Can the Uniform Policy save the Credibility of the CAP?

[cnitas]

I think this thread was useful for at least one thing...

It got us through a full 24 hours without a post to a uniform thread!

Hope it does not last more than 48 hrs.  I am starting to have withdraw.   

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Someone said my signature on this board means I'm speaking on behalf of someone else. Not at all. The signature on a chat board identifies me, and tells people here what I do. I don't think you can hold anyone on a chat board to anything more than that. Also, my signature here doesn't have to be Tongue And Quill-correct. This site doesn't serve as official correspondence. It's a friggin' chat site, for crying out loud.

If I were speaking for someone else, or for higher headquarters, I'd be doing so in a different venue. Sorry, folks, if you thought otherwise.

Sorry, Buck, I gotta go with afg on this.  I don't think the format matters to anyone, but the listing of staff positions is only there as an indicator of BTDT for credibility, and conversely you have to accept that if you say it linked to listing who you "are", you are open to getting tapped by higher HQ.

You can't have it both ways.

BTW - what is this thread about, anyway?

Boy, I don't know what it's about, but it's been interesting.

You know, I'll take the signature thoughts under advisement. I put them there so people would know who I am and what I do, not to say that I speak with some authority from on high. I believe in transparency, which means I'm not going to have Internet Tough Guy Syndrome, hiding behind a pseudonym. I'm no different from anyone else...

... except that I'm a former cadet, a squadron commander, a major (still), an aviator, and somehow wound up helping the national staff. OK, so maybe you would perceive it that way.

My apologies. Again, I went off half-cocked last night, so my apologies there, also.

No more mea culpas. You got your quota from me already! 

[DogCollar]

I think this thread was useful for at least one thing...

It got us through a full 24 hours without a post to a uniform thread!

Hope it does not last more than 48 hrs.  I am starting to have withdraw.   

Could've been worse.  We could have been talking about Brett Favre!!

[Civilian_Pilot]

This was a war-born organization. Cadets came later. I take the "Scouts" comment as an insult.

.

It is amazing how to a certain few this is such an underlining theme.

When this is so much more a cooler statement:

After the end of World War II CAP became the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force, and its incorporating charter declared that it would never again be involved in direct combat activities, but would be of a benevolent nature.

It almost makes me think a few selected persons almost wish we were in a shooting war.

Amazing.

[lordmonar]

In WWII?   We were in a shooting war.  We dropped bombs on enemy submarines and credited with two kills IIRC.

[D242]

So, uh, Buckeye, where do you think Fossett is hiding out?

(Just between you and me, of course.)

[BuckeyeDEJ]

So, uh, Buckeye, where do you think Fossett is hiding out?

(Just between you and me, of course.)

If I knew, would I tell you without an incident commander's approval? And at this point, without Gen. Amy's approval, too? 

By the way, you owe me a keyboard. I shot it full of Pepsi, laughing when I read your question.

[D242]

Sorry about the keyboard.   

I apologize, but I couldn't resist the chance at that one, since your earlier statements about speaking only for yourself made it seem as if the lesson so recently provided about how things said by PAOs, even outside the mission context, get attributed, simply by association, to the organization. I'm glad you were able to laugh at my comment.

(And I'll admit I never functioned in that role, so I'm not in a fair position to criticize anyone that has, but I do remember being briefed about how the media does things. )

To tie that back into the subject of the thread though, which (uniforms notwithstanding), is the "credibility" of CAP--Several comments have been made that the nature of this board is informal, and none of the discussions here should necessarily reflect directly on the organization itself. I can't agree with that, and I'll expound on that.

When I was a member, there was a group of us that often went to a local resturaunt after the meetings for dinner, and conversation. Nothing bad ever happened there; quite the opposite I hope. We were in our uniforms, and obviously CAP members. The resturaunt was near the airport, so in addition to the general public, there were often other patrons that were members of the aviation community. Whatever impression we made on the other folks in that resturaunt, was the impression they got of CAP in general.

This is an internet forum. In the same way that we were giving an impression to those in the resturaunt, the members that post here are giving an impression to everyone that bothers to browse the board. The difference here is that what's posted here, remains, for all to see, even after the poster has logged off. I must admit that I have found many of the posts here to reflect the same high standards that I enjoyed about my time as a member, but at the same time, I've seen some that leave a negative impression--some that reinforce some of the negative stereotypes associated with CAP. I'd also be less than candid if I didn't admit that I believe some of those stereotypes have a basis in reality.

