Can the Uniform Policy save the Credibility of the CAP?

[ColonelJack]

I guess that means none....

Correct ... there were no captures of CAP personnel by German, Japanese, or other Axis forces during World War II.

That does not mean, however, that there could not have been.  The CAP pilots who were involved in the coastal patrols against submarines were considered combatants under international law, and if they had dropped bombs on the German submarines while in civilian clothing -- and were later captured by said Germans -- the rules of war would have allowed their execution as spies.  That, sir, is why CAP went flying in uniforms beginning in World War II -- to enable those CAP members who might be captured to be given the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

I can't believe someone with your qualifications didn't realize that.

Jack

[mikeylikey]

^ Nicely put Colonel.

As for the question posed in the title of the thread...."Can the Uniform Policy save the Credibility of CAP?"

My answer is CAP's credibility does not need saving.  I have not read one negative article about CAP.  EVER.  Even when the National Commander was removed and the story was run by national news outlets, they still gave CAP credit, and shown a spotlight on our achievements.

So C_P can read my post, this is for him........

I have to BOLD every other word to make my responses look more important and better than the response above mine. 

[Civilian_Pilot]

I guess that means none....

Correct ... there were no captures of CAP personnel by German, Japanese, or other Axis forces during World War II.

That does not mean, however, that there could not have been.  The CAP pilots who were involved in the coastal patrols against submarines were considered combatants under international law, and if they had dropped bombs on the German submarines while in civilian clothing -- and were later captured by said Germans -- the rules of war would have allowed their execution as spies.  That, sir, is why CAP went flying in uniforms beginning in World War II -- to enable those CAP members who might be captured to be given the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

I can't believe someone with your qualifications didn't realize that.

Jack

Sir, I can't believe someone of your qualifications can read what I have written and think I have an issue with "uniforms", WWII, etc...

I don't.

What I have said is when the "uniforms" become more important than just about every other aspect  of the operation there is a problem.


In addition I don't like the idea of POW being used as an example when NONE have ever existed and  the CAP by definition now:

"After the end of World War II CAP became the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force, and its incorporating charter declared that it would never again be involved in direct combat activities, but would be of a benevolent nature."

It is even more ridiculous to use the POW example.

[Eclipse]

[mikeylikey]

^  LMAO   :clap:    :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Pylon]

Back on topic, because it is a valid discussion worth having.  Thanks Civilian_Pilot.  The outside perspective, even when (perhaps correctly) harsh, is a good perspective to have on occasion.

I realize you all may have centered this discussion around CAP from the standpoint of it as an agency for emergency services and operations.  However, from the standpoint where I spend most of my effort, time, resources and money -- that is, CAP's Cadet Program -- the focus is entirely different.  While cadets may opt to participate in the ES side of the house, it's not the main reason they are in CAP.   

The main components of the CAP Cadet Program include developing leadership, aerospace education, character development, a lifelong habit of physical fitness and participating in activities.  Part of the way the program is implemented involves cadets earning increasing rank/grade, taking positions of increasing leadership responsibility within the cadet program, and also being recognized for their accomplishments, completed training and progression through the program.  The uniform, awards and ranks are important to the implementation of the cadet program and as such it is important that they are worn correctly, that the cadets have good role models in their adult mentors, and that the uniforms are structured as effectively as possible with necessary policy changes as the program and organization evolve.

Should they take center stage before the mission and content of the cadet program?  Absolutely not.

So, how do we fix this?  We can start by shifting our discussion foci to those of professional value and worth, and then sharing our discussions, ideas, discoveries and learning with colleagues at our home units.  So members, will your next post be productive for CAP?   

[Civilian_Pilot]

Back on topic, because it is a valid discussion worth having.  Thanks Civilian_Pilot.  The outside perspective, even when (perhaps correctly) harsh, is a good perspective to have on occasion.

I realize you all may have centered this discussion around CAP from the standpoint of it as an agency for emergency services and operations.  However, from the standpoint where I spend most of my effort, time, resources and money -- that is, CAP's Cadet Program -- the focus is entirely different.  While cadets may opt to participate in the ES side of the house, it's not the main reason they are in CAP.   

