CAP Talk

Quote from: PA Guy on August 16, 2014, 05:50:01 AM
Yes, but on Air Force style only. Corporates no.

Another of those silly rules that make no sense.

Quote from: shuman14 on August 16, 2014, 12:47:39 PM

Quote from: PA Guy on August 16, 2014, 05:50:01 AM
Yes, but on Air Force style only. Corporates no.

Another of those silly rules that make no sense.

Why? It's a military/naval badge that can be worn on the Air Force-style uniform, which belongs to the Air Force. The CAP Aviator Shirt uniform is not a military uniform, even though it resembles one.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 16, 2014, 01:41:26 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 16, 2014, 12:47:39 PM

Quote from: PA Guy on August 16, 2014, 05:50:01 AM
Yes, but on Air Force style only. Corporates no.

Another of those silly rules that make no sense.

Why? It's a military/naval badge that can be worn on the Air Force-style uniform, which belongs to the Air Force. The CAP Aviator Shirt uniform is not a military uniform, even though it resembles one.

Why? Because it's more of the second class membership status for those who, for one reason or another, cannot wear the Air Force Style uniform.

Are we really going to beat this horse ... again?  ::)

Not the same thing.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2014, 03:28:19 PM
Not the same thing.

It absolutely is.

Hundreds of Police, Fire, EMS, Security companies, and VSOs of all shapes and forms wear earned Military decorations and badges on their uniforms and the Air Force cares not a kick of a can...

BUT

Heaven forbid that their actual Auxiliary, well at least the part of that Auxiliary (the part they really don't want associated with the Air Force), wear their earned decorations. I mean after all... it's not really a uniform, it's civilian attire, uniformly worn, because we have let them wear something.

As someone once pointed out, what happens when a Medal of Honor Awardee smeday joins CAP and gets a little too big for Blues.

Another stupid rule that helps promote the caste system of CAP.

What exactly is your point? The Air Force has nothing to say about the uniforms worn by cops, firefighters or mall security guards.

They do, however, dictate what their auxiliary can do. Apples and oranges.

As to a Medal of Honor recipient? My guess would be salute and execute.

Quote from: EMT-83 on August 16, 2014, 05:20:43 PM
What exactly is your point? The Air Force has nothing to say about the uniforms worn by cops, firefighters or mall security guards.

However, they can say how their uniform is to be worn by other organisations, like SDF's, through the State Adjutant General, but they do not seem to be interested.

SDF "Air" personnel are required to make even fewer changes than we are - maybe a nameplate in a different colour or collar brass with the State abbreviation rather than U.S.

But they keep us on a fairly tight leash.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 16, 2014, 01:41:26 PM
The CAP Aviator Shirt uniform is not a military uniform, even though it resembles one.

It does?

Maybe the former East German Air Force...

(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608004048940370094&pid=1.7)

Quote from: EMT-83 on August 16, 2014, 05:20:43 PM
What exactly is your point? The Air Force has nothing to say about the uniforms worn by cops, firefighters or mall security guards.

They do, however, dictate what their auxiliary can do. Apples and oranges.

As to a Medal of Honor recipient? My guess would be salute and execute.

It would be great if CAP had that issue.  But there are Silver Star recipients, BSM and PH recipients in CAP.  And a whole lot of other relatively insignificant vets like myself who play by the rules.  If a MoH recipient joins CAP, they could always put on their military uniform, which they are allowed to wear.  For the record, I would love to see military awards allowed on that uniform.  But I would hope it doesn't dissuade anyone from joining.  Even if it was something like wearing your top 3 or something. 

Quote from: CyBorg on August 16, 2014, 05:24:09 PM

Quote from: EMT-83 on August 16, 2014, 05:20:43 PM
What exactly is your point? The Air Force has nothing to say about the uniforms worn by cops, firefighters or mall security guards.

However, they can say how their uniform is to be worn by other organisations, like SDF's, through the State Adjutant General, but they do not seem to be interested.

SDF "Air" personnel are required to make even fewer changes than we are - maybe a nameplate in a different colour or collar brass with the State abbreviation rather than U.S.

But they keep us on a fairly tight leash.

SDF/SG are part of the militia of the state. They're NOT a civilian auxiliary like we are. Very different things.

So what is the difference between a civilian Auxiliarist in a blue uniform and one in a sorta, semi, uniformed grey and white ensemble?

???

Quote from: shuman14 on August 16, 2014, 06:17:08 PM
So what is the difference between a civilian Auxiliarist in a blue uniform and one in a sorta, semi, uniformed grey and white ensemble?

The answer is in your question.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2014, 06:18:51 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 16, 2014, 06:17:08 PM
So what is the difference between a civilian Auxiliarist in a blue uniform and one in a sorta, semi, uniformed grey and white ensemble?

The answer is in your question.

Exactly, a caste system, where one volunteer's service is deem better than another's.

When did they start letting patron members wear uniforms?

They haven't.

Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Because he's bored and a self admitted TROLL.

I asked at the National Conference Uniform seminar why military ribbons couldn't be worn on the G/W in light of the fact that the DoD and VA strongly urge veterans to display their awards during holidays and when engaged in activities similar to CAP. Basically blown off

We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Military ribbons on corporates? Probably never happen, even if we beg, cajole, plead, cry, snivel, whine and question the alleged patriotism of the powers-that-be about not being allowed to display the ribbons denoting our current/former military service on the corporate uniforms. Sucks, but that's the way it is right now.


For the record, I am not a member of the NUC; all I did was work on the 39-1 uniform illustrations with Lt Col Perrenot.

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

To answer your question, I'm going to be as polite as I can but this is something that just seems to burn me the wrong way.

Yes I am only a Patron member of CAP, so no I don't wear a CAP uniform.

If I was to become an active member I would/could wear the USAF-style uniform; pretty positive that if I'm meeting height/weight requirements in the Army and I'm clean shaven with a high-n-tight haircut, I should not have any issues there.

As a member of the CAP team, it bothers me when I sit back and observe members of the same team treated like second class citizens yet seem to do more work than those in the "first" class.

That hurts morale and makes really two teams. If it were up to me, everyone would be in one corporate uniform and then this silly issue would be dead.

In summary, if you're dis-allowing active duty awards from the G/W's then they need to be dis-allowed from the USAF-style uniform as well.

Technically neither the grey/white or the Blues are the USAF's uniform when worn as CAP uniform. Both are distinctive, seperate and "low-light" visible from the the USAF's uniform by CAP-USAF's own directive.

So either Military awards and decorations have a place on both CAP uniforms or they have a place on neither.

Quote from: PHall on August 16, 2014, 11:19:13 PM

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Because he's bored and a self admitted TROLL.

You call me a troll because you consider me an "outsider"; still I see the glaring issues and try address them in order make CAP a better organization.

So, great and all knowing "insider", what have you done to correct or address these issues over your many years in CAP.

Anyone, with a day in a uniformed service can take a look at the CAP uniform problem from a distance and see that its pretty frakked up.

Why is it someone, so "close" as you can't?  :-\

Quote from: MSG Mac on August 17, 2014, 12:31:12 AM
I asked at the National Conference Uniform seminar why military ribbons couldn't be worn on the G/W in light of the fact that the DoD and VA strongly urge veterans to display their awards during holidays and when engaged in activities similar to CAP. Basically blown off

Sir,

I'm guessing if you look around that conference, I'm guessing you've seen some "fluffy" personnel squeezed into USAF-style CAP uniforms and no one has addressed it.

So if a member were to put their Military decorations onto a G/W ensemble, would anyone bother to address that either?

Talk about a log in the eye of CAP.

Quote from: SARDOC on August 17, 2014, 01:36:57 AM
We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility  >:D  I was more concerned that they were contributing members.   

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 16, 2014, 05:47:42 PM
SDF/SG are part of the militia of the state. They're NOT a civilian auxiliary like we are. Very different things.

Your point is taken.  However, and someone correct me if I am wrong, even though they are subject to their State military justice laws, they are not combat troops and do not train with weaponry.  Their function, except for armoury support to the National Guard, is much like ours in many ways.  They do a lot of DR and some SAR.  Virginia has an aviation unit with missions virtually identical to CAP.

http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/capabilities.html (http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/capabilities.html)

I almost joined an SDF around the same time I joined CAP; except that the SDF told me I could not have dual membership.  I respect them.  They are, in the main, great volunteers.

However, I have seen several SDF members in person, and, believe me, their H/W would keep them from wearing the AF uniform in CAP...yet they are allowed to in their SDF.

It would seem to me that the Air Force would have at least some concern over how their uniform is worn...by anyone wearing it: Active, Guard, Reserve, CAP, ROTC, SDF.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 17, 2014, 06:12:18 PM
I almost joined an SDF around the same time I joined CAP; except that the SDF told me I could not have dual membership. 

Can't have dual membership?

How, exactly, would they restrict that?

Quote from: Eclipse on August 17, 2014, 06:16:07 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on August 17, 2014, 06:12:18 PM
I almost joined an SDF around the same time I joined CAP; except that the SDF told me I could not have dual membership. 

Can't have dual membership?

How, exactly, would they restrict that?

That is what the recruiter told me.  He said, "it's one or the other."

Quote from: CyBorg on August 17, 2014, 06:12:18 PM
they are not combat troops and do not train with weaponry.

There are still several that train with firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force#Active_state_defense_forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force#Active_state_defense_forces)

I think this list might be a little out of date though, I have it in my head that Alaska disarmed their SDF awhile back, but I don't have a cite for it.

Even those that are unarmed, can become armed in an emergency.

New York State Guard is unarmed. Shortly after September 11, almost a week after, the Governor armed them, they were given about a week of firearm training, and sent to the subway in New York City. I do not recall exactly but I seem to recall they were deployed alongside police.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 17, 2014, 07:13:59 PM
Even those that are unarmed, can become armed in an emergency.

New York State Guard is unarmed. Shortly after September 11, almost a week after, the Governor armed them, they were given about a week of firearm training, and sent to the subway in New York City. I do not recall exactly but I seem to recall they were deployed alongside police.

Not just in an emergency, in Louisiana, if you are a "civilian" employee of State Military Department, and not a member of the ARNG or AFNG, as a condition of employment you are required to join the State Guard as a condition of employment. At several facilities they have armed guards and they wear LASG uniforms and carry issued M-9s.

I also know that the California Military Reserve (CAMR) has ready response teams that regulary train with firearms.

Each State is different in its approach to "arming" their SDF/SG/SMR forces.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on August 17, 2014, 06:45:39 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on August 17, 2014, 06:12:18 PM
they are not combat troops and do not train with weaponry.

There are still several that train with firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force#Active_state_defense_forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force#Active_state_defense_forces)

I think this list might be a little out of date though, I have it in my head that Alaska disarmed their SDF awhile back, but I don't have a cite for it.

You are correct. The story I heard was that they had a large group of Alaskan Separatists and other "militia" (note the small "m") types join and basically took over. The governor's office stepped in and disarmed them and deeply cut the Guard back in scope and mission.

Sad really, at one point after 9-11, the AKSG members were conducting regular armed patrol and security duties along the pipeline, the majority were trained and certified by the Alaskan State Troopers as State Constables, and had a maritime unit with modern patrol boats and an Air Wing operating WWII era prop-driven observation planes that were still in the State's inventory.

Now they're a shell that can conduct communications and shelter operations to assist FEMA in an emergency.

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:17:46 PM
You call me a troll because you consider me an "outsider"; still I see the glaring issues and try address them in order make CAP a better organization. (emphasis mine)

By posting comments in CAP Talk? If you really think we have a problem, then I encourage you to "address" it through your chain of command. That's the proper forum for that.

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:17:46 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 16, 2014, 11:19:13 PM

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Because he's bored and a self admitted TROLL.

You call me a troll because you consider me an "outsider"

No, I call you a troll because YOU even called yourself a troll when asked several months ago why you make so many "pointed" comments.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 17, 2014, 06:12:18 PMTheir function, except for armoury support to the National Guard, is much like ours in many ways.  They do a lot of DR and some SAR.  Virginia has an aviation unit with missions virtually identical to CAP.

It's my understanding that the Virginia Defense Force has disbanded their aviation unit.  Pretty much because it was a duplicated service already provided by Civil Air Patrol and that CAP was a participating member of the Virginia Search and Rescue Council and trains regularly with other SAR organizations.  The VDF didn't do that.  Their aircraft were privately owned and some weren't really the best platform for SAR.  No Direction finding equipment, no glass cockpits no additional radios etc...

The state decided to stop providing funding this as they were already providing funding to CAP.

Quote from: PHall on August 17, 2014, 11:18:08 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:17:46 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 16, 2014, 11:19:13 PM

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Because he's bored and a self admitted TROLL.

You call me a troll because you consider me an "outsider"

No, I call you a troll because YOU even called yourself a troll when asked several months ago why you make so many "pointed" comments.

Maybe I misunderstood... Shuman, I didnt think you were even a member?  Ever?

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on August 17, 2014, 02:09:09 PM
For the record, I am not a member of the NUC; all I did was work on the 39-1 uniform illustrations with Lt Col Perrenot.

It's funny that you feel the need to distance yourself from the NUC.

Quote from: Panache on August 18, 2014, 01:46:57 AM

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on August 17, 2014, 02:09:09 PM
For the record, I am not a member of the NUC; all I did was work on the 39-1 uniform illustrations with Lt Col Perrenot.

It's funny that you feel the need to distance yourself from the NUC.

setting the record straight is hardly "distancing" yourself from the NUC. 

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:24:47 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on August 17, 2014, 01:36:57 AM
We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Maybe it's because AFI 36-2903 doesn't authorize the wear of ribbons on civilian attire?  Is there an authorization in there for that?

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 03:05:12 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:24:47 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on August 17, 2014, 01:36:57 AM
We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Maybe it's because AFI 36-2903 doesn't authorize the wear of ribbons on civilian attire?  Is there an authorization in there for that?

AFI 36-2903 does authorize the wear of ribbons and medals on civilian attire. I'll let you look it up.

Quote from: Flying Pig on August 17, 2014, 04:21:56 PM
Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility  >:D  I was more concerned that they were contributing members.

Probably. Because the guy next to him in G/Ws thought you didn't have the cherries to deal with it.

Heh..."cherries"

Quote from: PHall on August 18, 2014, 03:36:58 AM

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 03:05:12 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:24:47 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on August 17, 2014, 01:36:57 AM
We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Maybe it's because AFI 36-2903 doesn't authorize the wear of ribbons on civilian attire?  Is there an authorization in there for that?

AFI 36-2903 does authorize the wear of ribbons and medals on civilian attire. I'll let you look it up.

I did. Allowable modes of dress do not resemble, in any way, the G/W CAP combination.

Quote from: Flying Pig on August 17, 2014, 04:21:56 PM
Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility  >:D  I was more concerned that they were contributing members.

I'm convinced that most of this issue would never even be an issue in the first place even by allowing people outside of standards to wear the USAF uniform, but for one point. By the way, it's the same point that causes people to comment now upon seeing people noticeably not meeting the standards.

Simply put, it's all about....fit. Not being fit, although that would be nice. Even simpler than that - we wouldn't have ended up in this ridiculous "dualiform" situation had there been insistence in people wearing uniforms that fit.

As the (modified) saying goes - you can't put 20 pounds of rice in a 10 pound sack.

The appearance problem isn't because a guy has a large waist. It's a problem when a guy with a large waist tries to shovel himself into a pair of trousers or a shirt two sizes two small. It's a CAP problem of long standing.

Our definition of "new uniform" is different than the definition used by service members. We wear them maybe 50-70 times per year for literally hours at a time. So, the uniforms that only have been worn 6 hours per month are still relatively "new" well into 12-18 months later. But, if the owner has added 10-20 pounds in that same period of time, the uniform no longer fits. "Next time I buy uniforms for CAP, I'm gonna have to buy a bigger size. Or maybe I should go on Atkins. Or do some sit-ups or something. Oops, gonna be late for the squadron meeting..." The Atkins and sit-ups get forgotten, and the "next time" for buying uniforms is another 12 months out ("They're in great shape, no need to replace them.") Meanwhile, the guy has added another 10 pounds.

If there was a way to hold people to wearing USAF uniforms in their ACTUAL size, the image problem would be improved far greater than sending those people into G/Ws (many of which get outgrown and not replaced already, simply transferring the problem).

The appropriate standard should not be "If you can get into it, wear it" as we have all seen people do. The standard should be "If it actually fits, you may wear it."

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 18, 2014, 03:58:45 AM

Quote from: Flying Pig on August 17, 2014, 04:21:56 PM
Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility  >:D  I was more concerned that they were contributing members.

Probably. Because the guy next to him in G/Ws thought you didn't have the cherries to deal with it.

If thats whats constitutes having "cherries" in your world, stick to your Xbox

Quote from: PHall on August 18, 2014, 03:36:58 AM

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 03:05:12 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:24:47 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on August 17, 2014, 01:36:57 AM
We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Maybe it's because AFI 36-2903 doesn't authorize the wear of ribbons on civilian attire?  Is there an authorization in there for that?

AFI 36-2903 does authorize the wear of ribbons and medals on civilian attire. I'll let you look it up.

Well, thanks for bring so helpful :)   1.4.9 specifically forbids mixing military and civilian items.  Grade must have been exceptionally authorized in the past, but I don't see any authorization for badges and ribbons in there.  Medals seem to be authorized under 11.4, but not ribbons or badges

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 11:24:44 AM

Quote from: PHall on August 18, 2014, 03:36:58 AM

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 03:05:12 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:24:47 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on August 17, 2014, 01:36:57 AM
We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Maybe it's because AFI 36-2903 doesn't authorize the wear of ribbons on civilian attire?  Is there an authorization in there for that?

AFI 36-2903 does authorize the wear of ribbons and medals on civilian attire. I'll let you look it up.

