I'm looking to get involved with CAP in the very near future. I've asked this question to, well, whoever in my my prospective squadron answers the emails, but he didn't know for sure, so I'd like to see if any of y'all might have an idea.
I'm a proportionate dwarf, standing at 4'6". Were I 4 inches taller, I'd be at the minimum height on every U.S. military height-and-weight chart out there. I know for a fact that I'd also be within the bounds of acceptable weights, and I have some muscle to fill out any slightly-large clothing, so I shouldn't look sloppy in an AF-style uniform. However, since I'm too short to technically be able to reach any weight standards, does this mean I can't wear any AF-style uniforms? It won't affect whether I join, but I was just curious.
Thanks in advance.
Okay, you're 4'6", how much do you weigh?
Excellent question. I think that you should be ok, but I would request that this be sent to national headquarters for clarification.
Quote from: PHall on September 25, 2016, 08:44:37 PM
Okay, you're 4'6", how much do you weigh?
I'm about 103 lbs right now, give or take a pound or two, at a healthy body fat %
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 25, 2016, 08:45:29 PM
Excellent question. I think that you should be ok, but I would request that this be sent to national headquarters for clarification.
Thanks, I'll see about sending it
You don't say whether you are male or female, but you raise an interesting question.
4' 10" is the low end of the CAP chart, and at that weight your max weight can be (M)164lbs or (F)145lbs.
4' 6" puts you at ~93% of that height, which extrapolation would mean you could weight (M)153lbs or (F)135lbs,
that's one way to get to a number, but I know that's not necessarily how it works.
My advice would be to get a ruling from NHQ, if for no other reason then to have a gauge in your file.
You're probably not going to have an issue, but CAP can't really have you at the min weight allowed on the chart at your
height as you'd clearly be in excess of the appearance standard, if not the number.
Quote from: Sentinel on September 25, 2016, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: PHall on September 25, 2016, 08:44:37 PM
Okay, you're 4'6", how much do you weigh?
I'm about 103 lbs right now, give or take a pound or two, at a healthy body fat %
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 25, 2016, 08:45:29 PM
Excellent question. I think that you should be ok, but I would request that this be sent to national headquarters for clarification.
Thanks, I'll see about sending it
Just as a note, you don't. It needs to go through the chain of command from your soon to be squadron commander.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2016, 09:26:00 PM
CAP can't really have you at the min weight allowed on the chart at your
height as you'd clearly be in excess of the appearance standard, if not the number.
Eclipse, I don't understand what you're saying here, Sir.
Min weight is unsat, and "clearly" would not meet the "appearance standard", when grooming hasn't even been mentioned here?
Sentinel, be prepared that NHQ may reply that they don't have the authority to waiver the wear of the uniform for you if you're below DoD height standards (see CAPM 39-1, para. 1.5.1.6, below). Its not that they don't want to - its that they cannot, as they don't "own" the USAF uniform. I went through something similar to this many years ago on behalf of one of my senior members who held a 4 foot something stature. Regardless, please do ask, and know that I hope you'll not be discouraged; we need good people in CAP, regardless of physical build.
V/r
Spam
M39-1, 1.5.1.6. "CAP does not have waiver authority of this type for USAF-style uniforms.
Members requiring a waiver should consider wearing the Corporate-style uniform. Commanders who
have identified a cadet with a potential requirement for a waiver should contact NHQ/DP for direction".
ehh, nobody contacts NHQ when we have a small cadet and asks for a size waiver or something.
Quote from: NIN on September 25, 2016, 10:00:31 PM
ehh, nobody contacts NHQ when we have a small cadet and asks for a size waiver or something.
+1
This is no different then if Manute Bol joined at 7' 7" but was NBA weight ratio. No one would tell him
he couldn't wear a USAF combo just because the chart ends before he does.
There's a difference between asking to be heavier when you'r eon the chart and asking for advice when
you don't fit within the chart.
Quote from: NIN on September 25, 2016, 10:00:31 PM
ehh, nobody contacts NHQ when we have a small cadet and asks for a size waiver or something.
True, but cadets must wear the air force style unless they are over the weight standards at the age of 18. So the waiver is already written in.
Quote from: Spam on September 25, 2016, 09:53:42 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 25, 2016, 09:26:00 PM
CAP can't really have you at the min weight allowed on the chart at your
height as you'd clearly be in excess of the appearance standard, if not the number.
Eclipse, I don't understand what you're saying here, Sir. Min weight is unsat, and "clearly" would not meet the "appearance standard", when grooming hasn't even been mentioned here?
