My doctor has told me to quit reading "Volunteer."

[JohnKachenmeister]

My blood pressure goes up too much every time an issue comes out.

This is the showcase publication of our organization, and I wonder what thought goes into it.  Is the editor even a CAP member?

I was, in a former life, the PAO for a general officer-level Army Reserve command.  If I put out a publication with that low of a quality level, I would have been relieved.

I strongly suspect that the editor has never seen the Hallowed Halls of the Defense Information School.  If he or she did, we would not be treated to this month's irritants:

1.  Pictures of an aircrew, including one officer, a captain, wearing bright rank on a ball cap with an Air Force flight suit.  I'd spend some time discussing it, but his crew-mate was also wearing an Air Force flight suit...and a GOATEE!

2.  Why doesn't somebody tell people to take their silly neck-chain ID card holders off for the pictures?

3.  Can someone in CAP take pictures that are newsworthy?  All I see is:

a.  Cadets standing around with an important Old Person, and

b.  Grip and grins.

4.  Why is the bird-chasing story of greater importance than the Mississippi find?  Who is prioritizing these?

I give up!

[JC004]

You too?  I was just at an appointment on Friday, and mine told me the same thing.

We have a serious lack of internal coverage of stuff at times, a serious lack of good pictures, and an overabundance of bad uniforms.

[RiverAux]

Its always fun looking for uniform violations in the magazine/newsletter and I suspect that this will be keeping CAP members happily outraged for as long as the organization exists and has uniforms....

Regarding the news choice...

By my count we've had 15 issues of the CAP volunteer and on 11 (73%) of those covers there has been an ES-related story of some kind.  But, if you just look at the cover photos, I'd say that ES hasn't received as much attention as other aspects of the program.  

And while the MS ejection seat find certainly is interesting and is newsworthy, I suspect that it just didn't have a good photo along with it that was suitable for the cover.  Not that the cover photo they selected is all that great -- the sandbagging photo on page 32 is more action oriented, though sort of dark but is probably the only other photo in that issue that would have been better.  The photo of the person holding the radio on page 33 is actually better, but I'm not sure the story it is used to represent is cover-material --  important though.

Generally, I think the Volunteer has done a great job choosing cover photos with only one or two exceptions.  

As to interior photos -- you are right about there being WAY too many grip and grins, but who knows what else they're getting that we're not seeing.  It could be worse!

[NC CAP]

In my opinion there are always too many pictures of our National Commander in VOLUNTEER.  Not that I have anything against the National Commander; however, I think the magazine should showcase the membership and not just our top leadership.  As I quickly thumb through several issues of AIRMAN, the official magazine of the Air Force, I do not see the first picture of General Moseley, the former Air Force Chief of Staff, or any other general officer for that matter.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

If you are not getting good pictures from the field, YOU are not communicating your needs to the field.

It is the EDITOR's decision to use or not use a photo.  The photos are B-O-R-I-N-G!!

Grip and grins.  People standing next to airplanes, people holding certificates, people standing with important people.

If you are going to use photos, use a photo of someone doing their job.  Instead of a shot of 3 aircrewmen standing by a plane and violating 39-1, why not have a shot of them pointing out the location of the find on a chart to a debriefing officer?  Unless the debriefing officer's uniform looked worse.

I faced the same decision as editor of an Army newsmagazine.  I had to crop out my share of fat guys, guys in the background working without BDU shirts on, and in one case a full colonel whose ribbons were in the wrong order.  It was his retirement ceremony, and he put his ribbon rack on upside down.  He was either waiting to do a good deed, or a little late in deciding to retire!

[RiverAux]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but sometimes you have to use what you've got.  All the CAP PA publications agree with you, so active PAOs should know what NHQ wants and what they should be sending up. 

I'm sure that if NHQ was provided with an action photo a newly minted Spaatz cadet doing something that they would use that instead of a photo of him holding a certificate in front of him (p. 22).

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but sometimes you have to use what you've got.  All the CAP PA publications agree with you, so active PAOs should know what NHQ wants and what they should be sending up. 

I'm sure that if NHQ was provided with an action photo a newly minted Spaatz cadet doing something that they would use that instead of a photo of him holding a certificate in front of him (p. 22).

That don't cut it with me, River.

I frequently had to call a unit and ask them for better pix.  Pretty soon, they learned what I wanted. 

Not to say I CAN'T use the certificate-holding picture.  I'd keep a photo file handy with the name of the guy, and I might crop it down to just head and shoulders  for some future event.  Sometimes even bad pix can be salvaged.  I can always use them as negative examples for classes.

But it is better to have NO picture than one showing guys who don't know how to dress themselves. 

Our image should be Steve Canyon.  Not "Larry the Cable Guy."

[lordmonar]

Well the answer is full time PAOs who are out there with the troops when the action is happening.

Often we just don't have it.

Then of course when we do have PAOs on the spot....we get photos of what CAP really looks like....and you end up with the fat and fuzzies/boonie hats/wrong shirts/no orange vest/hats on flight line and you still end up with people being upset.

[mikeylikey]

The Volunteer MAG is a marketing tool.  NHQ most likely hired a firm, or one whiz kid to layout the formula needed to recruit new members.  That formula taught to marketing geniuses in College follows:

1) The American people have the attention span that is one of the shortest among civilized nations.  You need to grab attention within .5 seconds, and have a message that can be skimmed over in under 5 seconds.  (Everyone does this when reading newspapers.

2) Touchy feely stories (and stories involving children) will always get an American Readers attention.

3) Pictures of children and Old people will always invoke a "aw feel good" response in most Americans.

4) Articles with more pictures will make the article seem shorter, thus more Americans will take the time to read it over say an article with no pictures.

5) Bright non-dark colors will attract the eyes attention more than dark colors (i.e. yellow, pink, orange, red)

6) Stories with the conclusion written first or either hinted at within the first three lines will cause an OCD mechanism making the reader wanting more detail about the things leading to the end result. 

7) strategically placed lead in advertisements will cause a smooth free flowing publication, that becomes a "must turn the page publication"

. Unless the target audience is Fat people, do not include pictures of fat people.  It causes a negative reactionary response where the reader associates what he or she is reading with fat people, becoming fat, or their own fat body. 

IT goes on and on.  If you want to learn more about strategic publication marketing, PENN State (go PENN STATE!!) has a terrific business school    

[cap235629]

the "Captain" in the photo is now a Lt. Colonel.  The picture is that old.  He was not wearing a hat when it was taken so the flight cap is photoshopped,  The pic is so old that the member with the Goatee was probably within regs at the time it was taken

[Mustang]

The Volunteer MAG is a marketing tool.  NHQ most likely hired a firm, or one whiz kid to layout the formula needed to recruit new members.

You were on-target right up until those last two words.

The mag is all about marketing CAP, but not to prospective members.  Its purpose is to market CAP to potential customers, corporate partners, donors and politicians at all levels -- none of whom would know (or care) that bright rank on a ball cap in a flight suit is not kosher. Big picture, uniform perfection in PA materials doesn't really matter, though I love seeing people get all wrapped around the axle over it.  All I care about is a professional appearance; whether someone's Encampment ribbon is upside down or their patrol cap has a "ranger roll" is absolutely irrelevant.

Back on topic...if you look at early editions of the Volunteer, the intent is very clear.  The addition of awards and regional news was to appease people who noticed and complained.

[jb512]

The Volunteer MAG is a marketing tool.  NHQ most likely hired a firm, or one whiz kid to layout the formula needed to recruit new members.

You were on-target right up until those last two words.

The mag is all about marketing CAP, but not to prospective members.  Its purpose is to market CAP to potential customers, corporate partners, donors and politicians at all levels -- none of whom would know (or care) that bright rank on a ball cap in a flight suit is not kosher. Big picture, uniform perfection in PA materials doesn't really matter, though I love seeing people get all wrapped around the axle over it.  All I care about is a professional appearance; whether someone's Encampment ribbon is upside down or their patrol cap has a "ranger roll" is absolutely irrelevant.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I think that any publication should strive for accuracy not only in its articles, but also in the pictures representing the organization.

They should not allow anything that is not professional and correct.  To let things slide not only makes us look stupid to those who know better (in and out of CAP), it allows those people to continue to do whatever they want regardless of what the rules are.

[Al Sayre]

Perhaps the simplest solution is to have the Wing PAO's give a class to GTL's, IO's and Squadron PAO's every so often on how to take good pictures... 
Get the stuff out of their pockets, ditch the lanyards, make sure the uniforms are correct etc.  It only takes a minute or two to make a difference between a useable photo and one for your scrap book.  "Candid" photos really aren't the best thing to use for public distribution.

