Hello all, long time lurker here, first new thread.
So, why exactly does CAP have height and weight standards? In the military, it is clear that we need soldiers that are physically fit in order to perform their jobs. But in CAP, we have no such physical fitness requirement. There is no requirement to be able to do any particular physical activity in order to serve in CAP - so why should there be any height and weight standards for uniform wear? Seems like an arbitrary rule that ends up being used to embarrass CAP members for no good reason.
I think it's time to eliminate this rule. Comments?
Ed
Further - it would be OK for a paraplegic to wear a green uniform if he/she met the weight standards - even though that person could not perform many physical activities. But, if the same person were overweight, he/she would have to wear the blue. Makes no sense and just makes life hard on a lot of members for no good reason.
Not trying to be a smart A%$...but, because the Air Force says so, and its their uniforms. So, its one of those, if you want to play in our uniform you will do as we say. Sorry, just how it is.
As NCRBlues stated, there are certain things that Civil Air Patrol does not have control over. The Air Force uniforms are one of them. The Air Force gives us the permission to wear them and stipulates the terms of their wear.
There used to be no military-style alternative for members who did not meet the Air Force grooming standard (the grey-white combo with grade epaulets and ribbons is new within the last decade or so, and the short-lived blue-white combo even newer). The alternative field uniform is the same thing. It used to be members who didn't meet weight and grooming standards couldn't wear their CAP grade on their BDU collars -- they had to wear CAP cutouts only (in the last decade, the Blue BDU has been introduced).
In other words, Civil Air Patrol has worked on what is under our control to provide equally functional and appropriate uniforms to recognize our volunteers who don't meet the Air Force weight/grooming standards. Is it unwieldy to have a doubled-up closet of uniforms? A bit, yep. But unless CAP can come to a different arrangement with the Air Force over their uniforms, it may stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Exactly. The USAF want's CAP personnel to maintain a somewhat professional look while we wear their uniforms. At least we got rid of some of the really horrible uniform pieces of the past.
I've lost about 30 lbs to meet weight standards and I'm working on another 20 to be able to look good in a CAP uniform again. It seems like a win-win to me, and a far cry from making life harder for me. I saw a CAP senior member at the CAWG Cadet Programs Conference last year with their service coat unbuttoned because it was too tight. There was simply no way they met weight standards. I think we should have more weigh-ins. The only embarrassment I'd see would be for someone knowingly violating the rules and getting caught.
The AF came up with the rule that "Overweight" members could not wear the uniform in the early 1980's. The white and gray uniform came out in the 70's for people that can't cut their hair or shave. How CAP was to keep overweight people out of the AF blues was left up to CAP.
CAP took the AF basic training entry weight scale from the USAF, added 10 percent, and made that the Law of CAPM 39-1.
There are some inherent weaknesses to the CAP plan, mostly because of poor planning. There is no provision for body fat determination, for example. In the US Army, in my 40's, I could weigh as much as 223 after a body fat analysis, but according to CAP, now that I'm in my 60's, I have to stay under 200, and that's with the clothing allowance.
The other weakness is CAP's chart, like the AF's, ends at 50 years of age. People retire from the AF then, so the AF chart did not address the Geriatric Squad.
Frankly, I hear people bemoaning the lack of weight enforcement here sometimes, but the poor planning of 39-1 is tempered by judicious enforcement. The result is that while some "Borderline" cases cross the border with impunity, the grossly fat are dissuaded from wearing the AF blues.
Bottom line: The USAF is happy, and all is right with the world.
Sadly, its all about appearances -- we don't even have physical fitness standards for activities where they would clearly be appropriate and in my view absolutely necessary - primarily ground SAR.
I don't think our current situation is a result of poor planning -- we just haven't updated it since the time when height/weight charts were the best thing available.
I'm 452 lbs, I still wear my blues, and I look [darn] good in them!
Yeah... but you're 9 feet tall! >:D
No...im 4' 6"
PT should definitely be incorporated into the SM side, at least for those who wish do operate as ES personnel. Even flight crew should do PT.
in the interest of full disclosure I'm out of those standards by about 15 pounds so I wear the alternate uniform... I don't even possess an AF style. Those are the regs and our members should display the values of our organization and follow the regulations. That being said in my personal opinion I think our organization should have One Uniform because it is after all a UNIFORM and by definition should represent us as a whole but not divide us based on physical features. Besides...when Air Force members exceed the approved body weight do they have to wear an alternate until they get back into compliance? No, I've seen plenty of Air National Guard members much larger then I am.
Quote from: SARDOC on December 05, 2010, 02:46:21 PMBesides...when Air Force members exceed the approved body weight do they have to wear an alternate until they get back into compliance? No, I've seen plenty of Air National Guard members much larger then I am.
True, but they are required to get back in compliance or else....if you're suggesting that CAP go to all AF-style uniform but have some sort of weight management program to allow for short term periods of non-compliance before being kicked out of the organization I suspect the AF would accept that. Of course that doesn't account for our folks who like beards and/or long hair, which aren't allowed at all in the AF, even on a short term basis.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2010, 03:42:18 PM
True, but they are required to get back in compliance or else....if you're suggesting that CAP go to all AF-style uniform but have some sort of weight management program to allow for short term periods of non-compliance before being kicked out of the organization I suspect the AF would accept that. Of course that doesn't account for our folks who like beards and/or long hair, which aren't allowed at all in the AF, even on a short term basis.
Not to mention, half of our strength is in members who are overweight or like their beards/long hair. If we were to tell them get slim and a haircut or else, we would loose a large portion of our members, members who are very valuable. I can't stand people who think there shouldn't be anyone overweight or fuzzy. These members are too valuable to let go just because of standards of appearance for a uniform. We in CAP have such a diversity of members and knowledge because we allow members to be varied in appearance. I choose to keep the haircut and weight standards because they make me feel good. I have had a high and tight since I was 14. I kept in PT and kept myself strong and slender because I knew I wanted to be Infantry. Now I keep it because I know I feel good that way. I weigh more now than I ever have, 192, I am 5'11" and I have never weighed over 170, and I feel horrible because I have let myself go from how I want to feel and look.
It doesn't matter what you look like, as long as you feel good. It doesn't matter what uniform you wear, so long as you can do the tasks you want to do for CAP. Stay in the uniform you can wear according to regulations. If you meet height and weight and you keep your hair tight you can still wear the alternative uniforms if you wish. It isn't all about the uniform, it is mainly about the way you do your job and how you feel doing it.
The AF Regulation implementing the public law currently states that the AF determines the requirements for wearing the AF type uniform by CAP civilian volunteers. Note that the weight/height requirement is a "modified" weight allowing about 10% more.
Personally, as long as the uniform is a "good fit" I see no reason why civilian volunteer members couldn't wear those uniforms even if well above the standard. The key issue is the uniforms need to fit well and not be tight anywhere. As far as hair length and facial hair I have no issue with that also.
It really cost the volunteer member significantly more to wear AF type uniforms. IF you are going to be in compliance that means buying the appropriate hats as well as outer wear coats, etc.
BTW the so called "alternative" uniforms are also worn by senior members who just don't want to spend the money on all the AF type uniforms OR want to the flexibility of determining when to go to the barber shop, etc :angel:
RM
Glass half-empty: CAP wants to set me apart and differentiate me because I am overweight/long-haired/Gene Simmons.
Glass half-full: CAP managed to work around USAF to ensure I could still wear a uniform and gave me a guide to my attire.
Glass: Quit talking about my figure.
Water: I'm really bi-polar. Some days I'm six liters, some days half-a-dozen.
I am not currently a member but I intend to rejoin and I am happy to wear the blue BDU once in a while even though I am within height and weight standards. I think that too many organizations out there are too keen to adopt the woodland pattern and it makes us look like wannabees to our customers in emergency services. The past 3 search and rescue organizations I have been involved with used navy, black, and desert tan battle dress for field ops.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over.
Quote from: nesagsar on December 05, 2010, 04:21:35 PM
I am not currently a member but I intend to rejoin and I am happy to wear the blue BDU once in a while even though I am within height and weight standards. I think that too many organizations out there are too keen to adopt the woodland pattern and it makes us look like wannabees to our customers in emergency services. The past 3 search and rescue organizations I have been involved with used navy, black, and desert tan battle dress for field ops.
Or, maybe the customers appreciate an element of the Air Force, with its reputation for professionalism and safety, coming in to provide light-plane air support to their search operation.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2010, 04:24:25 PM
Or, maybe the customers appreciate an element of the Air Force, with its reputation for professionalism and safety, coming in to provide light-plane air support to their search operation.
That is a good part of what I was saying, the uniform helps convey what we are, professionals. Part of being a professional is looking the part. Proper wear and appearance of the uniform is massive when talking about being a professional. If you don't look like you would be in the military, like being over weight or having long hair, then you shouldn't be in the uniform. Most civillians don't know what we know, that there are overweight soldiers and airmen. USAF Army Navy and Marines work hard to keep the image of a soldier in the forefront. Overweight personnel in uniform are kept kind of in the back. The ARMY usually keeps those who are trying to get back into standards in the comms room or supply/arms rooms.
I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO!!! I am only saying that the military do what they can to keep the image of a proper soldier in the media and forefront of what civilians see so that they can keep the professional image that they want. That is most likely the reason that they say we have to be in some sort of weight and grooming standars to be in the uniform.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 05, 2010, 04:38:57 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2010, 04:24:25 PM
Or, maybe the customers appreciate an element of the Air Force, with its reputation for professionalism and safety, coming in to provide light-plane air support to their search operation.
That is a good part of what I was saying, the uniform helps convey what we are, professionals. Part of being a professional is looking the part. Proper wear and appearance of the uniform is massive when talking about being a professional.
I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO!!! I am only saying that the military do what they can to keep the image of a proper soldier in the media and forefront of what civilians see so that they can keep the professional image that they want. That is most likely the reason that they say we have to be in some sort of weight and grooming standards to be in the uniform.
The golf shirt uniform works very well in many of our "Missions for America", ES. I know folks that have beards & long hair/small pony tails that in fact are some of the most "competent" people I've ever met on ES missions. Also there's a lot of outstanding volunteers that are overweight who only can wear the CAP type uniforms. Now if you were to ask me as the PAO who I would put in front of the camera, likely it would be the sharpest senior and cadet in the AF type blue uniform. HOWEVER, utility uniform type I would prefer to have senior members in Blue BDU's, blue flight suits, and possibly the golf shirt. Also, IF POSSIBLE, IF ALL the senior members are wearing the corporate white aviator shirt, I would also take that picture. When you start mixing uniforms, that's when it causes confusion.
It should be interesting to see what the uniform committee comes up with in the near future. Again I think costs to the membership is a VERY important factor in any uniform decisions.
RM
Quote from: DakRadz on December 05, 2010, 04:16:06 PM
Glass half-empty: CAP wants to set me apart and differentiate me because I am overweight/long-haired/Gene Simmons.
Glass half-full: CAP managed to work around USAF to ensure I could still wear a uniform and gave me a guide to my attire.
Correction - the AIR FORCE wants to set you apart. I'm sure CAP would be fine with having everyone in the AF style uniform as we were for the vast majority of our history.
I've said it before and am saying it again: seniors should all go to a single uniform, which, practically speaking, means non-USAF style.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those restricted to the CAP rather than AF uniforms...but my point is not personal convenience, but uniformity.
Keep the military uniforms for the cadets.
Design a decent looking service jacket for seniors (corporate) that can be worn with insignia, badges, awards.
Use BBDUs, equivalent flight suit, and golf shirt where appropriate.
Give it a fairly long (5 year? 7 year?) phase in to make it less of a financial burden.
