When I came back to New Mexico from the Merchant Marine Academy and rejoined CAP as a Senior Member, it was for one purpose: Ground Search and Rescue. I wanted to teach, and I wanted to improve relations between the NM SAR community and CAP, which have historically been...tense.
I've maintained for years that camouflage is a silly thing to be wearing for SAR. We're there to be seen, not to hide. To that end, I acquired and started to wear the CAP Field Uniform, colloquially known as the Blue BDU. I thought navy blue was a little more in line with the emergency response/public safety face of CAP.
Two years later, I've largely given it up as a failed idea. I'll continue to wear it at Squadron meetings, but I'm going back to woodland BDUs for field work
Pros of the BBDU:
- In my occasionally humble opinion, it looks a lot sharper than camouflage, particularly considering the colors of patches available to CAP
- The aforementioned silliness of wearing camo for SAR work
- Footwear is a lot less limited
- Boonie cover is authorized.
Cons of the BBDU:
- Stigma: in NM Wing, at least, the BBDU has always been relegated to members who don't meet the weight and grooming standards
- Cost: a full set with both a patrol cap and boonie set me back nearly $100; I just picked up a full set of woodland BDUs from my supply officer for free
- BBDUs only seem to be available in poly/cotton or straight cotton. Pure cotton has major issues if it gets wet, and poly/cotton is far too warm for summer operations in the desert, particularly in a dark color like Navy Blue
- BBDUs show dirt much more readily than woodland BDUs, lending the wearer an unkempt appearance
- The material (65/35 poly/cotton from Propper) chafes a lot more than my summerweight nylon/cotton woodland BDUs
- Non-uniformity: due to the other items on this list, no one else on my ground team was interested in going to BBDUs, so I look weird. Something to be said for uniformity across the team.
In an ideal world, we could go to a sensible non-camouflage uniform in a lighter color (desert tan? perhaps an orange non-cotton top?), but that's a pipe dream at this point. Yes, I know Arizona and California have gone to wing-specific SAR uniforms, but that's not likely to happen in NM for politics reasons.
I'm not saying BBDU is a
bad uniform, but it didn't work for my application. Your mileage may vary, as always.
Quote from: NM SAR on September 24, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Stigma: in NM Wing, at least, the BBDU has always been relegated to members who don't meet the weight and grooming standards
^ This.
Even in my prime during my Army days, I was always a big guy, and I always failed my height-weight tastes (but passed BMI). Now, twenty years and a lot of home-cooked meals later, I'm not so fit.
I can understand if the Air Force doesn't want us (ahem) husky fellows in AF Blues. That would be kind of a slap in the face to every RealMilitary Airman and officer who work hard to stay in required standards.
But nobody short of a few Airmen here and there where woodland camo BDU's anymore. Why not just let everybody wear them? Having people run around in two separate field uniforms just looks... silly.
Wear what you will, but the idea there's some sort of stigma in your wing, or anywhere, regarding one of our multiform choices
is an insult to the more then 1/2 the senior members who have no choice what to wear, and a comment on your wing.
You could also give them the 3000psi stare and not worry so much about things that don't really matter.
Quote from: NM SAR on September 24, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Yes, I know Arizona and California have gone to wing-specific SAR uniforms, but that's not likely to happen in NM for politics reasons.
Az has no written sup dictating a ground team uniform that has been approved while Ca has one that was approved but I believe has either expired or will expire. Huge difference in how both Wgs operate for ES in general.
Eclipse--
...more then 1/2 the senior members who have no choice what to wear...
Do you really think it's that high? I'd have guessed way lower - I don't think that that many members are corporate uniforms.
Maybe we need weighins at the monthly safety briefing.
I honestly do.
We've got far too many members "fudging" and / or outright ignoring what is a pretty bright line.
In this thread we had one wing that's shown, based on eservices, that's it's easily 30%, including the cadets.
Throw them out, and find a way to get real numbers, since I would hazard eservices doesn't have a very good
accuracy rate, and 50% doesn't seem that hard to get to.
Quote from: tribalelder on September 24, 2013, 08:03:00 PM
Eclipse--
...more then 1/2 the senior members who have no choice what to wear...
Do you really think it's that high? I'd have guessed way lower - I don't think that that many members are corporate uniforms.
Maybe we need weighins at the monthly safety briefing.
Easily 30%, probably closer to 40%, and maybe 50%.
Besides, probably a good chunk of those that should be wearing corporates, still wear the AF uniforms.
I admit I felt a bit out of place in my BBDUs at a SAREX when all others were wearing the camo, but nobody treated me differently or stared. I am one of those that does not meet the standards, though my goal is to "earn my blues" by next year. To me it is an insult to the USAF members for us to wear especially the blues when we don't meet the standards, which is why I will stick to the corporate until I meet the standards. Gives me a goal to reach for, to help encourage me to get into better shape...which I need to do anyway.
Quote from: Mela_007 on September 24, 2013, 09:00:08 PM
I admit I felt a bit out of place in my BBDUs at a SAREX when all others were wearing the camo, but nobody treated me differently or stared. I am one of those that does not meet the standards, though my goal is to "earn my blues" by next year. To me it is an insult to the USAF members for us to wear especially the blues when we don't meet the standards, which is why I will stick to the corporate until I meet the standards. Gives me a goal to reach for, to help encourage me to get into better shape...which I need to do anyway.
The only people that irk me, and get my wrath (such as it is or isn't) are the people that wear the uniform improperly. Other than that, I've got bigger issues to handle; such as pilots not turning in fuel receipts, not having w/b or orm sheets, Ground Team Members that don't have food in their 24 hr packs (yes I've seen it, and then they're surprised when they aren't selected.)
I know members that choose to wear Corporate uniforms, and while it's not my preference, there is nothing for me to have any antipathy towards them (unless for non-uniform issues.)
+1
If the only violation is that you are a little over weight......but you wear it properly.....I don't really care.
But it is the guys who are still sporting the wing patch on the blues or the yahoo who can't blouse his pants right or comes in wearing a boonie or 8 corner hat. That's just laziness or the inability to read. (this assumes a "not a new guy"...then it is maybe a training issue).
We had an event recently....a CAP Lt Col with many years in CAP.....came sporting an 8 corner hat (with grade sew on properly), his pant were not bloused, and he was sporting his Iphone Bluetooth in his ear!
I could have just died....the AD folks on hand were looking at him.....it was obviouse he had no clue what he was doing.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 24, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
+1
If the only violation is that you are a little over weight......but you wear it properly.....I don't really care.
But it is the guys who are still sporting the wing patch on the blues or the yahoo who can't blouse his pants right or comes in wearing a boonie or 8 corner hat. That's just laziness or the inability to read. (this assumes a "not a new guy"...then it is maybe a training issue).
We had an event recently....a CAP Lt Col with many years in CAP.....came sporting an 8 corner hat (with grade sew on properly), his pant were not bloused, and he was sporting his Iphone Bluetooth in his ear!
I could have just died....the AD folks on hand were looking at him.....it was obviouse he had no clue what he was doing.
Um wow.... Personally I have nothing against the BBDU and wouldn't object to having a set just in case.
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 24, 2013, 03:45:45 PM
Quote from: NM SAR on September 24, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Yes, I know Arizona and California have gone to wing-specific SAR uniforms, but that's not likely to happen in NM for politics reasons.
Az has no written sup dictating a ground team uniform that has been approved while Ca has one that was approved but I believe has either expired or will expire. Huge difference in how both Wgs operate for ES in general.
The CAWG Sup has not expired. But it will need to be reissued if and when we ever get a new 39-1.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 24, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
+1
If the only violation is that you are a little over weight......but you wear it properly.....I don't really care.
How about integrity? If no one sees it is OK?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 25, 2013, 03:28:38 AM
How about integrity? If no one sees it is OK?
From a philosophical and practical perspective, be careful about defining "integrity" in such a way that a person can never intentionally break a rule of any kind.
The universe of people who have never broken a single rule is very small indeed.
Ned Lee
Occasional Rule Breaker
Ned, come on. ^ This sounds good on a t-shirt, but what about leadership?
CAP isn't the PTA or a condo board, it's supposed to be more then that, and integrity, internal and external,
is a tenant of the program. We're supposed to be "more".
The cumulative "looking the other way" is literally one of the major challenges in CAP.
You pick a detail, I pick a detail, he picks a detail to ignore or fudge. Pretty soon it's more then details.
The seeming inability for many members to follow basic, clear rules, and the leadership to hold everyone
equally accountable results in a general malaise, which in turn negatively impacts the mission on any number of
levels.
Whether it's for the sake of morale, initiative, discipline and good order, or very importantly, and
regularly ignored, reputation, nothing this simple should be this much focus of distraction,
and actively ignoring it perpetuates the very problem you are seeking to fix.
And there is no such this as "pulling it off" - you can spot someone ten-over from a mile away, if for
no other reason then the cut of the clothing is such that it does not lend itself to hiding one's sins.
Quote from: Ned on September 25, 2013, 03:53:50 AM
The universe of people who have never broken a single rule is very small indeed.
I'm certainly no saint, but if the regs say "You have to weigh less than this at this height to wear this uniform", it's pretty unambiguous.
My point is that there are rules and there are rules.
There is a difference between going 66 on the freeway and first degree murder. Both are crimes, and both have consequences for the violator.
But integrity is an important quality. If we go around proclaiming that anyone that intentionally violates a rule "has no integrity" then we lose an important way to judge the character of our fellow officers.
Because absolutely none of us can say we have never ever broken a rule. To some, that would mean that none of us has integrity. When that occurs, we lose the ability to distinguish between a murderer, and the average driver.
That can't be very helpful in most CAP situations.
We should all be careful about judging the integrity of others based on a standard of adherence to even minor rules.
Let he who is without sin . . .
So, then it doesn't matter if you are out of weight and wearing blues, or a leader and know about it and say nothing
because..."everyone has broken a rule at some point"?
39-1 is just a "best practice" then?
Bob,
You didn't become the most prolific poster here because of your habit of carefully reflecting on the posts of others before responding, but in your eagerness to Be Right, you are not reading very well tonight.
No fair reading of my posts suggest that I don't think rule following is important in CAP. A little searching of my posts will find one of the frequent instances where I quote the AF Blue Book on the importance of rule following.
What I said ( and what I meant) is that none of us has attained perfection, and that all of us have broken the rules in CAP one or more times in our careers. It is simply lazy and wrong to declare that anyone who has broken a even a minor rule in CAP "has no integrity."
Hence the example about murder and going one mph over the limit on the freeway.
If I ever get a speeding ticket, I will pay the fine because I did what I did. But I hope I will be treated differently than if I had murdered someone.
Quote from: Ned on September 25, 2013, 05:25:18 AM
You didn't become the most prolific poster here because of your habit of carefully reflecting on the posts of others before responding, but in your eagerness to Be Right, you are not reading very well tonight.
Thank you - I am reading and responding to exactly what you are writing, and frankly taking a discussion about
uniforms and trying to twist it into a "murder vs. speeding" discussion is silly.
We're all talking about minor uniform infractions that are still, as stated, a violation of integrity. A minor one,
and Lordmonor will invariably justify it as "necessary", but that doesn't change what he said, or that that stance is.
USAFAUX2004 didn't say he had "no integrity", nor is that inferable from the comments by either of them.
Failing an integrity check on one decision, doesn't equal "no integrity" to anyone except someone trying to make
a convoluted point. With that said, I didn't realize that some of our regs are "optional" or "variable" depending on circumstance.
Taking it to a "cast the first stone level" doesn't work here.
Deny it all you want, but there is a stigmatism associated with corporate uniforms. Before I was CAPRAP I was exclusively blues, BDU and zoom bag. Out of some "peer" pressure I started to sometimes wear polo and greys, and on occasion got asked why I was wearing it because ".....you dont look overweight....." So I can see (especially internally) how choosing the BBDU for SAR activites (especially when surounded by BDU types) gets you odd looks because perception says: only overweight folks wear the BBDU overweight=out of shape, out of shape=not fit enough for the activity level involved in SAR.
Just like the other thread, there is no solution that will make everyone happy. Someone is going to be left out in the cold.......
mk
I've seen many members wearing their uniforms improperly due to lack of knowledge or because they just don't care. There's no excuse for the first reason, but it's more understandable and easier to correct. The members that don't care, on the other hand, represent a bigger challenge as they know they're wearing their uniform improperly, but don't think it's a big deal or believe the rules don't apply to them (it's a dumb rule, we're all volunteers, etc.). These are the members that, in my opinion, show a lack of integrity and/or desire for excellence. They also display disrespect to others by disregarding them when they point out the discrepancies.
I do have difficulty enforcing the rules when it comes to cadet safety. CAPM 39-1, for example, is very clear about what jackets are authorized with the AF-style service uniform and BDU. But I have a hard time asking a cadet to take off their civilian jacket during outdoors activities in the winter. The alternative (asking them to go inside or go home) doesn't seem appropriate (or fair) either, since not everyone can afford a field jacket and they're not normally issued.
Since CAP doesn't seem to be moving towards requiring any sort of physical fitness test for ground SAR operations (like we should), I've often thought that we should only allow those that can meet AF height/weight standards to participate in ground team activities. I've phrased it that way so that if someone HAS to wear the BBDU because they choose to have facial hair, but otherwise could wear the BDU, then they could do ground team work.
My thinking is that if you don't meet height/weight standards then you basically meet the common description of someone that is obese and frankly, I don't want to carry you out of the woods when you keel over.
Sure, just meeting height/weight doesn't mean that you're fit, but since we don't have a fitness test, its the best we've got.
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
That's funny. Modern day Cessna 182 are not designed to carry 4 modern day Americans anyway...
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
Well, thats a little more variable. Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem.
Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 07:00:22 PM
My thinking is that if you don't meet height/weight standards then you basically meet the common description of someone that is obese and frankly, I don't want to carry you out of the woods when you keel over.
Fair enough. But do factor in that someone being obese based on height/weight can still be much stronger/more enduring than someone who is average/low on the BMI scale. Don't judge a dude by his fat cover.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
Well, thats a little more variable. Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem.
Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.
Well, you can't have it both ways - you're either obese and a health risk or you aren't.
I'll trade a risky ground guy for a risky aircrew guy since the ground guy isn't apt to land on my house.
However there's no data to support either assertion within a CAP context.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
Well, thats a little more variable. Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem.
Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.
4 of us on an actual last June, in Wyoming, around mountains. 3 skinny, and one larger. It definitely was close to the max W/B. I forget which aircraft we were in. I'd have to check my log book.
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 25, 2013, 07:24:19 AM
Deny it all you want, but there is a stigmatism associated with corporate uniforms
So far in both wings I've been in, I haven't noticed this attitude. It could be that I just haven't been to enough SAREXs and other wing activities, so YMMV. Also could be that UTWG & MIWG don;t have as much of a problem with it.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
Well, thats a little more variable. Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem.
Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.
Well, you can't have it both ways - you're either obese and a health risk or you aren't.
I'll trade a risky ground guy for a risky aircrew guy since the ground guy isn't apt to land on my house.
However there's no data to support either assertion within a CAP context.
Forget things such as "skinny-fat", and generally unhealthy individuals who
look "not fat".
Quote from: Walkman on September 25, 2013, 08:47:59 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 25, 2013, 07:24:19 AM
Deny it all you want, but there is a stigmatism associated with corporate uniforms
So far in both wings I've been in, I haven't noticed this attitude. It could be that I just haven't been to enough SAREXs and other wing activities, so YMMV. Also could be that UTWG & MIWG don;t have as much of a problem with it.
Perhaps it is an issue of the desiccated, corpse-like bodies of those who live in deserts vs. the healthy, corn-fed look
of those who live where God intended people to live?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
Well, thats a little more variable. Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem.
Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.
Well, you can't have it both ways - you're either obese and a health risk or you aren't.
I'll trade a risky ground guy for a risky aircrew guy since the ground guy isn't apt to land on my house.
Hmm, lets gauge the risks associated with having an obese person hiking up and down hills in inclement weather vs an obese person sitting in an airplane for an hour or two. I'd say that they're not even close.
Obviously neither is good, but an obese ground team member has a much greater chance of being an actual impediment to mission completion either by not being physically able to do the job well and slowing the team down or having some sort of actual health emergency while trying to do it.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 25, 2013, 08:28:55 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 07:00:22 PM
My thinking is that if you don't meet height/weight standards then you basically meet the common description of someone that is obese and frankly, I don't want to carry you out of the woods when you keel over.
Fair enough. But do factor in that someone being obese based on height/weight can still be much stronger/more enduring than someone who is average/low on the BMI scale. Don't judge a dude by his fat cover.
Yep, thats exactly why we should have a physical fitness test, but thats just about as unlikely as my compromise proposal.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 09:37:40 PMHmm, lets gauge the risks associated with having an obese person hiking up and down hills in inclement weather vs an obese person sitting in an airplane for an hour or two. I'd say that they're not even close.
Obviously neither is good, but an obese ground team member has a much greater chance of being an actual impediment to mission completion either by not being physically able to do the job well and slowing the team down or having some sort of actual health emergency while trying to do it.
I don't buy it - there's simply no empirical data to support the assertion, at least within a CAP context, beyond the general assumptions about
physical fitness.
The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout. Anything more is likely busting ORM.
If the gateway to USAF uniforms is a PT test, I'll sign that form, but if it's simply what we have today, then there's no point to it.
As mentioned earlier, we're back to having a standard which is arguably more strict then the USAF, since it's an "all or nothing" with no
remediation options.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 09:45:46 PM
The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout. Anything more is likely busting ORM.
Maybe in your neck of the woods. . .
Out here in Wyoming is another story.
Last actual GT mission I was on, we had no choice but to hike up 2,500 ft elevation change to GET to the search altitude on trails that went from decent to moderate, to rough, to really rough, to there isn't any trail but our own.
Trailhead was at 7,400ft elevation; target search elevation 9,800-10,400. It was really cool to see Blackhawks searching below you. . .
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 25, 2013, 08:38:34 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
Well, thats a little more variable. Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem.
Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.
4 of us on an actual last June, in Wyoming, around mountains. 3 skinny, and one larger. It definitely was close to the max W/B. I forget which aircraft we were in. I'd have to check my log book.
The only time I was part of a crew of 4 was in a Cessna 206. But the Cessna 206 will carry 4 members (even the relatively large ones) without problems.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 09:45:46 PM
I don't buy it - there's simply no empirical data to support the assertion, at least within a CAP context, beyond the general assumptions about
physical fitness.
The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout. Anything more is likely busting ORM.
Where is your empirical data to show that?
My experience -- Having been on a CAP mission where an extremely obese man from another agency died while out hiking with our ground team in very rough terrain.
Obviously, fat CAP ground team members are not dying like flies. Not saying that at all. But, from a risk management point of view, keeping obese people off of ground teams is a no-brainer until we implement an effective and appropriate physical fitness test.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 09:45:46 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 09:37:40 PMHmm, lets gauge the risks associated with having an obese person hiking up and down hills in inclement weather vs an obese person sitting in an airplane for an hour or two. I'd say that they're not even close.
Obviously neither is good, but an obese ground team member has a much greater chance of being an actual impediment to mission completion either by not being physically able to do the job well and slowing the team down or having some sort of actual health emergency while trying to do it.
[redacted]
The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout. Anything more is likely busting ORM.
[more redaction]
Come out here to the bumpy part of the country and play the game. In some places it's uphill everywhere. Just walking around some housing subdivisions is strenuous, never mind getting out on the trails.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 09:45:46 PM
I don't buy it - there's simply no empirical data to support the assertion, at least within a CAP context, beyond the general assumptions about
physical fitness.
The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout. Anything more is likely busting ORM.
Where is your empirical data to show that?
My experience -- Having been on a CAP mission where an extremely obese man from another agency died while out hiking with our ground team in very rough terrain.
Obviously, fat CAP ground team members are not dying like flies. Not saying that at all. But, from a risk management point of view, keeping obese people off of ground teams is a no-brainer until we implement an effective and appropriate physical fitness test.
I just said, there isn't any, just as there's no data to support restricting GTs just because they are overweight.
This would essentially end CAP ground ops. ORM doesn't apply because you can't show any specific risk data
beyond generalizations.
We've got a tow-bar question now on the FRs because pilots took off with tow bars regulalry enough to get noticed.
If and when something similar happens in regards to GTs, then you can make the case.
Overweight does not equal unhealthy. Beyond that, since this isn't likely to happen any more then getting rid of corporate,
not much point beating it up.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 11:07:54 PM
If and when something similar happens in regards to GTs, then you can make the case.
Oh, I didn't realize that we weren't supposed to propose ideas to reduce risks to our personnel and our missions until after something happens. Must have missed that in all the monthly safety briefings.
Although to be clear, my idea is based about 75% on making sure we can get the mission done and about 25% on reducing risk. Most of the time fat people slow you down
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 11:30:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 11:07:54 PM
If and when something similar happens in regards to GTs, then you can make the case.
Oh, I didn't realize that we weren't supposed to propose ideas to reduce risks to our personnel and our missions until after something happens. Must have missed that in all the monthly safety briefings.
Although to be clear, my idea is based about 75% on making sure we can get the mission done and about 25% on reducing risk. Most of the time fat people slow you down
Now you're just being mean. Yes, I see those briefings all the time, they are mostly irrelevant and time-wasting as well.
(BTW - I just completing my test on "fainting", so I will be prepared if ABUs are ever approved...)When you propose an idea, you have to have some relevent factual basis for the proposal. You have zero to indicate any
specific risk which be mitigated in a CAP context. The one guy you were involved with wasn't even a member.
