Cadets in Oct.-Dec. 2010 "Volunteer"

[Senior]

On Page 12, in the bottom left corner, a picture of cadets in military
face paint appears.  It is for a CAP competition, but I don't get the
face paint.  

[Eclipse]

What is there to "get"?  The cadets like to put it on as part of team spirit, I'm not a big fan of stuff like that, but I don't see it as a big deal.

This activity takes place in my AOR - it is basically a series of teamwork challenges and none of the activities could be remotely construed as
"combat training", etc.

Were this on a military base, or involved some sort of arms or tactics training, I'd have an issue, but as it stands...

[Senior]

I find it interesting that folks on this blog go crazy about uniform violations, that some gear looks "to military" or complain about
bling and ranger programs, but it is okay to put a picture of cadets
in a national publication with face paint that is used for one purpose and one purpose only(concealment in military training).
That is what I don't "get" Eclipse.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

Is there something inherently immoral about camouflage?  If they can learn the military traditions of close-order drill and saluting, why can't they learn life-saving survival skills like camouflage?

My only beef about it is that it appears to be applied wrong.  Too even.  The high-shine areas of the face need to be darker.

[Eclipse]

I find it interesting that folks on this blog go crazy about uniform violations, that some gear looks "to military" or complain about
bling and ranger programs, but it is okay to put a picture of cadets
in a national publication with face paint that is used for one purpose and one purpose only(concealment in military training).That is what I don't "get" Eclipse.

Demonstrating the difference between actual problems and someone trying to make hay out of a non-problem.
Few folks with common sense have an issue with our cadets looking too "military", whatever that means considering
that CAP is a paramilitary program that shares a heritage and a uniform with a military service.

What is generally the issue is cadets portrayed doing something which is outside our core mission(s), or legitimate, actual, Bona Fide uniform violations, of which this is neither.

This is cadets having a good time participating in a wholly appropriate activity and being a little silly while doing it - occasionally we accidentally allow some fun, I don't personally see the appeal of enjoying one's self, but Kay and Sarah.

I will grant you the point that this is the type of photo that could be misinterpreted by someone looking to misinterpret it.   I would not personally have posted it in the Volunteer, but clearly the folks at NHQ had no issue with the appearance, and since it doesn't violate a single CAP reg...

[Senior]

John K.  I agree that the camo has been applied incorrectly.  They appear to be using the ACU colors and in the straight streaks popularized by Hollywood.  Light color camo around the eyes, dark camo on the forehead, and cheek, chin, blend in bloches.
   
Eclipse, I am not making hay, that is the job of a chopper, rake and baler.  I have read post on this blog that members were told that their SAR equipment looks to much like Rambo at mission bases.  We
don't allow members to have exposed fixed blade knives in the sheath at crash sights.  My point is this, a picture is worth a thousand words, if it appears in our national publication and a prospective cadet sees the picture then they think "kewl Rambo stuff".  Lets have some unity in thought and message we are sending to the public.  I am glad the cadets are out and about but I feel it was the wrong use of a photo.   

[JayT]

Eclipse, I am not making hay, that is the job of a chopper, rake and baler.  I have read post on this blog that members were told that their SAR equipment looks to much like Rambo at mission bases.  We don't allow members to have exposed fixed blade knives in the sheath at crash sights.  My point is this, a picture is worth a thousand words, if it appears in our national publication and a prospective cadet sees the picture then they think "kewl Rambo stuff".  Lets have some unity in thought and message we are sending to the public.  I am glad the cadets are out and about but I feel it was the wrong use of a photo.

There's a big difference between a fixed blade knife at a crash site (real world) and some face paint at some field day type of thing. If I show up to work with a fixed knife or ASP or baton on my belt, that's gonna give patients and other medics the wrong impression, and may be dangerous for me.

First off, the emergency service mission is only part of CAP's mission. It doesn't mean that everything CAP does should be soaked with ES related stuff. Military type stuff is perfectly acceptable in a paramilitary cadet program.

However, someone showing up to something with a K-Bar hung upside down off their suspenders is a different thing entirely.

[Senior]

Wow.  The fixed blade reference is from the ground team task manual.  I take from the manual that you can't have a fixed blade knife in a sheath anywhere visible on your person.  That is fine since
we aren't involved in close quarter fighting.  I was asking a simple question regarding the picture in the "Volunteer" because someone
here may have had first hand knowledge of the activity.  I am done.   

