CAP Talk

Brought up at NB at about 12:40 today. 

Added periods - MIKE

Sort of a Uniform item, but I think that this would essentially be changing the name of the organization without actually doing it, which is why I put it in the Lobby instead. 

Well, the NB approved this proposal with almost no opposition to change the BDU name tape.  Lets hope the AF doesn't approve it (since it would go on the AF uniform).

Great. Make the name tapes even longer. They barely fit over the pocket now

Someone at the NB asked if they would even fit over the pockets on small cadet uniforms.  No real response was given. 

As I've said in the other thread... There is going to be problems getting it to fit between the pocket edges if they don't downsize the font some.

I don't understand why we need to have U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL and flag patches on our uniforms when 99.99 % of our membership will not be wearing the uniform OCONUS... And the few overseas units will be on U.S. military installations for the most part.

Don't most of our letterheads etc... Already say U.S. Air Force Auxiliary on them somewhere, or has that been changed and I didn't notice... If it didn't change on me U.S. Civil Air Patrol would be somewhat redundant redundant.

Why not just drop Civil Air Patrol all together, since the name seems to be popular with other nations.  USAF AUXILIARY anyone?  >:D

Saw the presentation and groaned.....we do not need yet another uniform item and besides we have been mandated to wear the reverse American flag on the BDU.  Wouldn't the American flag on the BDU suffice for the identification of the Civil Air Patrol which is from the U.S.?

TP mentioned using it in press releases as well, but I don't think the actual motion that was approved applied to anything other than BDU tapes.  Lets see if we get a mandate to start using that on web pages, press releases, etc.

Dumb idea, but it will fit.

I already have tapes that say "U.S. AIR FORCE AUXILIARY".
Did it just to see if it would fit, and it does.  The font gets just gets thinner.

Adding just "U.S." wouldn't be a problem. Other than the PITA of doing it.

TP also stated that they would be scaled to fit if it would be needed.  They way he put it made remote sense.  Not because we're going to be OCONUS, but because it would match the rest of the branches, i.e. U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, etc.

And what... this set's us apart from all the other Civil Air Patrol's out there?

Cause ya know, I'd hate to get confused with the Canadian and Mexican Civil Air Patrol's.  ;D

 This should eliminate the present confusion that the press, state and local government have  that CAP is a state based organization, e.g. Iowa Civil Air Patrol, New York Civil Air Patrol, etc. 

USAF Aux would have been nice but Congress eliminated that option in Oct of 2000 with changes to Title 10.

Quote from: mlcurtis69 on March 03, 2007, 09:00:56 PM
And what... this set's us apart from all the other Civil Air Patrol's out there?

Cause ya know, I'd hate to get confused with the Canadian and Mexican Civil Air Patrol's.  ;D

There actually is another Civil Air Patrol out there.  AUSCAP (http://www.auscap.org.au/).

Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on March 03, 2007, 09:22:43 PM
This should eliminate the present confusion that the press, state and local government have  that CAP is a state based organization, e.g. Iowa Civil Air Patrol, New York Civil Air Patrol, etc. 
USAF Aux would have been nice but Congress eliminated that option in Oct of 2000 with changes to Title 10.

I guess in that case, I concede to the logic.  Yes, USAF AUX would be nice.

I just hope we can settle on all the details and get down to doing what we're suppose to be doing.

The Problem with this proposal is that, unlike the U.S. Air Force or U.S. Army, the name of this organization is "Civil Air Patrol", not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol".  It'd take a change of federal law to change the name.

Thats my main problem.... We're NOT the U.S. Civil Air Patrol.

Quote from: Matt on March 03, 2007, 08:55:49 PM
TP also stated that they would be scaled to fit if it would be needed.  They way he put it made remote sense.  Not because we're going to be OCONUS, but because it would match the rest of the branches, i.e. U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, etc.

Yeah but we're not another branch!!! Here's why you don't use is on press releases, cause right now it says:
Civil Air Patrol
US Air Force Auxiliary

Would you prefer to cut any mention of the Air Force or our role as their auxiliary & just say: "US Civil Air Patrol"? That seems like exactly the wrong thing to do. Who think this stupid crap up?

The other thing, and the reason we cannot just put USAF Aux on our tapes or something along those lines, is USAFAuxiliary isn't our official name. CAP is our name as established by congress, & we are designated the Auxiliary of the Air Force (not the Air Force Auxiliary). Congress alone, not even the Air Force & certainly not the national board, has the power to allow us to 'do business as' any alternative name. In other words, this is real stupid & not entirely legal.

Dennis

t's perfectly legal.  Under Title 36 USC 40302 et. seq. we are a corporation and can do all things (except issue stock) that a corporation can do.  D/B/A, trade names, etc. is one thing corporations do. (vested rights).

After all we are not the United States Air Force Auxiliary and for years we called ourselves that. 

As for who thinks up these stupid ideas...I did   ;D...after much confusion about our status as a federal entity versus a state club.

Nick

Much of which can probably be traced back to the misuse of terms like Title 36 and Title 10 missions in your state. 

By the way, the NB didn't vote to change the name or vote to make US Civil Air Patrol a d/b/a term, they just voted to put it on BDU name tapes. 

Why only BDU name tapes?  If we're going to do it, why not all the way?

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 03, 2007, 09:28:40 PM
There actually is another Civil Air Patrol out there.  AUSCAP (http://www.auscap.org.au/).

Good thing we got that changed, then.  Don't want to get mixed up and confused next time we are working with the Australian CAP.

Seriously...there was no real mentioned reason for this?  Why do I have a feeling it was Vanguard's idea?   :o

Quote from: JC004 on March 03, 2007, 11:13:18 PM
Seriously...there was no real mentioned reason for this?  Why do I have a feeling it was Vanguard's idea?   :o

It sure sounded like it was Maj Gen Pineda's idea...

You know, we might have seen this coming.  The new command patch has Civil Air Patrol then US in small letters.  I never even thought of looking at it as essentially renaming us to US Civil Air Patrol.  Thought it was a reference to the overseas patch. 

However that is a bit different than this change. 

Maybe it's a secret plot and we're gonna invade Canada or something.  Is the General buying these? 'cuz I'm not real happy with Vanguard and the whole 7 bucks in shipping gets on my nerves.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 03, 2007, 11:18:41 PM
You know, we might have seen this coming.  The new command patch has Civil Air Patrol then US in small letters.  I never even thought of looking at it as essentially renaming us to US Civil Air Patrol.  Thought it was a reference to the overseas patch. 

However that is a bit different than this change. 

Good catch on the patch, you may be right.

Quote from: mlcurtis69 on March 03, 2007, 09:00:56 PM
And what... this set's us apart from all the other Civil Air Patrol's out there?

Cause ya know, I'd hate to get confused with the Canadian and Mexican Civil Air Patrol's.  ;D

Or worse, the Guatamalan Civil Air Patrol  ;)

The Army Brigade of the ACA recently changed their branch tapes from "ARMY CADETS" to "U.S. ARMY CADETS"

Quote from: JC004 on March 03, 2007, 11:13:18 PM

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 03, 2007, 09:28:40 PM
There actually is another Civil Air Patrol out there.  AUSCAP (http://www.auscap.org.au/).

Good thing we got that changed, then.  Don't want to get mixed up and confused next time we are working with the Australian CAP.

Oh, we definitely would not.   :P

I just recieved an e-mail from the CAWG/CC (wing email lists), which says

QuoteThe 2007 winter National Board meeting has concluded.  And yes, there are some uniform changes coming.  Look for my complete notes within the week.

RiverAux

Actually while it is a d/b/a,  CAP owns the trademark/name.

For the rest of you,  it's not Vanguard.l I told you why and how it came about.     Read the above posts.

75% against this idea with 40 votes in so far.  That is a pretty good-sized sample from this board compared to some other recent polls.  Granted I don't know how representative we are of CAP in general, but that is still a fairly strong repudiation of the idea.   

Quote from: NIN on March 04, 2007, 01:10:11 AM
The Army Brigade of the ACA recently changed their branch tapes from "ARMY CADETS" to "U.S. ARMY CADETS"

At least they've got the space to work with.  They're gonna end up sticking this on two lines or continuing it on the back of the uniform.   ;D  Might fit fine on my uniform but the wee cadets? 

Wait! Idea!  Can't we have an AUX ON/AUX OFF tape instead?!  Kidding...don't hurt me.  ::hides::

Coming soon:  Scrolling Marque branch tapes.  ;D

QuoteThis should eliminate the present confusion that the press, state and local government have  that CAP is a state based organization, e.g. Iowa Civil Air Patrol, New York Civil Air Patrol, etc. 

Funny, the Minnesota National Guard is a state-based organization, funded primarily by the federal government, but available for state missions, but liable to be called to federal service.  That is a much more complicated relationship than CAP has with any state, but yet people have wrapped their heads around it. 

We're still going to be calling ourselves with New York Wing of the Civil Air Patrol when talking with folks, not the NY Wing of the US CAP.   So, I don't think this will eliminate any minimum amount of confusion that might be out there.

Maybe the long term plan is to eliminate the association of Wings with states.  i.e., no more New York Wing.  Maybe be the 3rd Wing of the US Civil Air Patrol.  That would fit in with the elimination of Wing patches. 

Quote from: NIN on March 04, 2007, 01:10:11 AM
The Army Brigade of the ACA recently changed their branch tapes from "ARMY CADETS" to "U.S. ARMY CADETS"

That makes more sense though, as it is in line with their parent (even if not formally their parent). The equiv for us would be chaning to "USAF Auxiliary"

Doing Business As
Nick, The law difrentiates us from other 501c3 corps is a couple ways. It specifically names the org for one. They've talked about chaing it to "USAF Auxiliary" (like CG Aux) or something along those lines in the past, but the govt response when exploring permission for BDUs has been that it requires congressional action to allow us to dba anything other than "Civil Air Patrol" or appropriate abbreviations thereof. I guess you can make the argument that "US Civil Air Patrol" fits into that, but it's not really appropriate.

It's interesting that Nick brings that up though. We haven't pursued that formal change in the past. A dba is formal paperwork (in this case w/ the fed govt) that says we will legally also be known as whatever. I think it would be interesting for us to file a letter of intent with the commerce dept (?) with copy to teh HASC stating...

"Congress limited the status of CAP as an instermentaility of the US Air Force in 2000, but the side effect was to further strain & distance essential relationships which allow us to serve our parent organization, and which in return provide for accomplishment of Congressionally mandated missions. As such, CAP seeks to dba "US Air Force Auxiliary," and appropriate abbeviations thereof, usage in conccurance with the discression of the SAF, federal law, and AF regulations. Specific example of usage would be to change BDU uniform tapes to read "USAF Auxiliary" similiar to those used by the US Coast Guard Auxiliary. While no specific Congressional action is necessary to authorize this change, it is desirable that endorsement by the committee or enshrinement in the FY08 budget be accomplished and instructions provided to the SAF to establish appropriate rules for usage, and that a copy of such policies be provided the committee. This change in no way changes the status of CAP as an instermentality of the Air Force, nor would it accompany any increased liaibility or legal entanglement. The status of the CAP Corporation as established by Congress in 1948 & changed in 2000 remains unaffected."

Yes that would be very interesting. It targets AF's chief argument for why we can't use that name more fully. It may well cause a discussion of the corporate status & level of independence, and of utilization. That's all real good things.


Couple other items...
1) 53k members X 1.5 tapes X ~$2.50 = $200,000 cost to membership.

2) It was mentioned that this would knock down the usage of Iowa CAP, Texas CAP, etc. That is not the case. Those are always misquotes of someone saying the Texas Wing of Civil Air Patrol responded today, yada yada. It is always the Texas National Guard, but if you look at their tapes, they say US Air Force or US Army, just exactly like federal troops. This change to "US Civil Air Patrol" on the tapes & releases will in no way effect that wing centric thinking & usage. If you wanted to accomplish that, you should do away with the state name in the Wing title. Go back to our first two didgets & make it the 42nd Wing of Civil Air Patrol, which just happens to be geographically the state of Texas. I don't now why they didn't do that in the first place.

Quote from: MIKE on March 04, 2007, 04:02:49 AM
Coming soon:  Scrolling Marque branch tapes.  ;D

That was just FUNNY!!!  I nearly woke the baby laughing at that one!!! :D

Quote from: DNall on March 04, 2007, 05:17:53 AM
2) It was mentioned that this would knock down the usage of Iowa CAP, Texas CAP, etc. That is not the case. Those are always misquotes of someone saying the Texas Wing of Civil Air Patrol responded today, yada yada. It is always the Texas National Guard, but if you look at their tapes, they say US Air Force or US Army, just exactly like federal troops. This change to "US Civil Air Patrol" on the tapes & releases will in no way effect that wing centric thinking & usage. If you wanted to accomplish that, you should do away with the state name in the Wing title. Go back to our first two didgets & make it the 42nd Wing of Civil Air Patrol, which just happens to be geographically the state of Texas. I don't now why they didn't do that in the first place.

Off topic, but is there anywhere you can find out what 'number' your own wing is, if it doesn't say on your patch?  (As is the case for CAWG.)

The first two of your old 5-didget charter number, which is the order the wings were created in. I don't really know what Cali was, but there's plenty others around that could tell you.

Quote from: DNall on March 04, 2007, 05:26:26 AM
The first two of your old 5-didget charter number, which is the order the wings were created in. I don't really know what Cali was, but there's plenty others around that could tell you.

Thanks!

Actually, the digits (note spelling  :) ) were simply derived from an alphabetical listing of the states. The initial list was made prior to 1958, so Alaska and Hawai'i aren't numbered in sequence. Also, I don't remember where DC and PR fit in, either.

After doing a list, it looks like DCWG (actually National Capitol Wing) was in the original list, but I don't have enough info at hand to figure out PR. If someone from any one of these wings (RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY) could give me the old number, I can figure out the rest.

Call me one for conspiracy theories...

Seems a lot of these uniform changes are now happening since the Vangaurd take over...  Anyone ever asks who has some controlling interest/ stake/ profit in that company?  I would really be questioning if it was a publically traded company.

Figure all name tapes are going to go to them..  As well as any other logo/ name type of wear... cha-ching!

Makes you go hmmmmmmmm.....

This is really getting to be a joke and a half... I've been back in CAP for a year now (was a 1970's kind of cadet) and I cannot get over the change after change, corrections to the changes.. blah...  Unless national pays for the change to the name tape, I am going to drop BDU wear all together.  I will go corporate grey all the time, no bling.. just the name tag.. oh yeah and 10 to 1 odds the greys are voted out by mid 08.

It comes down to this.. If the rank and file have no say, but have to pay, then they can vote with their pocketbook to a certain extent.  Go to the lowest common denominator in uniform.. That's the free blues for the cadets  (if you can get them.. my daughter is still waiting and it's been a year) and the cheapest corporate with minimal bling for Senior/ Officers, that would be either the greys with golf shirt or aviator.

No blues for the officers, no BDU's for anyone nada...

In a way this is like taxation without representation.  NB makes these changes to uniforms and my Hip National Bank (ie. wallet) takes a hit. 

Well I for one am really tiring of it and from what I am reading my feelings are not unique..

There are things we VOLUNTEERS can do outside of voting with their feet.  There are things we can do WITHOUT violating or disobeying orders/ policy..  However, it would take a unified effort and I think at this time the rank and file is a bit discombubulated to do anything of the sort..

Wish I was wrong...

In short, refuse to wear the BDU's (everyone) and Blues (seniors), only go with what is mandated and paid for (cadets), and cheapest with no bling (Seniors).  It's by the book, maybe when this happens the Wing Kings et al will wake up and start speaking up.

Quote from: SarDragon on March 04, 2007, 09:54:53 AM
If someone from any one of these wings (RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY) could give me the old number, I can figure out the rest.

Tx is 42

Quote from: 2nd LT Fairchild on March 04, 2007, 10:19:28 AM
Call me one for conspiracy theories...

Seems a lot of these uniform changes are now happening since the Vangaurd take over...  Anyone ever asks who has some controlling interest/ stake/ profit in that company?  I would really be questioning if it was a publically traded company.

You understand the are a primary AAFES supplier for the military, they are a huge company - I don't know of anyone in CAP that is billionaire enough to afford a controlling stake - of which CAP is tiny tiny tiny blip of a contract, which is why we are not a priority. The customer service is bad cause they are mostly a wholsaler & deal with individual customers a very small percentage of the time.

QuoteFigure all name tapes are going to go to them..  As well as any other logo/ name type of wear... cha-ching!

Of all the items you could change, name & branch tapes are the very least likely to go through Vanguard.

QuoteThis is really getting to be a joke and a half... I've been back in CAP for a year now (was a 1970's kind of cadet) and I cannot get over the change after change, corrections to the changes.. blah... 

It is frustrating, but CAP is going through a time of significant change now as we accept the 2000 & pos-9/11 environment & as we further approch the decline of ELT work, and in the wake of a retention catastophe.

QuoteIt comes down to this.. If the rank and file have no say, but have to pay, then they can vote with their pocketbook to a certain extent.  Go to the lowest common denominator in uniform.. That's the free blues for the cadets  (if you can get them.. my daughter is still waiting and it's been a year) and the cheapest corporate with minimal bling for Senior/ Officers, that would be either the greys with golf shirt or aviator.

Free uniforms are not guranteed to any cadet, but they do the best they can. Suppliers have been too short of items to AAFES over the last year so they couldn't suppliy us & AF at the same time. The issue is supposed to be resolved by April. Your Sq CC or CDC sshould be able to see the status of the order on eServices & can check up on it if it hasn't been recieved.

Generally a member needs a service uniform (blues or white over gray or blue), and a utility uniform of BDU or BBDU. Your Sq should specify UOD & rotate between the two as appropriate. Anyway, they won't feel your protest. They aren't efected by teh profit motive at Vanguard, who takes a hit everytime some new item is created or old item is cut. However, most items that can be ordered elsewhere are. Where they make their bang for the buck is on distinctive insignia.

QuoteIn a way this is like taxation without representation.  NB makes these changes to uniforms and my Hip National Bank (ie. wallet) takes a hit. 

I share your frustration, but if people just stop wearing BDUs, NB will assume it's cause they don't like them & they'll cut the uniform. They are actually very responsive to membership on uniform items, that's where all this came from. The problem is they don't listen or take that information in any kind of organized way, rather they hear some snippet that catches their attention for a fleeting second & that becomes the will of the people in their mind. They are good intentioned people that try hard to placate members. They actually think they are making changes that improve morale & rentention, that's why they are making them in fact. They're just out of touch with the field is all.

I've now received fairly reliable information that during a recent missing airplane search, MG Pineda ordered that "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" be used in the press releases associated with that mission -- and not just in the header, but in the body of the text of the release.  So, I think he is looking to actually change the name of the organization, but just hasn't bothered to do it the right way yet. 

Now, have we even changed our own rules to allow for the use of U.S. Civil Air Patrol?  No, not at all.  See the CAP Constitution:

QuoteARTICLE II
NAME AND STATUS
The name of the Corporation shall be "Civil Air Patrol" and its status is that of the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Corporation may also be referred to as "Civil Air Patrol" or by such other titles as may be approved in the Bylaws.

and

QuoteSECTION 2
NAME AND CORPORATE SEAL
2.1 The name of Civil Air Patrolmay be stated by any of the following:
a. "Civil Air Patrol"
b. "Civil Air Patrol, incorporated under Special Act of Congress approved July 1, 1946, Public Law 476, 79th Congress"
2.2 Each unit, including National Headquarters, shall use a name expressing its designation, the words "Civil Air Patrol" and may also refer to its status as the United States Air Force Auxiliary as set forth in regulations.

Clearly, the use of any name other than Civil Air Patrol needs to be approved in the Constitution and Bylaws. 

Quote from: SarDragon on March 04, 2007, 09:54:53 AM

After doing a list, it looks like DCWG (actually National Capitol Wing) was in the original list, but I don't have enough info at hand to figure out PR. If someone from any one of these wings (RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY) could give me the old number, I can figure out the rest.

WY is 49

Someone said something about ACA Cadets wearing "U.S. Army Cadet" on their uniforms.  According to ACA Instruction 1020.1

QuoteNametapes with "Naval Cadets," "Marine Cadets," or "Army Cadets," must be worn on all utility uniforms, including field jackets, by all ACA personnel, properly affixed per references (c) through (e), as appropriate. Nametapes with "Naval Cadets," properly
affixed per reference (c), must be worn by USNCC personnel on Navy dungarees/utilities, coveralls and Navy utility jackets. The wear of "U.S. Navy," "U.S. Marines," or "U.S. Army" is not authorized, as ACA personnel are not serving as an active or reserve member of the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, or Army while in the ACA uniform..

However, if you go to their web pages for their various subunits, they are calling themselves "U.S. Army Cadet Corps", "U.S. Naval Cadet Corp".  Now, isn't that going a bit too far? 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 04, 2007, 07:23:05 PM
Someone said something about ACA Cadets wearing "U.S. Army Cadet" on their uniforms.  According to ACA Instruction 1020.1

QuoteNametapes with "Naval Cadets," "Marine Cadets," or "Army Cadets," must be worn on all utility uniforms, including field jackets, by all ACA personnel, properly affixed per references (c) through (e), as appropriate. Nametapes with "Naval Cadets," properly
affixed per reference (c), must be worn by USNCC personnel on Navy dungarees/utilities, coveralls and Navy utility jackets. The wear of "U.S. Navy," "U.S. Marines," or "U.S. Army" is not authorized, as ACA personnel are not serving as an active or reserve member of the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, or Army while in the ACA uniform..

However, if you go to their web pages for their various subunits, they are calling themselves "U.S. Army Cadet Corps", "U.S. Naval Cadet Corp".  Now, isn't that going a bit too far? 

I said it.  And perhaps I misspoke: Not everybody is wearing the U.S. Army Cadets nametapes yet. I happen to have a set for my ACUs that were personally handed to me by the HQ company commander enroute to AUSA this past fall.   Maybe I'm unwittingly a "wear tester"  ;D

Lost in all the hootin' and hollerin' about this proposal is this question:

What difference does it make?

Civil Air Patrol ... U.S. Civil Air Patrol ... it's still the same organization.  And we all know that calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

Methinks we're getting worked up over a tiny item.  Your mileage may vary.

Discuss.

Jack

Quote: Lost in all the hootin' and hollerin' about this proposal is this question:

What difference does it make?

Civil Air Patrol ... U.S. Civil Air Patrol ... it's still the same organization.  And we all know that calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

Methinks we're getting worked up over a tiny item.  Your mileage may vary.

Discuss.

Jack
* * * * * *

Colonel Jack -- methinks that the hooting, hollaring, and getting worked up over a tiny item is more of a reaction to the way and by whom this change was presented.

For the record, someone did stand up during the Live Stream and said words to the effect of...

"I know its only $0.75...but members may see it as another expense."

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 04, 2007, 10:15:45 PM
For the record, someone did stand up during the Live Stream and said words to the effect of...

"I know its only $0.75...but members may see it as another expense."

And not just a FINANCIAL expense, but also something that may -to the press and AF- have the effect of distancing ourselves from the AF.
Me thinks two three years down the road all mention of the AF will be gone, our name will be "The Pineda Ranger Patrol" we will be wearing bright pink ACUs and our National Commander will have the Rank of StarFleet Admiral.

I say we set a definitive limit on the Nat. CC term of office, and do whatever we need with Congress and te AF to get our tapes to read 'USAF Aux.'  or something close.  Once that is done, we forget all about uniform/name/public image changes and work on revamping our internal structure, PME and training programs so that we actually live up to the name. 
JMHO

Discuss

Quote from: LtCol White on March 03, 2007, 07:37:08 PM
Great. Make the name tapes even longer. They barely fit over the pocket now

Sure Dave...