From a relevent statistical point of view we have lost far more aircrews during missions and training then ground team members.
Eclipse, safety briefings a waste of time? Irrelevant???
???
My experience with the Safety Officer of the past two squadrons have been with a pilot who is the Safety Officer. All his briefings are on flight safety. Every time he gives a briefing to the squadrons, there are no pilots present. Meanwhile we have a room full of cadets and senior members who are or want to become ground team members.
Yep. No safety briefs related to ground operations.
Could have made some. Something on Blood-borne pathogens. Cold and Hot-weather injuries. Sterile cockpit applied to travel in vans - here is a particular one that could be applied to both air and ground ops! Checking a vehicle prior to travel. Radio room safety...
And that safety officer is well - regarded in both squadrons, so trying to suggest he do otherwise is pretty much like shooting myself in the foot.. I do esteem him. He is a nice guy, knows his stuff, I seem to remember I processed his application a long time ago. And presents his briefings in a funny way! Yet, if he delivers a safety briefing that is doubtful whether it will be used by someone in the near or distant future... Not saying it is a waste of time, we all end becoming safety current...
:P
Flyer
This uniform contretemps is new to me, even after a long time in CAP; I was of the mind that we sure seemed to have a lot of options. I just gravitated to what people wore in my sqdn.
We tend to wear corporate blue (BBDU, blue flightsuits, polo shirts). Rarely, someone will be in a USAF combo, for a special event, say. I haven't ever perceived a bias concerning uniform selection, no negative connontation applied to one, as opposed to another. Maybe I just didn't pick up on it. . .
Maybe NHQ could approve a "Wing experiment year", and have a trial of several GT combos, based on the lessons learned to-date? Approve the "winner", and pick one to "expire" in it's place - slowly, over a few years, to stay out of the GT's wallets/purses? Some $$$ loss for the volunteer participants, but they'd know that going in. . .Just saying, an idle thought - don't explode on me; I ain't GT!
Non-GT side, leave it as-is? Sounds like some folks are really attached to the USAF uniforms. Others, not so much, or don't care. Live and let live? And if you perceive a personal bias directed against your choice, tell 'em to . . .
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 26, 2013, 12:08:41 AM
Eclipse, safety briefings a waste of time? Irrelevant???
???
My experience with the Safety Officer of the past two squadrons have been with a pilot who is the Safety Officer. All his briefings are on flight safety. Every time he gives a briefing to the squadrons, there are no pilots present. Meanwhile we have a room full of cadets and senior members who are or want to become ground team members.
Yep. No safety briefs related to ground operations.
Could have made some. Something on Blood-borne pathogens. Cold and Hot-weather injuries. Sterile cockpit applied to travel in vans - here is a particular one that could be applied to both air and ground ops! Checking a vehicle prior to travel. Radio room safety...
And that safety officer is well - regarded in both squadrons, so trying to suggest he do otherwise is pretty much like shooting myself in the foot.. I do esteem him. He is a nice guy, knows his stuff, I seem to remember I processed his application a long time ago. And presents his briefings in a funny way! Yet, if he delivers a safety briefing that is doubtful whether it will be used by someone in the near or distant future... Not saying it is a waste of time, we all end becoming safety current...
:P
Flyer
Amazing - I had a similar experience in my first unit - far too many hours spent watching Shorty's videos about deicing boots.
Seriously.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 26, 2013, 12:08:41 AM
Eclipse, safety briefings a waste of time? Irrelevant???
No but redundancy breeds irrelevancy. Things are getting ridiculous......
Quote from: RiverAux on September 25, 2013, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?
Goose and Gander.
Well, thats a little more variable. Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem.
Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.
C206 8)
Quote from: NM SAR on September 24, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Pros of the BBDU:
- Boonie cover is authorized.
Cons of the BBDU:
- Stigma: in NM Wing, at least, the BBDU has always been relegated to members who don't meet the weight and grooming standards
BBDU biggest plus for me is the boonie cap. That is just practical headwear for many reasons. BBDU is just more practical for Senior Members due to H/W issues.
Everyone wants to go to ABUs and that includes some 300 pounders too. ::)
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 25, 2013, 10:23:13 PM
Maybe in your neck of the woods. . .
Out here in Wyoming is another story.
Last actual GT mission I was on, we had no choice but to hike up 2,500 ft elevation change to GET to the search altitude on trails that went from decent to moderate, to rough, to really rough, to there isn't any trail but our own.
Speaking as somebody who has worked as a LEO in both the PA Game and Fish & Boat commissions, I can tell you this assumption doesn't fly.
I've seen hunters and fishermen who would generously be described as "obese" easily (for them) trek through very rough terrain either in search of the perfect hunting and/or fishing spot or avoid being observed by Law Enforcement (sometimes both). Height/Weight have little to do with it. Familiarity with the terrain and being acclimated with the area makes all the difference.
Quote from: Panache on September 26, 2013, 08:59:11 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 25, 2013, 10:23:13 PM
Maybe in your neck of the woods. . .
Out here in Wyoming is another story.
Last actual GT mission I was on, we had no choice but to hike up 2,500 ft elevation change to GET to the search altitude on trails that went from decent to moderate, to rough, to really rough, to there isn't any trail but our own.
Speaking as somebody who has worked as a LEO in both the PA Game and Fish & Boat commissions, I can tell you this assumption doesn't fly.
I've seen hunters and fishermen who would generously be described as "obese" easily (for them) trek through very rough terrain either in search of the perfect hunting and/or fishing spot or avoid being observed by Law Enforcement (sometimes both). Height/Weight have little to do with it. Familiarity with the terrain and being acclimated with the area makes all the difference.
I'm not arguing that. You are absolutely right.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2013, 09:45:46 PM
The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout. Anything more is likely busting ORM.
This is what I disagree with.
"Most" people don't hike to the top of a 10,400 foot mountain for a picnic or camp out. Some do. most don't.
I'm in fairly decent shape, not like I was in my Real Military
TM days; and it was a little rough.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 26, 2013, 02:24:24 PM"Most" people don't hike to the top of a 10,400 foot mountain for a picnic or camp out. Some do. most don't.
Most wings don't have mountains at all, and the number of times anyone from CAP is hiking to the top of one for a mission is statistically zero.
Also, this is what ORM is for.
Its not just mountains. Try heat, thick ground vegetation, etc.
I'm pretty confident in saying that most obese people are not fit. Yeah, there are those few weird bodybuilder types that mess up height/weight and BMI and sure there are probably some outdoors types that actually can do some serious field work, ,but they are by far the exception in the US, not the rule.
Unfit people are a liability on any ground team mission. Probably not going to die on us, but sure decrease mission effectiveness.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 26, 2013, 03:46:58 PMUnfit people are a liability on any ground team mission. Probably not going to die on us, but sure decrease mission effectiveness.
Yeah, I'll say it. Cite, please.
Relevant to CAP experience, not just generic assumptions, because in my experience, the majority of people in ES could "lose a few", including and especially the cadets,
and I've never seen an issue directly related to obesity in ground ops. Our membership pool is couch-riding Americans, and that majority now, "could lose a few".
We don't do jungle, we don't do austere, and we have ORM. If you're off-trail it's fairly unusual on a real mission and almost unheard of in training. Cornfields don't count.
Most of our missions are point-to-point in a vehicle, wander around a bit, back in the vehicle.
Oh, I get it now. Because so many of our folks are fat the average ground team movement speed is already degraded to the point that we don't need to worry about it getting worse by keeping obese folks on the team.
If it is unusual for your ground teams to get off-trail in training, then you're pencil-whipping your training.
If it were anyone else I'd chalk it up to "doesn't know what he's talking about", but you do, so you must just be typing to make your point.
There is zero evidence that fitness has ever been a limiting factor in CAP ground ops. Certainly none if you are including the reasonable mean
and not just those who have to unload their Rascal before they can lead the team. Cite it if you have it.
Further, since we have ORM and work well outside the "golden hour", movement speed isn't really a factor, anyway.
There is nothing on a GT SQTR that requires getting into heavy brush. Nothing. And further CAP-USAF doctrine for SARExs requires they keep
to marked trails and similar. Certainly if the situation warrants it, we'll go there. It rarely does.
The one person you're basing the assumption on wasn't even in CAP, yet now you're trying to assert this is a CAP problem, despite zero experiential
evidence. If there was, there'd be plenty of 78s in this regard. I can point to the ones about hangar rash, cadet antics, and tow bars, but can't recall anything
ever reported that was related to fitness issues on a GT.
Lastly, if CAP actually did this, especially to the point you wanted which is anyone who can't wear camo is off a GT, then it would basically
shut down CAP ground ES that day.
Is there an increased risk? Maybe, but then again Jim Fixx had heart attack while he was jogging, didn't he?
So my skinny jogger statistically balances your fat SAR dude. Back to zero.
ORM is about evaluating likely risk, not "every possible risk".
You can't meet CAP GT training requirements without going off trail. If CAP-USAF has a "doctrine" requiring trail usage, I'd like to see it.
All search is an emergency and our GTs most certainly can be working in situations where speed is a factor. Remember, GT work isn't just looking for planes that crashed a week ago.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 26, 2013, 06:17:39 PM
You can't meet CAP GT training requirements without going off trail.
Cite please.
There are no tasks which require going off-trail.
You can meet al the requirements in both letter and spirit at your local city park (though if you poop in the sandbox you'll probably get a ticket.
I'm curious what you both mean by "obese".
Are we talking BMI chart definition or visual, "DAAAAANG!!!!" scale?
At 5'11" im technically obese by BMI scale standards yet just barely within CAP H/W standards to wear the AF uniforms (unless I had a big breakfast... then I'm over)
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2013, 06:42:35 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 26, 2013, 06:17:39 PM
You can't meet CAP GT training requirements without going off trail.
Cite please.
There are no tasks which require going off-trail.
You can meet al the requirements in both letter and spirit at your local city park (though if you poop in the sandbox you'll probably get a ticket.
Uh, its been awhile I admit since I was a GTL, but whether or not there is a task for it doesn't mean that you don't do it.
There are a LOT of places where GT is a LOT more strenuous than the picnic at the park, BTW.
There are some places here where the elevation difference between where you can park the van and where the target is located is probably 3x the entire terrain variation in the State of Illinois.
Just sayin'.
Quote from: NIN on September 26, 2013, 06:45:51 PM
Uh, its been awhile I admit since I was a GTL, but whether or not there is a task for it doesn't mean that you don't do it.
I don't disagree, but we're not talking about "extra". River said if you stay on trail, you're whipping GT. Not true.
I prefer and strongly advocate doing the compass taskings at our local orienteering course that offers just about every type of terrain you can imagine, but you can also fully accomplish it in an airport parking lot or your local forest preserve.
Quote from: NIN on September 26, 2013, 06:45:51 PM
There are a LOT of places where GT is a LOT more strenuous than the picnic at the park, BTW.
There are some places here where the elevation difference between where you can park the van and where the target is located is probably 3x the entire terrain variation in the State of Illinois.
I agree that there's plenty of "other" and "extra" you can and should do if you want to be an effective GTM, but it isn't
required. And on the mean or average, this country is pretty flat, not to mention that we don't generally get called for ground missions in more challenging areas for all the complex reasons
of the world of CAP. Further to that, your average EMA or adhoc SARTech team is more likely to meet at
Dunkin Donuts then World gym.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2013, 06:42:35 PM...though if you poop in the sandbox you'll probably get a ticket...
Now I've got to go read it too, I don't recall anything about latrines, holes, and pooping.
Yeah, I suppose you could do your GT training in a city park's soccer fields, but you're supposed to be doing at least some of the tasks in "wooded" areas, moving over routes at least 400 meters long (seem to recall one task was over 500m but can't remember which one).
And if you're training in city parks where you can see the entire search area because its well-mowed, you're certainly cheating your members of adequate training.
I don't think anyone should train on a golf course either. A big open space is good for working on spotting clues. My GT / GTL instructor used an abandoned and somewhat overgrown Navy runway and nailed 1 inch squares of caution tape in the ground. Not easy to get them all.
If GT required working on elevation changes over 1000', we'd be SOL in RI. Low is the coast and high is 812' We train to a standard for the country. That does not mean that person should be searching Pike's Peak if they are not physically up to the task. That does not mean a New Hampshire GTL/GBD/IC should allow me to work GT in the White Mountains (except to drive the GT to its walk-in site ;D). I know it's rare enough to be a super power but we are all supposed to apply a bit of common sense (aka ORM, IMSAFE, etc.) in participating in or managing our ES missions.
Quote from: johnnyb47 on September 26, 2013, 06:43:27 PM
I'm curious what you both mean by "obese".
Are we talking BMI chart definition or visual, "DAAAAANG!!!!" scale?
At 5'11" im technically obese by BMI scale standards yet just barely within CAP H/W standards to wear the AF uniforms (unless I had a big breakfast... then I'm over)
(http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1350599643982_8380562.png)
It is not good to generalize. ???
In New York city, most missions appear to be the UDF type. Go to JFK DHL terminal (or UPS or Fed Ex) where a shipment of disaster beacons are going off. Or some marina for EPIRBS. Or Long Island. where there are no mountains taller than a termite's mound. The lower part of Westchester County, and Rockland County. :D
Most mountains in NY are upstate. In the Catskill Mountain Group. North Westchester. Bear Mountain and the Allegheny mountains. North of Orange County which is north of Rockland County. :-\
The only search that can be said it is worthy of a wildland search would be on state parks and wetlands. We had one, count it one such search about a year ago. :P
And the role that NY SEMO seems to want CAP to do is... help manage the Emergency Operations Center.
Overweight? Obese??? Not an impediment in the New York City Metro area... ???
Flyer
Quote from: a2capt on September 26, 2013, 07:03:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2013, 06:42:35 PM...though if you poop in the sandbox you'll probably get a ticket...
Now I've got to go read it too, I don't recall anything about latrines, holes, and pooping.
Complete Task O-0103 Conduct Field Sanitation and Hygiene
3. Waste Disposal. One of the quickest ways to make you and your team sick is to improperly dispose of
garbage or human waste. If this material ends up in someone's food or water, in can incapacitate everyone who
ingests it. In addition, waste can draw disease carrying insects and wild animals.
a. Human Waste. Whenever possible, use bathrooms/latrines. If none are available, then dig a "cat
hole" at least one foot deep. Make sure the hole is at least 100 yards down wind from any bivouac site. Also
make sure your hole is not uphill from the bivouac to avoid drainage problems. After use, fill the hole back in.
READ THE MANUAL NOT JUST THE SQTR!!!!!
I agree our GTM missions and exercises require the needed fitness level to accomplish the task. I am also one to admit that I am not currently very fit and would never attempt to do GT work in the more elevated areas that have been discussed here. Living in a flat coastal area limits the elevation change here too. However, as a new member (1.5 months active) I am excited to be training for the various missions of the CAP (I prefer ES).
At this time I am particularly training for GT because of my fitness level/weight. I agree my weight would be an issue in a plane that the pilots would have to compensate for. With all of this in mind, if some of the opinions here were to require only GTMs who met the AF uniform standards...then that would leave me with little to do. I did not join this organization just to do more paperwork (I get enough of that in my regular work). I don't mind the required paperwork and regulations, but I don't want that to be my only duties in CAP. I am fully willing to be a MSA and I am almost qualified, but to completely limit all participation by heavier members would be tough. I would think the GTL needs to assess the mission needs and choose his GTMs based on that need.
My goal is to "earn my blues" by the time I renew my membership next year...meaning that I want to be within the weight/height standards to wear the AF-style uniforms by then. However, I would be extremely disappointed if I were not allowed to participate in any kind of GT or aircrew work until I reached that goal. I know reaching that goal and getting fit will make me a much better GTM and make aircrew participation more viable, but I do not wish to be excluded just because I haven't gotten there yet.
I personally wish there was PT and fitness tests that the Senior members could participate in. It would be a turn off for some members, but I would like to participate. It would help me get more fit and help keep me there. I just wouldn't want it to keep me from all ES participation besides paperwork.
Just an opinion from a new member...
Quote from: Mela_007 on September 26, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
I agree our GTM missions and exercises require the needed fitness level to accomplish the task.
Agreed. We have that today.
Quote from: Mela_007 on September 26, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
I personally wish there was PT and fitness tests that the Senior members could participate in. It would be a turn off for some members, but I would like to participate. It would help me get more fit and help keep me there. I just wouldn't want it to keep me from all ES participation besides paperwork.
Just an opinion from a new member...
Here you go: CAPP52-18 CADET PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM
On the last page, this is what we expect of cadets to make them able to participate in ES. I'd say it's quite reasonable for SMs as well then:
(http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P052_018_501C183A14D19.pdf)(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/CAPPTStandards.jpg) (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P052_018_501C183A14D19.pdf)
Quote from: a2capt on September 26, 2013, 07:03:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2013, 06:42:35 PM...though if you poop in the sandbox you'll probably get a ticket...
Now I've got to go read it too, I don't recall anything about latrines, holes, and pooping.
Field sanitation O-0103:
O-0103 31-JAN-01
Evaluation Preparation
Setup:
This task is tested over the course of an overnight field exercise. The exercise should include at least
two miles of dismounted movement. You should observe the students over the course of the exercise and
evaluate them at the conclusion of the exercise. Anything not directly observed (such as the use of a cathole)
should be evaluated through oral questioning.
Brief Student:
Inform the individuals to be tested that they will be evaluated over the course of the next 24
hours on their ability to conduct field sanitation and hygi
Quote from: johnnyb47 on September 26, 2013, 06:43:27 PM
I'm curious what you both mean by "obese".
Are we talking BMI chart definition or visual, "DAAAAANG!!!!" scale?
At 5'11" im technically obese by BMI scale standards yet just barely within CAP H/W standards to wear the AF uniforms (unless I had a big breakfast... then I'm over)
There are a number of methods used by health professionals and other scientists to define and measure obesity, but the most common method is BMI.
As defined by the CDC and the World Health Organization, the BMI definitions are:
Below 18.5 is defined as "underweight"
18.5 to 24.9 is defined as "normal weight"
25 to 29.9 is defined as "overweight"
30 or higher is defined as "obese."
Here is the link to the CDC Page Discussing BMI for Adults (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html).
Since you mentioned it, when I ran the CAP Weight Standards for males from the 39-1 through a BMI calculator, for each height on the table, the corresponding maximum allowable weight yielded a BMI or 30 or above.
On a related note, whenever I have looked at designing a physical conditioning test for senior members, I have found it to be a fairly complex task for two primary reasons.
First, there is common agreement that if we have a required test, that fairness and efficiency suggest that the test should be related to the actual tasks the member may be reasonably expected to perform as part of their duties. IOW, we should not expect Admin or Professional Development Officers to have to run two miles in 16 minutes or less, or be required to drag a 150 pound dummy 100 yards. Such a test would appear to be unrelated to their duties and might deprive a significant percentage of otherwise qulaified officers an opportunity to serve, thus actually impairing our ability to accomplish our missions.
On the other hand, there is no consensus on what the minimum required physical performance levels must be to perform GTM duties. Others have pointed out in this thread that the terrain varies widely from wing to wing. Many GTMs may never see mountains in their careers, while others may have a great deal of strenuos hiking that may be required.
And there is an unpredictable "wild card" aspect to GTM standards. In DR situations, they may be asked to do things like lift and move heavy objects like bottled water or even sandbags. Does that suggest that a GTM PT test should include strength testing?
I could never really resolve these issues, perhaps someone smarter can.
But the other issue associated with PT testing was even more sobering: if we have any sort of vigorous PT test - whether it involves running or lifting or not - it seems inevitable that at least some senior members will be injured each year by the test itself.
As an Army guy, I saw countless relatively minor injuries like sprains and the occasional broken bone from a fall during our PT tests. But I also know that the Army also experiences more serious injuries and even a few deaths each year from previously undiagnosed cardiac issues.
(To minimize these risks Army requires every soldier over 40 to take an "Over 40 medical exam" (including an EKG) before they allow a 40+ soldier to even take the APFT. I can't imagine how CAP could implement such a requirement.)
It seems obvious (to me, anyway) that before implementing a senior member PT test, we should be able to say with some certainty that the benefits exceed the cost. The costs seem fairly predictable -- injuries and reduced staffing in at least some specialties like GTM. The benefits of a PT test seem harder to quantify. Until I can come up with a way to quantify the benefits, it is hard for me to recommend any changes.
Some have suggested that we simply use our own Cadet PFT for the seniors. This is problematic because the cadet data is based on hard numbers researched by the President's Council on Physical Fitness. There is simply no corresponding data set for adults in the range of our typical senior member. To hold someone like me -- a nearly 60 year old senior -- to the same standards as a high school student would seem to ignore the reality of the aging process.
So while I generally support the notion of having some sort of PT test for seniors whose duties involve anything much more than sedentary work, I have come no where near being able to solve the problems associated with designing and implementing such a test.
Ned, great post. As I've stated in mine above, we currently allow cadets to participate in ES if they have their Curry achievement. While not perfect, it at least gives an idea of what is currently allowed. That said, at 18 I experienced carpal tunnel-like symptoms. There would be periods of up to 6 weeks where I couldn't bend my left wrist past maybe 30degrees. Forget getting to a 90 to do pushups. Yet with a bad wrist I could still do GTM tasks.
The first thing I do with any GT trainee's or GTM that I do not know (after a gear check) is a 2 mile hike with 24 hr gear over mostly level terrain in under 30 min. If they have issues, they will be counseled that GT may not be the best fit for them. I will still train them if they so choose, however, they will not be be called by me for an actual mission due to the risk of the mission. I do not care if they are in BDU's, BBDU's, flight suit, polo, etc.
