Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 16, 2018, 01:46:06 PM
Home Help Login Register

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 on: Today at 01:28:11 PM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by abdsp51

I can see the USAF adopting the same tunics in cut and material but in Air Force Blue color.


 on: Today at 12:50:56 PM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by Luis R. Ramos
I like the new Army service dress. But now, why not style the garrison cap to what was in WW II as well? Why not change the black piping to the branch color? Starting with Artillery, red and Infantry, light blue? Shuman, do you think that would also be welcomed by troops?

 on: Today at 12:07:07 PM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by shuman14

The Army is going back to Pinks and Greens.

The decision is between the un-belted tunic as shown on the three Soldiers in the first picture and the belted version worn by the SMA in the lower picture.

I've also heard rumors that the Female tunic will now come with unattached false pocket flaps for the upper pockets. These will be added after the Soldier tries on the coat and sown in place to fit their specific anatomy and to aid in the aligning of ribbons, nametags, badges, etc. correctly The Female tunic will not actually have pockets just the flaps.

I can see the USAF adopting the same tunics in cut and material but in Air Force Blue color.

 on: Today at 11:54:14 AM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by PHall
Don't believe anything about Air Force uniform changes until you see it on Air Force Link.
Everything else is just gossip.

 on: Today at 11:25:30 AM 
Started by S.O.S. - Last post by Eclipse
"Why?" Is actively discouraged in a lot of organizations, because that single word
can open up hornet's nests quickly.

It's understandable that mid-level managers not specifically tasked with process improvement
might shy away from those questions if the status quo keeps things moving.

The flip side is New-COs that "question everything" resulting in little stability or time for processes to mature.

The latter is usually effective when you're trying to disrupt a market, but can be difficult to sustain long term.

 on: Today at 10:59:55 AM 
Started by UWONGO2 - Last post by Eclipse
CAP is part of the "Total Force" just not to the extent that everyone wishes it would be. 

TF is essentially a meaningless marketing term, the sooner it's dropped, the better.

It looks nice on T-Shirts, and sounds nice in press releases, but a significant part of the
membership, perhaps the majority, is never, and will never, be under the TF umbrella,
and even for those who occasionally are, the term "seldom" would be benevolent.

The Cadet Program and AE, fully 2/3rds of the mission, are by definition excluded,
and ES is only TF on actual missions.

CAP is part of TF in the same way the civilian employees sorting Tri-Care forms are..."technically".

I've had more then a few members express to me that after they read the fine print
on TF, the exclusion of their important duty and contributions seems as much of a demotivator
as those who are excluded from wearing the USAF style uniforms.  Not at the top of the list,
but it's on there, and unnecessary.

There is nothing wrong with CAP using an installation for things as long as the proper steps are taken,  which some folks seem to think they shouldn't have to do.

Agreed - the unfortunate thing is that on a lot of installations, especially the Guard, (which is understandable because that's state-based), CAP is treated like any other
community organizaiton such as the BSA, Sea Cadets, etc., including in some cases (again Guard bases), being charged for resources.

 on: Today at 10:51:31 AM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by Eclipse

"The Air Force is designing an updated version of its service dress blues uniform and could roll it out sometime next year, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Kaleth Wright said Wednesday.
To find inspiration for the new service jacket, the Air Force’s top leaders are looking to the past, he said.
“We’d like to get back to a little more heritage on the jacket,” Wright said, “potentially adding two additional pockets and bringing it into more of a military-style jacket.”
Changes to the dress blues, as well as a new, moisture-wicking PT uniform now in the works, could come out in mid- to late 2019, said the service’s top enlisted airman.
The revised service jacket could have two pockets across the chest, where airmen wear their nametags and ribbons, and two pockets parallel to them, immediately below, Wright said. The outer pockets on the current service jacket — one on the upper left, and two pocket flaps lower down — are decorative."