[Pylon]

I can say I know first hand that it's a challenge.  As the sole PR guy for a company with 37 sites, I can never be everywhere.  I wear a lot of hats which include graphics designer, writer, and photographer.  While I can occasionally get a volunteer photographer to help out, we don't have a budget for having one for every event.  As you can imagine, I can't be everywhere all the time.  Therefore, the events that end up in the magazine with pretty pictures are the ones that I was able to make it to and get great photos from; not always necessarily the story I could have made the most heart-warming.   Is the best story going to be my cover story?  Only if I have an awesome photo to accompany.   The other stories usually still make it to print, but no photos or one marginal photo means it gets tucked into the back in the "in other news..." section.   

However, a great story that had no/poor photo coverage for the actual event can still get a feature if you arrange a posed photoshoot after the fact of key participants.

As echoed above, National relies on the volunteer PAO's nationwide to anticipate the Volunteer's needs, take those photos or set up the appropriate shoots, and think to send in good quality, hi-res photos.  They don't have a staff they can simply assign to cover every event.   Perhaps, though, National could emphasize to the PAO's in the field what it's looking for in photos, and make a list of common events/missions/reasons when PAO's should take photos and submit them to the Volunteer staff.

[Smithsonia]

The State of Public Affairs Organs in nearly all military "organ" izations are alike. Talk to the converted. Preach to the choir. Don't rock the boat. Everybody gets 15 minutes of fame. For those of us that work both the media and the PA side of the street this attitude is OK. BUT, for the military it is stupid in triplicate.

Military PAO training to the lowest common denominator is a recent development. From WW2-Gulf War 1 there was a much more effective PAO cadre. Basically, in WW2 they drafted first rate journalists and craftsmen, were over 100,000 strong, came to the military PAOs and went back to the newspaper as reporters, then came back into the military as called up reservists, and in doing so instituted a level of editorial responsibility and craftsmanship that has now worn down to a badly scuffed no soled boot. There used to be lots of cross pollination. Lot's of cross cultural currency. The Media, during ownership consolidation, stopped running routine PAO releases as a public service. Military PAO competency didn't compensate for this change. To this day -- 20 years after the changes occured -- I still get mystified PAOs shrugging their shoulders and complaining about the media. PAOs haven't kept up. PAOs have gotten lazy, repetitive, and dumb.

Personally, I think that the Management by Objective concept doesn't work unless you have first-rate management, well trusted by senior ranks. Otherwise, as regards the PAO Objective - it is easy to corrupt, lower, or fail to react, which is where we are now. "Soft-Crafts" (advertising, public relations, media relations, marketing, etc) all have unique metrics which are easy to manipulate or let slide. The biggest problem with the way the military teaches PA in the modern world is: they don't know what to do, don't know what the media needs, and give themselves pats on the back for crap. Then PAOs complain that no one runs their press releases. CAP is just following the military's lead.

PA should be a big-darn-deal. It should be full of writers with the right stuff. It should lead from the front. It shouldn't be just a domesticated dog capable of only licking its own "paws". (I've got a more graphic word than "paws" in mind but you'll have to fill it in).

TO THIS POINT -- Right now, Middle East narrative meets Military PAO capsulized bullet points means the Military is getting killed because of PAO failures in the field, on the front pages, and in the American Political Debate. Jihadists are raised to kill American GIs and narrative control ( being on-message) is their first weapon of choice. I'm not talking propaganda. I'm talking first rate storytelling and writing to top-flight standards. The military doesn't practice the craft and so can't evaluate the condition. Satisfying a corrupt standard, less than up-to-speed boss, or lowered objective -- limits Public Affairs as an opinion shaper. CAP is just along on the same O-ride. Given that this polemic will provoke a bit of response... I'll wait to give specifics until later in the thread.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[Smokey]

the "Captain" in the photo is now a Lt. Colonel.  The picture is that old.  He was not wearing a hat when it was taken so the flight cap is photoshopped,  The pic is so old that the member with the Goatee was probably within regs at the time it was taken

How is it that the picture is so old the Capt is now a Lt Col?? Even if he made Major the next day, time in grade for Lt Col is 4 years. The story doesn't indicate it occurred more than 4 years ago.  Also...previously senior members could wear the green zoom bag if the didn't meet hgt/wgt or grooming standards , but it had to be without grade insignia and the guy with the goatee has 1st Lt bars on.

Plus the aircraft has the new empblem on the door which was only approved last year. So the photo can't be that old and those guys are in violation of 39-1.

[Brad]

I just wanted to add my two cents of an editor's note: in the article about communications, there is a picture of our very own SCWG Chief of Staff, Major Francis Smith, shown by his pickup truck. This is an old picture, as the Major was a Captain at the time that picture was taken. However the caption neglects to use "then-Captain", and it also reads like the radio he is using in the picture is the new technology spoken of in the article, yet this would be impossible owing to the age of the picture.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Volunteer MAG is a marketing tool.  NHQ most likely hired a firm, or one whiz kid to layout the formula needed to recruit new members.

You were on-target right up until those last two words.

The mag is all about marketing CAP, but not to prospective members.  Its purpose is to market CAP to potential customers, corporate partners, donors and politicians at all levels -- none of whom would know (or care) that bright rank on a ball cap in a flight suit is not kosher. Big picture, uniform perfection in PA materials doesn't really matter, though I love seeing people get all wrapped around the axle over it.  All I care about is a professional appearance; whether someone's Encampment ribbon is upside down or their patrol cap has a "ranger roll" is absolutely irrelevant.

Back on topic...if you look at early editions of the Volunteer, the intent is very clear.  The addition of awards and regional news was to appease people who noticed and complained.

Swing and a miss, Mikey.

There are 3 public affairs missions, all interdependent.  The "Command Information" message to your own people is just as important as the public information and community relations missions.  You cannot send one message to your people and another to outsiders.  This will doom your program.

[JohnKachenmeister]

the "Captain" in the photo is now a Lt. Colonel.  The picture is that old.  He was not wearing a hat when it was taken so the flight cap is photoshopped,  The pic is so old that the member with the Goatee was probably within regs at the time it was taken

How is it that the picture is so old the Capt is now a Lt Col?? Even if he made Major the next day, time in grade for Lt Col is 4 years. The story doesn't indicate it occurred more than 4 years ago.  Also...previously senior members could wear the green zoom bag if the didn't meet hgt/wgt or grooming standards , but it had to be without grade insignia and the guy with the goatee has 1st Lt bars on.

Plus the aircraft has the new empblem on the door which was only approved last year. So the photo can't be that old and those guys are in violation of 39-1.

You still got that "Detective's Eye," Smokey.  And even if it IS old, if it does not reflect current reality it should not be in a newsmagazine.  PA's publish NEWS.  We have a historian for the old stuff.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well the answer is full time PAOs who are out there with the troops when the action is happening.

Often we just don't have it.

Then of course when we do have PAOs on the spot....we get photos of what CAP really looks like....and you end up with the fat and fuzzies/boonie hats/wrong shirts/no orange vest/hats on flight line and you still end up with people being upset.

No, the answer is to have an editor of Volunteer with the brains and experience to make sound editing decisions.  Just because someone sends you a pic does not mean you have to use it.

[Major Carrales]

Kach,

You know I try. 

[Mustang]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I think that any publication should strive for accuracy not only in its articles, but also in the pictures representing the organization.

Of course we should strive for accuracy, but holding out for perfection is futile; we'd never get anything done.  When it comes to images for Public Affairs use, the "wish list" is:

• High quality
• Professional appearance
• Low (or no) cost

The reality, however, is that we can't have it all; constraints in equipment/training/budget mean we may choose only two.

They should not allow anything that is not professional and correct.  To let things slide not only makes us look stupid to those who know better (in and out of CAP), it allows those people to continue to do whatever they want regardless of what the rules are.

Though I agree everyone should encourage their fellow members to always wear their uniform properly and proudly, permit me to point out something here: uniform wear is not the mission of Civil Air Patrol.  When the CAP Vision statement speaks of "performing missions for America",  uniform wear is not among them.   

What I suspect may be at issue here is an effect of difference in perspective.   As a 1st Lt and former C/FO, your "world view" of CAP might be quite different from that of, say, a Lt Col and former C/Col (like moi) and we likely view what constitutes "professionalism" very differently. 

