I don't want to do this as a poll, because I'm not necessarily interested in finding out "how many" ... what I would like to know is "why".
So here goes:
It's apparent that there are some people on the board who wouldn't mind one bit if CAP did away with uniforms and rank/grade insignia (and titles) entirely. It's also apparent that such a suggestion would be a line in the sand that, if crossed, would mean they'd leave the program.
I'd like to find out where you stand on the issue, and why.
Should we even have uniforms and rank/grade in CAP? If so, why? If not, why not?
Hoping you'll humor an old man ...
Jack
Line in the sand? No.
Rank/grade is just a way of indicating accomplishments and experience, in this organization. Not necessarily an indicator of level of responsibility.
IIRC initially CAP did not have uniforms and grade insignia... That came later, IIRC as means to prevent members from being shot as spies, and grant protection under the Geneva Convention.
Eliminating military-style uniforms would certainly simplify membership, particularly among our newer members.
We could just have a system of recognition of Senior Achievement level completion as an indicator of positional requirements, i.e. Level II for Squadron CC, Level III for Group, Level IV for Wing positions and higher and Level V for Region CC and/or National office.
Just a thought.
Most of us are proud of wearing our variaties of uniform, especially to the cadets!
Quote from: MIKE on September 16, 2013, 04:53:38 PM
IIRC initially CAP did not have uniforms and grade insignia... That came later, IIRC as means to prevent members from being shot as spies, and grant protection under the Geneva Convention.
I'd like to learn more. Do you have a source on that?
I like the uniforms and rank/grade, but it's not really a deal breaker one way or the other.
I do, however, think that the way grade is assigned needs to be reformed. After all, the current system is more a reflection on the individual's advancement in professional development and not responsibility. Well, we already have ribbons for that.
Uniforms and ranks sets ourselves apart from just a bunch of guys sitting around talking about aircraft.
It gives us credibility, identity, and an esprit de corps.
And not a line in the sand for me.......but I think it would change the tone of our organization if uniforms/ranks were done away with all together.
I see no problem the way the CGAux does it rank is about position/responsibility not the many ways we can do it in CAP (professional development / prior service / professional aptitude (teacher/clergy/lawyer/accountant/pilot/RTO)
Personally I love the ranks/grades! For me it's not about "power", but pride! I am currently over the weight limit and must wear the white aviator rather than the blues, however, one of the things I'm looking forward most to about this weight loss journey is being able to wear those blues with my ribbons on it! To me that shows an accomplishment. Our cadets enjoy wearing them for the same reason. Granted there are a few that use it as a power thing, but most of them do not.
Quote from: Alaric on September 16, 2013, 06:58:04 PM
I see no problem the way the CGAux does it rank is about position/responsibility not the many ways we can do it in CAP (professional development / prior service / professional aptitude (teacher/clergy/lawyer/accountant/pilot/RTO)
Having now lived in both worlds... I think both ways are flawed. If you use the Aux system, you have prior squadron commanders, group commanders or even wing commanders hanging around wearing their old grades doing a 2d Lts job... Or you get a brand new SM or 2d Lt who gets a staff job at wing and is now an insta-Maj etc.
I would like to have grade that means something... Keep professional development requirements for progression, but also tie that to a manning table so that the people with the training and experience hold jobs with commensurate grade and authority. Your a Capt because you have completed level II with full time in grade with no short cuts, and are holding a Capt level command or staff billet as per the manning document.
Quote from: MIKE on September 16, 2013, 07:45:14 PM
Quote from: Alaric on September 16, 2013, 06:58:04 PM
I see no problem the way the CGAux does it rank is about position/responsibility not the many ways we can do it in CAP (professional development / prior service / professional aptitude (teacher/clergy/lawyer/accountant/pilot/RTO)
Having now lived in both worlds... I think both ways are flawed. If you use the Aux system, you have prior squadron commanders, group commanders or even wing commanders hanging around wearing their old grades doing a 2d Lts job... Or you get a brand new SM or 2d Lt who gets a staff job at wing and is now an insta-Maj etc.
I would like to have grade that means something... Keep professional development requirements for progression, but also tie that to a manning table so that the people with the training and experience hold jobs with commensurate grade and authority. Your a Capt because you have completed level II with full time in grade with no short cuts, and are holding a Capt level command or staff billet as per the manning document.
The problem with that is that appointments are up to the command in different levels and our squadrons are so varies. So for instance, I'm a Major and my job moves me to another state where the only squadron nearby has a large number of seniors, what should they do when I come, oust someone who is doing a good job?, demote me?
Well....if we are going to be talking about a "new system".
How about all rank and file members being "flight officers" based on their PD ranks FO=Level I, Staff FO=Level II, Master FO=Level III, Senior FO=Level IV, Chief Flight Officer=Level V.
"rank" 1 Lt, 2 Lt, Col etc is based on the job that you are doing now.
National CC is a MGen....and his Deputy is BGen.....Staff are Col (assistants are Lt Col)
Regional CC is a BGen....and his deputy is a Col.......Staff is Lt Col (assistants are Maj)
Wing CC is a Col.....and his Dupty is a Lt Col.....staff is Major and Capt.
Group CC is a Lt Col....duty is Major.....Staff is Capt and 1st Lts.
Squadron CC is a major, duty is Capt, Staff is 1st Lt and 2d Lts.
When the national CC steps down.....he becomes a FO=5 unless/until he accepts a staff position......so he goes from National CC to just a CAP pilot....then he is CFO. If he takes on a job at region...he can be a Lt Col or Major.
Now....to keep some newby SM going to instant Major......we fix that by placing hard PD requirements for different levels of jobs.
Quote from: MIKE on September 16, 2013, 04:53:38 PM
IIRC initially CAP did not have uniforms and grade insignia... That came later, IIRC as means to prevent members from being shot as spies, and grant protection under the Geneva Convention.
I'm not sure where you got this information, but a uniform and grade insignia alone would have no bearing on preventing someone from being "shot" as a spy. The U.S. government extended officer commissions to the precursors of the Public Health Service and NOAA Corps, in part, to prevent this from happening in times of war. Our members have never had such commissions, not even during WWII.
As far as uniforms go, I believe that an organization like ours should have a uniform, although it doesn't necessarily have to be like the ones we have now. I don't mind grade insignias, but I do have mixed feelings about the way they're implemented today. I believe that, in addition to experience and professional development, grades should be linked to levels of responsibilities. That's the way it's done in most organizations, military or otherwise.
Quote from: MIKE on September 16, 2013, 04:53:38 PM
IIRC initially CAP did not have uniforms and grade insignia... That came later, IIRC as means to prevent members from being shot as spies, and grant protection under the Geneva Convention.
CAP officer rank was introduced in July 1942, so your "initially" period is relatively short. There's no mention in my source about why we have rank.
Quote from: MIKE on September 16, 2013, 04:53:38 PM
IIRC initially CAP did not have uniforms and grade insignia... That came later, IIRC as means to prevent members from being shot as spies, and grant protection under the Geneva Convention.
Uh, the Office of Civilian Defense announcement flyer dated Dec. 1, 1941 stated that CAP was going to be uniformed and have ranks and CAP General Order #1 (dated Jan 7 1942) discussed uniforms. (Ref "CAP Uniforms and Insignia: The first ten years").
So, you're correct that CAP didn't have uniforms and rank for a few months, but that was just because we hadn't gotten very organized yet. We were envisioned having them from the very beginning.
No secret that I am not a fan of the air force style uniforms in CAP. But would I do away with uniforms entirely? Absolutely not! We do need a way to set ourselves apart from others in the AOA. I would lose the blues and BDUs. I would go with cargo / tactical pants and either a golf shirt or a khaki shirt.
As far as rank, I guess I could take it or leave it though it might be better if it was somehow tied to one's position or level of responsibility. The idea of a bunch of Lt Colonels and Majors sitting around in a squadron with a 1st Lt as their commander is rather ridiculous in my opinion. As far as using rank or ribbons as an indication of personal achievement, that can be accomplished with a limited number of badges or patches for various mission skills. This would include pilot wings, specialty track badges, etc. These would be for CAP qualifications only, not what you did back in the day in the military.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 16, 2013, 10:24:55 PM
No secret that I am not a fan of the air force style uniforms in CAP. But would I do away with uniforms entirely? Absolutely not! We do need a way to set ourselves apart from others in the AOA. I would lose the blues and BDUs. I would go with cargo / tactical pants and either a golf shirt or a khaki shirt.
As far as rank, I guess I could take it or leave it though it might be better if it was somehow tied to one's position or level of responsibility. The idea of a bunch of Lt Colonels and Majors sitting around in a squadron with a 1st Lt as their commander is rather ridiculous in my opinion. As far as using rank or ribbons as an indication of personal achievement, that can be accomplished with a limited number of badges or patches for various mission skills. This would include pilot wings, specialty track badges, etc. These would be for CAP qualifications only, not what you did back in the day in the military.
Disgruntled much?
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2013, 11:09:29 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 16, 2013, 10:24:55 PM
No secret that I am not a fan of the air force style uniforms in CAP. But would I do away with uniforms entirely? Absolutely not! We do need a way to set ourselves apart from others in the AOA. I would lose the blues and BDUs. I would go with cargo / tactical pants and either a golf shirt or a khaki shirt.
As far as rank, I guess I could take it or leave it though it might be better if it was somehow tied to one's position or level of responsibility. The idea of a bunch of Lt Colonels and Majors sitting around in a squadron with a 1st Lt as their commander is rather ridiculous in my opinion. As far as using rank or ribbons as an indication of personal achievement, that can be accomplished with a limited number of badges or patches for various mission skills. This would include pilot wings, specialty track badges, etc. These would be for CAP qualifications only, not what you did back in the day in the military.
Disgruntled much?
Jack asked for our opinions and I gave mine which by the way is similar to others above mine in some regards. You have yet to offer your opinion but instead just decided to attack me. I take it your are one of those that loves the fruit salad. I guess it makes you feel like a man.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 16, 2013, 09:34:53 PM
Quote from: MIKE on September 16, 2013, 04:53:38 PM
IIRC initially CAP did not have uniforms and grade insignia... That came later, IIRC as means to prevent members from being shot as spies, and grant protection under the Geneva Convention.
Uh, the Office of Civilian Defense announcement flyer dated Dec. 1, 1941 stated that CAP was going to be uniformed and have ranks and CAP General Order #1 (dated Jan 7 1942) discussed uniforms. (Ref "CAP Uniforms and Insignia: The first ten years").
So, you're correct that CAP didn't have uniforms and rank for a few months, but that was just because we hadn't gotten very organized yet. We were envisioned having them from the very beginning.
Actually, in Georgia the Air Patrol had uniforms BEFORE 1 December 1941. Here is a photo from the summer of 1941, showing 3 Air Patrol officers in uniform. The uniform was a khaki USAAF uniform, with a Georgia State Defense Corps patch, silver prop/wing insignia, grade insignia, and a flight cap with red trim. So you are absolutely correct, they WERE intended from the very beginning.
(http://i.imgur.com/TiW7GSv.jpg)
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 16, 2013, 11:24:12 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2013, 11:09:29 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 16, 2013, 10:24:55 PM
No secret that I am not a fan of the air force style uniforms in CAP. But would I do away with uniforms entirely? Absolutely not! We do need a way to set ourselves apart from others in the AOA. I would lose the blues and BDUs. I would go with cargo / tactical pants and either a golf shirt or a khaki shirt.
As far as rank, I guess I could take it or leave it though it might be better if it was somehow tied to one's position or level of responsibility. The idea of a bunch of Lt Colonels and Majors sitting around in a squadron with a 1st Lt as their commander is rather ridiculous in my opinion. As far as using rank or ribbons as an indication of personal achievement, that can be accomplished with a limited number of badges or patches for various mission skills. This would include pilot wings, specialty track badges, etc. These would be for CAP qualifications only, not what you did back in the day in the military.
Disgruntled much?
Jack asked for our opinions and I gave mine which by the way is similar to others above mine in some regards. You have yet to offer your opinion but instead just decided to attack me. I take it your are one of those that loves the fruit salad. I guess it makes you feel like a man.
There was no attack what so ever just a question. And if I was so in love with fruit salad I would add my AD rack to my CAP rack.
Personally, I love both the uniforms and rank. As others have already noted, I'd like to see our system of rank improved. I'd even be willing to do more for each promotion than our current system calls for if there was a call for that.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 16, 2013, 11:24:12 PM
Jack asked for our opinions and I gave mine which by the way is similar to others above mine in some regards. You have yet to offer your opinion but instead just decided to attack me. I take it your are one of those that loves the fruit salad. I guess it makes you feel like a man.
To quote a wise man on this subject:
Quote from: David VandenbroeckI do understand why some myself included would prefer changes to the uniform policy but let us refrain from name calling directed at those who like to wear the uniform.
Quote from: skymaster on September 16, 2013, 11:25:20 PM
Actually, in Georgia the Air Patrol had uniforms BEFORE 1 December 1941. Here is a photo from the summer of 1941, showing 3 Air Patrol officers in uniform. The uniform was a khaki USAAF uniform, with a Georgia State Defense Corps patch, silver prop/wing insignia, grade insignia, and a flight cap with red trim. So you are absolutely correct, they WERE intended from the very beginning.
(http://i.imgur.com/TiW7GSv.jpg)
Well, they actually aren't CAP. Totally different state organization. Though I'd bet quite a few of them ended up joining CAP when it started.
We have photos of CAP members in Pinks from March 42, and related photos from the same year in pinks with WWII era insignia
and grade. Clearly grade and grade insignia have been a part of CAP since day one.
Quote from: Ned on September 16, 2013, 11:40:42 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 16, 2013, 11:24:12 PM
Jack asked for our opinions and I gave mine which by the way is similar to others above mine in some regards. You have yet to offer your opinion but instead just decided to attack me. I take it your are one of those that loves the fruit salad. I guess it makes you feel like a man.
To quote a wise man on this subject:
Quote from: David VandenbroeckI do understand why some myself included would prefer changes to the uniform policy but let us refrain from name calling directed at those who like to wear the uniform.
I concur; reign it in, fellows...
My thoughts on uniforms.
1) Level the playing field as it provides a standard appearance (H/W, grooming aside and polo combo aside)
2) Provides a much more professional appearance than most organizations
3) Teaches and reenforces attributes that can and will most of the time lead to success
Grade structure provides a little bit more credibility for outside agencies and has been tradition with the organization for decades. Can the system be improved sure, but that will take a sustained and standard approach and effort.
With out these we'd be a rag tag organization no one would take seriously in any regards.
What we got now works for our dysfunctional family. The main thing is the rank and uniform appearance for the Cadet side of the house. Instead of saying, "Cadet Hill, report to Captain Simpson for ...."; it will be "Bobby, see Homer after snacks."
The other thing we do a pretty good job at rewarding our members. Volunteers do like a little attention. YOLO YMMV 8)
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 17, 2013, 12:37:35 AM
1) Level the playing field as it provides a standard appearance (H/W, grooming aside and polo combo aside)
Considering how cherished appearance apparently is to the USAF, at least in as much as it husbands its uniforms
tighter then any of the other services (though besides the CG since the others don't have auxs), it's pretty
amazing how they seem to be basically blind to the fact that having their auxiliary in a mess of different apparel
basically accomplishes the exact opposite of the intent.
Lose the blues and forget about the ABU nonsense, keep the corporate variants, but leave all the bling intact, including the allowance for war of military decs and badges on corporates. At least it would be "uniform" and our formations wouldn't
look like a Macklemore video.
Quote from: Ned on September 16, 2013, 11:40:42 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 16, 2013, 11:24:12 PM
Jack asked for our opinions and I gave mine which by the way is similar to others above mine in some regards. You have yet to offer your opinion but instead just decided to attack me. I take it your are one of those that loves the fruit salad. I guess it makes you feel like a man.
To quote a wise man on this subject:
Quote from: David VandenbroeckI do understand why some myself included would prefer changes to the uniform policy but let us refrain from name calling directed at those who like to wear the uniform.
Touché.
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 17, 2013, 01:14:21 AM
What we got now works for our dysfunctional family. The main thing is the rank and uniform appearance for the Cadet side of the house. Instead of saying, "Cadet Hill, report to Captain Simpson for ...."; it will be "Bobby, see Homer after snacks."
I said it once, and I'll say it again. 2225 and that boy ain't right.
I think we could appear professional, sans military rank. IBM and the Red Cross pull it off. Colonel Smith becomes Air Operations Director Smith, or whatever. You can call me Mission Pilot Sundog, instead of Capt Sundog. And I reallly like the tactical/cargo pants and golf shirt/khaki shirt, per DV's post.
But you asked why, I think, one way or the other? I think I'd lean slightly toward losing the rank, and USAF style uniforms, because it might get us some needed cultural distance from Big Blue, maybe help chnge the relationship some, or get it started in that direction. I feel we twist ourselves in some knots emulating the USAF business practices - we lack the "agility" we need, as Ned said recenly.
But if it means a whole lot to keep the status quo, to a lot of folks, I can keep the railroad tracks. Dropping the unis might not help with USAF much, anyway. Tradition has value, as long as it doesn't get in the way of being smarter.
We can look pretty ragged now, for sure. A bunch of us went to a local AFB for a chamber ride a few years ago. Ghastly, I mean hideous, and I'm pretty easy about this stuff. I didn't KNOW we had that many uniform combinations, or that we could muck them up so ingeniuosly. It was embarrasing. . .
Rank and uniforms seem good for cadets, and Big Blue probably likes it for the cadets, as well. But anyone know why they are in that ancient woodland camo? Are we TRYING to lose them in the woods? Someone sid the woodland was free(obsolete) so that's why?
The BDUs, for the most part, have not been free, and orange vests are required in the woods, so neither of those are valid points.
Next?
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 04:35:56 AM
But you asked why, I think, one way or the other? I think I'd lean slightly toward losing the rank, and USAF style uniforms, because it might get us some needed cultural distance from Big Blue, maybe help chnge the relationship some, or get it started in that direction. I feel we twist ourselves in some knots emulating the USAF business practices - we lack the "agility" we need, as Ned said recenly.
You realize about the majority of our funding comes from the USAF right?
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 04:35:56 AM
But you asked why, I think, one way or the other? I think I'd lean slightly toward losing the rank, and USAF style uniforms, because it might get us some needed cultural distance from Big Blue, maybe help chnge the relationship some, or get it started in that direction. I feel we twist ourselves in some knots emulating the USAF business practices - we lack the "agility" we need, as Ned said recenly.
Needed cultural difference? Are you serious? Aeroclubs.com, ORM is pre-printed, Flight Releases are too much hassle, etc., etc. You realize we're a military auxiliary, right? We twist ourselves in knots breaking regs and "knowing better".
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 04:35:56 AMRank and uniforms seem good for cadets, and Big Blue probably likes it for the cadets, as well. But anyone know why they are in that ancient woodland camo? Are we TRYING to lose them in the woods? Someone sid the woodland was free(obsolete) so that's why?
Who's they & them?
Are you going to press buttons now and pretend only cadets wear BDUs?
Oh. So, why are the cadets in woodland camo? Isn't that kinda odd? Camo and orange vests? Sort of like a cheetah wearing a rotating beacon on his head. . .
But for us old folks, I'd really like a comfy pair of cargo pants and khaki shirt. No name tags on the shirts, either. USAF might start thinking of us as a civilian volunteer grop, instead of the second (fourth?) string guys you keep around, but don't respect?
BUT BUT BUT. . . let's not change it if it'll really upset a bunch of members. NHQ can get inside USAF's OODA loop in other ways, someday. . .
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 17, 2013, 04:51:23 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 04:35:56 AM
But you asked why, I think, one way or the other? I think I'd lean slightly toward losing the rank, and USAF style uniforms, because it might get us some needed cultural distance from Big Blue, maybe help chnge the relationship some, or get it started in that direction. I feel we twist ourselves in some knots emulating the USAF business practices - we lack the "agility" we need, as Ned said recenly.
You realize about the majority of our funding comes from the USAF right?
I thought it was from Congress, and USAF was the oversight body?
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 05:10:10 AM
Oh. So, why are the cadets in woodland camo? Isn't that kinda odd? Camo and orange vests? Sort of like a cheetah wearing a rotating beacon on his head. . .
CAP members wear woodland camo because the USAF wore it (as did all the services), at the time CAP did its last major uniform revision.
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 05:10:10 AMBut for us old folks, I'd really like a comfy pair of cargo pants and khaki shirt. No name tags on the shirts, either. USAF might start thinking of us as a civilian volunteer grop, instead of the second (fourth?) string guys you keep around, but don't respect?
Assuming you're really a member, why are you insulting everyone with comments like this? You seem to have a less then
comprehensive understanding of the organization for someone with such inversely comprehensive opinions.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 17, 2013, 04:57:20 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 04:35:56 AM
But you asked why, I think, one way or the other? I think I'd lean slightly toward losing the rank, and USAF style uniforms, because it might get us some needed cultural distance from Big Blue, maybe help chnge the relationship some, or get it started in that direction. I feel we twist ourselves in some knots emulating the USAF business practices - we lack the "agility" we need, as Ned said recenly.
Needed cultural difference? Are you serious? Aeroclubs.com, ORM is pre-printed, Flight Releases are too much hassle, etc., etc. You realize we're a military auxiliary, right? We twist ourselves in knots breaking regs and "knowing better".
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 04:35:56 AMRank and uniforms seem good for cadets, and Big Blue probably likes it for the cadets, as well. But anyone know why they are in that ancient woodland camo? Are we TRYING to lose them in the woods? Someone sid the woodland was free(obsolete) so that's why?
Who's they & them?
Are you going to press buttons now and pretend only cadets wear BDUs?
Maybe ratchet down a notch, what d'ya say? "Uniforms and Rank/Grade", remember?
I see cadets in woodland camo, and was idly curious, just thought it was an odd choice, but figured there may be some particular reason for it. If it has religious, cultural, or political importance to you, no sweat, not a hot topic for me. Most seniors I see are in some USAF or corporate combo. I think one of the CP seniors is in the woodland camo, sometimes. Otherwise, it's the blue BDU uniform, flight suit, polo, whatever, for the seniors I see. Hey, IRT cadet uniforms, you can paint 'em pink and call them Mary, and that would be fine with me: I don't have a dog in this fight.
The man asked us what we thought, and why. I spoke my piece. IRT to ORM, FR, etc., U and me been all over that ground. Let's not hijack another thread.
I'm with Eclipse...corporate uniforms, all insignia included, as sole choice for seniors...let the cadets keep Air Force style.
Leave the grade structure alone...it's confusing enough as things are...let's limit ourselves to CAP's own problems, rather than also adopting those of CGAUX, Red Cross, etc.
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 05:37:58 AM
I see cadets in woodland camo, and was idly curious, just thought it was an odd choice, but figured there may be some particular reason for it. If it has religious, cultural, or political importance to you, no sweat, not a hot topic for me. Most seniors I see are in some USAF or corporate combo. I think one of the CP seniors is in the woodland camo, sometimes. Otherwise, it's the blue BDU uniform, flight suit, polo, whatever, for the seniors I see. Hey, IRT cadet uniforms, you can paint 'em pink and call them Mary, and that would be fine with me: I don't have a dog in this fight.
The woodland BDU is not a cadet uniform, continued characterization of it that way is insulting to both cadets and seniors because it
infers that a "cadet uniform" should be somehow dfferent or inferior to a senior uniform.
Its not worn by cadets, it is worn by
everyone.
If you don't want to wear it, so be it. I would hazard, based on your comments, that the seniors you see are mostly aircrew, and
they historically wear flight suits and gold shirts - that doesn't make the camo field uniform for cadets or the CP.
My general opinion on this topic is that we are a military auxiliary and should dress as such in a uniform based on our parent service. Seems like a fairly simple idea to me and I've yet to hear of there being significant, REAL problems with us wearing them.
I wear the woodland BDU often both when working with cadets and when doing ES activities, especially in the field.
I have no problems with the blue BDU and would gladly wear it if it became the only authorized field uniform in CAP. As it stands right now, I have 3 sets of BDUs and no need to buy a set of BBDUs.
I'm not a fan of all the different types of uniforms we currently have in CAP. I'm fine with the Air Force-style uniforms, but wouldn't mind if CAP did away with them and went to all corporate uniforms, since not everyone meets the height, weight and grooming standards and can wear the AF-style ones. I would just like to see true uniformity among our members, which it's practically impossible with all the different authorized uniform combinations we have right now.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 17, 2013, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 05:37:58 AM
I see cadets in woodland camo, and was idly curious, just thought it was an odd choice, but figured there may be some particular reason for it. If it has religious, cultural, or political importance to you, no sweat, not a hot topic for me. Most seniors I see are in some USAF or corporate combo. I think one of the CP seniors is in the woodland camo, sometimes. Otherwise, it's the blue BDU uniform, flight suit, polo, whatever, for the seniors I see. Hey, IRT cadet uniforms, you can paint 'em pink and call them Mary, and that would be fine with me: I don't have a dog in this fight.
The woodland BDU is not a cadet uniform, continued characterization of it that way is insulting to both cadets and seniors because it
infers that a "cadet uniform" should be somehow dfferent or inferior to a senior uniform.
Its not worn by cadets, it is worn by everyone.
If you don't want to wear it, so be it. I would hazard, based on your comments, that the seniors you see are mostly aircrew, and
they historically wear flight suits and gold shirts - that doesn't make the camo field uniform for cadets or the CP.
That's cool; really, I was just asking about it, out of honest curiosity. I get the feeling there is some history and hard feelings IRT the woodland? A fuss, in the past? I must have missed that storm. It did seem to me that camo was a odd choice, but if that was the standard back in the day, now I know. I imagine it'd cost a lot to swap it out, and a change would have to be phased in over a long time, even if the org wanted to replace it. I don't have a personal preference for, or agin it - only seeking enlightenment.
I'm pretty sure I HAVE seen one of our SMs in woodland. Don't remember seeing it on a SM at a Wing event, but I may not have taken note. Our non-aircrew usually wear the all-blue BDU, or some USAF combo or other. That Includes aircrew guys very often. I have a polo shirt, blue nomex when it's cold, and a blue blazer. I bought blue BDUs a long time agho, but never set them up. I have sage green nomex, but they be a bit tight now, and my sqdn perfers blue.