So far, the only people complaining are the ones that seem to not be able to actually complete that.
RogueLeader, I understand that you would not want to call that person who failed the test for actual missions...since those are your standards, however, would you continue using them in SAREX to continue their training? Also, if that person still wants to train for GT, why not let them re-test at a later date if they are working towards that goal? It sounds like you would write them off forever, if they did not pass it. Perhaps I mis-read your meaning. If they pass it for a re-test, would you then start calling them?
Quote from: Mela_007 on September 26, 2013, 09:00:17 PM
RogueLeader, I understand that you would not want to call that person who failed the test for actual missions...since those are your standards, however, would you continue using them in SAREX to continue their training? Also, if that person still wants to train for GT, why not let them re-test at a later date if they are working towards that goal? It sounds like you would write them off forever, if they did not pass it. Perhaps I mis-read your meaning. If they pass it for a re-test, would you then start calling them?
Absolutely I would train them on SAREXes, and yes, if they were to retake the Hike, and pass; I would certainly take them on actual missions. It also depends on the type of mission, and where its located.
Sarexes are for training and honing of skills. I want to encourage that as much as possible. I also make sure that they know what they need to work on. Missions are the real deal where ORM becomes that much more critical (Don't read this as me saying that ORM on Sarexes isn't critical.) On real missions, I may only be able to get 4-5 members, together to go- it's the realities of my world here. If one person gets hurt to the point of Not Mission Capable (IE ambulance, I have to halt my entire team to get them to an extraction point, or to the hospital, and depending on how many are available, that may end the sortie.
No one is forever written off for me due to physical capabilities. If there are other issues (insubordination, just can't work together, etc,) that may be cause for non-calls.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 26, 2013, 08:52:32 PM
The first thing I do with any GT trainee's or GTM that I do not know (after a gear check) is a 2 mile hike with 24 hr gear over mostly level terrain in under 30 min. If they have issues, they will be counseled that GT may not be the best fit for them. I will still train them if they so choose, however, they will not be be called by me for an actual mission due to the risk of the mission. I do not care if they are in BDU's, BBDU's, flight suit, polo, etc.
So far, the only people complaining are the ones that seem to not be able to actually complete that.
But....who validated those standards? And will anyone stand behind them other than yourself?
If those standards are self-generated, what's stopping the next guy from saying "3.25 miles with 24 hour gear?"
No one, which is why you can't apply them.
A unit CC is free to set any standards they want for members within their AOR, however
if you were an SET in my wing and were trying to add "extra", you wouldn't be an SET anymore
since that isn't cricket.
Qualified is qualified, Rascal scooter or not. NHQ sets the standards, not local SETs.
Personally speaking, I would rather have an obese person on my team who knows the terrain than a skinny-fit person who's not familiar with the area and who'll fall off the side of a mountain.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 26, 2013, 07:48:57 PM
It is not good to generalize. ???
Most mountains in NY are upstate. In the Catskill Mountain Group. North Westchester. Bear Mountain and the Allegheny mountains. North of Orange County which is north of Rockland County. :-\
The only search that can be said it is worthy of a wildland search would be on state parks and wetlands. We had one, count it one such search about a year ago. :P
Umm... remember that the Adirondacks happen to be in New York State? I know the folks in NYC always think that the world ends where Westchester County starts, but New York is a BIG state with lots of places that require some vertical motion.
>:D
I don't think we need a run, but a rather simple timed hike with field gear would do the trick. I think thats still what is used for wildland firefighting and if its good enough for them, its good enough for me.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 27, 2013, 05:32:01 AM
I don't think we need a run, but a rather simple timed hike with field gear would do the trick. I think thats still what is used for wildland firefighting and if its good enough for them, its good enough for me.
Its also what is used for the Naperville Emergency Response Team
Mac-
That was supposed to be a quick response about where the mountains are located in NY, not a geographic lesson about northern NY topography.
>:D
There are more mountains than the Addirondacks, Alleghenies, Catskills, Bear Mountain. But we can turn this into a geography lesson about Northern New York if you want to name others...
???
I do not think that "New York begins in Westchester County."
I think I have traveled extensively over New York in my nearly 14 years of CAP service and other trips. And remember I characterized "North Westchester." Because the topography there is hilly as well. Maybe not as much as I wanted...
::)
Flyer
Quote from: RiverAux on September 27, 2013, 05:32:01 AM
I don't think we need a run, but a rather simple timed hike with field gear would do the trick. I think thats still what is used for wildland firefighting and if its good enough for them, its good enough for me.
Having talked to folks that take the "pack test" its not a "simple" timed hike. It takes a little more than the average person to hike 3 miles 45 lb pack in 45 min. Personally, before the current fitness test USAF Res did 3 mile walk in 45 min (for my 30ish age group) you had to hoof it pretty hard, and that was no pack.
Info on the wildland standards, click on the pack test
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/safety/wct/wct_index.html (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/safety/wct/wct_index.html)
For most CAP GT ops I would say that usuing the moderate test standards would be acceptable.
Quote2 mile hike with 25 lb pack in 30 min or less
Its not dependant on weather you are big or not; if you can accomplish the test to standard, who cares what uniform you need to wear....simple measurement or BMI is not the most or only indicator.
mk
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 27, 2013, 12:37:13 AM
But....who validated those standards? And will anyone stand behind them other than yourself?
If those standards are self-generated, what's stopping the next guy from saying "3.25 miles with 24 hour gear?"
The Director of ES.
Nothing.
Please note that I am not saying that I will not withhold any SQTR signoff or that I won't train them. PERIOD.
That does not mean that I feel confident that they are physically capable of executing an actual GT mission. That is my call as a GTL, as part of my ORM assessment. It is also a concern as a GBD as to the safety for my teams.
On SAREXs, I'll train anybody that wants to train. If they complete the task, by the task guide, they get the signoff. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. That being said, that doesn't mean I will give them a call on an actual. Where, by regs, do I HAVE to call everyone who is qualified?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2013, 01:08:42 AM
No one, which is why you can't apply them.
A unit CC is free to set any standards they want for members within their AOR, however
if you were an SET in my wing and were trying to add "extra", you wouldn't be an SET anymore
since that isn't cricket.
Qualified is qualified, Rascal scooter or not. NHQ sets the standards, not local SETs.
See above.
So what does "Extended feild operations" mean to you?
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 27, 2013, 03:46:36 PMThe Director of ES.
He doesn't have that authority. In fact no one below NHQ does.
If your wing OPS people feel strongly enough, then they should get it in an approved supplement.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 27, 2013, 03:46:36 PM
So what does "Extended feild field operations" mean to you?
The same thing it means for
everyone else in CAP.
"Long days in the field followed by down time at a mission base or camp."
With the exception of a couple of notable HAAs, and the random bivouac, CAP does not "ruck in", certainly not during real-world missions.
If you're restesting GTMs you don't know during a SAREx or worse a real-world, and the GBD doesn't tell you to "knock it off", there's a real problem there.
For the record, I don't disagree with a 2-mile walk being unreasonable as an expectation for a GTM, and you, personally, are within your rights to
not lead a team you are not comfortable with, but were I the GBD, absent any other evidence or history of non-performance by the member in question,
"your" team is as likely to have a new leader as it is to have one less member. Though unfortunately in a lot of wings, removing anyone from a given team might mean
there aren't enough people to go at all.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 27, 2013, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 27, 2013, 12:37:13 AM
But....who validated those standards? And will anyone stand behind them other than yourself?
The Director of ES.
I can buy that the Director of ES APPROVED the standards. But, who VALIDATED them? And, how?
Again, please note what I said.
I require a 2 mile hike with 24 hour gear so I know what kind of shape they are in. If they do not "pass," they get counseled about the fact that Ground Team may NOT be the best specialty to train in. They still get the the qualifications that they complete. They get their SQTR signed off, and validated.
That said, I will NOT take somebody on an ACTUAL mission that I feel is unsafe for the tasking that we get. some missions are easier than others, not all are like the Laramie Peak mission where physical conditioning is very important. Some are more level ground and much less strenuous, to where physical conditioning is not as important.
Would you somebody that has a serious cold or flu on aircrew? Same thing, if they are not physically able to handle the job, they endanger the mission and crew. Once they get better, they are welcomed back. Correct?
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 27, 2013, 06:03:57 PM
I require a 2 mile hike with 24 hour gear so I know what kind of shape they are in. If they do not "pass," they get counseled about the fact that Ground Team may NOT be the best specialty to train in. They still get the the qualifications that they complete. They get their SQTR signed off, and validated.
You can't "require" anything that isn't in 60-1.
All it is, is a ORM assessment tool. What are the hazards, what is the likelihood, what is the severity. Nobody is being denied a qualification, no ones qualifications are being revoked. It's my tool for ensuring that the likelihood of a successful mission is the highest it can be.
I've had, on a couple of incidences that I was pressured to take members that I felt were not suited to GT. So I took them. Each time my concerns were validated. Not physically fit for GT. I'm just glad we only had to drop his gear, and come back for it, because he could NOT physically carry his gear.
If another GTL feels that they are safe, fine, I don;t have any issue with that. If someone tells me I have to take someone that I'm not comfortable with, I'll go fly, because I won't do it. I am NOT going to put anybody in a position that they are at high risk of hurting themselves.
Rouge, I can personally attest to being out of shape and risking a GT mission. My very first FTX in UTWG as a barely started GTM3 was over Thanksgiving weekend in the Bear River range of the Rockies. We ended up hiking about 4 miles in, and climbed up 1500 ft (and then back down again to our bivy site). I was horribly out of shape and packed too much gear, having been a complete newb to winter camping and mountains in general. If that had been an actual (very common terrain for SAR in the that area), I would have been a detriment, and possibly skunked the sortie.
From that experience, I don't see how assessing a GTM's ability to physically handle a long hike for an actual goes against the regs. Seems like solid ORM to me for the AOR. Now that I'm back in the flat lands of the midwest, it's a different story. The terrain in MIWG (unless you're in da' UP) isn;t nearly as challenging.
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting we use the same time standards as the wildland firefighters, just the same basic test structure.
Frankly, I don't think our folks would even need to wear a pack -- just the basic ground team field gear that they're most likely going to be carrying when they're in the woods. 2 miles in 30 minutes with that seems quite reasonable.
You're both talking about different things - Rogue is saying that when people come to him for training or tasking,
he "requires" them to take a hike first. You simply can't do that, and anyone who told you "no", or filed a complaint would
be fully justified. The fact that your wing condones this actually makes it worse.
"Double secret" anything is not allowed and not cricket. It is regularly indicated as a factor in members who get frustrated and
quit. This is no different then a check pilot who adds "his own wrinkles" to a Form 5. BTDT with one who felt that not only the F5 process,
but the general FAA check ride process was sorely lacking and it was "up to CAP to lead the way in this regard". After
more then a few complaints and difficult conversations, he's not a check pilot any more.
If you're building your own "Expendables", or your Unit CC allows the practice, well, so be it, for those in the respective AOR, otherwise, you're simply not allowed to "require" it.
Mission / sortie ORM are a different animal. Team leaders and supervisors are well within their rights to make judgement calls about
a person's fitness for a particular duty - those happen all the time for all sorts of reasons, improper or missing equipment, lack of experience
for a complex task, or even perceived fitness for a long hike or steep climb, etc. but that's a 1-off, day-of decision, not a gateway for the qualification.
I know you've already said you don't "not train" or "not qual" people who can't make the hike, but seriously, you think the simple conversation might not
be a virtual gateway, anyway? The tasks are the tasks - you can't add more because you "know better".
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2013, 07:26:15 PM
You're both talking about different things - Rogue is saying that when people come to him for training or tasking,
he "requires" them to take a hike first. You simply can't do that, and anyone who told you "no", or filed a complaint would
be fully justified. The fact that your wing condones this actually makes it worse.
"Double secret" anything is not allowed and not cricket. It is regularly indicated as a factor in members who get frustrated and
quit. This is no different then a check pilot who adds "his own wrinkles" to a Form 5. BTDT with one who felt that not only the F5 process,
but the general FAA check ride process was sorely lacking and it was "up to CAP to lead the way in this regard". After
more then a few complaints and difficult conversations, he's not a check pilot any more.
If you're building your own "Expendables", or your Unit CC allows the practice, well, so be it, for those in the respective AOR, otherwise, you're simply not allowed to "require" it.
Mission / sortie ORM are a different animal. Team leaders and supervisors are well within their rights to make judgement calls about
a person's fitness for a particular duty - those happen all the time for all sorts of reasons, improper or missing equipment, lack of experience
for a complex task, or even perceived fitness for a long hike or steep climb, etc. but that's a 1-off, day-of decision, not a gateway for the qualification.
I know you've already said you don't "not train" or "not qual" people who can't make the hike, but seriously, you think the simple conversation might not
be a virtual gateway, anyway? The tasks are the tasks - you can't add more because you "know better".
This would have been an excellent 20,000th post.
Quote from: phirons on September 27, 2013, 07:52:46 PM
This would have been an excellent 20,000th post.
What if the reason it is taking so long, is because for the past 8 years Eclipse has been writing the mother post of all mother posts, and will publish it (in its own thread, worth at least 100 posts of character limits), and the forum simply ceases to exist?
Is Ground Team taskings relatively physically demanding?
Are the physical capabilities necessary equal all over the US?
Are each member the same?
Are they physically capable?
How do you know?
How do they know?
How do you ensure that they are safe physically?
How do you fix the situation when you are wrong?
My answers:
Yes
Not even remotely
Not in this lifetime
Possibly
Take them for as hike
Take them for a hike
ORM Assessment (Hike is a great tool for this.)
Never had to. My ORM has thus far saved me from that nightmare.
Do you really think that a 12 year old cadet, whose 24 hr gear was half his weight should really be on a ground team. By your words, absolutely, since he passes all the other quals. It doesn't matter that he couldn't carry his gear for more than half a mile. Yes this has happened to me, and he complained the whole time of how heavy his gear is.
What about the person who complained about her ankles from walking up one flight of stairs (every stinking time,) but thinks she should be on Ground team. It might work in Illinois, or Indiana, and even in the flattest portions of Wyoming; but it doesn't make sense when you go into the mountains.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 27, 2013, 07:53:22 PM
Three more. The anticipation is killing me. What if we hit P20K, the servers overload, and blow up? The whole of the internet will be impacted with improper uniform wear, blue berets, whistles, orange hats, BDU boonies, TPUs, and so many other things...it would be the end of the Internet as we know it.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 27, 2013, 07:55:25 PM
What if the reason it is taking so long, is because for the past 8 years Eclipse has been writing the mother post of all mother posts, and will publish it (in its own thread, worth at least 100 posts of character limits), and the forum simply ceases to exist?
You are really hoping for that, aren't you?
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 27, 2013, 08:03:54 PM
Do you really think that a 12 year old cadet, whose 24 hr gear was half his weight should really be on a ground team.
It doesn't matter why >I< think, or
you. NHQ has already answered this question.
I've already indicated that GTLs have allowance for day-of ORM decisions. What they can't do is add anything "extra" to the tasking.
Quote
Do you really think that a 12 year old cadet, whose 24 hr gear was half his weight...
This was a failure of the trainer and the SET who passed that task. I recall the task for the packs include being able to carry the pack in a comfortable way.
Flyer
Interestingly, this is one of the rare threads that has turned from a uniform thread into something a little more meaningful.
It always happens that way. Non-uniform threads degenerate into uniform posts, so uniform threads degenerate into other stuff...
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2013, 08:07:37 PM
It doesn't matter why >I< think, or you. NHQ has already answered this question.
I've already indicated that GTLs have allowance for day-of ORM decisions. What they can't do is add anything "extra" to the tasking.
So you are saying that I can't use my tool for part of my ORM Assessment. There is no added tasking or "extra." A lot of this could be prevented if Commanders would check if they would be suited for the specialty before signing off on "Commanders approval"
That way .. all the threads in uniform ..
Whether it's allowed or not to add an extra test for GT members, I think I'm going to use it for me...no taking this out of context. What I mean is that I think it's a test I'm going to give to myself and see where I stand. I have been wanting a way to "judge" my own physical fitness for GT work and it sounds like a consensus here that a 2 mile hike with 24-hr pack in under 30 minutes is a reasonable test. So, I'll do it to myself. If I don't meet the standard, then it gives me something to work toward. This way it's not something that anyone is requiring of me, just a way to test myself on standards experienced GTLs would like to see in their potential GTMs.
I recently came across a concept that helps explain why CAP uniform policy is so difficult for so many of us.
It is a "Wicked Problem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem), a term used by planners to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to resolve because of incomplete, contradictory, or changing requirements.
In general, a wicked problem has these characteristics
Quote
1.There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2.Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3.Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good or bad.
4.There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5.Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
6.Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7.Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8.Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9.The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
10.The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e.: Planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Looks to me like our uniform policy "debate" fits the definition pretty closely.
Wicked problems - by their very defintion - may never be "solved," but there are coping strategies that can be used to manage the issue, including collaborative efforts to ensure that all stakeholders are heard and work together in drafting policy. Like, say, a national uniform committee.
Anyway, I think the concept helps explain why we find the issue so frustrating.
Sir,
Part of what I see being the problem is that there is no unified consensus about it. Some want the AF style canned except for cadets, others want the polo canned, etc. One of the main thing I see is the discontent that many can't wear the AF style either by reasons within their control or reasons outside of it and are stuck with Corp only. One of the biggest complaints about the Corp is the definition of grey and that there is a lack of formal attire outside of the blazer combo. Another issue is the trend of the polo being considered the minimum uniform for SM.
Another issue is that no one wants to be the bad guy and point out uniform violations and when they are pointed out no one wants to take action on it.
Quote from: Ned on October 03, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
Wicked problems - by their very defintion - may never be "solved," but there are coping strategies that can be used to manage the issue, including collaborative efforts to ensure that all stakeholders are heard and work together in drafting policy. Like, say, a national uniform committee.
Anyway, I think the concept helps explain why we find the issue so frustrating.
A National Uniform Committee that the average member has no input to. I'll use myself as an example. Over the past few years, I have sent up 12 or 15 suggestions, each fully developed with graphics when appropriate. To date, I have heard back on exactly 1. The wing commander button holed me at a meeting to told me he was not sending a particular one up and explained why. The rest went somewhere, but everytime time I inquired about them, I was told they were sent up, until they supposedly went up to National where, I think, they ended up in someone's shreader.
After a change at a level above the unit, I heard from the commander that he's not sending any uniform ideas up because he felt the uniforms were good as the were. I've heard this story repeated multiple times from folks in various wings.
To me, the NUC is yet another failed solution until there is some way for the average member to have their ideas taken seriously.
Right?
I'm sure there are a lot of "old salts" on the said committee, but perhaps there should be an open application process where the willing members could have submitted applications to become part of the committee instead of shadowy NDA-like approaches members roped in with.
Those characteristics define most real-world problems, so the concept is not terribly useful.
I'm sure there were uniform problems in the Roman Legions. We'll never get away from them.
The CG Aux has the same potential for massive uniform problems as does CAP. However, they avoid them by
1) Having essentially the same uniform as our parent service
2) In practice, there is no discrimination among members in regards to what uniforms they can wear. There is some guidance than could lead have led them down the same road as CAP, but it is so vague as to be unusable, and since everybody recognizes that, it isn't applied.
3) Having a relatively small number of uniform options.
I will agree that the 3 issues above relate back to one of the Wicked Problem characteristics in that they relate back to another problem -- CAP has a poor relationship with our parent service. Because of the great relationship with its parent, the CG Aux doesn't face the same issues and avoids the problem.
Comparing the USCGAux with CAP is an Apples and Oranges thing.
CAP has a Cadet Program and the CGAux doesn't.
If you seperated the CAP Senior Members who do not conduct the Cadet Program from the rest of CAP, then, you might have something to compare to the CGAux.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 03, 2013, 06:06:22 PM
Sir,
Part of what I see being the problem is that there is no unified consensus about it. Some want the AF style canned except for cadets, others want the polo canned, etc. One of the main thing I see is the discontent that many can't wear the AF style either by reasons within their control or reasons outside of it and are stuck with Corp only. One of the biggest complaints about the Corp is the definition of grey and that there is a lack of formal attire outside of the blazer combo. Another issue is the trend of the polo being considered the minimum uniform for SM.
Another issue is that no one wants to be the bad guy and point out uniform violations and when they are pointed out no one wants to take action on it.
Exactly. Wicked problem, isn't it?
Quote[ . . .] they relate back to another problem -- CAP has a poor relationship with our parent service.
Pretty good example of characteristic #9. Here you have defined whether or not CAP has a good relationship with our parent service based simply on whether the AF will allow [by BMI definition] obese persons to wear their uniform. The "solutions" to the uniform policy issues become plain only when a stakeholder gets to define the problem in ways the other stakeholders cannot agree.
Wicked, huh?
QuoteA National Uniform Committee that the average member has no input to. [. . .] To me, the NUC is yet another failed solution until there is some way for the average member to have their ideas taken seriously.
To say that you do not have access to the committee is not the same thing as not having meaningful input to the uniform policy that is eventually adopted. At some point the draft 39-1 will be posted for full input, and members will have a full and complete opportunity to be provide input.
Kinda like what we are doing with the 52-10. We posted it for input. Significantly revised it based on the input we received, and have posted the revision for further comment. Members and stakeholders are being heard loudly and clearly in the process.
I expect the same for the 39-1.