Crack on long name tapes to guy named "Kachenmeister!"

At my very first encampment, in 1964, one of our Air Force speakers called us that... The United States Civil Air Patrol.

We just thought he was strange.

Turns out now that he's a prophet.

I guess the flag on the sleeve isn't enough?

Quote from: Psicorp on March 04, 2007, 12:06:23 AM

Quote from: mlcurtis69 on March 03, 2007, 09:00:56 PM
And what... this set's us apart from all the other Civil Air Patrol's out there?

Cause ya know, I'd hate to get confused with the Canadian and Mexican Civil Air Patrol's.  ;D

Or worse, the Guatamalan Civil Air Patrol  ;)

Australia has a Civil Air Patrol.  No kidding.

Quote from: Chappie on March 04, 2007, 10:07:57 PM
Quote: Lost in all the hootin' and hollerin' about this proposal is this question:

What difference does it make?

Civil Air Patrol ... U.S. Civil Air Patrol ... it's still the same organization.  And we all know that calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

Methinks we're getting worked up over a tiny item.  Your mileage may vary.

Discuss.

Jack
* * * * * *

Colonel Jack -- methinks that the hooting, hollaring, and getting worked up over a tiny item is more of a reaction to the way and by whom this change was presented.

I think that if the NB suggested the Sun was going to rise in the East tomorrow there would be people on this board that would jump up and down and raise a stink over it.

----They forgot an important button on the poll.......I Don't Care.  What I wear on my BDU does not make any difference about what job I do or how I do it.

If you really feel so strongly....contact your wing commander and have him suggest to resend it next NB.

Quote from: SarDragon on March 04, 2007, 09:54:53 AM
Actually, the digits (note spelling  :) ) were simply derived from an alphabetical listing of the states. The initial list was made prior to 1958, so Alaska and Hawai'i aren't numbered in sequence. Also, I don't remember where DC and PR fit in, either.

After doing a list, it looks like DCWG (actually National Capitol Wing) was in the original list, but I don't have enough info at hand to figure out PR. If someone from any one of these wings (RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY) could give me the old number, I can figure out the rest.

The REAL old numbers come from the days after World War II.  The original Regions were numbered.  Ohio was "51," or the 1st Wing organized in the 5th Region.  Michigan was 62, and Wisconsin, I think, was 63.  Some of the wings still have these original numbers on their patches.

Okay, the other thing I haven't figured out is a small logic flaw here....  IF we're going to put it on BDU name tapes (I assume both BDU and BBDU -- don't recall if a distinction was made in the resolution), should we also be changing it on the nametags for the service dress, corporate uniform, etc? 

The only reason not to that I can come up with is that the BDU uniform is the only one we have that doesn't have US Air Force Auxiliary on the name badge or otherwise have U.S. somewhere on it.  In fact, the BDU is the uniform we have that currently has the LEAST obvious affiliation with the US military. 

How about this as an alternative for the BDU that is in the spirit of our name badges:

A double-decker name tape would look a bit odd, but at least would be consistent and accurate (well at least as accurate as putting it on the name badges). 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 04, 2007, 10:51:57 PM

Quote from: LtCol White on March 03, 2007, 07:37:08 PM
Great. Make the name tapes even longer. They barely fit over the pocket now

Sure Dave...

Crack on long name tapes to guy named "Kachenmeister!"

Sorry, Was referring to the fact that the current CAP strip barely fits but I guess you have the same prob with your name strip. At least your name strip can't be helped.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 04, 2007, 11:02:45 PM
I think that if the NB suggested the Sun was going to rise in the East tomorrow there would be people on this board that would jump up and down and raise a stink over it.

----They forgot an important button on the poll.......I Don't Care.  What I wear on my BDU does not make any difference about what job I do or how I do it.

If you really feel so strongly....contact your wing commander and have him suggest to resend it next NB.

It's not this change in and of itself.  It's the culmination of changes, particularly without discussion or membership input.  It's the straw that broke the camel's back.  This particular issue, like the TPU, is representative of much of what we've seen over the last year or so from NHQ - it's a solution in search of a problem.

There is no National focus on those missions you elude to.  And the displeasure with the "leadership" will be escalated by this member.

You would think that something like this could at least have been put on the public agenda.  It was in the Uniform Committee report, which should have been part of the agenda.  So essentially it was sprung on people with no warning at the meeting itself. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 04, 2007, 11:02:45 PM
----They forgot an important button on the poll.......I Don't Care.  What I wear on my BDU does not make any difference about what job I do or how I do it.

The perception of professionalism drawn from professional appearance & franklly a degree of confusion with the military by outsiders does dramatically effect what missions you are allowed to do, not to mention the duties you are assigned on those missions. Lokking like a clown doesn't help.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 04, 2007, 02:09:43 PM
I've now received fairly reliable information that during a recent missing airplane search, MG Pineda ordered that "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" be used in the press releases associated with that mission -- and not just in the header, but in the body of the text of the release.  So, I think he is looking to actually change the name of the organization, but just hasn't bothered to do it the right way yet. 

Now, have we even changed our own rules to allow for the use of U.S. Civil Air Patrol?  No, not at all.  See the CAP Constitution:

QuoteARTICLE II
NAME AND STATUS
The name of the Corporation shall be "Civil Air Patrol" and its status is that of the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Corporation may also be referred to as "Civil Air Patrol" or by such other titles as may be approved in the Bylaws.

and

QuoteSECTION 2
NAME AND CORPORATE SEAL
2.1 The name of Civil Air Patrolmay be stated by any of the following:
a. "Civil Air Patrol"
b. "Civil Air Patrol, incorporated under Special Act of Congress approved July 1, 1946, Public Law 476, 79th Congress"
2.2 Each unit, including National Headquarters, shall use a name expressing its designation, the words "Civil Air Patrol" and may also refer to its status as the United States Air Force Auxiliary as set forth in regulations.

Clearly, the use of any name other than Civil Air Patrol needs to be approved in the Constitution and Bylaws. 

You really think Little Fidel is going to let the RULES get in his way???

Yadda-yadda-yadda. . . .

I think that both we, and the NB should concentrate on things that add value to our organization, and our membership experience.
:-[

Quote from: JTodd on March 04, 2007, 06:19:33 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on March 04, 2007, 09:54:53 AM

After doing a list, it looks like DCWG (actually National Capitol Wing) was in the original list, but I don't have enough info at hand to figure out PR. If someone from any one of these wings (RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY) could give me the old number, I can figure out the rest.

WY is 49

WA = 46

Quoting RiverAux:

"You would think that something like this could at least have been put on the public agenda.  It was in the Uniform Committee report, which should have been part of the agenda.  So essentially it was sprung on people with no warning at the meeting itself."

Okay, I'm beginning to understand some of the reactions to this proposal.  Maybe I operate on the wrong track, or maybe I just want to play Devil's Advocate, or maybe I really am a smartass like people say I am ... but I have to ask this question.

Why should the membership have any say in these issues?

We never had any say in them before.  During World War II, we wore what the Army Air Corps told us to wear.  I would be surprised to learn that 100% of CAP members then liked the scarlet shoulder straps and sleeve braid.  Most probably didn't even think about it, but if they did, they can't all have liked it.  When we transitioned to the blues after the AF became a service, CAP had to wear that ridiculous "Coca-Cola" style patch over the right breast pocket for a long time.  You'd think the membership would've hollered about that ... but they weren't even asked.  The berry boards were forced upon us because of what one general officer did -- nobody asked us if we wanted to wear berry boards, we were simply told to wear them or give up the AF uniform entirely. 

I'm really not trying to start an argument, and I do understand those who say there have been WAY too many uniform changes in the past two years.  Maybe -- just maybe -- CAP is trying to find its own identity in the post-9/11 world.  We have already been told that we're only the AF Auxiliary when they need us to be ... I think we're trying to find our own identity when we're NOT the AF Auxiliary.  That, to some in the national leadership, means having a uniform that looks somewhat like our parent Big Blue, but not enough like it to make them nervous that someone out there with bad eyesight might actually think old, overweight me really IS an Air Force lieutenant colonel.

I join with you who say there's far too much emphasis on uniforms and changes.  I just think the reactions of some of us go that far -- or even farther -- in the opposite direction.  We need a sense of balance.  If we're not getting that from our leadership, just remember ... General Pineda has about a year left in his term.  Then ... we shall see what we shall see.

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on March 05, 2007, 03:44:17 AM
Why should the membership have any say in these issues?

Simple...because we are a volunteer organization and members pay dues to participate.  The "leadership" of the organization has seemingly taken it upon themselves to make significant changes in the direction of the organization, either actively or passively.  They have done so without presenting this change to the membership (in essence, we are their shareholders).  These changes appear to take us down a road to becoming a much different organization than the one I and many others joined.

The focus on uniforms, letterhead, etc. seem to be much more the result of someone's ego and need for a legacy than it is for the good of the organization.  Hell, even the "real" military solicits feedback on uniform changes from it's members prior to implementing a change.  But most importantly, real issues of the organization are neglected as a result of this silly sideshow. 

I think it is more than proper for meeting agendas and any proposals that are to be voted on made public before the meeting so that CAP members can let their leaders, at the appropriate level, aware of their thoughts on the matter.  Having 60K people look over a proposal for potential flaws is better than 50-75. 

Over most matters such input probably isn't really necessary, but practically changing the name of the organization certainly seems to be as if something that every member should have some say in. 

I think what people are looking for is more of an independent joint CAP & AF uniform board that isn't wrapped up in all the other stupidity of our governance structure. And a wear-test process that gives people the chance to see & comment on things prior to it being thrust upon them. No one is saying memebrship should vote on uniform changes, but the chance to be heard & have ideas considered on merit is all that's being asked.

I think the NB needs to ask this question...

Why has CAP bled more members than having members joining in the last oh... 6-7 years?

Sure part of it was the post 9-11 lemmee join and be a part, then dropped out once the fever went away..

But a big part is what is advertised.  We advertise what CAP USED to be, not what it has become. Expectations based on the recruiting materials do not reflect the reality.  Now add in this constant majoring on the minors of TPUs, BDU's Name Tapes, Not being able to get quality uniforms in a timely manner, (Bling too).  The cease and desist of suppliers who do turn out a good product in a quick time, etc...

I'll leave the rest to you to think about and dwell on.

Quote from: 2nd LT Fairchild on March 05, 2007, 11:20:16 AM
But a big part is what is advertised.  We advertise what CAP USED to be, not what it has become. Expectations based on the recruiting materials do not reflect the reality.

I've thought that often.  But the question is...can we be what we advertise if things are managed properly?

I also agree about suppliers.  I think it's part of a bigger issue...making things complicated when we should be making things as simple and stream-lined as possible whenever we can.  Having so many uniforms and stuff doesn't help.  It confuses and frustrates new volunteers to say that there are 14,000 options and rules.  They would feel much better about the organization if we were able to say "you can do it this way, or you can do it that way."  Referring someone to the already confusing uniform manual (or other regulation), and adding numerous changes on top is discouraging and frustrating.  The National Board's constant changes without a clear direction or purpose is going to cause more trouble than anything. 

Call it "Civil Air Patrol" or "US Civil Air Patrol," but be consistent and show your intent.

Here's my 2 cents.  Back in the '70's WIWAC,  you either said "Civil Air Patrol"  or C. A. P. (pronounced See-A-Pee).  To say CAP, as in what you wear on your head, would be a hanging offense if you had been in the organization more than an hour.   

As Child Abuse Prevention organizations have become more popular over the recent years, many people who are not familiar with our organization see the acronym CAP and think Child Abuse Prevention, and I have actually had a couple of local people who have called me interested in joining the Mississippi Child Abuse Prevention Society because they got my name in a newspaper article that talked about MSCAP (reporters error, not mine), and were suprised to find out that we weren't the same organization.

I see this as part of the new branding iniative to help un-muddy the waters in acronym land, and as Nick stated to emphasize our national role.  I'm not real happy about buying and having to put new tapes on my BDU's, my wifes BDU's, and my cadet daughter's BDU's, as I know only too well how long it takes and what it will cost to have that many uniforms changed, but if it clears the confusion and brings more recognition to the organization, I guess I can live with it.

Good point Al. 

Frankly, my big problem isn't with this cosmetic change.  I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.

We simply are not made privvy to the Natl. Commander's vision for our organization.  Is this change simply cosmetic, or is it to reinforce the "One CAP" concept that he identified when wing patches (sort of) went away?  Is it to clarify our mission and role?  Or is it a part of a move toward a more independent CAP, perhaps on a USCG model, where we would be under DHS unless called to USAF service?

I'd sure like to know.  Right now I feel like a mushroom.

Frankly, I just think we're tilting at windmills with some of this stuff.

Why do uniform items have to take up massive amounts of the agenda each time there is an NEC or NB meeting?  Why do we need a badge for every specialty track? (and those heinous enamelled badges, anyway..BLECH)  Why do we need to keep adding badges 3 times a year?

There was a big push years back for uniform changes, and if I remember right, a moratorium was placed upon them in the form of a uniform board that met only once a year (mind you, this might have been the AF and not us.. I honestly do not recall correctly).  And the massive "constantly chasing uniform items" noise dropped off considerably.  Why can't we do that again?

Unless we're here to make sure that people have to constantly go back to Vanguard to buy stuff (and suffer thru their non-existent customer service)

Quote from: NIN on March 05, 2007, 03:06:44 PM
Frankly, I just think we're tilting at windmills with some of this stuff.

Why do uniform items have to take up massive amounts of the agenda each time there is an NEC or NB meeting?  Why do we need a badge for every specialty track? (and those heinous enamelled badges, anyway..BLECH)  Why do we need to keep adding badges 3 times a year?

It was 45mins out of a three day conference & several hours of agenda over two days. Yeah they make too makny changes & do so in a rash fashion w/o field testing ideas first or making the process at least appear accessible, and since we pay for everything it's the membership that takes a hit, but the national organization isn't wasting the majority of their time on this.

QuoteThere was a big push years back for uniform changes, and if I remember right, a moratorium was placed upon them in the form of a uniform board that met only once a year (mind you, this might have been the AF and not us.. I honestly do not recall correctly).  And the massive "constantly chasing uniform items" noise dropped off considerably.  Why can't we do that again?

That was AETC saying quit wasitng our CC's time with stupid crap, it can be considered in our regular board w/ all the other AF items & recommended or not for approval at that time, otherwise unless it's an emergency or in some way very pressing, spend your time better developing your proposals rather than tossing up this thrown together on the fly crap w/ no justification statements.

Several changes were shot down to the AF uniforms at the begining of Pineda's term, so now we're in this round of corporate side changes w/ no restrictions on how often they get heard. So yeah that's probably a good strategy that uniform items can only be addressed once every two years unless there are extenuating circumstances with strong justification & the board votes both to hear the individual issue early & to approve or disapptrove it.

As a side note, I think they're rolling hard on this stuff trying to fix retention, and obviously this isn't the place they need to spend their time.

Quote from: DNall on March 05, 2007, 04:40:48 PM
As a side note, I think they're rolling hard on this stuff trying to fix retention, and obviously this isn't the place they need to spend their time.

If this is the case, and it may well be, then they are rushing ahead with all this  without understanding the problem. 

AFAIK, there was no outcry for a change to the MAJCOM patch, there was no outcry for the TPU, there was no outcry for new name tapes, there was no outcry to change the vinyl on the aircraft, etc.   None of these addresses retention.  As a matter of fact, all this foolishness is more likely to add to retention issues than resolve any. 

Quote from: 2nd LT Fairchild on March 05, 2007, 11:20:16 AM
Sure part of it was the post 9-11 lemmee join and be a part, then dropped out once the fever went away.

They dropped out because 5 years have passed, and we have still not received an HLS mission for the organization as a whole....people came on board to help protect America, and did not see themselves getting that opportunity.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 05, 2007, 02:01:22 PM
Here's my 2 cents.  Back in the '70's WIWAC,  you either said "Civil Air Patrol"  or C. A. P. (pronounced See-A-Pee).  To say CAP, as in what you wear on your head, would be a hanging offense if you had been in the organization more than an hour.   

Beg to differ, but WIWAC in the early 70's, us darn Yankees here in NER said "CAP" (as in flight cap) referring to the organization all the time.

By the way, even then there were other 'CAP' groups....a lot of urban areas had Community Action Programs.

Just for the record, I think "US CAP" is absurd.

An acquaintance of mine affiliated with the old Confederate Air Force refers to us as the Confederate Air Patrol since we adopted the grey colors on our uniforms.

Needed:  Return the green utilities (for the non-combat status).
                Standard CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes on 'em.

My main question is:  WHY are these items never on the agenda?   

The items likely to cause the most controversey never appear on the agenda before the NB meetings.  They just pop up during the meeting and get rail-roaded through into a vote.

What about giving the voting members of the NB time to think about the issues and not put them on the spot?  What about, for the better NB members, give them time to ask their CAP colleagues and subordinates what they think on certain issues? 

Are these items not thought-of in time to make the agenda, or were they not put on there for a reason?

Quote from: Pylon on March 05, 2007, 06:55:47 PM
My main question is:  WHY are these items never on the agenda?   

The items likely to cause the most controversey never appear on the agenda before the NB meetings.  They just pop up during the meeting and get rail-roaded through into a vote.

What about giving the voting members of the NB time to think about the issues and not put them on the spot?  What about, for the better NB members, give them time to ask their CAP colleagues and subordinates what they think on certain issues? 

Are these items not thought-of in time to make the agenda, or were they not put on there for a reason?

Excellent question/points.

And why is no else in attendance raising such questions?

Quote from: SKYKING607 on March 05, 2007, 06:24:57 PMNeeded:  Return the green utilities (for the non-combat status).

One problem: Where you going to get them?

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 05, 2007, 07:21:20 PM

Quote from: SKYKING607 on March 05, 2007, 06:24:57 PMNeeded:  Return the green utilities (for the non-combat status).

One problem: Where you going to get them?

Already have them, had them for four years now ;)
I got them at a surplus store.
BTW they don't have any CAP US CAP stuff on them >:D ;D

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 05, 2007, 06:00:14 PM

Quote from: 2nd LT Fairchild on March 05, 2007, 11:20:16 AM
Sure part of it was the post 9-11 lemmee join and be a part, then dropped out once the fever went away.

They dropped out because 5 years have passed, and we have still not received an HLS mission for the organization as a whole....people came on board to help protect America, and did not see themselves getting that opportunity.

You hit the nail right on the head! Even in NYC we don't have any Homeland Security missions. We have no proper disaster relief mission training and we have no SAR mission to begin with since we're in a major metropolitan center. All of our non cadet programs personnel have dropped out and recruiting new ones feels like a blatant lie to me. I cannot, with integrity in mind, recruit someone to do "Missions for America" when I know full well that no missions are forthcoming.

Quote from: Pylon on March 05, 2007, 06:55:47 PM
My main question is:  WHY are these items never on the agenda?   

The items likely to cause the most controversey never appear on the agenda before the NB meetings.  They just pop up during the meeting and get rail-roaded through into a vote.

What about giving the voting members of the NB time to think about the issues and not put them on the spot?  What about, for the better NB members, give them time to ask their CAP colleagues and subordinates what they think on certain issues? 

Are these items not thought-of in time to make the agenda, or were they not put on there for a reason?

Even the Air Force submits proposed changes for feedback from the force. This feedback is then used to consider the proposed item along with wear testing and the feasibility (financial) of the item.

Quote from: afgeo4 on March 05, 2007, 07:59:23 PM
Even the Air Force submits proposed changes for feedback from the force. This feedback is then used to consider the proposed item along with wear testing and the feasibility (financial) of the item.

You mean like due diligence or maybe just properly staffing an issue?

OK, back to the OT crapola for a sec or two - I have all the numbers nailed down through 49. The list is alphabetical, excluding AK, HI, and PR. If anyone knows their old numbers, we'll have it all. DCWG is officially National Capitol Wing, and fits in the list.

</OT>

LtCol Horning is in HI, he'd know that one I bet, you can PM him.

Is there support though for knocking off the BS & if we want to go at this one nationwide CAP thing then drop the state names & go by Wg numbers?

Quote from: SarDragon on March 06, 2007, 03:00:39 AM
OK, back to the OT crapola for a sec or two - I have all the numbers nailed down through 49. The list is alphabetical, excluding AK, HI, and PR. If anyone knows their old numbers, we'll have it all. DCWG is officially National Capitol Wing, and fits in the list.

Alaska's old was 50. Was in a unit up there back in the '90's.

Quote from: DNall on March 06, 2007, 03:44:12 AM
Is there support though for knocking off the BS & if we want to go at this one nationwide CAP thing then drop the state names & go by Wg numbers?

I like the idea, but wouldn't that get somewhat confusing after a while?  (If you've got multiple units working together.)

Quote from: DNall on March 06, 2007, 03:44:12 AM
LtCol Horning is in HI, he'd know that one I bet, you can PM him.

Yes, Lt Col Horning is.  Dave knows where I am, and I have no doubt that he knows how to contact me.

If this meant we could lose the flag patch, I'd be OK with that.  Problem is we'll be stuck with both.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 06, 2007, 04:01:30 AM

Alaska's old was 50.

I find that hard to believe.  Their wing patch says "49". 

Edit:  Ugh...just looked at some documentation from the wing and it had "51XXX".  Dang odd-ball states.  Last in the Union!  Yea! :-\

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 06, 2007, 04:03:04 AM
I like the idea, but wouldn't that get somewhat confusing after a while?  (If you've got multiple units working together.)

I really don't care so much if the branch tape has US on it or not, it's the cost & hassle comppunded with not explaining why I have to tax my people once again.

If we accept the assumption that it's about tearing down state/wing barriers to build this vision of a nationwide CAP, which makes sense, then I really think going to numbered wings & mandating Wg patches off uniforms is the way to go versus incurring $200k on members just after we've bottomed out from a retention crisis.

It doesn't seem that hard to me, state the vision, ask for feedback & engage with membership & leadership to so they take ownership, sell the vision, make smart well thought out moves that people have some warning on.

By the way, I'm not sure that the 200K figure for replacing tapes is figured correctly.  I think that came out as 1 tape per person for everybody in CAP.  While you can figure at least one tape per cadet since most have BDUs, a sizable portion will probably have another on their field jacket. 

On the senior side I'd only estimate that 10-20% wear BDUs, so one tape for them, and again a certain percentage would have a second on their field jacket. 

Too tired to do the math.  Not sure if it would come out to more or less than 200K. 

However, on an individual basis it would probably cost me about $12 to buy the tapes and pay to have them sewn on. 

Quote from: DNall on March 06, 2007, 04:43:43 AM

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 06, 2007, 04:03:04 AM
I like the idea, but wouldn't that get somewhat confusing after a while?  (If you've got multiple units working together.)

I really don't care so much if the branch tape has US on it or not, it's the cost & hassle comppunded with not explaining why I have to tax my people once again.

I was actually referring to the option of referring to wings by their numbers, rather than states.  Not the "U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL" name tapes.

Quote from: DNall on March 05, 2007, 08:03:59 PM

Quote from: afgeo4 on March 05, 2007, 07:59:23 PM
Even the Air Force submits proposed changes for feedback from the force. This feedback is then used to consider the proposed item along with wear testing and the feasibility (financial) of the item.

You mean like due diligence or maybe just properly staffing an issue?

Hey! Don't you get any crazy ideas!  >:D

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 06, 2007, 04:48:20 AM

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 06, 2007, 04:03:04 AM
I like the idea, but wouldn't that get somewhat confusing after a while?  (If you've got multiple units working together.)

I was actually referring to the option of referring to wings by their numbers, rather than states.  Not the "U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL" name tapes.

Yeah what confusion? You'd still be in the same wing w/ the same people in units with the same names. Only dif would be the 42nd CAP Wing rather than Texas Wing. The only people that'll have a problem with it are the ones with a little too much state-pride, which the point of the policy is to break down those barriers.

