CAP Talk

An interesting Knowledgebase item as I was browsing this morning;

Question
  Can a Squadron Commander require a weigh-in for a senior member to find out if they meet the weight standards for wearing AF style uniforms?


  Answer
  Yes. CAPM 39-1 Paragraph 1-2 (see below) tasks commanders to ensure that all members present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP. Requiring a periodic weigh-in, like the AF, by senior members and cadets age 18 and older who choose to wear the AF style uniform would be reasonable. Unlike the AF, CAP does not have a remedial fitness program for members who exceed weight standards nor are there any types of punitive measures allowed against those members. CAP members who exceed weight standards are prohibited from wearing the AF style uniform but are allowed to wear any of the CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion. Note: CAP weight standards include a 10% higher maximum than AF weight standards. See attachment below for CAP weight standards for wearing the AF style uniform.

See CAPM 39-1 ATTACHMENT 1 CAP WEIGHT STANDARDS.

In other words, I will put out to my squadron
"There is change in the schedule for next week, bring shorts and a t-shirt as we will be weighing in.  Because the uniform for next week is Class A's I suggest all Senior Members bring something else to change into should you not meet the weight standards".   

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 05, 2006, 04:05:42 PM
Unlike the AF, CAP does not have a remedial fitness program for members who exceed weight standards nor are there any types of punitive measures allowed against those members.

Although frankly I think there should be, along with PT testing for promotions and officer training before youre just "made" a 2Lt, in fact I would love to have Senior NCO ranks because alot of SM's just dont deserve officer grade....just my $0.02

Quote from: Becks on April 05, 2006, 04:11:25 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 05, 2006, 04:05:42 PM
Unlike the AF, CAP does not have a remedial fitness program for members who exceed weight standards nor are there any types of punitive measures allowed against those members.

Although frankly I think there should be, along with PT testing for promotions and officer training before youre just "made" a 2Lt, in fact I would love to have Senior NCO ranks because alot of SM's just dont deserve officer grade....just my $0.02

Why? We are not the military. PT is not a part of the CAP senir program. We do have training for SM's - inadequate though it is IMO. As far as 'deserving' officer grade, how you do you determine that? CAP has set standards for grade, if a member meets those standards, they are deserving of the grade. They're not the same as the military because we are different culture and have a different mission than the military.

Methinks it may be time to reveal my concept for a totally redesigned, retooled, and reconfigured CAP Adult Member Program. >:D

Then again, maybe not.

CAP Members:
simply put No US AF uniform for those not meeting the standards

Quote from: Becks on April 05, 2006, 04:11:25 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 05, 2006, 04:05:42 PM
Unlike the AF, CAP does not have a remedial fitness program for members who exceed weight standards nor are there any types of punitive measures allowed against those members.

Although frankly I think there should be, along with PT testing for promotions and officer training before youre just "made" a 2Lt, in fact I would love to have Senior NCO ranks because alot of SM's just dont deserve officer grade....just my $0.02

So, when you turn 30-40 or so and achieve terminal-dunlap will you request that your status be reverted to SM w/o grade?
way to start the thread drift early  ::)

So back to the topic...
MikeyLikey, after shattering the fragile egos of your SMs by weighing them during a meeting, how are you prepared to deal with the results?
How do you plan to counsel  those who exceed the standards?
Will you be prepared to do or fill the jobs of those who were offended by this and decide to stop showing up?

I think there has just got to be a better way to ensure compliance than rubbing the dog's nose in the pile.  For starters, a good example must be set by the commander.  You're probably already doing that though, right?  Not only that, how about finding a respected member who DOES comply (may have to look outside your unit here) and ask them to conduct a distinctive uniform session at a meeting in the near future.  

Encourage encourage encourage!
It's just not for cadets anymore...

Andrew... PM me for details about the proposal.  It ought to be featured on more than just a forum and I'd like to help you with that when you're ready.

Quote from: arajca on April 05, 2006, 05:23:32 PM

Methinks it may be time to reveal my concept for a totally redesigned, retooled, and reconfigured CAP Adult Member Program. >:D

Reveal away....

However what is there to lose by having a senior PT program? If you participate in it then perhaps that tire around your gut would be gone Major.  I never said the requirements would have to be intense, Im aware we're not enlisted, but I believe it would promote healthier lifestyles and thus benefit the program.

Quote from: Becks on April 05, 2006, 05:46:15 PM

Quote from: arajca on April 05, 2006, 05:23:32 PM

Methinks it may be time to reveal my concept for a totally redesigned, retooled, and reconfigured CAP Adult Member Program. >:D

Reveal away....

However what is there to lose by having a senior PT program? If you participate in it then perhaps that tire around your gut would be gone Major.  I never said the requirements would have to be intense, Im aware we're not enlisted, but I believe it would promote healthier lifestyles and thus benefit the program.

Not that you'd care, but my fitness program is through work and I alternate cardio and weights 4 times a week at my employer's fitness center and I don't currently wear an AF style uniform.
   
Promoting healthier lifestyles and benefitting the program is not what you implied in your reply to Mikeylikey.  Actually, you suggested that PT testing would be a part of the promotion system, along with agreeing to remedial fitness programs and punitive measures for SMs who fall beyond AF standards.

So I'll ask again... In the event that you should become one of those members later in your life/CAP career, will you voluntarily surrender your grade and accept a SM w/o grade status?

To All....
The weight and grooming standards, FOR SENIORS, must be a voluntary
thing.  Senior members a should be capable to make the decision
what "uniform" they can wear.  A Commander can advise a senior
member to stick with the "distinctive" uniform. "privately".
To institute a weigh-in would not be conducive to "member retention"...
Please... Please... Please, re-evaluate, carefully, going down that road.
We are all going toooooooo far on this uniform thing...

Major Z

Then there's that whole sticky non-discrimination thing for anyone who couldn't pass the PT test...

Major Z is right on the ball

for the JO (junior Officer and NCO) please remember that we have senior members that have served CAP for over 50 years

great discussion

As one of those Senior members that have been in CAP for 50+ years. I agree and disagree. I agree that CAP needs to reevaluate the SM rank situation. Spend six months in CAP and a day in a level 1 and CPPT class and you can get promoted to 2LT. And you still don't need to know the first thing about CAP. Plus there is still to much of the good-old-boy syndrome in CAP.
What would the PT program be? Do you expect a 45 year old SM to be able to do the cadet PT program? A PT Program for SM is unrealistic since SM range in age from 18 to 92. Or are you going to say any SM over the age of 60 (even if he/she meets weight standards) must get out of the AF uniform and into one of the multitude of corporate uniforms?

BTW, CAP doesn't wear Class As, or Class Bs, or Class [anything else]. That's a long time leftover from our former association with the Army. The correct nomenclatures are found in CAPM 39-1.

PT for SM

I'll do it no problem, we are also required to do wieght - Ins for SAR Missions

remember the WB calculations for our CAP aircraft and O rides, that has not change for SM

Quote from: SarDragon on April 05, 2006, 08:11:16 PM
...That's a long time leftover from our former association with the Army.

seems just like yesterday, eh Dave?   ;D

Quote from: tedda on April 05, 2006, 06:15:33 PM

Quote from: Becks on April 05, 2006, 05:46:15 PM

Quote from: arajca on April 05, 2006, 05:23:32 PM

Methinks it may be time to reveal my concept for a totally redesigned, retooled, and reconfigured CAP Adult Member Program. >:D

Reveal away....

However what is there to lose by having a senior PT program? If you participate in it then perhaps that tire around your gut would be gone Major.  I never said the requirements would have to be intense, Im aware we're not enlisted, but I believe it would promote healthier lifestyles and thus benefit the program.

Not that you'd care, but my fitness program is through work and I alternate cardio and weights 4 times a week at my employer's fitness center and I don't currently wear an AF style uniform.
   
Promoting healthier lifestyles and benefitting the program is not what you implied in your reply to Mikeylikey.  Actually, you suggested that PT testing would be a part of the promotion system, along with agreeing to remedial fitness programs and punitive measures for SMs who fall beyond AF standards.

So I'll ask again... In the event that you should become one of those members later in your life/CAP career, will you voluntarily surrender your grade and accept a SM w/o grade status?

You're wrong, I do care and in turn congratulate you on bettering your life through exercise.  If you read my original post you will see that I never mentioned punishment for current officers not able to meet a PT standard.  I never mentioned "busting someone" down in grade.  Instead I was saying that in order to be promoted in the first place you would be required to take some sort of test.  Obviously the older the individual the easier the tests would be, just like in the military.  Obviously there is no need to make a PT requirement as intensive as active duty, but I still believe there needs to be one.  If we had Senior NCO ranks one could progress through without at PT, but I still firmly believe that becoming an officer should be stricter, perhaps even requiring leadership school/course. 

BillB hit it right on the nose when he said "Spend six months in CAP and a day in a level 1 and CPPT class and you can get promoted to 2LT. And you still don't need to know the first thing about CAP."  That is my point when I said not all SM deserve officer grade.

Bottom line on promotions - the commander has to sign the Form 2.

In CAWG, we are required to add the following statements to the remarks section:
(a) Member's date of birth.
(b) Statement that the member is a high school graduate or has the educational equivalent.
(c) Statement that the member has been performing his/her duties in an exemplary manner and is recommended for promotion by the unit commander.
(d) For mission related promotions the unit commander must certify that the member is actively utilizing his/her mission related skills in behalf of CAP on a regular basis.

If a commander pencil whips it, we all lose.

BTW, Ted, that terminology was incorrect when I joined back in [mumble].

Quote from: Becks on April 06, 2006, 12:45:14 AM
If you read my original post you will see that I never mentioned punishment for current officers not able to meet a PT standard. 

Nope, you didn't but you agreed to it, didn't you?

Quote from: Becks on April 05, 2006, 04:11:25 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 05, 2006, 04:05:42 PM
Unlike the AF, CAP does not have a remedial fitness program for members who exceed weight standards nor are there any types of punitive measures allowed against those members.

Although frankly I think there should be, along with PT testing for promotions and officer training before youre just "made" a 2Lt, in fact I would love to have Senior NCO ranks because alot of SM's just dont deserve officer grade....just my $0.02

Quote from: BecksI never mentioned "busting someone" down in grade.  Instead I was saying that in order to be promoted in the first place you would be required to take some sort of test. 

Nope, you didn't mention busting someone down.  Nor have you answered my question either.  If SM PT is important  for the health of the Senior Member program itself, not to mention CAP as a whole, than you should be willing to surrender your grade for the duration of your time in CAP should you exceed weight standards in the future.  If you're not, then why require PT testing for promotions in the first place?

Quote from: BecksIf we had Senior NCO ranks one could progress through without at PT, but I still firmly believe that becoming an officer should be stricter, perhaps even requiring leadership school/course.

Explain how restricting overweight members to being NCOs will help the organization.  I can imagine a lot of Wing Commanders who will be sewing stripes on.

Quote from: BecksBillB hit it right on the nose when he said "Spend six months in CAP and a day in a level 1 and CPPT class and you can get promoted to 2LT. And you still don't need to know the first thing about CAP."  That is my point when I said not all SM deserve officer grade.

What you are saying about officer training and development, along with what BillB has said is separate from the PT issue.  For what it's worth, I'd be thrilled to see significant changes made to Senior member Professional Development and the grade progression structure.  Just keep that issue to a different thread.

I don't particularly see anything wrong with requiring weigh-in's solely to establish that a senior member may/may not wear an AF-style uniform... IF that member wishes to wear such a uniform.  If a member knows he/she is overweight or otherwise not in conformance to AF uniform standards, then don't require them to weigh-in.  But, if they choose to wear one, then what harm comes from enforcing the standards and requiring them to provide documentable proof (scale reading) to a uniform monitor person of sorts?

But no, I do not agree with any implicated requirement to participate in PT or anything else that is not currently required for senior members... I don't think you'll have much luck enforcing that anywhere.  Just enforce what is already on the books, of which weight standards are part.

I've been reading through this thread.  The one thing that comes to mind is:  "Hello lawsuit!".  No not someone suing the corporation.  I mean someone suing the commander.  I hope you're caring personal liability insurance. 

Here's an idea...why don't we focus on our missions (AKA "stay in our lane") and skip creating additional requirements for our members.  You "wanna be" in the military?  Join the military.  Are in the military and want CAP to be more like the military?  Get a clue!  They are totally different programs.

But whatever...corrupt your program anyway you want. ::)

Quote from: tedda on April 06, 2006, 02:54:00 AM

Quote from: Becks on April 06, 2006, 12:45:14 AM
If you read my original post you will see that I never mentioned punishment for current officers not able to meet a PT standard. 

Quote from: BecksI never mentioned "busting someone" down in grade.  Instead I was saying that in order to be promoted in the first place you would be required to take some sort of test. 

Nope, you didn't mention busting someone down.  Nor have you answered my question either.  If SM PT is important  for the health of the Senior Member program itself, not to mention CAP as a whole, than you should be willing to surrender your grade for the duration of your time in CAP should you exceed weight standards in the future.  If you're not, then why require PT testing for promotions in the first place?

Although it has nothing to do with what I am saying since as I have pointed out I never spoke of busting someone down a grade, you seem to just want an answer for your own personal gratification and so I will induldge you.  Yes, I would surrender if it was required by a reg as I would be in violation of it.  To me it would be cut and dry, if you dont do A, then B happens.  Simple cause and effect.

What you are saying about officer training and development, along with what BillB has said is separate from the PT issue.  For what it's worth, I'd be thrilled to see significant changes made to Senior member Professional Development and the grade progression structure.  Just keep that issue to a different thread.

Thrilled? So then I take it that if the officer/professional development course for some reason proved too hard that you would surrender your maple leaf?

Quote from: shorning on April 06, 2006, 05:32:46 AM

Here's an idea...why don't we focus on our missions (AKA "stay in our lane") and skip creating additional requirements for our members.  You "wanna be" in the military?  Join the military.  Are in the military and want CAP to be more like the military?  Get a clue!  They are totally different programs.

But whatever...corrupt your program anyway you want. ::)

[/color]

Everything I have said has been purely hypothetical and in no way constitutes me "corrupting my program".  Just because I may have an idea that I express in no way means that I am going to act upon nor am I in a position to act upon it if I want to.  I am speaking mere conjecture and find your comment completely unfounded and uncalled for.

