So are we Airmen?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

From Air Force News Service at http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123280147 comes this...

Following closely behind AFDD 1, Schwartz approved AFDD 1-1, the second of the Air Force's capstone doctrine documents. In addition to laying out the Air Force's best practices for creating leaders and applying leadership, Andersen highlighted the expanded definition of "Airman" contained in AFDD 1-1: "When addressing a larger audience within the Service, the term Airman now includes all uniformed members of the Air Force (including active, Reserve and Guard), as well as Department of the Air Force civilians."

So will this extend to CAP members? I've been using "Volunteer Airmen" for some time, hoping it'd catch fire somewhere ("Citizen Airmen" is used by AFRES). Discuss.

[Ed Bos]

The USAF definition of "Airman" is inclusive, not exclusive.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/airman

If the CAP National Commander chose to make a policy stating that "Airman" was an appropriate term for Cadets, Sponsor Members, Officers, NCOs, Flight Officers, Aircrew, Ground Teams, Mission Base Staff, etc, that's also inclusive, not exclusive.

No single policy decision in this regard changes the fact that the term is larger in scope than any single organization.

We can be Airman if we want to be. My 2 cents.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

From the Oxford Dictionary Online:

noun (plural airmen or airwomen)

    a pilot or member of the crew of an aircraft, especially in an air force.
    a member of the RAF below commissioned rank.
    a member of the US air force of the lowest rank, below staff sergeant.
    a member of the US navy whose general duties are concerned with aircraft.

From Wikipedia:

In the United States Air Force and the Royal Air Force (in which airwoman is also seen), it can also refer to a specific enlisted rank. More informally, it can refer to any member of an air force, or to any pilot, aviator, or aircrewman, military or civilian, male or female.

[jimmydeanno]

There are numerous e-mails shooting around trying to reinvent the definition of the "Air Force Team."  They're labeling tenant units, and other organizations that are on the base as "teammates," "strategic partners," etc.  The idea being that the phrase tenant doesn't symbolize the relationship the unit has with the community on the base.

I think that the farthest stretch we could use for a term would be "Auxiliary Airman."

[Flying Pig]

I think CAP members referring to themselves as "Airmen" is a very bad idea.  Unless the new directive states, "members of the Civil Air Patrol" Id say they weren't talking to us.

"When addressing a larger audience within the Service, the term Airman now includes all uniformed members of the Air Force (including active, Reserve and Guard), as well as Department of the Air Force civilians."

[Flying Pig]

ooops

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I hate when I double click post. 

[DrJbdm]

I think that largely depends on if we are or consider ourselves to be a part of the larger service, meaning of course a part of the Air Force service as a whole. I believe that we are, unless or until the Air Force specifically says "No, you are not considered a member of the larger service audience" then we should start considering ourselves as members of that audience and behave and act accordingly. Why should we take it upon ourselves to distance ourselves?

[RiverAux]

If they're considering AF civilians generic "airmen" then I don't see why it wouldn't apply to us as well.

FYI, although the CG certainly makes the CG Aux feel that they are part of the Coast Guard "Team" to an astronomically greater extent than the AF does CAP, the generic term "Coastie" is generally only used for those in the AD or Reserves. 

[Major Lord]

According to our traditional policy on jumping on the newest politically trend  (Suicide prevention programs, etc.) I think we should use the gender-neutral version, or "Persons of Air", lest we offend anyone who might belong to a non-traditional category. In a similar sense, "Snowmen"( who don't have external sexual characteristics anyway) should be referred to as  "Snow Persons" or "Persons of Snow". "Henchmen" is now "Hench persons".

This sounds like something along the lines of distinguishing "Officers and Men", when referring to a body of persons collectively called "soldiers". Even though you may not carry a rifle around to slay America's foes, you may still be a "Soldier", an "Officer", and a "Man" (referring to the collective plural, or belonging to the human race, even when speaking of women), all terms to describe the overlap between subsets, but when viewed as a refined set, a narrower term may apply exclusively. CAP as a group has as a principal objective, duties involving flying, and aerospace. To describe ourselves as "Airmen" is no more being a poseur than a man a being called  a "horseman" whether he rides or breeds horses. Yes, collectively, we are "Airmen".

Major Lord
Person of Hench

[sandman]

According to our traditional policy on jumping on the newest politically trend  (Suicide prevention programs, etc.) I think we should use the gender-neutral version, or "Persons of Air", lest we offend anyone who might belong to a non-traditional category. In a similar sense, "Snowmen"( who don't have external sexual characteristics anyway) should be referred to as  "Snow Persons" or "Persons of Snow". "Henchmen" is now "Hench persons".

This sounds like something along the lines of distinguishing "Officers and Men", when referring to a body of persons collectively called "soldiers". Even though you may not carry a rifle around to slay America's foes, you may still be a "Soldier", an "Officer", and a "Man" (referring to the collective plural, or belonging to the human race, even when speaking of women), all terms to describe the overlap between subsets, but when viewed as a refined set, a narrower term may apply exclusively. CAP as a group has as a principal objective, duties involving flying, and aerospace. To describe ourselves as "Airmen" is no more being a poseur than a man a being called  a "horseman" whether he rides or breeds horses. Yes, collectively, we are "Airmen".