Well, thanks for bring so helpful :)   1.4.9 specifically forbids mixing military and civilian items.  Grade must have been exceptionally authorized in the past, but I don't see any authorization for badges and ribbons in there.  Medals seem to be authorized under 11.4, but not ribbons or badges

11.4 is what I was refering to.  If a member is a military retiree, they can wear their medals on civilian clothing.
But, IMO this would not include a CAP "Corperate" uniform. Simply because it is a "uniform". YMMV.

Quote from: PHall on August 18, 2014, 02:23:27 PM
11.4 is what I was refering to.  If a member is a military retiree, they can wear their medals on civilian clothing.
But, IMO this would not include a CAP "Corperate" uniform. Simply because it is a "uniform". YMMV.

HQ has been quite clear in the past that the G/Ws are not meant to be a "alternate military-style uniform."

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 18, 2014, 07:53:58 AM
If there was a way to hold people to wearing USAF uniforms in their ACTUAL size, the image problem would be improved far greater than sending those people into G/Ws (many of which get outgrown and not replaced already, simply transferring the problem).

The appropriate standard should not be "If you can get into it, wear it" as we have all seen people do. The standard should be "If it actually fits, you may wear it."

And there is a way to do this.  On my last visit to MCSS, I have seen service coats and trousers made in XL sizes; I believe I have even seen trousers in size 50.

As I have said before, I remember seeing people in my former ANG unit many, many moons ago who were clearly out of H/W standards.  One AGR TSgt in Personnel would not have fit into CAP H/W standards, let alone Air Force.  I remember seeing Colonels wearing very large-size uniforms.  Of course, what could I say to them?  "Sir, you are clearly too fat for that uniform?"  Sure, right.  Of course, I was a scrawny little figure in BDU's then...no kidding, they hung on me like a tent.

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 11:24:44 AM
1.4.9 specifically forbids mixing military and civilian items.

We already do it.  The Air Force blue tie is authorised with the G/W, as is the Cardigan Sweater.

Hypocrisy?

Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

I checked the new 39-1 and you are correct.  That must have changed.

However, I was correct regarding the tie:

4.2.3.6. Tie. Either the CAP regimental tie or AF blue tie. A tie is mandatory with this uniform combination unless wearing the turtleneck. A tie tack or tie clasp may be worn with the tie. If worn, the tie tack or clasp will have the CAP coat of arms, the "wing and star" design, the AF symbol, or appropriate rank insignia. The tie tack or clasp will be centered between the bottom edge of the knot and the bottom tip of the tie.4.2.3.7.

4.2.5.4 clarifies that the regimental abomination is >only< worn with the service coat Realtor's jacket blazer, not the whites.

Which means if you're one of those people who thinks the blazer is a service coat, and wears
decs and grade underneath, you can't wear the regimental tie if you intend to take off your jacket.

Seen it, plenty.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
4.2.5.4 clarifies that the regimental abomination is >only< worn with the service coat, not the whites.

Which means if you're one of those people who thinks the blazer is a service coat, and wears
decs and grade underneath, you can't wear the regimental tie if you intend to take off your jacket.

Seen it, plenty.

Just a way to make an already ugly "uniform" uglier...

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

Essentially, it is the AF-spec blue tie with herringbone pattern. (The herringbone pattern is visible in certain reflected light angles.)

Quote from: CyBorg on August 18, 2014, 04:05:46 PM

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 18, 2014, 07:53:58 AM
If there was a way to hold people to wearing USAF uniforms in their ACTUAL size, the image problem would be improved far greater than sending those people into G/Ws (many of which get outgrown and not replaced already, simply transferring the problem).

The appropriate standard should not be "If you can get into it, wear it" as we have all seen people do. The standard should be "If it actually fits, you may wear it."

And there is a way to do this.  On my last visit to MCSS, I have seen service coats and trousers made in XL sizes; I believe I have even seen trousers in size 50.

Alas, I fear "Give a mouse a cookie" syndrome. If we allowed wearing up to max available size that fits, then size 50 is end of the line. Except there will always be those who will say "Yeah, 50, but I'm 52 and I can probably squeeze into it," then there will be the guy saying "I'm 54, but I can buy the 50's and have them let out to 52, and I can squeeze into those..." Which would be and enough, but he wouldn't even get around to doing that, trying to put 54 into 50.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
4.2.5.4 clarifies that the regimental abomination is >only< worn with the service coat Realtor's jacket blazer, not the whites.

Which means if you're one of those people who thinks the blazer is a service coat, and wears
decs and grade underneath, you can't wear the regimental tie if you intend to take off your jacket.

Seen it, plenty.

Why "abomination"?  http://www.bensilver.com/The-Corps-and-Regiments-Bow-Ties.html (http://www.bensilver.com/The-Corps-and-Regiments-Bow-Ties.html)

Fine...if you're in the British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand Army, Royal Marines, RAF, RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF, etc.

In Commonwealth countries, when you join (especially) the Army, you often spend your entire career with one regiment; i.e., the French-Canadian Royal 22nd Regiment, or the British Army Blues and Royals.

Trying to stick a regimental tie on the Realtor combo is doing exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to be...non-military.

Quote from: Garp on August 19, 2014, 12:15:11 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
4.2.5.4 clarifies that the regimental abomination is >only< worn with the service coat Realtor's jacket blazer, not the whites.

Which means if you're one of those people who thinks the blazer is a service coat, and wears
decs and grade underneath, you can't wear the regimental tie if you intend to take off your jacket.

Seen it, plenty.

Why "abomination"?  http://www.bensilver.com/The-Corps-and-Regiments-Bow-Ties.html (http://www.bensilver.com/The-Corps-and-Regiments-Bow-Ties.html)

My point exactly...

http://www.medalsofamerica.com/SubCategory--Military-Ties--m-1472. (http://www.medalsofamerica.com/SubCategory--Military-Ties--m-1472.)  :)

The blazer is intended to be non-military, right?   The tradition of unit ties is specifically for civilian clothes, right?

In Jolly Old Blighty - ahem - the United Kingdom, social etiquette takes a very dim view of anyone wearing a regimental, club or university tie if the individual is not entitled to wear one. The CAP 'regimental' tie is considered 'fractionally off' the design used by the British Army's Brigade of Guards.


Brigade of Guards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_of_Guards) regimental tie: (http://www.gievesandhawkesmilitary.com/acatalog/bogsilkreppe.jpg)


CAP regimental tie: (http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/000000CAP0977G_MED.jpg)

And...at risk of overstating the obvious, CAP is not a Regiment.  Why we tried to stick this bit of Imperial nomenclature in one of our **distinctively civilian** un-uniforms is beyond me.

Years ago I visited the Museum of the Royal Canadian Regiment in London, Ontario.  I learnt a lot about British/Commonwealth Regimental systems there.

http://thercr.ca/main/index.php/the-rcr-museum-new (http://thercr.ca/main/index.php/the-rcr-museum-new)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-army-regimental-system.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-army-regimental-system.htm)

For the life of me, I cannot see where CAP fits into that.

I feel like attempts at finding fault with this is getting a little ridiculous...regimental/club/school ties are common all over the place. I have four for various organizations other than CAP at home.

  http://www.vineyardvines.com/silk-ties/college/Ties-College-Ties,default,sc.html (http://www.vineyardvines.com/silk-ties/college/Ties-College-Ties,default,sc.html)

http://www.shop4ties.com/yacht_club_ties.php (http://www.shop4ties.com/yacht_club_ties.php)

As far as the Brigade of Guards, the colors are similar, although the red is different, the stripes are differently sized, and stripes on British ties run opposite to American so no opportunities for confusion.

Quote from: Garp on August 19, 2014, 03:46:47 PM
stripes on British ties run opposite to American so no opportunities for confusion.

But what if one was in the Gentleman's Lounge at the club and a peckish Guardsman looked at our tie in the mirror?

Could it not be the start of a major international incident?

Please discuss the ORM implications of this uniform item.


To death

Quote from: Garp on August 19, 2014, 03:46:47 PM
I feel like attempts at finding fault with this are getting a little ridiculous...regimental/club/school ties are common all over the place. I have four for various organizations other than CAP at home.

  http://www.vineyardvines.com/silk-ties/college/Ties-College-Ties,default,sc.html (http://www.vineyardvines.com/silk-ties/college/Ties-College-Ties,default,sc.html)

http://www.shop4ties.com/yacht_club_ties.php (http://www.shop4ties.com/yacht_club_ties.php)

As far as the Brigade of Guards, the colors are similar, although the red is different, the stripes are differently sized, and stripes on British ties run opposite to American so no opportunities for confusion.

Wow!!! So Ned has a sense of humor!

Quote...discuss...ORM.... To death

Quote from: Ned on August 19, 2014, 03:53:46 PM
Please discuss the ORM implications of this uniform item.

Those wearing it have a significantly higher risk of wedgie, in depending on conditions, it may even be atomic.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 19, 2014, 06:18:20 PM
Wow!!! So Ned has a sense of humor!

Quote...discuss...ORM.... To death

More then you will ever know.

Hmmm! He almost never shows it in here so I had to post that.

Lighten up! You don't have to defend him, he does know how to take care of himself!!!

And no, I don't care to know him other than as a corporate colleague...

Those who know the man think he is one of the funnyist people around.
But if all you do is confront him, you'll never see his funny side.
Just sayin'.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 20, 2014, 12:09:22 AM
Hmmm! He almost never shows it in here so I had to post that.

Lighten up! You don't have to defend him, he does know how to take care of himself!!!

And no, I don't care to know him other than as a corporate colleague...

If you never get to meet Ned, you will be missing out a good experience.

I would welcome the opportunity.  He and I have had differences of opinion here on CT, but persons of good will can disagree and still find common ground.

J have no doubt he is a very caring person, he shows it with his attitude here. A great guy with his dedication. I will keep my options open...

Quote from: Ned on August 19, 2014, 03:53:46 PM
But what if one was in the Gentleman's Lounge at the club and a peckish Guardsman looked at our tie in the mirror?

Could it not be the start of a major international incident?

I'm more concerned that Airman Billy may get me confused for a member of Slytherin House.

Quote from: PHall on August 17, 2014, 11:18:08 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:17:46 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 16, 2014, 11:19:13 PM

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Because he's bored and a self admitted TROLL.

You call me a troll because you consider me an "outsider"

No, I call you a troll because YOU even called yourself a troll when asked several months ago why you make so many "pointed" comments.

Cite please.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 18, 2014, 07:53:58 AM

Quote from: Flying Pig on August 17, 2014, 04:21:56 PM
Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility  >:D  I was more concerned that they were contributing members.

I'm convinced that most of this issue would never even be an issue in the first place even by allowing people outside of standards to wear the USAF uniform, but for one point. By the way, it's the same point that causes people to comment now upon seeing people noticeably not meeting the standards.

Simply put, it's all about....fit. Not being fit, although that would be nice. Even simpler than that - we wouldn't have ended up in this ridiculous "dualiform" situation had there been insistence in people wearing uniforms that fit.

As the (modified) saying goes - you can't put 20 pounds of rice in a 10 pound sack.

The appearance problem isn't because a guy has a large waist. It's a problem when a guy with a large waist tries to shovel himself into a pair of trousers or a shirt two sizes two small. It's a CAP problem of long standing.

Our definition of "new uniform" is different than the definition used by service members. We wear them maybe 50-70 times per year for literally hours at a time. So, the uniforms that only have been worn 6 hours per month are still relatively "new" well into 12-18 months later. But, if the owner has added 10-20 pounds in that same period of time, the uniform no longer fits. "Next time I buy uniforms for CAP, I'm gonna have to buy a bigger size. Or maybe I should go on Atkins. Or do some sit-ups or something. Oops, gonna be late for the squadron meeting..." The Atkins and sit-ups get forgotten, and the "next time" for buying uniforms is another 12 months out ("They're in great shape, no need to replace them.") Meanwhile, the guy has added another 10 pounds.

If there was a way to hold people to wearing USAF uniforms in their ACTUAL size, the image problem would be improved far greater than sending those people into G/Ws (many of which get outgrown and not replaced already, simply transferring the problem).

The appropriate standard should not be "If you can get into it, wear it" as we have all seen people do. The standard should be "If it actually fits, you may wear it."

Well, even volunteer Fire Departments and Reserve (i.e. volunteer) Police Officers have certain fitness standards to maintain... could not be so for CAP?

Maybe the answer is if you cannot pass a fitness test and/or height/weight (or Bodyfat) then you should be prevented from wearing all uniforms except a polo shirt and slacks combo.

If a mission requires a uniform other than that, you can not conduct it.

Will that be the answer? Most likely not, as CAP would lose too many members.

BUT

Someone needs to come up with an answer, sooner before later.

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

Silly question, but why a "blue" tie and not a "grey" tie with the G/W ensemble?  ???

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:39:59 PM

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

Silly question, but why a "blue" tie and not a "grey" tie with the G/W ensemble?  ???

Or a grey blazer coat?

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:36:43 PM
Well, even volunteer Fire Departments and Reserve (i.e. volunteer) Police Officers have certain fitness standards to maintain... could not be so for CAP?

Those standards are based on the duties those folks are required to perform. They typically do not have a weight standard. What would the duty fitness standards be for a typical, CAP non-ES member?

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:36:43 PM

Someone needs to come up with an answer, sooner before later.

Why?

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:36:43 PM

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 18, 2014, 07:53:58 AM

Quote from: Flying Pig on August 17, 2014, 04:21:56 PM
Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility  >:D  I was more concerned that they were contributing members.

I'm convinced that most of this issue would never even be an issue in the first place even by allowing people outside of standards to wear the USAF uniform, but for one point. By the way, it's the same point that causes people to comment now upon seeing people noticeably not meeting the standards.

Simply put, it's all about....fit. Not being fit, although that would be nice. Even simpler than that - we wouldn't have ended up in this ridiculous "dualiform" situation had there been insistence in people wearing uniforms that fit.

As the (modified) saying goes - you can't put 20 pounds of rice in a 10 pound sack.

The appearance problem isn't because a guy has a large waist. It's a problem when a guy with a large waist tries to shovel himself into a pair of trousers or a shirt two sizes two small. It's a CAP problem of long standing.

Our definition of "new uniform" is different than the definition used by service members. We wear them maybe 50-70 times per year for literally hours at a time. So, the uniforms that only have been worn 6 hours per month are still relatively "new" well into 12-18 months later. But, if the owner has added 10-20 pounds in that same period of time, the uniform no longer fits. "Next time I buy uniforms for CAP, I'm gonna have to buy a bigger size. Or maybe I should go on Atkins. Or do some sit-ups or something. Oops, gonna be late for the squadron meeting..." The Atkins and sit-ups get forgotten, and the "next time" for buying uniforms is another 12 months out ("They're in great shape, no need to replace them.") Meanwhile, the guy has added another 10 pounds.

If there was a way to hold people to wearing USAF uniforms in their ACTUAL size, the image problem would be improved far greater than sending those people into G/Ws (many of which get outgrown and not replaced already, simply transferring the problem).

The appropriate standard should not be "If you can get into it, wear it" as we have all seen people do. The standard should be "If it actually fits, you may wear it."

Well, even volunteer Fire Departments and Reserve (i.e. volunteer) Police Officers have certain fitness standards to maintain... could not be so for CAP?

Maybe the answer is if you cannot pass a fitness test and/or height/weight (or Bodyfat) then you should be prevented from wearing all uniforms except a polo shirt and slacks combo.

If a mission requires a uniform other than that, you can not conduct it.

Will that be the answer? Most likely not, as CAP would lose too many members.

BUT

Someone needs to come up with an answer, sooner before later.

The possible solutions are these:

1. Every member who desires to wear the AF style uniform HAS TO BE within H/W standards or their commander says nay nay, wear the gray. If the member persists in wearing the AF uniform out of H/W, then they are given two choices: wear the corporate, or lose weight. Since we have upper echelon members (wing/region/national staff) who persist in wearing the AF style uniform, out of H/W regs, and no one checks them at the door, then this problem will not go away any time soon, regs or no regs. Who wants to be the first to tell their Group or Wing CC they are out of compliance?

2. The Air Force gets tired of folks showing up wearing a blue potato sack full of bling, or stuffing a 50L person into a 32R flight suit, and says nay nay, we are taking the AF uniform away. Nyah nyah, figure it out. We're done. So, we are forced into the BBDU, the hideous G/W, and the blazer combo until we find something that doesn't make us look like airline pilots or Coasties. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

3. We just bite the bullet and get away from the AF style on our own. There seems to be a movement among some seniors to do this anyway. Do away with every single reference to the military since we are a civilian organization, don't allow military ANYTHING on any "uniform" combination. Do away with the BDU and go with the tac-pants and golf shirt like an EMT, change our uniform to align ourselves more with local SAR agencies. We can still fly AF missions wearing the polo/tac pants, which most air crews I know do anyway.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON OTHER THAN HISTORY to wear the AF style uniform. None. Zero. We can perform 100% of all our functions while wearing the CAP distinctive combinations. And this is coming from a guy who will not wear the G/W with a gun pressed to his nads.

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 20, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
1. Every member who desires to wear the AF style uniform HAS TO BE within H/W standards or their commander says nay nay, wear the gray. If the member persists in wearing the AF uniform out of H/W, then they are given two choices: wear the corporate, or lose weight. Since we have upper echelon members (wing/region/national staff) who persist in wearing the AF style uniform, out of H/W regs, and no one checks them at the door, then this problem will not go away any time soon, regs or no regs. Who wants to be the first to tell their Group or Wing CC they are out of compliance?

My former Wing CC enthusiastically wore the CSU.  When that got taken from us, he reluctantly wore the G/W...but at least he did not try to wear a uniform he could not wear due to H/W standards.  I think it is called "setting an example." :clap:

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 20, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
2. The Air Force gets tired of folks showing up wearing a blue potato sack full of bling, or stuffing a 50L person into a 32R flight suit, and says nay nay, we are taking the AF uniform away. Nyah nyah, figure it out. We're done. So, we are forced into the BBDU, the hideous G/W, and the blazer combo until we find something that doesn't make us look like airline pilots or Coasties. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Except that our parent Service still does not practice what they preach in a lot of ways.  I know the standards have been changed since I was in, to percentages/BMI, but I still see not a few Airmen, including some senior NCO's (who, of all people, should know better), who would likely not fit the standards of H/W imposed on CAP.  I believe that is called "do as I say, not as I do."  >:(

I would much, much rather look like an airline pilot, a Coastie (I am a former Auxiliarist and proudly wore their modified uniform), the Bundesluftwaffe, the RAF, the Belarusian Air Force, or an Aeroflot crew member (pictured) than the G/W and blazer.