And declare an end to the 'uniform wars'!
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 05, 2010, 05:15:07 PM
The golf shirt uniform works very well in many of our "Missions for America", ES. I know folks that have beards & long hair/small pony tails that in fact are some of the most "competent" people I've ever met on ES missions. Also there's a lot of outstanding volunteers that are overweight who only can wear the CAP type uniforms. Now if you were to ask me as the PAO who I would put in front of the camera, likely it would be the sharpest senior and cadet in the AF type blue uniform. HOWEVER, utility uniform type I would prefer to have senior members in Blue BDU's, blue flight suits, and possibly the golf shirt. Also, IF POSSIBLE, IF ALL the senior members are wearing the corporate white aviator shirt, I would also take that picture. When you start mixing uniforms, that's when it causes confusion.
It should be interesting to see what the uniform committee comes up with in the near future. Again I think costs to the membership is a VERY important factor in any uniform decisions.
RM
Like I said, We should NOT be pushing those in CAP who are overweight or fuzzy into the back of the units. Instead we should treat everyone the same regardless of uniform.
There is no "uniform war" there are just some who think that we should loose the USAF style uniforms and those who think we should either loose the alternative uniforms, and then there are those who should be gotten rid of because they think that we should not allow personnel who do not meet standards for USAF uniform appearance. I do not see the confusion that some people insist is there about confusion because of different uniforms. Those who know what CAP is, have no problem recognizing us, and those who don't know what CAP is just think we are part of the military, and that is not too far off.
Quote from: nesagsar on December 05, 2010, 04:21:35 PM
I am not currently a member but I intend to rejoin and I am happy to wear the blue BDU once in a while even though I am within height and weight standards. I think that too many organizations out there are too keen to adopt the woodland pattern and it makes us look like wannabees to our customers in emergency services. The past 3 search and rescue organizations I have been involved with used navy, black, and desert tan battle dress for field ops.
So its more professional to wear desert tan BDU's? My Departments SAR team wears BDU pants with orange shirts. No different than CAP wearing orange vests on SARs.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2010, 05:18:58 PM
Quote from: DakRadz on December 05, 2010, 04:16:06 PM
Glass half-empty: CAP wants to set me apart and differentiate me because I am overweight/long-haired/Gene Simmons.
Glass half-full: CAP managed to work around USAF to ensure I could still wear a uniform and gave me a guide to my attire.
Correction - the AIR FORCE wants to set you apart. I'm sure CAP would be fine with having everyone in the AF style uniform as we were for the vast majority of our history.
Agreed, sir. I was drawing upon the complaints usually seen on CT. People feel that CAP is setting them apart- others realize CAP is helping them out.
Are we really going to do this dance, again? Just use the search function.
The answer is "because the USAF says so..." read, heed, and move on.
OK, I get that "them's the rules". I am just saying the rules should be changed. Yes, I get that the Air Force makes the rules. I'd like to think the AF is capable of thinking this through and making an appropriate change.
I know of a senior member, who is training to be a professional pilot, who has been in CAP as a cadet. There are pictures of this member in green cadet BDUs and now that the member is not a cadet the member has to wear blue BDUs, etc. What changed? How was the member an asset to the uniform before but now would be an embarrassment to it?
Myself, as of this morning, I am five pounds away from the limit. I can and will lose those five pounds and be legal to wear the green probably next month. But, I will still have "a gut". I am thinking of wearing a small pillow inside the shirt at the next weigh in just to be a smart-a$$. I will claim it is a survival gear bag...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 05, 2010, 05:43:01 PM
Are we really going to do this dance, again? Just use the search function.
The answer is "because the USAF says so..." read, heed, and move on.
Sorry, this was my first posting. Is there only one possible answer?
Ed
Yeah, thats pretty much the answer. Our uniform wear is governed by the Air Force. We have this multi page discussion about once a month.
Quote from: JokerMafia248 on December 05, 2010, 05:53:32 PMI know of a senior member, who is training to be a professional pilot, who has been in CAP as a cadet. There are pictures of this member in green cadet BDUs and now that the member is not a cadet the member has to wear blue BDUs, etc. What changed? How was the member an asset to the uniform before but now would be an embarrassment to it?
Cadets under the age of 18 do not have to meet weight standards to wear the USAF style uniforms.
But, one of the little things you get on your 18th birthday, along with the right to vote and a few other things, is the requirement to meet weight standards to continue wearing the USAF style uniforms.
And yes, this requirement was mandated by the Air Force.
Quote from: PHall on December 05, 2010, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: JokerMafia248 on December 05, 2010, 05:53:32 PMI know of a senior member, who is training to be a professional pilot, who has been in CAP as a cadet. There are pictures of this member in green cadet BDUs and now that the member is not a cadet the member has to wear blue BDUs, etc. What changed? How was the member an asset to the uniform before but now would be an embarrassment to it?
Cadets under the age of 18 do not have to meet weight standards to wear the USAF style uniforms.
But, one of the little things you get on your 18th birthday, along with the right to vote and a few other things, is the requirement to meet weight standards to continue wearing the USAF style uniforms.
And yes, this requirement was mandated by the Air Force.
Cadets who are physically capable are also required to Participate in a Physical Fitness program in an effort to encourage a healthy lifestyles.
True, but they still have to meet the height-weight requirements.
I do love uniforms and take pride in whatever uniform it is, but I would be perfectly happy with some very simple identifier (vest, armband, etc.) in place of the multiple uniform options. Still, I understand why the different uniforms exist and how they evolved.
I do like the thought of keeping cadets in the USAF unform and all seniors having the CAP uniform, but I can see alot of unhappy folks if they ever went that way.
I think that the uniform issue is complicated partly because of the following reasons:
1. We have 3 different missions and uniforms reflect the various duties we perform
2. Our dual role as auxiliary vs. corporation
3. Free uniforms from the AF for cadets
4. Weight limits for seniors but not cadets
5. Even the military (esp the AF) changes their uniforms alot
I'm sure there are other reasons as well. Seems to me that as long as we have a dual nature and diverse mission, there is likely always going to be a multitude of unform options reflecting that.
With that said, I'm gonna wear whatever is asked, even if I think it looks a little goofy to me. I have the BBDU, aviator unform, and golf uniform. Doesn't matter what we wear, we'll still be confused with someone else.
I've been on more than one AFAM mission where there were four different uniforms on a ground team of four people.
Im a USAF Reservist, I pass height and weight by "taping out" with BMI. I am not small, but I have never failed a PT test in either the Army or Air Force. According to current CAP regs, the uniforms I was issued by the USAF couldnt be worn as I dont meet CAP height and weight. Dumb. ::)
Quote from: GroundHawg on December 06, 2010, 02:52:20 AM
Im a USAF Reservist, I pass height and weight by "taping out" with BMI. I am not small, but I have never failed a PT test in either the Army or Air Force. According to current CAP regs, the uniforms I was issued by the USAF couldnt be worn as I dont meet CAP height and weight. Dumb. ::)
Not so dumb, really.
We don't have the education, training, or resources to do the taping used by the AF and the Army.
As a vet, I'm sure you recall that the folks who do the taping have to go to a class and be certified. And of course the whole taping thing is surrounded by controversy in the armed forces. They have changed their methods and standards several times, and there is a certain lack of consistency during weigh-ins, depending on who is doing the the taping that day.
Rather than go through that goat-rope, we chose the easier and more sustainable "add 10% to the chart" method.
Easier all around. Of course it is a little less accurate than taping, but we avoid all the angst involved in adding a whole new layer of training and certification for local squadron folks as well as the indignity of having a fellow squadron commander measure your neck, waist, etc. while standing around in your undershirt at the meeting.
Why couldn't the HSO's take over this duty?
Quote from: Ned on December 06, 2010, 03:00:20 AM
Quote from: GroundHawg on December 06, 2010, 02:52:20 AM
Im a USAF Reservist, I pass height and weight by "taping out" with BMI. I am not small, but I have never failed a PT test in either the Army or Air Force. According to current CAP regs, the uniforms I was issued by the USAF couldnt be worn as I dont meet CAP height and weight. Dumb. ::)
Not so dumb, really.
We don't have the education, training, or resources to do the taping used by the AF and the Army.
As a vet, I'm sure you recall that the folks who do the taping have to go to a class and be certified. And of course the whole taping thing is surrounded by controversy in the armed forces. They have changed their methods and standards several times, and there is a certain lack of consistency during weigh-ins, depending on who is doing the the taping that day.
Rather than go through that goat-rope, we chose the easier and more sustainable "add 10% to the chart" method.
Easier all around. Of course it is a little less accurate than taping, but we avoid all the angst involved in adding a whole new layer of training and certification for local squadron folks as well as the indignity of having a fellow squadron commander measure your neck, waist, etc. while standing around in your undershirt at the meeting.
Quote from: FARRIER on December 06, 2010, 03:25:25 AM
Why couldn't the HSO's take over this duty?
Good question.
I doubt it would work well, however, for the following reasons:
1. There simply aren't enough HSOs in the system to start with. Most units have never seen one.
2. Worse yet, distribution of the existing HSOs is not even. Some units aren't within 100 miles of an HSO.
3. The HSO tent is pretty large. It includes doctors and nurses, of course, but also includes folks like psychologists and optical technicians who probably aren't much help in this area.
4. And the HSOs would still need to be trained and certified to do tapings. That kind of leaves us back at square one.
The training for body fat taping takes about 30 minutes. It is not rocket science. The equipment is a scale and a tape measure. Also a calculator unless you are a math wizard.
In my AFRES unit the First Sergeant or the Orderly Room NCOIC did the taping along with the weighing.
IIRC they went through a 15 minute certificacation class every year and the was about it.
No reason in the world why CAP can't do this, unless you don't trust the Squadron Commanders...
Keep in mind that the AF doesn't trust its airmen enough to allow them to do this and have hired civilians to oversee this (well, at least the PT program and I assume the weight program, but could be wrong).
Or we could all get over ourselves and do what similar organizations have done and just be allowed to wear the uniform as a thank-you
for our service.
"Hey, thanks for all the time you're giving Uncle Sam gratis. We really appreciate it. Given the choice we'd prefer it if you were
in better shape, but we recognize you're a volunteer and have a lot on your plate besides CAP, so it's your call. Besides, no one
who knows what the uniforms of the various branches looks like would ever confuse you with someone in the military, and it wouldn't
really matter if they did, anyway.
Make sure you always wear it proudly and correctly, respect it and those who came before you, in both the volunteer and active variants,
and if anyone gives you any grief about being wearing it, just let us know and we'll straighten them out.
And again, thanks for your service...".
Regards, the Air Force
That is about as likely as me getting THIS letter:
Kack:
I saw your picture on Facebook, and you look like a neat guy. I have split from my husband, and am feeling a little lonely right now. Maybe you could give me a call and we could hook up for dinner and drinks sometime soon?
Love,
Christie Brinkley.
PS: My treat!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 06, 2010, 10:57:17 AM
That is about as likely as me getting THIS letter:
Kack:
I saw your picture on Facebook, and you look like a neat guy. I have split from my husband, and am feeling a little lonely right now. Maybe you could give me a call and we could hook up for dinner and drinks sometime soon?
Love,
Christie Brinkley.
PS: My treat!
Hey, buddy, line forms behind me. :)
Quote from: RiverAux on December 06, 2010, 04:17:32 AM
Keep in mind that the AF doesn't trust its airmen enough to allow them to do this and have hired civilians to oversee this (well, at least the PT program and I assume the weight program, but could be wrong).
That's perfect, sir.
We are civilians.
