Want to help the wear of USAF uniforms by those out of spec? Stop selling huge pants.
One could well ask why 43"-47" waist CAP-ABU pants exist at all for a USAF-style uniform, but we all know the answer.
For those scoring at home, the most you can weigh in CAP and still wear the ABUs is 279Lbs (+ 3 for clothes),
at at that weight you have to be 6' 8' tall.
The average height for a male in the US is 5' 9", so that's 208 max, and even at max you're not going to to wear size 47 pants.
VG sells size >60"< inch waist blues trousers. Why??
This is why members just keep sizing up, and you see pics of folks in a jacket that is ready to pop, but pants are fine.
Make it hard to violate the regs and less people will.
Good points but why should VG care about how or whether our members follow our own rules? Not their problem methinks.
Here in CAWG we still have about 80% of the ABUs that the USAF gave us - as they are in sizes no member can actually wear.
Quote from: vorteks on January 16, 2019, 08:48:05 PM
Good points but why should VG care about how or whether our members follow our own rules? Not their problem methinks.
VG doesn care, but CAP, Inc. is supposed to at least.
That goes to who decides >what< VG vends in CAP's name. Whomever that is either isn't paying attention to the issue or
there isn't a person.
If these are legit spec pants, I don't know why they exist at all, if they are NOS from the CSU days, it's understandable
why they exist, but CAP, inc should still do something about them being sold, as it's part and parcel of the problem.
Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 16, 2019, 09:18:15 PM
Here in CAWG we still have about 80% of the ABUs that the USAF gave us - as they are in sizes no member can actually wear.
We have a similar issue in COWG, just not 80%, maybe 40%.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2019, 09:30:18 PM
Quote from: vorteks on January 16, 2019, 08:48:05 PM
Good points but why should VG care about how or whether our members follow our own rules? Not their problem methinks.
VG doesn care, but CAP, Inc. is supposed to at least.
That goes to who decides >what< VG vends in CAP's name. Whomever that is either isn't paying attention to the issue or
there isn't a person.
If these are legit spec pants, I don't know why they exist at all, if they are NOS from the CSU days, it's understandable
why they exist, but CAP, inc should still do something about them being sold, as it's part and parcel of the problem.
copy that and agreed
Hey at least you guys got some of those uniforms. We saw none.
Quote from: NIN on January 16, 2019, 10:59:44 PM
Hey at least you guys got some of those uniforms. We saw none.
You didn't miss much. Most of it was either maternity uniforms or in sizes nobody in H/W spec could actually use. And as far as the usable stuff went - the reason they were giving it away instead of selling it was that there were no matching sets left. I was able to get two coats - but I had to find my own pants (and hat) on Ebay.
I think the core value of Integrity means that you don't need NHQ or Vanguard to tell you NOT to wear a uniform you're not supposed to wear.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2019, 08:29:31 PM
Want to help the wear of USAF uniforms by those out of spec? Stop selling huge pants.
One could well ask why 43"-47" waist CAP-ABU pants exist at all for a USAF-style uniform, but we all know the answer.
For those scoring at home, the most you can weigh in CAP and still wear the ABUs is 279Lbs (+ 3 for clothes),
at at that weight you have to be 6' 8' tall.
The average height for a male in the US is 5' 9", so that's 208 max, and even at max you're not going to to wear size 47 pants.
VG sells size >60"< inch waist blues trousers. Why??
This is why members just keep sizing up, and you see pics of folks in a jacket that is ready to pop, but pants are fine.
Make it hard to violate the regs and less people will.
AAFES sells the "Extra Large" uniforms at the Military Clothing Sales. You want them to stop too?
When I was active-duty Army, there were some pretty out-of-weight-regs folks running around in uniforms. PT waivers for injury were largely responsible, and apparently not that rare. Moreover, the "tape test" that you had to pass if you were numerically overweight was intended to allow hugely muscled troops to avoid weight restrictions, but they were preposterous, because it was based on a ratio of waist to neck, disregarding the fact that sometimes overweight people have...well, overweight necks.
Quote from: PHall on January 17, 2019, 05:10:29 PM
AAFES sells the "Extra Large" uniforms at the Military Clothing Sales. You want them to stop too?
To CAP members? Yes.
And since the average member has no access to AAFES, largely (heh, see what I did there?) irrelevant.
For better or worse, VG is still the primary source for clothing for most members. There's no reason
they should be selling size 60 waist blues pants. There's literally no reason for those to even
exist.
Quote from: hfriday on January 17, 2019, 05:21:50 PM
When I was active-duty Army, there were some pretty out-of-weight-regs folks running around in uniforms. PT waivers for injury were largely responsible, and apparently not that rare. Moreover, the "tape test" that you had to pass if you were numerically overweight was intended to allow hugely muscled troops to avoid weight restrictions, but they were preposterous, because it was based on a ratio of waist to neck, disregarding the fact that sometimes overweight people have...well, overweight necks.
