NHQ Uniform Committee

[ddelaney103]

But what do we gain by having sage tapes and blue tapes?  It doesn't make us more uniform and it doesn't help with branding.

The only thing is seems to allow is for those in the ABU's to look more "airforce-y" than their teammates in blue.  While that may give the "Riders of the Sage" a warm fuzzy, it doesn't seem to help CAP any.

[Eclipse]

But what do we gain by having sage tapes and blue tapes?  It doesn't make us more uniform and it doesn't help with branding.

The only thing is seems to allow is for those in the ABU's to look more "airforce-y" than their teammates in blue.  While that may give the "Riders of the Sage" a warm fuzzy, it doesn't seem to help CAP any.

The point is that if we're going to take the time to design what is basically a completely new uniform, we should spend at least a little time on the aesthetics.

The ABUs do look better with a tape which is closer to one of the stripe colors - same with "fixing the blue field uniform to have a color-matched tape.

[ZigZag911]

I still need someone to explain to me why camouflage-style BDUs or ABUs make sense for an organization whose specialty is air/ground coordinated SAR.

Topic for another thread, so I'll keep it short...

1.  As you said, we are the auxiliary of the AF.  We wear their uniforms whether they be dress, utility, flight, or otherwise.

2.  They are readily available in surplus from numerous sources and as so, not too expensive to aquire.

3.  We spend a relatively small amount of time engaged in air/ground coordinated SAR compared to other duties requiring a utility uniform.

4.  The military has coordinated air/ground missions in the BDU/ABU/ACU for years and so have we.

Sorry, Col White for the off topic response as well.

[/quote]
Actually, I don't think  you were off topic....I was implying we ought to consider getting rid of BDUs/ABUs...true, they are the AF field uniform, but don't really mix with what we do....of course, I'm not sure how available the BBDUs are commercially -- I'm fairly sure BBDUs are not available surplus -- so, since navy blue is probably no better visible from the air than cammy colors, that might be the decisive argument in favor of BDUs....personally, I still consider them inappropriate for a non-combatant organization, but that's just my opinion.

[Falshrmjgr]

I still need someone to explain to me why camouflage-style BDUs or ABUs make sense for an organization whose specialty is air/ground coordinated SAR.

Topic for another thread, so I'll keep it short...

1.  As you said, we are the auxiliary of the AF.  We wear their uniforms whether they be dress, utility, flight, or otherwise.

2.  They are readily available in surplus from numerous sources and as so, not too expensive to aquire.

3.  We spend a relatively small amount of time engaged in air/ground coordinated SAR compared to other duties requiring a utility uniform.

4.  The military has coordinated air/ground missions in the BDU/ABU/ACU for years and so have we.

Sorry, Col White for the off topic response as well.

Actually, I don't think  you were off topic....I was implying we ought to consider getting rid of BDUs/ABUs...true, they are the AF field uniform, but don't really mix with what we do....of course, I'm not sure how available the BBDUs are commercially -- I'm fairly sure BBDUs are not available surplus -- so, since navy blue is probably no better visible from the air than cammy colors, that might be the decisive argument in favor of BDUs....personally, I still consider them inappropriate for a non-combatant organization, but that's just my opinion.

Funny, I always thought they were innapropriate for non-combat arms all together.  But since the military is comfortable with making a camoflauge maternity uniform, it seems that to the military at least, uniformity has merit.   Therefor I find it no more "innappropriate" for CAP to wear camoflauge than the G1 Finance guy at Fort Indiantown Gap wearing BDU's.

[LtCol White]

There is another thread to debate on ABU already. Please take this discussion there and stay on topic.

[NEBoom]

Also, people are going to show up with blue on the ABU or sage on the BBDU.  Just have one color: dark blue.  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."

Based on this point, I would have to withdraw support for sage green tapes. Make one set of tapes. Also, there are rank insignia and badges to consider. You can already get rank in navy blue, tapes are easily produced. The badges would also go on existing cloth (they use that cloth for rank insignia anyway).

Vanguard (and many other places) could make that stuff tomorrow. Other colors would require them to buy tapes and cloth that they don't currently have. And you know who's going to foot the bill on their new acquisitions.

