I was flying out from Dallas Fort-Worth airport over the weekend and ran into a CAP Major who was wearing his Blues uniform walking around the airport for a departing flight I assume (since he was in the secure area). Is there a new policy allowing members to wear their uniform in this fashion at airports? I always thought you could only wear it on a military base or within an hour or two after a meeting of course minor exceptions depending on the situation. I just found it interesting.
Members are usually encouraged to wear a uniform (usually blues with the lightweight blue jacket) when on travel to or from CAP activities.
See CAP Knowledgebase #1051:
Yes you have that option. Members who choose to wear a military-style uniform when traveling by commercial means (other than to and from local CAP activities) will wear the service dress uniform or light blue, short or long sleeve shirt/blouse with tie/tab.
I've seen a number of members do this. Personally, I find it more comfortable to wear civvies.
It could be a false impression, but it always looks to me like the TSA gives special attention to service members in uniform. Maybe they just love to watch people struggle with re-blousing their trousers after having to take off their boots. At least in service dress, you don't have to completely disgrace yourself by being the half-naked CAP guy....
I liked the HBO film ( Taking Chance) with Kevin Bacon when he told the TSA to pound sand ( or words to that effect) when they told him to take off his jacket while on a KIA return mission. Its not the same with us, admittedly, but I bet you that many more of us have shed blood sweat and occasionally tears ( well, the former Navy guys at least) in our uniforms than those Nazis in TSA.
Major Lord
Taking Chance was a really good movie. That's the epitome of discipline wearing the uniform right there.
He refused to take off his jacket because the service member escorting the killed service member must remain in uniform at all times... right?
If not what was the reasoning for him refusing?
I saw the movie, a great one at that, but that bit always puzzled me.
Quote from: SABRE17 on June 24, 2011, 01:40:18 AM
He refused to take off his jacket because the service member escorting the killed service member must remain in uniform at all times... right?
If not what was the reasoning for him refusing?
I saw the movie, a great one at that, but that bit always puzzled me.
It's respect for the Nation's uniform.
Think of an Honor Guard being asked to take off their uniforms while carrying the Colors of the United States of America or add the Rainbow flag ahead of the National Colors, or a funeral hearse being stopped so that the Highway Patrol could check their commercial vehicle permit. Multiply that X 10. The Major was carrying out not just a normal duty, but a Sacred duty, and no TSA welfare-job punk is going to tell an Officer of the United States Marine Corp how to do that or be allowed to interfere with it.
Major Lord
"Why does the muskrat guard his musk, In the misty mist and the dusky dusk? I'll tell you why; Courage" The Cowardly Lion
Good to know. Thank you for the information. :clap: Looking at the regulations BDU's and Corporate's in the airport traveling are a No-No.
Speaking on the TSA, the Marine below looks like he just came out of a TSA checkpoint like Major Lord was referring to.
(http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/a_fake_marine_reno_airport.jpg)
Quote from: nesagsar on June 24, 2011, 12:16:58 AMMembers are usually encouraged to wear a uniform (usually blues with the lightweight blue jacket) when on travel to or from CAP activities.
Encouraged? Must be a local thing, because it's not encouraged around here. Even the cadets have been traveling in civvies as ordered by the NCSAs they are attending.
Quote from: capsr on June 24, 2011, 04:51:03 AM
Good to know. Thank you for the information. :clap: Looking at the regulations BDU's and Corporate's in the airport traveling are a No-No.
Speaking on the TSA, the Marine below looks like he just came out of a TSA checkpoint like Major Lord was referring to.
(http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/a_fake_marine_reno_airport.jpg)
That is a photo of a poser not a Marine. Look at the shoes. The trousers are way too long and the white belt isn't secured properly. No marksmanship bling or NDSM and wearing PFC stripes, it doesn't work that way. Plus look at the link for the photo.
I never travel in uniform. I find it uncomfortable and have concerns re: personal security/safety. I don't even wear clothing with logos etc. that might connect me with the govt/military. I try to blend in the best I can.
Quote from: Major Lord on June 24, 2011, 12:48:21 AM
It could be a false impression, but it always looks to me like the TSA gives special attention to service members in uniform. Maybe they just love to watch people struggle with re-blousing their trousers after having to take off their boots. At least in service dress, you don't have to completely disgrace yourself by being the half-naked CAP guy....
I liked the HBO film ( Taking Chance) with Kevin Bacon when he told the TSA to pound sand ( or words to that effect) when they told him to take off his jacket while on a KIA return mission. Its not the same with us, admittedly, but I bet you that many more of us have shed blood sweat and occasionally tears ( well, the former Navy guys at least) in our uniforms than those Nazis in TSA.
Its a false impression on your part. Don't attempt to form an opinion of the security posture of the TSA and/or their treatment of service members solely from an HBO movie. Hollywood, as we know, will manipulate that message to fit its political agenda.
I have actually
been thru TSA checkpoints in multiple airports over the last 5 years or so in uniform. (let me think: Manchester, BWI, Reagan, Detroit, Indy, Lexington, Cincinnati, Philly, Chicago Midway, Minneapolis..).
Used to get asked to take off my boots, now they just ask "Do your boots have a steel shank?"
(Answer: "I have no idea.." but after multiple trips thru the mag detector in boots without it going off, my guess is "no") Everything metal goes into the bin, however: watch, dog tags, pens, change, etc. Strangely, the pin-on insignia doesn't set it off, nor does the buckle on my rigger belt.
CAP's uniform wear during travel to/from CAP activities is documented in CAPM 39-1, as I recall. I will admit: in 28 years in CAP, I only ever flew to one activity, so flying in uniform was not something I was ever worried about.
Quote from: capsr on June 23, 2011, 11:40:01 PM
I was flying out from Dallas Fort-Worth airport over the weekend and ran into a CAP Major who was wearing his Blues uniform walking around the airport for a departing flight I assume (since he was in the secure area). Is there a new policy allowing members to wear their uniform in this fashion at airports? I always thought you could only wear it on a military base or within an hour or two after a meeting of course minor exceptions depending on the situation. I just found it interesting.
Wait, DFW? CAP Major?
Wasn't this guy, was it?
(http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/117/4d61cb327904498d88f9c14a324b7fd8/m.jpg)
(teee heee.. sorry, Joe, couldn't resist)
[EDIT: @#$% Tripod image hosting redirect.. had to change the image]
Nin,
My impression was not based on the movie. Until last year, I flew commercially approximately 75 times per year. The TSA may be improving, or just moving on to searching babies and teenage hotties instead of soldiers.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on June 24, 2011, 06:01:44 PM
Nin,
My impression was not based on the movie. Until last year, I flew commercially approximately 75 times per year. The TSA may be improving, or just moving on to searching babies and teenage hotties instead of soldiers.
Good point. You fly more than I do, but I've had _nothing_ but courtesy from the TSA. Even when not in uniform.
Then again, I'm not a teenage hottie. :'(
Security at the airports annoys me as much as the next guy. However, the "politically correct" have forced the hand of the beurocracy not to show any signs of favoritism or discrimination based on anyone's personal attributes. In turn the poor guys and gals at TSA are forced to search the way they are instructed to or risk discipline. Do you really think they WANT to search the 6 year old girl just because she is the (insert number here) person to cross a line. It some of the rules that are ludicrous... not the folks that are tasked to carry it out.
Calling someone a welfare job punk because the job they do may not pay so well or because you don't like it is really not so cool.. not as bad as referring to them as Nazis - but uncalled for all the same. Fact is the vast majority of the TSA folks are just hard working types happy to score a steady job with benefits. As members of the CAP we really should show more respect. The job does have a valid mission for our countries security. When its all said and done I am glad they are there.
...but I still hate taking my shoes off and putting all my stuff in the plastic bins.
Quote from: PA Guy on June 24, 2011, 06:24:44 AM
Quote from: capsr on June 24, 2011, 04:51:03 AM
Good to know. Thank you for the information. :clap: Looking at the regulations BDU's and Corporate's in the airport traveling are a No-No.
Speaking on the TSA, the Marine below looks like he just came out of a TSA checkpoint like Major Lord was referring to.
(http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/a_fake_marine_reno_airport.jpg)
That is a photo of a poser not a Marine. Look at the shoes. The trousers are way too long and the white belt isn't secured properly. No marksmanship bling or NDSM and wearing PFC stripes, it doesn't work that way. Plus look at the link for the photo.
The photo posted here is actually from a few years ago when (to summarize) some wannabe kid decided to dress up in a Marine uniform and walk around the Reno airport trolling for attention. Fortunately (unfortunately for him), he picked a bad day to do this as it turned out the airport had a number of Marines returning from somewhere (can't remember if for training or overseas), including 3 Marine Drill Instructors-- as are seen on the side of this photo as they 'discuss' the situation with him.
As for the topic of this thread...
I have heard of a number of CAP members (both Cadet and SM) who admitted (from their own lips, not rumors) to regularly dressing in uniform whenever traveling (personal travel, not to/from activity) in order to get special attention, free upgrades, and free/discounted checked luggage. Behavior such as this really bothers me, but unfortunately it seems to be somewhat common from what I've heard.
I avoid wearing my uniform at all costs. I wear it when I have to. I change ASAP. I even change in my car in the parking lot.
True story: about a week ago I was giving F5 checkrides in the polo shirt uniform. After I was done, I hit Wendy's as I was starving. I was in line and a guy asked me if I was in the airforce. I was surprised, since I was in the polo shirt, which doesn't really stand out. I told him I was in the Civil Air Patrol, and he said, "Thanks for serving." I don't think he knew what CAP was.
As for the kid in the Marine uniform: I think that should be a crime. At least some kind of fine for impersonating an armed forces member in that way.
I suppose that TSA is like any large organization. They have the good ones and the goobers. Also, even the good ones have their bad days.
However, some days there is just no excuse. I remember a couple of years ago Joe Foss ran afoul of the TSA for carrying his MOH.
Quote from: Thrash on June 24, 2011, 10:06:32 PM
As for the kid in the Marine uniform: I think that should be a crime. At least some kind of fine for impersonating an armed forces member in that way.
Don't worry, it is.
Quote from: DBlair on June 24, 2011, 09:37:32 PMI have heard of a number of CAP members (both Cadet and SM) who admitted (from their own lips, not rumors) to regularly dressing in uniform whenever traveling (personal travel, not to/from activity) in order to get special attention, free upgrades, and free/discounted checked luggage. Behavior such as this really bothers me, but unfortunately it seems to be somewhat common from what I've heard.
I used to command the color guard team for my squadron, one night returning from a ceremony we decided to stop at a local IHOP to eat. We were still in uniform having come straight from the ceremony. When it came time to pay, the waitress told us that she applied the 10% military discount to our tabs. We thanked her but explained who we are and what we do. She asked me "Do you serve this nation?" I replied truthfully. She then asked if we wear our nations uniform honorably. Again I answered "yes." She then said "Then just take the discount as a thank you for you volunteer service." It made my day. ;D
Technically I think its illegal to wear any distinctive part of a service uniform... Time to rip the buttons off that old Navy wool coat I got from my uncle.
This kid went way beyond "technically". Hopefully he was just a mental health case... if not they should tattoo "not a Marine" on his forehead.
Ugh. Serves that kid right. Incredible that he really had nothing better to do than dress up and "play Marine" at an airport. What did he expect to come from that?!
Quote from: SansGroove on June 25, 2011, 02:44:18 AM
they should tattoo "not a Marine" on his forehead.
Heh heh. Go all "Inglorious Basterds" on his sorry @$$ >:D
Quote from: NIN on June 24, 2011, 06:07:58 PM
Good point. You fly more than I do, but I've had _nothing_ but courtesy from the TSA. Even when not in uniform.
I fly a lot. TSA seems to have been trained to be arrogant and to suppress all human feeling. Hmmm, sounds like Nazis there, eh?
I have been flying to the far east a lot lately. It's really funny how I can clear security anywhere but in the US and they are respectful, professional and don't leave me pissed off the way TSA does. Even in Manila, not known for efficiency, and where to go from the curb to the airplane takes 3 trips though security checkpoints, it's all handled better. And this is in countries like Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, where the threat is a bit higher than in Omaha.
In fact, my last time in Manila, I was on a hand-written one way ticket (I got rerouted out of Bangkok). I got the EXTRA special treatment, including a pretty thorough frisking at one point - not a pat down, but frisked. The security agent was polite, respectful, humorous (he told me I must be a diplomat, he had a special procedure for me, and would I please accompany him to the side?) and sent me on my way laughing.
At Incheon, Korea, they have slippers for you to wear when they make you take your shoes off, rather than forcing you to walk around on filthy floors in your socks. It's little things, treating folks like humans, that make the difference.
And the same thing is true of customs and immigration people - far east, a pleasant, business-like environment; the US, dingy pits full of angry people. It's embarrassing to me as an American.
Of course the airlines are the same way, flying US airlines abroad sucks, but get on a non-US airline... much better experience. But that's another topic.
As I am typing this I am currently navigating my way through the nations airports as I head home for R&R from A-Stan. Thus far I have been very impressed with TSA. They have gone out of their way to ensure that we are zipped through the process as fast as possible. They even sent someone out with a metal detector wand to check out our boots prior to us getting to the security area so that way we knew if we had to take them off or not. I'm currently in uniform (OCP aka Multicams) and am very grateful for their professionalism and assistance.
YMMV
Quote from: PA Guy on June 24, 2011, 06:24:44 AM
Quote from: capsr on June 24, 2011, 04:51:03 AM
Good to know. Thank you for the information. :clap: Looking at the regulations BDU's and Corporate's in the airport traveling are a No-No.
Speaking on the TSA, the Marine below looks like he just came out of a TSA checkpoint like Major Lord was referring to.
(http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/a_fake_marine_reno_airport.jpg)
That is a photo of a poser not a Marine. Look at the shoes. The trousers are way too long and the white belt isn't secured properly. No marksmanship bling or NDSM and wearing PFC stripes, it doesn't work that way. Plus look at the link for the photo.
Those look like lance corporal stripes.
I don't want to wear my CAP uniform when flying commercial. If I did I would look a little worse for the wear on arrival. My preference is to fly nice and comfortable, then change as appropriate for the occasion. It's not like we are traveling under orders requiring the wear of the uniform. Nor are we coming from a place where we didn't have civilian clothes.
I've heard the TSA horror stories but they have almost completely ignored me when I travel. Most of them have been fairly friendly as well. I cut them a little slack since I've had to search a lot of people I really didn't want to touch. As long as they are decent about it they are just folks doing a job. Remember though, a sloppy search can let some really scary stuff through. Once upon a time (when I was a cop) I went to an L.A. Kings game with a full size Beretta 92F strapped to my scrawny self (5'7" 170 lbs) on my right hip under a windbreaker. The guards picked me out for a pat-down. I thought "this oughtta be interesting." I was ready to ID myself but THEY DIDN'T FIND IT. That's a lousy search at work.
I traveled in uniform I think twice(?) for CAP activities by commercial. It was not a great experience - especially due to the metal attached to myself. I wouldn't bother doing it again if I weren't told that I had to show up in uniform.
I go through TSA checkpoints hundreds of times per year. It's mixed and that isn't really going to change. There's one guy that remembers me when he sees me because he WHACKED me in the face with the hand wand. He waves to me.
I had to take a bagel slicer through a TSA checkpoint once for something at the airport (USO). It was a hilarious experience (if you have a sense of humor). I wish that I had a video of it. I can't even remember how many people I had to have come speak to me from TSA - probably a dozen, even though it had already been OKed by the big TSA dude and the minions has been notified (at least...they had to FIND the minions who had been notified).
Quote from: JK657 on June 25, 2011, 09:30:32 AM
As I am typing this I am currently navigating my way through the nations airports as I head home for R&R from A-Stan. Thus far I have been very impressed with TSA. They have gone out of their way to ensure that we are zipped through the process as fast as possible. They even sent someone out with a metal detector wand to check out our boots prior to us getting to the security area so that way we knew if we had to take them off or not. I'm currently in uniform (OCP aka Multicams) and am very grateful for their professionalism and assistance.
YMMV
Stopping at USOs? The best is PHL. Just saying.
They way I look at it is if I ever had to exit the aircraft in an expeditious manner (aka on fire, floating on the Hudson river, upside down on the side of the runway etc...) I'd rather be wearing sneakers, and loose fitting clothing (for full movement).
that's twos trikes against the dress uniform and one against the battle uniform.
although the battle uniform would give me some more fire protection...
Quote from: AdAstra on June 24, 2011, 12:17:49 AM
See CAP Knowledgebase #1051:
Yes you have that option. Members who choose to wear a military-style uniform when traveling by commercial means (other than to and from local CAP activities) will wear the service dress uniform or light blue, short or long sleeve shirt/blouse with tie/tab.
I've seen a number of members do this. Personally, I find it more comfortable to wear civvies.
So tell me is it the "wanna bee" factor that plays into this more than the actual need to do this ??? Honestly CAP member flying commercial in CAP uniforms :-[ I was a career military officer (20+ years) and I only flew one time in my military uniform (light blue shirt and blue pants with jacket) on a commercial flight, and that was due to us not having enough time after a meeting at Offutt AFB NE to change into civilian clothing and still make our flight to get us home to a SAC base in the wilds of Michigan. Frankly the CAP regulation/policy needs to get more specific on this to remove any chance of the "wanna bee" factor entering the picture >:(
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 05:56:59 PM
Frankly the CAP regulation needs to get more specific on this to remove any chance of the "wanna bee" entering the picture.
Right, because it is such a good idea to base our regulations on stories that are based on the actions of just a few people or are entirely apocryphal.
Every time I see the word "Wannabe" used here I want to punch my computer screen.
Quote from: HGjunkie on June 25, 2011, 07:27:54 PM
Every time I see the word "Wannabe" used here I want to punch my computer screen.
:clap:
Quote from: phirons on June 25, 2011, 07:29:41 PM
Quote from: HGjunkie on June 25, 2011, 07:27:54 PM
Every time I see the word "Wannabe" used here I want to punch my computer screen.
:clap:
To both of you cadets -- This applies primarily to senior members wearing military type uniforms while not at a CAP function. I think there's enough distinction on the cadet side so there won't be any wanna bee factor -- curiosity factor yes ;). There's been senior members who have been playing this "wanna bee" game for some time and know EXACTLY what I am talking about :-[ >:(
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 05:56:59 PMFrankly the CAP regulation/policy needs to get more specific on this to remove any chance of the "wanna bee" factor entering the picture >:(
I wasn't going to bring that up because I knew you would. How is wearing a uniform that you posses every right to wear, being "wanna bee?" Now if I swapped out my insignia for USAF insignia, it would be wrong. However, I signed an application, pay my dues, and give sweat, blood and time to an organization that is granted the privilege of wearing the USAF dress blues uniform. I do not understand this, but feel free to explain.
Modified: Forgot to spellcheck ;D
Quote from: Thrash on June 24, 2011, 10:06:32 PM
As for the kid in the Marine uniform: I think that should be a crime. At least some kind of fine for impersonating an armed forces member in that way.
Maybe something under the stolen valor act?
Quote from: SansGroove on June 25, 2011, 02:44:18 AM
if not they should tattoo "not a Marine" on his forehead.
Yeah, but then he should join the marines
I thought they declared Stolen Valor unconstitutional? Also IIRC it pertains to decorations for valor in particular, not impersonating a service member by wearing the uniform, where USC applies.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PMI think there's enough distinction on the cadet side so there won't be any wanna bee factor
A cadet officer wearing the 3-button service coat is virtually indistinguishable from regular USAF officers, especially to the general public not in CAP or the military.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PM
There's been senior members who have been playing this "wanna bee" game for some time and know EXACTLY what I am talking about
Please define.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PM
There's been senior members who have been playing this "wanna bee" game for some time and know EXACTLY what I am talking about
[citation needed]
Personally, I'd never dream of traveling in a CAP uniform (any variation) for non-CAP related business. Aside from being impractical, its against regs (or manuals, pamphlets, ICL, BBQs, V1Rotate).
Now, if the traveling were for CAP business (a conference or training event of some sort) then I'd consider it, provided the event's Commanding Officer didn't specifically prohibit it. I think for the SWR Staff College, traveling via commercial means was to be done in civies as outlined in the instruction booklet.
If I were to do it, it wouldn't be out of a selfish desire to draw attention to myself, get discounts, or whatever. I would be, for lack of a better way to describe it, a PR opportunity. Many people still don't know what were are if they even know we exist. Vanguard used to sell a nice button down dress shirt with the Command Patch on it that would work quite well in this case too, but those are long gone replaced by a shirt with a rather...uninspired..."logo." At least the hat is decent.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2011, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PMI think there's enough distinction on the cadet side so there won't be any wanna bee factor
A cadet officer wearing the 3-button service coat is virtually indistinguishable from regular USAF officers, especially to the general public not in CAP or the military.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PM
There's been senior members who have been playing this "wanna bee" game for some time and know EXACTLY what I am talking about
Please define.
Any senior member who violates the 1 hour uniform wear rule (CAPM 39-1, table 1-1, Wear of the CAP Uniform), especially any USAF type uniform (wonder why that rule ever got put on the books ???).
Any senior member who flies on a commercial airline flight in a CAP USAF type uniform. There's NO reason they need to be flying in uniform whatsoever. The regulation never meant the transit time to include flying in commercial aircraft for many hours.
Frankly, I'd be laughing my butt off IF I ever got on a commercial airline and observed a CAP senior member in an AF type uniform on the same flight >:D I might even be temped to tell the stewardess/steward to pay special to that guy or girl since it was likely a "cult" spin off of the real CAP >:D :angel:
Most adult senior member in CAP are NOT flying commercial in CAP AF type uniforms. Most cadets are not flying commercial in CAP AF type uniforms. I don't think you will find ANYONE flying commercial to any cadet special activity/competition wearing a CAP uniform. Just the comfort factor alone on a flight over 1 hour long would be a good logical reason. Also why would ANYONE want to call attention to themselves. When I was in the AF, we basically didn't call attention to ourselves by wearing our uniforms while traveling on commercial aircraft flights. It's just plain good common sense personal security to NOT be in any uniform. However, the "wanna bees" are definitely going to be in uniform, no doubt about it ::).
RM
You know RM, the way you keep bringing up "wannabes", kinda makes ya wonder.
The last few "wannabes" that were busted around here were the ones who really harped on wannabes.
Just like you do...
Quote from: PHall on June 26, 2011, 03:41:25 AM
You know RM, the way you keep bringing up "wannabes", kinda makes ya wonder.
The last few "wannabes" that were busted around here were the ones who really harped on wannabes.
Just like you do...
Glad I wasn't the only one with that thought.
Quote from: PHall on June 26, 2011, 03:41:25 AM
You know RM, the way you keep bringing up "wannabes", kinda makes ya wonder.
The last few "wannabes" that were busted around here were the ones who really harped on wannabes.
Just like you do...
Explain the term 'busted" in your context please ???
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 04:05:33 AM
Explain the term 'busted" in your context please ???
To have insults like "wannabe," which in your terminology
seems to be anyone in CAP not wearing the polo shirt, rebuffed, dissected and disproven.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 04:05:33 AM
Quote from: PHall on June 26, 2011, 03:41:25 AM
You know RM, the way you keep bringing up "wannabes", kinda makes ya wonder.
The last few "wannabes" that were busted around here were the ones who really harped on wannabes.
Just like you do...
Explain the term 'busted" in your context please ???
They claimed military service and droned on and on about how CAP members were all wannabes. Then, after a few months and a few hundred posts, the stories didn't match up, and they were exposed as phonies, faking their military service to a bunch of CAP members, on the internet. The very epitome of a wannabe.
So Radioman, I deploy and fly commercial and my team chief decides we are flying in uniform does that now make us wannabes?
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 26, 2011, 07:18:02 AM
So Radioman, I deploy and fly commercial and my team chief decides we are flying in uniform does that now make us wannabes?
IF you are in the military you do what the military tells you to do. This has to do with CAP members flying in AF type uniforms, not military personnel. Surely when military personnel are flying in uniform they deserve special recognition by the airlines and the airline staff should be going out of their way in any way they can to help the military member. I would hate to see any confusion with CAP members flying in AF type uniforms, pure and simple >:(
RM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 26, 2011, 05:16:09 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 04:05:33 AM
Quote from: PHall on June 26, 2011, 03:41:25 AM
You know RM, the way you keep bringing up "wannabes", kinda makes ya wonder.
The last few "wannabes" that were busted around here were the ones who really harped on wannabes.
Just like you do...
Explain the term 'busted" in your context please ???
They claimed military service and droned on and on about how CAP members were all wannabes. Then, after a few months and a few hundred posts, the stories didn't match up, and they were exposed as phonies, faking their military service to a bunch of CAP members, on the internet. The very epitome of a wannabe.
Really -- so cite what wing(s) that happen in ???. Who was that on this list (screen name)???
Hey, many wanna bees in the organization don't even realize they are engaged in this BUT to others (including those outside the CAP organization) it is readily apparently. They also mean well. Unfortunately, I would agree with your that in some rare instances there's former military personnel claiming things (especially awards/decorations, and jobs e.g. special forces) that are purely false.
It's interesting that at least two wing commanders, that I'm aware of (NH & MA) appear to wear the CAP polo shirt quite often. I as well as others that are retired military, have nothing to prove to any CAP member. The decision makers at the unit, group, and wing levels have the appropriate documented information about us.