Quote from: Becks on April 06, 2006, 08:26:28 AM
Everything I have said has been purely hypothetical and in no way constitutes me "corrupting my program".  Just because I may have an idea that I express in no way means that I am going to act upon nor am I in a position to act upon it if I want to.  I am speaking mere conjecture and find your comment completely unfounded and uncalled for.

This thread isn't solely about you or your ideas/comments.  There are several people that have offered ideas, suggestions and comments.  So perhaps instead of chastising me, you should take a minute and consider my post my have been directed at others, or at the thread in its entirety. 

Uncalled for?  Harsh maybe.  Perhaps I touched a nerve?  Struck a little too close to home?  So I can't express my opinion, but you can?  What makes your CAP experience any more relevant than anyone else's?  Even the "short" time I've been in CAP, I still listen to other comments and points of view.  However, I think we have enough on our plate with the programs we have now without creating additional bureaucracy for ourselves.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 05, 2006, 04:05:42 PM
In other words, I will put out to my squadron
"There is change in the schedule for next week, bring shorts and a t-shirt as we will be weighing in.  Because the uniform for next week is Class A's I suggest all Senior Members bring something else to change into should you not meet the weight standards".

I've been thinking about this for a while now.  I'm curious why would you have this requirement.  Here's why I ask.

First, the weigh-in is arguably going to upset many of your members.  Personally, I don't think it's a good idea, but each to their own.  So, lets pretend I'm a senior in your squadron.  You weigh me and at 6'3" I weight 260.  I am over the CAP weight standards.  So you're going to tell me that I can't wear "Class A's"(known as "Service Dress" to the AF and CAP BTW).  Why do I care?  As a senior, I'm not required to wear a uniform, let alone wear the Service Dress.  So what purpose does the weigh-in serve?  Sure you might enlighten some members, but why not just talk to them now?  Why does it take a weigh-in to press the issue?  From comments you've made, I presume you have (or have had) some affiliation with the RealMilitary.  Waiting on the weigh-in to bring up the issue is a crutch.  Even if a member meets the weight standards, wear of the AF-style uniform may not be appropriate for some members.  It has more to do with body shape, uniform fit and overall professional appearance.  A commander should already be talking to their members about these things.

Next, why require Service Dress, when members aren't required to even own it?  CAPM 39-1 is clear on this.  I'll grant that what follows is an extract, but it emphasizes my point.  According to CAPM 39-1, paragraph 1-5, "Members will equip themselves with the basic uniform." (p. 8 ).  So members are supposed to equip themselves with a uniform.  However, the basic uniforms are spelled out:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Para. 1-5a
a. Minimum Basic Service Uniform. Male: Short-sleeve, light blue shirt; dark blue trousers; blue belt/silver buckle, blue flight cap; black shoes, and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem. Female: Short-sleeve light blue blouse; Dark blue skirt or slacks; flight cap; neutral nylon hose; black shoes; black handbag. Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem.

and,

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Para. 1-5b
b. CAP Distinctive Basic Uniform (senior members only). Male: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt; gray trousers; black belt; black shoes and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve. Female: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt; gray slacks or skirt; plain black shoes. Insignia: CAP nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.

I'm certainly not out to change the world.  In fact, quite often I feel like Don Quixote.  Do I expect more out of our members?  Yep.  Am I surprised when they don't "step up"?  Not any more. 

I think we push way too many unnecessary requirements on our members.  I think to achieve a higher standard of uniform wear; you have to have "buy in" from the members of your unit.  You can't just "order" CAP members to do something and expect that it will happen.  CAP is not the military.  There is a different type of leadership necessary for leading our volunteers.

On requiring PT test for SM advancement/Officer grade, how do you address all of the senior members who are disabled in some way that would prevent them from passing a PT test, especially those who are disabled veterans (like me)? 

I can pass a flight physical, but I am not allowed to run and some other limitations.  Are you saying I'm unworthy of being an officer because I can't pass the PT?  I meet all of the other qualifications for Officership either in C.A.P. or the U.S. Military.  The C.A.P. was founded by people who were unable to perform military service for one reason or another, including physical disabilities, but still wanted to serve. 

I think your idea would be considered a direct violation of CAPR 39-1, and also of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Quote from: Al Sayre on April 06, 2006, 11:18:34 AM
The C.A.P. was founded by people who were unable to perform military service for one reason or another, including physical disabilities, but still wanted to serve. 

Excellent point!  Spot on!  CAP was never meant to "be" the military.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 05, 2006, 04:05:42 PM
An interesting Knowledgebase item as I was browsing this morning;

Question
  Can a Squadron Commander require a weigh-in for a senior member to find out if they meet the weight standards for wearing AF style uniforms?


  Answer
  Yes. CAPM 39-1 Paragraph 1-2 (see below) tasks commanders to ensure that all members present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP.

A professional, well-groomed APPEARANCE

I don't see anything there that even remotely gives a commander the authority to conduct a "weigh-in". I've seen many obese senior members present a very professional appearance in both the USAF and CAP distictive uniforms. Where you get "let's be proactive and make them get on a scale" out of "judge their appearance"?

Alright, let me distance myself from the "make Senior Members do PT" posts.  I would hate for the ADA to come after me.  Second, my sarcasm did not come off as I had planned.   :'(  I would never require weigh-ins or anyone to jump on a scale.  I also stand corrected, it is "Service Dress", not "Class A's".  Finally, to  shorning, I do have an affiliation with the Military.  I have been an officer for over 7 years, but before that I was a CAP member for 9, and continue my active involvement in the program.  I know the differences between leadership required in CAP and military leadership.  I have long stressed the fact that CAP members are volunteers and if they don't like the smallest thing, then they can leave at any time.  I have met many people who do not take that heart and have seen the negative consequences. 
  In summary, shorning, sorry for using the wrong terminology, and sorry for striking a nerve.

I'm not calling the ADA, but many people seem to forget the reason that C.A.P. was founded.  I know there are a lot of members in my shoes who wish they could do more PT, but are unable to because of their disabilities.  We shouldn't exclude them from professional development and officer grade if they meet all of the other requirements.  Many are disabled veterans who still have some "fight" left in them, but can no longer qualify for military service.  What is wrong with giving these people officer rank and putting their abilities to use? 

I put a fairly long post over on Cadet Stuff addressing the same thing.  If we start splitting up the grade stucture and limiting people by duties or areas of specialization, then why have C.A.P. at all.  If you want to be in a group that specializes, there are plenty of them.  Civil Air Patrol brings all of the groups under one roof, and that is what makes it the great organization that it is.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 06, 2006, 02:39:15 PM
Alright, let me distance myself from the "make Senior Members do PT" posts.  I would hate for the ADA to come after me.  Second, my sarcasm did not come off as I had planned.   :'(  I would never require weigh-ins or anyone to jump on a scale.  I also stand corrected, it is "Service Dress", not "Class A's".  Finally, to  shorning, I do have an affiliation with the Military.  I have been an officer for over 7 years, but before that I was a CAP member for 9, and continue my active involvement in the program.  I know the differences between leadership required in CAP and military leadership.  I have long stressed the fact that CAP members are volunteers and if they don't like the smallest thing, then they can leave at any time.  I have met many people who do not take that heart and have seen the negative consequences.  
 In summary, shorning, sorry for using the wrong terminology, and sorry for striking a nerve.

Don't get me wrong, I think I understand where you're coming from.  I don't generally disagree with the concept.  However, I think there is a certain "wanna be" mindset that is prevalent in CAP.  From my AF perspective, watching CAP members do "what ever the heck they want" whether it's with uniforms, promotions, running squadrons, etc, is really beginning to make me reconsider my membership (strangely it's due this month).  I don't know that it would be a bad idea to distance myself from the mess, less I get painted with the same brush as everyone else.  

Could I try to change things and make a difference?  Sure, but PCSing every three years always makes me "the new guy".  It's been a long time since I've been in a position where people actually listened to anything I had to say about CAP.  An internet forum is one thing, but I'm not even sure it makes a difference.  Again, some days I feel like Don Quixote.  Maybe I'll change my username...

The knowledgebase suggests that a Commander should ensure members present a professional, well-groomed appearance.  Once again, the KB proves to be too ambiguous in it's full answer, but hey... it first said "yes," ...so why not, right? 

Anyone with Squadron Commander in their title has a bit of latitude as to how they wish to run things, but one had better ask themselves the following questions:
"what it would do for the health of my unit?"
"Can I anticipate the results of such a decision?"
If not, am I prepared to effectively handle the ramifications?"

While some wish to make this thread into a weight/officership issue, it's just not the case. Take Officership and/or Professional development to another thread. 
Again, I'd suggest taking a more subtle approach to this weight/uniform issue. 
Peer pressure when applied correctly can be a powerful thing.  Set up a few meeting nights in the very near future to talk about CAP distinctive uniform combinations and when they are worn.  Have it done by someone who not only meets the criteria for a distinctive uniform, but also commands respect at the unit, Group, etc...  Without pointing fingers in public make it clear to all again and again and again that CAP distinctive uniforms shall be worn if a member cannot meet weight or grooming standards.

Enforcing standards must be done with the health of the unit in mind. 

Quote from: tedda on April 06, 2006, 03:53:16 PM
Without pointing fingers in public make it clear to all again and again and again that CAP distinctive uniforms shall be worn if a member cannot meet weight or grooming standards.

I understand your point about not wanting to make it be that "youre wearing a different uniform because you dont meet the standards for the AF one"  But how do you rise above that stigma?  If in a squadron every member chooses to wear an AF uniform (lets say they all meet the standards) and one individual does not and has to wear a distinctive uniform does it not complicate the issue of singling out?  How do we over come this?  Ideally you could have the rest of the SM's show up to certain meetings in a distinctive uniform but this would seem illogical as it would require certain members to purchase a new uniform that they possibly may not want to wear in the first place?  What do we do about this dilema?

Quote from: Horn229 on April 06, 2006, 01:22:37 PMA professional, well-groomed APPEARANCE

I don't see anything there that even remotely gives a commander the authority to conduct a "weigh-in". I've seen many obese senior members present a very professional appearance in both the USAF and CAP distictive uniforms. Where you get "let's be proactive and make them get on a scale" out of "judge their appearance"?

Nick --

Another example as to why we shouldn't listen to the Knowledgebase. :)  The immediate next sentence in CAPM 39-1 after what they quoted says this:

QuoteThey [commanders] will ensure all members are uniformed in accordance with the provisions of this manual, uniform violations are promptly corrected, and that members are continually informed as to the proper wear of the uniform.

The manual (particularly table 1-1 and attachment 1) specifies:

QuoteSenior members and cadets who are 18 and older must meet CAP weight standards in order to wear the AF style uniform.

So, the commander ensures members are unfiormed in accordance with the provisions of the manual.  In order to ensure they are in accordance with the weight standard provision, he/she opts to utilize a weigh-in. 

Sure, I agree with providing a briefing ahead of time, explaining distinctive uniform options, and explaining/reinforcing the weight standard requirement.  But, after they are explained the regulations and given an option to choose to wear the distinctive uniform, if they wish to continue wearing the AF-style uniform, they can be subject to any screening necessary.

Gentleman

went to my first meeting since 1975, people looked the same, some fat some skinny, over all I am very impressed with a CAP that looked and felt very much like a professional organization. Yes we are a part of the U.S. Air Force, and yes the U.S.Air Force has input on much of what make us what we are. I am in complete agreement with a weight standard, because standards are a fact of our being. Lets face it a morbidly obese person in a U.S. Military uniform relays an image that has been rejected by all the military services, besides it is unhealthy, and a 350 lb observer is unacceptable they take up the space of 2 or one hour of fuel.

So I am for weight standards, but what's the beef, a 350 lb major in the corporate uniform also looks bad

Quote from: shorning on April 06, 2006, 05:32:46 AM
I've been reading through this thread.  The one thing that comes to mind is:  "Hello lawsuit!".  No not someone suing the corporation.  I mean someone suing the commander.  I hope you're caring personal liability insurance. 

Here's an idea...why don't we focus on our missions (AKA "stay in our lane") and skip creating additional requirements for our members.  You "wanna be" in the military?  Join the military.  Are in the military and want CAP to be more like the military?  Get a clue!  They are totally different programs.

But whatever...corrupt your program anyway you want. ::)

What would a Senior sue the Commander for?  Breaking regulations?  The regs are public and should be enforced across the board in an even-handed way.

Show up in blues looking 9 months pregnant and you risk humiliation.  we're protecting the service and the image.

Interestingly, a recent CAP KB article says that a unit commander CAN conduct a weigh-in.

I had just assumed that was where this thread started as it was featured on the updated KB about a week ago...

[date=1144257812]


Reveal away....

However what is there to lose by having a senior PT program? If you participate in it then perhaps that tire around your gut would be gone Major.  I never said the requirements would have to be intense, Im aware we're not enlisted, but I believe it would promote healthier lifestyles and thus benefit the program.

[/quote]
So, you're going to make a 74 year old Senior member take a PT test? I agree that CAP needs to be more military like since we are an auxillary of a military organization, but not to that extreme. I also agree that there are members wearing the uniform that dont meet the height and weight standard and it reflects badly on cap. sQUADRON cOMMANDERS NEED TO BE EMPOWERED WITH MORE AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THOSE PEOPLE. bUT sQUADRON cOMMANDERS ARE not THE APPROING AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE ONES MEMBERSHIP. Wing Commanders are. And by the time they hear the situation they will be less likely toget rid of the offenders

Somebody is missing the point.  You need to differentiate between "weigh-ins" and mandatory PT.  A commander MAY be able to require weigh-ins, he can definitely enforce the uniform regulations, but if he tries to make seniors perform "Mandatory PT" as a requirement for promotion, he better be ready for a lawsuit unless he complies 100% with the ADA and CAPR 39-1.  Even the cadet program makes exceptions for those with disabilities.
 
What does a commander do when a Senior injures him or herself during a PT and ends up out of work for 6-8 weeks to recover?  What if they end up on long term disability?  Whose insurance is going to pay? 

