CAP Talk

It seems to me that with the development of the corporate service uniform there is no longer a need for the gray slacks/white aviator shirt uniform.  They seem to be redundant.  Without the coat, the blue slacks and white shirt would seem to fill the same semi-formal office uniform niche as teh gray slacks/white shirt uniform. 

So, why not just eliminate this uniform alternative? 

I vote to can it....that is assuming we change the rules about grooming standards in the new corporate uniform.

I voted yes, but we have to be aware of the grooming issues for hair and beards.

I vote to can it with the same caveats about grooming standards.

Well shoot, I forgot about the CSU grooming rules.  Since those are CAP rules that aren't imposed by the AF, we should be able to drop them.  I think the advantages of eliminating a uniform option would be obvious, but this is CAP after all. 

Ditto...I voted to get rid of the gray/white combo, but they HAVE get rid of the grooming standards on the CSU. We'll all look more uniform and everyone still gets to be fuzzy whenever they want to too ;D

My biggest concern is that I can buy gray slacks almost anywhere and that is also what we wear with the polo shirt.  Blue pants are a little harder to come by.  I hate to buy from Vanguard, as I can't try them on for sizing.  

Vanguard would be thrilled to have it banned, more business buying the alternative. If cost savings is the goal we could all wear business suits with CAP lapel pins!

I've never felt the need to order a corporate uniform or the Air Force uniform. The Grey slacks, polo shirt, white shirt and blazer suit me just fine. Some new members already own a pair of grey slacks and blazer or can find one cheaper than the Corporate or Air Force uniforms. Those who want to wear something else are welcome to it just don't reduce my options.  

Quote from: capchiro on March 23, 2009, 09:12:12 PM
My biggest concern is that I can buy gray slacks almost anywhere and that is also what we wear with the polo shirt.  Blue pants are a little harder to come by.  I hate to buy from Vanguard, as I can't try them on for sizing.  

AAFES is my vendor of choice for standard USAF uniform items, though granted the larger sizes are not available there.

The points about the whites are salient.  I've always believed that the whole point of them was to utilize existing clothing that members may already own, and/or leverage standard commercial sources.

Drop the gray pants altogether.  Let the Polo shirt be worn with the blue AF pants.

Or Not!!

My beef is that the AF blue pants need to be dry cleaned. I wear gray because they can be washed at home. I never wear hats, so the no cover required is okay with me as well.

Personally, I couldnt care less which one of these two uniforms that we go with as an alternative, I just don't think we need two of them.  So, since the CSU is brand new and many members have spent a lot of money on it, I really don't see us getting rid of it, so that makes the gray slacks/white shirt vulnerable in my book. 

My problem with the grays is that they're just butt-ugly.  To me it just looks washed out - no color.  Give the grays a five year wear-out date along with beards and long hair.  That'll give the fuzzies five years to figure out how much more their beards mean to them than their CAP membership. That's about what it's all about IMO.

Anyone can shave, meeting physical requirements is a bit more problematic.

Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on March 23, 2009, 09:37:55 PM
Drop the gray pants altogether.  Let the Polo shirt be worn with the blue AF pants.

Or Not!!

That just wouldn't look right, and it's not really an appropirate mix. If you're gonna buy the pants, buy the rest of it too.

Quote from: EMT-83 on March 23, 2009, 09:43:20 PM
My beef is that the AF blue pants need to be dry cleaned. I wear gray because they can be washed at home. ....

While I was active Air Force, there was an all polyester set of pants available that could be machine washed. They were not authorized for wear with the service coat, but were encouraged for people that wore blues short of service dress regularly. Are those no longer available? If I was wearing alternates, I'd certainly grab a set of those.

As to wear with the polo, I say we should allow khaki's. I worked a job where the "uniform" was a navy blue polo identical to ours, and we had to wear khaki pants with it. It looked pretty good. How many people here don't have some kind of khakis? Plus, they're cheap. You can get some at Wally World for $10 or less.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 23, 2009, 10:12:10 PM
Personally, I couldnt care less which one of these two uniforms that we go with as an alternative, I just don't think we need two of them.  So, since the CSU is brand new and many members have spent a lot of money on it, I really don't see us getting rid of it, so that makes the gray slacks/white shirt vulnerable in my book. 

I would agree. I really didn't like the CSU initially, but I have to admit it is composed of uniform (uniform as an adjective, not as a noun) components. Everyone is wearing the same pants, same shoes, mostly the same shirts, same hats.  I think the shirts should be the same pattern as the blue ones, with the same kind of pockets, other than that, it's good. White/greys can be a hodge podge of colors.. Even khaki is pretty consistent.

I think this entire uniform issue gets down to COST.  It's just cheaper for grey pants & the white aviator shirt.  You don't have to wear a hat, you don't have to wear special outer gear jackets, you don't have to buy a special belt, etc..  