Again, I see NO reason for CAP members to be flying on commercial airlines in AF type uniforms, whether permitted by regulation or not. Personally, I believe it is a 'rare' instance when this occurs and as others in the postings on this thread subject have indicated, some headquarters have actually stated not to wear uniforms while flying commercially. Frankly though I see no reason why we couldn't fly commercially with the polo shirts on ;) To all on the list, again a reminder we are in the
Civil Air Patrol :angel:
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 03:23:12 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2011, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PMI think there's enough distinction on the cadet side so there won't be any wanna bee factor
A cadet officer wearing the 3-button service coat is virtually indistinguishable from regular USAF officers, especially to the general public not in CAP or the military.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PM
There's been senior members who have been playing this "wanna bee" game for some time and know EXACTLY what I am talking about
Please define.
Any senior member who violates the 1 hour uniform wear rule (CAPM 39-1, table 1-1, Wear of the CAP Uniform), especially any USAF type uniform (wonder why that rule ever got put on the books ???).
Any senior member who flies on a commercial airline flight in a CAP USAF type uniform. There's NO reason they need to be flying in uniform whatsoever. The regulation never meant the transit time to include flying in commercial aircraft for many hours.
Frankly, I'd be laughing my butt off IF I ever got on a commercial airline and observed a CAP senior member in an AF type uniform on the same flight >:D I might even be temped to tell the stewardess/steward to pay special to that guy or girl since it was likely a "cult" spin off of the real CAP >:D :angel:
Most adult senior member in CAP are NOT flying commercial in CAP AF type uniforms. Most cadets are not flying commercial in CAP AF type uniforms. I don't think you will find ANYONE flying commercial to any cadet special activity/competition wearing a CAP uniform. Just the comfort factor alone on a flight over 1 hour long would be a good logical reason. Also why would ANYONE want to call attention to themselves. When I was in the AF, we basically didn't call attention to ourselves by wearing our uniforms while traveling on commercial aircraft flights. It's just plain good common sense personal security to NOT be in any uniform. However, the "wanna bees" are definitely going to be in uniform, no doubt about it ::).
RM
With this one statement, you are wrong. NHGA requires you to fly in uniform if traveling commercial. Inspection of uniform and deportment takes place the second the cadet departs the plane. Such grand statements are what has little to no place here unless you personally have been to each and every activity across the nation. Apparel when traveling is at the order of the individual director and they need not give a reason to the general membership. Rigidly narrow minded one sided declarations of ones interpretation of regulations is a bane of many forums such as this.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 26, 2011, 05:16:09 AM
They claimed military service and droned on and on about how CAP members were all wannabes. Then, after a few months and a few hundred posts, the stories didn't match up, and they were exposed as phonies, faking their military service to a bunch of CAP members, on the internet. The very epitome of a wannabe.
Yeah, that about hit it on the head.
Its not always the fantastical claims (although, thats usually their undoing in the end) that twig my spidey sense. No, the ones that catch me are the ones that go on at length about poseurs and honor and such, and you're like "Uh, wow, dude, thats not really what I'm getting hung up on here.."
We had one over at CadetStuff 2-3 years back (2008, as I recall) who had been RCAC working with a northern-tier CAP wing from some years earlier. Except: at some point he'd gotten the boot from the RCAC and started telling people he was really a CF officer. And his view on poseurs was pretty, uh, radical (like suggesting various violent and uncomfortable things be done to them). To the point where once it came out the guy was a total poseur himself, it was like "Kettle, this is Pot. Black, over."
But when he sat across the table from me and started telling me about all the medical problems he was having after he and his JTF2 squaddies discovered a "dirty bomb" in a cave in Afghanistan, well, lets just say that things started unraveling pretty fast after that.
Back to the subject: There are times when flying in CAP uniform is warranted. It is infrequent, but it does happen. The two times I ever flew to a CAP activity, a region conference in 1993 and a cadet staff selection in 2005, there was sufficient time built into our itineraries to get to where we were going and change. Sometimes, however, depending on activity schedules, airline accommodations, or your ability to skate out of work to make the "better" flight, thats not much of an option.
(I've flown in ACUs for the USAC, which is authorized by our regs and encouraged, and generally when I do so its either because I'm literally hitting the ground from the airport straight to whatever event we're doing, or I've got all my crap along for annual training and the one set of civvies I need for AT fits better my bags than another set of ACUs, an extra pair of boots, etc.)
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 01:39:36 PM
To all on the list, again a reminder we are in the Civil BunchaFakeWannabes Air Patrol :angel:
There, fixed that for ya.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 26, 2011, 05:16:09 AM
They claimed military service and droned on and on about how CAP members were all wannabes. Then, after a few months and a few hundred posts, the stories didn't match up, and they were exposed as phonies, faking their military service to a bunch of CAP members, on the internet. The very epitome of a wannabe.
Really -- so cite what wing(s) that happen in ???. Who was that on this list (screen name)???
...
This one for example: http://captalk.net/index.php?action=profile;area=summary;u=353
Mod edit: Quote fail fix
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 03:23:12 AM
I don't think you will find ANYONE flying commercial to any cadet special activity/competition wearing a CAP uniform.
National Honor Guard Academy requires it.
Aaaand spaatzmom beat me to it. But it still holds, some activities require showing up and leaving in uniform.
RM continues to insult members on this forum by his negative remarks about CAP members wearing AF uniforms. All I can say is MST & and it aint on the 101 card.
Quote from: eaker.cadet on June 26, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
RM continues to insult members on this forum by his negative remarks about CAP members wearing AF uniforms. All I can say is MST & and it aint on the 101 card.
Mountain Standard Time? :o
I don't know about HGA these days, but back in 2005, we were originally told Blues, and then were told to come in civilian clothes. We got our inspection once we settled into the college dorms.
We left in civilian attire as well:
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/196408_1003198734802_1669860241_5664_8462_n.jpg)
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on June 26, 2011, 03:44:27 PM
I don't know about HGA these days, but back in 2005, we were originally told Blues, and then were told to come in civilian clothes. We got our inspection once we settled into the college dorms.
We left in civilian attire as well:
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/196408_1003198734802_1669860241_5664_8462_n.jpg)
2005 was the first year at McDaniel and things were changed the following year, like only using BWI for the airport and immediate inspection. Too little time to do it all on arrival at the college with all the other things that need to be done when you have over 125 cadets mostly white hats attending. I remember you there.
Quote from: spaatzmom on June 26, 2011, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 03:23:12 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2011, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PMI think there's enough distinction on the cadet side so there won't be any wanna bee factor
Any senior member who violates the 1 hour uniform wear rule (CAPM 39-1, table 1-1, Wear of the CAP Uniform), especially any USAF type uniform (wonder why that rule ever got put on the books ???).
Any senior member who flies on a commercial airline flight in a CAP USAF type uniform. There's NO reason they need to be flying in uniform whatsoever. The regulation never meant the transit time to include flying in commercial aircraft for many hours.
Frankly, I'd be laughing my butt off IF I ever got on a commercial airline and observed a CAP senior member in an AF type uniform on the same flight >:D I might even be temped to tell the stewardess/steward to pay special to that guy or girl since it was likely a "cult" spin off of the real CAP >:D :angel:
Most adult senior member in CAP are NOT flying commercial in CAP AF type uniforms. Most cadets are not flying commercial in CAP AF type uniforms. I don't think you will find ANYONE flying commercial to any cadet special activity/competition wearing a CAP uniform. Just the comfort factor alone on a flight over 1 hour long would be a good logical reason. Also why would ANYONE want to call attention to themselves. When I was in the AF, we basically didn't call attention to ourselves by wearing our uniforms while traveling on commercial aircraft flights. It's just plain good common sense personal security to NOT be in any uniform. However, the "wanna bees" are definitely going to be in uniform, no doubt about it ::).
RM
With this one statement, you are wrong. NHGA requires you to fly in uniform if traveling commercial. Inspection of uniform and deportment takes place the second the cadet departs the plane. Such grand statements are what has little to no place here unless you personally have been to each and every activity across the nation. Apparel when traveling is at the order of the individual director and they need not give a reason to the general membership. Rigidly narrow minded one sided declarations of ones interpretation of regulations is a bane of many forums such as this.
Funny I got very curious about your statement above, so I went to the 2011 page for the National Honor Guard Academy. See: http://ncsas.com/index.cfm/honor_guard_academy?show=career_fair&careerFairID=6
There's absolutely nothing on that website for CY 2011 that says a cadet (or senior) has to travel & arrive in uniform. In fact on the transportation form/instructions it tells the attendee to look for someone in a CAP uniform and also a cadet may drive to the academy with permission. Also on the uniform requirements, it would lead me to believe that no one is flying/driving in their uniforms.
So being nice, I don't know what year you are talking about BUT regardless there has to be "common sense" applied and I think most members (except the wanna bees after attention) aren't wearing CAP uniforms while flying commercially.
RM
Funny you say that RM, cuz I just got done reading that website, and this is the first paragraph:
QuoteALL MEMBERS OF THE HONOR GUARD ACADEMY MUST ARRIVE IN FULL UNIFORM. THERE WILL BE AN INSPECTION UPON ARRIVAL AT THE ACADEMY. Please read all instructions and follow them.
Please try again.
And, you know, It's not like none of us have had to actually DO it before...
Quote from: RMSo being nice, I don't know what year you are talking about BUT regardless there has to be "common sense" applied and I think most members (except the wanna bees after attention) aren't wearing CAP uniforms while flying commercially.
So... everyone travelling to NHGA in uniform are Wannabes?
Quote from: spaatzmom on June 26, 2011, 03:52:06 PM
2005 was the first year at McDaniel and things were changed the following year, like only using BWI for the airport and immediate inspection. Too little time to do it all on arrival at the college with all the other things that need to be done when you have over 125 cadets mostly white hats attending. I remember you there.
Yes, there was a lot of activity at HGA, and seemed never enough time. I'm not surprised that I'd be remembered...especially when within the first few days I was accused of some harsh things. Thankfully all (-1) of the staff use common sense when dealing with situations.
Quote from: HGjunkie on June 26, 2011, 06:18:24 PM
QuoteALL MEMBERS OF THE HONOR GUARD ACADEMY MUST ARRIVE IN FULL UNIFORM. THERE WILL BE AN INSPECTION UPON ARRIVAL AT THE ACADEMY. Please read all instructions and follow them.
Please try again.
That doesn't necessarily mean that you have to travel there in uniform. Just going by that statement alone you could travel in civies and change in a gas station right before going in the gate to wherever the Academy is.
Quote from: HGjunkie on June 26, 2011, 02:56:55 PMAaaand spaatzmom beat me to it. But it still holds, some activities require showing up and leaving in uniform.
Just for clarity on the point - "reporting in uniform" does not equal "traveling in uniform".
Sitting on a plane, etc., for 4(+) hours isn't going to result in high inspection marks on arrival.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 26, 2011, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: HGjunkie on June 26, 2011, 02:56:55 PMAaaand spaatzmom beat me to it. But it still holds, some activities require showing up and leaving in uniform.
Just for clarity on the point - "reporting in uniform" does not equal "traveling in uniform".
Sitting on a plane, etc., for 4(+) hours isn't going to result in high inspection marks on arrival.
Agreed. I was glad we didn't have to do it. In theory, HGA states that cadets will be inspected upon arrival at the airport. In Practice, a formation upon arrival at HGA would probably be better.
Quote from: HGjunkie on June 26, 2011, 06:18:24 PM
Funny you say that RM, cuz I just got done reading that website, and this is the first paragraph:
QuoteALL MEMBERS OF THE HONOR GUARD ACADEMY MUST ARRIVE IN FULL UNIFORM. THERE WILL BE AN INSPECTION UPON ARRIVAL AT THE ACADEMY. Please read all instructions and follow them.
Please try again.
And, you know, It's not like none of us have had to actually DO it before...
Wow, it's time for me to get new reading glasses :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ -- I did miss that right on the front page because I was looking at the FAQ and all the other things on the left side of the page. That's a correct statement about UPON ARRIVAL AT THE ACTIVITY and I take total responsibility for my oversight.
IF CAP requires the cadets to do this than they should do it. HOWEVER, I'm not sure how fair this is to everyone (who may elect to travel in uniform, which is unlikely) especially someone traveling from the west coast versus someone from the Northeast Region or Middle East Region. I would suspect that many of the cadets would have a carry on bag with his/her uniform in it and change at the arrival airport BEFORE seeking out the representative if this isn't a typo on the website. If you read the instructions the cadet is to seek out the individual in a CAP uniform, IF there was and expectation that they were required to traveling in uniform, than the individual picking them up would be able to spot the cadets relatively easy. Those traveling by vehicle would have to find a place close by and change before driving in. Frankly, this seems odd to me, unless it is a test to see IF the cadets would in fact change into uniform (upon arrival at the airport) or fly in with a uniform that looked like it had been worn on a long flight :-\
BTW I think there was a thread discussing this specific requirement last year ???
RM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 26, 2011, 02:41:16 PM
This one for example: http://captalk.net/index.php?action=profile;area=summary;u=353
Mod edit: Quote fail fix
Here's another thread that exposed a poseur: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4832.20 (I think the mods either pared back the thread, or when they killed the username of the poseur, it killed all his posts)
But here's the photo.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9312.60
He was a group commander in IL wing, and folks were like "Yeah, I'm in his group, he's totally a SEAL.."
and then, oh, hahaha, he wasn't. As verified by the Navy.
Little egg all around.
Quote from: NIN on June 26, 2011, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 26, 2011, 02:41:16 PM
This one for example: http://captalk.net/index.php?action=profile;area=summary;u=353
Mod edit: Quote fail fix
Here's another thread that exposed a poseur: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4832.20 (I think the mods either pared back the thread, or when they killed the username of the poseur, it killed all his posts)
But here's the photo.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9312.60
He was a group commander in IL wing, and folks were like "Yeah, I'm in his group, he's totally a SEAL.."
and then, oh, hahaha, he wasn't. As verified by the Navy.
Little egg all around.
FWIW, he is no longer affiliated with CAP.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 26, 2011, 08:55:07 PM
FWIW, he is no longer affiliated with CAP.
He did his time and Mea culpas.
Edit: Apparently after resigning, time away, and rejoining, he chose not to continue membership.Few who knew him personally could believe it for at least two reasons:
1) He was a good guy, a good leader, and had apparently had a military career, just not at the level he said.
2) Everyone involved assumed that his commander (at the time he joined and started wearing it) had verified his
history. I personally asked on several occasions and told it was "handled", so this was a CAP failing as well.
With the above said, I have no idea (beyond RM's constant nonsense), how a discussion about a CAP member wearing his
legit uniform while traveling turns into a stolen valor conversation.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 26, 2011, 09:40:59 PM
With the above said, I have no idea (beyond RM's constant nonsense), how a discussion about a CAP member wearing his legit uniform while traveling turns into a stolen valor conversation.
Come on, Bob, you've read the thread: anybody who wears their uniform for something other than what RM believes to be a "legit reason" in his mind only is either a wanna be, a faker, a poseur or has issues that need to addressed.
Stopped to get gas enroute home in BDUs? Poseur.
Grabbed a bite a Wendy's after the meeting in blues? Faker.
Wore your uniform the whole time instead of changing for the 1+ hr drive home from the mission base? Trying to get something for something you're not.
Wear the AF style uniform instead of the polo shirt?? You're clearly a serious wanna be!
Since he knows that two wing commanders up here in the northeast posses the polo shirt uniform (one of whom is a retired AF officer), thats
prima facia evidence that they're obviously not trolling for salutes, or getting first class upgrades, or trying to scam a free cup of coffee out of the kid at Dunkin' Donuts like everybody else who wears the AF uniform must be doing.
Well then by that definition then myself, fellow cadets, and SMs were all posers. Considering we all met on installations grabbed food going to and from meetings and activities, and while in Germany ran a couple of errands upto the meetings.
Yesterday I kinda defended the TSA.... today I am seriously rethinking that. This is just insanity: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
>:(
Quote from: SansGroove on June 27, 2011, 02:46:11 AM
Yesterday I kinda defended the TSA.... today I am seriously rethinking that. This is just insanity: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
>:(
TSA is staffed, by and large, with idiots.
Watched the same thing a couple of months ago. Standing in line boarding an aircraft, who did they pull out for a special search? The 85 yo lady in front of me. I know she was 85 because she sat next to me and we chatted about how stupid it all was.
It's a huge ineffective sham. I figured that out on my first trip after 9/11, in November 2001. Dude in full-on arab regalia rolls out his rug while we're boarding, faces Mecca and loudly completes his prayers. Who do they pull out for the "special" search? A sixty-ish business man type and ME. Right then I knew it was all a big joke on the American people.
Quote from: AirDX on June 27, 2011, 08:03:22 AM
It's a huge ineffective sham. I figured that out on my first trip after 9/11, in November 2001. Dude in full-on arab regalia rolls out his rug while we're boarding, faces Mecca and loudly completes his prayers. Who do they pull out for the "special" search? A sixty-ish business man type and ME. Right then I knew it was all a big joke on the American people.
It IS a sham, but I'm curious why the Arab had to be pulled out but not you? Weren't the highjackers wearing western clothes?
Quote from: paladin82 on June 25, 2011, 12:26:05 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on June 24, 2011, 06:24:44 AM
Quote from: capsr on June 24, 2011, 04:51:03 AM
Good to know. Thank you for the information. :clap: Looking at the regulations BDU's and Corporate's in the airport traveling are a No-No.
Speaking on the TSA, the Marine below looks like he just came out of a TSA checkpoint like Major Lord was referring to.
(http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/a_fake_marine_reno_airport.jpg)
That is a photo of a poser not a Marine. Look at the shoes. The trousers are way too long and the white belt isn't secured properly. No marksmanship bling or NDSM and wearing PFC stripes, it doesn't work that way. Plus look at the link for the photo.
Those look like lance corporal stripes.
There are lots of things jacked up about the wear of this uniform.
The biggest thing not listed yet but most obvious to us Marines is that he is wearing the "Blood Stripe" on his trousers. This red stripe has huge symbolic meaning and is reserved for NCOs and Officers. E3s and below(the rank being shown on this fake is that of a Lance Corporal) wear plain blue trousers.
I have done a lot of flying in and out of military uniform. The TSA has always been extremely courteous and professional with me.
Anyway, back to the real topic.
I see no issue with CAP members wearing their uniforms to and from events at an airport. It is good for advertising and good public exposure.
Quote from: AirDX on June 27, 2011, 08:03:22 AM
Dude in full-on arab regalia rolls out his rug while we're boarding, faces Mecca and loudly completes his prayers. Who do they pull out for the "special" search? A sixty-ish business man type and ME.
The TSA employees might have been trying to prevent being accused of racial profiling. maybe. I [obviously] don't really know.
As a business traveler I have never had anything but a quick, easy, time at TSA. That was somewhere between 22-25 flights last year, which puts me in the mid-point for "road warrior" types, but ahead of the pack for the average American who flies once or twice a year on vacation. In general my family tends to fly more than the average, and that has been our experience across the board.
I was body scanned once, and the machine, I am told, was fixed in about a week, however the woman running it needed several months of counseling.
I don't envy their job for a second, especially when you consider that they exist in a universe where everyone is both a terrorist or not, and they have to balance taxpayers, airlines, airports, local+ jurisdictions, and also deal with situations out of their control (they didn't make you late because you failed to plan properly, got bumped, weathered in, missed your connection, or were seated next to a crying baby from NY to LA).
It's easy for us to fallback on the idea that all terrorists are young males with a specific ethic "look"...until you factor in McVeigh and Kaczynski. If you specifically exclude one race / gender / age group, etc., then rest assured that will be the next headline.
People mistake TSA for the ticket agent or flight attendant. Hint: TSA Officers are not customer service people any more than your local police officers are. They are charged with a specific duty, and have pretty far-reaching power to ruin your day, if not more.
Yes, like every other government agency, there are people with a smile on their face and an emphatic attitude, and plenty of places where neither exists.
So...
You can charge at windmills and yell into the wind about how bad things are, which is your right, but at least take the steps to mitigate the circumstance
for everyone. Watch "Up In The Air" about how to get through an Airport, wear TSA-friendly clothes, belts, and check your Leatherman. Accept you
have to buy water on the secure side, etc., etc.
When you're selected for a random scan, pat-down, or double-check. Close your mouth and just do it. No one there is interested in your "opinion"
about the loss of privacy in America, nor can they do anything about it but make sure you don't fly that day. Your Congressman or the local
news can do more about that than the TSA Officer, who is bound by protocol to escalate involvement as you escalate your reticence. It is what it is.
Or at least go to some other line if you see me coming.
Quote from: AirDX on June 27, 2011, 08:03:22 AM
Quote from: SansGroove on June 27, 2011, 02:46:11 AM
Yesterday I kinda defended the TSA.... today I am seriously rethinking that. This is just insanity: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
>:(
TSA is staffed, by and large, with idiots.
The military is staffed, by and large, with murderers baby killers and rapists based upon events in Vietnam.*
That's the logic you're using. You're only looking at the few bad apples and forgetting that there are thousands of hardworking people that just want to get paid and go home like the rest of you. Has it ever occurred to you that the "stupidity" is mandated from places much higher than the average TSO will ever get to?
*Not my actual opinion. I was using shock value to make a point.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 27, 2011, 09:31:37 PMI was body scanned once, and the machine, I am told, was fixed in about a week, however the woman running it needed several months of counseling.
Now THAT'S funny! :clap:
Quote from: indygreg on June 28, 2011, 01:56:00 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 27, 2011, 09:31:37 PMI was body scanned once, and the machine, I am told, was fixed in about a week, however the woman running it needed several months of counseling.
Now THAT'S funny! :clap:
epic :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
A couple of years ago, I was traveling through Philadelphia International Airport on FEMA travel orders. I had a cardiac stress test the day before and was still VERY much a gamma source on legs.
I found out how many radiation detectors they had that day. They weren't amused when I told them I was on my way to an undisclosed location. >:D
Old RADEF Officers never die, we just decay exponentially.
Quote from: jks19714 on June 29, 2011, 08:48:26 PM
Old RADEF Officers never die, we just decay exponentially.
Nice one ::)
Not directly related, but since this thread drifted to TSA issues...
((*sign*))
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/06/30/flight.stowaway/
There are "tells", "clues", and "red flags". This was an ANSI Compliant retroreflective vest full of "no fly"...
This didn't happen in an airport, and I wasn't wearing my CAP blues.
In fact, I wasn't wearing a uniform...just having lunch with my wife wearing civvies with a USAF baseball cap that a recruiter gave out.
Two Army officers in ACU came in, and one, a Major, wearing 82nd Airborne shoulder flash with Ranger and Sapper tabs, came over and asked me if I knew a place where his boss (his term) could get a good military haircut.
I'm going to assume, falsely or not, that my baseball cap caused the Major to seek me out for such a question.
I got up and went with him to where his "boss"...an O-8!...was standing.
I said, "Sir, I am a Captain in the Civil Air Patrol (clarifying I wasn't in the AF) and in most cases we must adhere to military grooming standards," going on to give him a few recommendations for haircuts. The General and the Major both thanked me and we all went about our business.
Point? Whether or not a CAP officer is in uniform, in an airport or otherwise, always be prepared (props to my old Boy Scout experience) to exhibit professional conduct reflecting on CAP and the Air Force when dealing with the public and/or the military.
Quote from: CyBorg on June 30, 2011, 05:17:31 PMPoint? Whether or not a CAP officer is in uniform, in an airport or otherwise, always be prepared (props to my old Boy Scout experience) to exhibit professional conduct reflecting on CAP and the Air Force when dealing with the public and/or the military.
Kudos. In general a lot of us tend to have shorter hair, better bearing, and are more polite than the general public, and tend, I think, to stand out.
Even those of us with no prior military experience tend to "get it" more than the average person.
This topic has been brought up from time to time, putting regulation aside, there's wide opinion amongst members about it.
My opinion is if the member wears the uniform correctly, acts proper in public (isn't doing foolish things etc) and making a good example of CAP, I don't see any reason to ridicule or "laugh" at them. Respect and integrity. NOW if that member is going out there, making a fool of themselves and doing discredit to CAP, yes, point them out. However, apparently for some, if you wear your uniform proudly and conduct yourself properly, you are still guilty. (I agree with NIN's post as well.)
As far as my experiences, yes, I have gone through commercial airports in service dress. I don't think TSA treated me any different then any other person, same line as all other people, shoes off, jacket, belt off, naked scanner, etc was the same. I'm a frequent flyer so I'm used to "the drill" when going through airport security. One thing I do recommend if you do decide to travel is carry one or two CAP pamphlets in your carry-on, it helps if anyone wants to ask you about CAP.
i agree with spacecommand
I wear my blues to the Airport at least once a month.......I always get strange looks from passengers. A guy once asked what airline I flew for that was pretty funny. MY Group HQ office is at a commercial airport >:D
Quote from: AdAstra on June 24, 2011, 12:17:49 AM
See CAP Knowledgebase #1051:
Yes you have that option. Members who choose to wear a military-style uniform when traveling by commercial means (other than to and from local CAP activities) will wear the service dress uniform or light blue, short or long sleeve shirt/blouse with tie/tab.
I've seen a number of members do this. Personally, I find it more comfortable to wear civvies.
wat does this mean?? "Kill the triangle thingy"??
Quote from: airdale12 on July 01, 2011, 06:08:14 AM
Quote from: AdAstra on June 24, 2011, 12:17:49 AM
See CAP Knowledgebase #1051:
Yes you have that option. Members who choose to wear a military-style uniform when traveling by commercial means (other than to and from local CAP activities) will wear the service dress uniform or light blue, short or long sleeve shirt/blouse with tie/tab.
I've seen a number of members do this. Personally, I find it more comfortable to wear civvies.
wat does this mean?? "Kill the triangle thingy"??
It means what it says. Kill the dang Triangle CAP symbol because it looks so corny.