(And I'm sure our AD and Reserve members don't mind being told they were saved from yet another CAP hat to wear)
Quote from: PHall on December 06, 2010, 04:13:23 AM
( . . .) unless you don't trust the Squadron Commanders...
You mean the same squadron commanders enforcing the height weight restrictions already in place?
Those guys?
Shouldn't be a problem, then. ::)
Integrity is integrity. Where it is lacking you address is directly.
You don't scale your program or write your regs assuming people will cheat them or ignore them.
So, we are agreed that the only reason we have this height and weight regulation is appearances. There is no valid job-related requirement that any of us meet this regulation except that it makes the Air Force feel good about itself.
So then, with what the Secretary of Defense and the JCS are doing now is eliminating discrimination in the military against gays. They have decided that there is no valid reason to restrict gays from serving in uniform, and so they are being allowed to serve openly. What remains then is discrimination against fat people in CAP.
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2010, 04:18:42 AM
Or we could all get over ourselves and do what similar organizations have done and just be allowed to wear the uniform as a thank-you
for our service.
"Hey, thanks for all the time you're giving Uncle Sam gratis. We really appreciate it. Given the choice we'd prefer it if you were
in better shape, but we recognize you're a volunteer and have a lot on your plate besides CAP, so it's your call. Besides, no one
who knows what the uniforms of the various branches looks like would ever confuse you with someone in the military, and it wouldn't
really matter if they did, anyway.
Make sure you always wear it proudly and correctly, respect it and those who came before you, in both the volunteer and active variants,
and if anyone gives you any grief about being wearing it, just let us know and we'll straighten them out.
And again, thanks for your service...".
Regards, the Air Force
+1
Quote from: JokerMafia248 on December 06, 2010, 04:34:14 PM
So then, with what the Secretary of Defense and the JCS are doing now is eliminating discrimination in the military against gays. They have decided that there is no valid reason to restrict gays from serving in uniform, and so they are being allowed to serve openly. What remains then is discrimination against fat people in CAP.
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
It's been said, it didn't really need to be said again, and quite frankly it's simply a red herring.
Quote from: JokerMafia248 on December 06, 2010, 04:34:14 PM
So, we are agreed that the only reason we have this height and weight regulation is appearances. There is no valid job-related requirement that any of us meet this regulation except that it makes the Air Force feel good about itself.
I wouldn't agree with that. Yes, as the CAP regs and AFIs are written, the main reason is to make us look good in the AF uniform. But I've met too many pilots who get winded walking 50 ft from the FBO to the aircraft. I've met GT and UDF guys who can't walk more than a few hundred feet before they have to slow down.
I think instead of trying to find a way for our HSO to integrate with the AF in a way similar to Chaplains, the National HS guys should be working on a real health and fitness program to go along with the height/weight requirements.
Quote from: JokerMafia248 on December 06, 2010, 04:34:14 PM
So, we are agreed that the only reason we have this height and weight regulation is appearances. There is no valid job-related requirement that any of us meet this regulation except that it makes the Air Force feel good about itself.
So then, with what the Secretary of Defense and the JCS are doing now is eliminating discrimination in the military against gays. They have decided that there is no valid reason to restrict gays from serving in uniform, and so they are being allowed to serve openly. What remains then is discrimination against fat people in CAP.
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
In CAP I would say that there is more to the height and weight regulation than just appearances. Adults that are in the height/weight standards are generally rather active and healthy. That is one of the things promoted in the cadet program, staying active and healthy. I would think that also putting a PT standard to SMs would help to promote that mindset of being active and healthy to the cadets.
I don't know of anyone who discriminates against people who are overweight in CAP. Anyone who does, doesn't deserve to be in CAP.
I definitely think that anyone doing anything ES related (yes this includes comms and air ops and even those who are just GES) should have to be able to complete a standardized PT test.
Gee... and I open up CNN.com and ... right there on the home page:
Why obesity is a national security threat (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/06/frum.obesity.military/index.html)
Quote from: David Frum / CNN ContributorCongress is passionately debating whether open homosexuality is compatible with military service. But even as this particular culture war seems headed to resolution, a new emerging cultural divide is tearing at military efficiency: obesity and overweight.
National Security Threat??? Maybe, but I would have to say it is a threat the the nation as a whole. Obesity kills, and it doesn't just kill you, it kills your family emotionally.
Quote from: JokerMafia248 on December 06, 2010, 04:34:14 PM
So then, with what the Secretary of Defense and the JCS are doing now is eliminating discrimination in the military against gays. They have decided that there is no valid reason to restrict gays from serving in uniform, and so they are being allowed to serve openly. What remains then is discrimination against fat people in CAP.
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
No, it didn't. Not remotely the same thing.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 06, 2010, 04:53:02 PM
I definitely think that anyone doing anything ES related (yes this includes comms and air ops and even those who are just GES) should have to be able to complete a standardized PT test.
That would just eliminate members with disabilities from participating with even sedentary activities in Emergency Services. I think to the point that might hinder our mission. I think members should just be realistic about their capabilities and work to their level as opposed to restricting them from ES completely
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 06, 2010, 04:53:02 PM
Quote from: JokerMafia248 on December 06, 2010, 04:34:14 PM
So, we are agreed that the only reason we have this height and weight regulation is appearances. There is no valid job-related requirement that any of us meet this regulation except that it makes the Air Force feel good about itself.
So then, with what the Secretary of Defense and the JCS are doing now is eliminating discrimination in the military against gays. They have decided that there is no valid reason to restrict gays from serving in uniform, and so they are being allowed to serve openly. What remains then is discrimination against fat people in CAP.
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
I definitely think that anyone doing anything ES related (yes this includes comms and air ops and even those who are just GES) should have to be able to complete a standardized PT test.
I fail to see how one's ability to haul their butt around a track in
n period of time affects their ability to operate a radio, look out the window of an airplane, drive a van, or run a mission. I would even go so far to argue that someone's mile time/number of pushups/some other asinine physical assessment doesn't have any impact on their ability to work or lead a ground team.
Quote from: SARDOC on December 06, 2010, 08:57:17 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 06, 2010, 04:53:02 PM
I definitely think that anyone doing anything ES related (yes this includes comms and air ops and even those who are just GES) should have to be able to complete a standardized PT test.
That would just eliminate members with disabilities from participating with even sedentary activities in Emergency Services. I think to the point that might hinder our mission. I think members should just be realistic about their capabilities and work to their level as opposed to restricting them from ES completely
I know of two members (and this is in the NE Georgia area, so within a 100 miles of each other)- one was blind, and the other nearly so to the point he can't drive at night.
Both were considered the best Comms guys that anyone had ever met.
Keep in mind- they were unrelated and within 100 miles of each other. I'm not pulling from across the country- think of the examples I could come up with if I did go nation-wide.
GES? Heck, I'm GES (and could pass the PT test, but still). Things like GES (though only as a stepping stone, I hope), Comms- that's the very sector of ES that those with disabilities gravitate towards.
I feel GT is debatable (though I don't have the experience to get involved), but the purely non-field jobs? Don't hack away at those who serve everywhere they can as best they can.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 06, 2010, 04:53:02 PM
I don't know of anyone who discriminates against people who are overweight in CAP. Anyone who does, doesn't deserve to be in CAP.
I definitely think that anyone doing anything ES related (yes this includes comms and air ops and even those who are just GES) should have to be able to complete a standardized PT test.
Wow! I don't know where to start on this one. I think you just suggested you don't deserve to be in CAP.
IC, PSC, OSC, SO, AOBD, GBD, CUL, MRO, PIO, MSA etc. Just a few ES positions that don't necessarily involve a lot of physical effort.
But in your world I guess I should hand in my 101 card.
Let's separate the truly disabled from those who simply choose to eat whatever they want.
The number of members in CAP who have thyroid issues, are in wheelchairs because of non-obesity-related issues, or other exceptions, would be treated as such, exceptions.
Blindness and deafness are not excuses for obesity, which for the vast (pun intended) majority of affected Americans and CAP members is a lifestyle choice, not a syndrome dictated by a disease.
Senior members could be categorized like cadets, including permanent waivers for those medically disabled.
I would be strongly in favor of a PT-based qualification system for the wear of USAF uniforms, or PT as an alternative for those off the charts (i.e. pop the weight chart? No problem, do this run, etc.)
My view is pretty much as Eclipse stated, you can get waivers for pretty much any kind of disability. Yes, I can understand someone who is legally blind (in both eyes) having a waiver not to a PT test. Someone who is wheelchair bound, or anyone putting on weight that they cannot control due to medical problems, especially chemotherapy and things of the like. There are many reasons that there would be a waiver. I don't think that the PT test should necessarily be a one or two mile run, I think something such as a one mile timed event that can be completed at a brisk walk, something that we can just asses that a person who will be working in the field would be able to sustain them self long enough to be able to get them self to safety. For aircrew, the need is there because if they are in a crash, that could be in the middle of nowhere, they need to be able to sustain them selves. I admit, thinking that anyone who will be strictly in base ops probably doesn't need to have a passed PT test, but if that person doesn't have a passed PT test or a waiver, then the command should look at the situation and determine whether that person would be a use or a hindrance in the field if there were an emergency to come up while on a mission.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 06, 2010, 10:57:17 AM
That is about as likely as me getting THIS letter:
Kack:
I saw your picture on Facebook, and you look like a neat guy. I have split from my husband, and am feeling a little lonely right now. Maybe you could give me a call and we could hook up for dinner and drinks sometime soon?
Love,
Christie Brinkley.
PS: My treat!
That's funny. My neighbor about 15 years ago worked for the local ritzy hotel when Brinkley stayed there with her hubby Billy Joel. He said that Joel was drunk in the room and his wife was bored out of her mind, so she asked my friend to show her around town. So he spent the day with Christie Brinkley, acting as her private tour guide. He said they had a great time, but nobody ever believes him. Kinda like that character in the movie "Contact". Had this amazing experience but but nobody believed her.
You REALLY know how to hurt, don't you?
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 06, 2010, 09:56:45 PMlook out the window of an airplane
There is a very real impact on air operations with heavier people. The heavier the load, the less time the aircraft can stay in the air. If the aircrew exceeds the maximum weight for the aircraft then the crew may have to go up with one person short or new aircrew members may need to be mixed in. So, someone's weight can have a detrimental impact on our flying mission.
Quotework or lead a ground team
There is also a real need for ground team members and leaders to be fit enough. While their leadership abilities aren't changed based on their shape, if they aren't physically able to walk the needed distance, etc the mission could fail. This also includes those with medical disabilities.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2010, 10:21:27 PM
Let's separate the truly disabled from those who simply choose to eat whatever they want.
The number of members in CAP who have thyroid issues, are in wheelchairs because of non-obesity-related issues, or other exceptions, would be treated as such, exceptions.
Blindness and deafness are not excuses for obesity, which for the vast (pun intended) majority of affected Americans and CAP members is a lifestyle choice, not a syndrome dictated by a disease.
Senior members could be categorized like cadets, including permanent waivers for those medically disabled.
I would be strongly in favor of a PT-based qualification system for the wear of USAF uniforms, or PT as an alternative for those off the charts (i.e. pop the weight chart? No problem, do this run, etc.)
Once again your ignorance abounds. You have not figured in things like a genetic predisposition. I have battled being overweight all of my life. Even when I was in the Army I gained weight, even when on a doctor supervised diet and exercise program. I could score over 250 on the APFT and I was still fighting the weight limits. I had to tape every time and failed the tape most of the time, but was still scoring above 200 on the APFT. I suffered an injury, was on profile for almost a year and the weight kept coming. I am a disabled VETERAN and have recently undergone gastric bypass surgery to treat my morbid obesity that was the result of many factors, none of which was my inability to push away from the table.