Major Lord
Person of Hench

So, "Human" is out next?

Hu-person

Person of Hu...


No bones about it, this is humerus....

[Eclipse]

According to our traditional policy on jumping on the newest politically trend  (Suicide prevention programs, etc.) I think we should use the gender-neutral version, or "Persons of Air", lest we offend anyone who might belong to a non-traditional category. In a similar sense, "Snowmen"( who don't have external sexual characteristics anyway) should be referred to as  "Snow Persons" or "Persons of Snow". "Henchmen" is now "Hench persons".

Mic Check.

That still excludes those who are not "persons", and assumes that homo sapiens are some how a superior life form to other entities who may or may not be alive.

(...waits for the human microphone to finish...)

Also, preferring "air" over other elements may insult Gaia, so we propose this go to committee for further discussion.

Up Twinkles...

[Major Lord]

Yes, you are quite right. I apologize if I have offended any Australopithecans, Neanderthals, or CroMagnon, Homo Erectus, or Kirby vacuum cleaner sales personnel in my Homo-Sapien centric, racist view of the world. Now, off to ride my Unicorn to the temple of Gaia!

Major Lord
Person of the four elements

[paladin82]

To quote Ben Whitledge (No Time For Sergeants), Airman sounds like "something out of a danged funny book."

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If a GS employee flying a desk is considered an "airman," then so are we, as far as I'm concerned.

Also...on the subject of "gender-neutral" rank titles, the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF and RCAF (who no longer uses those titles; they go Private, Corporal, Master Corporal) have been using them since their inception.

Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman - Airman Basic

Leading Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman - Airman

(RAF only) Senior Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman - Airman First Class

A former friend of mine had a girlfriend who was very much on the radical side of feminist thought, and she got very ticked-off (to put it mildly) that the "Airman" (as well as "Seaman" in the Navy/CG) title existed for both genders.

[ol'fido]

There are numerous e-mails shooting around trying to reinvent the definition of the "Air Force Team."  They're labeling tenant units, and other organizations that are on the base as "teammates," "strategic partners," etc.  The idea being that the phrase tenant doesn't symbolize the relationship the unit has with the community on the base.

I think that the farthest stretch we could use for a term would be "Auxiliary Airman."

I guess we could "Dilbert" something up. 

[Ed Bos]

There are numerous e-mails shooting around trying to reinvent the definition of the "Air Force Team." 

I think CAP members referring to themselves as "Airmen" is a very bad idea.  Unless the new directive states, "members of the Civil Air Patrol" Id say they weren't talking to us.

If they're considering AF civilians generic "airmen" then I don't see why it wouldn't apply to us as well.

If a GS employee flying a desk is considered an "airman," then so are we, as far as I'm concerned.

All of the above quotes have the same thing in common: They all are interpreting AF rules on use of the term "Airman/Airmen" as they apply to the AF.

To describe ourselves as "Airmen" is no more being a poseur than a man a being called  a "horseman" whether he rides or breeds horses. Yes, collectively, we are "Airmen".

^  Like he said, we use the term Airman or Airmen because it's the right term. The idea of an Airman predates the USAF, and applies to general aviation, commercial aviation, and military aviation equally. I'm all for working towards greater congruity and a closer relationship with our "parent" Service, but c'mon... We don't need their permission to use the correct language to describe ourselves.

    Following closely behind AFDD 1, Schwartz approved AFDD 1-1, the second of the Air Force's capstone doctrine documents. In addition to laying out the Air Force's best practices for creating leaders and applying leadership, Andersen highlighted the expanded definition of "Airman" contained in AFDD 1-1: "When addressing a larger audience within the Service, the term Airman now includes all uniformed members of the Air Force (including active, Reserve and Guard), as well as Department of the Air Force civilians."

General Schwarts is only extending the liberal use of an appropriate word to include all his assigned personnel. That has nothing to do with whether or not we use the term. Which we should, because Civil Air Patrol members ARE Airmen.

[a2capt]

Why bother trying to talk anymore since each word has to be ...

Non-sexist, non-racist, non-heterosexist, and free from the slightest trace of Euro-centricity.

A waitress is now.. a waitron, that means that Trinidad must now be .. Trinitron!

Thank you, Capitol Steps..

[Fox2001]

If CAP is the only military you've ever done...then, strutting around in our berets, BDUs, and carrying 72-hour packs while picking up trash at airshows = poser.

And I'm proud to be one.

The majority of our members are cry-baby homeschoolers who can't get from under mummy's skirt long enough to get mud on their boots.  Too many don't wear the uniform the way we're supposed to and almost none of us get near an airplane.  Airmen?  Hah!

Palafox

[Hawk200]

No bones about it, this is humerus....

I see what you did there.

Anyway, I don't see why CAP members wouldn't be "airman." Part of the Air Force, and contributes (however minimally anyone might think) to the mission. If not "airmen," then what?

I think "auxiliary airmen" would be appropriate if one wanted to be more specific. I think that falls in line with "active duty airmen," "citizen airmen" (such as the Guard and Reserve are called), and either "civilian" or "general aviation airmen."