Yeah, yeah.  "Times" pubs aren't official, and the USAF has been orbiting this for 10+ years, but Chief Wright seems to get things done and
not write checks he doesn't intend to cash.

My prediction, between this and OCPs, by 2021, CAP will no longer be wearing a uniform that matches the USAF, field or blues.
The nearest thing will be the flightsuit, and those are going the way of the dodo with the 2-piece flame retardant OCPs (A2CU) in a lot of places as well.

Good times.

 on: Today at 10:45:51 AM 
Started by UWONGO2 - Last post by abdsp51
It would seem to me that more USAF base commanders would need to know that CAP exists and is part of the “Total Force”.  That might help a lot of our units/wings gain access to base facilities for conducting CAP training events, etc.

Wing Commanders know about CAP in fact every group commander and up in the AF heiarchy knows about CAP.  I don't recall what it's called but every one who is appointed a group commander or higher attends it.

CAP is part of the "Total Force" just not to the extent that everyone wishes it would be. 

There is nothing wrong with CAP using an installation for things as long as the proper steps are taken,  which some folks seem to think they shouldn't have to do.

 on: Today at 10:29:34 AM 
Started by S.O.S. - Last post by TheSkyHornet
A followup discussion might be about metrics we might employ to assess our organizational & individual capability to survive & operate successfully within an environment with consequential unknowns.

One of my work areas is to audit department heads against their performance measures.

"So what drove this number as your baseline? Why this percentage for the failure rate?"
"That's just what we've always used. It's an industry standard."

No logic to it. No idea if it's good or bad. That's just what's used.

Does it work? Perhaps. But if there's no logic behind the development of the metric, then you don't know if it's efficient. Can you lean out the process? Can you make it more effective? Maybe we're good on paper but we could be doing a heck of a lot better and we just don't realize it.

These are actually subjects that are taught at the collegiate level. They often run concurrent to a topic like risk management, but not generally in the same course itself. I may take a class on human error and safety management, while the following day, I'm in a class on lean/six-sigma methodology.

So the subjects are there. They just might not be taught in the same classroom, and they approach a common end goal but through different levels of management and focus areas.

 on: Today at 10:21:04 AM 
Started by S.O.S. - Last post by TheSkyHornet
For example: You go to work in a refrigerated environment. You know the facility will be cold and you accept the job based on knowing that it is a refrigerated building. How much can you kickback or complain about the “cold environment” when you know it is a refrigerated building?

What is the inherent risk in this example? Is it discipline or job loss because someone is complaining to management?

I'm not sure I see a safety risk here. And if there is a safety risk presented with "being cold," perhaps a risk analysis using a matrix would benefit to determine the severity against the probability of outcomes.

Is there a certain level of inherent risk you must be willing to endure for a job, task, or organization?

So what this question presents is a topic on Risk Tolerability --- What risk are you willing to accept?

This is generally something in the safety world that would come in the form of a job description combined with a risk acceptance chart distinguishing who has the authority to accept various levels of risk...whether risk controls are implemented to reduce risk, or the risk is accepted with no action taken for whatever reason.

The risk that one is willing to endure is known as accepted risk or tolerated risk. This risk is the "I do not want to take this any further because I'm okay with where we are now."

Then you have risks that you cannot mitigate further due to limitations. This is known as the ALARP level: As Low As Reasonable Practicable. The risk cannot be reduced due to constraints, such as finances ("We cannot financially afford to purchase this equipment") or physical/technological barriers ("This product does not exist" or "We cannot alter this to make it safer"). The next step beyond ALARP is essentially shutting down the operation.

All risks should be reduced to the ALARP level, but if ALARP just isn't a reasonable option (subjectively to management...possible, but not efficient, say), then management would accept the level of risk and move on.

This is not unique to safety risks. This can also apply to operational performance risks (quality of output), financial risk, etc. And it can be a very formal process (documented) or informal (verbal/cognitive).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.04 seconds with 13 queries.
click here to email me