The main components of the CAP Cadet Program include developing leadership, aerospace education, character development, a lifelong habit of physical fitness and participating in activities.  Part of the way the program is implemented involves cadets earning increasing rank/grade, taking positions of increasing leadership responsibility within the cadet program, and also being recognized for their accomplishments, completed training and progression through the program.  The uniform, awards and ranks are important to the implementation of the cadet program and as such it is important that they are worn correctly, that the cadets have good role models in their adult mentors, and that the uniforms are structured as effectively as possible with necessary policy changes as the program and organization evolve.

Should they take center stage before the mission and content of the cadet program?  Absolutely not.

So, how do we fix this?  We can start by shifting our discussion foci to those of professional value and worth, and then sharing our discussions, ideas, discoveries and learning with colleagues at our home units.  So members, will your next post be productive for CAP?   

Thanks, and I mean that.

Just so you know, I am not trying to burn down the CAP "house".  I am trying to tell you how it looks from the outside.

[Pylon]

Just so you know, I am not trying to burn down the CAP "house".  I am trying to tell you how it looks from the outside.

That perspective is appreciated.  All too often, CAP members encounter somebody with a bad image of CAP or its members.  We can sometimes speculate what caused them to see the organization in that light, but getting a first-hand critical outside perspective is a healthy thing for sure.  As members, we're often way too close to see the forest for the trees.

I just would appreciate everybody in these discussions (actually, all discussions here) replying and contributing as if this were a round-table discussion at a professional conference, and not the local bar.   Thanks.

[D242]

I'm no longer a member of CAP, so my comments will be those of a current outsider, who was once on the inside.

A lot of ground has been covered here. My reactions, in no particular order of importance...

The POW arguement is irrelevant. Any current discussion of uniforms focuses on proper wear, not "no wear". Besdies which, I doubt a U-boat Captain would've checked to see whether the wing patch was the correct distance from the seam, or whatever, before shooting the guy that tried to bomb his submarine.

On a related note though, my recollection is that it was made very clear, that on special Ops missions for example, it was required to be "in uniform". If one of the aircrew was out of uniform, the mission could be decertified, and if you happened to prang the airplane, you personally  had just bought it, along with whatever you happened to run into with it. I always wondered just how "out of uniform" was sufficient to have a mission decertified. Jeans and a T-shirt would certainly be beyond the limits, but how about an unapproved patch on the sage green flight suit, or being five pounds outside of the weight standards? I never did get a satisfactory answer.  

On the subject of CAP's mission(s). My recollection is that aerospace education, particularly of the general public, was a distant third. The prop might as well be two bladed.

ES, particularly real world SAR, is becoming less prominent too. Safer GA, and less of it, makes for fewer and fewer real world, real distress, searches. I have the feeling that things are going to be really slow once the 121.5 ELTs go away for good.

Now, in both of those activities, anyone going into the public eye  (like the mission IO), should take the time to wear the uniform properly.

I never had much involvement in the Cadet program, but I think Pylon has described it well. I would have to say that, the Cadets always had a better handle on proper wear of the uniform than seniors did. (I remember the threat being made that some meeeting night, the seniors would have to stand uniform inspection by the Cadets. None of the seniors liked that idea.)

My personal opinion on uniform wear is that if you're going to wear the USAF style uniform, you'd better do it right. It's a privilige, granted by the Air Force, and to fail to wear the uniform properly is to abuse the privilege, and disrespect the uniform. I was always more comfortable, when knowing I was going to be in the presence of real live military, to wear one of the corporate uniform options. (Of course, once, at an air show, I was walking through the static display area in my smurf suit, and somebody asked me if I was one of the Blue Angels. Seriously.)  

I saw many senior members wearing the USAF style uniform who were very obviously out of compliance with the regs. One in particular I recall had no compunction at all about wearing blues, even though he was quite a bit outside of the weight standards. (My wife at the time happened to see his height and weight on an ES from I'd brought home to work on, and asked if his name was "Major Beachball".) Also, I wish I had a dollar for every time I saw a CAP nameplate on a leather flight jacket. I never could understand the reason for a roomful of guys to be in flight suits on a wintery Tuesday night, when the hanger doors were never going to be opened. No, actually I could understand it--flight suits look way cooler than smurf suits, or CAP polo shirts with gray slacks.

