2012 civil air patrol national conference

[BigShu]

I always thought Clausewitz said that, but the interwebs suggest Von Moltke, Prussian Chief of Staff for Bismark.

[Eclipse]

So we are getting the tigerstripe uniform? Wow. Honestly, did not expect that...

Not going to happen.

The USAF will be out of them well before we would ever get a waiver.

[PHall]

So we are getting the tigerstripe uniform? Wow. Honestly, did not expect that...

No, we are asking for permission to wear the uniform.  How fast the approval comes, if it comes, is another question.
You can probably count on this not being a quick decision...

[PHall]

So we are getting the tigerstripe uniform? Wow. Honestly, did not expect that...

Not going to happen.

The USAF will be out of them well before we would ever get a waiver.

What, you have a direct line to the CSAF or something?

[BrannG]

Thank you Ned for the update. Eager to read the executive summary.

About the ABUs, I am sure they will be authorized also, as I know some of the CAP-USAF personnel who already knew they were granted pending "unique" changes that would separate us from AD. So.. my guess is that SoD will either like the "unique" factors or request further changes.. so yeah, very lengthy process indeed.

My guess : Late 2013 approval with a 2015 phase in date. By that time...

[Garibaldi]

Thank you Ned for the update. Eager to read the executive summary.

About the ABUs, I am sure they will be authorized also, as I know some of the CAP-USAF personnel who already knew they were granted pending "unique" changes that would separate us from AD. So.. my guess is that SoD will either like the "unique" factors or request further changes.. so yeah, very lengthy process indeed.

My guess : Late 2013 approval with a 2015 phase in date. By that time...

Considering the length of time it took to get BDUs authorized, I am inclined to agree.

[MSG Mac]

So we are getting the tigerstripe uniform? Wow. Honestly, did not expect that...

That's not what Ned said.

"NHQ is working up a package to go forward to the Office of the Secretary of Defense to receive a waiver / authorization to wear ABUs.  My personal guess is that such a request will be granted, but we are talking about a lengthy beaurocratic journey either way."

Since it's going to SECDEF, there will be a lot of stops along the way Air Staff, CSAF, SECAF, than a bunch of Asst and Deputy Defense Secretaries, before hitting the SECDEF's agenda. The ride down would be  faster
to include determining cost to the Air Force, current supplies, and availability. 

There is also a push to get a common "utility" uniform for all the services due to the budget requirements that require the DofD to drastically cut their budget requirements.

[abdsp51]

Again unless something has come down from CSAF or CMSAF the ABU is here for a long time.  Anything else is rumor.

[Eclipse]

So we are getting the tigerstripe uniform? Wow. Honestly, did not expect that...

Not going to happen.

The USAF will be out of them well before we would ever get a waiver.

What, you have a direct line to the CSAF or something?

The same line everyone else has - common sense, reason, the ability to read not only the writing on the wall, but also the
writing between the lines.

My guess : Late 2013 approval with a 2015 phase in date. By that time...

Not a chance, unless you're referring to a full transition to the blue field uniform while the USAF's uniforms are in their own transition.
I don't see CAP being in the same field uniform as the USAF again (assuming they ever are), until around 2020.

[AngelWings]

I am positive we will get them, and I am positive we'll get them within a year or two.

So we are getting the tigerstripe uniform? Wow. Honestly, did not expect that...

Not going to happen.

The USAF will be out of them well before we would ever get a waiver.

What, you have a direct line to the CSAF or something?

The same line everyone else has - common sense, reason, the ability to read not only the writing on the wall, but also the
writing between the lines.

Common sense is yelling in my ear right now that money is too tight for the Air Force to screw around with a new uniform.

[Eclipse]

Common sense is yelling in my ear right now that money is too tight for the Air Force to screw around with a new uniform.

This doesn't even jive with recent reality, where in certain areas USAF personnel have moved to a different uniform.

It's just a matter of time.