The thread was started to discuss CAP's "credibility". As we all know, CAP is still one of the nation's best kept secrets. If there's a question of credibility, it's limited mainly to those in the aviation community, because most of everybody else doesn't even know of CAP's existence (until there's a major search or something, and once that's over, they soon forget.) By "those in the aviation community" I mean people like the opening poster, Civilian_Pilot. Having been on the inside, I'm aware of the high level of sincerity, integrity, devotion to helping others, etc., that's exhibited every day by CAP members, but I think it does pay to be aware that there are others who've yet to see that with their own eyes, and when they offer their opinions, to take them into account.

It has been said of some things, "perception equals reality." If someone on the outside percieves that there's a problem with CAP's credibilty...

[BuckeyeDEJ]

To be fair, there's a lot of things said on this board, good and bad, informed and ignorant. Does it reflect upon CAP? I'm not totally sure I agree.

Though, also to be fair, I can appreciate what you're talking about.

I wish people wouldn't blame the media all the time. Yes, there are times the media's biased. There's times they (we, since I'm a newspaper editor) make mistakes. Few are the times something's totally fabricated. And in the case of the Ryan-Fossett quotes, I still don't believe the comments were made.

Perception is reality: What we look like to people on the outside heavily influences what people think of us. That's why some of us have such a hangup on uniforms -- ultimately, the hangup isn't on uniforms, but instead on overall image. That's where CAP suffers, every time a member goes out in public looking like a slob.

Wow, I think we found some agreement. I'll bet even C_P might find something to agree with here.

[D242]

Perception is reality:

I wish people wouldn't blame the media all the time. Yes, there are times the media's biased. There's times they (we, since I'm a newspaper editor) make mistakes.

Then you're probably not going to be happy to hear me say that my perception is that there's a credibility problem with the media.   

What we look like to people on the outside heavily influences what people think of us. That's why some of us have such a hangup on uniforms -- ultimately, the hangup isn't on uniforms, but instead on overall image. That's where CAP suffers, every time a member goes out in public looking like a slob.

Looking like a slob, certainly would present a negative image of the CAP as a whole. The other discussion, about Ryan's uniform malfunctions didn't mention that she looked like a slob (that I can recall), but rather on things like the earrings, the outdated patch, etc. Those are things that the general public would probably never notice, but a member might, and a member of the actual military might. That doesn't excuse it, but I'm not sure the two sets of perceptions are of equal influence on the organization's image. As I expressed somewhere above, I agree that the proper wear of the uniform is important. (The USAF type uniform especially. The corporate styles, not so much.) That's simply out of respect for the larger meaning of what the uniform represnts.

And with further reference to that, I always thought that it looked sort of rag-tag to have a roomful of members at (whatever activity) wearing a half dozen different types of uniform, even if each and every one of them was strictly in compliance with 39-1. I mean, doesn't "uniform" (the noun) refer back to "uniform" (the adjective)?   

[Eclipse]

In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

[Hawk200]

In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

Mind if I borrow that? Been trying to figure out a way to say such a thing, but never could quite do it.

[lordmonar]

In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

There is a little bit of truth to that.....but you can only carry that so far.  Attention to detail must also be weighed with time and resource management.  Sometimes you have to prioritise.....I don't have to time to be a "perfectionist" in everything I do.  But the "important" things I do keep the appropriate attention to detail.

[davedove]

In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

There is a little bit of truth to that.....but you can only carry that so far.  Attention to detail must also be weighed with time and resource management.  Sometimes you have to prioritise.....I don't have to time to be a "perfectionist" in everything I do.  But the "important" things I do keep the appropriate attention to detail.

I think there is truth to that.  In general, a person who cares about his uniform tends to project the image that he cares about other details as well.  However, you have to keep a balance.  There are some people who are so concerned about their uniform that they don't take appropriate care in other situations.

You know, the type of person who you wouldn't trust with a CAP DF unit, let alone a plane, but boy his uniform sure looks sharp.

What I'm saying is that the image may be perceived one way but it not necessarily the accurate way.

[BrianH76]

In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

There is a little bit of truth to that.....but you can only carry that so far.  Attention to detail must also be weighed with time and resource management.  Sometimes you have to prioritise.....I don't have to time to be a "perfectionist" in everything I do.  But the "important" things I do keep the appropriate attention to detail.

