: To me, and some others, it looks more like a mall cop than anything to do with aviation.

Point two: Yes, I have. Several very large airports. I have never seen aviators wearing anything that looks like the white/grey. Most of them tend to wear dark blue or black.

Point three: What should we look like, and what looks "Civil Air Patrol?"

Point four: I think you are in the minority on the CSU, but nonetheless NHQ has killed it, for reasons that escape me. It looked more like an old TSA uniform to me than the silly "low-light/distance" confusion invoked.

Point five: Why be so dogmatic about the colours white and grey? There are blue aviator shirts of a completely different cut and shade than the AF. There are black and blue aviator uniform trousers that have nothing to do with the AF. Darker colours in general tend to be more "slimming."

Quote from: CyBorg on July 12, 2010, 03:59:23 PM
Point one: To me, and some others, it looks more like a mall cop than anything to do with aviation.

Mall cops have their own tv show.  How about us?

Quote from: RiverAux on July 12, 2010, 05:05:38 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on July 12, 2010, 03:59:23 PM
Point one: To me, and some others, it looks more like a mall cop than anything to do with aviation.

Mall cops have their own tv show.  How about us?

At least mall cops have a more uniform uniform.