Quote from: Major Lord on June 24, 2011, 12:48:21 AM
It could be a false impression, but it always looks to me like the TSA gives special attention to service members in uniform. Maybe they just love to watch people struggle with re-blousing their trousers after having to take off their boots. At least in service dress, you don't have to completely disgrace yourself by being the half-naked CAP guy....
I liked the HBO film ( Taking Chance) with Kevin Bacon when he told the TSA to pound sand ( or words to that effect) when they told him to take off his jacket while on a KIA return mission. Its not the same with us, admittedly, but I bet you that many more of us have shed blood sweat and occasionally tears ( well, the former Navy guys at least) in our uniforms than those Nazis in TSA.
Major Lord
"I will not denegrate this uniform. Take me to a private room, and wand me there."
God I love that movie, one of few to make me shead a tear at the end.
Quote from: Fubar on June 24, 2011, 05:29:32 AM
Quote from: nesagsar on June 24, 2011, 12:16:58 AMMembers are usually encouraged to wear a uniform (usually blues with the lightweight blue jacket) when on travel to or from CAP activities.
Encouraged? Must be a local thing, because it's not encouraged around here. Even the cadets have been traveling in civvies as ordered by the NCSAs they are attending.
Its the same here.
Most NCSA's encourage you NOT to travel in uniform. I've been to one that did, simply as a visability thing, it helps the CAP people at the Airport picking you up to find you. But most activities Ive been to say its a big no no.
Just FYI about traveling in uniform. Basic ORM and OPSEC rules dictate over and over and over again that when you stick out, you make yourself a target. When you wear the symbols of the U.S. government, you make yourself a target. Now some of you may think it's brave and noble to be a target to those who "dislike" our government, but the government seems to think that you taking unnecessary risks with a government asset (you) is irresponsible. Also, please stop to think that while you're making yourself a bigger target, you're also making the people around you a bigger target. That's also irresponsible.
There is NO need for you to travel in any uniform to any CAP activity. We aren't first responders and we don't jump into battle off of jetways. There just isn't a situation where you cannot take 15 minutes to change into a uniform once you arrive.
Look at it this way, your stupid ego may cost someone sitting next to you their life. That someone will be someone's mother/sister/daughter/father/son, etc.
Quote from: afgeo4 on July 12, 2011, 05:26:33 PM
Just FYI about traveling in uniform. Basic ORM and OPSEC rules dictate over and over and over again that when you stick out, you make yourself a target. When you wear the symbols of the U.S. government, you make yourself a target. Now some of you may think it's brave and noble to be a target to those who "dislike" our government, but the government seems to think that you taking unnecessary risks with a government asset (you) is irresponsible. Also, please stop to think that while you're making yourself a bigger target, you're also making the people around you a bigger target. That's also irresponsible.
There is NO need for you to travel in any uniform to any CAP activity. We aren't first responders and we don't jump into battle off of jetways. There just isn't a situation where you cannot take 15 minutes to change into a uniform once you arrive.
Look at it this way, your stupid ego may cost someone sitting next to you their life. That someone will be someone's mother/sister/daughter/father/son, etc.
Really? I have heard this same line since I was in the Army 15 years ago, and it makes just as little sense now as it did then.
Seriously, when was the last time that a member of the Armed Forces, or anyone else for that matter, targeted, hurt, or killed as a result of wearing their uniform on a US domestic flight?
That said, I try not to wear anything except shorts and t-shirts and sandals when travelling due to the security dance.
Quote from: cnitas on July 12, 2011, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on July 12, 2011, 05:26:33 PM
Just FYI about traveling in uniform. Basic ORM and OPSEC rules dictate over and over and over again that when you stick out, you make yourself a target. When you wear the symbols of the U.S. government, you make yourself a target. Now some of you may think it's brave and noble to be a target to those who "dislike" our government, but the government seems to think that you taking unnecessary risks with a government asset (you) is irresponsible. Also, please stop to think that while you're making yourself a bigger target, you're also making the people around you a bigger target. That's also irresponsible.
There is NO need for you to travel in any uniform to any CAP activity. We aren't first responders and we don't jump into battle off of jetways. There just isn't a situation where you cannot take 15 minutes to change into a uniform once you arrive.
Look at it this way, your stupid ego may cost someone sitting next to you their life. That someone will be someone's mother/sister/daughter/father/son, etc.
Really? I have heard this same line since I was in the Army 15 years ago, and it makes just as little sense now as it did then.
Seriously, when was the last time that a member of the Armed Forces, or anyone else for that matter, targeted, hurt, or killed as a result of wearing their uniform on a US domestic flight?
That said, I try not to wear anything except shorts and t-shirts and sandals when travelling due to the security dance.
Sandals??? You must not want to be able to survive the emergency evacuation. Going down the slide with just sandals to help stop you at the end sounds painful.
Although I have not been in a situation where I have to travel wearing my CAP uniform in an airport, I had to change clothing when attending other places and activities. For those of you that advocate changing into a uniform if going to a CAP activity that requires arrival in uniform. Where are you going to change? In an airport bathroom? If so, where are you placing your clothes/socks/etc? Most bathroom floors are dirty, and even those that appear to mop up floors are dirty with u@@@@. Do you think that walking on socks in that floor is healthy? Where are you hanging your pants? Public bathrooms usually do not have a place to hang or keep clothes temporarily while you change into another. And how do you get pants on without dragging the trousers through the floor? In short, I believe that if you are going to change after arrival is an unhealthy act. The only safe way is to rent a bedroom at a hotel.
Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2011, 06:42:26 PM
Sandals??? You must not want to be able to survive the emergency evacuation. Going down the slide with just sandals to help stop you at the end sounds painful.
Nah, I've got hobbit feet. Only with slightly less hair. :)
Quote from: cnitas on July 12, 2011, 08:13:56 PM
Nah, I've got hobbit feet. Only with slightly less hair. :)
:o
Quote from: cnitas on July 12, 2011, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on July 12, 2011, 05:26:33 PM
Just FYI about traveling in uniform. Basic ORM and OPSEC rules dictate over and over and over again that when you stick out, you make yourself a target. When you wear the symbols of the U.S. government, you make yourself a target. Now some of you may think it's brave and noble to be a target to those who "dislike" our government, but the government seems to think that you taking unnecessary risks with a government asset (you) is irresponsible. Also, please stop to think that while you're making yourself a bigger target, you're also making the people around you a bigger target. That's also irresponsible.
There is NO need for you to travel in any uniform to any CAP activity. We aren't first responders and we don't jump into battle off of jetways. There just isn't a situation where you cannot take 15 minutes to change into a uniform once you arrive.
Look at it this way, your stupid ego may cost someone sitting next to you their life. That someone will be someone's mother/sister/daughter/father/son, etc.
Really? I have heard this same line since I was in the Army 15 years ago, and it makes just as little sense now as it did then.
Seriously, when was the last time that a member of the Armed Forces, or anyone else for that matter, targeted, hurt, or killed as a result of wearing their uniform on a US domestic flight?
That said, I try not to wear anything except shorts and t-shirts and sandals when travelling due to the security dance.
There is a history of US military personnel being targeted by hijackers on commercial flights (US Navy specifically.) There is a history of targeting military personnel in uniform here in the States (Ft. Dix, Ft. Hood, etc.) There is a history of hijacking of domestic flights by persons targeting the U.S. government (9/11.)
You either just love to argue or can't add 2 and 2 together.
Okay.....
It is simple.
There is no real need to travel in uniform......but it is allowed.
OPSEC, Force Proctection, Anti-terrorism.......well we have all had those breifings....and we have had all heard the case studies.....but none of that applies or even matters.
If you want to, go ahead.
Quote from: afgeo4 on July 12, 2011, 05:26:33 PM
Just FYI about traveling in uniform. Basic ORM and OPSEC rules dictate over and over and over again that when you stick out, you make yourself a target. When you wear the symbols of the U.S. government, you make yourself a target. Now some of you may think it's brave and noble to be a target to those who "dislike" our government, but the government seems to think that you taking unnecessary risks with a government asset (you) is irresponsible. Also, please stop to think that while you're making yourself a bigger target, you're also making the people around you a bigger target. That's also irresponsible.
There is NO need for you to travel in any uniform to any CAP activity. We aren't first responders and we don't jump into battle off of jetways. There just isn't a situation where you cannot take 15 minutes to change into a uniform once you arrive.
Look at it this way, your stupid ego may cost someone sitting next to you their life. That someone will be someone's mother/sister/daughter/father/son, etc.
Although I don't see that there is much need for CAP members to fly in uniform, the very same logic would apply to members of the military. What is their need to be in uniform on the flight? If they're coming back from the war zone and actually don't have civilian clothes, then the uniform is the only option. But, otherwise the risk for them is no more than warranted for CAP members.
And how big a "risk" are we talking about? 1 in a billion or more? [what is it now, several million people a day fly on airlines? Multiply that at by how many years since a US service member was targeted on a flight]. If you want to consider that a serious risk, then the CAP members shouldn't be flying at all since the risk of the airplane crashing is much higher than being targeted by a terrorist.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 12:14:34 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on July 12, 2011, 05:26:33 PM
Just FYI about traveling in uniform. Basic ORM and OPSEC rules dictate over and over and over again that when you stick out, you make yourself a target. When you wear the symbols of the U.S. government, you make yourself a target. Now some of you may think it's brave and noble to be a target to those who "dislike" our government, but the government seems to think that you taking unnecessary risks with a government asset (you) is irresponsible. Also, please stop to think that while you're making yourself a bigger target, you're also making the people around you a bigger target. That's also irresponsible.
There is NO need for you to travel in any uniform to any CAP activity. We aren't first responders and we don't jump into battle off of jetways. There just isn't a situation where you cannot take 15 minutes to change into a uniform once you arrive.
Look at it this way, your stupid ego may cost someone sitting next to you their life. That someone will be someone's mother/sister/daughter/father/son, etc.
Although I don't see that there is much need for CAP members to fly in uniform, the very same logic would apply to members of the military. What is their need to be in uniform on the flight? If they're coming back from the war zone and actually don't have civilian clothes, then the uniform is the only option. But, otherwise the risk for them is no more than warranted for CAP members.
And how big a "risk" are we talking about? 1 in a billion or more? [what is it now, several million people a day fly on airlines? Multiply that at by how many years since a US service member was targeted on a flight]. If you want to consider that a serious risk, then the CAP members shouldn't be flying at all since the risk of the airplane crashing is much higher than being targeted by a terrorist.
You're absolutely correct. It makes no sense for a/d personnel to fly in uniform either although as I understand it, most branches now allow personnel to travel in uniform only to/from deployment AOR. Anyway, playing the odds is all fun and games until something actually does happen and then people will be saying, "I told you so" and they'll be right. I think this is a perfect example of ORM where the risk simply outweighs the benefit.
Nope.
AD are allowed and even encouraged to fly in unifrom....at least domestically. Uniforms to and from the AOR are required IIRC.
Playing the Odds games is exactly what you just said.
You said CAP members should not fly in uniform because of the chance of random terrorism could make them a target.
River responded...that by that logic CAP members should never fly because the chance of the plane falling from the sky is MUCH GREATER then the chance of a terrorist being on board and targeting a CAP member.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
OPSEC may come into play.....but not likely. Force Protection? Not at all.
Do a break down of all terrorist attacks anywhere......you are either specifically targeted...in which case you will need the secret service to keep you safe or you are victim of randome terrorism.....in which case your only safety lies with staying at home in your dorm room the whole time (and Kobar Towers and Beirut Barracks bombings prove that this is not all that safe).
In my 22 years in the Air force I have been attacked by terrorists four different times.
The my analysis of my survival has been that I was just lucky that day.
If we were overseas in a higher threat area....maybe your advice may work. But I don't see it as a big enough concern that we have to ban all travel in unifrom.
QuoteI think this is a perfect example of ORM where the risk simply outweighs the benefit.
Again, if you judge this risk to be significant, there is no CAP activity that is going to be safer. Driving in squadron vans is more dangerous. Flying in CAP planes is more dangerous. Driving to the meeting is more dangerous. The risk of a freak storm breaking out and destroying your hanger during a training exercise is higher (and actually has happened unlike what you are scared of).
All of those things have "benefits" that are just as hard to define as the risk. Who is to say that the public affairs benefits of walking around the airport in CAP uniform are any less than the AE benefits of doing an o-ride in a CAP airplane? While we can't really define the benefits of almost any CAP activity, we can define the risks based on history and statistics and the "risk" of being targeted for terrorist attack on a commercial airline flight for wearing a CAP uniform is absolutely 0 based on history. The risk of being injured or killed in other CAP activities are higher.
Just an example of ORM being used as a cover to justify prohibiting something that someone doesn't want to happen for other reasons (which may be reasonable, but aren't being expressed).
River, going by your reasoning one could conclude that the main cause for death is life and of course I can't argue with that. It's true. Anything that's alive could and does die. Sigh...
What makes us more intelligent is risk management. No, it's not hard to define risk and it's not hard to define the benefits. Stop for a minute, think about it, and once you have a good idea of both, weight them. Then do so every time your operation changes significantly. In the Coast Guard we call that a GAR (Green/Amber/Red) Assessment. We think about the mission and whether the risks outweigh the benefits. The rule of thumb is that if there is a REAL (vs. perceived) risk to life and it can avoided while still completing the mission, ALWAYS do so. If there is no way to complete the mission without the risk, weigh it out.
Whether it's crossing a street or traveling by van or flying commercial in uniform, think whether there's a way to eliminate the risk without endangering the mission itself. If there is, DO IT! If there isn't, figure out if the mission is really worth the risk. You're right that traveling in uniform is a small risk. However, it is a completely unnecessary risk. Traveling out of uniform would accomplish the same exact task, so why take the extra risk when you don't need to? It ain't the same as going on a SAR mission, sorry. It's not even the same as driving a CAP van on a field trip.
^+1
As my former Legal Officer was fond of saying.
"Better to set the example than be the example."
Since traveling in uniform serves no mission purpose, affords no protection or other benefits to members, and is mostly counterproductive, there's no point in it.
Quote from: afgeo4 on July 14, 2011, 08:39:18 PM
River, going by your reasoning one could conclude that the main cause for death is life and of course I can't argue with that. It's true. Anything that's alive could and does die. Sigh...
What makes us more intelligent is risk management. No, it's not hard to define risk and it's not hard to define the benefits. Stop for a minute, think about it, and once you have a good idea of both, weight them. Then do so every time your operation changes significantly. In the Coast Guard we call that a GAR (Green/Amber/Red) Assessment. We think about the mission and whether the risks outweigh the benefits. The rule of thumb is that if there is a REAL (vs. perceived) risk to life and it can avoided while still completing the mission, ALWAYS do so. If there is no way to complete the mission without the risk, weigh it out.
Whether it's crossing a street or traveling by van or flying commercial in uniform, think whether there's a way to eliminate the risk without endangering the mission itself. If there is, DO IT! If there isn't, figure out if the mission is really worth the risk. You're right that traveling in uniform is a small risk. However, it is a completely unnecessary risk. Traveling out of uniform would accomplish the same exact task, so why take the extra risk when you don't need to? It ain't the same as going on a SAR mission, sorry. It's not even the same as driving a CAP van on a field trip.
Okay....I agree with you...it make sense in the absolutes to do everything that reduces all possible risks.
But......it also makes sense that you have address the likeliness of a risk (which is part of ORM) and see if that risk needs to addressed.
Even if the action has no cost......there is no need to FORCE people to do that action.
You say no one should ever wear the uniform on commercial air liners because of the risk of terrorism.
I say no one should ever fly on a commercial air liner because of the higher risk of a crash.
So......who is right? We can play the "what if game" and say....we need to implement any and all "no-cost" or "Low-cost" mitigation efforts no matter how likely the risk.........You will never get off the ground as you go through that matrix.
You know, airshows would make a very tempting target for terrorists and since CAP members are often in uniform at those events, they just might make a great target for the guy in the suicide vest. So, we better not do airshows anymore.
That is absolutely just as absurd as saying that a CAP member in uniform on a commercial flight poses an unacceptable safety risk.
QuoteSince traveling in uniform serves no mission purpose, affords no protection or other benefits to members, and is mostly counterproductive, there's no point in it.
All points I agree with, but trying to justify this position based on ORM is just a misuse of that concept to try to give the illusion of an objective rather than subjective reason for this to not happen.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 14, 2011, 08:50:00 PMSince traveling in uniform serves no mission purpose, affords no protection or other benefits to members, and is mostly counterproductive, there's no point in it.
It does serve a purpose.
1) It identifies you as a member of CAP.
2) It is a walking talking advertisement.
3) It brings pride and warm fuzzies to the member who wants to wear his uniform.
Counter Productive? In what way?
If the mission is to get to the acitivty.......using a fair balance of "what if's" in what possible universe will that mission fail or be degraded by the wear of the CAP uniform?
And don't give me delays at the TSA counter.
I wore my fulls blues on AD Travel several times (did not want to...had to...special circumstances) and got jerked for extra pat downs....only added 10 minutes to my trip.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 09:52:44 PM
1) It identifies you as a member of CAP.
Unnecessary and as mentioned increases risk (slightly). No one in that airport needs to know, for any reason you are in CAP. The airlines
don't give you travel or baggage discounts, nor can you use the USO facilities. There are also those crazies who will choose to engage in a "baby killer", "GWB is satan", etc., discussions which no one wins, especially a cadet In this day and age, the goal should be to get through the airport as quickly and discreetly as possible, while calling no attention to yourself whatsoever.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 09:52:44 PM
2) It is a walking talking advertisement.
See above.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 09:52:44 PM
3) It brings pride and warm fuzzies to the member who wants to wear his uniform.
I am as proud of my uniform as anyone else. Wearing it in performance of my duties warms my cockles and energizes my pride circuit. Wearing it when unnecessary is borderline "affintyism
®", especially in an environment like an airport where you are bound to draw attention and likely to get special privileges based on the uniform.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 09:52:44 PMCounter Productive? In what way?
The uniform you wear on any flight is going to look like rolled poop by the time you get to your destination, defeating any misguided notion
about "reporting in uniform".
Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 09:52:44 PM
If the mission is to get to the activity...
CAP specifically excludes, by regulation, transport to or from activities and missions, so "getting there" is
never the mission.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 09:52:44 PM
I wore my fulls blues on AD Travel several times
A) You were Active duty.
B) As someone on AD, you're entitled to the attention and any privilege that might come your way.
C) What people on AD do, or for the PTA or CERT is irrelevant to what CAP does.
How about this?
If the Federal Government, or any related agency is paying for the flight, you wear your uniform, because you are on the USAF's dime, and should represent that to the taxpayers you pass in line. That would include any mission where you're signed in and moving on the mission clock, and situations
like taking a CDC class. In those cases you are serving those taxpayers, unpaid, and deserve a handshake or a bump in flight class, since the vacation pay or billable hours you gave up probably at least equal the pay of the average serviceman.
If you are paying for your own ticket, whether directly or through participation fees, you wear civilian clothes or at most logowear.
Warm up the flux capacitor....
Gee, it would be really interesting to go back in time and ask that guy why in the world he was wearing his blues that day ??? , and see what he thinks about being the subject of 6+ pages of give and take on CT. :o
Keep in mind that we are talking about flying for CAP-related purposes. The key question about whether the uniform is appropriate or not is whether you are being considered on CAP duty or not. If yes, then you should be in uniform. If not, then no.
So, if that airplane crashed while you were on it flying to some CAP event, would you be covered under the various CAP-related death benefits? If yes, then the uniform should be worn no matter the member's preference in the matter.
Probably a question for the legal folks.
If ORM is an issue, members should be required to wear helmets when they fly and drive in CAP vehicles. Parachutes should also be a requirement when flying as well. Ground team members should be issued bullet resistant vests when doing ground team operations and be armed because you might accidentally walk into some druggies backwoods stash. Better yet, you should never wear a uniform ever because the there's a chance you will be targeted specifically by a terrorist or mistaken as a cop and shot. Actually I think we've had discussions on all these topics before.
Like the regulation or not, it's allowed, is if you don't want to do it, then don't, for members that do, then do it right and proudly.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 14, 2011, 11:25:47 PMSo, if that airplane crashed while you were on it flying to some CAP event, would you be covered under the various CAP-related death benefits?
No. The regs are clear on transportation to and from activities.
I travel by car an hour and a half to cap meetings in the UOD..
Long story short I go in gas station who want to give me discounts and etc.
I feel the proper thing to do is politely refuse them
I highly doubt that the vast majority of senior "adult" members, wear their CAP blue uniforms (or any CAP uniform for that matter) while flying on commercial aircraft.
Frankly it's very dubious those adults that are wearing their CAP uniforms (especially the AF type uniforms), really have an interest in representing Civil Air Patrol, but instead our trolling for special favors due to confusion by airline personnel. >:(
I personally think the regulation needs to be tightened up a bit on this, to specifically state that normally the CAP uniform will NOT be worn when flying on commercial aircraft, unless an activity terminates and there's no time to change to meet the airline departure schedule. This should be a rare instance.
Folks, there's a reason the rule was put in place about not wearing a CAP uniform more than one hour after (and should also be added BEFORE start of) a CAP meeting/activity (terminates) and the travel loophole needs to be further defined as to authorized stops.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AMFolks, there's a reason the rule was put in place about not wearing a CAP uniform more than one hour after (and should also be added BEFORE start of) a CAP meeting/activity (terminates) and the travel loophole needs to be further defined as to authorized stops.
And that would be?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2011, 12:39:09 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 14, 2011, 11:25:47 PMSo, if that airplane crashed while you were on it flying to some CAP event, would you be covered under the various CAP-related death benefits?
No. The regs are clear on transportation to and from activities.
Yes, in regards to liability when using member-owned vehicles (CAPR 900(10)(b). That clearly states that traveling to and from CAP activities such as conferences in member-owned vehicles isn't considered part of "CAP official travel."
However, travel to and from AF-assigned missions is clearly covered for FECA medical and death benefits. So, if you're flying commercial to a AF-assigned mission (possible, but probably very rare) you must be on CAP duty or you wouldn't be eligible and therefore uniforms would be required.
However, the language for insurance related to CAP corporate activities is limited to "during" the activity. So, travel to a NCSA, for example, probably wouldn't be covered, though that may be able to be challenged in court since wear of the uniform for such activity is expressly allowed and one could argue that you therefore must be on CAP duty. Iffy, but thats what courts are for.
It would be nice if CAP had some specific language somewhere about what constitutes being on CAP duty.
Quote from: Daniel L on July 15, 2011, 12:51:24 AM
I travel by car an hour and a half to cap meetings in the UOD..
Long story short I go in gas station who want to give me discounts and etc.
I feel the proper thing to do is politely refuse them
Similar thing happens to me every time I shop at my local army navy store. Same story no matter what: I buy often copious quantities of only USAF uniform items, the person asks me if I'm on AD, I say I'm CAP, thy ask me for my ID so they can give me the 10% discount. I always refuse. I feel that to accept the discount would be wrong, and a violation of my integrity. I always feel that to accept the discount is taking advantagE of the clerk's lack of knowledge what CAP is. But like Daniel L said- you
must be polite about refusing. They're going out of their way to help you out.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
Frankly it's very dubious those adults that are wearing their CAP uniforms (especially the AF type uniforms), really have an interest in representing Civil Air Patrol, but instead our trolling for special favors due to confusion by airline personnel. >:(
RM
Your assumption is not always the case.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 15, 2011, 02:22:27 AMNo. The regs are clear on transportation to and from activities.
Yes, in regards to liability when using member-owned vehicles (CAPR 900(10)(b). That clearly states that traveling to and from CAP activities such as conferences in member-owned vehicles isn't considered part of "CAP official travel." [/quote]
To and from missions? I don't think that is clear at all. If you're signed in to the mission, maybe, and my wing has started assigning transport sorties
to ease the 108 issues and answer the question definitively, but I don't see where jumping in your car to get to the mission base is any different than any other CAP activity, until you are signed in.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 15, 2011, 02:22:27 AM
It would be nice if CAP had some specific language somewhere about what constitutes being on CAP duty.
Agreed.
They don't like to be specific, Bob. If they like what you did, you're a great leader showing initiative and boldness. If they don't, they say you violated the reg and hang you out to dry. They don't like to be pinned down.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
To and from missions? I don't think that is clear at all. If you're signed in to the mission, maybe, and my wing has started assigning transport sorties
to ease the 108 issues and answer the question definitively, but I don't see where jumping in your car to get to the mission base is any different than any other CAP activity, until you are signed in.
Its actually crystal clear. CAPR900(13)
Quote13. FECA Coverage For CAP Members. FECA is the Workmen's Compensation Program for federal workers. By special law (5 USC 8141), FECA is made applicable to CAP seniors and cadets 18 and older while serving on Air Force-assigned missions, including travel to and from.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AMFolks, there's a reason the rule was put in place about not wearing a CAP uniform more than one hour after (and should also be added BEFORE start of) a CAP meeting/activity (terminates) and the travel loophole needs to be further defined as to authorized stops.
RM
Go back and read the rule. :)
Quote from: CAPM39-1 Table 1-1may wear service dress uniform or light blue, short or long sleeve shirt/blouse with tie/tab and the all-weather coat, overcoat, and raincoat when traveling by commercial means (other than to and from local CAP activities) (see note 2).
Quote from: RiverAux on July 15, 2011, 03:21:07 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
To and from missions? I don't think that is clear at all. If you're signed in to the mission, maybe, and my wing has started assigning transport sorties
to ease the 108 issues and answer the question definitively, but I don't see where jumping in your car to get to the mission base is any different than any other CAP activity, until you are signed in.
