What exactly happened with these individuals? I know Harwell is a former National/CC but other than that, it seems that all the research I dig up indicates that the membership wants to keep the controversies relating to these individuals all hush hush.
Short versions:
At the point Harwell was made National CC, that post was a Brigadier General (1-star) position. Using subterfuge, trickery, and the darkest magics, when he was officially named to the post, he decided that he wanted a second star, so he made it a Major General (2-star) position, angering many in the Air Force. There is a theory that the reason we're wearing gray shoulder sliders now (and maroon shoulder slides before that) was because the AF wanted to "put CAP in their place" after this.
As for HWSNBN, well, the less said, the better. But let's just say it was discovered that he cheated on his exams to get the job, and leave it at that.
..and I'd -almost- buy that except the National Commander position rank today is.. you guessed it, Major General. Two stars.
If they were that upset about it, why didn't they just pluck the star?
OTOH, we did have purple ..
I appreciate the direct answer. As far as HWSNBN, can you at least explain why the less said, the better? Without defeating the purpose, of course. Can you at least give me a string to pull on?
P.S.
I feel like these are the questions members ask right before the black 182's from CAPSOC show up.
Quote from: Panache on March 05, 2014, 07:58:41 AM
At the point Harwell was made National CC, that post was a Brigadier General (1-star) position. Using subterfuge, trickery, and the darkest magics, when he was officially named to the post, he decided that he wanted a second star, so he made it a Major General (2-star) position, angering many in the Air Force. There is a theory that the reason we're wearing gray shoulder sliders now (and maroon shoulder slides before that) was because the AF wanted to "put CAP in their place" after this.
The important part left out of the otherwise well done summary here is ... the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force who oversees such things had approved the major general grade for our NAT CC, and the Secretary of the Air Force signed off on it, but nobody bothered to run it past the Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the time, and
he was the one royally angered by the move. Since the grade was a
fait accompli, the CSAF flexed his considerable muscle by requiring us to switch to uniform components that would show even the newest, dumbest Airman Basic that we were NOT officers in the USAF. The berry boards (maroon epaulets) were the result. Later, after a couple of other CSAFs had come and gone and tempers had cooled somewhat, we switched to gray epaulets, and in recognition of the services CAP provided, our NAT CC was once again allowed to promote to major general.
Interesting note: The major general grade to which Gen. Harwell self-promoted was never actually rescinded. His CV, General Warren Barry, could have worn two stars when he succeeded Harwell, but (wisely) elected to remain a Brigadier General.
Quote
As for HWSNBN, well, the less said, the better. But let's just say it was discovered that he cheated on his exams to get the job, and leave it at that.
Roger that!
Jack
HWSNBN was busted for having someone take an AF-proctored exam for him. His 'Corporate Service Uniform' (at least in the way it was introduced; it really wasn't a bad uniform once changes were made) and his constant firing of wing and region commanders apparently raised the ire of the BoG and he was unceremoniously sent packing. The cheating scandal is what probably took the cake.
"HWSNBN" was not removed from office, however his membership was terminated by the BoG for various reasons; abuse of power, falsifying a silver medal of valor award, FW&A, and a couple of lesser charges. The charge of "cheating on exams" was never proven, however the Air Force made significant changes to testing procedures for its AFDL courses after his membership termination. We can also thank him for starting us on the path we are now traveling on. >:(
Quote from: ColonelJack on March 05, 2014, 11:09:13 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 05, 2014, 07:58:41 AM
At the point Harwell was made National CC, that post was a Brigadier General (1-star) position. Using subterfuge, trickery, and the darkest magics, when he was officially named to the post, he decided that he wanted a second star, so he made it a Major General (2-star) position, angering many in the Air Force. There is a theory that the reason we're wearing gray shoulder sliders now (and maroon shoulder slides before that) was because the AF wanted to "put CAP in their place" after this.
The important part left out of the otherwise well done summary here is ... the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force who oversees such things had approved the major general grade for our NAT CC, and the Secretary of the Air Force signed off on it, but nobody bothered to run it past the Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the time, and he was the one royally angered by the move. Since the grade was a fait accompli, the CSAF flexed his considerable muscle by requiring us to switch to uniform components that would show even the newest, dumbest Airman Basic that we were NOT officers in the USAF. The berry boards (maroon epaulets) were the result. Later, after a couple of other CSAFs had come and gone and tempers had cooled somewhat, we switched to gray epaulets, and in recognition of the services CAP provided, our NAT CC was once again allowed to promote to major general.
Interesting note: The major general grade to which Gen. Harwell self-promoted was never actually rescinded. His CV, General Warren Barry, could have worn two stars when he succeeded Harwell, but (wisely) elected to remain a Brigadier General.
Quote
As for HWSNBN, well, the less said, the better. But let's just say it was discovered that he cheated on his exams to get the job, and leave it at that.
Roger that!
Jack
Your also forgetting the incident in the hotel where this national commander took a room reserved for a real Air Force two star.
Quote from: Archer on March 05, 2014, 09:13:42 AM
As far as HWSNBN, can you at least explain why the less said, the better?
Mostly because it has been discussed and beaten to death, resurrected, killed with fire, brought back, and finally buried in a deep grave under a mountain of ice. He's kind of like ABUs at this point, beyond the occasional jab, we're all a little tired of discussing it. If you want to read more, you can search here for HWSNBN, also known as Antonio 'Tony' Pineda, or you can search for U.S. Ranger Corps, the now defunct organization he founded after being booted out of CAP.
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 05, 2014, 01:56:03 PM
Your also forgetting the incident in the hotel where this national commander took a room reserved for a real Air Force two star.
That's a new one to me. I've never heard that particular story.
Another story I haven't heard on here. We had National Conference in Atlanta when all of this was going on. Supposedly, he arrived at the airport and was told to get back on the plane and go home. He never showed at the Conference although he was scheduled. I think he was removed/replaced very shortly after that..
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 05, 2014, 01:56:03 PM
Your also forgetting the incident in the hotel where this national commander took a room reserved for a real Air Force two star.
Now that is quite troubling. The volunteer national commander of the Civil Air Patrol taking an Air Force two star's hotel room should give us all sleepless nights. To prevent this from ever happening again, the CAP should wear its own distinctive uniform without the epaulets of course. I suggest the airline style uniform once in fashion with our air force brethren:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2lj27gg.jpg)
:clap:
Quote from: FW on March 05, 2014, 01:08:53 PM
"HWSNBN" was not removed from office, however his membership was terminated by the BoG for various reasons; abuse of power, falsifying a silver medal of valor award, FW&A, and a couple of lesser charges. The charge of "cheating on exams" was never proven, however the Air Force made significant changes to testing procedures for its AFDL courses after his membership termination. We can also thank him for starting us on the path we are now traveling on. >:(
Fred: I can see why you might of been "taken to task" in the past for your chat room postings. I found the following at another website. Is this the incident that you are referring to in your comment "falsifying a silver medal of valor award"? Has the CAP silver medal of valor award been rescinded for these individuals for this incident? If so, this is the first I have heard of it. I always thought their actions were heroic. From another site:
CAP HEROES - "so that others may live" - Silver Medal of Valor Recipients: Maj. Gen. Tony Pineda, National Commander, Col. Dan Levitch, FL Wing Commander, and Col. Eileen Parker, FL Wing Vice Commander, received the Silver Medal of Valor. This award is the highest honor that is presented within the Civil Air Patrol. Each received this special award because they risked their life in order to save others when they came upon an automobile accident while returning from National Headquarters. Gen. Pineda assumed the duty of directing traffic and oversight of the accident. Because of the imminent danger to the trapped occupants and leaking fuel, Col. Levitch climbed through a window to assess the injuries of the four passengers, extricated them from their seatbelts and passed them through a small window. Col. Parker laid the victims down away from the vehicle, aided and consoled them. (http://i57.tinypic.com/2eche0k.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/mauubr.jpg)
:redx:
Wait. Hold on. Full stop.
HWSNBN got a Silver Medal of Valor for directing traffic?
And you're okay with this?
Quote from: AirAux on March 05, 2014, 03:24:33 PM
Another story I haven't heard on here. We had National Conference in Atlanta when all of this was going on. Supposedly, he arrived at the airport and was told to get back on the plane and go home. He never showed at the Conference although he was scheduled. I think he was removed/replaced very shortly after that..
I remember that. .
Quote from: Panache on March 05, 2014, 04:01:20 PM
Wait. Hold on. Full stop.
HWSNBN got a Silver Medal of Valor for directing traffic?
And you're okay with this?
It was worse than that. HWSNBN
gave himself the SMV, for a traffic accident that investigation determined never actually happened, and pushed it through the Awards Committee (along with those for Levitch and Parker). Look at the photo. See how uncomfortable with all this nonsense Levitch appears. See how Parker doesn't look all that thrilled. It had to be right about this time that these two realized just what they'd tied their legacies in CAP to.
Nobody in CAP was okay with this, the "final straw".
Jack
Quote from: AirAux on March 05, 2014, 03:24:33 PM
Another story I haven't heard on here. We had National Conference in Atlanta when all of this was going on. Supposedly, he arrived at the airport and was told to get back on the plane and go home. He never showed at the Conference although he was scheduled. I think he was removed/replaced very shortly after that..
He was quite brazen about declaring that he
would be at the conference, presiding in his role as NAT CC...and that the BoG didn't have the authority to tell him he couldn't be there.
As noted, he did not show up at the conference.
Do the math.
Jack
Quote from: Panache on March 05, 2014, 04:01:20 PM
Wait. Hold on. Full stop.
HWSNBN got a Silver Medal of Valor for directing traffic?
And you're okay with this?
The good ole boy network is strong.
You look the other way at the Squadron level, then Group, Wing, Region and National falls like a house of cards. It is all about integrity and at all levels we have shortages of integrity. 8)
Quote from: Cindi on March 05, 2014, 03:58:02 PMFred: I can see why you might of been "taken to task" in the past for your chat room postings.
Irony Strikes Twice.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2eche0k.jpg)
Such a darling photo, they all look so thrilled, with an expression of "I hope they never investigate this.." But after all, it must be true. They're volunteers.. who volunteered themselves to the award. ANY ONE OF THEM could have spoken up.
I really need some of that Kool-aid..
So is it naive to think that the award/s were later revoked! Or are they still in place due to at least one of the recipients still being with CAP at National?
Quote from: a2capt on March 05, 2014, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Cindi on March 05, 2014, 03:58:02 PMFred: I can see why you might of been "taken to task" in the past for your chat room postings.
Irony Strikes Twice.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2eche0k.jpg)
Such a darling photo, they all look so thrilled, with an expression of "I hope they never investigate this.." But after all, it must be true. They're volunteers.. who volunteered themselves to the award. ANY ONE OF THEM could have spoken up.
I really need some of that Kool-aid..
The awards were rescinded. The medals were turned in and all was "forgiven". :angel:
^^
:clap:
Old road, search is your friend, no one cares about these people any more.
No one person causes anything in CAP - yes a specific individual may click the button or
become a catalyst, but the majority of anything of consequence is due to the committee-like-nature
of CAP's governance (moreso in the past then today), people who feel empowered to write checks
that they expect others to cash with absolutely no connection to reality, common sense, or respect
for the opinion of others unless it was "invented here", and a general reluctance towards uncomfortable
conversations which allows people who clearly have no business being in positions of influence or authority
to rise through the ranks while the people around them just shake their heads.
In this case, hindsight wasn't even necessary to see the issues, yet they were disregarded, ignored, or downplayed.
At this point in my CAP universe, I am convinced that the more someone wants a non-paying, horribly difficult and
subjective job, the less able they are to actually do it without drama and a wake in their path.
Quote from: Cindi on March 05, 2014, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: FW on March 05, 2014, 01:08:53 PM
"HWSNBN" was not removed from office, however his membership was terminated by the BoG for various reasons; abuse of power, falsifying a silver medal of valor award, FW&A, and a couple of lesser charges. The charge of "cheating on exams" was never proven, however the Air Force made significant changes to testing procedures for its AFDL courses after his membership termination. We can also thank him for starting us on the path we are now traveling on. >:(
Fred: I can see why you might of been "taken to task" in the past for your chat room postings.
I was "taken to task" for reporting governance committee recommendations on CT. I reprinted material from another site but the region commanders thought there was a leak in the group. I couldn't help them. It was "unfortunate" it came up when it did. ::)
Quote from: Eclipse on March 05, 2014, 07:46:39 PM
At this point in my CAP universe, I am convinced that the more someone wants a non-paying, horribly difficult and subjective job, the less able they are to actually do it without drama and a wake in their path.
That is an unfortunate truth.
Quote from: FW on March 05, 2014, 07:54:31 PM
Quote from: Cindi on March 05, 2014, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: FW on March 05, 2014, 01:08:53 PM
"HWSNBN" was not removed from office, however his membership was terminated by the BoG for various reasons; abuse of power, falsifying a silver medal of valor award, FW&A, and a couple of lesser charges. The charge of "cheating on exams" was never proven, however the Air Force made significant changes to testing procedures for its AFDL courses after his membership termination. We can also thank him for starting us on the path we are now traveling on. >:(
Fred: I can see why you might of been "taken to task" in the past for your chat room postings.
I was "taken to task" for reporting governance committee recommendations on CT. I reprinted material from another site but the region commanders thought there was a leak in the group. I couldn't help them. It was "unfortunate" it came up when it did. ::)
It was an orchestrated and unfair charge against you and was disappointing to see it played out like it was.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 05, 2014, 07:46:39 PM
In this case, hindsight wasn't even necessary to see the issues, yet they were disregarded, ignored, or downplayed.
There were at least three guys on the old CAP-Talk mailing list in the 1990s who said "Don't. Trust. Tony. Pineda. Seriously."
They had firsthand knowledge of the stuff he was capable of.
They were shouted down and eventually run out of CAP on a rail.
Took almost 15 years for it to prove out, but they were right.
Quote from: NIN on March 05, 2014, 08:26:22 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 05, 2014, 07:46:39 PM
In this case, hindsight wasn't even necessary to see the issues, yet they were disregarded, ignored, or downplayed.
There were at least three guys on the old CAP-Talk mailing list in the 1990s who said "Don't. Trust. Tony. Pineda. Seriously."
They had firsthand knowledge of the stuff he was capable of.
They were shouted down and eventually run out of CAP on a rail.
Took almost 15 years for it to prove out, but they were right.
That's a real shame. I've seen smaller things happen at the squadron level that was similar. WIWAC I was in a fairly large Composite squadron that was very cohesive and had great esprit (barring the internal flight of old pilots that liked to have us wash and wax their planes for an O-ride that was usually cancelled when we were done wiping off the wax). Anyway, a family transferred from another state that was "odd." RUMINT was full of warning about how the matron of the family was overbearing and domineering. Shortly after their arrival she became the DCC. Soon after, bullying started occurring amongst the cadets, her kids were placed in all the leadership positions (she had 4, IIRC), and basically undid years of work in short order. All things told it took one person to drive off 30+ cadets and seniors. She finally left (with her kids) after about a year. It took the squadron 15 years to regain the numbers, but it never fully recovered. It's a shame really, it really only takes one in a volunteer organization.
Quote from: Cindi on March 05, 2014, 08:13:25 PMIt was an orchestrated and unfair charge against you and was disappointing to see it played out like it was.
But they too were volunteers, and should be praised. According to some prior posts..
Shenanigans trumps thanks. Sorry. No thanks.
Quote from: a2capt on March 05, 2014, 09:35:56 PM
Quote from: Cindi on March 05, 2014, 08:13:25 PMIt was an orchestrated and unfair charge against you and was disappointing to see it played out like it was.
But they too were volunteers, and should be praised. According to some prior posts..
Shenanigans trumps thanks. Sorry. No thanks.
I think this is the most profoundly cryptic post I've seen in quite some time. Would you care to elaborate?
Quote from: Cindi on March 05, 2014, 03:27:55 PM
Now that is quite troubling. The volunteer national commander of the Civil Air Patrol taking an Air Force two star's hotel room should give us all sleepless nights. To prevent this from ever happening again, the CAP should wear its own distinctive uniform without the epaulets of course. I suggest the airline style uniform once in fashion with our air force brethren:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2lj27gg.jpg)
:clap:
We
had a good, attractive, distinctive uniform...and it was introduced by Him Whom We Do Not Name.
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608023934446275724&pid=15.1)
However, it was taken from us in 2011 by Those Who Know A Lot Better Than We Lower Forms Of Life...without any explanation.
It wasn't the Air Force. They
asked CAP to make changes in it. We did.
We got our widdle paddies whacked for wanting a distinctive uniform that didn't look like a Realtor or a mall security guard.
The new 39-1 reinforces this: if you're too "fat or fuzzy" to wear the modified uniform of our parent service, you get to wear the bloody ugly (IMO) "corporate uniform" and look nothing like any part of CAP heritage or aviation history. You vill vear it und you vill like it or at least not say anything against it, because you have no other choice, und if you haff any "suggestions" they better be grey, und do not say you vant a hat because you vill not get it.
That action, probably as much as any other, showed me and a lot of others just how out of touch Those Who Know A Lot Better are with We Lower Forms Of Life.
I actually met the Generalissimo once at a wing conference. He struck me as a pretty reserved guy, ironically enough.
It's been a while since I looked at his U.S. Ranger Corps website. I don't think they exist any more.
The Harwell thing happened just before I joined in 1993. My then-squadron CC (who later became a wing commander, and then a Region staffer, before retiring) was personal friends with Brigadier General Richard Anderson (as in whenever my CC went to Maxwell - which was frequently - they usually had dinner together). He told me that the Harwell incident was the "kicker" for us to look "distinctive," as in horrible maroon shoulder marks. That was the story I heard from virtually anyone who was in CAP at the time. He also told me that General Anderson told him (in about 1994) "you will
never get metal grade or blue epaulettes back."
Quote from: CyBorg on March 05, 2014, 10:40:32 PM
The new 39-1 reinforces this: if you're too "fat or fuzzy" to wear the modified uniform of our parent service, you get to wear the bloody ugly (IMO) "corporate uniform" and look nothing like any part of CAP heritage or aviation history.
Interesting how many of the people charged with making those decisions ignore them
in their own mirrors.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 05, 2014, 11:18:31 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 05, 2014, 10:40:32 PM
The new 39-1 reinforces this: if you're too "fat or fuzzy" to wear the modified uniform of our parent service, you get to wear the bloody ugly (IMO) "corporate uniform" and look nothing like any part of CAP heritage or aviation history.
Interesting how many of the people charged with making those decisions ignore them
in their own mirrors.
I suppose many of them could be Realtors or mall security guards (no offence toward either profession; I used to work for a printer that made real estate directories).
Honestly, our local mall security look just like CAP members in the G/W until you get close enough to see their insignia.
The Generalissimo's outfit was OK, except for two big problems - only the "fatties" could wear it, leaving us "fuzzies" with the Blazer, and it was double-breasted, making the heavy guys wearing it look even heavier.
I understand the need to accomodate those who struggle with weight, but can someone please explain why grooming requirements should be optional?
Quote from: Archer on March 06, 2014, 01:18:53 AM
I understand the need to accomodate those who struggle with weight, but can someone please explain why grooming requirements should be optional?
We have certain members on this board, who have personal reasons for having a beard, for example. For some it is religion. A certain member on here has facial scars from his military service IIRC, and prefers to cover them with a beard. Honestly, if it's our distinctive uniform, AND the AF wants us to NOT be confused with AF, then they should be HAPPY about members with beards.
Quote from: Cindi on March 05, 2014, 03:27:55 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 05, 2014, 01:56:03 PM
Your also forgetting the incident in the hotel where this national commander took a room reserved for a real Air Force two star.
Now that is quite troubling. The volunteer national commander of the Civil Air Patrol taking an Air Force two star's hotel room should give us all sleepless nights. To prevent this from ever happening again, the CAP should wear its own distinctive uniform without the epaulets of course. I suggest the airline style uniform once in fashion with our air force brethren:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2lj27gg.jpg)
:clap:
Ah yes, Gen McPeak who was shown the door when he was fired as Air Force Chief of Staff.