All that having been said, I'm sorry to also say that, in my personal opinion, some part of the collective motivation to wear the USAF uniform properly (in those members in whom that motivation actually exists), owes not to simple respect for the uniform, but to a fear that the Air Force might take that privilige away if it's abused too badly.

To sum up, I don't believe anything about uniforms is either the cause, or the cure, for any ills of the organization, but I do believe that the attitudes surrounding what uniform is worn, and how, might be symptomatic of some of the ills there are.

[afgeo4]

Dear Civilian_Pilot,

My answer to your post is simple:

Please don't confuse our posts of questions, frustrations, random ideas, curiosities and simple humor for the work we do on behalf of the Civil Air Patrol and our nation.

We talk about our random and not always pretty subjects here because we have feelings about them and because we know that our audience does too. That's the beauty of an open professional forum.

We don't bring those feelings to our units, training, conferences, encampments and so on and so forth though.

Our organization is as varied as the people of this great country. They join for many reasons. Some find a home here. Some find a temporary place to give back to their communities. Some find CAP isn't for them at all. Our organization is built on all of these people. We can't have one without the others.

I may be one of the first people to vent about the problems we have in CAP, but trust me when I say that I am proud of each and every person who renews his or her membership each year because they make a lot of great things possible. Things this country needs.

On the topic of uniforms...

Many of us work around or with cadets and need to be examples of self-discipline, attention to detail and strong leadership because it is what the cadets pay for. They pay with money (dues, uniforms, fees for events and activities), time (they're volunteers too), and energy. Most of us also wear the uniform of the United States Air Force because we are the Auxiliary of that branch of the Military. As such, we must, I repeat, MUST have proper respect for the uniform and the men and women who wore it before us. You know... the veterans, the fallen ones. The proper wear of uniforms, CAP or USAF also shows pride in self, the service, and our nation. Remember, we wear the US flag on our uniforms because we serve this nation and its people. We don't serve ourselves.

I wouldn't expect some random person to understand the pride we have in what we wear and how we wear it any more than I'd expect that random person to have a 72 hour bag ready to deploy for weeks into a disaster zone in order to facilitate search and rescue and disaster relief. Nor would I expect some Joe Schmoe to teach advanced leadership skills to random high schoolers or teach physics teachers about the technology of air or space flight.

We do these things because it is within our nature. We do these things because we, in our own and different ways, care.

[Hawk200]

How many people here have younger siblings? Remember how you would seriously mistreat them, or talk crap about them, or in general give them a hard time? But if someone else did it, you'd beat them senseless in a heartbeat?

Same principle here. CAP members are family. And we don't like outsiders taking potshots at family, especially with the hostility done here. We know we got problems, we're working on them. If you're not part of the little family, you won't see the good that we regularly see in each other. There are plenty of times that I have little faith in humanity, but that thought tends to be abated by what I see CAP members do every single week.

We touch our communities, give of ourselves freely, and we are fiercely protective of each other. Anyone that thinks they can improve us, join, become part of the solution, instead of just pointing out the problem. Take on the challenge, instead of the being the outsider throwing stones. Step up, be mature, and make a difference.

The uniform is simply how we present ourselves to the community. Wear it wrong, and the community has no faith in you. Wear it right, and with pride, and the public knows that you believe in what you're doing. Most of us just want the public to see us take pride in ourselves.

When it comes to some of the small stuff, problems are what get disussed here. We resolve issues, learn from each other, and in some cases make lifelong friends that we will never meet. CAPTalk is our means of making a difference in CAP by learning from people in the next state, in the next time zone, in other countries, at almost the top of the world.

We learn from each other here. If you're not willing to take the challenge, then butt out. If you think you have what it takes, come on in. We'll leave the light on for ya .

[Civilian_Pilot]

I guess that means none....

Correct ... there were no captures of CAP personnel by German, Japanese, or other Axis forces during World War II.

That does not mean, however, that there could not have been.  The CAP pilots who were involved in the coastal patrols against submarines were considered combatants under international law, and if they had dropped bombs on the German submarines while in civilian clothing -- and were later captured by said Germans -- the rules of war would have allowed their execution as spies.  That, sir, is why CAP went flying in uniforms beginning in World War II -- to enable those CAP members who might be captured to be given the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

I can't believe someone with your qualifications didn't realize that.