[SarDragon]

Well, the member who took the pic is a CT member, Bluelakes 13. Why don't you PM him?

[FARRIER]

Read the article and looked at the picture. I didn't see any issues or misconceptions.

Respectfully,

[lordmonar]

Wow.  The fixed blade reference is from the ground team task manual.  I take from the manual that you can't have a fixed blade knife in a sheath anywhere visible on your person.  That is fine since
we aren't involved in close quarter fighting.  I was asking a simple question regarding the picture in the "Volunteer" because someone
here may have had first hand knowledge of the activity.  I am done.

You need to read the manual again.

Nothing says you can't have them...only that they can't be openly displayed while doing crash site security duties.

As for the Camo Face paint........cadets like it....it is real rambo stuff.  They like the BDUs and the Full Metal Jacket in your face encampments too.

Some things we allow and some things we don't.

[RADIOMAN015]

Is there something inherently immoral about camouflage?  If they can learn the military traditions of close-order drill and saluting, why can't they learn life-saving survival skills like camouflage?

My only beef about it is that it appears to be applied wrong.  Too even.  The high-shine areas of the face need to be darker.

Of course the real question in my mind is how many senior members "wanna bees" at that activity had camouflage also applied to their faces.

Hey cadets, are kids that want to play army, so why not let them paint their faces, etc -- No real harm done!
RM

[Major Carrales]

Occasionally cadets get to do extraordinary things that are not "program."  They may have fun or take a photo in the spirit of the activity.  Sometimes PAOs will put these images in publications because they show cadets having a good time.

There is no harm in that.  We forget that cadets need to have a good time getting their training...if not, there will be no future cadets.  We have an obligation to provide strict training in an environment that makes them want to be in CAP.

[Pylon]

I find it interesting that folks on this blog go crazy about uniform violations, that some gear looks "to military" or complain about
bling and ranger programs, but it is okay to put a picture of cadets
in a national publication with face paint that is used for one purpose and one purpose only(concealment in military training).
That is what I don't "get" Eclipse.

Yyyyyyyyyeah.  You realize you're being a little ridiculous, right?


We use guidons. Their only real purpose is to identify the unit.  We don't really ever use the guidon to figure out what unit we're looking at.  99% of the time you already know.  Yet even in those situations where a guidon isn't needed, we often carry and display them.  It has other values as a tool to add complexity to drill and as an point of unit morale.   Should we get rid of guidons too, because they're "too military" and don't serve a truly important purpose in your omniscient view?


"Senior" envisions a cadet program where all the cadets just wear pressed polo shirts and khakis, sit quietly in sterile lecture halls devoid of any military insignia or artwork where they talk about leadership, teamwork, and aerospace as abstract subjects, and we recognize cadets for their progress by allowing them to wear a plain lapel pin bearing a numeral representing their achievement number.  Laughing, adventure, and anything not deemed essential by "Senior" would be strictly prohibited by his new CAPR 52-16.  This will surely induce hoardes of American teens to join Senior's new cadet program, and clearly they will benefit fifty-fold over the current iteration of the cadet program.


Thanks for figuring it all out for us.

[HGjunkie]

Yyyyyyyyyeah.  You realize you're being a little ridiculous, right?


We use guidons. Their only real purpose is to identify the unit.  We don't really ever use the guidon to figure out what unit we're looking at.  99% of the time you already know.  Yet even in those situations where a guidon isn't needed, we often carry and display them.  It has other values as a tool to add complexity to drill and as an point of unit morale.   Should we get rid of guidons too, because they're "too military" and don't serve a truly important purpose in your omniscient view?


"Senior" envisions a cadet program where all the cadets just wear pressed polo shirts and khakis, sit quietly in sterile lecture halls devoid of any military insignia or artwork where they talk about leadership, teamwork, and aerospace as abstract subjects, and we recognize cadets for their progress by allowing them to wear a plain lapel pin bearing a numeral representing their achievement number.  Laughing, adventure, and anything not deemed essential by "Senior" would be strictly prohibited by his new CAPR 52-16.  This will surely induce hoardes of American teens to join Senior's new cadet program, and clearly they will benefit fifty-fold over the current iteration of the cadet program.


