Is it a uniform if no one can see it?

[Dragoon]

Reinforcing a concept on the Uniform committee thread.

Let's say I'm taking a CAP airplane up for a little personal proficiency flying.  I take a friend along.  We decide to fly to some local beach town and get lunch as part of the trip.

We're wearing golf shirts, but since we don't want to stand out while walking down the boardwalk eating our hot dogs, before we start the flight, we both put civilian shirts on over our uniforms so no one can see the CAP golf shirt.

Are we within CAP regs?  After all, we have to be in uniform to fly, but we can wear any outerwear we want....

Personal thought is, yeah, this is "legal."  But it's wrong.  You aren't in uniform if no one else can see it.



Now, let's go the other way.  You get into a plane in BDUs.  You are wearing an unauthorized black Molly Hatchett T shirt under your BDU shirt.  The emblem doesn't show.

Are you "in uniform?"  By the regs, no.  You are not wearing a complete uniform.  But to anyone looking at you, you look like a squared away CAP airman.


The point - outerwear matters.  And CAP kinda ignores this.  We let cadets wear whatever they want.  We don't mandate outerwear with corporate uniforms.

Seems a little silly to me.  The public, USAFand other CAP members judge us on what they can see. Not what we're wearing under our Green Bay Packers jacket.

Thoughts?

[JohnKachenmeister]

I understand your point.  I personally always wear one of my black Harley-Davidson T-shirts under my BDU's.  The advantage is that if, after the CAP activity, a few of us want to pop out to a bar, I can strip my BDU shirt and I am "Instantly Civilian."  (In Florida, a guy wearing boots, BDU pants, and a biker shirt is considered well-dressed.  Depends, of course, on the bar.  A shaved head and tattoos completes the look, but one can still fit in without the whole fashion package!)

I have always assumed that what cannot be seen is not part of the uniform.  The regs say otherwise, so I don't know what our insurance carrier would say if I were killed on duty while wearing unauthorized underwear.

[JCW0312]

I really don't see a big deal with wearing a black t-shirt with a design under your BDU shirt as long as it's not seen. I know, I know, the regs say.... Just keep your BDU shirt on during CAP activities.

Keep the underwear talk to a minimum. I don't believe it, but some people think that Vanguard has a major role in our uniform regulations. I'd sure hate a new reg to come out and force me to make a choice whether I want to buy CAP boxers or CAP briefs. 

[Duke Dillio]

^Briefs....  easy choice

[JohnKachenmeister]

Boxers... with pictures of little airplanes on them.

Or... silk boxers with the same silly propller pattern as on the matching flight suit neck scarf!!!!!

[Duke Dillio]

Transformer briefs with the CAP logo in the center?

[MIKE]

Knock it off.

CAP Distinctive Uniforms authorize wear of civilian outerwear.   Corporate Uniforms (TPU) do not, and have specified outerwear.  I would caution anyone from using the term "corporate uniform" to describe what is actually a CAP Distinctive Uniform with different requirements.

If you are wearing a Harley t-shirt under your BDU, you are wrong.  CAPM 39-1 isn't intended to be a book of suggestions.

[Dragoon]

Knock it off.

CAP Distinctive Uniforms authorize wear of civilian outerwear. 

True.  But is the reg, as worded, the way things ought to be?

If no one can see that I'm in a uniform.....what good does the uniform do me?  Or CAP, for that matter?

If I wear a UCLA sweatshirt over my golf shirt while out looking for ELTs, I'm "in uniform" by 39-1.  But to anyone who sees me, I'm some just some guy in a UCLA sweatshirt with a funky looking radio.  Why wear the uniform shirt underneath at all?

[Eclipse]

If I wear a UCLA sweatshirt over my golf shirt while out looking for ELTs, I'm "in uniform" by 39-1. 

Not quite - you should be wearing a reflective vest over the UCLA sweatshirt.

And the aircrew have an airplane wrapped around them or near them which is usually the kicker that they are aircrew.

I don't understand why you would cover your shirt on the boardwalk, seems a bit misguided to me, but regardless, there is no need for identification while eating your hot dog anyway, so its a non-issue.

I'm not a big fan of non"uniform" items as outerwear duing missions, but its also not the biggest uniform issue we have.

[Dragoon]

If I wear a UCLA sweatshirt over my golf shirt while out looking for ELTs, I'm "in uniform" by 39-1. 

Not quite - you should be wearing a reflective vest over the UCLA sweatshirt.

It might be a good idea, but it ain't required.  Vests are only required with the BDU for "Ground Team Activities." They are authorized (but not required) with BBDUs for wooded areas.  They aren't required (or indeed authorized) for any other uniform or situation.  Walking around an airfield in a UCLA sweatshirt over a golf shirt seems well within regs (although kinda silly).

And the aircrew have an airplane wrapped around them or near them which is usually the kicker that they are aircrew.

And yet we require uniforms in our planes at all times.  Funny that.

I don't understand why you would cover your shirt on the boardwalk, seems a bit misguided to me, but regardless, there is no need for identification while eating your hot dog anyway, so its a non-issue.