(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608037137376479047&pid=1.7)

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 20, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
3. We just bite the bullet and get away from the AF style on our own. There seems to be a movement among some seniors to do this anyway. Do away with every single reference to the military since we are a civilian organization, don't allow military ANYTHING on any "uniform" combination. Do away with the BDU and go with the tac-pants and golf shirt like an EMT, change our uniform to align ourselves more with local SAR agencies. We can still fly AF missions wearing the polo/tac pants, which most air crews I know do anyway.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON OTHER THAN HISTORY to wear the AF style uniform. None. Zero. We can perform 100% of all our functions while wearing the CAP distinctive combinations. And this is coming from a guy who will not wear the G/W with a gun pressed to his nads.

You had me until you said go the golf shirt route.  That again assumes we are to be "all ES, all the time."  I do not, and will not, own a golf shirt.

I begrudgingly wear the G/W because I am out of H/W regs thanks to medication side effects.  I do not wear them with pride.  However, I have no problem with the BBDU/blue flight suit...at least it has some connection to our heritage.

If we choose to get out of the AF uniform, or are forced out of it, if the only alternative is the status quo, well...

(http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/Canada/ct33-ejection-testextra.jpg)

Check out how the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps addresses the uniform issue with it's adult officer cadre:

http://homeport.seacadets.org/download/attachments/589947/Information+Letter+01-14+-+2013+Officer+Promotions.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1388604711000 (http://homeport.seacadets.org/download/attachments/589947/Information+Letter+01-14+-+2013+Officer+Promotions.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1388604711000)

Pay particular attention to #3 and the "Alternate Uniform" notation under caveat on the promotion list.

There is also an alternative blazer set for the USCGAUX - basically a blue blazer with a bullion USCGAUX crest fastened to it.

During my years in the Aux, I saw that kit worn by a grand total of one person.

I live in a city with a VERY active NSCC presence and I do not see the strictness that the AF imposes on CAP.  I had a talk with a USNSCC Ensign informally some years ago.  He was in BDU's with subdued grade insignia and tapes.

He said "I don't get what the Air Force's problem is with you guys looking like them."

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 04:58:10 PM

You had me until you said go the golf shirt route.  That again assumes we are to be "all ES, all the time."  I do not, and will not, own a golf shirt.

I begrudgingly wear the G/W because I am out of H/W regs thanks to medication side effects.  I do not wear them with pride.  However, I have no problem with the BBDU/blue flight suit...at least it has some connection to our heritage.

If we choose to get out of the AF uniform, or are forced out of it, if the only alternative is the status quo, well...

(http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/Canada/ct33-ejection-testextra.jpg)

What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo?  I was a DCC and wore a polo all the time.  Most school teachers I've seen these days wear polos so problems with AE?  Of all the 3 missions ground team/UDF (part of ES) is least suitable for the Polo.    The advantage of going polo only seem to far outweigh the disadvantages.  Especially as the alternative we have treats a large portion of the membership differently (for those who care about wearing their awards).  It would be uniform, and isn't that the point of a uniform policy? 

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo?  I was a DCC and wore a polo all the time.  Most school teachers I've seen these days wear polos so problems with AE?  Of all the 3 missions ground team/UDF (part of ES) is least suitable for the Polo.    The advantage of going polo only seem to far outweigh the disadvantages.  Especially as the alternative we have treats a large portion of the membership differently (for those who care about wearing their awards).  It would be uniform, and isn't that the point of a uniform policy?

:clap:

Personal taste.

I simply do not like the polo shirt.

I don't know...maybe it goes back to high school when the "in-crowd" were the preppies who wore the horrendous little Izod alligator shirts.

This was the mid '80s; think of the movie "Valley Girl" and the character played by Michael Bowen.  I was much more like Nic Cage's character, with more leather.

(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608026382778175031&pid=1.7)

(OK, that isn't me, but a very close facsimile, even though I don't have the hair anymore).

It could be a Pavlovian response based on my experience with "golf shirted" guys in my early years. ;) 8)

I have a polo. It currently resides in a plastic tote along with the gray slacks I never wear. If the time comes, and we go polo/tac pants, I will drag it out and begrudgingly wear it. Begrudgingly. I have worn it a grand total of 4 times since I ordered it 2 years ago. As mentioned, I won't wear it again until forced into it. I WILL lose more weight so I look good and conform to H/W better.

Or maybe I am just a dinosaur who is proud of our history and association with the Air Force, which seem increasingly irrelevant as time goes on, and who is unwilling to smell the corporate coffee.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 06:31:11 PM
Or maybe I am just a dinosaur who is proud of our history and association with the Air Force, which seem increasingly irrelevant as time goes on, and who is unwilling to smell the corporate coffee.

The coffee is full of the Kool-Aid. And so are the donuts.

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo? 

You've got something there.

What in AE or CP actually requires even a polo for a senior member?  Heck, they can teach, supervise, and do administrative support wearing jeans and a t-shirt. 

Who's gonna try to tell me that any officer is somehow less knowledgeable or wise just because they are not wearing a uniform at that moment? 

Great teachers can teach, mentor, and coach cadets wearing flip flops and yoga pants.  Anyone who says otherwise is just some sort of wannabe pretender who has never actually taught, mentored, or coached effectively.

Come to think of it, why even have cadets in uniforms?  They can certainly learn wearing shorts and tank tops - that's what they're wearing in school anyway.  Who can prove to me that wearing a uniform somehow makes somebody learn better?

Why make them come to meetings?  Who can prove that we cannot provide the same leadership skills, character development, and AE curricula via distance learning?  Books are books, right?

Who thinks that rhetorical questions are easier than identifying actual problems, proposing solutions, and evaluating alternatives in order to reach a consensus?

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 20, 2014, 06:08:35 PM
I have a polo. It currently resides in a plastic tote along with the gray slacks I never wear.  I have worn it a grand total of 4 times since I ordered it 2 years ago. As mentioned, I won't wear it again until forced into it.

I have a polo.  I will not wear it in front of cadets or at regular meetings.  I only wear it if I am interviewing the public for the purpose of history, sitting in archives/library, have to go for a long drive in a corporate vehicle, or informal wing staff meetings.  While the service uniform would like nice, I have found that in my neck of the woods, the public is more open to non-uniform types.  YMMV. 

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo?

Anything "formal" for starters, not to mention the credibility of inspecting cadets, etc.

Nothing says "Pass In Review" like the golf shirt.

I'd see no issue on the ES or the AE side, but the CP has proper uniform wear as a tenant of the
program including being considered for promotions.

Quote from: Ned on August 20, 2014, 06:45:33 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo? 

You've got something there.

What in AE or CP actually requires even a polo for a senior member?  Heck, they can teach, supervise, and do administrative support wearing jeans and a t-shirt. 

Who's gonna try to tell me that any officer is somehow less knowledgeable or wise just because they are not wearing a uniform at that moment? 

Great teachers can teach, mentor, and coach cadets wearing flip flops and yoga pants.  Anyone who says otherwise is just some sort of wannabe pretender who has never actually taught, mentored, or coached effectively.

Come to think of it, why even have cadets in uniforms?  They can certainly learn wearing shorts and tank tops - that's what they're wearing in school anyway.  Who can prove to me that wearing a uniform somehow makes somebody learn better?

Why make them come to meetings?  Who can prove that we cannot provide the same leadership skills, character development, and AE curricula via distance learning?  Books are books, right?

Who thinks that rhetorical questions are easier than identifying actual problems, proposing solutions, and evaluating alternatives in order to reach a consensus?

Ehhhhhhh you had me going there for a minute...

Seriously, though, you do have a point, sir. What do we really NEED with a uniform? What has it really done for us? Recently, it's caused us heartburn and anger due to the myriad regulation changes and back-and-forths between the two camps (Pro-AF style and Pro-corporate).

Personally, I wear the AF style because that is what I grew up in, and that's the way I was taught. I have possibly the best-groomed and best-uniformed cadets in the group because I care enough about MY personal uniform appearance and pass that along to the cadets in my charge.

Alaric is correct, to an extent. AE/CP CAN be accomplished by seniors in the corporate uniform, or in the polo, or in shorts and flip flops. But why? How are you going to teach someone to wear their uniform properly if you can't? Or choose to wear something undefinable by a uniform standard? Polo shirts and tac pants don't lend themselves to a "military" appearance to cadets. They understand marching and gig lines and shined boots and saluting. They don't know about the choices we have between AF and CAP style. Cadets have asked me time and time again "do I have to salute Lt Poloshirt? He is a lieutenant, but is it a "real" uniform he's wearing?" The only seniors in my unit who wear the AF style are me, the DCC, the CC, and occasionally the comm officer. Everyone else wears the polo or the G/W, for reasons ranging from "it's easy to throw on the polo at work on the way out rather than change" to cost, grooming, or other personal choices. Cadets will respect the person in whatever combo they are wearing, but a little more so if they are in uniform and display proper customs and courtesies. A little.

I guess it doesn't matter if you have long hair and a beard, wearing surf shorts and flip flops to meetings. If you know your s***, the cadets will listen. I used to think the other way, that appearance is 60% of respect over knowledge, but some of the best dressed teachers (civilian and military and CAP) I've encountered don't know jack. Including me, some of the times.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 07:03:21 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo?

Anything "formal" for starters, not to mention the credibility of inspecting cadets, etc.

Nothing says "Pass In Review" like the golf shirt.

I'd see no issue on the ES or the AE side, but the CP has proper uniform wear as a tenant of the
program including being considered for promotions.

Using that logic no one that cannot wear the AF Style uniform should be involved with CP. 

Quote from: Ned on August 20, 2014, 06:45:33 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo? 

You've got something there.

What in AE or CP actually requires even a polo for a senior member?  Heck, they can teach, supervise, and do administrative support wearing jeans and a t-shirt. 

Who's gonna try to tell me that any officer is somehow less knowledgeable or wise just because they are not wearing a uniform at that moment? 

Great teachers can teach, mentor, and coach cadets wearing flip flops and yoga pants.  Anyone who says otherwise is just some sort of wannabe pretender who has never actually taught, mentored, or coached effectively.

Come to think of it, why even have cadets in uniforms?  They can certainly learn wearing shorts and tank tops - that's what they're wearing in school anyway.  Who can prove to me that wearing a uniform somehow makes somebody learn better?

Why make them come to meetings?  Who can prove that we cannot provide the same leadership skills, character development, and AE curricula via distance learning?  Books are books, right?

Who thinks that rhetorical questions are easier than identifying actual problems, proposing solutions, and evaluating alternatives in order to reach a consensus?

I did propose a solution, its obviously not one you agree with.   

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 20, 2014, 07:08:25 PM

Quote from: Ned on August 20, 2014, 06:45:33 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo? 

You've got something there.

What in AE or CP actually requires even a polo for a senior member?  Heck, they can teach, supervise, and do administrative support wearing jeans and a t-shirt. 

Who's gonna try to tell me that any officer is somehow less knowledgeable or wise just because they are not wearing a uniform at that moment? 

Great teachers can teach, mentor, and coach cadets wearing flip flops and yoga pants.  Anyone who says otherwise is just some sort of wannabe pretender who has never actually taught, mentored, or coached effectively.

Come to think of it, why even have cadets in uniforms?  They can certainly learn wearing shorts and tank tops - that's what they're wearing in school anyway.  Who can prove to me that wearing a uniform somehow makes somebody learn better?

Why make them come to meetings?  Who can prove that we cannot provide the same leadership skills, character development, and AE curricula via distance learning?  Books are books, right?

Who thinks that rhetorical questions are easier than identifying actual problems, proposing solutions, and evaluating alternatives in order to reach a consensus?

Ehhhhhhh you had me going there for a minute...

Seriously, though, you do have a point, sir. What do we really NEED with a uniform? What has it really done for us? Recently, it's caused us heartburn and anger due to the myriad regulation changes and back-and-forths between the two camps (Pro-AF style and Pro-corporate).

Personally, I wear the AF style because that is what I grew up in, and that's the way I was taught. I have possibly the best-groomed and best-uniformed cadets in the group because I care enough about MY personal uniform appearance and pass that along to the cadets in my charge.

Alaric is correct, to an extent. AE/CP CAN be accomplished by seniors in the corporate uniform, or in the polo, or in shorts and flip flops. But why? How are you going to teach someone to wear their uniform properly if you can't? Or choose to wear something undefinable by a uniform standard? Polo shirts and tac pants don't lend themselves to a "military" appearance to cadets. They understand marching and gig lines and shined boots and saluting. They don't know about the choices we have between AF and CAP style. Cadets have asked me time and time again "do I have to salute Lt Poloshirt? He is a lieutenant, but is it a "real" uniform he's wearing?" The only seniors in my unit who wear the AF style are me, the DCC, the CC, and occasionally the comm officer. Everyone else wears the polo or the G/W, for reasons ranging from "it's easy to throw on the polo at work on the way out rather than change" to cost, grooming, or other personal choices. Cadets will respect the person in whatever combo they are wearing, but a little more so if they are in uniform and display proper customs and courtesies. A little.

I guess it doesn't matter if you have long hair and a beard, wearing surf shorts and flip flops to meetings. If you know your s***, the cadets will listen. I used to think the other way, that appearance is 60% of respect over knowledge, but some of the best dressed teachers (civilian and military and CAP) I've encountered don't know jack. Including me, some of the times.

How do you teach them proper uniform wear while wearing a corporate uniform?  Most seniors not former military or cadet have no idea what a gig line is, or how to march, or polish boots when they join, and unless they are intimately involved with CP they probably won't learn either as it is not a requirement for either PD, or rank promotion.  Could we fix that sure, but until we do, to me there is no difference between teaching uniform wear in the G/W or in the Polo.

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:27:40 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 17, 2014, 11:18:08 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:17:46 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 16, 2014, 11:19:13 PM

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Because he's bored and a self admitted TROLL.

You call me a troll because you consider me an "outsider"

No, I call you a troll because YOU even called yourself a troll when asked several months ago why you make so many "pointed" comments.

Cite please.

This was too easy: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13836.msg329301#msg329301 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13836.msg329301#msg329301)

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
Most seniors not former military or cadet have no idea what a gig line is, or how to march, or polish boots when they join, and unless they are intimately involved with CP they probably won't learn either as it is not a requirement for either PD, or rank promotion.  Could we fix that sure, but until we do, to me there is no difference between teaching uniform wear in the G/W or in the Polo.

I already knew drill, customs, courtesies etc...but in my first (best) squadron (composite), knowledge of the things you cite was a squadron prerequisite for passing Level I.  And we were tested on it, by a squadron member who was also an NCO in the Air Force Reserve.

At every meeting we assembled in the drill hall - cadets AND seniors - and formally reported in.

We were at an Armed Forces Reserve Centre with National Guard, Navy Reserve, NSCC and Marine Reserve, and it was impressed upon us that we show them proper courtesies.  It was "Good morning, Petty Officer" or "Good evening, Sergeant"...not "Hi, Jim!" or "How's it going, Joe?"

We all wore the AF blue and were held to standards.  I never saw a grey uniform until my first Wing activity, and it was the old-style "no-frills" uniform.  I thought the polo shirt was for casual, off-duty use.  No kidding.

When I moved and transferred to a senior squadron, boy, did I get a culture shock.  It stunned me to hear a 2nd Lieutenant address a Lt. Colonel as "Hey, Tim!" (not the Colonel's real name).

Like I say, I think I am increasingly a dinosaur in this "corporate" age.

Quote from: Ned on August 20, 2014, 06:45:33 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo? 

You've got something there.

What in AE or CP actually requires even a polo for a senior member?  Heck, they can teach, supervise, and do administrative support wearing jeans and a t-shirt. 

Who's gonna try to tell me that any officer is somehow less knowledgeable or wise just because they are not wearing a uniform at that moment? 

Great teachers can teach, mentor, and coach cadets wearing flip flops and yoga pants.  Anyone who says otherwise is just some sort of wannabe pretender who has never actually taught, mentored, or coached effectively.

Come to think of it, why even have cadets in uniforms?  They can certainly learn wearing shorts and tank tops - that's what they're wearing in school anyway.  Who can prove to me that wearing a uniform somehow makes somebody learn better?

Why make them come to meetings?  Who can prove that we cannot provide the same leadership skills, character development, and AE curricula via distance learning?  Books are books, right?

Who thinks that rhetorical questions are easier than identifying actual problems, proposing solutions, and evaluating alternatives in order to reach a consensus?

Also, had you read my post and the post I was quoting you would have seen my question was a response to post #86 where CyBorg made the comment that the polo shirt uniform was an indication of an all ES, all the time mindset.

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 07:50:59 PM
Also, had you read my post and the post I was quoting you would have seen my question was a response to post #86 where CyBorg made the comment that the polo shirt uniform was an indication of an all ES, all the time mindset.

Where I get a lot of that from is from a now-banned member called RADIOMAN15 who ardently, and forcefully, advocated that we drop uniforms, and that CP/AE were not relevant, and (his favourite line):

"After all, we are the CIVIL Air Patrol."

I personally know people like that in CAP - not as extreme, but they are there.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 07:49:10 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
Most seniors not former military or cadet have no idea what a gig line is, or how to march, or polish boots when they join, and unless they are intimately involved with CP they probably won't learn either as it is not a requirement for either PD, or rank promotion.  Could we fix that sure, but until we do, to me there is no difference between teaching uniform wear in the G/W or in the Polo.