The only thing I don't like is that white shirts can get dirty pretty easy, and with me I only wear it when absolutely necessary.  I prefer to wear one of the Golf Shirts (and recently purchased the long sleeve one), so I can at least be warm.   I personally think we should be able to wear our rank on the pocket of the shirt ;D  

However, my undertanding was at the latest MA Wing Conference I've been told that it looked like a good 75% of the senior members were actually wearing the AF light blue shirt & associated pants, etc.
RM    

Quote from: Gunner C on March 23, 2009, 10:19:35 PM
My problem with the grays is that they're just butt-ugly.  To me it just looks washed out - no color.  Give the grays a five year wear-out date along with beards and long hair.  That'll give the fuzzies five years to figure out how much more their beards mean to them than their CAP membership. That's about what it's all about IMO.

Anyone can shave, meeting physical requirements is a bit more problematic.

I would disagree. Personally, I don't see the "no beards" rule as a legitimate issue. There's really no reason that a neatly trimmed beard or well groomed long hair couldn't really be worn.

When it comes to shaving there are people with legitimate shaving problems, but they're capable of neatly trimming beards. The military disallows beards for many reasons, none of which apply to us. Enforcing a rule for non existent, or non legitimate reasons is pointless, a waste of time, and could be considered unethical. Yes, I said unethical. If you can't legitimately justify it, any excuse is a lie. "Because I don't think anyone should have a beard in uniform" doesn't work either.

This is not a golf shirt thread.  We are talking about what is basically a formal uniform worn when we need to look halfway decent.  Neither uniform is equivalent to the golf shirt. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 23, 2009, 10:34:04 PM
This is not a golf shirt thread.  We are talking about what is basically a formal uniform worn when we need to look halfway decent.  Neither uniform is equivalent to the golf shirt. 

Point taken. On topic, let's lose the white/greys. It's a "good enough" ensemble with a few insignia on it. No real need to have it. The CSU is more uniform in appearance.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 23, 2009, 10:29:47 PM

Quote from: Gunner C on March 23, 2009, 10:19:35 PM
My problem with the grays is that they're just butt-ugly.  To me it just looks washed out - no color.  Give the grays a five year wear-out date along with beards and long hair.  That'll give the fuzzies five years to figure out how much more their beards mean to them than their CAP membership. That's about what it's all about IMO.

Anyone can shave, meeting physical requirements is a bit more problematic.

I would disagree. Personally, I don't see the "no beards" rule as a legitimate issue. There's really no reason that a neatly trimmed beard or well groomed long hair couldn't really be worn.

When it comes to shaving there are people with legitimate shaving problems, but they're capable of neatly trimming beards. The military disallows beards for many reasons, none of which apply to us. Enforcing a rule for non existent, or non legitimate reasons is pointless, a waste of time, and could be considered unethical. Yes, I said unethical. If you can't legitimately justify it, any excuse is a lie. "Because I don't think anyone should have a beard in uniform" doesn't work either.

I agree with your disagreeing, Hawk. For seven of the eight years I spent on active duty I was on a shaving waiver because of PFB (ingrown hairs), so I simply had to keep my facial hairs no longer than 1/4 inch in length. I just used (and still use) fine tooth clippers to keep the hairs short, even though now I just wear a well-groomed beard. Getting rid of the grays would be a real problem for people in my position who, medically speaking, would have a problem with the grooming standards required with the CSU and any of the AF-style uniforms, which I seldom ever wear anymore. I'll keep my white shirts and polos with the gray slacks thank you.

Convert the shoulder mark color, to grey, and it will be a deal.

The CSU is too close in appearance to the AF uniform for my taste. Plus, there's the tired (but relevant) contention that it's an illegal uniform. No one's tried to fix that, as near as I can tell.

Keep the white-and-grays, and save the ax for a few other "uniforms" that aren't the AF blues, the CSU and the white-and-grays.

Quote from: SaBeR33 on March 24, 2009, 12:41:16 AM
I agree with your disagreeing, Hawk. For seven of the eight years I spent on active duty I was on a shaving waiver because of PFB (ingrown hairs), so I simply had to keep my facial hairs no longer than 1/4 inch in length. I just used (and still use) fine tooth clippers to keep the hairs short, even though now I just wear a well-groomed beard. Getting rid of the grays would be a real problem for people in my position who, medically speaking, would have a problem with the grooming standards required with the CSU and any of the AF-style uniforms, which I seldom ever wear anymore. I'll keep my white shirts and polos with the gray slacks thank you.

Now that I read my post, I'm not certain I was clear, so I'll try to clear it up now.