Thanks for figuring it all out for us.

That has to be the best post I've read all week sir. I completely agree.  :clap:

[Bluelakes 13]

Did someone call?

As Bob asked, what's to get?  I am not a fan of face paint either, but if that helps their team spirit and have more fun, I do not see an issue with it.

No, my senior staff do not have face paint.

Being that this event had more participation than some encampments this year, I am very proud of it.  I am hoping to grow it into a region event next year with several Wings participating. 

More info here:

http://ilcapnews.blogs.com/il_cap_news_blog/2010/08/9th-annual-king-of-the-rock.html

[Senior]

Lordmonar, if you reread my post you will read that how I interpret
that statement is "can't have it visible on YOUR PERSON".  It would be
better to keep the long knives in your pack. 

Pylon,  I am a former Spaatz cadet so your analysis of me is completely WRONG.  I wish we could let the cadets do more military type stuff, but the lawyers in charge think the cadets might chip a nail, etc..

Bluelakes thanks for the simple reply.

Like I said at the end of my last post, I AM DONE

[jimmydeanno]

I wish we could let the cadets do more military type stuff, but the lawyers in charge think the cadets might chip a nail, etc..

Are we in the same program?

While this stuff wasn't banned before, I think the draft 52-16 speaks pretty well to this:

2-10. High Adventure Activities. With "challenge" being one of the key traits of cadet life (see paragraph 1-2), commanders are encouraged to offer cadets youth-scaled, high adventure activities (HAA). HAAs include rappelling, obstacle courses, low-ropes courses, water survival courses, and similar endeavors. However, short day hikes, compass courses, and bivouacs are routine aspects of cadet life and therefore are not considered HAAs.

There's even a way to go play paintball and airsoft, if you'd like, listed in it.

[Spaceman3750]

There's even a way to go play paintball and airsoft, if you'd like, listed in it.

Wearing only the finest bubblewrap .

But seriously, there is?

[Eclipse]

There's even a way to go play paintball and airsoft, if you'd like, listed in it.

Paintball and airsoft are explicitly prohibited.

[RobertAmphibian]

From the draft 52-16:

2-11. Weapons. There will be no firearms, air guns, paint guns or any devices that could be used as
weapons at cadet activities. The only exceptions to this policy are:
      a. Deactivated Firearms. Cadets may use facsimile or deactivated firearms only as part of an
honor guard or color guard. A deactivated firearm is one that will prevent the insertion of ammunition or
the firing of a weapon. A facsimile is a copy that is not capable of firing ammunition.
      b. Firearm Training. Cadets may participate in firearm training if the wing commander
approves the training facility and sponsoring personnel or agency in advance and in writing. For
additional guidance, see CAPR 900-3, Firearms: Assistance to Law Enforcement Officials. Training
must be sponsored and supervised by military personnel qualified as range officers or range safety
officers; local law enforcement officers qualified as firearms instructors; or National Rifle Association,
National Skeet Shooting Association, or Amateur Trap Shooting Association firearms instructors.
      c. Paint Ball & Simunitions. Due to liability, public image, and safety considerations, paintball
is not authorized as a stand-alone CAP activity. However, to maximize career orientation opportunities,
cadets may participate in paint ball or simunition-type (force-on-force marking cartridge) training
activities hosted by a law enforcement agency or military unit, following the guidelines listed in
paragraph 2-10. During these activities, cadets must wear protective equipment to include, at a minimum,
head and face protection, plus any additional gear required by the host agency. Throughout the event,
cadets must be under the direct supervision of a non-participating senior member.

[HGjunkie]

Too bad it's only a draft and in no way is it official documentation.

[Major Carrales]

I don't like playing "skirt the regs" so when cadets mention paintball I usually encourage them to form a team separate from the squadron and play it as a non-squadron activity, simply using members that happen to be in a squadron.  Plus, I don't want to use funds to maintain squadron paintball gear which would be better spent outfitting new cadets, maintaining squadron ES gear or maintaining  a local "squadron store" were cadets can get things they need without the wait and hassle of mail order. 

As for Airsoft, we considered getting two Airsoft rifles to simulate the real things on the Color Guard, however, it was cost prohibitive and then we thought better of it.

[Eclipse]

Too bad it's only a draft and in no way is it official documentation.