Sentinel, be prepared that NHQ may reply that they don't have the authority to waiver the wear of the uniform for you if you're below DoD height standards (see CAPM 39-1, para. 1.5.1.6, below). Its not that they don't want to - its that they cannot, as they don't "own" the USAF uniform. I went through something similar to this many years ago on behalf of one of my senior members who held a 4 foot something stature. Regardless, please do ask, and know that I hope you'll not be discouraged; we need good people in CAP, regardless of physical build.
V/r
Spam
M39-1, 1.5.1.6. "CAP does not have waiver authority of this type for USAF-style uniforms.
Members requiring a waiver should consider wearing the Corporate-style uniform. Commanders who
have identified a cadet with a potential requirement for a waiver should contact NHQ/DP for direction".
Where did you get your Min Weight number? The chart, (CAPM 39-1, 26 JUNE 2014, Attachment 2), does not list a minimum weight, just maximum weights.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 25, 2016, 10:10:20 PM
Quote from: NIN on September 25, 2016, 10:00:31 PM
ehh, nobody contacts NHQ when we have a small cadet and asks for a size waiver or something.
True, but cadets must wear the air force style unless they are over the weight standards at the age of 18. So the waiver is already written in.
There's no chart to waiver, noting is "written in".
Quote from: Sentinel on September 25, 2016, 08:39:08 PM
I'm looking to get involved with CAP in the very near future.
Well gee ... let me be the first in this thread to say it would be nice to have you join. There are a lot of great opportunities for you in CAP. Don't let the uniform issue get you down. There are always options. Visit your local squadron a few times and get to know the folks there. :)
Simply wear the optional grey and white or the Polo combination.
In case anyone was still wondering, I'd used the "Contact" form on gocivilairpatrol.com and was emailed the following response:
QuoteThere are no Civil Air Patrol height restrictions or minimums to wear the AF-style uniforms, so you are authorized to wear any of the AF-style CAP uniforms.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Whether I end up wearing the corporate uniform or the AF-style, I hope to do it justice.
Quote from: Sentinel on September 27, 2016, 09:39:04 PMQuoteThere are no Civil Air Patrol height restrictions or minimums to wear the AF-style uniforms, so you are authorized to wear any of the AF-style CAP uniforms.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Whether I end up wearing the corporate uniform or the AF-style, I hope to do it justice.
2-for-2 on the KB today.
Like a response from Microsoft Tech Support, the answer is
technically correct, but does not address the actual
question.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 27, 2016, 09:54:21 PM
Like a response from Microsoft Tech Support, the answer is technically correct, but does not address the actual question.
What am I missing? It looks like a spot-on answer to a valued prospective member.
Here was the question:
Quote from: Sentinel on September 25, 2016, 08:39:08 PM
However, since I'm too short to technically be able to reach any weight standards, does this mean I can't wear any AF-style uniforms?
And here was the NHQ-provided answer:
QuoteThere are no Civil Air Patrol height restrictions or minimums to wear the AF-style uniforms, so you are authorized to wear any of the AF-style CAP uniforms.
Looks like a complete response to me.
Quote from: Ned on September 27, 2016, 10:19:55 PM
QuoteThere are no Civil Air Patrol height restrictions or minimums to wear the AF-style uniforms, so you are authorized to wear any of the AF-style CAP uniforms.
Looks like a complete response to me.
There's no
height restrictions, but there certainly are
weight restrictions.
Per CAPM 39-1, Page 119:
1. Members who are aged 18 and older must meet CAP weight standards in order to wear the USAF-style
uniform. There's no question there's no
height restrictions. The question (presumably) is what you do when someone
is
not on the chart which, based on regulations, would preclude wear of the USAF-style uniform(s), regardless,
since there is no standard to meet.
It doesn't say "those on the chart are exempt".
Would it be perfectly OK for a member who is 4' - 9" to weigh 300lbs? How about 6'-9" & 400lbs?
I keep forgetting how eager you are to find fault with anyone else, especially NHQ.
A question was asked by a valued prospective member; it was answered promptly, directly, and completely.
I continue to be puzzled by you response that the answer "does not address the actual question" when it plainly does so. The fact that it did not address hypothetical questions that were not asked seems logically unrelated to your expressed concerns.
This is especially puzzling after you wisely advised the prospective member: "My advice would be to get a ruling from NHQ." Which he did.
So, I'm still not seeing it. I suppose there is no reason that I need to be convinced.
Have a nice night.
Quote from: Sentinel on September 27, 2016, 09:39:04 PM
In case anyone was still wondering, I'd used the "Contact" form on gocivilairpatrol.com and was emailed the following response:
QuoteThere are no Civil Air Patrol height restrictions or minimums to wear the AF-style uniforms, so you are authorized to wear any of the AF-style CAP uniforms.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Whether I end up wearing the corporate uniform or the AF-style, I hope to do it justice.