I personally can live with "US Civil Air Patrol".   I just wish the branch tapes were subdued, like state defense forces, ACA, USNSCC, etc. etc. do, and our rank and patches were subdued too, like the rest of 'em.

US Civil Air PAtrol... gimmie a break!
If they subdue the tapes Id feel better.
If they would just allow USAF Aux OR USAF Auxiliary or US Air Force Aux (would that fit?) I'd feel the best.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 06, 2007, 08:24:42 AM
US Civil Air PAtrol... gimmie a break!
If they subdue the tapes Id feel better.
If they would just allow USAF Aux OR USAF Auxiliary or US Air Force Aux (would that fit?) I'd feel the best.

Heretic!

You speak Blasphemy!

Burn Him!

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 06, 2007, 08:24:42 AM
US Civil Air PAtrol... gimmie a break!
...If they would just allow USAF Aux OR USAF Auxiliary or US Air Force Aux (would that fit?) I'd feel the best.

x2. 

If they're really itching so much to make a change, USAF AUX or USAF AUXILIARY would be best.  I have to believe there would be much less dissent.  Nonetheless, that's not what they did.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 06, 2007, 08:24:42 AM
If they subdue the tapes Id feel better.

I can just hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now!  Just think how many people would complain about the expense if we switched all our patches and insignia to subdued.  And it would have to be all of it.  In some cases, that would mean redesigning patches, because loosing the ability to show off their "bling" isn't going to sit well with members either. 

Then there's always the question, "who's going to pay?"  Guess what.  The cost to redesign everything will be passed on to the member.  Why do we insist on making the price of membership so expensive?  Just to look military?

I think I'm going to just buy one new uniform when I need to have the new tapes on, rather than trying to salvage the other uniforms.  Not going to bother with additional sets unless I need them for an activity.

U.S.Civil Air Patrol looks a lot more official and professional than just Civil Air Patrol.  I think it's a great idea. We are a unified nationwide force established by the federal government. The U.S. in front of the name brings it all together. 

What's the story behind this? Was Iowa pushing this?

Manufacturer of the Green "utes" is still in business.  The "utes" are made for other foreign nations.  They are still produced, let's return to the days of old!

Quote from: SKYKING607 on March 06, 2007, 07:11:31 PM
Manufacturer of the Green "utes" is still in business.  The "utes" are made for other foreign nations.  They are still produced, let's return to the days of old!

Which ones are you talking about? The jungle fatigue (which is basically an OG precursor to the BDU) or are you talking about the two pocket shirt/ four pocket pants variety?

I could go for the jungle fatigue type. There's plenty of pockets for all the stuff I carry while in uniform. Don't like the old Air Force fatigue style, don't like tucking, and really don't like the neck and sleeve measurement fitting.

And the blue tapes on the old jungle fatigue actually looked good.

Quote from: shorning on March 06, 2007, 05:19:20 PM
Then there's always the question, "who's going to pay?"  Guess what.  The cost to redesign everything will be passed on to the member.   Why do we insist on making the price of membership so expensive?  Just to look military?

And that's what a lot of this comes down to...they hit the members (volunteers) in the pocketbook with a seemingly endless list of changes (non of which seem to be asked for by the members). 

But an even harder pill for many to swallow is having to make such changes when they seemingly move us to a position of less military association.

Quote from: A.Member on March 06, 2007, 08:10:45 PM

Quote from: shorning on March 06, 2007, 05:19:20 PM
Then there's always the question, "who's going to pay?"  Guess what.  The cost to redesign everything will be passed on to the member.   Why do we insist on making the price of membership so expensive?  Just to look military?

And that's what a lot of this comes down to...they hit the members (volunteers) in the pocketbook with a seemingly endless list of changes (non of which seem to be asked for by the members). 

But an even harder pill for many to swallow is having to make such changes when they seemingly move us to a position of less military association.

With just this change...how can that in anyway be considered a move away from the military?

Adding the U.S. to Civil Air Patrol actually makes us more U.S. military.  As I look down on my Left Breast I see the words U.S. Air Force...not just "Air Force".  Every other service all has U.S. on them.

As far as the other changes...again....I can't see them as moveing us away from the military.  The TPU is a more military version of the corporates.  Name single recent change to the uniforms that is move away from the military.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 06, 2007, 09:26:34 PM
With just this change...how can that in anyway be considered a move away from the military?

It doesn't (this particular change is just silly and unnecessary). 

But I wasn't referring to this one change alone.  Nothing occurs in a vaccuum.  It's the culmination of changes.  Examples include change of the MAJCOM to completely remove any reference to "United States Air Force Auxiliary" (even the previous "seal" patch referenced this) and the push with the TPUs (which I believe will be pushed to replace blues altogether).  Then combined these with the removal of USAF AUX from aircraft and vehicles.  Of course, there are also the other silly changes that just seem to be made for no real apparent reason - ex. flag on BDUs.

Opinions differ but I see these as moves that collectively further separate us from USAF while at the same time inflicting further out of pocket expenses on our volunteers. 

QuoteEvery other service all has U.S. on them.

And they are military services, we are are not. 

QuoteThen combined these with the removal of USAF AUX from aircraft and vehicles.

Well, the removal of USAF Aux from the aircraft (which actually still isn't a regulation even though its been speculated on for quite a while), was prompted by the Air Force and wasn't CAP's idea. 

Quote from: LtCol White on March 03, 2007, 07:37:08 PM
Great. Make the name tapes even longer. They barely fit over the pocket now

and the cost of having to purchase the new ones!! :'(

Quote from: RiverAux on March 06, 2007, 11:00:33 PM

QuoteEvery other service all has U.S. on them.

And they are military services, we are are not. 

The statment was that the uniform change was trying to move us away from the military...so you sort of illustrait my point.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 06, 2007, 11:00:33 PM

QuoteThen combined these with the removal of USAF AUX from aircraft and vehicles.

Well, the removal of USAF Aux from the aircraft (which actually still isn't a regulation even though its been speculated on for quite a while), was prompted by the Air Force and wasn't CAP's idea. 

Regulation or not...it is policy.  NV wing just pushed it down to the squadrons not but 2 weeks ago (we just had or regional conference a few weeks ago so I am assuming it was pushed down from there).

Quote from: RiverAux on March 06, 2007, 11:00:33 PM
Well, the removal of USAF Aux from the aircraft (which actually still isn't a regulation even though its been speculated on for quite a while), was prompted by the Air Force and wasn't CAP's idea. 

That's not the case. AF didn't tell them to take it off, not that I've heard. What I have heard is this... (and that doesn't mean it's 100% accurate)

When they set up the border flying test case a while back they intended to use on board NVGs & a thermal thing they've been working on a for a while to spot alien traffic & report it directly to border patrol - ie a LE mission. They were told that's not allowed while it says USAF on the side of their plane. They meant figuratively you belong to the AF so you can't do that, not literally that it matters what it says on the plane. Guard helos participate in some LE missions & it says US Army clear as can be. The AFI that controls use of "USAF Aux" on the planes isn't a further restriction, it's just spelling out the conditions of PCA that apply all the time. Not everyone wants to accept that when they are on the eternal search for loop holes though. Of course there's debate on the subject, but rather than sitting down with the parties (Congress if necessary) & figuring out a clear decisive answer that we are bound by from here on out, the decision has been taken to spend money squirming around hoping for latitude. That's irresponsible.

I don't want to side track the discussion, I just mention the above cause this change with the branch tapes seems very much like the same thing, a squirmy move that costs money & frustrates members w/o good justification when MUCH more effective non-envasive moves exist to accomplish the purpose. Frankly, if the AF said right now we could go to white lettering on subdued tapes, I'd love that, but I'd think about it real hard. I'd want to know when we'd be going over to ABUs & if we could make the move at the same time, or if I really need to make the move now so I can set a precedent for what we'd wear on ABUs (note ABUs have digi-tapes, so OD is distinctive).

The AF implemented a regulation that put limitations on using CAP planes with USAF Aux on them in certain missions.....CAP is obviously reacting to that by wanting to take those markings off. 

What is the regulation? :)

Quote from: DNall on March 06, 2007, 11:56:53 PM

When they set up the border flying test case a while back they intended to use on board NVGs & a thermal thing they've been working on a for a while to spot alien traffic & report it directly to border patrol - ie a LE mission.

Great, now we're looking for aliens.  Any chance us Comm guys can earn a SETI badge?

Quote from: Psicorp on March 07, 2007, 02:07:44 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 06, 2007, 11:56:53 PM

When they set up the border flying test case a while back they intended to use on board NVGs & a thermal thing they've been working on a for a while to spot alien traffic & report it directly to border patrol - ie a LE mission.

Great, now we're looking for aliens.  Any chance us Comm guys can earn a SETI badge?

Yeah, you joke now...  ;)

Ok, I have a question. How close are we to actually having this implemented? Is it something that's GOING to happen or is it something that MIGHT happen within a couple of years IF AF approves it? What's the current time frame to have AF approve a uniform item?

  For the record, I'm not against the proposed change, I think U.S. Civil Air Patrol looks alot more professional and lends some credibility to us, and we ALL know we are hurting bad for credibility.

  I personally would love it if our BDU's read USAF Aux or U.S. Air Force Aux. AND they got rid of the ugly and clownish Ultramarine blue. After all, we're only going to be taken as serious as our image presents us to be, and Ultramarine blue is not a professional image! Makes us look like a boy scout group.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 07, 2007, 04:34:12 AM
The AF implemented a regulation that put limitations on using CAP planes with USAF Aux on them in certain missions.....CAP is obviously reacting to that by wanting to take those markings off. 

What is the regulation?  :)

Quote from: RiverAux on March 07, 2007, 04:34:12 AM
The AF implemented a regulation that put limitations on using CAP planes with USAF Aux on them in certain missions.....CAP is obviously reacting to that by wanting to take those markings off. 

Again, the reg just spells out PCA, which applies with or without the markings. The change is more about the appearance of inpropriety, and frankly pushing our AF affiliation under the rug when it doesn't serve our purpose. Most people would tell you if that's the case then we shouldn't be doing it anyway.

Quote from: Psicorp on March 07, 2007, 02:07:44 PM
Great, now we're looking for aliens.  Any chance us Comm guys can earn a SETI badge?

You comm guys are pretty alien yourself, somebody get me my NVGs & get ready with the net, we might bag us one yet.  ;D

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 07, 2007, 05:26:37 PM
What's the current time frame to have AF approve a uniform item?

As fast or as slow as they want. AU staff does a pro/con review & recomendation, AU CC approval, AETC staff, AETC CC, and that is those general officers personally signing on it. Which they are busy with more important things & get frustrated with ten thousand changes a year. It can be a few months to a year. Honestly I don't think they plan on asking though, I bet they forget to do that & it just shows up in regs. Wait till you have it on paper authorizing you to do it, then order away (and not from vanguard).

Quote from: FARRIER on March 07, 2007, 05:32:43 PM
What is the regulation?  :)

AFI 10-2701  (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/10/afi10-2701/afi10-2701.pdf)

Quote2.8. Restrictions on CAP Corporate Activities. Notwithstanding any DoD or Air Force regulation,policy or agreement, the following specific restrictions apply to CAP's corporate activities.
2.8.1. Air Force Markings. CAP Corporation may not use aircraft and resources that are marked with "USAF," "USAF Auxiliary," "US Air Force," or similar identifiers to engage in the law enforcement activities listed in paragraph 2.2.3. of this instruction and its subparagraphs, without prior approval by USAF/XO.
2.8.2. Intelligence Activities. CAP is not an intelligence organization, has no assigned intelligence mission, and will not engage in intelligence activities.
2.8.3. Consistent with paragraphs 1.4.3. and 1.4.4., CAP will obtain the reviews described in paragraphs 1.9.4. and 1.9.5. and resolve any aspects disapproved prior to execution of the respective documents.

Quote2.2.3. Support to Law Enforcement. CAP may be assigned to respond to requests for assistance submitted to the Air Force by civilian law enforcement agencies. All such requests will be reviewed for compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including 10 USC Chapter 18, the Posse Comitatus Act, DoDD 5525.5, and AFI 10-801 by the appropriate Air Force authority (under Table 2.1.) in coordination with its legal staff and will not be approved unless they comply. Examples of typical law enforcement support may include aerial reconnaissance, transportation of law enforcement personnel,
and operation of equipment in order to facilitate communications.
2.2.3.1. Counter Drug Activities. AFAMs may include limited counter-drug missions as authorized by Section 1004 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1991 National Defense Authorization Act as amended and restated in FY 2002.
2.2.3.2. Prohibited Activities. CAP will not participate in the interdiction of vehicles, vessels, or aircraft or in a search, seizure, arrest, apprehension, surveillance, pursuit, or similar activity.

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 07, 2007, 05:26:37 PM
After all, we're only going to be taken as serious as our image presents us to be, and Ultramarine blue is not a professional image! Makes us look like a boy scout group.

The reason for the ultramarine Blue was to ensure that we are not mistaken to be Air Force, or any other military unit for that matter.  Just out of curiosity, what color do you think that would be both distinctive to CAP and proffesional?

Actually it's ultramarine blue cause they were exactly the same color as AF tapes before BDUs came along. They didn't approve a switch at that time for a few reasons, not least of which was being pissed at us over some issue or another - as far as I've been told anyway.

I think most people would be happy with a dark blue that matches BBDUs. However white lettering on OD tapes would be the best. The lettering still makes it clearly distinctive, and with the switch to ABUs they'll be using camo-tapes making OD tapes on those very distinctive. You cna argue viability, but no plane or hunter can see blue tapes at a distance, that's what the vests are for.

Quote from: RogueLeader on March 07, 2007, 06:04:57 PM

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 07, 2007, 05:26:37 PM
After all, we're only going to be taken as serious as our image presents us to be, and Ultramarine blue is not a professional image! Makes us look like a boy scout group.

The reason for the ultramarine Blue was to ensure that we are not mistaken to be Air Force, or any other military unit for that matter.  Just out of curiosity, what color do you think that would be both distinctive to CAP and proffesional?

White on Dark blue, like the BBDU grade insignia shade, for the tapes would be worlds better.  I don't advocate for subdued anything -- we're not military, as much as we want to think so.

The ultramarine blue is garish.  But I think white lettering on dark blue tapes is still completely distinctive from anything military, but leaves us looking more professional in the end.

I hate uniform changes, but this is one of the few I'd advocate for so long as there was about a 3-year phase-in period.  People could slowly replace tapes on BDU tops as needed, so long as name and branch tape matched in shade.

Oh, and Vanguard needs to drop prices on their nametapes like a bad habit.  I don't order from them -- I use another supplier ($1 a tape, no minimum per name or per order, $1.50 shipping), but lots of CAP members are getting ripped off by Vanguard for those and that is a shame.

I wouldn't advocate changing tapes, either color or lettering, till transition to ABUs. I may indeed approve it with a long phase in period like that while the ABU date is being set, just to establish precedent, then ask Wg CCs to supplement saying keep the ultramarine on BDUs & the new stuff on ABUs. The only thing that's look worse than ultramarine on BDUs is people having dif colors than the guy next to them.

Quote from: DNall on March 07, 2007, 06:01:10 PM

Quote from: FARRIER on March 07, 2007, 05:32:43 PM
What is the regulation?  :)

AFI 10-2701  (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/10/afi10-2701/afi10-2701.pdf)

Quote2.8. Restrictions on CAP Corporate Activities. Notwithstanding any DoD or Air Force regulation,policy or agreement, the following specific restrictions apply to CAP's corporate activities.
2.8.1. Air Force Markings. CAP Corporation may not use aircraft and resources that are marked with "USAF," "USAF Auxiliary," "US Air Force," or similar identifiers to engage in the law enforcement activities listed in paragraph 2.2.3. of this instruction and its subparagraphs, without prior approval by USAF/XO.
2.8.2. Intelligence Activities. CAP is not an intelligence organization, has no assigned intelligence mission, and will not engage in intelligence activities.2.8.3. Consistent with paragraphs 1.4.3. and 1.4.4., CAP will obtain the reviews described in paragraphs 1.9.4. and 1.9.5. and resolve any aspects disapproved prior to execution of the respective documents.

HA! That explains everything!!   NHQ is just following Reg!

Quote from: Psicorp on March 07, 2007, 08:29:48 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 07, 2007, 06:01:10 PM

Quote from: FARRIER on March 07, 2007, 05:32:43 PM
What is the regulation?  :)

AFI 10-2701  (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/10/afi10-2701/afi10-2701.pdf)

Quote2.8. Restrictions on CAP Corporate Activities. Notwithstanding any DoD or Air Force regulation,policy or agreement, the following specific restrictions apply to CAP's corporate activities.
2.8.1. Air Force Markings. CAP Corporation may not use aircraft and resources that are marked with "USAF," "USAF Auxiliary," "US Air Force," or similar identifiers to engage in the law enforcement activities listed in paragraph 2.2.3. of this instruction and its subparagraphs, without prior approval by USAF/XO.
2.8.2. Intelligence Activities. CAP is not an intelligence organization, has no assigned intelligence mission, and will not engage in intelligence activities.2.8.3. Consistent with paragraphs 1.4.3. and 1.4.4., CAP will obtain the reviews described in paragraphs 1.9.4. and 1.9.5. and resolve any aspects disapproved prior to execution of the respective documents.

HA! That explains everything!!   NHQ is just following Reg!

Wow, mark the calender for NHQ

Quote from: shorning on March 06, 2007, 05:19:20 PMI can just hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now!  Just think how many people would complain about the expense if we switched all our patches and insignia to subdued.  And it would have to be all of it.  In some cases, that would mean redesigning patches, because loosing the ability to show off their "bling" isn't going to sit well with members either. 

Then there's always the question, "who's going to pay?"  Guess what.  The cost to redesign everything will be passed on to the member.  Why do we insist on making the price of membership so expensive?  Just to look military?

Bro, you know that TPTB read these forums?  Some ideas are best not shared....for fear that such things might happen......   ;D

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 06, 2007, 04:48:20 AM

Quote from: DNall on March 06, 2007, 04:43:43 AM

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 06, 2007, 04:03:04 AM
I like the idea, but wouldn't that get somewhat confusing after a while?  (If you've got multiple units working together.)

I really don't care so much if the branch tape has US on it or not, it's the cost & hassle comppunded with not explaining why I have to tax my people once again.

I was actually referring to the option of referring to wings by their numbers, rather than states.  Not the "U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL" name tapes.

[my emphasis] I think that is an absolutely HORRID idea. It may work for you to have the wings all numbered, but it doesn't work for other folks. Here in CAWG, most of the units are referred to by numbers, and I, and others, have a terrible time figuring out which unit is where. In the other wings I was in, thenunits were referred to by their names, and many of the names were based on location, specifically the county they were based in.

Which is easier, Sq 57, or San Diego Sr Sq? I vote for the latter, since it tells me exactly where the squadron is located.

No one said Sqs should necissarily go by numbers, and I don't frankly care what is easier to remember, that's a seperate discussion. The point made was WINGS should go by numbers rather than state names, and the purpose was to destroy all thought of being 52 state based organizations loosely confederated together, but to be one really strong national organization with linear lines of authority which has 52 branch offices which just happen to share the same geographic lines as states but nothing should be read into where those lines happen to be. If you're going for the one CAP thing, that's a lot mroe effective than putting US on the front of our branch tapes.

Quote from: SarDragon on March 08, 2007, 07:54:39 AM

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 06, 2007, 04:48:20 AM

Quote from: DNall on March 06, 2007, 04:43:43 AM

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on March 06, 2007, 04:03:04 AM
I like the idea, but wouldn't that get somewhat confusing after a while?  (If you've got multiple units working together.)

I really don't care so much if the branch tape has US on it or not, it's the cost & hassle comppunded with not explaining why I have to tax my people once again.

I was actually referring to the option of referring to wings by their numbers, rather than states.  Not the "U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL" name tapes.

[my emphasis] I think that is an absolutely HORRID idea. It may work for you to have the wings all numbered, but it doesn't work for other folks. Here in CAWG, most of the units are referred to by numbers, and I, and others, have a terrible time figuring out which unit is where. In the other wings I was in, thenunits were referred to by their names, and many of the names were based on location, specifically the county they were based in.

Which is easier, Sq 57, or San Diego Sr Sq? I vote for the latter, since it tells me exactly where the squadron is located.

I would go for changing the squadron names to their locations.  It is easy to know where the San Diego Sr Squadron but where the heck is the Homer J. Simpson Air Power Supreme Super Composite Squdron.

With the squadron able to name themselve after just about anything they want to....numbers are just as acceptable.

I'd agree to location names for Sqs - worse than people's names are other stuff (hold on this may make a couple people mad)... pegasus, thunderbird, flying tiger, Delta, Sabre... and then ones named for Army units they are based with (75th Div, 7-6 Air Cav composite Sq, that's crazy looking.

Nice clean location names (city or county) would be nice, but formally you should still be the 360th Comp Sq, 42nd CAP Wg. I think we even had this conversation way back & the idea then was: "360th Comp Sq (Sugar Land), 42nd CAP Wg"  if you are inside the state, or 360th CS, 42 CAP Wg (Texas) for outside the wing. Makes since right?

Quote from: DNall on March 08, 2007, 07:54:15 PM
I'd agree to location names for Sqs - worse than people's names are other stuff (hold on this may make a couple people mad)... pegasus, thunderbird, flying tiger, Delta, Sabre... and then ones named for Army units they are based with (75th Div, 7-6 Air Cav composite Sq, that's crazy looking.

Nice clean location names (city or county) would be nice, but formally you should still be the 360th Comp Sq, 42nd CAP Wg. I think we even had this conversation way back & the idea then was: "360th Comp Sq (Sugar Land), 42nd CAP Wg"  if you are inside the state, or 360th CS, 42 CAP Wg (Texas) for outside the wing. Makes since right?

   I agree, I just don't understand how people do not see how unprofessional those other names we all use are. 360th Comp Sq, 42nd CAP Wg sounds much more professional and much more Military. And face it, As long as we are known as the U.S. Air Force Aux we will be associated with the Military. CAP NEEDS every little bit it can to look more professional. That's how you attract clients/customers (including AF), it's not only about cost, it's about getting the job done the best! And Image is supremely important!

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 08, 2007, 09:08:33 PM
   I agree, I just don't understand how people do not see how unprofessional those other names we all use are. 360th Comp Sq, 42nd CAP Wg sounds much more professional and much more Military. And face it, As long as we are known as the U.S. Air Force Aux we will be associated with the Military. CAP NEEDS every little bit it can to look more professional. That's how you attract clients/customers (including AF), it's not only about cost, it's about getting the job done the best! And Image is supremely important!

It does indeed sound more military to me. When someone military asks me about my CAP affiliations, telling them as a numbered squadron and wing puts it into a perspective they can understand. They may still ask where it is, but it sounds better than "Timbuktoo Composite Squadron".

I think it may be a good thing to start going by numbered methods. We want military customers (and in some cases we have them), and it would probably provide a boost for us. Instead of squadron names, we could start mirroring the Air Force and using squadron mottos on our patches. I'm not looking to clone the Air Force, but aligning our organization concepts with theirs would never hurt.

NOO...........don't make me change anything else on my uniform.  I just spend 2hrs updating all my BDU's to comply with the recent policy changes.  Why don't we give ourselves a break? ??? Eh?

Quote from: sixgunjoe on March 08, 2007, 09:30:28 PM
NOO...........don't make me change anything else on my uniform.  I just spend 2hrs updating all my BDU's to comply with the recent policy changes.  Why don't we give ourselves a break? ??? Eh?

The smart thing to do on any of those changes is to enact a phase in period. For the moment, the easiest thing to do would be to just remove the patches, and worry about new ones later.

