It's finally here!

[SarDragon]

Some of the illustrations in 39-1 date back to the 70s!

Try the '60s. The ones for grade insignia on shirt collars go back that far.

[NIN]

You dudes are slacking. This thread only has 10 pages.

[Storm Chaser]

At least we've kept it on topic, which is extremely rare on this Board.

[Panache]

At least we've kept it on topic, which is extremely rare on this Board.

[NIN]

At least we've kept it on topic, which is extremely rare on this Board.

Yeah, not bad, actually.

[UH60guy]

"Please note, image work on this document is not complete in several places. Work on imagery will
continue while this document is out for feedback from the field."

The lighting on the "new" photos is terrible, as expected when yo take pictures in a banquet hall.

Please go to Vanguard, get some mannequins and properly light and stage the photos.

Also, there's a few "new" diagrams which are actually worse the the old ones, or feature horribly mis-matched
or inappropriate graphic elements.

Please redraw all of them.

Sorry, just got to the thread after 10 pages. I agree, the photos are terrible. And, as you would find in a conference, several seem to violate the regulations.

Page 32. Cadet in the picture is treading the line very closely with ribbons going over the notch in the collar, violating para 4.1.7.4.3. Retake the photo with someone with fewer ribbons to be clearly below the notch.

Page 33. Find a cadet who didn't just pull his uniform out of a duffel bag. It needs to look neat for the photo that will be the example. This one is wrinkled.

Page 36, top left, command badge does not appear parallel to name badge.

Page 36, bottom left, nametape is not parallel with pocket welt.

Page 44, bottom left. This uniform does not properly fit the cadet. Note the "X" in the fabric created from the bottom button on a uniform that is too tight.

Page 53, right picture. Blue shirt is puffed up, needs to be straight.

Page 57, military creases are visible in the shirt (the two parallel vertical creases either side of the buttons). Military creases are prohibited per para 4.1.1.4, 4.1.2.4, 4.1.3.1.3, 4.1.3.2.3, 4.1.4.3, 4.1.7.5, and so on.

[Papabird]

Interesting find and it fits the description from the draft reg.

http://www.militaryuniformsupply.com/rothco-generation-3-ecwcs-fleece-jacket-black?gclid=CLKghqvk37sCFUho7Aod7lIAEA

I might pick one up just because $35.00 isn't bad for a coat like this. 

Any photoshop experts out there care to add the tapes & grade? 

[Papabird]

Page 57, military creases are visible in the shirt (the two parallel vertical creases either side of the buttons). Military creases are prohibited per para 4.1.1.4, 4.1.2.4, 4.1.3.1.3, 4.1.3.2.3, 4.1.4.3, 4.1.7.5, and so on.

I don't disagree with the intent of the above, but I thought the female USAF blouses have a seam that runs down the front that makes it look like a crease.  I looked at the AFI and the pic it shows of a female shirt shows the seam at the top of the right shoulder.
http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130509-049.pdf
(added link)

[UH60guy]

You might be right there, I can't tell from the photo. It looks like you can also see an undershirt, making it harder to determine if that's a seam or a military crease. Regardless, photos that will be an example for all to follow need to be completely perfect and unambiguous.

One more reason I agree with Eclipse that there should be no photos whatsoever, but line diagrams that clearly show everything. If people can't follow those, then Wings can take their own photos for supplements or pamphlets. The regulation- the core document that everything stems from- needs to be absolute and not left to interpretation of a photo.

[Papabird]

You might be right there, I can't tell from the photo. It looks like you can also see an undershirt, making it harder to determine if that's a seam or a military crease. Regardless, photos that will be an example for all to follow need to be completely perfect and unambiguous.

One more reason I agree with Eclipse that there should be no photos whatsoever, but line diagrams that clearly show everything. If people can't follow those, then Wings can take their own photos for supplements or pamphlets. The regulation- the core document that everything stems from- needs to be absolute and not left to interpretation of a photo.

100% agree, line drawings are the way to go, but that craft seems to be already be underway.   