That's great, Sentinel. You got a far better resolution than I managed to get for my member a while back. Glad to have you on board!
V/r
Spam
Quote from: Ned on September 28, 2016, 04:26:29 AM
I continue to be puzzled by you response that the answer "does not address the actual question" when it plainly does so.
QuoteThere are no Civil Air Patrol height restrictions or minimums to wear the AF-style uniforms, so you are authorized to wear any of the AF-style CAP uniforms.
We do have weight restrictions, so Eclipse is correct, this is a non-answer/half-answer that does not address the part that matters. Of course, if the question was simply "Being under/over chart, can members still wear AF uniforms?", then the answer is correct.
But what answer would NHQ give to an obviously obese person above or below the scale?
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on September 28, 2016, 03:24:01 PM
But what answer would NHQ give to an obviously obese person above or below the scale?
I don't know, but I suspect - like the question and answer that
were actually given - it would be based on the individual facts and circumstances.
But this wasn't even remotely a question about obesity. It was a question from a valued prospective member with an unusual medical condition that affects about 1 in 40,000 people in the US.
It is perhaps not surprising that the regulation does not address every conceivable medical condition that might affect height and weight. That's why we sometimes have to seek clarification in truly unusual situations.
How we got from providing an inclusive answer to a prospective member to "those guys at NHQ can't answer simple questions correctly" remains a mystery to me.
Quote from: Ned on September 28, 2016, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on September 28, 2016, 03:24:01 PM
But what answer would NHQ give to an obviously obese person above or below the scale?
I don't know, but I suspect - like the question and answer that were actually given - it would be based on the individual facts and circumstances.
But this wasn't even remotely a question about obesity. It was a question from a valued prospective member with an unusual medical condition that affects about 1 in 40,000 people in the US.
It is perhaps not surprising that the regulation does not address every conceivable medical condition that might affect height and weight. That's why we sometimes have to seek clarification in truly unusual situations.
How we got from providing an inclusive answer to a prospective member to "those guys at NHQ can't answer simple questions correctly" remains a mystery to me.
This is the true power of CAPTALK. Turn the most positive things into a negative.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on September 28, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
Quote from: Ned on September 28, 2016, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on September 28, 2016, 03:24:01 PM
But what answer would NHQ give to an obviously obese person above or below the scale?
I don't know, but I suspect - like the question and answer that were actually given - it would be based on the individual facts and circumstances.
But this wasn't even remotely a question about obesity. It was a question from a valued prospective member with an unusual medical condition that affects about 1 in 40,000 people in the US.
It is perhaps not surprising that the regulation does not address every conceivable medical condition that might affect height and weight. That's why we sometimes have to seek clarification in truly unusual situations.
How we got from providing an inclusive answer to a prospective member to "those guys at NHQ can't answer simple questions correctly" remains a mystery to me.
This is the true power of CAPTALK. Turn the most positive things into a negative.
I'd like to see the negative aspect. This forum is...a discussion forum.
A person came on, received answers/suggestions, and ultimately got an answer that was deemed good enough for them. Lo and behold, people on a discussion forum, with years of experience in CAP, didn't get the answer they were looking for on a broader approach to the question.
Do we need to publish a H/W chart for all sizes? Certainly not. But the question stands.
I think that the "major" issue was that the implied question: What is the maximum weight that a member x'y" tall can weigh to be allowed to wear the AF Style uniforms, wasn't asked therefore was not answered. To which, a certain member, said that it should have.
To a certain extent, I agree with. On the other side, there are so many different variations that go along with implied questions (that may or may not be in the askers mind) that those answers would drown out the answer to the explicit question actually posed. That is not the issue of the Knowledge Base. It is the the issue of the questioner.
If this was the answer provided..
Quote from: Sentinel on September 27, 2016, 09:39:04 PM
There are no Civil Air Patrol height restrictions or minimums to wear the AF-style uniforms, so you are authorized to wear any of the AF-style CAP uniforms.
The answer is both ambiguous to the situation, and the second part is factually incorrect, or at best disingenuous, as the standard is not
based solely on one's height (despite many people who think it is).
Quote from: Eclipse on September 28, 2016, 03:37:41 AM
Per CAPM 39-1, Page 119:
1. Members who are aged 18 and older must meet CAP weight standards in order to wear the USAF-style uniform.
You either meet the "standard" or you don't. In this case, there is no standard which can be met, ergo...
39-1 is the sole authority and there is no process for waiver, and certainly the KB does not have the authority to grant that "approval".