Having said that, I again repeat that since we are dealing with a largely aesthetic issue (what looks better, more professional, or is more respectful of our diverse membership) many members are going to be unhappy with whatever is decided. And our discussions here on CAP Talk will continue unabated.
Because it appears to be a wicked problem.
QuoteI'm sure there were uniform problems in the Roman Legions. We'll never get away from them.
Now you are just egging me on to repeat myself. So I will
Quote from: Ned
Quote from: Flavius
Although we are only Auxilia, we must continue to present a professional image to the full Legionnaires.
Our centurions are forced to wear helmet crests of horsehair or worse. We should be able to wear feathers like the regular centurions. I am embarrassed every time I go the marketplace.
And our standard bearers should not wear the pelts of lesser animals like coyotes or deer. They should wear wolf pelts or perhaps bear to show that we contribute to the total effort as much as any member of the VI Legion!
Quote from: Titus
No, we should be proud of being Auxilia and should not try to look like full Legionnaires. They are the ones in battle, not us. Our contributions are vital, but we are not Roman citizens; we hail from the provinces. We are content to work quietly at our jobs. After all, Auxilia are not trained nearly as much as a Legionnaire, so we should dress distinctively. We don't want to draw unnecessary fire from barbarians, do we?
Quote from: Marcus
But the last Emperor made too many uniform changes -- our helmets, shields, and armor are different from when I first joined the Auxilia. And I have to pay for these myself!
Quote from: Sevius
But Cladius Didius looks foolish in his tunic -- he is the size of an elephant, but refuses to acknowledge that life was good to him in Gaul. We should have distinctive uniforms for our Auxilia "Maximus" members.
Quote from: Gaius
Our youngest recruits deserve some distinctive items to help motivate them for the rigorous training. Perhaps we could award them phalerae to wear on their breastplates. That should do the trick.
^Hizzah! ;D
QuoteHere you have defined whether or not CAP has a good relationship with our parent service based simply on whether the AF will allow [by BMI definition] obese persons to wear their uniform.
No, you've got it exactly backwards. The uniform problem is one of the symptoms of the poor relationship that we have with the AF. If we had a good relationship we could work out a solution that doesn't cause other problems.
+1.
Open for comment like 52-10 or 174-1? There is an extreme difference on opportunites for members to comment on regs. 174-1 was released complete with no opportunity to comment THE DAY BEFORE the changes took effect, despite NHQ KNOWING the changes were coming at least 1.5 months ahead of time.
In the past, comments for regulations were required to go through the chain of command, just like suggestions are. If someone in the chain doesn't like your comment, its dead. If someone is just to [darn] lazy to hit forward, members' comments are dead.
As I mentioned, I was only informed of the status of one suggestion I made. I have made several inquiries over the years to try to see where my ideas died, including a direct PM to a member of the NUC to see if any made it there - not even if they had been rejected or accepted, just if they got them - WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE FROM ANYONE ABOVE WING.
And I'm supposed to accept that members suggestions are even considered outside of cadet programs?
Quote from: RiverAux on October 03, 2013, 07:26:50 PM
QuoteHere you have defined whether or not CAP has a good relationship with our parent service based simply on whether the AF will allow [by BMI definition] obese persons to wear their uniform.
No, you've got it exactly backwards. The uniform problem is one of the symptoms of the poor relationship that we have with the AF. If we had a good relationship we could work out a solution that doesn't cause other problems.
So your basing your assesment that the relationship with the AF is poor because members who for what ever reason can/will not met H/W or grooming requirements can not wear the AF uniform?
Quote from: RiverAux on October 03, 2013, 07:26:50 PM
No, you've got it exactly backwards. The uniform problem is one of the symptoms of the poor relationship that we have with the AF. If we had a good relationship we could work out a solution that doesn't cause other problems.
Thank you for making my point.
Because we
both have it exactly backwards. For you (and others) uniforms are a symptom of a poor relationship.
For others, any such poor relationship is a symptom of the uniform issue.
Both are valid viewpoints, but tend to make the problem intractable because one stakeholder's "solution" becomes another stakeholder's "problem." And both problems become symptoms of the other.
Wicked, huh?
No - the inability to come to simple logical solutions regarding the uniform is a small, but highly visible symptom of
both the relationship issue(s) between CAP and the USAF, and CAP's internal organizational problems in regards to leadership by committee and the failure to understand how something which should be a no-thought, baseline part of being a member
becomes "important" when the rules for wear are both inconsistently written, and worse, inconsistently enforced and applied.
CAP wants to play both sides of the street - categorizing the uniform as simultaneously "important" and "not important".
As a point of fact, CAP does this with a >LOT< of things.
You can't have it both ways, and the day CAP realizes this at a meaningful level will be the day we finally start getting out of our own way, and until we realize this, we are destined to continue to walk in the same circular rut.
+1 to Eclipse
But, Ned does have a point in that the uniform problems actually do occasionally cause problems with the AF. So, yes, they can both be a symptom of the poor relationship as well as a cause of the poor relationship.
Its a vicious circle that can only be fixed by improving our overall relationship with the AF and working together as a team whenever possible. In that sort of environment you can fix a lot of things, including uniform issues.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 03, 2013, 08:30:41 PM
No - the inability to come to simple logical solutions regarding the uniform is a small, but highly visible symptom of
both the relationship issue(s) between CAP and the USAF, and CAP's internal organizational problems in regards to leadership by committee and the failure to understand how something which should be a no-thought, baseline part of being a member
becomes "important" when the rules for wear are both inconsistently written, and worse, inconsistently enforced and applied.
Ahh, yes.
Quote from: Ben FranklinMost issues are clear when someone else has to decide them.
Seriously Bob, with your own words, you just pointed out how uniforms are tied into at least three otherwise separate issues: CAP - USAF relationships, CAP internal governance processes, and respect shown to our diverse membership.
The fact that the problems are interelated, do not have "true-or-false" solutions - only "good" and "bad", and there is no stopping rule (no goal line, no end, etc.) are key reasons this is an intractable problem.
Which I think meets the definition of a wicked problem. If this were easy, given all the angst we would have solved it long ago.
QuoteCAP wants to play both sides of the street - categorizing the uniform as simultaneously "important" and "not important".
I don't think CAP has ever said that uniforms are "unimportant." I think every leader recognizes that uniforms are an integral tool to help us perform our missions.
But we should never confuse our uniforms with our missions.
Quote[. . .] we are destined to continue to walk in the same circular rut.
On that, sadly, we agree.
QuoteIf this were easy, given all the angst we would have solved it long ago.
I don't think he (or anyone) said it was an easy issue to fix.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 03, 2013, 09:28:25 PM
QuoteIf this were easy, given all the angst we would have solved it long ago.
I don't think he (or anyone) said it was an easy issue to fix.
Correct. I will agree it can be viewed as a complex, nuanced challenge. Something CAP does not historically handle well.
I would also assert it should have been fixed long time ago.
The fix will require any number of uncomfortable conversations in various directions. Those conversations could be made
less "uncomfortable" if things which are already decided were enforced better, and if we started pressing on commanders
to actually accomplish the mission at a level which raised the perception of CAP's ROI.
Gotta be a tough, narrow ledge to walk for NHQ. Get too draconian, the backlash will be fierce. Stay too lax, USAF and folks like Eclipse are offended, justfiably so.
Drop the USAF uniforms (maybe the best solution) and alienate mass numbers of members.
Perhaps a grandfather clause, in concert with a phase-out, is the least painful (but slow) way to go? For those on-board now, keep the current options until you retire. Newbies get the (hopefully) "new" corporate combo - but no USAF option.
I understand needing a "uniform"' for immediate credibilty, recognition, etc. Don't see as clear a need for a USAF combo on CAP members. But a lot of members do, and the connection is important for them, so let the ones with us now keep wearing it. Still gonna be chunkies and hippies wearing it sometimes, but that's going on anyway. As we age out, it'll go away.
Gotta agree that the CG Aux is a whole 'nuther animal - I worked for CG for some years - Aux is very small, often integrated with AD, and they do, on occasion, tell someone their appearance isn't cutting it. Adios.
Quote from: SunDog on October 03, 2013, 11:42:17 PM
Aux is very small, often integrated with AD, and they do, on occasion, tell someone their appearance isn't cutting it. Adios.
Uh, the CG Aux is more or less the same size as CAP's senior member program and relative to the size of the CG is a significant portion of the manpower available to the CG.
And no, you are not going to get kicked out of the CG Aux because of your appearance. At worst, you might not get to augment at a CG unit.
CG runs about 55K people, all told. The Aux did most defintely drop a member for apoearance, to my certain knowledge. But, that could be a very, very unusual occurence.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 03, 2013, 06:25:13 PM
Those characteristics define most real-world problems, so the concept is not terribly useful.
I'm sure there were uniform problems in the Roman Legions. We'll never get away from them.
The CG Aux has the same potential for massive uniform problems as does CAP. However, they avoid them by
1) Having essentially the same uniform as our parent service
2) In practice, there is no discrimination among members in regards to what uniforms they can wear. There is some guidance than could lead have led them down the same road as CAP, but it is so vague as to be unusable, and since everybody recognizes that, it isn't applied.
3) Having a relatively small number of uniform options.
I will agree that the 3 issues above relate back to one of the Wicked Problem characteristics in that they relate back to another problem -- CAP has a poor relationship with our parent service. Because of the great relationship with its parent, the CG Aux doesn't face the same issues and avoids the problem.
Concur and I'll add when there are uniform violations, the USCGAux chain of leadership and management is not afraid to address and correct them, and, when they fail to... the USCG chain of command will.
Quote from: Ned on October 03, 2013, 07:15:32 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 03, 2013, 06:06:22 PM
Sir,
Part of what I see being the problem is that there is no unified consensus about it. Some want the AF style canned except for cadets, others want the polo canned, etc. One of the main thing I see is the discontent that many can't wear the AF style either by reasons within their control or reasons outside of it and are stuck with Corp only. One of the biggest complaints about the Corp is the definition of grey and that there is a lack of formal attire outside of the blazer combo. Another issue is the trend of the polo being considered the minimum uniform for SM.
Another issue is that no one wants to be the bad guy and point out uniform violations and when they are pointed out no one wants to take action on it.
Exactly. Wicked problem, isn't it?
Quote[ . . .] they relate back to another problem -- CAP has a poor relationship with our parent service.
Pretty good example of characteristic #9. Here you have defined whether or not CAP has a good relationship with our parent service based simply on whether the AF will allow [by BMI definition] obese persons to wear their uniform. The "solutions" to the uniform policy issues become plain only when a stakeholder gets to define the problem in ways the other stakeholders cannot agree.
Wicked, huh?
QuoteA National Uniform Committee that the average member has no input to. [. . .] To me, the NUC is yet another failed solution until there is some way for the average member to have their ideas taken seriously.
To say that you do not have access to the committee is not the same thing as not having meaningful input to the uniform policy that is eventually adopted. At some point the draft 39-1 will be posted for full input, and members will have a full and complete opportunity to be provide input.
Kinda like what we are doing with the 52-10. We posted it for input. Significantly revised it based on the input we received, and have posted the revision for further comment. Members and stakeholders are being heard loudly and clearly in the process.
I expect the same for the 39-1.
Having said that, I again repeat that since we are dealing with a largely aesthetic issue (what looks better, more professional, or is more respectful of our diverse membership) many members are going to be unhappy with whatever is decided. And our discussions here on CAP Talk will continue unabated.
Because it appears to be a wicked problem.
QuoteI'm sure there were uniform problems in the Roman Legions. We'll never get away from them.
Now you are just egging me on to repeat myself. So I will
Quote from: Ned
Quote from: Flavius
Although we are only Auxilia, we must continue to present a professional image to the full Legionnaires.
Our centurions are forced to wear helmet crests of horsehair or worse. We should be able to wear feathers like the regular centurions. I am embarrassed every time I go the marketplace.
And our standard bearers should not wear the pelts of lesser animals like coyotes or deer. They should wear wolf pelts or perhaps bear to show that we contribute to the total effort as much as any member of the VI Legion!
Quote from: Titus
No, we should be proud of being Auxilia and should not try to look like full Legionnaires. They are the ones in battle, not us. Our contributions are vital, but we are not Roman citizens; we hail from the provinces. We are content to work quietly at our jobs. After all, Auxilia are not trained nearly as much as a Legionnaire, so we should dress distinctively. We don't want to draw unnecessary fire from barbarians, do we?
Quote from: Marcus
But the last Emperor made too many uniform changes -- our helmets, shields, and armor are different from when I first joined the Auxilia. And I have to pay for these myself!
Quote from: Sevius
But Cladius Didius looks foolish in his tunic -- he is the size of an elephant, but refuses to acknowledge that life was good to him in Gaul. We should have distinctive uniforms for our Auxilia "Maximus" members.
Quote from: Gaius
Our youngest recruits deserve some distinctive items to help motivate them for the rigorous training. Perhaps we could award them phalerae to wear on their breastplates. That should do the trick.
Jesus Mary and Joseph!
I sprayed Dr. Pepper thru my nose all over my computer!
;D :clap:
Serves you right for drinking that foul stuff.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 05:25:45 AM
Serves you right for drinking that foul stuff.
It keeps me awake on gate duty. ;)
Dr. Pepper .. 10, 2 and 4! ;-)
Prune juice in disguise ;-)
Quote from: a2capt on October 04, 2013, 05:48:08 AM
Dr. Pepper .. 10, 2 and 4! ;-)
Prune juice in disguise ;-)
Hey, whatever "motivates" you ...
Jack
Honestly the whole uniform thing really can be an easy fix and it comes down to two principles.
1) Integrity
2) Enforcement
Integrity if you know you do not meet H/W or grooming standards or choose not to don't wear the AF style uniform until you meet those standards. There is the Corp uniform you can wear and participate in activities with.
Enforcement, if you know someone is not in compliance enforce the standard and do not be afraid to do so. Enforcement is how we fix issues especially this one.
Now do we take the chance of alienating members because they are a "volunteer" maybe so but if they have a hard time with following the rules then maybe they need to volunteer else where.
Quote from: a2capt on October 04, 2013, 05:48:08 AM
Dr. Pepper .. 10, 2 and 4! ;-)
Prune juice in disguise ;-)
The "Dr Pepper Check" is what we used to call a Thru-flight preflight on the C-141.
10 tires,
2 wings and
4 engines. Yep, it's all here, lets go fly!
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 05:25:45 AM
Serves you right for drinking that foul stuff.
I dare you to come down to Texas and say that.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 02:56:06 PM
Honestly the whole uniform thing really can be an easy fix and it comes down to two principles.
1) Integrity
2) Enforcement
Integrity if you know you do not meet H/W or grooming standards or choose not to don't wear the AF style uniform until you meet those standards. There is the Corp uniform you can wear and participate in activities with.
Enforcement, if you know someone is not in compliance enforce the standard and do not be afraid to do so. Enforcement is how we fix issues especially this one.
Now do we take the chance of alienating members because they are a "volunteer" maybe so but if they have a hard time with following the rules then maybe they need to volunteer else where.
Without putting someone on a scale, they will keep claiming to be lighter than me by 15 lbs, when they look close to double my size. :angel:
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 02:56:06 PM
Honestly the whole uniform thing really can be an easy fix and it comes down to two principles.
1) Integrity
2) Enforcement
Integrity if you know you do not meet H/W or grooming standards or choose not to don't wear the AF style uniform until you meet those standards. There is the Corp uniform you can wear and participate in activities with.
Enforcement, if you know someone is not in compliance enforce the standard and do not be afraid to do so. Enforcement is how we fix issues especially this one.
Now do we take the chance of alienating members because they are a "volunteer" maybe so but if they have a hard time with following the rules then maybe they need to volunteer else where.
Without putting someone on a scale, they will keep claiming to be lighter than me by 15 lbs, when they look close to double my size. :angel:
Then you add a clause to 39-3 or 39-1 that allows the CC to weigh members when there are doubts about a members weight. BLUF the main issue with uniforms that I have seen is those who do not meet H/W or grooming standards (medical reasons excluded) wearing the AF style uniform. They have the Corp that they may wear and are actually instructed to wear. This is an integrity issue.
Member: "I went to the XXWG Conference in 2011, please sign me off for PD."
CC: "I don't remember you going to that conference, show me some proof."
Member: "I'm XX inches tall and weigh YY pounds. I can wear the AF uniform."
CC: "I do not believe that. Stand next to this tape measure and then on to that scale."
Granted the second is a much more uncomfortable conversation but both fall to the commander.
Our commanders are mandated to ensure proper wear of the uniforms. Proper wear of the AF uniforms has a H/W component.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 03:24:58 PM
Then you add a clause to 39-3 or 39-1 that allows the CC to weigh members when there are doubts about a members weight.
I don't think you need any special permission to enforce our standards. I have conducted weigh-ins for all members over 18 wearing USAF-style uniforms when I was in charge.
I simply let the participants know in advance that I would be asking everyone 18+ who wanted to wear AF-style uniforms to step on the scale. I provided a private place for the process, posted the H/W extract from the 39-1, and personally verified the weights. The member and I would then jointly refer to the table for a go / no go decision. I had a trusted opposite gender officer available upon request for the weight verification. Easy peasy.
Letting folks know in advance makes the rule essentially self-enforcing. I only had one person (a cadet as it turned out) who was not in compliance, and we just took a quick trip to the mall for an aviator shirt and some grey slacks.
Human nature is fairly predictable. If I see a police car behind me, I tend to drive more carefully and always come to a complete and full stop at every stop sign. Similarly, if I knew in advance that I was going to have to hop on the scale once or twice a year at the squadron meeting or wing conference . . .
Folks with medical reason can't wear AF uniforms either. As for the uncomfortable conversations...we all know most people don't do it.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 03:48:16 PM
Folks with medical reason can't wear AF uniforms either. As for the uncomfortable conversations...we all know most people don't do it.
And if you will notice any time I have mentioned H/W and grooming I have also noted that those with a valid medical reason were excluded.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 03:50:10 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 03:48:16 PM
Folks with medical reason can't wear AF uniforms either. As for the uncomfortable conversations...we all know most people don't do it.
And if you will notice any time I have mentioned H/W and grooming I have also noted that those with a valid medical reason were excluded.
Since when? Theyvhave no more recourse on the H/W chart than the mythical bodybuilder.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 03:50:10 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 03:48:16 PM
Folks with medical reason can't wear AF uniforms either. As for the uncomfortable conversations...we all know most people don't do it.
And if you will notice any time I have mentioned H/W and grooming I have also noted that those with a valid medical reason were excluded.
Since when? Theyvhave no more recourse on the H/W chart than the mythical bodybuilder.
They are not excluded from the H/W requirements yes, however I throw that in there as my pov is that those who say dump the AF style are those who willingly do not want to meet H/W or abide by grooming.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 05:08:48 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 03:50:10 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 03:48:16 PM
Folks with medical reason can't wear AF uniforms either. As for the uncomfortable conversations...we all know most people don't do it.
And if you will notice any time I have mentioned H/W and grooming I have also noted that those with a valid medical reason were excluded.
Since when? Theyvhave no more recourse on the H/W chart than the mythical bodybuilder.
They are not excluded from the H/W requirements yes, however I throw that in there as my pov is that those who say dump the AF style are those who willingly do not want to meet H/W or abide by grooming.
I haven't seen much of that personally. Typically those who are anti-AF uniforms feel we should be more removed from the AF, ala RM and Sundog types.
Which is why I've been advocating a military-esque style uniform for a Corporate Uniform.
The white and grey doesn't seem to cut it for the more martial minded members yet as many have pointed out for various reasons their are some members that "will not" or "cannot" comply with the USAF requirements to wear a USAF-style uniform.
Does the BBDU uniform look bad in and of itself... no not at all.
It looks bad when 20 CAP members show up for a function and 18 are in woodland BDU and two are in BBDU.
If all twenty had shown up in BBDU THAT would look right.
So, as in the other thread, I'm advocating scraping for all Senior members of CAP of the USAF-style, grey/white and and previous authorized blue Corporate Service uniforms and go to ONE (1) single military-esque style uniform for the Senior members.
I suggest a khaki/silver tan Army Air Corps style uniform with some USAF blue "highlights" thrown in to continue to show your link to the current parent Service of the Air Force.
Retain the USAF blue Flight Caps (ie Garrison Cover), the USAF blue Combination Caps (ie Barracks Cover), USAF blue four-in-hand necktie for males and USAF blue necktab for females and the USAF blue uni-sex belt.
Those are your "USAF Blue highlights".
Adopt a khaki/silver tan four pocket service coat, trousers, and an aviator-style (ie epaulets and pleated flapped pockets) long and short sleeve shirt as the SOLE authorized Senior Corporate uniform.
Wear the current CAP hat badges, "C.A.P." cutouts as collar brass, silver name tag, silver buttons, pin on ranks (and USAF blue sew on enlisted ranks) and a left arm Wing Patch on this uniform. This will be your "Class A" Service uniform.
You turn this into "Dress Khaki" by changing the shirt to a white dress shirt with males switching to a USAF blue bowtie, while females retain the USAF blue necktab.
For those who already have or wish to acquire a Mess uniform... the currently authorized USAF-style Mess Uniforms would be retained.
For a "Class B" uniform (ie shirt sleeve uniform) there two ways to go:
Way 1: Wear pin on rank (right collar) and a C.A.P. cutout (left collar)
or
Way 2: Adopt a epaulet rank slide in either khaki or USAF blue. (Someone pointed out that the USAF "might" object to blue rank slides.)
On all uniforms allow prior-service military awards and badges to be worn (a MAJOR criticism of the current and former Corporate uniform policies).