As the Secratary of the Air Force put it "I have lost faith in his ability to command."
Not exactly somebody you would want to put forward as an "good" example.
There is a ppt from the previous national commander that pretty much addresses the down fall of the CSU. If I'm not mistaken the AF had issues with the CSU even after the emergency changes were made. I tried to find it here but my search-fu is weak tonight.
Edit/: I searched for Courter's PowerPoint to answer Cyborg's CSU claims but in all 10 responses it was Cyborg who wrote about it so I assume he knows what info it contained
I think this is the justification presentation...
^ Yes, Chuck, that's the presentation given to the NB. Not to reopen a can of worms, but there is no suggestion the Air Force did not want the CSU. CAP-USAF made the suggestion to simplify our uniform options. The NEC decided to act; even though the issue was tabled by the NB till it next met. Of course it was legit; I just wonder how right it was...
I sometimes find it amusing how many can parse words so well to make their agenda seem so logical. Power Point makes it sooo easy. ;)
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.
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.
Quote from: FW on March 06, 2014, 02:44:40 PMCAP-USAF made the suggestion to simplify our uniform options.
Cite Please.
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??
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.
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.
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
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' ::)
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.
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.
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.
(http://www.garffshirts.com/images/products/detail/Pilot_Shirts_Blue_Tall_Pilot_Uniform_Shirts_14V5004_The_Aviator_Tall_Short_Sleeve_Pilot_Uniform_Shirts.jpg)
I'm not going to get into the issue of headgear, because for some reason that tends to make people mad here on CT.
^^^^ that is a clearly different color than an Air Force blue shirt?
The weave of the fabric appears to be different, but the color looks very close.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 06, 2014, 08:13:21 PM
Mess Dress - No equivalent.
Blazer with bowtie + medal. >:D
It is two distinct shades of blue:
Blue Aviator Shirt:
(http://www.garffshirts.com/images/products/detail/Pilot_Shirts_Blue_Tall_Pilot_Uniform_Shirts_14V5004_The_Aviator_Tall_Short_Sleeve_Pilot_Uniform_Shirts.jpg)
Air Force Blue Shirt:
(http://www.uniforms-4u.com/productimages/6829/big-u-us-air-force-short-sleeve-dress-shirt-7561.jpg?int)
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.
The white is more consistent than the gray. The heck with the gray.
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?"
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:03 AMBlazer with bowtie + medal. >:D
(http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/california-norcal/815078d1373499028-use-strava-please-watch-family-guy-barf.jpg)..about sums it up for me.
Quote from: a2capt on March 07, 2014, 05:35:53 AM
The white is more consistent than the gray. The heck with the gray.
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ2NTU0Nzg5NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTkwMDAzMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR6,0,214,317_.jpg)
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.
Quote from: a2capt on March 07, 2014, 05:48:19 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:03 AMBlazer with bowtie + medal. >:D
(http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/california-norcal/815078d1373499028-use-strava-please-watch-family-guy-barf.jpg)..about sums it up for me.
I didn't say it looked good. But that's what 39-1 says is the Mess Dress alternative.
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
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cHsfd0E-35s/T-ylrXVKyTI/AAAAAAAAG04/AMu8HGW7RCU/s1600/poser1.jpg)
Quote from: Panache on March 07, 2014, 06:30:55 AM
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
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cHsfd0E-35s/T-ylrXVKyTI/AAAAAAAAG04/AMu8HGW7RCU/s1600/poser1.jpg)
Youngest. General Officer. Ever.
Quote from: MSG Mac on March 07, 2014, 10:25:24 AM
Poser
Hey pal! That's Master General First Class McSoulpatch to the likes of you! >:D
Quote from: MSG Mac on March 07, 2014, 10:25:24 AM
Quote from: rugger1869 on March 07, 2014, 06:44:23 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 07, 2014, 06:30:55 AM
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
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cHsfd0E-35s/T-ylrXVKyTI/AAAAAAAAG04/AMu8HGW7RCU/s1600/poser1.jpg)
Youngest. General Officer. Ever.
Poser
Really?! [/sarcasm]
Quote from: rugger1869 on March 07, 2014, 06:44:23 AM
Youngest. General Officer. Ever.
Custer was 23 when he first made Brigadier General.
Quote from: JeffDG on March 07, 2014, 01:16:59 PM
Quote from: rugger1869 on March 07, 2014, 06:44:23 AM
Youngest. General Officer. Ever.
Custer was 23 when he first made Brigadier General.
Lafayette was 19 when he was made a major general...
Quote from: JeffDG on March 07, 2014, 01:16:59 PM
Quote from: rugger1869 on March 07, 2014, 06:44:23 AM
Youngest. General Officer. Ever.
Custer was 23 when he first made Brigadier General.
And we all know how well
that worked out.
I am still for khakis with bowtie and full size medals for special events. 8)
Quote from: Panache on March 07, 2014, 05:21:18 AM
It is two distinct shades of blue:
Blue Aviator Shirt:
(http://www.garffshirts.com/images/products/detail/Pilot_Shirts_Blue_Tall_Pilot_Uniform_Shirts_14V5004_The_Aviator_Tall_Short_Sleeve_Pilot_Uniform_Shirts.jpg)
Air Force Blue Shirt:
(http://www.uniforms-4u.com/productimages/6829/big-u-us-air-force-short-sleeve-dress-shirt-7561.jpg?int)
Also, assuming the we're still wearing the gray pants, it'll be pretty obvious we're not Air Force officers.
My idea would have that...which is why I designated it "minimum-change."
No insignia or grey trousers would change.
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
I agree it is not equivalent, but worn with a nice shirt (i.e. french cuffs) it doesn't look that bad.
Think "Party Member" vs. the normal "Realtor / Olympic judge".
Interesting thought: even a drama-filled topic (HWSNBN and Harwell) degenerates into a uniform thread in three pages. >:D
I wonder if there's a law of forum inertia: A uniform thread will remain a uniform thread unless locked by a moderator. A thread on topic will remain a thread on topic unless a uniform is mentioned.
Quote from: UH60guy on March 07, 2014, 06:33:02 PM
Interesting thought: even a drama-filled topic (HWSNBN and Harwell) degenerates into a uniform thread in three pages. >:D
I wonder if there's a law of forum inertia: A uniform thread will remain a uniform thread unless locked by a moderator. A thread on topic will remain a thread on topic unless a uniform is mentioned.
Awhile back we had a uniform thread turn into aircraft operations or some such. Everybody thought the world had ended.
Quote from: UH60guy on March 07, 2014, 06:33:02 PM
Interesting thought: even a drama-filled topic (HWSNBN and Harwell) degenerates into a uniform thread in three pages. >:D
I wonder if there's a law of forum inertia: A uniform thread will remain a uniform thread unless locked by a moderator. A thread on topic will remain a thread on topic unless a uniform is mentioned.
In this case, both Generalissimos' actions had a direct impact on CAP uniforms.
Quote from: UH60guy on March 07, 2014, 06:33:02 PM
Interesting thought: even a drama-filled topic (HWSNBN and Harwell) degenerates into a uniform thread in three pages. >:D
I wonder if there's a law of forum inertia: A uniform thread will remain a uniform thread unless locked by a moderator. A thread on topic will remain a thread on topic unless a uniform is mentioned.
It's more indication of the state CAP is in.
The uniform is a mess, the grade structure is (apparently) confusing to everyone, especially those sensitive NCOs and officers
in other services who can't figure out who is in charge without a billboard, and everybody with an opinion puts their spin
on what members wear, not to mention the private "special clubs" who are allowed to do whatever they want.
My sons are in the BSA, their uniform is simple and straightforward, and "uniform". Few questions have to be asked twice and
the majority of what the average member needs can be explained in 1-2 sheets with diagrams.
Ditto for the grade and leadership structure.
ARC? Same.
Your neighborhood CERT? Yup.
Local state SAR teams? Pretty much.
Even the CGAux.
Hm...
When baseline issues that should simply "be" as a part of operations become front and center because
they are difficult, confusing, or most importantly
divisive, then there's a core issue with the organization
which is being ignored to the detriment of all.
There are definitely issues with the uniform. However, it wouldn't be as bad if CAP members weren't so wrapped up about what they wear. I've never seen an organization in which members are so concerned with uniforms and insignias.
I've certainly never seen this in the Air Force. And I don't need to be reminded that the Air Force has one set of uniforms that everyone (most?) can wear and doesn't have to deal with the issues we have regarding our corporate uniforms.
But the bottom line is, what's more important? The uniform or the mission? The uniform or the organization? The uniform or the members? In CAP, it seems the uniform discussion is always front and center.
^ Again, it's because it's confusing, illogical, and divisive.
The USAF literally hands the clothing to its members and says "wear this".
Most CAP members have never worn a uniform of any kind, certainly not a military-style one, and
these days many may never wear much more formal then an open-collared shirt except for weddings
and funerals.
It's the first thing a member must pay for, and the first place they find that "things may not be what they seem"
in CAP reality.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 07, 2014, 08:03:46 PM
^ Again, it's because it's confusing, illogical, and divisive.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on March 07, 2014, 08:03:46 PM
The USAF literally hands the clothing to its members and says "wear this".
As anyone who has ever been to Clothing Issue at lovely Lackland will remember. :o
Quote from: Eclipse on March 07, 2014, 08:03:46 PM
Most CAP members have never worn a uniform of any kind, certainly not a military-style one, and
these days many may never wear much more formal then an open-collared shirt except for weddings
and funerals.
The first thing I noticed about CAP was the discrepancy in the membership brochures (which still showed hard rank and blue slides) and the people I was meeting (berry boards). I asked about the discrepancy and that was when I was first told about Harwell. My soon-to-be-fellow-squadron-mates were
VERY embittered by it.
Some time later a former AFRES Chaplain, who was familiar with CAP, asked me, "what's with the garish-looking shoulder boards?" I told him the information as I knew it. He said "that's crazy; I never had trouble distinguishing CAP members (obviously his years of Seminary training enabled him to be able to read
C-A-P on the shoulder marks).
Quote from: Eclipse on March 07, 2014, 08:03:46 PM
It's the first thing a member must pay for, and the first place they find that "things may not be what they seem"
in CAP reality.
Especially given that my first squadron
only wore the AF-type uniform (the grey uniform was completely different back then), and when I went to make my first order at CAP Bookstore (sigh, those were the days), it was ALL AF-type stuff.
Nowadays the general trend I've seen for new members is to just buy a golf shirt and whatever grey trousers they can find at Salvation Army/Goodwill/SVdP, despite what the regs say. >:(
Eclipse, and what's the solution? No matter which way you go, you'll have someone complaining about the change or lack of, for that matter.
- Eliminate the corporate uniforms. Remove weight and grooming standards and let everyone wear AF-style uniforms.
- Keep both styles of uniforms. Make the corporate uniforms more on par with the AF-style; more military like.
- Keep both styles of uniforms. Make the corporate uniforms less military like. No need for direct AF-style equivalency.
- Eliminate the AF-style uniform. Make a single corporate uniform for every member to wear. This uniform should be a distinctive CAP equivalent of the Air Force uniform.
- Eliminate the AF-style uniform. Make a single corporate uniform for every member to wear. This uniform should be a distinctive CAP, less military like uniform.
- The status quo. Everything stays the same.
Did I miss any options? Which one would appease every/most member(s)?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 07, 2014, 07:52:25 PM
But the bottom line is, what's more important? The uniform or the mission? The uniform or the organization? The uniform or the members? In CAP, it seems the uniform discussion is always front and center.
Depends on who you talk to.
Also......"In CAP..." is NOT the same thing as "On CAPTalk..."
At my weekly meetings, during training, SARs, GF Missions, etc......uniforms are not front and center. But here.....it is a different story.
^ You know what? I have to agree with you.
The solution is:
Pick a uniform which all members can wear, that fits mission needs first, with affectation and affinity a secondary consideration.
Since the USAF appears to not be interested in allowing all members to wear the USAF-Styles, then those should not be an option.
Configure something which everyone can wear, act like a leader and push it through, and everyone moves on.
It's only complicated when you allow unrelated factors to influence your decision.
The other option is to eliminate the wear of corporate variants, including terminating anyone who can't make weight.
Frankly, I'd respect the leadership more for making that actual decision, including accepting the attrition, then this
nonsensical attempt at pleasing everyone while in the end pleasing no one, and hurting the organization's image,
and esprit-de-corps.
It is one thing if you offer a variant which is optional for those who choose to wear it, but as I have said hundred times
before, echoed by others, to treat more than 1/2 your adult membership as a different class for no other reason then their weight,
while at the same time being fully aware that those same members are doing the lion's share of the work, is a disservice
to everyone involved, works against the rhetoric of diversity and equality, and is simply a bad, disrespectful, and dismissive idea.
Further to that, it is the height of hypocrisy for members who are not allowed to wear the uniform themselves, to appear in
public at national activities, serve on national committees, and in some cases direct others to makes changes while they themselves
simply ignore the regs for expedience, ego, or some other self-actualization. That situation itself impacts the organization's
credibility both internally and externally to an extent also largely ignored by the leadership, who then try to nullify the point
by saying "uniforms aren't important", or "surely they aren't impacting the mission".
They are, they are, and just because they aren't the biggest hole in the boat doesn't mean they don't contribute to the water in the holds.
The uniform should serve the mission and the members, not the egos.
QuoteFfrom Eclipse...
....your adult membership as a different class for no other reason then their weight, while at the same time being fully aware that those same members are doing the lion's share of the work, is a disservice to everyone involved, works against the rhetoric of diversity and equality, and is simply not a bad idea.... You mean ....not a good idea.... right?
....They are, they are, and just because they aren't the biggest hole in the boat doesn't mean they don't contribute to the water in the holds....
Love the comparison!
Flyer
I can live with one uniform, regardless of the one chosen. I agree; a decision must be made.
We either have a corporate uniform that everyone can wear or we enforce weight and grooming standards that will most likely force many of our members out (not the best solution). Either way, a decision must be made so that we can move on.
While I tend to favor wearing the AF-style uniforms over the current corporate ones, I hate that not all members can wear the same uniform. A new CAP only uniform wouldn't be such a bad idea. There are many non-Air Force-style alternatives that look professional and could meet our operational and organizational needs.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 07, 2014, 10:20:34 PM
There are many non-Air Force-style alternatives that look professional and could meet our operational and organizational needs.
There are (I tend to favour airline-type uniforms; you can get them off the rack at many pilot shops).
However, getting Those Who Know Better Than We Do to budge from the status quo...that's another matter entirely.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 07, 2014, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:03 AM
Blazer with bowtie + medal. >:D
I agree it is not equivalent, but worn with a nice shirt (i.e. french cuffs) it doesn't look that bad.
Think "Party Member" vs. the normal "Realtor / Olympic judge".
Inner or Outer Party....
comrade?
Quote from: Eclipse on March 07, 2014, 09:48:23 PM
Further to that, it is the height of hypocrisy for members who are not allowed to wear the uniform themselves, to appear in
public at national activities, serve on national committees, and in some cases direct others to makes changes while they themselves
simply ignore the regs for expedience, ego, or some other self-actualization.
^^ This.
A while back I mentioned that at the quarterly Group meeting, there was a Lt. Col. who was both heavier and shorter than I wearing AF-style blues with a service coat. I'm standing there in my G/W's because, hey, that's what the regs say I should be wearing and I like to think I have integrity.
If this Lt. Col. is wearing to "cheat" with the uniform regs, what else would he "cheat" on?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 07, 2014, 08:35:48 PM
Eliminate the corporate uniforms. Remove weight and grooming standards and let everyone wear AF-style uniforms.
My personal #1 choice, but I think the chances of Ma Blue being okay with this is on par with them giving an officer's commission to a (literal) pig so he can go fly F-35's.
Quote- Keep both styles of uniforms. Make the corporate uniforms more on par with the AF-style; more military like.
My personal #2 choice. I don't want to take away AF-blues from those that can wear them, but I would like my uniform to
not look like I should be closing the deal on a 2-bedroom / 1-and-a-half bath in a Philly suburb or yelling at kids to stop running around in the food court.
QuoteEliminate the AF-style uniform. Make a single corporate uniform for every member to wear. This uniform should be a distinctive CAP equivalent of the Air Force uniform.
My #3 choice.
QuoteThe status quo. Everything stays the same.
Unfortunately, the most likely to happen.
Geeez, how did we turn this thread into another uniform thread? It is incredibly amazing. >:D
Quote from: vento on March 08, 2014, 05:17:00 AM
Geeez, how did we turn this thread into another uniform thread? It is incredibly amazing. >:D
Quote from: CyBorg on March 07, 2014, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: UH60guy on March 07, 2014, 06:33:02 PM
Interesting thought: even a drama-filled topic (HWSNBN and Harwell) degenerates into a uniform thread in three pages. >:D
I wonder if there's a law of forum inertia: A uniform thread will remain a uniform thread unless locked by a moderator. A thread on topic will remain a thread on topic unless a uniform is mentioned.
In this case, both Generalissimos' actions had a direct impact on CAP uniforms.
And so it goes.
Quote from: Panache on March 08, 2014, 04:51:02 AM
The status quo. Everything stays the same.
Unfortunately, the most likely to happen.
And you're right, you're bloody well right, ya gotta bloody right to say.
When I saw the draft of 39-1 it just confirmed that in my mind: Those Who Know Better Than We Lower Forms Of Life are determined to keep us in two separate "classes" of uniform, and member opinion mean nothing.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 08, 2014, 05:53:56 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 08, 2014, 04:51:02 AM
The status quo. Everything stays the same.
Unfortunately, the most likely to happen.
And you're right, you're bloody well right, ya gotta bloody right to say.
When I saw the draft of 39-1 it just confirmed that in my mind: Those Who Know Better Than We Lower Forms Of Life are determined to keep us in two separate "classes" of uniform, and member opinion mean nothing.
Okay....I got to say here......analyze that last statement.
"Those who know better".........what makes you think your opinion is any more important than those on the NUC? No really. You simply assume that the NUC is ignoring "member opinion" because of some undefined conspiracy theory.
Once again I remind everyone here....CAPTalk ain't CAP.
Just because someone (or many someones) up the chain disagree with your, mine, our opinion does not mean that the just ignored us. Maybe.....just maybe......they have information that you or I don't have. Maybe, just maybe....they got some sort of briefing from CAP-USAF....one they don't want to or can't share with us lowly life forms.
Maybe it is just because I have spent my life in uniform.....but really......when "those who know better" tell me "this is the way it is".......I salute and solder on. The only difference between my life in the real military and CAP.....Is I can quit at anytime.
The simple fact is that it's a mostly unsolvable problem.
We have members of the fat-n-fuzzy variety that make significant and important contributions to CAP's missions, and I for one am vehemently against cutting them out of the program or forcing them to comply with USAF uniform requirements, as some of them simply cannot. That being said, I am certainly all for those that CAN "trim up and trim it" to do so. Perhaps we SHOULD enforce H/W and grooming standards for those who do not have a religious or medical exemption? In any event, a uniform should be available to those who cannot meet USAF uniform requirements.
On the other hand, we should, whenever possible, both honor and be identified with our parent service. We are a part of the Air Force team, and should embrace the fact that Big Blue considers us worthy to wear their uniform. We should do so properly, professionally, and smartly. (cue National Anthem)
And, just to keep the knuckleheads in check (insert your favorite salute-trolling or hotel-room-stealing anecdote here), our uniform should be distinctive enough so that we are not confused for AD personnel.
That being said, when it comes to customs and courtesies, if AD personnel were encouraged (but not required) to extend C&C to CAP officers, that would strike a balance between our civilian status and being a part of the Air Force team. No, we aren't commissioned, fight the enemy, or fall under UCMJ; but we have missions that we perform at the behest of the Air Force, and we have lost members in those missions - and we do it not for money, but for love of service and country. Is that not worthy of a modicum of respect? And, quite frankly, I can imagine AD personnel choosing to dispense said respect to those CAP members they deem worthy - like, perhaps, those who wear the uniform properly and professionally, and don't act like a knucklehead.