The difference here is the military >has< waivers, CAP does not, and further, even if you're too fat to be
retained, you still have to have clothes to wear while you're getting separated, so it's understandable to an extent
that these sizes are available, to the military.
Not for CAP.
Fair point. I was mostly posting in response to the earlier question about whether AAFES should also dispatch such sizes.
Quote from: Fester on January 17, 2019, 06:46:13 AM
I think the core value of Integrity means that you don't need NHQ or Vanguard to tell you NOT to wear a uniform you're not supposed to wear.
You've noticed that doesn't always work right?
^^ To be fair to the members, it's not >just< about integrity, it's also about the lack of leadership
and mentorship.
Many members just do what they are told, or emulate example, with no experience to guide them.
In the real world, if you need pants, you find them in your size, there's no rules about which ones you
can wear.
An excited member goes to buy a uniform, finds his size, and plunks his credit card down with a smile,
completely unaware there's an issue, and if >his< CC is wearing a uniform he shouldn't, there's nothing to emulate.
It should be:
"Hey boss, I went to that website you sent me to for pants, but they don't have my size. What gives?"
"That's because you're looking at the wrong ones, you can't wear the dark blue, you need to be in the gray."
"? Why?"
"Explain, explain, etc."
It just goes to the show that the rhetoric about proper wear is mostly that, with no real command imperative to actually
fix things.
Heck, VG should have gating on the selection before you can even shop at all "enter your height, weight, and measurements here",
then only open the items a member is eligible to wear.
Does that fix everything? No. But it would sure help a ton for those not intentionally ignoring the rules.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2019, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: PHall on January 17, 2019, 05:10:29 PM
AAFES sells the "Extra Large" uniforms at the Military Clothing Sales. You want them to stop too?
To CAP members? Yes.
And since the average member has no access to AAFES, largely (heh, see what I did there?) irrelevant.
For better or worse, VG is still the primary source for clothing for most members. There's no reason
they should be selling size 60 waist blues pants. There's literally no reason for those to even exist.
They're likely left over from the CSU debacle.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2019, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: PHall on January 17, 2019, 05:10:29 PM
AAFES sells the "Extra Large" uniforms at the Military Clothing Sales. You want them to stop too?
To CAP members? Yes.
And since the average member has no access to AAFES, largely (heh, see what I did there?) irrelevant.
For better or worse, VG is still the primary source for clothing for most members. There's no reason
they should be selling size 60 waist blues pants. There's literally no reason for those to even exist.
While I agree that it's unlikely...what about cadets? Possible, correct?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2019, 06:19:47 PM
^^ To be fair to the members, it's not >just< about integrity, it's also about the lack of leadership
and mentorship.
This. The first time I took command of a Squadron, I showed up to a meeting soon after in the CFU. One of our members, who I'd assumed met the ht/wt requirements because he was fairly tall, asked what uniform that was.
Me: It's the CFU. Any SM can wear it, and it's specifically an option for SMs who don't meet grooming or ht/wt standards.
Them: Ht/wt standards?
Me: Yeah, it's in a chart in 39-1...[explains and shows member the chart]
Them: Why didn't anyone mention that to me during my Level 1? I'm way out of that.
Within 2 weeks they had a CFU and wore it proudly from then on. My [brief] experience has been that if you tell your members things respectfully and set expectations early on, they're pretty willing to meet them. Unfortunately we have a lot of people in leadership roles who avoid setting those expectations because they're afraid to "rock the boat," even if it'd be beneficial for their personnel.
Quote from: vorteks on January 17, 2019, 06:05:56 PM
Quote from: Fester on January 17, 2019, 06:46:13 AM
I think the core value of Integrity means that you don't need NHQ or Vanguard to tell you NOT to wear a uniform you're not supposed to wear.
You've noticed that doesn't always work right?
I have. And that's quite sad considering that weight restrictions only apply to members who are of adult age.
Quote from: 68w20 on January 18, 2019, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2019, 06:19:47 PM
^^ To be fair to the members, it's not >just< about integrity, it's also about the lack of leadership
and mentorship.
This. The first time I took command of a Squadron, I showed up to a meeting soon after in the CFU. One of our members, who I'd assumed met the ht/wt requirements because he was fairly tall, asked what uniform that was.
Me: It's the CFU. Any SM can wear it, and it's specifically an option for SMs who don't meet grooming or ht/wt standards.
Them: Ht/wt standards?
Me: Yeah, it's in a chart in 39-1...[explains and shows member the chart]
Them: Why didn't anyone mention that to me during my Level 1? I'm way out of that.