As to the "extras" such as the all weather coat, windbreaker, woolly-pulley sweater, cardigan sweater, etc all in USAF blue... either continue to allow their use (with USAF approval) or have a REALLY generous wear-out period and then adopt khaki/silver tan versions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the polo uniform, again a very generous wear-out date on the grey trousers and then switch to khaki... either civilian, tactical, or even authorize the Service Trousers from the Khaki Corporate uniform described above.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to a Field uniform, again allow a generous wear out date on the Woodland BDU and adopt the BBDU as the SOLE Field uniform for Senior members or allow a generous wear out date on both the BDU and BBDU uniforms and adopt a currently commercially available khaki colored BDU uniform.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to a Flight uniform, again allow a generous wear out date on any USAF-style flight suits (ie sage-green ?) in current use and adopt a blue for khaki currently commercially available flight suit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By doing this you put all Senior members in ONE Corporate uniform based on mission (ie Mess/Dress, Service, Polo, Field, or Flight) for a UNIFORM appearance. You also "color brand" CAP to a khaki uniform... which is your historical root uniform which predates the USAF style.
Professional, clean, martial... yet NOT Military, and most importantly UNIFORMITY among the Senior members.
Of course what does this non-CAP member Army Major know about ANYTHING... so of course it will never work. :P
I stand ready for the incoming fire from the usual suspects. ;)
To be fair, I have no idea why an Army Major NOT in CAP cares so much either.
It's a typical mentality of telling folks how bad they are and how to fix it. All over Khaki really thats more bland than grey and not cost effective to members either. Not to mention there is the formal dress uniform as well that hasn't been considered. Adopting one uniform would take an act of god to happen.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
To be fair, I have no idea why an Army Major NOT in CAP cares so much either.
fair point... how about this... an Army major that is considering joining CAP.
One of the reasons I came to CAPTalk was to gather intel and see if I'd "fit in" with the organization based on the conversations with the members I meet online here.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
To be fair, I have no idea why an Army Major NOT in CAP cares so much either.
fair point... how about this... an Army major that is considering joining CAP.
One of the reasons I came to CAPTalk was to gather intel and see if I'd "fit in" with the organization based on the conversations with the embers I meet online here.
How you fit in should be based on the units in your area not CAPTalk.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 09:20:04 PM
How you fit in should be based on the units in your area not CAPTalk.
+1
So we have an officer who decided to gather intelligence and offer advice at the same time?
???
When I was growing up, I was taught to join an organization and wait until I learn about it before trying to change the culture.
:-\
I guess this is another demonstration on how our society has changed. Instant change gratification. Want food? Go to a McDonalds, don't wait.
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 04, 2013, 09:30:00 PM
So we have an officer who decided to gather intelligence and offer advice at the same time?
In my experience especially with all my interactions with the Army that has been the mindset.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 08:51:33 PM
It's a typical mentality of telling folks how bad they are and how to fix it. All over Khaki really that's more bland than grey and not cost effective to members either. Not to mention there is the formal dress uniform as well that hasn't been considered. Adopting one uniform would take an act of god to happen.
Ahhh, the "usual suspects" have arrived. ;D
To address your points:
I have never said anyone was/is "bad". If everyone was happy with the status quo of the current CAP uniforms there would not be so many discussions here on CAPTalk about them. I am simply putting forth a suggestion... take it for what it's worth.
Khaki is bland... in your opinion... grey is ugly in mine.
No uniform purchase is cost effective in a volunteer organization it's simply part of joining. If the USAF was to change it's uniform tomorrow, it would effect CAP's USAF-style uniform immediately. You and I both know that the second that USAF/CAP published their new regulation on how that new USAF-style uniform could be worn by CAP members... there would be CAP members who would show up in it the VERY NEXT MEETING. Some people just have to have the newest of the new in everything. Your argument of "cost effectiveness" is a straw man at best.
I considered the Mess and Dress uniforms above. Retain the current USAF-style Mess Uniform (ie tuxedo uniform) and add a white shirt and blue bowtie to my proposed Khaki Service Uniform to change it from a Class A uniform to a Dress Uniform. Most of the Armed Services already do this to change their Service Uniform to a Dress Uniform. Normally as a "cost effective" measure for enlisted personnel Some examples:
Army Green Class A to Dress Greens: Change light green shirt to white shirt add black bowtie and remove DUI from epaulet straps.
Army ASU to Dress Blues: add black bowtie, remove DUI from enlisted uniform epaulet straps.
Coast Guard Service Dress Blue (Bravo) to Dinner Dress Blue: change light blue shirt to white shirt add bowtie.
I have also seen USAF ROTC cadets and Navy NROTC midshipmen change their Class A Service uniforms to dress uniforms by adding a bowtie (Navy) or changing to a white shirt and adding a bowtie (USAF) not sure of the exact terminology for these uniforms so I just described them.
White shirt, blue bowtie and khaki uniform may not be the best dress uniform but it would work and be cost effective.
You and I agree... Divine intervention may be required.
USAF changed a uniform six years ago. Still waiting for it to affect CAP.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 04, 2013, 09:20:04 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
To be fair, I have no idea why an Army Major NOT in CAP cares so much either.
fair point... how about this... an Army major that is considering joining CAP.
One of the reasons I came to CAPTalk was to gather intel and see if I'd "fit in" with the organization based on the conversations with the embers I meet online here.
How you fit in should be based on the units in your area not CAPTalk.
In your opinion, if I like or dislike the picture I get of CAP was based solely on CAPTalk, then you might be right, but I'm looking for a bigger picture.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 10:02:28 PM
USAF changed a uniform six years ago. Still waiting for it to affect CAP.
I "assume" you are talking about ABUs? The second the USAF authorizes the CAP to wear ABUs there will be members both Senior and Cadets that will arrive the very next meeting they go to in the CAP authorized ABU version of the CAP uniform.
I'll put money on that bet any day of the week and twice on Sundays. ;)
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 04, 2013, 09:30:00 PM
So we have an officer who decided to gather intelligence and offer advice at the same time?
???
When I was growing up, I was taught to join an organization and wait until I learn about it before trying to change the culture.
:-\
I guess this is another demonstration on how our society has changed. Instant change gratification. Want food? Go to a McDonalds, don't wait.
Flyer
Then you should close CAPTALK to non-members. Since it is open source and allows anyone to join and voice opinions.
Serious question, why do you reject my opinions and suggestion so readily? Do they hold no merit? Are they silly or stupid? I've tried to be respectful of the rules of CAPTALK, the members of CAP both Senior and Cadet, and the opinions of those who's actual experience within CAP and the Military are far greater than mine?
So why the "negative waves" for everything I post/suggest/opine? :-\
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
I have also seen USAF ROTC cadets and Navy NROTC midshipmen change their Class A Service uniforms to dress uniforms by adding a bowtie (Navy) or changing to a white shirt and adding a bowtie (USAF) not sure of the exact terminology for these uniforms so I just described them.
White shirt, blue bowtie and khaki uniform may not be the best dress uniform but it would work and be cost effective.
You and I agree... Divine intervention may be required.
You obviously by this have no idea on the different uniforms for the AF, and no we do not agree by any means. And negative waves well I go back to my initial posting with you about being an outsider and telling us how broke we are and how to fix it. And sorry your opinion and suggest for an all members uniform is hideous. I like grey and yes we could use a different color, however that is what is currently authorized for us to wear. If you want to have your opinions and suggests hold merit and value join up and go through the process. Until then it is an outsider telling us how broke we are and how to fix it.
And changing to Khaki is not cost effective by any means for membership and that needs to be a deciding factor for such a major upheaval in the organization.
Put it this way.
I am not a military policeman, never even have been in Law Enforcement. Have studied their methods and have been close to some LE types and we have talked. A lot.
With that in mind, if I walk to you and state "Why did you arrest that person? There was no reason to arrest that person, just watching him/her would have been enough." Or "there was no probable cause."
What is your reaction?
:)
Flyer
CAP is not broken by any means... you do great work and I admire that.
So if I send my fifty dollar check in... my opinion will matter? ???
OK please explain how any other uniform purchase is "cost effective" but khaki is not?
CAP does not issue uniforms to Senior members so every one buys their own, correct?
Uniforms wear out with use and need to be replaced, correct?
If khaki, or any other color was adopted, it would be the "replacement" for the items that have worn out... hence a "wear out date".
When the Army switch from BDU to ACU... I wore the BDUs until the very last minute, I had 15+ years worth of them in three foot lockers. Then I switched to ACUs. I still wear Greens and will until the fourth Quarter of FY14 when I can't anymore.
BTW, I then donate all my BDUs to a local CAP unit to issue to cadets. As to my Greens I suspect that Army JROTC will still be using Greens for a while so I'll give them to the local HS next year.
So if khaki was adopted, Seniors could donate their Blues to the cadets, cost effective and tax deductible.
If you make the wear out dates long enough no one will complain about having to buy a new uniform.
Some will have it the next day, others will not, and CAP will continue to look Hodge-Podge in uniforms... for a short while.
Once the wear out dates kick in, everyone will be in one uniform and hopefully happy. Or at least less unhappy.
Again, just my opinion.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
If the USAF was to change it's uniform tomorrow, it would effect CAP's USAF-style uniform immediately.
This is what I'm talking about. Not at all how CAP operates.
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 04, 2013, 10:48:32 PM
Put it this way.
I am not a military policeman, never even have been in Law Enforcement. Have studied their methods and have been close to some LE types and we have talked. A lot.
With that in mind, if I walk to you and state "Why did you arrest that person? There was no reason to arrest that person, just watching him/her would have been enough." Or "there was no probable cause."
What is your reaction?
:)
Flyer
Depends, on the street, while I'm in the middle of the arrest... the reaction will be "frosty" to say the least.
Here on a discussion board, or in an after action review at the station or in a bar after duty hours, an open and frank discussion can and does have its merits.
The "no stupid question" rule does apply... both in police work and CAPTALK. ;)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 04, 2013, 11:02:10 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
If the USAF was to change it's uniform tomorrow, it would effect CAP's USAF-style uniform immediately.
This is what I'm talking about. Not at all how CAP operates.
OK, how does it operate?
The USAF is in Blue... CAP is not still in Khaki.
The USAF is in a three button blue blouse with epaulets for officers... so is CAP.
I know there was a wear out date when khaki and the four patch pocket blouses went away in the USAF and an adoption by CAP.
So what am I not getting?
The Air Force gets a new uniform, they decide CAP can where it too (or not, ie ABUs), they publish a regulation, there's a wear out date on the old uniform, then the new one is adopted.
Some people will be in the new one the next day, some will wear the old one until the very last minute.
So what am I not getting? ???
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 11:01:28 PM
CAP is not broken by any means... you do great work and I admire that.
So if I send my fifty dollar check in... my opinion will matter? ???
OK please explain how any other uniform purchase is "cost effective" but khaki is not?
If, and this is a big if, there is a source available for the type and style of uniform we want, it's not a big deal. If this new manufacture, all bets are off regarding cost. There is that "economy of scale" issue I mentioned earlier.
QuoteSo if khaki was adopted, Seniors could donate their Blues to the cadets, cost effective and tax deductible.
Well, not quite. SMs are adults, in adult sizes. Cadets typically range from XXS to L, and most adult size uniforms fit like tents.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 11:01:28 PM
So if I send my fifty dollar check in... my opinion will matter?
If you join, become involved, wear our uniform, you will understand the totality of the situation as more then a bystander,
and then your opinion will be
relevent.
You've got the check and
at least a year before that.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 04, 2013, 11:27:43 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 11:01:28 PM
CAP is not broken by any means... you do great work and I admire that.
So if I send my fifty dollar check in... my opinion will matter? ???
OK please explain how any other uniform purchase is "cost effective" but khaki is not?
If, and this is a big if, there is a source available for the type and style of uniform we want, it's not a big deal. If this new manufacture, all bets are off regarding cost. There is that "economy of scale" issue I mentioned earlier.
QuoteSo if khaki was adopted, Seniors could donate their Blues to the cadets, cost effective and tax deductible.
Well, not quite. SMs are adults, in adult sizes. Cadets typically range from XXS to L, and most adult size uniforms fit like tents.
Dave,
I did a quick Google search using "silver tan khaki police uniform jackets" and came up with many items (shirts, trousers, coats, jackets, etc.) that are pretty close to what I envision as a modern version of the old khaki uniform.
Minor alterations to off the shelf products would be required... but if adopted by a very large national organization, like CAP... would make whichever uniform producer a decent profit to modify their existing specs to a CAP standard, so it would be a little more pricey than going to the Exchange and buying an Air Force uniform off the rack but no more pricey than ordering the previously authorized Blue Corporate uniform from a CAP authorized supplier.
Its the other stuff: all weather coats, windbreakers, sweaters, etc, that will be pricey. If the USAF doesn't sign off on their Blue all weather coat, and etc being worn with Khaki Corporate uniforms, then there could be major cost issues.
And I see your point about adult vs kids uniforms.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 04, 2013, 11:39:48 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 04, 2013, 11:01:28 PM
So if I send my fifty dollar check in... my opinion will matter?
If you join, become involved, wear our uniform, you will understand the totality of the situation as more then a bystander,
and then your opinion will be relevent.
You've got the check and at least a year before that.
Ah yes my other favorite "usual suspect"... Grandfather Sunshine and his "rain" of happiness.
Good evening to you Sir, and how are you on this fine day? :D
If anybody is interested I am having a fine day. 8)
It happened! Someone derailed the thread. Wohoo! ;D
All non-uniform threads degenerate into uniform threads, while uniform threads degenerate into something else!
[edited to clarify message!]
And good morning to you as well, de-railer... :D
Flyer
Exactly ;)
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 05, 2013, 03:14:47 PM
If anybody is interested I am having a fine day. 8)
Good morning to you! Glad you are having a fine day!
So PI, what are your thoughts on a khaki Corporate uniform or the elimination of the Woodland BDUs and making BBDUs the sole Field uniform of CAP?
(Just trying to get us back on track. ;) )
As someone getting back into cap after a long time doing fire and ems (burned out) and working in state emergency management, I chose the bbdu combo. Military enough to show connection to USAF but non military enough to fit in with the agencies CAP works with. I also picked up the polo/grey tactical pants combo for working in the state EOC or training with nonmilitary. I have a flight suit in sage for aircrew stuff. I am well within regulations and typically rocking a government style haircut but just can't bring myself to wear bdu.
Man, I don't think your gonna get much support for a Khaki uniform man. We can not move forward by taking steps back.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 05, 2013, 11:50:01 PM
Man, I don't think your gonna get much support for a Khaki uniform man. We can not move forward by taking steps back.
OK, then what do you suggest?
Another Blue Corporate Service Uniform? An all Grey one? LAPD Blue (IE Black)?
Stay status quo?
How do you see CAP moving forward?
Quote from: shuman14 on October 06, 2013, 01:54:08 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 05, 2013, 11:50:01 PM
Man, I don't think your gonna get much support for a Khaki uniform man. We can not move forward by taking steps back.
OK, then what do you suggest?
Another Blue Corporate Service Uniform? An all Grey one? LAPD Blue (IE Black)?
Stay status quo?
How do you see CAP moving forward?
We move forward with enforcement of the standard. Personally there is nothing wrong with what is in place now it's the lack of enforcement that is an issue. We have options to accommodate everyone who wants to be a member of the organization, and again I think you need to focus on fixing issues within your own organization than here.
I see CAP moving forward by:
1. publishing an up-to-date uniform manual with unambiguous language and clear intent.
2. enforcing the rules we already have, and not making "nice guy" exceptions.
3. pushing members to inform their fellow members when they see uniform violations.
Those actions, all by themselves, will eliminated much of the angst over uniforms.
Over the years, I've worn about a dozen different flavors of CAP uniform, and they all accomplished the same thing - give us a consistent appearance. It was easier before the introduction of of the corporate uniforms beyond the blazer, but doing the three things I listed will solve many of those issues. The biggest problem I see with uniforms in general isn't what we wear, it's how we wear it.
[He types faster than I do. :) ]
Quote from: SarDragon on October 06, 2013, 02:12:39 AM
I see CAP moving forward by:
1. publishing an up-to-date uniform manual with unambiguous language and clear intent.
2. enforcing the rules we already have, and not making "nice guy" exceptions.
3. pushing members to inform their fellow members when they see uniform violations.
Those actions, all by themselves, will eliminated much of the angst over uniforms.
Over the years, I've worn about a dozen different flavors of CAP uniform, and they all accomplished the same thing - give us a consistent appearance. It was easier before the introduction of of the corporate uniforms beyond the blazer, but doing the three things I listed will solve many of those issues. The biggest problem I see with uniforms in general isn't what we wear, it's how we wear it.
[He types faster than I do. :) ]
As SarDragon observes, his suggestions 1-3 would do a lot..
Since we all go to safety briefings monthly, how about a weighin annually.
And it was simpler with fewer uniform choices-especially when undertall or fuzzy members wore fatigues and flightsuits w/o grade.
Quote from: tribalelder on October 06, 2013, 02:39:49 PM
Since we all go to safety briefings monthly, how about a weighin annually.
Seriously, why aren't we doing this?
It could be like any other task or online certification, etc.
Annual weigh-in by 30 Jan, miss it and you go dark just like safety.
If yo opt-out, you wear corporate-only until you opt-in.
Members can request a new weigh-in any time they like during the year.
This costs the organization nothing except possible attrition by members who believe some of our rules are "optional", which
is fine by me.
And fixes a significant and visible problem.
I've argued all along that if many of our leadership and influence were suddenly forced to wear corporate combos, things would change quickly.
There is the matter of a calibrated scale. Discuss.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 06, 2013, 08:05:04 PM
There is the matter of a calibrated scale. Discuss.
Someone brings it from home, anyone raising an issue about "calibration" gets an atomic wedgie.
That or a Dr's note with the weight annotated.
We're not talking about a NASA launch, we're talking uniform wear. We could even do +/- 5 pounds
if there's a concern.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 06, 2013, 03:29:44 PM
Seriously, why aren't we doing this?
Because it would offend or hurt someone's feelings.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2013, 09:37:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 06, 2013, 03:29:44 PM
Seriously, why aren't we doing this?
Because it would offend or hurt someone's feelings.
It offends and hurts my feeling when folks larger than me are wearing AF unis.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2013, 09:37:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 06, 2013, 03:29:44 PM
Seriously, why aren't we doing this?
Because it would offend or hurt someone's feelings.
(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3779/ehi3.jpg)
^ Nice! But before, make sure you fill out a Hurt Feelings Report... >:D
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
^ Nice! But before, make sure you fill out a Hurt Feelings Report... >:D
We should add that as a category on the 78.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 05, 2013, 05:53:12 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on October 05, 2013, 03:14:47 PM
If anybody is interested I am having a fine day. 8)
Good morning to you! Glad you are having a fine day!
So PI, what are your thoughts on a khaki Corporate uniform or the elimination of the Woodland BDUs and making BBDUs the sole Field uniform of CAP?
(Just trying to get us back on track. ;) )
Sir, I find that those are fine ideals IMHO. :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on October 06, 2013, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 06, 2013, 08:05:04 PM
There is the matter of a calibrated scale. Discuss.
Someone brings it from home, anyone raising an issue about "calibration" gets an atomic wedgie.
Whyzat? If we're going to do it, then let's do it right.
I'm a little distressed that you can be so hard line in some areas, and yet blow this off.
Because that's exactly the kind of thing someone who is 10 over and embarrassed is going to raise
as a red herring objection.
This doesn't have to be complicated.
Authorize every unit to buy a $20 scale at Walmart and move on.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2013, 05:27:25 AM
Because that's exactly the kind of thing someone who is 10 over and embarrassed is going to raise
as a red herring objection.
This doesn't have to be complicated.
Authorize every unit to buy a $20 scale at Walmart and move on.
What about the scale that reads heavy, and says someone is overweight, who is really not? If it's important enough to do it, then let's do it right.
Using cheap, uncalibrated spring and strain gage scales isn't doing it right. I worked in the cal business when I was in the Navy, and saw wide variations in that type of scale because of use, misuse and abuse. The ones I worked on/with were adjustable, and periodically checked. Common bathroom scales are usually neither.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 07, 2013, 06:01:07 AMCommon bathroom scales are usually neither.
Most scales you buy today are electronic and have few moving parts, some can be self-calibrated.
But seriously, you really want to make the case that there's enough variance in this range to matter?
It won't matter, because anyone with a beef will bring their own, which is fine, too.
Again, +/-5 isn't the issue, even 10 is fine, its the guys that are 30 over still wearing their cadet pants that are the issue,
and the variance of the average home scale won't matter.
Presence or lack of moving parts has little to do with the situation.
Calibration involves putting standard weights on the scale and comparing the reading to the applied weight. You can't really self calibrate a scale. Set the zero - yes. Calibrate as I've described - no.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 07, 2013, 07:17:22 AM
Presence or lack of moving parts has little to do with the situation.
It really does - modern scales use a transducer or strain gauge to judge the weight, a purely electronic process,
and not one which is prone to going out of whack because of abuse, and certainly not to the accuracy needed for this.
Believe it or now, one million years ago, I used to do calibration of panel meters and transducers for use in science and
industrial applications. More shocking is that I just looked up the company and while they have moved, they are still in business
and those !@#$% meters still look basically the same!
If there is a chance you are gonna get in the little plane, as pilot, observer, scanner or ballast, CAP has a legitimate interest in your weight from a safety standpoint. We could even have your weighin BE the January safety meeting. Like Eclipse suggested, use a consumer grade scale and allow a few extra pounds.