The main issue that we face - which I directly correlate to the "sins of the past" is the fact that, as an organization, we do not educate our members enough about (or hold them accountable for) the "little things" like C&C, proper uniform wear, our place in the Air Force team, etc. If everyone had a healthy respect for these from their first day as a CAP member and throughout their time in service, I think a lot of these problems would be/would have been eliminated. WIWAC in NYWG, this was drilled into us mercilessly. I don't see much of it at all in FLWG - and (thanks to my Cadet experience?) it irritates me to no end. (cue "If I was the CAP/CC" daydream)
I think that if we - as an organization - got our collective act together and spent some time on our appearance (professionalism and proper uniform wear) and ENFORCED what our regulations require that USAF would have much less of a problem with our uniforms in general, and how close our CAP distinctive uniforms are to USAF uniforms. We might have even been able to keep the CSU.
</rant>
When it all boils down, it's a matter of integrity.
HWSRN definitely showed us the importance of integrity, and how compromised integrity let not only himself down, but an entire organization. The uniforms are a tangible expression of not abiding by the rules and not respecting the process, and it's something many of our colleagues seize upon, whether we like it or not. (Of course, we always question the uniform threads because we ask ourselves, "did these people join CAP for the uniform, or for the mission?" But that's an aside.)
Political games in CAP for years and years have done the same thing. The maroon epaulets may have been a sign of an earlier lack of respect for what would later become the core values. But the politics does no one any good. Put the mission first, then worry about personal conflicts later. Personally, I'm not a political animal and frankly, I don't want to be. I have my preferences, sure, but if I put those above the task at hand, who am I really serving?
"Do as I say, not as I do" is a mentality in pockets of CAP that's been around for as long as the politics. It's also a show of lack of integrity, or compromised integrity.
Our organization is taking bold steps in the direction of expecting integrity in our processes. This is a good thing. It's started at the national level, and will work its way down. Maybe some wings' "good ol' boy" networks will finally see the sole side of the boot. Maybe we'll see more consistency from wing to wing, to address Joe's concern, which I've noticed in different wings in which I've been a member over 30 years (!).
The bottom line (literally and figuratively): If we can't live by the core values first, really, folks, what are we doing?
I know some members of the NUC.
They often ignore input from others completely.
Can't speak for the entire board, just the few I know personally.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 06, 2014, 01:33:39 AM
Quote from: Archer on March 06, 2014, 01:18:53 AM
I understand the need to accomodate those who struggle with weight, but can someone please explain why grooming requirements should be optional?
We have certain members on this board, who have personal reasons for having a beard, for example. For some it is religion. A certain member on here has facial scars from his military service IIRC, and prefers to cover them with a beard. Honestly, if it's our distinctive uniform, AND the AF wants us to NOT be confused with AF, then they should be HAPPY about members with beards.
Well if that's the reason, then why is the privelage of facial hair not extended to cadet members as well?
Quote from: JoeTomasone on March 08, 2014, 03:25:25 PM
That being said, when it comes to customs and courtesies, if AD personnel were encouraged (but not required) to extend C&C to CAP officers, that would strike a balance between our civilian status and being a part of the Air Force team. No, we aren't commissioned, fight the enemy, or fall under UCMJ; but we have missions that we perform at the behest of the Air Force, and we have lost members in those missions - and we do it not for money, but for love of service and country. Is that not worthy of a modicum of respect? And, quite frankly, I can imagine AD personnel choosing to dispense said respect to those CAP members they deem worthy - like, perhaps, those who wear the uniform properly and professionally, and don't act like a knucklehead.
</rant>
Opinions follow:
1. Anyone who renders a valuable public service deserves a modicum of respect. The question is whether that modicum of respect should be manifested in the form of military customs and courtesies (the salute, sir/ma'am, standing at attention, etc).
2. Uniformed military personnel should be rendering all appropriate common courtesies to each other and to civilians.
3. Uniformed military personnel should be rendering applicable military courtesies to each other and to civilians designated by regulation and tradition (the President as commander-in-chief, veterans who hold the Medal of Honor, etc.).
4. Uniformed military personnel already have the option to render military courtesies to those who might not otherwise "rate" them. It's just not often exercised. If Big Blue informed every Airman tomorrow that they had the option to salute CAP officers, it's my opinion as a USAF retiree that most would opt out. The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force puts in over two decades of military service to get to the ultimate enlisted position, and he should be encouraged to render the ultimate military courtesy to a dues-paying volunteer? Please.
5. If CAP service is really all about service and country and mission, focus on those things and the people who matter will respect you for it. If it's about getting military members to render military courtesies to you, a reexamination of priorities is in order.
Quote from: Archer on March 08, 2014, 09:36:05 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 06, 2014, 01:33:39 AM
Quote from: Archer on March 06, 2014, 01:18:53 AM
I understand the need to accomodate those who struggle with weight, but can someone please explain why grooming requirements should be optional?
We have certain members on this board, who have personal reasons for having a beard, for example. For some it is religion. A certain member on here has facial scars from his military service IIRC, and prefers to cover them with a beard. Honestly, if it's our distinctive uniform, AND the AF wants us to NOT be confused with AF, then they should be HAPPY about members with beards.
Well if that's the reason, then why is the privelage of facial hair not extended to cadet members as well?
Have you ever seen the facial hair that most, just going through puberty, teenage males can produce?
It's not pretty. >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2014, 08:22:47 AM
"Those who know better".........what makes you think your opinion is any more important than those on the NUC? No really. You simply assume that the NUC is ignoring "member opinion" because of some undefined conspiracy theory.
I never said it was "more" important, and I do not mean that it is not just
I who is not being listened to.
As for "conspiracy theories," I will leave those to Jesse Ventura.
However, I am not the only one on CAPTalk, or indeed in CAP, to comment on the "disconnect" between those further up the food chain and the member at Fizzbelch Squadron ABC. Uniform issues are not the
only example, but they are quite possibly the most
visible example.
Again, the CSU is/was a prime example. I
personally never met anyone (in CAP
or the Air Force) who had a problem with it. It was well-liked by many. Yet it is no more, and it will never be truly known
why.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2014, 08:22:47 AM
Just because someone (or many someones) up the chain disagree with your, mine, our opinion does not mean that the just ignored us. Maybe.....just maybe......they have information that you or I don't have. Maybe, just maybe....they got some sort of briefing from CAP-USAF....one they don't want to or can't share with us lowly life forms.
I do not ignore such a possibility. However, unlike in the RealMilitary, where the concept of "need-to-know basis" is part and parcel of the way information is disseminated, we, as volunteers who give of our time, talent and treasure,
do have much more of an inherent "need-to-know" on matters of an organisation we
choose to belong to, especially on matters that directly impact
us.Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2014, 08:22:47 AM
Maybe it is just because I have spent my life in uniform.....but really......when "those who know better" tell me "this is the way it is".......I salute and solder on. The only difference between my life in the real military and CAP.....Is I can quit at anytime.
I served also (ANG), though I do not have your many years of distinguished service, for which I honour you. I had to get out because of a medical condition.
Yes, in that situation, one must, in the partial words of the Oath of Enlistment, "obey the orders of the officers over me," and that is enforced by the UCMJ and, for Guard members, their State Military Justice Code (the latter is true also for State Defence Forces). You find that out on your first day of basic training/boot camp!
No, Master Sergeant, the only difference in life in the RealMilitary and CAP is
not (solely) that one can quit at any time. Military members can be ordered into battle or to clean toilets under lawfully given orders. Information can and is restricted based on need-to-know and one's level of security clearance.
Neither of those are the case in CAP. I am a Captain, you are a Master Sergeant. I cannot, and
would not, attempt to give you an order. Such would be unenforceable under CAP regulations and, in my opinion, would be postulated insanity. I would
ask you if you would assist me with a task and thank you afterward.
As well, using the "Tony McPeak" uniform as an example, that was a situation where the
Air Force did largely listen to its members who did
not like the design/insignia, and General Ronald Fogleman made modifications to the uniform to where it is today.
Those are significant differences.
As for salutes from military members, I am just as content if an Airman, Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Coastie just gives a friendly greeting.
If they initiate the salute (which they are not required to give) that is just an extra "warm fuzzy." If they reciprocate the salute I give them (which we are required to give), I am content that both me and the officer I have just saluted have done our part to extend/reciprocate courtesy to one another.
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2014, 02:11:46 AM
Have you ever seen the facial hair that most, just going through puberty, teenage males can produce?
It's not pretty. >:D
I am a "different" (to put it mildly) case. I started greying BEFORE I was able to produce significant "beard," and then
that started coming in grey.
Here was this teenager with hair past his shoulders who was already getting "salt-and-pepper" hair.
However, I get your meaning.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 08, 2014, 07:50:32 PM
I know some members of the NUC.
They often ignore input from others completely.
Can't speak for the entire board, just the few I know personally.
I can't say I'm surprised one bit.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 08, 2014, 07:31:00 PM
Our organization is taking bold steps in the direction of expecting integrity in our processes. This is a good thing. It's started at the national level, and will work its way down.
It needs to work its way down a lot faster. . . and add some bold steps in the direction of business process reengineering, communication, transparancy, leadership, and vision.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 08, 2014, 07:31:00 PMOur organization is taking bold steps in the direction of expecting integrity in our processes. This is a good thing. It's started at the national level, and will work its way down.
"Bold steps"? Assuming you're speaking of the governance changes, I can't agree they are "bold".
"The bare minimum to keep the doors open a little longer? That's closer to the truth.
Those changes make some small difference to a small group who may feel they have less of a direct voice
and vote at the national level, but for the most part, little has, or is going to change, and the average member
is never going to know the difference.
"Bold changes" spread the pain around to everyone and impact every member in a tangible way.
I note that most of the posts here refers to non-USAF style uniforms for senior members. Cadet uniforms are totally ignored. I read that CAP is down to 35,000 members, and probably 50% are cadets who get the free USAF uniforms. So of those 15,000 to 20,000 senior members, how many wear more than the polo to meetings? When you get down to it, CAPO has two missions, Cadet Programs and SAR. Most people lump AE into cadet programs. So basically you have two groups inCAP wearing a multitude of uniform variations. Cadets in blues or BDU,s and seniors in blues, flight suits, polos, G&W, or any of the other corporate variations. Elimanate the blues for seniors and make them wear a specific corporate uniform? Never happen! To many seniors that meet H&W standards will continue to want the USAF style uniform. And to many fat and fuzzies and those to lazy to put on a standard corporate uniform will continue to [censored] and moan about uniforms. One answer is to reduce the number of corporate uniform variations including calling the polo shirt a uniform. There will never be a single uniform for seniors and cadets, so why make a gazillion posts on uniforms as long as Ma Blue enforces the H&W standards for CAP members. Accept the fact that at an average Squadronmeeting you'll have 50% in blues or BDU's and 50% in a multitude of corporate variations.
Quote from: BillB on March 09, 2014, 12:31:45 PM
I note that most of the posts here refers to non-USAF style uniforms for senior members. Cadet uniforms are totally ignored. I read that CAP is down to 35,000 members, and probably 50% are cadets who get the free USAF uniforms. So of those 15,000 to 20,000 senior members, how many wear more than the polo to meetings? When you get down to it, CAPO has two missions, Cadet Programs and SAR. Most people lump AE into cadet programs. So basically you have two groups inCAP wearing a multitude of uniform variations. Cadets in blues or BDU,s and seniors in blues, flight suits, polos, G&W, or any of the other corporate variations. Elimanate the blues for seniors and make them wear a specific corporate uniform? Never happen! To many seniors that meet H&W standards will continue to want the USAF style uniform. And to many fat and fuzzies and those to lazy to put on a standard corporate uniform will continue to [censored] and moan about uniforms. One answer is to reduce the number of corporate uniform variations including calling the polo shirt a uniform. There will never be a single uniform for seniors and cadets, so why make a gazillion posts on uniforms as long as Ma Blue enforces the H&W standards for CAP members. Accept the fact that at an average Squadronmeeting you'll have 50% in blues or BDU's and 50% in a multitude of corporate variations.
Agreed. You want to make it really simple for the ones who don't comply with the Regs? Then limit the uniforms to the polo shirt and the blazer uniform. Go back to the way it use to be where shoulder rank wasn't even allowed on white shirts.
You try to impose a voluntary conformance standard on the warm and fuzzies and all you get is I'm a volunteer. You can't make me do that. Then you get someone to adopt another corporate uniform and we end up in the mess we're in. Then the next argument is that we're the Civil Patrol, aka civilians, and not the Air Force. Everybody always wants their cake and eat it, too!
I just don't get it. People want to volunteer for an organization that has some pretty high performance standards and it seems all people want to do is wear uniforms. Even volunteer firemen are required to adhere to physical standards and must have regular physicals.
I just wonder what this organization would be like if the senior members were out doing drill and PT, just like in WW II. Oh, my gosh, that's too healthy and I'm a volunteer that you can't make me do that.
Look how the same ol', same ol' hijacked yet another string and you wonder why cadets are always laughing at the senior members.....
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 09, 2014, 01:52:18 PMI just don't get it. People want to volunteer for an organization that has some pretty high performance standards and it seems all people want to do is wear uniforms. Even volunteer firemen are required to adhere to physical standards and must have regular physicals.
CAP does not have "high performance standards".
There is no duty which CAP is >supposed to< be involved in that requires anything more then the general health and
ability of the average American - that's pretty much the
point. On the flying side, our demo is the GA community - that's Joe 6-er with a PPL.
The cadet leadership, especially at the unit level? Largely parents, involved for their own cadets, or who joined for
that reason and stayed because they enjoyed it.
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 09, 2014, 01:52:18 PM
I just wonder what this organization would be like if the senior members were out doing drill and PT, just like in WW II.
(http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gold-point-nv-is-a-ghost-town-with-only-7-remaining-residents.jpg)
We're already understaffed and undermanned by 30-50%, start imposing unnecessary bars to entry and you might as well close up shop
immediately.
Undermanned and understaffed??? By what standard?
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2014, 07:14:20 PM
Undermanned and understaffed??? By what standard?
20-1.
Charter minimums.
Empty shirt filter.
Common sense.
Your wing might be an anomaly, but I doubt it, and I'll bet that steak I'm owed on the ABUs that organization-wide
we are at least 30% understaffed, with most charters, including wings, having only 1/2 their
org chart properly filled with single-billeted,
active, members.
Most wings are so short staffed that if you charted the full org chart from the unit up, it would look
like a Spirograph.
Heck, even in larger units a lot of times members wear 2-3 hats.
Now, are all of those people required by the 20-1 really needed? Or has the world and the mission changed?
A review of all of the "required" positions is way overdue.
Missed the point.
20-1 or no, we're running on fumes in of places.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2014, 09:04:31 PM
Missed the point.
20-1 or no, we're running on fumes in of places.
Then you've said it yourself, if they don't have the
minimum number of members, then close the unit.
Sounds pretty simple to me. It's called being a realist.
Are you missing the point on purpose?
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 08, 2014, 07:50:32 PM
I know some members of the NUC.
They often ignore input from others completely.
Can't speak for the entire board, just the few I know personally.
How do you know? Isn't that really unquantifiable?
You give an idea to a member of a committee. Your idea doesn't appear in a regulation. Does that mean, to you, that your input was totally ignored?
Quote from: BillB
I note that most of the posts here refers to non-USAF style uniforms for senior members. Cadet uniforms are totally ignored. I read that CAP is down to 35,000 members, and probably 50% are cadets who get the free USAF uniforms.
Here are the most current numbers:
National Cadet Count: 24822 (as of 28 Feb 2014); National Senior Count: 34253 (as of 28 Feb 2014)
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 09, 2014, 01:52:18 PM
I just don't get it. People want to volunteer for an organization that has some pretty high performance standards and it seems all people want to do is wear uniforms.
Cool, so you're okay with giving up your AF blues and flight suit? You can fly just fine in the a polo shirt and pair of gray pants.
QuoteEven volunteer firemen are required to adhere to physical standards and must have regular physicals.
In what part of the country? Certainly not here.
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2014, 08:29:03 PM
Now, are all of those people required by the 20-1 really needed? Or has the world and the mission changed?
A review of all of the "required" positions is way overdue.
FWIW, I think you're correct. The depth of the required positions pool might make more sense for full-time units; many probably aren't necessary any longer, or shouldn't require a dedicated officer/NCO. With a bit of objective review, some of the SAS might go away.
There are folks working hard, wearing multiple hats; just not sure all that work is worth doing, or perhaps not worth doing to the level of granularity as-is.
Quote from: Panache on March 10, 2014, 12:46:48 AM
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 09, 2014, 01:52:18 PM
I just don't get it. People want to volunteer for an organization that has some pretty high performance standards and it seems all people want to do is wear uniforms.
Cool, so you're okay with giving up your AF blues and flight suit? You can fly just fine in the a polo shirt and pair of gray pants.
QuoteEven volunteer firemen are required to adhere to physical standards and must have regular physicals.
In what part of the country? Certainly not here.
I'm OK with giving them up, and I'm OK with you keeping them, too. If NHQ got their management, vision, and leadership act together, and the only thing that remained hosed was uniforms, I'd be pretty darn happy.
Heck, short of cross dressing, or having to wear a sword when flying, I'd go along with anything, even lose my polo and wear Air Force style.
Quote from: flyboy1 on March 09, 2014, 01:52:18 PM
I just wonder what this organization would be like if the senior members were out doing drill and PT, just like in WW II. Oh, my gosh, that's too healthy and I'm a volunteer that you can't make me do that.
My first squadron did not have senior members doing PT, but we did drill. One of our members was also an AFRES Staff (later Technical) Sergeant and he did a very good job of teaching. We were at an Armed Forces Reserve facility (Navy Reserves/Sea Cadets, Marine Reserves, ArNG) and they were gracious enough to let us use their very nice drill hall. Our first task at
every meeting was assembling formation by senior/cadet flights, reporting in and drilling for about half an hour. I think we were a better, more cohesive unit for it rather than just hanging around drinking coffee and eating doughnuts. We also enforced C&C's (including among seniors; no first-name basis during CAP time).
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2014, 08:29:03 PM
Now, are all of those people required by the 20-1 really needed? Or has the world and the mission changed?
A review of all of the "required" positions is way overdue.
You are 100% right, and I have thought the same for a
long time now. However, as I have said elsewhere, I think that the entire structure of this organisation has got so calcified over the years, and too many people have a vested interest in "keeping things the way they are."
Quote from: SarDragon on March 09, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
Here are the most current numbers:
National Cadet Count: 24822 (as of 28 Feb 2014); National Senior Count: 34253 (as of 28 Feb 2014)
Well, that's definitely more than 35,000 members.
As for members wearing multiple hats, that's nothing new, and it's been that way for the three decades I've been in CAP. What makes anyone think that's a new thing?
I think he may have gotten the 35,000 from another thread that talked about adopting the olde pinks and greens. That was referring only to senior members.
Quote from: SunDog on March 10, 2014, 12:57:12 AM
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2014, 08:29:03 PM
Now, are all of those people required by the 20-1 really needed? Or has the world and the mission changed?
A review of all of the "required" positions is way overdue.
FWIW, I think you're correct. The depth of the required positions pool might make more sense for full-time units; many probably aren't necessary any longer, or shouldn't require a dedicated officer/NCO. With a bit of objective review, some of the SAS might go away.
There are folks working hard, wearing multiple hats; just not sure all that work is worth doing, or perhaps not worth doing to the level of granularity as-is.
The Air Force, with considerable more resources than CAP, seems to approach its organization much more efficiently. Operational units have a minimum staff to meet operational and training requirements, with very little overhead (most of which are additional duties). Each Operations Group has an Operations Support Squadron that supports the other operational units (flying squadrons, etc.). Other support functions are provided by either the Mission Support Group or Wing staff.