+1 this is still out for comment. 

At the point it is ever approved, which is a horrible idea, we can just deny the activity requests and move on with our lives...

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't like playing "skirt the regs" so when cadets mention paintball I usually encourage them to form a team separate from the squadron and play it as a non-squadron activity, simply using members that happen to be in a squadron.  Plus, I don't want to use funds to maintain squadron paintball gear which would be better spent outfitting new cadets, maintaining squadron ES gear or maintaining  a local "squadron store" were cadets can get things they need without the wait and hassle of mail order. 

As for Airsoft, we considered getting two Airsoft rifles to simulate the real things on the Color Guard, however, it was cost prohibitive and then we thought better of it.

You don't like playing "Skirt the Regs" so you organize a shadow organization outside the regs?  What's that?  "Pantylinering the Regs?"

[a2capt]

It's really not easy to control what a group of people does outside of the organization, just because they are part of the organization does not mean they can't partake in activities that the organization itself deems improper on liability grounds.

Telling them to go do it, as a non-unit activity isn't skirting the regs. Organizing it on unit time, finding ways to apply euphemisms to things... But stating "we can't support that as a CAP activity, you are however free to arrange it amongst yourselves.".

[Major Carrales]

I don't like playing "skirt the regs" so when cadets mention paintball I usually encourage them to form a team separate from the squadron and play it as a non-squadron activity, simply using members that happen to be in a squadron.  Plus, I don't want to use funds to maintain squadron paintball gear which would be better spent outfitting new cadets, maintaining squadron ES gear or maintaining  a local "squadron store" were cadets can get things they need without the wait and hassle of mail order. 

As for Airsoft, we considered getting two Airsoft rifles to simulate the real things on the Color Guard, however, it was cost prohibitive and then we thought better of it.

You don't like playing "Skirt the Regs" so you organize a shadow organization outside the regs?  What's that?  "Pantylinering the Regs?"

No, No...my dear friend, you misunderstand, in terms of that, I organize nothing.  Cadets can organize activities during their non-CAP "off hours..." that is any activity their parents will allow or condone.  Many of the cadets we have are friends outside the unit.  So long as they are doing legal things together, it is my understanding that it is not my duty to be shadowing them.  Unless being a cadet means you cannot ever participate in Paintball activities?

[jimmydeanno]

There's even a way to go play paintball and airsoft, if you'd like, listed in it.

Paintball and airsoft are explicitly prohibited.

Currently.  However, I can't think of anything that was in the previous draft 52-16 that didn't get approved previously.  The draft was crafted with the inputs of the National Cadet Advisor, Cadet Programs Directorate at NHQ, and several other CP "experts."  The National Board usually does a pretty good job of listening to the practical recommendations from these folks, I can't imagine that anything in there would cause an uproar at the NB meeting coming up.

Either way, my point was that the cadet program isn't as "mamby-pamby" as everyone makes it out to be.  It's typically local leaders creating their own twisted interpretation of the regulations because they don't want to put the effort in to do "cool things."

I've taken cadets hiking in 80+mph winds in -40F degree weather with 10 foot visibility because we were in the clouds.  I've done obstacle courses, ropes courses, water survival, marksmanship, PT challenges, rappelling, helicopter flights, wilderness survival, etc, all without "bubble-wrap." 

So, I really don't understand where this "national won't let us because the lawyers..." crap comes from.  The "high-adventure activities" section of the draft 52-16 was put in there to remind cadet program leaders that challenge and these high-adventure activities are in fact a necessary part of the cadet program.  Other than a way to do paintball and airsoft, etc there isn't anything "new" in terms of the types of activities that cadets *should* be participating in anyway.

[Eclipse]

There's even a way to go play paintball and airsoft, if you'd like, listed in it.

Paintball and airsoft are explicitly prohibited.

Currently.  However, I can't think of anything that was in the previous draft 52-16 that didn't get approved previously.

Point taken, but there isn't much point in arguing over something that isn't allowed.  It could be 5 years before the revision is published.

[RADIOMAN015]

I don't like playing "skirt the regs" so when cadets mention paintball I usually encourage them to form a team separate from the squadron and play it as a non-squadron activity, simply using members that happen to be in a squadron.