But we'll need a new 101 specialty, task guide, new list of SETS for scale operator.
Quote from: tribalelder on October 07, 2013, 11:59:54 AMBut we'll need a new 101 specialty, task guide, new list of SETS for scale operator.
Well since legals has the balance scales already, would their specialty badge be one of those big cartoon weights?
Just don't eat a huge meal right before you're weigh-in meeting! One Thanksgiving, just for kicks I weighed myself before and after the meal. I know I didn't eat 6 pounds of food in one sitting!
Just for an interesting test, take your electronic scale and weigh yourself normally 3 times. Let it reset itself before each time. I've seen as much as 2% variations (+/- ~4lbs for my ~200lb weight) over 3 tests in about a 5 minute time frame.
I've also noticed that foot placement and balance can drastically affect the results. Try moving your feet to the inside/outside/front/back, then try placing your feet in the same spot, but leaning fore& aft/left to right. you probably won't get the same results in any two positions...
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 06, 2013, 01:59:41 AM
We move forward with enforcement of the standard. Personally there is nothing wrong with what is in place now it's the lack of enforcement that is an issue. We have options to accommodate everyone who wants to be a member of the organization, and again I think you need to focus on fixing issues within your own organization than here.
The thing is... I don't see any issues with the USCGAux's uniforms, our standard is fair, reasonable, professional and enforced.
If you mean the Army... that's a different story. Congress may fix the field/cammo uniform for all of us, dress/service is up in the air.
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 07, 2013, 02:04:27 PM
Just for an interesting test, take your electronic scale and weigh yourself normally 3 times. Let it reset itself before each time. I've seen as much as 2% variations (+/- ~4lbs for my ~200lb weight) over 3 tests in about a 5 minute time frame.
I've also noticed that foot placement and balance can drastically affect the results. Try moving your feet to the inside/outside/front/back, then try placing your feet in the same spot, but leaning fore& aft/left to right. you probably won't get the same results in any two positions...
I've never had an issue where the difference was over a fraction of a pound on my digital scale. With your numbers, I should be seeing swings of 5 or so lbs, but the most I've seen was .2-.4.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
^ Nice! But before, make sure you fill out a Hurt Feelings Report... >:D
Can I do it in eServices?
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2013, 02:09:43 PM
The thing is... I don't see any issues with the USCGAux's uniforms, our standard is fair, reasonable, professional and enforced.
If you mean the Army... that's a different story. Congress may fix the field/cammo uniform for all of us, dress/service is up in the air.
We are not the USCGAux we are the USAF Aux different organizations different missions, and there is nothing wrong with what we have in place outside of those who do not have the integrity to abide by the rules and the lack of enforcement. It's simple and the big thing is is that no one wants to be the bad guy and have that conversation.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2013, 07:29:10 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 07, 2013, 07:17:22 AM
Presence or lack of moving parts has little to do with the situation.
It really does - modern scales use a transducer or strain gauge to judge the weight, a purely electronic process,
and not one which is prone to going out of whack because of abuse, and certainly not to the accuracy needed for this.
Believe it or now, one million years ago, I used to do calibration of panel meters and transducers for use in science and
industrial applications. More shocking is that I just looked up the company and while they have moved, they are still in business
and those !@#$% meters still look basically the same!
Eclipse speaks the truth. Metrology (
not meteorology, which is the "art" of trying to guess what the weather will bring) is a very exact, very specific science. I had a metrology technician at my job show me just how off the mark most commercial off-the-shelf measurement tools are. It was quite enlightening.
Quote from: Panache on October 07, 2013, 06:09:59 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 06, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
^ Nice! But before, make sure you fill out a Hurt Feelings Report... >:D
Can I do it in eServices?
Paper only, CAPF-30wah.
With all these variations that some members are presenting on the use of scales, maybe the powers-that-be read NHQ saw these issues coming and wisely decided not to to weigh members. Plus some other stuff... >:D
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 07, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
With all these variations that some members are presenting on the use of scales, maybe the powers-that-be read NHQ saw these issues coming and wisely decided not to to weigh members. Plus some other stuff... >:D
Flyer
Most likely. Probably similar arguments were put up by PAWGs and thus the ranger uniforms...
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 07, 2013, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2013, 02:09:43 PM
The thing is... I don't see any issues with the USCGAux's uniforms, our standard is fair, reasonable, professional and enforced.
If you mean the Army... that's a different story. Congress may fix the field/cammo uniform for all of us, dress/service is up in the air.
We are not the USCGAux we are the USAF Aux different organizations different missions, and there is nothing wrong with what we have in place outside of those who do not have the integrity to abide by the rules and the lack of enforcement. It's simple and the big thing is is that no one wants to be the bad guy and have that conversation.
That's a straw man argument. Doesn't matter that we have different missions, that is not the heart of the matter.
The heart is uniformity and professionalism.
If the USCGAux conducts a mission, we are told this is the uniform to wear, regardless if you are manning an EOC during a State emergency or conducting a safety patrol. We show up in the proper uniform or we go home.
Conversely, if CAP shows up, chances are there will be multiple uniforms.
So if both the USCGAux and the CAP are conducting a support to local authority mission and assisting in manning a state/county EOC during a disaster:
The USCGAux members will all show up in one uniform, ODUs with member devices. Anyone doing anything else like wearing office insignia or local ball caps or wearing an examiners uniform (the USCGAux's polo uniform) would be sent home.
The CAP will show up with members in BDUs, BBDUs, polos, and maybe even some in USAF-style service uniform and/or grey/white Corporate.
Both formations are "correct" by their own, and their parent Service's, rules... but which one looks "right"? The "right" look is perception of the organization at a glance. Perception and uniformity is everything.
All I'm saying and suggesting is... that if CAP had only one Corporate Dress/Service Uniform (my Khaki suggestion), one Corporate Field Uniform (BBDU), one Corporate Flying Uniform (Blue flightsuit), and one "light duty" uniform (ie polo) you would not have the perception problem. The commander or coordinator of whatever mission you are conducting that day will say which uniform is authorized and any member who shows up in something else gets sent home.
No need to be mean, call someone fat, tell them they need a shave and/or a haircut... just say you're in the wrong uniform. Go home and change and come back or just go home.
Right now, because of the
plethora of uniforms CAP has you can't do that.
Adoption of one Corporate Uniform for each type of mission solves the problem.
If you could get the USAF to sign off on the USAF-style Service uniform and the BDUs (maybe ABUs shortly) for all CAP members that would fix this issue too... but they seem unwilling to do that.
So your options will continue to be a "chimera" in uniform or adopt a single Corporate uniform. :(
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2013, 08:55:24 PM
Conversely, if CAP shows up, chances are there will be multiple uniforms.
[ . . .]
The CAP will show up with members in BDUs, BBDUs, polos, and maybe even some in USAF-style service uniform and/or grey/white Corporate.
Both formations are "correct" by their own, and their parent Service's, rules... but which one looks "right"? The "right" look is perception of the organization at a glance. Perception and uniformity is everything.
So?
I have been a police officer serving in an EOC of a major city. I happened to be in the standard patrol uniform (LAPD blue wool shirt, trousers, duty belt), other cops from my agency were there in duty coveralls (like a flight suit), and the "captain and above crowd" were there in suits and ties.
No one seemed to have much trouble figuring out who we worked for or what our jobs were. (Although our jobs were written on our ICS vests. That probably helped.)
Similarly, it is not uncommon for CAP members to wear different uniforms depending on the circumstances. Any yet no one really has any trouble figuring out who we are.
This ties back to my request for any hard facts that having multiple uniforms has negatively affected any of our missions in a measurable way. Your observation - which is undoubtedly true - that CG Aux types will tend to be more uniform in appearance while working in an EOC just does not seem to be very compelling when it comes to the Eternal CAP Uniform Debate.
Because, once again, comes down to what individuals think looks "better," "more professional." or is more respectful to our diverse membership. And we will never, ever, have consensus on this, simply because of human nature and differing reasonable points of view.
("It's just the other guy that is being unreasonable.")
QuoteThe USCGAux members will all show up in one uniform, ODUs with member devices. Anyone doing anything else like wearing office insignia or local ball caps or wearing an examiners uniform (the USCGAux's polo uniform) would be sent home.
Actually not. There are no restriction on what devices to wear when working with other agencies. And actually due to very recent regulation changes, Auxies can wear office devices when augmenting any CG activity except onboard ship. (Though if the local commander preferred they wear member devices only, that would be their choice).
I work in a State EOC. We get people in everything from street clothes (not preferred) to suits and ties. It's becoming much more standard however that people wear a polo/tac pant option. FEMA's IMATs love the 5.11 stuff. Military wears their field uniform. I guess it's more important that National CAP or the wing identify where you wear what uniforms. EOC's could be polo and grey pants. ICP or field, BDU or BBDU. Meetings could be polo combo or short sleeve AF style.
Quote from: Ned on October 07, 2013, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 07, 2013, 08:55:24 PM
Conversely, if CAP shows up, chances are there will be multiple uniforms.
[ . . .]
The CAP will show up with members in BDUs, BBDUs, polos, and maybe even some in USAF-style service uniform and/or grey/white Corporate.
Both formations are "correct" by their own, and their parent Service's, rules... but which one looks "right"? The "right" look is perception of the organization at a glance. Perception and uniformity is everything.
So?
I have been a police officer serving in an EOC of a major city. I happened to be in the standard patrol uniform (LAPD blue wool shirt, trousers, duty belt), other cops from my agency were there in duty coveralls (like a flight suit), and the "captain and above crowd" were there in suits and ties.
No one seemed to have much trouble figuring out who we worked for or what our jobs were. (Although our jobs were written on our ICS vests. That probably helped.)
Similarly, it is not uncommon for CAP members to wear different uniforms depending on the circumstances. Any yet no one really has any trouble figuring out who we are.
This ties back to my request for any hard facts that having multiple uniforms has negatively affected any of our missions in a measurable way. Your observation - which is undoubtedly true - that CG Aux types will tend to be more uniform in appearance while working in an EOC just does not seem to be very compelling when it comes to the Eternal CAP Uniform Debate.
Because, once again, comes down to what individuals think looks "better," "more professional." or is more respectful to our diverse membership. And we will never, ever, have consensus on this, simply because of human nature and differing reasonable points of view.
("It's just the other guy that is being unreasonable.")
I picked the EOC mission as it is one that I know both Auxiliaries do... so no one can use the "we have different missions" straw man argument.
But if "so" is your question and response, then maybe CAP should do away with all uniforms and just issue a t-shirt in Air Force blue with "CAP" in white lettering on the front.
Blue jeans could be the working trousers and and grey dockers will make it your formal uniform. ;)
Quote from: RiverAux on October 07, 2013, 09:35:51 PM
QuoteThe USCGAux members will all show up in one uniform, ODUs with member devices. Anyone doing anything else like wearing office insignia or local ball caps or wearing an examiners uniform (the USCGAux's polo uniform) would be sent home.
Actually not. There are no restriction on what devices to wear when working with other agencies. And actually due to very recent regulation changes, Auxies can wear office devices when augmenting any CG activity except onboard ship. (Though if the local commander preferred they wear member devices only, that would be their choice).
True... revising my statement to "augment the USCG at a state/county EOC"... feel better? ;D
So shuman14, why the intense interest in the uniforms of an organization you're not even a member of?
Because you've gone way past the idle curiosity stage.
It's typical Army mentality of fixing something they deem is broken because they have all the answers. Its the same approach they take to training sister services as well.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 01:19:28 AM
It's typical Army mentality of fixing something they deem is broken because they have all the answers. Its the same approach they take to training sister services as well.
That is typical mentality of any government entity.
Quote from: PHall on October 08, 2013, 12:38:18 AM
So shuman14, why the intense interest in the uniforms of an organization you're not even a member of?
Because you've gone way past the idle curiosity stage.
Well I enjoy the debate, which I'm in the middle of here. Plus it helps keep me awake on Mids.
Gate duty (I work as a Police Officer for the VA) can be long and slow so a lively debate keeps me awake.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 01:19:28 AM
It's typical Army mentality of fixing something they deem is broken because they have all the answers. Its the same approach they take to training sister services as well.
Personal attacks on my Service... that's delightful.
Do I have all the answers... no.
Have I offered a reasonable solution to a problem that others on this forum have brought up... yes.
Sorry you seem to have a problem with that.
Reminds me of Major Pita...
Flyer
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 03:01:58 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 08, 2013, 12:38:18 AM
So shuman14, why the intense interest in the uniforms of an organization you're not even a member of?
Because you've gone way past the idle curiosity stage.
Well I enjoy the debate, which I'm in the middle of here. Plus it helps keep me awake on Mids.
Gate duty (I work as a Police Officer for the VA) can be long and slow so a lively debate keeps me awake.
So you're on CAPTalk while you're on duty? Isn't that against the rules? So much for the integrity arguement!
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 03:05:29 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 01:19:28 AM
It's typical Army mentality of fixing something they deem is broken because they have all the answers. Its the same approach they take to training sister services as well.
Personal attacks on my Service... that's delightful.
Do I have all the answers... no.
Have I offered a reasonable solution to a problem that others on this forum have brought up... yes.
Sorry you seem to have a problem with that.
No the issue I have is that you seem to think it is ok to come here and basically say we are broke and tell us how to fix it. And if you would like a personal attack on your service I could certainly do that. That statement is based on fact and experience sorry if the truth strikes a nerve with you.
You want to fix our uniform issues, become a member complete what is needed and get appointed to the the NUC or run your ideas up through the appropriate channels. Until then stay in your lane and fix the issues within your own organizations.
Quote from: PHall on October 08, 2013, 03:10:09 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 03:01:58 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 08, 2013, 12:38:18 AM
So shuman14, why the intense interest in the uniforms of an organization you're not even a member of?
Because you've gone way past the idle curiosity stage.
Well I enjoy the debate, which I'm in the middle of here. Plus it helps keep me awake on Mids.
Gate duty (I work as a Police Officer for the VA) can be long and slow so a lively debate keeps me awake.
So you're on CAPTalk while you're on duty? Isn't that against the rules? So much for the integrity arguement!
Nope, we're authorized to use computers, cell phones, etc. as long as it doesn't interfere with gate operations... which after 6pm is about one car an hour coming in.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 03:20:08 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 03:05:29 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 01:19:28 AM
It's typical Army mentality of fixing something they deem is broken because they have all the answers. Its the same approach they take to training sister services as well.
Personal attacks on my Service... that's delightful.
Do I have all the answers... no.
Have I offered a reasonable solution to a problem that others on this forum have brought up... yes.
Sorry you seem to have a problem with that.
No the issue I have is that you seem to think it is ok to come here and basically say we are broke and tell us how to fix it. And if you would like a personal attack on your service I could certainly do that. That statement is based on fact and experience sorry if the truth strikes a nerve with you.
You want to fix our uniform issues, become a member complete what is needed and get appointed to the the NUC or run your ideas up through the appropriate channels. Until then stay in your lane and fix the issues within your own organizations.
Your own members say CAP is broke as far as uniforms go, I never did, I simply offered a reasonable solution for discussion... on an open source discussion board. Then get attacked for it.
Why are you so opposed to any suggestion I make? :-\
BTW, I was also told that members of the NUC view CAPTalk regularly, this is my unofficial way of getting my ideas to NUC for review. That or maybe someone in CAP can take my ideas and run it up your flagpole for review.
BTW, if you have issues with my posts here, please feel free to address them to the moderators, I've broken no terms of service or user agreements that I can see, if I have I will correct myself.
If you don't like my posts you don't have to read them.
The quote issues are not really issues at all. It's broken down to really different POV
1) Polo only crowd
2) Corp only crowd
3) AF Style only crowd
4) Mix
The main issue is that members who are unable to wear the AF style for what ever reason doing so and no one saying "Hey your in the wrong." The corp only crowd who some feel that wearing the AF style is trying to be a wanna be and that only cadets should wear the AF style.
BLUF the main uniform issues is the lack of integrity among members who willfully go against the standard and those who do not want to enforce said standard.
Again if you feel so strongly about fixing our perceived uniform issue submit your app, pay your dues and run your ideas up the chain. The NUC is here for members to present ideas and help with establishing our uniform policy. Not for a non-member to do so, and you have yet to really achieve any type of buy in for your idea. Again join and run your stuff up or as you folks in the Army say "Stay in your lane." You do not see us telling the VA admin how your uniform should look or a CAP member telling the Army Chief of Staff what the Army should be wearing. You want your ideas submitted do it right man up, join up or "stay in your lane" and fix your own organizations issues.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 04:26:05 AM
Again if you feel so strongly about fixing our perceived uniform issue submit your app, pay your dues and run your ideas up the chain. The NUC is here for members to present ideas and help with establishing our uniform policy.
Does it really matter where the idea comes from? Sometimes a little outside perspective is a good thing.
Also, I gotta agree with shuman14. This isn't the NUC. CAPTalk is (supposed to be) a open forum. Agree or disagree with his ideas, but all this attacking-the-messenger is tiresome.
I have yet to attack anyone. And yes this is an open forum with a targeted audience and yes this is not the NUC, however it's the mentality of you are broke and here's the fix that is tiresome.
If Shuman14 believes so strongly that we should wear Khaki then he needs to submit his app, pay the dues and run it up the chain. And this is not the first time he has come here with the you're broke I'm going to fix it approach.
If he or you do not like the responses then simply don't read them and chime in.
Quote from: Panache on October 07, 2013, 06:14:29 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2013, 07:29:10 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 07, 2013, 07:17:22 AM
Presence or lack of moving parts has little to do with the situation.
It really does - modern scales use a transducer or strain gauge to judge the weight, a purely electronic process,
and not one which is prone to going out of whack because of abuse, and certainly not to the accuracy needed for this.
Believe it or now, one million years ago, I used to do calibration of panel meters and transducers for use in science and
industrial applications. More shocking is that I just looked up the company and while they have moved, they are still in business
and those !@#$% meters still look basically the same!
Eclipse speaks the truth. Metrology (not meteorology, which is the "art" of trying to guess what the weather will bring) is a very exact, very specific science. I had a metrology technician at my job show me just how off the mark most commercial off-the-shelf measurement tools are. It was quite enlightening.
Who are you supporting here? you've reinforced what I said, but seemingly agree with Eclipse, whom I disagree with.
I got into metrology in 1973, in the Navy, and taught at their school 10 years later. I did it in the civilian world for a while, too, during and after my 21 years in the Navy.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 05:23:21 AM
I have yet to attack anyone. And yes this is an open forum with a targeted audience and yes this is not the NUC, however it's the mentality of you are broke and here's the fix that is tiresome.
If Shuman14 believes so strongly that we should wear Khaki then he needs to submit his app, pay the dues and run it up the chain. And this is not the first time he has come here with the you're broke I'm going to fix it approach.
If he or you do not like the responses then simply don't read them and chime in.
Oh yah you're not attacking me. ::)
You're missing my point, I don't care if you wear khaki or pink and purple. I think CAP needs to be one uniform. AF Blue, Navy Blue, Black, Khaki is just a color... uniformity is the issue.
Why did I pick Khaki? CAP as an Auxiliary of the Air Force needs to have a uniform that is acceptable to them.
Since the USAF has worn khaki and Air Force Blue as their uniform color, these two colors should be the most acceptable to them.
Now my number one choice would be for everyone in CAP to wear an USAF-style uniform, but for various reasons, the Air Force will not allow everyone to wear their uniform.
So an alternative must be found. I personally liked your Corporate Blue Service Uniform, I didn't agree with rule that said no Military decorations and badges on it, but other than that I thought it was a sharp uniform.
Martial but not military.
But the Air Force didn't like it, to close to comfort for them, so back to the drawing board you go.
My suggestion of Khaki is mostly driven by the history of CAP, it was your first uniform color.
But if the NUC thought lime green would be a better choice, great, just as long as everyone is in lime green.
So ignore my suggestions if you like... tell me I'm not in my lane... tell me to fix problems that don't exist in the USCGAux... it doesn't really matter... the issue/problem that CAP
itself says it has with its "chimera" uniforms will still exist.
I'll also throw this out there as food for thought. I think one of the reasons that some CAP members cling to the USAF-style uniform when they KNOW they are too big or too hairy is the prohibition against wearing military stuff on a Corporate uniform.
I believe if you removed that rule, you'd see a broader acceptance of the white/grey Service uniform.
Again, just a suggestion. Take it for what it is worth.
Quote from: Panache on October 08, 2013, 05:07:58 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 04:26:05 AM
Again if you feel so strongly about fixing our perceived uniform issue submit your app, pay your dues and run your ideas up the chain. The NUC is here for members to present ideas and help with establishing our uniform policy.
Does it really matter where the idea comes from? Sometimes a little outside perspective is a good thing.
Also, I gotta agree with shuman14. This isn't the NUC. CAPTalk is (supposed to be) a open forum. Agree or disagree with his ideas, but all this attacking-the-messenger is tiresome.
BTW, thank you for your support.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 06:04:09 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 05:23:21 AM
I have yet to attack anyone. And yes this is an open forum with a targeted audience and yes this is not the NUC, however it's the mentality of you are broke and here's the fix that is tiresome.
If Shuman14 believes so strongly that we should wear Khaki then he needs to submit his app, pay the dues and run it up the chain. And this is not the first time he has come here with the you're broke I'm going to fix it approach.
If he or you do not like the responses then simply don't read them and chime in.
Oh yah you're not attacking me. ::)
You're missing my point, I don't care if you wear khaki or pink and purple. I think CAP needs to be one uniform. AF Blue, Navy Blue, Black, Khaki is just a color... uniformity is the issue.
