Changing Civil Air Patrol to U.S. Civil Air Patrol

[RogueLeader]

The Kachenmeister Law of Military Tradition:

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

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

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

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

[Psicorp]

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

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

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

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

[DNall]

I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that if you meet the standards to wear the AF uniform, that's what you should wear.   Getting fit enough, if possible, to get out of the Corporate uniform should be a goal.  

I'd agree with that.

[A.Member]

The amount of creditbilty we gain from wearing USAF uniforms is minimal.  

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

[A.Member]

I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that if you meet the standards to wear the AF uniform, that's what you should wear.   Getting fit enough, if possible, to get out of the Corporate uniform should be a goal.  

I'd agree with that.

x2. 

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

[RogueLeader]

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

[lordmonar]

The amount of creditability we gain from wearing USAF uniforms is minimal.  

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

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

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

Other EMS organisations?  The USAF?

If anything I thin the USAF uniform makes us loose credibility with the USAF no matter how well we do or job.  Just because they will always think we are posers.

As far as other EMS organisations....the fact we are non uniform in our uniforms hurts us terribly. 

My first way to go would be to force everyone into USAF uniforms....for all the reasons you state.  So to do that we either need to get the USAF to back off their weight and grooming standards or bite the bullet and start kicking out the long hairs and fat boys.

So unless you are prepared to eliminate 50% of your membership....the only other way to solve the problem of loss of credibility due to lack of uniformity in appearance is to go to the corporate uniforms.

[A.Member]

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

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

Other EMS organisations?  The USAF?

If anything I thin the USAF uniform makes us loose credibility with the USAF no matter how well we do or job.  Just because they will always think we are posers.

As far as other EMS organisations....the fact we are non uniform in our uniforms hurts us terribly. 

My first way to go would be to force everyone into USAF uniforms....for all the reasons you state.  So to do that we either need to get the USAF to back off their weight and grooming standards or bite the bullet and start kicking out the long hairs and fat boys.

So unless you are prepared to eliminate 50% of your membership....the only other way to solve the problem of loss of credibility due to lack of uniformity in appearance is to go to the corporate uniforms.

Primarily to other EMS organizations and government agencies.  They're the ones that call us so that we can assist that family that just wants someone to look for their lost loved one.  But certainly it benefits us as it relates to the general public and USAF as well.   

[DNall]

With respect...

Yes the families very much do care that the people looking for their loved ones are competent & will raise holy hell if they think you aren't to get someone else brought in on the case or at least in charge. And remember it is the state that has jurisdiction, not AFRCC. The state doesn't owe us crap & they'll sure as hell not ask for AFRCC to put us on the case in the future & will send their own people up there to take charge.

It's not just the families though, it's the paid rescue professionals out there too. The state, county, city officers, the park rangers, fire & EMS. They all think CAP is governed by & meets AF training standards, and they trust us because the AF endorses us. W/o that you are 150% out of business.

The AF I'm frankly less concerned with, but at some level you want to win trust. I mean there was a time when the guard reserve were looked at as outsiders not worthy to share the same air, but not so much now days. What CAP need to do is learn from that & do the same thing. That has a lot less to do with uniforms though, and frankly I'd like to put uniform changes aside tillw e earn our place with that other series of changes.

I absolutely agree with you on the variety of uniforms though. There should very much be a specified UOD for every event or duty in all cases no matter what, and you should send people home if they don't meet it. That means at a mission you should be in blue or green fltsuits, blues or white/blue if you are likely to be on camera, and BDU/BBDUs for everyone else. And by the way those should be the only six possble uniforms in CAP (obviously there's LS/SS & service coats as well).

My first way to go would be to force everyone into USAF uniforms....for all the reasons you state.  So to do that we either need to get the USAF to back off their weight and grooming standards or bite the bullet and start kicking out the long hairs and fat boys.

So unless you are prepared to eliminate 50% of your membership....the only other way to solve the problem of loss of credibility due to lack of uniformity in appearance is to go to the corporate uniforms.

That would be my first reaction as well. Am I willing to lose 50% of membership to do it? Maybe, I don't know. It seems extreme, but think about how fast we recruit & how bad we retain. There's steps you can take to easily fix that, and frankly militarizing the thinking (along with uniforms) would help address that. Would I pull the trigger on that though? Hmm... I think I'd start out asking AF to look at how the CGAux deals with the issue, they wouldn't buy that; then I'd go for a more relaxed standard with BMI etc, they MIGHT buy that within reason; then if that still didn't work then I'd seriously consider a standard for membership and go with a highly limited number of alternate uniforms (one-to-one comparable to AF style & similiar appearance), with the requirement that you wear AF-style if you meet the AF provided standard.

[Major_Chuck]

I'm all for maintaining our connections and traditions.  My concern really boils down to the vast numbers of uniform combinations we  have and the sudden need to add to it.