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage cadets to do anything on their own.  They are likely to tell their parents they are going with some other CAP cadets to a paint ball activity.  IF an injury occurs you likely are going to be getting the call since in the parents mind in is a CAP activity.

Also from a CAP senior/adult standpoint -- it's another land mine activity to stay away from IF ANY cadet is involved.  IF you are participating and something happens, again you are going to be drawn into this as a CAP member (regardless of what you think, based upon perception of the cadets parents).   Generally it's logical for senior members to support "sanctioned" CAP activities.  When you go out of that sanctioned 'box' you are asking for a problem that might cost you some time & money.
RM 

[a2capt]

We as a nation are not going to make another 225 years with this paranoid, hands off, approach- letting insurance companies and lawyers run the country, forcing us at every step of the way, to ask mother may I.

[HGjunkie]

Like I say,

"Political correctness and lawyers are going to drive our country into the ground".

[Flying Pig]

I didnt realize I had been quoting you all these years. :clap:

[HGjunkie]

I didnt realize I had been quoting you all these years. :clap:

[manfredvonrichthofen]

All cadets must wear helmet and knee and elbow pads, with wrist guards.

Why in the world are some members trying to take experiences away from the cadets? So what? they wore facepaint. Just wear it in the proper method. Green around the eyes and under the ckeek bones and on the forehead with black on the nose chin and cheek bones. This was evidently training that was just made a little more fun. If adding face paint and things of the sort allows for a little more fun and a feeling of team cohesion, then what is the big issue? I agree, maybe they shouldn't have put it in the volunteer, but oh well. No one else higher had a problem with it so why do you? Heck I know a few SMs that would do it around here with the cadets so that the cadets feel that we were in this with them, not just in this over them.

[Major Carrales]

I don't like playing "skirt the regs" so when cadets mention paintball I usually encourage them to form a team separate from the squadron and play it as a non-squadron activity, simply using members that happen to be in a squadron.

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage cadets to do anything on their own.  They are likely to tell their parents they are going with some other CAP cadets to a paint ball activity.  IF an injury occurs you likely are going to be getting the call since in the parents mind in is a CAP activity.

Also from a CAP senior/adult standpoint -- it's another land mine activity to stay away from IF ANY cadet is involved.  IF you are participating and something happens, again you are going to be drawn into this as a CAP member (regardless of what you think, based upon perception of the cadets parents).   Generally it's logical for senior members to support "sanctioned" CAP activities.  When you go out of that sanctioned 'box' you are asking for a problem that might cost you some time & money.
RM

I'll keep that in mind, once parents determine what is and what is not a CAP activity.  My point, which many of you are going out of your way to misunderstand, it that if cadets want to do paintball, they need to find it outside of CAP.   

There are a plethora places outside of CAP where they can do this...paintball clubs, other outdoor groups and the like.  I am not going to tell them they cannot go paintballing, I am going to point them away from doing it in CAP.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm still trying to digest "Cadets should not do anything on their own."  How are we gonna stop them?

[HGjunkie]

I don't like playing "skirt the regs" so when cadets mention paintball I usually encourage them to form a team separate from the squadron and play it as a non-squadron activity, simply using members that happen to be in a squadron.

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage cadets to do anything on their own.  They are likely to tell their parents they are going with some other CAP cadets to a paint ball activity.  IF an injury occurs you likely are going to be getting the call since in the parents mind in is a CAP activity.

Also from a CAP senior/adult standpoint -- it's another land mine activity to stay away from IF ANY cadet is involved.  IF you are participating and something happens, again you are going to be drawn into this as a CAP member (regardless of what you think, based upon perception of the cadets parents).   Generally it's logical for senior members to support "sanctioned" CAP activities.  When you go out of that sanctioned 'box' you are asking for a problem that might cost you some time & money.
RM

[Eclipse]

Not to mention that parents do not "determine what is or isn't a CAP activity".

it either is, or it isn't.  A distracted/confused/misinformed parent's understanding isn't really relevant.

[Major Carrales]

I'm still trying to digest "Cadets should not do anything on their own."  How are we gonna stop them?

We don't, if they want to go paintballing on their own dime and time, their parents let them and its not at a CAP activity we don't apply and could no more stop it than we could prevent them from watching cartoons.

[EMT-83]

Not to mention that parents do not "determine what is or isn't a CAP activity".

it either is, or it isn't.  A distracted/confused/misinformed parent's understanding isn't really relevant.