[abdsp51]

It's a seam as it's the older style "princess cut" female shirt.

[UH60guy]

I can tell they're seams in the central picture, I think I failed to mention I was looking at the left picture. I just can't tell on that one. But if they're seams, then I withdraw that particular criticism.

[tribalelder]

Interesting find and it fits the description from the draft reg.

http://www.militaryuniformsupply.com/rothco-generation-3-ecwcs-fleece-jacket-black?gclid=CLKghqvk37sCFUho7Aod7lIAEA

I might pick one up just because $35.00 isn't bad for a coat like this. 

Any photoshop experts out there care to add the tapes & grade? 

Good find !

Now it just needs

1) dark blue Velcro- or

2). cover that black Velcro in total w/required insignia- might need a border larger than 1/8 inch! (Tied for preferred option 2)

3). OR ALLOW BLACK Velcro, since a black Velcro product is already available and most of the Velcro is going to be obscured by required insignia ANYWAY (my preferred option 1)

4). or sew the required insignia and have no Velcro or no exposed Velcro (tied for preferred option 2)

We don't need that type of opsec.  If our client/customer agencies need that type of opsec, the missions should probably be serviced in plain clothes, or perhaps by others.

IC can set UOD. Perhaps 'appropriate civilian attire' should be available as a choice when such is requested by client/customer agency.

[arajca]

Interesting find and it fits the description from the draft reg.

http://www.militaryuniformsupply.com/rothco-generation-3-ecwcs-fleece-jacket-black?gclid=CLKghqvk37sCFUho7Aod7lIAEA

I might pick one up just because $35.00 isn't bad for a coat like this. 

Any photoshop experts out there care to add the tapes & grade? 

(pic cut for brevity)

Good find !

Now it just needs

1) dark blue Velcro- or

2). cover that black Velcro in total w/required insignia- might need a border larger than 1/8 inch! (Tied for preferred option 2)

3). OR ALLOW BLACK Velcro, since a black Velcro product is already available and most of the Velcro is going to be obscured by required insignia ANYWAY (my preferred option 1)

4). or sew the required insignia and have no Velcro or no exposed Velcro (tied for preferred option 2)

We don't need that type of opsec.  If our client/customer agencies need that type of opsec, the missions should probably be serviced in plain clothes, or perhaps by others.

IC can set UOD. Perhaps 'appropriate civilian attire' should be available as a choice when such is requested by client/customer agency.

Ref 6.1.13.1.3: Dark blue name tape with white letters worn on right breast, dark blue Civil Air Patrol tape with white letters worn on left breast; grade insignia (pin on for NCOs and cadet NCOs/Airmen, embroidered for officers and cadet officers) on dark blue background worn on velcro patch above nametape on right breast. Para also specifies size of dark blue grade square as 2"x2".

Now, if they would include a black Goretex, ECWCS-style coat as well, that would be great. (Ned, any chance of this happening?)

[arajca]

Regarding t-shirts worn with bdus and field uniforms:
Many activities and encampments issue black t-shirts with a large logo on the back. Will these still be authorized? By reading the manual, it appears not. Or this up to the wing commander?

[abdsp51]

I can tell they're seams in the central picture, I think I failed to mention I was looking at the left picture. I just can't tell on that one. But if they're seams, then I withdraw that particular criticism.

It's a seam on that photo.

[THRAWN]

My 2 cents on the draft....

1.   There is no need to design and produce a new set of badges for members of CAP aircrews. Current designs would suffice for the purpose of designating individuals as aircrew with no additional cost to the member or the organization. It is my proposal that the current Observer style aviation badge be redesignated "CAP Aircrew Badge". This would enable one badge to encompass all non-pilot aircrew specialties. The Basic badge would be authorized for scanners, aerial photographers, and all other non-pilot and non-observer crew duties. The senior badge would be authorized for Observers. The Master badge would be authorized for members who are qualified Air Operations Branch Directors. Using this method, there would be no need to design, cast or produce a new style insignia in the various versions (full, mini, cloth, and leather nametag). Organizationally, only a change to existing regs would be necessary, with negligible funding impact. The cost to members would be minimal.