Quote from: sixgunjoe on March 08, 2007, 09:30:28 PM
NOO...........don't make me change anything else on my uniform.  I just spend 2hrs updating all my BDU's to comply with the recent policy changes.  Why don't we give ourselves a break? ??? Eh?

What recent policy change are you talking about?

The only things that have changed (not counting the u.s. on the name tapes) all happened over a year ago!

^ Right, and does "US Civil Air Patrol" requires AF approval? I wouldn't rush out & do anything, especially if it involves money.

dnall, thanks for answering the regulation question --- been out of town.

Quote
...but where the heck is the Homer J. Simpson Air Power Supreme Super Composite Squadron.

Springfield

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 08, 2007, 09:08:33 PM
I just don't understand how people do not see how unprofessional those other names we all use are. 360th Comp Sq, 42nd CAP Wg sounds much more professional and much more Military. 

Much more military yes.  Much more professional?  Only to those who think CAP should do everything like the military.  To the majority of the civilian public names don't sound any less professional than numbers.
Mike

Quote from: sardak on March 08, 2007, 11:11:42 PM

Quote
...but where the heck is the Homer J. Simpson Air Power Supreme Super Composite Squadron.

Springfield

Yes...but what Wing?

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2007, 11:19:36 PM

Quote from: sardak on March 08, 2007, 11:11:42 PM

Quote
...but where the heck is the Homer J. Simpson Air Power Supreme Super Composite Squadron.

Springfield

Yes...but what Wing?

I would venture to say it is in the DOHWG  :D

I wonder if NHQ would buy into a squadron named the Homer J. Simpson Memorial Cadet Squadron, if there were a letter signed by "Marge Simpson" in the charter application packet giving permission to use the name?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2007, 12:11:34 AM
I wonder if NHQ would buy into a squadron named the Homer J. Simpson Memorial Cadet Squadron, if there were a letter signed by "Marge Simpson" in the charter application packet giving permission to use the name?

Don't know, but if they do, count me in!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2007, 12:11:34 AM
I wonder if NHQ would buy into a squadron named the Homer J. Simpson Memorial Cadet Squadron, if there were a letter signed by "Marge Simpson" in the charter application packet giving permission to use the name?

I'll give you ten bucks if you actually try it..... >:D

Quote from: Chappie on March 09, 2007, 12:04:47 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2007, 11:19:36 PM

Quote from: sardak on March 08, 2007, 11:11:42 PM

Quote
...but where the heck is the Homer J. Simpson Air Power Supreme Super Composite Squadron.

Springfield

Yes...but what Wing?

I would venture to say it is in the DOHWG  :D

[Nelson]Ha Ha[/Nelson] :D

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2007, 12:11:34 AM
I wonder if NHQ would buy into a squadron named the Homer J. Simpson Memorial Cadet Squadron, if there were a letter signed by "Marge Simpson" in the charter application packet giving permission to use the name?

No....it would have too many Simpson in it...someone might notice......Now if were signed Montgomery Burns........ >:D

For me, and those like me, with a little bit different mental wiring, even a unit name like "Homer J. Simpson Memorial Cadet Squadron" is easier to associate with a specific location than some seemingly random number. This has nothing to do with CAP-ness, or Air Force-ness, this is purely a mental thing.

YMMV.

And that's understandable, but you're assuming the objective of unit names has something to do with you knowing where they're geographically from. When in fact the policy proposed here, which is really mostly about wings, is meant to wash away geographic refrences so we all blur into one & don't know or care where you're from.

And I think that's a bad thing, personally. Location going to come out in conversation, eventually, but it's a lot easier when you have some idea ahead of time. Interaction has different boundaries, depending on the area og the country you are in. Talkng to Texans is very different from talking to Maineiacs. Discussions are facilitated, based on the level of prior knowledge.

I think the geographical references are a part of our organizational culture that we shouldn't get rid of. And I certainly don't like the blurring you spoke of.

Again, YMMV.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 06:39:58 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2007, 12:11:34 AM
I wonder if NHQ would buy into a squadron named the Homer J. Simpson Memorial Cadet Squadron, if there were a letter signed by "Marge Simpson" in the charter application packet giving permission to use the name?

No....it would have too many Simpson in it...someone might notice......Now if were signed Montgomery Burns........ >:D

Or even Ned Flanders.....

SarDragon, to some degree this location "tagging" allows for assumptions and we all know where those lead to. You're assuming that Texans are different to speak to than people from Maine and that's your first problem. Individuals are different, yes. Perhaps even a general outlook across the geographical regions may be different, sure, but when you assume that a certain member will think a certain way or speak a certain way before you meet him/her, well... you're on your way to stupidland. I don't even want to mention what happens among cadets when they see cadets from another wing. Suddenly wild and unsubstantiated stereotypes are flying like mortar shells without any concern where on or whom they land. But... they're cadets and we aren't. We're examples of what to do, not of what not to do.  Well... we try to be.

Let's all start acting and thinking like CAP members and then when dealing with CAP affairs we won't have to worry about differences because we'll all be on the same page.

I think renaming the wings (and regions) is a step in that right direction.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2007, 07:40:29 PM

I would go for changing the squadron names to their locations.  It is easy to know where the San Diego Sr Squadron but where the heck is the Homer J. Simpson Air Power Supreme Super Composite Squdron.

With the squadron able to name themselve after just about anything they want to....numbers are just as acceptable.

I dunno, I would prefer the Luke Skywalker Senior Squadron or perhaps the Wedge Antilles Composite Squadron, maybe the Jacen and Jaina Solo Cadet Squadron.

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 08, 2007, 09:08:33 PM
I just don't understand how people do not see how unprofessional those other names we all use are. 360th Comp Sq, 42nd CAP Wg sounds much more professional and much more Military. 

QuoteMuch more military yes.  Much more professional?  Only to those who think CAP should do everything like the military.  To the majority of the civilian public names don't sound any less professional than numbers.
Mike

 Perhaps, But from what I see, most people in the civilian public associate numbers as being more professional/legitimate then names when referring to a military type outfit.  CAP IS a military type unit. We are the U.S. Air Force Aux, not the Boy Scout Aux-SAR division. Names like the Homar J Simpson Composite squadron would be a huge embarrassment to CAP and  HUGE step back in legitimacy. Yes, I know the Homar J. Simpson Squadron is a joke, but there are many squadrons across the country that have names almost as embarrassing.

 Identifying units and wings Thu numbers, not only helps to reinforce the one CAP mentality that we so desperately need, it also helps to add a legitimacy to us because it does make us a little more military to the general public, and our legitimacy/compatency is derived directly (atleast in the minds of the civilian public) from the fact of our being the U.S. Air Force Aux. As DNall pointed out, people make an assumption - rather right or wrong - about our abilities because they do assume that we are trained by the Air Force to military standards for such missions. We need to reinforce that perception. in this world, Perception is reality.

I'd vote for assigned numbering as the official unit designation...  123rd CDT SQ  Possibly have a geographical specific name associated with the unit which was also assigned, but not part of the official designation.  IIRC the UK ATC does something similar.

What does this have to do with U.S Civil Air Patrol again?

Well since we have drifted of the CAP vs USCAP and started talking about nameing

Why not just get rid of cadet/composite/sr squadorn designators as well?

We can just go with XX CAP SQ (ARWG) and be done with it.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 06:39:58 AMNo....it would have too many Simpson in it...someone might notice......Now if were signed Montgomery Burns........ >:D

A *Monty* Burns squadron would be excellent, Smithers!

Well, getting back on topic. I guess it's almost a done deal. Unless the blue suited overlords decree otherwise, we'll be slowly adding new nametapes that read: U.S. Civil Air Patrol

 Some will like it, others will hate it, but a larger majority will have no real opinion either way. We can argue about it here and bring up reasons why we like it/dislike it but it's really in the hands of the AF now.
 
  My opinion is that it all boils down to one thing: most of those who hate the idea, hate it for only one reason; they don't want to have to buy new nametapes. I'm sure if NHQ was giving the nametapes out for free, no one would have a real big complaint.

 I'm sure if the AF came out tomorrow and said "blue AF slides where now authorized on the blue uniform, the grey slides are now obsolete." we would have a good amount of people here complain about how that's horrible because now they have to buy something new. regardless of the fact of rather it's good for CAP or not.

That's how I read this whole discussion.  You know something I have observed? it's true about us men, we simply don't like change. we have a hard time adapting to it. Women have a little easier time with it, or so it seems with the women in my life.

Quote from: msmjr2003 on March 09, 2007, 08:48:06 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 06:39:58 AMNo....it would have too many Simpson in it...someone might notice......Now if were signed Montgomery Burns........ >:D

A *Monty* Burns squadron would be excellent, Smithers!

You owe the USAF one key board!

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 09, 2007, 08:53:34 PM
Well, getting back on topic. I guess it's almost a done deal. Unless the blue suited overlords decree otherwise, we'll be slowly adding new nametapes that read: U.S. Civil Air Patrol

 Some will like it, others will hate it, but a larger majority will have no real opinion either way. We can argue about it here and bring up reasons why we like it/dislike it but it's really in the hands of the AF now.
 
  My opinion is that it all boils down to one thing: most of those who hate the idea, hate it for only one reason; they don't want to have to buy new nametapes. I'm sure if NHQ was giving the nametapes out for free, no one would have a real big complaint.

 I'm sure if the AF came out tomorrow and said "blue AF slides where now authorized on the blue uniform, the grey slides are now obsolete." we would have a good amount of people here complain about how that's horrible because now they have to buy something new. regardless of the fact of rather it's good for CAP or not.

That's how I read this whole discussion.  You know something I have observed? it's true about us men, we simply don't like change. we have a hard time adapting to it. Women have a little easier time with it, or so it seems with the women in my life.

And you will have to change not only the CAP tape but also your name. They'll prob have to change the font of the letters to fit it and even if they don't, your old name tape will be faded as the new one will not.

QuoteSome will like it, others will hate it, but a larger majority will have no real opinion either way.

Actually, a VERY strong majority don't like the idea according to our poll here.  Is it representative of CAP?  Hard to say, but most of those here probably tend to have stronger feelings about CAP issues than others, so I suspect the Unfavorable percentage would drop a bit if a true scientific poll were taken.  

Quotemost of those who hate the idea, hate it for only one reason; they don't want to have to buy new nametapes.

I think most people don't like it because it isn't actually the name of our organization.  Many people have expressed a willingness to use USAF Aux or some variation of that if it were authorized for us, so I don't think changing the tapes itself is the issue.  

Quote from: afgeo4 on March 09, 2007, 07:09:11 PM
SarDragon, to some degree this location "tagging" allows for assumptions and we all know where those lead to. You're assuming that Texans are different to speak to than people from Maine and that's your first problem.

Texans are different to speak to than people from Maine! I would start a conversation with someone from Maine differently than with someone from Texas. Their cultures are different. Their attitudes about strangers are different.

I have lived in three of the four corners of the country as an adult, and have also spent some time in the "interior" during my travels. Interpersonal relations are greatly affected by first impressions, and not having good up front "intel" can handicap the ability to make that good first impression.

Quote from: afgeo4Individuals are different, yes. Perhaps even a general outlook across the geographical regions may be different, sure, but when you assume that a certain member will think a certain way or speak a certain way before you meet him/her, well... you're on your way to stupidland.

I'm not making assumptions. I have practical experience on some of the differences, and use that experience when meeting people.

Quote from: afgeo4I don't even want to mention what happens among cadets when they see cadets from another wing. Suddenly wild and unsubstantiated stereotypes are flying like mortar shells without any concern where on or whom they land. But... they're cadets and we aren't. We're examples of what to do, not of what not to do.  Well... we try to be.

I agree on the cadet thing. WIWAC, the cadets in my wing had a very bad attitude about the members of an adjacent wing, based on what was really a small percentage of the membership.

It looks like we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

I believe that the US in the US Civil Air Patrol states that CAP is an agency of the United States government. Are we? Can a corporation (for profit or non) be an agency of the government? Even if the government doesn't own it? Who does own the CAP? Are there other examples of such organizations in the US?

The US Army and the US Secret service are a part of the US (United States) government and as such, wear the designators. Are we or are we a civillian non-profit corporation?

Quote from: RiverAux on March 09, 2007, 09:14:50 PM

QuoteSome will like it, others will hate it, but a larger majority will have no real opinion either way.

Actually, a VERY strong majority don't like the idea according to our poll here.  Is it representative of CAP?  Hard to say, but most of those here probably tend to have stronger feelings about CAP issues than others, so I suspect the Unfavorable percentage would drop a bit if a true scientific poll were taken.  

Quotemost of those who hate the idea, hate it for only one reason; they don't want to have to buy new nametapes.

I think most people don't like it because it isn't actually the name of our organization.  Many people have expressed a willingness to use USAF Aux or some variation of that if it were authorized for us, so I don't think changing the tapes itself is the issue.  

Seeing as how the majority of the rank and file CAP membership do not even know about it, I don't think anyone can conclusivly say what the "majority" thinks about it.

I personally have not responded to the on-line poll at all.

To me....I could care less.  It means nothing one way or the other....except that I will have get new tapes at some point.  Does it effect the mission?  Does it affect how other agencies view us?  Does it get me SLS any faster?

I think the real reason most people are upset is that it is an arbitrary change and no one has really explained the reasoning behind it.  Hence the "Vanguard Conspircy" theorists.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 09:38:28 PM
I think the real reason most people are upset is that it is an arbitrary change and no one has really explained the reasoning behind it.

That's kind of the camp that I fall into (with this and a number of other relatively recent changes). 

Of all the potential changes to nametapes that I've ever heard, this was not one of them.   I've heard USAF Aux. (and all it's variants) discussed numerous times but never "U.S. Civil Air Patrol". 

So, how did it come about (again, this question could be asked about numerous changes, including the TPU)?   Was there some outcry from the membership or some other factor that I missed?

Quote from: SarDragon on March 09, 2007, 08:09:54 AM
And I think that's a bad thing, personally. Location going to come out in conversation, eventually, but it's a lot easier when you have some idea ahead of time. Interaction has different boundaries, depending on the area og the country you are in. Talkng to Texans is very different from talking to Maineiacs. Discussions are facilitated, based on the level of prior knowledge.

I think the geographical references are a part of our organizational culture that we shouldn't get rid of. And I certainly don't like the blurring you spoke of.

You have to understand part of this is leadership at the top trying to consolodate more power to the top....

However, I do think there's a tad too much sectarianism in our thinking. What makes a Wg CC think they can wear orange shirts & hats w/ BDUs, or another one on the other coast think they can create whole seperate GT uniform, and all of them thinking they can have different cords & rules... and uniforms isn't that big a deal, it's just obvious. If you're  apilot though & current on a 172 in your state you aren't allowed to fly a 172 in another state cause thier check pilot didn't clear you? That's crazy! Look how much trouble we had at multi-state SaR in Katrina, or even right now in West TX/S NM. Don't tell me we can function in ICS, we can't even function seemlessly across state lines within CAP. That's a big problem. I understand & sympathize with efforts to strengthen the national image of CAP & in doing so to take down a few nothces the identification with states. That's completely reasonable.

Again if you just do this with states & leave Sqs alone, what's the big deal?

Quote from: MIKE on March 09, 2007, 08:26:58 PM
What does this have to do with U.S Civil Air Patrol again?

Assumption "US" is added to enhance national nature of org. Stated that's a bad method, look how much more effective it would be to call Wings by number rathr than state name.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 08:33:14 PM
Well since we have drifted of the CAP vs USCAP and started talking about nameing

Why not just get rid of cadet/composite/sr squadorn designators as well?

We can just go with XX CAP SQ (ARWG) and be done with it.

[nodding in agreement]

Anything that goes to the media in any shape or form would include the 'home' of the unit(s) mentioned. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that when AD/Reserve/Guard units get media mention; after all, isn't that part of the PAO's job?

Or...

Since we really do not deploy as units on missions...

Why have squadrons at all?  Why not charter local units and call them what they are... Training stations.

"The Homer J. Simpson Memorial CAP Station."

"CAP Station Springfield"

Some say that CAP items are railroaded through the National Board. So nameing units as stations makes sense. Whoever heard of a railroad without railroad stations. Squadron Commanders become Station Masters. and the National Commander becomes the National Conductor. (guess that means CAP members are just passengers....have your tickets ready)

Quote from: BillB on March 10, 2007, 02:09:45 AM
Some say that CAP items are railroaded through the National Board. So nameing units as stations makes sense. Whoever heard of a railroad without railroad stations. Squadron Commanders become Station Masters. and the National Commander becomes the National Conductor. (guess that means CAP members are just passengers....have your tickets ready)

As much as it seems that this statement is true.  If I had my druthers...the National Commander would be more like a real military commander.  That is he would not need the advice and consent of the NB to make new regulations.  Nor would he be elected by said body.  He would be selected by the BoG from sitting Regional/Wing Commanders or a Senior Officer on the NHQ staff.  And only the BoG would have veto power.

If we want to remove the politics from CAP we have to remove the politics.  Sure there will still be some back room politicking going on...but there will not be any more accusations about conflict of interest and vote stacking by appointing GOBs to the NB.

Sorry this is way off topic but I just had a rant moment there.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 09:38:28 PM
To me....I could care less.  It means nothing one way or the other....
I think the real reason most people are upset is that it is an arbitrary change and no one has really explained the reasoning behind it.  Hence the "Vanguard Conspircy" theorists.

As an observation, not a criticism, I would note that you are ambivalent about a lot of this stuff.

Does anything (in CAP) get you upset?

Just curious.

I think you are correct that the lack of forewarning and absence of explanation gets many worked up.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 10, 2007, 05:18:20 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 09:38:28 PM
To me....I could care less.  It means nothing one way or the other....
I think the real reason most people are upset is that it is an arbitrary change and no one has really explained the reasoning behind it.  Hence the "Vanguard Conspiracy" theorists.

As an observation, not a criticism, I would note that you are ambivalent about a lot of this stuff.

Does anything (in CAP) get you upset?

Just curious.

I think you are correct that the lack of forewarning and absence of explanation gets many worked up.

Sure lots of things get me worked up.  I see things going on in other squadrons/wings/regions that would not be the way I would do them....but it's OPP...Other Peoples Problems.

I like to argue about what I would do if I were God.  But beyond that....all I care about is how my squadron is affected.

U.S. added to the name tapes, TPU, Orange Triangles, Berets, Orange Hats, Testgate, all have zero impact on whether my squadron is going to be able to its mission.

Switching to DHS, DOI or the Boy Scouts....Aux-on/Aux-off...these are all non-issues.  I can talk about them and voice my opinion....but what is more important to me here in Las Vegas is that AFRCC calls Meto before they call us.  That is what I am focusing on.  I focus on conducting Level I training, coming up with a good internal AE program and I am the liaison to our sister cadet squadron, and working on resurrecting the GT here in Vegas.

The NB wants me to buy new branch tapes...okay I will.  If they piss me off...I'll quit.  You can lose a lot of sleep over dip [mess] stuff.  I have dealt with dip [mess] for the last 21 years in the USAF.....CAP dip [mess] is amateur night in comparison.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2007, 02:52:49 AM

Quote from: BillB on March 10, 2007, 02:09:45 AM
Some say that CAP items are railroaded through the National Board. So nameing units as stations makes sense. Whoever heard of a railroad without railroad stations. Squadron Commanders become Station Masters. and the National Commander becomes the National Conductor. (guess that means CAP members are just passengers....have your tickets ready)

As much as it seems that this statement is true.  If I had my druthers...the National Commander would be more like a real military commander.  That is he would not need the advice and consent of the NB to make new regulations.  Nor would he be elected by said body.  He would be selected by the BoG from sitting Regional/Wing Commanders or a Senior Officer on the NHQ staff.  And only the BoG would have veto power.

If we want to remove the politics from CAP we have to remove the politics.  Sure there will still be some back room politicking going on...but there will not be any more accusations about conflict of interest and vote stacking by appointing GOBs to the NB.

Sorry this is way off topic but I just had a rant moment there.

Again, while I agre with the theory here in a big way, it presuposes that there is some quality control process in place to ensure the Nat CC is a little closer to competently professional officer rather than egotistical 5th grader. Out such a process in place across the board & my complaining level goes down dramaticaly. Most people just want to be led, and respond like tigers when their boss doesn't tak eup the mantle, but purr pretty as hell when they do. Most aren't really capable of stepping into a leadership role. [/rant]

Quote from: DNall on March 10, 2007, 08:52:00 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2007, 02:52:49 AM

Quote from: BillB on March 10, 2007, 02:09:45 AM
Some say that CAP items are railroaded through the National Board. So nameing units as stations makes sense. Whoever heard of a railroad without railroad stations. Squadron Commanders become Station Masters. and the National Commander becomes the National Conductor. (guess that means CAP members are just passengers....have your tickets ready)

As much as it seems that this statement is true.  If I had my druthers...the National Commander would be more like a real military commander.  That is he would not need the advice and consent of the NB to make new regulations.  Nor would he be elected by said body.  He would be selected by the BoG from sitting Regional/Wing Commanders or a Senior Officer on the NHQ staff.  And only the BoG would have veto power.

If we want to remove the politics from CAP we have to remove the politics.  Sure there will still be some back room politicking going on...but there will not be any more accusations about conflict of interest and vote stacking by appointing GOBs to the NB.

Sorry this is way off topic but I just had a rant moment there.

Again, while I agre with the theory here in a big way, it presuposes that there is some quality control process in place to ensure the Nat CC is a little closer to competently professional officer rather than egotistical 5th grader. Out such a process in place across the board & my complaining level goes down dramaticaly. Most people just want to be led, and respond like tigers when their boss doesn't tak eup the mantle, but purr pretty as hell when they do. Most aren't really capable of stepping into a leadership role. [/rant]

The BoG does the QC.  The problem with the NB electing and firing it's own boss is that the boss has enough good ole boy network going to stop any problems and is in a position to makesure he keeps it by appoint "his" people to key spots.

The BoG operations on the the appointment system.  There are only 11 (?) of them, half of them retire USAF Generals and other professionals with a concern with CAP.  If they can't QC a bad National Commander then who can?

My point would be to stop making leadership positions political offices.  If you got selected for a particular postion because you were good as opposed to how you will vote when your Regional Commander runs for National Commander, we will find we do in fact have professional leadership.


-----NOTE--------

This is in now way a comment about any CAP leader past or present.  I am only looking at it from a theoretical position.  Run the organisation more like a buisness or the military instead of a county election.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2007, 08:14:02 AM
You can lose a lot of sleep over dip [mess] stuff.  I have dealt with dip [mess] for the last 21 years in the USAF.....CAP dip [mess] is amateur night in comparison.

Point taken....I did convince myself long ago not to lose sleep, friends, or peace of mind over CAP!

Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2007, 11:09:27 PM
The BoG does the QC. 

They don't now, nor does the SAF excercise that veto to ensure quality leadership in this "vital" program.

QuoteThe problem with the NB electing and firing it's own boss is that the boss has enough good ole boy network going to stop any problems and is in a position to makesure he keeps it by appoint "his" people to key spots.

The NB selecting their boss & the boss selecting NB members (directly or via his appointed Reg CCs)... it is a conflict of interests, which in it's design flaw creates conflict, personal politics, & unethical behavior.

QuoteThe BoG operations on the the appointment system.  There are only 11 (?) of them, half of them retire USAF Generals and other professionals with a concern with CAP.  If they can't QC a bad National Commander then who can?

My point would be to stop making leadership positions political offices.  If you got selected for a particular postion because you were good as opposed to how you will vote when your Regional Commander runs for National Commander, we will find we do in fact have professional leadership.