Within 2 weeks they had a CFU and wore it proudly from then on. My [brief] experience has been that if you tell your members things respectfully and set expectations early on, they're pretty willing to meet them. Unfortunately we have a lot of people in leadership roles who avoid setting those expectations because they're afraid to "rock the boat," even if it'd be beneficial for their personnel.
Granted, it's been a year since I took Level 1, but I'm fairly certain that it IS mentioned in Level 1.
I certainly mention it when doing Summary Conversations.
Sent using Tapatalk
I always mention it during Summary Conversations. I explain all the different uniforms and who is or isn't allowed to wear them. I would love to wear the blues and the ABUs, but I do not meet the standards. I am content to wear what I am able to, but wish we had a better option for our dress version. Kicking the dead horse again, we need a hat option that is not a ball cap and maybe a proper style coat / blouse to go with it.
Quote from: Fester on January 18, 2019, 03:42:52 AM
Granted, it's been a year since I took Level 1, but I'm fairly certain that it IS mentioned in Level 1.
Certainly it is, however Level 1 is not consistent.
The low range is "It's done online now, let me know when you finish it." to "ISEEYOURCAPIDCAMEINANDYOUAREAPPROVEDSOWELCOMEABOARD.ANYQUESTIONS?GOOD.IHAVETOGODODRILLSOGETSTARTEDONTHATESPLANAEPOAANDSUIPREPNICETOKNOWYOU."
Mine usually took 30 minutes to an hour. That time pays off 10-fold in not having to repeat yourself,
not to mention properly set expectations.
I agree 100% that VG is an enabler. There was only a handful of times when I was in the Army and Air Force that I didn't have to get taped, and my pants were a large regular, and my blouse was XL regular. There is a slim chance (see what I did there?) that anyone with a waist over 40 makes weight and they would have to be a former basketball player. They care about being our only distributor and they care about taking our money, but they don't give a crap that what they are doing might go against our regulations or violate our core values.
I called VG. They are leftovers from the CSU days. However, they kept them on the website incase a cadet may need them since they do not have to meet weight and grooming. They do not plan on re-ordering when their stock is gone. VG said they still have 3 pairs in that size but if it's a problem they will gladly remove them from the site.
Quote from: sunshine on January 18, 2019, 06:05:09 PM
I called VG. They are leftovers from the CSU days. However, they kept them on the website incase a cadet may need them since they do not have to meet weight and grooming. They do not plan on re-ordering when their stock is gone. VG said they still have 3 pairs in that size but if it's a problem they will gladly remove them from the site.
Great! Tell them NIN directed they be removed.
Cadets are not exempt from grooming standards, even if overweight.
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 18, 2019, 07:01:52 PM
Cadets are not exempt from grooming standards, even if overweight.
True, but how is that relevent to this?
If you're a big 16 or 17 year old, you might be in huge pants with short hair and no beard.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2019, 07:07:47 PM
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 18, 2019, 07:01:52 PM
Cadets are not exempt from grooming standards, even if overweight.
True, but how is that relevent to this?
If you're a big 16 or 17 year old, you might be in huge pants with short hair and no beard.
Um ... go back to the post (which you quoted) stating cadets don't have to meet grooming standards. Someone will read that and think it's true. Especially since it was quoted by Eclipse!
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 18, 2019, 10:19:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2019, 07:07:47 PM
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 18, 2019, 07:01:52 PM
Cadets are not exempt from grooming standards, even if overweight.
True, but how is that relevent to this?
If you're a big 16 or 17 year old, you might be in huge pants with short hair and no beard.
Um ... go back to the post (which you quoted) stating cadets don't have to meet grooming standards. Someone will read that and think it's true. Especially since it was quoted by Eclipse!
Fair point, glossed right over that.
There are far too many cadets either unaware or unconcerned about the changes when they turn 18.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2019, 11:24:00 PM
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 18, 2019, 10:19:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2019, 07:07:47 PM
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 18, 2019, 07:01:52 PM
Cadets are not exempt from grooming standards, even if overweight.
True, but how is that relevent to this?
If you're a big 16 or 17 year old, you might be in huge pants with short hair and no beard.
Um ... go back to the post (which you quoted) stating cadets don't have to meet grooming standards. Someone will read that and think it's true. Especially since it was quoted by Eclipse!
Fair point, glossed right over that.
There are far too many cadets either unaware or unconcerned about the changes when they turn 18.
That also applies to commanders of cadets who turn 18.
Humorous case: a cadet officer, outside the h/w standards, was wearing the aviator shirt/grey pants, was complaining that many seniors did not know how to address him. Seems most seniors haven't seen a >18 yo cadet in corporates before. He was somewhat bemused, as fortunately, none of the seniors tried to take him to task for wearing blue epaulet slides on the aviator shirt.