To translate that into CAP, I think we could make better use of the limited resources we have by consolidating many of the support staff functions at Group and/or Wing and minimizing the overhead staff functions at the squadron level. Squadrons should have a minimum staff to allow them to train and execute the missions. Support functions should be kept to a minimum and performed only as additional duties. That means that many of the cumbersome requirements imposed on units would have to be rescinded and/or move to higher headquarters.
Bottom line, the Org Chart prescribed in CAPR 20-1 is archaic and inefficient, especially with the manning levels at most units. It should be adjusted in order to make us more efficient and able to meet the challenges we face today.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 10, 2014, 04:00:03 AM
Bottom line, the Org Chart prescribed in CAPR 20-1 is archaic and inefficient, especially with the manning levels at most units. It should be adjusted in order to make us more efficient and able to meet the challenges we face today.
For example: does your average squadron really need two separate people for the PDO officer and Administrative officer?
The raw membership numbers are essentially useless without the "empty shirt filter" and "just punches safety once a month filter".
I also agree that 20-1 is unreasonable in the expectation of staff needed, especially at the unit level.
It reflects a 20-year old paper-pushing, manual image of CAP staffing.
With that said, the charter minimums are far too low, and whether or not 20-1 is too top heavy isn't really
relevent to the under manned and staffed discussion.
If a unit is at charter minimums for more then a year, they have already failed.
Any squadron with less then 25 members is failing.
To achieve the critical mass necessary for a self-sustaining existence, a unit needs at least 50
members on the books with at least 35 reasonably active.
Now, please point out the anecdotal "Senior Special OPS squadrons", etc., etc., that are the exceptions
to the "rule of 50".
Quote from: Panache on March 10, 2014, 04:09:54 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 10, 2014, 04:00:03 AM
Bottom line, the Org Chart prescribed in CAPR 20-1 is archaic and inefficient, especially with the manning levels at most units. It should be adjusted in order to make us more efficient and able to meet the challenges we face today.
For example: does your average squadron really need two separate people for the PDO officer and Administrative officer?
I would argue that the average squadron doesn't need an Administrative Officer at all. All our publications are online. Correspondence is done via e-mail. And since virtually everyone has a computer these days, merorandums, administrative authorizations, etc. are usually done by the commander or corresponding staff officer.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 04:18:23 AM
The raw membership numbers are essentially useless without the "empty shirt filter" and "just punches safety once a month filter".
I also agree that 20-1 is unreasonable in the expectation of staff needed, especially at the unit level.
It reflects a 20-year old paper-pushing, manual image of CAP staffing.
With that said, the charter minimums are far too low, and whether or not 20-1 is too top heavy isn't really
relevent to the under manned and staffed discussion.
If a unit is at charter minimums for more then a year, they have already failed.
Any squadron with less then 25 members is failing.
To achieve the critical mass necessary for a self-sustaining existence, a unit needs at least 50
members on the books with at least 35 reasonably active.
Now, please point out the anecdotal "Senior Special OPS squadrons", etc., etc., that are the exceptions
to the "rule of 50".
Hmmmm. . .my sqdn has maybe 35 or so SM on the books. Maybe a dozen active? As in showing up semi-regularly. Four or five are heavy into CP. Another four of us are surviving MPs (down from seven, likely heading for two). Not really sure what the other SMs are doing - finance, I think. One does safety, as well. PDO is own initiative, really. And no one gets worked up over chasing the paper for a find credit, for example. You found it? Great! Let's go get a beer! I guess we're kinda bare-bones IRT SMs, but we are contrubuting aircrew to other squadrons - we lost our airplane a while back - apparently we flew it too much, and were over the five-MP limit - so we do help cover some SM volunteer hours for the wing.
CP is doing well - I hear about them getting out and participating, and there seem to be a couple dozen of them milling about when our meetings cross paths. The older ones seem smart, motivated, and in charge. At least a couple are officers now, though their rank insignia is still a mystery to me.
Anyway, we're well short of the totals you cited; are we already failed, or just on our way to failing?
On the way to failing, and probably one or two personalities away from shutting down.
There's no such thing as "flying an airplane too much" or being "over the MP limit", though the fact that the pilots
"aren't too concerned about chasing paper" might be a contributing factor. An apathetic attitude about
what others are doing is a piece as well.
If you have 35 on the books and "maybe a dozen active" your CP is not "doing well".
We have 57 SM in our unit. Of those, 20-25 are fairly active and another 5-10 participate from time to time. And we still struggle to meet all the manning requirements in CAPR 20-1 and other applicable regulations. Many of us have to wear multiple hats at the squadron and at group (albeit some as assistants), just to ensure every program is running and every requirement is met. I can't even imagine how a small unit is supposed to do all this.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 01:01:48 PM
There's no such thing as "flying an airplane too much" or being "over the MP limit", though the fact that the pilots
"aren't too concerned about chasing paper" might be a contributing factor. An apathetic attitude about
what others are doing is a piece as well.
I wish we were "flying an airplane too much." The closest CAP aircraft to us is firmly in the grip of the GOBN pilot's club, who treats it as their own personal toy.
Quote from: Panache on March 10, 2014, 01:53:58 PM
I wish we were "flying an airplane too much." The closest CAP aircraft to us is firmly in the grip of the GOBN pilot's club, who treats it as their own personal toy.
Years ago, we got a plane after a lot of wrangling and flew the wheel pants off it.
Like 20-25+ hrs a month when other squadrons were reporting 5-10 hrs a month on their planes. Schedule the plane, fly the plane. I had a group of pilots who were not afraid to drive to where the former "Flying Club" squadron was, before we were assigned the plane, and I was able to highlight that we were flying the heck out of a plane that was 45 minutes away.
(one month, we reported 20+ hrs of flying and the flight ops guy at wing was like "Thats impossible! It was at the other airport for maintenance for 2 weeks!" and then he looked and oh, hahaha, lookie: we were even flying it while it sat at the other airport waiting to come back)The bottom line I always conveyed to my pilots: if we fly the plane, we keep it. If we don't, we lose it. That simple.
Quote from: NIN on March 10, 2014, 02:46:45 PM
The bottom line I always conveyed to my pilots: if we fly the plane, we keep it. If we don't, we lose it. That simple.
Yep - and the best way to break the GOBN is fill up the calendar and fly it.
Quote from: DoubleSecret on March 08, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on March 08, 2014, 03:25:25 PM
That being said, when it comes to customs and courtesies, if AD personnel were encouraged (but not required) to extend C&C to CAP officers, that would strike a balance between our civilian status and being a part of the Air Force team. No, we aren't commissioned, fight the enemy, or fall under UCMJ; but we have missions that we perform at the behest of the Air Force, and we have lost members in those missions - and we do it not for money, but for love of service and country. Is that not worthy of a modicum of respect? And, quite frankly, I can imagine AD personnel choosing to dispense said respect to those CAP members they deem worthy - like, perhaps, those who wear the uniform properly and professionally, and don't act like a knucklehead.
</rant>
Opinions follow:
4. Uniformed military personnel already have the option to render military courtesies to those who might not otherwise "rate" them. It's just not often exercised. If Big Blue informed every Airman tomorrow that they had the option to salute CAP officers, it's my opinion as a USAF retiree that most would opt out. The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force puts in over two decades of military service to get to the ultimate enlisted position, and he should be encouraged to render the ultimate military courtesy to a dues-paying volunteer? Please.
5. If CAP service is really all about service and country and mission, focus on those things and the people who matter will respect you for it. If it's about getting military members to render military courtesies to you, a reexamination of priorities is in order.
Obviously you did not read what I wrote, missed my point entirely, or for whatever reason decided to color it with a "he is trolling for salutes" sentiment. I'll simply leave it at that.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 01:01:48 PM
On the way to failing, and probably one or two personalities away from shutting down.
There's no such thing as "flying an airplane too much" or being "over the MP limit", though the fact that the pilots
"aren't too concerned about chasing paper" might be a contributing factor. An apathetic attitude about
what others are doing is a piece as well.
If you have 35 on the books and "maybe a dozen active" your CP is not "doing well".
Oh, there are a LOT more than 12 cadets - several dozen, I beleive. I meant we had about a dozen or so active SM's. We've been on this level of "low simmer" for quite a while. . . but your observation about personalities rings true - we loose the wrong two or three SMs, especially in CP, and it could go south in a hurry. Not all our SMs are apathetic about the paper chase - the lack of concern about find credit, or who is doing the care-and-feeding of van usage reports is just me. My plate is kinda full, so those things don't get my attention.
Actually, I was joking about "flying too much" and "over the MP limit" - we were wearing the airplane out, and had more MPs in our sqdn than an adjoining Group had in total. But the center of gravity for airplanes is the Wing HQ geo area. We had five aircraft in our area at one time, and are now down to two. Our annual early-summer reward for flying "too much" was to have our aircraft swapped with with someome else's tie-down queen. Not all bad, as at least an airplane was nearby. But once we lost ours, the Form 5 guys with MP ambitions drifted away, and are now slowly being followed by the MPs still in place.
I imagine our wing will lose (another) aircraft eventually, since we're 20% or so below the magic five MPs per aircraft. Some sqdn not in the GOBN will be out of luck - pretty sure the main base at Wing won't be giving up any of their multiple aircraft. Hey, it is what it is. There had been some $$$ incentive to drive the added distance to fly CAP self-funded, but that marginal diffrence disappeared with the last maintenance rate increase. Still can't beat CAP on funded missions, of course - we can sometimes borrow another sqdn's airplane for O rides or a funded training sortie.
So most of us are still flying as many (or more) hours - we just aren't flying them in CAP aircraft anymore. It follows that interest and commitment wane a bit, attention starts to be placed elsewhere, and participation dwindles a bit.
Over the course of SunDog's membership here, all I'm hearing is that his focus is on flying. Preferably funded flying. I thought we had planes to do a mission, not just get the easiest way to get the cheapest way to build hours.
In order for aircrews to maintain operational readiness and proficiency, they need to fly frequently. That is also part of our mission.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 10, 2014, 06:54:00 PM
Over the course of SunDog's membership here, all I'm hearing is that his focus is on flying. Preferably funded flying. I thought we had planes to do a mission, not just get the easiest way to get the cheapest way to build hours.
So, Sir, you are shocked, shocked and dismayed, to realize a MP in the Civil
AIR patrol is focused on flying? What a worthless cretin I be!
Seriously, I've no particular interest in building hours; and it is a rare funded event that takes much less than a day, even though you may only get 1.0 on the Hobbs. I'm here because I'm interested in the mission. So I've put up with the SAS, the GOBN, the aircraft gerrymandering, etc. Funded flying might mean mission flying, one of the points of our existence - so yep, I like mission flying, and training for it.
If I just want generic proficency, I can skip the considerable hassle and much longer commute, drive to the flying club, fly 2.0, and be home for lunch. And for about the same (or less) out-of-pocket.
My point, though not well articulated, was that we had a large pool of pilots in a particular geo area, whose prescense meant diddley-squat to the GOBN, and now our wing is down a plane, likely to lose another, and airplane drivers are looking elsewhere for their flying fix.
What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?
Quote from: Archer on March 10, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?
In far too many cases, the guys in it are the same leaders who are supposed to squash it, and until someone who cares enough to
start making people knock it off gets involved, it's pretty much a circular situation.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 08:51:50 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 10, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?
In far too many cases, the guys in it are the same leaders who are supposed to squash it, and until someone who cares enough to
start making people knock it off gets involved, it's pretty much a circular situation.
Also in far too many cases......it just does not exist. At least as far as some people want to believe that it exists.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2014, 09:08:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 08:51:50 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 10, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?
In far too many cases, the guys in it are the same leaders who are supposed to squash it, and until someone who cares enough to
start making people knock it off gets involved, it's pretty much a circular situation.
Also in far too many cases......it just does not exist. At least as far as some people want to believe that it exists.
I actually agree - a lot of times what is viewed from the outside as "GOBN", is actually just standad procedure or people
not willing to make a second phone call.
"Not having someone drive the plane to your house..." isn't the same as "GOBN", same goes for any unit that doesn't have a
"plane, van, radio, L-Per", or whatever is hot this month.
The majority of units don't have a plane, yet those pilots find a way to fly.
All of them have some standardized way to schedule it, and the wings have to follow the same qualification rules
across the board (mountain, Alaska, and other local training notwithstanding).
A big part of the perceived GOBN is the attitude among some units with planes, is that the plane :belongs" to that unit, and pilots from other units are not worthy to fly that plane. We used to have that situation in my group some years back, but a turnover in leadership has helped alleviate it. Another problem was an unwillingness for the pilots in that unit to fly real missions, instead reserving their participation to the exercises. Oh, and then there's the O-flight problem - "we don't like to fly those whiny, puking little kids."
It's a lot better now, but the GOBN is still very real in some places.
I'm just in one wing, so can't speak to what sound like your rational points, at least IRT your wings. But in my wing, GOBN is big, real, and smelly. One wing personage told me his squadron doesn't have an airplane, yet he "flys plenty!" No kidding? You live a stone's throw from the wing drome! They have three airplanes parked there, and you're OPS' sidekick! Of course you "fly plenty"!
I'm not the most perceptive guy, but I can read short words, sound out the others, and count to 100. And I thumbed through WMIRS a few times. U don't have to be Einstein to recognize the patterns. Heck, ater the cutover, one wing troll was actively discouraging review of WMIRS - what was going on was too, too apparent. And this is cool - he may be our next wing king. . .think we should expect a bright new day?
Shoot, won't bore you with more stories that you'd have to take with a grain of salt anyway; but grant me the benefit of the doubt, and the ability to see through glass. I'm not ranting, just reporting. It is what it is, and we can deal with it, transfer, or expire out.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 09:17:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2014, 09:08:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 08:51:50 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 10, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?
In far too many cases, the guys in it are the same leaders who are supposed to squash it, and until someone who cares enough to
start making people knock it off gets involved, it's pretty much a circular situation.
Also in far too many cases......it just does not exist. At least as far as some people want to believe that it exists.
I actually agree - a lot of times what is viewed from the outside as "GOBN", is actually just standad procedure or people
not willing to make a second phone call.
"Not having someone drive the plane to your house..." isn't the same as "GOBN", same goes for any unit that doesn't have a
"plane, van, radio, L-Per", or whatever is hot this month.
The majority of units don't have a plane, yet those pilots find a way to fly.
All of them have some standardized way to schedule it, and the wings have to follow the same qualification rules
across the board (mountain, Alaska, and other local training notwithstanding).
I was also thinking of "only the DO's 'freinds" get called out to missions" as well. The wing alerting officer know his people....and when a mission gets activated he keep calling the same 10 people that he knows can do the job and are available. Then the new guy MP complains that "I'm not part of the GOBD so I never get called". It is true he never gets called and it is true he is not part of "GOBD" but it is not true that it is some conspiracy or some malfeasance on part of anyone.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 04:18:23 AM
The raw membership numbers are essentially useless without the "empty shirt filter" and "just punches safety once a month filter".
I also agree that 20-1 is unreasonable in the expectation of staff needed, especially at the unit level.
It reflects a 20-year old paper-pushing, manual image of CAP staffing.
With that said, the charter minimums are far too low, and whether or not 20-1 is too top heavy isn't really
relevent to the under manned and staffed discussion.
If a unit is at charter minimums for more then a year, they have already failed.
Any squadron with less then 25 members is failing.
To achieve the critical mass necessary for a self-sustaining existence, a unit needs at least 50
members on the books with at least 35 reasonably active.
Now, please point out the anecdotal "Senior Special OPS squadrons", etc., etc., that are the exceptions
to the "rule of 50".
Hope you're ready to shut down every unit south of I-80 if that's the case.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2014, 10:24:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 09:17:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2014, 09:08:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2014, 08:51:50 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 10, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?
In far too many cases, the guys in it are the same leaders who are supposed to squash it, and until someone who cares enough to
start making people knock it off gets involved, it's pretty much a circular situation.
Also in far too many cases......it just does not exist. At least as far as some people want to believe that it exists.
I actually agree - a lot of times what is viewed from the outside as "GOBN", is actually just standad procedure or people
not willing to make a second phone call.
"Not having someone drive the plane to your house..." isn't the same as "GOBN", same goes for any unit that doesn't have a
"plane, van, radio, L-Per", or whatever is hot this month.
The majority of units don't have a plane, yet those pilots find a way to fly.
All of them have some standardized way to schedule it, and the wings have to follow the same qualification rules
across the board (mountain, Alaska, and other local training notwithstanding).
I was also thinking of "only the DO's 'freinds" get called out to missions" as well. The wing alerting officer know his people....and when a mission gets activated he keep calling the same 10 people that he knows can do the job and are available. Then the new guy MP complains that "I'm not part of the GOBD so I never get called". It is true he never gets called and it is true he is not part of "GOBD" but it is not true that it is some conspiracy or some malfeasance on part of anyone.
When I get a mission, I don't always have time to go through a long list of names. If the mission is outside my group, I call the GP/DOS or alerting officer, if one is available, and they get me the people I need. Within my group, I will contact the unit closer to were the target is. If it's within my area, I will call members that I know are active and qualified and will attempt to be as fair as I can in doing so. But when running out of time, I will call those who I know are most likely to be available and to respond quickly, and sometimes that means that the same people will participate multiple times.
We don't have a GOBN in my group (at least not one that I'm aware of), but the universal truth applies here as in everywhere else; if you want to be called, you need to actively contribute and make yourself known. Anyone who actively participates in exercises and other training events will be more likely to receive a call from me than those who don't. And that has nothing to do with a GOBN.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 10, 2014, 10:50:59 PM
Hope you're ready to shut down every unit south of I-80 if that's the case.
They are doing a good job of that on their own...
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 10, 2014, 10:53:57 PMif you want to be called, you need to actively contribute and make yourself known. Anyone who actively participates in exercises and other training events will be more likely to receive a call from me than those who don't. And that has nothing to do with a GOBN.
Yep.
:)
Again - speaking only about MY wing, AFAIK - we had a new guy who had only been in 10 or 12 years - fresh face, ya know? I guess the GOBs didn't know if they couldn't trust him - he might have forged that MP, CFI, CFII, ATP, etc. I think they were glad he left - another uppity newbie trying to horn in.
Yep, it's very likely shlepping up to the wing frequently, making your face known, getting in-front of the inner-circle, and establishing personal contact would help - it's certainly human nature. Just generally sucking up as oppurtunity presents. And likely you could break in. Wouldn't you want to take a shower afterwards, though? And depending on distance, it could become a second career. . .
Joking aside, any kind of manager worth beans would guard against this, and keep all his committed people involved. . .I know they rotated the call-outs amoung the groups for a while - that faded, though.
Some years back I was surprised by a call-out (we still had a plane then) - the other pilot and I were cracking up afterwards - turned out all the GOBs were at a wing social function earlier in the day, and were out of crew rest and/or had a beer or two. The guy who called me couldn't pronouce my right-seater's last name (the CFI etc. mentioned above)! We had less than 40 MPs in the entire wing, and he'd never spoken our names before. Slowwwww learner, but what's a decade, more or less?
Funny thing is, the CFI etc., and I made every SAREX, participated almost without fail in every evolution - but were just names on a whiteboard, to keep the MP count up, and hold on to aircraft. And I do recognize it is tougher now, with fewer missions, so they are more closely held - like the gentleman who "is in a hurry" sometimes - and calls the same guy(s) as last time. Only the last time is a lot longer interval. Even wing guys can't party every day, so the oppurtunities for those not in the club dwindle. As do the numbers of guys who are not in the club. . .
But hey, no organization is perfect, and if I don't like it, I can wander off, or etc. Big picture, the searches are getting done, customers are being served, cadets are getting an experience, and so the taxpayers are getting their value, and if the inernal machinations are gacked, maybe that's not so important?