The polo is quick and easy, so that works most of the time. I have a baseball cap with Capt's bars on it, and if I'll be around cadets, I waer it so they don't yell at me. Not sure the regs require a cap in the polo shirt and gray slacks combo. . .will look it up before I retire.
So we can all pretty much go as military, or non-miiltary, as we like. Keep the rank (camo, blue BDU, AF combos), and use it it if you like. Or not (polo shirt, blazer).
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 10:26:46 PMI have a baseball cap with Capt's bars on it, and if I'll be around cadets, I waer
Please don't, that is a violation of CAP regs.
There is no headgear required for either the golf shirt or aviator whites, and grade is not authorized for wear on ball caps.
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 10:26:46 PM
That's cool; really, I was just asking about it, out of honest curiosity. I get the feeling there is some history and hard feelings IRT the woodland? A fuss, in the past? I must have missed that storm. It did seem to me that camo was a odd choice, but if that was the standard back in the day, now I know. I imagine it'd cost a lot to swap it out, and a change would have to be phased in over a long time, even if the org wanted to replace it. I don't have a personal preference for, or agin it - only seeking enlightenment.
Back when I was a cadet in the late 80s, we wore OD green fatigues with the white on blue "CIVIL AIR PATROL" and name tapes. The Air Force wore these fatigues until they were replaced by woodland BDUs in the mid-80s. And it wasn't until the 70s or 80s (don't know the exact time frame) that they replaced the blue tapes and color patches with green subdued ones.
I remember all of us cadets wondering when CAP would switch to BDUs and, when they finally did in the early 90s (I believe), we were very proud to switch our utility uniform to match that of our parent service. Of course, in 2007 the Air Force switched to ABUs and many in CAP have wanted to go to that uniform ever since.
Many have thought that since CAP seems to always be behind the Air Force when adopting new uniforms, that we would also be wearing ABUs eventually. But there have been many debates on whether we should or not go to ABUs or even on whether the Air Force would allow it at some point. To that you can add the discussions of the Air Force possibly going to a different all-services combat uniform sometime in the future.
For whatever reasons, uniforms seem to be an issue of contention among CAP members, as you can see from the many posts. I'm not sure why it's such a polarizing subject, but it certainly is.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 17, 2013, 09:38:22 PM
My general opinion on this topic is that we are a military auxiliary and should dress as such in a uniform based on our parent service. Seems like a fairly simple idea to me and I've yet to hear of there being significant, REAL problems with us wearing them.
I would agree with that if the parent service allowed all our members to wear that uniform. The Coast Guard Auxiliary allows all of their members to wear the uniform while the Air Force does not allow it for the Civil Air Patrol.
I personally would wear whatever the organization decided that all of our members can wear.
My Personal Preference would be the Blue BDU for field work and flight/utility uniforms but the Air Force Style for Class A's and B's but I'm not on that committee.
Quote from: SARDOC on September 18, 2013, 02:01:45 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 17, 2013, 09:38:22 PM
My general opinion on this topic is that we are a military auxiliary and should dress as such in a uniform based on our parent service. Seems like a fairly simple idea to me and I've yet to hear of there being significant, REAL problems with us wearing them.
I would agree with that if the parent service allowed all our members to wear that uniform. The Coast Guard Auxiliary allows all of their members to wear the uniform while the Air Force Department of Defense does not allow it for the Civil Air Patrol.
I personally would wear whatever the organization decided that all of our members can wear.
My Personal Preference would be the Blue BDU for field work and flight/utility uniforms but the Air Force Style for Class A's and B's but I'm not on that committee.
Fixed that for you. It's a DOD regulation that prohibits CAP from wearing the ABU.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 17, 2013, 07:21:02 PM
I'm with Eclipse...corporate uniforms, all insignia included, as sole choice for seniors...let the cadets keep Air Force style.
Leave the grade structure alone...it's confusing enough as things are...let's limit ourselves to CAP's own problems, rather than also adopting those of CGAUX, Red Cross, etc.
I concur :clap:
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 04:35:56 AM
We can look pretty ragged now, for sure. A bunch of us went to a local AFB for a chamber ride a few years ago. Ghastly, I mean hideous, and I'm pretty easy about this stuff. I didn't KNOW we had that many uniform combinations, or that we could muck them up so ingeniuosly. It was embarrasing. . .
My Unit always looks sharp. The problem is some units do not have the moral courage to tell their buddy Bubba to shape up because you are making Petticoat Junction Squadron look like sad sacks. You are a "Captain", what did you say? ::)
Quote from: PHall on September 18, 2013, 02:29:01 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on September 18, 2013, 02:01:45 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 17, 2013, 09:38:22 PM
My general opinion on this topic is that we are a military auxiliary and should dress as such in a uniform based on our parent service. Seems like a fairly simple idea to me and I've yet to hear of there being significant, REAL problems with us wearing them.
I would agree with that if the parent service allowed all our members to wear that uniform. The Coast Guard Auxiliary allows all of their members to wear the uniform while the Air Force Department of Defense does not allow it for the Civil Air Patrol.
I personally would wear whatever the organization decided that all of our members can wear.
My Personal Preference would be the Blue BDU for field work and flight/utility uniforms but the Air Force Style for Class A's and B's but I'm not on that committee.
Fixed that for you. It's a DOD regulation that prohibits CAP from wearing the ABU.
Thanks but that "Fix" isn't correct because it's actually the Air Force who won't let CAP members who are overweight from wearing their uniform.
Quote from: SARDOC on September 18, 2013, 12:18:11 PM
...the Air Force who won't let CAP members who are overweight from wearing their uniform.
Wasn't there a time when this wasn't the case?
For you old-timers, has our approach to ranks and what they mean changed much over the years?
Quote from: Walkman on September 18, 2013, 02:14:23 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on September 18, 2013, 12:18:11 PM
...the Air Force who won't let CAP members who are overweight from wearing their uniform.
Wasn't there a time when this wasn't the case?
Only with the field uniforms - members out of weight or grooming could wear camo BDUs without grade insignia on the collars until the early 2000's.
Flight suits and blues were still restricted.
Quote from: SARDOC on September 18, 2013, 12:18:11 PM
Thanks but that "Fix" isn't correct because it's actually the Air Force who won't let CAP members who are overweight from wearing their uniform.
Correct on the USAF restricting military-style uniforms to those in weight and grooming, but specific to the ABU, CAP has asserted that the DOD prohibition on sale to
those not in the military is the primary reason CAP members can't wear them, though no one can substantiate that the DoD policy even applies to CAP, and obviously the commercial
availability of ABUs makes the point fairly moot.
Of course "why" is only coffeehouse fodder anyway.
As the non-CAP member, I'll throw my thoughts onto this fire.
Number One: the purpose of uniforms is... UNIFORMITY; if CAP did more of the direct support missions with the USAF, then this could be seen as more of an issue, but as it appears the majority of CAP does CAP missions that do not require direct contact with the USAF, it's really not.
As several people have pointed out, a professional uniform, that everyone can wear, is the key. Be that uniform any one of the current Corporate uniforms, going back to a Khaki WWII style or adopting something entirely new really doesn't matter. Professional and everyone in it are the UNIFORMITY key.
On that note, I think one of the big reason that many Senior members hold onto wearing the the USAF style uniform and BDUs was/is the prohibition on wearing Military decorations and badges on the Corporate uniform. Personally I would take that as a slap in the face, and I'm sure many prior Service CAP members are equally proud of what they did and earned in the Service and NOT being allowed to wear them would irk them too.
So if you remove that prohibition, I think you would see more Senior members gravitate towards a Corporate uniform, regardless of what is selected.
Personally I'd like to see CAP return to Pinks & Greens or an all Khaki Service Uniform with Pin on rank on the shoulder straps and CAP cutouts on the upper lapels instead of the US cutouts on the jackets, and with rank on the right shirt collar and a CAP cutout on the left in Class B's.
I'd also like to see the BBDU adopted as the standard field/tactical uniform for Seniors.
As to the cadets, I say leave them in the USAF Style uniforms and allow them ABUs or whatever camo pattern uniform Congress forces the Services to adopt.
The Reason for this is simple, while not the primary goal of the CAP cadet program, you have to admit is is a major recruiting tool for the USAF be that Senior AFROTC, the US Air Force Academy or directly enlisting into the USAF, USAFR, and AFNG.
I believe the USAF likes the cadet in their uniform so if they do move onto an actual USAF career after CAP, they have a heads up on wearing their uniforms correctly.
Col Bagley,
If you haven't figured it out by now, I think it is safe to say that there is absolutely no consensus amongst CAPTalk participants about CAP uniforms.
Having watched these discussions for a number of years, my personal opinion is that it is unlikely that we will have one here anytime soon.
As you have seen, the opinions on what we should or should not wear vary widely, and the reasons given vary even more widely.
Perhaps more importantly, many who hold polar opposite opinions are firm (even passionate) in their opinions. And nobody seems to be able to convince anyone from an opposing camp of the correctness of their opinions. So we go around and around. And around. Sometimes it gets rather heated and feelings get hurt.
But despite the endless discussions, nothing ever changes.
On a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints. I note parenthetically, that our AF colleagues have roughly the same number of uniform combinations as we do. And for the same reason -- they need them to do their job.
And in response to your origninal question ; "why"- the answer is always going to be elusive and nuanced because there are multiple reasons why we have arrived at our current uniform constellation. Some of the decisions were made 70 years ago by officers who are no longer able to answer the question. Some of the decisions have been made more recently, of course, but were made by a group decision-making process (e.g. the former NEC & NB) which means there could be as many reasons as there were voters.
Finally, it is worth remembering that our uniforms are not an end in themselves; they are not a mission. Uniforms are just a tool to help us perform our missions. If our mission effectiveness is affected, we can and should change our uniforms. Otherwise, perhaps not. Change for change's sake is expensive for our volunteers.
But for some folks "what we wear" will always be more important than "what we do."
Grooming standards became a hot issue with USAF in the mid 80s, really cracked down around 1990....prior to that, you never really heard a thing about height & weight standards.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 18, 2013, 05:58:19 PM
As several people have pointed out, a professional uniform, that everyone can wear, is the key. Be that uniform any one of the current Corporate uniforms, going back to a Khaki WWII style or adopting something entirely new really doesn't matter. Professional and everyone in it are the UNIFORMITY key.
I agree 100%.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 18, 2013, 05:58:19 PM
On that note, I think one of the big reason that many Senior members hold onto wearing the the USAF style uniform and BDUs was/is the prohibition on wearing Military decorations and badges on the Corporate uniform. Personally I would take that as a slap in the face, and I'm sure many prior Service CAP members are equally proud of what they did and earned in the Service and NOT being allowed to wear them would irk them too.
I wear some of my Air Force badges, awards and decorations at times, but would gladly give them up if it meant having a professional looking uniform that everyone could wear. There are plenty of CAP insignias to wear on a CAP uniforms and if someone has an issue because they can't wear their military insignias, then perhaps they're in CAP for the wrong reasons.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 18, 2013, 07:07:33 PM
...if someone has an issue because they can't wear their military insignias, then perhaps they're in CAP for the wrong reasons.
My CC spent 22 years in the AF and has been in CAP since he was a cadet. He says that if he were to wear all his AF ribbons along with his CAP ones, he'd look like the proverbial 3rd world dictator.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 18, 2013, 07:07:33 PM
I wear some of my Air Force badges, awards and decorations at times, but would gladly give them up if it meant having a professional looking uniform that everyone could wear. There are plenty of CAP insignias to wear on a CAP uniforms and if someone has an issue because they can't wear their military insignias, then perhaps they're in CAP for the wrong reasons.
I don't disagree with that but you do understand that one of CAP's recruitment tools for Senior Members is to sell veterans on is reliving some of their "glory days" in the military again? Teamwork, comardship, telling sea stories to young cadets, etc.
Take away the prior Service incentives (ie retain your rank, get to wear your bling) and you will lose membership.
If that's good or bad will be up to you.
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 06:40:29 PMOn a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints.
The main reason we have so many combos is not "need", it's the USAF's stance that auxiliary members can't wear military style uniforms if they weigh too much or have a beard. A stance
which make them an outlier in this regard.
Fix that, and honestly, it's a
fix, and our "need" for so many combos drops by 1/2 overnight.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 08:10:18 PM
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 06:40:29 PMOn a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints.
The main reason we have so many combos is not "need", it's the USAF's stance that auxiliary members can't wear military style uniforms if they weigh too much or have a beard. A stance
which make them an outlier in this regard.
I thought I was being clear. The AF standards are indeed a "real world constraint," that drives part of our uniform needs.
Furhter, I think it grossly mischaractorizes the AF stance to apply the term "outlier."
They are simply holding us to the same standards to which they hold themselves (plus a little slack.)
How does that make them an "outlier?" I can only think of one other military auxiliary that has a different rule. If that's true, it is hardly the weight of authority necessary to justify the term "outlier" as applied to the AF. It makes just as much sense to call the USCG the "outlier."
Individually we can agree or disagree with the Air Force standards, but all the discussions here are misplaced because they will never be seen or heard by the AF officers with the responsibility for their decisions in this area.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 18, 2013, 08:02:51 PM
I don't disagree with that but you do understand that one of CAP's recruitment tools for Senior Members is to sell veterans on is reliving some of their "glory days" in the military again? Teamwork, comardship, telling sea stories to young cadets, etc.
Take away the prior Service incentives (ie retain your rank, get to wear your bling) and you will lose membership.
If that's good or bad will be up to you.
I know that's probably true, but I would venture to say that most veterans who join CAP because they want to serve and contribute to our mission and organization are not that concerned with military rank and insignias.
Yes, they are a real-world constraint, they are not a "need", nor are they based on mission requirements. In fact, they are a detriment to
the mission and arguably to the USAF purpose in the restriction in the first place.
They are an outlier in that none of the other services spend any effort in C&D'ing other organizations from wearing variants of their uniforms,
not the only other uniformed auxiliary, and not similar organizations such as the Seacadets, ACA, or the eleventy twelveteen SDFs and
similar, many of which are literally wearing the USAF uniform.
Seriously, we have organizations all over the country wearing the USAF uniform with impunity, but we, as the aux, have fully 1/2 the membership
not allowed to.
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 09:07:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 08:10:18 PM
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 06:40:29 PMOn a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints.
The main reason we have so many combos is not "need", it's the USAF's stance that auxiliary members can't wear military style uniforms if they weigh too much or have a beard. A stance
which make them an outlier in this regard.
I thought I was being clear. The AF standards are indeed a "real world constraint," that drives part of our uniform needs.
Furhter, I think it grossly mischaractorizes the AF stance to apply the term "outlier."
They are simply holding us to the same standards to which they hold themselves (plus a little slack.)
I agree. I've seen CAP members mistook for Air Force personnel many times. I'm sure that's one of the reasons the Air Force wants certain weight and grooming standards for those CAP members wearing the AF-style service uniform.
Speaking for myself. I joined as a way to serve my country. I was proud to wear the uniform that my Country wore (even if I thought the colors were off.) It made feel that I was part of something bigger than myself. It irritates me when I see people wanting to distance us (figuratively or literally) from the AF. It may not mean very much to some of you; but this means a lot to me. The AF style uniforms ARE a line in the sand for me. It's not that I'm a wannabe, or to relive my "Glory Days" (there's not much glory in my brief service;) but it's that VISIBLE connection to the AF that I find to be absolutely critical to what we do. I'm proud of what I have accomplished, and the grade I have earned.
For most of the vets that are in CAP I have found that they are in to give back, and to still serve in a meaningful way. Whether it be in mentoring cadets or younger adults, to helping in Emergency Services. There are, of course, vets that want to relive (or continue in their minds) their Military Duties, but I have found those to be very few. There are even a few current AD Military that only use CAP to further their Military aspirations.
Col. Lee ...
Quote
If you haven't figured it out by now, I think it is safe to say that there is absolutely no consensus amongst CAPTalk participants about CAP uniforms.
I knew that going in, sir. I simply wanted to gauge the thoughts of the members of this forum.
Quote
Having watched these discussions for a number of years, my personal opinion is that it is unlikely that we will have one here anytime soon.
As you have seen, the opinions on what we should or should not wear vary widely, and the reasons given vary even more widely.
Perhaps more importantly, many who hold polar opposite opinions are firm (even passionate) in their opinions. And nobody seems to be able to convince anyone from an opposing camp of the correctness of their opinions. So we go around and around. And around. Sometimes it gets rather heated and feelings get hurt.
My initial interest wasn't in the number or variety of uniforms we wear, it was rather in whether we should have any kind of uniform at all. And even in the vast differences of opinion expressed here, I can safely assume that the answer to my initial question is, "yes, we should have a uniform." The other half of the question - the usefulness of rank/grade - is another of those topics we've argued unto death, but there isn't really a consensus about it. Some say yes, some say no, some say change it, some say leave it as is. Quite the variety of responses there!
Quote
But despite the endless discussions, nothing ever changes.
Nor did I really expect anything to change. My interest was purely scholarly; as you point out, nobody in a position to actually care about what we might think reads this forum (or, if they do, they're not really all that concerned).
Quote
On a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints. I note parenthetically, that our AF colleagues have roughly the same number of uniform combinations as we do. And for the same reason -- they need them to do their job.
I concur. And you're right about the number of uniforms the AF has to deal with, and I have no doubt that there is plenty of internal debate about that amongst them as well.
Quote
And in response to your origninal question ; "why"- the answer is always going to be elusive and nuanced because there are multiple reasons why we have arrived at our current uniform constellation. Some of the decisions were made 70 years ago by officers who are no longer able to answer the question. Some of the decisions have been made more recently, of course, but were made by a group decision-making process (e.g. the former NEC & NB) which means there could be as many reasons as there were voters.
Here, the discussion skewed in a direction I anticipated but hoped wouldn't happen. I didn't want it to get into the
number of uniforms, or the style of them; I was interested, as I said, in whether we should have any kind of uniform at all. As the discussion went, your estimation of "why" is spot on. But I didn't get too much of the "why" regarding uniforms as an overall topic, and again, rank/grade wasn't dealt with as I'd hoped it would be.
Quote
Finally, it is worth remembering that our uniforms are not an end in themselves; they are not a mission. Uniforms are just a tool to help us perform our missions. If our mission effectiveness is affected, we can and should change our uniforms. Otherwise, perhaps not. Change for change's sake is expensive for our volunteers.
But for some folks "what we wear" will always be more important than "what we do."
Sigh ... you're 100% correct again, my friend. And with that, we're right back where we started.
But thank you for your insightful reply ... and to everyone else who humored this old man, I thank you as well.
Jack
So unless the Air Force relaxes its weight and grooming standards for CAP members, it seems that these are our only options:
- We get rid of all uniforms (I doubt that most CAP members want that)
- We continue to have two types of uniforms; the Air Force-style and the corporate uniforms (and continue the uniform debates we've had for years)
- We go to a single corporate uniform that every member can wear (we may lose some members who feel the AF uniform is the main reason they joined/stayed in)
- We go to the AF-style uniform as our only uniform and enforce weight and grooming standards on all of our members (we may force some members out and prevent others from joining; definitely not a practical option)
It seems obvious to me that unless the Air Force changes its uniform policy, which is doubtful (at least not any time soon), we will continue with the status quo of having multiple style uniforms (Air Force and corporate) and everything else that goes with that.
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 06:40:29 PMBut for some folks "what we wear" will always be more important than "what we do."
I'm going to take exception to this as well.
Saying it in this context implies that our uniforms and appearance are unimportant and have no bearing on the mission.
We, and the USAF, can't have it both ways. If appearance is unimportant, then their stance seems somewhat arbitrary.
If it is important, then their stance seems counterproductive.
Either way, our uniform is not more important then the mission, however it is a part of it, and the amount of discussion both here and
at units is primarily attributable to the self-conflicting ambiguous mess of the regulations and uniform instructions, not to mention the
nearly complete lack of the enforcement of standards.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 18, 2013, 09:48:02 PM
- We go to a single corporate uniform that every member can wear (we may lose some members who feel the AF uniform is the main reason they joined/stayed in)
Leaving aside cadets (where uniforms are generally believed to be a major motivation for joining), I don't think very many seniors joined in order to wear a uniform. However, as one of the very few visible links between CAP and the AF, the uniform is an important symbol of the relationship and many would see it as a massive sign of disrespect for our volunteer service were it to be taken away. Frankly, I continue to believe that the AF would be more than happy to see us go if they could figure out a way to manage it. If that doesn't change I probably am going to go from not-very-active member to former member pretty soon. With a membership renewal pending, it may not be long.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 08:10:18 PM
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 06:40:29 PMOn a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints.
The main reason we have so many combos is not "need", it's the USAF's stance that auxiliary members can't wear military style uniforms if they weigh too much or have a beard. A stance
which make them an outlier in this regard.
Fix that, and honestly, it's a fix, and our "need" for so many combos drops by 1/2 overnight.
I absolutely agree. I'd even be willing to come into compliance as far as the grooming standards were concerned for Civil Air Patrol uniforms if that were required for the adopted uniform approved for everybody. I don't care if it's AF blue, Blue BDU, Woodland BDU, Khaki... I don't really care. Just adopting the uniformity aspect to identify our organization. There are people who always shout that we should match our parent service and I'm okay with that tradition if it is allowed for everybody. If not I think that our uniform should reflect the Civil Air Patrol heritage and take pride in our organization. We are after all older than the Air Force itself. Where's our Tradition represented?
Probably best to keep the options open, then? Keep RiverAux and the pro-USAF uniform folks in the fold, and also have the less formal combos available, as well?
There is some passion about the clothes. We have some uniformity, without requiring what would traditionally be called a uniform. I spend many/most of my CAP hours in a polo shirt - not what most people consider a uniform, but close enough for CAP culture. Leaves room for beards, bellies, and long hair, for those that want or have them.
I could probably get in a USAF combo legally (barely!) - but it's not on my bucket list, nor is wearing my USAF ribbons and badges on a CAP corporate uniform. I don't even know if I've done any of the paperwork for a CAP ribbon - I think my original CC did, way, way back, for my first find. That was probably the last thing documented for ribbons - I don't know where to look, to find out. . .
For other folks, the ribbons and badges have more import, and no harm in that. They earned 'em. . .I still can't tell MO wings from Pilot wings from across the room. . .
My guess is about 50% of us don't much care, 15% would prefer we drop uniforms altogether, and maybe 35% would prefer to stay as close to USAF in appearance as possible. I imagine that will change with time, as the pool of veterans is reduced - military service as a percent of the population is dropping - the new blood may be less interested in tight USAF affiliation, or uniform wear.
I'm very near a USAF base, but we don't cross paths with them often - just not much regualr interaction, other than some occasional work for them in the air, and the face-to-face on that is done by one guy at Wing. I don't feel a particular affinity for USAF via my CAP activity. I imagine USAF types think about us about as often as we think about them, or maybe a little less? Other than the HQ "overhead", we aren't tightly coupled with USAF at the operational level. . .
I worked for the USCG, and their Aux is very present at CG locations, frequently intermingled with AD and Reserves. My organization used them quite a bit, even arranging and paying for travel on occasion. Very diffrent from CAP and USAF. Not better, or worse, but diffrent. Some of them were subject matter experts in their areas, after long, long involvement - they tended to wear the uniforms with attnetion to correctness. If you wern't paying careful attention, they blended in with the AD.
For CAP uniforms, I'd prefer to get it right, but I follow the herd - someone mentioned earlier we shouldn't wear baseball caps w/rank with the polo combo - heck, everyone in my Wing does that! Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.
Quote from: SunDog on September 18, 2013, 10:21:41 PMheck, everyone in my Wing does that! Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.
Then everyone in your wing is breaking the regs. Selective attention to detail, isn't. Take the grade off of yours, and discreet mention it when you see it,
eventually someone will crack 39-1 and tell the rest to knock it off. It's one thing not to know, something different once you know and you continue anyway.
And we can already wear tac pants with the golf shirt, so there you go.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 09:12:31 PM
Yes, they are a real-world constraint, they are not a "need", nor are they based on mission requirements.
Wow, I thought I was the recovering lawyer here. So, your argument is based on how you define the word "need?" OK. ???
QuoteIn fact, they are a detriment to the mission [ . . .]
OK, I'll bite.
Please lay out the "facts" that show how our current uniform constellation negatively has affected the mission negatively. Please be as specific as you can to show that some emergency services were not performed (or performed less efficiently) because of the clothing members were wearing. Ditto for cadets who were not trained, or persons who remain uneducated about aerospace.
Quote
They are an outlier in that none of the other services spend any effort in C&D'ing other organizations from wearing variants of their uniforms,
not the only other uniformed auxiliary, and not similar organizations such as the Sea Cadets, ACA, or the eleventy twelveteen SDFs and
similar, many of which are literally wearing the USAF uniform.
I'm glad we agree that among the uniformed auxiliaries, it is 50/50 when it comes to enforcement of the parent service's H/W restrictions.
I'm curious, why do you think that the military has the authority to enforce their uniform regulations on civilians participating in organizations that have no ties to the military? I can only agree that there are laws concerning the wearing of military uniforms by civilians, but absent martial law these are enforced by the civil authorites, not the military services themselves. Besides, they have other priorities beyond chasing down 12 year old Sea Cadets or ACA members that they think are wearing the uniform improperly.
QuoteI'm going to take exception to this as well.
Saying it in this context implies that our uniforms and appearance are unimportant and have no bearing on the mission.
We, and the USAF, can't have it both ways. If appearance is unimportant, then their stance seems somewhat arbitrary.
If it is important, then their stance seems counterproductive.
Either way, our uniform is not more important then the mission, however it is a part of it, and the amount of discussion both here and
at units is primarily attributable to the self-conflicting ambiguous mess of the regulations and uniform instructions, not to mention the
nearly complete lack of the enforcement of standards.
Come on, Bob. Please don't put words in my mouth, and I'll try to return the favor.