I only share this because I want to point out the arrogance and ignorance of your comments.
Quote from: cap235629 on December 07, 2010, 05:19:36 AM
Once again your ignorance abounds. You have not figured in things like a genetic predisposition. I have battled being overweight all of my life. Even when I was in the Army I gained weight, even when on a doctor supervised diet and exercise program. I could score over 250 on the APFT and I was still fighting the weight limits. I had to tape every time and failed the tape most of the time, but was still scoring above 200 on the APFT. I suffered an injury, was on profile for almost a year and the weight kept coming. I am a disabled VETERAN and have recently undergone gastric bypass surgery to treat my morbid obesity that was the result of many factors, none of which was my inability to push away from the table.
I only share this because I want to point out the arrogance and ignorance of your comments.
You should go back and read the posts again.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2010, 10:21:27 PM
Let's separate the truly disabled from those who simply choose to eat whatever they want.
The number of members in CAP who have thyroid issues, are in wheelchairs because of non-obesity-related issues, or other exceptions, would be treated as such, exceptions.
I would be strongly in favor of a PT-based qualification system for the wear of USAF uniforms, or PT as an alternative for those off the charts (i.e. pop the weight chart? No problem, do this run, etc.)
As you stated, you have never had the problem with the APFT. So what is it that you don't understand? If you have a problem that has nothing to do with food, fine, then lets get you a waiver, and lets see what you can do for a PT test. I am not saying you should be required to perform a mile run in under 7 minutes, but a one mile walk in 14 or 15 minutes, if you so choose to run during the test, then fine.
There should just be something that we do to mitigate risk, I would think that ORM would have the question, "Is every team member physically ready and capable to perform the mission?"
ALRIGHT, who has the beating a dead horse graphic and why ain't you USING it!!! ;D
Quote from: ol'fido on December 08, 2010, 12:32:34 AM
ALRIGHT, who has the beating a dead horse graphic and why ain't you USING it!!! ;D
Sir, I apologize. Punctuality has never been my most redeeming feature. ;D But better late than never!
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2z3rv2h.gif)
Quote from: ol'fido on December 08, 2010, 12:32:34 AM
ALRIGHT, who has the beating a dead horse graphic and why ain't you USING it!!! ;D
Because it's more fun to use the "Beating a Dead Senior Member" graphic, that's why.
Dak, you are forgiven but please don't let it happen again. ;D
PHall, you can't talk about the pilots like that. >:D
" So why do we have height and weight standards?"
So they can be dutifully ignored by many!
>:D
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 05, 2010, 05:27:53 PM
I've said it before and am saying it again: seniors should all go to a single uniform, which, practically speaking, means non-USAF style.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those restricted to the CAP rather than AF uniforms...but my point is not personal convenience, but uniformity.
Keep the military uniforms for the cadets.
Design a decent looking service jacket for seniors (corporate) that can be worn with insignia, badges, awards.
Use BBDUs, equivalent flight suit, and golf shirt where appropriate.
Give it a fairly long (5 year? 7 year?) phase in to make it less of a financial burden.
And declare an end to the 'uniform wars'!
IF it isn't something that looks like a mall security guard uniform, which is what I think of when I see the grey/whites.
It still foxes me that even the modifications that General Courter made to the CSU are not acceptable and we still have to scrap it.
Maybe if we'd go to wearing ROTC-type insignia and save the bars, leaves, chickens and stars for the BDU/BBDU/flight suit/utility suit?
http://www.armedforcesinsignia.com/?c=125
The Air Force is not going to change the H/W standards, and CAP doesn't have the authority to do so.
So it's up to us who are able to do so, to try and meet the H/W standards, and for those who cannot for whatever reason, to find a sharp-looking uniform that still gives an impression of the CAP's heritage.
Ok, I'll throw in my two cents on this conversation. I think someone earlier had a good point, that uniform is meant to be UNIFORM... I wish we just had one or two uniforms honestly. (Aren't there something like 5 or more? I don't remember, and it's too late for me to count. Sorry.) And the regulations are so complicated, I wish they'd simplify things a bit. (I imagine I'm echoing the sentiments of others here.)
Anyway, I don't have experience with Air Force stuff, so I just follow the example of others around me. I'm in a Senior squadron where most people wear the grey pants/polo shirt combination. I wear that even though I could theoretically wear any of the uniforms because 1) I don't really have the wherewithal to get together and correctly wear an Air Force uniform at the moment, and I'd be too embarrassed to wear it wrong. 2) It's a uniform, so I feel better if I'm wearing what everyone else wears. 3) It's cheaper ::)
I think the criticism that the uniform differences single out the "heavier folks" COULD be true...I haven't seen it myself, but I don't really want to single anyone out. (Also, because uniforms should be... I dunno, uniform?) But at the same time, sometimes I feel bad that I'm not trying to look as spiffy as possible. However, most folks in my squadron who DO meet the weight/grooming standards still wear the polo shirt. (Maybe for the same reasons, I don't know.) Appearances don't necessarily indicate character. They know what they're doing, get the job done, teach and train new members, and fully embody the core values of CAP: Integrity, Volunteer Service, Excellence, and Respect.
But anyway, I agree with manfredvonrichthofen and a couple others here who have said that it's not the Uniform/ability to keep the standards that matters, but the abilities of the people, and their invaluable skills in supporting this organization.
(And for the record, I'm at about the minimum healthy weight for my height. Donate now to help feed this starving college student! ::) )
I believe that this article which is quoted from the Army Times will shed some new light on the situation. If 20-45 year olds that are the best of the best can't cut it, how can our diverse group be expected too?
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/us-soldiers-turn-to-diet-pills-liposuction-to-meet-weight-standards-ncxdc-120810
Quote from: meganite on December 08, 2010, 07:50:34 AM
(And for the record, I'm at about the minimum healthy weight for my height. Donate now to help feed this starving college student! ::) )
I used to be right there with you while I was in the Army. I was always under minimum weight limit. I am 5'11" and have been since I was 17, until I met my wife, the heaviest I have ever been was 130, usually I was right around 120. My point of this... Get married to a beautiful girl who can cook like a Goddess! They will keep you right. Mine keeps me at about 190 with a slight gut.
Quote from: AirAux on December 08, 2010, 02:08:41 PM
I believe that this article which is quoted from the Army Times will shed some new light on the situation. If 20-45 year olds that are the best of the best can't cut it, how can our diverse group be expected too?
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/us-soldiers-turn-to-diet-pills-liposuction-to-meet-weight-standards-ncxdc-120810
You realize that is FOX NEWS right? I don't believe anything they say unless I can see where they got their info. I still have access to AKO, and I have never seen anything of the sort there that shows any study about soldiers getting lipo. Also, they didn't provide any sort of confirmation as to who these soldiers are that are getting liposuction, if these are real soldiers, I can understand not putting a name to them, but I also know that most soldiers that don't want information about themselves to get out won't talk to the media about any of it.
It is not hard to stay within regulation in regards to weight. All you need to do is do the PT that your unit is SUPPOSED TO DO every morning. I somewhat cringe when I say that, because I know that some units don't do PT every morning as they are supposed to. I knew a couple of soldiers who didn't pass weight and tape, that is because they were kind of hefty to begin with because they had wives that could cook much better food than any single soldier was going to get from the DFAC, or better than I was getting from my ex-wife who could cook something that raccoons and skunks wouldn't eat. The reason they had a hard time with their weight was compounded because instead of doing the standard PT they would go to the gym and do failure drills with weights that I wouldn't touch. Doing that kind of body work while already being at a higher weight will cause muscle to build under the fat making it worse by not burning enough of the fat. After going back to doing the prescribed PT regimen for overweight soldiers and a modest diet, they were all back into regulation within two weeks, not to mention they had abs that I was really jealous of.
You do realize that I noted that Fox News tied this to the Army Times don't you? If you are too biased to accept Fox News then try:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/12/army-extreme-weight-loss-120510w/
And it's enough of a problem for active duty for them to worry about it, so let's lighten up on CAP'ers.
AD/Guard/Reservists can face disciplinary measures under the UCMJ for being out of military weight standards (why most of them don't is a mystery to me).
We aren't under the UCMJ, so the only "carrot and stick" approach the USAF has is to tell us civilian paramilitary volunteers that if you're over the limit, you can't wear the AF uniform...but I agree that the approach is way too rigid, especially given that the USCG doesn't have such limits for its Auxiliary (not sure about the US Navy Sea Cadets) and, as many have stated, in some cases obesity is a genetic condition which often shows up later in life.
Do you remember Ann Wilson from the group Heart? Great, great singer. Old pix of her from the '70s show her as slim and svelte as her guitarist sister Nancy. However, in the mid-'80s that obesity gene started kicking in (I remember her being interviewed about it) and she is now quite heavy, and it's not her fault.
There are more people afflicted with that than we probably realise.
To some extent I think the height/weight standards are becoming a nonfactor due to the increasing numbers in which senior members choose to wear the civilian uniforms such as the golf shirt even those who could wear AF style. If no one wants to wear a AF uniform it won't matter.
The important uniform fight in CAP is not AF vs corporate style military uniforms it is military vs non-military style and military is losing. Even if we dropped AF style and went to a corporate only military uniform the golf shirts are still winning.
Why is military losing?
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 08, 2010, 11:22:27 PM
Why is military losing?
Because there are significant and growing numbers of CAP members who don't want to wear military uniforms either because they don't want to hassle with the C&C and the fact that the civilian style is cheaper and easier to maintain. Some are even former military who are tired of wearing any uniform.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 08, 2010, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 08, 2010, 11:22:27 PM
Why is military losing?
Because there are significant and growing numbers of CAP members who don't want to wear military uniforms either because they don't want to hassle with the C&C and the fact that the civilian style is cheaper and easier to maintain. Some are even former military who are tired of wearing any uniform.
What makes you think that if you wear the alternative uniforms (other than the polo) you don't have to use proper C&C?
Quote from: RiverAux on December 08, 2010, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 08, 2010, 11:22:27 PM
Why is military losing?
Because there are significant and growing numbers of CAP members who don't want to wear military uniforms either because they don't want to hassle with the C&C and the fact that the civilian style is cheaper and easier to maintain. Some are even former military who are tired of wearing any uniform.
Utter nonsense.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2010, 11:39:53 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 08, 2010, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 08, 2010, 11:22:27 PM
Why is military losing?
Because there are significant and growing numbers of CAP members who don't want to wear military uniforms either because they don't want to hassle with the C&C and the fact that the civilian style is cheaper and easier to maintain. Some are even former military who are tired of wearing any uniform.
Utter nonsense.
Are you saying that my explanation for why civilian uniforms are dominating CAP is nonesense or are you denying my observation that this is the case? There are most certainly pockets here and there where the military style uniforms are what you see, especially in more formal situations, but in everyday use and especially in any flying activity, the civilian uniform is on top or very close to it.
If you are in the civilian uniforms you may still have to say sir and people's ranks, but you don't have to salute others and most people won't salute you. Keep in mind I'm distinguishing between the civilian uniforms (golf shirt, blazer) and the military style uniforms (both AF-style and CAP corporate).
I see it more as many folks would prefer to be in a flying club that sometimes does stuff for the Air Force. I've seen members leave because they had to meet the training requirements (like the FEMA stuff, safety requirements, etc). Their interest is flying, not service. I've seen folks join and the first thing they want to do is go flying. When they discover there are training requirements like having to have a scanner rating, Form 5, Form 91, etc. they disappear.
Some of those that stick around are willing to comply with the training requirements but prefer not to be identified with the military. If they are asked to put on a uniform, especially the AF style (Blues, green zoom bag, BDU) they find a reason not to.