I did get a lot of flying in CAP aircraft, met some good pilots, had some good missions. Saved a lot of money when a CAP C-172 was in our area, too! So I'll enjoy this final year, save the memories, stay in touch with some good non-GOBs.
Quote from: Panache on March 10, 2014, 04:09:54 AM
For example: does your average squadron really need two separate people for the PDO officer and Administrative officer?
As an Admin officer with a Master's level, I found that in my last squadron our Personnel officer and I were often (unintentionally) stepping on one another's toes.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 10, 2014, 09:36:21 PM
Oh, and then there's the O-flight problem - "we don't like to fly those whiny, puking little kids."
That was the way it was in the Senior squadron I was part of (on paper, anyway - unless you were a pilot you really weren't "part of" the unit)...they'd sign their significant others up so they could fly in CAP airplanes (and said SO's never took part in any unit operations), but didn't want to fly cadets from the neighbouring Cadet squadron on O-rides.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 10, 2014, 09:36:21 PM
It's a lot better now, but the GOBN is still very real in some places.
YMM really, REALLY V.
Well....GOBN aside.
To address what Eclipse was getting at about CAP being undermanned.....it is true.....when you compare what CAP SHOULD BE DOING on paper with what it is really doing.
And that is because (as I pointed out in another thread) CAP does not have any unified OPLAN for ES, CP or AE.
In the USAF that is how everything is driven.
OPLANS tell you how many of what type of combat asset you need to fight "the war".
That drives how many squadrons and support squadrons you need to "equip, man and train" to perform wartime taskings.
Until the OPLANs get written....no squadron commander can know if he has enough people to do the job.....because no one has told him what that is.
[/rant]
^Yep. Our stratigic plan is (has been) on the table, however the "game plan" is no where to be found. It is still up to us in finding a way to accomplish it. I wonder how many wheels are being reinvented? How many commanders are becoming frustrated? Maybe it's me, but I think it may be time to change tactics.
To use an old phrase drone from 2008; "hope and change". ::)
Maybe it is possible we can rise above our past?
Ok, I'm off the soapbox.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2014, 10:24:18 PM
I was also thinking of "only the DO's 'freinds" get called out to missions" as well. The wing alerting officer know his people....and when a mission gets activated he keep calling the same 10 people that he knows can do the job and are available. Then the new guy MP complains that "I'm not part of the GOBD so I never get called". It is true he never gets called and it is true he is not part of "GOBD" but it is not true that it is some conspiracy or some malfeasance on part of anyone.
I was flat-out told, and this is an exact quote, "If you want to get qualified as Mission Scanner and Mission Observer, you need to go to NESA, because nobody here will fly you for training." Period.
Interpret that as you will.
Quote from: FW on March 11, 2014, 03:24:50 AMTo use an old phrase drone from 2008; "hope and change". ::)
When I see that, I see that thing I think of a modified 1996 slogan .. 'Dope Hemp 96'. ;)
Which about sums up what I think of the whole thing, sometimes an escape route would be handy.. move to Colorado, for that Rocky Mountain High, 2014 Edition.
Quote from: FW on March 11, 2014, 03:24:50 AM
^Yep. Our stratigic plan is (has been) on the table, however the "game plan" is no where to be found. It is still up to us in finding a way to accomplish it. I wonder how many wheels are being reinvented? How many commanders are becoming frustrated? Maybe it's me, but I think it may be time to change tactics.
To use an old phrase drone from 2008; "hope and change". ::)
Maybe it is possible we can rise above our past?
Ok, I'm off the soapbox.
I bet it could be turned around, truly. One model might be a National CC with enough butt in his/her britches to force change. Need someone with credibilty, from outside CAP, with the juice to bowl over the status quo. High profile name, with USAF backing and a mandate to fix it. Get a four year term, make everyone mad, and not really care.
None of the issues are that tough - pretty easy to define, pretty easy to fix, if the CC doesn't care about the screams and howling, the BoG, or the wing kings.
CAP would be leaner, likely. Maybe many fewer tracks, fewer uniforms, maybe no cadets or AE. Or, maybe total emphasis on CP, and no SAR. Maybe spin-off one or more of the holy trio. . .New charter for the new century, lose the SUI and the 18,256 forms? Or some radical combination of changes we haven't thought of.
Could go bad (like at HP a while back). Could go good (GE).
So, still, what exactly is this good ole' boys network? Or is that also CAPSOC classified?
Quote from: Archer on March 11, 2014, 04:47:11 AM
So, still, what exactly is this good ole' boys network? Or is that also CAPSOC classified?
Exactly what it says on the tin. Although it isn't technically limited to boys.
Quote from: Panache on March 11, 2014, 04:55:05 AM
Quote from: Archer on March 11, 2014, 04:47:11 AM
So, still, what exactly is this good ole' boys network? Or is that also CAPSOC classified?
Exactly what it says on the tin. Although it isn't technically limited to boys.
OKA Clique - A small, exclusive group of individuals; cabal
Yeah, I'm still not seeing how that relates to anything CAP. Can you explain like I'm 5?
Quote from: Panache on March 11, 2014, 03:56:24 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 10, 2014, 10:24:18 PM
I was also thinking of "only the DO's 'freinds" get called out to missions" as well. The wing alerting officer know his people....and when a mission gets activated he keep calling the same 10 people that he knows can do the job and are available. Then the new guy MP complains that "I'm not part of the GOBD so I never get called". It is true he never gets called and it is true he is not part of "GOBD" but it is not true that it is some conspiracy or some malfeasance on part of anyone.
I was flat-out told, and this is an exact quote, "If you want to get qualified as Mission Scanner and Mission Observer, you need to go to NESA, because nobody here will fly you for training." Period.
Interpret that as you will.
Or the local version of NESA (Lone Star ESA in Texas Wing; Alabama Wing Emergency Services School (WESS)), for example. And then once you're qualified, good luck getting on an aircrew!
Quote from: Archer on March 11, 2014, 09:03:36 AM
Yeah, I'm still not seeing how that relates to anything CAP. Can you explain like I'm 5?
I will give you a
bit more credit. I will explain like you are in high school. 8)
I remember back in high school, back when there was still long hair (which I had), polyester (which I didn't) and better music (see the film "Dazed And Confused"). There was always a knot of "cool" kids (I wasn't one) who, if you wanted any sort of societal approval, you had to be part of their "in-crowd."
Fast forward to CAP. The "GOBN" is the "in-crowd." Usually this is at the Wing level, but not exclusively. There is a knot of "cool" officers, most of whom are at least Majors, who have known each other since we still had metal rank and blue epaulettes. They socialise a lot outside of CAP, and usually they have held their offices at Wing level for a long time, or at least have rotated one another through the various offices. Ultimately, they control a lot of things in Wing, from promotions to what units get assigned aircraft which ones don't.
If you are not part of that "GOBN," too often your unit is left to wither on the vine, especially if your CC is not part of the "GOBN," and it's even worse if s/he has the courage/guts/intestinal fortitude/insanity to openly dig in against the GOBN.
Quote from: Archer on March 11, 2014, 09:03:36 AM
Yeah, I'm still not seeing how that relates to anything CAP. Can you explain like I'm 5?
Much like the development of some early religions, "GOBNism" is an attempt to make sense of events which would otherwise be incomprehensible by relying on unseen, hidden forces.
Restated, if I honestly believe I deserve to be promoted (or have an aircraft assigned to my squadron, or get my first choice NCSA, etc.) and that does not occur, something must have gone wrong. Since I already know that I am worthy, the fault must lie . . . elsewhere. The explanation that best fits the (lack of ) facts is that "those guys" at wing / region / NHQ are playing favorites and making choices based on friendships instead of following the rules.
Thus I can comfortably maintain my entirely reasonable belief that I am worthy of promotion, and I don't have to find fault with my squadron commander or staff (heck, I know those guys and they are good people). It would be uncomfortable if I had to consider that I might not be worthy of promotion, or if I had to have a frank conversation with my local chain of command.
And since the GOBN always resides several echelons above me, I already know it is futile to actually attempt to correct the problem by working through my chain of command or the IG. Instead, I will expose it by complaining about it on the interwebs.
(Note: Every organization composed of human beings will inevitably have flaws. Sometimes major flaws. And to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, about half of CAP leaders are below average. The way to improve or develop an organization is to both address systemic problems and to continuously train and upgrade the skills of the members and leaders. I have not yet come across an organization that was improved because discouraged members complained about a situation on the internet instead of taking action. If cronyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism) is a problem in an organization, you identify and make changes to the system in a way that promotes a meritocracy.
In CAP terms, you make changes to the governance scheme and supporting regulations, change the leadership, develop Core Values and Ethics doctrine, and improve the professional development system. Which should sound familiar.)
Quote from: CyBorg on March 11, 2014, 03:58:23 PM
If you are not part of that "GOBN," too often your unit is left to wither on the vine, especially if your CC is not part of the "GOBN," and it's even worse if s/he has the courage/guts/intestinal fortitude/insanity to openly dig in against the GOBN.
I guess I should consider myself lucky then, since I haven't experience such things. I hate politics, so I stay away from it. I do my job the best I can and try to help as many people as I can along the way. I've challenged the status quo and unwritten rules many times and have ruffled a few feathers along the way. But because I do good work and help at every level and in any area that I can, that hasn't limited my ability to contribute and progress in the organization.
In fact, a couple of years ago I was the new guy in my unit, group and wing. I had to work my way up from the bottom, but I didn't experience any major obstacles. It's hard to shun out those who are great contributors and become key players. I just focus on getting the job done and help anyone who needs help. I'm not part of any GOBN (if any exist), but I get along with (mostly) everyone. Even if someone doesn't like me, it doesn't matter; my work speaks for itself. I'm a professional and will work with anyone regardless of personality differences.
Is this an anomaly in CAP? I don't know. But I've never felt that I couldn't contribute, achieve my goals and manage my progress in the program. Am I lucky? Is this a fluke? Perhaps. Or perhaps I just do things differently.
Either way, I strongly believe that attitude as well as performance go a long way. If you're one who complains all the time, odds are your opportunities will be limited. If you're a go getter who makes things happen, odds are more doors will open for you. Is this because of GOBN? I would argue that this is despite any (possible) GOBN.
Quote from: Ned on March 11, 2014, 04:28:21 PM
In CAP terms, you make changes to the governance scheme and supporting regulations, change the leadership, develop Core Values and Ethics doctrine, and improve the professional development system. Which should sound familiar.)
You know....I think I have heard that before......I just can't put my finger on it. 8)
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 10, 2014, 10:50:59 PM
Hope you're ready to shut down every unit south of I-80 if that's the case.
You DO realize, of course, that I-80 is pretty far north in the CONUS. You shut down every unit south of there, you've shut down CAP's largest wing, Florida, as well as the megawings that are Texas, Pennsylvania (by cutting it in half) and California (severing everything south of San Francisco). Entire regions would bite the dust. Most of my home state would also be cut off, since I-80 is the Ohio Turnpike and Columbus and Cincinnati, and even most of Cleveland, are south of that corridor. So Spaceman, speaking as a native of northeast Ohio who now lives in the Tampa Bay area...
You, my friend, must keep such malodorous comments to yourself!Anyway...
Since I think I'm the one who brought up the GOBN in the first place, I will say I agree with Ned. But there are definitely cliques around the organization, and people who aren't willing to play with others. Some units are overly protective of their airplanes, to the point where their reluctance to let another unit's pilots borrow it is palpable. Some units won't play with others when it comes to training, preferring their own people because they "know" them better. Of course, the remedies here are obvious — consistent and constant training and awareness across the board, and a mentality that desires spreading the wealth of knowledge among everyone.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 11, 2014, 10:41:49 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 10, 2014, 10:50:59 PM
Hope you're ready to shut down every unit south of I-80 if that's the case.
You DO realize, of course, that I-80 is pretty far north in the CONUS. You shut down every unit south of there, you've shut down CAP's largest wing, Florida, as well as the megawings that are Texas, Pennsylvania (by cutting it in half) and California (severing everything south of San Francisco). Entire regions would bite the dust. Most of my home state would also be cut off, since I-80 is the Ohio Turnpike and Columbus and Cincinnati, and even most of Cleveland, are south of that corridor. So Spaceman, speaking as a native of northeast Ohio who now lives in the Tampa Bay area...
You, my friend, must keep such malodorous comments to yourself!
Anyway...
Since I think I'm the one who brought up the GOBN in the first place, I will say I agree with Ned. But there are definitely cliques around the organization, and people who aren't willing to play with others. Some units are overly protective of their airplanes, to the point where their reluctance to let another unit's pilots borrow it is palpable. Some units won't play with others when it comes to training, preferring their own people because they "know" them better. Of course, the remedies here are obvious — consistent and constant training and awareness across the board, and a mentality that desires spreading the wealth of knowledge among everyone.
Sorry, I was making a fairly local comment involving some fairly local politics.
Quote from: Ned on March 11, 2014, 04:28:21 PM
And since the GOBN always resides several echelons above me, I already know it is futile to actually attempt to correct the problem by working through my chain of command or the IG. Instead, I will expose it by complaining about it on the interwebs.
Colonel Lee, I have a heck of a lot of respect for you - really.
However, and maybe it is just my own experience with human venality, inside and outside of CAP, I do not have the faith in "the system" (for lack of a better term) that you do.
From my experience as a child of divorce, to trying to use "the system" to end being bullied throughout most of my school years (school administrators back in my day were shining examples of The Peter Principle), I eventually came to be quite cynical about such things. There are systems that are corrupt through and through, there are systems that are basically decent with some bad eggs, and there are systems that get things done. Where CAP belongs is down to the experience of each member, I suppose.
I
have done both the chain of command and IG systems for various issues, some of which I have listed here on CT.
In one case of the former, I had a commander who was not willing to "go to bat" for me and gave me formal permission to go over his head. However, when I actually
did so, and he got a call from the wing commander asking what the Sam Hill was going on, he phoned me and gave me Hades in a handbasket (complete with colourful metaphors and a declaration that as far as he was concerned, my CAP career was over)...basically, I think he thought I would not actually
do what he
authorised me to do.
I figured I had nothing to lose, so I actually contacted National. I do not remember who got back with me (it was not Ms Parker) but she advised me to go on Patron status for a year or two ("until things cooled down") and then try to transfer to another unit...the nearest of which was 80 miles away one-way.
That led to my first departure from CAP, lasting three years.
In an even smellier case of the latter, acting on a fairly egregious safety violation and (to put it mildly) conduct unbecoming an adult who should have known better, I filed an IG complaint - with my commander's written backing. Results? Person cited in IG complaint was friends with a lot of people at Wing (GOBN?!), including Wing IG. I received reprimands and my commander was dismissed from his position as squadron commander.
That led to my second departure from CAP, lasting almost four years.
Quote from: Ned on March 11, 2014, 04:28:21 PM
(Note: Every organization composed of human beings will inevitably have flaws. Sometimes major flaws. And to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, about half of CAP leaders are below average. The way to improve or develop an organization is to both address systemic problems and to continuously train and upgrade the skills of the members and leaders. I have not yet come across an organization that was improved because discouraged members complained about a situation on the internet instead of taking action. If cronyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism) is a problem in an organization, you identify and make changes to the system in a way that promotes a meritocracy.
In CAP terms, you make changes to the governance scheme and supporting regulations, change the leadership, develop Core Values and Ethics doctrine, and improve the professional development system. Which should sound familiar.)
In the case of the first incident, I do not think the leadership/core values bits were in place, or at least not emphasised. In the case of the second incident, they were.
So, sir, I hope you will forgive me for not having complete faith in a system, run by human beings who often have their own agendas.
I cannot emphasise enough that my examples were my own experiences, and YMM infinitely V.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 11, 2014, 04:34:55 PM
I guess I should consider myself lucky then, since I haven't experience such things.
Good for you. I am pleased for you. I mean that.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 11, 2014, 04:34:55 PM
I hate politics, so I stay away from it.
I simply refuse to knowingly
take part in politics, whether it be office politics, CAP politics, church politics, whatever. Does not compute.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 11, 2014, 04:34:55 PM
I'm a professional and will work with anyone regardless of personality differences.
I have often said that I can get along with and/or work with anyone who wants to get along with me. I fortunately do possess (to some extent) the ability to suspend personal dislikes to get a task done in some cases.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 11, 2014, 04:34:55 PM
Either way, I strongly believe that attitude as well as performance go a long way. If you're one who complains all the time, odds are your opportunities will be limited. If you're a go getter who makes things happen, odds are more doors will open for you. Is this because of GOBN? I would argue that this is despite any (possible) GOBN.
And I am very pleased that it has worked so well for you.
It has not for everyone.
Quote from: Ned on March 11, 2014, 04:28:21 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 11, 2014, 09:03:36 AM
Yeah, I'm still not seeing how that relates to anything CAP. Can you explain like I'm 5?
Much like the development of some early religions, "GOBNism" is an attempt to make sense of events which would otherwise be incomprehensible by relying on unseen, hidden forces.
Restated, if I honestly believe I deserve to be promoted (or have an aircraft assigned to my squadron, or get my first choice NCSA, etc.) and that does not occur, something must have gone wrong. Since I already know that I am worthy, the fault must lie . . . elsewhere. The explanation that best fits the (lack of ) facts is that "those guys" at wing / region / NHQ are playing favorites and making choices based on friendships instead of following the rules.
Thus I can comfortably maintain my entirely reasonable belief that I am worthy of promotion, and I don't have to find fault with my squadron commander or staff (heck, I know those guys and they are good people). It would be uncomfortable if I had to consider that I might not be worthy of promotion, or if I had to have a frank conversation with my local chain of command.
And since the GOBN always resides several echelons above me, I already know it is futile to actually attempt to correct the problem by working through my chain of command or the IG. Instead, I will expose it by complaining about it on the interwebs.
(Note: Every organization composed of human beings will inevitably have flaws. Sometimes major flaws. And to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, about half of CAP leaders are below average. The way to improve or develop an organization is to both address systemic problems and to continuously train and upgrade the skills of the members and leaders. I have not yet come across an organization that was improved because discouraged members complained about a situation on the internet instead of taking action. If cronyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism) is a problem in an organization, you identify and make changes to the system in a way that promotes a meritocracy.
In CAP terms, you make changes to the governance scheme and supporting regulations, change the leadership, develop Core Values and Ethics doctrine, and improve the professional development system. Which should sound familiar.)
Good grief, Ned. . . we didn't say griping about it here would fix it. It's just a place to vent, to communicate. And I
can count things like mission aircrew, airplanes, and can also read a map. No grand conspiracy needed, just some self-serving yahoos who almost certainly don't see themselves that way.
You presume too much, by assuming I haven't brought it up to my CoC - one wonders why you did so? Long experience as an apologist? You read sincere, and I don't mean to be rude - probably you don't intend to condescend, either; I'm not taking it
personal, but if it walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 11, 2014, 11:25:33 PM
Sorry, I was making a fairly local comment involving some fairly local politics.
Spaceman, I apologize for my lack of situational awareness. But you have to admit, my overdramatic reply was at least entertaining.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 12, 2014, 03:51:17 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 11, 2014, 11:25:33 PM
Sorry, I was making a fairly local comment involving some fairly local politics.
Spaceman, I apologize for my lack of situational awareness. But you have to admit, my overdramatic reply was at least entertaining.
Actually, no it wasn't. It made you look like a bully. >:(
Before everyone get's too cranky, let's remember we are talking "Hysterical History"! :o
Harwell and HWSNBN were very different commanders, and except for the uniform uproar their tenure brought on, had two different approaches to the office (?) Ok, so is trolling for salutes at Maxwell any different than the need for personal bling?
How this devolved into an argument on the "GOBN" or "Cronyism" is understandable, but unfortunate. CAP is run by a small percentage of dedicated members. Those who just wish to fly, or take care of cadets, or wear a specific type of uniform, or just pay dues don't get involved with the "inner workings" of CAP. They may get upset when things go differently, however it is easier to blame the "other guy" than really work for positive change.