Take a look at my post above and you will see that I said that "uniforms are a tool to help us perform our missions." Heck, I even put it in italics for emphasis.
Take a moment, use the search function and check my posts for the last five or six years and see if I ever said "appearance is unimportant."
(While you are doing the research, you might also want to check out the excellent Wikipedia article on the The Straw Man Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) which is a classic example of an argument fallacy.)
But if it is instructive, any of us are free to look at the CAPTalk board index. There are over 10 thousand more posts in the Uniform category than the ES, AE, and CP categories
combined.
Quote from: SunDog on September 18, 2013, 10:21:41 PM
For CAP uniforms, I'd prefer to get it right, but I follow the herd - someone mentioned earlier we shouldn't wear baseball caps w/rank with the polo combo - heck, everyone in my Wing does that! Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.
Thanks for being part of the problem!
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 02:54:00 PM
Only with the field uniforms - members out of weight or grooming could wear camo BDUs without grade insignia on the collars until the early 2000's.
Flight suits and blues were still restricted.
Actually, green flightsuits had the same rules as the camo BDUs - permitted for wear without grade insignia.
Quote from: SunDog on September 18, 2013, 10:21:41 PM
For CAP uniforms, I'd prefer to get it right, but I follow the herd - someone mentioned earlier we shouldn't wear baseball caps w/rank with the polo combo - heck, everyone in my Wing does that! Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.
There is a handy piece of Level 1 that should come in handy, and its in a subsection of CAP core values. It's called "[lmgtfy]Integrity[/lmgtfy]"
If I recall correctly that you were prior Air Force (If I'm wrong, please disregard this paragraph,) I'm pretty sure they used that one as well.
Imagine the sight. CAP is enlisted to participate in an emergency. A slew of CAP members show up. Some are wearing BDUs. Some are wearing BBDUs. Some are wearing the golf shirt. Some are wearing flight suits. Some are wearing the white aviator and still others are wearing AF blues. Some of the ones in either the golf shirt or aviator are wearing dress slacks while others are wearing Dockers and others wearing cargo pants; all in different shades of grey. Do we present ourselves well? I think not. Sure other groups, agencies, departments, etc. might not demonstrate 100% uniformity in their uniforms but would any group present such as disparate appearance as CAP?
I believe that in order to present ourselves as a professional and well organized organization that the number of uniform options be greatly reduced and are options that all members can wear regardless of size, hairstyle and facial hair.
A) That assumes that the IC did not set the uniform of the day. On any given Monday on any give USAF base.....you will see blues (short sleeve and long sleeve), ABU, FRABU (the new combat ones), hospital whites, food service whites, polo and khakis, flight suits, desert flight suits, work coveralls, (at Nellis) T-bird personnel in blue fatigues, T-bird pilots in red, white, or blue flight suits (depending on the day of the month), etc, and so on. We solve that problem with "Report to the mission base in BDU/BBDU or green/blue Flight suits. 90% of the problem solved.
b) Having been to incidents where many different orgs are called out.....90% of the time they don't care what you wear....but what and how you do it.
c) Having said all that.....the real reason why we look unprofessional is when you got the one or two yahoos.....that simply refuse to wear the uniforms rights....which ever one they choose. That's the bozos who stand out. It is not so much the many different uniforms that hurts us....but that one or two guys who look like a dufflebag or are sporting something that is so different from everyone else that it is immediately noticeable by outsiders.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 18, 2013, 11:22:46 PM
Do we present ourselves well? I think not.
And that's the problem. And why it defies easy resolution.
Until someone can articulate how our current uniform constellation measurably affects our ability to get our job done, what we are talking about are aesthetics: what one member or another thinks "looks better / more professional" or whether we are "presenting ourselves well."
Aesthetics are admittedly important, but we will never, ever have an agreement about what looks better or more professional. Aggravating this is the cost to our volunteers of any change.
But if someone can show us how having our current uniform set measurably affects the mission, than we can and should discuss it and change them.
But until then, we will fill tens of thousands of posts with endless (sincere and passionately held) personal opinion about how things look.
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 09:12:31 PM
Yes, they are a real-world constraint, they are not a "need", nor are they based on mission requirements.
Wow, I thought I was the recovering lawyer here. So, your argument is based on how you define the word "need?" OK. ???
QuoteIn fact, they are a detriment to the mission [ . . .]
OK, I'll bite.
(etc., etc.)
Just because we're able to accomplish the mission(s) doesn't mean they are not negatively affected.
We hear all the time, albeit anecdotally, that we show up looking like a hodge-podge. Further to that, we have nearly zero internal enforcement of existing regs,
and the regs we have are a mess - so not only don't we have a uniform, what we do have is confusing, at best, for new members.
You knew very well that I was using the comparisons to demonstrate the point of who else is in military uniforms, but thank yo for helping with my earlier point which is,
essentially, the USAF restricts our wear of their uniform simple "because they can", and though I ma won't to spread urban legends about this stuff, there is likely some
"genetic memory" about past foibles that doesn't help the equation, including conspicuous ignoring of the regs by a number of national staffers in recent memory.
Detriment to the mission? How about seniors charged with charged with training and being knowledgeable about a uniform they can't wear. Loss of credibility.
How about the hundreds of photos with a senior in a formation or presenting awards dressed like a real estate salesman while surrounded by subordinate staff in
their plumage?
How about fully 1/2 the membership who do an equal, if not higher share of the heavy lifting who simply aren't allowed to be honored and recognized as the other half
of the organization? You really think at the end of the day that doesn't quietly chip away at morale and spirit? Seriously? Now the adults in that group press on
and get it done, but the uniform situation goes on the pile with all the rest of the ills of CAP, and unlike a lot of things, it pops up at every activity and event, because its
visible and called out everywhere.
How about new members wandering into a meeting an seeing that literal hodge podge with no discernible ryhme or reason to what people are wearing, and a general lax attitude.
The uniform is not the top problem in CAP, but it's high on the list, if, for no other reason, then it shouldn't even be a discussion point, ever, except perhaps at
the national level for occasion, mission-related changes. The uniform should be "set it and forget it", but in its zeal to please everyone, CAP, as is a regular occurrence,
basically defeats the very purpose they aspired to.
We have no uniformity, no organizational identity, to literal and philosophical camps in clothing, and no one working on the root of the problem.
Affinity is a factor to deal with, but mission needs, uniformity, and identity should be higher on the list.
CAP needs a
UNIFORM not a menu.
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 11:43:16 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 18, 2013, 11:22:46 PM
Do we present ourselves well? I think not.
And that's the problem. And why it defies easy resolution.
Until someone can articulate how our current uniform constellation measurably affects our ability to get our job done, what we are talking about are aesthetics: what one member or another thinks "looks better / more professional" or whether we are "presenting ourselves well."
Aesthetics are admittedly important, but we will never, ever have an agreement about what looks better or more professional. Aggravating this is the cost to our volunteers of any change.
But if someone can show us how having our current uniform set measurably affects the mission, than we can and should discuss it and change them.
But until then, we will fill tens of thousands of posts with endless (sincere and passionately held) personal opinion about how things look.
You absolutely cannot say the uniform is just aesthetics, because that then negates the USAF's stance and ours as well.
If its just aesthetics then we should adopt a CAP-specific uniform and move on.
Bob,
I could have sworn we were just talking about your mischaracterization of my posts. I never said uniforms are just aesthetics. I said they are important tools to help us accomplish our missions.
I do say that the majority of the posts here are differences of opinions about what looks better or more professional. Or that we have "too many" uniforms. And absent any evidence that our uniform suite measurably compromises our ability to accomplish the missions assigned to us by the US Congress, then we are indeed arguing about aesthetics by definition.
I say again that aesthetics are indeed important, but also repeat that we will never ever have a consensus on aesthetics, so we are doomed to discuss this for all eternity without any hope of achieving consensus on what looks better / more professional and / or whether we have too many uniforms in someone's personal opinion, or whether members are adequately honored by the clothes they choose to wear.
Quote from: Ned on September 19, 2013, 12:48:48 AM
I never said uniforms are just aesthetics.
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 11:43:16 PM
Until someone can articulate how our current uniform constellation measurably affects our ability to get our job done, what we are talking about are aesthetics: what one member or another thinks "looks better / more professional" or whether we are "presenting ourselves well."
For the record, on a number of occasions, I have provided several mission-related reasons our current uniform mess is an issue when you have asserted that
our ability to accomplish the mission must mean its irrelevant.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 11:55:25 PMCAP needs a UNIFORM not a menu.
Bob. We need the right tool for the right job.
Let Commanders pick which tool is the best one for the job.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 01:25:51 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 11:55:25 PMCAP needs a UNIFORM not a menu.
Bob. We need the right tool for the right job.
Let Commanders pick which tool is the best one for the job.
Since when are commanders picking uniforms? Or have any say in what the average member wears?
Further to that, do USAF CCs, or any military service, LEAs, FD, or even your local CERT "pick" their uniform?
No, they all wear the same thing, perhaps within a duty-specific lane, and there are no separated groups.
If you're good enough to join, you're good enough to wear what everyone else wears.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 11:55:25 PM
Just because we're able to accomplish the mission(s) doesn't mean they are not negatively affected.
Please show where the mission has be affected.
QuoteWe hear all the time, albeit anecdotally, that we show up looking like a hodge-podge. Further to that, we have nearly zero internal enforcement of existing regs, and the regs we have are a mess - so not only don't we have a uniform, what we do have is confusing, at best, for new members.
You knew very well that I was using the comparisons to demonstrate the point of who else is in military uniforms, but thank yo for helping with my earlier point which is, essentially, the USAF restricts our wear of their uniform simple "because they can", and though I ma won't to spread urban legends about this stuff, there is likely some "genetic memory" about past foibles that doesn't help the equation, including conspicuous ignoring of the regs by a number of national staffers in recent memory.
QuoteDetriment to the mission? How about seniors charged with charged with training and being knowledgeable about a uniform they can't wear. Loss of credibility.
And that affected the mission how? Because I can follow this up with "man they thought we were a bunch of yahoos....by our funky uniforms....but at the end of the day they were impressed by how we did our job."
QuoteHow about the hundreds of photos with a senior in a formation or presenting awards dressed like a real estate salesman while surrounded by subordinate staff in their plumage?
which mission affected and how?
QuoteHow about fully 1/2 the membership who do an equal, if not higher share of the heavy lifting who simply aren't allowed to be honored and recognized as the other half of the organization? You really think at the end of the day that doesn't quietly chip away at morale and spirit? Seriously? Now the adults in that group press on and get it done, but the uniform situation goes on the pile with all the rest of the ills of CAP, and unlike a lot of things, it pops up at every activity and event, because its visible and called out everywhere.
I have no idea what the heck you are talking about here. But again...which mission is affected and how?
QuoteHow about new members wandering into a meeting an seeing that literal hodge podge with no discernible ryhme or reason to what people are wearing, and a general lax attitude.
Again....which mission and how affected?
QuoteThe uniform is not the top problem in CAP, but it's high on the list, if, for no other reason, then it shouldn't even be a discussion point, ever, except perhaps at the national level for occasion, mission-related changes. The uniform should be "set it and forget it", but in its zeal to please everyone, CAP, as is a regular occurrence, basically defeats the very purpose they aspired to.
I don't think the uniform is top problem......not even top 10 problem.
QuoteWe have no uniformity, no organizational identity, to literal and philosophical camps in clothing, and no one working on the root of the problem. Affinity is a factor to deal with, but mission needs, uniformity, and identity should be higher on the list.
Sure we got uniforminity. I say Service Dress......we got two uniforms to pick from. I say Service....we got two uniforms to pick from. I say "field/Duty" uniforms and you got four (two for air and two for ground) to pick from. I say casual and you got one to pick from.
When we are all wearing the same uniform then we will be uniform. 90% of the problems you point out are simply commander's not caring about what uniform you wear...because it doesn't matter......so long as you wear them right. If YOU as a commander want everyone in Polo's......you say "everyone wear polo's tomorrow". You want everyone in the mission base in BDU/flight suits....you say so. And you send the ones out of uniform home. That's called leadership....which I say is CAP #2 problem.
QuoteCAP needs a UNIFORM not a menu.
And here we are all back to the base line of a lot of your arguments. I want it this way......and I don't want back talk about "The regs says it's authorized".
Bob.....we have a menu because Mess Dress makes a piss poor Ground Team uniform.
We got USAF style and Corporate Style because we got the USAF not wanting the fat and fuzzies wearing the USAF uniform and a lot of us want to keep our USAF uniforms.
So......You want to cut bait or fish.......which do we do.....ditch the USAF style uniforms or ditch the fat and fuzzies?
Choose.
If you can't see the detriment to the mission of having two classes of members in two different uniforms, nothing I am going to
say is going to change that. I'm a little shocked you and Ned can't. I provided the details in this thread and others, and you're just ignoring them.
For the record, we have one service dress. There is no corporate equivalent.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 01:43:55 AM
We got USAF style and Corporate Style because we got the USAF not wanting the fat and fuzzies wearing the USAF uniform and a lot of us want to keep our USAF uniforms.
Making my point about two classes. Who, exactly, is "us"?
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 01:43:55 AM
So......You want to cut bait or fish.......which do we do.....ditch the USAF style uniforms or ditch the fat and fuzzies?
That's easy. Which is a "need" and which is a "nice"? CAP seems unable to accept the answer to that question,
because it can't afford the loss, so it continues to pretend there is no issue and hopes it will just go away.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 01:39:42 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 01:25:51 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 18, 2013, 11:55:25 PMCAP needs a UNIFORM not a menu.
Bob. We need the right tool for the right job.
Let Commanders pick which tool is the best one for the job.
Since when are commanders picking uniforms? Or have any say in what the average member wears?
Further to that, do USAF CCs, or any military service, LEAs, FD, or even your local CERT "pick" their uniform?
No, they all wear the same thing, perhaps within a duty-specific lane, and there are no separated groups.
If you're good enough to join, you're good enough to wear what everyone else wears.
Every Tuesday at my squadron we have a uniform of the day. He tells us what we are going to wear.
I don't know what you are talking about allowing the local CERT to pick their uniforms.....I have no idea where you were going with that. But to answer your question.....have you seen the Thunder Bird Uniforms? NOT in any AFI that I ever read....so yes the USAF does let its special teams to "pick" their own uniforms.....I also point out that PJ's, SF, JTACs, WJ, DI and a whole lot of other people have their own special uniforms (Red Horse for instance)......plus if you want to go way back.....gate guards had their own special bling, Transient Alert Crew chiefs, Flying Crew chiefs, Communications Technicians,....all has some special uniform that others could not....as for local LE and FD.....oh you bet their special teams have their own special bling and "uniform" rules.
Yes.....you should wear "what everyone else" wears.....so when are you going to take off your oak leaves and your ribbons?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 01:51:28 AM
If you can't see the detriment to the mission of having two classes of members in two different uniforms, nothing I am going to
say is going to change that. I'm a little shocked you and Ned can't. I provided the details in this thread and others, and you're just ignoring them.
For the record, we have one service dress. There is no corporate equivalent.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 01:43:55 AM
We got USAF style and Corporate Style because we got the USAF not wanting the fat and fuzzies wearing the USAF uniform and a lot of us want to keep our USAF uniforms.
Making my point about two classes. Who, exactly, is "us"?
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 01:43:55 AM
So......You want to cut bait or fish.......which do we do.....ditch the USAF style uniforms or ditch the fat and fuzzies?
That's easy. Which is a "need" and which is a "nice"? CAP seems unable to accept the answer to that question,
because it can't afford the loss, so it continues to pretend there is no issue and hopes it will just go away.
Eclipse.....I agree with you....we need one uniform.....But....as you have been challenged.....where is the determent to the mission?
You claim that this is one of CAP's top problems....yet can't cite one instance where it has caused a mission loss or degradation.
You are the one asserting that it is a major problem...that needs to be solved.........and I don't see it that way.
As for answering my question you still have not done so. Which is it.....loose the USAF style uniforms or kick out all the Fat and Fuzzies?
^ So you're going to make your argument about uniforms by grabbing for anyplace you can that has a special
variant? How is that relevent to >THIS< conversation or CAP.
I'd have no issue if NHQ tomorrow decided we would no longer wear grade or decs, as long as the whole
cadre goes at the same level.
>Anything< which is a detriment to morale, initiative, or cohesion, not to mention appearance, especially in an all-volunteer
organization is a detriment to the mission.
I'm not going to retype the above answers because you don't accept them or understand them, beyond, CP training is effected,
our standing in the military community, and recruiting, to name three areas, are significantly affected, which is in turn a detriment to
the entire organization. Just because you can stand up and say "we have a field uniform you can wear, so mission accomplished" doesn't mean there aren't ripple effects and unseen detriments all over.
No to mention the underlying thread of having our act together.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 01:56:23 AM
As for answering my question you still have not done so. Which is it.....loose the USAF style uniforms or kick out all the Fat and Fuzzies?
Without the more then 1/2 the membership who are restricted from USAF style uniforms, CAP would fold tomorrow.
Seems an easy answer to me.
Which is more important to you? USAF affinity or the morale and experience of more then 1/2 the affected membership?
Here's the other reason I, and others, have such heartburn about the issue.
Many of the commanders and staff who should be the champions on this issue with the USAF, whether it's changing the wear standards or moving to a CAP-specific uniform, based on photographic evidence, are ignoring the weight and/or grooming standards themselves,
and because of this, are "unaffected", or "immune" to the issue.
I've said it 100 times, if CAP would just start across-the-board enforcement of its uniform wear regs, with actual ramifications for
violators, we'd see a much different "face", and a lot of the things which seem "unequal" would change quickly, because all of a sudden
we'd see members with influence affected.
Say it.....say you want us to drop the USAF uniform and go to an all volunteer, corporate organization.
Please....I beg you to say it.....because if we drop the USAF uniforms that is exactly what we are going to get.....and 98% of all the rest of your arguments on all your other threads immediately fall to pieces.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 02:12:52 AM
Say it.....say you want us to drop the USAF uniform and go to an all volunteer, corporate organization.
Please....I beg you to say it.....because if we drop the USAF uniforms that is exactly what we are going to get.....and 98% of all the rest of your arguments on all your other threads immediately fall to pieces.
? I can't say it because it isn't true.
I DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THE USAF STYLE UNIFORMS. I do not want to lose the affinity and status as a military auxilary,
nor do I have any disdain for decs or badges.
I want one uniform for all members. Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 18, 2013, 08:01:18 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 17, 2013, 04:35:56 AM
We can look pretty ragged now, for sure. A bunch of us went to a local AFB for a chamber ride a few years ago. Ghastly, I mean hideous, and I'm pretty easy about this stuff. I didn't KNOW we had that many uniform combinations, or that we could muck them up so ingeniuosly. It was embarrasing. . .
My Unit always looks sharp. The problem is some units do not have the moral courage to tell their buddy Bubba to shape up because you are making Petticoat Junction Squadron look like sad sacks. You are a "Captain", what did you say? ::)
Good point- sorry for the delayed response, overlooked your post, but wasn't ducking you - I didn't say squat, to anyone. For the ones that were clearly, obviously beyond the pale, I should have.
And our mob did look like motley. Ket's say a "great variety of imaginative combinations".
Lot of sneakers, etc
Sneakers? OK now you're just making this up.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 18, 2013, 10:39:49 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 18, 2013, 10:21:41 PM
For CAP uniforms, I'd prefer to get it right, but I follow the herd - someone mentioned earlier we shouldn't wear baseball caps w/rank with the polo combo - heck, everyone in my Wing does that! Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.
Thanks for being part of the problem!
Shoot, I just got that hat, to replace a disreputable looking sweat-stained article. If my Wing doesn't have some dispensation or locally authority for the hats, you may be right. For all I know, it the caps may have been approved by someone with the authority to do so. . . or not.
But, in this case, we are uniform, it looks OK, is practical, and we don't look like a rag-tag collection of miscreants. On the negative side, we might be breaking a uniform reg.
Not as externally embarrasing as our showing at the AF Base in bizzare mufti, though. If we're technically off the reservation with the ball caps, but consistent with it wing-wide, I don't feel like I'm shirking too much by going along.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 03:13:19 AM
Sneakers? OK now you're just making this up.
Nah, I swear, sneakers. Not black coaches shoes, either, but Nike or Adidas-like, running shoes. I didn't (and don't) know the legal combos, but the variation was enourmous. Maybe 25 guys? Maybe 15 variations? Heck, even forgetting the jeans, sneaks, etc., we looked like a circus.
^ You have no idea of the apoplexy you are inducing in many of the readers right now.
Quote from: SunDog on September 19, 2013, 03:36:27 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 03:13:19 AM
Sneakers? OK now you're just making this up.
Nah, I swear, sneakers. Not black coaches shoes, either, but Nike or Adidas-like, running shoes. I didn't (and don't) know the legal combos, but the variation was enourmous. Maybe 25 guys? Maybe 15 variations? Heck, even forgetting the jeans, sneaks, etc., we looked like a circus.
Please...Just take 15 minutes and skim this...http://tinyurl.com/q3culcg (http://tinyurl.com/q3culcg)
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 02:33:31 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 02:12:52 AM
Say it.....say you want us to drop the USAF uniform and go to an all volunteer, corporate organization.
Please....I beg you to say it.....because if we drop the USAF uniforms that is exactly what we are going to get.....and 98% of all the rest of your arguments on all your other threads immediately fall to pieces.
? I can't say it because it isn't true. I DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THE USAF STYLE UNIFORMS. I do not want to lose the affinity and status as a military auxilary,
nor do I have any disdain for decs or badges.
I want one uniform for all members. Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Therefore......assuming the USAF status quo.....the only alternative is to kick out those that don't meet USAF standards.
Why is status quo assumed?
We're apparently hot to trot about ABUs, which we have no use for, how about asking on something meaningful?
I'll throw this out there... how many civilians recognize the USAF's uniform when they see it?
Seriously I've been in Army Dress Blues and asked if I was in the Navy and many moons ago as a young LCPL out and about in my Charlies was asked how I like the Army. In my USCGAux uniform I was confused for an Air Force Officer.
So if CAP was to adopt one Corporate uniform... be it a blue or grey airline pilot style, WWII Khaki, or an even more modified USAF style... would the general public know who you were and the CAP/USAF connection? ???
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 04:05:04 AM
Why is status quo assumed?
We're apparently hot to trot about ABUs, which we have no use for, how about asking on something meaningful?
That's a whole different argument. Which I agree with....but I have no data one way or the other of what the "USAF" really feels about our uniforms and neither does the NUC from what I understand.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 19, 2013, 04:27:16 AM
So if CAP was to adopt one Corporate uniform... be it a blue or grey airline pilot style, WWII Khaki, or an even more modified USAF style... would the general public know who you were and the CAP/USAF connection? ???
Nope. They still asked us if we were in the Army as we were walking around with big blue tapes saying CIVIL AIR PATROL on them. We're too small to have our uniform be a recognizable "brand" no matter what it is.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 19, 2013, 04:27:16 AM
Seriously I've been in Army Dress Blues and asked if I was in the Navy and many moons ago as a young LCPL out and about in my Charlies was asked how I like the Army. In my USCGAux uniform I was confused for an Air Force Officer.
I was wearing the white aviator shirt on AFBs and have been asked multiple times if I was Canadian ???
Quote from: Ned on September 18, 2013, 10:37:04 PMBesides, they have other priorities beyond chasing down 12 year old Sea Cadets or ACA members that they think are wearing the uniform improperly.
Quote
Interesting...the US Army, Navy and Marine Corps have more important things to do than chase down folks they feel are wearing their uniforms improperly, but, by implication, the USAF does not?!?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 04:05:04 AM
Why is status quo assumed?
We're apparently hot to trot about ABUs, which we have no use for, how about asking on something meaningful?
We have as much use for ABU's as we do BDU's, which is as we all know, it's the utility uniform of our parent service. It's part of the whole affinity issue that was just discussed.
If I had a vote in a particular utlity uniform pattern, I would vote for multicam, due to the possibilities of being multipurposed. However, since I was not asked, and it's not what the AF is using as a main utility uniform (only in theater in certain roles) I can not in good conscious advocate such a uniform change.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2013, 03:57:41 AM
I want one uniform for all members. Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Therefore......assuming the USAF status quo.....the only alternative is to kick out those that don't meet USAF standards.
Yes, however I don't see CAP kicking out any member who honors their commitment to the organization. Multiforms will be the rule until the USAF changes the status quo... :-\
Uniforms really even shouldn't be much of an issue we have the two types AF and Corp. In order to wear AF you need to meet H/W and abide by the grooming standards. For those that choose to not meet grooming or H/W there is the Corp (this does not include those who cannot meet H/W or grooming for a valid medical reason).
Do we need uniforms yes to present a UNIFORM appearence, this can only be done by adherence and enforcement of standards. To often people don't want to hurt someone's feelings, or be the "bad guy" to correct a uniform issue. Sometime's being the "bad guy" is what is needed to be a good solid leader.
Grade, is it needed maybe maybe not but we have it and honestly it helps to sort out who may be heading an event up. Since we are a paramilitary organization it helps establish roles and structure.
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 19, 2013, 03:55:51 PM
Uniforms really even shouldn't be much of an issue we have the two types AF and Corp. In order to wear AF you need to meet H/W and abide by the grooming standards. For those that choose to not meet grooming or H/W there is the Corp (this does not include those who cannot meet H/W or grooming for a valid medical reason).
And the regulation citation for the bolded part is where?
If the uniform wasn't an issue, we wouldn't have so many discussions about it. At a minimum, the uniform debate is a distraction that can potentially take away from the mission or other more important issues or priorities.
As an example, my unit had a banquet a few months ago and while some of the members were in USAF-style service and service dress uniforms or corporate equivalent (blazer, aviator shirt), others were in civilian attire. Some were even wearing their CAP Golf shirt uniform combination. Did it prevent us from having the banquet? No. Do similar situations prevent us from accomplishing ES or other types of missions? No. But it does have an effect on moral, esprit de corps and the image we present to those inside and outside our organization.