That had me a little confused as well.

Locally, we have no problem with figuring out if an activity is CAP or not. Any activity other than a regular squadron meeting requires a permission slip signed by the parent, or the cadet doesn't attend.

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

Hey cadets, are kids that want to play army, so why not let them paint their faces, etc -- No real harm done!
RM

Respectfully, I don't know what your ultimate impression of why Cadets join CAP, but I joined Civil Air Patrol to be of civilian service to my country. Not to play army.

Just to put my two cents in, If a Cadet decides to put camouflage facepaint during an exercise, so be it. They are not breaking any uniform regulations.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Hey cadets, are kids that want to play army, so why not let them paint their faces, etc -- No real harm done!
RM

Respectfully, I don't know what your ultimate impression of why Cadets join CAP, but I joined Civil Air Patrol to be of civilian service to my country. Not to play army.

Just to put my two cents in, If a Cadet decides to put camouflage facepaint during an exercise, so be it. They are not breaking any uniform regulations.

Besides isn't there a stipulation in the regulations that says that an activity director can modify the uniform for the activity? So long as no one wears the paint out side of the activity then nothing is wrong at all.

Also, Radioman, were you a cadet?

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

Hey cadets, are kids that want to play army, so why not let them paint their faces, etc -- No real harm done!
RM

Respectfully, I don't know what your ultimate impression of why Cadets join CAP, but I joined Civil Air Patrol to be of civilian service to my country. Not to play army.

Just to put my two cents in, If a Cadet decides to put camouflage facepaint during an exercise, so be it. They are not breaking any uniform regulations.

Besides isn't there a stipulation in the regulations that says that an activity director can modify the uniform for the activity? So long as no one wears the paint out side of the activity then nothing is wrong at all.

Also, Radioman, were you a cadet?

I am not exactly sure, since it has be about 6 months since I have read the dreaded 39-1, but I think you are correct. But don't quote me on that.

[Eclipse]

Besides isn't there a stipulation in the regulations that says that an activity director can modify the uniform for the activity?

No, there is not.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Besides isn't there a stipulation in the regulations that says that an activity director can modify the uniform for the activity?

No, there is not.

Oh, ok, then I guess the orange tshirt during ES operations isn't allowed, nor is CAWG requiring that anyone participating in ES Operations must wear the BBDU is against regulation then.

Also if wearing a bright orange cap for the headgear instead of the BDU cap is ok every week, then why not a little face paint for a couple hours in the middle of the field or woods?

[Eclipse]

Oh, ok, then I guess the orange tshirt during ES operations isn't allowed, nor is CAWG requiring that anyone participating in ES Operations must wear the BBDU is against regulation then.

What orange T-Shirt?  There's nothing like that which is prescribed or even approved at the national level.

For any uniform change to be "legal", it has to be incorporated in a supplement approved by NHQ, not simply dictated by a local CC or activity director.  The CAWG supplement was at one point rescinded - no idea what it's status iis today.

Hats are more gray because there is some allowance as to local squadron hats, etc.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Hats are more gray because there is some allowance as to local squadron hats, etc.

That is my biggest peeve, why in the world would a bright orange hat with big shiny black numbers ironed on (poorly) be allowed? Yet a small thing such as face paint at a unit activity throws up a red flag and everyone goes nutso. Is there a regulation against facepaint?

Also, I hope that CAWG regulation is gone, I was thinking of moving to CA but that was one of my biggest turn offs for moving out there.

[Ned]

Also, I hope that CAWG regulation is gone, I was thinking of moving to CA but that was one of my biggest turn offs for moving out there.

Uniforms are a tool to help us get our missions done.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The incredibly professional volunteers in CAWG consistently put up some of the best ES numbers, aircraft utilization rates, and CP statistics in the country.

If your choice of real-world living arrangements revolve around CAP uniform choices, I am just . . . speechless.

Ned Lee

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Also, I hope that CAWG regulation is gone, I was thinking of moving to CA but that was one of my biggest turn offs for moving out there.

Uniforms are a tool to help us get our missions done.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The incredibly professional volunteers in CAWG consistently put up some of the best ES numbers, aircraft utilization rates, and CP statistics in the country.