Quote from: flyguy06 on April 09, 2006, 03:32:12 PM
[date=1144257812]

However what is there to lose by having a senior PT program? If you participate in it then perhaps that tire around your gut would be gone Major.  I never said the requirements would have to be intense, Im aware we're not enlisted, but I believe it would promote healthier lifestyles and thus benefit the program.

-------------------

This has been recently discussed on the Health Services Listserve.  Missouri Wing is putting together a pilot Senior Member PFT program utilizing an already established national fitness program that is (1) Voluntary, and (2) Trackable.  Significant prizes will be established for the top winners.  As mentioned, this program is voluntary, individualized (you compete against yourself), has specific levels of achievement, and is trackable individually and by group (i.e. Wing participation).

To quote CAPR 160-1, "CAP health services' overarching program goal is to assist our entire membership to become and/or remain optimally healthy and fit."  A voluntary senior physical fitness program would help Health Service Officers meet this goal and further the success of CAP's missions.  Physical fitness is not just for our cadets.  It should be for all of us.

(Personal note: Ever been to a National Board Conference?  Next time, watch the National Board members go forward to receive their awards.  A good 90% are in AF Blues, and a good 75% of that group would probably fail a weigh-in! <grin>)

David A. Miller, MD
Captain, CAP
(Who needs to lose 20 pounds himself!)

This has been recently discussed on the Health Services Listserve.  Missouri Wing is putting together a pilot Senior Member PFT program utilizing an already established national fitness program that is (1) Voluntary, and (2) Trackable.  Significant prizes will be established for the top winners.  As mentioned, this program is voluntary, individualized (you compete against yourself), has specific levels of achievement, and is trackable individually and by group (i.e. Wing participation).

To quote CAPR 160-1, "CAP health services' overarching program goal is to assist our entire membership to become and/or remain optimally healthy and fit."  A voluntary senior physical fitness program would help Health Service Officers meet this goal and further the success of CAP's missions.  Physical fitness is not just for our cadets.  It should be for all of us.

(Personal note: Ever been to a National Board Conference?  Next time, watch the National Board members go forward to receive their awards.  A good 90% are in AF Blues, and a good 75% of that group would probably fail a weigh-in! <grin>)

David A. Miller, MD
Captain, CAP
(Who needs to lose 20 pounds himself!)

(Sorry am new at posting to this group)

I personally feel this topic has gotten a bit out of hand. Appearance is the real concern, and weight tables are used as a tool to determine if the AF style uniform can be worn. Appearance needs to be the focus of concern here. Weight tables should not be the end all be all.

For example, some members may still make the screening table, but choose to wear a uniform that is a few sizes too small because they are too cheap/ lazy/ whatever to buy new ones as their body changes with age (again, even if they fall in the screening table). Their appearance would still be in conflict with the INTENT of the regulation, and technically this should be addressed by the commander. Even if they did update their wardrobe, a spare tire is a spare tire and does not look good as judged by the AF, even if weight stays below screening table guidelines. Conversely, some members may be very muscular in nature (perhaps possessing 10% or less body fat), but because of their muscle mass they exceed screening weight. They will look very professional in an AF-style uniform but technically should not wear one. If I were the commander of such a member, I would have a pretty hard time telling them they need to wear a corporate uniform because (even though they look like an ad for a health club) they still exceed a screening weight table. But thats just me committing the crime of applying common sense.

Maybe the real solution is to do away with AF-style uniforms and everyone goes corporate. If you want to wear the AF-style uniform, join the real Air Force.  

Before some of you hit the reply button with your emotionally-charged response to my previous statement, I will tell you I realize this is an extreme we don't want to go to..... but it is just about as extreme as requiring weigh-in's and PT program's in an organization of unpaid volunteers. Appearance is important and needs to be reinforced, but how you go about reinforcing it needs to be done through a level-headed application of common sense and (yes I will say it) sensitivity. I know that can be difficult for some members who feel CAP is a reserve component of the USAF vs. an auxiliary comprised of true volunteers. I am sure they will see the light when hard-working and productive volunteers start quitting CAP because their cdrs let a regulation do their thinking for them.

As a chaplain (who happens to meet USAF h/w standards, if that matters—and it shouldn't), I would like to offer another perspective on this discussion. St. Paul is recorded as having stated, "'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up" (1Corinthians 10:23, NRSV).

What does that have to do with the issue at hand ... ????

As quoted by "MikeyLikey" the CAP Knowledgebase (editor unknown) stated that a unit commander may require a weigh-in of members, ostensibly justified in order to enforce proper uniform wear. In short, it is (to respectfully borrow St. Paul's word) lawful for unit commanders to demand that members submit to perhaps even public weigh-ins (as though they were a piece of produce or a prize fighter) amid a squadron gathering. This is allegedly "lawful" IAW CAPM 39-1 (a point that I dispute, but will accept uncritically for the purpose of "fueling" my ethics-based response).

"'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up." While it MAY BE lawful for a commander to demand a compulsory weigh-in, most likely it will not be either "beneficial" or useful for "build[ing] up" a CAP unit or to support CAP's missions.

As those who have participated in a Moral Leadership session, "morals" (or its Greek synonym "ethics") refer to a deliberate, principle-based, process of decision-making (or the absence thereof). It is such decision-making that St. Paul was discussing with the Corinthian church. It is likewise such a decision that a compulsory weigh-in should result from. It may be lawful, but (as a former unit commander) I think holding such a weigh-in would be anything but beneficial.  Here's why ...

If SMs are ordered to submit themselves to a humiliating (perhaps public --- that seems lawful too) weigh-ins, I suspect that many SMs would –out of principle (ethics again, see)—refuse and even resign (or change units) instead. I am within the h/w standards and would refuse to be weighed, as such a practice is simply wrong. There isn't a power on earth that could compel me to be treated like a tomato. I suspect that I am not alone. At best, it would make many SMs unhappy. As we lose members or as we dispirit our members, especially SMs, CAP's mission capabilities are diminished. That isn't building up. That is being needlessly and blindly, destructive.

As to the PT issue, I should hate to intentionally discriminate against a physically-challenged member who is entirely capable of performing essential mission-support functions but who cannot run, or jump, or do a single push-up. That would be unjust and prejudiced. It is akin to CAPBloggers who have criticized our National Commander for his accent and denigrating him for it. It is wrong.

Furthermore, I sense a subtle undercurrent of "get-even" in many posts on this thread too – especially ones suggesting or supporting a PT program for SM advancement. Perhaps there are a rare few cadets that actually envy the seemingly easier SM program and would like to enforce cadet program rules and regs on SMs, just because. "The grass is always greener," so the cliché goes. I hope that's incorrect. The truth is that although there is no PT requirement (nor for that matter aerospace or leadership tests required for that matter) the program is still a challenge. That is seen in the relatively low number of seniors who ever achieve the Gill Robb Wilson Award. Similarly SM retention has been problematic in recent years, making the program less attractive and increasing the loss of SMs seems foolish to me.

"Getting even" is a really terrible stance upon which to base truly ethical decisions. In fact, it is childishness. Any member who is short-sighted enough to wish to "settle a score" upon SMs needs to think about two points. One, that the cadet program is totally dependent upon SMs for its very existence; no SMs, sadly no cadet program. Cadet leaders often mistakenly believe that they run the program and that SMs are superfluous. One C/Lieutenant Colonel publicly stated that the way to "handle senior members" is to put them into a corner with a cup of coffee and ignore them. That is not just ignorant, disrespectful and unprofessional, it is also to most obviously miss the contingent nature of the cadet program. The cadet program is wholly contingent upon the SM program. As the movie "The Right Stuff" quoted the Mercury astronauts, "no bucks (money) no Buck Rogers;" similarly, no SMs, no cadet program: so much for building up an important mission of CAP. Two, envy (and get-even-ism) is, at its core, selfishness. Selfishness is inconsistent with the values incumbent in the uniform we wear. That uniform was "purchased" by the selfless sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of men and women who wore it into battle, not for him or herself and their personal aggrandizement, but for the benefit their fellow Countryman. Envy has no place in the uniform of our Country. It is an anathema to all that our military stands for.

Rhetoric that belittles or renounces SMs (or words and/or actions that encourage them to leave CAP) --or any other member for that matter--is destructive to the program. Rhetoric or actions that demonstrate selfishness or selflessness is likewise corrosive and destructive.

Actions such as mandatory weigh-ins or (imagined, perhaps hoped-for PT tests) may be lawful and IAW CAPR's and CAPM's, BUT they may be anything but beneficial. I suggest any commander who seriously considers such a practice be VERY circumspect and ensure that he or she doesn't inflict more harm to CAP than they ever intended. In my humble opinion, no uniform and no one's appearance in that uniform is worth destroying CAP.

"'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up." Think about it friends.

Church dismissed!

Amen

First, well said.  However, this:

Quote from: Chaplaindon on April 12, 2006, 09:00:31 PM
There isn't a power on earth that could compel me to be treated like a tomato.

was hilarious!  Good thing I wasn't drinking anything or it would have been all over my laptop!

Preach it Chaplain Don!

Yay-Yuh!

My Group Commander is 5 foot, 9 inches, weighs 250+ lbs. and STILL wears the Air Force-style uniforms.  His Service Dress is way to snug in the front.  It makes me SOOOOOOOOOO sick every time I see him in a uniform./

(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/squint.gif)[redacted]

Quote from: shorning on April 23, 2006, 12:17:39 AM

Quote from: Hammer on April 23, 2006, 12:12:58 AM
My Group Commander is 5 foot, 9 inches, weighs 250+ lbs. and STILL wears the Air Force-style uniforms.  His Service Dress is way to snug in the front.  It makes me SOOOOOOOOOO sick every time I see him in a uniform./

Hey, Viper, how about you quit complaining about your squadron.  I think it's worn out.  You've demonstrated that you're not going to fix the problem, only complain about it.

FOR THE RECORD-----  I did not have the Screen Name "Viper" on the CAP Talk Forum.  That was my Cadet Commander.  Also, how high do I need to go.  The Region IG got him off because he knew one of the IG Team members.

(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/squint.gif)[redacted]

Quote from: shorning on April 23, 2006, 02:35:41 AM

Quote from: Hammer on April 23, 2006, 02:11:46 AM

Quote from: shorning on April 23, 2006, 12:17:39 AM

Quote from: Hammer on April 23, 2006, 12:12:58 AM
My Group Commander is 5 foot, 9 inches, weighs 250+ lbs. and STILL wears the Air Force-style uniforms.  His Service Dress is way to snug in the front.  It makes me SOOOOOOOOOO sick every time I see him in a uniform./

Hey, Viper, how about you quit complaining about your squadron.  I think it's worn out.  You've demonstrated that you're not going to fix the problem, only complain about it.

FOR THE RECORD-----  I did not have the Screen Name "Viper" on the CAP Talk Forum.  That was my Cadet Commander.  Also, how high do I need to go.  The Region IG got him off because he knew one of the IG Team members.

So you say.  You keep alleging facts that only you seem to know.

No, just ones taht are common knowledge in my Squadron and Group.

Sorry to break up this love fest, but it seems to be degenerating.

Not enough information has been passed on for the folks here to give appropriate advice. The facts that " are common knowledge in my Squadron and Group." are not common knowledge here. Without the full picture - and this includes views other than yours Hammer - we cannot give you appropriate advice. Since you haven't been forthcoming with it - for whatever reason - it makes sense to stop asking for advice on this problem.

If you two want to keep duking it out, please take it to PM.

Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Quote from: tedda on April 05, 2006, 08:18:55 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on April 05, 2006, 08:11:16 PM
...That's a long time leftover from our former association with the Army.

seems just like yesterday, eh Dave?   ;D

Maybe we could just go back to the old 1505's, or before that, 505's! ;D ;D

Jerry

Quote from: Jerry on April 23, 2006, 02:18:45 PMMaybe we could just go back to the old 1505's, or before that, 505's! ;D ;D

I prefer 550s myself...

(http://dwsystems.com/images/550_relaxed_fit.jpg)

Quote from: justin_bailey on April 23, 2006, 04:31:26 PM

Quote from: Jerry on April 23, 2006, 02:18:45 PMMaybe we could just go back to the old 1505's, or before that, 505's! ;D ;D

I prefer 550s myself...

(http://dwsystems.com/images/550_relaxed_fit.jpg)

Me, TOO!   The longer I stay in, the less I WANT to wear a uniform.  I don't wear the USAF uniform, and I don't have a "spare tire"------well, not one you will notice! ;D  I look fine in the USAF blues, but I am over the standard.
I am, like another example, tall and large-framed. But I am not fat. If I complied with CAP's standard I would actually look gaunt! So I wear the corporate uniform (when I wear one). When I have to wear a uniform for an extended period, there is usually a set of dungarees in the car, and as soon as I am done with the function, WHAM!  I am back in those jeans.  After 200+ missions (I have stopped counting), it just isn't as important as it used to be when I was a gung ho 1/Lt.  So being in the "Blue" just isn't the big deal it used to be.  I am content with contributing what I can because I am one of those old heads. I took my cadet orientation rides with ORIGINAL coastal patrol pilots in the 60's!!!  :D  LOL! GOSH, I'm old!

With age, yes, I don't look like Clark Gable, and I don't tramp  thru the woods anymore carrying no durn 3 day pack! Not only don't, I WON'T! So I content myself with MRO duties where I can stay at the mission base and sleep in a warm bed (well, maybe I might crash in my car if I have to)!  My old bones don't take to sleeping on hard, cold ground anymore!  But I can still contribute *something* to the mission--just as can the rest of us old guys. It just ain't slogging over the mountains like some Army Ranger team. So what if I can't meet an arbitrary uniform rule!  But I recognize that a 350 lb Major with a huge belly hanging over his belt is something that I, too, would resent because it reflects badly on the entire organization. I've seen fat, ugly, sloppy men with beards in BDU's, and I raised heck to no avail, and I understand there must be *some* standard of dress. Heck there are fat, ugly, sloppy old men in corporate uniforms I wish wouldn't wear that! The line between absolute adherence and "looking good" can't be subjective, so whaddya gonna do?


Jerry

Lt/Col ,  MERNC

Based on the the fact the commander is required to enforce uniform regulations he could require a weigh in for his SM's.