I already knew drill, customs, courtesies etc...but in my first (best) squadron (composite), knowledge of the things you cite was a squadron prerequisite for passing Level I.  And we were tested on it, by a squadron member who was also an NCO in the Air Force Reserve.

At every meeting we assembled in the drill hall - cadets AND seniors - and formally reported in.

We were at an Armed Forces Reserve Centre with National Guard, Navy Reserve, NSCC and Marine Reserve, and it was impressed upon us that we show them proper courtesies.  It was "Good morning, Petty Officer" or "Good evening, Sergeant"...not "Hi, Jim!" or "How's it going, Joe?"

We all wore the AF blue and were held to standards.  I never saw a grey uniform until my first Wing activity, and it was the old-style "no-frills" uniform.  I thought the polo shirt was for casual, off-duty use.  No kidding.

When I moved and transferred to a senior squadron, boy, did I get a culture shock.

Like I say, I think I am increasingly a dinosaur in this "corporate" age.

Just out of curiosity where did you learn customs, courtesies, etc before joining? Read it in a book, researched before joining, come from a military family, JROTC?  Curious where one's learn these things outside a military / pseudo-military organization

The fact that your squadron thought that was important is great, but it is obviously not a priority of NHQ that all members know it or it would be part of the requirements.  The minimal knowledge on these subjects required by the program for seniors is indicative of the importance placed on them by senior leadership.

Have you ever heard of the Air National Guard?  They teach you things like that... ;)

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 07:56:33 PM
Have you ever heard of the Air National Guard?

Oh, so like I said, prior military, in case you missed it in the original post

Most seniors not former military or cadet have no idea what a gig line is, or how to march, or polish boots when they join, and unless they are intimately involved with CP they probably won't learn either as it is not a requirement for either PD, or rank promotion.  Could we fix that sure, but until we do, to me there is no difference between teaching uniform wear in the G/W or in the Polo.

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
How do you teach them proper uniform wear while wearing a corporate uniform?  Most seniors not former military or cadet have no idea what a gig line is, or how to march, or polish boots when they join, and unless they are intimately involved with CP they probably won't learn either as it is not a requirement for either PD, or rank promotion.  Could we fix that sure, but until we do, to me there is no difference between teaching uniform wear in the G/W or in the Polo.

The location of accoutrements when compared between the USAF style and Corporate are not far different.  That is, the nameplate, ribbons, badges, etc are all in the spot location.  Besides, even though there are differences between the Senior and Cadet uniforms, stressing correct uniform wear is a method of teaching them proper uniform wear. 

Knowing how to march is obviously not a priority in the senior member program.  No where are they required to know.  However, knowing the proper wear of a uniform is required of all senior members and cadets.  Thus, if they do not know what a gig line is or how to polish boots (not necessarily to a high mirror shine), then that is the fault of the CoC.  Those are items they should know prior to wearing a uniform or at least before getting promoted to 2d Lt.

My first squadron commander was not prior military, though admittedly he had been involved in CAP since he was a cadet...about 40 years...he couldn't serve due to a medical condition.  He knew military courtesies inside and out.

My second squadron commander (same squadron) was prior-service Air Force Reserve (nurse) and insisted on uniformity to the nth degree.  One scofflaw who wouldn't even wash his bloody uniform half the time finally got the boom lowered on him...she restricted him to the old "Smurf Suit" for the remaining tenure of her command.

My third commander (same squadron), who also became a very good friend, was not prior service (again, medical condition I think kept him from serving) and was strong on customs, courtesies and uniformity.

I remember a weekend Wing activity on an AFB when we were eating in the dining hall by the grace of the Wing King (mega-good shrimp dinner for $8 and change!).  Some Security Police came by on their evening rounds and sat down to have a cup with us (I always felt honoured when AF personnel did that) and a Staff Sergeant told us, "you CAP folks are sometimes more spit and polish than we are!" :)

A warm fuzzy like that means more to me than a thousand salutes.

Quote from: LSThiker on August 20, 2014, 08:04:51 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
How do you teach them proper uniform wear while wearing a corporate uniform?  Most seniors not former military or cadet have no idea what a gig line is, or how to march, or polish boots when they join, and unless they are intimately involved with CP they probably won't learn either as it is not a requirement for either PD, or rank promotion.  Could we fix that sure, but until we do, to me there is no difference between teaching uniform wear in the G/W or in the Polo.

The location of accoutrements when compared between the USAF style and Corporate are not far different.  Besides, even though there are differences between the Senior and Cadet uniforms, stressing correct uniform wear is a method of teaching them proper uniform wear. 

Knowing how to march is obviously not a priority in the senior member program.  No where are they required to know.  However, knowing the proper wear of a uniform is required of all senior members and cadets.  Thus, if they do not know what a gig line is or how to polish boots (not necessarily to a high mirror shine), then that is the fault of the CoC.  Those are items they should know prior to wearing a uniform or at least before getting promoted to 2d Lt.

My shoes are polished, my polo shirt and grey slacks are ironed and fit appropriately, my belt is black, as are my socks.  According to 39-1 I am wearing my uniform correctly (presuming the polo shirt is an allowable uniform at the event I am going to).  On those occasions I wear the G/W uniform I also wear it according to the manual, which is still correct uniform wear.  Failing to see your point, and as wear of CAP ribbons and devices are optional on the G/W but not the blue service, the style of the grey slacks are allowed to vary 4.2.5.5. Trousers. Medium gray (solid color). Wool, polyester‐wool blend or polyester‐cotton trousers will be worn and either slim, straight leg or loose fit with or without pleats or cuffs are allowed. so tell me again how this is better?

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 07:24:45 PM
I did propose a solution, its obviously not one you agree with.

Perhaps you would like to establish a "problem" before proposing a "solution."

(Hint: although there are several ways to define and state problems, a problem is something more than a difference of opinion about what looks "better" / "more professional" or "it looks odd to have two different kinds of uniforms".)

Quote from: Ned on August 20, 2014, 08:17:34 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 07:24:45 PM
I did propose a solution, its obviously not one you agree with.

Perhaps you would like to establish a "problem" before proposing a "solution."

(Hint: although there are several ways to define and state problems, a problem is something more than a difference of opinion about what looks "better" / "more professional" or "it looks odd to have two different kinds of uniforms".)

The problem is we do not have a uniform, we have wardrobe options - please see the definition below from Merrian-Webster's online dictionary.  We do not have a clothing option worn by all members of our team.  That is the problem.  My proposed solution - the polo shirt and grey slacks option (with the caveat that we need to define a shade and style of slacks)


3uniform
noun

: a special kind of clothing that is worn by all the members of a group or organization (such as an army or team)
Full Definition of UNIFORM
:  dress of a distinctive design or fashion worn by members of a particular group and serving as a means of identification; broadly :  distinctive or characteristic clothing
1uni·form
adjective \ˈyü-nə-ˌfȯrm\

: not varying or changing : staying the same at all times, in all places, or for all parts or members
Full Definition of UNIFORM
1
:  having always the same form, manner, or degree :  not varying or variable <uniform procedures>
2
:  consistent in conduct or opinion <uniform interpretation of laws>
3
:  of the same form with others :  conforming to one rule or mode :  consonant
4
:  presenting an unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color <uniform red brick houses>
5
:  relating to or being convergence of a series whose terms are functions in such manner that the absolute value of the difference between the sum of the first n terms of the series and the sum of all terms can be made arbitrarily small for all values of the domain of the functions by choosing the nth term sufficiently far along in the series

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 08:15:50 PM
Failing to see your point, and as wear of CAP ribbons and devices are optional on the G/W but not the blue service, the style of the grey slacks are allowed to vary 4.2.5.5. Trousers. Medium gray (solid color). Wool, polyester‐wool blend or polyester‐cotton trousers will be worn and either slim, straight leg or loose fit with or without pleats or cuffs are allowed. so tell me again how this is better?

Wear of CAP ribbons are optional on the short-sleeve and long-sleeve service uniforms:

Quote4.1.9.4.2. Ribbons. Ribbons are optional on the blue shirt. If worn, ribbons will be centered, resting on, but not over the edge of the pleated pocket on the wearer's left. For wear and description, see the applicable paragraphs in chapter 11. Adult member ribbons must fall below the front edge of the turn down collar in accordance with instructions found in chapter 11.

They are not optional on the service dress.

The style of grey slacks and their variants are not accoutrements.  So that does not apply to my point, which was that corporate and USAF style placement of accoutrements are relatively the same.

My point is, wearing a uniform similar to your subordinates properly and correctly helps stress that proper wear of the uniform is important.  So while yes, I could easily instruct cadets wearing flip flops and a Hawaiian T, good order and discipline, in my opinion, is lost when seniors involved in the cadet program do not wear anything but the polo shirt.  Even if you do not work directly with cadets, a unit should all be in the same style of uniform (style is meant by Service dress vs. BDU vs Flight Suit vs Polo).

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 03:04:31 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:39:59 PM

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

Silly question, but why a "blue" tie and not a "grey" tie with the G/W ensemble?  ???

Or a grey blazer coat?

So... grey trousers (check), white shirt (check), black blazer (check), USAF shade blue tie (Huh?!?)  ???

Quote from: LSThiker on August 20, 2014, 08:32:38 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 08:15:50 PM
Failing to see your point, and as wear of CAP ribbons and devices are optional on the G/W but not the blue service, the style of the grey slacks are allowed to vary 4.2.5.5. Trousers. Medium gray (solid color). Wool, polyester‐wool blend or polyester‐cotton trousers will be worn and either slim, straight leg or loose fit with or without pleats or cuffs are allowed. so tell me again how this is better?

Wear of CAP ribbons are optional on the short-sleeve and long-sleeve service uniforms:

Quote4.1.9.4.2. Ribbons. Ribbons are optional on the blue shirt. If worn, ribbons will be centered, resting on, but not over the edge of the pleated pocket on the wearer's left. For wear and description, see the applicable paragraphs in chapter 11. Adult member ribbons must fall below the front edge of the turn down collar in accordance with instructions found in chapter 11.

They are not optional on the service dress.

The style of grey slacks and their variants are not accoutrements.  So that does not apply to my point, which was that corporate and USAF style placement of accoutrements are relatively the same.

My point is, wearing a uniform similar to your subordinates properly and correctly helps stress that proper wear of the uniform is important.  So while yes, I could easily instruct cadets wearing flip flops and a Hawaiian T, good order and discipline, in my opinion, is lost when seniors involved in the cadet program do not wear anything but the polo shirt.  Even if you do not work directly with cadets, a unit should all be in the same style of uniform (style is meant by Service dress vs. BDU vs Flight Suit vs Polo).

First I only mentioned the service dress, so your point that they are optional on the long and short sleeve shirt doesn't make sense to me.  I also note I have rarely seen cadets not wearing their ribbons. I do not consider the G/W and Blue service uniforms to be similar.  Since I have worn my ribbons and badges (accoutrements) two or three times on my G/W's instructing them in uniform wear while wearing a white aviator's shirt with a name tag and grade epaulets versus in a polo shirt seems to make no difference to me.  If my commander had had an issue, I'm sure he would have said something, he wasn't shy.

Quote from: Garp on August 20, 2014, 03:11:45 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:36:43 PM

Someone needs to come up with an answer, sooner before later.

Why?

Are you being obtuse?

The status quo works for you?  ::)

QuoteThere is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON OTHER THAN HISTORY to wear the AF style uniform. None. Zero. We can perform 100% of all our functions while wearing the CAP distinctive combinations. And this is coming from a guy who will not wear the G/W with a gun pressed to his nads.

I concur, for the most part.

The USAF uniforms are a draw for the cadets and helps with recruitment.

As I've stated before one Corporate Service, Field, and Flying uniform is the way to go.

My point has been made. Lively debate turns sour. Film at 11.

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 08:36:23 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 03:04:31 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:39:59 PM

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

Silly question, but why a "blue" tie and not a "grey" tie with the G/W ensemble?  ???

Or a grey blazer coat?

So... grey trousers (check), white shirt (check), black blazer (check), USAF shade blue tie (Huh?!?)  ???

Except that the blazer is actually navy blue.

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 08:15:50 PM
My shoes are polished, my polo shirt and grey slacks are ironed and fit appropriately, my belt is black, as are my socks. 

Gilbert just woke up and punched Sullivan.

Quote from: SarDragon on August 20, 2014, 07:47:57 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:27:40 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 17, 2014, 11:18:08 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:17:46 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 16, 2014, 11:19:13 PM

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Because he's bored and a self admitted TROLL.

You call me a troll because you consider me an "outsider"

No, I call you a troll because YOU even called yourself a troll when asked several months ago why you make so many "pointed" comments.

Cite please.

This was too easy: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13836.msg329301#msg329301 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13836.msg329301#msg329301)

I stand corrected, I didn't remember saying that, thank you.

Tango Four Actual... Acknowledges.  8)

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 08:36:59 PM
First I only mentioned the service dress, so your point that they are optional on the long and short sleeve shirt doesn't make sense to me.

No you did not say service dress.  You said:

Quotedevices are optional on the G/W but not the blue service

Of course, CAPM 39-1 defines, blue service as the "class B" uniform which is the short-sleeve and long-sleeve service uniform and not the service dress uniform:

Quote
Service Dress Uniform (Class A)
Blue Service Uniform (Class B)

QuoteI also note I have rarely seen cadets not wearing their ribbons. I do not consider the G/W and Blue service uniforms to be similar.  Since I have worn my ribbons and badges (accoutrements) two or three times on my G/W's instructing them in uniform wear while wearing a white aviator's shirt with a name tag and grade epaulets versus in a polo shirt seems to make no difference to me.  If my commander had had an issue, I'm sure he would have said something, he wasn't shy.

Then this is a difference of opinion and not a defined problem. 

Quote from: LSThiker on August 20, 2014, 08:52:01 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 08:36:59 PM
First I only mentioned the service dress, so your point that they are optional on the long and short sleeve shirt doesn't make sense to me.

No you did not say service dress.  You said:

Quotedevices are optional on the G/W but not the blue service

Of course, CAPM 39-1 defines, blue service as the "class B" uniform which is the short-sleeve and long-sleeve service uniform and not the service dress uniform:

Quote
Service Dress Uniform (Class A)
Blue Service Uniform (Class B)

QuoteI also note I have rarely seen cadets not wearing their ribbons. I do not consider the G/W and Blue service uniforms to be similar.  Since I have worn my ribbons and badges (accoutrements) two or three times on my G/W's instructing them in uniform wear while wearing a white aviator's shirt with a name tag and grade epaulets versus in a polo shirt seems to make no difference to me.  If my commander had had an issue, I'm sure he would have said something, he wasn't shy.

Then this is a difference of opinion and not a defined problem.

I stand corrected on the service dress.  The problem is that we don't have a uniform, we have wardrobe options, please see reply 108

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 20, 2014, 08:48:43 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 08:36:23 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 03:04:31 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:39:59 PM

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

Silly question, but why a "blue" tie and not a "grey" tie with the G/W ensemble?  ???

Or a grey blazer coat?

So... grey trousers (check), white shirt (check), black blazer (check), USAF shade blue tie (Huh?!?)  ???

Except that the blazer is actually navy blue.

Oh, I always thought it was black, my bad.

Still, two shades of blue that don't match kinda look "off" to me.  :-\

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 08:58:00 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 20, 2014, 08:48:43 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 08:36:23 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 03:04:31 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:39:59 PM

Quote from: Garp on August 18, 2014, 04:20:11 PM
Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  :).  There is no visible link to military service.

Silly question, but why a "blue" tie and not a "grey" tie with the G/W ensemble?  ???

Or a grey blazer coat?

So... grey trousers (check), white shirt (check), black blazer (check), USAF shade blue tie (Huh?!?)  ???

Except that the blazer is actually navy blue.

Oh, I always thought it was black, my bad.

Still, two shades of blue that don't match kinda look "off" to me.  :-

I don't think the difference in shade is that noticeable, but YMMV. Until recently, the Army wore black tie with their green Class A uniform. And now, the Army wears different shades of blues for the service coat and trousers of their ASU.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 20, 2014, 09:13:52 PM
I don't think the difference in shade is that noticeable, but YMMV. Until recently, the Army wore black tie with their green Class A uniform. And now, the Army wears different shades of blues for the service coat and trousers of their ASU.

The tie is still black :)

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 08:31:28 PM
The problem is we do not have a uniform, we have wardrobe options -

How, exactly, is that a problem?  (Other than the subjective component of "I think that's too many.)

Not counting minor variations like long sleeve vs short sleeve, outergarments, etc., by my count, we have 9 uniforms:

1.  AF-style Service Dress
2.  Corporate Aviator Shirt Uniform
3.  Blazer
4.  Corporate Working Uniform (Polo)
5.  Former AF-style BDU
6.  Corporate Field Uniform (BBDU)
7.  AF-style Flight Duty Uniform
8.  Corporate Flight Duty Uniform
9.  Mess Dress

By coincidence the US Army has 9 major uniform types:

1.  Service Dress
2.  Army Combat Uniform (ACU)
3.  Aircrew Uniform
4.  Combat Vehicle Crewman Uniform
5. Physical Fitness Uniform (PFU)
6.  Food Service Uniform
7.  Hospital Duty Uniform
8.  Blue Mess Uniform
9.  White Mess Uniform


(See the  Army Uniform Regulation (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf))


Again, I suspect is a weird conicidence, but our AF colleagues also seem to have 9 major uniform styles:

1.  Service Dress
2.  Mess Dress
3.  Air Force Physical Fitness Uniform
4.  Informal Uniform (Polo)
5.  ABU
6.  Flight Duty Uniform (several variants)
7.  Air Force Food Service Uniform
8.  Flight Attendant Uniform
9.  Medical Scrubs.

See  AFI 36-2903 (http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130509-049.pdf)

Of course, reasonable minds might do the counting a bit differently, but the point remains that we have about the same number of uniform combinations as everyone else.  Certainly the Army and the AF have different missions and needs than we do.  We don't need surgical scrubs or a Flight Attendant uniform, for instance.  They don't need uniform alternatives for members that do not meet the h/w/grooming requirements set for their uniforms.