2.   Members who are also members of the National Guard or who have received state service awards should be permitted to display those awards on their CAP uniforms. It is my recommendation that the current rule be changed to read as follows: "Members who are also current or former members of the National Guard (Air or Army) or who have received state service awards from a state's Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, or equivalent, are permitted to wear those awards in the following manner: 1. Member may wear the highest award in the order of precedence for each of the states served 2. Members receiving awards from multiple states will use the date of the award to determine precedence on their CAP uniform.  3. National Guard awards will be placed between federal awards (if applicable) and CAP awards in the order of precedence." I further recommend that members who have been awarded federal awards be permitted to wear the highest award in the order of precedence, as well as NG awards as described above, on the corporate aviator shirt.

3.   Section 1.2.3.1 omits many times when a uniform is required. Recommend changing to read "...during approved and scheduled unit meetings, professional development courses, CAP activities as covered in other regulations."

4.   Section 1.2.2.3.2 should be amended to read "Minimum Corporate-style Uniform: The minimum basic CAP Corporate-style uniform is the Aviator Shirt Combination with short sleeve shirt or blouse as appropriate. This uniform is only for officers, NCOs, and cadets aged 18 and older who do not meet WEIGHT OR GROOMING STANDARDS TO WEAR THE AF BLUE UNIFORM. THIS UNIFORM COMBINATION IS ALSO AN APPROVED OPTION FOR OFFICERS AND NCOS WHO CHOSE TO NOT WEAR THE AF BLUE UNIFORM." Recommended change in CAPS.

5.   Weigh-ins. This section should be deleted and changed to read "Documentation of compliance with established weight requirements will be provided upon request of the unit commander. Weigh-ins will be conducted by the member's physician or healthcare provider." This entire section opens up the possibility of targeting of members by commanders and using the scale as a weapon. It also will alienate many highly qualified and respected members who may perceive the weigh-ins as insulting to them personally. Members will leave over this as it is written.

6.   NCO insignia should be altered in the following manner: 1. Remove the CAP from the insignia. It's already on the uniform in several places, making this redundant and unnecessary. 2. The background should be ultramarine, chevrons in white. This will clearly indicate that this is a CAP NCO, not a USAF NCO. 3. The center prop should be recolored from white to red as a nod to the Civil Defense style insignia of the past.

7.   The phase out dates listed in Attachment 9 are too long. All insignia being passed out, including the US flag patch, should be changed to read "No longer authorized and must be removed within 120 days of approval of this manual."

[lordmonar]

1.  There is no additional costs to members....because it is optional.  It is not like someone has to change their badges.   Second Major non-concure on changing the way we issue the basic, senior, master badges based on ES level.  Keep the current system.

2.  Non-concure.....we got enough problems with all the ribbons as it is.  The USAF does not allow state ribbons while on AD orders....let's keep it simple.

3.  1.2.3.1 is setting said policy.....I think if we just leave this to the unit commanders and activity directors I think we are fine.

4.  Your suggested wording is contraditory.   "this is only for....." and follow it up with "This uniform combination is also approved option".....confusing.....what are you trying to say?

5. Nope......this gives the commander direct control over the verification process.   Otherwise I will have to have my members spend $75 on a co-pay to verify his weight.....vice buying a squadron scale and doing it when ever the commander deems it necessary.

6.  Sort of agree.....but not going to happen.

7.  Why?   

[Patterson]

Too many pages!!

[Storm Chaser]

In my opinion, the fleece jacket should be navy blue instead of black since it's to be worn with the CAP Field Uniform, the CAP Flight Duty Uniform and the CAP Knit Polo Shirt combination only, all of which are navy blue.

Black would make sense if it was authorized for other uniforms, such as BDUs. Unfortunately, it's not. Navy blue would make this jacket more consistent with the other CAP uniforms.

I also recommend changing the color of the CAP light weight ultramarine blue jacket to navy blue. As it stands, it looks a bit silly with current corporate-style uniforms.