However......it is important to treat your SM's with respect.  You know if a SM is out of weight regs and you tell him in private what uniform he should be wearing.  Periodic checks of everyone in the squadron would not be a bad idea. 

Requiring PT for promotion would NOT be a good idea.

We volunteer to help the program in many different ways.  Many SM's do not join to play Air Force and forcing your program into a more active duty style will not help retain the valuable assets we get from our more experienced volunteers.

Perhaps a compromise. (For the record, I have absolutely NO opinion in this).

What if only the SM's working with cadets were required to meet AF standards? I mean, not necessarily the guy who comes to do AE twice a month, but like the DCC? If nothing more, it will ensure uniformity, considering that the cadet program IS to play AF, and the SM's that don't want to get involved in that aspect don't have to meet those standards.

Basically, everyone knows that the SM's who work with cadets usually end up in a much more militaristic enviornment than do SM's who work with other SM's. So instead of giving the SM's the ability to both be overweight and still represent the more militaristic enviornment with the cadets, have every single SM that works almost exclusively on CP to meet those types of standards that the cadets would? If not PT, at least the height/weight standards.

Quote from: Nathan on April 24, 2006, 01:19:34 PM
Perhaps a compromise. (For the record, I have absolutely NO opinion in this).

What if only the SM's working with cadets were required to meet AF standards? I mean, not necessarily the guy who comes to do AE twice a month, but like the DCC? If nothing more, it will ensure uniformity, considering that the cadet program IS to play AF, and the SM's that don't want to get involved in that aspect don't have to meet those standards.

Basically, everyone knows that the SM's who work with cadets usually end up in a much more militaristic enviornment than do SM's who work with other SM's. So instead of giving the SM's the ability to both be overweight and still represent the more militaristic enviornment with the cadets, have every single SM that works almost exclusively on CP to meet those types of standards that the cadets would? If not PT, at least the height/weight standards.

So the second-class member status persists.......

I'm a former cadet, vice commander of a region encampment (working toward commander), deputy commander (acting commander right now) of a cadet squadron, and hold a master rating in cadet programs.  You're telling me that you would rather waste that knowledge and experience just because I can't wear an AF style uniform?


Maybe Kansas wing is full of senior members who have a similar background and meet weight standards, but I know that mine isn't.

Quote from: Nathan on April 24, 2006, 01:19:34 PM
Perhaps a compromise. (For the record, I have absolutely NO opinion in this).

What if only the SM's working with cadets were required to meet AF standards? I mean, not necessarily the guy who comes to do AE twice a month, but like the DCC? If nothing more, it will ensure uniformity, considering that the cadet program IS to play AF, and the SM's that don't want to get involved in that aspect don't have to meet those standards.

Basically, everyone knows that the SM's who work with cadets usually end up in a much more militaristic environment than do SM's who work with other SM's. So instead of giving the SM's the ability to both be overweight and still represent the more militaristic environment with the cadets, have every single SM that works almost exclusively on CP to meet those types of standards that the cadets would? If not PT, at least the height/weight standards.

That was something of an unwritten rule back in the 70s and the reason I had my first lapse in participation. I was on AD in the Navy, with a beard that met USN grooming standards. Since there were no corporate uniforms back then, I mostly wore a shirt/coat and tie to meetings, since I was directly involved in the cadet side of the house. Most of the SMs in the unit appreciated my participation and contribution, but Deputy Commander for Cadets was continually on my case about the facial hair, so when I finally got tired of his crap, I left.

For all you folks out there who seem to disapprove of us folks who can't wear the AF Blue, we're not all fattys. I have a beard, not a weight problem. I still meet AD AF weight standards.

Quote from: Slim on April 24, 2006, 05:36:44 PMSo the second-class member status persists.......

I'm a former cadet, vice commander of a region encampment (working toward commander), deputy commander (acting commander right now) of a cadet squadron, and hold a master rating in cadet programs.  You're telling me that you would rather waste that knowledge and experience just because I can't wear an AF style uniform?

Oh, come on. It has nothing to do with second-class membership. It has to do with the military aspect of life. There are certain jobs that one can't hold in the military (or even be in the military) due to problems, no matter HOW smart they are. It's nothing that cadets don't have to deal with. There are activities that some cadets can't participate in simply because they have asthma or something of the like.

It's leadership by example. As leaders, we should never, ever ask our followers to do something we ourselves would not be willing to do. It fits into that philosophy. If SM's aren't going to be willing to meet the same standards that cadets are (such as in terms of facial hair, weight standards, etc), should they be participating as the cadets' leaders?

It's not an assertion, just a question, so don't jump down my throat for it.

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 01:49:05 AM

Quote from: Slim on April 24, 2006, 05:36:44 PMSo the second-class member status persists.......

I'm a former cadet, vice commander of a region encampment (working toward commander), deputy commander (acting commander right now) of a cadet squadron, and hold a master rating in cadet programs.  You're telling me that you would rather waste that knowledge and experience just because I can't wear an AF style uniform?

Oh, come on. It has nothing to do with second-class membership. It has to do with the military aspect of life. There are certain jobs that one can't hold in the military (or even be in the military) due to problems, no matter HOW smart they are. It's nothing that cadets don't have to deal with. There are activities that some cadets can't participate in simply because they have asthma or something of the like.

It's leadership by example. As leaders, we should never, ever ask our followers to do something we ourselves would not be willing to do. It fits into that philosophy. If SM's aren't going to be willing to meet the same standards that cadets are (such as in terms of facial hair, weight standards, etc), should they be participating as the cadets' leaders?

It's not an assertion, just a question, so don't jump down my throat for it.

Nathan, the cadet program's goal with physical fitness standards is, by our regulatory definition, to instill a life-long habit of physical fitness.  One can be physically active, even physically fit, and not fit within the guidelines of the USAF height-weight standards.  Not every cadet, not every person is destined to be a member of the US Air Force.   There are many avenues to succeed in life, and many ways in which an individual can be of value, and one aspect of that value (and success) shouldn't be measured by whether or not someone meets Air Force height/weight standards.  Especially if they're not in the Air Force.

I had a full cadet career, participated in many activities, have learned a lot from CAP and in my career, and continue to contribute to CAP's cadet program in an extremely active manner.  I currently meet AF weight standards, but I do find myself occassionally putting on weight (some of it does just come with age).  Does this mean I'm not physically active?  No, I have a gym membership, I have a loose diet (designed by a personal trainer) of foods I strive to eat and those I strive to avoid.  Do I still occassionally notice additional pounds?  Sure!     You're telling me that I would become less of a role model for my cadets, less of a capable leader, less of a capable Deputy Commander for Cadets and Group Cadet Programs Officer, and not suitable to lead cadets if one day my weight exceeded the limitations on a chart developed by the Air Force for my height?

That's a very narrow-sighted view.  Why on earth would you discount the abilities of a person's intelligence, leadership ability, knowledge and experience based on their weight? 

CAP isn't the military, where weight does matter even if you're in a leadership or support role and not a rifleman, because you may become deployed, find yourself in combat, or otherwise be called upon to perform physically-demanding tasks.  That is part of the military life.   If you're involved in the cadet program, that's not really a necessity; it is not apart of the CAP life, unless you choose to engage in physically demanding tasks such as Ground Team, or roles where weight does matter somewhat, on aircrews.  Other than those specific instances, why place expectations on our members that we don't need?  The military places weight restrictions to maintain a fit, agile, and able fighting force.  Civil Air Patrol is not designed as a fighting force and will not be called upon to be one at any time.

If a member can carry out the duties assigned to them (and especially if they do a great job at it), why do people insist on adding this unnecessary idea that a CAP SM should have to fit into the USAF's definition of how fit it needs its fighting airmen to be, in order to be an effective CAP SM leading in the cadet program?

I'm just playing devil's advocate, here. :)

My only argument is that if the SM's are going to be leaders in the CP, and the main leadership techniques that we teach in CAP (as in staff positions and such) is leading by example, then perhaps the SM's should lead by example and follow the same standards they expect the cadets to.

I'm in no way saying that such a SM would not be capable of great leadership. Then again, I'm sure that there are many people who would be great leaders who can't join the military because of asthma, and there are many people who would make great police officers... all except that they got arrested a couple of times for being stupid as a kid.

And yes, to whomever mentioned it, I have not yet had a DCC who was not capable of the PT that the cadets were, nor a DCC who could not wear the AF uniform.

 I'm a CD/C who can PT but who still at the moment doesn't meet h/w standards. I've 25+ in CAP including a smidge under nine years as a cadet. I like to think that I know what I'm doing and strive to serve as a positive leadership example to cadets.

Who the bloody hell are you to tell me otherwise, Devil's Advocate or no?

Back in the late 70's, when I was on Group staff in West Palm Beach, Florida, we used to meet at a Civil Defense shelter and it was pretty neat.  The Group Communications officer was the local civil defense communications officer and he was really sharp.  We had some of the best communication training and programs in the Wing due to this member.  I doubt that he could pass a PT test as he was totally blind and probably would have had trouble running a mile or the shuttle run.  He was a valuable asset on missions and a real inspiration to all of the seniors and cadets in the Group.  Come to think about it, I don't think I ever saw him in uniform, but I'm not sure that he knew he wasn't in uniform.  I don't think he ever knew or cared what the rest of us were wearing or for that matter what he was wearing.  That is what CAP is all about.  People caring for and helping other people without regard to monetary gain.  JMHO       

Nathan, I think you need to look at this subject from a broader perspective.

The first broadening has to do with the fact that there are a number of distinct differences between the cadet and SM programs in CAP. One example of those differences ---one that annoys me greatly-- is that cadets are permitted (even encouraged with discounted programs) to take flight training toward a coveted private pilot's license and SMs are not allowed to do so using CAP aircraft at any price. There are differences now -- and there will be diffrences in the future.

Add to those differences --once again-- the statement of fact that the cadet program is contingent upon an active and supportive SM program. SMs who are not allowed to do some of the things that cadets can do make those cadet activities happen. For example, in order for cadets to solo at a ridiculously low price, SM CFIs take time away from home, job and family to DONATE their services to enable cadets to learn to fly. The cadet program is contingent, the SM program is essential. Making things harder on SM, making things less accomodating of them, will devastate the cadet program. Rather than trying to force SMs to be grown-up cadets, cadets should thank their "lucky stars" that there are SMs who allow the cadet program to happen.

Nathan, when was the last time you (or any of the other cadets on here) stopped a SM just to think her or him for their contributions to the cadet program?

The second perspective regarding what you called "military aspect of life." You wrote, "If SM's aren't going to be willing to meet the same standards that cadets are (such as in terms of facial hair, weight standards, etc), should they be participating as the cadets' leaders?" and that demonstrates an definite misunderstanding of how our military --broadly-- functions (albeit, CAP isn't actually the military). The US military is led --per the specification of our Constitution-- by civilians who do not wear a uniform at all.  This is the law of the land. Presuming your assertion about SMs meeting the standards of the cadet program in order to lead them was broadly applied to the US "military aspect of life" it would have precluded many of our former Commanders in Chief from their Constitutionally mandated job. If the lack of height/weight/grooming standards is acceptable and functional between the US military and its C-in-C, I fail to see why a difference between SMs and cadets concerning the same issues is problematic in the offically non-military CAP.

Maybe someone else can explain it to me ...

Nathan, I am not "jumping down your throat" but I am suggesting that you need a better and perhaps more mature perspective on this matter. Perhaps such issues of perspective are why CAP is led by SMs and not by cadets.


Mod Edit: Fixed those random strike-throughs

Sorry folks, I haven't a clue how the strike-through's appeared on my post ... I didn't put them there.

Okay, I'm done here. I was merely posing a question, guys, come on! I wasn't looking to pick a fight, just to keep the conversation going... Crikey, it wasn't something to get your undies in a bunch about... ::)

The other thing you need to remember is that not all seniors want to work with cadets, it's just a sad fact of life.  If you limit who can work with cadets based on an arbitrary physical standard, you may end up limiting the pool of available SM's to run the program to ZERO.  Then there will be no cadet program.

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 03:15:39 AM
My only argument is that if the SM's are going to be leaders in the CP, and the main leadership techniques that we teach in CAP (as in staff positions and such) is leading by example, then perhaps the SM's should lead by example and follow the same standards they expect the cadets to.

You do make a good point.  I would say that it is totally appropriate for a commander to take weight/physical fitness into account when selecting his DCC.  But to make it a REQUIREMENT for DCC's and other CP personnel, just won't work.

There are too many good CP guys who just can't or wont put in the effort to make their 50 year old bodies meet Air Force standards.  You will tend to just drive all the older folks out of CP.

Then there are those of us former cadet CP types who while meeting weight and grooming standards for AF style uniforms, can't do the CPFT... I was Fitness Category IV my entire cadet career.

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 01:10:25 PM
Okay, I'm done here. I was merely posing a question, guys, come on! I wasn't looking to pick a fight, just to keep the conversation going... Crikey, it wasn't something to get your undies in a bunch about... ::)

When you play Devil's advocate, the idea is to expect people to respond and make counter-arguments to yours.

You really aren't applying the concept of leading by example properly, either.  You're saying that Senior Members leading cadets need to fulfill every single expectation of the cadet program placed on cadets in order to be an effective leader, otherwise they're not leading by example.  Via this method, only former cadets could be Senior Members, and cadets should only be expected to promote as high as their senior members did when they were cadets.  Therefore, the only ideal Senior Member to lead in the cadet program, by your definition, would be a completely physically fit, within weight/height standards, former Spaatz cadet (who passed the first time completely) and still can hit the Spaatz PT scores, and overall participated in every aspect of the cadet program as well.  Otherwise, if the SM can't do it and hasn't, why should the cadet, right?   ::)

Great point of view.  Let us know when you're perfect, and then you can lead cadets, too.  Otherwise you'd be a bad leader-by-example.  Mmkay?

Quote from: Pylon on April 25, 2006, 04:11:26 PM

When you play Devil's advocate, the idea is to expect people to respond and make counter-arguments to yours.

Sure! I expect counter-arguments when I'm debating. But the arguments that say, "Hey, I'm a 900 year old guy who used to be a cadet back in the day... blah blah blah" doesn't really make for an argument, unless you're making an attempt at a pathos argument, which doesn't work too well for me.