[abdsp51]

Common sense is yelling in my ear right now that money is too tight for the Air Force to screw around with a new uniform.

This doesn't even jive with recent reality, where in certain areas USAF personnel have moved to a different uniform.

It's just a matter of time.

That is out of operational necessity and is not authorized outside of that area.  A change for a mission does not mean a change across the board.

[Eclipse]

That is out of operational necessity and is not authorized outside of that area.  A change for a mission does not mean a change across the board.

Correct - the across the broad change will be fueled by the perceived failure of the ABU pattern, and moves to cut military spending by
re-consolidating the field uniforms.  My guess is the Marines and Navy fight to stay "different", but that the NWU is retired and the
ABU / ACU will be combined into an "other" single uniform.  I'd say its even money the Marines stay "unique".

Regardless, the simple fact that the uniform is in flux at all, even if only conversationally, with the fact that CAP has no mission-based need for
it, will combine to insure we never see the ACU in it's current form.

Good on all of us for turning a conference thread into a uniform thread, despite the fact that nothing was even mentioned publicly about uniforms
at the conference itself.

[Garibaldi]

Common sense is yelling in my ear right now that money is too tight for the Air Force to screw around with a new uniform.

This doesn't even jive with recent reality, where in certain areas USAF personnel have moved to a different uniform.

It's just a matter of time.

That is out of operational necessity and is not authorized outside of that area.  A change for a mission does not mean a change across the board.

Just like the chocolate chips.

[AngelWings]

Common sense is yelling in my ear right now that money is too tight for the Air Force to screw around with a new uniform.

This doesn't even jive with recent reality, where in certain areas USAF personnel have moved to a different uniform.

It's just a matter of time.

So because we can outfit a few people with a different camo uniform means we have enough money to do the same for everyone? THAT doesn't jive with recent reality. It's a deployment uniform you are talking about, the Multicam. More so, it is an outside the wire uniform for most airmen. Did you even consider this?:
There is the ABS: Airman Battle Shirt.
There is the Fire Resistant ABU: Designed to provide resistance to fire for those AFSC's that require the
There is the a complete line (which the above come from) called the ABSG: Airman Battle System- Ground, for those who need it.
There is rip-stop ABU's being made and authorized: Requires a contract that lasts for at least a few years from what I've seen.
There is new ABU gear to match everything: However expensive, I've seen ABU MOLLE gear used be a few SFS's.
There is not one regular joe airman wearing Multicam stateside as a regular uniform: Binford O'Tools hasn't even done that yet.
There is the Army who wants to adopt the Multicam uniform as their uniform: Branches want to look different.

Seems like the USAF wants to waste all of its money. That stuff is not cheap, and the contracts to purchase the equipment would be a disaster to even think of trying to cancel or to let run out. The blue cool-aid is taintable with stupid juice, but I assure you that Ma Blue hasn't spilled that much of the stupid juice into the blue cool-aid.

YMMV depending on how you look at it.

[SarDragon]

That is out of operational necessity and is not authorized outside of that area.  A change for a mission does not mean a change across the board.

Correct - the across the broad change will be fueled by the perceived failure of the ABU pattern, and moves to cut military spending by
re-consolidating the field uniforms.  My guess is the Marines and Navy fight to stay "different", but that the NWU is retired and the
ABU / ACU will be combined into an "other" single uniform.  I'd say its even money the Marines stay "unique".

Regardless, the simple fact that the uniform is in flux at all, even if only conversationally, with the fact that CAP has no mission-based need for
it, will combine to insure we never see the ACU in it's current form.

Good on all of us for turning a conference thread into a uniform thread, despite the fact that nothing was even mentioned publicly about uniforms
at the conference itself.

The Navy will stay different, because they have always been different. They have different requirements for working uniforms than the folks whose primary working environment is in the "dirt". Even back when USA, USMC, and USAF all wore the same working uniform, the Navy's was different.