We have seen a significant drop of membership in the last 3 years or so. We have seen similar drops in past years as well. Are we to accept them as inevitable? I would think not. Maybe we need a different way to screw in that "light bulb" mentioned in another thread? I want more than the same old same old.....
Shoot, you're right - sorry I was cranky. I resolve to do one positive CAP thing a month for the rest of the year.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 11, 2014, 10:41:49 PM
Some units are overly protective of their airplanes, to the point where their reluctance to let another unit's pilots borrow it is palpable. Some units won't play with others when it comes to training, preferring their own people because they "know" them better.
Units do not own airplanes. CAP owns the airplanes and they are available to every member that meets the organizations qualifications. If that's not that case, then the Wing needs to correctly reset the expectations for that unit. We used to have that issue in our Wing...drove me nuts!
Quote from: CyBorg on March 12, 2014, 12:49:03 AM
And I am very pleased that it has worked so well for you.
It has not for everyone.
Maybe not, but it can. The first step is to stop being cynical and a downer. As I've said before; the right attitude can make a huge difference.
You can't improve the system if you don't have faith in it. You may not be able to change others, but you can certainly change yourself. And sometimes that's what it takes to make a difference.
The system can most definitely be improved, but it takes true leaders to do so. And leaders are those who make things happen, not those who just complain when things don't work out the way they want.
EDIT: CyBorg, I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to pick on you or single you out. I understand that you've had many bad experiences; I know others have too. However, I truly believe in what I'm saying here. I've seen the results.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 11, 2014, 10:41:49 PMSince I think I'm the one who brought up the GOBN in the first place, I will say I agree with Ned. But there are definitely cliques around the organization, and people who aren't willing to play with others. Some units are overly protective of their airplanes, to the point where their reluctance to let another unit's pilots borrow it is palpable. Some units won't play with others when it comes to training, preferring their own people because they "know" them better. Of course, the remedies here are obvious — consistent and constant training and awareness across the board, and a mentality that desires spreading the wealth of knowledge among everyone.
That will always be a problem. It is just human nature on the lowest level. 8)
Quote from: A.Member on March 12, 2014, 03:51:59 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 11, 2014, 10:41:49 PM
Some units are overly protective of their airplanes, to the point where their reluctance to let another unit's pilots borrow it is palpable. Some units won't play with others when it comes to training, preferring their own people because they "know" them better.
Units do not own airplanes. CAP owns the airplanes and they are available to every member that meets the organizations qualifications. If that's not that case, then the Wing needs to correctly reset the expectations for that unit. We used to have that issue in our Wing...drove me nuts!
Exactly...if I'm current CAPF5, and I'm somewhere that there is a plane, and I have a uniform with me, I can go into WMIRS, see if the plane's booked for something else, put in a C7 proficiency sortie, and get a flight release, all without talking to anyone at the local unit if I so choose...at least in my wing with all the aircraft having lock-boxes with the keys in them.
Quote from: JeffDG on March 12, 2014, 05:22:50 PM
Quote from: A.Member on March 12, 2014, 03:51:59 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 11, 2014, 10:41:49 PM
Some units are overly protective of their airplanes, to the point where their reluctance to let another unit's pilots borrow it is palpable. Some units won't play with others when it comes to training, preferring their own people because they "know" them better.
Units do not own airplanes. CAP owns the airplanes and they are available to every member that meets the organizations qualifications. If that's not that case, then the Wing needs to correctly reset the expectations for that unit. We used to have that issue in our Wing...drove me nuts!
Exactly...if I'm current CAPF5, and I'm somewhere that there is a plane, and I have a uniform with me, I can go into WMIRS, see if the plane's booked for something else, put in a C7 proficiency sortie, and get a flight release, all without talking to anyone at the local unit if I so choose...at least in my wing with all the aircraft having lock-boxes with the keys in them.
In most wings is not as simple as that, but it's not that difficult either. You need to follow any local procedures to schedule the airplane, but once you do that, anyone qualified should be able to schedule and fly it, especially if they're paying out of pocket.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 12, 2014, 05:35:12 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 12, 2014, 05:22:50 PM
Quote from: A.Member on March 12, 2014, 03:51:59 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 11, 2014, 10:41:49 PM
Some units are overly protective of their airplanes, to the point where their reluctance to let another unit's pilots borrow it is palpable. Some units won't play with others when it comes to training, preferring their own people because they "know" them better.
Units do not own airplanes. CAP owns the airplanes and they are available to every member that meets the organizations qualifications. If that's not that case, then the Wing needs to correctly reset the expectations for that unit. We used to have that issue in our Wing...drove me nuts!
Exactly...if I'm current CAPF5, and I'm somewhere that there is a plane, and I have a uniform with me, I can go into WMIRS, see if the plane's booked for something else, put in a C7 proficiency sortie, and get a flight release, all without talking to anyone at the local unit if I so choose...at least in my wing with all the aircraft having lock-boxes with the keys in them.
In most wings is not as simple as that, but it's not that difficult either. You need to follow any local procedures to schedule the airplane, but once you do that, anyone qualified should be able to schedule and fly it, especially if they're paying out of pocket.
That is the Catch-22. Some local procedures are so tough that General Chuch Yeager can not fly until he is checked out by Gomer and approved by Goober. ;)
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 13, 2014, 07:29:38 PMThat is the Catch-22. Some local procedures are so tough that General Chuch Yeager can not fly until he is checked out by Gomer and approved by Goober. ;)
Which you have no idea how real it is. When you're dealing with a defiant masked GOBN Flying Club Unit that says "suuuuuuuure, we'll check you out on the local procedures, of our little 2160x60 strip, with cliffs at both ends and a hill on one side" .. and you try to schedule a time, "well, I'm not available for the next 18 weeks except at 1AM every fourth day, for 30 minutes, so it might take a while".
Been there. Done that. Said unit has largely changed since then. But I'm not far off on my description. Never did bother to get "qualified" to fly "their" airplane. Found it was easier, and almost as fast, to drive 78 miles to get another aircraft.
Why don't we just refer to HWSNBN as "Voldemort" and be done with it?!?
^ Voldemort came back to create more havoc. The other guy will only be a topic of conversation. >:D
Quote from: a2capt on March 13, 2014, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 13, 2014, 07:29:38 PMThat is the Catch-22. Some local procedures are so tough that General Chuch Yeager can not fly until he is checked out by Gomer and approved by Goober. ;)
Which you have no idea how real it is. When you're dealing with a defiant masked GOBN Flying Club Unit that says "suuuuuuuure, we'll check you out on the local procedures, of our little 2160x60 strip, with cliffs at both ends and a hill on one side" .. and you try to schedule a time, "well, I'm not available for the next 18 weeks except at 1AM every fourth day, for 30 minutes, so it might take a while".
Been there. Done that. Said unit has largely changed since then. But I'm not far off on my description. Never did bother to get "qualified" to fly "their" airplane. Found it was easier, and almost as fast, to drive 78 miles to get another aircraft.
Yes, I've noticed big changes in that unit. They even willingly fly O-rides these days. >:D
Quote from: PHall on March 12, 2014, 04:02:46 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 12, 2014, 03:51:17 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 11, 2014, 11:25:33 PM
Sorry, I was making a fairly local comment involving some fairly local politics.
Spaceman, I apologize for my lack of situational awareness. But you have to admit, my overdramatic reply was at least entertaining.
Actually, no it wasn't. It made you look like a bully. >:(
Hmmph. Sometimes, humor is hard to convey on Teh Intarwebs unless you spell it out.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 12, 2014, 04:23:11 PM
Maybe not, but it can. The first step is to stop being cynical and a downer. As I've said before; the right attitude can make a huge difference.
Some people are cynical by nature. I am one of them. Conversely, my dear wife of almost 15 years is an incurable optimist. That is good for me, because we can meet somewhere in the middle. She dispells some of my storm clouds and I temper her outlook with the realisation that, no, Pollyanna, all is not right with the world.
Personality types (I will not get into it here, but look up Myers-Briggs) have a
lot to do with the "attitudes" one inherently has and/or moulded by life experience. I remember in my university Developmental Psychology class that many attitudes are hard-wired into the brain before the age of 10 (I think).
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 12, 2014, 04:23:11 PM
You can't improve the system if you don't have faith in it. You may not be able to change others, but you can certainly change yourself. And sometimes that's what it takes to make a difference.
Some changes in self can be made, others cannot. Probably the biggest "self-change" I made was when I quit drinking in the late 1990s (except for Sunday morning Communion wine). I know
that has favourably impacted my attitude. It is no good blundering about in a fog, is it?
If I had not already been burned by "the system" in CAP in the examples I have noted, I probably would not be as cynical as I am about it, especially when the IG incident resulted in my just
doing my job. The weird thing is, although I got reprimanded for it, I also received a Commander's Commendation from my Squadron CC for the same incident (for standing my ground)! But even that was tempered by my CC losing his job for backing me up. He was a good commander and good person all around.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 12, 2014, 04:23:11 PM
The system can most definitely be improved, but it takes true leaders to do so. And leaders are those who make things happen, not those who just complain when things don't work out the way they want.
Which theory of leadership do you subscribe to?
1. Leaders are born.
2. Leaders are made.
3. A combination of the two.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 12, 2014, 04:23:11 PM
EDIT: CyBorg, I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to pick on you or single you out. I understand that you've had many bad experiences; I know others have too. However, I truly believe in what I'm saying here. I've seen the results.
Do not worry about that! I have truly been "picked on" and "singled out" enough in my life to be able to differentiate that from constructive criticism, which I honestly believe you are trying to get across. I do not permit people to "pick on" me anymore. So, no, I do respect what you are saying; I have just seen a different side of things.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 13, 2014, 09:10:29 PM
Why don't we just refer to HWSNBN as "Voldemort" and be done with it?!?
Or Palpatine. ;D
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607991185338598306&pid=15.1)
Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 04:50:17 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 13, 2014, 09:10:29 PM
Why don't we just refer to HWSNBN as "Voldemort" and be done with it?!?
Or Palpatine. ;D
Oh Lord no. Palpatine ended up conquering most of the galaxy at one point...
Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 05:10:14 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 04:50:17 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 13, 2014, 09:10:29 PM
Why don't we just refer to HWSNBN as "Voldemort" and be done with it?!?
Or Palpatine. ;D
Oh Lord no. Palpatine ended up conquering most of the galaxy at one point...
Until two teenagers in an Aluminum Falcon blew it up! :)
Quote from: lordmonar on March 14, 2014, 05:16:07 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 05:10:14 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 04:50:17 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 13, 2014, 09:10:29 PM
Why don't we just refer to HWSNBN as "Voldemort" and be done with it?!?
Or Palpatine. ;D
Oh Lord no. Palpatine ended up conquering most of the galaxy at one point...
Until two teenagers in an Aluminum Falcon blue it up! :)
What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?!?
Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 05:21:32 AM
What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?!?
A humorous reference to the Millenium Falcon spaceship from the Star Wars movies, uttered by Emperor Palpatine in a spoof claymation-style video shown on Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" TV show. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F1d3QWsyk0#)
Quote from: Cindi on March 14, 2014, 05:30:16 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 05:21:32 AM
What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?!?
A humorous reference to the Millenium Falcon spaceship from the Star Wars movies, uttered by Emperor Palpatine in a spoof claymation-style video shown on Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" TV show.
lol, I know Cindi. I was quoting Palpatine from that skit.
"Go for Papa Palpatine!"
Quote from: capmaj on March 05, 2014, 07:01:57 PM
So is it naive to think that the award/s were later revoked! Or are they still in place due to at least one of the recipients still being with CAP at National?
No, goes to show you how political some decorations/awards are......
Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 05:43:31 AM
lol, I know Cindi. I was quoting Palpatine from that skit.
"Go for Papa Palpatine!"
"That thing wasn't even paid off yet! Do you know what this is going to do to my credit?"
Quote from: SarDragon on March 13, 2014, 10:54:01 PM
Quote from: a2capt on March 13, 2014, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 13, 2014, 07:29:38 PMThat is the Catch-22. Some local procedures are so tough that General Chuch Yeager can not fly until he is checked out by Gomer and approved by Goober. ;)
Which you have no idea how real it is. When you're dealing with a defiant masked GOBN Flying Club Unit that says "suuuuuuuure, we'll check you out on the local procedures, of our little 2160x60 strip, with cliffs at both ends and a hill on one side" .. and you try to schedule a time, "well, I'm not available for the next 18 weeks except at 1AM every fourth day, for 30 minutes, so it might take a while".
Been there. Done that. Said unit has largely changed since then. But I'm not far off on my description. Never did bother to get "qualified" to fly "their" airplane. Found it was easier, and almost as fast, to drive 78 miles to get another aircraft.
Yes, I've noticed big changes in that unit. They even willingly fly O-rides these days. >:D
Roger that, now they want to play with everyone like good children 8)
The evil men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their ashes; so be it with Gene Harwell and Fat Tony.
I just find it amazing how they can get so far, so corrupt, and people don't stand up to them in the meantime.
^ It isn't so amazing as it was the way things were at the time. It was easier to let the "boss" have their way than oppose the issues at hand. It is another great reason why we now play by new rules. Commanders now implement policy; not make it.
Which new rules are these?
Commanders can certainly set policy within their respective AOR.
Commanders can set local policies unless prohibited by regulation. I was thinking about national policy which allowed for poor process like what is being brought up in this thread. Today's Command Council and Senior Advisory Group have completely different roles than those of the former National Board and NEC. It is the BoG's role to establish policy for CAP. National Commanders are only answerable to an 11 member governing body; of which only 4 are members of CAP. It becomes problematic for repeating past embarrassments now. There no longer is anyone to bully in a personal agenda.
Today, a National Commander, who is selected by the BoG, has great authority to implement policy, and make decisions necessary to insure success. Going for another star, approving a uniform, or faking a silver medal of valor would not get traction. That's my opinion. :angel:
The thing is, with the bogus SMOV, there were recipients that knew it was baseless BS. Why accept it? So what if they gave it back. Why are they still with the organization? What else are they going to do "just because"?
To my knowledge, the three no longer belong to CAP.
Quote from: FW on March 15, 2014, 01:45:45 AMTo my knowledge, the three no longer belong to CAP.
An earlier message alluded to one of the other two still being at NHQ, though I don't see either of them on the contacts listing.
I was always curious about the rumor during HWSNBN tenure that he had an aide de camp, complete with silver cord and two-star general officer license plates affixed to his POV?
Just rumors or can anyone actually confirm?
Quote from: JK657 on March 15, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
I was always curious about the rumor during HWSNBN tenure that he had an aide de camp, complete with silver cord and two-star general officer license plates affixed to his POV?
((*sigh*)) Yes, there are photos of a couple of Senior members dressed like over-excited cadets, complete with silver-tipped aiguillettes.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2190.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2190.0)
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/media/cms/CAP_Volunteer_MayJun_07_hirespdf_6F12C45DEE485.pdf (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/media/cms/CAP_Volunteer_MayJun_07_hirespdf_6F12C45DEE485.pdf)
I know of at least one other photo which shows the aides behind HWSRN, but the below gives you the idea.
Thanks Eclipse...... reading that link you posted: a protective service detail...really?!?!?!
Quote from: Eclipse on March 15, 2014, 04:17:25 PM
Quote from: JK657 on March 15, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
I was always curious about the rumor during HWSNBN tenure that he had an aide de camp, complete with silver cord and two-star general officer license plates affixed to his POV?
((*sigh*)) Yes, there are photos of a couple of Senior members dressed like over-excited cadets, complete with silver-tipped aiguillettes.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2190.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2190.0)
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/media/cms/CAP_Volunteer_MayJun_07_hirespdf_6F12C45DEE485.pdf (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/media/cms/CAP_Volunteer_MayJun_07_hirespdf_6F12C45DEE485.pdf)
I know of at least one other photo which shows the aides behind HWSRN, but the below gives you the idea.
Looks like Hoss is busting H/W in that uniform.
Quote from: rugger1869 on March 15, 2014, 07:51:19 PM
Looks like Hoss is busting H/W in that uniform.
"The camera adds 20lbs"
Quote from: JK657 on March 15, 2014, 05:21:12 PM
Thanks Eclipse...... reading that link you posted: a protective service detail...really?!?!?!
That's interesting considering Fat Tony was a member of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (Florida's version of the FBI) at the time
Quote from: NIN on March 15, 2014, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: rugger1869 on March 15, 2014, 07:51:19 PM
Looks like Hoss is busting H/W in that uniform.
"The camera adds 20lbs"
"How many cameras are on you?"
This cracks me up considering no one has been able to show concrete proof outside of hearsay and assumption the berry boards and now the grey ones were/are punitive.
The other photos make me lament the uniform that was taken from us. >:(
I found the story on the Tuskegee Airmen much more interesting.
One of them, Major Charles B Hall, was from my wife's hometown and a street there is named for him.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 09:00:03 PM
This cracks me up considering no one has been able to show concrete proof outside of hearsay and assumption the berry boards and now the grey ones were/are punitive.
The berry boards
were.The grey ones were/are a half-way attempt to come up with something not as ugly.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 15, 2014, 09:01:24 PM
The berry boards were.
Again I say prove it, with fact, hard documentation and solid evidence. BLUF you can't so therefore it's hearsay and assumptions.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 15, 2014, 09:01:24 PM
The berry boards were.
Again I say prove it, with fact, hard documentation and solid evidence. BLUF you can't so therefore it's hearsay and assumptions.
Were you in when the berry boards were imposed? I came in just after that. Every CAP officer I knew, including my squadron commander (later a Wing Commander and Region PDO, and a man of unimpeachable character), who was personal friends with then-NatCC BG Richard Anderson (he went to Maxwell a lot), my then-Wing Commander and personnel from Lieutenants to Lieutenant Colonels said that was the reason. I never heard any
other reason.
OK, call it rumour and hearsay if you like. You know that I (or
you) do
not have access to any Air Force paper instructions on that.
BLUF - believe what you will.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 15, 2014, 09:22:08 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 15, 2014, 09:01:24 PM
The berry boards were.
Again I say prove it, with fact, hard documentation and solid evidence. BLUF you can't so therefore it's hearsay and assumptions.
Were you in when the berry boards were imposed? I came in just after that. Every CAP officer I knew, including my squadron commander (later a Wing Commander and Region PDO, and a man of unimpeachable character), who was personal friends with then-NatCC BG Richard Anderson (he went to Maxwell a lot), my then-Wing Commander and personnel from Lieutenants to Lieutenant Colonels said that was the reason. I never heard any other reason.
OK, call it rumour and hearsay if you like. You know that I (or you) do not have access to any Air Force paper instructions on that.
BLUF - believe what you will.
I joined shortly after that tyvm. I guess you never heard of doing a FOIA request have you. You nor anyone else has solid proof other than word of mouth it was punitive.
BLUF I believe evidence that proves or disproves assumptions. BLUF II support your assumptions with more than hearsay otherwise its an old rumor you should let die.
(http://i.imgur.com/bWFGKZb.jpg)
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 15, 2014, 09:22:08 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 15, 2014, 09:01:24 PM
The berry boards were.
Again I say prove it, with fact, hard documentation and solid evidence. BLUF you can't so therefore it's hearsay and assumptions.
Were you in when the berry boards were imposed? I came in just after that. Every CAP officer I knew, including my squadron commander (later a Wing Commander and Region PDO, and a man of unimpeachable character), who was personal friends with then-NatCC BG Richard Anderson (he went to Maxwell a lot), my then-Wing Commander and personnel from Lieutenants to Lieutenant Colonels said that was the reason. I never heard any other reason.
OK, call it rumour and hearsay if you like. You know that I (or you) do not have access to any Air Force paper instructions on that.
BLUF - believe what you will.
I joined shortly after that tyvm. I guess you never heard of doing a FOIA request have you. You nor anyone else has solid proof other than word of mouth it was punitive.
BLUF I believe evidence that proves or disproves assumptions. BLUF II support your assumptions with more than hearsay otherwise its an old rumor you should let die.