I can already tell that were you to spot a mission pilot readying for a sortie, you'd be giving his uniform a visual once-over and if that didn't pass muster, you probably stopped right there in your assessment.   Me, I'm more interested in signs that the pilot is knows and is doing his job.  Is he using checklists or relying on his memory?  Did he do a weight and balance or did he blow it off, having done W&Bs with similar loads many times before?  Did he bother to get a briefing from Flight Service?  Did he bother to check NOTAMs? Did he bother to ensure all the aircraft's required inspections and AD compliance are current?  Did he adequately brief his crew, or just assume they know how to open the doors, use the seatbelts or find the fire extinguisher? 

If he's doing all that well, personally, I don't care if his hair's a little long, if he's a few pounds overweight or--heaven forbid--he's wearing the wrong patch!  Why?  Because the safe, effective execution of our missions is more important than looking like you hopped out of the pages of the uniform manual. 

Looking good in uniform never saved a life.

[RiverAux]

I think most people will agree that doing the job right is more important than how you look, but we're talking about public affairs in this thread and in that context, looking good counts for an awful lot.  From a public affairs point of view, as long as that pilot doesn't crash the plane or cause operational embarrassment, it is almost even more important that he look good if he is pictured in a photo or on news video.   

We might find the plane and rescue the crew, but if one of our folks gets caught on camera wearing an unearned SEAL pin (pick your favorite uniform violation) that might be what gets played on the news and damages our reputation with our partners. 

However, this is a very fine line.  Some CAP folks will throw a major hissy fit if a ribbon is out of order in a photo used in public affairs and while this is obviously not a good thing, its relatively minor in my book.  However, the bigger and more obvious the uniform problem is, the bigger a public affairs problem it is. 

[lordmonar]

I would buy your argument if I know that the public at large knew anything about our (including the AD Force) uniforms.

I am constantly asked if I am in the Army....to me it is completely obvious I am not...but to "them" all they see is a uniform.

That is why there can even be a "market" for stolen honors.  People just don't know.  They see some by with a seal pin....and they ask him what is for...and then the stories start running.

Same with CAP.  Only we know that his BDU CAP pin was centered instead of only 1/2" from the bill like 39-1 says.  So we jump up and down wringing our hands.

Back a few years ago...I submitted and article to CAP New with some photos...but it was rejected because some of the cadets did not have wing patches (they were in the mail) and one cadet was wearing Gortex (there was 2 feet of snow on the ground).

So we loose the positive value of showing cadets out doing good things....and getting some pride for my cadet to see their pictures in the paper....because of a technicality that only those in the know would care about.

Not even the USAF is that bad....I have seen many...many....many gross uniform vioaltions in USAF offical publications.....but the value of "showing" our customers what we do and the value of getting our members their 15 seconds of fame is more important than reinforcing the regulations.

[wuzafuzz]

It's true there are plenty of people who will never realize if one of our members is wearing their uniform improperly.  However, some of the people we need to impress the most will recognize sloppy uniform wear and will judge us accordingly.  That may cost us missions, opportunities, and some good will.  All it takes is one emergency planner in a given community to see an adult in BDU's with "too long" hair and wonder "what's the deal with those guys?"

Uniforms aren't the only way to create a good impression but they are often the first and only impression.  If we aren't making a good impression, we may be creating doubt.

[alamrcn]

.....but the value of "showing" our customers what we do and the value of getting our members their 15 seconds of fame is more important than reinforcing the regulations.

:clap: Exactly.

We are obviously our own worst critics. If we put the submitted photos in front of a panel like the peanut gallery here, you'd get a recruiting pamphlet and not a membership magazine.

I'm not saying it should be "anything goes" for a photo opportunity, but lets just enjoy the moment of the photo and the story behind it for once. We're not going to ditch the picture of a member helping a flood victim because his BDU breast pocket was unbuttoned and a pen was hanging out.

-Ace


"I once had a bigger and deeper stick than yours. When someone I deeply respected finally helped me remove it, life in CAP suddenly became much more enjoyable."

[Smithsonia]

On the uniform gigs taking away from publicity photos. To paraphrase Billy Chrystal on Saturday night live:
"It is better to look good, than to do good." I disagree with the uni-gurus. Any deployed Army/Marine Combat forces wear various uni's in the field. They wear what works. They all look "All-American" but in the field, practicality trumps minor uniform regs. It's been the same for all troops since the beginning of time.
If you're working in the field and saving lives -- you may sweat, you may look tired, you may have your uniform a little akimbo. So what? If you're in the Patrol to be a uniform model, then join the Color Guard.
Honoring the uniform is not a bad thing -- but it's not the only thing. Public Affairs that doesn't take this into consideration isn't worth a spit-shine.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[BigMojo]

The Southeast News story I wrote was from January  When I was still a SMWOG and the Capt in the Pic is now a Major... Florida Groups 6 and 11 have now been merged into just Group 6....

Still a good "feel good" story though. I gave them better pics, but of course they choose the worst one....

[Pylon]

Swing and a miss, Mikey.

There are 3 public affairs missions, all interdependent.  The "Command Information" message to your own people is just as important as the public information and community relations missions.  You cannot send one message to your people and another to outsiders.  This will doom your program.

While I agree all of the messages you mention are important and are inter-related, they don't necessarily have to be communicated with the same vehicle.  Here at work I publish one quarterly magazine for donors, supporters, politicians, etc. and a different internal monthly rag for employee communications and news.

The donors and politicians don't care about the same things that the internal people do.  I can list service milestones, employee of the month, benefits related announcements, reminders about parking changes or anything like that in the employee newsletter.  Unless it makes for a good human interest story, it doesn't go into the external publication.

The message should always be consistent, but you can use different vehicles for different purposes while still tending to all audiences.

[jb512]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I think that any publication should strive for accuracy not only in its articles, but also in the pictures representing the organization.

Of course we should strive for accuracy, but holding out for perfection is futile; we'd never get anything done.  When it comes to images for Public Affairs use, the "wish list" is:

• High quality
• Professional appearance
• Low (or no) cost

No one is expecting perfection because that is not attainable.  All we expect is for everyone to play by the same rules and represent the rest of us well.  That, and a certain level of respect...  We all know from experience and plain common sense that part of how you judge a person is based on their appearance.  If you look like crap, you're making me look like crap.

The reality, however, is that we can't have it all; constraints in equipment/training/budget mean we may choose only two.

Two?  I must've missed that memo because all we have is one.  Training is done at the member's expense, and budget all depends on how many bake sales you can do.

They should not allow anything that is not professional and correct.  To let things slide not only makes us look stupid to those who know better (in and out of CAP), it allows those people to continue to do whatever they want regardless of what the rules are.

Though I agree everyone should encourage their fellow members to always wear their uniform properly and proudly, permit me to point out something here: uniform wear is not the mission of Civil Air Patrol.  When the CAP Vision statement speaks of "performing missions for America",  uniform wear is not among them.

You are correct that proper uniform wear is not a mission.  It is, however, a requirement.  If you can't wear a uniform shirt without your pocket protector and 13 pens and pencils hanging out, then put on a golf shirt.  If you missed your haircut this week, then wear a golf shirt... and so on.

What I suspect may be at issue here is an effect of difference in perspective.   As a 1st Lt and former C/FO, your "world view" of CAP might be quite different from that of, say, a Lt Col and former C/Col (like moi) and we likely view what constitutes "professionalism" very differently. 

Well...  despite my mere Lieutenantness and Flight Officerness, I also live in the real world.  I'm sorry that my cadet and senior rank doesn't quite measure up yet, but someday I'll be as smart as a Colonel...  Maybe.

I can already tell that were you to spot a mission pilot readying for a sortie, you'd be giving his uniform a visual once-over and if that didn't pass muster, you probably stopped right there in your assessment.   Me, I'm more interested in signs that the pilot is knows and is doing his job.  Is he using checklists or relying on his memory?  Did he do a weight and balance or did he blow it off, having done W&Bs with similar loads many times before?  Did he bother to get a briefing from Flight Service?  Did he bother to check NOTAMs? Did he bother to ensure all the aircraft's required inspections and AD compliance are current?  Did he adequately brief his crew, or just assume they know how to open the doors, use the seatbelts or find the fire extinguisher?

Edit:  If he can spend that much time being such a good pilot, he should have no problems with 39-1.  It even has pictures...  If you want to fly on the Air Force's dime, it's the least you can do.