Not sure why they feel that way but they do....I know of one member who meets hgt/wgt and if he got his hair cut just a bit shorter ( just slightly over the top of his ears) would qualify for the AF uniform....instead he won't even wear a corporate version to squadron meetings. He just want to get to where he can fly .
Maybe some of the members her can explain it. There are those here who are rabid about us moving away from the AF and the military uniforms.
These are the same folks that if the Air Force changed to the CAP uniforms (Blue BDU, Blue Flightsuit, White & grey uniforms) they would show up in green flight suit, Camo BDU, and the Blues. Just so they wouldn't have to be identified with the AF.
It's like the kid who is anti authority who violates the school dress code or has his pants sagging.....
We have a lot of anti-military sentiment in CAP, and here on CAPTalk. That is why California is prohibited from wearing AF uniforms on missions (offends Code Pink) and why a hard core of people here insist on CAP changing into a government-funded civilian flying club, eliminating military uniforms and rank.
Personally, I would rather be an auxiliary officer of the US Air Force than an unpaid employee of a nonprofit "CAP, Inc." I like the military (even though I'm now too old to serve actively... I just watch my Army pension Direct Deposits roll in on the first of the month) and I like associating with military guys. The day CAP becomes more long-haired ZZ-Top looking civilian flying club members than green-bag wearing pilots, is the day I'm gone.
So far, that hasn't happened where I serve.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:59:41 AM
We have a lot of anti-military sentiment in CAP, and here on CAPTalk. That is why California is prohibited from wearing AF uniforms on missions (offends Code Pink) and why a hard core of people here insist on CAP changing into a government-funded civilian flying club, eliminating military uniforms and rank.
Personally, I would rather be an auxiliary officer of the US Air Force than an unpaid employee of a nonprofit "CAP, Inc." I like the military (even though I'm now too old to serve actively... I just watch my Army pension Direct Deposits roll in on the first of the month) and I like associating with military guys. The day CAP becomes more long-haired ZZ-Top looking civilian flying club members than green-bag wearing pilots, is the day I'm gone.
So far, that hasn't happened where I serve.
Hear Hear!!! I don't understand why people come to a CAP meeting look around and think flying club, unless there is something wrong with how the current members are putting CAP across to the potential members. CAP is THE USAF AUXILIARY! ONE OF OUR EARLIEST MISSIONS WAS THE DEFENSE OF OUR COASTAL BORDERS DURING A
WAR. When the tie of CAP and USAF is cut, and we are turned into nothing more than a good ole boy's flying club is the day I quit. Until then, I will wear the USAF style uniform promote CP ES and AE, I will salute my officers, call them by their rank or Sir, stand at attention for them, and salute the life out of the United States of America's Flag!
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 09, 2010, 01:22:13 AM
Hear Hear!!! I don't understand why people come to a CAP meeting look around and think flying club, unless there is something wrong with how the current members are putting CAP across to the potential members. CAP is THE USAF AUXILIARY! ONE OF OUR EARLIEST MISSIONS WAS THE DEFENSE OF OUR COASTAL BORDERS DURING A WAR. When the tie of CAP and USAF is cut, and we are turned into nothing more than a good ole boy's flying club is the day I quit. Until then, I will wear the USAF style uniform promote CP ES and AE, I will salute my officers, call them by their rank or Sir, stand at attention for them, and salute the life out of the United States of America's Flag!
I also agree and am proud of the history of the Civil Air Patrol...but hasn't the status of CAP already shifted away from being the USAF Auxiliary full time. I thought technically we are now only the official auxiliary while assigned to an AFAM. I thought the Air Force decided that for us.
The Air National Guard is only a part of the US Air Force when called into federal service. otherwise, they are under the governor. Pretty much the same for us... the law just determines who pays for what and whose insurance is responsible for what. We wear the AF uniform even on corporate missions just like the Guard wear the uniform on state duty.
Quote from: Smokey on December 09, 2010, 12:48:52 AM
I see it more as many folks would prefer to be in a flying club that sometimes does stuff for the Air Force. I've seen members leave because they had to meet the training requirements (like the FEMA stuff, safety requirements, etc). Their interest is flying, not service. I've seen folks join and the first thing they want to do is go flying. When they discover there are training requirements like having to have a scanner rating, Form 5, Form 91, etc. they disappear.
BTDT, in a senior squadron. In my experience the overwhelming centres of that mentality are in senior squadrons. I was in a senior squadron as my second CAP unit and would never join one again. It was a pilots' club, pure and simple, and if you weren't a pilot you were excess baggage (that included observers and scanners). I was the only one wearing the AF uniform...most others couldn't be bothered to wear a uniform and only wore a CAP baseball cap to stay within regs while flying. Forget professional development, AE, etc., and cadets. They didn't like doing cadet O-rides, but they were all too ready to sign up their significant others so they could ride in CAP aircraft (zero participation otherwise; the unit had a huge roster but very little active membership other than pilots).
Disclaimer: I don't wish to infer that all senior squadrons are like this.Quote from: Smokey on December 09, 2010, 12:48:52 AM
Maybe some of the members her can explain it. There are those here who are rabid about us moving away from the AF and the military uniforms.
Yes, there are those members who are rabid about it, and they almost got their way in 1995 when John McCain wanted to take us completely away from the Air Force and move us to the Department of Transportation (which would have killed the cadet side). There are some very vocal proponents of moving CAP to the Department of Homeland Security, most of whom have only two things on their agenda:
FLYES...and non-pilots need not apply.
If that ever does come to pass, there are going to be a lot of people gone from CAP.
Hopefully, I'll have enough accumulated time to "retire" from what used to be the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 09, 2010, 12:41:32 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2010, 11:39:53 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 08, 2010, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 08, 2010, 11:22:27 PM
Why is military losing?
Because there are significant and growing numbers of CAP members who don't want to wear military uniforms either because they don't want to hassle with the C&C and the fact that the civilian style is cheaper and easier to maintain. Some are even former military who are tired of wearing any uniform.
Utter nonsense.
Are you saying that my explanation for why civilian uniforms are dominating CAP is nonesense or are you denying my observation that this is the case? There are most certainly pockets here and there where the military style uniforms are what you see, especially in more formal situations, but in everyday use and especially in any flying activity, the civilian uniform is on top or very close to it.
If you are in the civilian uniforms you may still have to say sir and people's ranks, but you don't have to salute others and most people won't salute you. Keep in mind I'm distinguishing between the civilian uniforms (golf shirt, blazer) and the military style uniforms (both AF-style and CAP corporate).
I am saying your assertion that members increasingly don't want to wear the USAF-style combos because of the hassle or a dislike for C&C is based on nothing but your personal anecdotal observation and I say it is nonsense.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2010, 04:48:45 AM
I am saying your assertion that members increasingly don't want to wear the USAF-style combos because of the hassle or a dislike for C&C is based on nothing but your personal anecdotal observation and I say it is nonsense.
Well, add another personal anecdotal observation. I witnessed it in the senior squadron I described. Very few of the members wanted to go on military installations because they didn't want to wear a proper uniform and remember all the "playing army" saluting.
^ I constantly wonder what organization these people thought they were joining.
Oh to be a fly on the wall during the recruiting conversations...
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:59:41 AM
We have a lot of anti-military sentiment in CAP, and here on CAPTalk. That is why California is prohibited from wearing AF uniforms on missions (offends Code Pink) and why a hard core of people here insist on CAP changing into a government-funded civilian flying club, eliminating military uniforms and rank.
Regarding California Wing and the CAWG Ground team uniform, you can't be farther from the truth. We wear the BBDU pants with orange shirt so that we can better work with our customer, whether it be Cal-EMA or the local Sheriffs Office. At first, I wasn't a big fan of the uniform, I just shelled out money for BDU's and I wasn't keen on spending more money. However, once I've seen how much more respect we get just by trying to "dress the part" its all worth it. Recently we had an ALNOT for an aircraft that called in to a tower saying they were going in. We had ELT reports that placed it in an urban interface where it could have been a simple UDF mission or a full ground team search. We had an aircraft take off and started hearing an ELT and we were prosecuting the signal. The sheriffs were the with us in the field with there helicopter and as I was told ( I was in the base) that for the first time in quite a while, they were very willing to work with us, partly because we didn't look like we were going to hide in the woods in BDU's. We dressed the same way they were and they respected the fact that we wanted to fit into the "big picture"
Saying that we're getting away from AF uniforms because we don't want to offend anti-war protesters is absurd.
Mark
No, it is not absurd.
California cities have passed resolutions declaring the Marine Corps to be "Unwanted Aliens." San Diego, once a pro-military town, has banned military recruiters from schools.
Everyone else in the country wears the USAF uniform on missions. ONLY California finds working with people in a military uniform offensive and dresses them up in a ridiculous clown suit in order to work SAR.
I have been in ES in the air and on the ground for many years in two wings, and the "Customers" I have worked with have appreciated the fact that the USAF provided a professional military unit to assist them. "When you care enough to send the very best."
Besides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2010, 04:48:45 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 09, 2010, 12:41:32 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2010, 11:39:53 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 08, 2010, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 08, 2010, 11:22:27 PM
Why is military losing?
Because there are significant and growing numbers of CAP members who don't want to wear military uniforms either because they don't want to hassle with the C&C and the fact that the civilian style is cheaper and easier to maintain. Some are even former military who are tired of wearing any uniform.
Utter nonsense.
Are you saying that my explanation for why civilian uniforms are dominating CAP is nonesense or are you denying my observation that this is the case? There are most certainly pockets here and there where the military style uniforms are what you see, especially in more formal situations, but in everyday use and especially in any flying activity, the civilian uniform is on top or very close to it.
If you are in the civilian uniforms you may still have to say sir and people's ranks, but you don't have to salute others and most people won't salute you. Keep in mind I'm distinguishing between the civilian uniforms (golf shirt, blazer) and the military style uniforms (both AF-style and CAP corporate).
I am saying your assertion that members increasingly don't want to wear the USAF-style combos because of the hassle or a dislike for C&C is based on nothing but your personal anecdotal observation and I say it is nonsense.
Well, you're right that it is my personal anecdotal observation, but since you seem to agree with me that civilian "uniforms" are beginning to dominate CAP, what is YOUR explanation?
In response to Eclipse, I have to join with SARDOC. Have you looked at our National Website lately? There is no mention of Air Force Auxiliary anywhere and the Aircraft all say Civil Air Patrol. It would appear that the association with the Air Force is at least being downplayed. I know who is paying the bills and I have mucho strong ties with the Air Force and that is why I joined so many moons ago, but somehow we have allowed our association with the Air Force to fall to the side. Is this a good thing? I don't think so, but I am an old fart and so set in my ways. Perhaps it is a new day and I don't see the overall picture. Be that as it may, why do we wear anything resembling the Air Force uniform if we are no longer associated with it? Why not have our own Civil Air Patrol uniform? Speaking of customers, if you are flying on counter narcotics for some of our "customers" you can't wear a uniform at all. How about those apples? Who and what are we??
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:46:28 PM
Besides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.
No. Your "customer" on a SAR mission is the missing subject and his or her family. When SAR people forget that simple fact, things start to go higgledy-piggledy in a hurry.
The USAF is a stakeholder in the who, what, and how of product delivery.
--Senty
Unfortunately that may not be true. When a mission is called off, it is based on the POD, probability (percentage?) of detection, which is determined by CAP charts probably provided by the Air Force, and not the missing subject. The customer of a mortuary is the grieving family and not the deceased. Our customer on counter narcotics is the LE we are working for and not the marijuana patch or the perp on the ground. Customer and object are not interchangeable. One is who we work for and one is what we are looking for or doing while we are working. The missing one is not responsible for paying the bill for the mission.. Although I think there may have been cases when a bill may have been presented. Not to thwart your enthusiasm, but there is much more to the program than dogged dedication to mission goals..
