CAP Talk

Can it?  Of course I only suggest this in jest; but it really isn't.

Upon observing the CAP through news stories, this website, and my own personal observation it seems to me that there are actually two versions of CAP paraded as one.

On one level you have the little guy who I think is the real core of the CAP who is genuinely interested in the task of search and rescue.  They enjoy every level of it from organizing the area, using the equipment, doing the search.  There is no glory to them about being in the media spotlight or local newspaper.  They are there for the true intended mission of the CAP.

To you guys--You have my utmost respect.

But then you have everything surrounding the core---and it is rotten.  I am talking about the glory hounds, uniform junkies who love medals and "how to wear them", power grabbers, rumour mongers, and quasi-military want-to-be's.

Yeah, you're ruining the organization.

A good example of this is contained in a locked thread on this web-board where a member goes off about how the CAP patrols of WWII fought off submarines using that as an example of "how dare you question the modern CAP".

Well I have news for you.  The First Generation of CAP cared less about uniforms and more about how to get the job done.  How dare you use their good deeds to justify what the organization has become?

I don't want anyone to think I am against the CAP.  In fact I am writing this as a RED LETTER to where you are headed so that someone can try and correct it.  One only needs to look at the recent Steve Fossett search or the even more recent Steve Fossett statements from the CAP to understand what I am speaking of.

I do not want this to be a Steve Fossett topic so understand these are only softball examples to what I really have been made aware of from within the CAP.

I would like this to be a discussion of how to change the course of the current direction.

If you don't have constructive responses I prefer you find another topic to direct your attention to.

ok, the bold hurts.

To answer the topic:
It can help, but more important is having members that will follow the policy. If you look at most of the arguements over uniform policy - excluding the dreams - they fall into "following the reg as written" vs "follow the reg as I interpret it". I fall into the first group.

A sensible policy - meaning one equal uniform for ewach AF combo atuhorized - will work wonders for CAP.

Quote from: arajca on August 05, 2008, 05:46:29 PM
To answer the topic:
It can help, but more important is having members that will follow the policy. If you look at most of the arguments over uniform policy - excluding the dreams - they fall into "following the reg as written" vs "follow the reg as I interpret it". I fall into the first group.

A sensible policy - meaning one equal uniform for ewach AF combo atuhorized - will work wonders for CAP.

Really?  I would think it would be more important to have a membership who are more concerned about the core mission of CAP than the dogmatic uniform policy.

You can pin all the medals and ribbons with their lavender epaulets and it won't make a sliver difference in what is at the core of the person.

In fact I would argue that someone who browbeats everyone over uniform policy actually chases off individuals who are there for the core mission of CAP.

Having stated the above, I think you missed the real question and task of the initial message.

Quote from: JC004 on August 05, 2008, 05:31:17 PM
ok, the bold hurts.

No kidding.  What was the point of all the bold?  It appears to be used randomly as opposed to emphasizing any particular point.

Anyway, to the OP, I disagree with most of your observations.  In addition, you seem to have forgotten than CAP actually has 3 missions, not just one.    

However, the real point of your post seems to be around the need for uniforms in the organization (a need which you evidently do not agree with).  There will always be people that like uniforms and those that don't.   There will also be people that perform and those that do not.  Uniforms are part of our organization, plain and simple.   And because of our purpose (our missions), they are necessary.  

Here's the question I have...why would anyone who doesn't like uniforms join this organization when it's quite clear they are required?  Do you feel misled in some way?

Your post is actually just a retread of about a thousand similar posts/discussions that have taken place here over the years.

Please read the lower half of the original post; in particular the 2nd to last sentence.

It isn't about uniforms......

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2008, 06:00:14 PM


Your post is actually just a retread of about a thousand similar posts/discussions that have taken place here over the years.

And??  So??  When will you become aware that there is a problem?

If everyone wore the uniform appropriatly, I guess we would be more credible BUT,

In my 33 years of membership in CAP,  I've seen some pretty dumb things done.  However, most of the time we've been right on target.  Every organization has its good and bad.  Every one of us has done an occasional "oops" or has had a "how about me" experience.  That's what being human is all about.  The problem I see is how we learn from our experiences and improve in all we do.  

Most of today's senior CAP leadership has been actively involved in all phases of CAP for many years.  We've all taken our hits and learned from our mistakes.  We are open to suggestions and our priority is to continually improve our operations and procedures.  

I can not speak directly on the Fossett search however, I have no doubt everyone concerned acted in the best manner they could.   Our record over the years in SAR/DR/CN is second to none and, I have no reservations on our continued success.  I have complete confidence in the NOC, and the many ICs, and mission staff members who routinely show up and get the job accomplished.  I really never met a member who just showed up at a mission base looking for glory or medals.  They usually showed up looking to help out; no matter how they wore the uniform.  

But this is my experience only.  YMMV and, although I have seen the articles and stories you refer to,  I strongly disagree with your assessment.  I strongly feel we are stronger than ever.  Our leadership has never been more responsive and, I have no doubt we will learn from mistakes made in the Fossett mission and go on.

Hey CP.... I have news for you. Those first generation CAP members you speak of, had DAILY uniform inspections. I know, as a pre-teen I used to watch them. So the uniform mattered!!!!

Ok.......can we stop using BOLD???

Quote from: FW on August 05, 2008, 06:16:52 PM
 I strongly feel we are stronger than ever.  Our leadership has never been more responsive and, I have no doubt we will learn from mistakes made in the Fossett mission and go on.

Beat me to it Sir!

Quote from: BillB on August 05, 2008, 06:31:31 PM
Hey CP.... I have news for you. Those first generation CAP members you speak of, had DAILY uniform inspections. I know, as a pre-teen I used to watch them. So the uniform mattered!!!!

Really?? Did it matter more than the intended role for CAP??

Was the uniform more important than Search and Rescue??

That's the real question. 

And just so you know Bill, you may have been a pre-teen but there are many pictures of the CAP in WWII operating without any type uniform.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:36:14 PM
And just so you know Bill, you may have been a pre-teen but there are many pictures of the CAP in WWII operating without any type uniform.

Then they found out they could be shot as spies if captured.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:36:14 PM
Really?? Did it matter more than the intended role for CAP??

Was the uniform more important than Search and Rescue??

That's the real question. 

And just so you know Bill, you may have been a pre-teen but there are many pictures of the CAP in WWII operating without any type uniform.

Actually the uniform did matter.  It mattered if the pilots were shot down, it mattered if they were captured, and it mattered to the Army.  The uniform mattered more back then unlike today.  

Also if CAP flight crews flew in anything but a CAP uniform that was wrong, and against standing regulations of the period.    

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:36:14 PM

Quote from: BillB on August 05, 2008, 06:31:31 PM
Hey CP.... I have news for you. Those first generation CAP members you speak of, had DAILY uniform inspections. I know, as a pre-teen I used to watch them. So the uniform mattered!!!!

Really?? Did it matter more than the intended role for CAP??

Was the uniform more important than Search and Rescue??

That's the real question. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.   You seem to imply that they are  (ie. it's one or the other).  That's not the case.

Quote from: mikeylikey on August 05, 2008, 06:38:58 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:36:14 PM
Really?? Did it matter more than the intended role for CAP??

Was the uniform more important than Search and Rescue??

That's the real question. 

And just so you know Bill, you may have been a pre-teen but there are many pictures of the CAP in WWII operating without any type uniform.

Actually the uniform did matter.  It mattered if the pilots were shot down, it mattered if they were captured, and it mattered to the Army.  The uniform mattered more back then unlike today.  

Also if CAP flight crews flew in anything but a CAP uniform that was wrong, and against standing regulations of the period.    

OK Mikey I don't deal with hysterics,  so I've just got to ask--who was shooting at the CAP and capturing them?

Was one single member of CAP captured during WWII?

I know there were a few Submarine encounters.  I am talking about an actual capture.

Since CAP does have prescribed uniforms, it does matter how people wear them.  It is impossible to project a professional image if people can wear them however they like.  CAP interfaces with the Police, Medical Professionals, the military, and a plethora of State, local and government agencies.  It is extremely important how we both look and present ourselves.

I think you have lurked onto this board which is open to everyone, but oriented to wards CAP Members and have drawn erroneous conclusions, without really understanding the organization nor its multifaceted missions.  The various posts on this site are indicative of a healthy organization whose members are constantly discussing ways to improve upon it as well as providing the members a way to vent their frustrations.

Are you even a member? If not, check out a local unit or two and talk to the members to find out why they belong and what they feel the role of the organization is and why the individual members joined.  If you met 20 members, I bet you would get 20 different reasons for why they joined, but find that they are united in a wish to serve their communites and state.

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2008, 06:39:45 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:36:14 PM

Quote from: BillB on August 05, 2008, 06:31:31 PM
Hey CP.... I have news for you. Those first generation CAP members you speak of, had DAILY uniform inspections. I know, as a pre-teen I used to watch them. So the uniform mattered!!!!

Really?? Did it matter more than the intended role for CAP??

Was the uniform more important than Search and Rescue??

That's the real question. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.   You seem to imply that they are  (ie. it's one or the other).  That's not the case.

I concur.

The problem is when the organization convolutes the uniform policy to be at the same level of importance as the Search and Rescue mission.

Uniform by definition means "the same".  A uniform can be as simple as a blue jumpsuit and CAP patch.  Somehow this has been extrapolated into much more for really no reason.

One thing everyone ought to understand is that Uniforms, bells, whistles do not command authority.  It how the person who wields it is respected by his peers.

Here is a very telling incident:  http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3202.0

Pretty amazing if you really read it to the entirety.

I object the the false dichotomy of the OP.

I am very committed to the missions of CAP (all three of them) and I too am a uniform/bling hound.

You can be both.

I also object to the original question.  First....it assumes that CAP's credibility is in some sort of jeopardy.   I have not seen that.

Second....it implies that someone has tried to solve our supposed creditability issue with a uniform policy....and that is just not true.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 05, 2008, 07:00:53 PM


I also object to the original question.  First....it assumes that CAP's credibility is in some sort of jeopardy.   I have not seen that.

Please see here:  http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5624.0

Or this:  The California Wing Commander was just relieved, in part for the disorganization that you saw in Minden. 

Or this:  The Arizona Wing Commander just resigned when it was pointed out to Headquarters that he was a convicted felon.

And I won't even go into what I know about Florida.

But the point of this is supposed to be How can the CAP direct itself fully into the Search and Rescue Mission while making less of issues like Uniform Policies?

Old news.

As far as credibility goes....problem identified and corrected...no hit to credibility.

I'll answer the question since no one seems capable.

Your uniforms, uniform policy, etc... do not do a thing for the reputation of CAP.

Your actions do.

It's a shame because uniforms are much easier to regulate, administrate, delegate. 

It's a lot harder to be good at Search and Rescue.

You know, I was reading a thread here about how CAP won't let members use four-wheelers, 15 passenger vans, mopeds, Jeeps, etc.. in Search and Rescue Ops. because they are considered to dangerous...

Well, carry on boys.  Your uniforms are about all you've got.

And to the real founders of CAP, I shed a belated tear for you and your organization.

How can we focus on the missions and less on uniforms....well one way is to not post on the internet.  ;D

Like you said...there are lots of people out there (the majority even?) who do their jobs in a competant manner.  They may or may not wear their uniforms properly...they may or may not have hard core exagerated military manner.

If you think we post too much about uniforms...don't add to the problem.  Post about the mission.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 07:06:10 PM
But the point of this is supposed to be How can the CAP direct itself fully into the Search and Rescue Mission while making less of issues like Uniform Policies?

This represents a fundamental lack of understanding about the organization on your part.  To reiterate, CAP has 3 missions.  SAR only makes up one portion of one of those 3 missions.  And again, none of these are mutually exclusive.  

Our strive towards excellence is a journey, not a destination, and it applies to all aspects of our organization.  The day that changes will be the day we really have an issue.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 05:09:48 PM
...The First Generation of CAP cared less about uniforms and more about how to get the job done.  How dare you use their good deeds to justify what the organization has become?

CP, while there are some who are in CAP for all the wrong reasons, most are for the right reasons.  Those that are in CAP for the right reasons want the best for our organization which includes the public image.  The public image comes in two parts, the service reputation (the good deeds we do to this day) and how we physically look. 

Those who want both sides to be the best they can will care if someone isn't doing something the way that it is "supposed to be done."  Uniform wearing becomes a whole lot less of an issue when people actually do it.  It isn't about having a holier than thou attitude, it's about wanting to present the best possible image of the organization that we care about.

But historically, uniforms HAVE been an important part of the culture -even back to the first generation of CAPers.