In the USAF, we have different types of uniforms, but they have a functional purpose and are used with a certain level of consistency. If you're a flyer, you wear a flight suit. If you're doing PT, you wear the PT uniform. If you're an aircraft maintainer, security forces, etc. you wear ABUs. That is different from going to a CAP meeting and seeing members in BDU, BBDU, Aviator shirt, AF-style Blues, Golf shirt with gray slacks, Golf shirt with grey cargo pants, green Flight Suit, blue Flight Suit, etc.
Yes, the commander can set a UOD, but how can he/she enforce it? In my unit, for example, not everyone has BDUs or BBDUs. Not everyone has AF-style service uniform or Aviator shirt/gray slack combo. We do have a published UOD for every week of the month, but on any given day you will see at least three types of uniforms being worn (AF-style, corporate equivalent, Golf shirt).
I, for one, would like CAP to have one type of uniform, whether that is a corporate or Air Force-style uniform. I wear the AF-style uniform 85% of the time, but would gladly wear something else if it meant we had a single set of uniforms (one field, one service, one flight, etc.). I know many disagree, but that just proves that we can't agree on the right solution to this problem (if it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be debating about it so much). Because we can't agree on a solution or because we're limited on viable solutions, we just remain with the status quo of having the many different uniform styles and combinations we have today.
Quote from: phirons on September 19, 2013, 04:02:01 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 19, 2013, 03:55:51 PM
Uniforms really even shouldn't be much of an issue we have the two types AF and Corp. In order to wear AF you need to meet H/W and abide by the grooming standards. For those that choose to not meet grooming or H/W there is the Corp (this does not include those who cannot meet H/W or grooming for a valid medical reason).
And the regulation citation for the bolded part is where?
The regulations states corp for those who do not abide by H/W or grooming will wear Corp uniforms. I am well aware there are members who have medical conditions that impact their ability to be compliant with the H/W requirements to wear the AF style uniform and should not be lumped in with those members that simply choose not to.
Do we have different uniforms yes we do to accomodate our membership is it a headache it can be, but really enforcement is the key to not having headaches. And gasp the bulk of the uniform infractions I have seen have been in the Corp style uniform.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 19, 2013, 04:03:39 PM
I, for one, would like CAP to have one type of uniform, whether that is a corporate or Air Force-style uniform. I wear the AF-style uniform 85% of the time, but would gladly wear something else if it meant we had a single set of uniforms (one field, one service, one flight, etc.). I know many disagree, but that just proves that we can't agree on the right solution to this problem (if it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be debating about it so much). Because we can't agree on a solution or because we're limited on viable solutions, we just remain with the status quo of having the many different uniform styles and combinations we have today.
(As I'm stuck inside and, eating my lunch, I'll continue with contributing to this "worthwile" thread...)
I totally agree with the above comment. "We" will never agree with a total solution. There have been so many opinons on this subject, I don't have a need to go over any possible solution or permutations. It's been well said by so many others, and so many times...
So, unless our leadership can come up with a solution which will retain our members' interest and support, we will stay on this same road... >:D
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 19, 2013, 04:03:39 PM
Yes, the commander can set a UOD, but how can he/she enforce it? In my unit, for example, not everyone has BDUs or BBDUs. Not everyone has AF-style service uniform or Aviator shirt/gray slack combo. We do have a published UOD for every week of the month, but on any given day you will see at least three types of uniforms being worn (AF-style, corporate equivalent, Golf shirt).
This is more than a command problem. In my mind, its part of the "I'm a volunteer, you're lucky I'm even here" mentality. I have the uniform to cover any UoD. Now, I didn't buy them all at once, I started with short sleeve blues and BDUs, but over the past years, I managed to get full service dress, a flight suit and polo combo.
"But not everyone can afford to buy all those uniforms" you'll hear. About a year after I joined, I lost a major client and income source from the recession. The following four years have held significant money challenges for my family and we're still trying to get back on our feet. Yet, I managed to find a way. For my service dress jacket I found an enlisted one that fit from our squadron supply and then found a pair of matching pants that had a stain. A close friend who used to be a seamstress used the old pants to create the epaulets and sewed on the braid, etc. I spent maybe $20-ish on that. Ebay has used flight suits all over the place. I have two (different sizes) that I bought for around $35-ish. The unembroidered polos aren't that much either. Sometimes I used birthday or christmas money. Sometimes I would forgo other niceties to afford it, brown baggin' lunch.
I bought them even through financial hardship because I'm dedicated to CAP. Its the same reason I have 3 squadron duties and a group staff assignment. I don't expect every new member to jump in and buy all the uniform varieties (AF style or corp.) before they pin on butterbars. IMNSHO, if someone is going to show up week to week for a while, they should get around to being part of the team and doing things right.
Quote from: SunDog on September 19, 2013, 03:30:12 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 18, 2013, 10:39:49 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 18, 2013, 10:21:41 PM
For CAP uniforms, I'd prefer to get it right, but I follow the herd - someone mentioned earlier we shouldn't wear baseball caps w/rank with the polo combo - heck, everyone in my Wing does that! Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.
Thanks for being part of the problem!
Shoot, I just got that hat, to replace a disreputable looking sweat-stained article. If my Wing doesn't have some dispensation or locally authority for the hats, you may be right. For all I know, it the caps may have been approved by someone with the authority to do so. . . or not.
No such authority is given to Wings.
Quote
But, in this case, we are uniform, it looks OK, is practical, and we don't look like a rag-tag collection of miscreants. On the negative side, we might be breaking a uniform reg.
My wife worked in a store where literally ALL the employees stole. Did that make it OK for her to do so as well?
Quote
Not as externally embarrasing as our showing at the AF Base in bizzare mufti, though. If we're technically off the reservation with the ball caps, but consistent with it wing-wide, I don't feel like I'm shirking too much by going along.
Your polo does not need a hat. So don't wear one breaking the regs, especially on a base.
I was a cadet. I wore the AF uniforms. Always struggled with my weight. It is something I can work on, but at the moment it is what it is. I wear BBDUs, and G/Ws. Do you think I don't want to wear what the cadets I work with wear? Of course I do, but until I'm within the weight standard I choose to abide by the regs. But NOTHING brings me down as much as seeing someone CLEARLY out of the weight standard wear the AF uniform. Most are good members, and good CP officers, but it is almost a slap in a face to guys like me who do follow the regs. How can they preach integrity to cadets when they themselves are NOT compliant and are aware of it? I'm a young guy. Besides my double chin my weight is quite evenly distributed. I'm between 240-250lbs at 5'10", but no one ever thinks im over 220. I've been told, by prior service members that I should just wear the AF uniforms because I can pull it off, certainly better than others do. That's an integrity issue of course, but it shows the level of apathy CAP has towards the uniform regs. Those breaking the regs, as well as a lack of a full service dress for corp wearing members may not affect our missions, but it most certainly wears on morale and breeds some resentment for guys like me.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 19, 2013, 05:19:30 PM
I was a cadet. I wore the AF uniforms. Always struggled with my weight. It is something I can work on, but at the moment it is what it is. I wear BBDUs, and G/Ws. Do you think I don't want to wear what the cadets I work with wear? Of course I do, but until I'm within the weight standard I choose to abide by the regs. But NOTHING brings me down as much as seeing someone CLEARLY out of the weight standard wear the AF uniform. Most are good members, and good CP officers, but it is almost a slap in a face to guys like me who do follow the regs. How can they preach integrity to cadets when they themselves are NOT compliant and are aware of it? I'm a young guy. Besides my double chin my weight is quite evenly distributed. I'm between 240-250lbs at 5'10", but no one ever thinks im over 220. I've been told, by prior service members that I should just wear the AF uniforms because I can pull it off, certainly better than others do. That's an integrity issue of course, but it shows the level of apathy CAP has towards the uniform regs. Those breaking the regs, as well as a lack of a full service dress for corp wearing members may not affect our missions, but it most certainly wears on morale and breeds some resentment for guys like me.
I'm with you all the way. I've gone over the H/W line at times, and when I do I wear my polo.
My hat's off to you for your integrity.
Quote from: Walkman on September 19, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 19, 2013, 04:03:39 PM
Yes, the commander can set a UOD, but how can he/she enforce it? In my unit, for example, not everyone has BDUs or BBDUs. Not everyone has AF-style service uniform or Aviator shirt/gray slack combo. We do have a published UOD for every week of the month, but on any given day you will see at least three types of uniforms being worn (AF-style, corporate equivalent, Golf shirt).
This is more than a command problem. In my mind, its part of the "I'm a volunteer, you're lucky I'm even here" mentality. I have the uniform to cover any UoD. Now, I didn't buy them all at once, I started with short sleeve blues and BDUs, but over the past years, I managed to get full service dress, a flight suit and polo combo.
I agree. I started with one set of BDUs and one set of short sleeve blues. Then I got a Golf shirt for SM meetings, as no one was wearing BDUs at the time. Now I have three full sets of BDUs, one full set of blues (including service dress coat), one flight suit and two Golf shirts. The amount of uniform combinations I have reflect my level of participation in multiple types and lengths of activities. In my units, most SM only buy the Golf shirt/gray pants combo (unless they work with cadets) and wear that uniform at every meeting or activity we have.
For the purposes of this discussion, it would be certainly interesting to actually know what percentage of seniors are actually precluded from wearing the AF style uniforms by reason of their size. The H/W chart is Attachment 1 of CAPM 39-1 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/M391_E6F33EAAEC28A.pdf).
Some here have estimated that as many as half or our seniors do not meet H/W. Some have suggested that the percentage could even be higher.
I can't imagine how we might reasonably find the actual percentage, which would require weighing all of our seniors (or at least a statistically valid sample and extrapolating.)
But assuming our seniors are on par with the average American (IOW, there is nothing about CAP that makes us somehow either larger or smaller than average), then it seems clear to me that the "outside H/W group" represents a distinct minority of our membership.
I reached this conclusion by applying a BMI calculation to the male H/W chart, and finding that for each and every height listed on the chart, the corresponding weight yields a BMI over 30. (Low of 30.5, high of 34.)
I then simply checked the Wikipedia article on BMI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index) and found that the average BMI for American males is 28.64, significantly lower than the "BMI maximum" calculated from our H/W chart.
(Note, the use of BMI was just a convenient - yet accurate - way to compare the averages. I am not using BMI as any sort of health measurement tool in this context. It certainly has its critics.)
And of course, just concluding that "only a minority" of seniors cannot wear the AF style uniforms does not in any way suggest that our members wearing corporates do not require and deserve a professional uniform to assist them in the performance of their duties. CAP was in fact largely founded to allow members who did not physically or otherwise qualfiy for service in the armed forces a critically important way to serve their country.
The only point here was to try to refine a data point for the ongoing discussion.
Quote from: Ned on September 19, 2013, 08:30:46 PM
But assuming our seniors are on par with the average American (IOW, there is nothing about CAP that makes us somehow either larger or smaller than average), then it seems clear to me that the "outside H/W group" represents a distinct minority of our membership.
I strongly disagree with this statement. One need only look around at their average meeting, activity, or the photos national publishes to know that those restricted
from wearing USAF uniforms are not a "minority", and I assert they are at least 1/2 the senior membership.
As to obtaining the data, why not weigh everyone?
Or, we could look at WMIRS and check the W&B sheets from released sorties. I've seen plenty of member fudge the line, but rarely do they
lie when they are flying.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 08:48:46 PM
Or, we could look at WMIRS and check the W&B sheets from released sorties. I've seen plenty of member fudge the line, but rarely do they
lie when they are flying.
I don't think that would be statistically valid. You would just have active aircrews in that group.
Quote from: phirons on September 19, 2013, 08:52:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 08:48:46 PM
Or, we could look at WMIRS and check the W&B sheets from released sorties. I've seen plenty of member fudge the line, but rarely do they
lie when they are flying.
I don't think that would be statistically valid. You would just have active aircrews in that group.
I agree, but it would certainly give an indication, it would be a start, and at least there would be some reasonable
chance the data is accurate, or close. We can't use eServices data because I know from just being in there all the time
with member records that most people aren't being "accurate" with that weight, or it's their cadet weight, etc.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 19, 2013, 04:03:39 PM
Yes, the commander can set a UOD, but how can he/she enforce it?
Tell them to be in the correct uniform , and let them know that they will be sent home. Wrong uniform: see you next week in the correct uniform. If that doesn't work, counsel them. If that doesn't work, ground/suspend privileges. That doesn't work, terminate them.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 19, 2013, 04:03:39 PM
Not everyone has AF-style service uniform or Aviator shirt/gray slack combo. We do have a published UOD for every week of the month, but on any given day you will see at least three types of uniforms being worn (AF-style, corporate equivalent, Golf shirt).
Why don't they have blues or G/W? It is the mandated uniform that all personnel have. Either AF blues or G/W. I make sure that they know that in the first conversation when they inquire about joining. I also talk about the regular costs of being active.
Quote from: Ned on September 19, 2013, 08:30:46 PM
I can't imagine how we might reasonably find the actual percentage, which would require weighing all of our seniors (or at least a statistically valid sample and extrapolating.)
We could get an approximation from folks that have filled in the data...it's on your 101 card, and in the CAPWATCH DB.
Someone send me the national one and I can do it in a couple hours of work...
Guaranteed those numbers aren't right.
Just for the heck of it, I ran my wing...among Senior Members
3.7% have either (a) No Ht/Wt, or are off the height chart (<4'10", >6'8")
For Females:
31% do not meet, 63% do (5.7% are off height chart)
For Males:
27% do not meet, 70% do (3.2% off chart)
Total:
28% do not meet, 68% do.
For Cadets:
Female: 6% do not, 51% do, 44% off chart (<4'10")
Male: 1% do not, 52% do, 47% off chart
Overall: 2% do not, 52% do, 46% off chart
70% of members have height/weight information in the system, 30% do not
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2013, 09:15:38 PM
Guaranteed those numbers aren't right.
They don't need to be exactly right for the purposes here, they just need to show over/under a certain number.
Agreed, but that's "internet truth", but still these numbers show about ~30% right off the bat.
Factor in fudge, numbers never updated, and people just not being truthful, and I don't think it'd be a stretch to get into the 40's pretty easily, if not more.
With a sample size of 788 members (Cadet and Senior) with data:
Median height was 69" (5'9") with a standard deviation of 3.92", so 95% of our members should be between 5'1" and 6'5" (so pretty close to reality)
Median weight was 173 pounds with a standard deviation of 43.95 pounds. (95% between 85 and 260 pounds)
The median deviation from the Ht/Wt chart was 31 pounds under the chart with a standard deviation of 37 pounds. (95% between 102 pounds under and 44 pounds over)
If it proved out I'd accept 30-40% as "the number", though you also have to factor in participation.
Where would the needle move if we dumped out the empty shirts?
So for even this conversation, is the experience of say, 35% of the membership something that can be simply ignored for the sake of affinity?
What about if that 35% of the membership makes up the majority of the active members who actually show up?
Rogue...
Many members do not get the mandated uniforms... because the squadron commanders do not enforce that!
In my previous squadron I served under two commanders. Both would say "The uniform is a polo!" I transferred to the squadron I am in. Again the same story. "The required uniform is a polo."
Until commanders at all levels start saying "You are expected to buy either a USAF Blues or a White/Gray but can wear a polo" will members own the Corporate or USAF.
Flyer
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 19, 2013, 08:54:38 PM
Why don't they have blues or G/W? It is the mandated uniform that all personnel have. Either AF blues or G/W. I make sure that they know that in the first conversation when they inquire about joining. I also talk about the regular costs of being active.
CAPM 39-1 may state that "[m]embers will equip themselves with the basic uniform", which include these two combinations, however in practice many senior members only buy the golf shirt and gray pants when they join and never buy a basic uniform. I guess we could always exclude them from participating on certain activities, but somehow I don't think that's the most effective solution, especially when the policy is not applied evenly through every unit.
The "fix" is to send all commanders the proper information, tell new members from day one, and require all existing members to comply within six months.
Eat the anguish and move on.
Then start enforcing the regs, with ramifications, from that point forward.
This alone would fix a lot of the uniform and expectation issues in one act.
As USAFAUX2004 said, in the current climate, those scofflaws benefit while those who comply stew in silence, and no one cares enough to fix it.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 19, 2013, 09:54:46 PMCAPM 39-1 may state that "[m]embers will equip themselves with the basic uniform", which include these two combinations, however in practice many senior members only buy the golf shirt and gray pants when they join and never buy a basic uniform. I guess we could always exclude them from participating on certain activities, but somehow I don't think that's the most effective solution, especially when the policy is not applied evenly through every unit.
Well since this is a volunteer organization......we don't have a lot of options.
We got the carrot and we got the stick.
So what carrots do we got? Promotion? Decoration?
What sticks do we got? I think the "limit participation" or maybe a blanket "Photos for CAP ID's will only be in a CAP basic uniform".
At least they will wear it once.
I know for a fact folks who are not within h/w, yet eservices reflects the maximum weight for their supposed height. ::)
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 19, 2013, 09:49:03 PM
Rogue...
Many members do not get the mandated uniforms... because the squadron commanders do not enforce that!
In my previous squadron I served under two commanders. Both would say "The uniform is a polo!" I transferred to the squadron I am in. Again the same story. "The required uniform is a polo."
Until commanders at all levels start saying "You are expected to buy either a USAF Blues or a White/Gray but can wear a polo" will members own the Corporate or USAF.
Flyer
I most certainly do. I don't even bring up the polo shirt option. It most certainly not allowed for Seniors who are working with Cadets. I mandate it by way of UOD orders, and getting buy in with this fair simple to understand rationale:
Quote
If all the Cadets are expected to meet certain rules as far as uniform wear, how can you in good conscience be wearing a uniform to lower standards of dress, when you are to be serving as a positive role model?
If there are excuses as to why they shouldn't be held to the same, or higher standard, they'll find themselves in a different section. Fortunately, thus far, I've had good luck with that.
If they ask about the Polo option, I answer truthfully. Yes it is an authorized "uniform combination," but I prefer it not to be worn.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 19, 2013, 10:48:56 PM
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 19, 2013, 09:49:03 PM
Rogue...
Many members do not get the mandated uniforms... because the squadron commanders do not enforce that!
In my previous squadron I served under two commanders. Both would say "The uniform is a polo!" I transferred to the squadron I am in. Again the same story. "The required uniform is a polo."
Until commanders at all levels start saying "You are expected to buy either a USAF Blues or a White/Gray but can wear a polo" will members own the Corporate or USAF.
Flyer
I most certainly do. I don't even bring up the polo shirt option. It most certainly not allowed for Seniors who are working with Cadets. I mandate it by way of UOD orders, and getting buy in with this fair simple to understand rationale:
Quote
If all the Cadets are expected to meet certain rules as far as uniform wear, how can you in good conscience be wearing a uniform to lower standards of dress, when you are to be serving as a positive role model?
If there are excuses as to why they shouldn't be held to the same, or higher standard, they'll find themselves in a different section. Fortunately, thus far, I've had good luck with that.
If they ask about the Polo option, I answer truthfully. Yes it is an authorized "uniform combination," but I prefer it not to be worn.
I'm not disagreeing that it should be that way, but reality in many units is a different story. I agree with Eclipse and Lordmonar about options to address this, and it would certainly help if the push is coming from above.
You know, if we put in even half the energy into say...finding alternate funding or making inroads to new missions as we do uniforms...
"Endless possibilities captain"
Quote from: NCRblues on September 20, 2013, 01:01:45 AM
You know, if we put in even half the energy into say...finding alternate funding or making inroads to new missions as we do uniforms...
"Endless possibilities captain"
This isn't "energy". If anything, it's the opposite, and NHQ hasn't put anything into uniforms, or more importantly the
enforcement of the regulations and culture around them, in over a decade. HWSRN's foibles not withstanding,
they've been static since the '90's and the changes we've seen trivial.
The occasional discussion or 39-1 committee doesn't count.
Somehow we can find the will and the means to force members to watch the same safety videos over and over,
including tracking, stats, and actual ramifications, yet getting people to wear the uniform properly, or
getting us into a "uniform", seems to be a sisyphean effort.
Open the floor to wearing metal grade, or adding a new decoration, or all the "special" stuff from certain
activities - that gets attention and initiative.
Take the conversation to "weigh in or take it off", and no one wants to be bothered.
QuoteTake the conversation to "weigh in or take it off", and no one wants to be bothered.
Silly question but if an actual member of the Air Force does make weight... what uniform do they wear?
(Yes I'm being a smart [Filter Subversion]. :P )
Civilian clothes.
The USAF (fairly) recently went to much more strict PT standards including hard-stop measurements. Bust one of the measurements and
you don't even need to bother with the rest of the tests, you're out.
It's killed more then a few careers.
I know that, the Army has height and weight standards too, but until they're actually out-processed from the USAF, they a strill required to come to work in a proper uniform.
Also, it takes about a year to out-process someone in the Army for not making weight, how long does it take the Air Force?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
The USAF (fairly) recently went to much more strict PT standards including hard-stop measurements. Bust one of the measurements and
you don't even need to bother with the rest of the tests, you're out.
It's killed more then a few careers.
There has been a recent change in this. Starting 1 Oct. if you bust the waist measurement, they do a DoD BMI tape test. If you pass that, you're good to go, and if you pass the other portions of the PT test, but don't make weight it is no longer a full PT failure. Also, you have 4 tries over 24 months to make H/W and pass PT before you are going to be separated.
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466914/af-announces-pt-test-enhancements-to-start-oct-1.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466914/af-announces-pt-test-enhancements-to-start-oct-1.aspx)
Quote from: Walkman on September 20, 2013, 03:01:08 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
The USAF (fairly) recently went to much more strict PT standards including hard-stop measurements. Bust one of the measurements and
you don't even need to bother with the rest of the tests, you're out.
It's killed more then a few careers.
There has been a recent change in this. Starting 1 Oct. if you bust the waist measurement, they do a DoD BMI tape test. If you pass that, you're good to go, and if you pass the other portions of the PT test, but don't make weight it is no longer a full PT failure. Also, you have 4 tries over 24 months to make H/W and pass PT before you are going to be separated.
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466914/af-announces-pt-test-enhancements-to-start-oct-1.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466914/af-announces-pt-test-enhancements-to-start-oct-1.aspx)
Good - someone saw the light. Too bad for all the guys that got bounced in the interim.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Good - someone saw the light. Too bad for all the guys that got bounced in the interim.
Not to take this OT, but the more I encounter Gen. Welsh, the more I'm impressed.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: Walkman on September 20, 2013, 03:01:08 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
The USAF (fairly) recently went to much more strict PT standards including hard-stop measurements. Bust one of the measurements and
you don't even need to bother with the rest of the tests, you're out.
It's killed more then a few careers.
There has been a recent change in this. Starting 1 Oct. if you bust the waist measurement, they do a DoD BMI tape test. If you pass that, you're good to go, and if you pass the other portions of the PT test, but don't make weight it is no longer a full PT failure. Also, you have 4 tries over 24 months to make H/W and pass PT before you are going to be separated.
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466914/af-announces-pt-test-enhancements-to-start-oct-1.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466914/af-announces-pt-test-enhancements-to-start-oct-1.aspx)
Good - someone saw the light. Too bad for all the guys that got bounced in the interim.
All it took was a Wing Commander getting zapped and poof! Reg change! ::)
Seriously. Lord knows how much we invested in him, the guy passed PT, too.
I hate to think of the skill drain because of this.
The comments on that article reminded me of CAPtalk!
There is no weight standard for the AF unless you are trying to enlist.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 20, 2013, 04:20:39 AM
The comments on that article reminded me of CAPtalk!
Actually some of those comments make CAPTalk look like a realm of calm sanity.
Quote from: jeders on September 20, 2013, 02:57:11 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 20, 2013, 04:20:39 AM
The comments on that article reminded me of CAPtalk!
Actually some of those comments make CAPTalk look like a realm of calm sanity.
That they do! AND someone brought up looking good in uniform.
Quote from: NCRblues on September 20, 2013, 01:01:45 AM
You know, if we put in even half the energy into say...finding alternate funding or making inroads to new missions as we do uniforms...
"Endless possibilities captain"
I personally think if there weren't anything to debate about uniforms that captalk would die.
It is (was soon to be?) only about waist measurement-if your below waist area was larger than your waist you would still pass) and much like the failing CC, many folks I have talked to fail to see how if you can perform all of the tests besides waist to a passing level how it should matter what you waist size is?
Personally as an AF member I dont understand why CAP hasnt updated that portion of the regulation to some sort of middle ground.
Either a-if you are over this weight you must be under this body % or b-someone (commander) has to sign off that "you present an appropriate appearance in uniform" blah, blah......
For the record based on H/W if I were to return to CAP status from my AF position I woul be required to wear BBDU's.... yet in the USAF world I am fine
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 20, 2013, 05:28:29 PMFor the record based on H/W if I were to return to CAP status from my AF position I woul be required to wear BBDU's.... yet in the USAF world I am fine
So we're back to having an essentially more stringent standard then the USAF for the same uniform and without a general culture of fitness for duty.
Excellent.
A couple of points:
1) All the services, including Guard and Reserve components, get tougher about weight standards whenever they are trying to reduce the number of personnel in the force. It has proven a quick, convenient way of getting rid of people. Not nice, not pleasant, rather draconian, but that's what DOD chooses to do. I don't know if this is official policy or simply how things are done, but it is.
2) There are continual reports and studies indicating Americans are getting heavier. CAP is no different. Observation at almost any large scale CAP activity demonstrates this.
3) Commanders who do not address issues regarding proper uniform wear are derelict in their duty. Yeah, it's not easy, but still needs to be done.
4) Senior CAP officers -- especially those wearing the eagles or silver oak leaves -- who do not adhere to the regs themselves are a disgrace...they do not lead by personal example, and enable junior personnel to flut the rules themselves.
Having said all this, and having had the pleasure of wearing the USAF style uniform long ago as a cadet, I still favor corporate only for all CAP senior members.
Sadly I know more than a few Air Force Reserve Master Sergeants that got the boot because they didn't pass the PT test.
One had a little over 17 years and was denied re-enlistment. I went round and round with the commander trying to convince him to let the guy re-enlist, but the Lieutenant Colonel wasn't hearing it. Claimed he wanted to make an example.
