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."

[NCRblues]

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

I guess by your standards the AF can no longer call cops, medics, medical office personnel, comms, admin, finance, command and control personnel, dental medical personnel (the list can go on if you need me to) "airman" anymore. They (generally) do not get "their boots muddy" and most don't even come near an aircraft most of their time in service.

You should type up a letter to the AF and explain why they are wrong.
  (sarcasim disclamer)

[RogueLeader]

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

While that is certainly your opinion, and maybe your experience;  it is not of mine in over 7 years, 3 regions and 4 wings. Such a comment is inflamatory and disrespecting all the things that we do. If there are people that don't wear the uniforms correctly, their command needs to fix it.

[a2capt]

Kinda makes you wonder why the Cobb County Composite Squadron web site's forum has a broken profile for Lt. Palafox ...

[Major Carrales]

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

Don Knots was not Ben Whitledge, he was the poor guy giving the manual dexterity test that Stockdale "did totally wrong."  Unless you are talking about something other than the Warner Bros. Movie...there was a TV show, Theater Show and Television Special I am less familiar with.  lol

[SarDragon]

The quote is correct, according to IMDb: "Benjamin B. Whitledge:   Air man! Like somethin' out of a dang funny book! Air man! How you gonna like it when somebody calls you "Air man"?"

The picture, in a manner of speaking, is not, since it shows Knots as Cpl. [sic] Brown.

[paladin82]

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

Don Knots was not Ben Whitledge, he was the poor guy giving the manual dexterity test that Stockdale "did totally wrong."  Unless you are talking about something other than the Warner Bros. Movie...there was a TV show, Theater Show and Television Special I am less familiar with.  lol

Yes, I know.  Don Knotts was referred to as a 'corporal,' which I thought odd.  I just liked his picture better than Nick Adams'.

[SarDragon]

The author was in the AAF during WWII, so he used the rank structure of the time.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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

That's quite a sweeping generalisation (and a logical fallacy).

I went to public grade school, junior high school, high school and college.  Some of our cadets are homeschooled, including our cadet commander, and they are among our best and brightest.

I was in the ANG but unfortunately had to get out because of medical issues.

CAP is my way of continuing my service.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The author was in the AAF during WWII, so he used the rank structure of the time.

The AF very briefly had two-stripe Corporals in the early days.

[SarDragon]

According to a Wikipedia article, 'briefly' lasted from 1947 to 1952. Mac Hyman wrote the book between 1947 and 1954. It al fits.l

[a2capt]

That's quite a sweeping generalisation (and a logical fallacy).

Incase you have not figured it out, that poster, is banned, is probably a member non-gratis at a unit in Georgia, and having (had) a tantrum about it on the forum here. A quick view of their broken profile on said unit's web site shows them listed as the same age as another poster questioned them to be, and they're probably acting out their own problem here. Since the unit of affiliation entered on the CT "unit" box then changed to a FLWG unit, from a GAWG unit shortly after the original post, but they didn't actually edit their post, probably because mere mortals here can't edit previous posts anymore, once another is posted, or a certain amount of time passes. Whichever I have not figured out. I generally hate editing posts anyway.


As for Airmen, until the Air Force wraps us up in that terminology, I don't see it happening and am probably not going to contribute to it.

[twofivexray]

If I am not an Airman, am I permitted then to read a NOTAM?

[RADIOMAN015]

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.

I think it's important to look at the entire context that "airman" is being used in.   Specifically as it relates tp the doctrine being employed
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD1.pdf mentions active, reserve/guard forces being employed by this doctrine, but remains silent about any AF Auxiliary(ies) utilization.

Perhaps, the correct approach would be, to ask through channels  how does CAP & AF MARS fit into this doctrine (military doctrine is the concise expression of how military forces contribute to campaigns, major operations, battles, and engagements), and should the auxiliaries be included for the support they can legally provide???

I don't think we need the CIVIL Air Patrol Commander, making this unilateral definition determination because some 'wanna bees' in the organization need more stroking of their big egos while playing military dress up. :angel:  CAP as an organization has gotten into problems in the past due to these type of uncoordinated/unapproved ego building actions
RM   

[PHall]

RM, how is it that you're a PAO? You seem to have nothing but complete contempt and loathing for your fellow CAP members.
I figure you wouldn't want to do anything good for the organization since it would help all of the wannabees you keep harping about.

