New Command Patch

[lordmonar]

I knew this was coming....it is the writing on the wall........face it.....Tony Pineda has no use for the Air force or us being the AF Aux.  The AF and being it's aux is just an impediment to his being the all important dictator of the CAP.  He knows there are many things he can't do because of the AF.....so....distance yourself from them in everyway including pissing them off with uniform issues.

My AF Aux ccommand patch will only be removed from my flight suit by the use of a blowtorch, dynamite and and/or nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry you feel that way....so let me ask you....when are you going to submit your own 2b and resign from CAP?

I mean how can you be an effective officer if you do not follow the lawful orders of your own chain of command?  I don't know if you are an Officer or cadet, but you are setting a bad example for those below you, and are not going to be able to affect any positive change by just ignoring orders.

Yes, we should all learn to just follow orders! You know, follow examples like Billy Mitchell, er wait, never mind...

Billy got everything he deserved.  I am not a fan of Col Mitchell, never was, great air power advocate, terrible officer.

[Smokey]

I've been in CAP since just as we transitioned away from the berry boards. After 9-11 the AF brought us closer to them to help accomplish the mission of protecting America.  We were given the command patch with AF Aux on it, they promoted the Natl Commander from Brig Gen to Maj Gen and Vice Commander from Col to Brig Gen to recognize the importance of our association with the Air Force. They set us up under 1 AF to better utilize us, they assigned a new position (I think held by former Natl Commander  Brig Gen Anderson [an AF Col]) as XOH/AF AUX.  We were to be part of the big picture.

Enter Tony Pineda....he removed US Air Force Auxiliary from his letterhead, he removed USAF AUX from the planes, removed the corporate seal from the planes, brought in a psuedo AF uniform, and now is removing AF Aux from the command patch.  Does this sound like we have a better relationship with our parent organization? A relationship we have had since WWII.

My bet is the next step will be to outlaw the AF uniforms....no more blues, corporate only, only blue flight suits - no green ones, blue utlity uniforms and dumping the BDU.  I see it as a power grab- the AF interferes too much in CAP in Pineda's opinion. The more we distance ourselves from the AF the less control they have.   Example....since the AF supposedly cannot control the corporate uniform...Pineda could put 4 stars on the epaulet as CEO of the CAP coporation....what could the AF say as long as when he wears the AF uniform he only wears two stars.  He could sign CAP corporate paperwork, that is absent US Air Force Auxiliary on it, as Gen Pineda instead of Maj Gen Pineda.

In the long run I think it will just piss off the AF more and who knows what that will bring.

[DNall]

Billy got everything he deserved.  I am not a fan of Col Mitchell, never was, great air power advocate, terrible officer.

See now, I think he was a great officer. He took it too far of course & got what he deserved for that, but actually that was the right thing to do also, even if it cost him his career. He's not the only one either. There's been plenty of cases from the officers that aggitated over our need to re-learn dogfighting skills befire & during Vietnam, to a current crop of Army officers now that aren't in love with transformation & think its application is counter-productive in the current operating environment. Helping your command reach a higher standard when they are fixated on something that isn't working is part of the job. Of course you should try to be more delicate than Brig Gen Mitchell, but don't follow orders blindly either.

By the way, if you find who defaced his memorial plaque at the club on Ft Sam Houston, do knock them the hell out for me.

[JC004]

I missed the video feed...was there any purpose for the change mentioned?   

[CAP428]

I assume that this applies also to the use of the "logo" [is that the right word?] in print/video etc.?  such as on the new ID card?

[Becks]

I assume that this applies also to the use of the "logo" [is that the right word?] in print/video etc.?  such as on the new ID card?

If you're refering to this:

its what is know as a Majcom

[CAP428]

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.  So, it applies to that in print/video, etc. other media as well right,not just flight suits?

[DNall]

It was changed in print/media/etc prior to the national board meeting a couple months back. Which along with the change to the plaine paint job & the ID let us al know this was coming, but hoping not & wondering why.

[BillB]

Can the NEC change the regulation, or does it require action by the National Board?

[Becks]

Can the NEC change the regulation, or does it require action by the National Board?

As Pylon mentioned earlier, since it is worn on an Air Force style uniform doesnt the AF have to approve it?

[DNall]

Can the NEC change the regulation, or does it require action by the National Board?