If he's doing all that well, personally, I don't care if his hair's a little long, if he's a few pounds overweight or--heaven forbid--he's wearing the wrong patch!  Why?  Because the safe, effective execution of our missions is more important than looking like you hopped out of the pages of the uniform manual. 

Looking good in uniform never saved a life.

But it sure can show pride in yourself and what you do.

Attitudes like yours are what keep us just a bit behind, no matter how good our crews are.  I've often learned that when you raise the standards then not only do you get a better group of people, you portray a better image to those on the outside.  I'm not talking about crap like a slightly long haircut, few extra pounds, or the wrong patch on a uniform.  Those are minute compared to blatant violations that make people who know better point and laugh.  It doesn't matter how good of a pilot someone is if you show up on a military base in a military uniform and people are offended that you're showing outright disrespect.

Again, I do not like your standards, but rather than whine and complain, I'm doing something about it.  When I complete my reserve training I plan to remain in CAP and/or be a reserve adviser for a unit and do what I can however small my contribution will be.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I think that any publication should strive for accuracy not only in its articles, but also in the pictures representing the organization.

Of course we should strive for accuracy, but holding out for perfection is futile; we'd never get anything done.  When it comes to images for Public Affairs use, the "wish list" is:

• High quality
• Professional appearance
• Low (or no) cost

The reality, however, is that we can't have it all; constraints in equipment/training/budget mean we may choose only two.

They should not allow anything that is not professional and correct.  To let things slide not only makes us look stupid to those who know better (in and out of CAP), it allows those people to continue to do whatever they want regardless of what the rules are.

Though I agree everyone should encourage their fellow members to always wear their uniform properly and proudly, permit me to point out something here: uniform wear is not the mission of Civil Air Patrol.  When the CAP Vision statement speaks of "performing missions for America",  uniform wear is not among them.   

What I suspect may be at issue here is an effect of difference in perspective.   As a 1st Lt and former C/FO, your "world view" of CAP might be quite different from that of, say, a Lt Col and former C/Col (like moi) and we likely view what constitutes "professionalism" very differently. 

I can already tell that were you to spot a mission pilot readying for a sortie, you'd be giving his uniform a visual once-over and if that didn't pass muster, you probably stopped right there in your assessment.   Me, I'm more interested in signs that the pilot is knows and is doing his job.  Is he using checklists or relying on his memory?  Did he do a weight and balance or did he blow it off, having done W&Bs with similar loads many times before?  Did he bother to get a briefing from Flight Service?  Did he bother to check NOTAMs? Did he bother to ensure all the aircraft's required inspections and AD compliance are current?  Did he adequately brief his crew, or just assume they know how to open the doors, use the seatbelts or find the fire extinguisher? 

If he's doing all that well, personally, I don't care if his hair's a little long, if he's a few pounds overweight or--heaven forbid--he's wearing the wrong patch!  Why?  Because the safe, effective execution of our missions is more important than looking like you hopped out of the pages of the uniform manual. 

Looking good in uniform never saved a life.

A photo in a magazine is not a life-or-death issue, either.

But as a PAO, it is YOUR JOB to make your organization look good. 

You are the lawyer in the Court of Public Opinion.

Yes, when I was a company commander in the Army I had guys erecting GP mediums in 90-degree weather wearing gaudy do-rags to keep sweat out of their eyes, and wearing sweat-soaked T-shirts.  That did NOT mean that I put those pictures in a magazine or a newspaper.  I had them stop, put on the BDU shirts and hats, put the do-rags away, and look like soldiers. 

I don't care how good the pilot is.  If he looks lame in your showcase magazine, your whole organization looks lame.  Wearing a goatee with an Air Force uniform doesn't get much lamer!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

One of my early criticisms of the magazine was the number of photos that were digitally edited -- backgrounds removed, patches adjusted, etc. As a journalist in real life, I find that unethical.

But I can understand why.

Beards worn in the Air Force uniform.

Patches erroneously placed under the front zippers on the flight suit, and other myriad screwups.

The cover itself had a photo that the photographer should've stepped in and barked at the colonel first. Take the [darn] outdated ID off your flight suit. It shouldn't be there, anyway. It doesn't make you look any more important. It makes you look like a dork, a drugstore cowboy, a poser.

Unit commanders are responsible for the appearance of their members. But unit commanders aren't consistent across the board about enforcement, and some amazingly, stunningly bad things get through. Of course, you can lead a CAP member to water, but you can't make him/her abide by regulation.

I agree that it's an image problem. But the image problem isn't enforceable by NHQ/PA. It's enforced in the field.

"If you can't wear your uniform properly, how do I know you'll take care of my airplane?" That's the question that should be asked more often.

So ask it. Each and every one of you.

[RiverAux]

The cover itself had a photo that the photographer should've stepped in and barked at the colonel first. Take the [darn] outdated ID off your flight suit. It shouldn't be there, anyway. It doesn't make you look any more important. It makes you look like a dork, a drugstore cowboy, a poser.

That ID is still current and has not been rescinded as of a few minutes ago, so it isn't "outdated" and for all you know the airport he flies out of requires you to have some sort of photo id visible when you're on a ramp....

[aveighter]

There are a number of threads that showcase the stark lines between the "unpaid professionals" and everyone else.

This one is right at the top.

[JayT]

If he's doing all that well, personally, I don't care if his hair's a little long, if he's a few pounds overweight or--heaven forbid--he's wearing the wrong patch!  Why?  Because the safe, effective execution of our missions is more important than looking like you hopped out of the pages of the uniform manual. 

So, imagine if you're on a road trip, and theres two greasy spoons next to each other.

You walk into one, and the short order cook has a spotless work station and clean hands, but his whites are filthy. You walk into the next one, and not only is the workstation spotless, hands cleaned, but the whites have been cleaned in the last week. Which place you gonna eat at? Are you gonna take the time to exaim the first place and discover its perfectly fine, or are you gonna turn as soon as you see yesterdays special on the guys jacket?

Many of the people we work with don't share your values. If we're working with military guys, they'll expect it. If we're working with cops, they'll expect it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

One of my early criticisms of the magazine was the number of photos that were digitally edited -- backgrounds removed, patches adjusted, etc. As a journalist in real life, I find that unethical.

But I can understand why.

Beards worn in the Air Force uniform.

Patches erroneously placed under the front zippers on the flight suit, and other myriad screwups.

The cover itself had a photo that the photographer should've stepped in and barked at the colonel first. Take the [darn] outdated ID off your flight suit. It shouldn't be there, anyway. It doesn't make you look any more important. It makes you look like a dork, a drugstore cowboy, a poser.

Unit commanders are responsible for the appearance of their members. But unit commanders aren't consistent across the board about enforcement, and some amazingly, stunningly bad things get through. Of course, you can lead a CAP member to water, but you can't make him/her abide by regulation.

I agree that it's an image problem. But the image problem isn't enforceable by NHQ/PA. It's enforced in the field.

"If you can't wear your uniform properly, how do I know you'll take care of my airplane?" That's the question that should be asked more often.

So ask it. Each and every one of you.

You are correct, enforcement of uniform standards in a command issue, not a NHQ PA issue.

But the appearance of the magazine IS the responsibility of NHQ PA. 

This isn't about the absence of violations, or the enforcement of standards in the field.  It is about the editing decisions that are made at Maxwell.

Just because somebody sends you a picture does not mean you mindlessly publish it.  If the photo is unacceptable (as were the examples I cited), you scrap the photos, OR call the submitter for better photos (if you have time before your deadline).

But beyond the 39-1 issue, the pictures are BAD!!!  People standing next to an airplane.  Grip and grins.  People standing holding certificates.  People sitting in chairs.  Every issue, the same garbage!

Show people DOING things.  Show the pilot pre-flighting the airplane.  Show the scanner and observer reviewing their gridded charts.  Show the cadet colonel conducting a class for the younger cadets.  Show someone commanding a formation, or (if anybody does this anymore) show a cadet officer correcting a uniform violation during an inspection.

Why run a "People Magazine" for folks in blue suits?  Why not run some informational articles on regulation changes from NHQ?  Why not a regular column from the SJA on legal issues facing commanders?  Why not a feature or two now and then about the schools, beyond the obligatory picture of 50 people standing in a crowd posing for a class picture?

The only heritage stories we get are "Former cadet done good." 

If I were a non-member, I would NEVER join an outfit where old men fly less-than-attractive college girls around to count birds.  I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Kach,

You know I try. 

I know you do, Sparky, and it isn't about you or any other local squadron PAO or commander.  This is on the shoulders of whoever is doing the editing.