Are you suggesting that the Barry Boards and the following Gray Boards were something that CAP members wanted? If so....I suggest you support that position.
I understand what you are saying........"prove it".......but there may not be any proof. There may not be any written documents for a FOIA. Even if there are any documents covering that time period and covering the change of uniforms.....they may not have the "real" reason why the change was made.
Assuming for a moment that the Barry Board were not some sort of punitive or remedial action on the part of the USAF......where is the denials from NHQ or CAP-USAF saying "No! That's not the reason for the change."
Kind of like the CSU change.......I highly doubt that there are any offical documents from the USAF to the BoG or National CC saying "Look guys we really hate these things, and now that "HE" is gone, let's ditch them."......but I bet you that is more or less what happened.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 15, 2014, 10:18:59 PM
Are you suggesting that the Barry Boards and the following Gray Boards were something that CAP members wanted? If so....I suggest you support that position.
I understand what you are saying........"prove it".......but there may not be any proof. There may not be any written documents for a FOIA. Even if there are any documents covering that time period and covering the change of uniforms.....they may not have the "real" reason why the change was made.
Assuming for a moment that the Barry Board were not some sort of punitive or remedial action on the part of the USAF......where is the denials from NHQ or CAP-USAF saying "No! That's not the reason for the change."
Kind of like the CSU change.......I highly doubt that there are any offical documents from the USAF to the BoG or National CC saying "Look guys we really hate these things, and now that "HE" is gone, let's ditch them."......but I bet you that is more or less what happened.
No sir I am not saying by any means that is what the membership wanted. I am saying that its a long standing wives tail that Harwell is the reason for the switch. What I have collected otherwise says something different. There very well maybe documentation but the question is has anyone truly bothered putting for the effort to dig and ask?
Knowing someone, who knows someone who said something is what is called hearsay, and sorry but unless there is something to say otherwise that's all it is in regards to the berry boards. I know impeachable people myself but I don't always believe what they say.
It's like continuing to say that OJ or Zimmerman committed murder and got away with it, evidence and courts disagree but you will still have people who feel otherwise.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 15, 2014, 10:18:59 PM
Kind of like the CSU change.......I highly doubt that there are any offical documents from the USAF to the BoG or National CC saying "Look guys we really hate these things, and now that "HE" is gone, let's ditch them."......but I bet you that is more or less what happened.
Yep.
(Where's Fox Mulder when you need him. Odds are Smoking Man is involved.)
IF there was any documentation, since it would have come from the Air Force, it is likely it is not subject to FOIA.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 15, 2014, 11:37:01 PM
IF there was any documentation, since it would have come from the Air Force, it is likely it is not subject to FOIA.
Ah, Herr Cyborg that is where you are mistaken.. Even the DOD is subject to FOIA requests and are require to answer within a set period of time. There are set instances where they will not release information specifically anything classified or related to National Security but they are still subject to it.
Yeah, pretty much everybody is FOIA-able, at least in as much as they have to formally justify the denial when it's made.
If you get government money at any level, there are no secrets, unless it's specifically designated "secret" (etc.).
This was an email I received back from NHQ last year on this topic in response to my request. I have submitted a FOIA request as well on this topic requesting any and all documentation on this. This was a reply given:
I apologize for the delay in responding to your recent question. As a
result of an AF IG Functional Management Inspection in 1989, the
Secretary of the Air Force directed a Broad Area Review of the CAP
program in February 1990. When the final report was received one of the
findings was that the CAP uniform should be more distinctive from the
Air Force uniform. CAP was given the opportunity to propose a
distinctive change and a proposal was submitted to the Air Force
requesting permission to use a maroon epaulet on the AF-style shirts and
blouses and a smaller maroon circlet to be worn with the metal grade on
the service coat. The Air Force disapproved the wear of the circlet but
approved the wear of the maroon epaulet on both the shirts and service
coat in October 1990. The maroon epaulet was not fully accepted by CAP
and in 1995 CAP requested a change of color from maroon to gray which
the AF subsequently approved.
If I can assist you with anything else please let me know.
SUSAN P. PARKER
CAP National Headquarters
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-5937
Phone: 877-227-9142 extension 212
FAX: 334-953-4262
Pending what is received or not received from the AF the berry boards being imposed are hearsay and rumor.
"not fully accepted". They were ugly, and clashed with the drapes. Plain and simple.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 12:56:35 AM
This was an email I received back from NHQ last year on this topic in response to my request. I have submitted a FOIA request as well on this topic requesting any and all documentation on this. This was a reply given:
I apologize for the delay in responding to your recent question. As a
result of an AF IG Functional Management Inspection in 1989, the
Secretary of the Air Force directed a Broad Area Review of the CAP
program in February 1990. When the final report was received one of the
findings was that the CAP uniform should be more distinctive from the
Air Force uniform. CAP was given the opportunity to propose a
distinctive change and a proposal was submitted to the Air Force
requesting permission to use a maroon epaulet on the AF-style shirts and
blouses and a smaller maroon circlet to be worn with the metal grade on
the service coat. The Air Force disapproved the wear of the circlet but
approved the wear of the maroon epaulet on both the shirts and service
coat in October 1990. The maroon epaulet was not fully accepted by CAP
and in 1995 CAP requested a change of color from maroon to gray which
the AF subsequently approved.
If I can assist you with anything else please let me know.
SUSAN P. PARKER
CAP National Headquarters
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-5937
Phone: 877-227-9142 extension 212
FAX: 334-953-4262
Pending what is received or not received from the AF the berry boards being imposed are hearsay and rumor.
Thank you berry much for clearing that up!
I wish we had a distinctive uniform more along these lines:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/x3ibsz.jpg)
And for the ladies:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/j76ubq.jpg)
Alright, I accept correction on the FOIA issue...but as far as the reason goes, there are often differences between an "official" statement and behind-the-scenes reasons leading to the official statement. I still stand by what so many of my fellow CAP officers told me at the time. It may be a more "where there's smoke there's fire" issue but they had no reason to lie to me, or to anyone else.
Cindi: The RAF and its offshoots (RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF) have always had very sharp-looking uniforms, as well as ranks that are much better in an aviation setting (Flight Sergeant, Pilot Officer, Squadron Leader, Wing Commander, Air Commodore etc).
I prefer the Aussie version "midnight blue:"
(http://www.airforce.gov.au/imgs/caf_avm_brown.jpg)
Air Marshal (three-star General equivalent) Geoff Brown, AO, Chief of Air Force, RAAF
However...as we discovered with the CSU and then the latest 39-1, we are never going to have a "distinctive" uniform that is military-style in cut (General Courter's PowerPoint specifically stated that the corporate uniforms do not exist to provide a military-styled alternative), nor any shade of blue in colour. My opinion is that National is afraid that any shade of blue will tick off the Air Force, so they do not even want to ask.
My own preference would be something approximating the colour of what the German Luftwaffe wears.
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6707/p1320226.jpg)
This was their early uniform, no longer worn (they have a single-breasted one now):
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/3~4AAOxyVaBS5pTh/$_58.JPG?rt=nc)
but no way would such a suggestion make it past Wing, or even Group, level.
The status quo is set in stone, grey stone, I fear.
Believe what you want it's hearsay. I've provided more solid evidence to the issue than you have, and once I hear back from my FOIA that will be posted as well. You have seen traffic on it and I'll take solid documentation over hearsay any day.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 01:23:18 AM
Believe what you want it's hearsay. I've provided more solid evidence to the issue than you have, and once I hear back from my FOIA that will be posted as well. You have seen traffic on it and I'll take solid documentation over hearsay any day.
Why do you have a vested interest in "proving" this?
I'm done with the issue for my part. Anything else is just a urinating contest, and I don't do those.
I have a vested interest in making sure that facts and the truth are stated and not hearsay or rumors. You and a few others specifically you have been adamant about making sure that a falsity stays alive, again you have no proof that the boards were punitive in nature outside of hearsay.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 01:31:15 AM
I have a vested interest in making sure that facts and the truth are stated and not hearsay or rumors. You and a few others specifically you have been adamant about making sure that a falsity stays alive, again you have no proof that the boards were punitive in nature outside of hearsay.
OK, old son.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 16, 2014, 01:17:59 AM
Alright, I accept correction on the FOIA issue...but as far as the reason goes, there are often differences between an "official" statement and behind-the-scenes reasons leading to the official statement. I still stand by what so many of my fellow CAP officers told me at the time. It may be a more "where there's smoke there's fire" issue but they had no reason to lie to me, or to anyone else.
Cindi: The RAF and its offshoots (RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF) have always had very sharp-looking uniforms, as well as ranks that are much better in an aviation setting (Flight Sergeant, Pilot Officer, Squadron Leader, Wing Commander, Air Commodore etc).
I prefer the Aussie version "midnight blue:"
(http://www.airforce.gov.au/imgs/caf_avm_brown.jpg)
Air Marshal (three-star General equivalent) Geoff Brown, AO, Chief of Air Force, RAAF
However...as we discovered with the CSU and then the latest 39-1, we are never going to have a "distinctive" uniform that is military-style in cut (General Courter's PowerPoint specifically stated that the corporate uniforms do not exist to provide a military-styled alternative), nor any shade of blue in colour. My opinion is that National is afraid that any shade of blue will tick off the Air Force, so they do not even want to ask.
My own preference would be something approximating the colour of what the German Luftwaffe wears.
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6707/p1320226.jpg)
This was their early uniform, no longer worn (they have a single-breasted one now):
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/3~4AAOxyVaBS5pTh/$_58.JPG?rt=nc)
but no way would such a suggestion make it past Wing, or even Group, level.
The status quo is set in stone, grey stone, I fear.
Excellent work CyBorg! Uniform decisions, changes to the rank structure, etc. all can be handled by Executive Order when I become your new Air Commodore (formerly known as National Commander). 8)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2cwmvb4.png)
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 10:27:49 PM
No sir I am not saying by any means that is what the membership wanted. I am saying that its a long standing wives tail that Harwell is the reason for the switch. What I have collected otherwise says something different. There very well maybe documentation but the question is has anyone truly bothered putting for the effort to dig and ask?
Since all this occurred "PI" (Pre Internet) our connectivity to people 'in the know' was considerably less.
Since you seem to like the term so much: BLUF: I -was- in CAP back then, and the reason we were *always* given for the switcheroo was "E. E. Harwell". And we had little or no independent means to confirm this.
you said "What I have collected otherwise says something different."
So, please, enlighten up all with your vast knowledge that you have collected that says "something different."
I'm all ears, please provide me some proof that the reason we switched to maroon shoulder marks was something other than the USAF being bent out of shape at "E. E. Harwell".
Do you have proof in the form of documentation, or just a hunch that it wasn't E. E. Harwell?
Was it:
- someone wanted to boost sales at the Bookstore;
- the guy who ordered things for the Bookstore was actually color blind and never noticed the difference;
- UFOs;
- The ghost of Tooey Spaatz;
or maybe even
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luerg10Zyc1qfengno1_500.jpg)
?
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 02:03:03 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 10:27:49 PM
No sir I am not saying by any means that is what the membership wanted. I am saying that its a long standing wives tail that Harwell is the reason for the switch. What I have collected otherwise says something different. There very well maybe documentation but the question is has anyone truly bothered putting for the effort to dig and ask?
Since all this occurred "PI" (Pre Internet) our connectivity to people 'in the know' was considerably less.
Since you seem to like the term so much: BLUF: I -was- in CAP back then, and the reason we were *always* given for the switcheroo was "E. E. Harwell". And we had little or no independent means to confirm this.
you said "What I have collected otherwise says something different."
So, please, enlighten up all with your vast knowledge that you have collected that says "something different."
I'm all ears, please provide me some proof that the reason we switched to maroon shoulder marks was something other than the USAF being bent out of shape at "E. E. Harwell".
Do you have proof in the form of documentation, or just a hunch that it wasn't E. E. Harwell?
Was it:
- someone wanted to boost sales at the Bookstore;
- the guy who ordered things for the Bookstore was actually color blind and never noticed the difference;
- UFOs;
- The ghost of Tooey Spaatz;
or maybe even
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luerg10Zyc1qfengno1_500.jpg)
?
I emailed NHQ about it and received a response and I have also submitted an FOIA for any and all information relating to it. The email I have so far says that the change came about as a recommendation of an audit done in 89.
So lets see it.
What audit? Who did the audit? HAF? CAP-USAF?
An email from NHQ, sorry to say, reflecting an action that took place 25 years ago, is not what I would call "conclusive."
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 02:16:15 AM
So lets see it.
What audit? Who did the audit? HAF? CAP-USAF?
An email from NHQ, sorry to say, reflecting an action that took place 25 years ago, is not what I would call "conclusive."
The information has been requested via FOIA. The audit was done by the AF IG and SECAF directed a review of CAP as a result of the findings. The email is actually posted in this thread.
No, I expect NHQ to come up with something like that. I wouldn't expect them to say "they did that because the Air Force had a fit". But to swallow the pill and say "yup, we chose that awful color"? Wow.
That's really taking one for the team. They've never done that since then. ;) Who in their right mind would have come up with that? Perhaps a sarcastic response that ultimately backfired.
"not fully accepted" is right.
Quote from: Cindi on March 16, 2014, 01:50:00 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 16, 2014, 01:17:59 AM
Alright, I accept correction on the FOIA issue...but as far as the reason goes, there are often differences between an "official" statement and behind-the-scenes reasons leading to the official statement. I still stand by what so many of my fellow CAP officers told me at the time. It may be a more "where there's smoke there's fire" issue but they had no reason to lie to me, or to anyone else.
Cindi: The RAF and its offshoots (RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF) have always had very sharp-looking uniforms, as well as ranks that are much better in an aviation setting (Flight Sergeant, Pilot Officer, Squadron Leader, Wing Commander, Air Commodore etc).
I prefer the Aussie version "midnight blue:"
(http://www.airforce.gov.au/imgs/caf_avm_brown.jpg)
Air Marshal (three-star General equivalent) Geoff Brown, AO, Chief of Air Force, RAAF
However...as we discovered with the CSU and then the latest 39-1, we are never going to have a "distinctive" uniform that is military-style in cut (General Courter's PowerPoint specifically stated that the corporate uniforms do not exist to provide a military-styled alternative), nor any shade of blue in colour. My opinion is that National is afraid that any shade of blue will tick off the Air Force, so they do not even want to ask.
My own preference would be something approximating the colour of what the German Luftwaffe wears.
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6707/p1320226.jpg)
This was their early uniform, no longer worn (they have a single-breasted one now):
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/3~4AAOxyVaBS5pTh/$_58.JPG?rt=nc)
but no way would such a suggestion make it past Wing, or even Group, level.
The status quo is set in stone, grey stone, I fear.
Excellent work CyBorg! Uniform decisions, changes to the rank structure, etc. all can be handled by Executive Order when I become your new Air Commodore (formerly known as National Commander). 8)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2cwmvb4.png)
Air Commodore is a 1 star, wouldn't you rather be an Air Vice Marshal? 2 stars
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 02:18:51 AM
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 02:16:15 AM
So lets see it.
What audit? Who did the audit? HAF? CAP-USAF?
An email from NHQ, sorry to say, reflecting an action that took place 25 years ago, is not what I would call "conclusive."
The information has been requested via FOIA. The audit was done by the AF IG and SECAF directed a review of CAP as a result of the findings. The email is actually posted in this thread.
My apologies for missing that. I see it now.
while I understand your zeal in quashing the hearsay, I had a serious doubt you'll find much more than an "official version" of events in an FOIA request. Why might the SECAF have decided "You know, that functional inspection... We should just do a broad area review on CAP, you know, to be sure.."?
Unless there were reasons. The non-official version could have been a doorway conversation that went like this: "Jerry, I'm sending you down to Maxwell to do a broad review of the CAP. After that whole Harwell thing, I want a closer look at these people."
Quote from: MSG Mac on March 16, 2014, 02:22:27 AM
Quote from: Cindi on March 16, 2014, 01:50:00 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 16, 2014, 01:17:59 AM
Alright, I accept correction on the FOIA issue...but as far as the reason goes, there are often differences between an "official" statement and behind-the-scenes reasons leading to the official statement. I still stand by what so many of my fellow CAP officers told me at the time. It may be a more "where there's smoke there's fire" issue but they had no reason to lie to me, or to anyone else.
Cindi: The RAF and its offshoots (RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF) have always had very sharp-looking uniforms, as well as ranks that are much better in an aviation setting (Flight Sergeant, Pilot Officer, Squadron Leader, Wing Commander, Air Commodore etc).
I prefer the Aussie version "midnight blue:"
(http://www.airforce.gov.au/imgs/caf_avm_brown.jpg)
Air Marshal (three-star General equivalent) Geoff Brown, AO, Chief of Air Force, RAAF
However...as we discovered with the CSU and then the latest 39-1, we are never going to have a "distinctive" uniform that is military-style in cut (General Courter's PowerPoint specifically stated that the corporate uniforms do not exist to provide a military-styled alternative), nor any shade of blue in colour. My opinion is that National is afraid that any shade of blue will tick off the Air Force, so they do not even want to ask.
My own preference would be something approximating the colour of what the German Luftwaffe wears.
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6707/p1320226.jpg)
This was their early uniform, no longer worn (they have a single-breasted one now):
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/3~4AAOxyVaBS5pTh/$_58.JPG?rt=nc)
but no way would such a suggestion make it past Wing, or even Group, level.
The status quo is set in stone, grey stone, I fear.
Excellent work CyBorg! Uniform decisions, changes to the rank structure, etc. all can be handled by Executive Order when I become your new Air Commodore (formerly known as National Commander). 8)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2cwmvb4.png)
Air Commodore is a 1 star, wouldn't you rather be an Air Vice Marshal? 2 stars
Speaking of grades, I was thinking Marshal of the CAP (five stars) after my probationary period, just skipping Air Vice-Marshal (2 stars), Air Marshal (3 stars) and Air Chief Marshal (4 stars). Baby steps, baby steps!
(http://i58.tinypic.com/28a3kuq.gif)
We can do this!: For awhile there I was worried that this would not turn into a uniform thread! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jo_x7ecIFg#)
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 02:24:51 AM
My apologies for missing that. I see it now.
while I understand your zeal in quashing the hearsay, I had a serious doubt you'll find much more than an "official version" of events in an FOIA request. Why might the SECAF have decided "You know, that functional inspection... We should just do a broad area review on CAP, you know, to be sure.."?
Unless there were reasons. The non-official version could have been a doorway conversation that went like this: "Jerry, I'm sending you down to Maxwell to do a broad review of the CAP. After that whole Harwell thing, I want a closer look at these people."
It's quite possible, however I am not buying that Harwell is the sole reason for the change. An old saying that I have always strive to do things by "Trust but verify". I'm not buying the hearsay and really without something solid that's all it is is hearsay. How many can honestly say they have dug into this at all?
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 12:56:35 AM
This was an email I received back from NHQ last year on this topic in response to my request. I have submitted a FOIA request as well on this topic requesting any and all documentation on this. This was a reply given:
I apologize for the delay in responding to your recent question. As a
result of an AF IG Functional Management Inspection in 1989, the
Secretary of the Air Force directed a Broad Area Review of the CAP
program in February 1990. When the final report was received one of the
findings was that the CAP uniform should be more distinctive from the
Air Force uniform. CAP was given the opportunity to propose a
distinctive change and a proposal was submitted to the Air Force
requesting permission to use a maroon epaulet on the AF-style shirts and
blouses and a smaller maroon circlet to be worn with the metal grade on
the service coat. The Air Force disapproved the wear of the circlet but
approved the wear of the maroon epaulet on both the shirts and service
coat in October 1990. The maroon epaulet was not fully accepted by CAP
and in 1995 CAP requested a change of color from maroon to gray which
the AF subsequently approved.
So... Harwell decides to self-promote himself to MJ in 1987, angering the Air Force Chief of Staff. After an "audit" (ordered by who?) it was found that CAP uniforms needed to be more "more distinctive" in 1990. And so enters the maroon epaulets. I'm sure the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Not at all.