The point was that I've completely hidden my uniform from the public, and yet by the current 39-1 definition, I'm still in uniform. And I did it before the flight ever began, but somehow I was still "in uniform" for the flight.   That just doesn't pass the common sense test.

I'm not a big fan of non"uniform" items as outerwear duing missions, but its also not the biggest uniform issue we have.

I'd say it's pretty high on the list.  We can spend all day trying to get everyone "in uniform"  or even just "in A uniform", but the minute the civilian coats go on (and they're on a LOT in half the country) the whole effort is wasted.  Might as well just wear jeans and t shirts.

[Eclipse]

If I wear a UCLA sweatshirt over my golf shirt while out looking for ELTs, I'm "in uniform" by 39-1. 

Not quite - you should be wearing a reflective vest over the UCLA sweatshirt.

It might be a good idea, but it ain't required.  Vests are only required with the BDU for "Ground Team Activities." They are authorized (but not required) with BBDUs for wooded areas.  They aren't required (or indeed authorized) for any other uniform or situation.  Walking around an airfield in a UCLA sweatshirt over a golf shirt seems well within regs (although kinda silly).

Reflective vests are required for both GT and UDF teams during any mission activity, ditto for flight line.  Check the tasking guides for this requirement.

[Dragoon]

Pls site where a CAP reg requires wear of a vest for ramp checks?  I only see that where you have to have one on your person - when to wear it is on the UDF team leader.

[Eclipse]

Pls site where a CAP reg requires wear of a vest for ramp checks?  I only see that where you have to have one on your person - when to wear it is on the UDF team leader.

Um, yeah.  OK.

[ddelaney103]

There is nothing that says the reflective vest has to have any CAP specific marking.  Therefore, even if you are required to wear the vest, combining it with a sweatshirt and ballcap and you're going to look like roadcrew, not CAP.

Considering the number of uniforms we have, it would make sense to have some shell-type outerwear that will make us look like we're all on the same team while allowing for additional linings for colder weather.

"One Team, One Suit, One Fight"

[Eclipse]

Some of this comes back to attitude and professionalism.

Anyone who is so inclined can run through our regs and using legalistic and "1%" cases look and act like a goober.

Dragoon - you indicate a situation where for some reason you cover up your uniform because you don't want people to know you are in CAP while eating lunch, that's fine, but then don't complain when people don't know you're in CAP.

If you're going to start with an argument that a piece of gear (vest) is only required "on your person" but not actually worn, well, you're making things harder on yourself just to argue.

[Dragoon]

Some of this comes back to attitude and professionalism.

Anyone who is so inclined can run through our regs and using legalistic and "1%" cases look and act like a goober.

Dragoon - you indicate a situation where for some reason you cover up your uniform because you don't want people to know you are in CAP while eating lunch, that's fine, but then don't complain when people don't know you're in CAP.

If you're going to start with an argument that a piece of gear (vest) is only required "on your person" but not actually worn, well, you're making things harder on yourself just to argue.

Dude, you are SOOOOO far off base.  I guess I wasn't clear.

The original case was hypothetical  - hence the phrase "Let's say..." at the beginning of the sentence.  Specifically to note "this hasn't happened - it's a fictitious statement designed to illustrate a point."

So...I created a case where someone would have a motive to NOT wear a CAP uniform, and yet be in a situation where the regs require one.  (if I was in that boat myself, I'd just change clothes).

The point, which somehow you missed (and I apologize if my phrasing didn't cut it) was "how in the heck can a uniform be completely hidden from sight and still count as being a uniform."

Does that make sense?

(And by the way, I'm very happy to debate the "are the Task books directive in nature" in a different thread.  Feel free to start one.  But in the meantime, the uniform manual does not require, or indeed even allow, orange vests with the golf shirt.  Perhaps it should.  But it doesn't.  This thread is about hiding uniforms under other clothing)

The original question remains - does it make any sense to claim someone is "in uniform" when no one can see the uniform?

[Eclipse]

(And by the way, I'm very happy to debate the "are the Task books directive in nature" in a different thread. 

I'm not - in my world they are.

The original question remains - does it make any sense to claim someone is "in uniform" when no one can see the uniform?

I'll leave this to others, my feelings are above.

[Dragoon]

To summarize your position, is it safe to say that, while you're not a "big fan" of the concept,  you believe that it's acceptable to have CAP members in uniforms that are completely covered by civilian clothing, and that nothing needs to change?

[Eclipse]

To summarize your position, is it safe to say that, while you're not a "big fan" of the concept,  you believe that it's acceptable to have CAP members in uniforms that are completely covered by civilian clothing, and that nothing needs to change?

Yes, with the caveat that anyone involved in ground ops is going to be wearing a vest, so they aren't going to be completely anonymous.

[CAP_truth]

What would you do with a person who wears a CDU or AFU and does not own a proper coat for weather conditions that are freezing comes to the meeting with a civilian heavy winter coat. When the coat is worn no one could tell that the person is wearing a uniform under the coat. What would you do. I have witness this many times during my career in CAP.