[RiverAux]

Why not run some informational articles on regulation changes from NHQ?

Why not?  Because the majority of our members have the ability to monitor regulation changes and see the new changes as they happen through eservices.  Back when we had CAP News you needed such articles because you might not see the new regs until 6-12 months after they had been approved, and only then if you personally spent your money to get updates or spent time going through the squadron's copy.

I wouldn't be opposed to articles that would be considered more as professional development (SAR techniques, etc.) every once in a while, especially since most of the newsletters from the various programs that used to be published by national have died off. 

Yes, action photos are always better, but sometimes you just don't have the capability of getting them and you have to use what you got.  No amount of berating from NHQ is going to make it possible for me to go back in time and take a photo of a CAP guy pulling a injured person out of the wreck (though they have a photo of just that on p.55). 

Why not a feature or two now and then about the schools, beyond the obligatory picture of 50 people standing in a crowd posing for a class picture?

Like the article on p.18-19 about a father-daughter team at the Civic Leadership Academy

The only heritage stories we get are "Former cadet done good." 

You mean like the story about the founder of a CAP squadron on p. 38-39

Show the pilot pre-flighting the airplane.

p. 11 is basically a pre-flighting photo. 

[Tubacap]

I hold no such anxiety of photos of people in slightly incorrect uniforms, i.e. wrong version of the command patch.  However, I think that River brings up a great point that there could be some PD stuff every once in awhile.  Not the entire magazine, but every now and then. 

I find the Volunteer actually pretty interesting to read, especially the history type things and the current missions.

[MIKE]

25,217 posts in Uniforms & Awards and we still have fracked up uniforms.

[capchiro]

Well, having been a PAO back when we used Brownies, I enjoy the Volunteer and am not too critical because not many outside of CAP read it or even see it.  The one thing I do miss are the advertizements from the old CAP Times that used to actually apply to us as individuals and the squadron.  I also miss the CAP Supply and the neat prices and stuff we could purchase, like a pallet of MRE's for $500.., even though shipping was close to that, it was still a bargain, but I digress..

[alamrcn]

Look at this mess...



What was the PAO thinking?!!

Several helmet chin straps are not fastened, and one guy is wearing his patrol cap under his helmet while another guy is just wearing a patrol cap. The guy with a cigarette in his hand <OMG!> hasn't shaved in what looks like two days. There are several shirts or jackets that are not fully buttoned, and I see only ONE guy with his pants properly bloused over his boots. And speaking of boots... HOLY CRAP are they ALL filthy!

This picture should have never made it to print and public view. How could a group of men like this with such direguard to their appearance in uniform possibly accomplish their mission?! I'm so disgusted...

-Ace

[JohnKachenmeister]

Yeah...

And only a 48-star flag!

[arajca]

Look at this mess...



What was the PAO thinking?!!

Several helmet chin straps are not fastened, and one guy is wearing his patrol cap under his helmet while another guy is just wearing a patrol cap. The guy with a cigarette in his hand <OMG!> hasn't shaved in what looks like two days. There are several shirts or jackets that are not fully buttoned, and I see only ONE guy with his pants properly bloused over his boots. And speaking of boots... HOLY CRAP are they ALL filthy!

This picture should have never made it to print and public view. How could a group of men like this with such direguard to their appearance in uniform possibly accomplish their mission?! I'm so disgusted...

-Ace

How about comparing apples to apples instead of oranges. The issues brought up here are NOT from combat related pictures taken 40+years ago in a highly stressed environment. They're from staged pictures (generally) in rear areas with plenty of time to make sure uniforms are proper.

[Smithsonia]

Among a bunch of other things I do... I teach both military history and military PA. In this endeavor, I teach Field Command Communications, Morale, and Respect. Curtis LeMay, George Patton, and Napoleon were all called down, put in their place, humbled, beat up, etc. By not recognizing the fact that what works in the field and on the parade grounds may be different. "Get your muddy "darn" boots off my nice clean desk" is part of a series of lectures about the natural antagonisms which occur between "field ops v office ops" to understand this is a Senior Level (Colonel to one star) course. Variations are taught at the Naval War College and Army General Officers Staff College. BUT, apparently not in CAP. Or at least to some of the members of this thread. On the line you don't salute (Officers get killed by snipers) in Subs you don't salute (not enough room and you'll catch the next guy's nose with your elbow) AND you don't do field uniform inspections during ops -- equipment inspection, but not uniform inspections. Unless you're trying to find out if some one needs something like replacement boots or BDs. OR, Unless something really big is going on.
General Patton assuming Command in North Africa had good reason to dress down men for not wearing ties at mess for instance, that made sense at the time. That was a garrison inspection not a field inspection. And, he didn't conduct a field uniform inspection as they marched headlong to relieve Bastone.

Screw this one up as a Commander and you'll be typed as a Martinette by your cadre. Martinettes are not good leaders, by in large. Martinettes are not respected but their troops. Martinettes serve no purpose but comedy relief. CAP Officers have the same issues. PAOs should know the differences. I'm not suggesting that the Military and CAP are identical - Shiny boots will get you killed in combat but we seldom face the problem in CAP. To that point the new Air Force Green Boots won't even take a shine. The Military is doing this for a reason. The reasons are part of the lecture series that I do... SO, common sense should prevail. PA Officers be advised -- Field Ops and Parade Grounds Dress Reviews are different places and have a different "code" of conduct and uniform considerations.
With regards;
Ed O'Brien

[Bluelakes 13]

If I were a non-member, I would NEVER join an outfit where old men fly less-than-attractive college girls around to count birds.  I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

Now THAT is classic!

[MIKE]

If I were a non-member, I would NEVER join an outfit where old men fly less-than-attractive college girls around to count birds.  I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

Now THAT is classic!

Auxie.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Among a bunch of other things I do... I teach both military history and military PA. In this endeavor, I teach Field Command Communications, Morale, and Respect. Curtis LeMay, George Patton, and Napoleon were all called down, put in their place, humbled, beat up, etc. By not recognizing the fact that what works in the field and on the parade grounds may be different. "Get your muddy "darn" boots off my nice clean desk" is part of a series of lectures about the natural antagonisms which occur between "field ops v office ops" to understand this is a Senior Level (Colonel to one star) course. Variations are taught at the Naval War College and Army General Officers Staff College. BUT, apparently not in CAP. Or at least to some of the members of this thread. On the line you don't salute (Officers get killed by snipers) in Subs you don't salute (not enough room and you'll catch the next guy's nose with your elbow) AND you don't do field uniform inspections during ops -- equipment inspection, but not uniform inspections. Unless you're trying to find out if some one needs something like replacement boots or BDs. OR, Unless something really big is going on.
General Patton assuming Command in North Africa had good reason to dress down men for not wearing ties at mess for instance, that made sense at the time. That was a garrison inspection not a field inspection. And, he didn't conduct a field uniform inspection as they marched headlong to relieve Bastone.

Screw this one up as a Commander and you'll be typed as a Martinette by your cadre. Martinettes are not good leaders, by in large. Martinettes are not respected but their troops. Martinettes serve no purpose but comedy relief. CAP Officers have the same issues. PAOs should know the differences. I'm not suggesting that the Military and CAP are identical - Shiny boots will get you killed in combat but we seldom face the problem in CAP. To that point the new Air Force Green Boots won't even take a shine. The Military is doing this for a reason. The reasons are part of the lecture series that I do... SO, common sense should prevail. PA Officers be advised -- Field Ops and Parade Grounds Dress Reviews are different places and have a different "code" of conduct and uniform considerations.
With regards;
Ed O'Brien

Ed:

With the admonition that I don't want this to degenerate into a training/historical review, your points are well-taken.

Patton in North Africa took over an army that had been demoralized from a stunning defeat at the Kasserine Pass, and whose discipline and morale were in the toilet.  His emphasis on uniform appearance, military courtesy, timeliness, and generally-improved soldierly conduct was to re-create in the minds of the officers and troops that they WERE soldiers, and soldiers who look and act like soldiers can win.

My beef, as it were, with Volunteer is that the editor needs to be a little smarter about presenting CAP in its own showcase publication.  As I said, the PAO is the organization's lawyer in the Court of Public Opinion.  No lawyer would let his client appear in court looking like a bum, but that is exactly how CAP members appear in Volunteer.

The other issue I have is the general lack of newsworthy photos in the magazine.  Posed group shots and grip-and-grins are the mark of amateur publications.