If the MSgt had hit the 18 year mark he would have been in Sanctuary and allowed to stay until 20.
Ironically this very same Lieutenant Colonel had been on a medical waiver for a couple of years and was forced out a year later for not being able to pass the PT test. Karma can be a [censored].
I think I will ask at the next SAREX I attend, to serve salads for lunch. And I may get kicked out when I suggest cereal for breakfast.
Last several SAREX I attended, they got bagels, doughnuts and coffee in the AM. And pizza for lunch.
Still the idea of having cereal and coffee although healthier, somehow I cannot compute... I think bagels, donuts, and coffee is what I will keep seeing.
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2013, 05:45:02 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 20, 2013, 05:28:29 PMFor the record based on H/W if I were to return to CAP status from my AF position I woul be required to wear BBDU's.... yet in the USAF world I am fine
So we're back to having an essentially more stringent standard then the USAF for the same uniform and without a general culture of fitness for duty.
Excellent.
My guess is that in part it's not a matter of intentionlally creating a more stringant standard but a-no one really updating a CAP needed change based on a USAF change ( USAF weight management program vs AF fitness program) b-without some harsh cultural changes there is no way to realistically enforce a CAP "fitness" program that would override the previous H/W standard, so it ws just easier in program management to "forget" to update that into an actual health/fitness program that holds any kind of "enforcement" power.
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 20, 2013, 08:21:38 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2013, 05:45:02 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 20, 2013, 05:28:29 PMFor the record based on H/W if I were to return to CAP status from my AF position I woul be required to wear BBDU's.... yet in the USAF world I am fine
So we're back to having an essentially more stringent standard then the USAF for the same uniform and without a general culture of fitness for duty.
Excellent.
My guess is that in part it's not a matter of intentionlally creating a more stringant standard but a-no one really updating a CAP needed change based on a USAF change ( USAF weight management program vs AF fitness program) b-without some harsh cultural changes there is no way to realistically enforce a CAP "fitness" program that would override the previous H/W standard, so it ws just easier in program management to "forget" to update that into an actual health/fitness program that holds any kind of "enforcement" power.
I agree, though this has been pointed out numerous times before the USAF started doing the waist measurements, etc.
That it's easier just to have a chart is certainly true, but more options for members would show that NHQ at least acknowledges the issue.
We don't enforce the standards now anyway. Make new members get measured for height/weight when they join, tell them to buy Blues or G/Ws or only G/Ws based on where they fall on the chart. Remeasure every year at the beginning of then year. Put the input power into CCs or Admins hands. Once a year is not unreasonable, and we'd have hard numbers to back it up. That way it doesn't lead to uncomfortable conversations, the members are on notice, and its up to the member to make the number or not.
When the most baseline expectations are "optional", it's no wonder more important details are treated that way as well.
Speaking as somebody who doesn't meet the height-weight standards to wear the Blues, but is also the Squadron's PA officer, all I would really like is that they authorize a type of headwear other than the ballcap for the G/Ws. Maybe it's just me, but wearing a ballcap with a military-style uniform shirt just screams "unprofessional", and I would like to give any members of the media I meet a good impression of CAP. And, let's face it, first impressions mean a lot.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 20, 2013, 08:43:40 PM
We don't enforce the standards now anyway. Make new members get measured for height/weight when they join, tell them to buy Blues or G/Ws or only G/Ws based on where they fall on the chart. Remeasure every year at the beginning of then year. Put the input power into CCs or Admins hands. Once a year is not unreasonable, and we'd have hard numbers to back it up. That way it doesn't lead to uncomfortable conversations, the members are on notice, and its up to the member to make the number or not.
Sad to say but I think far too many CCs would just pencil whip it to keep from being the bad guy. When we continue to see Wing/Region commanders ignoring the reg I don't have much faith in this type of solution.
Quote from: Panache on September 21, 2013, 06:36:23 AM
Speaking as somebody who doesn't meet the height-weight standards to wear the Blues, but is also the Squadron's PA officer, all I would really like is that they authorize a type of headwear other than the ballcap for the G/Ws. Maybe it's just me, but wearing a ballcap with a military-style uniform shirt just screams "unprofessional", and I would like to give any members of the media I meet a good impression of CAP. And, let's face it, first impressions mean a lot.
A. Why do we need headgear in the first place? It isn't required, and having it confers no special status.
B. What's wrong with a clean, neat ball cap? I wore a ball cap sort of hat most of the time I wore a working uniform in the Navy. I've also worn one in various CAP uniforms. It's no big deal.
I just wouldn't wear any headgear with the aviator shirt uniform combination; problem solved.
Quote from: SarDragon on September 21, 2013, 07:52:00 AM
A. Why do we need headgear in the first place? It isn't required, and having it confers no special status.
(1) I personally think headgear with a uniform shirt looks more professional, and (2) I like to keep the sun off my head.
Quote from: SarDragon on September 21, 2013, 07:52:00 AM
B. What's wrong with a clean, neat ball cap? I wore a ball cap sort of hat most of the time I wore a working uniform in the Navy. I've also worn one in various CAP uniforms. It's no big deal.
Agreed, with the working uniforms it is no big deal, and appropriate. But I don't think it's appropriate with the white aviator shirt/gray slacks ensemble. Especially if you're meeting some media types.
That being said, if I do wear a hat with the G/Ws, it's a plain unadorned "low profile" gray baseball cap.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 21, 2013, 07:57:08 AM
I just wouldn't wear any headgear with the aviator shirt uniform combination; problem solved.
I know it's not required. But I would like it to be an
option.
Quote from: Panache on September 21, 2013, 06:36:23 AM
Speaking as somebody who doesn't meet the height-weight standards to wear the Blues, but is also the Squadron's PA officer, all I would really like is that they authorize a type of headwear other than the ballcap for the G/Ws. Maybe it's just me, but wearing a ballcap with a military-style uniform shirt just screams "unprofessional", and I would like to give any members of the media I meet a good impression of CAP. And, let's face it, first impressions mean a lot.
The G/W is not a military style uniform. It is a corporate uniform.
Caps are standard headgear for many actual military uniforms and there is not a lack of professionalism in their appearance.
Quote from: Panache on September 21, 2013, 06:36:23 AM
Speaking as somebody who doesn't meet the height-weight standards to wear the Blues, but is also the Squadron's PA officer, all I would really like is that they authorize a type of headwear other than the ballcap for the G/Ws. Maybe it's just me, but wearing a ballcap with a military-style uniform shirt just screams "unprofessional", and I would like to give any members of the media I meet a good impression of CAP. And, let's face it, first impressions mean a lot.
Wear the polo shirt uniform. It looks just fine with a ball cap or without. You can sport the polo uniform with nice slacks or tactical (cargo) pants for that "man (or woman) of action" look. ;). Plus, polos are what most agency reps seem to wear when talking to the media lately, particularly during disasters.
In COWG we have a great ball cap available that helps "brand" us and provides a consistent element between a variety of uniform options. One is pictured here:
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?colo_wings_flood_damage_photo_mission_enters_5th_day&show=news&newsID=17418 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?colo_wings_flood_damage_photo_mission_enters_5th_day&show=news&newsID=17418)
(Just in case anyone wonders, a CAP ball cap is authorized for wear with the flight suit by CAPR 39-1 table 2-4 line 6.)
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 21, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
The G/W is not a military style uniform. It is a corporate uniform.
Why do you say that? I would have thought just the opposite. Indeed, the whole point of the G/W is to provide a military style uniform for members who can not or choose not to wear the AF style uniforms.
Seriously, the shirt is essentially identical to the AF style shirt except for color and we even use the same rules for placement of our military style grade sleeves, nameplates, ribbons, badges, etc.
I obviously agree that it is a corporate uniform, but I tend to think of it as the military style corporate uniform. I think the NB took a large step forward in creating a professional military style uniform for our members who until that point had only the blazer uniform as an option for service uniform level situations.
Which is why I recommend adopting a military style uniform for the sole CAP Corporate uniform that is not the current USAF uniform.
A modern version of the late WWII thru Vietnam khaki uniform of the Army Air Corps - Army Air Forces - USAF would look very professional.
You could continue to have USAF links by adding a few Air Force Blue highlights: continue to use the USAF garrison and combination covers, use the blue belt and blue name tags, senior member NCO stripes continue to be silver on blue, use the USAF shoulder rank slides on the khaki shirt.
Change the color of the tactical pants for the polo uniform from grey to khaki too, heck they even make a solid khaki BDU style uniform to replace your BBDU, BDU, ABU uniform with.
(http://usafflagranks.com/daniel_webster_jenkins_files/image009.jpg)
(http://usafflagranks.com/usaf_summer_service_dress_coat_files/image023.jpg)
(http://www.usafa.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120913-F-BZ728-001.jpg)
(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_12_2012/post-1963-0-17987300-1355740363.jpg)
(http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r108/marmer01/Military/VandenbergAFkhaki.jpg)
(http://www.galaxyarmynavy.com/prodimages/large/7900.jpg)
We've missed you Cyborg!
You all gonna let me in on the joke?
Quote from: shuman14 on September 21, 2013, 08:16:00 PM
You all gonna let me in on the joke?
I'm just as confused as you are.
Quote from: Ned on September 21, 2013, 03:08:35 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 21, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
The G/W is not a military style uniform. It is a corporate uniform.
Why do you say that? I would have thought just the opposite. Indeed, the whole point of the G/W is to provide a military style uniform for members who can not or choose not to wear the AF style uniforms.
Seriously, the shirt is essentially identical to the AF style shirt except for color and we even use the same rules for placement of our military style grade sleeves, nameplates, ribbons, badges, etc.
I obviously agree that it is a corporate uniform, but I tend to think of it as the military style corporate uniform. I think the NB took a large step forward in creating a professional military style uniform for our members who until that point had only the blazer uniform as an option for service uniform level situations.
I think the white aviator shirt is just that, an aviator shirt. You see corporate pilots through airline pilots wearing them as their uniform. Even some flight schools have their CFIs wear them in an effort to appear more professional. I don't recall seeing military types wear them though I guess it is possible. I understand that you can wear all of your CAP bling on them in a faux military fashion but since you cannot wear actual military bling on them that would seem to indicate that it is not a military uniform.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 21, 2013, 06:49:28 PM
Which is why I recommend adopting a military style uniform for the sole CAP Corporate uniform that is not the current USAF uniform.
A modern version of the late WWII thru Vietnam khaki uniform of the Army Air Corps - Army Air Forces - USAF would look very professional.
You could continue to have USAF links by adding a few Air Force Blue highlights: continue to use the USAF garrison and combination covers, use the blue belt and blue name tags, senior member NCO stripes continue to be silver on blue, use the USAF shoulder rank slides on the khaki shirt.
Change the color of the tactical pants for the polo uniform from grey to khaki too, heck they even make a solid khaki BDU style uniform to replace your BBDU, BDU, ABU uniform with.
I definitely agree with the portion of your post that I put in bold but not much else. Although I wouldn't mind a total khaki uniform but not with a BDU type of shirt.
Which hats are to be worn with the white aviator shirt/gray pants combination?
The only combinations that are always proposed or seen with these alternate uniforms are either the service cap or flight cap. Neither protects from the sun or cold.
The flight cap leaves most of the sides exposed to sun and cold. Has no visor to be effective.
The service cap has a very small visor that may protect only from the sun. It does not protect from the elements either.
When we wear coats with the aviator shirt, it looks more like we are wearing a business suit and not an alternative to the military uniform. When the coat we wear with this shirt looks more like the Air Force Service Coat I will accept the line of "the aviator shirt is an alternative military-looking uniform to the Air Force uniform."
I will not propose we stop wearing the service or flight caps when in AF Blues since it is a tradition to wear both in the military, and the uniforms look incomplete without them. I just do not see the transition of the aviator shirt to be an alternate to a military uniform but a corporate uniform as stated before by others.
Flyer
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 21, 2013, 11:11:50 PM
I think the white aviator shirt is just that, an aviator shirt. You see corporate pilots through airline pilots wearing them as their uniform. Even some flight schools have their CFIs wear them in an effort to appear more professional. I don't recall seeing military types wear them though I guess it is possible. I understand that you can wear all of your CAP bling on them in a faux military fashion but since you cannot wear actual military bling on them that would seem to indicate that it is not a military uniform.
We are probably just talking semantics then. I can only agree that our G/W combination is "not a military uniform." But the phrase I thought we were discussing was whether it was a
military style uniform. Like when you said
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck
The G/W is not a military style uniform.
My only point is that since the G/W was deliberately "styled" (made with same distinctive features as, and designed to display the same grade, ribbons, badges, etc.) as a military uniform, that it must be a "military style" uniform essentially by definition.
(And while I am not personally offended, I suspect some members might be by your reference to it being a "faux military fashion." Most of us think we are participating in the Congressionally authorized civilian auxiliary to the Air Force, not a "faux military" organization.)
+1
Blue BDU's are a "military style" uniform....even if the are not an USAF Military Style Uniform.
Take a white shirt....put button down pockets and epaulettes on it.....name tag, ribbons, wings......looks military to me......does not look like the USAF but there you go.
Just to state my preferences on this subject.
1) Everyone in USAF uniforms with the CAP Command Patch (or something suitable) on the Left Shoulder.
2) Everyone in a CAP "Corporate" Uniforms with the same shirt, shame pants, same hat (or not hat).
3) Status Quo.
"I don't recall seeing military types wear them though I guess it is possible. I understand that you can wear all of your CAP bling on them in a faux military fashion but since you cannot wear actual military bling on them that would seem to indicate that it is not a military uniform."
Here, check out the Army's dress blues and the white aviator shirts.
http://www.army.mil/asu/ (http://www.army.mil/asu/)
Here's another shot.
http://www.army.mil/asu/changes.html (http://www.army.mil/asu/changes.html)
I guess Army uniforms have changed a bit since I was in during the 1980s. So, I stand corrected. I will concede that the white aviator can be considered a military style uniform. Though on mine the most you would see is name tag, aviator wings and possibly epaulettes.
That's all I ever wear on mine.
Quote from: Grumpy on September 22, 2013, 02:04:59 AM
Here's another shot.
http://www.army.mil/asu/changes.html (http://www.army.mil/asu/changes.html)
Look like Air France flight attendants ???
Quote from: Grumpy on September 22, 2013, 03:26:19 PM
That's all I ever wear on mine.
Are we still talking about stains? >:D
The current version of the ASU was adopted in 2008, so if anything, as usual, CAP led the Army in adoption.
To say the Aviator Whites are a military-style uniform is a stretch, considering there's no headgear, no standardization on the
shirt or pants, and no service coat. At best, it's an incomplete, 1/2-measure.
Shirts with epaulets are a universally recognized "service" uniform for all walks of life from the BSA through security guards, LEA, FDs, not
to mention mechanics, and other specialized trades and occupations. In that context, and considering that historically a lot of more formal
garments have military origins, that's about the extent of the legacy, and the same could be said for a lot of other clothing.
Quote from: Eclipse
To say the Aviator Whites are a military-style uniform is a stretch, considering there's no headgear, no standardization on the
shirt or pants, and no service coat. At best, it's an incomplete, 1/2-measure.
I see no need for a service coat but I agree with the concept of having the pants standardized. My choice would be something utilitarian rather than dressy.
Quote
Shirts with epaulets are a universally recognized "service" uniform for all walks of life from the BSA through security guards, LEA, FDs, not
to mention mechanics, and other specialized trades and occupations. In that context, and considering that historically a lot of more formal
garments have military origins, that's about the extent of the legacy, and the same could be said for a lot of other clothing.
Yeah, when I was flying as a flight mechanic for charters, I was required to wear an aviator shirt with epaulets.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 22, 2013, 04:27:19 PMI see no need for a service coat but I agree with the concept of having the pants standardized. My choice would be something utilitarian rather than dressy.
There's a lot of members who have duties that need one.
Well, judging by the impression I've gotten from skimming these pages, I'd say I'm in the minority of senior members who actually enjoys and takes pride in wearing my USAF Blues, if only for the fact that I am medically disqualified from the Real Military (tm). I get to stay involved and stay in uniform, and make good on the oath of office I took as a Midshipman as best I can given our missions, plus having found a mindset of discipline that works effectively for me since high school with NJROTC.
SHUman 14, I've been saying for years that we ought to return CAP to heritage USAF khaki uniform for service dress.
I did not realize there was a khaki utility uniform commercially available, but it makes as much sense as Blue BDUs.
Those of you arguing the White / Grays are a military uniform, why you could have posted something similar to this Youtube posting...
Le Boudin - March of the Foreign Legion (120 Beats) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j52jsQCk6P4#)
I still do not consider our Gray / White is a military uniform, but after watching this I may reconsider in some years...
I hope that you guys arguing for a headgear for this uniform do not push for the Kepi Blanc in the future...
Flyer
That the Foreign Legion Pioneer Battalion.
You don't want to mess with them....they look a little silly....but they earn those beards and are proud of their bling.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 22, 2013, 07:44:14 PM
Those of you arguing the White / Grays are a military uniform, why you could have posted something similar to this Youtube posting...
Le Boudin - March of the Foreign Legion (120 Beats) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j52jsQCk6P4#)
I still do not consider our Gray / White is a military uniform, but after watching this I may reconsider in some years...
I hope that you guys arguing for a headgear for this uniform do not push for the Kepi Blanc in the future...
Flyer
And....here it is in the traditional 88 bpm:
http://youtu.be/WXoYaHPYxr0 (http://youtu.be/WXoYaHPYxr0)
France may have lost many battles. But their soldiers have shown again and again their valor.
The French Foreign Legion, in Cameron, Mexico, a company-sized unit fought a Mexican army several times their size for a long time. To the last two or three soldiers.
They lost Dien Bien Phu, but again they showed valor and determination. During that battle, French paratroopers and Foreign Legionnaires would drop at night to strengthen the garrison. And they would be decimated in hours by the Vietcong. And they kept coming night after night in battalion- and company-sized units during the battle after knowing their previous comrades had been killed. France just did not have the large pool of men required for the task.
The Legion has won its reputation as an elite unit, on the blood of their fallen members.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 21, 2013, 11:48:29 PM
Which hats are to be worn with the white aviator shirt/gray pants combination?
The only combinations that are always proposed or seen with these alternate uniforms are either the service cap or flight cap. Neither protects from the sun or cold.
And that's a very good point. Neither the flight cap or the combination cover are really very effective in that regard. Unfortunately, I don't know much about hat styles to make a suggestion. Maybe CAPHQ should hire a good milliner?
Quote from: lordmonar on September 23, 2013, 12:52:45 AM
That the Foreign Legion Pioneer Battalion.
You don't want to mess with them....they look a little silly....but they earn those beards and are proud of their bling.
Also Sikhs. Those are one group of people you don't want to mess with.
Quote from: Panache on September 23, 2013, 05:23:13 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 23, 2013, 12:52:45 AM
That the Foreign Legion Pioneer Battalion.
You don't want to mess with them....they look a little silly....but they earn those beards and are proud of their bling.
Also Sikhs. Those are one group of people you don't want to mess with.
Don't forget the Gurkhas... meaner than junkyard dogs!
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 21, 2013, 11:16:27 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 21, 2013, 06:49:28 PM
Which is why I recommend adopting a military style uniform for the sole CAP Corporate uniform that is not the current USAF uniform.
A modern version of the late WWII thru Vietnam khaki uniform of the Army Air Corps - Army Air Forces - USAF would look very professional.
You could continue to have USAF links by adding a few Air Force Blue highlights: continue to use the USAF garrison and combination covers, use the blue belt and blue name tags, senior member NCO stripes continue to be silver on blue, use the USAF shoulder rank slides on the khaki shirt.
Change the color of the tactical pants for the polo uniform from grey to khaki too, heck they even make a solid khaki BDU style uniform to replace your BBDU, BDU, ABU uniform with.
I definitely agree with the portion of your post that I put in bold but not much else. Although I wouldn't mind a total khaki uniform but not with a BDU type of shirt.
I just threw the khaki BDU uniform out there to see what would stick.
I think the Khaki Dress and Service uniform is the way to go, if you're happy with BBDU as the field/work uniform so be it.
I was just thinking if khaki was adopted as the Corporate Dress/Service uniform, then go all in and make khaki the "color" of CAP, khaki tactical pants, Khaki BDUs, khaki flight suits... then people get use to seeing khaki and think CAP... think of it as a form of color branding.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 23, 2013, 01:40:39 PM
I just threw the khaki BDU uniform out there to see what would stick.
I think the Khaki Dress and Service uniform is the way to go, if you're happy with BBDU as the field/work uniform so be it.
I was just thinking if khaki was adopted as the Corporate Dress/Service uniform, then go all in and make khaki the "color" of CAP, khaki tactical pants, Khaki BDUs, khaki flight suits... then people get use to seeing khaki and think CAP... think of it as a form of color branding.
Umm how about we stick with what we have and enforce the policies in place. We don't need to change our colors especially to something like khaki everything. Then there woudl be debates on what's the proper shade. Do you really have that much disdain for AF Blue?
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 23, 2013, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 23, 2013, 01:40:39 PM
I just threw the khaki BDU uniform out there to see what would stick.
I think the Khaki Dress and Service uniform is the way to go, if you're happy with BBDU as the field/work uniform so be it.
I was just thinking if khaki was adopted as the Corporate Dress/Service uniform, then go all in and make khaki the "color" of CAP, khaki tactical pants, Khaki BDUs, khaki flight suits... then people get use to seeing khaki and think CAP... think of it as a form of color branding.
Umm how about we stick with what we have and enforce the policies in place. We don't need to change our colors especially to something like khaki everything. Then there woudl be debates on what's the proper shade. Do you really have that much disdain for AF Blue?
I don't think it's so much disdain for AF blue as it is a desire for one uniform. I would not be opposed to that idea. I actually think that the khaki service uniform shown above looks pretty sharp. But of course there will never be agreement and if you suggest an idea then you are evil. Nobody on this board agrees on anything. Such is life.
Suggesting an idea is great however but our uniforms need to stay close to AF.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 22, 2013, 12:00:53 AM
+1
Blue BDU's are a "military style" uniform....even if the are not an USAF Military Style Uniform.
Take a white shirt....put button down pockets and epaulettes on it.....name tag, ribbons, wings......looks military to me......does not look like the USAF but there you go.
Just to state my preferences on this subject.
1) Everyone in USAF uniforms with the CAP Command Patch (or something suitable) on the Left Shoulder.
2) Everyone in a CAP "Corporate" Uniforms with the same shirt, shame pants, same hat (or not hat).
3) Status Quo.
+ 1 as well, except that my preferences are for 1 and 2, with 3 in a >very< distant third.
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 23, 2013, 03:17:39 PM
Suggesting an idea is great however but our uniforms need to stay close to AF.
But the AF will not allow everyone to wear their uniforms. That khaki uniform is a solution that looks professional that all can wear and has historic ties both to CAP and AF. I think it's a good suggestion not that person having a problem with blues. Which is what was suggested.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 21, 2013, 06:49:28 PM
Which is why I recommend adopting a military style uniform for the sole CAP Corporate uniform that is not the current USAF uniform.
A modern version of the late WWII thru Vietnam khaki uniform of the Army Air Corps - Army Air Forces - USAF would look very professional.
You could continue to have USAF links by adding a few Air Force Blue highlights: continue to use the USAF garrison and combination covers, use the blue belt and blue name tags, senior member NCO stripes continue to be silver on blue, use the USAF shoulder rank slides on the khaki shirt.
Change the color of the tactical pants for the polo uniform from grey to khaki too, heck they even make a solid khaki BDU style uniform to replace your BBDU, BDU, ABU uniform with.
(http://usafflagranks.com/daniel_webster_jenkins_files/image009.jpg)
(http://usafflagranks.com/usaf_summer_service_dress_coat_files/image023.jpg)
(http://www.usafa.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120913-F-BZ728-001.jpg)
(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_12_2012/post-1963-0-17987300-1355740363.jpg)
(http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r108/marmer01/Military/VandenbergAFkhaki.jpg)
(http://www.galaxyarmynavy.com/prodimages/large/7900.jpg)
Ah yes, the Silver Tans. We didn't wear those year around though. In the fall and winter we switched to Blues.
Oh no, Grumpy!
Now you will start another problem... Now someone will start arguing for yet another uniform to cover the off-season.
I do remember my first two years. 1985 through 1987. We had to switch from long-sleeve shirt and tie to short sleeve as seasons changed. I believe it was stated in CAPR 39-1. I think that back then was a regulation and not a manual.
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 23, 2013, 06:56:33 PM
Oh no, Grumpy!
Now you will start another problem... Now someone will start arguing for yet another uniform to cover the off-season.
I do remember my first two years. 1985 through 1987. We had to switch from long-sleeve shirt and tie to short sleeve as seasons changed. I believe it was stated in CAPR 39-1. I think that back then was a regulation and not a manual.
Flyer
Oops!
I'm just barely old enough to remenber USAF 1505's, a khaki uniform that was wretched. I had occasion to wear it only once or twice. . .
Freshly pressed, it looked like an unmade bed in about ten minutes. If starched, it look like you slept it in after 20 minutes. Wasn't a uniform you could wear twice in a row. They disappeared long before the official drop date. . .new guy or old timer, I never met anyone who had bought a 1505 item.
Few one wore it unless they had to, and given the option, most preferred the open neck light blue shirt with the dark blue pants. Or, the non-camo green fatigues, which, perversley, did stay pressed with starch. Heavier material, maybe?
I imagine modern taxtile science could do domething with the fabric, keep it looking better. . .as long as it isn't that ghastly "double knit" quasi-khaki-looking thing the Navy had a while back.
Quote from: SunDog on September 23, 2013, 11:04:36 PM
I'm just barely old enough to remenber USAF 1505's, a khaki uniform that was wretched. I had occasion to wear it only once or twice. . .
Freshly pressed, it looked like an unmade bed in about ten minutes. If starched, it look like you slept it in after 20 minutes. Wasn't a uniform you could wear twice in a row. They disappeared long before the official drop date. . .new guy or old timer, I never met anyone who had bought a 1505 item.