Why did I pick Khaki? CAP as an Auxiliary of the Air Force needs to have a uniform that is acceptable to them.
Since the USAF has worn khaki and Air Force Blue as their uniform color, these two colors should be the most acceptable to them.
Now my number one choice would be for everyone in CAP to wear an USAF-style uniform, but for various reasons, the Air Force will not allow everyone to wear their uniform.
So an alternative must be found. I personally liked your Corporate Blue Service Uniform, I didn't agree with rule that said no Military decorations and badges on it, but other than that I thought it was a sharp uniform.
Martial but not military.
But the Air Force didn't like it, to close to comfort for them, so back to the drawing board you go.
My suggestion of Khaki is mostly driven by the history of CAP, it was your first uniform color.
But if the NUC thought lime green would be a better choice, great, just as long as everyone is in lime green.
So ignore my suggestions if you like... tell me I'm not in my lane... tell me to fix problems that don't exist in the USCGAux... it doesn't really matter... the issue/problem that CAP itself says it has with its "chimera" uniforms will still exist.
I'll also throw this out there as food for thought. I think one of the reasons that some CAP members cling to the USAF-style uniform when they KNOW they are too big or too hairy is the prohibition against wearing military stuff on a Corporate uniform.
I believe if you removed that rule, you'd see a broader acceptance of the white/grey Service uniform.
Again, just a suggestion. Take it for what it is worth.
Cite please on bolded aspects? Outside of members here I have yet to see this...
Really? Are you being intentionally obtuse? :o
Read the CAPTalk Uniform& Awards forum much?
::)
So CAPTalk must be a very small vocal minority?
::)
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 06:14:48 AM
Really? Are you being intentionally obtuse? :o
Read the CAPTalk Uniform& Awards forum much?
::)
So CAPTalk must be a very small vocal minority?
::)
There is no concrete, solid, facts that NHQ believes there is a chimera of uniforms, nor that the USAF killed the CSU. This is an unofficial board and is subject to perception and opinions.
The issue with uniforms is that people choose to wear what they shouldn't and there is no enforcement, because no one wants to be the bad guy or hurt someone's feelings.
And if you want your suggestions to be taken seriously and considered, join, until you have a ID card fix issues that come up with the Army and the CGAux.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 05:23:21 AM
If he or you do not like the responses then simply don't read them and chime in.
Doctor, heal thyself. (ahem)
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 08, 2013, 06:24:13 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 06:14:48 AM
Really? Are you being intentionally obtuse? :o
Read the CAPTalk Uniform& Awards forum much?
::)
So CAPTalk must be a very small vocal minority?
::)
There is no concrete, solid, facts that NHQ believes there is a chimera of uniforms, nor that the USAF killed the CSU. This is an unofficial board and is subject to perception and opinions.
The issue with uniforms is that people choose to wear what they shouldn't and there is no enforcement, because no one wants to be the bad guy or hurt someone's feelings.
And if you want your suggestions to be taken seriously and considered, join, until you have a ID card fix issues that come up with the Army and the USCGAux.
It seems then that since this is an unofficial board... your opinions are as equally unofficial as well.
But thanks for your suggestions... I'll take them as seriously as you take mine.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 06:14:48 AM
Really? Are you being intentionally obtuse? :o
Read the CAPTalk Uniform& Awards forum much?
::)
So CAPTalk must be a very small vocal minority?
::)
CAPTalk is not the Air Force. I've seen a number of times here on CAPTalk where posters have said that "The Air Force" doesn't like something.
But when you press them for a cite it usually comes down to second, third and even fourth party hearsay.
And yes, the folks who post here on CAPTalk are a very small vocal minority. I would not take what you see here as "normal".
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 08:26:25 AM
It seems then that since this is an unofficial board... your opinions are as equally unofficial as well.
Official? No.
Relevant, informed, and self-interested? Yes.
In this debate earlier, it was brought up about H/W issues and uniforms, and if you are overweight you might be an issue to mission completion and safety, I beg you all to consider one additional thing, CAP has no medical retirement or age retirement. Look at some of the senior squadrons many of those members are upwards of 60 + some of them are very able to hit H/W restrictions, but they are not really fit for the GT functions, so I would say in our group that weight isn't the only issue there. Also with the changing face of our future ES taskings consideration should also be given to the mental fitness of our future ground teams, what ground teams could face in a disaster scene is very different to the things that a hike in the woods could be. I feel that the make up of ground teams should follow more what the current mission is about then using a one size fits all template. I would rather have a ground team on a disaster scene that has the maturity to face what may be seen then one than who is picked because they can hike in the woods without wheezing.
Also fairly good reasons to have some sort of fitness test for ground team members.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 09, 2013, 02:51:47 AM
Also fairly good reasons to have some sort of fitness test for ground team members.
Just about every "Ground Team" I've seen outside of CAP has a fitness test for their members.
Currently, our fitness for duty is on the honor system.
When I was a group commander the first time, I had a 101 card applicant for CN observer. Since I'd never heard of seen this guy on a mission, I stopped that application on currency. His whiny protest letter mentioned he had only one functioning eye.
Later, I knew of a GTL (and then group commander) who parked team vehicle in the handicap space on a sarex-he had the right placard.
A small number of our adult members are more interested in the military 'trappings' than our missions.
I have created a purely subjective, inconclusive graph of deviation from topic compared to posts, based on this thread. It is attached for your enjoyment. Results are inconclusive, un-factual, and not to be taken (too) seriously. (http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4959/pfan.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/pfan.png/)
Quote from: tribalelder on October 09, 2013, 02:54:24 PM
Currently, our fitness for duty is on the honor system.
When I was a group commander the first time, I had a 101 card applicant for CN observer. Since I'd never heard of seen this guy on a mission, I stopped that application on currency. His whiny protest letter mentioned he had only one functioning eye.
Later, I knew of a GTL (and then group commander) who parked team vehicle in the handicap space on a sarex-he had the right placard.
A small number of our adult members are more interested in the military 'trappings' than our missions.
Just for the sake of discussion - neither of the above would preclude the respective members from being qualified or performing their duties, nor for that
matter necessarily obtaining the coveted SARTech ratings.
For the record, I've seen the same or worse from adhoc SAR people and whackers that show up to conferences, etc. For every
hardkewl Urban Rescue Squad with technical capabilities, there are ten "Mom's shih tzu went to a class so she's a search dog" and "4 guys who like
lights and tactical knives". And worse, in a lot of cases, these guys get called more then we do for no other reason then they come with few rules
or expectations (i.e. "will work for SAR"), and >aren't< "The Federales".
We don't need no stinking badges! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ#)
(http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Art_Media/large/MilitaryUniforms_CAP1942_B3CivilAirPatrol.jpg)
Quote from: shuman14 on November 29, 2013, 08:03:40 AM
(http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Art_Media/large/MilitaryUniforms_CAP1942_B3CivilAirPatrol.jpg)
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/sick/barfing.gif)
Too much Turkey last night Dave I see. ;D
I hope we never go back to wearing khakis. I'm glad the majority of our active members probably agree.
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
I do not think anything is wrong with the khaki uniform. It will be specific to CAP.
The downside to the USAF blues is the overweight Senior Members who insists on wearing it. 8)
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
The Navy has a khaki uniform combination and the Marines have another one with a khaki shirt. That said, there's nothing wrong with the uniform per se. As the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, we've been wearing blue uniforms for a long time. Unfortunately, not everyone of our members can wear it. We definitely need to find a better option for these folks, but I'm not sure khaki is the way to go. Some may like it; others, myself included, definitely not.
I would prefer the Air Force to make some concessions or CAP to find a uniform solution that provides true uniformity throughout the organization, without completely turning it's back on our Air Force affiliation and heritage. I don't the see the Air Force ever going back to a khaki uniform and don't think CAP should either. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 29, 2013, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
The Navy has a khaki uniform combination and the Marines have another one with a khaki shirt. That said, there's nothing wrong with the uniform per se. As the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, we've been wearing blue uniforms for a long time. Unfortunately, not everyone of our members can wear it. We definitely need to find a better option for these folks, but I'm not sure khaki is the way to go. Some may like it; others, myself included, definitely not.
I would prefer the Air Force to make some concessions or CAP to find a uniform solution that provides true uniformity throughout the organization, without completely turning it's back on our Air Force affiliation and heritage. I don't the see the Air Force ever going back to a khaki uniform and don't think CAP should either. Of course, this is just my opinion.
While I like khaki, and I see the historical link to CAP's very beginning in it, I'm open to suggestions.
If you don't like khaki, and you recognize that the USAF style will not work for everyone... what do you suggest CAP adopt as a single corporate uniform that keeps it's USAF link, recognizes it's history and would be acceptable to all members?
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
I wore khaki uniforms as a cadet, and didn't like them. The fabrics were hard to care for, and as a cadet uniform, got dirty far to easily, especially the trousers. Even with modern fabrics, the dirt factor still exists. Most of the Navy folks I know dislike khakis for the same reason.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 01, 2013, 11:23:09 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
I wore khaki uniforms as a cadet, and didn't like them. The fabrics were hard to care for, and as a cadet uniform, got dirty far to easily, especially the trousers. Even with modern fabrics, the dirt factor still exists. Most of the Navy folks I know dislike khakis for the same reason.
I wore a khaki uniform in the Army Guard and my first police academy we wore khakis. No different from any other uniform, JMHO. 8)
Diff strokes, diff folks. YMMV.
I've also worn Khaki's and they were easier to maintain than the Current White/Grey combo.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 08, 2013, 06:04:09 AM
So an alternative must be found. I personally liked your Corporate Blue Service Uniform, I didn't agree with rule that said no Military decorations and badges on it, but other than that I thought it was a sharp uniform.
Martial but not military.
But the Air Force didn't like it, to close to comfort for them, so back to the drawing board you go.
Actually, we were never told why the CSU was killed...only that we could not wear it any more, and our then-national CC, Major General Amy Courter, released a PowerPoint at the time that contained a statement saying "corporate uniforms do not exist to provide a military-style alternative," or words to that effect. I do not remember the exact wording. However, my belief is that it was killed solely because of its connection to a former (dismissed) CAP National Commander who designed it, and the powers that be at National were trying to remove all vestiges of his tenure.
The Air Force
accepted it. They made suggestions about what they did not want (metal rank on flight cap, U.S. cutouts), and CAP complied. They could have said right then and there "you cannot wear this, it is too close to ours," but they did not.
We were never told, nor are we ever likely to find out, the real reason, beyond rumour, hearsay and Bravo Sierra on CT.
I do not believe that there will ever be a universal, throughout-CAP uniform other than the current grey/white kit, which I thoroughly loathe. It is monochromatic, has no kind of aviation stylistic connection and has a very wide appeal based on its cheapness, ease to acquire (since it is not standardised, one can cobble the components together at your local Salvation Army, St. Vince's, etc., badge it correctly and be in compliance), the fact that virtually
anyone in CAP can wear it (including cadets over 18) regardless of hirsuteness or lack of svelteness.
Try making suggestions for even smallish changes to that uniform here on CT and watch the knives come out. I personally have suggested adding a small bit of colour viz. a
civilian blue airline shirt (available at Sporty's Pilot Shop and the like), and accoutrements like a pullover dark-blue
civilian "wooly pully" jumper and immediately it goes onto the "oh, no, it will make the Air Force mad!" Civilian, off-the-rack available...and it will make the Air Force mad.
(http://www.sportys.com/source/images/jQzoom/9731.jpg) (http://www.sportys.com/source/images/products/large/9109.jpg)
Even suggesting a cap (usually a flight cap, or, less so, a beret) for this combo usually elicits reactions like "we don't need no steeenking hats!"
So, to suggest that CAP propose this or that as an alternative uniform is an exercise in academia only. The status quo is too far entrenched, and the status quo is grey.
As I said in another post, I once had a complete proposal ready to go up the chain, but I gave it up simply because it was much more likely to end up in a File 13 somewhere between Squadron and Maxwell.
Oddly enough, that's just what I was thinking today.
Okay, fine, I completely get that Ma Blue doesn't want the fatties and the furries to be seen wearing "official" USAF uniforms. I get that.
And a significant number of folks chafe at the idea of khakis.
But how about just making the shirt a different shade of blue? Maybe a darker shade, like cerulean blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerulean) or sapphire blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire_(color)). Pair it with navy blue trousers and the flight cap and now you have a single uniform that all the members can wear.
To be honest, I would not be insulted in the slightest if they put us in 50' era pinks and greens that are on that previous photo.... That was a beautiful uniform combo.
My 2 cents...
All I want for Christmas is a new 39-1....
So you want to go from something that's not horribly hard to get, and for all considerations .. mainstream, to something that's hardly available at all, and would be a niche of niches.
..and you all complain about the prices of ABUs.
That's a hoot.
I am assuming you're speaking to CyBorg, since I never complained about the price of ABU's. But I am confused none the less.
Current scheme: About half of the Senior membership is barred from wearing the AF blue uniform for whatever reason. I hesitate to use the word "uniform" because there's nothing that signifies a unified membership at all other than gray grade slides and some pins.
Suggestion: All Senior Members transition to khakis. Answer: Horrible idea because (fill in the blank).
Suggestion: Uniform shirt changes from official USAF blue to different shade of blue that all members can wear. Answer: Horrible idea because (fill in the blank... in this case "because it's too much of a niche product").
So... what do you suggest?
I don't mean this as a personal comment, a2capt, but I'm strongly starting to suspect that the "haves" are quite happy with the way things are, and would much rather keep their privileged status intact. Of course, they'll deny this. But it's hard not to make this conclusion based on what I'm observing.
My suggestion: get rid of the uniforms, except maybe the polos. Period. Done. Over. Problem solved.
Quote from: a2capt on December 02, 2013, 06:53:03 AM
So you want to go from something that's not horribly hard to get, and for all considerations .. mainstream, to something that's hardly available at all, and would be a niche of niches.
..and you all complain about the prices of ABUs.
That's a hoot.
Fallacy of hasty generalisation.
Define "mainstream." How are white and grey more "mainstream" than different shades of blue?
And I have said nothing about the price of ABU's. It is irrelevant to me if we ever get them.
Quote from: Panache on December 02, 2013, 08:17:21 AM
Suggestion: All Senior Members transition to khakis. Answer: Horrible idea because (fill in the blank).
Suggestion: Uniform shirt changes from official USAF blue to different shade of blue that all members can wear. Answer: Horrible idea because (fill in the blank... in this case "because it's too much of a niche product").
Horrible idea because it is a change from the status quo...and the status quo is grey.
Those who scream blue murder about someone suggesting metal grade insignia or blue rank slides either forget or choose not to remember that we had those, with full AF approval, until the early 1990s.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 01, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 29, 2013, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
The Navy has a khaki uniform combination and the Marines have another one with a khaki shirt. That said, there's nothing wrong with the uniform per se. As the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, we've been wearing blue uniforms for a long time. Unfortunately, not everyone of our members can wear it. We definitely need to find a better option for these folks, but I'm not sure khaki is the way to go. Some may like it; others, myself included, definitely not.
I would prefer the Air Force to make some concessions or CAP to find a uniform solution that provides true uniformity throughout the organization, without completely turning it's back on our Air Force affiliation and heritage. I don't the see the Air Force ever going back to a khaki uniform and don't think CAP should either. Of course, this is just my opinion.
While I like khaki, and I see the historical link to CAP's very beginning in it, I'm open to suggestions.
If you don't like khaki, and you recognize that the USAF style will not work for everyone... what do you suggest CAP adopt as a single corporate uniform that keeps it's USAF link, recognizes it's history and would be acceptable to all members?
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron.
Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
Bandwidth intersecting boredom.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2013, 03:13:08 PM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
Bandwidth intersecting boredom.
And that's why I didn't bother answering his question.
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 01, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 29, 2013, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
The Navy has a khaki uniform combination and the Marines have another one with a khaki shirt. That said, there's nothing wrong with the uniform per se. As the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, we've been wearing blue uniforms for a long time. Unfortunately, not everyone of our members can wear it. We definitely need to find a better option for these folks, but I'm not sure khaki is the way to go. Some may like it; others, myself included, definitely not.
I would prefer the Air Force to make some concessions or CAP to find a uniform solution that provides true uniformity throughout the organization, without completely turning it's back on our Air Force affiliation and heritage. I don't the see the Air Force ever going back to a khaki uniform and don't think CAP should either. Of course, this is just my opinion.
While I like khaki, and I see the historical link to CAP's very beginning in it, I'm open to suggestions.
If you don't like khaki, and you recognize that the USAF style will not work for everyone... what do you suggest CAP adopt as a single corporate uniform that keeps it's USAF link, recognizes it's history and would be acceptable to all members?
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
My motive is simply to stimulate discussion... and... I appreciate the hard work CAP does and want you all to look professional in one uniform while doing it.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2013, 03:13:08 PM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
Bandwidth intersecting boredom.
That and being a royal pain in LTC Eclipse's forth point of contact. ;D
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 02, 2013, 06:45:01 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2013, 03:13:08 PM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
Bandwidth intersecting boredom.
And that's why I didn't bother answering his question.
More like you don't have an answer... I'm just saying. :(
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 01:55:31 AM
That and being a royal pain in LTC Eclipse's forth point of contact.
That's "Lt Col", as pointed out, CAP is not the Army.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 02:03:50 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 01:55:31 AM
That and being a royal pain in LTC Eclipse's forth point of contact.
That's "Lt Col", as pointed out, CAP is not the Army.
But I thought you said rank was meaningless in CAP? :-\
Seriously I'm just playing Sir... hope your Turkey Day weekend was grand.
I know, me too.
Turkey was great - 4 days in the garage workshop tinkering, watching some football and learning to weld.
Much worse ways to spend a holiday.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 01, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 29, 2013, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
The Navy has a khaki uniform combination and the Marines have another one with a khaki shirt. That said, there's nothing wrong with the uniform per se. As the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, we've been wearing blue uniforms for a long time. Unfortunately, not everyone of our members can wear it. We definitely need to find a better option for these folks, but I'm not sure khaki is the way to go. Some may like it; others, myself included, definitely not.
I would prefer the Air Force to make some concessions or CAP to find a uniform solution that provides true uniformity throughout the organization, without completely turning it's back on our Air Force affiliation and heritage. I don't the see the Air Force ever going back to a khaki uniform and don't think CAP should either. Of course, this is just my opinion.
While I like khaki, and I see the historical link to CAP's very beginning in it, I'm open to suggestions.
If you don't like khaki, and you recognize that the USAF style will not work for everyone... what do you suggest CAP adopt as a single corporate uniform that keeps it's USAF link, recognizes it's history and would be acceptable to all members?
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
My motive is simply to stimulate discussion... and... I appreciate the hard work CAP does and want you all to look professional in one uniform while doing it.
Well I must say that in the 14 years I have been in the CAP family and going to numerous events from squadron meetings to National Conferences and everything in between, I have seen very few members that could be deemed as looking unprofessional and they were taken aside by their proper chain of command and informed of such. The biggest problem with your want is that looking professional is extremely subjective. What you may decide is unprofessional looking may be a bit over zealous in someone else's opinion. Given your membership status you are doubtful to get much support or traction as it seems more like you are dissing not only the general membership but the organization as a whole.
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 03:26:32 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 01, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 29, 2013, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
The Navy has a khaki uniform combination and the Marines have another one with a khaki shirt. That said, there's nothing wrong with the uniform per se. As the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, we've been wearing blue uniforms for a long time. Unfortunately, not everyone of our members can wear it. We definitely need to find a better option for these folks, but I'm not sure khaki is the way to go. Some may like it; others, myself included, definitely not.
I would prefer the Air Force to make some concessions or CAP to find a uniform solution that provides true uniformity throughout the organization, without completely turning it's back on our Air Force affiliation and heritage. I don't the see the Air Force ever going back to a khaki uniform and don't think CAP should either. Of course, this is just my opinion.
While I like khaki, and I see the historical link to CAP's very beginning in it, I'm open to suggestions.
If you don't like khaki, and you recognize that the USAF style will not work for everyone... what do you suggest CAP adopt as a single corporate uniform that keeps it's USAF link, recognizes it's history and would be acceptable to all members?
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
My motive is simply to stimulate discussion... and... I appreciate the hard work CAP does and want you all to look professional in one uniform while doing it.
Well I must say that in the 14 years I have been in the CAP family and going to numerous events from squadron meetings to National Conferences and everything in between, I have seen very few members that could be deemed as looking unprofessional and they were taken aside by their proper chain of command and informed of such. The biggest problem with your want is that looking professional is extremely subjective. What you may decide is unprofessional looking may be a bit over zealous in someone else's opinion. Given your membership status you are doubtful to get much support or traction as it seems more like you are dissing not only the general membership but the organization as a whole.
What I'm "dissing" is the second class caste system that CAP has for those members that don't meet the requirements (height/weight and/or shaving) to wear the USAF Style uniform.
What I'm "dissing" is the heterogeneous look of a CAP formation with a crazy mix of White/Grey, USAF Blue, Polo shirts, BBDUs and BDUs and possibly ABUs. "Uniformity" does not exist and provides an unprofessional appearance.
What I'm suggesting is ONE (1) corporate uniform to replace all others for the Senior Membership. One Dress, One Service, One Flying, One Field uniform.
What I'm recommending is a Khaki uniform, which is the historical color of CAP uniforms, which is martial in appearance yet NOT military.