Its actually crystal clear. CAPR900(13)
Quote13. FECA Coverage For CAP Members. FECA is the Workmen's Compensation Program for federal workers. By special law (5 USC 8141), FECA is made applicable to CAP seniors and cadets 18 and older while serving on Air Force-assigned missions, including travel to and from.
1/2 credit for being mostly correct, but it is not as clear as that. Coverage is only afforded to activities incidental to the mission, and per the AFAM pamphlet, travel to and from home or periodically during the mission may, in fact, not be covered.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/FECA_BROCHURE_A681B147556FA.pdf (Another bad logo, and a poor job formatting the .pdf).
Quote from: titanII on July 15, 2011, 02:40:39 AMSimilar thing happens to me every time I shop at my local army navy store. Same story no matter what: I buy often copious quantities of only USAF uniform items, the person asks me if I'm on AD, I say I'm CAP, thy ask me for my ID so they can give me the 10% discount. I always refuse. I feel that to accept the discount would be wrong, and a violation of my integrity. I always feel that to accept the discount is taking advantagE of the clerk's lack of knowledge what CAP is. But like Daniel L said- you must be polite about refusing. They're going out of their way to help you out.
If the vendor knows exactly what CAP is, it's not an integrity issue. If they don't, then it would be. I know a couple places that know exactly what CAP is, and essentially offers CAP discounts that are at the same rate as military.
Personally, I don't ask for them. If it's offered(which almost never happens) and the vendor knows what CAP is, I'll accept. But if it's not, I don't ask.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 15, 2011, 03:32:06 PM
If the vendor knows exactly what CAP is, it's not an integrity issue. If they don't, then it would be. I know a couple places that know exactly what CAP is, and essentially offers CAP discounts that are at the same rate as military.
Personally, I don't ask for them. If it's offered(which almost never happens) and the vendor knows what CAP is, I'll accept. But if it's not, I don't ask.
To ask for it just feels wrong to me, no matter the "rules".
Quote from: titanII on July 15, 2011, 03:38:38 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 15, 2011, 03:32:06 PM
If the vendor knows exactly what CAP is, it's not an integrity issue. If they don't, then it would be. I know a couple places that know exactly what CAP is, and essentially offers CAP discounts that are at the same rate as military.
Personally, I don't ask for them. If it's offered(which almost never happens) and the vendor knows what CAP is, I'll accept. But if it's not, I don't ask.
To ask for it just feels wrong to me, no matter the "rules".
I agree. Asking just seems in poor taste to me, but that's just my viewpoint.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 15, 2011, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: titanII on July 15, 2011, 03:38:38 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 15, 2011, 03:32:06 PM
If the vendor knows exactly what CAP is, it's not an integrity issue. If they don't, then it would be. I know a couple places that know exactly what CAP is, and essentially offers CAP discounts that are at the same rate as military.
Personally, I don't ask for them. If it's offered(which almost never happens) and the vendor knows what CAP is, I'll accept. But if it's not, I don't ask.
To ask for it just feels wrong to me, no matter the "rules".
I agree. Asking just seems in poor taste to me, but that's just my viewpoint.
A viewpoint that we share. Accepting the discount feel like I'm abusing a privilege meant for AD military- which I am not.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 15, 2011, 03:21:07 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
To and from missions? I don't think that is clear at all. If you're signed in to the mission, maybe, and my wing has started assigning transport sorties
to ease the 108 issues and answer the question definitively, but I don't see where jumping in your car to get to the mission base is any different than any other CAP activity, until you are signed in.
Its actually crystal clear. CAPR900(13)
Quote13. FECA Coverage For CAP Members. FECA is the Workmen's Compensation Program for federal workers. By special law (5 USC 8141), FECA is made applicable to CAP seniors and cadets 18 and older while serving on Air Force-assigned missions, including travel to and from.
1/2 credit for being mostly correct, but it is not as clear as that. Coverage is only afforded to activities incidental to the mission, and per the AFAM pamphlet, travel to and from home or periodically during the mission may, in fact, not be covered.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/FECA_BROCHURE_A681B147556FA.pdf (Another bad logo, and a poor job formatting the .pdf).
That pamphlet says in multiple locations that travel to and from AFAMs is covered as well as one statement saying that it MAY not be covered. Seems to me that either the regulation, pamphlet, or both needs some serious re-considering.
But, in the context of this discussion, if you're flying commercial to an AFAM, it seems pretty clear that it would be covered.
I'm going to inject some on-topic common sense.
If you're going to wear blues through the airport, to include the metal detectors, do NOT wear shirt-stays unless you'd like to be subject to the myriad "alternate search techniques" the TSA can provide.
I did this on a CAP trip (where the entire event was about the flight itself, so we HAD to wear our blues) and the shirt stays are metal that sets off the detector. Nothing else will. Not your ribbon holder, rank, or anything else.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 07:16:40 PM
AD are allowed and even encouraged to fly in unifrom....at least domestically. Uniforms to and from the AOR are required IIRC.
Domestically I don't know, but for AD internationally uniforms are essentially forbidden unless on a contract or AMC flight:
E. UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS
USCENTCOM dress requirements for all travel to or from the USCENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) except the R&R leave travel discussed below under I.E.2.
Individuals or small groups traveling on commercial air or rotator flights must wear civilian clothing.
Groups or units authorized to travel in prescribed uniforms must carry appropriate conservative civilian clothing for use during extended transit delays at commercial airports.
Aircrew may wear flight suits provided they do not depart the installation or the terminal area of a commercial airport.
USCENTCOM dress requirements for R&R leave travel to or from the USCENTCOM AOR.
Troops departing from or arriving in the AOR on contract R&R leave flights must wear desert battle dress uniforms (DBDUs). Those departing the AOR may change into civilian attire once they reach the first aerial port of debarkation (APOD) outside the AOR, whether in CONUS or outside CONUS.
Troops departing from or arriving in the AOR on commercial air must wear appropriate civilian attire. Uniforms are not authorized for R&R leave travel on commercial air originating from the AOR.
EUCOM says the same:
E. UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS
All personnel (to include those on leave) arriving to or traveling within the USEUCOM AOR via commercial means will wear civilian clothing that does not readily convey affiliation with DoD.
Military personnel traveling via military/military contract transportation will wear the uniform prescribed in their deployment or travel orders. Commanders will ensure personnel have access to civilian clothing in order to reduce their signature in the event it becomes necessary to stage at the civilian side of an airport.
Personnel will take steps to limit wearing and carrying items that display a distinct DoD or US signature, and should wear appropriate civilian clothing that blends into the local environment when outside installations and bases. Personnel will wear civilian clothing when not on duty.
PACOM breaks it down by country, for example Thailand:
E. UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS
Perceptions of US military presence in Thailand should be minimized as much as possible. Therefore, do not wear uniforms off base.
Yes, when in Thailand, don't wear dress blues to the "fish bowl". ::)
Quote from: AirDX on July 15, 2011, 11:27:01 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 07:16:40 PM
AD are allowed and even encouraged to fly in unifrom....at least domestically. Uniforms to and from the AOR are required IIRC.
Domestically I don't know, but for AD internationally uniforms are essentially forbidden unless on a contract or AMC flight:
E. UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS
USCENTCOM dress requirements for all travel to or from the USCENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) except the R&R leave travel discussed below under I.E.2.
Individuals or small groups traveling on commercial air or rotator flights must wear civilian clothing.
Groups or units authorized to travel in prescribed uniforms must carry appropriate conservative civilian clothing for use during extended transit delays at commercial airports.
Aircrew may wear flight suits provided they do not depart the installation or the terminal area of a commercial airport.
USCENTCOM dress requirements for R&R leave travel to or from the USCENTCOM AOR.
Troops departing from or arriving in the AOR on contract R&R leave flights must wear desert battle dress uniforms (DBDUs). Those departing the AOR may change into civilian attire once they reach the first aerial port of debarkation (APOD) outside the AOR, whether in CONUS or outside CONUS.
Troops departing from or arriving in the AOR on commercial air must wear appropriate civilian attire. Uniforms are not authorized for R&R leave travel on commercial air originating from the AOR.
EUCOM says the same:
E. UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS
All personnel (to include those on leave) arriving to or traveling within the USEUCOM AOR via commercial means will wear civilian clothing that does not readily convey affiliation with DoD.
Military personnel traveling via military/military contract transportation will wear the uniform prescribed in their deployment or travel orders. Commanders will ensure personnel have access to civilian clothing in order to reduce their signature in the event it becomes necessary to stage at the civilian side of an airport.
Personnel will take steps to limit wearing and carrying items that display a distinct DoD or US signature, and should wear appropriate civilian clothing that blends into the local environment when outside installations and bases. Personnel will wear civilian clothing when not on duty.
PACOM breaks it down by country, for example Thailand:
E. UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS
Perceptions of US military presence in Thailand should be minimized as much as possible. Therefore, do not wear uniforms off base.
That text is from the 90's (DBDU=Desert Storm Uniform). Is there a updated version out?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
I highly doubt that the vast majority of senior "adult" members, wear their CAP blue uniforms (or any CAP uniform for that matter) while flying on commercial aircraft.
Statistics?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
Frankly it's very dubious those adults that are wearing their CAP uniforms (especially the AF type uniforms), really have an interest in representing Civil Air Patrol, but instead our trolling for special favors due to confusion by airline personnel. >:(
First, you assume too much, and you know what the breakdown of the word
assume is. You cannot, and do not know, what is in the mind and heart of every CAP member, and that includes the ones who wear the AF type uniform. In a large airport, a CAP uniform would be one uniform among many. I haven't yet been in a major airport, especially since 9/11, that
wasn't filled with various uniformed service personnel going to and from destinations.
Second, I believe your oft-stated overzealous desire to get CAP out of any Air Force-related uniforms and into polos, grey slacks and scarlet-letter red nameplates clouds your judgement where uniform issues are concerned.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
I personally think the regulation needs to be tightened up a bit on this, to specifically state that normally the CAP uniform will NOT be worn when flying on commercial aircraft, unless an activity terminates and there's no time to change to meet the airline departure schedule. This should be a rare instance.
What would your rationale be for wanting such a regulation implemented, other than your dislike for the uniform?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
Folks, there's a reason the rule was put in place about not wearing a CAP uniform more than one hour after (and should also be added BEFORE start of) a CAP meeting/activity (terminates) and the travel loophole needs to be further defined as to authorized stops.
RM
Which I have found, after almost 18 years in CAP, to be a completely illogical and unenforceable "rule."
I drive 40 minutes one way to/from my Squadron location. What if the car's low on gas? About 10 minutes to fill up,
kein Problem. Back into the car, onto the freeway...oops, that burrito I ate earlier today is starting to call me names...pull over to thank-God-conveniently-placed rest area to conduct necessary business, about 10 more minutes...OH CRIPES I'M OVER THE 60-MINUTE LIMIT! Red 39-1 neon light and air raid siren kick in to let the entire human race know what a sorry excuse for a waste of human flesh I am (not to mention faithless CAP officer).
(cue Klingon Discommendation ritual from "Star Trek")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYJmFOxNew0&feature=related
I have found that what the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law in this case means is don't go hanging around your local bar and grill on your way home from a CAP function.
Quote from: Littleguy on July 16, 2011, 05:15:05 AM
That text is from the 90's (DBDU=Desert Storm Uniform). Is there a updated version out?
That's from the current version of the Electronic Foreign Clearance Guide: https://www.fcg.pentagon.mil/
Login or CAC required.
It can also be said that cadets driving 6 or 7 hours to get to an encampment violate the one hour rule since they must be in uniform to check in. In attending a Southeast Region Commanders Call, I travelled in uniform on commercial airline. The reason being I was required to be in unifoprm to check into BOQ, and transportation from Montgomery's commercial airport to Maxwell required AF transportation in uniform. Doubt that rule still applies. Did I wear the uniform to get a discount of some kind? No. It was easier to travel in uniform than to attempt to unpack one from luggage in the mens room and change. (and miss the AF shuttle).
Quote from: BillB on July 16, 2011, 10:49:01 AM
It can also be said that cadets driving 6 or 7 hours to get to an encampment violate the one hour rule since they must be in uniform to check in. In attending a Southeast Region Commanders Call, I travelled in uniform on commercial airline. The reason being I was required to be in unifoprm to check into BOQ, and transportation from Montgomery's commercial airport to Maxwell required AF transportation in uniform. Doubt that rule still applies. Did I wear the uniform to get a discount of some kind? No. It was easier to travel in uniform than to attempt to unpack one from luggage in the mens room and change. (and miss the AF shuttle).
There's no requirement to be in uniform to check into the BOQ or to be transported by AF ground transportation BUT you must have the appropriate (or pre coordinated) written authorization. Not sure where that regulatory guidance came from.
RM
Quote from: BillB on July 16, 2011, 10:49:01 AM
It can also be said that cadets driving 6 or 7 hours to get to an encampment violate the one hour rule since they must be in uniform to check in. In attending a Southeast Region Commanders Call, I travelled in uniform on commercial airline. The reason being I was required to be in unifoprm to check into BOQ, and transportation from Montgomery's commercial airport to Maxwell required AF transportation in uniform. Doubt that rule still applies. Did I wear the uniform to get a discount of some kind? No. It was easier to travel in uniform than to attempt to unpack one from luggage in the mens room and change. (and miss the AF shuttle).
We require cadets report in uniform to encampment as well, mainly because the vast majority are commuting by car less than 4 hours and we'd prefer they didn't even bring civvies, but it's not like we wouldn't let them in if they had to go and change once they were assigned a rack.
As to the BOQ's, I've used USAF and Navy facilities and there was never any issue with checking in, or using them, in civilian clothes. Either you've authorized to utilize the facility or you aren't. CAP is almost always Space-A. Some bases require an MSA or advance approval, some do not.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 16, 2011, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
I highly doubt that the vast majority of senior "adult" members, wear their CAP blue uniforms (or any CAP uniform for that matter) while flying on commercial aircraft.
Statistics?
In many years of flying scheduled airline flights, I've never seen a CAP member in uniform. Hey maybe things have changed, I'll asked ALL our folks at my workplace to be on the lookout for. Perhaps there's a non CAP forum I can also ask them to look for CAP members flying in uniform. I would think the Louisville KY National Board/Conference would be the best place to station someone at the airport to see how many members fly in on a scheduled airliner in CAP uniform. Perhaps more will fly out in uniform because of the inability to change and make the scheduled flight ???
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
Frankly it's very dubious those adults that are wearing their CAP uniforms (especially the AF type uniforms), really have an interest in representing Civil Air Patrol, but instead our trolling for special favors due to confusion by airline personnel. >:(
First, you assume too much, and you know what the breakdown of the word assume is. You cannot, and do not know, what is in the mind and heart of every CAP member, and that includes the ones who wear the AF type uniform. In a large airport, a CAP uniform would be one uniform among many. I haven't yet been in a major airport, especially since 9/11, that wasn't filled with various uniformed service personnel going to and from destinations.
That would be a rare instance of a member flying in uniform, not a common instance. Again it gets down to better regulatory guidance on this matter. It also involves self policing and other agencies such as the USO, taking the initiative to reporting members that attempt to get services they are NOT entitled to. Remember that in any code of conduct that perceptions are very important also and even though not an actual violation, can cause an organization problems.
Second, I believe your oft-stated overzealous desire to get CAP out of any Air Force-related uniforms and into polos, grey slacks and scarlet-letter red nameplates clouds your judgement where uniform issues are concerned.
I have no burning desire to see ANY changes in uniforms, because of the cost to the membership, many are struggling as it is to make ends meet and still dedicate significant time to the program. Personally I'd hold off on any mandatory uniform changes for at least 3 years, with a phase out period of at least 2 years
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
I personally think the regulation needs to be tightened up a bit on this, to specifically state that normally the CAP uniform will NOT be worn when flying on commercial aircraft, unless an activity terminates and there's no time to change to meet the airline departure schedule. This should be a rare instance.
What would your rationale be for wanting such a regulation implemented, other than your dislike for the uniform?
I'd like to point out that the regulation general chapter 1 & table of wear pertains to ALL CAP uniforms not just the AF style uniform
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
Folks, there's a reason the rule was put in place about not wearing a CAP uniform more than one hour after (and should also be added BEFORE start of) a CAP meeting/activity (terminates) and the travel loophole needs to be further defined as to authorized stops.
RM
Which I have found, after almost 18 years in CAP, to be a completely illogical and unenforceable "rule."
I drive 40 minutes one way to/from my Squadron location. What if the car's low on gas? About 10 minutes to fill up, kein Problem. Back into the car, onto the freeway...oops, that burrito I ate earlier today is starting to call me names...pull over to thank-God-conveniently-placed rest area to conduct necessary business, about 10 more minutes...OH CRIPES I'M OVER THE 60-MINUTE LIMIT! Red 39-1 neon light and air raid siren kick in to let the entire human race know what a sorry excuse for a waste of human flesh I am (not to mention faithless CAP officer).
I have found that what the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law in this case means is don't go hanging around your local bar and grill on your way home from a CAP function.
As I've stated before there is a reason why CAP is restricting the time for uniform wear, IF it takes you longer to get home, than of course the regulation should (and does) allow for this as well as define what is a "necessary" stop. BTW hanging around at the local coffee shop after the meeting in uniform also is a violation of the regulation.
RM
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 06, 2011, 11:12:14 PM
Quote from: Fubar on June 24, 2011, 05:29:32 AM
Quote from: nesagsar on June 24, 2011, 12:16:58 AMMembers are usually encouraged to wear a uniform (usually blues with the lightweight blue jacket) when on travel to or from CAP activities.
Encouraged? Must be a local thing, because it's not encouraged around here. Even the cadets have been traveling in civvies as ordered by the NCSAs they are attending.
Its the same here.
Most NCSA's encourage you NOT to travel in uniform. I've been to one that did, simply as a visability thing, it helps the CAP people at the Airport picking you up to find you. But most activities Ive been to say its a big no no.
I've always worn a CAP t-shirt when going to NCSAs. I get to be comfy on the plane and not draw undue attention, but I am identifiable as a CAP member.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
As I've stated before there is a reason why CAP is restricting the time for uniform wear
Yes, you've stated that several times, however you have failed to actually provide that reason.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
BTW. hanging around at the local coffee shop after the meeting in uniform also is a violation of the regulation.
100% false.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
BTW hanging around at the local coffee shop after the meeting in uniform also is a violation of the regulation.
ME: Hey SM Bagodoughnuts, I'm sorry that I didn't have a chance to meet with you tonight about getting started on Level II and your thoughts on what you might want to do for a specialty/duty position. Why don't we go grab a cup of coffee at Starshmucks and we can chat about it?
I'm "hanging around" the coffee shop after the meeting, but I'm performing CAP business. I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more reasons. But we're really good at blanket statements here on CT, and in all fairness we all do it.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
I'll asked ALL our folks at my workplace to be on the lookout for. Perhaps there's a non CAP forum I can also ask them to look for CAP members flying in uniform.
Unless you're trying to be humorous/ironic...which is possible since such things don't come through too well on the net...I don't get it. What's your angle on that?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
Again it gets down to better regulatory guidance on this matter. It also involves self policing and other agencies such as the USO, taking the initiative to reporting members that attempt to get services they are NOT entitled to. Remember that in any code of conduct that perceptions are very important also and even though not an actual violation, can cause an organization problems.
I know that, and I know that perceptions can often be very
wrong, as in a case when I was mistaken on a quick shop-stop on the way home from a CAP function in the AF-type uniform for a store security guard.
You talk as if CAP members trying to get "services" from places like the USO is an everyday occurrence. Personally, I've never heard of a CAP member doing such a bloody stupid thing. I've never seen a CAP member
in a USO facility, and I've seen quite a few of those in several airports. I'm not saying it doesn't happen; just that I've never seen it.
Who would the USO report such a scofflaw to? The local AF base or recruiter? The AF is so
disinterested in us for the most part (except where uniforms are concerned! ::)) that unless the "reporter" happened to talk to an officer, senior NCO or Airman with kids that are CAP Cadets, they wouldn't know what the "reporter" was referring to without researching it!
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
I have no burning desire to see ANY changes in uniforms, because of the cost to the membership, many are struggling as it is to make ends meet and still dedicate significant time to the program. Personally I'd hold off on any mandatory uniform changes for at least 3 years, with a phase out period of at least 2 years.
I'll take your word for it, but it doesn't square with other comments you've made on CT.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
I'd like to point out that the regulation general chapter 1 & table of wear pertains to ALL CAP uniforms not just the AF style uniform.
Again, what would your rationale be for altering the regs so drastically (contradicting above paragraph about "mandatory uniform changes")? Such a statement comes off like we (CAP members) are naughty children who cannot be trusted to wear the uniform without close supervision (by who?)?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
As I've stated before there is a reason why CAP is restricting the time for uniform wear, IF it takes you longer to get home, than of course the regulation should (and does) allow for this as well as define what is a "necessary" stop. BTW hanging around at the local coffee shop after the meeting in uniform also is a violation of the regulation.
And just what criteria will be used to define a "necessary" stop? Who will define it? The odds of the august personages of NB and BoG actually
agreeing on hard-and-fast definitions for that...I'd have a better chance at the lottery, and I don't play the lottery.
WRT the "coffee shop"...several years ago I was on an aircrew training exercise. We went on break to a Denny's...about 15 of us, all wearing the sage-green flight suit, including some very senior lieutenant colonels.
Our cadets sometimes stop at Burger King, McDonald's, etc. on the way home from unit assemblies. Our officers occasionally have a quick bite to eat together after. I usually don't because my long drive makes it late when I get home anyway.
There is already a heck of a lot of resentment among many sectors of CAP members (many of whom I know personally, others who have stated so here on CT) over the way uniform issues have been (mis)handled, most notably (but not exclusively) the CSU...why stoke it any further?
Quote from: CyBorg on July 17, 2011, 02:02:37 AM
You talk as if CAP members trying to get "services" from places like the USO is an everyday occurrence. Personally, I've never heard of a CAP member doing such a bloody stupid thing. I've never seen a CAP member in a USO facility, and I've seen quite a few of those in several airports. I'm not saying it doesn't happen; just that I've never seen it.
Who would the USO report such a scofflaw to?
As someone who has spent quite a lot of time at the USO for many hundreds of hours for several years now, I can say this doesn't happen often. Most often, if a member does appear, it's because they were admitted to another facility (specifically authorized) and wanted to know if they could be elsewhere too. I've only ever seen
one CAP member who likes to try getting into USO facilities on a CAP ID card and argues about it.
Most likely, it would be reported to nobody. The USO is BUSY and there are A LOT of people of various descriptions who try gaining access to the USO - airline pilots, Coast Guard Auxiliary, PHS, NOAA Commissioned Corps, liars, contractors, diplomats, people with totally random veterans organizations' ID cards, TSA, federal personnel travel on non-military official business, the second cousin of someone who adopted a puppy born of a dog owned by a retired Army Sgt Major (that said,
active duty dogs are authorized)...
Plus, the PHS people are FAR more irritating. Just saying.
Quote from: JC004 on July 17, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
PHS, NOAA Commissioned Corps...Plus, the PHS people are FAR more irritating. Just saying.
Wouldn't these two uniformed services be able to legitimately access USO?
USPHS provides medical services for the Coast Guard, and when a USPHS officer is seconded to the USCG, they are under the UCMJ.
NOAA Commissioned Corps can be put under military jurisdiction...it doesn't happen a lot, but the provision is there.
I certainly wouldn't try to access USO facilities on a CAP ID card...however, I
have thought of seeing if there's anything I can do for them toward my Community Service Ribbon - I'd like to use that volunteer time to benefit the troops somehow.
I would also certainly think that USO personnel are on the mark enough that if someone in CAP uniform would walk into a USO facility, and start trying to access USO services, they'd be put in their place quite quickly.
I have attended many Encampments in my home state which required a three hour flight. With my checked bag, garment bag, and carry-on, I had no room left for my blues, so I wore the entire "Class A" uniform on the plane. I was glad I was allowed to wear it, or I don't know how I would have brought it, and it looked just fine when I got off the plane. I would not recommend wearing the uniform while flying unless you absolutely have to, but there were no problems, either. It was just uncomfortable.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 16, 2011, 11:31:23 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
As I've stated before there is a reason why CAP is restricting the time for uniform wear
Yes, you've stated that several times, however you have failed to actually provide that reason.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
BTW. hanging around at the local coffee shop after the meeting in uniform also is a violation of the regulation.
100% false.
The 1 hour rule is in 39-1 table 1. Again, I don't think this was put in there just for the sake of making life difficult for CAP members. I wasn't a member of CAP when this regulation was published, so I personally don't know the reason.
Sometimes incidents that reflect badly on CAP is the reason specific requirements are placed in regulations.
As far as the hanging around the local coffee shop greater than 1 hour after the CAP meeting, I would guess that some would make the argument that it was a "staff" meeting after the official meeting, so therefore was a CAP activity. Frankly I believe the definition of a CAP activity, is primarily anything the member signs in for (and also signs out for, e.g. weekly unit meetings) OR for a cadet has documentation (such as parental permission) to attend. Also IF any member is providing a briefing to community leaders, service clubs, public safety agencies, school recruiting, would also be included as long as the appropriate Unit Commander was aware of this and had given permission to perform the activity/duty.
As far as 'essential" stops before or after a meeting/CAP activity, surely we need some flexibility in this and the timing of the activity start/stop would indicate in some instances the 'essential" stop requirement. Stopping to get gas, pickup office supplies for the meeting, restroom stop, (and some other things, I'm sure others can add to), BUT I would not expect a senior member in a CAP uniform to be in a supermarket doing their weekly shopping, nor ANYTIME drinking alcohol in a bar, or spending hours at the local coffee shop :angel:
RM
And this has to do with wearing your uniform at the Airport???????????