If your choice of real-world living arrangements revolve around CAP uniform choices, I am just . . . speechless.

Ned Lee

It doesn't, I am more interested in the program and missions, but the BBDU IMHO looks rather unprofessional. The nametapes don't match the uniform color, and I can't seem to find one that doesn't fade extremely fast.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Hats are more gray because there is some allowance as to local squadron hats, etc.

That is my biggest peeve, why in the world would a bright orange hat with big shiny black numbers ironed on (poorly) be allowed? Yet a small thing such as face paint at a unit activity throws up a red flag and everyone goes nutso. Is there a regulation against facepaint?

Also, I hope that CAWG regulation is gone, I was thinking of moving to CA but that was one of my biggest turn offs for moving out there.

CA is not allowed to wear AF uniforms on SAR missions.  The presence of military uniforms offends Code Pink.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Let it be known that I have nothing against those who their uniform allowed is BBDU, I just have an issue with the uniform itself. There are a few different things that could have been done to make the uniform better and more professional.

[Eclipse]

It doesn't, I am more interested in the program and missions, but the BBDU IMHO looks rather unprofessional. The nametapes don't match the uniform color, and I can't seem to find one that doesn't fade extremely fast.

So the BDU looks better in that regard?

The color issue is a product of who makes them and how you wash them.  Sending them to the cleaners maintains the color.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

It doesn't, I am more interested in the program and missions, but the BBDU IMHO looks rather unprofessional. The nametapes don't match the uniform color, and I can't seem to find one that doesn't fade extremely fast.

So the BDU looks better in that regard?

The color issue is a product of who makes them and how you wash them.  Sending them to the cleaners maintains the color.

Sure, the blue nametapes and rank stand out on the BDU... alot. But the thing about the BBDU is that if the uniform is going to blue, and the nametapes are blue, shouldn't they be the same blue? I don't use dry cleaners because around here where there is no active duty military population they don't know how to press a military uniform. They more often than not get the creases wrong, mash up the pockets and press the pocket flaps so the buttons wear into the pocket flap. I find that laundering my own uniforms is much easier and more professional looking when you stand next to someone who sends theirs to the cleaners. Especially since no one has their ACU pressed, and around here all it is is ACU.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Using ultramarine blue nametapes with the dark blue BDU makes the nametapes look faded even when brand new.  This issue was addressed at the National Board with a suggestion to use dark blue nametapes on the BBDU, but the NB didn't care and the uniform change resolution failed.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Using ultramarine blue nametapes with the dark blue BDU makes the nametapes look faded even when brand new.  This issue was addressed at the National Board with a suggestion to use dark blue nametapes on the BBDU, but the NB didn't care and the uniform change resolution failed.

Exactly, the uniform in its current state looks unprofessional. If someone were to come in with BDUs that were faded badly we may not say anything but we would expect them to be replaced.

[SarDragon]

There is a new, NHQ approved, supplement on the street.

[arajca]

Using ultramarine blue nametapes with the dark blue BDU makes the nametapes look faded even when brand new.  This issue was addressed at the National Board with a suggestion to use dark blue nametapes on the BBDU, but the NB didn't care and the uniform change resolution failed.

Exactly, the uniform in its current state looks unprofessional. If someone were to come in with BDUs that were faded badly we may not say anything but we would expect them to be replaced.

Generally, a well keep, used uniform will fade somewhat. My bbdus look no worse, fading wise, than my bdus in the Army looked after a month. Also, consider this - if you don't tell someone their uniform looks substandard, why would you expect it to be replaced?

[DakRadz]

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage cadets to do anything on their own.  They are likely to tell their parents they are going with some other CAP cadets to a paint ball activity.  IF an injury occurs you likely are going to be getting the call since in the parents mind in is a CAP activity.

It's not really encouraging, it's "Hey, that doesn't happen as a part of CAP or on CAP time. Take it elsewhere if you want."

Specifically in response to that which I bolded:
So... I should only do SDAs when I'm at a squadron meeting? I should never make plans for classes I am supposed to teach? Will you come over to my house to make sure I am supervised while browsing CAP-based forums? Oh wait- SMs in a cadet's room... Yeah, that could cause problems...
I guess I'll never promote, then. And not prepare my uniforms to wear. Oh, wait- I shouldn't wear military style uniforms anyway..