Seems like the easiest and best appearing option is navy blue. Might even buy a blue BDU if that was allowed.

Why? With all do respect, people arent stupid. I think they can figure out when told that blue goes on blue and green goes on the camo. If they can't understand this, there is a MUCH bigger problem than their uniform.

Having two different colors of tapes, rank, and badges for the AF and corporate utilities flies in the face of the idea that we should standardize our insignia across all uniforms.  I honestly don't care what color we ultimately settle on, but it should be the same for both just for uniformity's sake.  Standardizing the insignia (as much as possible) should be done for all uniforms, not just the dress uniforms.

Someone above mentioned a change in color to the corporate utilities (either changing to solid OD, or adopting the current BDU after it's phase out by the AF).  The only reason I might support this is that many of the blue BDUs I've seen have a tendency to fade.  They get a bit ratty looking fairly quickly, so for durability/appearance sake, it might be a good idea to consider a change.  Again, I don't really care what color we settle on (FWIW I'd prefer going to solid OD vs woodland, but that's just me).  And I call for a LONG phase-out date for the blue BDUs if a change is made.  Members should be allowed to get the full wear lifetime out of the uniforms they have.

[NEBoom]

FWIW...

<snip>
Corporate Service Uniform – I may be a lone voice in the wilderness here, but I'd like to see *all* of the insignia on this uniform and the USAF-style uniform the same, which means also the same epaulet slides. (Not including military ribbons, of course, unless the USAF relents.) Obviously, if the Air Force allows us to go back to blue epaulet slides, that would be a no-brainer. But I don't have a major problem with the gray slides, and I would like to see some uniformity *and* keep costs down. Also, lets allow those who don't meet USAF grooming standards wear this uniform as well (so long as they are well-kempt).
<snip>
Regards, and thanks for taking on this task,

Also FWIW, you are not a lone voice in the wilderness.  I think this is exactly how it should be done.  I do cringe at the grey shoulder marks on the coat, but if it's what we have to do for the AF uniform, it should be the same for the corporate.  Of course I'm beating a dead horse now as I've said this multiple times, but I think it's that important.  Our uniforms should be... um... uniform.  As much as humanly possible.

OK, I'll hush up now.  Thanks for taking our input.  Have a great Thanksgiving all!!!

[Eclipse]

Add me to the voice for simple / same insignia.

As far as I am concerned, lose the metal and go with the gray slides on all uniforms, or grant us the blue on all uniforms - that would be distinctive enough.

Anything that let's us use off-the shelf inignia, even if it requires some kind of CAP flash, is fine with me.

[FlyingTerp]

I may be alone on this one, but I'd really like to see the Corporate Service Uniform keep the blue slides and nametag.   The CSU (TPU) is a great looking uniform (minus the service coat bling).  Its being worn by those who could wear the AF Service Uniform.  Just look at the pictures from the NSC (http://mhuchette.albumpost.com/) or the stream from the NEC meeting.  My fear is that if we change the slides and nametag to grey on the CSU, that it will become the "fatty" uniform and not stand on its own as a sharp looking corporate uniform.   There was an interview with Col Russ Hodgkins, USAF, on CAPBlog a while back in which he mentioned that the AF didn't object to blue slides on the CSU, but "there was very little chance" of returning to the blue slides on the AF Service Uniform (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2006/04/capusaf_cc_on_u.html).

My recommendation is to keep the CSU "as is." Haven't we had enough changes!  Make (or ask for) absolutely no changes on the CAP wear of the AF Service Uniform.   Eliminate the greys (white aviator shirt, grey slides, grey slacks).  Allow those with neatly trimmed beards to wear the CSU.   All others can wear civilian clothes.  That will give us 2 uniforms that look relatively similar and present a professional image for both CAP and USAF.

[MIKE]

My fear is that if we change the slides and nametag to grey on the CSU, that it will become the "fatty" uniform and not stand on its own as a sharp looking corporate uniform.

Ummm... yeah.    That's kind of the point now isn't it?

[Eclipse]

My fear is that if we change the slides and nametag to grey on the CSU, that it will become the "fatty" uniform and not stand on its own as a sharp looking corporate uniform.

Ummm... yeah.    That's kind of the point now isn't it?