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:46:28 PMBesides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.
CAP doesn't get called unless the local folks call the AFRCC. So it would seem keeping the locals happy should be your number 1 concern if you want participate.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2010, 04:48:45 AMI am saying your assertion that members increasingly don't want to wear the USAF-style combos because of the hassle or a dislike for C&C is based on nothing but your personal anecdotal observation and I say it is nonsense.
I can't speak to the why, but put me down for another anecdotal observation of being adrift in a sea of blue polo shirts. This includes meetings, in the aircraft, and at mission base.
Now that we've driven this sufficiently off topic, I find these debates interesting. In TXWG I've been to many SAREXs with people from all over the state. Between any two SAREXs (speaking of air side only at the moment) with more or less the same people, there's a small group who's always in flight suits, and there's a small group who's always in polos, and everyone else (80%) just sort of goes between the two.
The same goes for seminars like SLS/CLC. It always seems like it's half polos and half AF-style/corp. military style, but which half is which will change from one day to the next.
Quote from: Senty7 on December 09, 2010, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:46:28 PM
Besides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.
No. Your "customer" on a SAR mission is the missing subject and his or her family. When SAR people forget that simple fact, things start to go higgledy-piggledy in a hurry.
The USAF is a stakeholder in the who, what, and how of product delivery.
--Senty
Well if your customer is the missing subject and their family. I don't think they give a crap what uniform you're wearing. I've worked as a professional rescuer wearing nothing but a blue tee shirt and a pair of shorts...believe people don't care what you're wearing if you are helping to find a loved one.
That being said, if you want to work as a team with other state level agencies your appearance becomes very important if you want to be taken seriously. I wish the USAF would be a stronger proponent of supporting CAP in Emergency Services missions other than only AFAM's. I could think the USAF could do more to help CAP build state/local level relationships but it appears that the AF couldn't care less if we support our local governments. I think with more Air Force support we could become an even bigger federal asset by supporting FEMA USAR, DMAT, MMRS among other NGO's making us the Premier ES/SAR agency.
River - I don't agree that civilian uniform variants are dominating CAP, so I am not sure where you are getting that from me.
Kach - the USAF only foots the bill on AFAM's, not always even then - corporate missions, whatever the scope, have the customer or other agencies paying the expenses, who bought the planes, etc., notwithstanding.
Why wait for USAF? I know in my Wing there is a group of folks that go around to local EMAs to market our abilities. The last couple missions I was on were initiated by the county folks calling a unit/group ESO for assistance. The CAP member called it in, got the mission number, and away we went. Those relationships are local. No way can USAF nor NHQ get those going.
Quote from: Senty7 on December 09, 2010, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:46:28 PM
Besides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.
No. Your "customer" on a SAR mission is the missing subject and his or her family. When SAR people forget that simple fact, things start to go higgledy-piggledy in a hurry.
The USAF is a stakeholder in the who, what, and how of product delivery.
--Senty
Non-concur.
The customer is who pays the bill. Business Administration 101
Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on December 09, 2010, 03:47:30 PM
Why wait for USAF? I know in my Wing there is a group of folks that go around to local EMAs to market our abilities. The last couple missions I was on were initiated by the county folks calling a unit/group ESO for assistance. The CAP member called it in, got the mission number, and away we went. Those relationships are local. No way can USAF nor NHQ get those going.
I think there is little question that this is where the future of CAP ES lies...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2010, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on December 09, 2010, 03:47:30 PM
Why wait for USAF? I know in my Wing there is a group of folks that go around to local EMAs to market our abilities. The last couple missions I was on were initiated by the county folks calling a unit/group ESO for assistance. The CAP member called it in, got the mission number, and away we went. Those relationships are local. No way can USAF nor NHQ get those going.
I think there is little question that this is where the future of CAP ES lies...
Indeed.
The USAF has many other higher priority things to do than promote our services to our own state and local organizations. That's up to us at the wing, group, and squadron level. My squadron and wing are very active in talking to various groups, organizations, and our own state about our capabilities, how we could assist them, and how they have to request our services. It has snagged us a number of interesting missions that our customers have appreciated.
God and Gen. Curry help those who help themselves. :)
Not to split hairs; unfortunately, that is precisely what we are doing...a difference in operational definitions. It appears that whoever "pays the bills" is the "customer." I submit that perception contains several flaws.
Who is the recipient of your service?
Let's envision a scenario...
Kach states that AFRCC at Tyndell pays the bills; therefore, they are our "customer." So, the CAP gets called out. CAP responds, with everyone looking like square-jawed ship captains... lean, athletic, so professional in their crisply pressed poopy-suits. This makes our customer happy. Reports are filed when requested, on time, before deadline, on the proper forms and in the proper format. This makes our customer happy. Our garrison, periodically inspected, passes with flying colors, which makes our customer happy. We work as a team amongst ourselves, which fosters morale and espirit du corps. This makes our customer happy. Our aircraft are all decaled with proper markings, well-maintained, dressed right when parked on the flight line, shown on the news. Our customer is happy. Come budget time, they will continue to support us, for they are happy.
So then, is it okay...
+++That we close-hold vital mission information from other agencies within Unified Command, citing "OPSEC?"
+++That we fly patterns that are less effective than they could be or should be because we employ flawed methods to plan or execute them?
+++That we use scientifically invalid methods to quantify our sortie results, thereby causing subsequent sorties to focus on some sectors too much, others not enough?
+++That, since GPS is not on the individual or team gear list (set by our "customer") that we believe we don't need to rise to this industry standard? (See recent thread.)
+++That the CAP is not respected as a viable SAR resource by many jurisdictions across the country?
+++That we play the "we're just volunteers" card or the "you just don't understand" card to defend these condtions?
Now, you may discount the above (hypothetical?) scenario as irrelevant hyperbole. But we serve many customers, not just the one who pays the bills.
+++If the subject is later found in a sector you claimed 95 percent PoD in by using flawed methods, you have not satisfied your customer: You have increased the family's suffering, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP. The "customer" who "pays your bills" will have no knowledge of this.
+++If you don't truly embrace Unified Command in the sharing of ideas and information, you have not satisfied your customer: You have increased your sister SAR agencies' frustration, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP.
+++If you all show up in perfect uniform, believing this conveys "the very best" and the epitome of professionalism, but later, it is shown that you aren't on top of the game (or the industry) in terms of performance, you have not satisfied your customer. Agencies having jurisdiction will call you out less, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP.
It may be Business Ad 101, but it may also be flat-arse wrong. We all have bosses we answer to, but if you forget the subject and his or her family, you are dreadfully wrong, and your sister agencies may decide they cannot use you. My sheriff pays my bills, but he's not my only customer.
Sidebar re AirAux's comments: Missions should never be called off based on PoD, much less numbers determined by CAP charts ???, but that's too much drift for this already trans-ocean thread. Maybe a topic for another day.
Best regards,
--Senty
Quote from: Senty7 on December 09, 2010, 04:36:14 PM
So then, is it okay...
+++That we close-hold vital mission information from other agencies within Unified Command, citing "OPSEC?"
If you're talking about radio frequencies which are controlled by the Air Force, then yes.
Quote+++That we fly patterns that are less effective than they could be or should be because we employ flawed methods to plan or execute them?
Do you have better search patterns? If you do, we'd love to see them and use them.
Quote+++That we use scientifically invalid methods to quantify our sortie results, thereby causing subsequent sorties to focus on some sectors too much, others not enough?
??? If you're referring to the POD tables, that's simple arithmetic, and is most certainly valid. These tables are used by more than just CAP and have been developed over many many years. Again, if you have something better, please share.
Quote+++That, since GPS is not on the individual or team gear list (set by our "customer") that we believe we don't need to rise to this industry standard? (See recent thread.)
Just because it's not on the required list, doesn't mean we don't use them. Also, that's set by us, not the customer.
Quote+++That the CAP is not respected as a viable SAR resource by many jurisdictions across the country?
Many does not equal all, most, or even a significant number. I know of many jurisdictions that value CAP's service. Usually, it has been my experience that jurisdictions that don't respect CAP, the problem is either a personal conflict or a misunderstanding of what CAP is and does.
Quote+++That we play the "we're just volunteers" card or the "you just don't understand" card to defend these condtions?
I've never done this personally, but there is some validity to it. Unlike paid ES personnel, we have to pay to work for our customer. There are a lot of paid ES personnel who would not do what they do if they weren't paid. Personally I think the "just volunteers" card is weak sauce, but every organization has it's share.
QuoteNow, you may discount the above (hypothetical?) scenario as irrelevant hyperbole. But we serve many customers, not just the one who pays the bills.
Irrelevant, no, hyperbole, yeah kinda. But again, the ones paying the bills, be they AFRCC, FEMA, state EMAs, etc., are the customers. They are the ones receiving services and if they don't want us, we go away, regardless of what the target wants.
Quote+++If the subject is later found in a sector you claimed 95 percent PoD in by using flawed methods, you have not satisfied your customer: You have increased the family's suffering, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP. The "customer" who "pays your bills" will have no knowledge of this.
First, 95% is not 100%, and you will never have 100% POD. Second, I've never heard that after searching an area several times, because you've gotta search an area multiple times to get 95%, with several crews, that we've increased a family's suffering. Finally, the customer (the ones paying for us to be there searching) know that there's a suffering family. Why do you think that searches continue well past the likely survival period?
Quote+++If you don't truly embrace Unified Command in the sharing of ideas and information, you have not satisfied your customer: You have increased your sister SAR agencies' frustration, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP.
Couldn't agree more. We ALL need to learn to work together, and that includes the jurisdictions that have little to no respect for CAP. But lets not confuse working together and sharing ideas and intel with sharing information which the Air Force does not want us sharing.
Quote+++If you all show up in perfect uniform, believing this conveys "the very best" and the epitome of professionalism, but later, it is shown than you aren't on top of the game (or the industry) in terms of performance, you have not satisfied your customer. Agencies having jurisdiction will call you out less, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP.
Again, couldn't agree more. There are a few people in CAP who believe that looks=professionalism. There are even more in academia that think looks=professionalism. But most of the people in CAP who really do ES care more about getting the mission done, finding the target, and satisfying the customer (again not the target/targets' family) than they do about what they're wearing while they do it.
QuoteIt may be Business Ad 101, but it may also be flat-arse wrong. We all have bosses we answer to, but if you forget the subject and his or her family, you are dreadfully wrong, and your sister agencies may decide they cannot use you. My sheriff pays my bills, but he's not my only customer.
No, it's not wrong. And all of those sister agencies know that the guy holding the purse strings is the customer. Because if it weren't for that person, they wouldn't be called out to search for the target.
QuoteSidebar re AirAux's comments: Missions should never be called off based on PoD, much less numbers determined by CAP charts ???, but that's too much drift for this already trans-ocean thread. Maybe a topic for another day.
Happens all the time. Sheriffs, Coast Guard, NASAR teams, they all use POD tables and when they can't find the target the mission eventually gets shut down.