Quote from: Pylon on April 25, 2006, 04:11:26 PM
You really aren't applying the concept of leading by example properly, either.  You're saying that Senior Members leading cadets need to fulfill every single expectation of the cadet program placed on cadets in order to be an effective leader, otherwise they're not leading by example. 

If we're talking about weight standards, then we're talking about weight standards. I'm saying, take this part of the program and apply it here. Cadets can't wear beards, even if they're capable of growing one, so it would be good leadership for SM's working with cadets to refrain from beards as well. Cadets have to not smoke at CAP activities, and there are cadets (like me) who are of legal age to smoke, and there are cadets (unlike me) who do smoke, so it would be good leadership for seniors to refrain from smoking during activities as well.

If cadets have to participate in PT (which is really not that challenging should a person put even 30 minutes a day to working at it), then it would make sense for seniors to do it as well as their leaders. As a leader, I do PT with my cadets, even though I promote a lot slower and usually have better things to be doing as the cadet commander of my squadron. I'm not even saying that seniors should PT, but at least work to be in the same uniform as the rest of the cadets would definetly be a plus.

Boy, I guess I'm not done with this...

Quote from: Pylon on April 25, 2006, 04:11:26 PMGreat point of view.  Let us know when you're perfect, and then you can lead cadets, too.  Otherwise you'd be a bad leader-by-example.  Mmkay?

I'm not saying I'm perfect, and I'm not saying that I'm expecting seniors to be perfect. But what I do expect out of every leader is at least an attempt. Like I said, good leaders don't order their subordinates to do things that they themselves would not do. If a leader, such as the cadet commander of a squadron, is not willing to do the PT, then I don't see what grounds he or she has of ordering others to do it.

YMMV

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 05:52:01 PM

Quote from: Pylon on April 25, 2006, 04:11:26 PM

When you play Devil's advocate, the idea is to expect people to respond and make counter-arguments to yours.

Sure! I expect counter-arguments when I'm debating. But the arguments that say, "Hey, I'm a 900 year old guy who used to be a cadet back in the day... blah blah blah" doesn't really make for an argument, unless you're making an attempt at a pathos argument, which doesn't work too well for me.

Nobody made that argument, Nathan.  Some of us were making the argument that yes, I'm older, I have more life experience, I have a master rating in CP and all of this CAP knowledge, and I was a cadet once upon a time, as well.  They're making the point that they have a lot to offer this program, not just making a pathos appeal at all.   ::)

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 05:52:01 PM

Quote from: Pylon on April 25, 2006, 04:11:26 PM

When you play Devil's advocate, the idea is to expect people to respond and make  counter-arguments to yours.

Sure! I expect counter-arguments when I'm debating. But the arguments that say, "Hey, I'm a 900 year old guy who used to be a cadet back in the day... blah blah blah" doesn't really make for an argument, unless you're making an attempt at a pathos argument, which doesn't work too well for me.

What I tried to convey was the fact that I have all of this experience and background with the cadet program.  What you propose is to waste that knowledge and experience because I don't fit your image of what a senior member should be.  I'm not making excuses here, but I'm a big person, the child of big parents.  Things like weight are most likely genetic, just like hair and eye color.  It's not that I don't lead an inactive lifestyle, it just doesn't seem to matter what I do, I can't seem to shed those pounds that racked up when my metabolism hit the brakes.  Someday you won't be able to eat the things you do now without weight gain, it will happen.

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 05:52:01 PM

Quote from: Pylon on April 25, 2006, 04:11:26 PM
You really aren't applying the concept of leading by example properly, either.  You're saying that Senior Members leading cadets need to fulfill every single expectation of the cadet program placed on cadets in order to be an effective leader, otherwise they're not leading by example. 

If we're talking about weight standards, then we're talking about weight standards. I'm saying, take this part of the program and apply it here. Cadets can't wear beards, even if they're capable of growing one, so it would be good leadership for SM's working with cadets to refrain from beards as well. Cadets have to not smoke at CAP activities, and there are cadets (like me) who are of legal age to smoke, and there are cadets (unlike me) who do smoke, so it would be good leadership for seniors to refrain from smoking during activities as well.

Well, there are solutions to what you propose here.  Want a beard, knock yourself out.  however, because you're over 18, you'll have to wear the blazer combo and BBDUs, that's your choice.  Want to smoke at CAP?  Sorry, but you're going to have to turn senior for that one.  But, if you come to an activity I'm running, you're going to have to do it in the closet or somewhere else that cadets won't see you.  BTW, for the record, I have misgivings about that little stipulation in the regs.  You're legally an adult, can vote, can go out and serve your country;  I think cadets over 18 should be allowed (but not encouraged) to do so, as long as it meets the stipulations in the 52-16 (not in the presence of other cadets)---but that's just me. 

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 05:52:01 PM
If cadets have to participate in PT (which is really not that challenging should a person put even 30 minutes a day to working at it), then it would make sense for seniors to do it as well as their leaders. As a leader, I do PT with my cadets, even though I promote a lot slower and usually have better things to be doing as the cadet commander of my squadron. I'm not even saying that seniors should PT, but at least work to be in the same uniform as the rest of the cadets would definetly be a plus.

I agree that that the CPFT isn't a challenge, assuming you have the time to put into it.  Some do, some don't, and for some (like me) it doesn't matter how much time you put into it, you're still going to be a big person.  As cadet commander, you say you have better things to do at meetings than promoting and PT?  Don't you think the same would apply to your DCC or unit commander?  Maybe someday, you'll be a squadron commander, with a mile long to-do list at a meeting, getting ready for a compliance inspection, dealing with other seniors and their "NSTIW" stories, etc.  All of the sudden, "Aw crap....sorry guys, I gotta drop everything I'm doing so I can go out and do PT with the troops, be back in 45 minutes."  Just ain't gonna happen.

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 05:52:01 PM
Boy, I guess I'm not done with this...

Quote from: Pylon on April 25, 2006, 04:11:26 PMGreat point of view.  Let us know when you're perfect, and then you can lead cadets, too.  Otherwise you'd be a bad leader-by-example.  Mmkay?

I'm not saying I'm perfect, and I'm not saying that I'm expecting seniors to be perfect. But what I do expect out of every leader is at least an attempt. Like I said, good leaders don't order their subordinates to do things that they themselves would not do. If a leader, such as the cadet commander of a squadron, is not willing to do the PT, then I don't see what grounds he or she has of ordering others to do it.

Depends on your interpretation of "Attempt."  I wear my uniforms today with the same amount of pride that I did WIWAC.  I put just as much time into preparing them, everything sewn/placed properly, shined boots/shoes, ironed/starched, I keep my hair well within regulations.  I expect the same of the cadets in my unit.  I don't always get it, but that is my expectation.  I expect them to participate in PT, because it's part of their program.  I don't have to order anyone to do anything.  However, my cadets know that if they don't pass the PFT, they don't get promoted.  Just like I don't have to order my cadet commander to publish a shcedule every month.  He knows that it's part of his job.  If he doesn't live up the the expectations of his job, guess what?

Quote from: Nathan on April 25, 2006, 05:52:01 PM
YMMV

Yep, sure does

Many of the vaunted leadership "platitudes" were said during wartime and/or combat, and I agree with them in that context wholeheartedly.  The "don't ask the troops to do something you can't or won't do" applies in those limited circumstances, such as personal comfort, going without rations, cleaning up, combat leadership etc., but in the world of paper-pushing which includes running a cadet program, it can't and doesn't fly.

Leaders frequently order their subordinates to do the things which they cannot do either because of training or ability (or lack thereof).  Do you think that the Maintenance Officer who tells the mechanic to rebuild an aircraft engine is capable of doing that him/herself?  We have most Officers for a reason, they are managers, plain and simple.  They have a broad knowledge of the requirements for a task, but leave the minutae to the people who perform the task. The Officers manage the specialists and provide them with the materials and services that they need to do their job properly and efficiently.  Yes they also provide leadership, but not the kind of "Follow me!" leadership that you are refering to, but the type of leadership that makes it possible to get all of the little jobs done.  That is the reason we have specialists and managers in most of the military's jobs.  Only about 20% of all military personnel actually see combat, the rest are the guys that make sure they have planes and vehicles that run properly, get chow on time, get the guns, bullets, boots and uniforms to where they need to be.

The seniors who run cadet programs are both specialists and managers.  They navigate through the adminstrative swamp of Cadet Programs paperwork, slaying the alligators of lost, late and missing forms.  They battle the parents, squadron staff and other senior members who try to steer the program away from its intended purpose.  They manage the Cadet Officers and NCO's, specialists themselves in the ways of drill and uniforms and computer game geekdom.  They produce the events that the Cadets enjoy and struggle to maintain the balance between fun and learning. They do all this and more while appearing to the cadets as "the old guy who can't fit in a uniform or run a PT" and are judged to be poor leaders because of the toll that time has taken on their bodies.  Many of these leaders have given parts of their bodies in the service of their country and are unable to meet the uniform standard or perform PT because of that.  So now they offer their time and experience to help lead young people down a path that will make them better citizens of their community.  If you feel that their inability to meet those physical standards precludes them from being leaders, then you really don't understand leadership at all.

Quote from: Al Sayre on April 25, 2006, 07:59:06 PM
Many of the vaunted leadership "platitudes" were said during wartime and/or combat, and I agree with them in that context wholeheartedly.  The "don't ask the troops to do something you can't or won't do" applies in those limited circumstances, such as personal comfort, going without rations, cleaning up, combat leadership etc., but in the world of paper-pushing which includes running a cadet program, it can't and doesn't fly.

Leaders frequently order their subordinates to do the things which they cannot do either because of training or ability (or lack thereof).  Do you think that the Maintenance Officer who tells the mechanic to rebuild an aircraft engine is capable of doing that him/herself?  We have most Officers for a reason, they are managers, plain and simple.  They have a broad knowledge of the requirements for a task, but leave the minutae to the people who perform the task. The Officers manage the specialists and provide them with the materials and services that they need to do their job properly and efficiently.  Yes they also provide leadership, but not the kind of "Follow me!" leadership that you are refering to, but the type of leadership that makes it possible to get all of the little jobs done.  That is the reason we have specialists and managers in most of the military's jobs.  Only about 20% of all military personnel actually see combat, the rest are the guys that make sure they have planes and vehicles that run properly, get chow on time, get the guns, bullets, boots and uniforms to where they need to be.

The seniors who run cadet programs are both specialists and managers.  They navigate through the adminstrative swamp of Cadet Programs paperwork, slaying the alligators of lost, late and missing forms.  They battle the parents, squadron staff and other senior members who try to steer the program away from its intended purpose.  They manage the Cadet Officers and NCO's, specialists themselves in the ways of drill and uniforms and computer game geekdom.  They produce the events that the Cadets enjoy and struggle to maintain the balance between fun and learning. They do all this and more while appearing to the cadets as "the old guy who can't fit in a uniform or run a PT" and are judged to be poor leaders because of the toll that time has taken on their bodies.  Many of these leaders have given parts of their bodies in the service of their country and are unable to meet the uniform standard or perform PT because of that.  So now they offer their time and experience to help lead young people down a path that will make them better citizens of their community.  If you feel that their inability to meet those physical standards precludes them from being leaders, then you really don't understand leadership at all.

:clap:

Well said, sir.

During World War II, PT was a required part of the senior program. Until, someone discovered that doing PT intefered with the daily operations of the CAP units. You can't do an hour of PT and be ready to fly an early morning coastal patrol flight.  Following WW II, there was an idea to put PT back into the senior program. Until, National discovered that many of the senior members were military veterans with a degree of disability.
PT is not and has not been a part of the senior program, but it is part of the cadet program. If anyone says because cadets do it seniors working with cadets should do it has no concept of the di9fferences between senior and cadet programs. I'm not talking flying club type senior here, I'm talking about the average DCC who has more problems than any two or three other seniors combined in operating an effective cadet program. The Moral leadership officer works once a month to complete his role in the Squadron as an example. Many other senior duty assignments take less time than the DCC spends on promotion boards and paperwork. But in the existing senior program, there is no requirement for PT or any need to have such.

The one thing that I find amazing is that the Air Force doesn't use the height and weight standards for a measure of fitness. In 1992 we started the ever changing body fat percentage measurement and haven't looked back. The reason being was the fact that, like myself, body building was pushing me on to the fat boy program. My max weight was 190 and I weighed 185. Being within five pounds of my max I was harassed (and I mean harassed) by my First Shirt and Squadron Commander. When we did switch over, I was vindicated. I went off the program and never heard from them again. There are flaws in every standard that you want to hold thousands of people to. CAP standard is a very limiting standard. It is in need of review and amendments. The only problem is if we went to the true AF standard then we would have to create a new senior program track. Their job would be to monitor body fat of the seniors. So I am lifting weights again, and when I go over my max I can't wear my blues? If the AF says I can then CAP would be hard pressed to tell me I can't!!!!!!!

Quote from: mmouw on April 26, 2006, 05:34:32 PM
So I am lifting weights again, and when I go over my max I can't wear my blues? If the AF says I can then CAP would be hard pressed to tell me I can't!!!!!!!

Well sir, if the Air Force says you can, and CAP is the Auxillary of the Air Force, IMO you should be able to.

Quote from: Hammer on April 26, 2006, 06:59:21 PM

Quote from: mmouw on April 26, 2006, 05:34:32 PM
So I am lifting weights again, and when I go over my max I can't wear my blues? If the AF says I can then CAP would be hard pressed to tell me I can't!!!!!!!

Well sir, if the Air Force says you can, and CAP is the Auxillary of the Air Force, IMO you should be able to.

Until CAP changes the policy... If you are over the CAP standard Maximum Allowable Weight for your height you can not wear the Air Force style CAP uniforms.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1 ATTACHMENT 11. Senior members and cadets who are 18 and older must meet CAP weight standards in order to wear the AF-style uniform.

So I can wear the AF style uniform in the AF but not in CAP.  ??? That makes alot of sense. So I can't wear the uniform because I work out and take care of myself. WOW!!!!!!!!

Quote from: mmouw on April 26, 2006, 07:50:52 PM
So I can wear the AF style uniform in the AF but not in CAP.  ??? That makes alot of sense. So I can't wear the uniform because I work out and take care of myself. WOW!!!!!!!!

