Height & AF-Style Uniforms

[Майор Хаткевич]

I continue to be puzzled by you response that the answer "does not address the actual question" when it plainly does so.

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.

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?

[Ned]

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.

[Holding Pattern]

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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

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.

[RogueLeader]

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.

[Eclipse]

If this was the answer provided..

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).

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. 

[Ned]

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.)

[RogueLeader]

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.

[DakRadz]

~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

[SMWOG]

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.

[Eclipse]

There 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.

[THRAWN]

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...

[Eclipse]

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

[SarDragon]

And I think we''re done here. Q asked; answers and recommendations supplied.

Click.