I reference a document from 18 April, 1949:

Quote

HEADQUARTERS
NEW HAMPSHIRE WING, CIVIL AIR PATROL
Box 92, Laconia, New Hampshire

18 April 1949

SUBJECT: Neglect of Official Duties

TO: Raymond C. Whitcher, Captain
       CAP 1-2-541
       Portsmouth Squadron, CAP

       1. During the investigation of an aircraft accident which occurred at Conway Valley Airport, Conway, New Hampshire, 30 March 1949, causing damages to USAF L-4 #42-15192, while operated by personnel of your Unit, the following violations of existing regulations were noted:

             a: Pilot was not wearing official CAP uniform. (Reference Paragraph 2c, CAP Reg. 60-1).

             b: CAP Form 3, Flight Release, was not witness as required.

      2. In view of the fact that you, personally, as squadron commander, signed CAP Form 3, authorizing the flight in L-4 #42-15192 on 30 March 1949, without requiring the pilot to wear proper uniform and without proper completion of CAP Form 3, the undersigned is of the opinion that you were most negligent in the performance of your official duties.

      3. You are hereby officially reprimanded for neglect of official duties.

      4. A copy of this letter will be placed in, and become a permanent part of, your official 201 file.

      5. It is directed that you acknowledge receipt of this letter by indorsement [sic] hereon.

GEORGE G. WILSON
Lt. Col., CAP
Commanding

I think if you truly look at our history, you'll find that our organization faces the same difficulties and challenges today as it did then.

1) Uniform issues
2) Flying Club mentality (Squadrons were set up as actual flying clubs post WWII)
3) Retention issues
4) Uniform supplier issues

etc, etc.

I think you'll find that uniform issues tend to be the ones that come to the forefront because it is something that affects everyone in our organization.  It also affects people's bank accounts universally, which makes people get more audible.

Missions fly everday, peoples lives get saved every day, CD missions are flown every day.  The uniform isn't stopping any of it from getting done - the only stipulation is that you wear one [correctly].  Is that really an "issue?"

Also remember that CapTalk is not a good cross section of the general attitudes and opinions in our organization

Tags - MIKE

It is very apparent that you have never been involved in a search or relief mission.  Go ask the people of the Chehalis Valley how they feel about the CAP Members who delivered food to them. Go visit the people who experienced the wrath of the Katrina and had CAP deliver food and water to them. Go speak to the pilot who has been found and recovered alive due to CAP looking for him.  I could go on and on about the good CAP does.  

Do we shoot ourselves in the foot sometimes? Sure, every organization does. We are an Organization of unpaid volunteers who give freely of our time and money to help others.  

You can stand there and attack us and belittle us, but the reality is that the majority of the members of this board truly care about the organization. Through these pages they are attempting to discuss issues that concern them or seeking help or guidance on how to deal with issues. Call it old fashion networking if you will.

I really think this is a guy that drastically misunderstands CAP, and that causes him to see some things in a bad light. That's unfortunate. I'm sure many of us would be happy to have an open and honest educational conversation with people like that, but only if they're open minded.

Of course there are bad aspects of CAP, just as there are in any other organization, regardless of pay. Again, that's unfortunate. Some of it is human nature that exists everywhere, and some of it is the legitimate failings of CAP or AF/Congress/etc. We all try to correct those problems to the extent we can, and would all like to do more.

Let me just do the quick version... CAP is not a search and rescue organization, period. let that sink in for a minute. Got it? CAP is in fact a civilian/volunteer paramilitary organization, sponsored by the US Air Force, that ALSO does SaR in addition to several other things of equal or greater importance, and does so under severe restrictions.

There is a clear dual personality in the org. There are people here for the work that don't care about who or what the org is. There are people here to get personal benefit through the work - usually cheap/free flight time - that don't care about the CAP that exists beyond their buddies. There are people that take it too far the other way & want to be more military than the military. There are a whole lot of people that are actively in the military as well as CAP, or who are retired from service.... it's a diverse group that we have here, and we do what we can to direct their energy into our org and our missions. That's not at all unlike the military, which is made up of people dedicated to the cause as well as those there doing time to get some benefits or for job training to use in the civilian world. That doesn't make those people any less a soldier.

In the end, I'm going to tell you there's a bunch of people out here in an org called CAP that spend a whole ton of their personal money for the privilege of serving you without any kind of pay or benefits so they can put their lives at significant risk for complete strangers, cause that's what the country needs us to do. If that's not good enough for you as a citizen - if you feel like our petty problems and whatever silly uniform squabble we're having this week is too high a cost for the country to pay for such people to give of themselves... if you really feel that way, then I probably have a few suggestions what you can do with your opinion.

Quote from: MIKE on August 05, 2008, 06:38:21 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:36:14 PM
And just so you know Bill, you may have been a pre-teen but there are many pictures of the CAP in WWII operating without any type uniform.

Then they found out they could be shot as spies if captured.

F.A.O. Bill & Mike:

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.

I just searched Civilian_Pilots post history......and it is a repeat of what happened last year.

Let's get a lock....and maybe a "thanks, but no thanks" for CP.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 05, 2008, 08:11:42 PM
I just searched Civilian_Pilots post history......and it is a repeat of what happened last year.

Let's get a lock....and maybe a "thanks, but no thanks" for CP.

Once again I have overstimulated the masses.

Pay attention to Commander Patrick, he doesn't want you talking to me.

C_P, the real issue seems to be that you don't have an informed or coherent point. 

You're attempting to make an argument under what, at best, could be described as false pretense.  It's a strawman.  Yet, you don't seem to understand that.

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2008, 08:22:53 PM
C_P, the real issue seems to be that you don't have an informed or coherent point. 

You're attempting to make an argument under what, at best, could be described as false pretense.  It's a strawman.  Yet, you don't seem to understand that.

Only to you my friend.

So here they are in bullet point:

1.  The CAP no longer treats the primary ideal as the core ideal (meaning search, rescue, disaster relief).

2.  There are many good CAP members surrounded by the members who are in the organization for the wrong reason.

3.  As such the CAP has had several questionable incidents in the last few years from top to bottom.

4.  There appears to be very little if any corrections being made to rectify these situations.

5.  Meanwhile the trend is to focus on uniforms and uniform code violations.

6.  Uniformity in the uniforms does not solve anything other than uniform code violations.

7.  The best leadership id LEADERSHIP.  Not some form of "code violation" police.

8.  I want the CAP to succeed, and to do so it needs someone to take charge, lead the way, and be what the Civil Air Patrol was set up to be.

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

I am the generator of the majority of "last post then topic gets locked" so here goes.

C_P..... have you visited www.af.mil (http://www.af.mil) ??

They are creating new uniforms while a the same time have issues that are so freaking insane it gets 4 stars FIRED.  They endanger the lives of citizens by flying nukes cross country, they outsource to construction of our equipment to companies owned and operated by foreign powers (some of which may at the moment not be friendly toward us), the list goes on.  CAP on the other hand is driving forward with changes that will make the organization stronger in the long run.  

You may be confused by the amount of talk here on uniform issues and what really is discussed by our leadership.  Trust me, uniforms take a back seat to almost every other issue in CAP.

I have go to say you really thought out what you were going to discuss to get us "worked up".  Good job.  

I say this piece of pork is done, lets lock it on up!!!!!!!!!!

OH AND I HATE WHEN PEOPLE USE BOLD, JUST TO BOLD

Quote from: Al Sayre on August 05, 2008, 08:57:49 PM
OK, so what are you doing to make it better in your squadron?

Could you tell me what you are doing first?

^ AHHRGHHH

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 08:45:08 PM

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2008, 08:22:53 PM
C_P, the real issue seems to be that you don't have an informed or coherent point. 

You're attempting to make an argument under what, at best, could be described as false pretense.  It's a strawman.  Yet, you don't seem to understand that.

Only to you my friend.

So here they are in bullet point:

1.  The CAP no longer treats the primary ideal as the core ideal (meaning search, rescue, disaster relief).

2.  There are many good CAP members surrounded by the members who are in the organization for the wrong reason.

3.  As such the CAP has had several questionable incidents in the last few years from top to bottom.

4.  There appears to be very little if any corrections being made to rectify these situations.

5.  Meanwhile the trend is to focus on uniforms and uniform code violations.

6.  Uniformity in the uniforms does not solve anything other than uniform code violations.

7.  The best leadership id LEADERSHIP.  Not some form of "code violation" police.

8.  I want the CAP to succeed, and to do so it needs someone to take charge, lead the way, and be what the Civil Air Patrol was set up to be.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't teach it to drink...

I'll help you out a bit.  Start with:   U.S. Code:  Title 36 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+36USC40302).    It defines CAP's purpose and responsibilites which you'll find are different from those you claim to know or think you know.  

After you've got that mastered, you can move on to other related Chapters as well as U.S. Code: Title 10 (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt).  This will provide you with a better standpoint from which you can then attempt to argue.

(btw:  those are numbered, not bulleted, but I understand nonetheless ;) )

Quote from: Al Sayre on August 05, 2008, 08:57:49 PM
OK, so what are you doing to make it better in your squadron?

He's not a CAP member.

 I think you will find that the average CAP unit is nothing like what we see portrayed here on this site.  This site is about as accurate as a Presidential poll in regards to what the average cross section of the membership is or cares about or what we even remotely discuss at a meeting.

I think if you got into the program and got involved in what we do, Mission Pilot, ES, CD, the down and dirty, and understood the nuts and bolts of what we do, I think your take on the program may change.  CAP is a melting pot of literally just about every type of person out there.  But somehow, despite our faults, we manage to get the job done.  In the process we identify issues and problems, and even damage a few egos.  But when the next call comes, a Cessna 182 will take off somewhere and go look for it, and somewhere there will be an IC waiting by a radio to make sure they come back.

On the CD sorties I have flown, the courses I have gone to, I have met some very professional people who are in CAP for the same reasons I am.  From corporate pilots, Nuclear Engineers, School Teachers, and .....even a firefighter.  This site can get you fired up, but when you look at it, whether you agree with some of the posts or not, many of the conversations here take place between only a very few people who are spread out across the country many of whom have never met and probably never will.

CAP has had issues in the past that I have voiced, but I think when someone like me mentions them it carries a little more weight than an outsider.  I am a Sq. Commander, a Mission/CD Pilot, and I am involved heavily in the program.  I have, in essence, "picked up a rifle and stood a post."  

I would encourage you to locate a unit and get active on your vision for the program in your area.

I dunno about you guys, but all I care about is uniforms and Cadet Programs.

Quote from: MIKE on August 05, 2008, 09:12:03 PM
I dunno about you guys, but all I care about is uniforms and Cadet Programs.

Not me...that's secondary to the ribbons and medals (as well as a chest to pin them on).

I include the bling with uniforms as uniform accouterments.

Quote from: MIKE on August 05, 2008, 09:17:59 PM
I include the bling with uniforms as uniform accouterments.

Bah.  You're right, my mistake...  Dang, there goes that next rating.  :-\

It's all funny.  I like to laugh also.

The thing is I'm not laughing with you.....

It is clear to me what the attitudes are, why the problems are so endemic within CAP.

Like I stated earlier.  You represent the CAP. 

What I and anyone else who comes across this forum think of the CAP is a direct reflection of you.

Any damage to that image is done by you.

Honest question, CP:

What makes you think search and rescue is, has ever been, or needs to be the core focus of the organization?

Some posts snipped.  Don't post PMs.  If you've got a problem with a PM report it via Report to Admin.

Quote from: Captain B on August 05, 2008, 09:32:45 PM
Honest question, CP:

What makes you think search and rescue is, has ever been, or needs to be the core focus of the organization?

Well I was the one who stated core mission but I really should have stated primary function/expression of the core reason for the CAP.

What I mean by this is that the CAP is an organization to promote aviation; a aviation Boy Scouts.  All the training, programs, ideals and even uniforms come together in the greatest task that CAP functions:  Search and Rescue.

Does that clarify what I misstated?

Yes, but it is still incorrect. You've got some really strange ideas about the mission, purpose and "greatest task" of CAP.

Quote from: Captain B on August 05, 2008, 09:57:26 PM
Yes, but it is still incorrect. You've got some really strange ideas about the mission, purpose and "greatest task" of CAP.

Not really.

Then show us otherwise, or provide factual evidence that your impression is correct.

What you've stated thus far as the nature, mission, task, purpose, etc. of CAP is factually incorrect.

Quote from: Captain B on August 05, 2008, 10:01:28 PM
Then show us otherwise, or provide factual evidence that your impression is correct.

What you've stated thus far as the nature, mission, task, purpose, etc. of CAP is factually incorrect.

That was easy:

QuoteCivil Air Patrol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Civil Air Patrol Corporate sealThe Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force (USAF). While the CAP is sponsored by the Air Force, it is not an operating reserve component under the Air Force or the federal government. Since CAP is not part of any uniformed service branch and its members are civilians, it is not subject to the laws governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. CAP is a non-profit volunteer organization with an aviation-minded membership that includes people from all backgrounds, lifestyles, and occupations. It performs three congressionally assigned key missions: emergency services, which includes search and rescue (by air and ground) and disaster recovery operations; aerospace education for youth and the general public; and cadet programs for teenage youth. In addition, CAP has recently been tasked with homeland security and courier service missions. CAP also performs non-auxiliary missions for various governmental and private agencies, such as local law enforcement and the American Red Cross. The program is established as an organization by Title 10 of the United States Code and its purposes defined by Title 36.