Jack

And just so you know Colonel Jack, in your example you have a German submarine off the American coast , attacked by a CAP aircraft who are then shot down, captured and executed as spies.

Here is the deal.  By your criteria every merchant shipman that fired a gun off at a German Sub should have been "executed as spies".

That isn't the way it works.

A "spy" by definition is:

--An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.
--One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.
--One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
--An act of spying.

The submarine by leaving German waters and sailing in American waters at a time of war would only committ a war crime by executing someone defending "homeland" under the premise of being a "spy" for not having a "uniform".

Your statement is even more ridiculous once I have thought about it.

[Al Sayre]

OK, so what are you doing to make it better in your squadron?

Could you tell me what you are doing first?

I'd be happy to, I have a fairly large squadron, about 60 members in two flights distributed about 50 miles apart.  Since we are in the center of the state, and share space with Wing HQ, I am trying to get our Squadron ES to the point where we can stand up an entire mission base staff by ourselves so we can staff up quickly while resources from the rest of the Wing are inbound, so far I've been pretty sucessful.  I've also been doing some fundraising for the squadron, working with the Cadets  two meeting nights a week and seniors one meeting night a month, and giving weekend Cadet O' flights whenever my schedule and the weather cooperate. 

I also have a Wing job, Director of Emergency Services, and in that position my current priority is to increase the number of GT personnel we have in our Wing.  To that end, I'm spending this weekend teaching GT3 training classes in the Delta National Forest.  I'm also working to get folks ICS qualified before the mandatory dates hit.  I'm getting ready for an SAV in 2 weeks, and have spent a bunch of time lately helping with Wing Logistics.

So there is the short list of what I'm doing to make CAP and my squadron better.  I'll ask again, What are you doing to make it better?  Standing on the sidelines throwing rocks doesn't help.  If you want to fix a problem you have to get close enough to turn the wrench...

[DogCollar]

O Lord, I cannot believe I read this entire thread!!  It seems to me, "that what we have here, is a failure to communicate."

Maybe it's just me, but I have had a tough time following exactly what the issue is here.  What this points up is the fact that sometimes...not all the time...but sometimes CAP shoots itself in the foot in the public relations department.  The ongoing arguements about defining who we are internally, has spilled over, I think, in what is communicated publically.  And, sometimes this forum gets confused as an "official" channel of communication for members and to the public.

Believe me, I do not want to stop open and frank discussion of issues within CAP.  That being said, it is helpful to remember that not everyone that visits this board is a member of CAP.  When we start quoting "this" regulation and "that" ICL, it CAN come across as "official" to the public.

Now for my opinion...I wear the uniform, and I try my best to do so with pride and honor.  However, if all anyone sees of me and my work within CAP is a uniform, then they are not getting the whole picture of what I do and what the organization does.  Now, I honestly also believe that Civilian Pilot has not made any point that has swayed me, other than that CAP needs to do a better job of communicating its missions to the public.  That's something everyone on this board already knows.

[ColonelJack]

And just so you know Colonel Jack, in your example you have a German submarine off the American coast , attacked by a CAP aircraft who are then shot down, captured and executed as spies.

Here is the deal.  By your criteria every merchant shipman that fired a gun off at a German Sub should have been "executed as spies".

That isn't the way it works.

A "spy" by definition is:

--An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.
--One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.
--One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
--An act of spying.

The submarine by leaving German waters and sailing in American waters at a time of war would only committ a war crime by executing someone defending "homeland" under the premise of being a "spy" for not having a "uniform".

Perhaps "executed for espionage" would have been a better term, yet in the modern vernacular, the terms (espionage and spy) are pretty much interchangeable.

I never said the Germans would commit a war crime by executing the CAP personnel should they be captured in civilian clothes.  In fact, I said just the opposite:  "the rules of war ..."  I just said they'd be subject to execution -- and here, I should've said "for espionage," which in strict legal terms is what civilians are doing when they drop bombs, etc., on enemy combatants.