Other than the beard issue, the new corporate service dress is being worn by the exact same people who did/do wear the whites or the blazer.

[DNall]

15 pages in less than 10 days, gees. Okay, here's my comprehensive, hope you can make out the formatting from my cut & paste effort.

1. Reg should be tied directly to AF reg for guidance & changes. That is if the AF decides to change the ribbon wear policy or something, it should be automatic in our reg, requiring only an administrative update, not approval of the NB/NEC. Might be a stretch, but that could include things like ABUs, albeit with adjusted wear dates. Policy should be as uniform as possible though, and it shouldn't take an act of congress to keep it that way.

2. Stronger policy change formula for starters.

a. It should not be changeable on the fly or off agenda.

b. It should have a mandatory wear test & member comment period – we do it for regs, but not stuff I have to buy?

i.   Test should NOT be restricted to NHQ or other levels above reality/sanity. It should be more random & well distributed. Item provided for free for participation.

ii.   A page should go up on the website announcing the wear test in progress & provide pictures as worn, but not yet in the comment period.

iii.   The "focus/test group" should leave comments/reviews over a period of time.

iv.   AF comments should be sought as well, and not just command but rank-in-file.

v.   Test ends, focus/test group reviews posted. Open comment period begins (obviously moderated, but not censored).

vi.   Then & only then should an item be eligible for consideration as a formal change.

c. Process of AF approval items should be better quantified. Would highly recommend the process for corporate items be standardized to seek AF endorsement in place of formal approval.

d. Wear dates. Should be far enough out that it doesn't cause problems. Take a note from the military on this & understand they do that cause they are paying for the items, and we don't because we're taxing members. May consider a Wing level transition date. Meaning, for uniformity, will wear the old style prior to X & must be switch by Y.

3. Clear dual option policy. That is one AF style uniform has one corporate alternative in each category (blue/white, BDU/BBDU, Grn Flt Suit/Blue), and that's it. Wear policy & items (nameplates, tapes, etc) should be as standardized between the two as is reasonably possible while delivering a professional appearance.

4. BDUs:

a. Tapes:
i.   I would prefer OD with medium gray text (same gray or slightly darkened gold grade on OD back). That'd be distinctive now versus dark blue text & the OD tapes would remain highly distinctive on ABUs when the transition eventually comes. At the same time it looks MUCH more professional and official. Freakin JROTC does it & we can't? Yeah that's the way to take care of your troops. Same time, I doubt that'd get approved.

ii.   In lieu of that, I'd support dark blue (matching BBDU; w/ white/gold grade on same back). Standardize to bring down costs.

b. Clear policy on patches. Get rid of the rainbow explosion. Either pull most of those off, or policy on new patches to use semi-subdued color schemes & mirror AF wear policy.

c. Take off the flag, we aren't the Army. That costs zero & saves people money/time. 

d. Standardize policy onto BBDU as well. Reg should read as one section for both items.

5. Blues.

a. Nameplate. I understand the logic on the gray nameplate. However, AF, AFA, AFROTC, & AFJROTC all wear the same standardized one-line nameplate, which makes it very affordable & easily attainable. Our gray epaulets are highly distinctive & designate CAP, and our cadet grade is clearly distinguishable, at least in as much as AFJROTC is. We should standardize to this one-line plate & deliver significant savings to our members over time.

b. Epaulets. The gray slides are fine. I'd prefer blue with the CAP or gray w/o it. It's okay the way it is though. Should consider making female sized ones though.

6. Corporate alternative blues (blue/white uniform).

a. Standardize to same distinctive gray epaulets on both shirt & coat. No metal grade, no blue AF slides.

b. Standardize outerwear to blue – seek AF approval as necessary.

c. Should be worn w/ flight hat.

d. Same standard one-line blue nameplate on shirt. Standard one-line metal for coat.

e. I don't like it, but just drop the grooming requirements & reduce the number of uniforms (ie get rid of blazer combo & gray/white). Same time, reg should state professional groomed appearance required at all times regardless of uniform.

7. Flight suit.

a. Standardize policy for blue/green versions.

b. Sewn on grade. Consider full color on OD back for green & full color on dark blue for blue, or standardize both to dark blue. Professional & less expensive, still distinctive.

c. Command Patch. Bring back the "US Air Force Auxiliary" command patch & get on with life, or at least pick one.