Membership in the organization consists of cadets ranging from 12 to 21 years of age, and senior members 18 years of age and up. These two groups each have the opportunity to participate in a wide variety of pursuits; the Cadet program contributes to the development of the former of these two groups with a structured syllabus and an organization based upon United States Air Force ranks and pay grades, while the older members serve as instructors and supervisors. All members wear uniforms while performing their duties.

Nationwide, CAP is a major operator of single-engine general aviation aircraft, used in the execution of its various missions, including orientation flights for cadets and the provision of significant emergency services capabilities. Because of these extensive flying opportunities, many CAP members become licensed pilots.

The hierarchical and quasi-military organization is headed by the National Headquarters (with authority over the national organization) followed by eight regional commands and 52 state wings (plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico). Each wing supervises the individual squadrons that comprise the basic operational unit of the organization.

Civilian Pilot makes cogent and for the most part, well written points. While I disagree with his conclusions, that we aren't emphasizing Search and Rescue enough. I THINK WE ARE EMPHASIZING SAR. However, I think we've traded some of our "Get it done" Spirit... for "get it done in the right uniform." Boldness and resourcefulness, enterprise and intrepidity, have taken a backseat to correctness. To suggest that it hasn't... is to miss a good point. We're talking balance in a large and sometimes unwieldy organization. If the public thinks we are too doctrinaire about our uniforms, let's discuss the point as gentlemen.

I think if you can dish it out... you should be able to take too. As you know, I've been in many polite conversations with all of the regular members of this board and asked more than once that each point about craft in PA, or Search and Rescue follow-up stories, or heralded past glories, not be reduced to a conversation about CAPR 39-1. SO, let's take Civilian Pilot at his word and answer in a professional manner his complaints. It's good practice at defending CAP to the "Civilian Pilot" world. DO NOT LOCK unless this thread becomes abusive or juvenile. On we go BOLDLY.

Civilian_Pilot......What's it to you?  Who are you?  Why do you care about CAP at all?  If you really have a problem with how the three missions of CAP are carried out....you can always join and take a swing at fixing them.

And for the record....my name is Patrick Harris....Capt Harris....MSgt Harris....Sgt Harris.....Pat.....even Lord Monar.....Commander Patrick is an unacceptable way to address me.

As for your challenge........let me tell you about what I and most of the people I know in CAP do on a day to day basis.  We train for ES missions, we work with the cadet program and we work with the Aerospace Education Program.  

In our ample spare time....we get on line and grouse about uniforms....stupid HQ Tricks.....stupid Cadet Tricks.....Monster Trucks.....Who is better Pirates or Ninjas and thousand other topics of no real import.

Those who want to make a difference are out there doing it every day.....and if you man enough....I invite you to step up to the plate and put your actions where your posts are. :)

Feel free to discuss... ;D

C.P.,  it seems your remarks are not hitting the target.  You imply in your comments, on some of the recent events we've experienced, are the result of a good core surrounded by rotten fruit.  I disagree.  We find the rot.  We excise it.  We heal and we go on.  We even post it on CAP-TALK.  I find that to be, not only healthy, but refreshing.  

We're not afraid to air some of our dirty laundry in public.  After all, we spend about $30 million in taxpayers' money every year to perform all our missions.  And over 55,000 members give over $2 million in yearly dues and donate thousands more for the privilege of serving.

I'm sorry if our public discussions on this gives you a less than a stellar opinion of our little band of brothers.  But, I'll keep paying my dues and continue to keep current and stay ready to help in case of need.  Yep, just me and my thousands of comrads.

Oh, and thank you for your comments.    

Thank you Ed, and I mean that.

I have not intended for this to be anything more than a discussion.

As I stated before:  If you have nothing constructive to say please find another topic to play in.

I would like nothing more than to have a serious discussion.  We may not agree on all the points but hopefully we can use it to direct some attention to an area that needs it.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:10:35 PM

Quote from: Captain B on August 05, 2008, 10:01:28 PM
Then show us otherwise, or provide factual evidence that your impression is correct.

What you've stated thus far as the nature, mission, task, purpose, etc. of CAP is factually incorrect.

That was easy:

QuoteCivil Air Patrol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Civil Air Patrol Corporate sealThe Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force (USAF). While the CAP is sponsored by the Air Force, it is not an operating reserve component under the Air Force or the federal government. Since CAP is not part of any uniformed service branch and its members are civilians, it is not subject to the laws governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. CAP is a non-profit volunteer organization with an aviation-minded membership that includes people from all backgrounds, lifestyles, and occupations. It performs three congressionally assigned key missions: emergency services, which includes search and rescue (by air and ground) and disaster recovery operations; aerospace education for youth and the general public; and cadet programs for teenage youth. In addition, CAP has recently been tasked with homeland security and courier service missions. CAP also performs non-auxiliary missions for various governmental and private agencies, such as local law enforcement and the American Red Cross. The program is established as an organization by Title 10 of the United States Code and its purposes defined by Title 36.

Membership in the organization consists of cadets ranging from 12 to 21 years of age, and senior members 18 years of age and up. These two groups each have the opportunity to participate in a wide variety of pursuits; the Cadet program contributes to the development of the former of these two groups with a structured syllabus and an organization based upon United States Air Force ranks and pay grades, while the older members serve as instructors and supervisors. All members wear uniforms while performing their duties.

Nationwide, CAP is a major operator of single-engine general aviation aircraft, used in the execution of its various missions, including orientation flights for cadets and the provision of significant emergency services capabilities. Because of these extensive flying opportunities, many CAP members become licensed pilots.

The hierarchical and quasi-military organization is headed by the National Headquarters (with authority over the national organization) followed by eight regional commands and 52 state wings (plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico). Each wing supervises the individual squadrons that comprise the basic operational unit of the organization.

If it's so easy, then why do you continually fail to state what our mission is?  You were even able to bold it from the Wiki page you copied. 

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:16:11 PM
Thank you Ed, and I mean that.

I have not intended for this to be anything more than a discussion.

As I stated before:  If you have nothing constructive to say please find another topic to play in.

I would like nothing more than to have a serious discussion.  We may not agree on all the points but hopefully we can use it to direct some attention to an area that needs it.

It's a two way street. 

If you come here to discuss, be prepared to learn as well.  You've been corrected as to the mission of CAP several times, yet continue to hold your incorrect view of our mission as the truth.  Until you get over that, no meaningful discussion can occur.

Quote from: FW on August 05, 2008, 10:15:30 PM
C.P.,  it seems your remarks are not hitting the target.  

Oh, and thank you for your comments.    

Actually I am hitting target or everyone wouldn't be wound up like a hornet nest.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:22:55 PM

Quote from: FW on August 05, 2008, 10:15:30 PM
C.P.,  it seems your remarks are not hitting the target.  

Oh, and thank you for your comments.    

Actually I am hitting target or everyone wouldn't be wound up like a hornet nest.

I would take it more as a recognition of your ignorance and willingness to provide you assistance from that perspective, so long as you're open to receiving it (thus far you are not). 

Several people have told you in several different ways that you are incorrect in your assumptions and even cited reasons as to why, yet you continue forward with your strawman argument. 

Interesting view of yourself...is that the image you want to leave here?

Quote from: lordmonar on August 05, 2008, 10:12:43 PM
Civilian_Pilot......What's it to you?  Who are you?  Why do you care about CAP at all?  If you really have a problem with how the three missions of CAP are carried out....you can always join and take a swing at fixing them.

And for the record....my name is Patrick Harris....Capt Harris....MSgt Harris....Sgt Harris.....Pat.....even Lord Monar.....Commander Patrick is an unacceptable way to address me.

As for your challenge........let me tell you about what I and most of the people I know in CAP do on a day to day basis.  We train for ES missions, we work with the cadet program and we work with the Aerospace Education Program.  

In our ample spare time....we get on line and grouse about uniforms....stupid HQ Tricks.....stupid Cadet Tricks.....Monster Trucks.....Who is better Pirates or Ninjas and thousand other topics of no real import.

Those who want to make a difference are out there doing it every day.....and if you man enough....I invite you to step up to the plate and put your actions where your posts are. :)

Feel free to discuss... ;D

I've stated it here before, but here it is again:

QuoteNothing but a Civilian Pilot with the following.

--B.S. Aerospace Engineering

--MEL Airline Transport Pilot

--SEL Commercial/Instrument

--F/E Turbojet

--Type Ratings:  SA-227 B-737 B-727 MD-11

--CFI CFII MEI

I have operated in most countries of the world so I know a little more about emergency , intercept, international operations than the average person or even pilot.

Enjoy.

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2008, 10:27:15 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:22:55 PM

Quote from: FW on August 05, 2008, 10:15:30 PM
C.P.,  it seems your remarks are not hitting the target.  

Oh, and thank you for your comments.    

Actually I am hitting target or everyone wouldn't be wound up like a hornet nest.

I would take it more as a recognition of your ignorance and willingness to provide you assistance from that perspective, so long as you're open to receiving it (thus far you are not). 

Several people have told you in several different ways that you are incorrect in your assumptions and even cited why, yet you continue forward with your strawman argument.  Interesting.

The correct me instead of playing games.


I've never had a problem telling someone I was wrong, sorry, misguided.

But the thing is, in this case I'm none of the above.  You want to play semantics.  I want to talk about the CAP.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:27:53 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:27:53 PM
I have operated in most countries of the world so I know a little more about emergency , intercept, international operations than the average person or even pilot.

Enjoy.

Really?!  That would make for a wonderful second thread given that it's off-topic.  However, I would love to hear how flying in other countries provides you with more knowledge about "emergency , intercept, international operations than the average person or even pilot."

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:28:57 PM
I've never had a problem telling someone I was wrong, sorry, misguided.

But the thing is, in this case I'm none of the above.  You want to play semantics.  I want to talk about the CAP.

LOL!  If you say so.  And here ends the lesson.

I think someone has seriously confused what CAP members actually spend their time doing and what people on this board spend their time talking about.  There is almost no relationship.  

I can't recall ever having a substantive discussion about uniforms other than on this board.  Sure, our leaders spend more time on it at their annual meetings than it deserves, but those meetings only represent a tiny fraction of the time they spend working for the organization.  

No one is going to get any idea of what CAP members actually spend their real CAP time doing unless they become a member.  That doesn't mean that you can't make relevant comments on some issues, but it limits your ability to intelligently discuss many issues and apparently this is one of them.  

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2008, 10:32:46 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:27:53 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:27:53 PM
I have operated in most countries of the world so I know a little more about emergency , intercept, international operations than the average person or even pilot.

Enjoy.

Really?!  That would make for a wonderful second thread given that it's off-topic.  However, I'd love to hear how flying in other countries provides you with more knowledge about "emergency , intercept, international operations than the average person or even pilot."

I'll just put it to you this way, you're playing games, it comes across you're playing games, and it really is a put-off.

I fly into countries you can't.

As such there are many contingencies that are covered beforehand.  That's about all you need to know.

(http://www.doctorivan.com/sfn/exasperated.gif)

Do we have to continue this diatribe?  Lock it!

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:38:42 PM
I fly into countries you can't.

As such there are many contingencies that are covered beforehand.  That's about all you need to know.

Reeaally?!  Try me.

Quote from: 1st Lt FAT and FUZZY on August 05, 2008, 10:39:06 PM
(http://www.doctorivan.com/sfn/exasperated.gif)

Do we have to continue this diatribe?  Lock it!

You don't have to worry.  I overlook the diatribes.  I know there are some good people here that care about the CAP.

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2008, 10:41:19 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:38:42 PM
I fly into countries you can't.

As such there are many contingencies that are covered beforehand.  That's about all you need to know.

Reeaally?!  Try me.

Look, if you want to discuss that stuff, start a thread.

If I want to discuss within it I will.

This is a totally different topic.

Quote from: Smithsonia on August 05, 2008, 10:11:29 PM
Civilian Pilot makes cogent and for the most part, well written points. While I disagree with his conclusions, that we aren't emphasizing Search and Rescue enough. I THINK WE ARE EMPHASIZING SAR. However, I think we've traded some of our "Get it done" Spirit... for "get it done in the right uniform." Boldness and resourcefulness, enterprise and intrepidity, have taken a backseat to correctness. To suggest that it hasn't... is to miss a good point. We're talking balance in a large and sometimes unwieldy organization. If the public thinks we are too doctrinaire about our uniforms, let's discuss the point as gentlemen.