CAP has it's regulations and the AF has theirs.  Where's the confusion?

But, no, I don't think anyone would say anything to you.  After all, look at some of the others that choose to wear the AF-style uniforms...

Quote from: shorning on April 26, 2006, 08:44:39 PM

But, no, I don't think anyone would say anything to you.  After all, look at some of the others that choose to wear the AF-style uniforms...

That's true.

Quote from: mmouw on April 26, 2006, 07:50:52 PM
So I can wear the AF style uniform in the AF but not in CAP.  ??? That makes alot of sense. So I can't wear the uniform because I work out and take care of myself. WOW!!!!!!!!

If you were over CAP's height/weight standards you would probably be in the poor or marginal category on the USAF FIT program anyway.

CAP's height/weight standard where the old USAF standards plus 10% (or so).  So you would be a really big boy to be too fat for CAP.

If you lift weights, you build muscle. Muscle is more dense than fat. That is why you weigh more.  The body fat system takes measurements from your waste, neck and chest. So no you don't have to be a big guy and still be over the weight standard. That is where the grey area was. Those who look like Mr. Universe were over the weight standard, however under 15% body fat. That is why they changed their program. Now also with body building, you need cardio as well. They is a measure of what overall condition you are in. That is why the test in the AF today consists of measurements, running, and pushups/situps.

Do I look bad in uniform? No, I don't. But by being over the weight standard, I am in violation of the standard. The way a lot of you talk, it doesn't matter what violation it is if it is broken you should have a 2b filled out. CAP should also consider waivers for not just for this, but for the other odd situations that arise.

Quote from: mmouw on April 27, 2006, 01:41:45 PM

Do I look bad in uniform? No, I don't. But by being over the weight standard, I am in violation of the standard. The way a lot of you talk, it doesn't matter what violation it is if it is broken you should have a 2b filled out. CAP should also consider waivers for not just for this, but for the other odd situations that arise.

Which is why I think that if he can wear the Air Force Uniform for the Air Force, then he should be allowed to wear it for CAP as well.

Let's be honest - we're not talking about guys with tree-trunk arms that can rip phone books in half.

We're talking about guys with large package shelves who can't even buy pants that fit.

Since we don't issue uniforms, we don't have a UCMJ, and we live and die by our volunteers, we have to show some latitude and common sense.

Would I like everybody to meet the standard or be in a distinctive combo?  Yes.

But barring that, my choice is to start cranking out 2b's on the high speed copier, or work with these members to at least insure their uniforms are otherwise correct and FIT.  Also, stand up straight, and wear the correct !@#$% outerwear.

Looking good is sometimes just a matter of acknowledging where your waste really is.

Weight issues can't be fixed with a needle and a credit card, everything else can.

I also think the new distinctive combo will help this as:

A) Vanguard is going to start making larger size USAF-style pants, which will help both sides of the coin.

B) The new combo has enough mil-spec cache to satisy the wannabe and usedtobes.

Sure! I expect counter-arguments when I'm debating. But the arguments that say, "Hey, I'm a 900 year old guy who used to be a cadet back in the day... blah blah blah" doesn't really make for an argument, unless you're making an attempt at a pathos argument, which doesn't work too well for me.

************************************************************

Frankly, I find the above more than a little insulting and shows your total misunderstanding of how the body ages. Obviously, you haven't arrived at that point, and like my own daughter who "knows it all and Daddy is just this dumb old guy, blah, blah", you will only know how the mechanics of the body change once you hit forty. I am not questioning the standard and I understand the reasons for it. I previously stated that I so-o-o-o- hate the sight of a CAP officer who is 350 lbs, has a huge belly hanging over his belt, and his entire appearance is sloppy and unkempt. OTH, there are *some* officers who can exceed the standard and, so long as they aren't weighed it, you'd never know the difference. Their bearing is impeccable, their uniform is sharp, and they carry themselves with the authority that befits their position while putting the best foot forward for CAP. But regulations preclude the wear of the USAF-style uniform and, therefore, they DON'T. I am 10 lbs over the standard for my height, so I cannot wear the USAF uniform (I'm working on it).  I am large-framed, broad-shouldered, but not fat. I don't over eat. But I am over the age of 55 and those who don't know what they are talking about, such as you, sir, imply that those that can't meet this standard are just lazy, or possess some other fault or or somehow deficient and, perhaps, shouldn't even be IN CAP >:(   Witness the crack about "I'm this 900 year old guy who used to be a cadet" etc, etc.

However, many of these people WERE cadets and many of them have continued to serve CAP because they are committed to the program and wanted to contribute.  And the truly dedicated ones COMPLY with uniform regulations while they wish they COULD wear the USAF uniform. I don't even LIKE the aviator combo, but I wear it  because I must where there is *some* uniform requirement.

Retention of volunteers  requires tact and is not something one can enforce by edict.  So we must lead artfully to balance the needs of the mission and the needs of the volunteers who perform these missions. This is done at the very FIRST when a member comes in at the Level I phase. We mainly fail to fully stress the importance of uniform compliance at the outset, forgetting that many of the new members have no prior military experience. Their approach to life and "rules" is much more casual and we often overlook this. The new member simply has NO idea how important military bearing, dress, and standards ARE, and we fail to fully address the difference in CIVILIAN and MILITARY approaches to issues. We simply "buzz" over those chapters (I see it all the time) as we try to keep to our time schedule and not go past lunch!  So whose fault REALLY is it that we have issues of non-compliance?

So just you wait! ;D One of these days, you, too, will find the weight harder and harder to keep off. ;D  Some of us will remain slim and trim. Others will put on pounds, not because they are pigs at the table, but because their metabolism slows down and because of hereditary factors!   Life changes, bodies age, things no longer defy gravity, and we bulge and sag! :D
Meantime, this old boy will continue to fix radios, build antennas, manage the unit's communications needs, and advise the commander on communications policy. Sometimes I won't even WEAR a uniform depending on the setting!  (GASP!  HORRORS!)  After "900 years", even THAT gets old! ;D  But you wouldn't understand, would you! ;D  Now it's time for my mile run!  LOL!


Jerry

(one of those old has-been cadets with an unnumbered Mitchell)

Once again, writing as a chaplain who has commanded several squadrons (before becoming a chaplain), I am quite saddened to note how widespread –apparently—is the destructive attitude toward CAP members most recently espoused by Capt Bob "Eclipse" Williams.

He wrote the following regarding the issue of SMs and the h/w/grooming standards to wear the USAF uniform, "...my choice is to start cranking out 2b's on the high speed copier, or work with these members to at least insure their uniforms are otherwise correct and FIT.  Also, stand up straight, and wear the correct !@#$% outerwear."

This is just the reason we used to have an "Ethics for Command" program for SMs to mirror the Moral Leadership program for cadets.

Capt, go ahead and "whip-out" a googleplex of CAPF-2b's and bust your SMs out of the program for wearing the wrong uniform or –heaven forbid—the mortal sin of not standing up straight. Maybe we could add in some phrenelogical standards regarding "Aryan" features as well. Maybe you could "2b" folks for limping as well as slouching too.

This is absurd. Furthermore it is unethical and in a Federally funded agency like CAP (to whom Federal Non-Discrimination laws apply) it might also be illegal.

Capt, what you and others who agree with (or espouse) your myopic perspective on the membership of a volunteer organization is that your desired actions would do nothing more than render the CAP program impotent to perform any missions (except, perhaps, for enforcing Mr. Blackwell's best/worst dressed lists) by your actions. This is neither "Women's Wear Daily" nor the SS.

A 2b for a slouch—Oh come on-- what ignorance, what arrogance, what stupidity.

CAP is a volunteer organization. It does (or at least should) depend upon the collective volunteer efforts and contributions of all of its members, whether standing tall or slouching, whether marching or rolling in a wheelchair; whether USAF uni or civies. Each of these members is a patriot and is contributing to make our Nation a better place for everyone. For any SM to suggest or tolerate, let alone enforce such discriminatory practices demonstrates a near-fascist worldview to our cadets. Anyone who truly believes that one should or even conceivably COULD be 2b'd from CAP for slouching isn't morally "fit" to wear any CAP uniform and is IMHO unfit for command.

So Capt, make your copies; enforce your tyranny; model your leadership for your community's youth, and see what become of our Nation and our CAP. Can you say "smoking hole in the ground?"

I just pray that you come to your senses and put away the xerographic paper and start acting like an officer and a gentleman instead of a bigot. Lead don't discrimate.

Friends, is this what we want CAP to become (or apparently in the Palwaukee Composite Squadron already is)? No uniform "beauty-contest" is worth losing members over. But it may demonstrate that there are some intolerant members and even commanders who need to grow up.

For my $0.02, if I am the unfortunate victim of a crash and I am slowly dying from my injuries in the wilderness somewhere (and awaiting CAP to find/save me), I couldn't care less what uniform –if any—my rescuers wore from a USAF Messy Dress to the field uniform of the Lithuanian Girl Scouts ... just find me ... just save my life.

Brothers and sisters, this isn't just a harmless academic discussion CAP/USAF uniform regulations and practices. It is a life and/or death SERIOUS operational issue. No life is worth a slouch. No life is worth an intolerant enforcement of a clothing regulation. We need to value our members and their contributions over and beyond the value of the paper our regs and manuals are printed from. People should come first.

Chaplain, read what I wrote, not what you THINK I wrote, and if you feel you need to make some point regarding your lack of love for uniform regs, at least quote the whole line, not just what you think supports your argument.

What I SAID was:

"Would I like everybody to meet the standard or be in a distinctive combo?  Yes.

But barring that, my choice is to start cranking out 2b's on the high speed copier, or work with these members to at least insure their uniforms are otherwise correct and FIT.  Also, stand up straight, and wear the correct !@#$% outerwear."

The word "OR" is very important in that sentence.

Now, what I am saddened by is how oblivious many of our members are to how counterproductive poor uniform wear is.  And you know what, if I have significantly overweight members who both insist on wearing USAF blue AND can't even take the time to get pants that really fit, stand up stright, or use a ruler for their nameplate.
Maybe a 2b is the right choice - because they sure don't get it.

There is, in reality, NO PASS.  If you can't wear it right, wear a golf shirt.

Beyond that, please read my whole post before taking me to task for poor leadership and Command Ethics.

This is what happens when we let regulations do our thinking for us

As long as you wrote [and you did] and stand by your statement regarding a "choice to start cranking out 2b's on the high speed copier," I stand by my criticism of it.

You just don't get it, leadership takes more than a CAPF-2b and a Kinkos.

BTW, a follow-up thought ...

If an active-duty Airman (who is compliant with USAF uniform regs) cannot meet CAP uniform standards for the wear of the same uniform (albeit with those loverly "hungry-hungry-hippo"-Gray epaulets) something is really wrong somewhere.

Quote from: smj58501 on April 27, 2006, 04:49:18 PM
This is what happens when we let regulations do our thinking for us

OK - let's walk down that road.  You're a Safety Officer.  Do you get to PICK which regs you follow?

And if a member lawn-darts and airplane, is found to be in blues, overweight, and therefore out of uniform, and some corporate insurance lawyer decides, therefore, that he was not qualified to fly, so no FECA, NO FTCA, and maybe he gets personally sued for the airframe and other damages with no USAF / corporate support.

Who's fault and problem is it then?  How important does keeping that member lok now?

Which regs are important?  Reflective vests but not headgear?  Outerwear but not weight or insignia placement?  

As a CC I have the responsibility to get people to understand the issue, and work to protect them and the organization.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on April 27, 2006, 04:55:27 PM
BTW, a follow-up thought ...

If an active-duty Airman (who is compliant with USAF uniform regs) cannot meet CAP uniform standards for the wear of the same uniform (albeit with those loverly "hungry-hungry-hippo"-Gray epaulets) something is really wrong somewhere.

Take it up w/ NHQ.

Regardless of which regs might be HYPOTHETICALLY violated, I would not gleefully seek to 2b anyone. It would be my absolute final move, after having axhausted all intermediate remedies.

For the record, having been a Sqdn/CC for a total of nearly 10 years (and in CAP for nearly 25), I have NEVER HAD to (or certainly CHOSE to) use a CAPF-2b, let alone contemplate the need for a high-speed photocopier to process them. Perhaps you have far more turmoil in your unit than I did in mine. Maybe thats misfortune; maybe it is poor leadership.

I do not excuse violations of regulations, but have yet to have been forced to 2b someone for a violation. There are options. Leadership, mentoring, and coaching are three options that come to mind. For the record, I would resign my command and, if needed my membership before I would of my own volition or be bullied/ordered to 2b ANYONE for a simple uniform violation. 

Furthermore, you need to remove petty and potentially biggoted comments from your posts (i.e. polemics against people/members who for one reason or another don't "stand up straight" [enough to meet your standards]). As I said such discriminatory actions could be actionable or even illegal.

Learn to lead and stop implying/stating by your ill-chosen rhetoric that your captian's bars are the "tracks" to "railroad" members out of CAP who aren't as perfect as you obviously must be.

As Jesus Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He didn't stone the woman in the Bible and I believe Him to be perfect whereas I, nor anyone else I've met in CAP --or in the world-- is perfect. But maybe you're the exception.

Understood.

From now on I will set the bar as low as possible to insure I never offend, insult, or make a another Senior member cry.

I will use my Command Ethics to insure everyone is happy, regardless of how it effects
the overall organization. 

I will encourage membership for EVERYONE, regardless of abilities, available time, or inclination to follow the rules.

Prefer the berets they wear in the army? Cool.

50lbs over but you used to be a cadet?  Fine. In fact just wear your old cadet pants.
Who am I to make an issue.

I will also make sure to complain loudly when we don't get respect from sister services, and other ES agencies.  Also, when those same agencies refuse to work with us?
Even more bellyaching!  Because, well, they just should, regardless of our behaviour or appearance.

Cadets calling us seamtesters and GOB's?  Do as I say, not as I do!  That's my new motto!

Oh, wait.  That's what most of the country is doing already!  Its about time I got in line.


“It is absurd to believe that soldiers who cannot be made to wear the proper uniform can be induced to move forward in battle. Officers who fail to perform their duty by correcting small violations and in enforcing proper conduct are incapable of leading.”