But the reason they have a lot of uniforms is the same reason we do -- we need a lot of different uniforms to get our missions accomplished given the existing outside constraints and conditions.

Just like the Army and the AF.

Yet I hardly ever hear anyone complain about the Army or the Air Force not having a "uniform", but just a lot of "wardrobe options."

What's the difference?

Quote from: Ned on August 20, 2014, 09:51:39 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 08:31:28 PM
The problem is we do not have a uniform, we have wardrobe options -

How, exactly, is that a problem?  (Other than the subjective component of "I think that's too many.)

Not counting minor variations like long sleeve vs short sleeve, outergarments, etc., by my count, we have 9 uniforms:

1.  AF-style Service Dress
2.  Corporate Aviator Shirt Uniform
3.  Blazer
4.  Corporate Working Uniform (Polo)
5.  Former AF-style BDU
6.  Corporate Field Uniform (BBDU)
7.  AF-style Flight Duty Uniform
8.  Corporate Flight Duty Uniform
9.  Mess Dress

By coincidence the US Army has 9 major uniform types:

1.  Service Dress
2.  Army Combat Uniform (ACU)
3.  Aircrew Uniform
4.  Combat Vehicle Crewman Uniform
5. Physical Fitness Uniform (PFU)
6.  Food Service Uniform
7.  Hospital Duty Uniform
8.  Blue Mess Uniform
9.  White Mess Uniform


(See the  Army Uniform Regulation (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf))


Again, I suspect is a weird conicidence, but our AF colleagues also seem to have 9 major uniform styles:

1.  Service Dress
2.  Mess Dress
3.  Air Force Physical Fitness Uniform
4.  Informal Uniform (Polo)
5.  ABU
6.  Flight Duty Uniform (several variants)
7.  Air Force Food Service Uniform
8.  Flight Attendant Uniform
9.  Medical Scrubs.

See  AFI 36-2903 (http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130509-049.pdf)

Of course, reasonable minds might do the counting a bit differently, but the point remains that we have about the same number of uniform combinations as everyone else.  Certainly the Army and the AF have different missions and needs than we do.  We don't need surgical scrubs or a Flight Attendant uniform, for instance.  They don't need uniform alternatives for members that do not meet the h/w/grooming requirements set for their uniforms.

But the reason they have a lot of uniforms is the same reason we do -- we need a lot of different uniforms to get our missions accomplished given the existing outside constraints and conditions.

Just like the Army and the AF.

Yet I hardly ever hear anyone complain about the Army or the Air Force not having a "uniform", but just a lot of "wardrobe options."

What's the difference?

As you state the reasoning behind the various military uniforms are functional, not based on the member.  If mess dress is required for instance, everyone is wearing mess dress not some people wear mess dress, some people wear a sports coat.   If the required uniform is a flight suit, they are all wearing the same flight suit, etc.  Our uniforms are based on member category.  We do not need multiple uniforms to meet most of our missions.  For instance Cadets do not need to be in a military uniform to learn leadership or even drill, they could accomplish the same in a G/W style uniform, since they have no military decorations, they would be unaffected in terms of their  awards and accoutrements and then all seniors could be in the same uniform as the cadets they were instructing.  We do not need two different colors of field uniform or flight suit to accomplish our mission, we could accomplish our missions with 4 uniforms

G/W
Flight Suit
Field Uniform
Polo

If people really felt there was a need for it, a G/W "service dress" could be developed.  Cadets and Seniors doing the same activity would all be in the same uniform, instruction in the wear of the uniform would be accomplished by people wearing it.

Quote from: Ned on August 20, 2014, 09:51:39 PM
What's the difference?

The military pays for, or provides a clothing allowance for the uniforms the personnel wears.
There is no variation or difference because of H/W or grooming.

Whatever the MOS or role, the personnel have a tight specification in regards to >what< they will
wear, >when< they will wear it, and the color and material of the components.  Variances are not allowed.

The only reason CAP has the same number of variations is the inability to put all members into a
uniform.

CAP should have only four (4) Flight, Field, Service, and Mess, five (5) if the gold remained an option.
It's only got nine because of the duplication.

If NHQ was issuing uniforms, a lot less people would care as much, but when you have to write your
own checks, then you have a right to be concerned.

And if the rules were enforced equally, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Ok we are back to the same argument.  Ditch the USAF style and break our connection with USAF or keep the status quo. 

Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2014, 10:25:08 PM
Ok we are back to the same argument.  Ditch the USAF style and break our connection with USAF or keep the status quo.

Or mandate H/W/ Grooming requirements and make everyone who doesn't conform leave.  I don't care whether we ditch the USAF style or mandate the H/W/Grooming but pick one and go forth. 

Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2014, 10:25:08 PM
Ok we are back to the same argument.  Ditch the USAF style and break our connection with USAF or keep the status quo.

The >best< option is having the USAF relax and getting everyone into the same uniform.
There are >plenty< of good justificaitons >for< it, and few against.

Or do good ORM so the baby is safe but the water is changed.

Step #1: full enforcement of grooming and H/W.

That relieves some of the issue immediately by leveling the playing field for everyone.  No exceptions, no waivers.

After that happens, and assuming it continues to be enforced, AT ALL LEVELS, the uniform issue
is fixed within a year, guaranteed.

As soon as the gander is in the same places as the goose, people will care and action will happen.

Also, if someone can explain >why< #1 isn't already done, you'd probably have answers to a number of
questions that are also troubling CAP.

The "answer" is not "We seem to get the mission done, regardless".  That's an excuse, and a cop-out, not an answer.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 11:11:54 PM
The >best< option is having the USAF relax and getting everyone into the same uniforms.

I would be floored if the USAF were to relax on their uniform.  I think we would have a better chance of telling the Air Force we were going to adopt only the corporates and drop the USAF uniform.  I still remember when members were not allowed to wear rank on the BDUs if they did not meet H/W and/or grooming.  Talk about confused at first when members would call a person Lt Col, but he wore CAP cutouts. 

Quote from: SarDragon on August 20, 2014, 07:47:57 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 20, 2014, 02:27:40 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 17, 2014, 11:18:08 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on August 17, 2014, 02:17:46 PM

Quote from: PHall on August 16, 2014, 11:19:13 PM

Quote from: whatevah on August 16, 2014, 07:39:34 PM
Ahh, good... thought I missed something with all of the reg changes this year.

shuman14, why are you so fired up about something that doesn't affect you?

Because he's bored and a self admitted TROLL.

You call me a troll because you consider me an "outsider"

No, I call you a troll because YOU even called yourself a troll when asked several months ago why you make so many "pointed" comments.

Cite please.

This was too easy: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13836.msg329301#msg329301 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13836.msg329301#msg329301)

Thanks Dave. They'll be something extra in the envelope this week! ;)

Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 07:03:21 PM

Quote from: Alaric on August 20, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
What in AE or CP could not be done by a senior member wearing the Polo?

Anything "formal" for starters, not to mention the credibility of inspecting cadets, etc.

Nothing says "Pass In Review" like the golf shirt.

All of which are conducted by cadets, who aren't allowed to wear polos. As for formal events, I'd agree a polo typically isn't appropriate.

Who do you think is "reviewing" them?

Quote from: Eclipse on August 21, 2014, 02:09:03 AM
Who do you think is "reviewing" them?

For some reason I had a mental picture of adults marching with the cadets. Point taken.

That said, we now have two minutes a year where a polo is a bad idea for CP.

Quote from: Fubar on August 21, 2014, 02:17:11 AM
That said, we now have two minutes a year where a polo is a bad idea for CP.

Two minutes?  If you're involved in the CAP, and especially encampments, NCSAs, or
similar formal events, it's a lot more then "two minutes".

As a cadet, receiving a promotion or award, dressed to the 9's, taking the afternoon to
measure your badges, do you want to be in photos, or report to, SM Couldntcareless
in his golf shirt and TAC pants?

And if you're on the SM side, and have never worn ribbons, or measured a badge, you've
got no business inspecting anyone else.

^^Except that there are obviously people throughout CAP who are not concerned with being in a proper uniform, PD, ranks, ribbons, etc.

Do not misconstrue.  It is not the be-all and end-all of CAP, but it is one way we get "paid," as well as promoting esprit de corps.

I have mentioned the senior squadron where I was really the square peg in the round hole - uniforms "optional," a load of pilots who never moved past Second Lieutenant, and the openly-stated misconception that the only uniform needed was the golf shirt and grey trousers (even those were "optional" - faded Levi's were more common), which is of course, not regulation.

It seems that attitude has rapidly spread throughout CAP...more like the Young Marines, where only the cadets wear uniforms (ribbons on BDU's - ugh) and the adult volunteers wear a golf shirt with the YM crest: "uniforms are for cadets, and adults don't go in for that."

I've waxed eloquently about my first squadron.  If they had not been the squared-away unit they were, the chances are extremely good that I would not have bothered to join CAP.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2014, 11:11:54 PM
The >best< option is having the USAF relax and getting everyone into the same uniform.
There are >plenty< of good justificaitons >for< it, and few against.

Except that it's not going to happen.  Why should the USAF emulate the way a sister service treats their Auxiliary?

Quote from: LSThiker on August 20, 2014, 11:15:33 PM
I would be floored if the USAF were to relax on their uniform.  I think we would have a better chance of telling the Air Force we were going to adopt only the corporates and drop the USAF uniform.  I still remember when members were not allowed to wear rank on the BDUs if they did not meet H/W and/or grooming.  Talk about confused at first when members would call a person Lt Col, but he wore CAP cutouts. 

I remember those days too.

The USAF is not going to relax on their uniform.  Why?  They don't have to, and they do not care about disgruntled CAP members who cannot wear their attractive uniform and are instead forced into bloody awful "corporate" uniforms.

If we were to tell the USAF we were going to drop their uniform, I doubt they would care.  Except for upper echelons and some enlightened souls on some AFB/ARB/ANGB's, they don't even really know who we are, nor care.

It'd be more like "OK, at least no more fat and fuzzy CAPpies can look like overstuffed sausages in our uniform"...ignoring the fact they have not a few gepolsterten Wurst throughout their ranks.

To piggyback off of what others like CyBorg have said, there is a certain matter of pride, in my opinion, in one's dress.

When I first joined CAP, I was thinner than I am now. I bought and wore my dress blues and BDUs with pride because, to me, the quality and care I put into my clothes is the first outward manifestation of who I am as a person. I was not prior service, so I considered it a privilege to wear my country's uniform and I made sure I did so with the respect due to all those who have served or are serving.

After getting married, I let myself go a bit. I'm still within height and weight requirements, but my belly is a bit larger than I would like in dress blues since I carry nearly all of my weight on my stomach. Therefore, I have chosen to wear G/Ws while maintaining a strict diet and exercise regimen. I wear G/Ws with the same level of dignity and care as I do my service dress. However, if someone was limited to wearing solely G/Ws due to medical issues or otherwise, I can understand how one might feel anger at others who are wearing service dress but are not 'legally' able to do so. In their eyes, they are following the regulations and are upset when they see others shirking this responsibility to follow the regs. I have not personally seen this in my career, but I can see where many's anger at the "duoform" stems.

I also do not own a polo shirt, but that is solely out of personal preference. It is a valid uniform and many enjoy wearing it. I have no problem with that (in fact, I often wear polo shirts in my 'civilian' career as a teacher), but I found that wearing dress blues, BDUs, G/Ws tends to force me to aspire to a higher level of excellence when in my role as a CAP member. For me, it is a mental, state-of-mind effect that I feel I must work harder to honor my squadron mates who are working hard, as well as to honor those who are serving out country in active duty, reserves, or the guard. Others are able to effectively get their job done in a polo.

To each their own, so long as they remain in the regulations, I suppose.

^^Well stated.

I have a full set of dress blues hanging in my closet that I cannot wear because of H/W...thanks to a medical condition which means I have to take medication that has packed too many pounds on me.

I know, I know..."suck it up and be a good little boy, wear your G/W's, sit down and colour."

Quote from: CyBorg on August 20, 2014, 04:58:10 PM
Except that our parent Service still does not practice what they preach in a lot of ways.  I know the standards have been changed since I was in, to percentages/BMI, but I still see not a few Airmen, including some senior NCO's (who, of all people, should know better), who would likely not fit the standards of H/W imposed on CAP.  I believe that is called "do as I say, not as I do."  >:(

I know this post is two weeks old, but I'm going to respond anyway.

Unlike in CAP where wearing the Air Force-style uniform is a PRIVILEGE, not a right, in the U.S. Air Force every Airman has the right and obligation to wear their uniforms while on duty. Unlike CAP where those who are overweight have an alternate uniform (regardless of your feelings toward that uniform), in the U.S. Air Force there's no such thing; slim, built, and overweight Airmen have to wear the same uniform. Finally, unlike in CAP where those who are not fit can join and continue to serve pretty much indefinitely, in the U.S. Air Force that's not the case. Airmen who are not fit or are overweight are enrolled in special fitness programs and if they cannot meet the standards within a specified period of time, they get referral performance reports, miss out on promotions, awards or special assignments, and even risk being discharged from the Air Force. No such thing happens in CAP.

A lot has changed in the U.S. Air Force (to include the Guard and Reserve) during my 18 years of service. The Air Force has been working in the last few years to change the lax fitness culture that prevailed for decades to one of "fit to flight". It may take a few more years, but I'm already seeing the change and, while the current fitness program is not perfect, we're moving in the right direction.

That said, CAP standards regarding the Air Force-style uniform are there for a reason. With the numerous uniform violations that are constantly being discussed on this board, I'm surprised the U.S. Air Force still allows CAP to wear THEIR uniform. Before we go asking for new corporate uniforms that look more "military" or relaxation on the current Air Force-style uniform wear policy, how about we all comply with current standards? How about we put the complaining aside for awhile and work on fixing the many problems that CAP is facing right now? And more importantly, how about we show a little respect for our parent service? After all, aren't we CAP officers? Let's behave as such.

All well and good, but a bit oversimplified.

As I said, I, and I suspect a good many others, would very much like to meet the Air Force's standards.

However, in my case, and, again, many others, we have physical disabilities (such as thyroid problems and other problems that render us unable to vigorously exercise) or are on medications that we have to have.  I could quit taking my medications, and within probably a few months the extra pounds would drop off.  However, my wife would probably be burying me before that.

When I have worn the blue uniform (and I got married in it), I have worn it exactly to specifications: always cleaned, pressed, ribbons cleaned, shoes shined, etc.  I had long hair and a beard when I joined CAP.  I got a military haircut and shaved my beard.

I can feel safe in saying that if you, a USAF officer, would have inspected me in the blue uniform, you would have found nothing out of place.  I doubt a Blue Rope MTI could have.  That sounds egotistical, but it is true.

Once when I was wearing the blue uniform, a CMSgt noticed that my nameplate was very, very slightly off kilter and asked me for permission to adjust, which I of course gave.  I then asked him if anything else needed attention, and he said "no, you're fine."  I would think if I were wearing the uniform improperly, he would have noticed.

What my problem is, is that I (and others with medical conditions) am being penalised for something I have no control over (and I have talked to my doctor about it).  I believe there is a difference between cases I have cited and those who CHOOSE to be couch potatoes, eat too many Big Macs, etc.  The Air Force appears unwilling or unable to take that into account.  The Air Force has every right to tell Active, Reserve and Guard personnel to "get fit or get out," but I would lay very good odds that these Airmen do not have medical conditions such as I and many other CAP colleagues have.  If they did, they would be DQ'd from service to begin with or be hiding it at the risk of being caught out and kicked out for Fraudulent Enlistment.

If the AF would stop us from wearing THEIR uniform (and I am aware it is THEIR uniform; I was in the ANG), I would not necessarily be opposed...as long as we would not default to the status quo "corporates."  My big problem with those is that they are colourless, have nothing to do with our heritage and nothing identifiable with aviation of any kind.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that I do not like the uniform, I wear the G/W as prescribed - cleaned, pressed, badging in the right places, etc.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 04, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
...how about we all comply with current standards?

Who's "we"?

Look at the Flicker Pool from the last National Boards and see who is complying.

The regs don't say "close" or "As long as you look 'OK", a concept clearly being misinterpreted by a lot of people
with highly visible situations, not to mention the people who are not even close.  For better or worse,
the drape cut of the USAF-style jacket is so unforgiving that you can spot someone pushing the tables
from 50k feet.

Yes.  People can see it.

No.  You are not fooling anyone.

Until >that< situation is remedied, the rank and file have every right to whine and complain.

Quote from: CyBorg on September 04, 2014, 04:06:20 PM
All well and good, but a bit oversimplified.

As I said, I, and I suspect a good many others, would very much like to meet the Air Force's standards.

However, in my case, and, again, many others, we have physical disabilities (such as thyroid problems and other problems that render us unable to vigorously exercise) or are on medications that we have to have.  I could quit taking my medications, and within probably a few months the extra pounds would drop off.  However, my wife would probably be burying me before that.

When I have worn the blue uniform (and I got married in it), I have worn it exactly to specifications: always cleaned, pressed, ribbons cleaned, shoes shined, etc.  I had long hair and a beard when I joined CAP.  I got a military haircut and shaved my beard.

I can feel safe in saying that if you, a USAF officer, would have inspected me in the blue uniform, you would have found nothing out of place.  I doubt a Blue Rope MTI could have.  That sounds egotistical, but it is true.

Once when I was wearing the blue uniform, a CMSgt noticed that my nameplate was very, very slightly off kilter and asked me for permission to adjust, which I of course gave.  I then asked him if anything else needed attention, and he said "no, you're fine."  I would think if I were wearing the uniform improperly, he would have noticed.

What my problem is, is that I (and others with medical conditions) am being penalised for something I have no control over (and I have talked to my doctor about it).  I believe there is a difference between cases I have cited and those who CHOOSE to be couch potatoes, eat too many Big Macs, etc.  The Air Force appears unwilling or unable to take that into account.  The Air Force has every right to tell Active, Reserve and Guard personnel to "get fit or get out," but I would lay very good odds that these Airmen do not have medical conditions such as I and many other CAP colleagues have.  If they did, they would be DQ'd from service to begin with or be hiding it at the risk of being caught out and kicked out for Fraudulent Enlistment.