I think if you can dish it out... you should be able to take too. As you know, I've been in many polite conversations with all of the regular members of this board and asked more than once that each point about craft in PA, or Search and Rescue followup stories, or heralded past glories, not be reduced to a conversation about CAPR 39-1. SO, let's take Civilian Pilot at his word and answer in a professional manner his complaints. It's good practice at defending CAP to the "Civilian Pilot" world. DO NOT LOCK unless this thread becomes abusive or juvenile. On we go BOLDLY.

Ed, the problem I have with C.P.'s comments are due to his conclusions reached by just reading the posts on CAP-TALK.  As good as we are, we don't give the whole picture.  We bring in specific biases, agendas and the like.  

I'm not one for bling or uniforms however, as a member, I wear what is required and, I wear it correctly.  I also spend countless hours each year volunteering as a mission pilot, cadet orientation pilot, Air Ops Branch Director, trash hauler, etc and spend even more countless hours training and keeping current.  And then, on top of that, spend even more hours doing my support mission for CAP.  And then after that, try to earn a living, take care of my family and have a life.  

I understand what Civilian Pilot is saying,  I just don't buy it.  I've been around too long, seen too much and, still love CAP, what we do and basically, how we do it.  What the membership decides to do with their time is their business.  My measure of success is by the continued requests we get to serve. the accomplishments of our cadets, and the overall satifaction of our members.  And, so far, I still like what I see.

For a while there I saw some pretty healthy discussion.  Everyone was talking about the good things CAP does.

Regardless, I really don't think CAP focuses all that much on uniforms.  Sure we just had a new CAPM 39-1 and then ten ICLs got piled on top of it, but there have been many other changes since I've joined also.  Take for instance the slightly updated leadership manuals.  Additionally, you can see a lot of upcoming cadet program changes on the proving grounds part of the site.  We're also taking steps forward in ES.  We've started by requiring that all members wishing to participate in ES take and pass IS-100, something that virtually all other emergency services agencies require of their members (including police, fire, and EMS).  We've also added a "Best Practices" section to the national web site where members can share ideas.

The uniforms haven't actually changed all that much when you think about it.  What did we do?  I think we added a uniform, switched the location of one or two patches, and added grade insignia on both collars.  And all of that was from... one national commander?

I can not speak for everyone and have only my personal experiences to share. I am in a squadron with some of the rarest humans on the planet. Men and women who've been extraordinary in their military careers and community service and now volunteer as CAP Officers. It seems they can't stop being of service to the country. Only death by natural causes at a very ripe age will stop them.

I've donated about 2500 hours of my time over last 8 months. I've passed 14 separate tests most having to do directly with emergency services and I've learned enough to be almost a Mission Observer, I'm taking comm classes this weekend, I've rediscovered much of the great history of the patrol which I've written about on other occasions, and I've helped with many cadet projects. I've done most of these things in a proper CAP uniform.

I try to conduct myself in a professional manner. I have the highest regards for those officers that take their time to instruct me in the ways, means, and duties of a CAP officer. I have nothing to apologize for except when I feel I have let these fine volunteers down in any way. It is a privilege to serve among people of this character. I am honored. I let them know.

I've been out on one SAREX and a couple of routine ELTs. I've saved nobody's life. I've done nothing exceptional BUT I know people that have done exceptional things, many times. I don't know if I will ever be called upon to pit myself against a life or death struggle in service to my fellow citizens.  All I know is that these struggles persist through time and are daily occurrences. I am getting ready as fast as I can and as best as I am able. I wear the uniform not because I think I've earned the right to do so... but it has been a duty given to me so that I may grow into it. I am trying to do that one as best I can too.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:45:39 PM

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2008, 10:41:19 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:38:42 PM
I fly into countries you can't.

As such there are many contingencies that are covered beforehand.  That's about all you need to know.

Reeaally?!  Try me.

Look, if you want to discuss that stuff, start a thread.

If I want to discuss within it I will.

This is a totally different topic.

Done (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5717.0).

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 10:27:53 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 05, 2008, 10:12:43 PM
Civilian_Pilot......What's it to you?  Who are you?  Why do you care about CAP at all?  If you really have a problem with how the three missions of CAP are carried out....you can always join and take a swing at fixing them.

And for the record....my name is Patrick Harris....Capt Harris....MSgt Harris....Sgt Harris.....Pat.....even Lord Monar.....Commander Patrick is an unacceptable way to address me.

As for your challenge........let me tell you about what I and most of the people I know in CAP do on a day to day basis.  We train for ES missions, we work with the cadet program and we work with the Aerospace Education Program.  

In our ample spare time....we get on line and grouse about uniforms....stupid HQ Tricks.....stupid Cadet Tricks.....Monster Trucks.....Who is better Pirates or Ninjas and thousand other topics of no real import.

Those who want to make a difference are out there doing it every day.....and if you man enough....I invite you to step up to the plate and put your actions where your posts are. :)

Feel free to discuss... ;D

I've stated it here before, but here it is again:

QuoteNothing but a Civilian Pilot with the following.

--B.S. Aerospace Engineering

--MEL Airline Transport Pilot

--SEL Commercial/Instrument

--F/E Turbojet

--Type Ratings:  SA-227 B-737 B-727 MD-11

--CFI CFII MEI

I have operated in most countries of the world so I know a little more about emergency , intercept, international operations than the average person or even pilot.

Enjoy.

Good flying resume, but I don't see much that explains how you're more qualified than anyone else here to discuss CAP and its ES, AE or Cadet Programs.

Your list doesn't explain why I should buy your argument no this particular thread.

I've never claimed to be "more qualified".

What I stated is this, and it is true:  ".....so I know a little more about emergency , intercept, international operations than the average person or even pilot."

There is a big difference.

Tags - MIKE

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:42:28 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on August 05, 2008, 06:38:58 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:36:14 PM
Really?? Did it matter more than the intended role for CAP??

Was the uniform more important than Search and Rescue??

That's the real question. 

And just so you know Bill, you may have been a pre-teen but there are many pictures of the CAP in WWII operating without any type uniform.

Actually the uniform did matter.  It mattered if the pilots were shot down, it mattered if they were captured, and it mattered to the Army.  The uniform mattered more back then unlike today.  

Also if CAP flight crews flew in anything but a CAP uniform that was wrong, and against standing regulations of the period.    

OK Mikey I don't deal with hysterics,  so I've just got to ask--who was shooting at the CAP and capturing them?

Was one single member of CAP captured during WWII?

I know there were a few Submarine encounters.  I am talking about an actual capture.

OK.  I can't stand this ignorance anymore.

Read the Geneva Conventions, Protocols on Prisoners of War and Other Captives. 

I have.  I am not a "Military wannabe" like you talk about.  More accurately, I'm a military usta-be. 

When you have read the Protocols, and have read some history on how the Germans treated "Partisans," you will understand why correct unifrom appearance was important then.

And you will quit making ignorant comments.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on August 06, 2008, 12:43:27 AM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:42:28 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on August 05, 2008, 06:38:58 PM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 06:36:14 PM
Really?? Did it matter more than the intended role for CAP??

Was the uniform more important than Search and Rescue??

That's the real question. 

And just so you know Bill, you may have been a pre-teen but there are many pictures of the CAP in WWII operating without any type uniform.

Actually the uniform did matter.  It mattered if the pilots were shot down, it mattered if they were captured, and it mattered to the Army.  The uniform mattered more back then unlike today.  

Also if CAP flight crews flew in anything but a CAP uniform that was wrong, and against standing regulations of the period.    

OK Mikey I don't deal with hysterics,  so I've just got to ask--who was shooting at the CAP and capturing them?

Was one single member of CAP captured during WWII?

I know there were a few Submarine encounters.  I am talking about an actual capture.

OK.  I can't stand this ignorance anymore.

Read the Geneva Conventions, Protocols on Prisoners of War and Other Captives. 

I have.  I am not a "Military wannabe" like you talk about.  More accurately, I'm a military usta-be. 

When you have read the Protocols, and have read some history on how the Germans treated "Partisans," you will understand why correct unifrom appearance was important then.

And you will quit making ignorant comments.

I guess that means none....

And I never said the CAP uniform has anything to do with "military-wanna-be"

Wow, what a nutjob. (Was the bold in green easier on the eyes? Just wondering.) This one posts the very answers he claims to seek, and then denies the fact. This one is about as loopy as the one that thought we should wear Boy Scout uniforms.

The Air Force demands that a uniform be worn properly in the performance of one's duties. It's not really asking for much for CAP personnel to do the same thing. Looking competent can be just as important as being competent. Rag bags rarely get jobs.

Used to deliver pizza, and we were required to wear a proper uniform and shave. Show up without shaving the first time, and you get sent home to shave and come back. The second time, you got written up, and sent home to shave and come back. Third time was a week off without pay. Fourth time, you may as well drop off all the uniform pieces that you have, and wait til Monday for your last paycheck.

That was a pizza place. We consistently made more deliveries than any other such store in our area. People remarked that the employees looked sharper, and tended to have better manners than anyplace else. The requirement for a proper uniform is no longer uniquely military.

It's not too much to ask for people to wear uniforms properly, regardless of who's uniform they're wearing. It's a little integrity test. If someone is wearing it wrong out of complete ignorance, then the integrity of whomever witnesses it is tested. They pass by correcting the behaviour. For willful violation, it's the failure of an individual who doesn't really consider any rule as worth following. Most people I know won't trust you to do anything if you look like a dirtbag (then again, most of the people I know are present or former military).

Starting to wonder if this a cohort of "He who shall not be named" stirring up trouble. Is this the technique the USRC is going to use for recruiting?

FOR CAP THREAD MEMBERS -- When I was in the Guard we were "Old guys in bad planes who couldn't keep up," when I was a boy scout we were "tan Cub-Scouts" when cops are called "heavy badged thugs" Or "criminal minds in uniform." OR volunteer firemen are called "Wannabees with a hose." They usually don't rise to the bait. I was hoping we could remain civil even when those around can't.

I went to tear gas training a few weeks ago. I think we had less choking and whining than on this thread. Come on people. Keep your dignity.

For Civilian Pilot -- We got the uniforms before we got the SAR Portfolio. (SEE FLYING MINUTEMEN) We were guarding bases, running shuttle services and lunch counters at Civilian Airports with lot's of military coming through. We got the uniforms first as a symbol of military authority and trust.

Our uniform is worn by active military, while on CAP duty too. I flew with a CAP pilot on military active duty just yesterday. He's going to Iraq in a few weeks. I don't think he shares your point of view. Neither do the police officer, who flies for both the police and CAP, in my squadron, the 2 active duty military non-pilots -- one of which is headed to Afghanistan, or the 3 or 4 other CAP officers in the guard and Air Reserve from my squadron. In this case, I'm not speaking for them but reflecting the fact that they all wear CAP uniforms, without debate, concern, ridicule, trepidation.

I'm not sure if you can call someone a troll without actually violating the forum rules, so I'm not going to do that....

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:50:42 AM

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

^ 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. 

Quote from: ColonelJack on August 06, 2008, 02:24:56 AM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:50:42 AM

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.

(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/h.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/o.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/w.gif)

(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/a.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/b.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/o.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/u.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/t.gif)

(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/t.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/h.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/i.gif)(http://www.myglitterz.com/glittergen/glittergen/gimg/1/s.gif)

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

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?   ;)

Quote from: Pylon on August 06, 2008, 03:14:36 AM
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.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 03:42:41 AM
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.

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.

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.

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 .

Quote from: ColonelJack on August 06, 2008, 02:24:56 AM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:50:42 AM

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.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 09:01:37 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on August 05, 2008, 08:57:49 PM
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...

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

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.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:51:00 PM
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.

Quote
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

Quote from: Al Sayre on August 06, 2008, 01:14:57 PM


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.

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.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 06, 2008, 02:01:14 PM
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.

QuoteAs 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.

QuoteWe 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.

QuoteThis 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.

Quote from: ColonelJack linksub]=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.

Quote

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.

QuoteDoes 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]

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

Quote from: ColonelJack on August 06, 2008, 01:29:48 PM
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.  

Clearly, C_P has all the answers.   He is the obvious candidate to lead the organization. 

We owe C_P a great deal of respect and attention, for without ever stepping foot inside a squadron, he's identified and figured out how to correct every perceived issue in the organization.  He's corrected our history, addressed issues that we not aware of....it's truly amazing.  It's very rare that such pristene individuals grace us with their pressence.  As such, we must capitalize on this opportunity.

This is the most bizarre string I've ever read through.  So far, we're on the sixth page of .... well, I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about.  We've got some guy who's not a part of CAP, who as far as I can tell has never been a part of CAP, saying he wants to make CAP better.  Exactly why he's so interested in an organization he's not even willing to sign up for, I'm still trying to figure out.  If you don't like CAP, join and try to make it better, or move along your way. 

On a happier note, my unit has been trying to resurrect our cadet program for some time, and last night, our first cadet earned the Curry achievement.  The look on that cadet's face when told she passed her exam and was presented with her stripe, knowing that she had earned it through her own hard work, was something I'll never forget.  I'm thinking maybe CAP isn't all that bad and that we do some things right.