Twice the term "valued perspective member" was used in a condescending way as if no one else understands what it takes to
recruit and retain members.
You know what works wonders? Consistency of purpose and execution - new members join, are given a set of documents and
regulations, and they see that they are applied fairly and evenly and when exceptions are necessary, there's more of a process then
"some guy said it was OK", because when something as basic and simple as uniform regulations can't just be followed consistently by everyone,
what does that say about more complex situations like 60-1/3 & 52-16?
"The reg says 'x'..."
"Meh...some guy said you don't have to..."
And yes, it's all related.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2016, 05:30:14 PM
I think that the "major" issue was that the implied question: What is the maximum weight that a member x'y" tall can weigh to be allowed to wear the AF Style uniforms, wasn't asked therefore was not answered.
But to be fair,
that exact question is already answered in the regulation for literally
99.9% of the population.
Members with highly unusual medical conditions that put them outside the H/W charts have be dealt with on an individual basis.
I think the 39-1 is already too long and too complex to be understood by the average member. IMHO, it is literally
unknowable already. Just imagine how lengthy and detailed the regulation would have to be to deal with every abnormal growth condition, amputation, or other conditions known to medical science.
The constant focus and preoccupation on uniform trivia and minutia on this board does not reflect well on us.
And Bob, I can only agree that "you either meet the standard or you don't." But as NHQ correctly pointed out, should the OP choose to join, he would not violate anything in the 39-1. I suppose reasonable minds could differ, but if you don't violate a standard, I'm thinking you are good to go.
Not violating a standard also means that a waiver isn't necessary in the first place. (FWIW, I agree that there is no waiver process in the regulation. Maybe there should be, but that is moot in this particular instance.)
Quote from: Ned on September 28, 2016, 06:06:34 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2016, 05:30:14 PM
I think that the "major" issue was that the implied question: What is the maximum weight that a member x'y" tall can weigh to be allowed to wear the AF Style uniforms, wasn't asked therefore was not answered.
But to be fair, that exact question is already answered in the regulation for literally 99.9% of the population.
Members with highly unusual medical conditions that put them outside the H/W charts have be dealt with on an individual basis.
I think the 39-1 is already too long and too complex to be understood by the average member. IMHO, it is literally unknowable already. Just imagine how lengthy and detailed the regulation would have to be to deal with every abnormal growth condition, amputation, or other conditions known to medical science.
Agreed. I should have noted that those values were outside of the specifications of 39-1. That's why I said that it was the implied question, because otherwise it is already answered in 39-1, those that fall outside of the table deserve the answer if they are in compliance with the intent of 39-1. I'm not arguing that we should- nor suggesting that we do- define the limits to the n
th degree, as that is asinine, and unrealistic. They do deserve an answer to that question when they need it. They, also, need to ask that question, if they want that particular answer was needed.
I'm not saying that the member asked the wrong question. I was responding what a certain member was saying about an implied question that wasn't asked, and not answered. Just because he wanted that specific implied question answered as a matter of course, doesn't mean that it need to be answered, nor should it have. If he really wants an answer to it, he certainly free to ask it himself.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 28, 2016, 05:49:59 PM
~snippity~
So what I see you saying is he needs a waiver.
What I see Ned saying (based on the KB answer) is, he doesn't violate the reg, meaning he doesn't need a waiver because he does not violate what exists.
It's a unique situation, but since we don't have minimum height established... I see where KB is coming from.
With the weight given, he also far exceeds any weight standard whatsoever (in the good way) so I wouldn't take issue with it.
1st Lt Raduenz
Remind me never to ask you guys for directions if I am lost. There is always a grey area,it is not always black and white.
Quote from: SMWOG on September 28, 2016, 08:20:08 PMThere is always a grey area,it is not always black and white.
No there really isn't, especially in CAP parlance, the problem is that CAP wants to switch from analog to digital as it becomes
convenient or when digital might make someone sad.
The result becomes ambiguity and wasted time as the SOP.
Quote from: SMWOG on September 28, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
Remind me never to ask you guys for directions if I am lost. There is always a grey area,it is not always black and white.
Whatcha wanna do is go down yonder by the Chuck Wagon...but if you seen the Chuck Wagon, you gone too faaaaar...
Quote from: THRAWN on September 28, 2016, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: SMWOG on September 28, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
Remind me never to ask you guys for directions if I am lost. There is always a grey area,it is not always black and white.
Whatcha wanna do is go down yonder by the Chuck Wagon...but if you seen the Chuck Wagon, you gone too faaaaar...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgX6qlJEMc
And I think we''re done here. Q asked; answers and recommendations supplied.
Click.