Your statement is even more ridiculous once I have thought about it.

A differening point of view is not necessarily "ridiculous."  Resorting to name-calling (I know, you're referring to my statement, not necessarily to me) does not do much to enhance your position.

To address your primary point, expressed way back when ... I don't believe uniform policies are the defining aspect of CAP or any other organization.  After all, there's quite a bit of chatter on the Army boards about the impending changeover from greens to blues ... and the Navy!  Wow, what a major-league uniform deal they went through!  And yet, no one really seems to think the Army or Navy have "credibility" problems.

Does CAP have issues?  Heck, we have subscriptions, not just issues.    Does that mean CAP isn't addressing them and (as you seem to be saying) focusing on what we look like?  Not on your tintype!  If CAP -- or any other organization -- doesn't learn from its mistakes, then it deserves what it gets.  If it keeps making the same mistakes over and over again, it doesn't need to exist.

In an earlier post, you commented on the leadership of the organization.  Frankly, I don't see where CAP's current leadership has done anything to deserve your opprobrium.  If you know of someone better equipped to bring the organization forward from the things that have been done wrong than Amy Courter, please let me -- and everyone else, for that matter -- know who that individual might be.  General Courter is doing a fantastic job at repairing the damages caused by previous leaders, and steering CAP toward a pretty bright future.

She can't do it alone, of course, and that's where every individual member plays his or her role.  (Yes, even us retired ones!)  

I'd like to believe what you are saying, that you have no axe to grind against CAP and that you're really interested in its future and well-being.  But you're not coming across that way.

Jack

[Civilian_Pilot]

So there is the short list of what I'm doing to make CAP and my squadron better.  I'll ask again, What are you doing to make it better?  Standing on the sidelines throwing rocks doesn't help.  If you want to fix a problem you have to get close enough to turn the wrench...

Let's see...

I am attempting to have an open discussion.

I am going to my local CAP next week to speak with them.

And funny you mention "turning the wrench".  About 4 weeks ago I assisted one of your CAP aircraft that blew a nosewheel tire on landing (think about that) that your people didn't know what to do.  This was on a weekend and they needed wanted to return to where they had taken off.  Through some convoluted maintenance control system CAP has just recently introduced all the two guys could do was stand around and look at the airplane.  Long story short about fours hours later the tire was fixed and they went on their way.

So you can throw rocks at me, but I am doing what I can for the CAP.

[Eclipse]

If you walk in the door with the same "I'm going to tell you guys how to fix the 'problem' attitude" you're exhibiting here, don't be surprised if you receive a less than warm reception. (but feel free to come back and tell us how arrogant and close-minded CAP is after the meeting)

As to the maintenance issue,  "pilot" does not equal "mechanic", any more than "driver" (of a car) does.  We have a consolidated maintenance system that requires scheduled and routine maintenance be done at a single facility, respectively, in each state.  It has plenty of latitude for reasonable, emergency repairs.  A telephone call to the Wing DOS or Maintenance officer would have put them on the proper track, but thank you for helping in any case.

This type of "convoluted" system is standard practice for most large fleets of any type of vehicle.

[Civilian_Pilot]

If you walk in the door with the same "I'm going to tell you guys how to fix the 'problem' attitude" you're exhibiting here, don't be surprised if you receive a less than warm reception. (but feel free to come back and tell us how arrogant and close-minded CAP is after the meeting)

I'm really not going to respond to your negative attitude.

As to the maintenance issue,  "pilot" does not equal "mechanic", any more than "driver" (of a car) does. 

Please point to anywhere where I have stated this or have shown I have no understanding of the difference.

We have a consolidated maintenance system that requires scheduled and routine maintenance be done at a single facility, respectively, in each state.  It has plenty of latitude for reasonable, emergency repairs.  A telephone call to the Wing DOS or Maintenance officer would have put them on the proper track, but thank you for helping in any case.

Well, Ace, it just didn't work like that.  It was the weekend.  Airplanes were operated without a "Maintenance Officer" on duty.  No one in the airplanes knew what to do.  Telephone calls were made, people missed, confusion ensued.

This type of "convoluted" system is standard practice for most large fleets of any type of vehicle.

"Convoluted" was the description given to me by your people.