I know what you mean.   We had a cadet earn her Curry a couple of weeks ago.   Her whole family showed up for her promotion.

Quote from: BrianH76 on August 06, 2008, 03:53:28 PM
On a happier note, my unit has been trying to resurrect our cadet program for some time, and last night, our first cadet earned the Curry achievement.  The look on that cadet's face when told she passed her exam and was presented with her stripe, knowing that she had earned it through her own hard work, was something I'll never forget.  I'm thinking maybe CAP isn't all that bad and that we do some things right.

Well done.  Hopefully the first step toward the revival of a healthy program!  :clap:

Well done!

My unit is currently in process of being resurrected as well.

We recently went from one cadet who shows up every other meeting or so (we only have 2 per month) to 2 cadets with a Curry and 2 with an Arnold (plus the original cadet who now shows up even less).

The best thing is... the more we had trained, the more showed up. We are about to start up a pipeline with 5 more cadets starting their Curry training at the same time!

That's 9 cadets from 2 a year go.

I'd be interested to find out what led Civilian_Pilot to believe that uniforms are being focused on too much.  The only public thing that would show that is the uniforms section of this forum.  Other than that, it's not like the pilots with the broken nose gear weren't fixing it because they were too busy inspecting each other's uniforms or something.

QuoteCan the Uniform Policy save the Credibility of the CAP?

No, but it's non-compliance can ruin the our credibility.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:51:00 PMThe 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".

During World War II the United States territorial waters extended to only 3 nautical miles from shore. So, it is conceivable that a CAP aircraft, in pursuing a German naval submarine, could enter international waters and suddenly place the crew in jeopardy of being unprivileged combatants if caught.

Quote from: Jolt on August 06, 2008, 04:31:42 PM
I'd be interested to find out what led Civilian_Pilot to believe that uniforms are being focused on too much.  The only public thing that would show that is the uniforms section of this forum.  Other than that, it's not like the pilots with the broken nose gear weren't fixing it because they were too busy inspecting each other's uniforms or something.

I may be to blame for that. I revived a thread about uniforms that had been running during the Steve Fossett search,( http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3202.40 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3202.40)), which had many comments critical of Lt Col Ryan's uniform malfunctions. Since the other thread about Lt Col Ryan's more recent foray into the public conciousness had been closed, I was browsing the board looking for other available information on the subject. I found one particular comment worthy of a reply.

BTW, I commend the mods for allowing this one to run its course in spite of calls for its closure. If you think C_P is trolling, don't reply to him. It's a pretty simple concept...

Quote from: mikeylikey on August 06, 2008, 03:22:22 PM
This is really just some pissing back and forth.  MODS.......wake up. 

Actually, many of us are capable of discussing the subject in a civil and professional manner.  Don't engage in the pissing contest and you don't have to worry about it.   In the future, posts such as that one are much better routed through the "Report" feature as it goes to all the mods emails directly - as opposed to making a random public statement to the mods.

Quote from: BrianH76 on August 06, 2008, 03:53:28 PM
This is the most bizarre string I've ever read through.  So far, we're on the sixth page of .... well, I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about.  We've got some guy who's not a part of CAP, who as far as I can tell has never been a part of CAP, saying he wants to make CAP better.  Exactly why he's so interested in an organization he's not even willing to sign up for, I'm still trying to figure out.  If you don't like CAP, join and try to make it better, or move along your way. 

I think that's a poor attitude to take.  You've basically argued that nobody outside of CAP, regardless of field, expertise, experience with CAP or impartiality could possibly lend a credible, critical eye to our actions, ideas and the organization.   I hope nobody from the Air Force reads that.  "Join CAP and make it better... otherwise your point of view is invalid and opinion worthless!"

Quote from: Pylon on August 06, 2008, 06:57:19 PM

Quote from: BrianH76 on August 06, 2008, 03:53:28 PM
This is the most bizarre string I've ever read through.  So far, we're on the sixth page of .... well, I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about.  We've got some guy who's not a part of CAP, who as far as I can tell has never been a part of CAP, saying he wants to make CAP better.  Exactly why he's so interested in an organization he's not even willing to sign up for, I'm still trying to figure out.  If you don't like CAP, join and try to make it better, or move along your way. 

I think that's a poor attitude to take.  You've basically argued that nobody outside of CAP, regardless of field, expertise, experience with CAP or impartiality could possibly lend a credible, critical eye to our actions, ideas and the organization.   I hope nobody from the Air Force reads that.  "Join CAP and make it better... otherwise your point of view is invalid and opinion worthless!"

On the flip side, you're giving the OP far too much credit in his willingness to "discuss" issues.   That's clearly up to you if you want to do so but let's not pretend...there is no real discussion occuring here.

Quote from: A.Member on August 06, 2008, 07:16:01 PM
On the flip side, you're giving the OP far too much credit in his willingness to "discuss" issues.   There is no real discussion occuring here.

My comment wasn't specific to the OP of this thread.  I was stating that it's a dangerous attitude to take across the board: to simply say "join CAP otherwise your opinions and suggestions for improvement are meaningless to us."

As for "no real discussion" occurring here - who's fault is that, the OP or those participating in the thread?

Quote from: Pylon on August 06, 2008, 07:18:41 PM

Quote from: A.Member on August 06, 2008, 07:16:01 PM
On the flip side, you're giving the OP far too much credit in his willingness to "discuss" issues.   There is no real discussion occuring here.

My comment wasn't specific to the OP of this thread.  I was stating that it's a dangerous attitude to take across the board: to simply say "join CAP otherwise your opinions and suggestions for improvement are meaningless to us."

As for "no real discussion" occurring here - who's fault is that, the OP or those participating in the thread?

All of the above.  It's clear to me that the OP did not post here in good faith with the intent of any real discussion.

I can only speak for myself but I'm certainly willing to look at concerns objectively and discuss those concerns openly, so long as other parties are willing to bring a similar level of reasonableness and objectivity to the table.  Numerous opportunities were extended to the OP and it's become very clear that he is not interested in a true discussion or differing viewpoint, despite any statements to the contrary.

Quote from: Pylon on August 06, 2008, 06:57:19 PM
I think that's a poor attitude to take.  You've basically argued that nobody outside of CAP, regardless of field, expertise, experience with CAP or impartiality could possibly lend a credible, critical eye to our actions, ideas and the organization.   I hope nobody from the Air Force reads that.  "Join CAP and make it better... otherwise your point of view is invalid and opinion worthless!"

I don't understand why they would >want< too, especially unsolicited.

There are number of leaders and shakers in industry, education, and the military that could potentially contribute to CAP in a positive way, once they are educated and understand what CAP >is< and >isn't<.

But the idea that we should entertain the opinions of anyone who wanders into the squadron door simply because they "might have something to offer" is misguided at best.

QuoteBut the idea that we should entertain the opinions of anyone who wanders into the squadron door simply because they "might have something to offer" is misguided at best.

So, things have come full circle.

Civilian_Pilot originally posted on this forum because he was upset that a well equipped helicopter and crew was turned away from the Fossett search because of what he perceived (from his reading here), as just such a parochial attitude. I know that the reasons ran deeper and are more technically complicated than that, but you've just expressed exactly the same attitude that set him off in the first place.

(BTW, I've expressed privately to C_P that with his credentials, he would make a fabulous addition to CAP. When I tell people of my positive experiences in CAP, I mention that I met folks that made their living flying B-24s, F-16s, and everything in between. He's in that class. Maybe if you asked him nicely, instead of making it an "Oh yeah? Well if you know so much then join and help fix it!" proposition, you'd get better results.)

^ Respectfully, he came on here as the disgruntled before he even joined guy, and with some very bad information about what CAP is all about. He then picked up bits & pieces of conversation out of context from a forum that's primarily intended to be an internal & informal water cooler.

If you want to tell him why we turned down the helo. I'll speculate for you:

Safety:
If this guy is "in that class" as you say, then he's got some experience with planning major air operations of dozens of aircraft butting up against each other in the same airspace. If that's the case, then he should understand no one plays in that game that has not practiced with the same players for a long time before they show up - that includes everyone including the military, regardless of equipment.

Training:
We don't fly people that haven't been specifically trained in Air SaR. It's a waste of time and airspace. It also screws up our PODs.

Equipment:
A helicopter searches at 500ft & lower, and should have FLIR at minimum. CAP comes in when we're narrowing things down from big broad areas to narrow points of interest. A helo is appropriate for looking at those points of interest when the light is poor or in built up or wooded areas, and for landing on sites that can't be reached by foot in a timely manner. As I understand it, rotary resources were already on call for those issues.

I really don't care if people get what they want or feel like they were treated well.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:51:00 PM

Quote from: ColonelJack on August 06, 2008, 02:24:56 AM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:50:42 AM

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.

You are dumber than your boldface makes you look.

Merchant sailors did not fire at submarines.  To do so would have made them combatants.  Merchant ships that had guns mounted manned those guns with US Navy personnel in uniform.  This duty was called the "Armed Guard."

To be entitled to the status, rights, and privilege of "Prisoner of War" upon capture, a combatant must:  1.  Be in uniform.  2.  Bear his arms openly.  3.  Be under the control of a superior headquarters, responsible for his conduct. and 4.  Conduct his own operations in accordance with the Law of War.  Exceptions to the uniform requirement are limited to:  1.  Partisans, guerillas, and irregular forces, provided they meet all other criteria, AND display a badge or device recognizable from a distance identifying their membership in a partisan band, and,  2.  Occupants of a town who spontaneously take up arms upon the approach of an enemy force.

All other combatant personnel are classed as "Spies, sabateurs, pirates, and bandits," and are not entitled to ANY protection under the Geneva Convention.

The fact that an enemy warship is in the territorial waters of a beligerent is of no consequence under the Protocols.

I TOLD you to read the Protocols, but Noooooo... you had to go off and post something dumb anyway.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on August 07, 2008, 12:21:45 AM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:51:00 PM

Quote from: ColonelJack on August 06, 2008, 02:24:56 AM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 12:50:42 AM

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.

You are dumber than your boldface makes you look.

Merchant sailors did not fire at submarines.  To do so would have made them combatants.  Merchant ships that had guns mounted manned those guns with US Navy personnel in uniform.  This duty was called the "Armed Guard."

To be entitled to the status, rights, and privilege of "Prisoner of War" upon capture, a combatant must:  1.  Be in uniform.  2.  Bear his arms openly.  3.  Be under the control of a superior headquarters, responsible for his conduct. and 4.  Conduct his own operations in accordance with the Law of War.  Exceptions to the uniform requirement are limited to:  1.  Partisans, guerillas, and irregular forces, provided they meet all other criteria, AND display a badge or device recognizable from a distance identifying their membership in a partisan band, and,  2.  Occupants of a town who spontaneously take up arms upon the approach of an enemy force.

All other combatant personnel are classed as "Spies, sabateurs, pirates, and bandits," and are not entitled to ANY protection under the Geneva Convention.

The fact that an enemy warship is in the territorial waters of a beligerent is of no consequence under the Protocols.

I TOLD you to read the Protocols, but Noooooo... you had to go off and post something dumb anyway.

John, I want to thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

Your last insightful post opened my eyes and allowed me to clearly see what I have felt around the edges but have been unable to quantify in words.

When I was a youngster vacation one year we came upon a Civil War reenactment which we stopped and watched. 

The one thing in common between the two sides of battle actors was a sense of entitlement that went with the uniform.  It wasn't that they wanted the Civil War restarted, that they had a desire to rekindle Civil War issues, or even that they wanted to shoot someone.  They simply enjoyed wearing the uniform and acting like a Civil War persona.

But it went deeper than that.  They were representing specific units of the Civil War and went on and on in the pre-battle about how "the 233 Battalion battled for three days against Sherman..." (or some such banter) to capture even more of the Civil War glory.

So to you specifically John, if wearing the uniform is "more better" when there is a story or sense of danger attached (like being shot for a spy on a German U-Boat after conducting an espionage mission), I am all for it.  But let us agree on one thing.  It's manufactured glory because no CAP member was captured by a U-Boat.

And let's also understand the real discussion going on here isn't about U-Boats, being captured, spies, espionage or anything like it. 

It is about the current situation at CAP.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 07, 2008, 01:03:19 AMIt's manufactured glory because no CAP member was captured by a U-Boat.

I don't think the story was told because CAP wanted more glory out of the uniform.  I think it was an explanation of one of the reasons why CAP started wearing military-style uniforms in the first place.  I don't think anyone meant to continue the discussion this far, but it happened somehow.

Quote from: Jolt on August 07, 2008, 01:31:03 AM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 07, 2008, 01:03:19 AMIt's manufactured glory because no CAP member was captured by a U-Boat.

I don't think the story was told because CAP wanted more glory out of the uniform.  I think it was an explanation of one of the reasons why CAP started wearing military-style uniforms in the first place.  I don't think anyone meant to continue the discussion this far, but it happened somehow.