I think we should eliminate white/grays. I don't see the point of two alternate uniforms. However, I think that beards/longer hair should be permitted with the CSU. There's little valid point to the current restriction. With blues, the restriction is valid. With the CSU, it's not. Allow beards with CSU, just require them to be neat. It's not difficult to do.

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 24, 2009, 12:49:48 AM
Convert the shoulder mark color, to grey, and it will be a deal.

Done. Different nametags and shoulder marks for different uniforms is unnecesary.

We could eliminate the white/grey combo and consolidate a number of things in one fell swoop.

No reason we can't keep the gray and polo shirt....or we can really go casual and let our members where any pants with the polo shirt.  >:D

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2009, 01:36:55 AM
No reason we can't keep the gray and polo shirt....or we can really go casual and let our members where any pants with the polo shirt.  >:D

Polo with grey pants, thought I will likely never wear it, can stay.  As a minimalist uniform for certain activities, it is great.  I would say this, however, since we are not really day to day uniform wearers, the idea of a "dress down" uniform is sort of moot.

Maybe we should drop the AF uniform and just have the CSU. Drop the white/gray and cut down on the number of uniforms that we have. With just the CSU we could lower the grooming standards for the CSU.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 01:04:57 AM
We could eliminate the white/grey combo and consolidate a number of things in one fell swoop.

Actually, not quite. The white-and-grays have more in common with the AF uniform than the CSU -- the nametag is the gray plastic one, just as we wear on the AF blue shirt. The epaulets are the same. You still have to buy two different nametags for coats -- the service coat uses the Air Force brushed-silver nametag while the blazer (basically, the white-and-grays with a tie and coat) has the special tag. That's a small price to pay, versus even the Pineda Suit coat alone, even if the pants are the Air Force pants.

But the CSU has not only the different coat, but different shoulder marks, another set of cutouts, sleeve braid, hat strap, nametags (blue two-line on the shirt and silver two-line on the coat)... sheez, I hear Vanguard's cash registers ringing needlessly.

We'd be better off ditching HWSRN's ego trip than relegating the white-and-grays to the scrap heap of former CAP uniforms, though unfortunately the investment in the Pineda Suit is fairly large.

Well trimmed beards might be ok for the CSU (although I don't care for beards-never had one, never will) but long hair is a no no.  For you 60's retro folks...clean up your act, the hippe look is dead ;D.

But I'm for dropping the white/greys simply to cut down on the number of uniforms.  Way too many combinations.  We look like we are playing for different teams.

Quote from: Smokey on March 24, 2009, 03:04:19 AM
...I'm for dropping the white/greys simply to cut down on the number of uniforms.  Way too many combinations.  We look like we are playing for different teams.

What says that we don't look like we play for different teams with TWO parallel universes of uniforms instead of the current myriad?

Should there be one dress uniform -- the Air Force uniform -- and a civilian combination (note I didn't say "uniform") that is acceptable but doesn't appear to mimic in any way the Air Force uniform (as the white-and-grays and the CSU do)? Maybe we'd look a lot less rag-tag that way?

Thoughts?

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 24, 2009, 02:42:12 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 01:04:57 AM
We could eliminate the white/grey combo and consolidate a number of things in one fell swoop.

Actually, not quite. The white-and-grays have more in common with the AF uniform than the CSU -- the nametag is the gray plastic one, just as we wear on the AF blue shirt. The epaulets are the same. You still have to buy two different nametags for coats -- the service coat uses the Air Force brushed-silver nametag while the blazer (basically, the white-and-grays with a tie and coat) has the special tag. That's a small price to pay, versus even the Pineda Suit coat alone, even if the pants are the Air Force pants.

But the CSU has not only the different coat, but different shoulder marks, another set of cutouts, sleeve braid, hat strap, nametags (blue two-line on the shirt and silver two-line on the coat)... sheez, I hear Vanguard's cash registers ringing needlessly.

We'd be better off ditching HWSRN's ego trip than relegating the white-and-grays to the scrap heap of former CAP uniforms, though unfortunately the investment in the Pineda Suit is fairly large.

Actually, you've mentioned a few of the things I'd like to consolidate.

Right now, there are six nametags. Why? Reduce it. Both service coats, one nametag .I'd suggest the silver with the CAP, but put CAP below the name for appearance reasons (doesn't look right above the name). One grey tag for seniors, blue for cadets. Eliminating the blazer/white/grey eliminates another. Eliminate the blue "wants to be an Air Force nametag". Not sure about the CSM nametag, can discuss that later.

Epaulets: Simple solution, keep the grey ones. Lose the others.

Cutouts: Personally, I think we could go with CAP ones on both coats. Personal opinion only. US on one, but CAP on the other doesn't show solidarity within the organization. Can't have US on CSU, so go CAP for all.