[RADIOMAN015]

RM, how is it that you're a PAO? You seem to have nothing but complete contempt and loathing for your fellow CAP members.
I figure you wouldn't want to do astranything good for the organization since it would help all of the wannabees you keep harping about.

I have NEVER seen such a volunteer organization such as CAP, where some of the membership needs constant ego stroking and AF validation of what they (we) do as an organization.    Also Just looking at CAPTALK, and the number of message postings just dealing with uniforms one would come away thinking that basically that seems to be the biggest thing in the organization.  Another big posting is that the AF doesn't like us -- that is very strange comments .    So now this doctrine thing comes up on "Airmen" as determined by the Chief of Staff USAF, and some in CAP are thinking (without proper authorization) that they can ride this coat tail

As the PAO, I've been fortunate to get good external media coverage. I think I'm meeting what needs to be done to give our squadron a reasonable public awareness/presence.
RM 
     

[lordmonar]

One wonders how you sleep at night.....balancing your duty as a PAO to support and futher the aims of the organisation that you show so much contempt for with our personal convictions.

Two points:
1) CAPTALK is not CAP.  That is...we are probably not a representititve cross section of CAP as a whole.
2) As you keep pointing out....we are a volunteer civil organisation and ego stroking AF validation is one of the things that brings those volunteers to the organisation.

[RADIOMAN015]

Comments in CIVIL Air Patrol red:

One wonders how you sleep at night.....balancing your duty as a PAO to support and futher the aims of the organisation that you show so much contempt for with our personal convictions.

I sleep fine at night.  My "high" is when the press covers our events or my news releases (I might add without any reference to me) is published by the local media).  I have no personal contempt for anyones' conviction.  However, one has to be realistic as to what Civil Air Patrol really is and what the Air Force via its' implementation regulation(s) says we are and our defined relationship with them

Two points:
1) CAPTALK is not CAP.  That is...we are probably not a representititve cross section of CAP as a whole.

There's a lot more people that review what is said on this board than are members.  Wouldn't be too surprised if a fair number of personnel from HQ CAP-USAF, including state directors read the comments here.   

2) As you keep pointing out....we are a volunteer civil organisation and ego stroking AF validation is one of the things that brings those volunteers to the organisation.

Hmm, isn't "service above self" one of guiding principles   I think a Mr. Google CAP news search over the last year or so, will likely identify some of the egotistical personnel we have in the organization versus those that quietly get the various missions done.  I think from an external public relations standpoint it's more important to highlight organizational achievements versus CAP member personal achievements.  Granted exceptions are the highest awards in the cadet & senior member programs, (as well as outstanding awards for cadets & seniors) and certain major position changes (e.g. squadron commander).     
   

So back to the orginal post, are we "Airman" as defined by the USAF Chief of Staff   NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   
RM

[jimmydeanno]

I'm not anti-CAP, and I don't think that RADIOMAN is either.  I've stated in other threads that I think many of our members are in CAP for the wrong reason, and many of the topics we have here represent that.  A lot of the discussions often revolve around what CAP is giving to its members, instead of what our members are giving to CAP, or could be giving to CAP.  There is a lot of discussion about how CAP won't let someone do this, or won't let them do that, or "I'll quit if we aren't the AF Aux anymore".  It's all very selfish, which is directly opposite to our core value of Volunteer Service.

I think that RADIOMAN is largely in favor of what our missions are and how we do them.  You can be a hugely successful PAO writing about our successful missions and the great things we do.  However, all the advantages of those good press releases and news coverage go away when our members allow their egos to get in the way, and we become an organization of people who "wish we were in the Air Force."

I don't necessarily agree with everything you write RADIOMAN, but I can certainly see your overwhelming theme in your posts.  Our members should focus on doing our missions and be proud of our association, however, we should still keep the perspective that we are a civilian auxiliary, not a reserve component.

[lordmonar]

I don't really care why someone is in CAP.......I only care what they do for CAP while in it.

Of course we  have all seen people who for one reason or another their personal desires have gotten in the way of getting the mission done. 