Few one wore it unless they had to, and given the option, most preferred the open neck light blue shirt with the dark blue pants. Or, the non-camo green fatigues, which, perversley, did stay pressed with starch. Heavier material, maybe?
I imagine modern taxtile science could do domething with the fabric, keep it looking better. . .as long as it isn't that ghastly "double knit" quasi-khaki-looking thing the Navy had a while back.
I wore both the 505's and 1505's. The 505's were of a heavier material and had to be starched and, yes, they wrinkled in about 5 to 10 minutes of putting them on. They also had a bush jacket with a belt that was a pain in the tush. You should have seen the shorts and pith helmet that was available too.
The 1505's were of a lighter material but I never starched them. I did wash and iron them.
Here's a shot of 505"
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//post-214-1180477852.jpg (http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//post-214-1180477852.jpg)
and the bush jacket http://bobhudson.com/ebay/bushfront.jpg (http://bobhudson.com/ebay/bushfront.jpg)
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 23, 2013, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 23, 2013, 01:40:39 PM
I just threw the khaki BDU uniform out there to see what would stick.
I think the Khaki Dress and Service uniform is the way to go, if you're happy with BBDU as the field/work uniform so be it.
I was just thinking if khaki was adopted as the Corporate Dress/Service uniform, then go all in and make khaki the "color" of CAP, khaki tactical pants, Khaki BDUs, khaki flight suits... then people get use to seeing khaki and think CAP... think of it as a form of color branding.
Umm how about we stick with what we have and enforce the policies in place. We don't need to change our colors especially to something like khaki everything. Then there woudl be debates on what's the proper shade. Do you really have that much disdain for AF Blue?
No I have no disdain for USAF Blue, the Air Force itself or CAP for that matter. The discussion at hand is ONE Corporate uniform that everyone can wear in CAP that the USAF will accept and the actual membership of CAP can accept and more importantly that everyone can wear.
The more military minded members seems to want something other than:
the polo shirt/tactical pants uniform
the white aviator /grey trouser uniform
the Corporate Dress Uniform
yet the USAF seems unlikely to lift the weight/grooming restrictions of the USAF sytle uniforms.
So I offer an alternative; a traditional American uniform, a color and style that harkens back to CAPs roots and birth underfire, a new Corporate uniform that EVERYONE can wear bringing "uniformity" back to the organization.
What is your distain for everyone being in the same uniform?
Quote from: SunDog on September 23, 2013, 11:04:36 PM
I'm just barely old enough to remenber USAF 1505's, a khaki uniform that was wretched. I had occasion to wear it only once or twice. . .
Freshly pressed, it looked like an unmade bed in about ten minutes. If starched, it look like you slept it in after 20 minutes. Wasn't a uniform you could wear twice in a row. They disappeared long before the official drop date. . .new guy or old timer, I never met anyone who had bought a 1505 item.
Few one wore it unless they had to, and given the option, most preferred the open neck light blue shirt with the dark blue pants. Or, the non-camo green fatigues, which, perversley, did stay pressed with starch. Heavier material, maybe?
I imagine modern taxtile science could do something with the fabric, keep it looking better. . .as long as it isn't that ghastly "double knit" quasi-khaki-looking thing the Navy had a while back.
Simple solution, Blauer, a civilian police uniform maker, as a style of uniforms called Streetgear, they look like tradional police (ie military-style) police duty uniforms. They come in many colors to include khaki.
I wear the LAPD Blue ones at work, I'm a VA Police officer on the civilian side, and I have two pairs of black Streetgear trousers that I wear as civilian dress pants.
They're a modern poly-cotton blend with some spandex woven in as well. Wash them on cold permanent press cycle, dry they on low heat, take them out alittle damp and hang them on a hanger and they are good to go.
Have had to wear the uniform 16 hours straight and they still look as good as when I took them off the hanger that morning.
So no need to bring back the old 1505s, order a modern updated version and there you go.
OFF TOPIC:
shuman14, a quick question, why does somebody who is not a member of CAP have such an interest in CAP's uniforms?
Not saying there's anything wrong with it, just curious.
OFF TOPIC
And now back to your regularly scheduled CAPTalk uniform thread!
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2013, 12:56:50 AM
OFF TOPIC:
shuman14, a quick question, why does somebody who is not a member of CAP have such an interest in CAP's uniforms?
Not saying there's anything wrong with it, just curious.
OFF TOPIC
And now back to your regularly scheduled CAPTalk uniform thread!
Good question, not sure really. :-\
I guess I enjoy the debate and I'd like you guys and gals to look good doing the outstanding job that you do for all of us.
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
Quote from: Brad on September 24, 2013, 02:17:33 AM
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
And the only folks authorized to wear this combo are in the Services Squadron and work at the Gym. A very small number.
Quote from: Brad on September 24, 2013, 02:17:33 AM
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
(http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/USAF-Informal-Uniform.jpg)
Does look good.
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Brad on September 24, 2013, 02:17:33 AM
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
And the only folks authorized to wear this combo are in the Services Squadron and work at the Gym. A very small number.
Do Recruiters fall in the Service Squadron, because I see them wearing this all the time?
Quote from: shuman14 on September 24, 2013, 02:45:02 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Brad on September 24, 2013, 02:17:33 AM
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
And the only folks authorized to wear this combo are in the Services Squadron and work at the Gym. A very small number.
Do Recruiters fall in the Service Squadron, because I see them wearing this all the time?
Interesting, I've never seen Air Force Recruiters in anything other then the Blue Service Uniform while in their office or at MEPS.
And Recruiters are assigned to a Recruiting Squadron.
The ones I talked to said the local HS's prefer the polo uniform as it is a "less military" look.
I know, didn't make much sense to me either. :-\
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2013, 03:50:02 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 24, 2013, 02:45:02 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Brad on September 24, 2013, 02:17:33 AM
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
And the only folks authorized to wear this combo are in the Services Squadron and work at the Gym. A very small number.
Do Recruiters fall in the Service Squadron, because I see them wearing this all the time?
Interesting, I've never seen Air Force Recruiters in anything other then the Blue Service Uniform while in their office or at MEPS.
And Recruiters are assigned to a Recruiting Squadron.
Last year at Aviation Nation. The USAF recruiters were out in force......almost all of them were in Polo and Khakis.
There are pros and cons to the khaki Army Air Corp-styled uniforms and BDU's, but let's be honest: it's pretty much a pipe dream. I don't think anybody here thinks it would ever become a reality. There are five fundamental forces in he universe: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and bureaucratic inertia.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 24, 2013, 04:27:19 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2013, 03:50:02 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 24, 2013, 02:45:02 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Brad on September 24, 2013, 02:17:33 AM
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
And the only folks authorized to wear this combo are in the Services Squadron and work at the Gym. A very small number.
Do Recruiters fall in the Service Squadron, because I see them wearing this all the time?
Interesting, I've never seen Air Force Recruiters in anything other then the Blue Service Uniform while in their office or at MEPS.
And Recruiters are assigned to a Recruiting Squadron.
Last year at Aviation Nation. The USAF recruiters were out in force......almost all of them were in Polo and Khakis.
The last time I was on Maxwell AFB, it seemed all the OTS Students hanging out in the BX were in blue polo and khaki.
Then we'll never get the khaki as it wouldn't be easily recognizable in low light conditions... >:D
Quote from: shuman14 on September 24, 2013, 02:45:02 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2013, 02:41:44 AM
Quote from: Brad on September 24, 2013, 02:17:33 AM
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
And the only folks authorized to wear this combo are in the Services Squadron and work at the Gym. A very small number.
Do Recruiters fall in the Service Squadron, because I see them wearing this all the time?
Nope... they fall under the Air Force Recruiting Service, not under Services (Force Support Squadron, these days.)
Quote from: Grumpy on September 24, 2013, 12:03:39 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 23, 2013, 11:04:36 PM
I'm just barely old enough to remenber USAF 1505's, a khaki uniform that was wretched. I had occasion to wear it only once or twice. . .
Freshly pressed, it looked like an unmade bed in about ten minutes. If starched, it look like you slept it in after 20 minutes. Wasn't a uniform you could wear twice in a row. They disappeared long before the official drop date. . .new guy or old timer, I never met anyone who had bought a 1505 item.
Few one wore it unless they had to, and given the option, most preferred the open neck light blue shirt with the dark blue pants. Or, the non-camo green fatigues, which, perversley, did stay pressed with starch. Heavier material, maybe?
I imagine modern taxtile science could do domething with the fabric, keep it looking better. . .as long as it isn't that ghastly "double knit" quasi-khaki-looking thing the Navy had a while back.
I wore both the 505's and 1505's. The 505's were of a heavier material and had to be starched and, yes, they wrinkled in about 5 to 10 minutes of putting them on. They also had a bush jacket with a belt that was a pain in the tush. You should have seen the shorts and pith helmet that was available too.
The 1505's were of a lighter material but I never starched them. I did wash and iron them.
Here's a shot of 505"
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//post-214-1180477852.jpg (http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//post-214-1180477852.jpg)
and the bush jacket http://bobhudson.com/ebay/bushfront.jpg (http://bobhudson.com/ebay/bushfront.jpg)
I wore 1505s, a lot. 505s were still around, too and I wore them a few times, as my "spare uniform."
Neither one was ever referred to as "khaki." They were tan, or silver tan. The 505 was cotton, and would fade, while 1505 was a cotton/poly blend (more cotton than poly) and was less likely to fade. 1505s were not supposed to be starched, but could take sizing.
I had an unusual pair of trousers back then. The left leg wrinkled more than the right. Over time, the left leg faded more. I took a closer look. And discovered that they were a hybrid. I guess that one day at the uniform factory they switched from making 505s to 1505s. Somebody blew a whistle, the 505 fabric was carted away and 1505 brought in. But...there was one left half of a 505 trousers in the works. Somebody grabbed a 1505 right half and sewed them together. Close enough for government work.
Quote from: Brad on September 24, 2013, 02:17:33 AM
Speaking with regards to the golf shirt combo, I would be all for khaki pants as opposed to the gray pants. We had this uniform when I was in NROTC and it looks very sharp, and the AF has it too if you look in the current uniform regulation. They wear the blue polo shirt with the USAF logo on it and the brushed silver nameplate. Very sharp.
But you're missing the CAP mindset. They didn't pick gray specifically to wear with the polo or the aviator shirt. They picked gray "to save members money." Making you buy khaki "...would COST you more."
(Because gray goes with the blazer and it works so well with the IACE uniform - Please don't confuse things by saying that most CAP members don't go on IACE or own the blazer - that's beside the point).
Quote
...there was one left half of a 505 trousers in the works. Somebody grabbed a 1505 right half and sewed them together. Close enough for government work.
Sshhhhhhhhhhhhhh.Those members that argue their tan shirt is a shade of brown, and all those that use any shade of brown but do not consider that 39-1 means "Army Brown" with their BDUs will use this as proof they can mix and match, and use any shade of brown with their BDUs!
Flyer
While the beige khakis look great with a navy blue polo (and the Air Force does use them), they wouldn't look as good with the aviator shirt or other uniform combinations. I agree with others that that was the main reason they were picked over beige khakis. I'm sure that our gray insignias (name tag, epaulet slides) also had something to do with it.
I do not see how a blue polo can look great with a beige pant, and a white shirt not look so great with the same pant.
White is white, and goes great with any color.
Flyer
Quote from: shuman14 on September 24, 2013, 04:21:19 AM
The ones I talked to said the local HS's prefer the polo uniform as it is a "less military" look.
I know, didn't make much sense to me either. :-\
Wait a minute, they're "Military Recruiters". Wouldn't trying to look "less military" be false advertising? ???
Quote from: PHall on September 26, 2013, 01:37:03 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 24, 2013, 04:21:19 AM
The ones I talked to said the local HS's prefer the polo uniform as it is a "less military" look.
I know, didn't make much sense to me either. :-\
Wait a minute, they're "Military Recruiters". Wouldn't trying to look "less military" be false advertising? ???
False Advertising on the part of Military Recruiters? Oh say it ain't so.
Remember that Goldie Hawn Movie 'Private Benjamin'? Here she is in the mud and rain practicing being miserable and says something along the lines of:
This isn't the Army I joined I joined the Army with the Condos and the beaches.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 25, 2013, 07:24:06 PM
I do not see how a blue polo can look great with a beige pant, and a white shirt not look so great with the same pant.
White is white, and goes great with any color.
Flyer
Khaki pants are usually considered casual/business casual, which is fine with a polo shirt, but not (IMHO) as a corporate, military style uniform. As far as colors go, I have trouble picturing a military style uniform that is white and beige, especially when the name tag and epaulet slides are medium gray. It may work for some, but I just can't see it. I suspect many others feel the same way.
I will give you that our white shirt with the epaulettes will not look so good with a khaki pant. But I still do not connect the khaki pant as being casual or informal. So if we are to retain the gray grades, gross they will look with the khakis...
Flyer
I gotta go with the consensus - not saying they won't look OK, but khaki pants are pretty much the definition of "corporate types trying to look casual".
Why would we wear khaki with white?
Khaki with dark blue golf shirt and stay with the gray for the aviator whites.
Everyone has a pair of khaki dockers and dress gray pants. If they don't, they should. That's a staple of the American male's wardrobe.
This is what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khakis) (which I know is not authoritative) says about Khakis:
Quote
In Western fashion, it is a standard color for smart casual dress trousers for civilians. (emphasis mine)
This, obviously, refers to the type of pants most people wear (Dockers, Wranglers, etc.) and not the color itself, which is and has been used in U.S. military uniforms, although not with white shirts and gray epaulets.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 26, 2013, 04:24:03 PM
This is what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khakis) (which I know is not authoritative) says about Khakis:
Quote
In Western fashion, it is a standard color for smart casual dress trousers for civilians. (emphasis mine)
Not anymore it doesn't!
^ We can agree to disagree. That said, I doubt CAP would approve a white/khaki uniform combination. If they did, I wouldn't wear it, given other alternatives.
Well CAP does/did have the VSAF combo of the blue polo and khaki pants:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/VSAF_007132D493071.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/VSAF_007132D493071.pdf)
Anyone heard anything about this creature lately? Or is it still in indefinite holding pattern at the two testbed bases?
^ I would say that search the KB for the term, and the fact that a number of articles have been removed from the National web site
are a good indication of the status of program.
What's wrong with gray pants with the blue polo in the first place? If it's not broken...
Quote from: Panache on September 27, 2013, 03:44:58 AM
What's wrong with gray pants with the blue polo in the first place? If it's not broken...
A lot of members think that it is broken.
Quote from: SarDragon on September 27, 2013, 04:07:10 AM
Quote from: Panache on September 27, 2013, 03:44:58 AM
What's wrong with gray pants with the blue polo in the first place? If it's not broken...
A lot of members think that it is broken.
I think the polo needs to go...away.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 27, 2013, 04:12:44 AM
I think the polo needs to go...away.
Oh, I think it's good for what it was designed for. And I kinda like the gray-with-navy. /shrug
Incidentally, the squadron commander had a closed-door meeting with the cadets last week to get their input on how they think things were going what needs improvement. Apparently a number of cadets were concerned about the lack of structure and military bearing among the senior members. Our standard uniform for senior members is the polo-and-gray-pants. The impression I got is that the cadets don't particularly like the senior members in this uniform during composite meetings.
I suspect we'll be switching to blues/G&W's or BDU/BBDUS for the senior members as standard wear.
Quote from: Panache on September 27, 2013, 04:30:26 AM
I suspect we'll be switching to blues/G&W's or BDU/BBDUS for the senior members as standard wear.
That's the standard for us.
I think we need shorts to go with the polo shirt, cargo style, maybe. . . Black, brown, navy, or gray. Black or gray sneaks, a'la coache's shoes, with or without socks.
Or, let the polo stand-alone, and wear whatever you please with it as pants; jeans, shorts, cargo, whatever.
It gets REAL hot and REAL humid in our AOR. Gets nasty in the aiplane, just saying. . .I hink glider ops has ome leeway, wearing shorts. . .
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 27, 2013, 04:38:10 AM
Quote from: Panache on September 27, 2013, 04:30:26 AM
I suspect we'll be switching to blues/G&W's or BDU/BBDUS for the senior members as standard wear.
That's the standard for us.
As they should be around cadets anyway. People complain that we have too many uniforms. Always suggest dumping G/WS for Blues. That wont ever happen, so dumping the polos makes a lot more sense. Now you show up at an activity in a utility uniform, and there are only two, not three. Having a more formal event? Mr. Goober doesn't show up underdressed in a polo. While we're at it, dump the flightsuits. If someone can fly in a polo, they cant claim they need a flight suit. Utility uniforms work just fine.
Quote from: SunDog on September 27, 2013, 04:40:03 AM
I think we need shorts to go with the polo shirt, cargo style, maybe. . . Black, brown, navy, or gray. Black or gray sneaks, a'la coache's shoes, with or without socks.
And a straw panama-style hat! Finally, my wish for standardized headgear has been answered!
:)
I dunno - straw hat might be a little over the top - but if it works for you, that's cool? Maybe allow sun visors, too? I see those on aircrew anyway, though what's worn in the plane, stays in the plane. I had a combo of visor and sweat band - it looked stupid, but they kept the sun and sweat out of my eyes. Both had logos, though, so I (usually) only wore them in the airplane.
I'd like some lightweight, cotton shorts - make the rule a "solid color" to keep the Madras prints out - gray, black, and navy, maybe? And wear whatever pants I wore to work, somedays? Just pull on the polo and go? If it's casual Friday, and I'm in jeans, at least it's safer than some poly-blend. . .
Don't think dropping the Nomex is a good idea - aircrew is already sitting too close to several hundred pounds of low flash point, high explosive, liquid fuel. Fire hazard higher there than in turbine aircraft - JP-x/Jet A is quite a bit safer to drag around that 100LL. Not so long ago I got a soaking of 100LL when the primer failed. Makes you think about fabrics that melt. Guess you could hope blunt force or smoke inhalation killes you quick. . .
I guess I could have a tailor do me up some gray slacks and a polo in Nomex? $$$$, though. . . truly, I wear the polo in hot weather flying becasue it's the lightest option. Just take the chance the Nomex won't be needed. But in the winter I wear a flightsuit (Blue Nomex, 'cause my sqdn likes the blue uni's.). Just hope the impact occurs in Feb, vs Aug, I guess?
Wonder what CAP thinks about the guys who are wearing helmets now? I'm not gonna, but one dead-on bird-strike might change someone's mind. I've seen helmets a couple of times now. . a red one and a blue one, no adornment. But someone is gonna decorate one of 'em eventually - maybe a Rebel flag or a Viking's paint job?
Funny how pseudo-safety, operations, and appearance wrangle a bit? Image and impact, all that stuff? Some guys will wrap themselves around the axle over a W&B on a C-172 with two guys in it, but not think twice about them launching out of an airport that has zero options for a good outcome if the engine quits. Hey, if it's in the AFD, it's good to go! Don't stop for groceries in the wrong uniform, but blast off in an approved polyester that'll melt like cheese. . .
Common aspects of human organizations, I imagine. . .
That straw hat is growing on me - I trhink you mean a skimmer type, though, right? Not a real Panama? I have a nice cream-colored Panama. . .
Quote from: SunDog on September 27, 2013, 06:06:07 PMDon't think dropping the Nomex is a good idea - aircrew is already sitting too close to several hundred pounds of low flash point, high explosive, liquid fuel. Fire hazard higher there than in turbine aircraft - JP-x/Jet A is quite a bit safer to drag around that 100LL. Not so long ago I got a soaking of 100LL when the primer failed. Makes you think about fabrics that melt. Guess you could hope blunt force or smoke inhalation killes you quick. . .
So shorts are OK, but we still need Nomex? Nomex flight suits are an affectation, nothing more.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2013, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 27, 2013, 06:06:07 PMDon't think dropping the Nomex is a good idea - aircrew is already sitting too close to several hundred pounds of low flash point, high explosive, liquid fuel. Fire hazard higher there than in turbine aircraft - JP-x/Jet A is quite a bit safer to drag around that 100LL. Not so long ago I got a soaking of 100LL when the primer failed. Makes you think about fabrics that melt. Guess you could hope blunt force or smoke inhalation killes you quick. . .
So shorts and polosare OK, but we still need Nomex? Nomex flight suits are an affectation, nothing more.
Fixed that for you. But as I said, you know, for some the Polo and Flight suit are simply a MUST!
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2013, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 27, 2013, 06:06:07 PMDon't think dropping the Nomex is a good idea - aircrew is already sitting too close to several hundred pounds of low flash point, high explosive, liquid fuel. Fire hazard higher there than in turbine aircraft - JP-x/Jet A is quite a bit safer to drag around that 100LL. Not so long ago I got a soaking of 100LL when the primer failed. Makes you think about fabrics that melt. Guess you could hope blunt force or smoke inhalation killes you quick. . .
So shorts are OK, but we still need Nomex? Nomex flight suits are an affectation, nothing more.
+1 (and I wear my flight suit anytime I can). If we are going to address safety of flight.....we would be better served by requiring flight helmets instead of flight suits. You are much more likely to be killed by blunt force trauma to the head in a GA crash than killed or injured by fire.
I also have Nomex long-johns, left over from USAF days - I don't THINK they are an affectation, since no one can see them. . .and they are light-weight, and you get that layer-effect.
I don't beleive the blue Nomex is an affectation, either; I have leftover sage green bags; I think I'd be wearing those if I was looking to appear Ace of the Base. I just like being cool in the summer, and warm the winter. And if can be warm AND not have my clothing melt into my skin as I struggle to kick out a window, it's a bonus!
Anyway, Nomex makes at least as much sense as woodland camo, but the some people like it, so no harm done. . .
The blue bag makes you look like an EMT or other first reposnder, maybe. Which, really is closer to what we are than military, anyway. I think I mmentioned a CC who likened us to a volunteer fire department, more than a a refuse worker
Now, speaking of affectations, that silly (fill in the name of the uniform you find most obecjtionable) combo should be dropped immediatley, and all who prefer it 2B'ed ASAP....
The only CAP aircraft where shorts are normally allowed are sailplanes.
Quote from: Panache on September 27, 2013, 03:44:58 AM
What's wrong with gray pants with the blue polo in the first place? If it's not broken...
I wouldn't characterize it as broken. My personal opinion is that the blue polo looks much better with khaki though it looks ok with grey. The white aviator probably looks better with grey to most people but it also looks fine with khaki in my opinion. So while I would prefer khaki, I would have no major objections to staying with the grey as long as a medium or even lighter grey is chosen and cargo style pants are the norm.
Quote from: PHall on September 27, 2013, 08:50:10 PM
The only CAP aircraft where shorts are normally allowed are sailplanes.
Some wings have a summer uniform policy that allows shorts to be worn while flying when it is above a certain temperature.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 27, 2013, 09:51:23 PMSome wings have a summer uniform policy that allows shorts to be worn while flying when it is above a certain temperature.
Which is ironic since temperature drops at altitude. ;)
Thanks for the heads-up, I'll start busting on my Wing next spring. . .
Dropping is relative; 103 to 100 isn't too much relief. I wished it akways dropped with altitude, though sometimes it doesn't, of course.
Quote from: SunDog on September 27, 2013, 07:01:49 PMAnyway, Nomex makes at least as much sense as woodland camo, but the some people like it, so no harm done. . .
Yes that is true...they are both an affection. We want to wear BDU's because we want to be like our parent organization. Same story with the ABU and blues. I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.
Quote from: a2capt on September 27, 2013, 10:25:58 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 27, 2013, 09:51:23 PMSome wings have a summer uniform policy that allows shorts to be worn while flying when it is above a certain temperature.
Which is ironic since temperature drops at altitude. ;)
Which might be okay if you are flying high bird where your altitude gain might result in a sufficient enough temperature drop.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 27, 2013, 11:31:31 PM
Quote from: SunDog on September 27, 2013, 07:01:49 PMAnyway, Nomex makes at least as much sense as woodland camo, but the some people like it, so no harm done. . .
Yes that is true...they are both an affection. We want to wear BDU's because we want to be like our parent organization. Same story with the ABU and blues. I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.
They are more like the controlling authority than parent organization.
And a long sleeve T-shirt would be nice, maybe two? One light, one dark? Cotton, not poly. . .Screen-print logo? With a pocket, like the polo? On a cool fall day, cargo pants, long sleeve T-shirt, something like lightweight, or low cut, hiking boots? And/or black low-quarters? Run down to REI and buy it all, except the T-shirt?
My blue nomex is wearing well, but I can't remember now where I bought it. I'll have to research that, or go sage green as a backup, if I suffer a wardrobe failure.
I had one of those "utility" bags long ago, but it was fairly cheesy material, with junk hardware/zippers. Looked like a flight suit, only baggy? Not sure what that was, exactly? A coverall they didn't want go call a flight suit, but configured much the same. Pretty sure I got that from the CAP vendor.
All blue-sky, I imagine. Pretty sure we won't get the T-shirts, lightweight other options, shorts, etc., either. I'll stick with nomex-winter, polo-summer; can't see CAP dropping either, as they're both too practical and pervasive, especially with aircrew.
.
Practical how?
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 26, 2013, 03:47:28 PM
I will give you that our white shirt with the epaulettes will not look so good with a khaki pant. But I still do not connect the khaki pant as being casual or informal. So if we are to retain the gray grades, gross they will look with the khakis...
Flyer
I agree but if CAP were to adopt the Khaki Corporate uniform, there would be no need to continue to wear grey anything.
Simple adopt current USAF rank slides or go truly old-school and wear pin on rank on the shirt collars.
BTW the Khaki Corporate uniform would REPLACE the white shirt and grey trousers, current Corporate Airline-style and the USAF-style uniform for Seniors.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 28, 2013, 12:53:08 AM
Practical how?
The polo shirt? I think because it's simple as a crow-bar, inexpensive, light-weight, has a useful little pocket for a pencil, and if you have some plain, black oxfords or coaches shoes, and some gray slacks, you are uniformed. You can roll it all up in a re-cycled gocery bag and have it in your car, if you like. I think it's the most tolerable combo for flying in very hot and very humid weather.