Jolt, I agree.

Thanks.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 07, 2008, 01:03:19 AM
And let's also understand the real discussion going on here isn't about U-Boats, being captured, spies, espionage or anything like it. 

It is about the current situation at CAP.

To your first point quoted above, I think that it is appropriate to remind you that this discussion (such as it is) is focused on uniforms because YOU framed the discussion around that issue in your original post.

To answer your original question, there is no uniform policy that will save the credibility of the CAP, nor is one being considered with that objective in mind. However, failure to follow what policies we have in place (a common point of contention among many on this board) will damage that credibility, as will failure to project the proper professional image people have every right to expect from a military auxiliary.

As for the second point, please give some consideration to the possibility that the rantings and ravings of a relatively small group of CAP members on a relatively obscure message board has next to no effect on the overall public perception of the Civil Air Patrol.

I think you have to look at the psychology of why organizations, such as the military, sports teams, etc. issue uniforms in the first place. It has to do with creating the mindset that one is no longer an individual, but a part of something greater. That's essential to accomplishing the mission in many cases, particularly when one is asked to place one's life in danger. If you think about it, it's the same reason that proper wear of the uniform is stressed in the Cadet program--it helps to create the mindset.

The CAP of 1941 was composed of civilians, but they were being asked to perform in a military manner, so the uniform was an essential part of that. (I'm sure that was a whole lot bigger factor than the possibility of one of them being taken prisoner by a U-boat.)

What is sad, and counter-productive to the credibility of an organization such as CAP, is that just as sports fans will wear their team's uniform, in an effort to grab part of the glory of that particular 'something greater', I think that there are some CAP members that see the uniform, and use it, for the same purpose.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 07, 2008, 01:03:19 AMIt is about the current situation at CAP.

You said you wanted "a discussion of how to change the course of the current direction."

But that begs the question: Are we currently moving in the wrong direction?

Because I don't think we are. I think our current leadership has seen to that.

Quote from: D242 on August 07, 2008, 01:54:00 AM
The CAP of 1941 was composed of civilians, but they were being asked to perform in a military manner, so the uniform was an essential part of that. (I'm sure that was a whole lot bigger factor than the possibility of one of them being taken prisoner by a U-boat.)

The CAP of 1941 was comprised of members who, for whatever reason, were not serving in the military during a time when nearly >every< able-bodied man in the country was fighting, training, or coming home.

A uniform was a significantly important indicator of masculinity, and many young men joined, fought, and died specifically to get one.

The ability to wear a military-style uniform >and< serve your country in a meaningful role despite whatever kept one out of the active services cannot be discounted, then >or< today.

QuoteA uniform was a significantly important indicator of masculinity, and many young men joined, fought, and died specifically to get one.

The ability to wear a military-style uniform >and< serve your country in a meaningful role despite whatever kept one out of the active services cannot be discounted, then >or< today.

Ok, lemme make sure I'm reading this correctly....

To join, for the purpose of getting a military style uniform, and thus bolstering one's masculinity, is part of the grand tradition of CAP?    ???

I guess that does make it hard to argue with that portion of today's members that do it...

(BTW this >thing< you do to add emphasis is even harder on the eyes than random  bold.)  ;)

Quote from: D242 on August 07, 2008, 02:29:14 AM
To join, for the purpose of getting a military style uniform, and thus bolstering one's masculinity, is part of the grand tradition of CAP?

Its part of the reality of the military and part of our history, no one said it was a grand tradition, it is what it is, and still happens today.

I'm curious (and I wonder whether anyone else thinks this might be true too), how membership would suffer if the USAF suddenly took away their uniforms, and left CAP to only its corporate varieties?

Several posters here have emphatically stated they would quit CAP if we lost the USAF style uniform and moved to corporates only.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 06, 2008, 02:52:55 PM
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.

Do our uniform policies take precedence over everything else? How so?

Quote from: D242 on August 07, 2008, 03:39:48 AM
I'm curious (and I wonder whether anyone else thinks this might be true too), how membership would suffer if the USAF suddenly took away their uniforms, and left CAP to only its corporate varieties?

The best example I guess for CAP would be NBB.  What happened to NBB when NHQ took away the beret?  Let us face it, a number of people join CAP for the pride of the uniform.  Youngesters want to wear a "military" uniform.  Some adults want to wear a "military" uniform because they were not able to with the actual military.

On the other hand, comparing CAP uniforms to military uniforms is like comparing apples and oranges to me.  Military uniforms had a purpose that helped in direct combat.  The uniforms allowed field commanders to easily identify where their units were (hence the brightness of the uniform).  Now they allow for the purpose of camoflauge and concealment.  Sure there were others reasons, but those are among the primary reasons.  

CAP has neither of those, but it does have the ability to create a sense of pride, something to get behind.  One that the organization can use to its advantage--recruitment.  

Without really caring who said what and who did what, I think we all need to take a step back and think about this.  Obviously, Civilian_Pilot has hit a nerve.  We all take the organization seriously and to our hearts because we have spent money and time into it.  We do not want to see it knocked by someone.  Thus, we take a defensive posture.  

Now Civilian_Pilot, a non-member has taken things that have been said on these forums and past experiences with CAP to develop his own idea.  This does speak volumes to us about professionalism.  This is a prime example.  This board speaks to the public for CAP, whether we or NHQ likes it or not.  Thus, the way we conduct ourselves is going to give an impressions (right or wrong) to those non-members what CAP is like.  This is to not say we should not ask about particular problems and help, but the way we ask and respond to those questions is important.  Both sides of the issue have given very arrogant and unprofessional responses.

In the military, officers and NCOs should not talk about their superiors or leaders around or to their soldiers.  This creates problems because you are now undermining your leadership.  In essence, this is what CAPtalk.net, cadetstuff.org, and other forums have happen.  We talk about how bad the squadron, wing, region, and national commanders are.  Stupid policies that need to destroyed.  How bad the cadet program at Squadron X, Y, Z has failed and why.  What ever have you.  

I as a general public does not want to step into an organization that is weak and rebuilding.  Look at military recruiting posters and commericals.  What do you get from those?  A sense of duty and pride in an organization that is strong.  Does the military have problems?  Oh hell yes and I know about the cases of 1SG getting soldiers pregnant, soldiers having drug dealers in the barracks, and officers committing adultery.  The military tries not to present that side to the general public.  Does the public know it happens?  Yes of course.  But in recruiting posters and commericals, we walk away as those things never happen in the military.  That every day in the military is perfect and that every leader is perfect.  The military has since been pushing forums discussing military items to be put behind lock and key.  Platoonleader.org and Companycommander.org are prime examples, you now have to have a .mil address to register so that issues and items can be discussed privately.  

What we should take away from this thread is the fact of how we present ourselves to the public?  Are Civilian_Pilots' conclusions wrong?  Sure some of them are.  But ask yourselves, why are they wrong?  What image have we given to him/her?  Is that the image we are presenting to the local public and media?  



What I believe Civilian_Pilot is trying to say, although misguided, is:  What happens to CAP when we put other items before the main 3 missions?  Has CAP put uniforms ahead of the Cadet Program, Aerospace Education, and ES?  How many uniform changes have we seen in the last few years?  Have we seen this many changes with the ES doctrine?  AE doctrine?  Cadet Program doctrine?  Are we hurting ourselves by loosing focus on what is really important to CAP?  Should we put more emphasis on correctly training the leadership of CAP than making changes to our uniforms or to the way the vans should look or the correct decal on the airplanes?  I am serious, I do nto know how many changes I have seen to the decals for the aircraft in the time I have been in.  

If we put as much energy or more energy into training our squadron commanders then changing our uniforms, how many things would correct themselves?  

When I switched to senior membership, I joined the IT specialty track.  The online (and quite dead) forum site for the IT track required that you send the administration a screenshot of your eServices page so they could validate you really were in the IT track, and then you could register and view the forums.

As much of a pain as that was, I think this (and other) threads demonstrate why it's a pretty useful thing.  People such as Civilian Pilot who aren't actually members of this organization but come in here and try to tell everyone how it needs to be run raise some questions in my mind.  First of all, how do these people find the time to pursue the (according to them) monumental task of improving a volunteer organization to which they do not belong?  C_P clearly spends a fair amount of time writing his posts with coherent thoughts and punctuation (not to mention all of those bold tags).  Which I think is great as far as general writing habits are concerned, but honestly, isn't this forum, and all of us, a colossal waste of his time?  Given the credentials he's offered, he must be a busy guy, traveling all over the world to countries where we can't operate airplanes.  That's also probably why he doesn't have time to poop off in CAP.  So why is he posting here?

Moreover, I just really think that being able to talk about how to improve this organization requires a person to spend a little time in this organization first.  I think this goes along the same line of logic that prevents people who aren't (insert your favorite country here) citizens from voting in (insert same country) elections.

To this specific topic:  Why does the "Credibility of the CAP" need saving?  Where is the data that indicates we don't have "Credibility" anymore?  I understand that many people (C_P included) like to base opinions about this organization on how they perceive things.  I don't.  I like data.  So, as the adage goes, "Show me the bodies."

C_P, I think we all appreciate help in trying to improve our organization, but given that there's very little in this thread, I think you're probably wasting your valuable time.  If you don't volunteer already, I highly suggest joining an organization that suits your interests (service clubs like Rotary, organizations like the United Way, whatever you like), and remember that you'll get out of it what you put in.  I spent way more time volunteering this past year (my senior year of high school) than I ever should have simply because I was trying to pad my resume sufficiently to get into Notre Dame (guess it worked).  So don't spread yourself too thin.

Best of luck,
Jay

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 09:53:19 PM

Quote from: Captain B on August 05, 2008, 09:32:45 PM
Honest question, CP:

What makes you think search and rescue is, has ever been, or needs to be the core focus of the organization?

Well I was the one who stated core mission but I really should have stated primary function/expression of the core reason for the CAP.

What I mean by this is that the CAP is an organization to promote aviation; a aviation Boy Scouts.  All the training, programs, ideals and even uniforms come together in the greatest task that CAP functions:  Search and Rescue.

Does that clarify what I misstated?

"Aviation Boy Scouts"? WTF planet are you from?

CAP is NOT like the Scouts. The Cadet Program is 1/3 of our mission, and at that, it isn't the first thing you should think of when you think of CAP.

This was a war-born organization. Cadets came later. I take the "Scouts" comment as an insult.

To everyone on the board: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. Stay classy, San Diego.

I grew up as a dependent and it's very hard to explain to civilians how the military career lifestyle is for soldiers/airmen/sailors/marines.

A uniform is not an option for the military and as members of their auxiliary, it shouldn't be either.  People who join organizations like ours do it because they are somehow unable, unwilling, or otherwise not in an active or reserve branch of the U.S. military so they volunteer their time to do what we do.

That is a very noble action, but if you're going to be in an auxiliary and help out, you need to study up on the uniforms we wear and make sure that you're in compliance.  It's only fair.

Hey buckeye! Watch your mouth!

Quote from: jaybird512 on August 07, 2008, 07:10:26 AM
People who join organizations like ours do it because they are somehow unable, unwilling, or otherwise not in an active or reserve branch of the U.S. military so they volunteer their time to do what we do.

There are many reasons people volunteer their time to CAP.  To suggest we are all here because we are either unable or unwilling to serve in the military is simply inaccurate and unfairly colors the organization as nothing more than "wannabe's."  Does that explain the motivations of some?  Sure it does.  Does it cover all of us?  Of course not.

CAP has something to offer for all kinds of people.  Some of us join to provide a community service, some to fly, perhaps DDR calls to others, the list goes on.  CAP offers some unique opportunities and some people merely accept the military style culture/uniforms as the cost of coming out to "play." 

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 07, 2008, 06:53:27 AM

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 09:53:19 PM

Quote from: Captain B on August 05, 2008, 09:32:45 PM
Honest question, CP:

What makes you think search and rescue is, has ever been, or needs to be the core focus of the organization?

Well I was the one who stated core mission but I really should have stated primary function/expression of the core reason for the CAP.

What I mean by this is that the CAP is an organization to promote aviation; a aviation Boy Scouts.  All the training, programs, ideals and even uniforms come together in the greatest task that CAP functions:  Search and Rescue.

Does that clarify what I misstated?

"Aviation Boy Scouts"? WTF planet are you from?

CAP is NOT like the Scouts. The Cadet Program is 1/3 of our mission, and at that, it isn't the first thing you should think of when you think of CAP.

This was a war-born organization. Cadets came later. I take the "Scouts" comment as an insult.

To everyone on the board: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. Stay classy, San Diego.

Buckeye... given that you're a member of the National Public Affairs staff, I would encourage you to change your statement to something that falls in line with NHQ's view and vision of CAP.

The Cadet Program IS 1/3 of our mission, but why do you say it isn't the first thing you should think of when you think of CAP? The majority of CAP members are involved in Cadet Programs you know.