The one hour rule does not apply to wearing the uniform on comercial airliners to and from a CAP actiivty.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 17, 2011, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: JC004 on July 17, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
PHS, NOAA Commissioned Corps...Plus, the PHS people are FAR more irritating. Just saying.
Wouldn't these two uniformed services be able to legitimately access USO?
USPHS provides medical services for the Coast Guard, and when a USPHS officer is seconded to the USCG, they are under the UCMJ.
NOAA Commissioned Corps can be put under military jurisdiction...it doesn't happen a lot, but the provision is there.
I certainly wouldn't try to access USO facilities on a CAP ID card...however, I have thought of seeing if there's anything I can do for them toward my Community Service Ribbon - I'd like to use that volunteer time to benefit the troops somehow.
I would also certainly think that USO personnel are on the mark enough that if someone in CAP uniform would walk into a USO facility, and start trying to access USO services, they'd be put in their place quite quickly.
Negative. As is told to them,
armed services, not
uniformed services. It is not that volunteers and staff aren't sure what to do about PHS and NOAA because they were only told about Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard - they're told specifically. The USO would gladly accept your volunteering. It isn't so much uniforms as ID cards. There are too many uniforms for volunteers to memorize well and just about anyone can acquire a uniform.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 17, 2011, 02:23:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 16, 2011, 11:31:23 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
As I've stated before there is a reason why CAP is restricting the time for uniform wear
Yes, you've stated that several times, however you have failed to actually provide that reason.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 16, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
BTW. hanging around at the local coffee shop after the meeting in uniform also is a violation of the regulation.
100% false.
The 1 hour rule is in 39-1 table 1.
You didn't say anything about the 1-hour rule, you said going for coffee after a meeting is prohibited, which is 100% false. It is not unusual at all
for people to live near enough to the meeting place to go for coffee after and still be home in an hour.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 17, 2011, 02:23:28 PM
Again, I don't think this was put in there just for the sake of making life difficult for CAP members. I wasn't a member of CAP when this regulation was published, so I personally don't know the reason.
Great, glad that is settled.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 17, 2011, 02:23:28 PM
As far as the hanging around the local coffee shop greater than 1 hour after the CAP meeting, I would guess that some would make the argument that it was a "staff" meeting after the official meeting, so therefore was a CAP activity. Frankly I believe the definition of a CAP activity, is primarily anything the member signs in for (and also signs out for, e.g. weekly unit meetings) OR for a cadet has documentation (such as parental permission) to attend. Also IF any member is providing a briefing to community leaders, service clubs, public safety agencies, school recruiting, would also be included as long as the appropriate Unit Commander was aware of this and had given permission to perform the activity/duty.
Glad we finally agree, however that is not what you originally asserted.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 17, 2011, 02:23:28 PM
As far as 'essential" stops before or after a meeting/CAP activity, surely we need some flexibility in this and the timing of the activity start/stop would indicate in some instances the 'essential" stop requirement. Stopping to get gas, pickup office supplies for the meeting, restroom stop, (and some other things, I'm sure others can add to), BUT I would not expect a senior member in a CAP uniform to be in a supermarket doing their weekly shopping, nor ANYTIME drinking alcohol in a bar, or spending hours at the local coffee shop.
There are a number of units which meet at or near establishments which serve coffee or alcohol. You're entitled to your opinion, and if it says "Commander" on your business card, do what you like, however the consumption of neither alcohol nor coffee while in uniform is prohibited by regulation
Eclipse wrote:
There are a number of units which meet at or near establishments which serve coffee or alcohol. You're entitled to your opinion, and if it says "Commander" on your business card, do what you like, however the consumption of neither alcohol nor coffee while in uniform is prohibited by regulation....
We could also bring this into the airport in Blue Uniform discussion -- Surely drinking coffee, waiting for a scheduled airline flight is quite different than consuming alcohol, getting on a flight and having another alcoholic drink.
Personally, I think perception is very important in public relations. IF you are in a CAP uniform, the right thing to do is to refrain from drinking alcohol, especially when flying commercial (or even if you are going to drive a vehicle). Sometimes the body reacts differently to alcohol and even 1 drink may affect someone more than that individual is aware of. Surely for those that like to drink alcohol, I've got an easy solution, don't fly commercial in ANY CAP uniform, and if you like having a nightcap before heading home from the meeting considering changing into civilian clothes.
Pretty simple solution, and will keep the organization out of trouble with the public.
RM
Quote from: ol'fido on June 24, 2011, 11:53:49 PM
I suppose that TSA is like any large organization. They have the good ones and the goobers.
Well, the good ONE and the goobers, anyway . . .
Quote from: spaatzmom on June 26, 2011, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 26, 2011, 03:23:12 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2011, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PMI think there's enough distinction on the cadet side so there won't be any wanna bee factor
A cadet officer wearing the 3-button service coat is virtually indistinguishable from regular USAF officers, especially to the general public not in CAP or the military.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 25, 2011, 09:00:18 PM
There's been senior members who have been playing this "wanna bee" game for some time and know EXACTLY what I am talking about
Please define.
Any senior member who violates the 1 hour uniform wear rule (CAPM 39-1, table 1-1, Wear of the CAP Uniform), especially any USAF type uniform (wonder why that rule ever got put on the books ???).
Any senior member who flies on a commercial airline flight in a CAP USAF type uniform. There's NO reason they need to be flying in uniform whatsoever. The regulation never meant the transit time to include flying in commercial aircraft for many hours.
Frankly, I'd be laughing my butt off IF I ever got on a commercial airline and observed a CAP senior member in an AF type uniform on the same flight >:D I might even be temped to tell the stewardess/steward to pay special to that guy or girl since it was likely a "cult" spin off of the real CAP >:D :angel:
Most adult senior member in CAP are NOT flying commercial in CAP AF type uniforms. Most cadets are not flying commercial in CAP AF type uniforms. I don't think you will find ANYONE flying commercial to any cadet special activity/competition wearing a CAP uniform. Just the comfort factor alone on a flight over 1 hour long would be a good logical reason. Also why would ANYONE want to call attention to themselves. When I was in the AF, we basically didn't call attention to ourselves by wearing our uniforms while traveling on commercial aircraft flights. It's just plain good common sense personal security to NOT be in any uniform. However, the "wanna bees" are definitely going to be in uniform, no doubt about it ::).
RM
With this one statement, you are wrong. NHGA requires you to fly in uniform if traveling commercial. Inspection of uniform and deportment takes place the second the cadet departs the plane. Such grand statements are what has little to no place here unless you personally have been to each and every activity across the nation. Apparel when traveling is at the order of the individual director and they need not give a reason to the general membership. Rigidly narrow minded one sided declarations of ones interpretation of regulations is a bane of many forums such as this.
We were required to wear our SS Blues to SUPTFC in Texas. Other than that though, I'd never be caught wearing my blues in an airport...
Quote from: Eclipse on July 14, 2011, 10:35:08 PM
There are also those crazies who will choose to engage in a "baby killer", "GWB is satan", etc., discussions which no one wins, especially a cadet In this day and age, the goal should be to get through the airport as quickly and discreetly as possible, while calling no attention to yourself whatsoever.
Oh god, I had some crazies chase me one day yelling they were going to beat me up because I was baby killer, while I was wearing my BDU's... luckily I ran cross country and they ran the X-box :P It was scary though. ever since then I try to avoid the wear of my unifrom in public... unless I'm working for CAP at that time.
I also wanted to note my story from flying to SUPTFC. When I checked in, I was upgraded to first class from Denver to San Antonio, but I told the lady working for American that I was not an active duty soldier, and she responded "I was a CAP member once, don't worry about it." I was pretty happy with that response from her. I was kind of uncomfortable accepting the upgrade until she said that. Nice lady, there was no line so we chatted for a bit. I love running into former CAP memebrs, some of their stories are a real hoot. :P But not in all cases (and I mean very rare) are they confused, she just wanted to pass it forward I guess. :clap:
I had exactly the opposite experience a few years ago at Panda Express near Chicago. I was wearing BDUs and a kid wanted to have his picture taken with me.
Quote from: ol'fido on July 17, 2011, 10:46:59 PM
I had exactly the opposite experience a few years ago at Panda Express near Chicago. I was wearing BDUs and a kid wanted to have his picture taken with me.
I've had that happen too, and I get the 'thankyou for your service' comments and even salutes from other cadet organizations all the time. It's kind of hard to deal with but in each case I have a way of dealing with it. If this kid was really young, just take the picture with him, then maybe explain to the parents who your with, and maybe try to recruite the little tyke in the future ;)
'Thankyou for your service' comments, well, I usually just say 'your welcome', or 'thankyou' no harm done, you do serve the community after all, and chances are they will forget by tomorrow.
Salutes, well, I always accept a salute, after all it is just a form of military courtesy, and It's actually kind of rude to not accept a salute, but I always make sure to explain to them, that we're with CAP, no need to salute etc, and they are usually cool with that, no questions asked. I get it alot since we meet at a Army ROTC building and we use the same cadet officer grade. What ever the case, a quick explination can never hurt, and if there is a time crunch, well, just go with the flow, again, no harm done, that kid just might laugh 10 years from now, but who cares. ;)
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 17, 2011, 11:33:32 PM...I always make sure to explain to them, that we're with CAP, no need to salute etc...
Please don't do that anymore. Just return the salute and move on.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2011, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 17, 2011, 11:33:32 PM...I always make sure to explain to them, that we're with CAP, no need to salute etc...
Please don't do that anymore. Just return the salute and move on.
Well, I typically only do it with the Army ROTC cadets that we see every week. But why not. Every senior member I've ever met has told me to do the same.
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 18, 2011, 12:42:46 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2011, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 17, 2011, 11:33:32 PM...I always make sure to explain to them, that we're with CAP, no need to salute etc...
Please don't do that anymore. Just return the salute and move on.
Well, I typically only do it with the Army ROTC cadets that we see every week. But why not. Every senior member I've ever met has told me to do the same.
You know how easy it is to come across as condescending or insulting? You're telling them they're wrong and they did something they weren't required to- very easy for them to think you're trying to laugh at them, etc. I've been in the situation and it can turn bad regardless of your intentions. I'm speaking from experience...
I usually only explain when someone says "I gave you the military discount" in which case I reverse that.
Besides, if they are Army ROTC, and you're what? A C/Capt? The ranks are the same, so that's probably why they're saluting. Accept it and move on.
Quote from: DakRadz on July 18, 2011, 12:55:31 AM
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 18, 2011, 12:42:46 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2011, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 17, 2011, 11:33:32 PM...I always make sure to explain to them, that we're with CAP, no need to salute etc...
Please don't do that anymore. Just return the salute and move on.
Well, I typically only do it with the Army ROTC cadets that we see every week. But why not. Every senior member I've ever met has told me to do the same.
You know how easy it is to come across as condescending or insulting? You're telling them they're wrong and they did something they weren't required to- very easy for them to think you're trying to laugh at them, etc. I've been in the situation and it can turn bad regardless of your intentions. I'm speaking from experience...
I usually only explain when someone says "I gave you the military discount" in which case I reverse that.
Besides, if they are Army ROTC, and you're what? A C/Capt? The ranks are the same, so that's probably why they're saluting. Accept it and move on.
Like I said, I'm speaking from experiance as well, I get in this situation about twice a month, and each time I politley explain it, and they typically say something like 'thanks for the info man, I appriciate it' or 'ok, cool' what ever, and they usually smile, we shake hands and move on, no big deal.
Also, you guys tend to think I'm BS'ing out of my pants, but here it is (just so you know my pants arent dirty on this one):
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/capnhq.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2239&p_created=1297354570
This is what I was tought 6 years ago, its what I've done for 6 years without complaint from either side, it's what I'm going to continue to do.
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 18, 2011, 12:42:46 AMWell, I typically only do it with the Army ROTC cadets that we see every week. But why not. Every senior member I've ever met has told me to do the same.
Then every senior member you've met is way overthinking the situation.
Just return it and move on, no one you randomly encounter needs a speech from you or anyone else on CAP's proper "place" in the universe.
Further, you put the idea in their head they can "filter" salutes, and the next thing you know they miss an important one and are in trouble.
What you were "taught" is that the military is not required to salute CAP, not that it is your mission to "fix" the situation.
Return it and move on.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2011, 02:27:39 AM
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 18, 2011, 12:42:46 AMWell, I typically only do it with the Army ROTC cadets that we see every week. But why not. Every senior member I've ever met has told me to do the same.
Then every senior member you've met is way overthinking the situation.
Just return it and move on, no one you randomly encounter needs a speech from you or anyone else on CAP's proper "place" in the universe.
Further, you put the idea in their head they can "filter" salutes, and the next thing you know they miss an important one and are in trouble.
What you were "taught" is that the military is not required to salute CAP, not that it is your mission to "fix" the situation.
Return it and move on.
I'm not trying to "Fix" the situation, infact I always mention its no big deal and works either way, and because of this, some of them still salute, its a common courtesy, if they want to, they can, but if they dont want to worry about it, then thats their choice too. Like I said, I've been doing it for 6 years, and never had one complaint, its been the same cadets and same unit, and typically one of their instructors, and AF Maj, also a member of our squadron teaches them this on their first day and he too, doesnt tell them they are not supposed to, but simply "have the option"
There is nothing wrong with how I handle it, I'm not gonna change a 6 year habit and tradition in my squadron because some people told me to on CAPTalk. This is one situation my dear friends where there is nothing you can do. :clap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
There are some people in this world that simply will never understand this term, or choose to ignore it in favor of their own reality bubble.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2011, 02:40:20 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
There are some people in this world that simply will never understand this term, or choose to ignore it in favor of their own reality bubble.
I completley understand that term, and its meaning, but after 6 years I have yet to see any collateral damage, hence why I'm not stoping my practice. ::)
Military personnel are taught to salute certain insginia. Just accept it, return it, thank them, move on.
I used to explain it to people. One thing that taught me to rethink it was when saluted by Marines. I explained, and they told me that the Corps doesn't care if we're "non military", we're wearing officer rank, they will salute it.
There's also the fact that we have enough people with issues with CAP. Don't give them more ammo. Being stubborn on this could cost us.
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 18, 2011, 02:46:42 AMI completley understand that term, and its meaning, but after 6 years I have yet to see any collateral damage, hence why I'm not stoping my practice. ::)
On another note, lack of knowledge of problems doesn't preclude them.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2011, 12:36:08 AM
Please don't do that anymore. Just return the salute and move on.
This usually smoothes things over and follows the K.I.S.S. approach.
Most of the time I get saluted by military personnel, except for the Air Force.
Just take it for what it is, a gesture of respect to the rank, not necessarily to the person wearing it.
Quote from: Zen Master Charlie on July 18, 2011, 02:46:42 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2011, 02:40:20 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
There are some people in this world that simply will never understand this term, or choose to ignore it in favor of their own reality bubble.
I completely understand that term, and its meaning, but after 6 years I have yet to see any collateral damage, hence why I'm not stoping my practice.
The
point, is that the wake you might have caused goes unseen. Erosion, whether of rocks, soil, or reputation, is usually something that takes years, but is just as irreversible and the kind of damage an earthquake causes, you just don't notice it until it is too late to do anything about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8784/bandsalute.jpg)
Even though we are not obligated to salute officers of the USPHS/NOAA Corps, I still would anyway, because of the "salute-the-rank-not-the-person-wearing-it" criteria.
(Former Surgeon General VADM Richard Carmona, USPHS)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Richard_carmona.jpg)
(RADM Jonathan W. Bailey, NOAA)
(http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/art/images/captainbailey.jpg)
Anyway, they look so much like the Navy that there's no way I'd wait until I was close enough to see their distinguishing markings (no "low-light/at-a-distance" felgercarb for them!) before deciding they were "worthy" of a salute...
I wonder if USPHS and NOAA get gigged for wearing their uniforms in an airport?
Huh? Salute the rank, not the person? The whole idea is to show respect for an individual. Otherwise, a salute is just a random hand gesture with no meaning.
Quote from: Littleguy on July 18, 2011, 07:41:00 PM
Huh? Salute the rank, not the person? The whole idea is to show respect for an individual. Otherwise, a salute is just a random hand gesture with no meaning.
There have been a few people over the years who I have saluted
only because of their rank, because I had so little respect for them as individuals. If you haven't run across someone like that, consider yourself fortunate. They are out there.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 07:29:11 PM
Even though we are not obligated to salute officers of the USPHS/NOAA Corps, I still would anyway, because of the "salute-the-rank-not-the-person-wearing-it" criteria.
(Former Surgeon General VADM Richard Carmona, USPHS)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Richard_carmona.jpg)
(RADM Jonathan W. Bailey, NOAA)
(http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/art/images/captainbailey.jpg)
Anyway, they look so much like the Navy that there's no way I'd wait until I was close enough to see their distinguishing markings (no "low-light/at-a-distance" felgercarb for them!) before deciding they were "worthy" of a salute...
I wonder if USPHS and NOAA get gigged for wearing their uniforms in an airport?
Might want to read up on that one. You salute them, they are commissioned .
^^Yes, they are commissioned; they attend the Kings Point Academy to earn that. But they are not members of the Armed Forces, except when USPHS personnel are attached to the USCG, in which case they wear CG uniform with USPHS insignia.
However, 39-1 seems to say differently:
(2) You salute the President of the United States, all Medal of Honor recipients, and commissioned officers and warrant officers of the Armed Forces who are senior in rank to you.
Emphasis mine...but kind of moot since I'd see gold braid, oakleaves, chickens, etc and would salute nonetheless.
To put this all simply...
You've heard the old military axiom, "When it doubt, whip it out(referring to the salute, of course, ahem). Well, let me add my own, "If they whip it, YOU whip it."(and to return to the original subject of this thread) even if it's at the airport. 8)
As for the original question/post... I don't wear my blues on any flight. I probably never will, because of comfort. I would probably only wear my blues on a flight if it was required for an activity I had to fly to. That being said, I wouldn't mind if I saw I fellow CAP member wearing his blues on a flight- as long as he or she was representing CAP well (i.e. uniform IAW 39-1; not being a troll or a jerk; etc.)
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 09:30:51 PM
^^Yes, they are commissioned; they attend the Kings Point Academy to earn that. But they are not members of the Armed Forces, except when USPHS personnel are attached to the USCG, in which case they wear CG uniform with USPHS insignia.
However, 39-1 seems to say differently:
(2) You salute the President of the United States, all Medal of Honor recipients, and commissioned officers and warrant officers of the Armed Forces who are senior in rank to you.
Emphasis mine...but kind of moot since I'd see gold braid, oakleaves, chickens, etc and would salute nonetheless.
They are members of the Uniformed Services, which is in a category with all the Armed Forces, so. I'd say they rank CAP, eh?
P.S. King's Point is for Merchant Marine- it's a college/academy. I do believe (and will go research and edit with results) that USPHS and NOAA have their own Officer Candidate School that leads to a commission- but you need your degree first.
EDIT: NOAA has a 2-year program for commission, basically OCS for them.
USPHS has less info, but you must have your degree(s).
I know Kings Point is for the USMMA.
However, NOAA Corps uses it as well.
http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/recruiting/training.html
You are correct about USPHS having to have degree-in-hand, but I still think they take some training at Kings Point.
I'm willing to bet that they don't get hassled for looking so much like the Navy as we do the AF... >:D
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 09:30:51 PM
However, 39-1 seems to say differently:
(2) You salute the President of the United States, all Medal of Honor recipients, and commissioned officers and warrant officers of the Armed Forces who are senior in rank to you.
Where, specifically, is that quote from? I can't find it in (CAPM) 39-1.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 10:28:08 PM
I'm willing to bet that they don't get hassled for looking so much like the Navy as we do the AF... >:D
Probably because they don't have an internet forum ;D
Quote from: titanII on July 18, 2011, 10:42:48 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 10:28:08 PM
I'm willing to bet that they don't get hassled for looking so much like the Navy as we do the AF... >:D
Probably because they don't have an internet forum ;D
The question is whether they troll Navy bases for salutes! :o
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 07:29:11 PM
(RADM Jonathan W. Bailey, NOAA)
(http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/art/images/captainbailey.jpg)
The
admiral needs a new cover then.
Holy topic drift, Batman.
On the subject of salutes between CAP & members of the armed forces:
1) Salutes are greetings and gestures of respect. They're not an oath of fealty or a sign of superiority/inferiority.
2) Telling someone "Oh, you don't have to salute me, I'm just in CAP" basically says "Even though we're wearing grade insignia and we're doing the best darn job we can to represent the USAF (you are, aren't you?), you can just go ahead and treat us differently. Like, WAY differently."
Eclipse and I very often don't agree to much, but on this particular point we're not far off. Salutes among members of the armed forces (and their reserve/auxiliary components) are as commonplace and as easily given as the "Hi, Bill!" you say to your building security guard every morning. Really. (I realize that when you're new at it, every salute is an event to you. After over 30 years in a uniform, I can't count the number of salutes I've both given and received. Its a formality, its a gesture, its over in 1/2 a second, move on. The same goes for the guy on the other end of the salute)
(Scenario: Think about if at some point in the late 1940s, some knucklehead 2nd Lts in the AF Reserve got it in their head that since they were "just in the Air Force Reserve," and it was so very, very, very much junior to its parent service and not the *real* Air Force, that folks in the Active Duty force didn't have to salute them, and went about saying such at every opportunity. What do you think the impression of the Active Duty enlisted force would be of the USAFR after a few years? Do you think it would "Wow, I got a lotta respect for those AF Reserve guys. They know what they're about so well that they don't need or want salutes. How high-speed!" or "Well, since they don't want salutes, then I'll keep treating them like the 2nd class citizens that they are.." ?)
My first interaction with large numbers of USAF personnel (by large I mean "enlisted troops in large packs") in a non-structured environment was probably Region Staff College. We ate in DFAC next to the NCOA on McGuire and apart from us, there were no officers to be seen. Walking to/from chow was, by sheer dint of the area and proximity to the enlisted dorms a gigantic salute gauntlet just to get some food.
Did I stop each enlisted troop and say "Hey, there, Airman, don't bother saluting me, I'm not really a major?"
No, cuz I was hungry and wanted some of that good s'member food. And the more talking I did whilst trying to get to the DFAC virtually ensured that Cookie was gonna cut me off or I'd have to leave early to get to formation.
A guy saluted, said "Good afternoon sir!" and I returned it saying "Afternoon, thanks!" Over and over and over.
After awhile, its as ubiquitous as getting a knucklebump from Ashton Kutcher.
Funny side story: 1987, I'm home on leave from Korea, visiting my buddy at USAFA. We go up on the Terrazzo, but he has to be in service dress, and we'll, I'm darn sure not gonna waltz around the Terrazzo in a pair of cutoffs and a t-shirt while he's in his Sunday finery. So I'm in Class As, and I'm getting the nickel tour from my buddy when we happen upon a flight of freshmen getting marched around by some 2- and 3-degrees. As we get closer, I see one "guy what be in charge" nudge another "guy what be in charge" and indicate our approach, at which point one guy barks "Attention!" and they all turn and face us and salute.
Not having 2/10ths of a clue as to how the USAFA rank structure works, under my breath I go "Are they saluting you?"
My buddy says "No, I think they're saluting you!"
So I return the salute and say "Carry on, gentlemen."
They all relax and I wave them over to me, out of earshot of their trainees.
"Uh, guys," I point to my sleeve, "I'm an enlisted guy!"
"OOooohh," they all go, and I can see them cataloging my funny grade insignia and the DUIs up on my epaulet. "We didn't know.. we saw shiny and immediately thought 'Salute!'.."
"No problem on my account, guys, I just want to keep you out of trouble when you're on the outside.."
"Oh, thanks!" and they all dig out their copies of Contrails and start flipping to the pages of Army rank.
"So, you're a Specialist Fourth Class? Whats a Specialist Five?"
"Oh, the Army doesn't have them really anymore. I think the last Spec5 retired recently. Same with Spec 6 and 7.."
*scribble* *scribble* as they cross them off in their books..
"Wow, thanks, man.."
"No problem, gents. Happy to help!"
So yeah, sometimes its entirely appropriate to fill in the other party, but generally not.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 07:29:11 PM
Even though we are not obligated to salute officers of the USPHS/NOAA Corps, I still would anyway, because of the "salute-the-rank-not-the-person-wearing-it" criteria.
(Former Surgeon General VADM Richard Carmona, USPHS)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Richard_carmona.jpg)
I'm with you, I would too.
Just as an aside, as to Carmona's "real"-ness...FWIW when he was enlisted he was a Special Forces medic, years before he went to med school; decorations included a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart with an oak leaf cluster. In civilian life, he worked as a paramedic, then was a registered nurse. He wound up as the top graduate when he eventually went to medical school, and was also a deputy Pima County (Ariz.) sheriff.
I'd salute that... ;)
And seriously, I don't think it does any harm to salute *apparent* officers when we encounter them.
Say it again....say it loud.....everybody now!
SALUTES ARE ALWAYS APPROPRIATE!
Quote from: lordmonar on July 19, 2011, 03:00:31 AM
Say it again....say it loud.....everybody now!
SALUTES ARE ALWAYS APPROPRIATE!
"
Sir, SALUTES ARE ALWAYS APPROPRIATE,
SIR!"Was that loud enough? ;D
Good job Lt.....carry on now. 8)
wait wait wait. this NOAA Corps device looks like a squished CAP button:
(http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/art/insig/insig2.jpg)
http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/about/insignia.html
NIN: I couldn't agree with you more. Just an aside, I was an Admissions Liaison Officer for West Point for 12 years and went to the academy a bunch of times. Talk about a salute gauntlet: try walking from building to building at WP and have the cadets changing classes. Enough to make a Colonel run for cover. Went back there in Apr 10: am retired now and in civies. Made life a whole bunch simpler.