In addition I more than understand a fleet maintenance program for aircraft.

[Civilian_Pilot]

sub]=topic=5711.msg108886#msg108886 date=1218029388]

Perhaps "executed for espionage" would have been a better term, yet in the modern vernacular, the terms (espionage and spy) are pretty much interchangeable.

I never said the Germans would commit a war crime by executing the CAP personnel should they be captured in civilian clothes.  In fact, I said just the opposite:  "the rules of war ..."  I just said they'd be subject to execution -- and here, I should've said "for espionage," which in strict legal terms is what civilians are doing when they drop bombs, etc., on enemy combatants.

OK Colonel Jack let's just set the record straight.  Espionage is as follows:

"Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining (i.e., using human intelligence HUMINT methods) information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, as the legitimate holder of the information may change plans or take other countermeasures once it is known that the information is in unauthorized hands. See clandestine HUMINT for the basic concepts of such information collection, and subordinate articles such as clandestine HUMINT operational techniques and clandestine HUMINT asset recruiting for discussions of the "tradecraft" used to collect this information."

Thus again--I doubt even you will call a CAP Mission a "Spy" mission or "Espionage", and neither would the Germans or Japanese.

The reason is a person could be executed for either of the above, and to prove a person is doing either of the above is a very high bar.  This is the reason spies and persons doing "espionage" when captured are typically not executed in the field.  They are captured, held, made to sign papers of their deeds, tried, then executed.

To do otherwise is to committ a war crime and the guy in the field would much rather this not involve them and leave it to higher command to handle.

But in your scenario you have a German submarine that has left German waters, entered American waters to do war, that when attacked for defense by civilians (CAP) executes them as spies.  This does not pass any sort of credibility test.  IF a German submarine were to do this (and we know they didn't; nor did they even capture a member of CAP) they would have been tried as war criminals for the execution.

Everyone knows that it was not beyond reality for a Sub Capt. to execute someone.  The Japanese did, the Germans did, and the Americans did during WWII.  This is all documented and in every case constitute a war crime.  BUT NOT IN ONE CASE WAS IT OVER UNIFORMS OR LACK OF.

A differencing point of view is not necessarily "ridiculous."  Resorting to name-calling (I know, you're referring to my statement, not necessarily to me) does not do much to enhance your position.

To address your primary point, expressed way back when ... I don't believe uniform policies are the defining aspect of CAP or any other organization.  After all, there's quite a bit of chatter on the Army boards about the impending changeover from greens to blues ... and the Navy!  Wow, what a major-league uniform deal they went through!  And yet, no one really seems to think the Army or Navy have "credibility" problems.

Again, I claim your scenario is ridiculous and borders on hysterics.  Especially since CAP will never again be directly involved in the shooting part of a conflict.

But I will tell you this.  I do think the CAP needs uniforms.  I have no problem with that.  In fact I think it is important.  My problem is when it takes precedence over everything else.

Does CAP have issues?  Heck, we have subscriptions, not just issues.     Does that mean CAP isn't addressing them and (as you seem to be saying) focusing on what we look like?  Not on your tintype!  If CAP -- or any other organization -- doesn't learn from its mistakes, then it deserves what it gets.  If it keeps making the same mistakes over and over again, it doesn't need to exist.

In an earlier post, you commented on the leadership of the organization.  Frankly, I don't see where CAP's current leadership has done anything to deserve your opprobrium.  If you know of someone better equipped to bring the organization forward from the things that have been done wrong than Amy Courter, please let me -- and everyone else, for that matter -- know who that individual might be.  General Courter is doing a fantastic job at repairing the damages caused by previous leaders, and steering CAP toward a pretty bright future.

She can't do it alone, of course, and that's where every individual member plays his or her role.  (Yes, even us retired ones!) 

I'd like to believe what you are saying, that you have no axe to grind against CAP and that you're really interested in its future and well-being.  But you're not coming across that way.

Jack

Jack, I do not believe I have pointed a finger at Amy Courter or anyone else within the CAP as being a endemic problem within CAP, nor will I.

What I have pointed at are attitudes and actions.[/sub]

[mikeylikey]

This is really just some pissing back and forth.  MODS.......wake up.