-“You cannot be disciplined in great things and indiscipline in small things. Brave undisciplined men have no chance against the discipline and valour of other men. Have you ever seen a few policemen handle a crowd?”
General George S. Patton Jr.

This conversation is getting up there towards a 25... a much more relaxed 4 or so will do just fine.  Let's bring it down a notch or two please.  :)

Thanks.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 27, 2006, 04:56:04 PM

Quote from: smj58501 on April 27, 2006, 04:49:18 PM
This is what happens when we let regulations do our thinking for us

OK - let's walk down that road.  You're a Safety Officer.  Do you get to PICK which regs you follow?

Yes.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 27, 2006, 04:56:04 PMAnd if a member lawn-darts and airplane, is found to be in blues, overweight, and therefore out of uniform, and some corporate insurance lawyer decides, therefore, that he was not qualified to fly, so no FECA, NO FTCA, and maybe he gets personally sued for the airframe and other damages with no USAF / corporate support.

Who's fault and problem is it then?  How important does keeping that member lok now?

You are not out of uniform if you are overweight.  So try another scenario.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 27, 2006, 04:56:04 PMWhich regs are important?  Reflective vests but not headgear?  Outerwear but not weight or insignia placement?

That is the million dollar question.  Which regs are important?  Which will cost someone their lives, which will cost us some image points with the USAF?  Which will keep us from getting sued?  This why we have commanders and commander appoint their staff.  To advise them on the relevant regulations and then the commander makes the decision.

You cannot be a slave to the regulations.  If it were that easy then they would not need commanders at all.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2006, 10:37:22 PM
You are not out of uniform if you are overweight.  So try another scenario.

You are if you are wearing a USAF-Style uniform, which is the point of this thread.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 27, 2006, 10:47:41 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2006, 10:37:22 PM
You are not out of uniform if you are overweight.  So try another scenario.

You are if you are wearing a USAF-Style uniform, which is the point of this thread.

Well, we are talking somatic now...but you would be out of regs....NOT out of uniform.

Question:

Would you be denied insurance coverage if you were wearing the wrong patch on your uniform?

How about if you were wearing the wrong color T-shirt or a T-shirt that had a non-regulation logo on it?

Answer:

Of course not....so....they would not deny you coverage just because you are over weight.

The only reason why we have weight restrictions in USAF uniforms is because the USAF does not want the public to think that there a bunch of fatties IN THE AIR FORCE!  The are worried that the public would not know the difference between CAP and the Air Force.

And Bob...the point of this thread was supposed to be....could a commander require his SM's to weigh in.

The answer is of course YES.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2006, 10:37:22 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 27, 2006, 04:56:04 PM

Quote from: smj58501 on April 27, 2006, 04:49:18 PM
This is what happens when we let regulations do our thinking for us

OK - let's walk down that road.  You're a Safety Officer.  Do you get to PICK which regs you follow?

Yes.

Wrong. Regs are rules. You want to play in CAP, you follow their rules, whether you like them or not. Honestly, how well does this travel over to the civillian world? Obey rules only if they make sense to you? Is that what the teach you in the military? If you don't like a rule, just ignore it? Jeezum crowe...

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2006, 10:37:22 PM
You cannot be a slave to the regulations.  If it were that easy then they would not need commanders at all.

You wouldn't need the regs in that scenario either, would you? ::)

....Is that what the teach you in the military? If you don't like a rule, just ignore it? Jeezum crowe...


They teach us as leaders in the military that regulations are for the guidance of commanders. They also teach us to recognize the purpose and intent of the regulation, and apply them in the spirit they were intended. In short, they expect us to use the brains and common sense God gave us and be leaders vs. regurgitators of "the book". Do we read "the book"... yes. Do we apply it in the vast majority of instances.... yes. Do we have a very good reason to deviate from it when we do, and can we pass the red face test.... yes. Do we understand some people may be upset if we don't follow the rules to the letter.... yes. Does it bother us.... no. Why, because as GEN (R) Colin Powell has said, leadership means sometimes you have to piss people off.

Are we bound by the book.... no. Why?? Because leaders realize that blindly following the book is just as dangerous as having no regard for it.

One of my great frustrations as a chaplain is with the foundations of the Moral Leadership program. What frustrates me is that we usually do not provide any instruction in ethics (morals and ethics mean exactly the same thing, one is just from Latin and the other from Greek). Furthermore, almost none of our non-clergy MLOs have any academic training in ethics/morals in advance of "leading" MLs.

The discussion about enforcing rules (and/or mandatory weigh-ins, etc.) is fundamentally an ethics discussion.

Follows is Ethics 101:

Ethics simply refer to the use of rational, deliberate, processes in making decisions. It's the opposite of flipping a coin. Good ethical decision-making is usually founded in a person's "stance" on a given issue. This stance serves as "magnetic north" in their moral "compass;" it's a fixed datum that helps that person navigate the maze of complex decisions each of us must negotiate in our lives. There are basically three (3) generic stances in formal ethics, rules, goals and virtues.

Rules as a stance for decision-making in CAP –or our broader life journeys—is called DEONTOLOGICAL ethics. If the speed limit says 35 mph, a deontological-stanced decision would direct its adherents to stay below 35 mph regardless of the situation. You do not drive 36mph even if your child is bleeding to death in the backseat and your car is the only way to reach help. In CAP, the Regs would be the final authority in any situation –PERIOD—no discussion. If you break a rule (even technically ... i.e. the USAF Airman who meets USAF standards to wear the USAF uniform BUT due to muscle-bulk is outside the letter of CAPM 39-1 h/w standards to wear essentially the same uniform in the CAP), you are (or should be) punished. Punishment, likewise would adhere to the "book" defining possible sanctions.

A deontological decision-making stance can be badly corrupted too; just look at the Nazi defense at Nuremberg, "I was just following orders." It would hold that Rosa Parks was due punishment for violating the 1950's-era law mandating African-Americans to sit at the back of a public transit bus. Likewise, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was due the death he was given for standing against Nazi-enacted (however codified) law requiring his preaching to adhere to the corrupt teaching of the Nazi church in 1940's Germany. Disgustingly, the SS/SA storm troopers considered themselves similarly justified in genocide because the "law of the land" (or at least the orders of their superiors) mandated it.

In short, a deontological stance might look good as one's "magnetic north," but can be easily corrupted to lead one astray.

The second generic stance is TELEOLOGICAL ethics. This is being goals oriented; goals focused. My moral compass is guided by the need to accomplish the mission. If I need to save a life and the weather is below VFR minimums, a teleological stanced IC might order a crew to launch anyway. A cadet whose goal is to be a Spaatz recipient by 14 might be more aggressive in testing and encampment attendance than another.

Teleological thinking can be badly corrupted too. In order to obtain useful military information, a teleological stanced intel operator might deem torture as a legitimate method of gleaning that info. Gen. Patton, to achieve a basically meaningless (IMHO) goal of reaching Messina before FM Montgomery, put troops in far greater peril than was necessary. Not to forget physically assaulting a combat stress victim – perhaps in hopes of "motivating" him back into combat. But the goal was important. Read Machiavelli's "The Prince." It espouses and "ends justify the means" strategy, as does Dr. Seuss' "Yertle the Turtle." If I want my Spaatz by 14, I cannot fail this test tonight so cheating on it could be seen as justified.

Just like deontological ethics, teleological one's can also lead someone astray.

I prefer ARETOLOGICAL ethics; it is VIRTUES-based. It asks a simple question, "what kind of a [CAP Member, husband, student, etc.] would I be if I did this versus doing that?" What kind of CAP member would I be if cheated on my Aerospace test, or my CAPF-5 checkride? What kind of a commander would I be if I 2b'd a member for a uniform violation? What kind of an IC would I be if I permitted excessive time to be wasted completing mountainous pre-sortie paperwork, only to learn that the victim expired during this delay? And so forth ...

I suggest that although we do –usefully and positively—engage both goals and rules in our personal and corporate ethics, a moral compass based upon virtues is the overall best way to go.

As we look at adding or subtracting regulations (weigh-ins, PT, uniform standards, whatever), let's ask "what kind of a CAP would we have if we all did this or that?" That raises the dialog above our own personal pettiness and interests and ennobles the whole discussion.

Will there ever be a time when violating (at least the "letter of the law") of a CAPR ever be justified, that's for each individual to decide –individual/situational ethics—but I hope that we would use the virtuous route in determining the answer.

Let's be thoughtful and circumspect in all of our CAP decision-making and rely on what President Lincoln called, "The better angels of our nature" in the process.

Shalom.

Ahem,  ;)  This kind of reminds me of a story from before we HAD  weigh-ins and governing regulations, AND I could easily fit into my uniforms at 168 lbs.
We had an annual evaluated SAR up in Raleigh, and it was a long drive from my home. Even the interstates were not finished in those days!  :D
So on Friday evening we all gathered at the unit commander's house to "convoy" up to Raleigh--one field kitchen truck, generator(s), support pickup, and a Dodge communications van.  Everything went wrong from that point!  We que'd up and started out. From the time the Field kitchen truck turned the corner, it was the LAST time I saw it until I pulled into the mission base after midnight--or any OTHER CAP vehicle for that matter. Due to traffic and a bee that invited himself along, I and one cadet were alone. So we drove up the road that I "assumed" we would take (the one I always took from the Charlotte area to Raleigh, and when I arrived we endured the usual recriminations about---------------

"WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?"

"WHY DID YOU LEAVE US BEHIND?"

"BUT I THOUGHT YOU WERE WITH.........................?

WHERE IS THE COMM VAN?"

"DUNNO, I THOUGHT HE WAS WITH YOU!!"

Then we settled down to checking the equipment for the night and discovered that the generator that was to run the field kitchen wouldn't start! >:(  Tired and a bit grumpy, we began to work on the genny.  And it turned to an all night deal. Blamed thing ran fine back at home, but after the trip, not a lick! ???  Grumpier still!

Trash in the carburetor, requiring almost a complete tear-down due to the way the thing was designed.  So dawn arrived and the generator was purring away.  The reason we put all the effort in it was 1) it was our food for the weekend, and 2) USAF was putting a lot of emphasis on equipment that year. If you had equipment that was "junk"--and there was a LOT of that back in 1970---or stuff at the SAR that wouldn't work, we'd be downgraded.  SO!   Tired after an all night ordeal,  greasy from head to foot, and a bit rumpled, I started across the tarmac to wash up and change into a fresh uniform prior to formation and briefing.  And the WORST possible thing that I could have happen at that time happened!

You see, even then there were, "uniform compliance officers" or "Personnel Officers" that were in charge of such matters, and I was about to run into the worst of the worst of these, a Capt. XXXXXX and this lady took herself and her job WAAAAAY too seriously.  Give her a job, and she thought she was Jehovah complete with fire and brimstone! I had seen this lady in action before and I was about to encounter this nightmare, this witch spelled with a capital "B"!! 

"Oh crap", I muttered, gritting my teeth. I tried to avoid her and she actually SIDESTEPPED to ensure our collision course! So when we drew near and I pretended to ignore her (as if one couldn't know what she was after).....................................................

"LIEUTENANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  HALT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I stopped at attention while this dragon lady glared at me for a moment in almost hatred. *I* gritted my teeth and I was in NO mood for this (censored).

'FRANKLY, LIEUTENANT," SHE ALMOST SCREAMED AT ME, "YOU ARE OUT OF UNIFORM AND A DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Then I glared back and said,  "AND , FRANKLY CAPTAIN, *I* AM OUT OF SLEEP, OUT OF TIME, OUT OF PATIENCE, AND MOREOVER, I DON'T REALLY GIVE A (CENSORED) RIGHT NOW."


"WHAAAAAAT DID YOU SAY TO ME?"


"YOU HEARD EVERY WORD!!!! WHILE  PRISSY LITTLE SELF-IMPORTANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU WERE SLEEPING IN YOUR COZY MOTELS AND SIPPING YOUR DAINTY BREAKFAST COFFEE,  PEOPLE LIKE ME WERE DRIVING 200 MILES, AND WERE OUT HERE TO GET EQUIPMENT WORKING!! IT TAKES MORE THAN CRACKERJACK CAPTAINS PRANCING AROUND TRYING TO LOOK IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE MISSION GO. *THAT'S WHY I AM GREASY. *THAT'S* WHY I AM RUMPLED. SO LEAVE ME ALONE!"

"WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE'LL JUST SEE ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!," SHE HISSED, "ILL HAVE YOU UP ON INSUBORDINATION CHARGES!"  :D  )

I went on and retrieved my OD's and went into the bathroom. Sure enough, it wasn't long until I was summoned to the MC's trailer. This little
witch with the capital B was standing there tapping her foot just knowing that that little smart--- Lt was gonna get his, yessiree!!

"So what happened, Lt?"

So I explained that I haddriven 3 hours, been up all night, worked on equipment until dawn, had had NO sleep, and this, this firebreathing dragon had jumped on me before I could even go clean up!

His face turned from stern warning to a gradual lightening like the dawn that had recently crept over the hills and valleys.  When I finished, the Col was smiling--almost chuckling out loud while the dragon lady looked on in horror that her "I'm gonna tell the teacher" tirade was rapidly falling apart.

"Jerry", he waved me away, "Get outta here! I knew there had to be more to it than that!"

Captain XXXX  merely said in indignation, "OH"!!  And marched out the door.

So what's the point?  Only that people often take CAP and themselves WAAAY too seriously! It ain't the Army, it ain't the Air Force, and  WE aren't that important. I've seen PLENTY of people like that wanna-be "officer" that acted that way.  So it's about time for a chill pill on this subject. And even that 1970 incident turned out all right! Years later, this lady had left CAP then rejoined. I was on Wing Staff and she was STILL a Captain. So was I! But she had mellowed------a LOT!  And she recalled the incident and mentioned how SILLY she had been in those days. And I received an opology for a forgotten incident. Like I said, I will still continue to serve, continue to wear the aviator suit that I don't like (until I can lose those pounds that make me look gaunt in the face) and still offer the commander the benefit of long years of service and communications experience. To *some* people, that means something--at least in this Wing it does! ;)

Quote from: Nathan on April 28, 2006, 01:54:59 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2006, 10:37:22 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 27, 2006, 04:56:04 PM

Quote from: smj58501 on April 27, 2006, 04:49:18 PM
This is what happens when we let regulations do our thinking for us

OK - let's walk down that road.  You're a Safety Officer.  Do you get to PICK which regs you follow?