If the AF would stop us from wearing THEIR uniform (and I am aware it is THEIR uniform; I was in the ANG), I would not necessarily be opposed...as long as we would not default to the status quo "corporates."  My big problem with those is that they are colourless, have nothing to do with our heritage and nothing identifiable with aviation of any kind.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that I do not like the uniform, I wear the G/W as prescribed - cleaned, pressed, badging in the right places, etc.

There is a lot of talk about our heritage, since our heritage is Army Khaki (as there was no blue AF uniform when we were founded), I don't see an issue with going away from the blues and coming up with a uniform that everyone can wear.  If you don't like the grey and white, come up with another suggestion, but we should have one uniform per function (flight suit, field, dress/office)

Quote from: Eclipse on September 04, 2014, 04:20:17 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 04, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
...how about we all comply with current standards?

Who's "we"?

Look at the Flicker Pool from the last National Boards and see who is complying.

The regs don't say "close" or "As long as you look 'OK", a concept clearly being misinterpreted by a lot of people
with highly visible situations, not to mention the people who are not even close.  For better or worse,
the drape cut of the USAF-style jacket is so unforgiving that you can spot someone pushing the tables
from 50k feet.

Yes.  People can see it.

No.  You are not fooling anyone.

Until >that< situation is remedied, the rank and file have every right to whine and complain.

So you think it's ok to say things like "our parent Service still does not practice what they preach" or they want us to "do as I say, not as I do" just because some don't get to wear what they want? Come on, now.

I agree with you about the uniform issues we have in CAP and that they need to be fixed starting from the top, but not about comments like these, which make us look unprofessional.

Quote from: Alaric on September 04, 2014, 06:11:42 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 04, 2014, 04:06:20 PM
All well and good, but a bit oversimplified.

As I said, I, and I suspect a good many others, would very much like to meet the Air Force's standards.

However, in my case, and, again, many others, we have physical disabilities (such as thyroid problems and other problems that render us unable to vigorously exercise) or are on medications that we have to have.  I could quit taking my medications, and within probably a few months the extra pounds would drop off.  However, my wife would probably be burying me before that.

When I have worn the blue uniform (and I got married in it), I have worn it exactly to specifications: always cleaned, pressed, ribbons cleaned, shoes shined, etc.  I had long hair and a beard when I joined CAP.  I got a military haircut and shaved my beard.

I can feel safe in saying that if you, a USAF officer, would have inspected me in the blue uniform, you would have found nothing out of place.  I doubt a Blue Rope MTI could have.  That sounds egotistical, but it is true.

Once when I was wearing the blue uniform, a CMSgt noticed that my nameplate was very, very slightly off kilter and asked me for permission to adjust, which I of course gave.  I then asked him if anything else needed attention, and he said "no, you're fine."  I would think if I were wearing the uniform improperly, he would have noticed.

What my problem is, is that I (and others with medical conditions) am being penalised for something I have no control over (and I have talked to my doctor about it).  I believe there is a difference between cases I have cited and those who CHOOSE to be couch potatoes, eat too many Big Macs, etc.  The Air Force appears unwilling or unable to take that into account.  The Air Force has every right to tell Active, Reserve and Guard personnel to "get fit or get out," but I would lay very good odds that these Airmen do not have medical conditions such as I and many other CAP colleagues have.  If they did, they would be DQ'd from service to begin with or be hiding it at the risk of being caught out and kicked out for Fraudulent Enlistment.

If the AF would stop us from wearing THEIR uniform (and I am aware it is THEIR uniform; I was in the ANG), I would not necessarily be opposed...as long as we would not default to the status quo "corporates."  My big problem with those is that they are colourless, have nothing to do with our heritage and nothing identifiable with aviation of any kind.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that I do not like the uniform, I wear the G/W as prescribed - cleaned, pressed, badging in the right places, etc.

There is a lot of talk about our heritage, since our heritage is Army Khaki (as there was no blue AF uniform when we were founded), I don't see an issue with going away from the blues and coming up with a uniform that everyone can wear.  If you don't like the grey and white, come up with another suggestion, but we should have one uniform per function (flight suit, field, dress/office)

+1

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 04, 2014, 07:20:32 PM
So you think it's ok to say things like "our parent Service still does not practice what they preach" or they want us to "do as I say, not as I do" just because some don't get to wear what they want? Come on, now.

I agree with you about the uniform issues we have in CAP and that they need to be fixed starting from the top, but not about comments like these, which make us look unprofessional.

Who said anything about the parent service?  I'm talking about CAP leadership and staff at all levels.
Other then the academic contradiction of the fact that there are likely thousands of Airman, both NCO and officer, serving
proudly well overweight in the USAF uniform, yet CAP isn't granted that allowance, I don't honestly care what the USAF
does for its own people. they have made it clear it's not relevent to CAP members.
Those are paid professionals being given careers, benefits, clothing allowances and schooling 
in exchange for their willingness to defend the country and potentially die doing it.  A reasonable bargain if somewhat lopsided
during wartime, especially these days.

On the CAP side, the debt is entirely in favor of the members, who pay to join, pay to serve, and pay for just about everything,
not the least of which is with their time.  With no ability to conscript or compel, CAP folds up the day after it loses the benevolence of the membership,
something apparently not a priority to address these days.

The unimultiform is in the state that it is for two primary reasons:

It's a huge broken compromise that ultimately defeats its own purpose.

Many of the same people charged with its evolution and enforcement, themselves, feel no compunction
to follow the rules, so the contradictions and other issues don't affect them.

The opinion of a member below Wing CC may attract attention in a Starbucks, if only to be polite, but
the only people who will ever "fix" things, including making the requests to CAP-USAF to either ease up
or change, are those with eagles and stars, and until they are forced to enforce the rules downstream,
and comply themselves, personally, nothing will change.  Why would it?

That has nothing to do with the parent service, which is probably largely unaware of the CAP issues
beyond being embarrassed when they see a lot of the members.

The only thing I say regarding our parent Service is that they seem to think that people in CAP who are outside H/W limits are penalised in many cases for things that they cannot help.  The thinking I seem to get is "if you eat too many Big Macs and don't get off the sofa and exercise, you're going to be fat and so cannot wear our uniform."  The FACT that many in CAP are outside of H/W limits because of factors BEYOND THEIR CONTROL (as I outlined) and are penalised in the same way that the couch potatoes are does irk the heck out of me.  I remember that the AF in general is, "one size fits all, don't break the mould," (as any newcomer to Lackland LaLaLand learns) and they can do that, because there are strict health standards for joining and for remaining an Airman.  If you don't pass, then do not pass Go, do not collect $200 on your way out to civvy street...and the reasons don't really matter.  If it's the result of a medical condition or one requiring medication, you don't belong in the military anyway.

The rest of the blame...I agree 100% with Eclipse.  Unless/until the people with stars and eagles start doing something, those down the food chain are going to remain disgruntled.

As for khaki, I would go for that way, way more than colourless grey and white with a Realtor jacket.

(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads/post-448-1169213357.jpg)

I would even go for a service dress jacket cut like the pre-90s in ultramarine.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 04, 2014, 07:35:58 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 04, 2014, 07:20:32 PM
So you think it's ok to say things like "our parent Service still does not practice what they preach" or they want us to "do as I say, not as I do" just because some don't get to wear what they want? Come on, now.

I agree with you about the uniform issues we have in CAP and that they need to be fixed starting from the top, but not about comments like these, which make us look unprofessional.

Who said anything about the parent service?

CyBorg did and I was replying to his post.

Actually you replied the mine.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 05, 2014, 12:37:11 AM
Actually you replied the mine.

Actually, I replied to your reply to my reply to CyBorg's post. I'm getting dizzy just typing that.

Clearly, people aren't wearing enough hats...

Quote from: Eclipse on September 05, 2014, 01:47:08 AM
Clearly, people aren't wearing enough hats...

As long as one of those hats isn't that silly French thing ...

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on September 05, 2014, 02:08:24 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on September 05, 2014, 01:47:08 AM
Clearly, people aren't wearing enough hats...

As long as one of those hats isn't that silly French thing ...

Jack

No, the only hats we're allowed to wear is the "CAP Baseball cap."

Quote from: Panache on September 05, 2014, 05:37:11 AM
No, the only hats we're allowed to wear is the "CAP Baseball cap."

Which has not been defined.

Broadly defined, if I go and buy a $5 baseball cap and stick something like this (all of which are obsolete) on it, it then becomes a "CAP baseball cap."

(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/be/45/41/be4541212b912d8a1699b33ac72b6f80.jpg)

(http://www.flyingtigerantiques.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/earlywwiicapshoulderpatchobv.jpg)

(http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/183453939/civil_air_patrol_shield_oval_ornament.jpg?height=250&width=250&padToSquare=true)

(I would go out on a limb and include this, but that is an Air Force patch, not a CAP patch):

(http://www.online-utility.org/image/ImageCache?file=e/eb/CAP_USAF.jpg/800px-CAP_USAF.jpg)

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Para. 6.2.9CAP Baseball Cap. Wing and region commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and/or emblem to be on the baseball cap. No rank insignia may be worn on this cap, and no emblems (clouds, darts, etc.) may be worn on the cap visor.

Quote from: ColonelJack on September 05, 2014, 02:08:24 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on September 05, 2014, 01:47:08 AM
Clearly, people aren't wearing enough hats...

As long as one of those hats isn't that silly French thing ...

Jack

It's called a kepi.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 06, 2014, 05:11:48 AM

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Para. 6.2.9CAP Baseball Cap. Wing and region commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and/or emblem to be on the baseball cap. No rank insignia may be worn on this cap, and no emblems (clouds, darts, etc.) may be worn on the cap visor.

Well, that certainly clarifies things!

Oh, but wait.  In PAWG, we all have to wear the silly orange caps when in our BDUs/BBDUs.  But only in our BDUs/BBDUs.  So, what do we wear during the other times?  My Wing / Region commander hasn't prescribed any other color, unit designation, and/or emblem.

It cannot be the Kepi he was referencing, as a Kepi is no more silly than the patrol caps worn by US forces!

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on September 06, 2014, 11:43:19 AM
It cannot be the Kepi he was referencing, as a Kepi is no more silly than the patrol caps worn by US forces!

No, I wasn't referencing a kepi.  They may be French, but they're not silly.

The silly French hat is much more of a floppy, useless piece of head cover.  And incredibly silly.

Jack

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 06, 2014, 05:11:48 AM

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Para. 6.2.9CAP Baseball Cap. Wing and region commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and/or emblem to be on the baseball cap. No rank insignia may be worn on this cap, and no emblems (clouds, darts, etc.) may be worn on the cap visor.

May prescribe.

And if my Wing/Region Commander were to do so, I would wear that.  I still have one from my former squadron hanging in my closet.

Absent that, as long as one avoids the "scrambled eggs" and rank insignia, and of course being ordered not to by higher authority, the field is still rather wide.

I still do not understand the ambiguity toward berets by personnel here in the U.S.  Some hate it, and others believe it is only for elite units.

There are a lot of other countries besides les français for whom the beret is standard issue for basic trainees off the street.

GERMANY:


GREAT BRITAIN (RAF Air Training Corps Cadets):


THE NETHERLANDS:


AUSTRIA:


CANADA (Navy):


So what the beef is about this piece of headgear...ahh doannn geddit.

Jack, I got it, I think!

It cannot be the b....! I cannot get the word out as there was a post lauding it so much following yours...

And what the beef is so special about the beret that others here want it? Granted, used by Special Forces. So what!???

It does not protect from the sun, takes special care. We may wear a top hat as well!

It surprises me that Cyborg, with his constant request for a hat for the Gray/Whites appears now to defend the Beret...

^^You need not be surprised, Sir.

One possible solution I have flown (and it gets shot down quicker than a MiG-15 by an F-15) is to have a grey, or "postman blue" grey-blue beret for the G/W.

In fact, wearing one without insignia would qualify as civilian headgear.  I wear my Radar O'Reilly watch cap in the winter and that is actual military issue (mine had a DoD tag on it) and nobody says anything.

I daresay it would actually look classy with the Realtor jacket, as these RAF WWII vets show:

(http://www.headington.org.uk/images/images_repatriation/2011_09_22/veterans_2.jpg)

I think the Beret looks way much cooler with the fold towards the back of the head, not to the side. The colors Grey or, more so, black.

Edited to add:

I myself wear black watch caps in winter and would not deny anyone from doing so, as it is a command decision in cold weather! ;D

Back to your beret photo: Four guys wearing the beret, and not only two are wearing it in a similar way. It looks awful, specially the second one. Is that uniformity?

Quote from: CyBorg on September 06, 2014, 01:53:59 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 06, 2014, 05:11:48 AM

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Para. 6.2.9CAP Baseball Cap. Wing and region commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and/or emblem to be on the baseball cap. No rank insignia may be worn on this cap, and no emblems (clouds, darts, etc.) may be worn on the cap visor.

May prescribe.

And if my Wing/Region Commander were to do so, I would wear that.  I still have one from my former squadron hanging in my closet.

Absent that, as long as one avoids the "scrambled eggs" and rank insignia, and of course being ordered not to by higher authority, the field is still rather wide.

I still do not understand the ambiguity toward berets by personnel here in the U.S.  Some hate it, and others believe it is only for elite units.

There are a lot of other countries besides les français for whom the beret is standard issue for basic trainees off the street.

GERMANY:


GREAT BRITAIN (RAF Air Training Corps Cadets):


THE NETHERLANDS:


AUSTRIA:


CANADA (Navy):


So what the beef is about this piece of headgear...ahh doannn geddit.

It's not the Beret's fault the people with large, overgrown egos seem to think that the Beret is "special".
It's not, trust me. It's the people who wear it that make it "special".

Quote from: PHall on September 06, 2014, 04:40:28 PM
It's not the Beret's fault the people with large, overgrown egos seem to think that the Beret is "special".
It's not, trust me. It's the people who wear it that make it "special".

Checking...

Nope, it's the beret's fault as per ISO 0U812.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2014, 05:04:13 PM

Quote from: PHall on September 06, 2014, 04:40:28 PM
It's not the Beret's fault the people with large, overgrown egos seem to think that the Beret is "special".
It's not, trust me. It's the people who wear it that make it "special".

Checking...

Nope, it's the beret's fault as per ISO 0U812.

Looked that up while wearing your Beret did you?

The beret does not do it for me, but I must admit it would be more "military" looking with GWs than a baseball CAP.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 07, 2014, 09:40:51 PM
The beret does not do it for me, but I must admit it would be more "military" looking with GWs than a baseball CAP.

Which is precisely why the powers-that-be-do not want us to have it, or any other headdress.

Quote from: CyBorg on September 08, 2014, 03:54:42 AM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 07, 2014, 09:40:51 PM
The beret does not do it for me, but I must admit it would be more "military" looking with GWs than a baseball CAP.

Which is precisely why the powers-that-be-do not want us to have it, or any other headdress.

On the flip side, if you make the blue beret the official headgear for the corporate service uniform, you'll kill off the tacti-kewl factor of the beret for cadets... >:D

Quote from: CyBorg on September 08, 2014, 03:54:42 AM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 07, 2014, 09:40:51 PM
The beret does not do it for me, but I must admit it would be more "military" looking with GWs than a baseball CAP.

Which is precisely why the powers-that-be-do not want us to have it, or any other headdress.

Conspiracy theory?  :o

Quote from: arajca on September 08, 2014, 01:32:53 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 08, 2014, 03:54:42 AM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 07, 2014, 09:40:51 PM
The beret does not do it for me, but I must admit it would be more "military" looking with GWs than a baseball CAP.

Which is precisely why the powers-that-be-do not want us to have it, or any other headdress.

On the flip side, if you make the blue beret the official headgear for the corporate service uniform, you'll kill off the tacti-kewl factor of the beret for cadets... >:D

Which would just break my heart...and I did not specify it had to be blue.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 08, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
Conspiracy theory?  :o

If you like.

It is not difficult to see, though.  TPTB peruse CT, I know, so they are undoubtedly aware of the desire of many (not all) to have a TRUE headdress rather than something that does not at all go with what is supposed to be a "dressier" uniform.

Yet they refuse to authorise it.

Quote from: CyBorg on September 08, 2014, 05:01:08 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 08, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
Conspiracy theory?  :o

If you like.

It is not difficult to see, though.  TPTB peruse CT, I know, so they are undoubtedly aware of the desire of many (not all) to have a TRUE headdress rather than something that does not at all go with what is supposed to be a "dressier" uniform.

Yet they refuse to authorise it.

Have to side with CyBorg here.

Let's be honest.  A baseball cap with the G/Ws puts the "ug" in "ugly".  For a point of reference, imagine you were told that, effective immediately, the blue flight cap was no longer authorized and you had to wear a baseball cap of vague, undefined description with the AF blues now.

And I wish I knew why they took the flight cap away from those in the corporate flight suit.

We're supposed to project a "professional" appearance, especially to Johnny Q. Public.  So you have two senior members:  one wearing a blue AF-style uniform with a flight cap, and the other in G/Ws with a baseball cap.  This just screams "dysfunctional".

If you were Random Citizen and you had business / questions about CAP, who would you gravitate to first?

I'm not advocating that the AF relaxes their standards for wear of the AF uniform by CAP members.  Just give those of us who wear the corporate variants something nice, that's all.

Quote from: CyBorg on September 08, 2014, 05:01:08 PM

Quote from: arajca on September 08, 2014, 01:32:53 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 08, 2014, 03:54:42 AM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 07, 2014, 09:40:51 PM
The beret does not do it for me, but I must admit it would be more "military" looking with GWs than a baseball CAP.

Which is precisely why the powers-that-be-do not want us to have it, or any other headdress.