Agreed, but the BoG exists to do the exact same thing as CAP-USAF, which is NOT to run the organization, but to provide oversight (over all the things CAP-USAF doesn't have authority over). The intention certainly was for them to take control over the situation & fix the BS, but so far they have yet to grow a set.

Quote from: DNall on March 11, 2007, 12:53:25 AMAgreed, but the BoG exists to do the exact same thing as CAP-USAF, which is NOT to run the organization, but to provide oversight (over all the things CAP-USAF doesn't have authority over). The intention certainly was for them to take control over the situation & fix the BS, but so far they have yet to grow a set.

I don't think that the BoG should be running CAP...that is the job of the National Commander.   BoG should be doing oversight and selecting and confirming the National Commander and his regional officers. 

And once again we have reached the "should" argument vs the what happens argument. 

I just feel that if the National  Commander was appointed vs elected it would solve a lot of problems right then and there. 

Right I  would tend to agree with that, and in looking for what the problem is, I see that BoG hasn't been aggressive in excercising their authority over CAP thru that broad oversight  & confirmation role. I believe in order to fix this stuff, BoG should just put their foot down, change the rules to grant themselves those powers, spell out the powers if any of the NB or if it needs to exist as a governing body (versus an informational conference), and should just set about doing things right.

The one point of information I'd make... BoG was created rather than expand that authority to AF as they'd requested so they could fix it. It has always been assumed that at some point BoG would just ceed authority to AF & turn themselves into an independent advisory & watchdog group. Under that model, all these powers would revert to AF. Are you comfortable with that?

I just want to add my opinion to this idea: It's not that I think it's a bad idea to make it U.S. Civil Air Patrol" on the nametapes, but it's close to not worth it... My reasoning is this: Just recently we made every one in CAP go out and get the flag to sew onto the side of the BDU's. And now, this. Would it be to much to ask to just leave the uniform the way it is for a few years. I don't see the point in having to change something or add something every year.

Uniforms get modified slightly over time, happens in the military too, that's part of the process. Everyone would agree the last year has been excessive, and everyone would agree that the change process should only consider changes onces every couple years anyway. However, leadership is freaked over how many people have left over the last five years & are grasping at straws to improve member morale.

QuoteHowever, leadership is freaked over how many people have left over the last five years & are grasping at straws to improve member morale.

That may be true, but it was not the stated reason for this or any of the other uniform changes discussed at the NB.  I think they know that uniform changes in general are more likely to cause some discontent rather than tamp it down. 

Having to keep changing my uniform does not improve my morale.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 11, 2007, 07:38:04 PM

QuoteHowever, leadership is freaked over how many people have left over the last five years & are grasping at straws to improve member morale.

That may be true, but it was not the stated reason for this or any of the other uniform changes discussed at the NB.  I think they know that uniform changes in general are more likely to cause some discontent rather than tamp it down. 

Quote from: MIKE on March 11, 2007, 07:46:45 PM
Having to keep changing my uniform does not improve my morale.

I didn't say they were smart.... you see membership  pissed off & you have ideas flowing in from membership to the uniform cmte... lots of stuff about "USAF Auxiliary" or subdued or at least dark blue tapes... so you look at what you can do with tapes & not cause too much stink, hey toss US on the front & talk about getting tight with the AF, as if they care. Makes you THINK you are doing what the members want you to do, not necessarily what a majority of a representative sample would want if presented with full information & a range of options, which includes leave it alone for a while.

Personally, I really like the blue on white tapes because they allow me to figure out who and what you are before you get within two feet of me.

I also don't mind just wearing the uniform the way it is.

If they want to boost membership morale, they're taking the wrong route because 1) no one wants to change their uniforms every six months and 2) more uniforms don't unite people and bring them together to boost their morale.  Everyone on this site knows that weekly meetings are getting closer and closer to looking like fashion shows these days.

Not sure you'd have much trouble determining who we work for with white on dark blue, or white on OD.

Dark blue seems like a bad change to me.  It doesn't change enough to warrant changing.  And I suppose I could go with white on OD, but the change over period would look horrible (imagine a flight of cadets with splashes of OD and ultra-marine blue tapes for a few months).

Also, the OD grade insignia that would have to match the tapes would probably be too close to the military grade insignias.

State guard, ROTC, all kinds of folks formally affiliated with the mil get to wear fully subdued stuff for professional appearance reasons & never go to war.

Full color lettering on OD tapes is quite distinctive from the mil & determines the meaning (or lack thereof) of any other insignia on teh uniform. That should be plenty adequate. Dark blue to match BBDUs is a popular option for many folks. I could accept it, but it is a small change.

I believe I already mentioned I wouldn't support a tape change till we were set to phase into ABUs. Best case being new stuff goes on the new uniform, old on old, but I'd take a change early & still be in phase in if it'd set precedent for something that doesn't look stupid on the new uniforms. ABU tapes & grade being camo'd, the color on OD is even more distinctive.

I think it's a waste of money in the meantime.

ROTC never go to war, but state guard units do have combat missions; the fact that they are not presently employed in combat tasks, notwithstanding.

A couple companies of SDF once heard some rounds in the civil war. CAP has a battle history too, and does direct combat support now, same as SDFs. There's difference here & there. Point is they don't need subdued tapes any more than CAP does. They get them cause it looks professional & helps them get tehir job done in an emergency, same as CAP.

Q: What's the purpose of tapes on the uniform?

A: To identify the person's service and name.

In the military services, they have to balance this need against tactical considerations.  In CAP we do not.

The AF wore the same tape colors on their uniform as CAP before they "went tactical."

The Maryland Defense Force wears yellow on black: partially for visibility, partially because they're the state colors.

So, is there a need, other than "to look more like the military," to change?

Quote from: DNall on March 12, 2007, 02:28:14 AM
A couple companies of SDF once heard some rounds in the civil war. CAP has a battle history too, and does direct combat support now, same as SDFs. There's difference here & there. Point is they don't need subdued tapes any more than CAP does. They get them cause it looks professional & helps them get tehir job done in an emergency, same as CAP.

Define "direct combat support" as it is used in this sentence.

Texas, along with several other states, wears standard subdued tapes. They sued to have yellow on black, but that changed some time ago when the state started taking them seriously.

Two main reasons behind that:
1) sdf & guard felt like they were on the same team working together for joint objectives. It increased morale, and it increased active membership substantially - this wasn't the only thing that happened, but it was part of a series of changes ment to bring them into the family.

2) To give the impression of authority in emergency situations. SDF members are put into disaster zones by states, and they want the public thinking they are the national guard, not some yahoo civilian they are free to disobey. In CAP, we deal with the public all the time. Pilots & mechanics scared of getting fined or losing licenses; people in disaster zones; people who think we are AF trained, quald, & certified professionals out to ind their loved ones. Fact is if they really knew what CAP was they'd laugh you out of the office & tell the police to keep you off the premises. You need the illusion of official professional standing or you can't do anything.

Direct combat support = lots of missions we do now... from that chaplain thing you saw the other day that included field training, to penetration simuations, to HLS recon of protected sites, airspace, & border/coastal areas. There's really no limit though, according to law we can be employed in any way the SAF wants, just so it doesn't involve direct pulling of a trigger in combat... and we aren't legally restricted from that, just CAP regs & the SAF is instructed not to assign us those missions.

I'm not suggesting we should be assigned combat roles, merely that the public expectation of what a military uniform should look like is established, and professional competence is absolutely judged by in degree to which someone meets that expectation. If you look like a clown, you'll be treated like one.

Quoteand we aren't legally restricted from that, just CAP regs & the SAF is instructed not to assign us those missions.

a federal law that restricts us to noncombat support certainly seems like a legal restriction to me. 

I think the term combat support is being thrown around a little loosely here too. 

The AF defines those penetration missions combat support, we used to not be able to do that. The law does NOT restrict CAP from combat in any way. It restricts the SAF from assigning us those duties. If you are on an ELT mission down near the border & a guardsman gets hit by the mexican army, you could pick up his rifle & return fire. It'd violate CAP regs, but you won't be committing a crime. Granted that's not going to happen. The AF isn't going to assign you a job where you could be in such a situation. However, especially with the augmentation conversations we've been having & in light of the chaplain stpry we saw recently, it is very likely we can & will have members supporting AF in a field environent.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 12, 2007, 01:53:26 AM
ROTC never go to war, but state guard units do have combat missions; the fact that they are not presently employed in combat tasks, notwithstanding.

What are you talking about? I am in the Guard, in an Infantry Brigade that went to war last year.

Quote from: DNall on March 12, 2007, 03:26:08 AM
Texas, along with several other states, wears standard subdued tapes. They sued to have yellow on black, but that changed some time ago when the state started taking them seriously.

Two main reasons behind that:
1) sdf & guard felt like they were on the same team working together for joint objectives. It increased morale, and it increased active membership substantially - this wasn't the only thing that happened, but it was part of a series of changes ment to bring them into the family.

2) To give the impression of authority in emergency situations. SDF members are put into disaster zones by states, and they want the public thinking they are the national guard, not some yahoo civilian they are free to disobey. In CAP, we deal with the public all the time. Pilots & mechanics scared of getting fined or losing licenses; people in disaster zones; people who think we are AF trained, quald, & certified professionals out to ind their loved ones. Fact is if they really knew what CAP was they'd laugh you out of the office & tell the police to keep you off the premises. You need the illusion of official professional standing or you can't do anything.

Direct combat support = lots of missions we do now... from that chaplain thing you saw the other day that included field training, to penetration simuations, to HLS recon of protected sites, airspace, & border/coastal areas. There's really no limit though, according to law we can be employed in any way the SAF wants, just so it doesn't involve direct pulling of a trigger in combat... and we aren't legally restricted from that, just CAP regs & the SAF is instructed not to assign us those missions.

I'm not suggesting we should be assigned combat roles, merely that the public expectation of what a military uniform should look like is established, and professional competence is absolutely judged by in degree to which someone meets that expectation. If you look like a clown, you'll be treated like one.

So you're saying we should wear subdued tapes to 1) feel good about ourselves and 2) deceive the public we serve?

That's just wrong on so many levels.

Also, your idea of "direct combat support" is some "training support"  and some "non-combat support."  Frankly, this was my main worry about the Chaplain mission - that people would get the idea that we're going to be up in the fight.

And the whole "returning fire" thing?  All I can say is "crack kills."

Quote from: flyguy06 on March 12, 2007, 04:13:02 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 12, 2007, 01:53:26 AM
ROTC never go to war, but state guard units do have combat missions; the fact that they are not presently employed in combat tasks, notwithstanding.

What are you talking about? I am in the Guard, in an Infantry Brigade that went to war last year.

He is talking about State Defense Forces, which are sometimes referred to as "State Guard". He wasn't talking about the National Guard.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on March 12, 2007, 04:15:31 AM
So you're saying we should wear subdued tapes to 1) feel good about ourselves and 2) deceive the public we serve?

Feel good about ourselvess to the tremendous benefit of CAP & the AF, yeah sure. You don't find it insulting that it's jut so gosh darn important no one on the planet confuse us with anyone in the military? Cause most people do.

Far as deception, what is it you think you do now? CAP doesn't train people to NIMS standards or even remotely qualify them to do anything. CAP is allowed to do missions because we let the outside world think we're trained to AF standards & somehow certified & experienced as professional SaR operatives that eveyone else should bow down to. Hell half Congress thinks that too. If the state knew that was the situation, they wouldn't let you take a real mission, they'd give it to the national guard or state police, anyone but CAP. Some states know better & don't allow CAP ground teams. Fact is if someones screaming wife comes to your mission base & finds out you are an unpaid volunteer that never had to graduate from any course to do this... everyone would get sued & CAP would be off the mission in a flash. There is no CAP w/o affiliation ?& in some cases confusion w/ the military, or at very least the implication of endorsement where none exists.

Sorry if you feel that's wrong, but that's the nature of the beast & it is used to best advantage by all sides.

QuoteAlso, your idea of "direct combat support" is some "training support"  and some "non-combat support."  Frankly, this was my main worry about the Chaplain mission - that people would get the idea that we're going to be up in the fight.

The AF doesn't have a lot of other categories like that. They got combat, combat support, & stictly non-combatant. There's not really anything else. Anything that remotely in any way supports a combat unit, operation, or pirce of gear is combat support, even if it doesn't ultimately end in supporting actual direct action combat. Aiding in training for combat, is combat support, same as if they issued you MILES gear & sent you out to play with a combatant unit in the field.

Far as being up in the fight, I think people understand CAP doesn't go to combat, though there has been discussion fo deplying chaplains overseas as contractors.

QuoteAnd the whole "returning fire" thing?  All I can say is "crack kills."

:P I know it was a stretch I was just trying to make a point of how the SAF can't order us into that positions, but there is no law resticting CAP from such activities. Again, I don't advocate sending CAP into combat, that's a little silly, but we shouldn't be restricted from aiding AF in ever way possible, especially when they are engaged in combat.

Quote from: flyguy06 on March 12, 2007, 04:13:02 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 12, 2007, 01:53:26 AM
ROTC never go to war, but state guard units do have combat missions; the fact that they are not presently employed in combat tasks, notwithstanding.

What are you talking about? I am in the Guard, in an Infantry Brigade that went to war last year.

State Guard units are the non-federal force under the control of the governor when the National Guard is called into federal service.  Technically, they can be assigned to combat roles, although combat within the United States is unlikely.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on March 12, 2007, 04:15:31 AM

Quote from: DNall on March 12, 2007, 03:26:08 AM
Texas, along with several other states, wears standard subdued tapes. They sued to have yellow on black, but that changed some time ago when the state started taking them seriously.

Two main reasons behind that:
1) sdf & guard felt like they were on the same team working together for joint objectives. It increased morale, and it increased active membership substantially - this wasn't the only thing that happened, but it was part of a series of changes ment to bring them into the family.

2) To give the impression of authority in emergency situations. SDF members are put into disaster zones by states, and they want the public thinking they are the national guard, not some yahoo civilian they are free to disobey. In CAP, we deal with the public all the time. Pilots & mechanics scared of getting fined or losing licenses; people in disaster zones; people who think we are AF trained, quald, & certified professionals out to ind their loved ones. Fact is if they really knew what CAP was they'd laugh you out of the office & tell the police to keep you off the premises. You need the illusion of official professional standing or you can't do anything.

Direct combat support = lots of missions we do now... from that chaplain thing you saw the other day that included field training, to penetration simuations, to HLS recon of protected sites, airspace, & border/coastal areas. There's really no limit though, according to law we can be employed in any way the SAF wants, just so it doesn't involve direct pulling of a trigger in combat... and we aren't legally restricted from that, just CAP regs & the SAF is instructed not to assign us those missions.

I'm not suggesting we should be assigned combat roles, merely that the public expectation of what a military uniform should look like is established, and professional competence is absolutely judged by in degree to which someone meets that expectation. If you look like a clown, you'll be treated like one.

So you're saying we should wear subdued tapes to 1) feel good about ourselves and 2) deceive the public we serve?

That's just wrong on so many levels.

Also, your idea of "direct combat support" is some "training support"  and some "non-combat support."  Frankly, this was my main worry about the Chaplain mission - that people would get the idea that we're going to be up in the fight.

And the whole "returning fire" thing?  All I can say is "crack kills."

Even though we are restricted to being assigned "Non-Combat" missions of the USAF, nothing in the federal law restricts us from engaging in self-defense if attacked.  "Non-Combat" does not equal "Pacifist."

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 12, 2007, 12:43:20 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on March 12, 2007, 04:13:02 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 12, 2007, 01:53:26 AM
ROTC never go to war, but state guard units do have combat missions; the fact that they are not presently employed in combat tasks, notwithstanding.

What are you talking about? I am in the Guard, in an Infantry Brigade that went to war last year.

State Guard units are the non-federal force under the control of the governor when the National Guard is called into federal service.  Technically, they can be assigned to combat roles, although combat within the United States is unlikely.

You are refering to State Defence Forces. Not State Guard. State Guard , National Guard same thing. The State Defense Force is what you are talking about.

Quote from: flyguy06 on March 12, 2007, 02:10:48 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 12, 2007, 12:43:20 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on March 12, 2007, 04:13:02 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 12, 2007, 01:53:26 AM
ROTC never go to war, but state guard units do have combat missions; the fact that they are not presently employed in combat tasks, notwithstanding.

What are you talking about? I am in the Guard, in an Infantry Brigade that went to war last year.

State Guard units are the non-federal force under the control of the governor when the National Guard is called into federal service.  Technically, they can be assigned to combat roles, although combat within the United States is unlikely.

You are refering to State Defence Forces. Not State Guard. State Guard , National Guard same thing. The State Defense Force is what you are talking about.

They are the same thing.  Title 32 of the US Code defines "other troops" as state defense forces.  The states may call their state defense force whatever they want.

Examples

Alaska State Defense Force
Mississippi State Guard
Indiana Guard Reserve
California State Military Reserve

All are SDFs with different names.  However, all are state military forces under control of the TAG and the Governor.

Quote from: flyguy06 on March 12, 2007, 02:10:48 PM
You are refering to State Defence Forces. Not State Guard. State Guard , National Guard same thing. The State Defense Force is what you are talking about.

No it's not. I understand in Ga it is called the Ga Def Forces, however in many other places, like here in Texas for instance, it is called the Texas State Guard. And their tapes look like: (http://www.1800nametape.com/txsg-af.jpg) (which by the way cost 85cents)

Very interesting. Never heard of that before. But then again, I had never heard of the GA State Defense Force before 2004.

Don't need to get into a big old aside here.. .just mentioing them & ROTC/JROTC that have permission from the mil to wear tapes that match their parent services, yet have no need to hide in the woods. Then there's ACA, NSCC, etc that do the same w/o needing endorsement from the mil, and again don't need to hide from anyone. This isn't the girl scouts here. We're closer organizationally to the military than any of those other situations. What's good for the goose... what is necessary for professional appearance in those other orgs... that's all I meant to say.

In the case of our SDF, they did it specifically for important missions purposes... both sides think of it as a team & authority by association, side-effects retention.

I don't really want to drag off into this any further, we've had this conversation before. I only bring it up cause if you're going to put members to the expense of changing tapes, why the hell would you make this LITTLE meaningless change, and why would you press prior to getting a date for ABUs.

Final results of poll:  72% of CAP-TALK members disapprove of "U.S. Civil Air Patrol".  With exactly 100 people responding, I'd say that this is a darn good sample of the CAP-TALK community and should give national leaders some cause for concern. 

The next questions are:

1.  If proposed, would you support a naemtape change to "USAF Auxiliary"?  Yes or No

- and/or -

2.  Should nametapes be left alone, no change at all is needed?  Yes or No

Quote from: A.Member on March 18, 2007, 09:08:28 PM
The next questions are:

1.  If proposed, would you support a naemtape change to "USAF Auxiliary"?  Yes or No

- and/or -

2.  Should nametapes be left alone, no change at all is needed?  Yes or No

For the present, we should leave the nametapes alone. Let everyone's pocketbooks, wallets, and bank accounts recover first.

Nothing's "broke", so we don't need any fixes looking for a problem.

I don't think it needs to be changed right now either.

The next round of changes should be made at the transition to the ABU. At that point, I'd LIKE to see US AIR FORCE AUX. But I have a feeling we'll have US CIVIL AIR PATROL instead.

If uniform changes were more like a wear out phase out... I would be more receptive to change.  Once it is on the uniform, leave it alone until no longer serviceable.  You should also try to exhaust existing stock as much as possible before coming out with something new.

As an example:  The ABU will be a totally new uniform... This would be the time to create the insignia for that uniform, instead of changing the BDU... which could be on it's way out.

wear out - phase out means greater uniform non-conformity. People buyiung stuff off field cause the like the old way & want to be an individual. That's bad, BUT you do have to work from logic when setting transition dates.


Already answered about tapes, and I think there is majority agreement on most of this, give or take some minor details...

1) hold switch till transition to ABUs (new on new, old on old). Only exception being I'm flexible with regard to setting precedent before the switch in order to carry it thru.

2) I'd like white on OD tapes for ABUs. AF ABU tapes will be cammo, so color on OD remains highly distinctive & visible while presenting a professional image commensurate with expectations.

3) I'd got with "USAF AUXILIARY." If you put "US AIR FORCE AUXILIARY" it'll stretch under my arm somewhere or be so small it's unreadable. An example of a similiar problem: CG tapes say "US COAST GUARD," while CGAux tapes say "USCG AUXILIARY." Nice & simple.

4) The main issue in doing this is the org is formally & legally known as Civil Air Patrol. No such organization as the Air Force Auxiliary exists, CAP is merely designated as the Auxiliary of the Air Force.

We are currently removing ref to AFAux from our patches, planes, & vehicle decals because having them on there means asking permission in advance from the AF before doing missions for others that test the limits of PCA. If you put such markings on the BDU/BBDU tapes, then people in those uniforms become bound by that required legal clearance as well.

Personally, I desire to have AF oversight & regulatory control over what outside missions govt provided resources are used for, and ensuring that those requests comply with both PCA & the best interests of the AF. However, the current course is directed at fast & loose mission approval w/o necessarily cleaning up the wake of problems that follow.

Having discussed the issue with a couple people, I recommed CAP file legal notice to do business as (dba) US Air Force Auxiliary (and abbreviations thereof) with caviat that it be utilized with the consent of the SAF & concurrance of joint resolution of the senate & house armed services cmtes... so basically legally make AFAux our legal name in addition but to CAP. Obviously this is a different course than the national leadership is currently pursuing.

USAF AUXILIARY or US Air Force Aux   when we switch to ABUs
As for US Civil Air Patrol or corporate CAP for that matter- throw it in ithe trash.

Do people really think we'll switch to wearing ABUs in the future?  It sounds kind of far off to me.  Then again, looking at the rate of uniform changes right now, I could see it happening.

Of course we will change. Just as we did with the BDU's from the OD fatigues.

Does anyone have a document which features the change authorization or the sundown on the current?

I have yet to find this anywhere, with the only mention being in blogs and forums.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 19, 2007, 08:43:39 PM
Does anyone have a document which features the change authorization or the sundown on the current?

I have yet to find this anywhere, with the only mention being in blogs and forums.

Don't think there's anything official out on it yet.  Am I mistaken, or does this have to go through AF approval first?  Maybe that's what we're waiting for.

As of 1646, cst, there is NO notice of having "US Civil Air Patrol" name tapes, being authorized or required on the website.

It still needs to be approved by the AF and then either 39-1 will be changed or a policy letter issued....

At the Winter Board, USAF said CAP will go to the ABU but that it is too soon at this point to discuss the issue further as far as setting a date.

Think about it....USAF isn't even in them yet. Putting us in them is FAR from important right now. They said yes, we'll discuss the details later in time.  No need for any further speculation on it.

QuoteAt the Winter Board, USAF said CAP will go to the ABU

I'm not sure I heard that....

If we do go to the ABU, I would like to update the uniform patches though.  I also think that uniform changes should be stopped, then update to the ABU's starting in late 2009 and phase out BDU's in early 2011.  I say we subdue the patches and rank, and make the name tapes as well as the bracnh tapes the same color as the BBDU's.

The USAF has been saying no patches on the ABU for a while now... Just grade, wings/badges.

See, patches would make us more distinct.

There's no question we'll switch to ABUs. The point of wearing AF style uniforms is being able to get them from surplus. Which should tell you something about the timeline.

I would agree with freezing changes on BDU for two years, initial transition to ABUs in the 2009-11 timeframe & phase out of BDUs 2 years later, though I'd expect cadet phase out would extend to five years (still have them in old style service coats due to availability).

I wouldn't support further changes to BDUs in that timeframe unless the point is outright & openly setting a precedent for what we get on ABUs, and I hope the process isn't so childish as that.

What I'd like is white on OD for ABUs (AF ABU tapes being camo), ditch all the patches, stick to name/branch, badges/wings (including ebroidered versions of spec badges), and grade... all fully color or white/gold on OD background.