For the flight suit, other than not melting, or continuing to burn once you escape the flames? I think it is also simple, has useful pockets to hold multiple pencils, an Afin/Dristan inhaler, AND a little "last resort" pen light. Also your hat, shades, etc. All on your person, secure, in easy reach. Even summer-weight Nomex holds heat, so it works O.K. in the cold, maybe with long-johns, or a long-sleeved T-shirt under it, depending on how cold.
Someone said blunt force kills most GA fatal accident victims - which may be accurate, for all I know; not really the point, though, is it? If you get squished, true, you don't care if you're wearing Nomex or an evening gown. . . But if you ain't squished, and you're sitting in a steadily expanding pool of flaming gasoline, Mr. Nomex is your friend. Or, at keast not your enemy, like Mr. Polyester.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 28, 2013, 01:19:53 AM
I agree but if CAP were to adopt the Khaki Corporate uniform, there would be no need to continue to wear grey anything.
Simple adopt current USAF rank slides or go truly old-school and wear pin on rank on the shirt collars.
BTW the Khaki Corporate uniform would REPLACE the white shirt and grey trousers, current Corporate Airline-style and the USAF-style uniform for Seniors.
Not going to happen. And the bolded areas will definitely not happen. I think you should fix your own branches uniform issues before trying to fix ours.
I agree the US Army's uniform is alittle jacked up right now.
Berets - suck as a headgear... which is why I wear my Barracks Cover when ever I can. So unless someone higher in the chain of command says "Everyone in berets... for uniformity purposes" I wear my bus driver.
Class A/Dress Blues - not a bad uniform. Except that now they want to add every bit of bling from the old Greens to the new Blues which makes a once sharp dress uniform into a Blue Christmas Tree.
Class B - Paul Blart, Mall Cop... need I say more.
ACUs - a fine camo uniform that works perfectly in a small part of Iraq... and nowhere else. At least Congress is fixing that one for us.
BTW if the CAP was to adopt a Khaki Corporate uniform, why do you believe the current USAF rank slides wouldn't be adopted? No one will confuse you for a USAF officer if you are in Khaki?
Quote from: shuman14 on September 28, 2013, 03:15:41 AM
I agree the US Army's uniform is alittle jacked up right now.
Berets - suck as a headgear... which is why I wear my Barracks Cover when ever I can. So unless someone higher in the chain of command says "Everyone in berets... for uniformity purposes" I wear my bus driver.
Class A/Dress Blues - not a bad uniform. Except that now they want to add every bit of bling from the old Greens to the new Blues which makes a once sharp dress uniform into a Blue Christmas Tree.
Class B - Paul Blart, Mall Cop... need I say more.
ACUs - a fine camo uniform that works perfectly in a small part of Iraq... and nowhere else. At least Congress is fixing that one for us.
BTW if the CAP was to adopt a Khaki Corporate uniform, why do you believe the current USAF rank slides wouldn't be adopted? No one will confuse you for a USAF officer if you are in Khaki?
Let's start with why you think Khaki would be adopted? And really blue slides on a khaki anything hideous. We had blue slides and they were phased out. We need to move forward with the uniform and not back. There is enough distinction with what we have now to alleviate confusion. And in case you have forgotten the AF has to approve the uniforms for us and changes, and I do not see them approving blue slides regardless of what color the uniform is. Switching colors would not be cost effective to membership even with a phase out period.
Quote from: SunDog on September 28, 2013, 01:55:53 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 28, 2013, 12:53:08 AM
Practical how?
The polo shirt? I think because it's simple as a crow-bar, inexpensive, light-weight, has a useful little pocket for a pencil, and if you have some plain, black oxfords or coaches shoes, and some gray slacks, you are uniformed. You can roll it all up in a re-cycled gocery bag and have it in your car, if you like. I think it's the most tolerable combo for flying in very hot and very humid weather.
For the flight suit, other than not melting, or continuing to burn once you escape the flames? I think it is also simple, has useful pockets to hold multiple pencils, an Afin/Dristan inhaler, AND a little "last resort" pen light. Also your hat, shades, etc. All on your person, secure, in easy reach. Even summer-weight Nomex holds heat, so it works O.K. in the cold, maybe with long-johns, or a long-sleeved T-shirt under it, depending on how cold.
Someone said blunt force kills most GA fatal accident victims - which may be accurate, for all I know; not really the point, though, is it? If you get squished, true, you don't care if you're wearing Nomex or an evening gown. . . But if you ain't squished, and you're sitting in a steadily expanding pool of flaming gasoline, Mr. Nomex is your friend. Or, at keast not your enemy, like Mr. Polyester.
I can't quite get past your love of the polo, yet also the flight suit. Any reasons you give for the polo negate the nomex. Any for the flight suit negate the polo...
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 28, 2013, 03:34:37 AM
Let's start with why you think Khaki would be adopted? And really blue slides on a khaki anything hideous. We had blue slides and they were phased out. We need to move forward with the uniform and not back. There is enough distinction with what we have now to alleviate confusion. And in case you have forgotten the AF has to approve the uniforms for us and changes, and I do not see them approving blue slides regardless of what color the uniform is. Switching colors would not be cost effective to membership even with a phase out period.
I never said it would... the original poster asked for thoughts on uniforms... I threw out some thoughts.
It's my observation that many members, as addressed here and other threads in CAP Talk are unhappy with the situation of their uniforms.
Be it the grey/maroon/blue rank slides, the various Corporate uniforms, or the second class citizen status for USAF style uniforms if you're of larger stature or furry of the face.
I suggested Khaki... a strong color... an American color... and CAP's first uniform color.
BTW, Blue on Khaki doesn't look "hideous", the USAF did it for years.
No more hideous then light grey on blue. ;)
Quote from: SunDog on September 27, 2013, 06:06:07 PM
That straw hat is growing on me - I trhink you mean a skimmer type, though, right? Not a real Panama? I have a nice cream-colored Panama. . .
I was kidding, but while we're at it... flip-flops too! >:D
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 28, 2013, 05:08:41 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 28, 2013, 01:55:53 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 28, 2013, 12:53:08 AM
Practical how?
The polo shirt? I think because it's simple as a crow-bar, inexpensive, light-weight, has a useful little pocket for a pencil, and if you have some plain, black oxfords or coaches shoes, and some gray slacks, you are uniformed. You can roll it all up in a re-cycled gocery bag and have it in your car, if you like. I think it's the most tolerable combo for flying in very hot and very humid weather.
For the flight suit, other than not melting, or continuing to burn once you escape the flames? I think it is also simple, has useful pockets to hold multiple pencils, an Afin/Dristan inhaler, AND a little "last resort" pen light. Also your hat, shades, etc. All on your person, secure, in easy reach. Even summer-weight Nomex holds heat, so it works O.K. in the cold, maybe with long-johns, or a long-sleeved T-shirt under it, depending on how cold.
Someone said blunt force kills most GA fatal accident victims - which may be accurate, for all I know; not really the point, though, is it? If you get squished, true, you don't care if you're wearing Nomex or an evening gown. . . But if you ain't squished, and you're sitting in a steadily expanding pool of flaming gasoline, Mr. Nomex is your friend. Or, at keast not your enemy, like Mr. Polyester.
I can't quite get past your love of the polo, yet also the flight suit. Any reasons you give for the polo negate the nomex. Any for the flight suit negate the polo...
?????
Think of it this way, then. . .I wear the Nomex for protection, until it just gets too hot to be tolerable, then I accept the loss of protection -accept the burn risk vs degraded personal performance from heat effects. Still leaves me 8 or 9 months of flying in Nomex. I 'm covered in Nomex 66-75% of the time. Not as good as 100, better than zero.
But I'd want to keep the polo even if flying in Nomex all the time - for all the reasons not related to flying; it's inexpensive, easy to care for, comfortable enough, easy to haul around, etc. If I wear gray slacks to work, I can stuff it in my gym bag, pull it on in the john or parking lot, and drive straight to a meeting.
It's a minimal uniform, which seems to me practical for most of what I do with CAP.
Quote from: a2capt on September 27, 2013, 10:25:58 PM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 27, 2013, 09:51:23 PMSome wings have a summer uniform policy that allows shorts to be worn while flying when it is above a certain temperature.
Which is ironic since temperature drops at altitude. ;)
It can still be pretty hot at altitude.
Quote from: SunDog on September 28, 2013, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 28, 2013, 05:08:41 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 28, 2013, 01:55:53 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 28, 2013, 12:53:08 AM
Practical how?
The polo shirt? I think because it's simple as a crow-bar, inexpensive, light-weight, has a useful little pocket for a pencil, and if you have some plain, black oxfords or coaches shoes, and some gray slacks, you are uniformed. You can roll it all up in a re-cycled gocery bag and have it in your car, if you like. I think it's the most tolerable combo for flying in very hot and very humid weather.
For the flight suit, other than not melting, or continuing to burn once you escape the flames? I think it is also simple, has useful pockets to hold multiple pencils, an Afin/Dristan inhaler, AND a little "last resort" pen light. Also your hat, shades, etc. All on your person, secure, in easy reach. Even summer-weight Nomex holds heat, so it works O.K. in the cold, maybe with long-johns, or a long-sleeved T-shirt under it, depending on how cold.
Someone said blunt force kills most GA fatal accident victims - which may be accurate, for all I know; not really the point, though, is it? If you get squished, true, you don't care if you're wearing Nomex or an evening gown. . . But if you ain't squished, and you're sitting in a steadily expanding pool of flaming gasoline, Mr. Nomex is your friend. Or, at keast not your enemy, like Mr. Polyester.
I can't quite get past your love of the polo, yet also the flight suit. Any reasons you give for the polo negate the nomex. Any for the flight suit negate the polo...
?????
Think of it this way, then. . .I wear the Nomex for protection, until it just gets too hot to be tolerable, then I accept the loss of protection -accept the burn risk vs degraded personal performance from heat effects. Still leaves me 8 or 9 months of flying in Nomex. I 'm covered in Nomex 66-75% of the time. Not as good as 100, better than zero.
But I'd want to keep the polo even if flying in Nomex all the time - for all the reasons not related to flying; it's inexpensive, easy to care for, comfortable enough, easy to haul around, etc. If I wear gray slacks to work, I can stuff it in my gym bag, pull it on in the john or parking lot, and drive straight to a meeting.
It's a minimal uniform, which seems to me practical for most of what I do with CAP.
75% won't do a thing for you when a fire happens in the other 25%. So the safety argument is bunk. Either you need it always,or you don't need it at all.
Oh shoot, shennigans, I call shennigans! A 75% chance of being in Nomex in a flamer is better than a zeo percent chance. I think you just don't care for tbe two uniforms in question, and I hear you. The polo is very casual, for sure. Not very military at all. I get the idea some non-aircrew resent the flight suit some, too.
I like that I have the option, and the two suit my needs and prefernces. But it doesn't matter much what we like - just shooting the breeze here. I think (hope!) the polo and bsg are so oervasive that NHQ won't mess with either.
Quote from: SunDog on September 28, 2013, 05:38:52 PM
Oh shoot, shennigans, I call shennigans!
Hey, Farva! What's that restaurant you like, with all the goofy **** on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
I wear nomex everyday of my job in the air or on the ground, and havent died of heat exhaustion yet.
mk
Quote from: SunDog on September 28, 2013, 05:38:52 PM
Oh shoot, shennigans, I call shennigans! A 75% chance of being in Nomex in a flamer is better than a zeo percent chance. I think you just don't care for tbe two uniforms in question, and I hear you. The polo is very casual, for sure. Not very military at all. I get the idea some non-aircrew resent the flight suit some, too.
I like that I have the option, and the two suit my needs and prefernces. But it doesn't matter much what we like - just shooting the breeze here. I think (hope!) the polo and bsg are so oervasive that NHQ won't mess with either.
You don't have a 75% chance. You have a chance 75% of the time, and absolutely zero for 25%.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 28, 2013, 05:45:52 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 28, 2013, 03:34:37 AM
Let's start with why you think Khaki would be adopted? And really blue slides on a khaki anything hideous. We had blue slides and they were phased out. We need to move forward with the uniform and not back. There is enough distinction with what we have now to alleviate confusion. And in case you have forgotten the AF has to approve the uniforms for us and changes, and I do not see them approving blue slides regardless of what color the uniform is. Switching colors would not be cost effective to membership even with a phase out period.
I never said it would... the original poster asked for thoughts on uniforms... I threw out some thoughts.
It's my observation that many members, as addressed here and other threads in CAP Talk are unhappy with the situation of their uniforms.
Be it the grey/maroon/blue rank slides, the various Corporate uniforms, or the second class citizen status for USAF style uniforms if you're of larger stature or furry of the face.
I suggested Khaki... a strong color... an American color... and CAP's first uniform color.
BTW, Blue on Khaki doesn't look "hideous", the USAF did it for years.
No more hideous then light grey on blue. ;)
Hate to break it to you but the USAF did not do blue on khaki for years. Once the AF split from the Army in 1947 the transition began to AF blue.
And yes the dark blue shades of most items for the AF uniform clash hideously with khaki. Even though grey may be a bland color to some it actually is not bad for us compared to the berry boards of the early 90s.
If they did it for more than 12 months... its years. ;)
I do agree that the maroon boards looked God awful and the grey ones are better, but they still look bad.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 01:21:51 AM
If they did it for more than 12 months... its years. ;)
I do agree that the maroon boards looked God awful and the grey ones are better, but they still look bad.
You're splitting hairs. BLUF the USAF did not do blue on khaki for years.
Am I really?
Wikipedia (not the most reliable source I know) states the Khaki uniform was authorized from 1947 thru the 1960s, with a tan Class B continuing into the 1970s.
Sorry that's years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_uniform)
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 05:13:44 AM
Am I really?
Wikipedia (not the most reliable source I know) states the Khaki uniform was authorized from 1947 thru the 1960s, with a tan Class B continuing into the 1970s.
Sorry that's years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_uniform)
Lighten up Francis!
Here's what he said, emphasis mine:
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 28, 2013, 11:50:34 PMHate to break it to you but the USAF did not do blue on khaki for years. Once the AF split from the Army in 1947 the transition began to AF blue.
The comment appears to refer to accessories, not the uniform itself. I wore khaki uniforms as a cadet, and the only blue items were the grade insignia, the flight cap and belt (also used with the dress blues), and the "Coca Cola" SM patches, so his statement was likely more correct than you seem to think.
(http://www.morethings.com/fan/bill_murray/stripes/bill_murray-stripes1981-1330.jpg)
:P
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 05:13:44 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_uniform)
Currently, CAP senior members and cadets also wear the BDU with blue and white name tapes and ultramarine blue and white/yellow rank insignia, similar to what was worn by United States Air Force personnel on the since-discontinued solid green Air Force fatigue uniforms of the 1960s and 1970s. These changes are made to reduce confusion in identifying the military members of the Active Duty Air Force, the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard and to differentiate the civilian members of CAP as the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary. With the October 2011 phaseout of the BDU by all U.S. Air Force personnel, the Air Force is in the process of determining the distinctive insignia provisions that will permit CAP to also integrate into the ABU.
From the source above. Even Wiki has uniform thread material .. No pun intended 8)
My source us the USAF heritage center which indicates the khakis were done by 1949.
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 29, 2013, 03:40:26 PM
My source us the USAF heritage center which indicates the khakis were done by 1949.
So what did the USAF wore in Viet Nam according to the heritage center? ???
Blues. I'll be diving more into it and looking at some other sources.
Roger that, my link has failed me ...
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 29, 2013, 03:40:26 PM
My source us the USAF heritage center which indicates the khakis were done by 1949.
Are you talking about just the khaki service dress? Because unless I suddenly jumped in age 20 years or so, my dad wore the khaki short-sleeve and pants, blue hat/belt combo in the 60s. If not, apologies for jumping in.
Interesting, I thought that was what I wore, 505's, 1505's, I even wore the silver tans for a short time (1959 to 1967).
I also recall the USAF wearing khakis. But lets think about it. Is it we are having some sort of name confusion? What some in this thread are calling khakis, is it not what others refer to Silver Tans?
To me, Silver Tans... is another name for khakis!
See http://usafflagranks.com/usaf_summer_service_dress_coat.html (http://usafflagranks.com/usaf_summer_service_dress_coat.html)
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 29, 2013, 06:23:43 PM
I also recall the USAF wearing khakis. But lets think about it. Is it we are having some sort of name confusion? What some in this thread are calling khakis, is it not what others refer to Silver Tans?
To me, Silver Tans... is another name for khakis!
See http://usafflagranks.com/usaf_summer_service_dress_coat.html (http://usafflagranks.com/usaf_summer_service_dress_coat.html)
Flyer
Maybe he's talking about the Army issue khakis -- what the Army called Shade 61. That uniform had shoulder loops and two buttons sewn into the outside back of the neck under the collar and was worn during the Air Force's transitional period until the mid 1950s. That uniform had a shade-unique service coat or dress jacket was phased out in 1949.
What the Air Force called silver tans -- were actually Air Force Shade 193 -- were worn until 1956 when they were replaced first by 505s and then 1505s.
I entered the Air Force in December 1977 and was issued one set of 1505s as part of my clothing issue. I wore them only the summer of 1978 -- when that uniform was completely phased out for the light blue shirt. I'm not sure if it was shade 1550 or 126. I liked the 1505. It was comfortable and could be starched stiff. The light blue shirt that replaced it was engineered in such a way that the space behind the button hole and the seam always collected lint that had to be removed.
Quote from: flyboy1 on September 29, 2013, 06:52:42 PM
I'm not sure if it was shade 1550 or 126. I liked the 1505. It was comfortable and could be starched stiff. The light blue shirt that replaced it was engineered in such a way that the space behind the button hole and the seam always collected lint that had to be removed.
I recall it being called 1550s as a cadet in the early 80s. We had the flat pocket, no epaulet blue shirt until 1982 or 83, when we were authorized to wear the newer shirt we have now, with the pleated pockets and epaulets. I recall my mother trying to alter one of the old shirts and failing, to save money.
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 29, 2013, 03:40:26 PM
My source us the USAF heritage center which indicates the khakis were done by 1949.
No way. I think there has been a disconnect in definitions.
The "Shade 1 khakis" were worn through the 50's and into the 60's. Long sleeved shirt, trousers, all cotton, starched. They were true "khaki." They were replaced by the 505's, usually called tan or "silver tan." Also cotton. They, in turn, were replaced by 1505's, essentially the same as 505's but in a cotton/poly blend.
Those were all "shirt as an outer garment" uniforms, although there was a bush jacket there for a while, ending about '65, which could be worn with them.
Meanwhile, USAF wore the "silver tan" service coat and trousers until 1965. It was the same cut as the blue service coat uniform, but in a lighter weight material and, of course, a tan color. It was worn in Summer and in warmer climes and was replaced by the 1084 blues as an all-season uniform.
The silver tans were not referred to as "khaki," but they were a tan color certainly resembling khaki to anyone who didn't know the term "silver tan."
What DID get done by 1949 is USAF wear of various OD combinations. A horse (and uniform) of a different color.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 29, 2013, 08:13:24 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 29, 2013, 03:40:26 PM
My source us the USAF heritage center which indicates the khakis were done by 1949.
No way. I think there has been a disconnect in definitions.
The "Shade 1 khakis" were worn through the 50's and into the 60's. Long sleeved shirt, trousers, all cotton, starched. They were true "khaki." They were replaced by the 505's, usually called tan or "silver tan." Also cotton. They, in turn, were replaced by 1505's, essentially the same as 505's but in a cotton/poly blend.
Those were all "shirt as an outer garment" uniforms, although there was a bush jacket there for a while, ending about '65, which could be worn with them.
Meanwhile, USAF wore the "silver tan" service coat and trousers until 1965. It was the same cut as the blue service coat uniform, but in a lighter weight material and, of course, a tan color. It was worn in Summer and in warmer climes and was replaced by the 1084 blues as an all-season uniform.
The silver tans were not referred to as "khaki," but they were a tan color certainly resembling khaki to anyone who didn't know the term "silver tan."
What DID get done by 1949 is USAF wear of various OD combinations. A horse (and uniform) of a different color.
Hallelujah! You are on the money! I bought and wore the silver tan shirt and trousers without the "Blouse" from a buddy. When we wore the tie it was tucked in between the second and third button. When I was on duty I wore either the 505 or 1505 uniform because the AF was phasing out the 505's. In 1965 the "silver tans" were gone as well as the 505 uniform, leaving us with the 1505. My source is me, because I wore all three uniforms.
Out of all of them, I personally thought the "silver tans" were the sharpest looking uniform.
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
Eh...for the historical value, yes. OK? I said it. Yes.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
I would love to see us go to this. It has a historical context to our parent service and slightly to our original WWII uniforms as well. It would be something that everyone could wear. Too bad it will never happen.
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 AM
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
I hadn't thought of that. :(
But how small is the market for the current CAP Corporate uniform coat? That didn't seem to effect the adoption of it. :-\
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 01:00:16 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 AM
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
I hadn't thought of that. :(
But how small is the market for the current CAP Corporate uniform coat? That didn't seem to effect the adoption of it. :-\
There's no CAP corporate uniform coat, only a CAP blazer worn with gray trousers. Most CAP distinctive uniforms are based on existing or commercial clothing items, which can be purchased through different retail or online stores. CAP distinctive insignias, on the other hand, which are available through Vanguard tend to be more expensive and of lesser quality than those similar insignias available through AAFES (many of them from Vanguard) for the Air Force.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
I, personally, do not like the idea. My experience with older versions of khaki/tan uniforms has left me with some baggage, and I don't really care to travel that road again.
You're going to find someone that does not like something about whatever.
So let them pick it and move on.
Quote from: a2capt on September 30, 2013, 01:37:57 AM
You're going to find someone that does not like something about whatever.
So let them pick it and move on.
Oh, no doubt. He asked. I responded. No BFD. >:D
It is interesting that our parent organization is so worried about us looking like it does that it's taking years to make a ---- decision on what we can wear. The Young Marines wear the same thing their parent organization does. And then there's the other cadet organization that wears the same uniform to include metal rank but they wear a shoulder patch. I'm sorry if I offended any here by not naming the organization because I they are awesome, I just can't remember the correct title at the moment.
Anyway I think we could wear the same BDU/ACU as the Air Force, just wear our colored patches (wing patches, squadron patches, nice bright blues Civil Air Patrol and name patches) all that. That's what they have us doing now. Just apply it to the new uniform. What's so hard about that?
We're told that we are such a big help to the Air Force and how much we do for them. Treat us like it and keep it simple!
Gad, you got me going now.😡
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
I am sure it has its historical value but I doubt the general public will ever understand it. They will just think that we are the NAVY (no disrespect to the NAVY).
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
Ah, gee, I probably would vote "no ", if it was the one and only approved uniform, and the polo was eliminated as an option. But if you can get your idea adopted, I wouldn't run screaming away, either. It'd look okay, probably wear well enough. Probably get us a little bit of psychological/cultural distance from big blue, too.
Not a wholly bad thing, right? Not a divorce, just germinate a little attitude change? Run things a little more like a VFD, a little less like a USAF org? Note I said a LITTLE less, before anyone blows a seam. . .
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 30, 2013, 01:20:53 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 01:00:16 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 AM
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
I hadn't thought of that. :(
But how small is the market for the current CAP Corporate uniform coat? That didn't seem to effect the adoption of it. :-\
There's no CAP corporate uniform coat, only a CAP blazer worn with gray trousers. Most CAP distinctive uniforms are based on existing or commercial clothing items, which can be purchased through different retail or online stores. CAP distinctive insignias, on the other hand, which are available through Vanguard tend to be more expensive and of lesser quality than those similar insignias available through AAFES (many of them from Vanguard) for the Air Force.
So this coat:
(http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Corporate_Service_Coat_with_CAP_356B2C183EF48.jpg)
was NOT designed specifically for CAP as a Corporate Uniform?
I get that the shirt is a commercial white shirt and the trousers, tie and any headgear (ie hat) are most likely USAF uniform standard issue items, but the coat doesn't look cheap and is used by no one else that I know of. ???
Quote from: SarDragon on September 30, 2013, 01:34:47 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
I, personally, do not like the idea. My experience with older versions of khaki/tan uniforms has left me with some baggage, and I don't really care to travel that road again.
So if they were they made of the same material as the current USAF Blue uniform... just khaki in color... would that change your mind?
Quote from: SunDog on September 30, 2013, 02:29:49 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
Ah, gee, I probably would vote "no ", if it was the one and only approved uniform, and the polo was eliminated as an option. But if you can get your idea adopted, I wouldn't run screaming away, either. It'd look okay, probably wear well enough. Probably get us a little bit of psychological/cultural distance from big blue, too.
Not a wholly bad thing, right? Not a divorce, just germinate a little attitude change? Run things a little more like a VFD, a little less like a USAF org? Note I said a LITTLE less, before anyone blows a seam. . .
Fair enough from my stand point.
BTW, I wouldn't eliminate the polo option, just change the trouser color to khaki from grey to go with the whole "Corporate branding" color of khaki.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 02:37:10 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 30, 2013, 01:20:53 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 01:00:16 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 AM
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
I hadn't thought of that. :(
But how small is the market for the current CAP Corporate uniform coat? That didn't seem to effect the adoption of it. :-\
There's no CAP corporate uniform coat, only a CAP blazer worn with gray trousers. Most CAP distinctive uniforms are based on existing or commercial clothing items, which can be purchased through different retail or online stores. CAP distinctive insignias, on the other hand, which are available through Vanguard tend to be more expensive and of lesser quality than those similar insignias available through AAFES (many of them from Vanguard) for the Air Force.
So this coat:
(http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Corporate_Service_Coat_with_CAP_356B2C183EF48.jpg)
was NOT designed specifically for CAP as a Corporate Uniform?
I get that the shirt is a commercial white shirt and the trousers, tie and any headgear (ie hat) are most likely USAF uniform standard issue items, but the coat doesn't look cheap and is used by no one else that I know of. ???
No longer part of our Corp Uniform.
A shame. Even with the CAP cutouts and the gray slides it was a sharp combo.