Since RM brought it up....lets review our core values.

1) Intgrity First
2) Excellence in all we do
3) Volunteer Service
4) Respect

Now let's look at what the idea of using the term "airman" to apply to everyone in the USAF and how it applies to CAP.

The point of the AFPD....is that we are all one team.  Active, Reserve, guard, civil service employees and government contractors.  Now that CAP and the other auxillary did not get a mention in the AFPD is not because the USAF does not consider us part of the team......I think it is just that they don't think about us all that much.   But I can tell you that those parts of the USAF that work directly with CAP most certainly think that we are in fact part of the team.

I guess I am just lucky to be able to work closely with the USAF.....

Does that mean I think we all need to start using "airman" in our communications when we mean "CAP member"?  No......when I was on AD we usually did not bother with it......90% of the USAF is not even aware that this AFPD even exists.....much like 90% of the USAF does not even know that CAP exists.

So bottom line is not so much what the AFPD says....but what do WE....CAP Members think.   Are we part of the USAF.....most emphatically YES!  We are AIRMEN!

[/rant]

[RRLE]

I find this whole thread a bit ridiculous. I have read thread after thread where some of you complain about lack of a style guide. Then there is the "no triangle thingee' threads and sig lines and calls for one standard symbol/logo/what-have-you. It also appears the no-triangle-thingee campaign is about to fail.

So now instead of being satisfied that you are members of CAP, some of you want to go off and start using yet another term, airman, to describe yourselves. Why use airman for anything if it takes away, and it will, from the brand you have - CAP.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I'm not anti-CAP, and I don't think that RADIOMAN is either.

I don't know where you're coming from on the topic, but instead of trying to say that RM is "anti-CAP," my own assessment is that he is not "anti-CAP" but instead is as myopic about his POV of what CAP should be in his eyes as he accuses so-called "wannabes" of being.  He seems to look at CAP solely from the POV of a PAO, who tailors his PAO work to de-emphasise any connection CAP has with the Air Force, uniforms, ranks, etc. in favour of a flying version of the American Red Cross.

I've stated in other threads that I think many of our members are in CAP for the wrong reason, and many of the topics we have here represent that. 

What "wrong reasons" would those be?  If taking pride in our connection to the Air Force is a "wrong" reason, then I know a heck of a lot of people, myself included, would proudly plead nolo contendre to such a charge.  It is not the reason, but it is a reason.  I am not going to be shamed into the category of "wannabe" for that, nor will I permit being thought of as any less or any greater of a CAP member because I prefer the AF-type uniform over the G/W and polo shirts.  I have encountered CAP members who take just as much of a high-nosed attitude because they don't wear the AF uniform ("we're not posers!") as I have those who do wear the AF uniform.  Both attitudes suck.

A lot of the discussions often revolve around what CAP is giving to its members, instead of what our members are giving to CAP, or could be giving to CAP.

I think you're approaching that from the wrong angle.  A lot of this goes back to Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs.

Ever since my Level I back in 1993, it has been emphasised to me by CAP officers much smarter than I am with much more service than I have that our "payment" comes from such things as rank, ribbons and awards, as well as wear of the AF uniform.

I don't need to tell you or anyone else that a heck of a lot of us give as much to CAP in terms of time, talent and treasure as we often do to our professional lives.  Our Deputy Commander for Seniors spends so much time at the Squadron facility and doing things at Wing that she's regarded almost as a "fixture," in a good way.

When I hear people expressing negativity about something CAP (or the Air Force) has done to us, whether it be the AUX ON/AUX OFF status, berry boards, the title of "Airman," using the colour-that-isn't-a-colour of grey as a catch-all uniform "solution," the utter and complete bungling of taking away the CSU, the AF refusing to teach its people even the basics about us, etc. the feeling I usually have and pick up from others is yet another "thank you sir may I have another?" we have to take for the actions of a few (or even one) bad actor.

"I'll quit if we aren't the AF Aux anymore". 

Unapologetically guilty.  If we ever get removed entirely from the AF, yes, I will and I know a lot of others who will too.  It may be a moot point because the chances are very likely that CAP will cease to exist if cut off from the AF.

It's all very selfish, which is directly opposite to our core value of Volunteer Service.