Quote from: RogueLeader on March 20, 2007, 12:35:56 AM
See, patches would make us more distinct.

Nah, we don't need them either.  We can do without them for the same reasons the USAF can.

Quote from: DNall on March 20, 2007, 12:55:52 AM

What I'd like is white on OD for ABUs (AF ABU tapes being camo), ditch all the patches, stick to name/branch, badges/wings (including ebroidered versions of spec badges), and grade... all fully color or white/gold on OD background.

I think that the White/gold on OD woul look pretty good, I just wonder what they would look like on the uniform.  Does anybody know what the ABU's will look like?

Quote from: RogueLeader on March 20, 2007, 01:04:21 AM

Quote from: DNall on March 20, 2007, 12:55:52 AM
What I'd like is white on OD for ABUs (AF ABU tapes being camo), ditch all the patches, stick to name/branch, badges/wings (including ebroidered versions of spec badges), and grade... all fully color or white/gold on OD background.

I think that the White/gold on OD woul look pretty good, I just wonder what they would look like on the uniform.  Does anybody know what the ABU's will look like?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1111.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1111.0)
(http://www.1800nametape.com/vadf-off-insignia.jpg)
background looks a little dark on that one, but you get the idea.

US Civil Air Patrol tape  arrived today from Vanguard.  $1.40 same cost as the old CAP tape.  Say what you want  but they look good on the bdu's.  Much more professional looking than I though it would be.

OK, I'll ask here since the other thread got locked.

I know this board has good intel, and most of what we hear comes to pass, but can anyone produce a document, memo or other authority on the nametape change?

If I can support it, I'll do it before Spring encampment, but my understanding right now is that this has not been fully approved by the USAF yet.

A memo from a Wing King saying he "heard" might be nice, but its not an authority.

Why must we change to the ABU?  What is the point?  I know, same arguement for why went to the BDU.  It is in the supply chain.

Why not just stick with the BDU's until they can't be obtained from any source and then switch to the blue BDU. 

We don't need to be hiding from those we are attempting to find.

Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on March 20, 2007, 03:21:02 AM
Why not just stick with the BDU's until they can't be obtained from any source and then switch to the blue BDU. 

Because...  Because we have Air Force style uniforms and we have CAP distinctive uniforms for those who can't (For reasons of weight or grooming.) or won't wear Air Force style.  Like it or not, there is a stigma there... and it goes both ways.

Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on March 20, 2007, 03:21:02 AM
Why must we change to the ABU?  What is the point?  I know, same arguement for why went to the BDU.  It is in the supply chain.

Why not just stick with the BDU's until they can't be obtained from any source and then switch to the blue BDU. 

We don't need to be hiding from those we are attempting to find.

We're not the blueberry muffin patrol, we are an adjunct of the Air Force, and you need to understand very clearly that you don't get within a hundred miles of anything resembling a mission except by perceived affiliation with the military & letting outsiders think we meet AF standards. You send a team out in all BBDUs w/ no mention of the AF & you're suddenly seen for what you are - a poorly trained unqualified mere volunteer, and you're going to be seen as getting in the way of real professionals trying to do the job.

That & cadets are gone as soon as they don't feel like they are part of an AF organization, and with them will go enough funding to shut down CAP.

We'll be in BDUs till the supply chain shrinks below our need, then the ABU chain will be in place well enough to take care of us. At that point we'll make the switch in order to keep membership costs down, and to hold solidarity with our parent organization.

Respectfully!

Quote from: Eclipse on March 20, 2007, 03:17:10 AM
OK, I'll ask here since the other thread got locked.

I know this board has good intel, and most of what we hear comes to pass, but can anyone produce a document, memo or other authority on the nametape change?

If I can support it, I'll do it before Spring encampment, but my understanding right now is that this has not been fully approved by the USAF yet.

A memo from a Wing King saying he "heard" might be nice, but its not an authority.

Pylon posted a draft from the NB on one of the other threads, I'm not sure where it is, but it's on that.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 20, 2007, 05:22:36 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 20, 2007, 03:17:10 AM
OK, I'll ask here since the other thread got locked.

I know this board has good intel, and most of what we hear comes to pass, but can anyone produce a document, memo or other authority on the nametape change?

If I can support it, I'll do it before Spring encampment, but my understanding right now is that this has not been fully approved by the USAF yet.

A memo from a Wing King saying he "heard" might be nice, but its not an authority.

Pylon posted a draft from the NB on one of the other threads, I'm not sure where it is, but it's on that.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1678.msg27207#msg27207

:)

Respectively,

Why the mad rush to change yet to another uniform combination just because Big Brother Blue is changing?  Or in this case change two more uniforms. 

C.A.P.  Come and Pay.  How many more $$$ are we going to force our members to shell out to change uniforms yet again.  Switching to the new proposed AF uniforms will add uniform combinations #18 and #19 if I am not mistaken.

Again,  Respectively submitted and not argueing the reason and logic DNall posted.  Just plain tired of shelling out my paycheck to be a volunteer.

Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on March 20, 2007, 12:46:29 PM
Respectively,

Why the mad rush to change yet to another uniform combination just because Big Brother Blue is changing?  Or in this case change two more uniforms. 

C.A.P.  Come and Pay.  How many more $$$ are we going to force our members to shell out to change uniforms yet again.  Switching to the new proposed AF uniforms will add uniform combinations #18 and #19 if I am not mistaken.

Again,  Respectively submitted and not argueing the reason and logic DNall posted.  Just plain tired of shelling out my paycheck to be a volunteer.

The ABU is the new uniform of the Air Force.  We wear the Air Force uniform with distinctive insignia (which changes weekly, it seems).

When the Air Force changes, so do we.  Traditionally, our wear-out dates are double the dates for the Air Force.  If they plan to introduce the ABU over 5 years (the time frame that I've heard) you can plan on 8-10 years for phase-in of the new uniform for CAP.

Do you think your current BDU's are still going to look good 8 to 10 years from now?

When its time to replace them, replace them with the ABU.  By then, BDU's will be collector's items.

Out of curiousity, I called Vanguard this morning and they have the US CIVIL AIR PATROL  strips available now. That didn't take long.

Is it US CIVIL AIR PATROL or U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL?  Note periods.  I thought I saw periods on the tapes Maj Gen Pineda held up during the stream.

Pics please!

I think going out and getting these from Vanguard is a bit premature... JMHO.  Wait for the policy letter.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 20, 2007, 02:17:02 PM

Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on March 20, 2007, 12:46:29 PM
Respectively,

Why the mad rush to change yet to another uniform combination just because Big Brother Blue is changing?  Or in this case change two more uniforms. 

C.A.P.  Come and Pay.  How many more $$$ are we going to force our members to shell out to change uniforms yet again.  Switching to the new proposed AF uniforms will add uniform combinations #18 and #19 if I am not mistaken.

Again,  Respectively submitted and not argueing the reason and logic DNall posted.  Just plain tired of shelling out my paycheck to be a volunteer.

The ABU is the new uniform of the Air Force.  We wear the Air Force uniform with distinctive insignia (which changes weekly, it seems).

When the Air Force changes, so do we.  Traditionally, our wear-out dates are double the dates for the Air Force.  If they plan to introduce the ABU over 5 years (the time frame that I've heard) you can plan on 8-10 years for phase-in of the new uniform for CAP.

Do you think your current BDU's are still going to look good 8 to 10 years from now?

When its time to replace them, replace them with the ABU.  By then, BDU's will be collector's items.

I guess the question CAP SAFETY DUDE and mee are asking....is why do we "have to" wear the USAF style uniform?  Don't get me wrong.  I like the USAF uniforms but between the weight and grooming standards and the USAF changes....CAP could just as easily start the move now to corporate uniforms only (TPU, BBDU, Blue Flight Suit).

The amount of creditbilty we gain from wearing USAF uniforms is minimal.  But the loss of credibilty because we show up at mission bases with 8 different uniforms and about half of those worn incorrectly is a much greater in my opinion.

Quote from: MIKE on March 20, 2007, 03:16:38 PM
Is it US CIVIL AIR PATROL or U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL?  Note periods.  I thought I saw periods on the tapes Maj Gen Pineda held up during the stream.

Pics please!

I think going out and getting these from Vanguard is a bit premature... JMHO.  Wait for the policy letter.

Not sure if it has the periods or not. I didnt ask. I only asked if they had them available yet.  Have not seen them and they arent on the Vanguard website yet.

Well, if Vanguard is making them, you know it was at the direction of NHQ.
We'll see if USAF comes back and says NO.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2007, 03:19:28 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 20, 2007, 02:17:02 PM

Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on March 20, 2007, 12:46:29 PM
Respectively,

Why the mad rush to change yet to another uniform combination just because Big Brother Blue is changing?  Or in this case change two more uniforms. 

C.A.P.  Come and Pay.  How many more $$$ are we going to force our members to shell out to change uniforms yet again.  Switching to the new proposed AF uniforms will add uniform combinations #18 and #19 if I am not mistaken.

Again,  Respectively submitted and not argueing the reason and logic DNall posted.  Just plain tired of shelling out my paycheck to be a volunteer.

The ABU is the new uniform of the Air Force.  We wear the Air Force uniform with distinctive insignia (which changes weekly, it seems).

When the Air Force changes, so do we.  Traditionally, our wear-out dates are double the dates for the Air Force.  If they plan to introduce the ABU over 5 years (the time frame that I've heard) you can plan on 8-10 years for phase-in of the new uniform for CAP.

Do you think your current BDU's are still going to look good 8 to 10 years from now?

When its time to replace them, replace them with the ABU.  By then, BDU's will be collector's items.

I guess the question CAP SAFETY DUDE and mee are asking....is why do we "have to" wear the USAF style uniform?  Don't get me wrong.  I like the USAF uniforms but between the weight and grooming standards and the USAF changes....CAP could just as easily start the move now to corporate uniforms only (TPU, BBDU, Blue Flight Suit).

The amount of creditbilty we gain from wearing USAF uniforms is minimal.  But the loss of credibilty because we show up at mission bases with 8 different uniforms and about half of those worn incorrectly is a much greater in my opinion.

The Kachenmeister Law of Military Tradition:

"Anytime a policy, procedure, practice, or offhand comment survives combat, that policy, procedure, practice, or comment becomes a Revered Tradition."

We were placed in Army Air Corps uniforms when we became a combat force.  Our antecedents earned the right to wear the USAF uniform for us.

I, for one, do not wish to slap a battle tradition in the face.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 20, 2007, 04:21:00 PMThe Kachenmeister Law of Military Tradition:

"Anytime a policy, procedure, practice, or offhand comment survives combat, that policy, procedure, practice, or comment becomes a Revered Tradition."

We were placed in Army Air Corps uniforms when we became a combat force.  Our antecedents earned the right to wear the USAF uniform for us.

I, for one, do not wish to slap a battle tradition in the face.

I am not arguing that....and I wish we could follow up on that.  But the USAF does not beleive that.  They are more worried about their image that they contribute to our lack of creditbility.  I have not control over what the USAF does.  So I argue in a way that may actually make a difference.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2007, 03:19:28 PM
I guess the question CAP SAFETY DUDE and mee are asking....is why do we "have to" wear the USAF style uniform?  Don't get me wrong.  I like the USAF uniforms but between the weight and grooming standards and the USAF changes....CAP could just as easily start the move now to corporate uniforms only (TPU, BBDU, Blue Flight Suit).

The amount of creditbilty we gain from wearing USAF uniforms is minimal.  But the loss of credibilty because we show up at mission bases with 8 different uniforms and about half of those worn incorrectly is a much greater in my opinion.

Because we are first & foremost an adjunct of the Air Force & everything else is secondary to that. You wear the same uniform as your teammates. The AF DOES want us wearing the AF uniform. They granted permission for that long long ago, and have never granted permission or endorsed for anything but that. They want us to display symbolicly (with the psychological ramifications) that we are on the same team. And then there's having it avail from surplus keeps the costs of membership down.

I would dispute the amount of credibility we get from wearing AF-style uniforms is minimal. No one knows or cares what Civil Air Patrol is, and no one is about to entrust the lives of their loved ones to civilian volunteer hobbists with minimal self-training, experience, and rescources. When they think the full force & expertise of the US military has come to bear on their problem then they feel at ease.

However, I would certainly agree that we look like idiots when wearing 15 dif combinations. The AF combinations are fine. The alternative versions should be cut down to align with those, apply as much standardization as possible, that makes six possibilities, not 18. If I could further expand (pardon the pun) the ht/wt standards so most people could wear the uniform & make that a standard of membership, I would, but the AF doesn't do what I tell them either. I think most of this gillion different combinations & color explosion BS, not to mention all the changes... all that stuff CAP does to itself. Everything AF has done has been to build unity & keep costs low. The only times the've pushed away is when we did something specific to piss them off.

Overall my view is we should solidify & condense our uniforms, then freeze for 2-5 years while we work to address legitimate complaints about quality & standards across our force. I think we're more than capable of earning the respect & trust of our teammates, and once that's done, and with a fair amount of educating them thrown in, I think we'll earn better aligned uniforms & maybe even that loosening of the ht/wt standards to a degree. I think if you tell someone you what you want for a reward & then spell out a challnging course of goals they want accomplished, you can work hard & earn just about anything you set your mind to.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 20, 2007, 04:21:00 PM
The Kachenmeister Law of Military Tradition:

"Anytime a policy, procedure, practice, or offhand comment survives combat, that policy, procedure, practice, or comment becomes a Revered Tradition."

We were placed in Army Air Corps uniforms when we became a combat force.  Our antecedents earned the right to wear the USAF uniform for us.

I, for one, do not wish to slap a battle tradition in the face.

You and me both, but aside from that, I do not like the look of the Corprate uniform, any of them.  If I had may way, never going to happen- but for the sake of argument discussion, I would require only AF uniforms because I think that they look a lot better.  I know there are weight and grooming problems I know, but hey, thats JMHO.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2007, 03:19:28 PM
I guess the question CAP SAFETY DUDE and mee are asking....is why do we "have to" wear the USAF style uniform?  Don't get me wrong.  I like the USAF uniforms but between the weight and grooming standards and the USAF changes....CAP could just as easily start the move now to corporate uniforms only (TPU, BBDU, Blue Flight Suit).

The amount of creditbilty we gain from wearing USAF uniforms is minimal.  But the loss of credibilty because we show up at mission bases with 8 different uniforms and about half of those worn incorrectly is a much greater in my opinion.

We don't "have to" wear the USAF uniform.   We don't "have to" wear the Corporate uniform either.   The authorization to wear the USAF uniform is a privilege/honor bestowed upon CAP by the AF for being their Auxiliary.  I think the AF is cutting us enough "slack" by saying that we have to meet AF standards plus 10%.   It's one thing for Corporate to come out with an alternative for those who don't meet those standards, but to just give up the privilege/honor the AF grants us without a fight is flat out wrong in my opinion.  I actually do own and on rare occasions wear the BBDU, but I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that if you meet the standards to wear the AF uniform, that's what you should wear.   Getting fit enough, if possible, to get out of the Corporate uniform should be a goal.    If you think that the Corporate uniforms won't change as often as the AF uniforms, you haven't been paying attention.

I don't see CAP not being the USAF Auxiliary anytime soon.  The AF likes what we do, even if they don't say it.  I have no idea what the AF thinks of our leadership and quite frankly, I don't really care since there is nothing I can do about that.  What I can do is help ensure our people know what we are doing and look/act professional doing it.   The AF also wants our Cadet Program and the Aerospace Education we offer.  It's a recruiting tool by proxy and even if someone doesn't join the AF or Air National Guard directly, who knows...a Cadet might be so captivated by aerospace "stuff" that she/he might one day work for Lockheed and design the F-XXX.     Just my $0.02 toward the toll for the thread deviation.

Quote from: Psicorp on March 20, 2007, 05:53:20 PM
I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that if you meet the standards to wear the AF uniform, that's what you should wear.   Getting fit enough, if possible, to get out of the Corporate uniform should be a goal.  

I'd agree with that.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2007, 03:19:28 PM
The amount of creditbilty we gain from wearing USAF uniforms is minimal.  

I couldn't disagree more with this statement and think you're very much in the minority here with that belief.  Right, wrong, or other, the AF-style uniform and our association with the AF gives us virtually all of our credibility.  Without it (and them) we have virtually none.

Quote from: DNall on March 20, 2007, 06:23:58 PM

Quote from: Psicorp on March 20, 2007, 05:53:20 PM
I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that if you meet the standards to wear the AF uniform, that's what you should wear.   Getting fit enough, if possible, to get out of the Corporate uniform should be a goal.  

I'd agree with that.

x2. 

CAP allows for an extra 10% on top of the AF height/weight maximums.  It has been discussed many times before here so I won't dwell on it again but members really should take they physical conditioning seriously (weight and conditioning issues are a real social epidemic in this country) and we all should work to meet the standards set forth for wear of the AF-style uniform.  We need to lead by example.

I understand that some people have real (medical) issues that don't allow to lose weight well, as to the rest, why wouldn't you like to be at a healthy level?

Quote from: A.Member on March 20, 2007, 07:18:10 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2007, 03:19:28 PM
The amount of creditability we gain from wearing USAF uniforms is minimal.  

I couldn't disagree more with this statement and think you're very much in the minority here with that belief.  Right, wrong, or other, the AF-style uniform and our association with the AF gives us virtually all of our credibility.  Without it (and them) we have virtually none.

I just have a question....to whom are you looking at for creditability?

The victims family?  They don't care.  The only care someone is looking for their loved one.  It's not if they hired us or picked us from a list of available resources.

Other EMS organisations?  The USAF?

If anything I thin the USAF uniform makes us loose credibility with the USAF no matter how well we do or job.  Just because they will always think we are posers.

As far as other EMS organisations....the fact we are non uniform in our uniforms hurts us terribly. 

My first way to go would be to force everyone into USAF uniforms....for all the reasons you state.  So to do that we either need to get the USAF to back off their weight and grooming standards or bite the bullet and start kicking out the long hairs and fat boys.

So unless you are prepared to eliminate 50% of your membership....the only other way to solve the problem of loss of credibility due to lack of uniformity in appearance is to go to the corporate uniforms.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2007, 07:53:37 PM
I just have a question....to whom are you looking at for creditability?

The victims family?  They don't care.  The only care someone is looking for their loved one.  It's not if they hired us or picked us from a list of available resources.

Other EMS organisations?  The USAF?

If anything I thin the USAF uniform makes us loose credibility with the USAF no matter how well we do or job.  Just because they will always think we are posers.

As far as other EMS organisations....the fact we are non uniform in our uniforms hurts us terribly. 

My first way to go would be to force everyone into USAF uniforms....for all the reasons you state.  So to do that we either need to get the USAF to back off their weight and grooming standards or bite the bullet and start kicking out the long hairs and fat boys.

So unless you are prepared to eliminate 50% of your membership....the only other way to solve the problem of loss of credibility due to lack of uniformity in appearance is to go to the corporate uniforms.

Primarily to other EMS organizations and government agencies.  They're the ones that call us so that we can assist that family that just wants someone to look for their lost loved one.  But certainly it benefits us as it relates to the general public and USAF as well.   

With respect...

Yes the families very much do care that the people looking for their loved ones are competent & will raise holy hell if they think you aren't to get someone else brought in on the case or at least in charge. And remember it is the state that has jurisdiction, not AFRCC. The state doesn't owe us crap & they'll sure as hell not ask for AFRCC to put us on the case in the future & will send their own people up there to take charge.

It's not just the families though, it's the paid rescue professionals out there too. The state, county, city officers, the park rangers, fire & EMS. They all think CAP is governed by & meets AF training standards, and they trust us because the AF endorses us. W/o that you are 150% out of business.

The AF I'm frankly less concerned with, but at some level you want to win trust. I mean there was a time when the guard reserve were looked at as outsiders not worthy to share the same air, but not so much now days. What CAP need to do is learn from that & do the same thing. That has a lot less to do with uniforms though, and frankly I'd like to put uniform changes aside tillw e earn our place with that other series of changes.

I absolutely agree with you on the variety of uniforms though. There should very much be a specified UOD for every event or duty in all cases no matter what, and you should send people home if they don't meet it. That means at a mission you should be in blue or green fltsuits, blues or white/blue if you are likely to be on camera, and BDU/BBDUs for everyone else. And by the way those should be the only six possble uniforms in CAP (obviously there's LS/SS & service coats as well).

Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2007, 07:53:37 PM
My first way to go would be to force everyone into USAF uniforms....for all the reasons you state.  So to do that we either need to get the USAF to back off their weight and grooming standards or bite the bullet and start kicking out the long hairs and fat boys.

So unless you are prepared to eliminate 50% of your membership....the only other way to solve the problem of loss of credibility due to lack of uniformity in appearance is to go to the corporate uniforms.

That would be my first reaction as well. Am I willing to lose 50% of membership to do it? Maybe, I don't know. It seems extreme, but think about how fast we recruit & how bad we retain. There's steps you can take to easily fix that, and frankly militarizing the thinking (along with uniforms) would help address that. Would I pull the trigger on that though? Hmm... I think I'd start out asking AF to look at how the CGAux deals with the issue, they wouldn't buy that; then I'd go for a more relaxed standard with BMI etc, they MIGHT buy that within reason; then if that still didn't work then I'd seriously consider a standard for membership and go with a highly limited number of alternate uniforms (one-to-one comparable to AF style & similiar appearance), with the requirement that you wear AF-style if you meet the AF provided standard.

I'm all for maintaining our connections and traditions.  My concern really boils down to the vast numbers of uniform combinations we  have and the sudden need to add to it.

If we would ever just stick to a Uniform of the Day policy.  You wear either this AF Style Uniform or its Corporate CAP equivilent it would go a long way to eliminate the disuniform look we project.

CAP Uniform changes have been on a long roller coaster ride for way too long now.  We spend an obscene amount of time discussing, debating, and rehashing the topic.  Then, just when you thought it has settled down NHQ comes out with a new change.

QuoteWe spend an obscene amount of time discussing, debating, and rehashing the topic.  Then, just when you thought it has settled down NHQ comes out with a new change.

I think there actually is a pretty direct correlation between uniform changes and interest in uniform-related threads here.  If we weren't changing all the time, it wouldn't be a major topic of disucssion here.

For comparison, over on the CG Aux board at mil.com there have only been two "real" uniform threads so far in 2007 (not counting quick question/answer threads) and both were directly related to changes made by the CG.  You rarely hear many complaints about CG Aux uniforms -- about the only real ongoing issue relates to some negative thoughts about certain aspects of their version of the BDU (material, velcro fasteners rather than buttons, etc.). 

Hmmm...
very limited choice of uniforms that rarely change in CG Aux with no CG Aux control over the process = most everybody happy
Wide variety of uniforms and options in CAP with almost all changes being instigated by CAP = significant number of people unhappy (probably not a majority, but still quite a few).

Quotea Cadet might be so captivated by aerospace "stuff" that she/he might one day work for Lockheed and design the F-XXX

Just an FYI, I am one of those guys!  I did some time in the 70's in CAP, My favorite aircraft was the SR-71...

Here I am 30+ years later working for Lockheed, on something for the Apache Helicopter and now hopefully something for the B-2.. Some of the other stuff too...

SO yeah.... it is the truth.

Quote from: 2nd LT Fairchild on March 21, 2007, 09:36:24 AM

Quotea Cadet might be so captivated by aerospace "stuff" that she/he might one day work for Lockheed and design the F-XXX

Just an FYI, I am one of those guys!  I did some time in the 70's in CAP, My favorite aircraft was the SR-71...

Here I am 30+ years later working for Lockheed, on something for the Apache Helicopter and now hopefully something for the B-2.. Some of the other stuff too...

SO yeah.... it is the truth.