Senty, Touche', you are so right... but there is the rub. We know it but it appears to be what it is; impossible for us with the ultimate dream or goal to change. I know the others above, John, Eclipse, etc., truly understand what you say and feel the same way, and have felt that way for at least the last 3 decades, but it appears to be more business as usual and cross the t's and dot the i's and slowly slide away from the truth for perceived professionalism. In the old days, we searched until we found them or someone did or had worn out everyone and everything. We used our own AC because we could get a lot into the air and cover a lot of ground, but then progress and let's all use the 4 CAP AC and only use their allocated radios and etc.. until we are ever so organized and driven by tasks, and SQTRS, and PODs and you name it, until we require an act of Congress to do what 20 guys in a local squadron used to do and do fairly well. It's changed so much, less ELT work, which we had gotten so good at and now we are tasked to look for pot plants, etc. Good, bad, or indifferent, we aren't what we used to be and I, for one miss the good ol' days. Hell, I even liked the blue smurf suit. It was comfortable for flying sundown in Florida. but, I digress.
(Still trying to master the multiple-quote machine.)
+++On the OPSEC bullet: Readers may refer to an old thread started by CT member Flying Pig. Goes deeper than radio freqs.
+++By less-than-effective search patterns, I was referring to cases where Plans calculates the pattern to maximize PoS, only to have the pilot do something else. Seen it.
+++On the GPS bullet....oooooh, never mind. That horse is dead and converted to jerky.
+++"PoD tables," by design, are scientifically flawed, unless there is some huge matrix somewhere in the CAP that I haven't seen that displays all the possible permutations of altitude, speed, time-on-station, atmospheric visibility, terrain, vegetation, number of observers on board, target description, and search sector size. Valid PoD is sortie-specific, and cannot be obtained from a "table," using simple arithmetic or not. I know it "happens all the time," and that's sad. Valid methods are taught, among other venues, in the National SAR School's Inland Planning Course. Are readers who believe otherwise thinking of "Effective Sweep Width" tables?
+++On the "95 percent" bullet: Pilot A or Plans Guy K uses flawed methods to over-estimate (nearly always) or underestimate (almost never) the PoD for a sector. Or, said individuals apply the concept of PoD to make strategic decisions (when in fact, PoS and PSR should be used) to decide where to search, or whether to continue to search. An incorrect decision is made. Search efforts focus on the wrong place, focus on the same place when they should focus elsewhere, or are suspended prematurely. Family suffering is increased. And heaven help you if the subject dies while the search is in progress, as in Andy Warburton.
+++If we're going to puff out our tail feathers and claim credit for "saving lives" and easing hardship by making the search shorter through our efforts, then we should be prepared to accept that we increased suffering if, by our ignorance or ineptitude, we caused the search to go longer.
+++NASAR is infected with a monumental search theory error, which they are just beginning to treat through revisions to their curricula. Compare NASAR's advanced text to the National School's "Blue Book." It may be ill-advised to defend a tactic on the basis of "NASAR teams" doing it.
+++Regarding CAP being respected, if the "many" agencies (my words) that don't respect CAP may not be a significant number, as you suggest, then might the "many" that you say DO respect CAP also not be significant? >:D Sorry, eh? Just pointing out the two implied operational definitions of "many" in the same sentence.
We can explain it, excuse it, rationalize it, or try to defend it eight ways to Sunday. But when we fail to find the subject, we have failed our customer. If we find the subject in five days, when we could have found him in two, we have failed our customer. And if we forget that the subject and his family are one of our prime customers, we've failed before we start. And that makes us wrong.
As Thrash so eloquently stated a few threads back, I don't have a dog in this fight. If you're comfortable that the USAF is comfortable, and that's good enough, then please carry on with my compliments.
Best regards to all,
--Senty
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2010, 06:20:04 AM
^ I constantly wonder what organization these people thought they were joining.
Oh to be a fly on the wall during the recruiting conversations...
Without having heard said recruiting conversations, my experience in my unit was that a lot of these gentlemen (and it was almost exclusively men) already knew each other outside of CAP, either through pilots' clubs or through hanging around the joe-pot at the local FBO.
My guess is that they pitched CAP as an organisation where you could fly, fly, fly, keep your hours up and the Air Force would foot the bill. That's just a guess based on conversations heard.
To be sure, there were pilots who considered joining who changed their minds when they heard about Form 5's and things like that...after all, the uniform issue was "negotiable" but check rides, quals, etc. are not.
BUT...
To hopefully get things back on track...and bring the much-ballyhooed "uniform simplification" to the fore...
The Air Force is not going to bend on the H/W issue, and there's absolutely nothing we can do to try and make them do so.
If there's any hope of retaining the CSU with General Courter's modifications, we should push for that to eventually supplant the grey/whites/blazer. As has been pointed out, the grey/whites are far from "uniform" with members wearing everything from dress slacks to sweats to grey BDU-type pants.
I would also phase out the polo shirts...they are an optional uniform and not required in the way that the AF-type/corporate/CSU are for a member to have.
I would standardise on the blue NOMEX flight suit/jacket for those who want/need NOMEX. The Air Force wore blue flight clothing years ago (watch
Strategic Air Command sometime), but they don't now. Bin the plastic-encased rank in favour of the navy-blue now allowed for the utility jumpsuit.
Keep the BBDU's with navy-blue background to grade insignia and nametapes. Keep the blue utility jumpsuit as is.
Cascade the woodland BDU's down to cadets as freebies wherever possible. As has been stated, we do not need camouflage.
Again, boars and sows may levitate.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 09, 2010, 06:55:26 PM
The Air Force is not going to bend on the H/W issue, and there's absolutely nothing we can do to try and make them do so.
If there's any hope of retaining the CSU with General Courter's modifications, we should push for that to eventually supplant the grey/whites/blazer. As has been pointed out, the grey/whites are far from "uniform" with members wearing everything from dress slacks to sweats to grey BDU-type pants.
I would also phase out the polo shirts...they are an optional uniform and not required in the way that the AF-type/corporate/CSU are for a member to have.
I agree the AF is not going to bend on the H/W issue and we shouldn't ask them to or expect it. We are indeed a different organization and technically only the AF auxiliary when performing AFAM's. So I agree our uniforms should be different with the exception of the cadets...as long as the AF provides the uniforms the cadet should wear them.
I am proud of our Air Force Heritage and would like to have a uniform that reveals some sort of semblance to reflect our history. The CSU would be ideal but I think that ship has sailed.
As far as getting rid of the polo shirt that would depend on where it's used. As far as it being an "OPTIONAL" uniform...uh...aren't they all. I don't see anywhere that requires every member to have identified uniforms with the exception of Cadet Programs and flying in an aircraft. Which not every CAP member does.
Not sure why this topic is still going? Nothing is going to change. Some want it to, some don't. Everyone can't have it their way, this isn't Burger King.
Why not just be happy with what we have?
IMHO
Taken to PM
Quote from: SARDOC on December 09, 2010, 07:15:14 PMAs far as getting rid of the polo shirt that would depend on where it's used. As far as it being an "OPTIONAL" uniform...uh...aren't they all. I don't see anywhere that requires every member to have identified uniforms with the exception of Cadet Programs and flying in an aircraft. Which not every CAP member does.
See page 8 of 39-1.
All seniors are required to have either blues or whites.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2010, 07:57:24 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on December 09, 2010, 07:15:14 PMAs far as getting rid of the polo shirt that would depend on where it's used. As far as it being an "OPTIONAL" uniform...uh...aren't they all. I don't see anywhere that requires every member to have identified uniforms with the exception of Cadet Programs and flying in an aircraft. Which not every CAP member does.
See page 8 of 39-1.
All seniors are required to have either blues or whites.
Thanks for that...so now I have to get a uniform just to hang it my closet since I'm not required to wear it anywhere. >:D
Quote from: SARDOC on December 09, 2010, 08:31:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2010, 07:57:24 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on December 09, 2010, 07:15:14 PMAs far as getting rid of the polo shirt that would depend on where it's used. As far as it being an "OPTIONAL" uniform...uh...aren't they all. I don't see anywhere that requires every member to have identified uniforms with the exception of Cadet Programs and flying in an aircraft. Which not every CAP member does.
See page 8 of 39-1.
All seniors are required to have either blues or whites.
Thanks for that...so now I have to get a uniform just to hang it my closet since I'm not required to wear it anywhere. >:D
You're
required to wear it when conducting the cadet program.
Riding in a CAP aircraft.
Riding in a CAP ground vehicle.
Participating in ES operations.
That is by reg, and of course CC's can dictate more.
Why can't the uniforms be left where they are, with the exception of the CSU? By exception of the CSU I mean keep it, I think it is an awesome alternative. If you can and want to wear the USAF style uniforms then do, if not then don't. Don't try to strip them from those of us who do like them. In my squadron we don't have any SMs that don't want to wear the USAF style or corporate white uniforms. The only time any SMs wear the polo variant is on PT nights. Just leave the uniforms as they are and let us wear what we have.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2010, 08:47:42 PM
You're required to wear it when conducting the cadet program.
Riding in a CAP aircraft.
Riding in a CAP ground vehicle.
Participating in ES operations.
That is by reg, and of course CC's can dictate more.
"riding in a CAP vehicle"?
To borrow one of yours, cite please!
If you're going to say "participating in or conducting the cadet program" means driving cadets to or from an event, I don't buy that. [This sounds familiar - did we have this conversation before?]
I'll stipulate to not having to be in uniform when it is all seniors. But operating a corporate vehicle with cadets in your charge? How
much more conducting the program is there?
Yes, I know that NCC teams routinely drive long distances out of uniform - not sure that is any more kosher than a closed door with
two unsupervised cadets behind it in a hotel.
I'll also stipulate that when this came up recently the regs were suitably vague and circular that there is room for both sides. Considering
that a golf shirt and comfortable pants fills the bil, I wouldn't personally drive cadets without at least that uniform on, and I'd probably want something in writing from a CAP Legal Officer before I'd let cadets ride in civvies.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:46:28 PM
No, it is not absurd.
California cities have passed resolutions declaring the Marine Corps to be "Unwanted Aliens." San Diego, once a pro-military town, has banned military recruiters from schools.
Everyone else in the country wears the USAF uniform on missions. ONLY California finds working with people in a military uniform offensive and dresses them up in a ridiculous clown suit in order to work SAR.
I have been in ES in the air and on the ground for many years in two wings, and the "Customers" I have worked with have appreciated the fact that the USAF provided a professional military unit to assist them. "When you care enough to send the very best."
Besides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.
Boy you must have some really good eyes. You can sit there in
FLORIDA and tell us in
CALIFORNIA what is happening in our state.
I beg to differ with your "opinions", because that's what they are. Because they sure aren't based on facts.
^ I think it was Oakland city council that declared the Marines "Unwelcome aliens," true or false?
San Diego has recently barred military recruiters from the schools. If not true, please advise.
You are prohibited from wearing the USAF uniform on missions. True or false?
The costume you have to wear on missions is blue pants, an orange shirt with blue patches on it, and a flower that squirts water.
OK, I made up the part about the flower, but the rest is true.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 10, 2010, 03:32:42 AM
^ I think it was Oakland city council that declared the Marines "Unwelcome aliens," true or false?
False...It was Berkley
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 10, 2010, 03:32:42 AM
^ I think it was Oakland city council that declared the Marines "Unwelcome aliens," true or false?
San Diego has recently barred military recruiters from the schools. If not true, please advise.
You are prohibited from wearing the USAF uniform on missions. True or false?
The costume you have to wear on missions is blue pants, an orange shirt with blue patches on it, and a flower that squirts water.
OK, I made up the part about the flower, but the rest is true.
^^^
We also have about half of the population pro same sex marriage and another half of Californians against same sex marriage. So what?
The examples you posted doesn't not represent the whole state of California, not even by a long shot.
^^^
Please. US Marines are declared "Unwelcome aliens," but actual aliens who sneak across the border are welcomed into "Sanctuary Cities" and get truckloads of welfare, free medical care, and in-state tuition at college.