You can say so, but when the organisation you're giving your volunteer service to, or its parent service, slaps you round the earhole one too many times for things you had no part in...CAP isn't the only game in town as per a military auxiliary-type volunteer organisation.  The CGAUX (which I've served in), NSCC or U.S. Army Cadet Corps get treated much better and aren't always under the microscope over the colour of their uniforms the way we seem to be.

I think that RADIOMAN is largely in favor of what our missions are and how we do them.  You can be a hugely successful PAO writing about our successful missions and the great things we do.  However, all the advantages of those good press releases and news coverage go away when our members allow their egos to get in the way, and we become an organization of people who "wish we were in the Air Force."

The converse can easily be said about those who loudly downplay our Air Force connections and say (in defiance of regs) "The only uniform I have is the polo shirt and grey slacks, and that's all I'm getting!"  There is just as much "ego" in that as in the supposed "wannabes".

I don't necessarily agree with everything you write RADIOMAN, but I can certainly see your overwhelming theme in your posts.  Our members should focus on doing our missions and be proud of our association, however, we should still keep the perspective that we are a civilian auxiliary, not a reserve component.

I would agree with that statement, except for a few caveats:

RM's focus too often comes across as chiding us for actually liking our connection to the Air Force.  Being proud of our AF connection and being mission-ready are not mutually exclusive.  His repetition of "we are the CIVIL Air Patrol" is not needed.

I have never met anyone in 18 years of CAP service who has believed that we are anything but an auxiliary component, except for a couple of cadets who think they can be Gunny Hartman.  I personally have taken the time on many occasions to explain to someone who has seen me in uniform and is unfamiliar with CAP that, no, I am not active Air Force, Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve and then explain what CAP is.  I can usually do so in under one minute.

And I see the title of "airman" in its most general sense as definitely applying to us...remember, we've also been called "flying minute men."



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/cap.htm

[Short Field]

I was a Airman 24/7 for 28 years.  I take offense at people who think joining CAP by paying less than a hundred bucks a year equals that service and entitles them to be called Airman.  Have a bunch of civilians and non-USMC military vets start calling themselves Marines and see what the real Marines think about it.   

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I was a Airman 24/7 for 28 years.  I take offense at people who think joining CAP by paying less than a hundred bucks a year equals that service and entitles them to be called Airman.  Have a bunch of civilians and non-USMC military vets start calling themselves Marines and see what the real Marines think about it.   

"Airman" is a much more general term than "Marine" is.  I just did a Google search on the term and a very small percentage related to the USAF rank.

Do you take offence at NOTAM's?

I don't think anyone has said service in CAP equals your 28 years of active duty...I certainly don't believe that way.

[Short Field]

I was a Airman 24/7 for 28 years.  I take offense at people who think joining CAP by paying less than a hundred bucks a year equals that service and entitles them to be called Airman.  Have a bunch of civilians and non-USMC military vets start calling themselves Marines and see what the real Marines think about it.   

"Airman" is a much more general term than "Marine" is.  I just did a Google search on the term and a very small percentage related to the USAF rank.

Do you take offence at NOTAM's?

I don't think anyone has said service in CAP equals your 28 years of active duty...I certainly don't believe that way.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen Norton A. Schwartz was not referring to the generic "airmen" you refer to that are involved in flying airplanes but to the "Airmen" that make up the military force that is the USAF.  CAP is NOT part of that honored force of war-fighters who have committed their lives and futures to the defense of our country.  Being an Airman is a title of honor and respect earned by service.  That is why members of the USAF, from four-star Generals to slick-sleeve Airmen Basics, take pride in being called "Airmen".   

Why would I take offense at NOTAM's - that is just plain silly and an absolute grasping of straws to justify using a title of respect you have not earned.   Would a Marine take offense at the NWS Marine Forecasts or the NTSB Marine Accident Reports?

[a2capt]

..or likewise, being just south of a rather large US Marine Corps base, and 3/4 mile from the coast, I can't say "the marine layer" with out there usually being some crack reply about the large contingency of Marines to the north..