[capchiro]

John, While I agree with you almost all of the time and do so with some of the issues here, I think that you are overlooking the fact that most of our photos are taken by amateurs and reflect same.  We also need to face the fact that a lot of the shakers and movers in this organization are old has beens that are still making history, but they now have gray hair, fat bellies, and wrinkles.  It hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, especially when the sow's ear does the brunt of the work.  I fit in there somewhere (sow's ear, not history making)..  Cessna 172's aren't F-16's but they get our job done.  It's a dilemma.  Do we stage all of the photo's with young guys in tight flight suits or do we show the true story??  It wouldn't be fair to the hard working characters involved not to show them and their story.  Unfortunately we don't have enough Rock Polermo's to go around..

[Eclipse]

This isn't a dilemma.

NHQ should issue rules and guidelines for submission which include uniform and regulation violations.

As it is today it appears they accept online articles with very little editing or filter, including poor grammar, incorrect abbreviations and terminology, and bizarre spacing layouts.

If enough "great" photos are bounced back, with comment or explanation, eventually people will get the idea and submit better photos, and/or stop submitting bad ones.

Either way the goal is achieved.

At least in the old days of the CAP News back page, there were regularly notes about photos being inappropriate for training, etc., because of safety or regulation violations (despite them being great photos).

If you encourage bad behavior, what you get is more bad behavior.  And don't think that members all over the country don't use the Volunteer pics to justify their own uniform infractions when it suits them "Well, if it's in the CAP mag, it must be ok..."

[JohnKachenmeister]

John, While I agree with you almost all of the time and do so with some of the issues here, I think that you are overlooking the fact that most of our photos are taken by amateurs and reflect same.  We also need to face the fact that a lot of the shakers and movers in this organization are old has beens that are still making history, but they now have gray hair, fat bellies, and wrinkles.  It hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, especially when the sow's ear does the brunt of the work.  I fit in there somewhere (sow's ear, not history making)..  Cessna 172's aren't F-16's but they get our job done.  It's a dilemma.  Do we stage all of the photo's with young guys in tight flight suits or do we show the true story??  It wouldn't be fair to the hard working characters involved not to show them and their story.  Unfortunately we don't have enough Rock Polermo's to go around..

I feel your pain.

And... your pain is NOT limited to the CAP.

In the Army I would constantly be sent photos that were flat unusable.  Fat guys, uniform violations, safety violations.  I got a pic from a battalion whose mess sergeant was getting some kind of award.  The pic they sent me was one of the sergeant filling an immersion heater with gasoline with a cigarette in his mouth.  Just because that what I was sent does not mean that's what I publish.

There are things you, as the editor can do to fix it.  Things like sending out training letters to your stringers, sending photos back, calling the submitter and telling him to submit a righteous photo.  Whatever happened to the age-old editor's tool of creatively cropping the photo?

I had a guy, pilot, thousands of hours, who insisted on wearing the AF flight suit even though he was a good 75 pounds over the maximum weight.  And, he looked every ounce of it... all fat, no muscle.  The pic I sent in to the newspapers when he got promoted was a shot of him checking the oil in a C-172 before flight, shot from across the cowl.  No gut, no problem!

If guys are smart enough to fly airplanes, they're smart enough to figure out little dodges like that that help our organization look good. 

[RiverAux]

Excerpts from the submission guidelines for the Volunteer: http://www.cap.gov/visitors/members/public_affairs/civil_air_patrol_volunteer_submission_guidelines/?preview=1

If a person is mentioned in the story, please provide a photo. Action is preferred but headshots are acceptable.

Public Affairs will carefully review all photos for uniform compliance; however, since this is a requirement in order for a photo to be used, writers are encouraged to provide several photos to pick from.

[Smithsonia]

John;
Is a PAO a lawyer? In defense of his client will a lawyer lie (exaggerate). As a PAO, I don't recommend it. My point is, that's a bad simile/metaphor.

Try this one on. In the middle of an action shot and during a real Red-Cap I pull three or 4 members out of a pic because I notice uniform gigs, or they look old, fat, or have crooked teeth. Yes, I can artfully shoot around a couple of problems... but to a point, I can't take care of everything. I also don't think it good to pull people off duty to stage a pic either. I don't thinks it's right to stage or recreate action except when so unidentified. .

"Volunteer" is a house organ, not a newspaper. I don't have a problem with that and understand the difference. But intellectual honesty and factual accuracy is part of a house organ too.

With regards; ED OBRIEN

[RRLE]

I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

Bikinis are too commonplace - so they made it more challenging - they count thongs.

BTW - you wouldn't be any happier in the Aux with their national magazine the Navigator. On another board, the Auxies have fun tearing apart each new issue as it comes out, just as you are doing here.

New Navigator Winter Issue 2007-08

2007 Summer Navigator

Fall 2007 Navigator available

[RiverAux]

Yep, we do a lot of looking for uniform violations with that one also, but I was very happy when CAP started publishing the Volunteer as it was finally catching up with what the Navigator had been doing for years (though the Navigator does occassionally waste some pages on "articles" from various national leaders).   

[JohnKachenmeister]

John;
Is a PAO a lawyer? In defense of his client will a lawyer lie (exaggerate). As a PAO, I don't recommend it. My point is, that's a bad simile/metaphor.

Try this one on. In the middle of an action shot and during a real Red-Cap I pull three or 4 members out of a pic because I notice uniform gigs, or they look old, fat, or have crooked teeth. Yes, I can artfully shoot around a couple of problems... but to a point, I can't take care of everything. I also don't think it good to pull people off duty to stage a pic either. I don't thinks it's right to stage or recreate action except when so unidentified. .

"Volunteer" is a house organ, not a newspaper. I don't have a problem with that and understand the difference. But intellectual honesty and factual accuracy is part of a house organ too.

With regards; ED OBRIEN

Actually, Ed, I got that comparison at DINFOS in 1984.  (PAOC 2-84).  I don't think it referred to the worst that a lawyer could be, it was a reference to the role of representing your organization as an advocate.  That's what is supposed to separate PA types from "Journalists," who are supposed to report without advocacy, but lately real journalists are as hard to find as Nazis in Germany in 1946.

My solution to your dilemma?  Take tons of shots of the action and hope for the best.  I would use a GOOD, real action shot of REDCAP activity, even if there were some minor uniform violations.

In the case of Volunteer, the uniform violation wasn't minor... you just cannot wear a beard and the USAF uniform at the same time...and the shot was posed... no "action" at all.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Look at this mess...



What was the PAO thinking?!!

Several helmet chin straps are not fastened, and one guy is wearing his patrol cap under his helmet while another guy is just wearing a patrol cap. The guy with a cigarette in his hand <OMG!> hasn't shaved in what looks like two days. There are several shirts or jackets that are not fully buttoned, and I see only ONE guy with his pants properly bloused over his boots. And speaking of boots... HOLY CRAP are they ALL filthy!

This picture should have never made it to print and public view. How could a group of men like this with such direguard to their appearance in uniform possibly accomplish their mission?! I'm so disgusted...

-Ace

I get your point, Ace.  I think your point is absurd, but I get it.

In combat a LOT of guys from WWII (The picture looks like Korea, but a lot of WWII vets and equipment found their way there) would unsnap their helmet.  This was to prevent the concussion of an artillery shell getting trapped under their helmet and breaking the soldier's neck.  Later, we developed breakaway chinstraps, but it was a while before soldiers trusted them.

Yes, they are dirty, unshaven, and wearing their uniforms and equipment in ways that would not be acceptable on the parade ground.

And even after several days in combat, they ALL have less of a beard and look sharper than Lieutenant Fuzzface in Volunteer. 

[mikeylikey]

Is that one soldier......stepping on a dead dog?

[RiverAux]

Should the Volunteer not have run the 1943 CAP photograph on p.39 since there several different styles of uniform being worn at the same time
1.  Civilian suit and tie
2.  Khaki shirt and pants with possible black belt buckle
3.  Khaki shirt and pants with silver buckle
4.  Khaki Service coat with black tie
5.  Khaki Service coat with khaki tie
6.  Blue/Black Service coat

Somebody is probably wrong somewhere....

Plus one guy has his flight cap tucked in his belt on his right side and another has it tucked in the belt on left side.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Should the Volunteer not have run the 1943 CAP photograph on p.39 since there several different styles of uniform being worn at the same time
1.  Civilian suit and tie
2.  Khaki shirt and pants with possible black belt buckle
3.  Khaki shirt and pants with silver buckle
4.  Khaki Service coat with black tie
5.  Khaki Service coat with khaki tie
6.  Blue/Black Service coat

Somebody is probably wrong somewhere....