I think there is truth to that.  In general, a person who cares about his uniform tends to project the image that he cares about other details as well.  However, you have to keep a balance.  There are some people who are so concerned about their uniform that they don't take appropriate care in other situations.

You know, the type of person who you wouldn't trust with a CAP DF unit, let alone a plane, but boy his uniform sure looks sharp.

What I'm saying is that the image may be perceived one way but it not necessarily the accurate way.

Our appearance has a direct relationship with how we are perceived by others outside the organization.  Yes, they may not know what patch goes where and whether the measurements are correct, but they do know whether an individual's uniform is clean, pressed, and fits properly, and it absolutely can affect their confidence in our abilities.  I'm not suggesting that you miss mission briefings or movements while you're in the back room starching your uniform or shining your boots, but at least understand that if you're seen walking around with a messed-up uniform, people will perceive you as less than competent. 

This idea that we need not wear our uniform correctly because we're "focusing on our priorities" is folly.  Show me an individual who looks sharp in uniform, and I would lay a bet that nine out of ten are exceptional members who are the best at what they do. 

Uniforms are a part of CAP; those who want to minimize this requirement should buy their golf shirt and get on with business.  Those who want to wear a uniform should wear it correctly, and if they haven't taken the time or care to ensure they're wearing it correctly, they shouldn't get mad when someone corrects them for it.  Sorry for the rant, but it really irritates me that some members think that wearing an AF uniform however they so choose is their God-given right for paying $52 a year.  It is a privilege that carries with it the responsibility of wearing the uniform correctly.  Not doing so is disrespectful to those who's right to wear the uniform was paid for with their life.

[lordmonar]

Sure....you take the 10 guys who are very shap in unfiorms and most of them will be sharp in sills as well.  Some of them will be just mediocer and some of them will be teriible.

But you take the 80 guys who just wear their uniform and are not concerned with the "attention to detail" of their uniform and you will find that the percentage of good-acceptable-bad is probably the same.

It is a matter of degree here.  "Attention to detail" means every "detail" is just as important as every other "detail".   So I sewed on my wing patch and it is .75" instead of .50+/-.000001" does not necessairily mean that when I check the oil in the C-182 I blow it off when it is below the fill line or that I do not make sure all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed on my property inventory.

[Eclipse]

It is a matter of degree here.  "Attention to detail" means every "detail" is just as important as every other "detail". 

No, it doesn't.

And you know as well as the rest of us that these discussions rarely center on 3rd-decimal positioning of a patch. 

They are generally about people who have overtly chosen to do something counter-, or extra-reg, and in many cases refuse to correct things when pointed out, instead making a constant argument why something "should be allowed", which is beside the point.

The flipside is people who can't be bothered to open a manual.

The majority of members, though, do things pretty well, ask questions when they aren't sure, and make corrections when they get something wrong.  For most members uniforms are "set and forget", with an occasional adjustment for a decoration, grade or new insignia.  That's how its supposed to be.

100% of CAP duty can be accomplished in the golf shirt or civilian dress, so there is no excuse for incorrect wear of more complicated uniforms.

There are slobs in every service, FD/PD, military, but for the most part the credibility issues are internal - as long as the fire's out, the streets are safe, and the bad guys are kept at bay, few of the "customers" really care how the uniform looks.

[Civilian_Pilot]

Indeed

[Hawk200]

For most members uniforms are "set and forget", with an occasional adjustment for a decoration, grade or new insignia. 

This is probably why the issue of improper uniform is probably blown up so much. It doesn't really take that much to be in proper uniform, especially uniforms where the insignia is sewn on. If something isn't placed right or you don't have it, there is little reason that you can't have it fixed by the next week, or the week after.

The problem is when the same person shows up with the same problem every week for three or four months. That's where it shows they don't care. It's minor to wait a week or two to get a nametag. It's major when it takes six months. We may only meet once a week on average, but there are still things you should be doing between meetings.

[lordmonar]

If someone shows up with a minor or a major uniform malfunction.....why is someone not talking to them?

If they show up 3-4 times with the same problem...that is a leadership issue not a attention to detail issue.

My point about the "attention to detail" is that just because you are razor sharp does not mean you are competent to do your job.....and by the same toke just because you are duffle bag does not mean you are incompetent.

Yes...uniforms are important.  But sometimes we do overstress the importance of uniforms.