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen Norton A. Schwartz was not referring to the generic "airmen" you refer to that are involved in flying airplanes but to the "Airmen" that make up the military force that is the USAF.  CAP is NOT part of that honored force of war-fighters who have committed their lives and futures to the defense of our country.  Being an Airman is a title of honor and respect earned by service.  That is why members of the USAF, from four-star Generals to slick-sleeve Airmen Basics, take pride in being called "Airmen".   

First of all, I don't do pissing contests, especially not on the issue of semantics.

Second of all, thank you for your 28 years of service.

And third, I was once one of those airmen (ANG) under your definition and how you interpret Gen Schwartz' statement.  Back when I went to lovely Lackland, you got called "Airman" from day one.  Now it's "Trainee."  I think that's a good thing.  I had to get out early because of medical issues, and CAP to me is my way of continuing my service in support to the Air Force.

If CAP is not part of the tradition of the honoured force of war-fighters, especially given that we presaged an independent AF by six years...then I don't know what we are, honestly, especially given that the GS side of Air Force civilians (which is where I include us as "airmen," and without asking Gen Schwartz himself I don't know where he stands on it) seem to be included in the definition, though they may never wear a uniform or risk their lives in battle (ART's and AGR's aside).

It could be that we really are the AF's red-haired stepchild that has no business connecting with the AF's traditions.  I don't know.  CAP's entire identity seems to be getting more and more schizoid.

In any case, this is my last word on the subject.

[PHall]

Short Field, according to the first post of this thread, even Department of the Air Force Civilian Employees are included.
Many if them have never served. So is it wrong for them to be referred to as Airmen too?
If it is then you better contact General Swartz and tell him his Policy Decision (AFPD 1) is wrong and that he needs to fix that right now.

[Short Field]

Well, PHall, when I deployed my teams to the sandbox and other hotspots around the world, the AF Civilian Employees went as well.  If you have a problem with General Swartz's policy, you call him.  I don't have a problem with it.  But he didn't include CAP in his definition.

CyBorg - do you seriously believe because CAP started out in wartime and actually performed combat missions, you are now a member of the honored force of war-fighters and entitled to be called Airman?  Your service in the USAF and graduation from Basic Training gives you the right to be called Airman.  Writing a check to join CAP doesn't make you a Department of the Air Force Civilian with a GS rating. 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Why would I take offense at NOTAM's - that is just plain silly and an absolute grasping of straws to justify using a title of respect you have not earned.   Would a Marine take offense at the NWS Marine Forecasts or the NTSB Marine Accident Reports?

NOTAMS are notices to airmen, plural noun. Marine forecasts use the word Marine as an adjective that describe the forecasts are for a marine environment. Historically, aviators have also been called airmen; that you have an issue with CAP members identifying themselves closer to the Air Force family is duly noted, but I do believe that we could call ourselves Volunteer Airmen should be no issue.

[PHall]

Well, PHall, when I deployed my teams to the sandbox and other hotspots around the world, the AF Civilian Employees went as well.  If you have a problem with General Swartz's policy, you call him.  I don't have a problem with it.  But he didn't include CAP in his definition.

I have no problem with it at all. They've been preaching the "One Team, One Fight" thing for decades. So including Civilian Employees is nothing new.
But some people have posted above that if you haven't completed Basic Training then you haven't "earned" the title of "Airman".
I just pointed out that there are a number of players on the team who have not completed Basic Training and thus, according to these posts, have not earned the title of Airmen and shouldn't be addressed as such.

Oh and Short Field, I was one of the crew dogs who flew you and your teams to many of those garden spots. So please dump the 'tude. It's unbecoming.

[Short Field]

And I have said nothing about you not being called an Airman.   

    I am an American Airman.
    I am a Warrior.
    I have answered my Nation's call.

    I am an American Airman.
    My mission is to Fly, Fight, and Win.
    I am faithful to a Proud Heritage,
    A Tradition of Honor,
    And a Legacy of Valor.

    I am an American Airman.
    Guardian of Freedom and Justice,
    My Nation's Sword and Shield,
    Its Sentry and Avenger.
    I defend my Country with my Life.

    I am an American Airman.
    Wingman, Leader, Warrior.
    I will never leave an Airman behind,
    I will never falter,
    And I will not fail.

[Ed Bos]

^ The Airman's Creed, a proud tradition... since 2007