Plus one guy has his flight cap tucked in his belt on his right side and another has it tucked in the belt on left side.

Why would you think someone is wrong?

In 1943, the CAP had just transitioned to Army uniforms, and in all likelihood was struggling along with the rest of the military to keep up the logistical support of an army expanding to unprecedented size.  What the uniform of the day was, whether or not it was during a uniform transition period, how long it took to get new members into uniform, are all factors that we don't know.  These are factors that add to the richness of our heritage in that we overcame logistical roadblocks and still achieved success in flight operations.

And this relates to a member wearing a beard with an Air Force uniform, refusing to comply with regulations... how?

The editor's decision to run that photo was just flat wrong. 

I think that nit-picking uniform violations is counterproductive.  We can always find some.  But obvious, apparent and flagrant disregard of both regulations and common sense should be picked up by the editor and spiked.

IF, for example, the only violation in that photo was the fact that one officre was wearing bright rank on his ball cap, I could live with that error.  There is a point, though, that the appearance of your folks in the picture is SO BAD that it reflects poorly on the professionalism of the organization.

Like I said earlier, we should strive for Steve Canyon, and keep "Larry the Cable Guy" hidden in a closet.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Is that one soldier......stepping on a dead dog?

I don't know.  At first I thought that might be human bone fragments.  I'm still not sure what that is.

[Hawk200]

You'd think that with Photoshop and similar programs available nowadows, we could edit a number of the minor issues out. Maybe not as far as replacing a beret or "shedding some pounds" for someone, but we could handle a few unauthorized insignia.

How many people might fix their uniforms if they looked at their little writeup in Volunteer, and found that some of their "special" insignia or the like got removed? Then again, on the flip side, people might take the attitude that "oh, if my uniform is wrong, they'll just edit it".

[JohnKachenmeister]

You'd think that with Photoshop and similar programs available nowadows, we could edit a number of the minor issues out. Maybe not as far as replacing a beret or "shedding some pounds" for someone, but we could handle a few unauthorized insignia.

How many people might fix their uniforms if they looked at their little writeup in Volunteer, and found that some of their "special" insignia or the like got removed? Then again, on the flip side, people might take the attitude that "oh, if my uniform is wrong, they'll just edit it".

Hawk:

I had to deal with that issue in the Army, back in the Dark Ages of 35mm film.  Yes, you CAN edit out some things, but other things kill the photo.

But being the editor of a newsmagazine for the military also allows you to contact submitters of photos, and tell them what they did wrong.  I didn't contact them on every mistake, but chronic ones, yes, I would call them.

The key, to me, is to shoot the heck out of the story.  If you submit 1-2 photos and they are bad, the photos get killed and maybe the story dies with it.  If you submit 20-30 photos I'm sure I can select 1 that can be made to work.

[RiverAux]

In 1943, the CAP had just transitioned to Army uniforms,

No, they'd been wearing Army uniforms since about mid-1942.

[capchiro]

According to today's reg's, it doesn't matter which side of the waist that the flight cap is tucked into as long as it doesn't fold over the belt and is between the first and second belt loops.

[RiverAux]

You guys totally missed my point....I was making fun of those who get too nitpicky about photographs....

[Eclipse]

You'd think that with Photoshop and similar programs available nowadows, we could edit a number of the minor issues out. Maybe not as far as replacing a beret or "shedding some pounds" for someone, but we could handle a few unauthorized insignia.

Actually, they do it on a regular basis - the MAJCOM, for example, seems to be of particular interest to the photo editors.

[mikeylikey]

You'd think that with Photoshop and similar programs available nowadows, we could edit a number of the minor issues out. Maybe not as far as replacing a beret or "shedding some pounds" for someone, but we could handle a few unauthorized insignia.

Actually, they do it on a regular basis - the MAJCOM, for example, seems to be of particular interest to the photo editors.

For the Katrina Deployment......NHQ hugely editd every single picture that had a PAWG member in it.  Why.....unauthorized Ranger CRAP, belts, whistles, orange t-shirts, ascots etc. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

So, somebody at NHQ DOES understand the importance of a uniform image in our flagship publication.

Or... at least there USED to be someone there who did.

[mikeylikey]

^ They sure did.  But I am almost positive he or she was replaced with just a more expensive photoshop program, that has not been installed yet. 

pawingcap.com has issues of the Wings magazine with pictures of its members who deployed for Katrina, you can look at those pictures then look at the pictures that NHQ published in the months following the mission.  My favorite is of a Female Cadet wearing an Orange ballcap and Orange "Ranger" shirt, then the NHQ version has her in a BDU Cover, and painted the orange shirt black. 

hahahaha

Weird.  NHQ should have just not even published PAWG's uniform violating pics in my opinion. 

[Major Carrales]

^ They sure did.  But I am almost positive he or she was replaced with just a more expensive photoshop program, that has not been installed yet. 

pawingcap.com has issues of the Wings magazine with pictures of its members who deployed for Katrina, you can look at those pictures then look at the pictures that NHQ published in the months following the mission.  My favorite is of a Female Cadet wearing an Orange ballcap and Orange "Ranger" shirt, then the NHQ version has her in a BDU Cover, and painted the orange shirt black. 

hahahaha

Weird.  NHQ should have just not even published PAWG's uniform violating pics in my opinion. 

Winston Smith would be proud!!!  But not so much as O'Brien!!!

[JohnKachenmeister]

^ They sure did.  But I am almost positive he or she was replaced with just a more expensive photoshop program, that has not been installed yet. 

pawingcap.com has issues of the Wings magazine with pictures of its members who deployed for Katrina, you can look at those pictures then look at the pictures that NHQ published in the months following the mission.  My favorite is of a Female Cadet wearing an Orange ballcap and Orange "Ranger" shirt, then the NHQ version has her in a BDU Cover, and painted the orange shirt black. 

hahahaha

Weird.  NHQ should have just not even published PAWG's uniform violating pics in my opinion. 

Winston Smith would be proud!!!  But not so much as O'Brien!!!

Don't look at me... I'm just an old Prole!  I don't even know anyone in the Inner Party.

[Major Carrales]

^ They sure did.  But I am almost positive he or she was replaced with just a more expensive photoshop program, that has not been installed yet. 

pawingcap.com has issues of the Wings magazine with pictures of its members who deployed for Katrina, you can look at those pictures then look at the pictures that NHQ published in the months following the mission.  My favorite is of a Female Cadet wearing an Orange ballcap and Orange "Ranger" shirt, then the NHQ version has her in a BDU Cover, and painted the orange shirt black. 

hahahaha

Weird.  NHQ should have just not even published PAWG's uniform violating pics in my opinion. 

Winston Smith would be proud!!!  But not so much as O'Brien!!!

Don't look at me... I'm just an old Prole!  I don't even know anyone in the Inner Party.

Well, I've been teaching in Room 101 for ten years now.  How many fingers am I holding up?

[SJFedor]

CAP News Online is going to give me a stroke too.



Story about a CAP cadet receiving a flight scholarship. Great job. Except that it's a CAP cadet that received it, and he's wearing his NJROTC uniform.

And don't even get me STARTED on that Lt Col standing there. I've yet to find one thing RIGHT about the uniform.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OMG!!!!!!!

That's all I can say.

I thought the guy getting the award was Prince Harry or somebody.

Also... Florida hasn't had that wing patch since the Last Supper.

[AlphaSigOU]

OMG!!!!!!!

That's all I can say.

I thought the guy getting the award was Prince Harry or somebody.

Also... Florida hasn't had that wing patch since the Last Supper.

Bring back the 'Pregnant Alligator' patch! Get rid of the Pineda seal patch! 

[MIKE]

Offtopic:  Death to patches, wing or otherwise.

Back to topic.

[mikeylikey]

^ totally 100% agree!!!

Plus anyone know where I can get a belt like that Lt Col is wearing.  Those are allowed......right?!?!

[Major Carrales]

I see you people can't help but make fun of people. 

[Smithsonia]

For those of you that don't know better... pointing at the picture of the celebrating family and making snide and derogatory comments about real people who are there to do something besides provide you with entertainment... makes you all look rather bad. No I'll take that back, it makes you look very bad. If you have no shame try to develop some manners. "Petty tyrants of the menial kind, come in very nice uniforms, sometimes." That was written for El Duce in WW2, but works here also.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[mikeylikey]

Since we are going for a lock on this one too......

What?!?! 