Most of the state is very uncomfortable with the military, and as a result, you are barred from wearing a military uniform.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 10, 2010, 03:45:32 AM
^^^
Please. US Marines are declared "Unwelcome aliens," but actual aliens who sneak across the border are welcomed into "Sanctuary Cities" and get truckloads of welfare, free medical care, and in-state tuition at college.
Most of the state is very uncomfortable with the military, and as a result, you are barred from wearing a military uniform.
isn't the the same state Ronald Reagan is from?
^ isn't that the same state that cant balance a budget with one of the largest populations in the US, they also have some of the wealthiest people in America *cough* hollywood *cough*, so where is all the tax money going?....
We can go back and forth all day about the greatness/suckyness of CALI.....but lets not.....
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 10, 2010, 03:45:32 AM
Most of the state is very uncomfortable with the military, and as a result, you are barred from wearing a military uniform.
It seems the CAWG GT uniform has a very narrow application. It is only required for those actively engaged in GT ops. Base, flt crews, UDF are not required to wear it.
http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/CAWG39-1.PDF
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:46:28 PM
San Diego, once a pro-military town, has banned military recruiters from schools.
San Diego is still a pro-military
city (CA's second largest). In fact, the second most popular tourist attraction in the city, after the Zoo and Wild Animal Park, is the USS Midway Aircraft Carrier Museum. That's pretty military to me. Also, many business establishments have some sort of military discount for products and services.
As for recruiters, they haven't been banned. There have been new rules instituted, regulating on campus practices because of complaints by teachers, students, and parents. More here (http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/story.asp?S=13596911).
QuoteEveryone else in the country wears the USAF uniform on missions. ONLY California finds working with people in a military uniform offensive and dresses them up in a ridiculous clown suit in order to work SAR.
As explained above, it's NOT a clown suit. Our customer, and controlling agency within the state, Cal EMA (http://www.oes.ca.gov/), has asked that CAP wear clothing similar to that work by other SAR personnel within the state. CAWG leadership negotiated a supplement with the NHQ folks and it was issued. The uniform actually works quite well.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 10, 2010, 04:51:43 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2010, 12:46:28 PM
San Diego, once a pro-military town, has banned military recruiters from schools.
San Diego is still a pro-military city (CA's second largest). In fact, the second most popular tourist attraction in the city, after the Zoo and Wild Animal Park, is the USS Midway Aircraft Carrier Museum. That's pretty military to me. Also, many business establishments have some sort of military discount for products and services.
BTDT, didn't care for a t-shirt ;D Midway was awesome. Zoo, meh.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 10, 2010, 04:51:43 AM
As for recruiters, they haven't been banned. There have been new rules instituted, regulating on campus practices because of complaints by teachers, students, and parents. More here (http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/story.asp?S=13596911).
Which also, if I'm reading that right, restricts civilian college recruiters in the same way. Hmm.
Found this page with a good picture of the CAWG ground team uniform. Personally I don't think it looks bad. In fact, I think I like it, if for no other reason than it makes the ultramarine name tapes not look so goofy. :D
http://sq45.cawg.cap.gov/Uniform/CAWG_GTuniform.html (http://sq45.cawg.cap.gov/Uniform/CAWG_GTuniform.html)
Though I'll add that after looking at some of the online pics of this unform, there seems to be no single authorized exact shade so you end up with a uniform that isn't completely uniform. :(
The restrictions on the wear of it are interesting. You can't wear it:
Travelling to/from an incident
At the incident base/staging area
Travelling to/from the search area
So you have to change into it when you arrive at the search area, and not before. Then take it off before you leave the search area. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.
NOT!
Man, there is so much wrong with this idea, the uniform itself, and that web page I don't know where to start...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 05:59:32 AM
Man, there is so much wrong with this idea, the uniform itself, and that web page I don't know where to start...
And since CAP doesn't make the rules it doesn't make a bit of difference.
CAP operates in the State of California at the pleasure of the various County Sheriff's and the Governor.
The Governor has delegated his authority to CalEMA.
That's the way the law is written and has been that way since before WWII, if not earlier.
Quote from: arBar on December 10, 2010, 05:30:34 AM
Found this page with a good picture of the CAWG ground team uniform. Personally I don't think it looks bad. In fact, I think I like it, if for no other reason than it makes the ultramarine name tapes not look so goofy. :D
http://sq45.cawg.cap.gov/Uniform/CAWG_GTuniform.html (http://sq45.cawg.cap.gov/Uniform/CAWG_GTuniform.html)
Though I'll add that after looking at some of the online pics of this unform, there seems to be no single authorized exact shade so you end up with a uniform that isn't completely uniform. :(
I have to agree, it has a certain look to it that I do not find fault with. You can bet that can be seen from the air better than camo attire with a orange vest over it.
Downside...It now creates a CAP "regional" uniform...might we soon see Hawaiian Shirt pattern tropical gear and RED "Mounty" style service coats for our Wing that boarder the "Great White North." I can't wait for the CAP "Mariachi
Traje," for us on the border and active in the performing arts.
If I had wings and a GT badge, that uniform would be sooo hardkewl. I think the garish blue and garish orange actually bring each other together...
Sad thing? I'm dead serious, looks awesome (with wings and a badge).
As it is, glad I don't live in Cali.
-GNE Dak
Quote from: PHall on December 10, 2010, 06:12:59 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 05:59:32 AM
Man, there is so much wrong with this idea, the uniform itself, and that web page I don't know where to start...
And since CAP doesn't make the rules it doesn't make a bit of difference.
CAP operates in the State of California at the pleasure of the various County Sheriff's and the Governor.
The Governor has delegated his authority to CalEMA.
That's the way the law is written and has been that way since before WWII, if not earlier.
Except when on an Air Force mission, then they operate under the federal government, so are they still required to wear the silly, er, great ::) uniform?
and why no grade insignia? that makes no sense.....
Quote from: NCRblues on December 10, 2010, 06:25:09 AM
and why no grade insignia? that makes no sense.....
Eh, I can kinda see why. Cuts back on the "I wanna wear it cause it's/I'm/we're hardkewl" factor. Plus, given the limitations and restrictions on wearing it in general, you won't be worried about saluting when you do have it on, you'll be out searching.
Quote from: NCRblues on December 10, 2010, 06:25:09 AM
and why no grade insignia? that makes no sense.....
It avoids confusion when working with other agencies. Members of other agencies, especially law enforcement, often assume the highest ranking person is in charge which we all know frequently isn't the case in CAP.
On second thought, whatever...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 06:57:53 AM
I think the comments that this is somehow an anti-military response are off-base, removing the military insignia is the only way something
like this would ever get approved by CAP-USAF.Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 06:57:53 AM
From the inception of the uniform some 20 yrs ago military/CAP badges and rank were pruposely left off to blend more easily with the non CAP ground SAR teams in CA
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 06:57:53 AM
I wonder how many 4-letter words would be in the response from local PD or FD were they told to take off their badges? Do the Guard
remove their grade and wear orange shirts when they help local agencies?Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 06:57:53 AM
Badges were never the issue. The CAARNG does not do ground SAR in CA so that is a moot issue. They are trained in wildland firefighting. When engaged in that they wear a wildland firefighting ensemble without any insignia or grade.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 06:57:53 AM
Apparently like CAP's uniform regs, the word "mandatory" is also open to interpretaton in CAWG:
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 06:57:53 AM
Gimme a break. Why don't we all move to ILWG so you can show us how things are done in the perfect group in the perfect wing. ::)
wait wait, the CAARNG doesn't wear grade when fighting fires..... i find that so hard to believe....
"why did you yell at your superior officer?" "he wasn't wearing rank sir" just does not play out well in my mind....can anyone cite this because i haven't been able to find anything official on that.....
Second, I'm sure the local LEO's don't take off there grade, and they have the same problem as we do. Sometimes its not always the highest rank present who is in charge, but we had to take ours off.....
I'm so confused and even more so happy i don't live in the people republic of Cali.....
Redacted
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 10, 2010, 06:21:31 AM
RED "Mounty" style service coats for our Wing that boarder the "Great White North."
I'll pass on the RCMP red attire, especially since the RCMP only wears them for ceremonial occasions (parades, escorting the Queen).
However, if we
have to have a camouflage uniform, I wouldn't at all mind their CADPAT digital camo:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lfwa/photos/AS2007-0663a_l.jpg
They actually invented it and there's some sort of secret squirrel stuff in it stipulating it has to be returned when the troop leaves the Queen's Service.
Even adopting something like their shade of blue for a new, improved CSU might be possible...
Quote from: NCRblues on December 10, 2010, 07:53:14 AM
wait wait, the CAARNG doesn't wear grade when fighting fires..... i find that so hard to believe....
"why did you yell at your superior officer?" "he wasn't wearing rank sir" just does not play out well in my mind....can anyone cite this because i haven't been able to find anything official on that.....
When on the fire line Guard personel wear the wildland fire "uniform" sans insignia/grade.
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/CNG/080724_GrizCast_OLS_AirGroundSupport.asf
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/CNG/080720_SamudioNews_TeamAxe.asf
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/cng/080712_Grizcast_OpLightningStrike.asf
Quote from: PA Guy on December 10, 2010, 09:41:06 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 10, 2010, 07:53:14 AM
wait wait, the CAARNG doesn't wear grade when fighting fires..... i find that so hard to believe....
"why did you yell at your superior officer?" "he wasn't wearing rank sir" just does not play out well in my mind....can anyone cite this because i haven't been able to find anything official on that.....
When on the fire line Guard personel wear the wildland fire "uniform" sans insignia/grade.
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/CNG/080724_GrizCast_OLS_AirGroundSupport.asf
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/CNG/080720_SamudioNews_TeamAxe.asf
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/cng/080712_Grizcast_OpLightningStrike.asf
AH i get it now, so yes while literally on the "fire line" they wear a classic forest fire suit (not a fire fighter so i don't know the terms) but working on helicopters, aircraft, and when not on the "line" they were in normal uniform... that makes more sense to me now....
Quote from: jeders on December 09, 2010, 05:10:43 PM
Quote from: Senty7 on December 09, 2010, 04:36:14 PM
So then, is it okay...
+++That we close-hold vital mission information from other agencies within Unified Command, citing "OPSEC?"
If you're talking about radio frequencies which are controlled by the Air Force, then yes.
I thought I read in this very forum where CAP refused to provide any information to a family when the search was suspended and the aircraft was not found. The family, through their own continued efforts, located the wreckage two or three years later.
Quote from: PHall on December 10, 2010, 06:12:59 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2010, 05:59:32 AM
Man, there is so much wrong with this idea, the uniform itself, and that web page I don't know where to start...
And since CAP doesn't make the rules it doesn't make a bit of difference.
CAP operates in the State of California at the pleasure of the various County Sheriff's and the Governor.
The Governor has delegated his authority to CalEMA.
That's the way the law is written and has been that way since before WWII, if not earlier.
Wow, this reminds me of Ottoman-era dhimmi laws.
Quote from: PA Guy on December 10, 2010, 09:41:06 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 10, 2010, 07:53:14 AM
wait wait, the CAARNG doesn't wear grade when fighting fires..... i find that so hard to believe....
"why did you yell at your superior officer?" "he wasn't wearing rank sir" just does not play out well in my mind....can anyone cite this because i haven't been able to find anything official on that.....
When on the fire line Guard personel wear the wildland fire "uniform" sans insignia/grade.
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/CNG/080724_GrizCast_OLS_AirGroundSupport.asf
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/CNG/080720_SamudioNews_TeamAxe.asf
http://msmedia.dot.ca.gov/cng/080712_Grizcast_OpLightningStrike.asf
As I said... California is very uncomfortable with military uniforms.
Drift terminated.