Also, check your history because the Cadet Program didn't come about later. It too came about during WW2 as an Army Air Corps feeder program where the youth were instructed by CAP in basic flying so they could go on to Army undergraduate combat pilot training and off to war.

Thirdly, being a Scout is no shame. The Boy and Girl scouts of America are great organizations that turn out great citizens. They turn out young men and women capable of helping this nation instead of being a burden on it. They turn out fine leaders. I am sad that I wasn't a member of such an organization when I was younger, but such was my personal upbringing. Many CAP units are dual chartered with the Boy Scouts of America actually.

Please refrain from biased comments on this board. Especially when you sign it as a member of NHQ PA Staff. Otherwise, be prepared for your comments to make it up the chain to the national director of Public Affairs and deal with him.

Furthermore, please check and correct your signature (if you must have one) so it complies with CAP regulations. Check USAF Tongue & Quill for reference. What you have now is definitely not correct.

Quote from: afgeo4 on August 07, 2008, 03:25:41 PM
The Cadet Program IS 1/3 of our mission, but why do you say it isn't the first thing you should think of when you think of CAP? The majority of CAP members are involved in Cadet Programs you know.

Because it misstates the situation.

The BSA is an organization specifically for youth. All adults in the program are focused on the execution of that mission.
You cannot join the BSA without being fully involved with children and adolescents, and that is the fundamental understanding and image to the public.  It is the core of recruiting, and also the core of many people steering clear.

CAP is a service organization which has a youth-organization component.  Thousands of members serve their entire CAP careers without ever encountering a cadet, which is fine as long as it serves the overall mission.

OK, OK, I surrender. Yip, should've not gone off half-cocked. Still, on this board, the comments I make are mine and mine alone.

Someone said my signature on this board means I'm speaking on behalf of someone else. Not at all. The signature on a chat board identifies me, and tells people here what I do. I don't think you can hold anyone on a chat board to anything more than that. Also, my signature here doesn't have to be Tongue And Quill-correct. This site doesn't serve as official correspondence. It's a friggin' chat site, for crying out loud.

If I were speaking for someone else, or for higher headquarters, I'd be doing so in a different venue. Sorry, folks, if you thought otherwise.

I was incredulous last night when I read through this topic. No, Scouts aren't a bad thing at all, but they're not us. We offer many things Scouting doesn't, and I think our cadets are a cut above. To say that we're the "aviation Boy Scouts" does no justice at all to what CAP really is and does every day. It trivializes two missions of ours that have just as much weight as the cadet program.

Whomever civilian_pilot is, he's a troll. Let's not feed him anymore.

You know we aren't the only one's that spend time debating uniforms...

http://www.afblues.com/?p=402#comments

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 07, 2008, 04:42:58 PM
Someone said my signature on this board means I'm speaking on behalf of someone else. Not at all. The signature on a chat board identifies me, and tells people here what I do. I don't think you can hold anyone on a chat board to anything more than that. Also, my signature here doesn't have to be Tongue And Quill-correct. This site doesn't serve as official correspondence. It's a friggin' chat site, for crying out loud.

If I were speaking for someone else, or for higher headquarters, I'd be doing so in a different venue. Sorry, folks, if you thought otherwise.

Sorry, Buck, I gotta go with afg on this.  I don't think the format matters to anyone, but the listing of staff positions is only there as an indicator of BTDT for credibility, and conversely you have to accept that if you say it linked to listing who you "are", you are open to getting tapped by higher HQ.

You can't have it both ways.

BTW - what is this thread about, anyway?

Quote from: Al Sayre on August 07, 2008, 04:48:05 PM
You know we aren't the only one's that spend time debating uniforms...

http://www.afblues.com/?p=402#comments

Flightsuit = "adult onesies"  THAT'S AWESOME!   :clap:

I think this thread was useful for at least one thing...

It got us through a full 24 hours without a post to a uniform thread!

Hope it does not last more than 48 hrs.  I am starting to have withdraw.    :-[

Quote from: Eclipse on August 07, 2008, 04:50:24 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 07, 2008, 04:42:58 PM
Someone said my signature on this board means I'm speaking on behalf of someone else. Not at all. The signature on a chat board identifies me, and tells people here what I do. I don't think you can hold anyone on a chat board to anything more than that. Also, my signature here doesn't have to be Tongue And Quill-correct. This site doesn't serve as official correspondence. It's a friggin' chat site, for crying out loud.

If I were speaking for someone else, or for higher headquarters, I'd be doing so in a different venue. Sorry, folks, if you thought otherwise.

Sorry, Buck, I gotta go with afg on this.  I don't think the format matters to anyone, but the listing of staff positions is only there as an indicator of BTDT for credibility, and conversely you have to accept that if you say it linked to listing who you "are", you are open to getting tapped by higher HQ.

You can't have it both ways.

BTW - what is this thread about, anyway?

Boy, I don't know what it's about, but it's been interesting.

You know, I'll take the signature thoughts under advisement. I put them there so people would know who I am and what I do, not to say that I speak with some authority from on high. I believe in transparency, which means I'm not going to have Internet Tough Guy Syndrome, hiding behind a pseudonym. I'm no different from anyone else...

... except that I'm a former cadet, a squadron commander, a major (still), an aviator, and somehow wound up helping the national staff. OK, so maybe you would perceive it that way.

My apologies. Again, I went off half-cocked last night, so my apologies there, also.

No more mea culpas. You got your quota from me already!  ;D

Quote from: cnitas on August 07, 2008, 05:05:32 PM
I think this thread was useful for at least one thing...

It got us through a full 24 hours without a post to a uniform thread!

Hope it does not last more than 48 hrs.  I am starting to have withdraw.    :-[

Could've been worse.  We could have been talking about Brett Favre!! ;) >:D ;)

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 07, 2008, 06:53:27 AM

This was a war-born organization. Cadets came later. I take the "Scouts" comment as an insult.

.

It is amazing how to a certain few this is such an underlining theme.

When this is so much more a cooler statement:

QuoteAfter 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 almost makes me think a few selected persons almost wish we were in a shooting war.

Amazing.

In WWII?   We were in a shooting war.  We dropped bombs on enemy submarines and credited with two kills IIRC.

So, uh, Buckeye, where do you think Fossett is hiding out?

(Just between you and me, of course.)
;)

Quote from: D242 on August 07, 2008, 06:34:31 PM
So, uh, Buckeye, where do you think Fossett is hiding out?

(Just between you and me, of course.)
;)

If I knew, would I tell you without an incident commander's approval? And at this point, without Gen. Amy's approval, too?  >:D

By the way, you owe me a keyboard. I shot it full of Pepsi, laughing when I read your question.

Sorry about the keyboard.    :)

I apologize, but I couldn't resist the chance at that one, since your earlier statements about speaking only for yourself made it seem as if the lesson so recently provided about how things said by PAOs, even outside the mission context, get attributed, simply by association, to the organization. I'm glad you were able to laugh at my comment.

(And I'll admit I never functioned in that role, so I'm not in a fair position to criticize anyone that has, but I do remember being briefed about how the media does things. )

To tie that back into the subject of the thread though, which (uniforms notwithstanding), is the "credibility" of CAP--Several comments have been made that the nature of this board is informal, and none of the discussions here should necessarily reflect directly on the organization itself. I can't agree with that, and I'll expound on that.

When I was a member, there was a group of us that often went to a local resturaunt after the meetings for dinner, and conversation. Nothing bad ever happened there; quite the opposite I hope. We were in our uniforms, and obviously CAP members. The resturaunt was near the airport, so in addition to the general public, there were often other patrons that were members of the aviation community. Whatever impression we made on the other folks in that resturaunt, was the impression they got of CAP in general.

This is an internet forum. In the same way that we were giving an impression to those in the resturaunt, the members that post here are giving an impression to everyone that bothers to browse the board. The difference here is that what's posted here, remains, for all to see, even after the poster has logged off. I must admit that I have found many of the posts here to reflect the same high standards that I enjoyed about my time as a member, but at the same time, I've seen some that leave a negative impression--some that reinforce some of the negative stereotypes associated with CAP. I'd also be less than candid if I didn't admit that I believe some of those stereotypes have a basis in reality.

The thread was started to discuss CAP's "credibility". As we all know, CAP is still one of the nation's best kept secrets. If there's a question of credibility, it's limited mainly to those in the aviation community, because most of everybody else doesn't even know of CAP's existence (until there's a major search or something, and once that's over, they soon forget.) By "those in the aviation community" I mean people like the opening poster, Civilian_Pilot. Having been on the inside, I'm aware of the high level of sincerity, integrity, devotion to helping others, etc., that's exhibited every day by CAP members, but I think it does pay to be aware that there are others who've yet to see that with their own eyes, and when they offer their opinions, to take them into account.

It has been said of some things, "perception equals reality." If someone on the outside percieves that there's a problem with CAP's credibilty...

To be fair, there's a lot of things said on this board, good and bad, informed and ignorant. Does it reflect upon CAP? I'm not totally sure I agree.

Though, also to be fair, I can appreciate what you're talking about.

I wish people wouldn't blame the media all the time. Yes, there are times the media's biased. There's times they (we, since I'm a newspaper editor) make mistakes. Few are the times something's totally fabricated. And in the case of the Ryan-Fossett quotes, I still don't believe the comments were made.

Perception is reality: What we look like to people on the outside heavily influences what people think of us. That's why some of us have such a hangup on uniforms -- ultimately, the hangup isn't on uniforms, but instead on overall image. That's where CAP suffers, every time a member goes out in public looking like a slob.

Wow, I think we found some agreement. I'll bet even C_P might find something to agree with here.

QuotePerception is reality:

QuoteI wish people wouldn't blame the media all the time. Yes, there are times the media's biased. There's times they (we, since I'm a newspaper editor) make mistakes.

Then you're probably not going to be happy to hear me say that my perception is that there's a credibility problem with the media.   :)

QuoteWhat we look like to people on the outside heavily influences what people think of us. That's why some of us have such a hangup on uniforms -- ultimately, the hangup isn't on uniforms, but instead on overall image. That's where CAP suffers, every time a member goes out in public looking like a slob.

Looking like a slob, certainly would present a negative image of the CAP as a whole. The other discussion, about Ryan's uniform malfunctions didn't mention that she looked like a slob (that I can recall), but rather on things like the earrings, the outdated patch, etc. Those are things that the general public would probably never notice, but a member might, and a member of the actual military might. That doesn't excuse it, but I'm not sure the two sets of perceptions are of equal influence on the organization's image. As I expressed somewhere above, I agree that the proper wear of the uniform is important. (The USAF type uniform especially. The corporate styles, not so much.) That's simply out of respect for the larger meaning of what the uniform represnts.

And with further reference to that, I always thought that it looked sort of rag-tag to have a roomful of members at (whatever activity) wearing a half dozen different types of uniform, even if each and every one of them was strictly in compliance with 39-1. I mean, doesn't "uniform" (the noun) refer back to "uniform" (the adjective)?    ???

In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

Quote from: Eclipse on August 08, 2008, 01:00:14 AM
In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

Mind if I borrow that? Been trying to figure out a way to say such a thing, but never could quite do it.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 08, 2008, 01:00:14 AM
In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

There is a little bit of truth to that.....but you can only carry that so far.  Attention to detail must also be weighed with time and resource management.  Sometimes you have to prioritise.....I don't have to time to be a "perfectionist" in everything I do.  But the "important" things I do keep the appropriate attention to detail.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 08, 2008, 06:22:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 08, 2008, 01:00:14 AM
In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

There is a little bit of truth to that.....but you can only carry that so far.  Attention to detail must also be weighed with time and resource management.  Sometimes you have to prioritise.....I don't have to time to be a "perfectionist" in everything I do.  But the "important" things I do keep the appropriate attention to detail.

I think there is truth to that.  In general, a person who cares about his uniform tends to project the image that he cares about other details as well.  However, you have to keep a balance.  There are some people who are so concerned about their uniform that they don't take appropriate care in other situations.

You know, the type of person who you wouldn't trust with a CAP DF unit, let alone a plane, but boy his uniform sure looks sharp.

What I'm saying is that the image may be perceived one way but it not necessarily the accurate way.

Quote from: davedove on August 08, 2008, 11:57:55 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 08, 2008, 06:22:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 08, 2008, 01:00:14 AM
In all cases, good or bad, the way a member wears their uniform is an indication of their attention to detail, especially details some might think are "unimportant".

There is a little bit of truth to that.....but you can only carry that so far.  Attention to detail must also be weighed with time and resource management.  Sometimes you have to prioritise.....I don't have to time to be a "perfectionist" in everything I do.  But the "important" things I do keep the appropriate attention to detail.

I think there is truth to that.  In general, a person who cares about his uniform tends to project the image that he cares about other details as well.  However, you have to keep a balance.  There are some people who are so concerned about their uniform that they don't take appropriate care in other situations.