Pat: I like that response. Lets hope that it puts this whole topic to bed.
From wearing CAP blues in the airport to stolen valor to force protection to saluting and beyond!
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 10:28:08 PM
IYou are correct about USPHS having to have degree-in-hand, but I still think they take some training at Kings Point.
I'm willing to bet that they don't get hassled for looking so much like the Navy as we do the AF... >:D
IIRC, the USPHS commissions folks with a "direct commission" if they have an appropriate degree, and sometime early career these officers attend an Officer Basic Course. A friend of mine attended one of these, and it was only a few days long at the time, since then the PHS has changed the program slightly, but they do not have any sort of mandatory training at King's Point.
And they don't get "hassled" because they're not Navy Uniforms. They're PHS and NOAA uniforms... both of those are sea-going services, like the Navy is, so they wear similar uniforms with distinguishing insignia, but that doesn't change the fact that they are their own services.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 19, 2011, 03:00:31 AM
Say it again....say it loud.....everybody now!
SALUTES ARE ALWAYS APPROPRIATE!
Bravo.
Anyone with a differing opinion likely has an unrelated agenda behind it.
Quote from: Ed Bos on July 19, 2011, 05:30:14 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2011, 10:28:08 PM
IYou are correct about USPHS having to have degree-in-hand, but I still think they take some training at Kings Point.
I'm willing to bet that they don't get hassled for looking so much like the Navy as we do the AF... >:D
IIRC, the USPHS commissions folks with a "direct commission" if they have an appropriate degree, and sometime early career these officers attend an Officer Basic Course. A friend of mine attended one of these, and it was only a few days long at the time, since then the PHS has changed the program slightly, but they do not have any sort of mandatory training at King's Point.
And they don't get "hassled" because they're not Navy Uniforms. They're PHS and NOAA uniforms... both of those are sea-going services, like the Navy is, so they wear similar uniforms with distinguishing insignia, but that doesn't change the fact that they are their own services.
Although technically the PHS has roots in the Marine (Merchant) Hospital Service, it is not a "sea-going service." In its civilian duties it is a medical research and policy organization. In its military duties it has members attached to ALL branches of the U.S. military. Those members are considered to be combatants while on orders.
Quote from: afgeo4 on July 23, 2011, 07:35:47 PM
Although technically the PHS has roots in the Marine (Merchant) Hospital Service, it is not a "sea-going service." In its civilian duties it is a medical research and policy organization. In its military duties it has members attached to ALL branches of the U.S. military. Those members are considered to be combatants while on orders.
Absolutely, thank you for the clarification. I was referring to the historical roots of PHS and NOAA, and the reason for their uniforms and current rank structure, but I acknowledge that my description wasn't accurate regarding their current duties of these two branches of service.
For those against flying in BDUs, I can find nothing in the regs against it. I just did it for hawk. The one point I do is stress is the appearance of the uniform especially in such a high traffic place as a commercial airport. I had a freshly dry cleaned set I kept clean through hawk just for graduation and flying back, and anyone who has been knows how much of a feat that is. Another cadet, unfortunately, had no such planning in place. I was walking through the airport and saw another cadet with one pant leg rolled up above his boot inside out, the other bootlaces halfway up and untied, out of reg hair, no rank, and an overall disaster of a uniform.
Quote from: JBC on July 26, 2011, 10:38:06 PM
For those against flying in BDUs, I can find nothing in the regs against it. I just did it for hawk.
See CAPR 39-1 Table 1.1:
Table 1-1. Wearing the Uniform
Wear when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (See Note 1).
Members may wear service dress uniform or light blue, short or long sleeve shirt/blouse with tie/tab and the all-weather coat, overcoat, and raincoat when traveling by commercial means (other than to and from local CAP activities). (See Note 2)
Although any CAP uniform may be worn, aviator shirt, blazer combination, or appropriate civilian attire is encouraged to be worn on military aircraft (except orientation flights or IACE). EXCEPTIONS: BDUs and flight suits will not be worn. This will enable members to arrive for activity participation with the proper uniform ready to wear.Was this mandated / authorized by HMRS, or just your idea?
Until NHQ publishes a special 39-1 or a very long ICL relating just to HMRS, they are subject to the same rules of 39-1 as anyone else in CAP...and that includes Eclipse's quote from 39-1.
If I were in an airport and saw a cadet wearing BDU's I would ask them why and under what written authorisation they were doing so.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 26, 2011, 11:08:52 PM
Quote from: JBC on July 26, 2011, 10:38:06 PM
For those against flying in BDUs, I can find nothing in the regs against it. I just did it for hawk.
See CAPR 39-1 Table 1.1:
Table 1-1. Wearing the Uniform
Wear when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (See Note 1).
Members may wear service dress uniform or light blue, short or long sleeve shirt/blouse with tie/tab and the all-weather coat, overcoat, and raincoat when traveling by commercial means (other than to and from local CAP activities). (See Note 2)
Although any CAP uniform may be worn, aviator shirt, blazer combination, or appropriate civilian attire is encouraged to be worn on military aircraft (except orientation flights or IACE). EXCEPTIONS: BDUs and flight suits will not be worn. This will enable members to arrive for activity participation with the proper uniform ready to wear.
Was this mandated / authorized by HMRS, or just your idea?
Emphasis on the underlined.
I don't agree, obviously, with your interpretation, but there is certainly room for clarification. If you go by the way you are reading it, the only thing authorized on a commercial carrier is Blues, since the next line, then, would only apply to military aircraft.
I can't see a single reason to justify wearing BDU's or a flight suit on a commercial carrier, can you?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 26, 2011, 11:08:52 PM
Although any CAP uniform may be worn, aviator shirt, blazer combination, or appropriate civilian attire is encouraged to be worn on military aircraft (except orientation flights or IACE). EXCEPTIONS: BDUs and flight suits will not be worn. This will enable members to arrive for activity participation with the proper uniform ready to wear.[/i]
This part has no relation to the discussion of wearing CAP uniforms on commercial flights. It isn't in the same row on the table. It only has to do with flights on military aircraft.
QuoteIf you go by the way you are reading it, the only thing authorized on a commercial carrier is Blues, since the next line, then, would only apply to military aircraft.
Exactly right.
Ignore, we agree.
The string below shows ignorance more than anything else. First, the USPHS and NOAA are uniformed services just like the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Each commissioned officer is endorsed by the Senate and the President of the United States. Yes, you salute federal commissioned officers. Second, at least in the Army, if you are using commercial transportation (airplane or otherwise), you are not supposed to travel in uniform. You travel in uniform when using military or private modes of transportation.
Quote from: clara on October 31, 2012, 03:42:13 AM
Second, at least in the Army, if you are using commercial transportation (airplane or otherwise), you are not supposed to travel in uniform. You travel in uniform when using military or private modes of transportation.
Interesting. When I left both basic and AIT, I traveled via commercial air and bus in uniform as I was required to.
Quote from: RogueLeader on October 31, 2012, 03:49:12 AM
Quote from: clara on October 31, 2012, 03:42:13 AM
Second, at least in the Army, if you are using commercial transportation (airplane or otherwise), you are not supposed to travel in uniform. You travel in uniform when using military or private modes of transportation.
Interesting. When I left both basic and AIT, I traveled via commercial air and bus in uniform as I was required to.
I think that's part of the NooB Initiation process...
This thread was brought back from the dead for this? Please, lets not call anyone ignorant in your first post on a thread that has been happily deceased for more than a year.
It might be a TRADOC thing, but I doubt it. I'd need a cite.
Quote from: AngelWings on October 31, 2012, 04:02:05 AM
This thread was brought back from the dead for this? Please, lets not call anyone ignorant in your first post on a thread that has been happily deceased for more than a year.
He was calling basic trainees and AIT soldiers n00bs. Not clara.
Halloween and back from the dead threads. How wonderfully appropriate!
It's Alive!!
(http://geeksontheinside.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/its-alive.jpg)
Quote from: clara on October 31, 2012, 03:42:13 AM
... Second, at least in the Army, if you are using commercial transportation (airplane or otherwise), you are not supposed to travel in uniform. You travel in uniform when using military or private modes of transportation.
I would be interested in seeing the directive, regulation or other authority that supports your position.
Typically, Soldiers traveling in a duty status travel in uniform which is why you see the airports full of Soldiers in uniform.
I will be attending a winter encampment out of state. Because of this I have to fly there and I was instructed, by the rules/ regulations, to travel in Blues uniform so that when I am being picked up I will be recognizable. Is this still ok even though everyone is saying not to travel in uniform.
Quote from: C/MSgt on October 31, 2012, 04:17:30 PM
I will be attending a winter encampment out of state. Because of this I have to fly there and I was instructed, by the rules/ regulations, to travel in Blues uniform so that when I am being picked up I will be recognizable. Is this still ok even though everyone is saying not to travel in uniform.
CAP Honor Guard Academy REQUIRES cadets to arrive in uniform for a uniform inspection on the spot at the airport.
That may be, however I am not attending the honor guard academy at encampment. In ES Flight and don't even need me blues because we are not wearing them on graduation, but it says that is is mandatory for all cadets that are flying to fly in blues.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 31, 2012, 04:32:37 PM
Quote from: C/MSgt on October 31, 2012, 04:17:30 PM
I will be attending a winter encampment out of state. Because of this I have to fly there and I was instructed, by the rules/ regulations, to travel in Blues uniform so that when I am being picked up I will be recognizable. Is this still ok even though everyone is saying not to travel in uniform.
CAP Honor Guard Academy REQUIRES cadets to arrive in uniform for a uniform inspection on the spot at the airport.
Oh Geeez.... are you freakin' serious? How lame is that?
That's what their page stated. Now IIRC they had the same policy in 2005, but it was changed and we arrived in civvies and had our uniform inspection upon arriving at the activity.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 31, 2012, 05:58:03 PM
That's what their page stated. Now IIRC they had the same policy in 2005, but it was changed and we arrived in civvies and had our uniform inspection upon arriving at the activity.
Which seems much more reasonable.
Indeed
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on October 31, 2012, 09:26:57 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 31, 2012, 05:58:03 PM
That's what their page stated. Now IIRC they had the same policy in 2005, but it was changed and we arrived in civvies and had our uniform inspection upon arriving at the activity.
Which seems much more reasonable.
It's a lot more logistic friendly for those that fail- you're already at the airport to return home. No need to find an available driver to take them back.
Quote from: RogueLeader on October 31, 2012, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on October 31, 2012, 09:26:57 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 31, 2012, 05:58:03 PM
That's what their page stated. Now IIRC they had the same policy in 2005, but it was changed and we arrived in civvies and had our uniform inspection upon arriving at the activity.
Which seems much more reasonable.
It's a lot more logistic friendly for those that fail- you're already at the airport to return home. No need to find an available driver to take them back.
Please put an emoticon or something there that tells me YOU..ARE..JOKING...RIGHT. ???
No. I'm not joking.
If somebody fails the required inspection, they go home. If they do it at the airport, and fail. Boom, they are already ready to be sent back. No extra logistics needed to deal with.
Now send them to duty location, and they fail. Now you have to get at least one driver and van that has to be utilized to return that cadet back to the airport. That cost is the time and fuel that could have been better utilized had said inspection been at the airport.
Do I think that its a big deal? No.
However, you see how one is more logistics friendly?
Wouldn't they stand a better chance of passing an inspection if they haven't flown across the United States in uniform? Less chance to lose a flight cap, scuff your shoes, etc?
If it were up to me, and I decided to hold it there, I would have them change beforehand, and travel in civies.
I also recognise the value in attention to detail found in traveling via airline in uniform.
This year we traveled in uniform and had our inspection at the facility.
I dont mind traveling in uniform I just think it is a little pointless because being in ES flight and we are wearing BDU for graduation anyway so if I wasn't flying I would not bring them. With flying with all of the BDU uniform is a lot more stuff to carry. I do understand the idea behind it though it still just sucks.
Quote from: C/MSgt on November 01, 2012, 10:39:33 PM
I dont mind traveling in uniform I just think it is a little pointless because being in ES flight and we are wearing BDU for graduation anyway so if I wasn't flying I would not bring them. With flying with all of the BDU uniform is a lot more stuff to carry. I do understand the idea behind it though it still just sucks.
You are NOT supposed to travel in your BDUs by commercial means. Blues are the only prescribed uniform to travel to and from CAP activities, provided the activity hasn't given you instructions to the contrary.
I do not intend to travel in BDU's. As I said, flying with the BDU Uniform is a lot more to carry(NOT wear). Meaning that I would have to physically carry it, boots cover and everything. It would be a whole extra bag to carry/ more money to put under the airplane. Anyway how would I carry and wear my uniform at the same time.
Quote from: C/MSgt on November 03, 2012, 08:59:00 PM
I do not intend to travel in BDU's. As I said, flying with the BDU Uniform is a lot more to carry(NOT wear). Meaning that I would have to physically carry it, boots cover and everything. It would be a whole extra bag to carry/ more money to put under the airplane. Anyway how would I carry and wear my uniform at the same time.
they don't have irons at your destination?
The whole thing of "sending people home" from an activity because of a "failed" uniform inspection within 30 seconds of arriving at the place, to me is just pure bull.
This isn't the active duty military, many of these activities people pay hard earned money to get to, and by the very nature of the activity, it's training. So why not put together a checklist, have them mark of every last detail on it, and send that back ahead of time saying "I have *everything* on this list. Period."
Then when they arrive, go over how it should be, for those who need it. After all, it's training, isn't it? Give 'em a time slot to get uniforms prepared, and the experienced staff can assist. Then have the inspection, and use it as a learning tool.
Let the vetting process on the applications be where the thinning of the herd happens.
^^^ +1
Quote from: a2capt on November 04, 2012, 05:03:14 AM
The whole thing of "sending people home" from an activity because of a "failed" uniform inspection within 30 seconds of arriving at the place, to me is just pure bull.
This isn't the active duty military, many of these activities people pay hard earned money to get to, and by the very nature of the activity, it's training. So why not put together a checklist, have them mark of every last detail on it, and send that back ahead of time saying "I have *everything* on this list. Period."
Then when they arrive, go over how it should be, for those who need it. After all, it's training, isn't it? Give 'em a time slot to get uniforms prepared, and the experienced staff can assist. Then have the inspection, and use it as a learning tool.
Let the vetting process on the applications be where the thinning of the herd happens.
THIS is what I meant when I asked ARE YOU KIDDING ME? in my previous post. :clap: :clap:
Quote from: a2capt on November 04, 2012, 05:03:14 AM
The whole thing of "sending people home" from an activity because of a "failed" uniform inspection within 30 seconds of arriving at the place, to me is just pure bull.
This isn't the active duty military, many of these activities people pay hard earned money to get to, and by the very nature of the activity, it's training. So why not put together a checklist, have them mark of every last detail on it, and send that back ahead of time saying "I have *everything* on this list. Period."
Then when they arrive, go over how it should be, for those who need it. After all, it's training, isn't it? Give 'em a time slot to get uniforms prepared, and the experienced staff can assist. Then have the inspection, and use it as a learning tool.
Let the vetting process on the applications be where the thinning of the herd happens.
I agree. I personally canont see the benefit in people getting so wound up on these uniform issues in an organization that is all volunteers. members spend alot of their own money traveling to meetins, etc... and donate their time to the common good, and then there are people that get all wound up over these little details instead of focusing on the big picture of what they are there for. In this day and age getting people to volunteer in an organization is not an easy thing, and doing things like nit picking on uniforms is just going to drive people away. look around your community at the volunteer organizations such as fire departments, Lion's clubs, KC's, Masons, community foundations, etc... they are usually comprised of old members and rarely have anyone under age 40 in them. Finding good members is not easy, and you dont want to chase them away with uniform police. as said before, this is not the active duty military, its a volunteer organization with its mission to help people and serve the common good. Let people do their jobs and relax a bit on these uniform issues. I know a guy that serves in another squadron than mine, heck of a nice guy and good member. he always shows up at meetings, but he isnt the neatest guy in the world. his uniform looks old and isnt the best kept, but this guy is always there and he is an asset to the CAP. Would I want him on my team? absolutely. he is good people and knows his stuff. sure his hair is sometimes a bit messy and maybe his collar is goofed up or he has a food stain on his shirt, but he is there every meeting, every activity, and is a good volunteer. If he had a superior that got on his case for his appearance it could chase him away and they would loose a good member. just my opinion.
Quote from: Blues Brother on November 05, 2012, 12:40:52 PM
I agree. I personally canont see the benefit in people getting so wound up on these uniform issues in an organization that is all volunteers.
Maybe there are two good reasons:
1) When you wear the uniform you are a representative of CAP, USAF (if in AF style) and the military in general. That's the reason 39-1 specifically states that all uniforms will be professional in appearance and well kept; Compliance with the regulation is mandatory.
2) Uniform violations are a reason for denying insurance coverage in the event of an accident. What you may see as "just messy but not a big deal" the organization sees as a blatant violation of rules that have been put in place to protect you and the organization in the event of an incident.
As a volunteer, it's your job to know what you're getting yourself into. Yes, it's tough to recruit and retain quality members, but there is a responsibility in doing your job the way prescribed in CAP. Like it or not, it is the way it is for a reason. Besides, a sloppy senior member is a bad example and can question the credibility of ALL senior members with cadets that we are charged with. That can get into a whole other debate.
Quote from: Blues Brother on November 05, 2012, 12:40:52 PM
I agree. I personally canont see the benefit in people getting so wound up on these uniform issues in an organization that is all volunteers.
There's a polo for that.
CAP Urban Legend Alert!
Uniform violations are NOT a reason to deny insurance coverage. Or any other benefit.
And never have been.
Really, really.
The whole notion that our leaders (or our insurance carrier) would leave widow(er)s and orphans to starve to death in the snow because a pilot crashed with ribbons out of order or wearing USAF-style uniforms while 5 lbs overweight is just as silly as it sounds.
It is just a scary story that frightens people unnecessarily.
Our volunteers have a hard enough job to do without these urban legends floating around.
Please consider not repeating it and helping to educate anyone who does.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
(Member at Large, BoG)
Ned,
I do not believe most of us think minor uniform issues would be a cause for denial.
Quote from: Ned on November 05, 2012, 03:09:40 PM
Uniform violations are NOT a reason to deny insurance coverage. Or any other benefit.
Then what weight does the term "required" actually have?
This also doesn't jive with the reality of non-CAP civil liability cases, where insurance companies will stretch any loophole they can find
to avoid paying benefits. In fact, there's whole departments where people's job is to find ways to deny claims, not to mention that
it can be argued that its the fiduciary responsibility of the board of directors of a company to limit financial liability.
Quote from: Ned on November 05, 2012, 03:09:40 PMThe whole notion that our leaders (or our insurance carrier) would leave widow(er)s and orphans to starve to death in the snow because a pilot crashed with ribbons out of order or wearing USAF-style uniforms while 5 lbs overweight is just as silly as it sounds.
This, of course, is using the extreme to discount the mean.
What about no uniform? No ID? Lapsed membership? Lapsed qualification? "Forgot to re-up the Form 5."?
Don't have a driver's license?
How about being a disqualified member because your safety current lapsed?
There's a line where benefits will be denied. No one wants to be the test case.
And this isn't about "people" personally denying orphans, this is about bean counters and liability specialists denying
one more line item.
I know that it is Contrary to Regulations. However, I think that wearing the Uniform to a multitude of occasions is fine. If someone wants to wear it to Church, or while travelling on CAP business, or to a Funeral, or to school (provided it's okay with the School) for a special function. I'm okay with it as long as it's done in a positive professional manner and the person remembers they are representing the USAF and the Civil Air Patrol.
Keep things in perspective.
Cadet going to HGA is going there to learn how to be professional and disciplined. The majority of cadets going aren't Phase IV cadets. Sending the kid home because his nametag is a little crooked is ridiculous, by any stretch of the imagination. One of the hurdles that NCSAs have is the correction of a wide variety of local traditions and customs that come from local commanders that don't run things right or don't hold the same standards. Punishing the cadet for minor violations, by sending them home at the airport, doesn't meet the goal of the program or the activity.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 05, 2012, 03:59:27 PM
Keep things in perspective.
Cadet going to HGA is going there to learn how to be professional and disciplined. The majority of cadets going aren't Phase IV cadets. Sending the kid home because his nametag is a little crooked is ridiculous, by any stretch of the imagination. One of the hurdles that NCSAs have is the correction of a wide variety of local traditions and customs that come from local commanders that don't run things right or don't hold the same standards. Punishing the cadet for minor violations, by sending them home at the airport, doesn't meet the goal of the program or the activity.
Agree 100%.
The other side is when these large activities, run by experienced staff, make corrections and then the
home unit argues the activity is wrong. Running a 2-weekend encampment, we'd send cadets home
corrected, they'd go to a meeting mid-week, and come back "broken" again saying that "their commander
said this was right..."
Bob,
Well, I'm not sure why this troubles you so.
Capt Rutlidge repeated an "old wives tale" about uniform violations being used to deny CAP insurance benefits. I wanted to ensure that members understand that it simply isn't so.
Our members are our most important asset. We do not "increase our profits" by denying benefits. Thankfully, very, very few members will ever need our insurance or FECA benefits, but they are there when needed. Indeed, it is the job of leaders like yourself to make sure our members know about them, and to assist them in times of need.
To answer your question directly, "required" means exactly what it says. When performing CAP duties, you and I must wear a uniform, and wear it correctly. If we don't arguably we are subject to discipline. We could be counseled or maybe even reprimanded or demoted in extreme cases.
But granting or denying insurance benefits to a member or their family is not remotely a form of discipline. Benefits like these are just what we do to take care of our own in times of need.
Which is what good leaders try to make sure happens in a compassionate and timely manner.
It troubles me when the very real possibility of being denied benefits because of an ultimately non-mitigating factor
is downplayed.
Quote from: Ned on November 05, 2012, 04:17:42 PMBut granting or denying insurance benefits to a member or their family is not remotely a form of discipline. Benefits like these are just what we do to take care of our own in times of need.
I never inferred it was a form of discipline, but the reasoning behind the "why" of the denial isn't going to mean much to a
seriously injured member or his survivors.
Are you really going to say that in a situation that incurs significant financial liability on CAP, no one is going to even
consider the possibility that coverage and benefits could be disallowed based on non-compliance with regulations?
If the answer is "no", that's fiscally irresponsible.
If the answer is "yes", then it's simply a matter of where the line is drawn, which is matters of money in usually in inverse proportion to
the amounts being discussed. (i.e. the higher the number, the closer people look).
Bob,
It's OK to admit when you are wrong. We've all done it.
This is (as usual) a Uniform Thread. Somebody put out serious misinformation about uniform violations being a reason to deny insurance benefits. I attempted to correct that by pointing out that it isn't true.
Uniform violations have nothing whatsoever to do with insurance benefits, and never has been.
I agree that uniforms are required, and we should all wear them correctly. If we don't, we might get disciplined. But it sounds like you agree that granting or denying insurance benefits is not a form of discipline.
You should not be troubled by this; you should be happy.
If you want to argue about other regulations, I suppose we can do that. As a legal guy, I like pointless arguments as much as the next guy.
Consider starting a thread and tell us about exactly what regulation violations - in your experience - have resulted in denial of benefits. I'll do my best to respond.
I don't agree it was misinformation, at least not on the macro.
You also haven't actually answered several direct questions, yet continue to assert I'm wrong.
So a CAP member who crashed a CAP vehicle, required to wear a uniform, but not wearing one,
would still be covered for both injury and liability?
How about if they didn't have a CAP license?
Where's the line on "required"?
Quote from: Ned on November 05, 2012, 05:17:04 PMIf you want to argue about other regulations, I suppose we can do that.
The power of CAP regulations begins and ends with the value a member places on membership, which usually drops to zero
in situations which involve lawyers.
Personal injury and financial liability will live on well past returning the ID card.
We already know the odds of being disciplined in any meaningful way for uniform infractions, even serious ones, approach zero.
The concern for most members is whether CAP's legal and financial people will use those same "meaningless" infractions to
also deny coverage and benefits.
Arguing it's never happened before doesn't answer the direct question.
The answer is simple. CAP is covered and then the insurance goes after the member. Duh.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 05, 2012, 05:25:48 PM
So a CAP member who crashed a CAP vehicle, required to wear a uniform, but not wearing one,
would still be covered for both injury and liability?
Yes, I'm saying directly and unequivocally that uniform violations will not deny a member's benefits in the event of a mishap or injury. And that's all we are talking about. Why (other than the Urban Legend that started us down this rabbit hole) on earth would you think they would? Is there a particular regulation or policy that says anything about a denial of benefits in the event of a uniform violation?
Quote
How about if they didn't have a CAP license?
I dunno. What happens if space monkeys ran the member off the road?
Like I said, if you want to talk about other regulations affecting the membership, start a new thread and I will do my best. But this conversation begins and ends with the incorrect assertion that uniform violations can be used to deny insurance benefits.
And the reason it is important for leaders like yourself to put accurate and truthful information to the membership is based on our Core Values. Each of our terrific members has to make choices about their level of involvement in our program. To do that, they need to know about our benefits so that can make their individual choices on behalf of themselves and their families.
Allowing misinformation to remain uncorrected does them a disservice. Scare stories about denial of important benefits may lead members to take actions that are as poor as the information it is based upon.
Quote from: Ned on November 05, 2012, 06:29:57 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 05, 2012, 05:25:48 PM
So a CAP member who crashed a CAP vehicle, required to wear a uniform, but not wearing one,
would still be covered for both injury and liability?