There are certain parts of the Navy that will have "dirt" related uniforms, because of their nature. Otherwise, their working uniform is designed for serving on a ship.

[arajca]

Good on all of us for turning a conference thread into a uniform thread, despite the fact that nothing was even mentioned publicly about uniforms at the conference itself.

Most of us have no idea, besides the governance issue, what WAS mentioned at the conference. That's what driving this.

[denverpilot]

After thinking about it for a couple of days...

Boards of Directors have shown to be very weak Corporate Governance in the last couple of decades. I see no evidence this makes us stronger, it just makes us the same.

There's short-term benefits in that, but it's not necessarily a path to long-term strategic success. (1)

The education requirements are silly, but also another "way of the world" type thing. No one who grew up having to skip out of college to win the bread, and who got the job done as a self-made personal and business success, without adding to the Country's  massive Student Loan Debt bubble (2), will be in the least surprised at that particular discriminatory practice.

-----

(1) All of the organizations that collapsed the global economy were supposedly "governed" by traditional Boards of Directors. All were warned of the dangers by staff, all willingly chose to ignore the warnings posed. If it weren't for government assistance, they'd be out of business. Not a very rosy picture of the effectiveness of traditional BoD style governance.

(2) http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/18/150909686/what-america-owes-in-student-loans

[keystone102]

I think the governance change is good for our organization. Having 11 people overseeing our direction is better than having the >60 people we had on the National Board. Less people means less conflict/drama/opinions on what to do. Hopefully it will also lessen the amount of politics at the Wing/Region/National level. Politics will never be gone but in this case less is best.

[Pylon]

After thinking about it for a couple of days...

Boards of Directors have shown to be very weak Corporate Governance in the last couple of decades. I see no evidence this makes us stronger, it just makes us the same.

There's short-term benefits in that, but it's not necessarily a path to long-term strategic success. (1)

The education requirements are silly, but also another "way of the world" type thing. No one who grew up having to skip out of college to win the bread, and who got the job done as a self-made personal and business success, without adding to the Country's  massive Student Loan Debt bubble (2), will be in the least surprised at that particular discriminatory practice.

-----

(1) All of the organizations that collapsed the global economy were supposedly "governed" by traditional Boards of Directors. All were warned of the dangers by staff, all willingly chose to ignore the warnings posed. If it weren't for government assistance, they'd be out of business. Not a very rosy picture of the effectiveness of traditional BoD style governance.

(2) http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/18/150909686/what-america-owes-in-student-loans

We can all find anecdotal evidence of standard non-profit and corporate structure not working well, just like anything else.  You can find an example of anything not working 1% of the time.  "Countries using democracy as their form of government have failed miserably before, therefore democracy is a flawed governance system!"  Well, yeah, everything human-made is flawed.  But it's still better than most of the alternatives.   Correlation does not indicate causation.  Your logic is incredibly flawed.


As for the student loans issue, this doesn't change the fact that in most industries a degree is a standard requirement for pretty much every executive position ever.  CAP is not special.  CAP is joining what's known as "best practices" for hoards of fellow successfully-operating non-profit corporations.  CAP is not special.  If you have an opinion about the whole national collegiate system and the national status quo of job requirements, then take issue with that nationally — not CAP.  CAP is simply doing what thousands of other organizations have found to be a good starting-point standard.  CAP is not special.


Also, nobody said this governance change was a path to strategic success.  Not sure why you thought that.  This is a change to make our day-to-day issues of running the organization smoother, with less conflict, and faster (among other things).  A path to long-term strategic success still and always will come from a strategic plan.  Don't attribute unrelated potential future failures to a new system that's not even designed to directly solve those issues.   Let me use an example to reframe your argument.  "A different board of directors and governance structure is not a solution to our long-term cadet programs growth."   Yeah, well no kidding it's not. But it may make the process of implementing good changes easier.  See the difference now?