Oh very cool!   *chuckling at the "other stuff"*    When my Dad was in the AF, he went to Nellis and "other places" and worked on F-15s and "other stuff".  Now he's also working for Lockheed, working on F-15s, F-22s, and "other stuff".   He used those same words too.   I've only had the pleasure of helping him work on F-4s and F-15s.  Makes me wish I had enlisted.

The Knowledgebase is saying 1 March 2010 for a mandatory wear date for the tapes. Linky. (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/capnhq.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1924&p_created=1174491578&p_sid=gnSOT6xi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xNjU0JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1)

What is intersting is that there is no reference to the BBDU's. I would ASSUME the US CAP tape will be worn on those as well??

Just a retorical question (unless someone actually has the answer (other than "42")),  but I noticed the other day that the March 2007 NB Agenda has been taken off the website and nothing put in its place.  If National disseminates the "unofficial official results", why can't they post that?

Quote from: LtCol White on March 21, 2007, 06:57:03 PM
What is intersting is that there is no reference to the BBDU's. I would ASSUME the US CAP tape will be worn on those as well??

   They wouldn't need to specify the uniforms it effects. NB have decided to stop selling "Civil Air Patrol" tapes thru Vanguard and have started only selling "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes so it would effect both the BDU's and the BBDU's. They would specify if it didn't apply to a particular uniform. So yes, your assumption is correct.

Actually, they do have to specify it. As of right now, the uniform manual authorizes the wear of tapes that say CIVIL AIR PATROL and last name only on them. No other tapes are authorized. No matter who does/does not manufacture them at the time. Until those regulations change, no other nametapes are authorized. Yes, the NB approved them. Yes, it looks like CAP-USAF approved them. No, they are not authorized for wear yet because there is no such authorization out yet.

You are correct, the regulations do need to be rewritten to update all these changes. As far as I know, there has been no policy letter issued by General Pinada on this change. We have nothing more then a non official draft of the NB minutes to justify wearing the new tapes. So while yes, Vanguard seems to only selling only the new ones, I see no authorization to allow the wearing of the new tapes until such time a policy letter is written. Am I correct in this thought?

Actually, once a decision has been made by the NB/NEC, you can start following it immediately, unless they included a delay in implementation. Until the change is officially released, you cannot be disciplined for failing to follow it. So, until the policy on the new nametapes is officially released, via policy letter, official memorandum, interim change letter, reg change, or reg revision, you are not required to follow the change. If they don't officially release it before the phase out period ends, you cannot be disciplined for failing to follow the change. (Yes, I know, the project phase out date is 2010, but we'll see how fast the official change if released.)

I guarantee that I won't wear US Civil Air Patrol unit mandated.

Quote from: RogueLeader on March 23, 2007, 03:57:21 PM
I guarantee that I won't wear US Civil Air Patrol unit mandated.

Well to be technical it has already been mandated.

The NB made the decision.  It is authorised and there is a drop dead date.

The only problem is that the NB has not yet disciminated that informaiton through the proper channels yet.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 23, 2007, 04:53:32 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on March 23, 2007, 03:57:21 PM
I guarantee that I won't wear US Civil Air Patrol unit mandated.

Well to be technical it has already been mandated.

The NB made the decision.  It is authorised and there is a drop dead date.

The only problem is that the NB has not yet disciminated that informaiton through the proper channels yet.

Which is interesting considering that if you were to order new CAP tapes from Vanguard, they'll be sending you USCAP tapes.   

Quote from: arajca on March 22, 2007, 01:08:46 PM
Actually, once a decision has been made by the NB/NEC, you can start following it immediately, unless they included a delay in implementation. Until the change is officially released, you cannot be disciplined for failing to follow it. So, until the policy on the new nametapes is officially released, via policy letter, official memorandum, interim change letter, reg change, or reg revision, you are not required to follow the change. If they don't officially release it before the phase out period ends, you cannot be disciplined for failing to follow the change. (Yes, I know, the project phase out date is 2010, but we'll see how fast the official change if released.)

While you cannot be disciplined for following the regulations (in absense of updates or policy letters), you can and may be disciplined for not following them. Unofficial releases of minutes or videos of National Boards or the NEC are NOT, I repeat NOT authorizations for wear of uniform items. They are the transcripts of the NB/NECs decision/indecision to authorize such items in the future. Remember, only the regulations and their updates authorize you to do things in CAP. You don't know whether the decision of the NB/NEC was changed post the release of those minutes and that's why there is no regulation update. You don't know if CAP-USAF shut it down. You don't know if they simply changed their minds at last minute. The only document authorizing wear of uniform is the CAPR 39-1 and policy letters that accompany it.

There can be no discussion on the powers of regulations because such discussions take all the power away from regulations. They are the final authority on what is authorized in CAP (keep in mind that what isn't there is UNAUTHORIZED unless accompanied by written authorization from NHQ).

Quote from: lordmonar on March 23, 2007, 04:53:32 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on March 23, 2007, 03:57:21 PM
I guarantee that I won't wear US Civil Air Patrol unit mandated.

Well to be technical it has already been mandated.

The NB made the decision.  It is authorised and there is a drop dead date.

The only problem is that the NB has not yet disciminated that informaiton through the proper channels yet.

Lack of discimination = lack of mandate.

The suggestion has been adopted by the NB and until there is a policy letter of CAPR 39-1 update, it shall remain just that, a suggestion.

Once the proper "discimination" is achieved, it will be come an SOP order.

For example... an Admiral believes he should take his amphibious group into the Red Sea. He meets with his Captains and their department heads and the decision is made. Does that mean the Captains are allowed to sail into the Red Sea? Nope. Not until there are orders to do so. Decisions and orders may seem alike on the surface, but one carries your weight, and the other carries the weight of your superiors with you.

Quote from: afgeo4 on March 23, 2007, 06:54:05 PMLack of discimination = lack of mandate.

The suggestion has been adopted by the NB and until there is a policy letter of CAPR 39-1 update, it shall remain just that, a suggestion.

Once the proper "discimination" is achieved, it will be come an SOP order.

For example... an Admiral believes he should take his amphibious group into the Red Sea. He meets with his Captains and their department heads and the decision is made. Does that mean the Captains are allowed to sail into the Red Sea? Nope. Not until there are orders to do so. Decisions and orders may seem alike on the surface, but one carries your weight, and the other carries the weight of your superiors with you.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges.  If you look at CAP regulations....NB decisions are binding when they are adopted by the NB vote.  Does not say anything about once the changes is published and sent...it says once the vote is passed.

Granted you can't be punished for following something that has not been published....and it is difficult to follow an order that you can't see.

But you do not have to have actual written orders in hand to do what you are ordered to do.

Your hypothetical scenerio could be the same thing and no op oerder ever written before you start moving your units into the Red Sea.  CAS pilots do not ask for written orders before they execute a call for fire support that was not part of their original ATO.

Lack of dicimination....does not necessarily mean lack of authority....nor lack of mandate.  It simply means that you cannot be held accountable for it yet.

So Vanguard got the word and produced the name tapes.  Good on them, good on the guy who did his job and made that call.  What is bad, is the guy who was supposed to type up the change to the 39-1.  It should not take 2 months to write a simple.......the Branch Tape on BBDU and BDU uniforms will now read U.S. Civil Air Patrol.  Date of manditory wear is 1 June (or what ever it is) 2010.

Bottom line....if you define mandate as someone telling you to do somthing...by regulaiton that has happened....you just don't offically know about yet.  ;D

Could you cite to me the regulation where it says that when the NBB passes a uniform change, it is an official change?

Quote from: afgeo4 on March 24, 2007, 04:54:22 AM
Could you cite to me the regulation where it says that when the NBB passes a uniform change, it is an official change?

Quote from: CAPR 5-1, Par 3.c.4Effective date. Unless an effective date is expressly specified in the regulation, a provision of a regulation, or the motion to ratify the regulation, all regulations become effective immediately when ratified. However, no member shall be penalized for non-compliance with a regulation prior to the time it is published pursuant to CAP regulations.

There you go.

Okay, that may be the case, but from a practical point of view it is meaningless.  I think in some cases those of us watching the webcast of the last NB came away with different impressions of what happened.  Heck, half the time the people on site weren't sure what they were voting for.  Therefore, making any body out in the field who makes changes based on information that verbally passed through who knows how many hands prior to the issuance of a regulation or a policy letter is probably going to get it wrong. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 24, 2007, 12:59:06 PM
Okay, that may be the case, but from a practical point of view it is meaningless.  I think in some cases those of us watching the webcast of the last NB came away with different impressions of what happened.  Heck, half the time the people on site weren't sure what they were voting for.  Therefore, making any body out in the field who makes changes based on information that verbally passed through who knows how many hands prior to the issuance of a regulation or a policy letter is probably going to get it wrong. 

Oh I agree....I'm not running out and changing anything, nor am I encouraging anyone to do anything based on the web-cast content/the reporting here on CAPTALK or even the unoffical draft notice othe NB minutes.

I was only pointing out...that technically the policies of the NB kick in when ratified unless they specify a start date (or require USAF approval----such as this might need).

Tags - MIKE

According to TP, all the Corporate CAP name tapes and tags will be changed to say "US Civil Air Patrol" according to his speech at the COWG Conf. this morning.

This is to include the blue and brushed silver nameplates on the corporate blues and service coat. The nameplates on the AF uniforms will not change.

That being said, I don't recall the nameplates being mentioned in the NB meeting, so I don't know how accurate that portion really is.

So does this mean I can wear a U.S. cut out on one collar and the CAPcut out on the other ;)

Or does that mean I wear both cut outs on BOTH collars??? :D  U.S.CAP

Maybe I should have been quiet, they might read this an issues a policy letter for it!

QuoteThat being said, I don't recall the nameplates being mentioned in the NB meeting, so I don't know how accurate that portion really is.

I am 100% positive they only mentioned the BDU tapes.  So, apparently NHQ is making up the nameplat change on their own without NB approval (unless there is some way to ammend motions, etc. after the meeting or some other technicality I'm not aware of). 

1. For the record, it's "dissemination."

2.  That change is just great, considering I just got an envelope from Vanguard the other day, a gray name plate and blue tapes with "Civil Air Patrol."  I just love throwing money down a rat hole for s's & g's!!

V/R,

Sorry, but I've been off the uniform threads for a while.

What is this about brushing silver on a blue nameplate?

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?  Over.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 25, 2007, 02:01:29 AM
Sorry, but I've been off the uniform threads for a while.

What is this about brushing silver on a blue nameplate?

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?  Over.

The nameplate for the service dress is brushed silver. That is the name of the finish. The name plate for the corporate blujes is just blue plastic. No change there. For now...

I watched this on the CAP Channel live as it was happening.  I wished I had a way to voice my opinion BEFORE the vote.  I just bought 10 CAP tapes for my cadets.  With Vanguard's shipping prices that came to $21.  Now I will have to do it again?  Where do all of you get your uniform money?  I guess the NB are all independently wealthy!

The old tapes can continue to be worn until 1 March 2010, supposedly. 

Quote from: jason.pennington on March 25, 2007, 07:48:03 PM
I watched this on the CAP Channel live as it was happening.  I wished I had a way to voice my opinion BEFORE the vote.  I just bought 10 CAP tapes for my cadets.  With Vanguard's shipping prices that came to $21.  Now I will have to do it again?  Where do all of you get your uniform money?  I guess the NB are all independently wealthy!

Wouldn't run off & do that. No formal change letter yet, some doubt if it needs to be or would be approved by AF (AETC/CC). If it does come out as official, then still don't buy new ones. How many cadets in the system now do you really think are still going to be with us in 2010? Once it's official then oreder the new ones for new people, but not before, and otherwise wait till they make you do something.

By the way, alt source, about $11.50, same quality. Do NOT go to Vanguard for this.

Quote from: jason.pennington on March 25, 2007, 07:48:03 PM
I watched this on the CAP Channel live as it was happening.  I wished I had a way to voice my opinion BEFORE the vote.  I just bought 10 CAP tapes for my cadets.  With Vanguard's shipping prices that came to $21.  Now I will have to do it again?  Where do all of you get your uniform money?  I guess the NB are all independently wealthy!

Not for 3 more years and by then the BDU's should be due to be replaced anyways....so nominal costs to you are minimal. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2007, 07:40:29 PM
I would go for changing the squadron names to their locations.  It is easy to know where the San Diego Sr Squadron but where the heck is the Homer J. Simpson Air Power Supreme Super Composite Squdron.

With the squadron able to name themselve after just about anything they want to....numbers are just as acceptable.

Good point.

Quote from: arajca on March 24, 2007, 06:30:06 PM
According to TP, all the Corporate CAP name tapes and tags will be changed to say "US Civil Air Patrol" according to his speech at the COWG Conf. this morning.

This is to include the blue and brushed silver nameplates on the corporate blues and service coat. The nameplates on the AF uniforms will not change.

That being said, I don't recall the nameplates being mentioned in the NB meeting, so I don't know how accurate that portion really is.

Hmm... Another reason not to buy TPUs (I'm gonna need more paper). Something tells me Gen Pineda's degree isn't in marketing.

Man... son if AF approves thi9s then I hav to go out & replace all my nameplates too, on top of my BDU tapes? You've got to be kidding me!!! Do you know how much that costs? Have they even remotely thought about that. I'm seriously getting pissed about how freakin incompetent people behave in this organization. I'd sure like to lend the benefit of the doubt, but this is beyond stupid.

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 04:50:37 PM
Man... son if AF approves thi9s then I hav to go out & replace all my nameplates too, on top of my BDU tapes? You've got to be kidding me!!! Do you know how much that costs? Have they even remotely thought about that. I'm seriously getting pissed about how freakin incompetent people behave in this organization. I'd sure like to lend the benefit of the doubt, but this is beyond stupid.

From my understanding, the only nameplates affected will be the TPU/Corporate ones that currently say Civil Air Patrol on them. The USAF style nameplates will stay as is.

I didn't see anything about nameplates, only the tapes for BBDU/BDU voted on at NB. I'd be pissed if I just within the last year ordered those nameplates & now you're telling me they're going to change. My impression from the statement though is that this would go down like the command patch - where the change was ordered on the corp version ahead of AF approval on the AF-style. So the logical aussumption is that the AF-style nameplates will also be changed if/when AF grants permission. Far as that goes, I can't see them refusing, even if they don't like it, cause it doesn't confuse us as AF officers or anything like that.

Not necessarily.  The stated justification for adding the "US" was to distinguish us from other Civil Air Patrols around the world.  The nameplate on the AF shirt already says "United States Air Force Auxiliary" so no need to change it. 

You're assuming the horribly weak stated justification is the real reasoning behind the change, which has not generally been the case with any change proposed by the current Nat/CC as borne out after the fact.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 27, 2007, 09:42:06 PM
Not necessarily.  The stated justification for adding the "US" was to distinguish us from other Civil Air Patrols around the world.  The nameplate on the AF shirt already says "United States Air Force Auxiliary" so no need to change it. 

Again, the American Flag on our shoulders didn't do that?

Psicorp-you're mixing uniforms.  My post was in regards to the nameplate worn with the blue shirt.  No American flag on the blue shirt. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 28, 2007, 02:16:14 AM
Psicorp-you're mixing uniforms.  My post was in regards to the nameplate worn with the blue shirt.  No American flag on the blue shirt. 

I understand that...but the original NB vote to change it on the B/BDUs still doesn't make sense to me. I really wish NHQ would share their vision, but we've been through that.    As far as the Corporate uniforms go, they're Corporate...they can be whatever the Corporation wants them to be, I have no problem with it.

Point of interest...

Vanguard is here in Lansing at the Michigan Wing Conference. They had the 'U.S. Civil Air Patrol' nametapes on the sign board, no 'Civil Air Patrol' tapes. had aprox. 50 tapes.

Gone in a matter of a couple hours.

Quote from: mlcurtis69 on March 31, 2007, 04:39:13 AM
Point of interest...

Vanguard is here in Lansing at the Michigan Wing Conference. They had the 'U.S. Civil Air Patrol' nametapes on the sign board, no 'Civil Air Patrol' tapes. had aprox. 50 tapes.

Gone in a matter of a couple hours.

Thats not good.. but then.. at the last SLS I was at: folks who MET the standards for blues still FLOCKED to the table to buy the TPU so they could wear "REALAF" epulets.... sheesh

Quote from: Psicorp on March 28, 2007, 12:24:25 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 27, 2007, 09:42:06 PM
Not necessarily.  The stated justification for adding the "US" was to distinguish us from other Civil Air Patrols around the world.  The nameplate on the AF shirt already says "United States Air Force Auxiliary" so no need to change it. 

Again, the American Flag on our shoulders didn't do that?

US Army uniforms have to have a flag on them and I haven't noticed and ARMY branch tapes on anyone. They're still using U.S. Army.

Quote from: mlcurtis69 on March 31, 2007, 04:39:13 AM
Point of interest...

Vanguard is here in Lansing at the Michigan Wing Conference. They had the 'U.S. Civil Air Patrol' nametapes on the sign board, no 'Civil Air Patrol' tapes. had aprox. 50 tapes.

Gone in a matter of a couple hours.

hmm... someone's trying to build those regional training centers real hard.

Quote from: afgeo4 on March 31, 2007, 03:49:36 PM
US Army uniforms have to have a flag on them and I haven't noticed and ARMY branch tapes on anyone. They're still using U.S. Army.

The overseas flag is worn in war zones where other nations are present in order to make it easy to ID who you belong to. They wear the color version back here to show that symbolicly the whole Army is at war & they need to be thinking that way. The branch tape express the name of the organizaiton and will still be there after the GWOT is over & the flags come off.

CAP isn't at war & isn't in the army, so it shouldn't be following their uniform guidance. Also, our full name is not the US Civil Air Patrol. If you want it changed to that, ask congress to drop a quick amendment on the defense bill. If that's the way you want to spend your political capital then I'm sure they'd have no problem with it.

My issue with this is it's nothing gained in exchange for a significant cost spread out over the field - a couple hundred grand I beleive is the number we worked out. With the corp alt service dress you had a choice if you wanted to go out & buy that thing, but this change touches almost everyone, and that's bad leadership. When you hurt & frustrate your people for no gain, that's unacceptable leadership.

If it is really too much to drop a couple of bucks on the new tapes, get your squadron to pay for all of its members to purchase them and have them sewn on.  Do a fund raiser and quit the whining already! 

We've got something like 2 or 3 years to phase them in.  What's the rush?  As my BDU's get faded and I buy new ones, I'll put on the new tapes.  I'd have to buy new ones anyway at that point.

Quote from: mikeylikey1 on March 31, 2007, 07:33:16 PM
If it is really too much to drop a couple of bucks on the new tapes, get your squadron to pay for all of its members to purchase them and have them sewn on.  Do a fund raiser and quit the whining already! 

It's not that, I could pay for tapes for everyone in my wing (and it's a big wing) and not flinch much. That's not the point. It's a PITA that takes money away from my people that, granted is small individually, but adds up across the org. It would have been much better for the org to just bump dues up a couple bucks & use the money for something that serves a purpose (shh... don't want to give them any ideas). You should never make a change unless you can justify why it MUST be changed & show in black & white that the gain exceeds the cost in a significant & meaningful way. This does none of that, which makes it irresponsible.

Quote from: DNall on March 31, 2007, 07:55:27 PM
t's a PITA that takes money away from my people that, granted is small individually, but adds up across the org.

Now that is a complete misrepresentation.  The phase in of this is long enough that none one has to go out and buy branch tapes just to switch out the ones on their uniform.  WHEN you get new BDUs or BBDUs you get then new branch tape...all new members get the new branch tape.  There is not additional costs to anyone.

The only's who may be out are any unit that has bought a stock of them.  And that is correct by just using up existing supplies as fast as possible.

Quote from: DNall on March 31, 2007, 07:55:27 PMIt would have been much better for the org to just bump dues up a couple bucks & use the money for something that serves a purpose (shh... don't want to give them any ideas). You should never make a change unless you can justify why it MUST be changed & show in black & white that the gain exceeds the cost in a significant & meaningful way. This does none of that, which makes it irresponsible.

Let me just play devil's advocate here.....that MAY (please let me stress may) have been done.  But it was justified to the only people who count in this situation, the NB.  They don't have to justify any changes to the rank and file.  Granted good change management dictates that you get the rank and file to buy off on it so solve just this sort of belly aching....but it is not necessary and it is not irresponsible, just bad management.

QuoteWHEN you get new BDUs or BBDUs you get then new branch tape...all new members get the new branch tape.  There is not additional costs to anyone.

I don't know how many uniforms you go through, but I fully expect 2 of my 3 current sets of BDUs as well as the one on my field jacket to last several years beyond the deadline so I will have to buy new tapes for them. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 31, 2007, 10:42:20 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 31, 2007, 07:55:27 PM
t's a PITA that takes money away from my people that, granted is small individually, but adds up across the org.

Now that is a complete misrepresentation.  The phase in of this is long enough that none one has to go out and buy branch tapes just to switch out the ones on their uniform.  WHEN you get new BDUs or BBDUs you get then new branch tape...all new members get the new branch tape.  There is not additional costs to anyone.

The only's who may be out are any unit that has bought a stock of them.  And that is correct by just using up existing supplies as fast as possible.

You know the phase-in is what 3 years? You wear BDUs half the time to meetings, that's like 50-75 hrs, 25 washes, plus a weekend every six weeks or so. That'd take 10 years to wear out. Granted if you're extremely active you're probably a little rougher on them, and you probably also have 2-3 sets.

The larger point though is it's change for the sake of change, or rather people trying to establish some sense of legacy, and done over the backs of members with no measureable gain to the org. That's dumb. I don't really care if it has US on the front or not. I have no particular opinion on that being a good idea or not. It's just not a justified change.

Quote

Quote from: DNall on March 31, 2007, 07:55:27 PMIt would have been much better for the org to just bump dues up a couple bucks & use the money for something that serves a purpose (shh... don't want to give them any ideas). You should never make a change unless you can justify why it MUST be changed & show in black & white that the gain exceeds the cost in a significant & meaningful way. This does none of that, which makes it irresponsible.

Let me just play devil's advocate here.....that MAY (please let me stress may) have been done.  But it was justified to the only people who count in this situation, the NB.  They don't have to justify any changes to the rank and file.  Granted good change management dictates that you get the rank and file to buy off on it so solve just this sort of belly aching....but it is not necessary and it is not irresponsible, just bad management.

Okay, that's true. We don't really know which way it went down. IF it was fully justified & not just whipped thru for the sake of legacy or shirt sighted flights of fancy then you're right, it's simply bad management, which I'd still describe as irresponsible, especially when dealing with volunteers. On the other hand if it was not justified, which would be my suspicion, then it was a leadership failure & even more irresponsible.

Quote from: DNall on April 01, 2007, 12:44:36 AM
The larger point though is it's change for the sake of change

Bingo!  The last time I recall big brother AF doing something seemingly this ill-advised was when Gen McPeak re-designed the service coat, and took the epaulets off.  Then just a couple of years after he left (if that long) they put 'em back.  Sooo, guys were having to go out and buy the 'retro-fit' kits, and pay the tailors to put the dang things back on.  The second-silliest idea in my recollection was the white ceremonial dress, that was almost never worn.  I knew guys with less than six months before separation that spent the several hundred dollars to get the thing, wore it once, or not at all, and then tried to recoup what they could via the base thrift shop before the thing got canned.

As someone pointed out, it's not just the dollars, it's the principle, the reason, or lack of it.  If you don't have a clear and definitive reason for making such a sweeping change, and can't identify and defend why it had to be done, or was the right thing to do, it's just not prudent to do it.  If Vanguard has shareholders, I wonder if anyone's checked the shareholder's list recently. (idle musing).