Yes, I'm saying directly and unequivocally that uniform violations will not deny a member's benefits in the event of a mishap or injury. And that's all we are talking about. Why (other than the Urban Legend that started us down this rabbit hole) on earth would you think they would? Is there a particular regulation or policy that says anything about a denial of benefits in the event of a uniform violation?
How about common sense and logic.
The uniform is a required part of the equation. It says "required".
Out of uniform = violation of the first regulation that allows for participation.
Not allowed to participate = not covered.
Not really a stretch.
Quote from: Ned on November 05, 2012, 06:29:57 PMAllowing misinformation to remain uncorrected does them a disservice.
Insinuating a lawyer protecting the corporation won't use anything he can to that advantage, is also a disservice.
Hey, if i'm wrong on that, I will stand corrected. However, as it's been stated before, I'm not one who wants to test the waters and be the statistic that proves what I said is correct or what I said was wrong.
At some point we have to ask ourselves, if there is no enforcement mechanism to regulations that exist then what is the point in following the rules as given? It's true that uniform violations are minutia compared to many other issues that exist in our organization, but as Eclipse has said, where is the line? If we're willing to publish regulations that state clearly "COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY" about uniforms and no one enforces it, why would we suspect that someone will enforce the rules as given for mission participation? (which is a topic of discussion on another thread on a CAP Facebook group relating to the response to Sandy) It seems more than hypocritical and counter-productive to expect all rules to be followed by all members at all times in their membership/participation, yet the leadership won't take the steps to enforce equally all rules under the "law."
As an attorney Ned, I'm sure you can see the disconnect.
So maybe denying benefits is not a likely scenario, as you've stated, but we can't and shouldn't have it both ways.
In order to clarify things, CAP needs to specifically state that there will be a system of...punishments, if you will, for violations of the uniform policy. This "Urban Legend" about not being covered in a mishap if you're not wearing a CAP uniform has permeated the entire organization. Either it's true or it isn't. We can't have it both ways.
Compliance is mandatory. Exactly in what context or sense? Is it ultimately enforceable? If so, what do we do about the "miscreants" who continue to wear the AF style uniform out of h/w standards? Or who show up to events in the wrong uniform? Take away their pay? Tell them that they can't wear the uniform anymore?
Do we sanction the commander or the home units of the individual(s) by taking away funding or assets? Letters of reprimand? Bar them from attending events or meetings until they comply?
Where's the line? Do I have the right to step up to a Lt Col and tell him that his uniform is out of compliance, that his Army Ranger tab over the wing patch is unauthorized? Or do I report it up the chain and let someone else deal with it?
I have more questions than answers. Back in the day, it was an easier concept to deal with. You go to a CAP event, you wear the proper uniform for said event. QED. If you didn't have a uniform, you didn't go. Period. If you had most of a uniform, you didn't wear the uniform. Period. It was more of a pride thing than a legal issue, in my eyes. We respected our unit, CC, and CAP enough to not want to embarrass them in public by being a bunch of rag-bags playing dress-up. Of course, WIWAC, legal issues were something we didn't ever bother with. We were told what to do and what not to do and that was it. There was a reason somewhere that made sense to someone higher up on the food chain and we didn't question it.
So what's the answer? Plain and simple, there isn't ONE answer. There's a ton of circumstances and what-if's and whatnot that go into creating a reg and who's covered and who isn't and why they are or aren't. But as I said, we can't have it both ways. Either proper uniform wear is MANDATORY and ENFORCEABLE, or it isn't.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 05, 2012, 06:33:48 PM
How about common sense and logic.
Apparently not as common as either of us would like.
QuoteThe uniform is a required part of the equation. It says "required".
Yup
QuoteOut of uniform = violation of the first regulation that allows for participation.
Well, here's your problem. "First regulation"? What the heck is that? There are countless regs that apply to any situation in CAP, but I've never heard them prioritized that way. I'd probably assume that something else, like say membership, would be the First Regulation. But whatever.
And while we agree that the regs require uniforms, I suspect we also agree that there are many perfectly acceptable times for CAP members to be in civilian clothes while on CAP time. Social activities, working on paperwork at home, taking a shower at encampment. Etc.
Quote
Not allowed to participate = not covered.
Not participating certainly means not covered. That's just axiomatic.
QuoteInsinuating a lawyer protecting the corporation won't use anything he can to that advantage, is also a disservice.
Thanks for the quick lesson on professional responsibility. (You're wrong again, BTW. There are many, many things ethical lawyers cannot use to advance the interests of their clients. But your's is a common misperception held about the legal profession.)
But much more importantly, lawyers don't make corporate decisions. Commanders do.
And every commander started out as a vunteer just like you and me.
Quote from: Ned on November 05, 2012, 07:14:39 PM
But much more importantly, lawyers don't make corporate decisions.
Correct, with the
advice of their Counsel, and with big $$$ of a settlement or judgement hanging in the balance,
who is really running that meeting? I would certainly hope it's the lawyers. That's why we
have Legal Officers.
Not being allowed to participate, because you did not meet "x" requirement, but participating anyway, is fairly common,
and
exactly what we are discussing.
"Upon investigation it was found that Maj Coin was not in proper uniform, therefore he was not authorized to
fly the aircraft which ultimately crashed and caused his death".
It would be unethical for a lawyer not to mount that defense for their client, especially considering it's absolutely a valid defense.
CAP has regs which dictate eligibility for various duties and activities, with the benefit of being protected if you follow the rules.
There's no logical fallacy in not being protected if you break the rules, but you're trying to insinuate that things which are "required",
aren't ultimately important enough to have consequences later. Ergo,
not actually required.
If fact, I don't understand why anyone in authority or influence would insinuate otherwise. It's totally counterproductive, and as unintended consequence, gives merit to the idea that "required" in CAP is a subjective term, which is ultimately the actual problem.
Here's what the KB has to say, Answer ID 1609:
When performing corporate flying missions (C missions), as opposed to Air Force assigned missions (A and B missions), CAP and its members are covered by the corporation's aviation liability policy. This policy covers both CAP and its members when the members are:
1. acting within the scope of their duties as a member of, and on behalf of, CAP;
2. authorized by the proper CAP authority to accomplish official responsibilities or missions;
3. not carrying passengers for a charge;
4. holders of a valid student, private, commercial or airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate ratings;
5. holders of a valid applicable medical certificate;
6. Operating within the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft;
If you are not in uniform (or not complying with similar mandates), then you are not "authorized by the proper CAP authority to accomplish official responsibilities or missions", because that authorization requires and assumes compliance with all relevant CAP regulations and policies, foremost
being wearing a proper uniform.
Further, if we assume for the sake of argument that CAP would never use uniform wear as a means to disavow benefits, that doesn't, in any way,
speak for FECA and FTCA, which are federal programs, outside of CAP's control, and which have employees whose mandate is to limit benefits.
CAP would certainly be consulted during the application process, but the ultimate decisions regarding benefits will be out of CAP's control,
and decided by people who have a much stricter interpretation of the word "required".
The KB answer says it well.
Nothing; not a hint about clothing determining member benefits.
Your attempt to insert a "any minute violation of any CAP regulation - no matter how small or insignificant - means you are 'unauthorized'" clause is a nice try, but does not fit.
And the dedicated civil servants that administer FECA and the FTCA have been dealing with us and other uniformed Federal workers for decades without ever suggesting that uniform violations are anywhere near as important to them as they are to CAPTalk regulars.
It's a non issue. It never has been an issue. And it is not starting any time soon.
It doesn't need to call out clothing, because wearing the proper clothing is part of getting the authorization.
No uniform = no authorization. No authorization = no coverage.
Or are you saying the uniform is 100% irrelevant to be qualified and receiving authorization?
Quote from: Eclipse on November 05, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
It doesn't need to call out clothing, because wearing the proper clothing is part of getting the authorization.
No uniform = no authorization. No authorization = no coverage.
Or are you saying the uniform is 100% irreverent irrelevant to be qualified and receiving authorization?
FTFY
Quote from: Garibaldi on November 05, 2012, 08:21:42 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 05, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
It doesn't need to call out clothing, because wearing the proper clothing is part of getting the authorization.
No uniform = no authorization. No authorization = no coverage.
Or are you saying the uniform is 100% irreverent irrelevant to be qualified and receiving authorization?
FTFY
UGH!
Uniform police + Grammar Police = Eclipse Frustration Level 10 >:D
Bob,
You dodge and twist all you want. After all you didn't become our most prolific poster without that skillet.
What I am saying is what I have said all along - uniform violations do not affect insurance coverage. And it is a disservice to our members to imply that it does. It just scares them out of doing their important CAP jobs.
Feel free to continue to create elaborate hypotheticals and play "gotcha" if you want.
But my point remains.
Thank you for your service to CAP and especially to our cadets. It is truly appreciated.
I'm going to be out of the loop for a few days.
Ned Lee
But Ned-- With that logic, FROs should not be required to ask PICs if the members flying in corporate aircraft are wearing the "proper uniforms." In addition, the new business brought up by my Wing CC regarding spousal travel in CAP aircraft would also be a non-starter.
Please understand, I'm not trying to stir the hornets nest but this is yet another situation where CAP leadership has been less than transparent regarding an important issue within the organization. While there may not be any basis in fact with my earlier statement regarding uniforms vs insurance coverage as it pertains to specific regulations, but I have also not seen anything to the contrary. Instead of engaging in a pissing match with "Bob," would you please give me some guidance as to the factual evidence you have to support your claim? I've heard the insurance vs. uniform issue from corporate officers in addition to it being a part of the regular FRO checklist when releasing flights, logically the math makes sense for the two to be inter-connected.
Again, I mean no disrespect and I appreciate your duty as a former Legal Officer and BoG member. Those two jobs alone have done far more than we will ever be able to resolve on this message board and for that I salute and thank you.
Because I can't say for certain if Eclipse's real name is Bob. When Ned is replying to one of Eclipse's retorts he refers to him as Bob, I don't know him as that so... :angel:
Quote from: RickRutledge on November 05, 2012, 09:37:56 PM
Because I can't say for certain if Eclipse's real name is Bob. When Ned is replying to one of Eclipse's retorts he refers to him as Bob, I don't know him as that so... :angel:
Say it's not...is Ned tarnishing all the Bob-named people in the world? He wouldn't do that, would he? Typically when you call some one "Joe/Pal/Chief/Guy" etc in an argument, it is done to minimize them as an individual.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 05, 2012, 09:40:38 PM
Quote from: RickRutledge on November 05, 2012, 09:37:56 PM
Because I can't say for certain if Eclipse's real name is Bob. When Ned is replying to one of Eclipse's retorts he refers to him as Bob, I don't know him as that so... :angel:
Say it's not...is Ned tarnishing all the Bob-named people in the world? He wouldn't do that, would he? Typically when you call some one "Joe/Pal/Chief/Guy" etc in an argument, it is done to minimize them as an individual.
No, its usually done to be seen as "not so harsh," or more friendly.
That tone can be used as a put down, but not usually. Context is everything.
John,
Are you saying picking a random name out of the hat is more friendly?
Why not do the good "My friend" line then?
I can say with Ivory Soap certainty that Eclipse's first name is Bob.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 05, 2012, 09:48:12 PM
I can say with Ivory Soap certainty that Eclipse's first name is Bob.
That or he has fooled many of us for many years! :o
Quote from: RickRutledge on November 05, 2012, 09:26:29 PM
But Ned-- With that logic, FROs should not be required to ask PICs if the members flying in corporate aircraft are wearing the "proper uniforms."
Actually, the responsibility for verifying the crew's eligibility to fly falls to the PIC, though the FRO may withhold the release if they think someone isn't qualified.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on November 05, 2012, 10:25:37 PM
Actually, the responsibility for verifying the crew's eligibility to fly falls to the PIC, though the FRO may withhold the release if they think someone isn't qualified.
Correct. But the FRO still asks, at least in my wing, "Is everyone wearing a proper uniform?"
Quote from: Ned on November 05, 2012, 09:14:38 PM
Bob,
You dodge and twist all you want. After all you didn't become our most prolific poster without that skillet.
What I am saying is what I have said all along - uniform violations do not affect insurance coverage. And it is a disservice to our members to imply that it does. It just scares them out of doing their important CAP jobs.
Feel free to continue to create elaborate hypotheticals and play "gotcha" if you want.
But my point remains.
Thank you for your service to CAP and especially to our cadets. It is truly appreciated.
I'm going to be out of the loop for a few days.
I knew the "thank you for your service" was coming at some point. Its appreciated, but won't deflect the question.
>I'm< not the one dodging. I've asked you several very specific questions, direct to this discussion, and
you ignored them to simply repeat your earlier statements.
This is neither "hypothetical", nor "elaborate". It in fact happens all the time - I'll put a Venti on the table that at least two releases
have been done today that would fall into this situation. With the ops tempo out NE, it's almost certain.
Rick beat me to it on the Flight Release, but it's a 100% on-target point.
No member can fly a CAP aircraft without a proper flight release. CAP has made it very clear that all
manner of unpleasantness can befall a member who takes off without one - everything from remedial training, through
grounding and ultimately termination.
No flight release = illegal flight (illegal in CAP terms, though it's possible it could actually be considered unauthorized use).
Illegal flight = no coverage.
As Rick pointed out, the first FRO question is regarding the uniform, lie and it's fraud, get caught because of a mishap, and
it was an illegitimate release.
So, the direct, non-hypothetical, non-elaborate question, is would NHQ deny benefits to a member who was injured or
incurred external liability in this situation?
I'd also be more then welcome to any notes, memos, internal policies, or similar that indicate NHQ's legal directorate, as well
as FECA and FTCA administrators have all formally and officially chosen to ignore a perfectly legal an appropriate defense
for their clients on the grounds of compassion and appreciation for the membership.
Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Bob, you might get answers if you started another thread with your questions, like Ned asked.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 05, 2012, 11:08:27 PM
Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Bob, you might get answers if you started another thread with your questions, like Ned asked.
It would probably be more appropriate for the mods to split it where things diverged.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 05, 2012, 11:10:21 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on November 05, 2012, 11:08:27 PM
Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Bob, you might get answers if you started another thread with your questions, like Ned asked.
It would probably be more appropriate for the mods to split it where things diverged.
Or do like at least four people have asked you to do and start your own thread. Geesh, it's not Rocket Surgery!
FWIW, I am sailing under the Golden Gate at this moment and will be off the net until Saturday unless I pony up the extortionate satellite Internet charges the cruise line charges. And as much fun as CT is, I am going to hang out with my wife and celebrate our 31st.
Aloha!
Congrats on 31!
Have a great vacation!
Quote from: RickRutledge on November 05, 2012, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: Blues Brother on November 05, 2012, 12:40:52 PM
I agree. I personally canont see the benefit in people getting so wound up on these uniform issues in an organization that is all volunteers.
Maybe there are two good reasons:
1) When you wear the uniform you are a representative of CAP, USAF (if in AF style) and the military in general. That's the reason 39-1 specifically states that all uniforms will be professional in appearance and well kept; Compliance with the regulation is mandatory.
2) Uniform violations are a reason for denying insurance coverage in the event of an accident. What you may see as "just messy but not a big deal" the organization sees as a blatant violation of rules that have been put in place to protect you and the organization in the event of an incident.
As a volunteer, it's your job to know what you're getting yourself into. Yes, it's tough to recruit and retain quality members, but there is a responsibility in doing your job the way prescribed in CAP. Like it or not, it is the way it is for a reason. Besides, a sloppy senior member is a bad example and can question the credibility of ALL senior members with cadets that we are charged with. That can get into a whole other debate.
I understand the concept of senior members setting an example and I respect that viewpoint. But if a "uniform violation" ( I have a hard time even saying that without laughing) denies insurance coverage, then show me where I turn in my membership card to the human race. If that is what we have degraded to as a society, its time to find a better planet to live on. I am just envisioning a crash scene investigation where the police and FAA are examining the evidence of the crash site, and all of a sudden a fleet of black suburbans from the insurance company show up and agents start shoving police officers out of the way shouting "DONT TOUCH THE UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!! BACK AWAY FROM THE UNIFORMS WE NEED TO INSPECT THEM BEFORE YOU TOUCH ANYTHING!!!!!!!! Now, you EMTs come over here, you first responders tell us, were their shirts properly pressed when you found the wreckage???"
That movie flight? Saved the passengers but had a drink. Hero to fellon just like that
Quote from: Blues Brother on November 06, 2012, 12:34:59 PMI understand the concept of senior members setting an example and I respect that viewpoint. But if a "uniform violation" ( I have a hard time even saying that without laughing) denies insurance coverage, then show me where I turn in my membership card to the human race. If that is what we have degraded to as a society, its time to find a better planet to live on. I am just envisioning a crash scene investigation where the police and FAA are examining the evidence of the crash site, and all of a sudden a fleet of black suburbans from the insurance company show up and agents start shoving police officers out of the way shouting "DONT TOUCH THE UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!! BACK AWAY FROM THE UNIFORMS WE NEED TO INSPECT THEM BEFORE YOU TOUCH ANYTHING!!!!!!!! Now, you EMTs come over here, you first responders tell us, were their shirts properly pressed when you found the wreckage???"
You can't make this "touchy feely", or somehow about the compassion of the leadership, because the decisions won't be made in that way.
When we're talking about hangar rash or a missing static whip, few would make a big deal, because the money isn't life-changing for anyone,
but in the case where we'd be talking about numbers with meaningful commas, it's a different story.
Those decisions, quite appropriately, would be made based on numbers and risk, and while I agree that its the Commanders, not the lawyers,
who make the actual decisions in these cases, when you start talking real money, those decisions might be made, or influenced, over the
heads of CAP's commanders by either the USAF or a jury. Our insurance carriers will also have an opinion, and they are just private businesses.
Where does real money come from? Many of our aircraft are based in urban areas where sprawl has encroached on the runways.
In my wing, a number of the major airports are a stone's throw from homes. One poor judgment on takeoff with full tanks
and you could take out a whole row of houses - real money.
No matter what the actual cause, the lack of following a simple required procedure like wearing a uniform opens the door in a jury's
mind to "What else did the pilot ignore?" Real money.
And yes, this started based on the supposition that a uniform issue could be grounds for denying a member benefits, but the uniform is
really a MacGuffin. It's anything, no matter how minor, that could potentially disqualify a member from being "legal" (in a CAP sense) to do "x".
I agree with Ned on this. No member has ever been denied insurance coverage for driving or flying in a CAP owned vehicle (air or ground) when not wearing a proper uniform (including carriying a valid membership card).
However, CAP-USAF has attempted to decertify some AFAM's when pilots crashed aircraft; denying the families Federal Benefits. If this happens, CAP's self insurance kicks in.
(is this the first time a uniform issue has been hijcacked?) ;D
No, but it is a rare instance.
Quote from: FW on November 06, 2012, 03:34:54 PMHowever, CAP-USAF has attempted to decertify some AFAM's when pilots crashed aircraft; denying the families Federal Benefits. If this happens, CAP's self insurance kicks in.
OK, so we've gone from "never" to "it's been done".
CAP's self insurance is not remotely the same as what is provided by AFAMs. It might cover medical expenses and liability, but it won't provide a
permanently disabled person an income like FECA will.
Quote from: RogueLeader on November 06, 2012, 03:40:58 PM
No, but it is a rare instance.
I agree. But so is a survivable CAP aircraft crash with fire, yet CAWG decided the risk was high enough that they require(d?) Nomex for years.
My point here isn't that this is something that will likely effect the average member, but that the official stance should be to treat the word "required"
by its actual definition, and never, ever, even hint that a member might not be held responsible for ignoring it.
Better to set the example then be the example.
From "never" to "it's been done" back to "attempted to".
Remember, many if not all court cases are because someone "attempted" to do something. How far along they get, etc.
I was referring to this:
Quote from: FW on November 06, 2012, 03:34:54 PM
(is this the first time a uniform issue has been hijcacked?) ;D
Being in violation of a traffic law (much stronger than a CAPR) does not void out a car insurance policy. If you think of it, almost all if not all car crashes involve someone operating a vehicle outside of the law and the insurance is not voided.
Ned is a member of the bar. The rest of us are all sidewalk attorneys and barracks lawyers.
If CAP took the position that a uniform or some other regulation petty violation voids insurance then no one in their right mind would be a member!
Quote from: 754837 on November 06, 2012, 04:36:24 PM
Being in violation of a traffic law (much stronger than a CAPR) does not void out a car insurance policy. If you think of it, almost all if not all car crashes involve someone operating a vehicle outside of the law and the insurance is not voided.
But not being legally authorized to operate the vehicle at all, for whatever reason, may, in fact void your insurance.
In the vast majority of circumstances, not being in uniform means you are not "legally" (in CAP terms) allowed to operate the aircraft.
can anybody explain why you must be in a uniform when flying a plane...especially for something like a maintenance flight. I understand that if you are on a mission but if you are just performing a quick task after work or something. It just seems like a silly rule. Any ideas.
It is just another one of those rumors/lies...that are running around. I too was told at one time that not wearing your uniform would jepordise your insurance.......but really.........has anyone out there actually known someome who was not paid off simply for not wearing the uniform?
Forget about your interpetation of the regs....forget what you may have been told......I'm likely to beleive a member of our BoG when he says that uniforms will not impact insurance pay outs.
If someone can provide first hand info to the contrary I would like to know.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 06, 2012, 03:19:54 PM
Quote from: Blues Brother on November 06, 2012, 12:34:59 PMI understand the concept of senior members setting an example and I respect that viewpoint. But if a "uniform violation" ( I have a hard time even saying that without laughing) denies insurance coverage, then show me where I turn in my membership card to the human race. If that is what we have degraded to as a society, its time to find a better planet to live on. I am just envisioning a crash scene investigation where the police and FAA are examining the evidence of the crash site, and all of a sudden a fleet of black suburbans from the insurance company show up and agents start shoving police officers out of the way shouting "DONT TOUCH THE UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!! BACK AWAY FROM THE UNIFORMS WE NEED TO INSPECT THEM BEFORE YOU TOUCH ANYTHING!!!!!!!! Now, you EMTs come over here, you first responders tell us, were their shirts properly pressed when you found the wreckage???"
You can't make this "touchy feely", or somehow about the compassion of the leadership, because the decisions won't be made in that way.
When we're talking about hangar rash or a missing static whip, few would make a big deal, because the money isn't life-changing for anyone,
but in the case where we'd be talking about numbers with meaningful commas, it's a different story.
Those decisions, quite appropriately, would be made based on numbers and risk, and while I agree that its the Commanders, not the lawyers,
who make the actual decisions in these cases, when you start talking real money, those decisions might be made, or influenced, over the
heads of CAP's commanders by either the USAF or a jury. Our insurance carriers will also have an opinion, and they are just private businesses.
Where does real money come from? Many of our aircraft are based in urban areas where sprawl has encroached on the runways.
In my wing, a number of the major airports are a stone's throw from homes. One poor judgment on takeoff with full tanks
and you could take out a whole row of houses - real money.
No matter what the actual cause, the lack of following a simple required procedure like wearing a uniform opens the door in a jury's
mind to "What else did the pilot ignore?" Real money.
And yes, this started based on the supposition that a uniform issue could be grounds for denying a member benefits, but the uniform is
really a MacGuffin. It's anything, no matter how minor, that could potentially disqualify a member from being "legal" (in a CAP sense) to do "x".
I just see things in a practical way I guess. I mean if there was an accident and it was linked to something such as alcohol or drug use, lack of ATC clearance, flying into IMC without a rating, etc... I can understand where it could become a legal issue, but the idea of a "uniform violation" causing a legal issue is just beyond silly. I have never even heard of anything so obtuse. I mean I was going to lunch today and I saw an interstate battery delivery truck, and I was thinking if that truck got into an accident and batteries went flying all over and busted open and all the battery acid flew everywhere and melted a bunch of innocent bystanders eyes out, would the DOT or police check to make sure the driver was wearing his proper company uniform? I dont think so. blood test, urine test, yea...... but a uniform? I dont think so.
^ For clarity, we're talking "legal" in the CAP sense, not in the real world sense.
However, in a real-world sense, someone flying a CAP plane without a proper flight release has essentially "stolen" the aircraft, and we all know what the first question on the FRO checklist is, so there's that.
Quote from: Blues Brother on November 06, 2012, 05:38:38 PM...would the DOT or police check to make sure the driver was wearing his proper company uniform?
Of course not, the DOT has no interest or involvement in internal company policies or benefits, but the battery company probably would, and may well have issues with paying benefits to that driver. In that case there may well be union rules and a contract involved, and in those cases, they really, really understand the term "required".
I just checked the FRO checklist on the National Site....and question one is:
1. Are PIC(s) qualified to fly the CAP aircraft for the type of flight proposed (consult the Ops-Qual FRO Report)? Does the PIC(s) possess the appropriate pilot currency for the flight?
And the other questions are:
2. Are all aircraft occupants CAP members? If not, have applicable procedures been followed for non-CAP members, including CAPF 9 if applicable?
3. Is the correct mission symbol selected?
4. Is the route of flight complete, and does the PIC have permission to fly to destinations outside the wing? Does permission exist for all landings at every airport IAW CAPR 60-1?
5. Will a flight plan be filed (required for over 50 nm)? If not, what is the estimated landing time? Unless an FAA flight plan is filed and activated, the FRO is responsible for initiating missing aircraft procedures two hours after the estimated landing time if not notified the flight was safely concluded.
Note one question about uniforms. So....while some wings may be mis-informed and passing bad information about uniforms and flight releases.....NHQ (as Ned said) is not so concerned about it from an insurance liablity stand point.