If we would ever just stick to a Uniform of the Day policy.  You wear either this AF Style Uniform or its Corporate CAP equivilent it would go a long way to eliminate the disuniform look we project.

CAP Uniform changes have been on a long roller coaster ride for way too long now.  We spend an obscene amount of time discussing, debating, and rehashing the topic.  Then, just when you thought it has settled down NHQ comes out with a new change.

[RiverAux]

We spend an obscene amount of time discussing, debating, and rehashing the topic.  Then, just when you thought it has settled down NHQ comes out with a new change.

I think there actually is a pretty direct correlation between uniform changes and interest in uniform-related threads here.  If we weren't changing all the time, it wouldn't be a major topic of disucssion here.

For comparison, over on the CG Aux board at mil.com there have only been two "real" uniform threads so far in 2007 (not counting quick question/answer threads) and both were directly related to changes made by the CG.  You rarely hear many complaints about CG Aux uniforms -- about the only real ongoing issue relates to some negative thoughts about certain aspects of their version of the BDU (material, velcro fasteners rather than buttons, etc.). 

Hmmm...
very limited choice of uniforms that rarely change in CG Aux with no CG Aux control over the process = most everybody happy
Wide variety of uniforms and options in CAP with almost all changes being instigated by CAP = significant number of people unhappy (probably not a majority, but still quite a few).

[Pumbaa]

a Cadet might be so captivated by aerospace "stuff" that she/he might one day work for Lockheed and design the F-XXX

Just an FYI, I am one of those guys!  I did some time in the 70's in CAP, My favorite aircraft was the SR-71...

Here I am 30+ years later working for Lockheed, on something for the Apache Helicopter and now hopefully something for the B-2.. Some of the other stuff too...

SO yeah.... it is the truth.

[Psicorp]

a Cadet might be so captivated by aerospace "stuff" that she/he might one day work for Lockheed and design the F-XXX

Just an FYI, I am one of those guys!  I did some time in the 70's in CAP, My favorite aircraft was the SR-71...

Here I am 30+ years later working for Lockheed, on something for the Apache Helicopter and now hopefully something for the B-2.. Some of the other stuff too...

SO yeah.... it is the truth.

Oh very cool!   *chuckling at the "other stuff"*    When my Dad was in the AF, he went to Nellis and "other places" and worked on F-15s and "other stuff".  Now he's also working for Lockheed, working on F-15s, F-22s, and "other stuff".   He used those same words too.   I've only had the pleasure of helping him work on F-4s and F-15s.  Makes me wish I had enlisted.

[MIKE]

The Knowledgebase is saying 1 March 2010 for a mandatory wear date for the tapes. Linky.

[LtCol White]

What is intersting is that there is no reference to the BBDU's. I would ASSUME the US CAP tape will be worn on those as well??

[Psicorp]

Just a retorical question (unless someone actually has the answer (other than "42")),  but I noticed the other day that the March 2007 NB Agenda has been taken off the website and nothing put in its place.  If National disseminates the "unofficial official results", why can't they post that?

[DrJbdm]

What is intersting is that there is no reference to the BBDU's. I would ASSUME the US CAP tape will be worn on those as well??

   They wouldn't need to specify the uniforms it effects. NB have decided to stop selling "Civil Air Patrol" tapes thru Vanguard and have started only selling "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes so it would effect both the BDU's and the BBDU's. They would specify if it didn't apply to a particular uniform. So yes, your assumption is correct.

[afgeo4]

Actually, they do have to specify it. As of right now, the uniform manual authorizes the wear of tapes that say CIVIL AIR PATROL and last name only on them. No other tapes are authorized. No matter who does/does not manufacture them at the time. Until those regulations change, no other nametapes are authorized. Yes, the NB approved them. Yes, it looks like CAP-USAF approved them. No, they are not authorized for wear yet because there is no such authorization out yet.

[DrJbdm]

You are correct, the regulations do need to be rewritten to update all these changes. As far as I know, there has been no policy letter issued by General Pinada on this change. We have nothing more then a non official draft of the NB minutes to justify wearing the new tapes. So while yes, Vanguard seems to only selling only the new ones, I see no authorization to allow the wearing of the new tapes until such time a policy letter is written. Am I correct in this thought?

[arajca]

Actually, once a decision has been made by the NB/NEC, you can start following it immediately, unless they included a delay in implementation. Until the change is officially released, you cannot be disciplined for failing to follow it. So, until the policy on the new nametapes is officially released, via policy letter, official memorandum, interim change letter, reg change, or reg revision, you are not required to follow the change. If they don't officially release it before the phase out period ends, you cannot be disciplined for failing to follow the change. (Yes, I know, the project phase out date is 2010, but we'll see how fast the official change if released.)