As I've outlined before is a modern, off the shelf, poly/rayon blend khaki colored uniform to which enough USAF Blue highlights (IE Blue Flight Caps, Combination Caps, Ties, Necktabs, belts, NCO chevrons, rank slides, and Nametags) to continue a visible link to the USAF but have a CAP distinctive Corporate Uniform that will not confuse a Senior Member for an actual USAF Officer to the public at large. More importantly, it will be a uniform that all can wear and be part of the same team.
Now, I say "recommend" because I'm open to suggestions... I like khaki, if you have a better idea, put it out there and lets discuss it, I'm open to hear any and all thoughts.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 04:18:07 AM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 03:26:32 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 01, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 29, 2013, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
The Navy has a khaki uniform combination and the Marines have another one with a khaki shirt. That said, there's nothing wrong with the uniform per se. As the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, we've been wearing blue uniforms for a long time. Unfortunately, not everyone of our members can wear it. We definitely need to find a better option for these folks, but I'm not sure khaki is the way to go. Some may like it; others, myself included, definitely not.
I would prefer the Air Force to make some concessions or CAP to find a uniform solution that provides true uniformity throughout the organization, without completely turning it's back on our Air Force affiliation and heritage. I don't the see the Air Force ever going back to a khaki uniform and don't think CAP should either. Of course, this is just my opinion.
While I like khaki, and I see the historical link to CAP's very beginning in it, I'm open to suggestions.
If you don't like khaki, and you recognize that the USAF style will not work for everyone... what do you suggest CAP adopt as a single corporate uniform that keeps it's USAF link, recognizes it's history and would be acceptable to all members?
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
My motive is simply to stimulate discussion... and... I appreciate the hard work CAP does and want you all to look professional in one uniform while doing it.
Well I must say that in the 14 years I have been in the CAP family and going to numerous events from squadron meetings to National Conferences and everything in between, I have seen very few members that could be deemed as looking unprofessional and they were taken aside by their proper chain of command and informed of such. The biggest problem with your want is that looking professional is extremely subjective. What you may decide is unprofessional looking may be a bit over zealous in someone else's opinion. Given your membership status you are doubtful to get much support or traction as it seems more like you are dissing not only the general membership but the organization as a whole.
What I'm "dissing" is the second class caste system that CAP has for those members that don't meet the requirements (height/weight and/or shaving) to wear the USAF Style uniform.
What I'm "dissing" is the heterogeneous look of a CAP formation with a crazy mix of White/Grey, USAF Blue, Polo shirts, BBDUs and BDUs and possibly ABUs. "Uniformity" does not exist and provides an unprofessional appearance.
What I'm suggesting is ONE (1) corporate uniform to replace all others for the Senior Membership. One Dress, One Service, One Flying, One Field uniform.
What I'm recommending is a Khaki uniform, which is the historical color of CAP uniforms, which is martial in appearance yet NOT military.
As I've outlined before is a modern, off the shelf, poly/rayon blend khaki colored uniform to which enough USAF Blue highlights (IE Blue Flight Caps, Combination Caps, Ties, Necktabs, belts, NCO chevrons, rank slides, and Nametags) to continue a visible link to the USAF but have a CAP distinctive Corporate Uniform that will not confuse a Senior Member for an actual USAF Officer to the public at large. More importantly, it will be a uniform that all can wear and be part of the same team.
Now, I say "recommend" because I'm open to suggestions... I like khaki, if you have a better idea, put it out there and lets discuss it, I'm open to hear any and all thoughts.
Again you as a Patron have absolutely no say in this matter. So you like khaki we get that. Unless and until you become a full fledged member you are just kicking dirt in the faces of those who actually go out and do the menial jobs like running the squadrons, groups, wings, and national levels. You have decided to present a solution to a "problem" that most do not perceive as monumental as you do. Given the vast range in sizes, ages, and other things one uniform for all is a pipe dream. Do yourself a favor and let it go, it is not worth the uptake in your blood pressure especially since you have no real dog in the fight. Your horse has been beaten to death mainly by you. I am resolved to accept that you only want to stir the pot and divide not offer anything better in other words a troll.
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 04:35:24 AM
Again you as a Patron have absolutely no say in this matter.
What I find interesting is that some people sure like exerting energy and effort at attacking the messenger (in this case, shuman14) instead of the message. So what, he's a patron member? How does that make one iota of difference? The question is still valid.
Meanwhile, some here, like myself and CyBorg, who
are active CAP members working in the trenches with the local squadrons ask the
exact same question. So far, the question is unanswered. The last couple of replies have been dedicated to attacking shuman14's worthiness.
You might want to step back and reflect on that.
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 04:35:24 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 04:18:07 AM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 03:26:32 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 02, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 01, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 29, 2013, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:17:32 PM
What's wrong with a khaki uniform (outside the fact that none of the services wear it)?
The Navy has a khaki uniform combination and the Marines have another one with a khaki shirt. That said, there's nothing wrong with the uniform per se. As the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, we've been wearing blue uniforms for a long time. Unfortunately, not everyone of our members can wear it. We definitely need to find a better option for these folks, but I'm not sure khaki is the way to go. Some may like it; others, myself included, definitely not.
I would prefer the Air Force to make some concessions or CAP to find a uniform solution that provides true uniformity throughout the organization, without completely turning it's back on our Air Force affiliation and heritage. I don't the see the Air Force ever going back to a khaki uniform and don't think CAP should either. Of course, this is just my opinion.
While I like khaki, and I see the historical link to CAP's very beginning in it, I'm open to suggestions.
If you don't like khaki, and you recognize that the USAF style will not work for everyone... what do you suggest CAP adopt as a single corporate uniform that keeps it's USAF link, recognizes it's history and would be acceptable to all members?
I would like to ask you a question. Since you are a Patron status member, why are you getting your tighty whities in such a knot about a uniform that you cannot wear? I am not being insulting in any way, but it strikes me as though you want the general membership to bow to your beliefs and not the current regulations. You are a new, this year, member with the most restrictions being a patron. Patron members may not participate in any activities, duty assignments, or in CAP professional development. Patrons are not permitted to wear the CAP uniform at any time nor can they be promoted while a Patron. So what is the real motive here?
My motive is simply to stimulate discussion... and... I appreciate the hard work CAP does and want you all to look professional in one uniform while doing it.
Well I must say that in the 14 years I have been in the CAP family and going to numerous events from squadron meetings to National Conferences and everything in between, I have seen very few members that could be deemed as looking unprofessional and they were taken aside by their proper chain of command and informed of such. The biggest problem with your want is that looking professional is extremely subjective. What you may decide is unprofessional looking may be a bit over zealous in someone else's opinion. Given your membership status you are doubtful to get much support or traction as it seems more like you are dissing not only the general membership but the organization as a whole.
What I'm "dissing" is the second class caste system that CAP has for those members that don't meet the requirements (height/weight and/or shaving) to wear the USAF Style uniform.
What I'm "dissing" is the heterogeneous look of a CAP formation with a crazy mix of White/Grey, USAF Blue, Polo shirts, BBDUs and BDUs and possibly ABUs. "Uniformity" does not exist and provides an unprofessional appearance.
What I'm suggesting is ONE (1) corporate uniform to replace all others for the Senior Membership. One Dress, One Service, One Flying, One Field uniform.
What I'm recommending is a Khaki uniform, which is the historical color of CAP uniforms, which is martial in appearance yet NOT military.
As I've outlined before is a modern, off the shelf, poly/rayon blend khaki colored uniform to which enough USAF Blue highlights (IE Blue Flight Caps, Combination Caps, Ties, Necktabs, belts, NCO chevrons, rank slides, and Nametags) to continue a visible link to the USAF but have a CAP distinctive Corporate Uniform that will not confuse a Senior Member for an actual USAF Officer to the public at large. More importantly, it will be a uniform that all can wear and be part of the same team.
Now, I say "recommend" because I'm open to suggestions... I like khaki, if you have a better idea, put it out there and lets discuss it, I'm open to hear any and all thoughts.
Again you as a Patron have absolutely no say in this matter. So you like khaki we get that. Unless and until you become a full fledged member you are just kicking dirt in the faces of those who actually go out and do the menial jobs like running the squadrons, groups, wings, and national levels. You have decided to present a solution to a "problem" that most do not perceive as monumental as you do. Given the vast range in sizes, ages, and other things one uniform for all is a pipe dream. Do yourself a favor and let it go, it is not worth the uptake in your blood pressure especially since you have no real dog in the fight. Your horse has been beaten to death mainly by you. I am resolved to accept that you only want to stir the pot and divide not offer anything better in other words a troll.
(http://www.clubfrontier.org/forums/attachments/f8/42405d1367871337-frontier-memes-lighten-up-francis.jpg)
"on the Laptop... trolling is my Business... and business is good." 8)
Quote from: Panache on December 03, 2013, 04:58:42 AM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 04:35:24 AM
Again you as a Patron have absolutely no say in this matter.
What I find interesting is that some people sure like exerting energy and effort at attacking the messenger (in this case, shuman14) instead of the message. So what, he's a patron member? How does that make one iota of difference? The question is still valid.
Meanwhile, some here, like myself and CyBorg, who are active CAP members working in the trenches with the local squadrons ask the exact same question. So far, the question is unanswered. The last couple of replies have been dedicated to attacking shuman14's worthiness.
You might want to step back and reflect on that.
Thank you.
They've all been asked and answered 100 times.
Khaki, gray, blue, whatever. Wasted breath.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 05:25:34 AM
They've all been asked and answered 100 times.
Khaki, gray, blue, whatever. Wasted breath.
Yet the problem is still outstanding. So, we just give up?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 05:25:34 AM
They've all been asked and answered 100 times.
Khaki, gray, blue, whatever. Wasted breath.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
(http://www.colganmarketing.com/img/clock1.gif)
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 05:41:16 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 05:25:34 AM
They've all been asked and answered 100 times.
Khaki, gray, blue, whatever. Wasted breath.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
And that just reinforces my belief that the "haves" are quite happy with relegating the "have nots" to second-class status and will resist any effort to change their privileged status.
"Haves?"
Quote from: Panache on December 03, 2013, 05:38:38 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 05:25:34 AM
They've all been asked and answered 100 times.
Khaki, gray, blue, whatever. Wasted breath.
Yet the problem is still outstanding. So, we just give up?
No, we work it through the proper channels.
That said, while resolving the diversity/disparity of uniforms is important, there are more pressing issues in CAP. Those relating to membership/manning levels, training, equipment and mission accomplishment/relevance come to mind.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 05:53:30 AM
"Haves?"
Probably those that can wear the AF style who are compliant with H/W and grooming willfully.
Quote from: Panache on December 03, 2013, 05:47:28 AM
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 05:41:16 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 05:25:34 AM
They've all been asked and answered 100 times.
Khaki, gray, blue, whatever. Wasted breath.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
And that just reinforces my belief that the "haves" are quite happy with relegating the "have nots" to second-class status and will resist any effort to change their privileged status.
.
Lol you think I am a "have". That is so off the mark and hilarious. I just don't believe in the so called 2nd class status bs that some wish to promulgate. I am just tired of hearing the same thing being beaten to death year after year. I don't need to lighten up about this non issue. Why am I not entitled to my opinion but you are? I would much rather see people really investing themselves and their time in matters that actually are important. Debating uniforms ad nauseam is not conducive to positive job performance. What is really more important looking good on the job or getting the job done and having a positive relationship with the powers that be both in and out of CAP?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 03, 2013, 05:56:21 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 03, 2013, 05:38:38 AM
Yet the problem is still outstanding. So, we just give up?
No, we work it through the proper channels.
And I'm fine with that. Except (1) "proper channels" doesn't seem the care, because the higher-ups don't seem compelled to follow the same rules they set that everybody else is expected to follow, and (2) I never got the impression that CAPTalk was "proper channels". If you're going to shut down the discussion based on that rational, shouldn't 90% (if not more!) of what it talked about here in this forum also be curtailed as well?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 03, 2013, 05:56:21 AM
That said, while resolving the diversity/disparity of uniforms is important, there are more pressing issues in CAP. Those relating to membership/manning levels, training, equipment and mission accomplishment/relevance come to mind.
And I don't dispute that one bit. But, along those lines, it shouldn't be something that's just "swept under the rug" because it makes some people uncomfortable.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 03, 2013, 05:57:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 03, 2013, 05:53:30 AM
"Haves?"
Probably those that can wear the AF style who are compliant with H/W and grooming willfully.
Correct. Thank you, abdsp51.
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 06:03:24 AM
Why am I not entitled to my opinion but you are?
Please point out where I said you were not allowed to have an opinion on the matter.
Actually, what riled my feathers was you telling shuman14 that
he wasn't entitled to one, remember?
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 06:03:24 AM
Debating uniforms ad nauseam is not conducive to positive job performance.
With all due respect, ma'am, nobody is forcing you to read this thread. If you find this particular discussion without merit, just ignore it and move on.
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 06:03:24 AM
What is really more important looking good on the job or getting the job done and having a positive relationship with the powers that be both in and out of CAP?
The folks who work in the multi-billion dollar fashion and clothing industry would probably say "both".
QuoteWhat is really more important looking good on the job or getting the job done and having a positive relationship with the powers that be both in and out of CAP?
So you're saying CAP, as an organization, is incapable of doing
both at the same time? ???
Quote from: spaatzmom on Today at 03:03:24 AM
Why am I not entitled to my opinion but you are?
Please point out where I said you were not allowed to have an opinion on the matter.
Actually, what riled my feathers was you telling shuman14 that he wasn't entitled to one, remember?
I never said he was not entitled to his opinion just questioned his true motive.
Quote from: spaatzmom on Today at 03:03:24 AM
Debating uniforms ad nauseam is not conducive to positive job performance.
With all due respect, ma'am, nobody is forcing you to read this thread. If you find this particular discussion without merit, just ignore it and move on.
So you are telling to shut up and sit down. Well that's not going to happen. I don't post that often but I do fully believe in what I do post and no one including you will stop that.
Quote from: spaatzmom on Today at 03:03:24 AM
What is really more important looking good on the job or getting the job done and having a positive relationship with the powers that be both in and out of CAP?
The folks who work in the multi-billion dollar fashion and clothing industry would probably say "both".
So looking good trumps performance. Nice to know where you really stand.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 06:44:21 AM
QuoteWhat is really more important looking good on the job or getting the job done and having a positive relationship with the powers that be both in and out of CAP?
So you're saying CAP, as an organization, is incapable of doing both at the same time? ???
Not at all. I just don't believe that CAP as a whole does not look like the trashy bunch of hicks that you imply. In general, most members wear their uniform properly with pride and look good. But I think that job performance far outweighs the clothing that is worn. If someone I know is lost and waiting to be found, I personally don't care if they are wearing bunny slippers and Dr. Denton's as long as the person was found. That gives a much better community impression and continuing cooperation than the clothing worn. It is all about priorities. Mine obviously does not match yours.
Maybe we should add a khaki uniform combination (in addition to the ones we already have) so that when he finally becomes active (if he ever does), he'll have something to wear that he actually likes. >:D
Sorry, couldn't help myself...
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 06:54:15 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 06:44:21 AM
QuoteWhat is really more important looking good on the job or getting the job done and having a positive relationship with the powers that be both in and out of CAP?
So you're saying CAP, as an organization, is incapable of doing both at the same time? ???
Not at all. I just don't believe that CAP as a whole does not look like the trashy bunch of hicks that you imply. In general, most members wear their uniform properly with pride and look good. But I think that job performance far outweighs the clothing that is worn. If someone I know is lost and waiting to be found, I personally don't care if they are wearing bunny slippers and Dr. Denton's as long as the person was found. That gives a much better community impression and continuing cooperation than the clothing worn. It is all about priorities. Mine obviously does not match yours.
Way to put words into my mouth... the only "trashy" thing said is by you. You've attacked me, you've called me unworthy and a troll, you've tried to belittle my opinion but guess what... my opinion is just a valid as yours. All opinions are equal on an open unofficial forum like CAPTalk.
Have you ever heard the saying you never get a second chance to make a first impression?
Well I got news for you... your uniform
is your first impression.
In any of my post have I ever said that CAP doesn't do a good job, or that CAP members are unprofessional? Guess what, I haven't nor would I ever say that.
That being said, is the uniform issue number one on the white board? No.
-BUT-
In an organization as large as CAP, with an issue that is in the top 10-15 issues, is it impossible, unreasonable, heretical, to suggest that a committee, board, working group be formed to address it?
Is it also impossible, unreasonable, heretical for people to discuss the said issue on an unofficial forum? I think not.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 03, 2013, 06:59:22 AM
Maybe we should add a khaki uniform combination (in addition to the ones we already have) so that when he finally becomes active (if he ever does), he'll have something to wear that he actually likes. >:D
Sorry, couldn't help myself...
And I'll look
SOOO pretty in it. 'Cause I'm a
dashing young man.
:D
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 05:22:21 AM"on the Laptop... trolling is my Business... and business is good." 8)
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 07:31:11 AM... You've attacked me, you've called me unworthy and a troll, ...
Hoookay.
Quote from: a2capt on December 03, 2013, 07:35:32 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 05:22:21 AM"on the Laptop... trolling is my Business... and business is good." 8)
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 07:31:11 AM... You've attacked me, you've called me unworthy and a troll, ...
Hoookay.
Yes, hookay. I tried to joke it off the first time, she's borderline personal attacks now, so yes trashy is the word for her comments.
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 06:46:19 AM
With all due respect, ma'am, nobody is forcing you to read this thread. If you find this particular discussion without merit, just ignore it and move on.
So you are telling to shut up and sit down. Well that's not going to happen. I don't post that often but I do fully believe in what I do post and no one including you will stop that.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I never said. I never even hinted that you should "sit down and shut up", and frankly find it offensive that you would imply that I did.
Quote from: spaatzmom on December 03, 2013, 06:46:19 AM
What is really more important looking good on the job or getting the job done and having a positive relationship with the powers that be both in and out of CAP?
The folks who work in the multi-billion dollar fashion and clothing industry would probably say "both".
So looking good trumps performance. Nice to know where you really stand.
I'm sorry, I'm trying to figure out how my reply of "both" somehow was interpreted as "looking good trump performance". If you could walk me through that chain of logic, I would appreciate it.
I'm far more comfortable and productive in shorts, t-shirt, and flip-flops at my job, but I'm pretty sure my managers would turn several shades of red if I decided to wear that instead of my usual shirt-and-tie business attire.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 07:39:44 AM
Quote from: a2capt on December 03, 2013, 07:35:32 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 05:22:21 AM"on the Laptop... trolling is my Business... and business is good." 8)
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 07:31:11 AM... You've attacked me, you've called me unworthy and a troll, ...
Hoookay.
Yes, hookay. I tried to joke it off the first time, she's borderline personal attacks now, so yes trashy is the word for her comments.
Well, you do sometimes take part in troll-esque behavior (like trying to bait me in the entire CAP-Officers-Should-Have-Degrees thread).
Quote from: Panache on December 03, 2013, 08:41:12 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 07:39:44 AM
Quote from: a2capt on December 03, 2013, 07:35:32 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 05:22:21 AM"on the Laptop... trolling is my Business... and business is good." 8)
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 07:31:11 AM... You've attacked me, you've called me unworthy and a troll, ...
Hoookay.
Yes, hookay. I tried to joke it off the first time, she's borderline personal attacks now, so yes trashy is the word for her comments.
Well, you do sometimes take part in troll-esque behavior (like trying to bait me in the entire CAP-Officers-Should-Have-Degrees thread).
Was I baiting or trying to lead the course of the discussion?
If I offended you, I apologize, it was not my intent.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 03, 2013, 08:48:59 AM
If I offended you, I apologize, it was not my intent.
No offence taken.
I personally do not believe, no matter how much some of us may wish it otherwise, that there is going to be any significant deviation from the multiforms (© Eclipse) we have.
To me, it is a flip-of-a-coin as to whether or not we get ABU's.
The USAF is not going to change its H/W regulations for CAP.
The powers-that-be who design/control the "corporate" uniforms are not going to allow anything but the grey/white, despite allowing blue for field uniforms and flying clothing.
Those who want us completely out of AF uniforms are not going to get their way.
As I see it, it is a choice of:
Wearing it and hating it
Wearing it and liking it
Wearing it and being indifferent about it
I really doubt any change beyond perhaps standardising on cut and colour of the G/W is going to happen.
QuoteThe powers-that-be who design/control the "corporate" uniforms are not going to allow anything but the grey/white, despite allowing blue for field uniforms and flying clothing.
And I guess this is where not being an active member I don't "get it"... who are these people?
Who appoints and/or elects them?
It seems to me that if those in CAP who are unhappy with the uniform situation can effect the appointments/elections of these power-that-be then you might be able to get some more openminded people into these positions and do something (anything) about it.
@ shuman14
This is not an attack. Personally, I appreciate your financial contribution to CAP as a patron member and your service to this country through the military reserves.
I believe the reason many here on this board have been "targeting" you is not just because of your opinions (which you're entitled to), but your topics of discussion and the way you come across sometimes.
I went back to review your posts for the last month or so and the vast majority of them were related to the CAP uniform in one way or another. Many were also related to the new NCO program and a few more to requiring degrees in CAP. All of these, as you know, can be controversial topics here in CAP Talk.
What I really found interesting was that I didn't see posts discussing emergency services or operations in CAP. Neither did I find cadet programs or aerospace education or safety discussions on your part. It almost seems that you're fixated on the CAP uniform; not so much learning about it, but figuring a way to change it. The thing is you don't even wear one.
I believe that's the main reason you're received here by many the way you are.
Thread is locked due to apparent trolling.