You know, the type of person who you wouldn't trust with a CAP DF unit, let alone a plane, but boy his uniform sure looks sharp.

What I'm saying is that the image may be perceived one way but it not necessarily the accurate way.

Our appearance has a direct relationship with how we are perceived by others outside the organization.  Yes, they may not know what patch goes where and whether the measurements are correct, but they do know whether an individual's uniform is clean, pressed, and fits properly, and it absolutely can affect their confidence in our abilities.  I'm not suggesting that you miss mission briefings or movements while you're in the back room starching your uniform or shining your boots, but at least understand that if you're seen walking around with a messed-up uniform, people will perceive you as less than competent. 

This idea that we need not wear our uniform correctly because we're "focusing on our priorities" is folly.  Show me an individual who looks sharp in uniform, and I would lay a bet that nine out of ten are exceptional members who are the best at what they do. 

Uniforms are a part of CAP; those who want to minimize this requirement should buy their golf shirt and get on with business.  Those who want to wear a uniform should wear it correctly, and if they haven't taken the time or care to ensure they're wearing it correctly, they shouldn't get mad when someone corrects them for it.  Sorry for the rant, but it really irritates me that some members think that wearing an AF uniform however they so choose is their God-given right for paying $52 a year.  It is a privilege that carries with it the responsibility of wearing the uniform correctly.  Not doing so is disrespectful to those who's right to wear the uniform was paid for with their life.

Sure....you take the 10 guys who are very shap in unfiorms and most of them will be sharp in sills as well.  Some of them will be just mediocer and some of them will be teriible.

But you take the 80 guys who just wear their uniform and are not concerned with the "attention to detail" of their uniform and you will find that the percentage of good-acceptable-bad is probably the same.

It is a matter of degree here.  "Attention to detail" means every "detail" is just as important as every other "detail".   So I sewed on my wing patch and it is .75" instead of .50+/-.000001" does not necessairily mean that when I check the oil in the C-182 I blow it off when it is below the fill line or that I do not make sure all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed on my property inventory.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 08, 2008, 04:57:37 PM
It is a matter of degree here.  "Attention to detail" means every "detail" is just as important as every other "detail". 

No, it doesn't.

And you know as well as the rest of us that these discussions rarely center on 3rd-decimal positioning of a patch. 

They are generally about people who have overtly chosen to do something counter-, or extra-reg, and in many cases refuse to correct things when pointed out, instead making a constant argument why something "should be allowed", which is beside the point.

The flipside is people who can't be bothered to open a manual.

The majority of members, though, do things pretty well, ask questions when they aren't sure, and make corrections when they get something wrong.  For most members uniforms are "set and forget", with an occasional adjustment for a decoration, grade or new insignia.  That's how its supposed to be.

100% of CAP duty can be accomplished in the golf shirt or civilian dress, so there is no excuse for incorrect wear of more complicated uniforms.

There are slobs in every service, FD/PD, military, but for the most part the credibility issues are internal - as long as the fire's out, the streets are safe, and the bad guys are kept at bay, few of the "customers" really care how the uniform looks.

Indeed

Quote from: Eclipse on August 08, 2008, 05:20:42 PM
For most members uniforms are "set and forget", with an occasional adjustment for a decoration, grade or new insignia. 

This is probably why the issue of improper uniform is probably blown up so much. It doesn't really take that much to be in proper uniform, especially uniforms where the insignia is sewn on. If something isn't placed right or you don't have it, there is little reason that you can't have it fixed by the next week, or the week after.

The problem is when the same person shows up with the same problem every week for three or four months. That's where it shows they don't care. It's minor to wait a week or two to get a nametag. It's major when it takes six months. We may only meet once a week on average, but there are still things you should be doing between meetings.

If someone shows up with a minor or a major uniform malfunction.....why is someone not talking to them?

If they show up 3-4 times with the same problem...that is a leadership issue not a attention to detail issue.

My point about the "attention to detail" is that just because you are razor sharp does not mean you are competent to do your job.....and by the same toke just because you are duffle bag does not mean you are incompetent.

Yes...uniforms are important.  But sometimes we do overstress the importance of uniforms.

When we had the NER SAREX last summer at the ANG base in Westover Ma.  I was asked by the AF PAO why so many uniforms.  He never mentioned any uniform fopas, though I saw quite a few. 

I was part of the PAO team and it was mandated before that the PAO team all wore grays and short sleeve aviators, all ribbons.  As a team we looked really good.. uniform.... This accommodated me.. fuzzy... the Capt.. then fat.. we had other members who could have worn the AF, but we wanted to look like a team, so although I could have shaved, then we could have worn the TPU, we opted for the 'uniform' that would apply to all of us regardless.

Looking out over the hanger when I saw some aircrews in Sage, some in blue flight suits, I even saw a smurf suit.  Same with the BDU's.  With 200 people it looked pretty rag tag in my mind.  So I would say for at least the adults, let's get down to one common option on uniforms based on activity. Dress, Ground, Aircrew.

That said....
Still the reviews from the Brig Gen of the base was he was amazed at the skills and professionalism, from the youngest cadet on up.  His parting comment to the PAO team was.  "It's good to know if I go down, (he's a pilot) you guys will be looking for me".

So here we did have a sea of uniforms, infractions, etc.. But a Big Gen from mama blue saw the skills and desire to serve.

Am I saying uniforms are not important.. nope.. we should ignore infractions.. heck no.  Just saying that people can see beyond.  That we need to be on our game and exude professionalism in what we do.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 08, 2008, 07:24:15 PM
If someone shows up with a minor or a major uniform malfunction.....why is someone not talking to them?

If they show up 3-4 times with the same problem...that is a leadership issue not a attention to detail issue.

You are 100% correct.

I think that the comment from 1LT F. & F. two posts above hits it pretty well. I was also amazed at the number of replies to this thread!

This thread started out pretty aggressively and all I have to say is this: I will invoke those submarine chasers and say those were brave and honorable citizens who have set a standard that I try to meet in performing my CAP duties. And I do believe CAP serves to this day with the same mindset: to do what is necessary as volunteers to serve our nation.

Truth be told, there are many things wrong that need fixing. But that has to be expected in such a large organization. True, there should be an easier way for us to communicate our thoughts to those decision makers up the chain of command. But even so they do listen: take a good read at the thousands of posts here and you will catch glimpses of how the higher-ups do listen!

Let me also say that in very few organizations do you see volunteers as dedicated and as selfless as the men and women of CAP. Our members try the very best to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. I have not seen anybody here for only personal glory--at least no one that has lasted. I only saw 2 people ever in 9 years with CAP that were power hungry and they crumbled under their own weight. Even so they were never in any position to cause any real harm.

Speaking of missions: we have three--count them: 3. Aerospace education is more crucial today than ever because anyone alert to our nation's education system knows, more and more kids are losing interest in math and science: crucial areas to our aerospace sectors. Cadet programs forges better citizens and leaders that in many ways improves our nation. And of course, emergency services is, well, you guys know. We do save lives.

Our credibility? I think if people get to know us, we are perhaps among the most important organizations in this country. Uniform policy? It comes and goes. Whatever it is, it is up to all of us to do it right.

And one last thing. This forum is a place of healthy debate and learning. God knows how many opinions I had were quickly changed upon reading and learning from others. That's why I come to this site--to learn and discuss. That is one way we can make CAP better. And like I said before: the brass does listen. Another way: go to conferences. Get out there and be active. Don't talk about mission pilot qualifications if you don't even have a sport pilot license! Not unless you want to help out and volunteer as a mission pilot.

Hey, to those who bring baggage to this site: Leave it at the door. Come here to learn and have an open mind. Being a member of CAP requires us to have an open mind: open to new ideas, new solutions, and new challenges.  Most of all be positive! This is a great organization and I am real proud of being a member, no matter how small my contribution may be!

Semper Vigilans

Slightly off topic, but points out how uniform wear relates to organizational credibility--At 5:30 a.m. this morning I went through the TSA security line at KBOS . First, I noticed that they wear epaulets. Some had one stripe; the most I saw was three. I guess they have some sort of rank structure?

Anyway, they wear a metal nameplate on the right hand side of the shirt. The lady with three stripes was wearing hers upside-down. (Had I not been reading this thread, I may never have noticed, and we had a laugh about it. We agree it was so she could look down and read it in case she forgot her own name. She fixed it right then and there.)   :)

Quote from: D242 on August 17, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
First, I noticed that they wear epaulets. Some had one stripe; the most I saw was three. I guess they have some sort of rank structure?

I don't know how TSA does it, but in Federal agencies it's a pay grade indicator, with "rank" following the pay grade. One of the instructors for one of those agencies told his students, "A GS-9 takes directions from a GS-13." They wear what looks like traditional military rank insignia, but they don't go by "lieutenant", "captain" or "major". I imagine that the TSA system is similar, but I really don't know.

Quote from: Civilian_Pilot on August 05, 2008, 05:54:29 PM

Quote from: arajca on August 05, 2008, 05:46:29 PM
To answer the topic:
It can help, but more important is having members that will follow the policy. If you look at most of the arguments over uniform policy - excluding the dreams - they fall into "following the reg as written" vs "follow the reg as I interpret it". I fall into the first group.

A sensible policy - meaning one equal uniform for ewach AF combo atuhorized - will work wonders for CAP.

Really?  I would think it would be more important to have a membership who are more concerned about the core mission of CAP than the dogmatic uniform policy.

You can pin all the medals and ribbons with their lavender epaulets and it won't make a sliver difference in what is at the core of the person.

In fact I would argue that someone who browbeats everyone over uniform policy actually chases off individuals who are there for the core mission of CAP.

Having stated the above, I think you missed the real question and task of the initial message.

I for one am not in CAP for ES. I am in it for cadets.Therefore, uniforms and appearence are important to me. Its the example we set for our cadets that make them into better leaders. i am in CAP to encourage young people to pursue careers in the Air Force or aviation (As pilots) Thats why i am in CAP. ES is nice and I do it as a secondary interetst. but my primary interest is cadet programs.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 18, 2008, 02:24:47 AM
I for one am not in CAP for ES. I am in it for cadets.Therefore, uniforms and appearence are important to me. Its the example we set for our cadets that make them into better leaders. i am in CAP to encourage young people to pursue careers in the Air Force or aviation (As pilots) Thats why i am in CAP. ES is nice and I do it as a secondary interetst. but my primary interest is cadet programs.

After a long break from my cadet years, I re-joined to work with cadets. I got into Ground Team to support my cadets in their participation in the ES mission.

That said, in many states any non-ELT SAR is with uniformed state agencies. (In RI it is State Police, local PD or FD, Dept of Environmental Management.) If we are going to show up in uniform, we need to look uniform. From the really obvious like name tape and CAP tape on the wrong sides to more subtle like variations on the amount ultramarine blue around grade and badges. No one is going to break out the ruler at the check-in site for a missing person search, but first impressions are lasting.

wel, we focus more on aviation (flying) and Color Guard things. We could do the GT thing if we had people wiling to teach it and go out wit them

Maybe if Civilian Pilot (who has definitely proven himself of questionable intelligence) would stop polluting the forums with his uninformed and illogical arguments, we could spend more time discussing topics on the ES board instead of wasting time being distracted by his irrelevant concerns.  He obviously has NO idea what he's talking about (though to be honest, I couldn't read this entire thread... it was just too painful and I felt my IQ dropping with each bold word I read.

Quote from: Hawk200 on August 18, 2008, 02:11:22 AM

Quote from: D242 on August 17, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
First, I noticed that they wear epaulets. Some had one stripe; the most I saw was three. I guess they have some sort of rank structure?

I don't know how TSA does it, but in Federal agencies it's a pay grade indicator, with "rank" following the pay grade. One of the instructors for one of those agencies told his students, "A GS-9 takes directions from a GS-13." They wear what looks like traditional military rank insignia, but they don't go by "lieutenant", "captain" or "major". I imagine that the TSA system is similar, but I really don't know.

The folks in uniform are either TSOs (Transportation Security Officers), LTSOs (Lead TSOs), or STSOs (Supervisory TSOs).  These are the one, two, or three stripes you see.

GC

Thank you. I have now learned my "something new" for today.    :)

Interesting the OP of this thread has not posted nor logged on for 2 weeks now....

Talk about a hit and run, Troll....

Seems in the uniform thread, the bait is easy to put out and the hook set...  Just feed out the line...

Quote from: 1st Lt Richard "Pumbaa" Fairchild on August 24, 2008, 09:13:40 PM
Interesting the OP of this thread has not posted nor logged on for 2 weeks now....

Talk about a hit and run, Troll....

Seems in the uniform thread, the bait is easy to put out and the hook set...  Just feed out the line...

Actually genius, I have been flying overseas for most of the two weeks followed by a couple days of pre-position Gustav disaster relief flights.

You know, the kind of stuff you only dream of.

Enough.