8. Golf shirt. Get rid of it, at least as a mission-authorized, official travel, or away from Sq item. In garrison at local unit for casual mtg of the month MAYBE I can deal with, but I won't like it. And for God's sake tuck it in.

[Eeyore]

DNall has the first post that I completely, 100%  agree with across the board.

It all makes perfect sense, and is a good balance between the complete going over board approach that some have and the idea that we should move backwards as others have suggested.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[JohnKachenmeister]

So, is there a plan to have two colors of tapes/insignia backgrounds - green for the abu, navy for the bbdu?

As for those who say get rid of the bbdu, why? The AF is going to the ABU, so why should I have to buy a new uniform that that AF is abandoning?

I will recommend adopting the old USN beard standard for the corporate service uniforms.

Yes, with the submission, we will recommend going to all dark blue insignia for the Blue BDU with a phase in date. Its a very minor change so there is no real need to provide illustration for the change.

I would suggest making the BDU/ABU nametapes and grade insignia the same as the dark blue on the BBDU's.  This way there's a connection between the two field uniforms.

Dark blue backgrounds for all field uniform attachments also greatly simplifies the logistics.

[JohnKachenmeister]

15 pages in less than 10 days, gees. Okay, here's my comprehensive, hope you can make out the formatting from my cut & paste effort.

1. Reg should be tied directly to AF reg for guidance & changes. That is if the AF decides to change the ribbon wear policy or something, it should be automatic in our reg, requiring only an administrative update, not approval of the NB/NEC. Might be a stretch, but that could include things like ABUs, albeit with adjusted wear dates. Policy should be as uniform as possible though, and it shouldn't take an act of congress to keep it that way.

2. Stronger policy change formula for starters.

a. It should not be changeable on the fly or off agenda.

b. It should have a mandatory wear test & member comment period – we do it for regs, but not stuff I have to buy?

i.   Test should NOT be restricted to NHQ or other levels above reality/sanity. It should be more random & well distributed. Item provided for free for participation.

ii.   A page should go up on the website announcing the wear test in progress & provide pictures as worn, but not yet in the comment period.

iii.   The "focus/test group" should leave comments/reviews over a period of time.

iv.   AF comments should be sought as well, and not just command but rank-in-file.

v.   Test ends, focus/test group reviews posted. Open comment period begins (obviously moderated, but not censored).

vi.   Then & only then should an item be eligible for consideration as a formal change.

c. Process of AF approval items should be better quantified. Would highly recommend the process for corporate items be standardized to seek AF endorsement in place of formal approval.

d. Wear dates. Should be far enough out that it doesn't cause problems. Take a note from the military on this & understand they do that cause they are paying for the items, and we don't because we're taxing members. May consider a Wing level transition date. Meaning, for uniformity, will wear the old style prior to X & must be switch by Y.

3. Clear dual option policy. That is one AF style uniform has one corporate alternative in each category (blue/white, BDU/BBDU, Grn Flt Suit/Blue), and that's it. Wear policy & items (nameplates, tapes, etc) should be as standardized between the two as is reasonably possible while delivering a professional appearance.

4. BDUs:

a. Tapes:
i.   I would prefer OD with medium gray text (same gray or slightly darkened gold grade on OD back). That'd be distinctive now versus dark blue text & the OD tapes would remain highly distinctive on ABUs when the transition eventually comes. At the same time it looks MUCH more professional and official. Freakin JROTC does it & we can't? Yeah that's the way to take care of your troops. Same time, I doubt that'd get approved.

ii.   In lieu of that, I'd support dark blue (matching BBDU; w/ white/gold grade on same back). Standardize to bring down costs.

b. Clear policy on patches. Get rid of the rainbow explosion. Either pull most of those off, or policy on new patches to use semi-subdued color schemes & mirror AF wear policy.

c. Take off the flag, we aren't the Army. That costs zero & saves people money/time. 

d. Standardize policy onto BBDU as well. Reg should read as one section for both items.

