Main Menu

HWSNBN and Harwell

Started by Archer, March 05, 2014, 07:44:58 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

a2capt

Well, if the order is "simplify" I can certainly see the logic of ditching one that has limited span vs. the one that -everyone- can use.

Panache

Quote from: a2capt on March 06, 2014, 03:55:45 PM
Well, if the order is "simplify" I can certainly see the logic of ditching one that has limited span vs. the one that -everyone- can use.

Gotta disagree.  I personally think the CSU was a superior choice, but I also acknowledge I'm not "fuzzy" so I'm biased.

Eclipse

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2014, 02:44:40 PMCAP-USAF made the suggestion to simplify our uniform options.

Cite Please.

"That Others May Zoom"

AirAux

You know, since we are on this discussion, I wonder whatever happened to Ray Hayden?  I am not sure I spelled his name right, but it seemed he took a lot of heat during this time frame.  Any one got any info??

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: a2capt on March 06, 2014, 03:55:45 PM
Well, if the order is "simplify" I can certainly see the logic of ditching one that has limited span vs. the one that -everyone- can use.

Even if the one that "everyone" can use is not equivalent to service dress?

Each of our AF-type uniforms is, ideally, supposed to have a "corporate" equivalent.

BDU's - BBDU's.  Check.  Full equivalency.
AF Flight Suit - blue flight suit/utility uniform.  Qualified check (no specific headgear).
Mess Dress - No equivalent.
Basic Dress (AF blue shirt, trousers) - Qualified check.  G/W kit has no specific headgear.
Service Dress - No equivalent.  Blazer is not a service coat, ribbons/badges cannot be worn, no headgear.

Yes, that PDF is the PowerPoint that General Courter used.  Not to impugn the General's character; I have a LOT of respect for her (she walked into a hornet's nest), but I have no doubt that she was "ordered" to give her directive.  She was not anti-CSU; her formal picture on CAP's website for a long time had her wearing it.

There is no proof whatsoever that the Air Force had any hand in killing the CSU, from CAP-USAF or otherwise.

My own personal opinion is that Those Who Know Better Than Us simply wanted to erase all vestiges of the Generalissimo's tenure.


Exiled from GLR-MI-011

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: AirAux on March 06, 2014, 08:03:49 PM
You know, since we are on this discussion, I wonder whatever happened to Ray Hayden?  I am not sure I spelled his name right, but it seemed he took a lot of heat during this time frame.  Any one got any info??

For some reason the mods have banned a direct link to his website (???) but it is not hard to find.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

FW

Quote from: Eclipse on March 06, 2014, 07:10:24 PM
Quote from: FW on March 06, 2014, 02:44:40 PMCAP-USAF made the suggestion to simplify our uniform options.

Cite Please.
From the ppt:
Many CAP members have expressed a desire to reduce our uniform inventory to a more manageable level.
CAP-USAF has suggested that CAP reduce our uniform inventory to a manageable level. Suggestions include two service types of uniforms, to include the current Air Force style uniform, and an approved corporate uniform consisting of the grey slacks/white shirt/blue
blazer combination currently worn by CAP members who do not wish to or may not wear the USAF style.
In an effort to facilitate these requests expeditiously and to comply with the request from the USAF, the NEC chose to remove the CAP "New Corporate" uniform from the CAP inventory at its November 2009 meeting. A "phase out" date of January 2011 was imposed.
Considerations for Deliberation - 2

FW

Just to make things even more clear, the official Air Force opinion was to accept the CSU after the modifications were made. It is my opinion; the whole CSU process was a mess from initiation to final phaseout. "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what your gonna get". Just sayn'  ::)

Eclipse

#48
I don't think anyone would disagree the implementation was done improperly, yet, as usual,
instead of an uncomfortable conversation before it was rolled out nationally, it was simply allowed
to "happen".

With due respect, quoting a PPT with anecdotal comments is hardly a cite.  The fact remains no one
can indicate when, if ever, the "knock it off" happened, or whose idea it was, beyond those involved
in the "knock it off", many of whom ignore the regs while making decisions that negatively impact
thousands of members.

I think it is a fair question to ask how wing CC's can continue to receive their promotions and appointments
while standing in front of Maj Gen Carr in a uniform they clearly have no business wearing, and no one,
apparently, has any issue with that. 

When that is the example, is it any wonder we have the issues we do?

If every member of this organization was held to the same standard, including a weigh-in,
our uniform would change over night.

"That Others May Zoom"

a2capt

Quote from: CyBorg on March 06, 2014, 08:13:21 PMWell, if the order is "simplify" I can certainly see the logic of ditching one that has limited span vs. the one that -everyone- can use.
Well, we've got three. One with restrictions, one with none, and one with some.

You lose the one with restrictions and keep the one with some and the one with none? You -still- have the same problem you've been harping about forever.

You get rid of the ones with any kind of restrictions and then you've got one for everyone, except it's still got no lineage. So. What to do.

If the grooming wasn't a problem, I do admit I would have rather retained the "New Corporate" option. The blue looks a lot nicer than the myriad of bland gray.

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: a2capt on March 06, 2014, 10:02:59 PM
If the grooming wasn't a problem, I do admit I would have rather retained the "New Corporate" option. The blue looks a lot nicer than the myriad of bland gray.

And that is exactly the problem I have with that uniform.  It is colourless and looks like an old black-and-white photo negative.

I have had an idea for a long time of a minimum-change to that uniform.

Just change out the white shirt to the blue, civilian one that Van Heusen sells.  It is identical to the white shirt they manufacture, and in a clearly different shade of blue than the AF.



I'm not going to get into the issue of headgear, because for some reason that tends to make people mad here on CT.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

JK657

#51
^^^^ that is a clearly different color than an Air Force blue shirt?

SarDragon

The weave of the fabric appears to be different, but the color looks very close.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Майор Хаткевич


Panache

It is two distinct shades of blue:

Blue Aviator Shirt:


Air Force Blue Shirt:


Also, assuming the we're still wearing the gray pants, it'll be pretty obvious we're not Air Force officers.

Speaking of which, I've actually been mistaken for an ARMY officer more than once in my white shirt.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 06, 2014, 09:35:43 PM
If every member of this organization was held to the same standard, including a weigh-in, our uniform would change over night.

^^ This.  A thousand times, this.

a2capt

The white is more consistent than the gray. The heck with the gray.

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:03 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 06, 2014, 08:13:21 PM
Mess Dress - No equivalent.


Blazer with bowtie + medal.  >:D

Adding a bow tie to what is essentially a sport coat does NOT make a dress uniform. Or even a dress suit. Every time I've seen anyone wearing that, I suddenly feel the urge to walk up and say "Goober!  Long time, no see! How's cousin Gomer and Aunt Bee?"
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

a2capt


Panache

Quote from: a2capt on March 07, 2014, 05:35:53 AM
The white is more consistent than the gray. The heck with the gray.


FW

Quote from: Eclipse on March 06, 2014, 09:35:43 PM

With due respect, quoting a PPT with anecdotal comments is hardly a cite.  The fact remains no one
can indicate when, if ever, the "knock it off" happened, or whose idea it was, beyond those involved
in the "knock it off", many of whom ignore the regs while making decisions that negatively impact
thousands of members.


We will never know the full story because of non disclosure agreements signed by the NEC. The ppt is the only clue to what happened, and I see no reason to doubt its credibility.

I do understand the frustration of some who find such decisions as arbitrary and without consequence. It can be difficult to adhere to our core values at times, however we must find a way.