The guy is a freaking CAP Lt Col.  Which means he has been around long enough to know that is not the correct belt to wear.  Besides that, I thought we were harassing NHQ......for not screening pics better.  This is a HUGE prime example of them not doing a job they are getting paid for. 

This will be used to further the "well that Lt Col doesn't have to wear a blue AF belt, so I don't have to either".

Smithsonia.......I have no idea what the picture is for, but it doesn't further anything CAP.  One look at it and it only furthers Navy JROTC.  Is the Cadet getting a CAP flight Scholarship.....if so perhaps he could have been in a CAP Uniform. 

I will always be the first person to correct anyone on improper wear of their uniforms, because it makes not only them, but all of us as an organization look jacked up!

[Major Carrales]

Since we are going for a lock on this one too......

What?!?! 

The guy is a freaking CAP Lt Col.  Which means he has been around long enough to know that is not the correct belt to wear.  Besides that, I thought we were harassing NHQ......for not screening pics better.  This is a HUGE prime example of them not doing a job they are getting paid for. 

This will be used to further the "well that Lt Col doesn't have to wear a blue AF belt, so I don't have to either".

Smithsonia.......I have no idea what the picture is for, but it doesn't further anything CAP.  One look at it and it only furthers Navy JROTC.  Is the Cadet getting a CAP flight Scholarship.....if so perhaps he could have been in a CAP Uniform. 

I will always be the first person to correct anyone on improper wear of their uniforms, because it makes not only them, but all of us as an organization look jacked up!

Slow down there , Bucko!!!

I can see our Core Values were lost on you.  You seem to have an unhealty need to ridicule the organization. And don't pretend this is a form of "correction,"posting images and making fun of people has more to do with having a good laugh than correcting a wrong.

Besides that, I thought we were harassing NHQ......for not screening pics better.

Harassing NHQ?  Seems as if that is the most inappropriate way to effect policy change.  Again, review your CAP Core Values as to Intergity and Respect.

Furthermore, you claim you have no idea what the picture was for...so why did you comment on the matter?  How did you "correct" anyone by posting these comments?  Did you investigate the origin of the photo and call up the Lt Col and explain he was inthe wrong?  I doubt it since you "have no idea what the picture is for."

Again, a stress on the matter that these "Incorrect, funny uniform" matters are no good in any way shape or form.

[RiverAux]

Which means he has been around long enough to know that is not the correct belt to wear.

Or he could have been a Lt. Col. in the Army in the Korean War who just joined CAP yesterday...

Although the young man is a CAP member, I wouldn't have used that photo with the press release just because he wasn't in CAP uniform.  Yes, I'd do the release but either try to find a photo of him in CAP uniform doing something else (or at least a headshot) or send it without photo.

[Ricochet13]

If I were a non-member, I would NEVER join an outfit where old men fly less-than-attractive college girls around to count birds.  I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

Now THAT is classic!

My niece says not to worry Kach . . . you know what would freeze over before she'd ever fly with you.

[mikeylikey]

Slow down there , Bucko!!!

I can see our Core Values were lost on you.  You seem to have an unhealthy need to ridicule the organization. And don't pretend this is a form of "correction,"posting images and making fun of people has more to do with having a good laugh than correcting a wrong.

Besides that, I thought we were harassing NHQ......for not screening pics better.

Harassing NHQ?  Seems as if that is the most inappropriate way to effect policy change.  Again, review your CAP Core Values as to Integrity and Respect.

Furthermore, you claim you have no idea what the picture was for...so why did you comment on the matter?  How did you "correct" anyone by posting these comments?  Did you investigate the origin of the photo and call up the Lt Col and explain he was Ianthe wrong?  I doubt it since you "have no idea what the picture is for."

Again, a stress on the matter that these "Incorrect, funny uniform" matters are no good in any way shape or form.

Yikes.....hit a nerve with you huh.  You must be one of the guys that don't wear their uniform properly either.   

And....I think it is safe to say I can comment on anything I want CAP related that is posted in this forum.  Just because I may not have clue one what the topic, subject or issue is gives you no right to limit my abilities here.  So you "slow down there, bucko". 

Oh.....and I didn't post the pic, nor did I comment on it first.  Why don't you go harass the original poster.   

[Smithsonia]

Those under your command are under your authority. Provide correction as you see fit. Those outside your command are not. Provide correction to those parties and your privilege to command will be questioned.. and you may be subject to an intellectual dressing down. In this case what you don't perceive or know about the picture is...
1. When it was taken and therefore the appropriateness of any of the uniform items.
2. All misgivings may have an explanation. Ask before you pounce.

I've been to hundreds of inspections. For instance, take the most formal of inspections at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery -- before each walker is released for their "duty on the wall."

I've stood with service men and women in uniform to watch this sacred ceremony, many times. If the Sargent of the Guard turned toward one of the audience or observers (in uniform) and took them to task for a uniform gig... what would be thought of the ceremony? What would be thought of the Sargent? How long would that Sargent remain in the "Old Guard."

Do your duty. Command those under your authority. You have a privilege. You have no further right. Examine your behavior and correct yourself, first. Be an officer AND a gentleman... Then assume your privilege to lead.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN  

[mikeylikey]

It is every Officers duty to correct mistakes when he or she observes them. 

You can lose your Commission just as fast for not acting and using the stance you wrote "they were not under my command" just the same as the actual Commander who did not act.  I guess my prospectives must be skewed, all the time overseas since 9/11 and all. 

I should try what you are suggesting though.  When I see a safety violation, I will just keep moving along, because in the end......"those soldiers committing the violation aren't under my command".

Oh and as far as Arlington, the AD Soldiers on duty there who are not part of the ceremonial changing of the Guard, will absolutely pull another soldier (Officer or Enlisted) to the side away from others and tell them how jacked up their uniforms are and how embarrassed they should be.  I have seen it done.     

[Smithsonia]

Mikey;
No one on the Wall will comment on another soldiers dress except those on the wall, those under their command... even though they know more than you and God combined about proper uniform wear. The example you gave was a peer of the soldier, or commander of that soldier. You're comment about taking those outside your command to task for correction is wrong too. If you don't know what their commander said. If you don't know the rules they operate under. If you know nothing about "the local" Wing Commanders orders... you're out of order. In this instance if you know nothing about the picture, you have shown me much about your presumption of authority which not good. That's why I said "ask before you pounce". I didn't say, don't pounce. I wouldn't include safety "knock it offs" in this advisory. We're all safety officers. Stay on point.

The only way to have authority is to have a limit to that authority. Otherwise, you're taking away from another commanders authority and in doing so assuming authority to which you have no right. Asking a question first on a uniform gig... is not a limit for you. It is respect for another commander.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[Major Carrales]

Yikes.....hit a nerve with you huh.  You must be one of the guys that don't wear their uniform properly either.   

What strikes a nevre with me is the unprofessional, pretentious and misinformed glee you seem to get from poking fun at other people behind their back.  I want you to read Smithonia's posts well, they hit the nail right on the head.

As for me being "of the guys that don't wear their uniform properly," that remains a testament to your misinformed delusions.  What's more it is an ad hominem attack that does not further the conversation.  I would seem that you have a lot to learn about everything from debate to civility. 

And....I think it is safe to say I can comment on anything I want CAP related that is posted in this forum.  Just because I may not have clue one what the topic, subject or issue is gives you no right to limit my abilities here.  So you "slow down there, bucko". 

The only limit to your abilities here are your own betrayals of purpose and intent.  Your comments read like those of so many trolls.  You had better believe that true debate and discourse is based on facts, supported opinions and deductions made from having the "most and best" intelligence on the matter.  Your above statement "Just because I may not have clue one what the topic, subject or issue is gives you no right to limit my abilities here." again betrays your credibility on the subject and relegates you, in the minds of myself and others I've talked to off line, to a mal-informed troll.

Oh.....and I didn't post the pic, nor did I comment on it first.  Why don't you go harass the original poster.  

That is not germane to the discussion.  The fact that you did not post the original pic nor was the first to comment does not excuse nor refute your continued actions.  If you feel harassed, may I suggest that is more a problem in your court than mine and ours.

[MIKE]

Lock.

[Pylon]

And for clarification - we've already stated that posting pictures of individuals in uniforms and proceeding to pick them apart does nothing constructive.  We've asked to not have this type of unproductive, unprofessional conversation here, and you've all found a different thread to have it in.  At best, all you're doing is violating the Membership Code of Conduct.

I'm disappointed.  Go discuss something of professional value and please try to keep your comments and points above board.