Here's your plane, totally renewable fuel source, too.
(http://s12.postimg.org/72jodprkd/Longer_larger_fart.jpg)
Quote from: Panache on March 16, 2014, 02:58:31 AM
So... Harwell decides to self-promote himself to MJ in 1987, angering the Air Force Chief of Staff. After an "audit" (ordered by who?) it was found that CAP uniforms needed to be more "more distinctive" in 1990. And so enters the maroon epaulets. I'm sure the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Not at all.
A good theory, but fails when you consider it would have been a lot easier to just take his second star back then
to redo all the uniforms.
He kept the second star.
"...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma..."
Quote from: a2capt on March 16, 2014, 03:15:12 AM
Here's your plane, totally renewable fuel source, too.
(http://s12.postimg.org/72jodprkd/Longer_larger_fart.jpg)
Thanks, but I am already scheduled to pick up a used Boeing 777 in southern Kazakhstan next week. ;D
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 03:15:49 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 16, 2014, 02:58:31 AM
So... Harwell decides to self-promote himself to MJ in 1987, angering the Air Force Chief of Staff. After an "audit" (ordered by who?) it was found that CAP uniforms needed to be more "more distinctive" in 1990. And so enters the maroon epaulets. I'm sure the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Not at all.
A good theory, but fails when you consider it would have been a lot easier to just take his second star back then
to redo all the uniforms.
He kept the second star.
"...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma..."
Not when the second star was already approved by the the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force.
Now, jerking us around with the uniforms would easily be doable by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the time who, incidentally, was the one who was angered.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 03:15:49 AM
A good theory, but fails when you consider it would have been a lot easier to just take his second star back then
to redo all the uniforms.
He kept the star.
I was around then. That's the way I remember it. Can I document it? No.
I think that the petty USAF response to CAP as ann organization, rather than to one person, was due to USAF being embarrassed about it all. The promotion had been engineered through SECAF and not USAF chain of command, so it was done and USAF couldn't undo it. Also, USAF discovered that they could not stop similar things from happening based on how things were set up. So....USAF flexed its muscles to show CAP who was boss.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 03:15:49 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 16, 2014, 02:58:31 AM
So... Harwell decides to self-promote himself to MJ in 1987, angering the Air Force Chief of Staff. After an "audit" (ordered by who?) it was found that CAP uniforms needed to be more "more distinctive" in 1990. And so enters the maroon epaulets. I'm sure the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Not at all.
A good theory, but fails when you consider it would have been a lot easier to just take his second star back then
to redo all the uniforms.
He kept the second star.
"...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma..."
At that time USAF didn't have control over CAP grade and the star was legit, as a result of the NEC vote. Immediately thereafter the USAF took that control, especially stating that General Officer appointments had to be approved by the USAF. Harwell's was ambitious, but the promotion was legal. My concern with him was his telling a member who was passed over for a Squadron command " There has never been a black commander in NCWG, and as long as I'm commander, there never will be".
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 15, 2014, 10:27:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 15, 2014, 10:18:59 PM
Are you suggesting that the Barry Boards and the following Gray Boards were something that CAP members wanted? If so....I suggest you support that position.
I understand what you are saying........"prove it".......but there may not be any proof. There may not be any written documents for a FOIA. Even if there are any documents covering that time period and covering the change of uniforms.....they may not have the "real" reason why the change was made.
Assuming for a moment that the Barry Board were not some sort of punitive or remedial action on the part of the USAF......where is the denials from NHQ or CAP-USAF saying "No! That's not the reason for the change."
Kind of like the CSU change.......I highly doubt that there are any offical documents from the USAF to the BoG or National CC saying "Look guys we really hate these things, and now that "HE" is gone, let's ditch them."......but I bet you that is more or less what happened.
No sir I am not saying by any means that is what the membership wanted. I am saying that its a long standing wives tail that Harwell is the reason for the switch. What I have collected otherwise says something different. There very well maybe documentation but the question is has anyone truly bothered putting for the effort to dig and ask?
Knowing someone, who knows someone who said something is what is called hearsay, and sorry but unless there is something to say otherwise that's all it is in regards to the berry boards. I know impeachable people myself but I don't always believe what they say.
It's like continuing to say that OJ or Zimmerman committed murder and got away with it, evidence and courts disagree but you will still have people who feel otherwise.
So you are just trolling. :(
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 12:56:35 AM
This was an email I received back from NHQ last year on this topic in response to my request. I have submitted a FOIA request as well on this topic requesting any and all documentation on this. This was a reply given:
I apologize for the delay in responding to your recent question. As a
result of an AF IG Functional Management Inspection in 1989, the
Secretary of the Air Force directed a Broad Area Review of the CAP
program in February 1990. When the final report was received one of the
findings was that the CAP uniform should be more distinctive from the
Air Force uniform. CAP was given the opportunity to propose a
distinctive change and a proposal was submitted to the Air Force
requesting permission to use a maroon epaulet on the AF-style shirts and
blouses and a smaller maroon circlet to be worn with the metal grade on
the service coat. The Air Force disapproved the wear of the circlet but
approved the wear of the maroon epaulet on both the shirts and service
coat in October 1990. The maroon epaulet was not fully accepted by CAP
and in 1995 CAP requested a change of color from maroon to gray which
the AF subsequently approved.
If I can assist you with anything else please let me know.
SUSAN P. PARKER
CAP National Headquarters
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-5937
Phone: 877-227-9142 extension 212
FAX: 334-953-4262
Pending what is received or not received from the AF the berry boards being imposed are hearsay and rumor.
Being in the USAF for 22 years.....I can read the double talk here.
"as a result of an IG....." That's code for we sicked our dogs against you.
"one of the findings was that the CAP uniform should be more distinctive from the
Air Force uniform".....that's code for "those bastards want to be generals.....we'll make them look like clowns"
Nothing from this response makes me think that this was not PUNITIVE....it may have been written up in reasonable managment IG speak....but that is how you play at that level.....no one ever gets fired....they look for employment elsewhere or look to improve their home life.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 01:31:15 AM
I have a vested interest in making sure that facts and the truth are stated and not hearsay or rumors. You and a few others specifically you have been adamant about making sure that a falsity stays alive, again you have no proof that the boards were punitive in nature outside of hearsay.
You have vested interest? In what way?
Quote from: lordmonar on March 16, 2014, 05:32:10 AM
So you are just trolling. :(
No sir. The premise is simply that without proof it's hearsay and rumor, and no one outside of word of mouth has been able to substantiate that the change was forced based on one incident. This topic comes up frequently but and its the same thing that oh we're still being punished for this incident but no one has any proof. This is the same premise as gossip and rumors running around. I ask you sir do you always take things at face value?
And to answer your previous question reread the post, the truth and the facts are presented and not hearsay. Someone please show me some documentation to indicate it was punitive?
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 02:33:11 AM
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 02:24:51 AM
My apologies for missing that. I see it now.
while I understand your zeal in quashing the hearsay, I had a serious doubt you'll find much more than an "official version" of events in an FOIA request. Why might the SECAF have decided "You know, that functional inspection... We should just do a broad area review on CAP, you know, to be sure.."?
Unless there were reasons. The non-official version could have been a doorway conversation that went like this: "Jerry, I'm sending you down to Maxwell to do a broad review of the CAP. After that whole Harwell thing, I want a closer look at these people."
It's quite possible, however I am not buying that Harwell is the sole reason for the change. An old saying that I have always strive to do things by "Trust but verify". I'm not buying the hearsay and really without something solid that's all it is is hearsay. How many can honestly say they have dug into this at all?
No one is saying Harwell is the sole reason. There was also the CAP major who got M-16 from some SP Airman who could not tell the difference between a CAP officer and a "real" officer. There was also all those "wive tales" of CAP officers pulling rank and trolling for salutes on base. No one is saying Harwell was the straw that broke the camels back even.......but we are saying that the USAF was pissed at CAP and they got their revenge by forcing us to wear maroon boards....and now gray boards.
And there is now way for me to back that up....because there is no way that was ever written down....USAF generals are usually not that stupid.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 03:15:49 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 16, 2014, 02:58:31 AM
So... Harwell decides to self-promote himself to MJ in 1987, angering the Air Force Chief of Staff. After an "audit" (ordered by who?) it was found that CAP uniforms needed to be more "more distinctive" in 1990. And so enters the maroon epaulets. I'm sure the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Not at all.
A good theory, but fails when you consider it would have been a lot easier to just take his second star back then
to redo all the uniforms.
He kept the second star.
"...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma..."
Because AF Chief of Staff found out he did not have to power to take back the star....but he could open an IG audit and he could make sure that CAP got it's pee pee whacked.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 16, 2014, 05:48:24 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 02:33:11 AM
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 02:24:51 AM
My apologies for missing that. I see it now.
while I understand your zeal in quashing the hearsay, I had a serious doubt you'll find much more than an "official version" of events in an FOIA request. Why might the SECAF have decided "You know, that functional inspection... We should just do a broad area review on CAP, you know, to be sure.."?
Unless there were reasons. The non-official version could have been a doorway conversation that went like this: "Jerry, I'm sending you down to Maxwell to do a broad review of the CAP. After that whole Harwell thing, I want a closer look at these people."
It's quite possible, however I am not buying that Harwell is the sole reason for the change. An old saying that I have always strive to do things by "Trust but verify". I'm not buying the hearsay and really without something solid that's all it is is hearsay. How many can honestly say they have dug into this at all?
No one is saying Harwell is the sole reason. There was also the CAP major who got M-16 from some SP Airman who could not tell the difference between a CAP officer and a "real" officer. There was also all those "wive tales" of CAP officers pulling rank and trolling for salutes on base. No one is saying Harwell was the straw that broke the camels back even.......but we are saying that the USAF was pissed at CAP and they got their revenge by forcing us to wear maroon boards....and now gray boards.
And there is now way for me to back that up....because there is no way that was ever written down....USAF generals are usually not that stupid.
I can name a few incidents where a few have been stupid.
"usually" 8)
Quote from: lordmonar on March 16, 2014, 05:51:43 AM
Because AF Chief of Staff found out he did not have to power to take back the star....but he could open an IG audit and he could make sure that CAP got it's pee pee whacked.
And it's probably a safe bet that the AF Chief of Staff (who, according to Wiki, was a General Larry D. Welch) told the IG
exactly what he wanted to results to be.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2014, 05:46:29 AM
And to answer your previous question reread the post, the truth and the facts are presented and not hearsay. Someone please show me some documentation to indicate it was punitive?
And there is no
proof that the theory of evolution or the Big Bang are true, either. But, based on the preponderance of the available data, I personally believe that both theories are the most probable answers.
When the change from hard rank to maroon "slides" came into effect, I was just asked to join my wing's staff. I remember that first wing conference when the ppt. came on, giving us instructions on the B.A.R. and our new grade insignia. Everyone in the room got the message when our Wing Liason Officer gave us the "official" reasons. Later that night, we got the scuddlebut. Yes, it was just "hearsay". We now all understood the "why". Many members felt it was a slap in our collective faces and left CAP for good. I didn't hear the story about the conflicts between the SECAF and CSAF until just a few years ago by the National Historian. He said we have documents in the archives that are clear cut. IF true, it would settle the matter, however it would cut off the discussion. Kind of like cutting off the disscussion about the "CSU" after reading the letter from the SECAF's office saying the uniform was acceptable. >:D
Quote from: vento on March 08, 2014, 05:17:00 AM
Geeez, how did we turn this thread into another uniform thread? It is incredibly amazing. >:D
There's a scientific method to the madness. I don't have a name for it, but it goes something like this:
CAP members are obsessed with uniforms.
The half-life for any topic degenerating into a uniform thread is 1.2 pages.
Therefore the half-life of CAPTalk reverting to a uniform-only board is...past due.
Form over function is 83% of the argument.
The argument is split almost evenly between historical precedent, H/W standards, and public perception.
The other 17% relates to cadets and is irrelevant, but is also split almost evenly between regional variants, Honor Guard, and the argument of spit shining boots and pressing and starching BDUs.
Member opinion counts for 83% of the topic drift. The other 17% is based on fact (regs).
Conclusion: CAP is mostly driven by member opinion of the uniform's form over function.
Quote from: Garibaldi on March 16, 2014, 01:39:46 PM
Member opinion counts for 83% of the topic drift. The other 17% is based on fact (regs).
You do realize that 93.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot, right?
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 01:41:41 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on March 16, 2014, 01:39:46 PM
Member opinion counts for 83% of the topic drift. The other 17% is based on fact (regs).
You do realize that 93.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot, right?
And 50% of those are wrong! >:D
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 01:41:41 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on March 16, 2014, 01:39:46 PM
Member opinion counts for 83% of the topic drift. The other 17% is based on fact (regs).
You do realize that 93.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot, right?
Lies, [darn] Lies, Statistics.
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 02:16:15 AM
So lets see it.
What audit? Who did the audit? HAF? CAP-USAF?
An email from NHQ, sorry to say, reflecting an action that took place 25 years ago, is not what I would call "conclusive."
What does HAF mean? I saw this recently in another USAF context and I can't seem to find a definition.
HQ AF.
Thanks.
Quote from: FW on March 16, 2014, 11:57:13 AMHe said we have documents in the archives that are clear cut.
Then they should be published - hopefully the FOIA accomplishes that.
Quote from: FW on March 16, 2014, 11:57:13 AM
Kind of like cutting off the discussion about the "CSU" after reading the letter from the SECAF's office saying the uniform was acceptable.
Funny how the "OK" letter exists, but the "great purge letter" doesn't.
CAP is many things, but a shadow organization it is not, and with the exception of a very narrow
lane for a few specific missions, there's simply no reason to make things up or play games with
decisions that affect the membership as a whole.
Standing up and saying "
I (or
we) decided this was wrong for CAP and therefore made the decision."
is leadership, sets the standard for behavior downstream, and ends discussions about "why".
Leaving things as "We heard and they might have said and we thought, so they did, and then this one time a SrA
didn't like us so we blah, blah, blah..." just perpetuates the Condo-Association mentality of the whys and hows things
get done, or don't, in CAP.
Credibility gap? Yeah, we have issues, and they have nothing to do with the uniforms, they are primarily due to
having the curtains drawn back and people seeing us in the light of day.
Make a choice, live with it and by it, adjust if necessary. If that is too much to ask, step aside and let others have their
chance.
^^^What he said.
Quote from: Cindi on March 16, 2014, 01:06:12 AM
I wish we had a distinctive uniform more along these lines:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/x3ibsz.jpg)
RAF Flight Lieutenant -ahem - Leftenant William Wales, KG, the Duke of Cambridge.
Quote from: rugger1869 on March 16, 2014, 05:18:33 PM
Quote from: NIN on March 16, 2014, 02:16:15 AM
So lets see it.
What audit? Who did the audit? HAF? CAP-USAF?
An email from NHQ, sorry to say, reflecting an action that took place 25 years ago, is not what I would call "conclusive."
What does HAF mean? I saw this recently in another USAF context and I can't seem to find a definition.
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 17, 2014, 12:09:54 AM
Quote from: Cindi on March 16, 2014, 01:06:12 AM
I wish we had a distinctive uniform more along these lines:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/x3ibsz.jpg)
RAF Flight Lieutenant -ahem - Leftenant William Wales, KG, the Duke of Cambridge.
No, it's "Flight Lieutenant," not "Leftenant." The pronunciation doesn't change the spelling.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 06:03:22 PM
Quote from: FW on March 16, 2014, 11:57:13 AMHe said we have documents in the archives that are clear cut.
Then they should be published - hopefully the FOIA accomplishes that.
I know Eclipse isn't stating otherwise, but the Civil Air Patrol doesn't believe it falls under the FOIA:
https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/233/kw/FOIA
And the historical foundation, who I think the aforementioned archives belong to is a separate private organization and also doesn't feel it falls under FOIA (even though it's run by CAP for CAP).
Just to clarify, anything we get will have to come from CAP-USAF.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 17, 2014, 04:22:34 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 17, 2014, 12:09:54 AM
Quote from: Cindi on March 16, 2014, 01:06:12 AM
I wish we had a distinctive uniform more along these lines:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/x3ibsz.jpg)
RAF Flight Lieutenant -ahem - Leftenant William Wales, KG, the Duke of Cambridge.
No, it's "Flight Lieutenant," not "Leftenant." The pronunciation doesn't change the spelling.
I believe AlphaSigOU was just doing that as a pronunciation aid for Americans who don't know otherwise.
I've interacted with many members of the Canadian military (who also say "leftenant") so I've heard it many times...in fact, I often use it at my unit just to get a rise. ;D
When a cadet hears me say it, sometimes it's a teachable AE moment about the air forces of our allies.
Quote from: Fubar on March 17, 2014, 05:34:01 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 06:03:22 PM
Quote from: FW on March 16, 2014, 11:57:13 AMHe said we have documents in the archives that are clear cut.
Then they should be published - hopefully the FOIA accomplishes that.
I know Eclipse isn't stating otherwise, but the Civil Air Patrol doesn't believe it falls under the FOIA:
https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/233/kw/FOIA (https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/233/kw/FOIA)
And the historical foundation, who I think the aforementioned archives belong to is a separate private organization and also doesn't feel it falls under FOIA (even though it's run by CAP for CAP).
Just to clarify, anything we get will have to come from CAP-USAF.
The KB statement is correct. CAP is not an instrumentality of the federal government. Organizationally, it is, first and foremost, a corporation.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 17, 2014, 04:22:34 AM
No, it's "Flight Lieutenant," not "Leftenant." The pronunciation doesn't change the spelling.
That was intentional on my part... :)
KG - Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter).
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 17, 2014, 12:09:54 AM
Quote from: Cindi on March 16, 2014, 01:06:12 AM
I wish we had a distinctive uniform more along these lines:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/x3ibsz.jpg)
RAF Flight Lieutenant -ahem - Leftenant William Wales, KG, the Duke of Cambridge.
Nice - spelling and pronunciation correct!
..and you should be jealous...it's a very fetching uniform! I still have mine...can't get into it but still have it!
That is...except the KG and the wings... ::)
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on March 17, 2014, 11:25:17 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 17, 2014, 12:09:54 AM
Quote from: Cindi on March 16, 2014, 01:06:12 AM
I wish we had a distinctive uniform more along these lines:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/x3ibsz.jpg)
RAF Flight Lieutenant -ahem - Leftenant William Wales, KG, the Duke of Cambridge.
Nice - spelling and pronunciation correct!
..and you should be jealous...it's a very fetching uniform! I still have mine...can't get into it but still have it!
That is...except the KG and the wings... ::)
Thank you sir for your expert opinion. Being honest, I am jealous, that is really sharp :clap:
Brit_In_CAP will probably correct me, but if I remember that's the RAF's "No. 1 Dress" uniform (equivalent to our service dress).
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on March 17, 2014, 11:25:17 AM
Nice - spelling and pronunciation correct!
..and you should be jealous...it's a very fetching uniform! I still have mine...can't get into it but still have it!
Its cuz you boys are thin as racing snakes. I have a set of #1s hanging in my closet that I can't fit into and it annoys me that after having lost > 50lbs, I STILL can't fit something.
Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on March 17, 2014, 11:25:17 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 17, 2014, 12:09:54 AM
Quote from: Cindi on March 16, 2014, 01:06:12 AM
I wish we had a distinctive uniform more along these lines:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/x3ibsz.jpg)
RAF Flight Lieutenant -ahem - Leftenant William Wales, KG, the Duke of Cambridge.
Nice - spelling and pronunciation correct!
..and you should be jealous...it's a very fetching uniform! I still have mine...can't get into it but still have it!
That is...except the KG and the wings... ::)
The KG is a tough nut, but the wings can be had for 40 hours. At least, that's what they cost this particular FltLt. A lot of WWII vets who had to do a year in Canada or Rhodesia or elsewhere to get theirs were pretty steamed about it.