On the flip side, if you make the blue beret the official headgear for the corporate service uniform, you'll kill off the tacti-kewl factor of the beret for cadets... >:D

Which would just break my heart...and I did not specify it had to be blue.

True, but if it's blue, we could kill two birds solve two problems with one shot.

Blue?  Fascinating!

I like it!!!

I meant something more like this:

(http://www.contactleft.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/500x500/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/a/raf.jpg)

Quote from: CyBorg on September 10, 2014, 07:26:50 PM
I meant something more like this:

(http://www.contactleft.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/500x500/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/a/raf.jpg)

I would have to swallow my pride, my dislike, and eight different kinds of bile to be able to do it, but ... in order to have some kind of headgear for the G/W combination, I'd even wear the silly French hat.

(Gasp!  Did I say that?  Was that out loud?)

Jack

Go ahead, adopt the beret for wear with the grey and whites.
You guys will be right back here whining about how people are not wearing the beret properly.
Anybody here want to bet against that?

Quote from: PHall on September 10, 2014, 10:47:16 PM
Go ahead, adopt the beret for wear with the grey and whites.
You guys will be right back here whining about how people are not wearing the beret properly.
Anybody here want to bet against that?

I wouldn't take that bet with Bill Gates' money.  >:D

Not only that, but you have to 'shave' the beanie beret first to get rid of the fuzz and adjust it to your head size using the drawstring before first use. (At least, that's what the Army guys told me.) Let's see how many don't even bother with those prep instructions and mash it on their heads.

Quote from: PHall on September 10, 2014, 10:47:16 PM
Go ahead, adopt the beret for wear with the grey and whites.
You guys will be right back here whining about how people are not wearing the beret properly.
Anybody here want to bet against that?

There is no "proper" way for someone not in the military to wear a beret.

Being in the military provides a "cool points" shield around the wearer negating any negative comments

CAP members don't get that, nor do they "get" that.

There are four classes of beret wearers:

Military (and former, etc).

Jamie Hyneman.

School girl.

Poser.

Quote from: PHall on September 10, 2014, 10:47:16 PM
Go ahead, adopt the beret for wear with the grey and whites.
You guys will be right back here whining about how people are not wearing the beret properly.
Anybody here want to bet against that?

I will.

First of all, TPTB would have to allow us to wear it with the G/W...at least with insignia.

That's a fart's chance in a hurricane of happening.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2014, 11:19:14 PM
Being in the military provides a "cool points" shield around the wearer negating any negative comments

Hmm...this little clip of a young recruit in Canadian basic training would seem to say otherwise.  I'm betting the young recruit didn't feel very "cool."

PO Robinson Yelling!~!~!~ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTVVhCBYpx0#)

Quote from: PHall on September 10, 2014, 10:47:16 PM
Go ahead, adopt the beret for wear with the grey and whites.
You guys will be right back here whining about how people are not wearing the beret properly.
Anybody here want to bet against that?

Oh God, no.  I hate those [darn] wannabe-hats.

Say no to the beanie beret!  >:D

In the immortal words of Richard Nixon ... "Let me make myself perfectly clear!"

I do not like the silly French hat.  In fact, I detest it.  It looks ridiculous at best.  I wanted to make clear that it would take a LOT of compromise on my part to even consider wearing one.

I would like to see some kind of headgear with the G/W, simply because it's a uniform and should be treated as such.  If the end-of-the-line alternative is the silly French hat or nothing, I'd choose the silly French hat - but I'd be holding my nose while I did so.

Jack

I'm not wild about the beret either.

If someone has a better idea, let's hear it!

I will never, ever understand the antipathy toward the beret...and I think I have demonstrated that it is not just a French hat.  The majority of the world's armed forces use it and do not give it a second thought.

Maybe it's because I wore a red one as a Boy Scout all those years ago.

Better ideas?  West Pointers wear a grey flight-type cap made by Bernard Cap.

http://bernardcap.com/academies.htm (http://bernardcap.com/academies.htm)

However, TPTB are going to be even less likely to approve that for us, because it is a hat worn by a military service (Army officer cadets).

They sure are not going to authorise anything remotely resembling something blue and/or used by the Air Force.

If you're looking for CAP and/or the Air Force to authorise the blue flight cap for the G/W...keep wishing, because it ain't gonna happen.

Quote from: CyBorg on September 11, 2014, 08:48:18 PM
I think I have demonstrated that it is not just a French hat.

You are right, my friend.  It's a SILLY French hat.

Quote
The majority of the world's armed forces use it and do not give it a second thought.

There are so many good lines I could use here ... I can't choose one.   ;)

Quote
Maybe it's because I wore a red one as a Boy Scout all those years ago.

Ah-HA!  Now I understand!  You've been tainted by the silly French hat!  (I'm just teasing you, by the way.)

Quote
Better ideas?  West Pointers wear a grey flight-type cap made by Bernard Cap.

http://bernardcap.com/academies.htm (http://bernardcap.com/academies.htm)

However, TPTB are going to be even less likely to approve that for us, because it is a hat worn by a military service (Army officer cadets).

They sure are not going to authorise anything remotely resembling something blue and/or used by the Air Force.

If you're looking for CAP and/or the Air Force to authorise the blue flight cap for the G/W...keep wishing, because it ain't gonna happen.

Now you're on to something, my friend!  But, alas, I fear you're also correct on how TPTB will see it.  Even if only a couple thousand guys (and gals) wear it, it is indeed worn by members of the Army ...  thus, a no-go as far as CAP is concerned.

Ah, well ...

Jack

I don't know if anybody else has mentioned this but, here are a few draw backs to it.  The thing is HOT in the summer, there's no visor to protect your eyes from the sun and when you're not wearing it where can you put it?  Can't put it in your pocket, can't place it under an epaulet.  At least with a flight cap type, you can keep it under your belt and it has a clean appearance.

Of course, we could wear the beanie with a propeller.  It could act as a cooling device for us kids with the extended faces.

Quote from: Grumpy on September 12, 2014, 04:53:56 PM
there's no visor to protect your eyes from the sun

Not arguing in favor of the beret here, but this one argument (which I've heard a lot) is not a good one, as flight caps don't have visors either.

I might remind that a flight cap does not have a visor to protect the eyes.

^^^But there is no - nein, nyet, non, geen, няма, не, nej, nicht, nincs, nulla - once more, with feeling, NO - way that TPTB are going to let us have anything resembling a flight cap.

So we are stuck with the goofball, unprofessional looking "ball caps" of VG, hoping that we can get one of the non-US (http://bernardcap.com/foreignMil.htm (http://bernardcap.com/foreignMil.htm)) or airline versions of Bernard Cap's offerings (http://bernardcap.com/airline.htm (http://bernardcap.com/airline.htm)), or contact William Scully Limited of Montreal to adopt something from our northern neighbours (http://williamscully.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=22684 (http://williamscully.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=22684)).

Or individual members can take a chance on finding an old, obsolete Air Force flight cap without insignia (the old ones were almost as much grey as blue), or a grey Bundeswehr cap.

Believe me, I am a firm believer in the Chain of Command (and I am NOT advising circumventing it), but in this case it has been proven that TPTB either aren't listening/don't care about what the membership who want a GOOD headdress for that order of dress and take the attitude of "shut-up, sit down and colour."

Maybe by individuals just wearing something...someone will take note and say, "hey, that looks good..."

But again we come to the "fart-in-a-hurricane" chances...

If you will forgive the observation - but some of you spend far, far more time worrying about what the leadership thinks about uniforms than the leadership actually spends thinking about uniforms.

Restated, the leadership spends far more time thinking about actual missions and running the corporation than about what hat should or should not be worn with a given uniform.

And that is the way it should be, don't you think?


We have a uniform committee that meets from time to time to discuss practical and aesthetic issues for our uniforms.  If you want to make a proposal, make a proposal via the established procedure described in paragraph 13.2 in the  CAPR 39-1 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/M391_E6F33EAAEC28A.pdf). 

Of course you are absolutely free to keep discussing uniform trivia here on CAPTalk.  But, again, if you will forgive the observation, uniform opinions are personal, infinitely varied, and almost always passionately held.  Just reflect on this thread alone.  Nobody seems able to convince anybody else of the "rightness" of their personal aesthetic opinons.

Nobody.

Maybe that's why the thread title is apt.  Drivel.

I agree with Ned.

Quote from: CyBorg on September 12, 2014, 06:36:28 PM
^^^But there is no - nein, nyet, non, geen, няма, не, nej, nicht, nincs, nulla - once more, with feeling, NO - way that TPTB are going to let us have anything resembling a flight cap.

You don't really know that. I would venture to say that the odds that a beret would be approved are lower than a flight cap. That said, another option would be a service cap, which is not just used by the military, but by airline pilots as well. A service cap, while more expensive, would look nice with the aviator shirt.

The best course of action for those who really want a different headgear for the G/W combo is to follow Ned's advice and submit their proposals through the proper channels.

Quote from: Ned on September 12, 2014, 06:56:23 PM
If you will forgive the observation - but some of you spend far, far more time worrying about what the leadership thinks about uniforms than the leadership actually spends thinking about uniforms.

Clearly.

Quote from: Ned on September 12, 2014, 06:56:23 PM
Restated, the leadership spends far more time thinking about actual missions and running the corporation than about what hat should or should not be worn with a given uniform.

And that is the way it should be, don't you think?

Hmm...hard to say.

If CAP was firing on all 8 of 8 cylinders, or maybe even 6, then you could make the argument that everyone is
too busy for this sort of thing, and in kind, the members would be so engaged and full of the benefits and rewards of
membership that they wouldn't care much, either.

Or, you could make the argument that this is a legitimate concern of a portion of the membership,
address it for 15 minutes, and move on.

Neither is happening, so members have plenty of free time to think about "trivial" matters.

Does anyone know how many formal proposals for a corporate aviator shirt uniform headgear have been submitted and rejected by the NUC, CAP/CC, CAP-USAF/CC, etc.?

Quote from: CyBorg on September 12, 2014, 06:36:28 PM
I might remind that a flight cap does not have a visor to protect the eyes.

^^^But there is no - nein, nyet, non, geen, няма, не, nej, nicht, nincs, nulla - once more, with feeling, NO - way that TPTB are going to let us have anything resembling a flight cap.

So we are stuck with the goofball, unprofessional looking "ball caps" of VG, hoping that we can get one of the non-US (http://bernardcap.com/foreignMil.htm (http://bernardcap.com/foreignMil.htm)) or airline versions of Bernard Cap's offerings (http://bernardcap.com/airline.htm (http://bernardcap.com/airline.htm)), or contact William Scully Limited of Montreal to adopt something from our northern neighbours (http://williamscully.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=22684 (http://williamscully.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=22684)).

Or individual members can take a chance on finding an old, obsolete Air Force flight cap without insignia (the old ones were almost as much grey as blue), or a grey Bundeswehr cap.

Believe me, I am a firm believer in the Chain of Command (and I am NOT advising circumventing it), but in this case it has been proven that TPTB either aren't listening/don't care about what the membership who want a GOOD headdress for that order of dress and take the attitude of "shut-up, sit down and colour."

Maybe by individuals just wearing something...someone will take note and say, "hey, that looks good..."

But again we come to the "fart-in-a-hurricane" chances...

Hey I like the yachting cap myself.

For Ned,

I was just starting to have fun here.  Darn :'( 

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 12, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Does anyone know how many formal proposals for a corporate aviator shirt uniform headgear have been submitted and rejected by the NUC, CAP/CC, CAP-USAF/CC, etc.?

It would be nice if they would tell us.

However, I also wonder how many have been submitted but got stonewalled at lower echelons.

Unfortunately, too many of our members look at the G/W kit as they do the polo shirt - it is convenient, I can keep it in the car and whether or not it looks good (clean, pressed) is way down on the list.  I have seen some members wear it like they had slept in it, with grey trousers so threadbare that one can almost see through them.  I believe that segment would not care one way or the other about a headgear, simply because they do not appear to care about the uniform itself.

Even though I do not like it, when I wear it I do my best to make sure it is kitted out properly, cleaned, pressed, etc. - just as I would the blue "class B" uniform.

One proposal I have floated on here (to resounding indifference) is a setup something like what Air America wore - though I am not necessarily advocating sleeve striping.

http://www.air-america.net/uni.htm (http://www.air-america.net/uni.htm)

The grey (at least in the pictures) is very close to our shoulder marks and nameplates.

I like that setup.  To me it bridges the quasi-airline/quasi-military looks quite well.

I have a minimum-change proposal, which some on here have read, but I have not submitted it, because, quite honestly, I do not believe it would get any further than Group.  My Squadron CC would probably say "hey, that's pretty neat!" but Group would probably say "we don't need any kind of changes" and put it in the CS file.

Quote from: CyBorg on September 12, 2014, 10:16:39 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 12, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Does anyone know how many formal proposals for a corporate aviator shirt uniform headgear have been submitted and rejected by the NUC, CAP/CC, CAP-USAF/CC, etc.?

It would be nice if they would tell us.

Have you asked them?   Or is it easier to whine about it here on CAPTalk?

Quote from: Grumpy on September 12, 2014, 04:53:56 PM

Of course, we could wear the beanie with a propeller.  It could act as a cooling device for us kids with the extended faces.

It will need to be a blue beanie with a red three prop.

Quote from: Ned on September 12, 2014, 06:56:23 PM
If you will forgive the observation - but some of you spend far, far more time worrying about what the leadership thinks about uniforms than the leadership actually spends thinking about uniforms.

...

And that is the way it should be, don't you think?

I'm sure those in Public Affairs / Marketing would disagree with this opinion.

Quote from: PHall on September 13, 2014, 12:25:00 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 12, 2014, 10:16:39 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 12, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Does anyone know how many formal proposals for a corporate aviator shirt uniform headgear have been submitted and rejected by the NUC, CAP/CC, CAP-USAF/CC, etc.?

It would be nice if they would tell us.

Have you asked them?   Or is it easier to whine about it here on CAPTalk?

Yes - insofar as a lowly Captain has access to TPTB.  I have asked various squadron CC's...and they say they "don't know/don't care/can't figure it out/that's way above my paygrade."

I believe that is called "using the chain."

Quote from: CyBorg on September 13, 2014, 04:22:32 AM

Quote from: PHall on September 13, 2014, 12:25:00 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 12, 2014, 10:16:39 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 12, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Does anyone know how many formal proposals for a corporate aviator shirt uniform headgear have been submitted and rejected by the NUC, CAP/CC, CAP-USAF/CC, etc.?

It would be nice if they would tell us.

Have you asked them?   Or is it easier to whine about it here on CAPTalk?

Yes - insofar as a lowly Captain has access to TPTB.  I have asked various squadron CC's...and they say they "don't know/don't care/can't figure it out/that's way above my paygrade."

I believe that is called "using the chain."

So whining here on CAPTalk is "using the chain" too?   Interesting....  They never covered that in any of the PME courses I've taken over the years.

^^You are entirely free to ignore anything I say, regarding headdress for the G/W or any other topic.  I can only speak from my own experience.

Quote from: PHall on September 13, 2014, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 13, 2014, 04:22:32 AM

Quote from: PHall on September 13, 2014, 12:25:00 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 12, 2014, 10:16:39 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 12, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Does anyone know how many formal proposals for a corporate aviator shirt uniform headgear have been submitted and rejected by the NUC, CAP/CC, CAP-USAF/CC, etc.?

It would be nice if they would tell us.

Have you asked them?   Or is it easier to whine about it here on CAPTalk?

Yes - insofar as a lowly Captain has access to TPTB.  I have asked various squadron CC's...and they say they "don't know/don't care/can't figure it out/that's way above my paygrade."

I believe that is called "using the chain."

So whining here on CAPTalk is "using the chain" too?   Interesting....  They never covered that in any of the PME courses I've taken over the years.

Posts here tend to get a lot more attention and reaction then things "through the chain".

Quote from: CyBorg on September 13, 2014, 04:22:32 AM
Yes - insofar as a lowly Captain has access to TPTB.  I have asked various squadron CC's...and they say they "don't know/don't care/can't figure it out/that's way above my paygrade."

I believe that is called "using the chain."

Well......no.....not really.
That's the first link in the "chain".....but you know that right?

The point I am making....and have been making is....you are either doing something about it or you just belly aching.

Asking your squadron commander is step one.....don't get the answer you like there you move up.

If you choose to not to move up.....then the problem lies with you not CAP, not TPTB, not the NUC, not the USAF.

[/rant]Sorry.....but I'm getting tired of the same old arguments.

  If you really need a hat to wear, push for something like a nice fitted baseball hat with your rank on it or something.  A blue beret in the GW combo is something I don't even have words for.

I wouldn't have a major case of agita if we wind up with a dark blue (or gray) fitted baseball cap. No designs embroidered on it, no cheap-assed trucker 'gimme cap', and no plastic adjustable strap. Allow wear of grade insignia (or if not, the CAP senior member flight cap insignia) and maybe (as long as the powers theat be don't have kittens sideways) allow 'farts and darts' on the bill for field grade and general officers. And make sure people are instructed to wear it properly!

Would you wear a ball cap with the blues?

There's your answer as to proper headgear for the whites.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 13, 2014, 05:02:28 PM
Would you wear a ball cap with the blues?

There's your answer as to proper headgear for the whites.

My point exactly...a "dressier" uniform with a work-style cap.  Not fitting (in every way).

Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2014, 05:45:29 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 13, 2014, 04:22:32 AM
Yes - insofar as a lowly Captain has access to TPTB.  I have asked various squadron CC's...and they say they "don't know/don't care/can't figure it out/that's way above my paygrade."

I believe that is called "using the chain."

Well......no.....not really.
That's the first link in the "chain".....but you know that right?

The point I am making....and have been making is....you are either doing something about it or you just belly aching.

Asking your squadron commander is step one.....don't get the answer you like there you move up.

If you choose to not to move up.....then the problem lies with you not CAP, not TPTB, not the NUC, not the USAF.

[/rant]Sorry.....but I'm getting tired of the same old arguments.