Decision-makers at the national level should *never* do anything without lots of analytical forethought, a consideration for the long-term effects, and a conscious effort not to be bitten in the derrière by the law of unintended consequences.  They *have* to think strategically. By the time you get to that level, you should *never* be caught dead doing anything obviously short-sighted, selfish, or dare I say st00pid.. Yep, JMO..

V/R,

brb.. Someones knocking at the fron.....

I'll go with the principle argument.

But that is as far as I'll go.  A 3 year phase in...even if you don't cycle your BDU's by then, is a whopping $2/year.  Let's not pretend that $2 bucks is going to kill anyone or prevent anyone from participating in CAP.

Let's also be careful with words like irresponsible.  That envisions that they knew the consequences of their actions but just don't care.  Bad management, misunderstood the desires of the field, just some individual's pet peeve to make us more like the USAF. (everyone else say U.S. why don't we?)

Everyone should go back and look at their little pet project and think.....if they ever got the chance to bring it up for a vote...would they refrain because it was change for changes sake?

LtCol Boyd... That's the gist of my position right there. And it extends beyond silly uniform changes.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2007, 05:09:41 AM
A 3 year phase in...even if you don't cycle your BDU's by then, is a whopping $2/year.  Let's not pretend that $2 bucks is going to kill anyone or prevent anyone from participating in CAP.

No doubt, but 200 grand out of our member's pockets couldn't have found a better use?

QuoteLet's also be careful with words like irresponsible.  That envisions that they knew the consequences of their actions but just don't care.  Bad management, misunderstood the desires of the field, just some individual's pet peeve to make us more like the USAF. (everyone else say U.S. why don't we?)

I understand what you're saying, and that would be completely reasonable, except... you don't think on that level that they have a responsibility to think thru the consequences? It's not exactly rocket science.

QuoteEveryone should go back and look at their little pet project and think.....if they ever got the chance to bring it up for a vote...would they refrain because it was change for changes sake?

Fair enough. I expect to be held to that. I think the ideas I've talked about on here I've always made an effort to justify them pretty strongly. People haven't always bought into those justifications, and that's a sign the idea needs more work & shouldn't yet pass, I understand & agree with that completly.

I'm okay with change, I like change, I want to see lots of change, but it has to be with purpose & you HAVE to sell the troops or they are going to rebel every time, even when you are doing good things for them.

QuoteBut that is as far as I'll go.  A 3 year phase in...even if you don't cycle your BDU's by then, is a whopping $2/year.  Let's not pretend that $2 bucks is going to kill anyone or prevent anyone from participating in CAP.

I am primarily opposed to this idea on principle.  However, your calculations leave out those of us who are "sewing challenged" and have to take time out to take the uniforms somewhere with a sewing machine to put these on in a professional manner.  $5 per tape where I go.   

So, this will cost me about $30, which is about the value of half my annual CAP dues.  Yes, in the whole scheme of things it isn't much, but it is a hidden tax on CAP members that doesn't help us beat down the "Come and Pay" nickname. 

U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes (http://www.civilairpatrolstore.com/store/view_product.php?product=20389)

Quote from: MIKE on April 02, 2007, 12:42:35 AM
U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes (http://www.civilairpatrolstore.com/store/view_product.php?product=20389)

EW!  Now where the crap are the gore-tex parka tabs?!   >:(

Quote
EW!  Now where the crap are the gore-tex parka tabs?!   >:(

They will be available next year!  Had to get the "non-approved" items produced before the approved items.

I won't wear US Civil Air patrol Tapes until there is no other option to, maybe not even then.

Quote from: RogueLeader on April 02, 2007, 05:43:43 PM
I won't wear US Civil Air patrol Tapes until there is no other option to, maybe not even then.

It is this attitude that I just don't understand.  I can understand the "not another change" attitude, the "I just got new BDUs" attitude.  But this?  Are you really saying that you will quit CAP over the branch tape of a uniform you don't even have to wear?

It is not the name of our organization and violates the CAP Constitution.  I agree with Rogue that I will not wear the tapes until forced and I may just quit wearing that uniform rather than switch.   

If you guys are crazy enough to quit over a name tape that was approved by the National Board...Good Bye.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 02, 2007, 10:48:03 PM
It is not the name of our organization and violates the CAP Constitution.

Not only does the use of "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" violate the CAP Constitution, it also violates chapter 403 of Title 36 of the U.S. Code.   That is the chapter that deals with Civil Air Patrol, not the U.S. Civil Air Patrol.

Quote from: 14 USC 4036The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name "Civil Air Patrol" and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

Notice how it says "Civil Air Patrol", not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

Chapter 909 of Title 10 is the chapter that deals with the Civil Air Patrol's (not U.S. Civil Air Patrol's) relationship with the USAF.

Quote from: 20 USC 9442(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.

Neither of the two above excerpts mention anything about "U.S. Civil Air Patrol", only Civil Air Patrol.  Additionally, Air Force regs that deal with CAP also refer to CAP as "Civil Air Patrol", not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."  They can be found here: http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/member_services/publications/other_publications.cfm

I didn't say I'd quit the organization, just quit wearing a uniform that doesn't accurately represent the organization I'm in. 

This is a silly annoyance, but its not worth going to the wall over.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 03, 2007, 12:49:19 AM
I didn't say I'd quit the organization, just quit wearing a uniform that doesn't accurately represent the organization I'm in. 

River....if you follow through on this threat...then about 90% of all the stuff you have ever said about CAP officers needing to be more professional is just a load of bull hockey!

Lesson one of any leader.....support down, challenge up!

I have to agree with lordmonar.....Although we all agree that it wasn't a necessary uniform change, in the grand scheme of things, its really not worth getting all huffy about. What do you care more about? The fact that your name tape says US CAP instead of CAP or the purpose and good done by the organization.

Switch to the new tapes whenever you decide to (or the regs require) but get over it already. Unless USAF comes back and says "NO", its a done deal and just deal with it like an adult.

Quote from: LtCol White on April 03, 2007, 01:02:36 PM
I have to agree with lordmonar.....Although we all agree that it wasn't a necessary uniform change, in the grand scheme of things, its really not worth getting all huffy about. What do you care more about? The fact that your name tape says US CAP instead of CAP or the purpose and good done by the organization.

Switch to the new tapes whenever you decide to (or the regs require) but get over it already. Unless USAF comes back and says "NO", its a done deal and just deal with it like an adult.

Certainly that's the practical response that'll actually be done here in the field. However, I do think the abstract argument over principle has some value in NB learning a lesson about how to do this process correctly so as not to piss off members, but rather to turn these actions into things that can boost morale & achieve objectives.

Quote from: DNall on April 03, 2007, 09:02:06 PM

Quote from: LtCol White on April 03, 2007, 01:02:36 PM
I have to agree with lordmonar.....Although we all agree that it wasn't a necessary uniform change, in the grand scheme of things, its really not worth getting all huffy about. What do you care more about? The fact that your name tape says US CAP instead of CAP or the purpose and good done by the organization.

Switch to the new tapes whenever you decide to (or the regs require) but get over it already. Unless USAF comes back and says "NO", its a done deal and just deal with it like an adult.

Certainly that's the practical response that'll actually be done here in the field. However, I do think the abstract argument over principle has some value in NB learning a lesson about how to do this process correctly so as not to piss off members, but rather to turn these actions into things that can boost morale & achieve objectives.

You assume that anyone on the NB really cares.  Let's face it.....there is NO real reason for anyone in the feild to object to this change....maybe a legal one, maybe the USAF may object....but rank and file?

If anyone tries to do some sort of passive resisitance they all need to be 2b'ed.  Support down, challeng up.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 03, 2007, 07:28:55 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 03, 2007, 12:49:19 AM
I didn't say I'd quit the organization, just quit wearing a uniform that doesn't accurately represent the organization I'm in. 

River....if you follow through on this threat...then about 90% of all the stuff you have ever said about CAP officers needing to be more professional is just a load of bull hockey!

Lesson one of any leader.....support down, challenge up!

I don't exactly see how that is the case.  If I chose not to wear the BDU with a nametape that violates the core document of the organization, how is that challenging authority any more than all the other CAP members who pick and chose what uniforms to wear? 

Do you personally own every single possible CAP uniform and wear them on a regular basis?  I don't. 

This will just be one less uniform to hang in the closet.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2007, 12:11:54 AM
You assume that anyone on the NB really cares. 

Well I know for a fact they are listening. Cares or not I couldn't answer. I think they have been fairly responsible though, so far as it either played into or didn't interfere with their own plans or desires.

QuoteLet's face it.....there is NO real reason for anyone in the feild to object to this change....maybe a legal one, maybe the USAF may object....but rank and file?

Principle & frustration with both the process & the actual change.

QuoteIf anyone tries to do some sort of passive resisitance they all need to be 2b'ed.  Support down, challeng up.

Absolutely you follow orders or get the hell out. This conversation is challenging up the chain, & the complaint is they are not supporting back down in.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 03, 2007, 07:28:55 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 03, 2007, 12:49:19 AM
I didn't say I'd quit the organization, just quit wearing a uniform that doesn't accurately represent the organization I'm in. 

River....if you follow through on this threat...then about 90% of all the stuff you have ever said about CAP officers needing to be more professional is just a load of bull hockey!

Lesson one of any leader.....support down, challenge up!

By the way, I haven't been one of the "professionalize or else" crowd.  I don't think our professionalism (or lack thereof) has very much at all to do with what missions we are and are not tasked with by the Air Force or by state agencies. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 04, 2007, 04:17:12 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 03, 2007, 07:28:55 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 03, 2007, 12:49:19 AM
I didn't say I'd quit the organization, just quit wearing a uniform that doesn't accurately represent the organization I'm in. 

River....if you follow through on this threat...then about 90% of all the stuff you have ever said about CAP officers needing to be more professional is just a load of bull hockey!

Lesson one of any leader.....support down, challenge up!

By the way, I haven't been one of the "professionalize or else" crowd.  I don't think our professionalism (or lack thereof) has very much at all to do with what missions we are and are not tasked with by the Air Force or by state agencies. 

Oops...sorry did it again.  I sometimes get tunnel vision on this forum. :) 

However...on the principles of leadership....it is very dangerous to say statements like you said.  A lot of our leadership authority is built on a fiction.  We pretend that we have faith in our leaders to help shore up our own authority.  If Cadets X,Y,Z see that SM RiverAux may disobey an order because he disagrees with it on principle (not legal) grounds they may decide to stop listen to their leadership because he has not "earned their respect".

We have show loyalty to our leaders and decisions especially when we disagree with them.  Or else we run the risk of loosing control of the whole train.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2007, 05:09:24 AM
However...on the principles of leadership....it is very dangerous to say statements like you said.  A lot of our leadership authority is built on a fiction.  We pretend that we have faith in our leaders to help shore up our own authority.  If Cadets X,Y,Z see that SM RiverAux may disobey an order because he disagrees with it on principle (not legal) grounds they may decide to stop listen to their leadership because he has not "earned their respect".

We have show loyalty to our leaders and decisions especially when we disagree with them.  Or else we run the risk of loosing control of the whole train.

Just to echo (isn't it nice to see us two agreeing on things every now & then)...

That's absolutely right, and to a great extent is true in the real world and the military too. Even with the UCMJ, people really don't follow orders cause they might get tossed in jail. I mean they'll do what they absolutely have to because of that, just like in business people will do what they must to keep from getting fired, but you can't operate a unit full of people like that, you'd never get anything done. People have to be inspired & actually led, not forced. And part of that is them buying into the system that grants you authority over them, and that means you have to show the same fealty in example or you're out of business.

So many things like that which are qualities & principles of good leadership are even more necessary in a volunteer based organization than they are in the military or business expressly because anyone can give you the finger & walk out the door anytime the feel like it.

As I said previously, it is what it is.  You are free to disagree with the change but you are required to comply with it. MANY military personnel disagree with certain orders and requirements but the STILL follow them.

In the grand scheme, this is a very minor issue. If you feel that strongly, you're free to not wear BDU's. Its that simple. If USAF doesn't say NO, then let it be, because it means its not a big deal to them and shouldn't be to us.

Like it or not, we have to have some faith in the NB and leadership that they do have the best interest of the organization at heart. It may not always seem this way and we may not understand the logic, but then again, since we weren't involved in the process we don't know what efforts and reasoning went into the decisions. Given this, it is irresponsible and poor leadership to make assumptions about what they did or didn't consider when making this or any other changes. For us, its PURE specualtion.

Aren't there more important topics we can write 17 pages on???

Quote from: LtCol White on April 04, 2007, 01:17:08 PM
Aren't there more important topics we can write 17 pages on???

Probably, but would we really write 17 pages on them?

Quote from: lordmonar on April 02, 2007, 10:01:42 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on April 02, 2007, 05:43:43 PM
I won't wear US Civil Air patrol Tapes until there is no other option to, maybe not even then.

It is this attitude that I just don't understand.  I can understand the "not another change" attitude, the "I just got new BDUs" attitude.  But this?  Are you really saying that you will quit CAP over the branch tape of a uniform you don't even have to wear?

Who said I was going to quit? 8)

Quote from: RogueLeader on April 04, 2007, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 02, 2007, 10:01:42 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on April 02, 2007, 05:43:43 PM
I won't wear US Civil Air patrol Tapes until there is no other option to, maybe not even then.

It is this attitude that I just don't understand.  I can understand the "not another change" attitude, the "I just got new BDUs" attitude.  But this?  Are you really saying that you will quit CAP over the branch tape of a uniform you don't even have to wear?

Who said I was going to quit? 8)

"Maybe not even then" means either you are going to quit...or you are going to get a 2b (if I were your squadron commander).  You may not like the uniform....but you got to wear it (or one of the other uniforms).  So if you don't want to wear "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" then that means no BBDUs or BDUs for you.  So you will be a flight suit, service dress or polo shirt guy at the mission base.

2B over a branch Tape that only adds US over a loyal and dedicated member who got tired of having too many changes come from HQ. . . . hhmmmmmm. . . . . I'd say that that smacks of what NHQ is doing.

Quote from: arajca on April 04, 2007, 02:40:14 PM
Probably, but would we really write 17 pages on them?

No ... we're going to write 17 pages on being Admirals in the Nebraska Navy!   :D

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 04, 2007, 07:17:21 PM

Quote from: arajca on April 04, 2007, 02:40:14 PM
Probably, but would we really write 17 pages on them?

No ... we're going to write 17 pages on being Admirals in the Nebraska Navy!   :D

Jack

"[darn] the torpedoes...full speed ahead!!"

Quote from: LtCol White on April 04, 2007, 07:40:56 PM

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 04, 2007, 07:17:21 PM

Quote from: arajca on April 04, 2007, 02:40:14 PM
Probably, but would we really write 17 pages on them?

No ... we're going to write 17 pages on being Admirals in the Nebraska Navy!   :D

Jack

"[darn] the torpedoes...full speed ahead!!"

uh-rah, Semeper FI.

Quote from: RogueLeader on April 04, 2007, 07:45:14 PM
uh-rah, Semeper FI.

Well, it fits that the Nebraska Navy should have a Marine Corps.

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 04, 2007, 08:36:32 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on April 04, 2007, 07:45:14 PM
uh-rah, Semeper FI.

Well, it fits that the Nebraska Navy should have a Marine Corps.

Jack

Under the Nebraskan Department of Defense*

I don't see why I should support a decision that violates CAP's constitution by wearing a uniform that exhibits the organization's lack of adherence to its founding document.  Change the Constitution to allow U.S. Civil Air Patrol and I will wear the BDUs. 

After the US Civil Air Patrol becomes mandatory I just won't wear the BDUs anymore.  That isn't any sort of revolutionary statement.  I've got other uniforms I can wear.  I just won't participate in activities where the BDUs are required. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 04, 2007, 10:26:20 PM
I don't see why I should support a decision that violates CAP's constitution by wearing a uniform that exhibits the organization's lack of adherence to its founding document.  Change the Constitution to allow U.S. Civil Air Patrol and I will wear the BDUs. 

After the US Civil Air Patrol becomes mandatory I just won't wear the BDUs anymore.  That isn't any sort of revolutionary statement.  I've got other uniforms I can wear.  I just won't participate in activities where the BDUs are required. 

Exactly the point here. If you don't like the US CAP strips, just don't wear the BDU's.

::sings:: this is the thread that never ends...

Quote from: LtCol White on April 04, 2007, 10:39:12 PM
Exactly the point here. If you don't like the US CAP strips, just don't wear the BDU's.

Or grow up & get over it. Grumbling is fine, they brought that on themselves with bad mgmt practices, but in the end you should salute & exectute. In the meantime I'd say two simple things:

1) It still looks like the AF has to approve this for BDUs if they refuse then it'll be a slap back at CAP for being so silly w/ meaningless uniform moves; if they okay it then that's them giving us permission s to do business as US CAP (just like they gave permission to dba AFAux). So relax a little an see how that goes. And,

2) Grumbing now is one thing, and I think there's an abstract conversation to be had down the path of telling leadership they need to do things right (see also the wear-test thread), but don't wrap yourself up in false principle & take it too far.

Quote1) if they okay it then that's them giving us permission s to do business as US CAP (just like they gave permission to dba AFAux). So relax a little an see how that goes.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the AF.  If the AF said tomorrow that its ok with them if we were the Star Spangled Banner Civil Air Patrol that wouldn't change the fact that the CAP Constitution prohibits us from using that name.

All I'm saying is that if the leadership wants to ignore the CAP Constitution I can't do anything about it.  But, that doesn't mean I have to validate their bad decisions by tacitly agreeing to them.

     

Quote from: RiverAux on April 05, 2007, 12:56:57 AM
...that wouldn't change the fact that the CAP Constitution prohibits us from using that name.

No it most certainly does not!!! It says the name of the org is "civil air patrol" & we own copyright to that & appropriate abbreviations thereof. It in no way restricts us from dba any other name we should choose to use provided the correct legal proceedure is followed. I didn't see you arguing when they put USAF Aux on the planes. That was the same case of dba'ing with consent of the rights holder (AF in that case).

QuoteAll I'm saying is that if the leadership wants to ignore the CAP Constitution I can't do anything about it.  But, that doesn't mean I have to validate their bad decisions by tacitly agreeing to them.

They follow or ignore rules as it suits them, and that pisses all of us off as much as it does the AF, but as you say there is nothing to be done about it from our paygrade. However, this just isn't one of those cases. You need to relax a bit on the strict interpretation of everything you see. That's just not how reality works.

Quote from: JC004 on April 04, 2007, 10:46:42 PM
::sings:: this is the thread that never ends...

Ya think???

Okay, I guess I can't expect everyone to remember everything posted in a thread this long:

CAP Constitution:

QuoteARTICLE II
NAME AND STATUS
The name of the Corporation shall be "Civil Air Patrol" and its status is that of the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Corporation may also be referred to as "Civil Air Patrol" or by such other titles as may be approved in the Bylaws.

Bylaws Section 2

Quote2.1 The name of Civil Air Patrolmay be stated by any of the following:
a. "Civil Air Patrol"
b. "Civil Air Patrol, incorporated under Special Act of Congress approved July 1, 1946, Public Law 476, 79th Congress"

So, Article 2 gives the name of the organization and says that we may be referred to as the Civil Air Patrol or any other title approved in the bylaws.  The bylaws only approve 2 alternative names, though (not quoted here) it does grant permission to refer to our status as the USAF Auxiliary. 

So, since the CAP Constitution does not allow us to refer to ourselves as the US Civil Air Patrol, any use of such a name is in violation. 

You're getting overly techincal now... That states the legal name of the organization for the purpose of doing business. Basically they can be sued or sign letters of credit & the like in that name. That doesn't have anything to do with why it says AFAux on our nametags or why that was put on the planes or why they can put "US" on the front of our branch tapes. They are NOT legally changing the name of the organization. Not that it would be very hard for them to do so, but that is very clearly not the intent or the techinicality happening here. If you don't like the change itself then feel free to grumble, but you technicality isn't going to fly to stop this. If you press them on it they will formally change the name of the org, and that'd be a PITA to correct on everything else.

Look, all I'm going to say is Gen <McPeak came along & changed all kinds of stuff about AF uniforms & culture. Then he retired & within a couple years most all of it was dropped with a reactionary move back the other direction. MajGen Pineda has led the way on a lot of changes & been generally abrassive. He had his pick for Vice CC here six months ago & what he got with that supposedly stacked deck was the person he wanted least specifically to balance him. Don't you think the selection & actions of the next couple national commanders will move to reverse either the spirit or letter of most everything this guy has done? Just don;t worry so much about technical details that aren't very meaningful. Soldier thru & you'll find CAP, like most things, tends to balance itself pretty well over the long run.

Dnall, I'm surprised to see you take this view as you have been very adamant that we would need to change laws and all sorts of things to call ourselves the Air Force Auxiliary. 

The Constitutional provisions I cited do not give any such limitations as you mention.  It says what the name of the organization is and doesn't allow for any others to be used.  Is putting U.S. Civil Air Patrol on BDU nametapes "changing the name" of the organization.   Maybe not, but remember, I have been very reliably informed that MG Pineda has on at least one recent occassions ordered press releases to be sent out with "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" as the header and mentioned in the text of the releases. 

Yes, it is a very technical argument and I'm under no illusion that my bringing it up here will change the NB's mind. 

You're right...it would be very easy for them to change this and I would encourage them to do so.  Its always better to do things the right way.  I strongly suspect that given the no-notice nature of this decision placed in front of the NB that no one really thought about this aspect of what they're doing.  CAP Constitutional changes aren't all that hard to do so this should be an easy mistake to correct.

Granted, I still think its a mistake, but if they take the time to do things the right way, I'll go along queitly. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 05, 2007, 02:22:46 AM
Dnall, I'm surprised to see you take this view as you have been very adamant that we would need to change laws and all sorts of things to call ourselves the Air Force Auxiliary.

Yeah we would, but that's cause AF owns the rights to that name, not us. It would require congressional action to transfer those right to CAP (in the form of a dba), and would require making CAP fully subordinate to AF regs to make that functional.

The AF doesn't own the Civil Air Patrol, US Civil Air Patrol, or any other version.



Respectfully, take a step back and try to see this from another perspective, just stick with me for two minutes.

Check the workding of those rules again, go ahead take a look... got it? Okay, you see how it says "MAY be stated as any of the following" and "MAY be refered to." You notice also how it never has a list of things it "may not" be known as, nor does it say it "WILL ONLY be known as," it doesn't use the legal word SHALL, it specifically says MAY. That equals permission to do something, not restriction from doing things not listed.

You also notice some things not on that list? Things like any version of AFAux, or the abbreviation "CAP?" Yet we've used those extensively since the easliest days of the org. They are even used in legal MOUs (which may not be the best idea). See that's cause we ARE allowed to go by other names w/o formally changing the name of the org. You're reading something into the CnB that just isn't there

In my mind, "US Civil Air Patrol" is legally just another context of the legal name of the org, just the same as using CAP, or TXWG, or any other abbreviation.


NOTES:
1) There was an open notice a while back recommending use of "US Civil Air Patrol" in new releases. I got a cool looking letterhead & I ain't changing it for a recommendation.

2) I'm with ya 150% that the need to think things all the way thru in advance & document that they've done so before making decisions the right & responsible way. That's why I'm in this conversation at all. Frankly if he'd proposed this as a new name for the org it would have been shot down by a wide margin. If he intends to do such a thing, this would be the slippery slope manipulation to do so thru baby steps. It isn't going to fly though & as I said a good part of what he's don will be changed after he's out of office (another good reason not to rush out & buy stuff).

Now that the tapes have "U.S." in them, that means they can be produced by whomever right?  No more nasty letters from NHQ telling manufacturers to stop making tapes right??

I think this thread has pretty much run it's course... If DNall and RiverAux want to continue the debate, they can take it to PM.