So.......again.......what exactly is the point? Has anyone ever been denided coverage due to a uniform? Ned says you are wrong about the "no uniform no coverage" and he should know.
And to think of it from a "let's get the lawyers involved" point of view......my cadet flies an o-ride that (FSM forbid) crashes and because he was not wearing his uniform NHQ won't pay his medical bills........just think of the law suit that would come down on that!
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 06:50:18 PM1. Are PIC(s) qualified to fly the CAP aircraft for the type of flight proposed (consult the Ops-Qual FRO Report)? Does the PIC(s) possess the appropriate pilot currency for the flight?
You're short-handing that to make your point.
There are a number of factors that make up "qualified", none of which are asked.
Is he an active member?
Is he in proper uniform?
CAPR 60-1, Page 7:
2-3. Passenger Requirements. Authorized passengers are CAP crew members, other current
CAP members, CAP employees, ROTC/JROTC cadets (ROTC/JROTC flight orientation
program only), International Air Cadet Exchange (IACE) orientation flight cadets and escorts,
CAP-USAF personnel conducting official business, or FAA designated pilot examiners during
flight checks.c. CAP members will wear an appropriate CAP uniform and carry proof of CAP
membership. Only occupants of CAP gliders, tow planes and crew members requested not to
wear uniforms by the customer of a CD mission are exempt from the CAP uniform requirement.
No uniform = not qualified. Not qualified = no release. No release = no coverage.
Just because it isn't spelled out explicitly doesn't mean it isn't enforced.
NO....I think you are adding requirments that don't exist.
qualified means does he have the proper FAA license for the type of flight. Does he have the proper CAPF 5 for the aircraft. Does he have the right ES and CAPF95 for the mission. Is he FAA current and is his medical current.
As for the regulations to wear uniforms....I agree......we need to be wearing the proper uniform. Period end of story. But where is the reference that says if fail to follow ALL of the regulations to the "T" that you are going to loose your insurance coverage?
I know that FECA can care less what you were wearing. They will care about negligence that CAUSED the accident......but that is all.
Again....you are right in demanding that your people follow all the regulations......but you are wrong if you are telling them that they will lose their insurance coverage if they do.
That is all.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 06, 2012, 04:53:31 PM
can anybody explain why you must be in a uniform when flying a plane...especially for something like a maintenance flight. I understand that if you are on a mission but if you are just performing a quick task after work or something. It just seems like a silly rule. Any ideas.
Because NAKED people flying airplanes is probably not a good thing. >:D
As to the notion that one may be denied coverage for a uniform violation......
M-I-C....K-E-Y.....M-O-U-S-EEEE. >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 07:38:51 PM
NO....I think you are adding requirments that don't exist.
qualified means does he have the proper FAA license for the type of flight. Does he have the proper CAPF 5 for the aircraft. Does he have the right ES and CAPF95 for the mission. Is he FAA current and is his medical current.
No, that's not
all, "qualified" means. The F5 and 91 are called out in the second sentence.
If "qualified" only meant they were flight current, then anyone could fly our airplanes on a whim.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 07:38:51 PMAgain....you are right in demanding that your people follow all the regulations......but you are wrong if you are telling them that they will lose their insurance coverage if they do.
So which of the other regs can we ignore?
We might as well start a list.
Negative on "stolen" - it does not meet the elements. Theft requires the intention to deprive the owner of ownership. It requires the intent to steal.
LARCENY OF AUTOMOTIVE DRIVEN VEHICLE - ELEMENTS
No person may be convicted of larceny of an automotive driven vehicle unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, trespassory;
Second, taking;
Third, carrying away;
Fourth, automobile/aircraft/(automotive driven vehicle)/(construction/farm equipment);
Fifth, of another;
Sixth, with the intent to steal.
______________________________
Statutory Authority: 21 O.S. 2001, § 1720.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 06, 2012, 08:44:43 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 07:38:51 PMAgain....you are right in demanding that your people follow all the regulations......but you are wrong if you are telling them that they will lose their insurance coverage if they do.
So which of the other regs can we ignore?
We might as well start a list.
I am not saying we can ignore them......I am saying that we should not be telling lies to enforce compliance.
Thou shall wear an appropriate and complete CAP uniform or I shall pull your flight privlages until you learn to follow the rules.
Not
Thou shall wear an appropropriate and complete CAP uniform or you may loose your insurance coverages.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 06, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 07:38:51 PM
NO....I think you are adding requirments that don't exist.
qualified means does he have the proper FAA license for the type of flight. Does he have the proper CAPF 5 for the aircraft. Does he have the right ES and CAPF95 for the mission. Is he FAA current and is his medical current.
No, that's not all, "qualified" means. The F5 and 91 are called out in the second sentence.
If "qualified" only meant they were flight current, then anyone could fly our airplanes on a whim.
Well first.......it is the first part sentance of question one that applies to CAPF 5 and CAPF 91. The second sentance is about currancy.
Again....no mention at all about uniforms.
Second....no one ever said the qualified meant only FAA license and currency.....you still need your CAPF 5 for the type of aircraft as a minimum.
So your "anyone can fly" argument is a non starter as that was never something I proposed.
Quote from: 754837 on November 06, 2012, 08:59:13 PM
Negative on "stolen" - it does not meet the elements. Theft requires the intention to deprive the owner of ownership. It requires the intent to steal.
I used "steal" in quotes.
The proper term is "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle". The statute is different depending on which state you're in, but in most states
it includes aircraft and is a felony.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 09:11:40 PMSecond....no one ever said the qualified meant only FAA license and currency.....you still need your CAPF 5 for the type of aircraft as a minimum.
So I'm just trying to whittle this down to "required" vs "
required".
The uniform is "required", but the F5 is "
required"?
Either you're qualified to fly the airplane or you aren't. It's not a shade of gray.
No uniform, you're not qualified. And that goes for the other duties and activities where the uniform is a line item on
the criteria to participate.
If you're not qualified to participate in an activity, how can you believe you'd be covered by benefits which are only open to qualified members?
Nobody is choosing to ignore any regulation. 99.999% percent of our members do not willfully or purposely plan to ignore regulations, policies, or established procedures when they go about their duties as CAP members. Do regulations get violated through ignorance, misinformation, human error, or other factors that may be forced on us? Of course they do. Nobody is denying this. Anybody who says that they have never violated one portion of one regulation of CAP is a liar or sits at home and does nothing. If we want to accomplish something in this organization, however, we are going to have to go about our business and try to stay within the regs, but knowing that we might violate some small tenet of some obscure regulation as we do our jobs.
Can this cause us to get in trouble with CAP? Of course. But I would like to think that our leaders have the wisdom, foresight, and experience to separate the occasional procedural error from the wanton and willful disregard of the rules that is the real problem. We can choose to hammer every little deviation from the letter of the regulations and call ourselves "professionals" all we want. We can also sit at mission base and twiddle our thumbs lest we inadvertently breach regulations.
Is the leadership of CAP going to say that a "uniform violation" that did not have any material relation to whatever caused the "incident" in question make the members "unauthorized" for benefits? Yes, but not unless they don't have brain cell one in their bodies and no human emotions whatsoever.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, counsel for the defendant would have you believe that because the victim's belt was navy blue instead of the "authorized" black that the aircraft would not have hit the errant flock of geese, he would still be alive, and all would be right with the world."
Somehow, I ain't buying that.
Quote from: ol'fido on November 06, 2012, 09:18:43 PM"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, counsel for the defendant would have you believe that because the victim's belt was navy blue instead of the "authorized" black that the aircraft would not have hit the errant flock of geese, he would still be alive, and all would be right with the world."
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. Plantiff's Counsel would have you believe that a 79-year old woman was unaware that coffee was hot."
The ultimate settlement was $600,000 and every cup of coffee served in this country now carries a warning that coffee is hot.
At a minimum, no one in authority or influence should ever even hint that something which is noted as "required", isn't, especially something
which is at the core of the organization and membership, affects attitude, and may, in a remote circumstance, cause a member to be denied the protections of CAP. As soon as you introduce fudge on
anything, you open the door to fudge on everything.
The response should
always be:
"In order to insure both the member and the corporation are always protected in regards to injury or liability,
it is critical that our members adhere to all the applicable regulations, and consult higher headquarters whenever there is a question in this regard."
Quote from: Eclipse on November 06, 2012, 09:14:03 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 09:11:40 PMSecond....no one ever said the qualified meant only FAA license and currency.....you still need your CAPF 5 for the type of aircraft as a minimum.
So I'm just trying to whittle this down to "required" vs "required".
The uniform is "required", but the F5 is "required"?
Either you're qualified to fly the airplane or you aren't. It's not a shade of gray.
No uniform, you're not qualified. And that goes for the other duties and activities where the uniform is a line item on
the criteria to participate.
If you're not qualified to participate in an activity, how can you believe you'd be covered by benefits which are only open to qualified members?
Required is not the word we are debateing.....it is Qualified.
Your plane is required to have a fire extingusher. If you don't have one....you are still qualified to fly.....just not authorised. :)
Your pilot is required to be qualified for the type of aircraft and type of flight to be able to get a flight release.
Everyone is required to wear a uniform to fly.......not affecting anyone's qualificaitons......just their authorisation.
And NHQ does not think that makeing sure everyone on the plane is in uniform is a big enough issue to make it to the FRO checklist.
But all of this is secondary to my basic point.
WEAR YOUR FRIGGING UNIFORM! BECAUSE THE REGS SAY SO! Not......Wear your uniform or you may not get insurance coverage. End of message.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 06, 2012, 09:22:38 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on November 06, 2012, 09:18:43 PM"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, counsel for the defendant would have you believe that because the victim's belt was navy blue instead of the "authorized" black that the aircraft would not have hit the errant flock of geese, he would still be alive, and all would be right with the world."
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. Plantiff's Counsel would have you believe that a 79-year old woman was unaware that coffee was hot."
The ultimate settlement was $600,000 and every cup of coffee served in this country now carries a warning that coffee is hot.
At a minimum, no one in authority or influence should ever even hint that something which is noted as "required", isn't, especially something
which is at the core of the organization and membership, affects attitude, and may, in a remote circumstance, cause a member to be denied the protections of CAP. As soon as you introduce fudge on anything, you open the door to fudge on everything.
The response should always be: "In order to insure both the member and the corporation are always protected in regards to injury or liability,
it is critical that our members adhere to all the applicable regulations, and consult higher headquarters whenever there is a question in this regard."
??????
Then why are you holding that line? Ned said that was not true. The regs do not say that. You are the one that is suggesting that
"In order to insure both the member and the corporation are always protected in regards to injury or liability,
it is critical that our members adhere to all the applicable regulations, and consult higher headquarters whenever there is a question in this regard."What we are telling you is that unless someone has slipped something by Ned while he was not looking.......THAT IS NOT CAP's Policy.
Your protection in recard injurly or liablity will be based on your negligence not if you Crossed all the T's and Dotted all the I's and what not.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 09:33:12 PMEveryone is required to wear a uniform to fly.......not affecting anyone's qualificaitons......just their authorisation.
You can't be authorized, without being qualified.
You can't be qualified without the uniform.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 09:42:04 PMYour protection in recard injurly or liablity will be based on your negligence not if you Crossed all the T's and Dotted all the I's and what not.
Right. Because details are never important in regards to the court system or civil suits.
No one has ever lost thousands of dollars because of minor "unimportant" details.
Ned may view the courts and lawyers as always benevolent and working in the best interest of all involved. I don't.
Lawyers, especially in civil trials, have very specific mandates, and the #1 mandate is defending their client or minimizing
damages. They will use whatever tactic is necessary. Why he would say that is unethical is beyond me, that's their job.
And there's no way he can speak for FECA and FTCA administrators who have zero vested interest in CAP members.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 06, 2012, 09:47:40 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 09:33:12 PMEveryone is required to wear a uniform to fly.......not affecting anyone's qualificaitons......just their authorisation.
You can't be authorized, without being qualified.
You can't be qualified without the uniform.
Somantics.....but you can be qualified without a uniform.....and you can be authorised without a uniform (I point to seveal cases where 39-1 uniforms are either not authorised CD missions...or alternate uniforms are mandated/allowed).
Either case has nothing to do with the argument that of all the things you can screw up......uniforms is so way down on the list of things that will make NHQ contimplate pulling insurance coverage.
Wear your uniform becausee the regs say so....not because you may lose insurance coverage.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 06, 2012, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 09:42:04 PMYour protection in recard injurly or liablity will be based on your negligence not if you Crossed all the T's and Dotted all the I's and what not.
Right. Because details are never important in regards to the court system or civil suits.
No one has ever lost thousands of dollars because of minor "unimportant" details.
Ned may view the courts and lawyers as always benevolent and working in the best interest of all involved. I don't.
Lawyers, especially in civil trials, have very specific mandates, and the #1 mandate is defending their client or minimizing
damages. They will use whatever tactic is necessary. Why he would say that is unethical is beyond me, that's their job.
And there's no way he can speak for FECA and FTCA administrators who have zero vested interest in CAP members.
Whose lawyers?
We are talking about CAP....i.e. CAP's lawyers pulling insurance coverage. As for FECA and FTCA.......having seen those in action and being covered by similar (if not exactly the same thing as an AD USAF member) I can tell you that again uniforms are a non starter unless it somehow contributed to the cause of the accident/injury. Wearing your pink tutu and it flips up and blinds you causing you to taxi into a building on an AFAM.........maybe they will state CAP regs as reason to leave you (and CAP) high and dry. Crashing due to a wind gust on final.....again uniforms are so way down on the list...it won't even come up.
So again......a member of the BoG says it won't happen.......in my 10+ years in CAP I have never seen it happen. I think you are trying to make a mole hill out of nothing here.
I may be wrong.....so again I ask.......has anyone have first hand knowlege of CAP or FECA pulling coverage due to simply uniforms?
To reduce our liability we should eliminate uniforms!
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 10:21:53 PM
Wear your uniform becausee the regs say so....not because you may lose insurance coverage.
I'll buy that.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 10:29:38 PMWhose lawyers?
The ones defending CAP in the lawsuits when there is a mishap involving external liability. The ones requesting that CAP
be relieved of responsibility based on the fact that the member was not authorized for the activity in question.
The lawyers for the insurance carrier who are suing the member directly for the damage to the aircraft because CAP
disavowed responsibility based on unauthorized use of the aircraft.
The lawyers for CAP, or the Federal government when benefits are denied based on unauthorized use of the aircraft
and you have to sue them for benefits.
Dude....if a CAP member is sueing CAP for injuries sustained or is sueing CAP because some T-shirt wearing pilot damaged their airport/house/car.........it is not going to matter much to the jury one bit if CAP pulled insurance coverage from the member or not.
In case A.....it is more likely that a CAP member sue CAP IF they pull coverage then if they just pay the medical bills.
In Case B....the plaintiff is going to name EVERYONE from the pilot, the MO, the MS, the FRO AND CAP inc. as defendants. So again pulling coverage will only make things worse for CAP not better. At that point the jurry is not going to care one whip if the pilot was following CAP uniform regulations or not.....unless it contributed to the accident.
Now....if CAP were to sue members (or exmembers) to recoup thier loses and they want to use the uniform issue to show a pattern of disregard to following the regs......maybe you would have a case......but on the reality side of things......I just don't see that happening....a) It will cost more money to get their loses back. b) I just don't think CAP has the time for that BS.
Also note.....CAP does not have an insurance carrier AFAIK......we are self insured....that is we got a big pot of money we keep on hand to pay out these sort of things.
Otherwise we would not be having to take the stupid aircraft handeling training because said insurance carrier would be sueing for the repairs for all these hanger rashes we have been having.
Now I am not a lawyer.....but Ned is one......and he says it does not happen the way you say......I'll take his word for it.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 07, 2012, 01:21:02 AMNow....if CAP were to sue members (or exmembers) to recoup thier loses and they want to use the uniform issue to show a pattern of disregard to following the regs......maybe you would have a case......but on the reality side of things......I just don't see that happening....a) It will cost more money to get their loses back. b) I just don't think CAP has the time for that BS.
At $350,000 plus for a new airplane, I'd guess it was worth it.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 07, 2012, 01:21:02 AM
Also note.....CAP does not have an insurance carrier AFAIK......we are self insured....that is we got a big pot of money we keep on hand to pay out these sort of things.
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/general_counsel/insurance-and-other-contacts/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/general_counsel/insurance-and-other-contacts/)
Quote from: lordmonar on November 06, 2012, 10:29:38 PM
So again......a member of the BoG says it won't happen.......in my 10+ years in CAP I have never seen it happen. I think you are trying to make a mole hill out of nothing here.
I may be wrong.....so again I ask.......has anyone have first hand knowlege of CAP or FECA pulling coverage due to simply uniforms?
CAP or FECA has never pulled coverage due to uniforms however, CAP-USAF has
considered decertifiying AFAM status for members killing themselves in crashes because they weren't wearing "the proper uniform". I know of two cases where this was
considered. At no time did this ever happen. It is important to note; the Air Force wants to make sure we obey
our regulations. If we allow members to fly without uniforms; the Air Force won't mind.
Just to chime in on the "required" vs "required" concept.
In insurance case law there's a question of materiality.
So, take a CAPF5 for example: A pilot without a CAPF5 crashes a plane. The CAPF5 is specifically designed to test the pilot's competence to fly the aircraft. So, if the cause of the accident was pilot error in any way, the lack of CAPF5 could well be considered a material breech. If, however, that crash is caused by mechanical failure that would not be detectable on a pre-flight, then that lack of CAPF5 would not be a material breech. One can be cause for insurance denial, the other cannot. Nothing would prevent CAP from 2Bing a member who flew without a CAPF5, even if there is no accident, as that pilot violated CAP regs, but absent material contribution to the cause of an accident, insurance still has to pay up.
So, when would a uniform violation be a material cause of an accident that would give rise to denied insurance? For the life of me, I can't think of any situation.
Quote from: FW on November 07, 2012, 12:23:29 PMCAP or FECA has never pulled coverage due to uniforms however, CAP-USAF has considered decertifiying AFAM status for members killing themselves in crashes because they weren't wearing "the proper uniform". I know of two cases where this was considered. At no time did this ever happen. It is important to note; the Air Force wants to make sure we obey our regulations. If we allow members to fly without uniforms; the Air Force won't mind.
^ So this is a fair answer as far as I'm concerned, and comes from a former board member.
The USAF has, in fact, at least
considered uniform wear in decertifying an AFAM.
No one said it was a common occurrence, but then again neither are serious mishaps.
It's not a "won't ever happen", or a "can't happen", it's a "did happen".
Members should act accordingly and not kid themselves that violating even minor rules won't potentially have serious ramifications.
Quote from: JeffDG on November 07, 2012, 01:13:10 PMSo, when would a uniform violation be a material cause of an accident that would give rise to denied insurance? For the life of me, I can't think of any situation.
But we're not just talking about insurance, are we? We're also talking about CAP defending a member in civil suits from outside parties.
Obviously CAP would be party to those suits, and could make the case that the member acted without proper flight authorization and
therefore is personally liable for damages, even to the point of CAP suing the member to recover damages. Insurance carriers sue to
recover damages all the time.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 06, 2012, 09:22:38 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on November 06, 2012, 09:18:43 PM"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, counsel for the defendant would have you believe that because the victim's belt was navy blue instead of the "authorized" black that the aircraft would not have hit the errant flock of geese, he would still be alive, and all would be right with the world."
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. Plantiff's Counsel would have you believe that a 79-year old woman was unaware that coffee was hot."
The ultimate settlement was $600,000 and every cup of coffee served in this country now carries a warning that coffee is hot.
At a minimum, no one in authority or influence should ever even hint that something which is noted as "required", isn't, especially something
which is at the core of the organization and membership, affects attitude, and may, in a remote circumstance, cause a member to be denied the protections of CAP. As soon as you introduce fudge on anything, you open the door to fudge on everything.
The response should always be: "In order to insure both the member and the corporation are always protected in regards to injury or liability,
it is critical that our members adhere to all the applicable regulations, and consult higher headquarters whenever there is a question in this regard."
Thanks for making my point although in a backhanded manner. Yes, the little old lady did win a pile of money even thought she should have known that the coffee was hot. Now put that in the context of our discussion. A jury is not going to hold an individual liable for damages because he was wearing the wrong belt or tee shirt. A jury is going to look at it as "we can find Joe X Member liable even if he should have known better and he can pay part of his pay check for the rest of his life for that or we can find the big nationwide corporation with deeper pockets liable and the plaintiff can get a big payday." You talk about lawyers, but lawyers don't count for this. Juries do and they love to stick it to the biggest bank account.
And an organization that tries to throw someone under the bus for a minor uniform violation will realize this too. The same lawyers that might say that they can deny indemnity based on this will also tell you that they would get creamed in a jury trial for it.
Quote from: ol'fido on November 07, 2012, 11:20:58 PMA jury is not going to hold an individual liable for damages because he was wearing the wrong belt or tee shirt.
No, they will consider whether the member was authorized to fly the airplane. Authorization is CAP's accepting a member's credentials,
status, and readiness to perform a given duty, in exchange they assume some responsibility for injury and damages. In this case, part of that readiness
is the uniform.
No uniform, no authorization.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on November 07, 2012, 11:20:58 PMA jury is not going to hold an individual liable for damages because he was wearing the wrong belt or tee shirt.
No, they will consider whether the member was authorized to fly the airplane. Authorization is CAP's accepting a member's credentials,
status, and readiness to perform a given duty, in exchange they assume some responsibility for injury and damages. In this case, part of that readiness
is the uniform.
No uniform, no authorization.
NO THEY WON'T. They will say "Who has the BIGGEST POCKETS? That is CAP not Joe X Member. Right, wrong, or otherwise that is how it usually ends up.
Quote from: ol'fido on November 07, 2012, 11:47:37 PMNO THEY WON'T. They will say "Who has the BIGGEST POCKETS? That is CAP not Joe X Member. Right, wrong, or otherwise that is how it usually ends up.
Deep pockets? CAP doesn't have deep pockets, and you're forgetting this isn't just CAP, this is also FECA and FTCA admins.
And it doesn't matter who's pockets are deepest if CAP or the Feds are successful in being relieved of liability, then their responsibility ends, pockets or no.
When you find a Federal judge who will let CAP or the DOD deny coverage or responsibility because Joe was wearing a crew neck t shirt instead of a v neck like the manual says, you let me know.
Quote from: ol'fido on November 07, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
When you find a Federal judge who will let CAP or the DOD deny coverage or responsibility because Joe was wearing a crew neck t shirt instead of a v neck like the manual says, you let me know.
The argument all along has been in regards to the absence of a uniform, not a minor infraction.
Minimize the risk all you want, I sincerely hope no one is ever in the position to even have the conversation, however FW has already
said this positon was considered at least twice.
Are you willing to bet your house on this? Or advise others to?
I'm not.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 08, 2012, 12:21:54 AM
Quote from: ol'fido on November 07, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
When you find a Federal judge who will let CAP or the DOD deny coverage or responsibility because Joe was wearing a crew neck t shirt instead of a v neck like the manual says, you let me know.
The argument all along has been in regards to the absence of a uniform, not a minor infraction.
Minimize the risk all you want, I sincerely hope no one is ever in the position to even have the conversation, however FW has already
said this positon was considered at least twice.
I
Are you willing to bet your house on this? Or advise others to?
I'm not.
Oh,so how did this conversation start. It started with someone saying uniform infractions could deny you coverage.
So it is clearly in our best interest to have the regulations ammended removing all uniforms & uniform requirements. This would eliminate this tort risk, would save money and would reduce the topics of discussion on CAP Talk. Please read with a sarcastic voice!
This discussion just gives you the warm and fuzzies dont it??
Quote from: Blues Brother on November 08, 2012, 01:56:40 AM
This discussion just gives you the warm and fuzzies dont it??
Only when wearing a wool uniform. >:D
Quote from: ol'fido on November 08, 2012, 01:15:46 AM
Oh,so how did this conversation start. It started with someone saying uniform infractions could deny you coverage.
I would certainly consider not wearing one an infraction.
Things amped up when Ned (who is hopefully sipping a Mai Tai right now) said that NHQ would never, ever consider uniform issues
in regards to member benefits. he has experience in these matters, but NHQ is not the sole voice in these situations.
And here we are...
But.. there's precedent .. 8)
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9427/nouniforms.png)
Every time this debate starts.. I think of this ad I had stashed. Last evening I found it by chance, whilst thinning papers and going through a "CAP" box. (See Attached)
QuoteAnd we promise: no meetings, no uniforms, unless you want them. Just a chance to be a hero. And you don't get a chance like that too often these days.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 08, 2012, 02:09:56 AM
Quote from: ol'fido on November 08, 2012, 01:15:46 AM
Oh,so how did this conversation start. It started with someone saying uniform infractions could deny you coverage.
I would certainly consider not wearing one an infraction.
Things amped up when Ned (who is hopefully sipping a Mai Tai right now) said that NHQ would never, ever consider uniform issues
in regards to member benefits. he has experience in these matters, but NHQ is not the sole voice in these situations.
And here we are...
How long ago was that? I remember mentioning it in a post a long time ago but I don't think it was this one. :-[
Quote from: a2capt on November 08, 2012, 06:12:06 PM
But.. there's precedent .. 8)
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9427/nouniforms.png)
Every time this debate starts.. I think of this ad I had stashed. Last evening I found it by chance, whilst thinning papers and going through a "CAP" box. (See Attached)
QuoteAnd we promise: no meetings, no uniforms, unless you want them. Just a chance to be a hero. And you don't get a chance like that too often these days.
That is classic!!!!