Yes.

Wrong. Regs are rules. You want to play in CAP, you follow their rules, whether you like them or not. Honestly, how well does this travel over to the civilian world? Obey rules only if they make sense to you? Is that what the teach you in the military? If you don't like a rule, just ignore it? Jeezum crowe...

Yes Nathan...that is exactly what they teach us in the military.  I would not tell you other wise.  When you get 20 years experience working with the real military and see how they use the regulations (actually instructions but I digress) you will understand what I am saying.


What do you do when you have two different instructions/regulations that contradict each other?  What do you do if a regulation does not allow you to do something that you MUST do to compete the mission?

Do you think just because the Safety regs says every Airman has the right to refuse to do something he feels is unsafe, that there are always followed?  Heck NO!  I cannot count the number of times we had to go to the commander/leader and say we cannot do something because if violated a regulation or policy and he said to do it anyway.

It happens everyday, and it is expected to happen.  It is why we have commanders and SNCOs.  Our job is to get the mission done.  We have to wade through literally hundreds of regulations, technical orders, policy letters and operating instructions.  Often we have to violate those reg and we do it knowing we are violating them.  We violate them on purpose for the purpose of completing the mission.

As the chaplain said.  Leadership in the Air Force is a balance between three ethical stances.  We have the rules, the goal and the virtue.  We pay Officers and SNCOs lots of money (and if you believe that I got a bridge for sale ;D) to make it work.  We stress the mission and the spirit of the regs over the letter of the law, but you are graded on how well you follow the regs (crossing the I's and Dotting the T's).

Once you go through a couple of ORIs or UCIs you will understand the old maxim "No combat ready unit ever passed inspection and no inspection ready unit is ready to deploy to combat".

I just got back from ILWG Spring Enc, with limited time and bandwidth for board participation, and I see that this thread has taken a life of its own, and I apologize if I am repeating an already made point.

This is easy, leave the command ethics, poor leadership allegations, and nonsense about screwing up the program at the door.

Being out of uniform, whether literally (as in civvies), or in violation of a 39-1 and related documents, puts the member and the organization at risk.

Why would / should any commander allow that to occur simply to pacify an overweight member, when a $17 golf shirt solves the problem in 80%+ of the circumstances? To avoid hurting the members feelings?

How self-centered, egotistical, and self-esteem challenged do our members have to be before we as commanders say enough?

We are talking about ADULTS.  Who joined a SERVICE organization which has RULES.
Following the rules provides opportunities that no other organization can touch.  Despite the opinion of many of our members, regulations are not an ala carte menu.

And what is even more disappointing is how knee-jerk reactionary many of our members are.  When I suggested that if the overweight ones would just buy pants that fit properly half the cosmetic issue of professional image would go away, even THAT was too much to ask.

Bottom line, there is no requirement to wear a USAF Style uniform.  PERIOD.  If you choose to exercise the PRIVILEGE of wearing that uniform, wear it 100% correctly,
or leave it on the hanger.

As to Capt Bob's bizzare recommendation that we, " ... leave the command ethics, poor leadership allegations, and nonsense about screwing up the program at the door," I have two words to say to any actual or wannabe military organization or (so-called) leader that takes his advice  especially the part about "leav[ing] the command ethics ... at the door" (which is in itself a teleological stance, BTW)-- Abu Gharaib.

Adios.

It took me twice through to catch the heavy sarcasm in Bob's post. It probably could have been wordrd better, but I think the point was valid.

If I got it right, the dig was at the lack of command ethics that exists in some units that allows poor conditions to exist.

Right, Bob?

Yes, exactly.

This all started because my desire to raise the bar is being accused as being a lack of flexibility, command ethics, and will wreck the program. Plus I never said I was doing weigh-ins, or even in favor of it.

But you have to did pretty far back to where my posts were initially misread and a topic which should be about why we can't get members to follow simple rules (i.e. 39-1), and whether commanders should take steps to enforce the rules (i.e. weigh ins)
was appropriate.

I have no idea how you can reasonably interpret a commander asking a member to "step up" as no command ethics, leadership ability, etc.

EDIT - ADDED

And whether or not WE are military is not the issue.  A military service has granted us the PRIVILEGE of wearing THEIR uniform, ONLY if we follow ALL of THEIR rules.  Looks simple to me.

Sooooooo...

I didn't read through EVERY post in this thread, but do any units actually perform weight checks of their senior members? I'd like to know as I am still 3 pounds over the limit for the green uniforms.

--Nomex

Not that I've seen, but we rely on the Integrity of the member.  We would call it if it was obvious that you were over the line.  Would you allow a cadet or other person to "fudge" about where they were, or "cheat" only a "tiny, insignificant" amount on a test?

I hope that helps. ;)

Well when the leadership of the organization are violating the regs.......what do people expect.  The whole "do as I say not as I do" is getting old in CAP.  I think the weight standards should be even further relaxed, but that is me.  However when a person can't button their BDU top and it is an XL, and they are protruding 12 inches past the top of the pants........ :-\

It really is a simple solution to solve...during the level 1 training you bring up the different uniforms and say - to wear these you need to meet these standards.  It's an indirect way to say, "I'm not going to call you out on it during training, so here are the standards, you know if you don't meet them, go get a uniform."

Usually people are too afraid to say anything about peoples weight, so it never comes up, and if it does it's usually after they have purchased a uniform they technically can't wear.

Its a whole lot better than saying, "Hey, noticed you've got a few extra pounds, mind stepping on the scale?"

Thats what the Honor system is for.  I was talking about the 5'2", 250 lb member in Blues.  That's an exaggeration, but the point is still the same. 

If we expect our cadets to follow the rules we should too.  Just because some superiors don't, that is no excuse for you to do it either.

When I was at one of my first meetings before joining, one of the LTs took me aside (since I had a goatee and am a bit chubby) and told me about the weight regs (which he was sensitive to as he doesn't meet them). He showed me the weight table and I found out I had to lose about 10 pounds. So, 4 weeks and a crash diet later, I'm 3 lbs below the reg and clean shaven. I actually started a program to get down to the AF reg, as opposed to the CAP reg.

For me, being able to wear the AF style uniform is very important, so I did what I needed to do. LT handled it well, and I was not offended. Once I finish Level One and CPPT, I'm ordering my BDUs and will wear them with pride.

Personally, I'd love a little PT. After watching both my father and mother-in-law get bypasses this spring, my desk-job induced lard-butt has to go. I plan on joining in with the cadets when allowable to get in better shape.

^HOO-RAH!

I think there have certainly been some noteworthy statements.  It is not so much the weight standards that I think is the problem, it is those who violate the weight standards that wear the AF uniform.  All that is required is just wear a CAP distinctive uniform.  No weigh-ins, no harassment.  I do think it is the commander's job to step in if their folks decide to wear AF style uniforms.  Allowing those out of regulations to wear AF style uniforms especially at major events just discredits us to the Air Force, and doesn't set a good standard for our cadets. 

Adam

There is a difference between the regulation itself and monitoring compliance with that reg.

For example, the regs tell us that there need to be two seniors at an overnight cadet activity.  The regs do not say "the Squadron Commander must personally inspect each overnight activity during the night to ensure two seniors are physically present."

The regs tell pilots to do a passenger briefing.  The regs do not mandate that the commander question the passengers afterwards to make sure the pilot did his job.

In both cases above, the leadership always has the option of inspecting.  You CAN show up in the middle of the night to check on seniors, and you CAN show up at the ramp to see if the pilot really did his weight and balance.  But you don't HAVE to.

But commander who suspects that  there is a problem can do so. Obviously, there's a hassle factor involved.  Plus, it can torque people off.

Weight is the same way.  You need to make sure everyone knows the rules.  You aren't required to do weigh ins.  But if you feel someone is over the limit, it would be within your rights to have them prove that they're "legal" to wear the USAF suit.

Because, after all, this isn't really about weight - it's about appearance.  USAF doesn't really care about the number on the scale - they care about our members looking reasonably similar to their own members when we wear the same suit. 

So if someone looks like they are above CAP weight standards, it's probably time for a commander to get involved.  Otherwise, probably not worth the hassle.

(Of course, this all assumes the commander understands the reg and actually cares whether or not it is complied with.  We all know CAP doesn't always provide us with those kind of commanders."

As one of the few commanders who has actually conducted a mandatory weigh-in, let me share our experiences.

I am the activity director for a high-profile NCSA, and saw a problem at another NCSA last year.  At that activity, an >18 member appeared with only USAF-style uniforms and was 25+ lbs outside the allowable weight, and did not have the funds to purchase a coporate-style uniform (which are not cheap, BTW).

IOW, that member arrived at the activity as a sort of fait accompli, unable to wear their uniform and with no alternatives available.  It was a . . . problem.

So for my activity, I resolved to prevent the problem while doing my best to maintain the dignity of all our members.

1.  The fact that there would be a weigh-in was publicized well ahead of the activity, along with the information that all members were welcome regardless of size, and this was just a matter of ensuring that everyone was wearing the appropriate uniform.

2.  Everyone 18 and older who wanted to wear the USAF-style uniforms was weighed, starting with me.  Cadets under 18, and members who chose to wear only corporate-style uniforms were not weighed.

3.  Each weigh-in was done privately, with only me (or a designated female senior) and the member present.  The scale was calibrated in the presence of the member.

4.  We had a copy of the 39-1 available for reference.

5.  An allowance was given for the weight of clothing worn.


Overall, after some initial concern that was raised after the first announcement, the process went well.  One member did not meet the standards for wearing the USAF-style uniforms, and was taken to a local mall to purchase corporate uniform components (shirt, slacks, blazer.)  I had taken the precaution have having several sets of blazer uniform insignia available (although the nameplate did not have the member's name.)

The feedback from the members was positive, with the exception of the member who had to wear the corporate uniform.  He/she indicated that the local commanders -- including the home wing commander -- were aware of the situation and had always been "OK" with the member wearing the USAF-style uniform despite being outside the allowable weight range.

I would welcome any suggestions as to how to improve our process for next year.

Ned Lee

I think you did the right thing by enforcing the standards.  Besides, the member could indicate whatever he wanted, but it doesn't mean that it was right.

Quote from: Ned on August 17, 2007, 07:05:32 PM
He/she indicated that the local commanders -- including the home wing commander -- were aware of the situation and had always been "OK" with the member wearing the USAF-style uniform despite being outside the allowable weight range.

Ned Lee

No excuses.  This guy was passing his dishonesty and knowing violation of the rules on others.  I hate that!  I say require a mandatory weigh in no more than 2 weeks from the start of the activity by the participants SQD commander.  Have them fill out a form stating "As SQD commander I have verified that "john doe" has weighed in at (insert weight) with an allowable weight of (insert weight).  He meets/does not meet standards.  Then you don't have to weigh people in, except for those that are visibly "too heavy" but has a form saying they meet requirements.

Quote from: Walkman on August 15, 2007, 10:46:27 PM
When I was at one of my first meetings before joining, one of the LTs took me aside (since I had a goatee and am a bit chubby) and told me about the weight regs (which he was sensitive to as he doesn't meet them). He showed me the weight table and I found out I had to lose about 10 pounds. So, 4 weeks and a crash diet later, I'm 3 lbs below the reg and clean shaven. I actually started a program to get down to the AF reg, as opposed to the CAP reg.

For me, being able to wear the AF style uniform is very important, so I did what I needed to do. LT handled it well, and I was not offended. Once I finish Level One and CPPT, I'm ordering my BDUs and will wear them with pride.

Personally, I'd love a little PT. After watching both my father and mother-in-law get bypasses this spring, my desk-job induced lard-butt has to go. I plan on joining in with the cadets when allowable to get in better shape.

Good for you, keep it up.

When I first joined and found out about the weight standards, I was probably 15 pounds overweight.  I started dieting and PT for two reasons, I wanted to wear the AF uniform, and I was going to be around cadets and wanted to be able to "hang" with them during PT and hikes.  That was back in 1999.  I'm still wearing the AF style uniforms mostly, but have found that there are advantages to wearing a corporate uniform on occasions.  I'm still within the standards, but now I PT so I can go any where and do anything I want and not have my physical condition prevent me from performing.

Congrats to all who have found the motivation to make a change, as difficult as that is.

At the NB meeting in Atlanta there were many outstanding examples of CAPs finest in attendance.  (The new corporate threads actually make a fine looking uniform.)  However, there were also some absolute embarrassments on display.  I don't mean a few extra pounds I mean massive belt over-hanging can't look down and see the feet massive.

Perhaps the developing Health Services track can start to address some of these issues with a definitive program of some sort.  Maybe even mandatory.

Major Carrales could have done a recruiting poster, a fine figure of an officer.  He even looks good with that hat!

Major Carrales for CAP Posterboy!

Wigh-ins must be done to ensure that only authorized uniforms are worn by senior members.

It is in line with our regulations, spirit, identity and history. We must not allow the USAF style uniform to be tarnished or risk losing our relationship with the uniform. We must not allow members to constantly and consistently bend and shape rules and regulations of our organization to fit their lifestyles, whatever they may be. We are an volunteer organization, not a bunch of volunteers. We are one! We must dress as one.

That said, the only reason why you can have weigh-ins is to make sure that those who wear the USAF uniform are authorized to do so. It is a good idea to offer a weigh-ins to new members if they voice that they choose to wear the USAF style uniform. It is also a good idea to do it if you know the member is out of uniform due to past weight gain. The member will not be upset by the action if they are within the proper limits for that uniform. The member will only be upset if they understand they've screwed up and don't want to deal with the consequences.

Please remind the members that there is an alternate corporate uniform and that the only difference is a shirt and epaulets. The rest of the uniform is the same.

If you're consistent with following through with manuals and regulations your members will respect you as someone with integrity and they will understand you to be someone who is fair and impartial, something I think we often lack in our service.

Don't be afraid to be strict. Just don't be afraid to use compassion when needed too. Allowing a member to wear the wrong uniform isn't compassion, it's appeasement and that doesn't lead to anything good long-term.