The system, as established by CAP, is designed to allow the commander at ANY POINT in the chain reject any uniform suggestion. If the unit CC rejects it, THAT'S AS FAR AS IT GOES. There is no provision to jump over ANY step in the chain. So, choosing to "move up" is not an option. The only required notification to the submitter is if the CAP/CC rejects it.

Quote from: arajca on September 13, 2014, 10:44:49 PM
The system, as established by CAP, is designed to allow the commander at ANY POINT in the chain reject any uniform suggestion. If the unit CC rejects it, THAT'S AS FAR AS IT GOES. There is no provision to jump over ANY step in the chain. So, choosing to "move up" is not an option. The only required notification to the submitter is if the CAP/CC rejects it.

Which If I ever became the NHQ that is one of the first things that would change.  Only the Nat CC and NUC can reject uniform change proposals.

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 14, 2014, 12:20:05 AM

Quote from: arajca on September 13, 2014, 10:44:49 PM
The system, as established by CAP, is designed to allow the commander at ANY POINT in the chain reject any uniform suggestion. If the unit CC rejects it, THAT'S AS FAR AS IT GOES. There is no provision to jump over ANY step in the chain. So, choosing to "move up" is not an option. The only required notification to the submitter is if the CAP/CC rejects it.

Which If I ever became the NHQ that is one of the first things that would change.  Only the Nat CC and NUC can reject uniform change proposals.

I completely agree with you, but my suggestion went nowhere.

Quote from: arajca on September 13, 2014, 10:44:49 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2014, 05:45:29 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 13, 2014, 04:22:32 AM
Yes - insofar as a lowly Captain has access to TPTB.  I have asked various squadron CC's...and they say they "don't know/don't care/can't figure it out/that's way above my paygrade."

I believe that is called "using the chain."

Well......no.....not really.
That's the first link in the "chain".....but you know that right?

The point I am making....and have been making is....you are either doing something about it or you just belly aching.

Asking your squadron commander is step one.....don't get the answer you like there you move up.

If you choose to not to move up.....then the problem lies with you not CAP, not TPTB, not the NUC, not the USAF.

[/rant]Sorry.....but I'm getting tired of the same old arguments.

The system, as established by CAP, is designed to allow the commander at ANY POINT in the chain reject any uniform suggestion. If the unit CC rejects it, THAT'S AS FAR AS IT GOES. There is no provision to jump over ANY step in the chain. So, choosing to "move up" is not an option. The only required notification to the submitter is if the CAP/CC rejects it.

That's not necessarily true. While CAPM 39-1 states that "[e]ach commander in the member's chain of command (unit, group, wing, and region as appropriate) must concur for the recommendation to be advanced to the next level...", there's nothing to stop a member from going to the group or wing commander, as applicable, if the squadron commander rejects a uniform proposal. At most, the commander at the next level may also reject the proposal. But if he/she agrees with it, it may still be forwarded to the next level. That's how the chain of command works.

+1
My point exactly

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 14, 2014, 04:17:07 AM

Quote from: arajca on September 13, 2014, 10:44:49 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2014, 05:45:29 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 13, 2014, 04:22:32 AM
Yes - insofar as a lowly Captain has access to TPTB.  I have asked various squadron CC's...and they say they "don't know/don't care/can't figure it out/that's way above my paygrade."

I believe that is called "using the chain."

Well......no.....not really.
That's the first link in the "chain".....but you know that right?

The point I am making....and have been making is....you are either doing something about it or you just belly aching.

Asking your squadron commander is step one.....don't get the answer you like there you move up.

If you choose to not to move up.....then the problem lies with you not CAP, not TPTB, not the NUC, not the USAF.

[/rant]Sorry.....but I'm getting tired of the same old arguments.

The system, as established by CAP, is designed to allow the commander at ANY POINT in the chain reject any uniform suggestion. If the unit CC rejects it, THAT'S AS FAR AS IT GOES. There is no provision to jump over ANY step in the chain. So, choosing to "move up" is not an option. The only required notification to the submitter is if the CAP/CC rejects it.

That's not necessarily true. While CAPM 39-1 states that "[e]ach commander in the member's chain of command (unit, group, wing, and region as appropriate) must concur for the recommendation to be advanced to the next level...", there's nothing to stop a member from going to the group or wing commander, as applicable, if the squadron commander rejects a uniform proposal. At most, the commander at the next level may also reject the proposal. But if he/she agrees with it, it may still be forwarded to the next level. That's how the chain of command works.

No, that's jumping the chain.  And it's NOT the way to get on your commander's "good" side.

Yes it is not a good way of being a "good airman". But it is how the chain of command works.   
Just be ready for the fall out. :)

In an era when any member can ask the National CC a question online through the CAP web site, wouldn't a 'suggestion box' -- for ALL National committees -- make more sense, and be more useful?

These are not "chain of command" issues, and, frankly, having a system where any single individual can quash an idea based on personal preference is ridiculous.

I am not recommending anarchy, chaos, or the end of civilization as we know it...just a place to drop ideas and see if they gather traction.

Essentially, an official version of CAP Talk!

Quote from: PHall on September 14, 2014, 04:21:57 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 14, 2014, 04:17:07 AM

Quote from: arajca on September 13, 2014, 10:44:49 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on September 13, 2014, 05:45:29 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on September 13, 2014, 04:22:32 AM
Yes - insofar as a lowly Captain has access to TPTB.  I have asked various squadron CC's...and they say they "don't know/don't care/can't figure it out/that's way above my paygrade."

I believe that is called "using the chain."

Well......no.....not really.
That's the first link in the "chain".....but you know that right?

The point I am making....and have been making is....you are either doing something about it or you just belly aching.

Asking your squadron commander is step one.....don't get the answer you like there you move up.

If you choose to not to move up.....then the problem lies with you not CAP, not TPTB, not the NUC, not the USAF.

[/rant]Sorry.....but I'm getting tired of the same old arguments.

The system, as established by CAP, is designed to allow the commander at ANY POINT in the chain reject any uniform suggestion. If the unit CC rejects it, THAT'S AS FAR AS IT GOES. There is no provision to jump over ANY step in the chain. So, choosing to "move up" is not an option. The only required notification to the submitter is if the CAP/CC rejects it.

That's not necessarily true. While CAPM 39-1 states that "[e]ach commander in the member's chain of command (unit, group, wing, and region as appropriate) must concur for the recommendation to be advanced to the next level...", there's nothing to stop a member from going to the group or wing commander, as applicable, if the squadron commander rejects a uniform proposal. At most, the commander at the next level may also reject the proposal. But if he/she agrees with it, it may still be forwarded to the next level. That's how the chain of command works.

No, that's jumping the chain.  And it's NOT the way to get on your commander's "good" side.

If you go to your commander first and let him/her know in a professional and respectful manner that you disagree with his/her decision and will elevate to the next level, then you're not "jumping the chain". If fact, that's how the chain of command is supposed to work. Now, can you get on your commander's bad side for doing this? Possibly. So my recommendation is to make sure that the issue you want to escalate is worth the potential trouble you may have later on. In other words, you have to pick your battles wisely.

That said, your commander is not supposed to retaliate if you make use of the chain of command in the proper way. If he/she does that, then you may bring the issue up to the commander at the next level and/or may have grounds for an IG complaint if nothing is done to remediate the situation.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 15, 2014, 01:59:12 AM
In an era when any member can ask the National CC a question online through the CAP web site, wouldn't a 'suggestion box' -- for ALL National committees -- make more sense, and be more useful?

These are not "chain of command" issues, and, frankly, having a system where any single individual can quash an idea based on personal preference is ridiculous.

I am not recommending anarchy, chaos, or the end of civilization as we know it...just a place to drop ideas and see if they gather traction.

Essentially, an official version of CAP Talk!

Better check the National Webpage again. First thing the New Boss did was kill the "Ask the Commander" function.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 15, 2014, 02:21:48 AM
If you go to your commander first and let him/her know in a professional and respectful manner that you disagree with his/her decision and will elevate to the next level, then you're not "jumping the chain".

Yes, you are, by definition.

The chain pre-supposes commanders are capable of addressing and deciding what >is< important
enough to be referred "up" and what isn't, and when it's important enough to go "up" it's supposed to go
"up" by the next echelon, not the rank and file.  That's to insure that every petty disagreement
doesn't wind up on a star's desk or in his IN box.

The rank and file are only supposed to go "up" when there are sustainable complaints or violations of
regulations (or the few safety / CPT issues where the regs indicate direct, immediate wing CC notification).

Your CC indicating to you that "he doesn't feel CAP needs another hat" and quashing a suggestion at the
unit level is >not< an excuse to jump over him and move up, in fact, per 39-1, that is literally prohibited.
Don't like that?  Get a job at an echelon that likes the idea.

A hat may be a trivial example, but what if we were talking about renaming a squadron?  The unit CC
like the current name so a rank-and-file member should go to the Group or Wing CC and "suggest it"?
Plenty of trees have been killed and x-members created related to disciplinary actions for situations like that.

Now, with that said, this is another area CAP plays both sides against the other. It espouses a
consensus-based "we're all in this together" mentality when people raise issues or to avoid uncomfortable
conversations, then it presses only using the chain for the same reason.

The idea that there is any idea under the sun regarding the current multi-form that the NUC is not aware of
is just as silly as the idea that the average rank and file member has a reasonable chance of pressing a suggestion
"through-the-chain".

The multi-form is in its current state because of decades of compromise and avoiding uncomfortable conversations
and realities of who the membership exactly >is<, coupled with the very people charged with enforcing the
rules ignoring them themselves.

Until that changes, these conversations are academic, but this forum is likely the most visible and effective way
to inject new ideas into the circuit.

The one time I went over my CC's head - and I did it with his permission - he turned on me and basically called me every name in the book (he didn't really think I'd do it, which is why he gave me permission) because, in his words, "you're going to bring an IG and probably the Air Force down on this squadron, and then you can forget about any kind of CAP career in this wing."

I said, "Sir, you gave me permission," but he wasn't having it.

It's fortunate for both of us he did this over the phone and not in person.  I am normally very reserved but if you back me into a corner like that with nothing but insults...well, then I'm not very nice.

I quit to avoid getting a 2B.

I'm not doing that again, over something as minor as a hat.  Squadron CC's not interested, I'm not going to force the issue with him.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 15, 2014, 02:59:43 AM
The rank and file are only supposed to go "up" when there are sustainable complaints or violations of
regulations (or the few safety / CPT issues where the regs indicate direct, immediate wing CC notification).

Your CC indicating to you that "he doesn't feel CAP needs another hat" and quashing a suggestion at the
unit level is >not< an excuse to jump over him and move up, in fact, per 39-1, that is literally prohibited.
Don't like that?  Get a job at an echelon that likes the idea.

No...sorry....regs can't stop every members right to take what they think is important up the chain of command.

Having said that.....every member needs to be ready for the fall out of taking every little thing to the national commander....but it is a basic right inherent in the concept of "chain of command".

A memeber's only responsiblity is to try to let the lowest level handel the issue.

So.....your squadron commander squashes your ideal for a tactical TuTu......you may take go over his head.

QuoteA hat may be a trivial example, but what if we were talking about renaming a squadron?  The unit CC
like the current name so a rank-and-file member should go to the Group or Wing CC and "suggest it"?
Plenty of trees have been killed and x-members created related to disciplinary actions for situations like that.

Yep...if you abuse the tools....you will be dealt with. 

QuoteNow, with that said, this is another area CAP plays both sides against the other. It espouses a
consensus-based "we're all in this together" mentality when people raise issues or to avoid uncomfortable
conversations, then it presses only using the chain for the same reason.

The idea that there is any idea under the sun regarding the current multi-form that the NUC is not aware of
is just as silly as the idea that the average rank and file member has a reasonable chance of pressing a suggestion
"through-the-chain".

The multi-form is in its current state because of decades of compromise and avoiding uncomfortable conversations
and realities of who the membership exactly >is<, coupled with the very people charged with enforcing the
rules ignoring them themselves.

Until that changes, these conversations are academic, but this forum is likely the most visible and effective way
to inject new ideas into the circuit.

I don't think that is giving the NUC enough credit.    Just because you see a problem that the NUC does not see does not mean they are cowards avoiding uncomfortable conversations.

The current rules are set up to make sure the really stupid ideas don't get up to their level.  It puts the burden of selling the idea on the shoulders of the suggester.    You want a hat......but can't even sell the idea to your squadron commander.......maybe it is a bad idea.   

Nothing really wrong with that.

Just go around him.....if you feel that the idea is worth fighting for.

Quote from: CyBorg on September 15, 2014, 03:19:51 AM
The one time I went over my CC's head - and I did it with his permission - he turned on me and basically called me every name in the book (he didn't really think I'd do it, which is why he gave me permission) because, in his words, "you're going to bring an IG and probably the Air Force down on this squadron, and then you can forget about any kind of CAP career in this wing."

I said, "Sir, you gave me permission," but he wasn't having it.

It's fortunate for both of us he did this over the phone and not in person.  I am normally very reserved but if you back me into a corner like that with nothing but insults...well, then I'm not very nice.

I quit to avoid getting a 2B.

I'm not doing that again, over something as minor as a hat.  Squadron CC's not interested, I'm not going to force the issue with him.

Then there you go.   If you are not willing to risk your CAP career.....then the idea must not be worth very much.   

Please note......that by what you just said you could have brought and IG down on the squadron.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2014, 03:57:26 AM
I don't think that is giving the NUC enough credit.    Just because you see a problem that the NUC does not see does not mean they are cowards avoiding uncomfortable conversations.

To be clear, this isn't really a NUC issue, per-se, they didn't even exist in their current form until recently.

The multi-form is what happens when things are designed by a committee, piecemeal, with less concern
about "mission" and more concern about compromise and aesthetics, coupled with being averse to
uncomfortable conversations, and accepting the real membership demographics.

An example - the logical mess that are the whites.

It's indicated they are >not< supposed to be a substitute for the blues, nor are they considered a
military style uniform, when they are clearly both, except they aren't, other then when they are.

Etc.,  Etc.

(http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/20000/9000/000/229086/229086.strip.gif)

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2014, 04:01:42 AM
Then there you go.   If you are not willing to risk your CAP career.....then the idea must not be worth very much.   

I cannot believe a retired USAF Master Sergeant is telling me to circumvent the very thing I began learning my first night of Basic Military Training...the chain of command.

That is, of course, you want to see me kicked out of CAP, in which case I will not give you the satisfaction.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 15, 2014, 04:01:42 AM
Please note......that by what you just said you could have brought and IG down on the squadron.

IG expert now, Herr Oberfeldwebel?  What did I ostensibly say?  In any case, this was an incident from a squadron I was in almost 15 years ago, in an entirely different wing, on a matter of personnel.

Like it or not, the reality is that you are not the expert on all things CAP you sometimes present yourself to be.

I am not just the archetypal lowly ex-ANG SrA who never reached the exalted pinnacle of shining NCO-dom you did, nor just the lowly Stabshauptmann who will never wear anything else but railway tracks.

Being an Administrative Officer (with Master rating) has taught me much about the regs over the past twenty years...at least as much as you.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 15, 2014, 04:22:51 AM
more concern about compromise and aesthetics, coupled with being averse to
uncomfortable conversations, and accepting the real membership demographics.

An example - the logical mess that are the whites.

It's indicated they are >not< supposed to be a substitute for the blues, nor are they considered a
military style uniform, when they are clearly both, except they aren't, other then when they are.

Etc.,  Etc.

Got that in one.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 15, 2014, 04:22:51 AM
It's indicated they are >not< supposed to be a substitute for the blues, nor are they considered a
military style uniform, when they are clearly both, except they aren't, other then when they are.

Etc.,  Etc.

Better reread the current CAPM 39-1.  There's even a table in there that says that the grey and whites are the corperate equal to the AF Service Uniform.

Quote from: PHall on September 16, 2014, 12:06:34 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on September 15, 2014, 04:22:51 AM
It's indicated they are >not< supposed to be a substitute for the blues, nor are they considered a
military style uniform, when they are clearly both, except they aren't, other then when they are.

Etc.,  Etc.

Better reread the current CAPM 39-1.  There's even a table in there that says that the grey and whites are the corperate equal to the AF Service Uniform.

(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/_20140915_200950_1.jpg) (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/USAFAUX2004/media/_20140915_200950_1.jpg.html)

Quote from: PHall on September 16, 2014, 12:06:34 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on September 15, 2014, 04:22:51 AM
It's indicated they are >not< supposed to be a substitute for the blues, nor are they considered a
military style uniform, when they are clearly both, except they aren't, other then when they are.

Etc.,  Etc.

Better reread the current CAPM 39-1.  There's even a table in there that says that the grey and whites are the corperate equal to the AF Service Uniform.

Yes, that's my point.  A non-military uniform which is equivalent to a military-style uniform, except it isn't depending on who you talk to
and what the point of the conversation is.

Saying something is "equivalent" doesn't make it so, especially in this context.

See the quoted text above, another place NHQ wants it both ways - a 1/2 measure to quell the loudest objectors,
but not far enough to actually complete the mission or fit the profile.

I direct you gentlemen to CAPM 39-1, Table 1-1.

^ Relevance?

^^
Shows which uniforms are "equal" to each other. i.e. White Aviator Shirt/Grey Slacks combo is equal to the Air Force Blue Service Uniform.

Note that the Blue Golf Shirt combo is now considered a "work" uniform.

Quote from: PHall on September 16, 2014, 04:15:56 AM
^^
Shows which uniforms are "equal" to each other. i.e. White Aviator Shirt/Grey Slacks combo is equal to the Air Force Blue Service Uniform.

Um, yeah.  I already made the point above that just because NHQ says something is "equivalent for
wear", doesn't make the clothing items "equivalent to each other".

The same table asserts the Realtor jacket is equivalent to USAF service dress, it's not, even a little.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 16, 2014, 04:25:54 AM
The same table asserts the Realtor jacket is equivalent to USAF service dress...

Data laughs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSeM2EVkDc#)