I think that Grumpy has the history correct. I was an Army Officer, assigned to the 7th AF Tactical Air Control Facility at TSN Airbase in Saigon in 1966 and the AF all wore either fatigues or the 1505s. Us ground pukes all wore fatigues, mostly jungle variety. I also worked with the 363rd Tactical Recon Wing and the 460th Tac Recon Wing off and on from 64-66 and saw a ton of AF uniforms and none of them were blue.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 02:37:10 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 30, 2013, 01:20:53 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 01:00:16 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 AM
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
I hadn't thought of that. :(
But how small is the market for the current CAP Corporate uniform coat? That didn't seem to effect the adoption of it. :-\
There's no CAP corporate uniform coat, only a CAP blazer worn with gray trousers. Most CAP distinctive uniforms are based on existing or commercial clothing items, which can be purchased through different retail or online stores. CAP distinctive insignias, on the other hand, which are available through Vanguard tend to be more expensive and of lesser quality than those similar insignias available through AAFES (many of them from Vanguard) for the Air Force.
So this coat:
(http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Corporate_Service_Coat_with_CAP_356B2C183EF48.jpg)
was NOT designed specifically for CAP as a Corporate Uniform?
I get that the shirt is a commercial white shirt and the trousers, tie and any headgear (ie hat) are most likely USAF uniform standard issue items, but the coat doesn't look cheap and is used by no one else that I know of. ???
First of all, your previous post said "
current CAP Corporate uniform coat" not former coat [
empahsis mine]. Second, while that coat was customized for CAP use, it was hardly a CAP original. In fact, a Google search will find several stores that carry similar style coats.
(http://cdn.marlowwhite.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/520x350/602f0fa2c1f0d1ba5e241f914e856ff9/7/9/79-400-double-breasted-coat_2.png)
The website below sells the above coat in navy blue and provides options for customization, including the option for adding epaulets.
http://www.marlowwhite.com/dress-uniforms/fire-department.html (http://www.marlowwhite.com/dress-uniforms/fire-department.html)
Quote from: Grumpy on September 30, 2013, 02:06:04 AM
It is interesting that our parent organization is so worried about us looking like it does that it's taking years to make a ---- decision on what we can wear. apply it to the new uniform. What's so hard about that?
But, that doesn't mean they're picking on CAP. Our parent organization is also busy worrying about it's OWN look, and taking years to sort it out.
I didn't mean to say they're picking on us. Just that every time there's a uniform change, we go through the same thing. All I'm saying is that with just the CAP patches alone we should stand out. The Air Force doesn't wear bright colored patches over/on their pockets or wing patches on their shoulders. Heck, our patches alone would stand out like neon signs. Heck go back to the CAP cut outs on the blouse. It just seems simple to me, that's all. Keep it simple instead of making a big deal out of it.
If they're worried about us receiving salutes from the active duty type, we'll always have that problem as long as we have rank insignia.
I have a sticker on my window indicating my Master rating in Security Police. Last week I was saluted by a Marine as I drove by (I was wearing my polo shirt). I figure she thought I was a colonel and saluted. So it'll always be there.
QuoteFirst of all, your previous post said "current CAP Corporate uniform coat" not former coat [empahsis mine]. Second, while that coat was customized for CAP use, it was hardly a CAP original. In fact, a Google search will find several stores that carry similar style coats.
OK, I thought that was the current CAP Corporate uniform, my mistake.
How about US Navy Chief Petty Officer's blouse minus the officer's stripe and epaulet?
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 02:45:38 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 30, 2013, 02:29:49 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
Ah, gee, I probably would vote "no ", if it was the one and only approved uniform, and the polo was eliminated as an option. But if you can get your idea adopted, I wouldn't run screaming away, either. It'd look okay, probably wear well enough. Probably get us a little bit of psychological/cultural distance from big blue, too.
Not a wholly bad thing, right? Not a divorce, just germinate a little attitude change? Run things a little more like a VFD, a little less like a USAF org? Note I said a LITTLE less, before anyone blows a seam. . .
Fair enough from my stand point.
BTW, I wouldn't eliminate the polo option, just change the trouser color to khaki from grey to go with the whole "Corporate branding" color of khaki.
Oh, cool! Sure, yes, you have my vote, then. One base unifiorm, with some flexibility for the more casual amoung us - the ones who can go many months between needing anything other than polo or bag? You strike a noble compromise. . .
I wonder if the conversation here can have an impact on the reality, though. . .and if it's even worth the energy and time to fuss with it?
Quote from: Grumpy on September 30, 2013, 03:08:47 PM
How about US Navy Chief Petty Officer's blouse minus the officer's stripe and epaulet?
No such animal. The Navy no longer wears the khaki coat/blouse. Aside from that, Chiefs didn't have "officer's stripes."
Quote from: SarDragon on September 30, 2013, 10:00:02 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on September 30, 2013, 03:08:47 PM
How about US Navy Chief Petty Officer's blouse minus the officer's stripe and epaulet?
No such animal. The Navy no longer wears the khaki coat/blouse. Aside from that, Chiefs didn't have "officer's stripes."
I know that Dave. What I was referring to was the photo of the blouse he posted. It was double breasted and had the silver officer's stripes and epaulets. The old chief's uniform was double breasted without the other stuff. Does that help in clearing it up?
Mostly. That uni was a PITA to wear, and, IMHO, is ugly. My dad wore it, and really disliked it.
Since it's not a current uniform, it will be expensive to adopt because of the nasty old economy of scale issue.
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 AM
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
Probably not any more expensive than the blues. "Silver Tan" is a fairly common color in law enforcement uniforms, and all major uniform suppliers (Galls, Quartermaster, etc.) carry both uniform shirts and pants in that color.
Probably not so for uniform jackets or BDU's ("KBDU?") though.
EDIT: Turns out there are quite a bit of khaki BDU's out there. More than Woodland Camo. Go figure.
Quote from: Grumpy on September 30, 2013, 03:08:47 PM
How about US Navy Chief Petty Officer's blouse minus the officer's stripe and epaulet?
But it's in NAVY blue not AIR FORCE blue.
My point is that someone had to special order the Air Force blue cloth in a double breasted naval/FD style when that coat was authorized.
So the argument that ordering an old style USAF cut uniform coat in Khaki cloth is "too" expensive to consider... holds no water.
Quote from: SunDog on September 30, 2013, 09:46:21 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 02:45:38 AM
Quote from: SunDog on September 30, 2013, 02:29:49 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 29, 2013, 11:24:09 PM
So to move on... does anyone like my idea idea of a khaki/silver tan Corporate Uniform to replace the current ones and the USAF Style one as a single uniform for all CAP Senior Members?
Ah, gee, I probably would vote "no ", if it was the one and only approved uniform, and the polo was eliminated as an option. But if you can get your idea adopted, I wouldn't run screaming away, either. It'd look okay, probably wear well enough. Probably get us a little bit of psychological/cultural distance from big blue, too.
Not a wholly bad thing, right? Not a divorce, just germinate a little attitude change? Run things a little more like a VFD, a little less like a USAF org? Note I said a LITTLE less, before anyone blows a seam. . .
Fair enough from my stand point.
BTW, I wouldn't eliminate the polo option, just change the trouser color to khaki from grey to go with the whole "Corporate branding" color of khaki.
Oh, cool! Sure, yes, you have my vote, then. One base uniform, with some flexibility for the more casual among us - the ones who can go many months between needing anything other than polo or bag? You strike a noble compromise. . .
I wonder if the conversation here can have an impact on the reality, though. . .and if it's even worth the energy and time to fuss with it?
Like my girlfriend likes to says... dreams and wishes are free so keep on dreaming all you want.
My thought is as long as discussion does take place then change can happen... if it stops nothing ever will.
Quote from: SarDragon on September 30, 2013, 10:00:02 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on September 30, 2013, 03:08:47 PM
How about US Navy Chief Petty Officer's blouse minus the officer's stripe and epaulet?
No such animal. The Navy no longer wears the khaki coat/blouse. Aside from that, Chiefs didn't have "officer's stripes."
I think you need to check that, I think the Navy re-adopted a khaki uniform as an optional uniform a couple of years back.
I've seen JCS Chairman ADM Mike Mullen on TV in khaki.
(http://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/joint-chiefs-chairman-adm-michael-mullen-during-his-appearance-on-the-abc-television-show.jpg)
Quote from: Panache on September 30, 2013, 11:19:36 PM
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 AM
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
Probably not any more expensive than the blues. "Silver Tan" is a fairly common color in law enforcement uniforms, and all major uniform suppliers (Galls, Quartermaster, etc.) carry both uniform shirts and pants in that color.
Probably not so for uniform jackets or BDU's ("KBDU?") though.
Not as hard as you think:
http://bdu.com/khaki-clothing (http://bdu.com/khaki-clothing)
Seriously just Google "khaki dress uniforms" "khaki police uniforms" or "tan police uniforms" under shopping and you'll find khaki or silver tan dress/service uniform shirts and trousers from numerous sources.
Now the finding a blouse/jacket might be a little harder but I found shirts and pants in about five seconds... and most are cheaper than the current USAF light blue shirts and USAF blue trousers that CAP wears.
Quote from: Panache on September 30, 2013, 11:19:36 PM
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2013, 12:32:33 AM
It would also be very expensive too. Small market = Big costs.
Probably not any more expensive than the blues. "Silver Tan" is a fairly common color in law enforcement uniforms, and all major uniform suppliers (Galls, Quartermaster, etc.) carry both uniform shirts and pants in that color.
Probably not so for uniform jackets or BDU's ("KBDU?") though.
The operative word here is
uniform. Remember that.
The AF has specifications (spec) for their uniforms. They procure them in large lots, made to those specs. Without any specs, getting uniforms from more than one civilian supplier will lead to non-uniformity. Those large lots also allow a lower price. Trying to supply 66,000 members will cost a lot more per uniform than supplying ten times that many. You need to consider how frequently the uniform is worn (much less for a CAP uniform, so it lasts a lot longer), and what the turnover rate is (AF more people at a higher rate).
My 66,000 figure assumes the entire membership. Cut that in half for just SMs. Cut it in half again for just the large and the fuzzy members.
We need to find something that is uniform, readily available, and acceptable to the AF. This is not a trivial task.
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 11:38:47 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on September 30, 2013, 03:08:47 PM
How about US Navy Chief Petty Officer's blouse minus the officer's stripe and epaulet?
But it's in NAVY blue not AIR FORCE blue.
My point is that someone had to special order the Air Force blue cloth in a double breasted naval/FD style when that coat was authorized.
So the argument that ordering an old style USAF cut uniform coat in Khaki cloth is "too" expensive to consider... holds no water.
The coat Grumpy is talking about is the khaki coat. How did we move to the CSU coat?
I don't know the source of the CSU coats, because I wasn't allowed to wear it. I seem to recall folks complaining that it was more expensive than the AF blue coat.
As for my comments on the currency of the khaki coat, I just looked in the current USN uni reg, and it's not in there.
Quote from: SarDragon on September 30, 2013, 11:53:39 PM
The operative word here is uniform. Remember that.
The AF has specifications (spec) for their uniforms.
I thought we were talking about something that'll be strictly CAP-only. And last I checked, the specs on the G/W's are "a white aviator-style shirt and gray pants" with no further details. I suspect the AF couldn't care less if our uniform was polka-dotted tights and pink tutus as long as somebody with half a brain couldn't mistake us for RealMilitary™.
...and once some half-asleep Airman who's too busy daydreaming salutes one of us as we walk by in our tights and tutus, the AF brass will start kvetching about how CAP is trolling for salutes and uniform changes are incoming.
Quote from: Panache on October 01, 2013, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on September 30, 2013, 11:53:39 PM
The operative word here is uniform. Remember that.
The AF has specifications (spec) for their uniforms.
I thought we were talking about something that'll be strictly CAP-only. And last I checked, the specs on the G/W's are "a white aviator-style shirt and gray pants" with no further details. I suspect the AF couldn't care less if our uniform was polka-dotted tights and pink tutus as somebody with half a brain couldn't mistake us for RealMilitary™.
The AF apparently did care about the CSU. Look what happened.
Aviator shirt - the original spec was for the Van Heusen Aviator (http://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/pilot_shirts/) shirt, available from the Bookstore. When they ceased operations, the spec changed. Click the link and look at the chart. Wearing anything other than the Aviator version leads to more non-uniformity.
If we're going to adopt a new uniform combination, we need to do it right, or not do it at all.
Quote from: Panache on October 01, 2013, 12:11:53 AM
...and once some half-asleep Airman who's too busy daydreaming salutes one of us as we walk by in our tights and tutus, the AF brass will start kvetching about how CAP is trolling for salutes and uniform changes are incoming.
Won't be the Air Force Brass just like it's never been the Air Force Brass complaining about this in the past.
It's been our own members....
Quote from: SarDragon on October 01, 2013, 12:14:34 AM
The AF apparently did care about the CSU. Look what happened.
Because the CSU was too close to RealMilitary™ for their liking. Blue pants and metal grade! Why, somebody may mistake a CAP officer for Air Force! And the last thing anybody wants is for somebody to mistake the US Air Force Auxiliary for the US Air Force.
(FTR, I thought the CSU was a stupid idea too, but I found the AF's reaction to it telling.)
If you, or anyone else can cite any "Air Force reaction" to the CSU, please do so.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 01, 2013, 12:14:34 AM
Quote from: Panache on October 01, 2013, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on September 30, 2013, 11:53:39 PM
The operative word here is uniform. Remember that.
The AF has specifications (spec) for their uniforms.
I thought we were talking about something that'll be strictly CAP-only. And last I checked, the specs on the G/W's are "a white aviator-style shirt and gray pants" with no further details. I suspect the AF couldn't care less if our uniform was polka-dotted tights and pink tutus as somebody with half a brain couldn't mistake us for RealMilitary™.
The AF apparently did care about the CSU. Look what happened.
Aviator shirt - the original spec was for the Van Heusen Aviator (http://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/pilot_shirts/) shirt, available from the Bookstore. When they ceased operations, the spec changed. Click the link and look at the chart. Wearing anything other than the Aviator version leads to more non-uniformity.
If we're going to adopt a new uniform combination, we need to do it right, or not do it at all.
I have three white aviator shirts. Two are cut as AF Blues shirts...
Quote from: SarDragon on September 30, 2013, 11:57:01 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on September 30, 2013, 11:38:47 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on September 30, 2013, 03:08:47 PM
How about US Navy Chief Petty Officer's blouse minus the officer's stripe and epaulet?
But it's in NAVY blue not AIR FORCE blue.
My point is that someone had to special order the Air Force blue cloth in a double breasted naval/FD style when that coat was authorized.
So the argument that ordering an old style USAF cut uniform coat in Khaki cloth is "too" expensive to consider... holds no water.
The coat Grumpy is talking about is the khaki coat. How did we move to the CSU coat?
I don't know the source of the CSU coats, because I wasn't allowed to wear it. I seem to recall folks complaining that it was more expensive than the AF blue coat.
As for my comments on the currency of the khaki coat, I just looked in the current USN uni reg, and it's not in there.
OK, If you say so, I recall seeing ADM Mullen in it on TV earlier this year. ???
We moved to the CSU, if that's the picture of the coat I posted, because someone said that Khaki was "too expensive". I pointed out that the CSU, a Corporate CAP uniform only, was pricey too and it was adopted regardless of the price.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 01, 2013, 01:07:18 AM
OK, If you say so, I recall seeing ADM Mullen in it on TV earlier this year. ???
We moved to the CSU, if that's the picture of the coat I posted, because someone said that Khaki was "too expensive". I pointed out that the CSU, a Corporate CAP uniform only, was pricey too and it was adopted regardless of the price.
The CSU was essentially the work of one person, a National Commander who eventually got fired. It was apparently a commonly available garment, and wasn't a special order item. The fact that it was worn primarily in large sizes likely contributed to the higher cost, and that will be a factor for any new corporate dress uniform.
I have two Qs for you - how long have you been in CAP? and How much experience do you have wearing a khaki uniform. Just curious, to give a better perspective.
Maybe status quo is the best option? USAF groupies can continue in the nearly-Big-Blue regalia; we painfully, inappopriatly casual plebians can cling to the polo; the corporate, but military style, uniforms continue wear by the BMI challenged and former non-USAF officers? The current corporate stuff is kinda ugly, but probably serviceable enough? Buy a blazer pocket-thingy and the rep tie, to avoid the corporate ugliness?
Someone posted that the blue BDU performance sucked for GT, so the woodland camo has a legimate place, as does the Nomex, for obvious reasons.
No one is too, too 'appy, but there is something for everyone? Doesn't keep the chunky/hairy set out of AF uniforms, true, but that's not a flaw in the uniform itself. . .I don't see us putting people on a scale, either. CAP HQ can mandate, but there are practical limits in a volunteer, dues-paying club.
You can go a LONG time with just a blazer combo and a polo. I'm mortal-lock certain it can be done for more than a decade. Add a bag for aircrew, if desired?
Quote from: SunDog on October 01, 2013, 04:32:26 AM
You can go a LONG time with just a blazer combo and a polo. I'm mortal-lock certain it can be done for more than a decade. Add a bag for aircrew, if desired?
Good point. I have been in a Senior Squadron that was 100% polo shirt. Another Senior Squadron was 50% polo and 50% USAF blues because Veterans want to wear their active duty bling bling from WWII, Korea or Viet Nam and you are not allow to do that with an aviator shirt. 8)
Quote from: SarDragon on October 01, 2013, 02:44:12 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 01, 2013, 01:07:18 AM
OK, If you say so, I recall seeing ADM Mullen in it on TV earlier this year. ???
We moved to the CSU, if that's the picture of the coat I posted, because someone said that Khaki was "too expensive". I pointed out that the CSU, a Corporate CAP uniform only, was pricey too and it was adopted regardless of the price.
The CSU was essentially the work of one person, a National Commander who eventually got fired. It was apparently a commonly available garment, and wasn't a special order item. The fact that it was worn primarily in large sizes likely contributed to the higher cost, and that will be a factor for any new corporate dress uniform.
I have two Qs for you - how long have you been in CAP? and How much experience do you have wearing a khaki uniform. Just curious, to give a better perspective.
Never been in CAP.
I wore Khaki shirts when I was in the Marine Corps many moons ago.
Quote from: Panache on October 01, 2013, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 01, 2013, 12:14:34 AM
The AF apparently did care about the CSU. Look what happened.
Because the CSU was too close to RealMilitary™ for their liking. Blue pants and metal grade! Why, somebody may mistake a CAP officer for Air Force! And the last thing anybody wants is for somebody to mistake the US Air Force Auxiliary for the US Air Force.
(FTR, I thought the CSU was a stupid idea too, but I found the AF's reaction to it telling.)
The CSU was a non-issue for the Air Force. As I recall from reading the NB meeting minutes of the time frame, CAP-USAF had no comment on the uniform because it was a Corporate uniform, and thus of no interest to the Air Force. (I'm paraphrasing and could be recalling that incorrectly.) The only things the AF asked be changed on the CSU was the replacement of "U.S." cutouts with "CAP" and not wearing our grade insignia on the flight cap. Unless somebody was hiding some
very important information, they had no problem with metal grade - though they may have gotten a mild bellyache over our use of their blue rank slides. When the metal grade was replaced with the gray epaulets, it should've been enough to mollify the AF, if indeed they were the ones upset with it.
What killed the CSU wasn't the Air Force or their reaction to it ... it was the NEC. One member (at least) did NOT like the uniform and went to the measures necessary to eliminate it. Whether his dislike of the uniform had to do with his perception of AF reaction or his perception of HWSRN, who initiated it, is unclear, but he didn't like it and began the process to kill it.
Jack
We need to go with red uniforms:
(http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=8817&site=casimages&catalog=casimages&width=568&aspect)
Quote from: JeffDG on October 01, 2013, 01:29:00 PM
We need to go with red uniforms:
Who let RM back in here?
Another thread worn out... about the only thing left is to complain about boonies....and abu's; lol!
>:D
Quote from: FW on October 01, 2013, 05:14:11 PM
Another thread worn out... about the only thing left is to complain about boonies....and abu's; lol!
>:D
Tick tock... can't stop the lock clock! :)
Quote from: FW on October 01, 2013, 05:14:11 PM
Another thread worn out... about the only thing left is to complain about boonies....and abu's; lol!
>:D
Can we make them red ABUs, we'll call them RABU. ;D
When we add all the blue patches, we can call them BABUs...
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on October 01, 2013, 12:46:23 AM
If you, or anyone else can cite any "Air Force reaction" to the CSU, please do so.
CAP-USAF CC had some comments, as I recall, at National Board meeting 2 or 3 years back.
If he did, they'd be in minutes and someone would have popped them up.
Concurring with something CAP brings to the table on its own isn't the same as "having an issue" with something.
There's been lots of conjecture and assumptions, but no one has drawn a line and said " 'X' didn't like it..."
The one problem with the red flight suit is that he has a flight cap, not a beret.
Quote from: FW on October 01, 2013, 05:14:11 PM
Another thread worn out... about the only thing left is to complain about boonies....and abu's; lol!
>:D
Or boonies
with ABUs.
As the original poster, I can say that I've gotten the information I was seeking. If the mods want to lock this one up, it's fine with me.
Jack
Are you sure, Jack? This one drifted so badly, that I'm not even sure what the Q was in the first place. >:D
We just need another 20 posts or so, and it'll make one of the top ten threads. . .
Quote from: SarDragon on October 02, 2013, 10:43:37 AM
Are you sure, Jack? This one drifted so badly, that I'm not even sure what the Q was in the first place. >:D
Now that I think about it ... there were a couple of questions I asked back about a dozen or so pages ago that haven't yet been answered.
Maybe the mods can leave this one alone a little while longer ... nobody's being unpleasant yet ...
Jack
Quote from: RogueLeader on October 02, 2013, 02:05:05 PM
We just need another 20 posts or so, and it'll make one of the top ten threads. . .
Then by all means we should allow it to live. I've never been a record-holder before.
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on October 02, 2013, 04:42:36 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on October 02, 2013, 02:05:05 PM
We just need another 20 posts or so, and it'll make one of the top ten threads. . .
Then by all means we should allow it to live. I've never been a record-holder before.
Jack
There are some records you probably don't want to hold... >:D
Quote from: JeffDG on October 01, 2013, 01:29:00 PM
We need to go with red uniforms:
(http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=8817&site=casimages&catalog=casimages&width=568&aspect)
I say International Orange like we had in the late fifties, early sixties would look cool. ;D
Quote from: Grumpy on October 02, 2013, 08:40:23 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 01, 2013, 01:29:00 PM
We need to go with red uniforms:
(http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=8817&site=casimages&catalog=casimages&width=568&aspect)
I say International Orange like we had in the late fifties, early sixties would look cool. ;D
Oooh, Oooh...with lime green epaulets.
Like the new GT working on the highway vests?
Quote from: Grumpy on October 02, 2013, 08:40:23 PM
I say International Orange like we had in the late fifties, early sixties would look cool. ;D
My G.I. Joe airman had a orange flight suit in 1964. That was the best uniform for G.I. Joe after the USMC dress blues and the Navy frogman 8)
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 03, 2013, 08:01:33 AM
Quote from: Grumpy on October 02, 2013, 08:40:23 PM
I say International Orange like we had in the late fifties, early sixties would look cool. ;D
My G.I. Joe airman had a orange flight suit in 1964. That was the best uniform for G.I. Joe after the USMC dress blues and the Navy frogman 8)
Now that is pretty funny! Do you still have the toys? They could be worth something now.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 01, 2013, 08:51:40 PM
The one problem with the red flight suit is that he has a flight cap, not a beret.
No he doesn't.
It's a "wedge cap."
What's the professional topic here, gentleman and ladies?
Who knows...? ???
Like all topics in CAPTalk, it appears to have drifted from the original topic...
Flyer
Quote from: 41839j on October 03, 2013, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 03, 2013, 08:01:33 AM
Quote from: Grumpy on October 02, 2013, 08:40:23 PM
I say International Orange like we had in the late fifties, early sixties would look cool. ;D
My G.I. Joe airman had a orange flight suit in 1964. That was the best uniform for G.I. Joe after the USMC dress blues and the Navy frogman 8)
Now that is pretty funny! Do you still have the toys? They could be worth something now.
My brother kept mine when I moved out and he has been collecting every since. A comparable collection is on sale now on ebay
http://www.ebay.com/itm/GI-JOE-ACTION-MAN-COTSWOLD-HASBROS-COLLECTIBLES-/300963871503?pt=US_Action_Figures&hash=item4612d83b0f (http://www.ebay.com/itm/GI-JOE-ACTION-MAN-COTSWOLD-HASBROS-COLLECTIBLES-/300963871503?pt=US_Action_Figures&hash=item4612d83b0f)
Another collector made or alter items to create CAP action figures on the 1:12 scale. A CAP diorama would be of interest to our members. 8)
Yep the old Joes are valuable, the nurse is the most valuable. I was reading all of this and got tired but wanted to make a point or two(if the point was made and buried some where deep I'm sorry.) The idea that CAP introduced ranks to avoid members being shot as spies,more likely as partisans defined at the time as persons not associated with a governments military who have taken up arms, I think(it's been a long time since I read it)came from "Flying Minutemen". Also the idea of uniforms in military usage doesn't only provide for uniformity, or for pride but also for identification as a combatant or non-combatant. A distinctive uniform for non-combatant aux-s is not new, the ambulance corps in WW1 had a distinctive uniform, as do units now UN units have distinctive blue helmets and such to show they belong to the UN not to either side. As to grade, even cops and firefighters have grade, they have LT.s and such so why should CAP change, even though here we could have (and do have) 1LT.s commanding squadrons with LT. Cols. In a perfect world rank would indicate where you are but as CAP has no retirement rules and a finite number of positions it just can't happen, also many folks who have reached lofty rank have zero ambition to command.
Quote from: Pylon on October 05, 2013, 04:30:18 AM
What's the professional topic here, gentleman and ladies?
Mike, it ran screaming away from here days ago. :o
It's long past time to stick a fork in it. It's done!