As Pylon mentioned earlier, since it is worn on an Air Force style uniform doesn't the AF have to approve it?

Yes the NEC can change it. The question you should ask is why were the graphics changed on the national board slides & the paint changed, yet NB wasn't allowed to vote on this issue. Mind you now the NB disapproved Pineda staying in office longer & elected a Vice Cdr that wasn't his first choice in a tight vote. That's versus a NEC where I think  Pineda has replaced 7 of the 8 members, is that right? If I were a national board member, that kind of thing would piss me off.

Yes it requires AF approval. However, AF cannot justify disapproving this even if they wanted to. You could see them saying no if you were going the other direction, but there's no good reason either way on this, which makes it a CAP decision & will be rubber stamped.

[NAYBOR]

OK, so they've changed the Command Patch to the one on the ID.  Thats sucks.  We'll see if this flies with the AF now.  Anything else?  I heard they were putting the "US" cutouts back on the lapels of the TPU service coat, and CAP cutouts on the epaulets with the metal rank, much like the black windbreaker.  Is this true?

What else did they talk about at the NEC?  I missed the feed, and can't find a recording of it anywhere.

[DNall]

Anything else?  I heard they were putting the "US" cutouts back on the lapels of the TPU service coat, and CAP cutouts on the epaulets with the metal rank, much like the black windbreaker.  Is this true?

It broke the law before according to AF, I don't see anything really wrong with that rumor, but I don't see aF going for it after that head to go thru the process of changing it in the first place. I'd kind of like to see it though, cause that how a lot of people would like the setup on the AF-style service coat to be down the road.

What else did they talk about at the NEC?  I missed the feed, and can't find a recording of it anywhere.

Anything?

[PDCT042]

In the long run I think it will just piss off the AF more...

Yeah and we'll lose our funding as well.

[LtCol White]

CAP....Come And Pay !!!

[Psicorp]

In the long run I think it will just piss off the AF more...

Yeah and we'll lose our funding as well.

I'm really more concerned with damaging our relationship with the Air Force than I am with losing our funding.  There are all sorts of fundraising opportunities out there if we were to need to go that route, but relationships are much harder to rebuild.

[LtCol White]

I have news for you, those go hand in hand. "Piss me off and I don't give you money anymore." The relationship is vital for so many reasons. Car washes and bake sales don't raise the kind of money we get from USAF.

[Pylon]

I have news for you, those go hand in hand. "Piss me off and I don't give you money anymore." The relationship is vital for so many reasons. Car washes and bake sales don't raise the kind of money we get from USAF.

Agreed -- I don't think bake sales will buy us new, shiny Gippsland and Cessna aircraft each year to continue to maintain and update our fleet.

I think the relationship with the Air Force needs to be maintained diplomatically and carefully.  It's not one single issue that would break CAP if the Air Force were to distance themselves from us... it's a combination of everything we get from them... funding, close ties with the DoD and federal government, support for the CP, DDR, AFAMs, etc., funding, aircraft, personnel support and more. 

It's not just what patches or style uniforms we get to wear that would change should we lose favor with the USAF.  We should be appreciative of the support they already have shown for our organization and continue to foster friendship and goodwill... not burn bridges.

[DNall]

I never understand people that want to do anything but build closer to teh AF. I know there's other flying opportunities out there & temptation if you're weak. AF is the catalyst behind CP & AE. That's 2/3rds of our mission. Then they are responsible for 80-90% of our ES missions... that's 95% of everything we do for those w/o a calculator handy. Plus they pay for training & maint - maybe not enough for some people's tastes, but how greedy/selfish is that? Over here I got 95% of our funding & everything we do. Over there I got the temptation of just a little more, but to get it I have to piss off the folks providing the 95% & for whom we exist which eventually results in less help. Hmm, let me think about this. CAP w/o the AF is instantly dead. CAP with even a bit less of the AF is bankrupt & begging. Even if you hated the idea, I don't see any alternative to getting up close as possible w/ the AF & not cheating on them with other folks.

[arajca]

:off topic:

The MOU template that the AF has approved allows for other than AF mission usage of CAP assets. The only restriction is that those assets may be pulled off non-AF missions at any time to support AF missions. I think the AF understands they do not have enough missions to fully utilize CAP's assets and is willing to let others use them, as long as it is understood the AF has first dibs on the assets. Which is entirely correct since they are funding the assets.