5. Blues.

a. Nameplate. I understand the logic on the gray nameplate. However, AF, AFA, AFROTC, & AFJROTC all wear the same standardized one-line nameplate, which makes it very affordable & easily attainable. Our gray epaulets are highly distinctive & designate CAP, and our cadet grade is clearly distinguishable, at least in as much as AFJROTC is. We should standardize to this one-line plate & deliver significant savings to our members over time.

b. Epaulets. The gray slides are fine. I'd prefer blue with the CAP or gray w/o it. It's okay the way it is though. Should consider making female sized ones though.

6. Corporate alternative blues (blue/white uniform).

a. Standardize to same distinctive gray epaulets on both shirt & coat. No metal grade, no blue AF slides.

b. Standardize outerwear to blue – seek AF approval as necessary.

c. Should be worn w/ flight hat.

d. Same standard one-line blue nameplate on shirt. Standard one-line metal for coat.

e. I don't like it, but just drop the grooming requirements & reduce the number of uniforms (ie get rid of blazer combo & gray/white). Same time, reg should state professional groomed appearance required at all times regardless of uniform.

7. Flight suit.

a. Standardize policy for blue/green versions.

b. Sewn on grade. Consider full color on OD back for green & full color on dark blue for blue, or standardize both to dark blue. Professional & less expensive, still distinctive.

c. Command Patch. Bring back the "US Air Force Auxiliary" command patch & get on with life, or at least pick one.

8. Golf shirt. Get rid of it, at least as a mission-authorized, official travel, or away from Sq item. In garrison at local unit for casual mtg of the month MAYBE I can deal with, but I won't like it. And for God's sake tuck it in.

Dennis:

I have a few points of non-concurrence with your plan, but most of them are minor, and I don't want to sound like I'm quibbling.

I would like to keep the brushed silver (for jackets) and blue (for shirts) as the 2-line nameplate with "Civil Air Patrol" in small letters above the last name.

[SAR-EMT1]

What Dennis said. ^

[Eclipse]

I couldn't care less about the braid color, but the 2-line nameplate is one more thing that forces us to a single vendor, and runs against the idea of interchangeable insignia, etc.

No one would mistake the CSU as an Air Force uniform, and the USAF doesn't own the idea of a 1-line brushed steel nameplate.  PD's all over the country use them.

[DrJbdm]

Hi Dennis,

   good to see you posting again. Although I normally agree with most of what you have to say, but on this subject I have a few items of non-concurrence:

1) the CSU looks VERY sharp with the AF blue slides plus they are off the shelf & cheaper then Vanguard CAP grey. blue looks much sharper then grey.

2) the metal rank on the CSU jacket also looks very sharp. Although we need to lose the silver braid and replace with the standard AF blue braid.

  Other then those minor issues I think you have a lot of good ideas. The wear test should probably be done at wing conferences so as to allow the greatest number of people to see it up close and make their comments.

  I completely concur on the standard blue single line nametag (USAF style). If AFJROTC can do it then why can't we? it is off the shelf and there for cheaper and more professional looking.

  I know a major focus is on keeping things as low cost as possible for the members. But while we are looking at cost, lets also keep how it looks on the fore-front of our minds. We need to make sure that what we wear looks sharp and professional.

   The average person on the street will think more of us if our colors match what we are wearing versus not matching put looking the same..ie: blue tapes on the BBDU and sage green on the ABU or blue slides on CSU vs grey slides. lets not do something that will look clownish just because it will match another uniform.  a well written policy manual will fix the issue of people wearing the wrong items with the wrong uniform. If our members are too stupid to follow well written directives then perhaps CAP isn't for them. we need people who are intelligent enough to be able to comprehend and follow what they read. HOWEVER, we first need a WELL WRITTEN uniform policy with good pictures.

 

[FlyingTerp]

HOWEVER, we need a WELL WRITTEN uniform policy with good pictures.
 

I couldn't agree more!  That should be the #1 priority of the recommendations to NHQ.  How difficult can it be?  I'm sure a few of us could knock it out over a weekend with a laptop, a digital camera, and every uniform. 

[JayT]

1) the CSU looks VERY sharp with the AF blue slides plus they are off the shelf & cheaper then Vanguard CAP grey.

It'll look just as sharp with gray or blue CAP slides.