Sleeve braid: Seems to be a Pineda thing, considering one of the writeups on his new project was a variation of the Army uniform with "lots of braid", and "aide de camps" wore silver cords. Same deal. One braid for both.

Right now, CAP service dress and the CSU look like they could be different organizations due to configurations. And as far as configuration goes, make it the same for both shirts, not the current case of "you can wear it like this on this one, but not on that one".

Yeah, I know it stinks, but do we want to continue looking as one poster put it, "A NATO convention" ? (I think it was Kack). If we all dress more alike, maybe both internal and external opinions will improve.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 03:42:00 AM
Right now, there are six nametags. Why? Reduce it. Both service coats, one nametag .I'd suggest the silver with the CAP, but put CAP below the name for appearance reasons (doesn't look right above the name). One grey tag for seniors, blue for cadets. Eliminating the blazer/white/grey eliminates another. Eliminate the blue "wants to be an Air Force nametag". Not sure about the CSM nametag, can discuss that later.

Epaulets: Simple solution, keep the grey ones. Lose the others.

Cutouts: Personally, I think we could go with CAP ones on both coats. Personal opinion only. US on one, but CAP on the other doesn't show solidarity within the organization. Can't have US on CSU, so go CAP for all.

Sleeve braid: Seems to be a Pineda thing, considering one of the writeups on his new project was a variation of the Army uniform with "lots of braid", and "aide de camps" wore silver cords. Same deal. One braid for both.

Right now, CAP service dress and the CSU look like they could be different organizations due to configurations. And as far as configuration goes, make it the same for both shirts, not the current case of "you can wear it like this on this one, but not on that one".

Nametags: Why do we need a two-line service-coat nameplate? Use the Air Force one. Keep the CAP cutouts on the CSU to differentiate it. The "U.S." on the Air Force uniform signified the Air Force's welcoming of CAP into the fold, so let's leave that one alone.

And there is nothing wrong with the gray epaulets, except that there should be a service coat variation without the stripes.

Doesn't anyone think the CSU is really nothing more than a former national commander's personal statement? If the guy spent less time designing uniforms, CAP could have been better served. Phase-out date, please?

What I wonder is how many Wing Commanders are on this forum? How many folks on this forum know a wing commander who would be in favor of doing away with the gray & white uniform? After all the prior talk about doing away with the gray slacks aviator shirt uniform among other changes that were thought to be forthcoming yet at the Winter NB the whole thing was radio silent. I'd love to know who put the kibosh on it.

Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on March 23, 2009, 09:37:55 PM
Drop the gray pants altogether.  Let the Polo shirt be worn with the blue AF pants.

Or Not!!

Khaki's...

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 03:42:00 AM
Actually, you've mentioned a few of the things I'd like to consolidate.

Right now, there are six nametags. Why? Reduce it. Both service coats, one nametag .I'd suggest the silver with the CAP, but put CAP below the name for appearance reasons (doesn't look right above the name). One grey tag for seniors, blue for cadets. Eliminating the blazer/white/grey eliminates another. Eliminate the blue "wants to be an Air Force nametag". Not sure about the CSM nametag, can discuss that later.

*insert the rest of what you said*

I agree with you on everything except the nametags. Lets just have one for both service coats and shirts, like the cadets do. Keep the blue one for the cadets and use the gray one for us SMs. No silver tags, no extra bells and whistles. One nametag style for everyone (including the Blazer combo). This way we have the same nametag style as the cadets and same rules for wear. We would actually look like one organization at that point...scary :o

FWIW, the blazer nametag has the longest history, going back to at least 1968. Back then, minus the rank insignia, it was the standard name tag style for all members. The surface finish was textures, instead of today's smooth style, but from a distance, they are almost indistinguishable.

Regarding the grooming standards...

Do we really have that many people with long hair and untrimmed beards?  In all honesty I can't even remember the last time I saw a CAP member with one.  Maybe it's just where I live, but beards and men with ponytails aren't that prevalent. 

Are we arguing over something that is actually of high value, or is this another pregnant, unwed cadet thing where we'd be creating a policy that would only pertain to .00005% of our members?

I know at least 1 WG/CC with a beard who wears the Grey & Whites.  BTW I would really like to see Khaki pants allowed for the Polo Shirt Uniform.  In my area, it's hard to find a standard shade of grey in anything other than polyester blend dress pants, which are not a real practical light work uniform. 

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 24, 2009, 01:02:45 AM
The CSU is too close in appearance to the AF uniform for my taste. Plus, there's the tired (but relevant) contention that it's an illegal uniform. No one's tried to fix that, as near as I can tell.

Keep the white-and-grays, and save the ax for a few other "uniforms" that aren't the AF blues, the CSU and the white-and-grays.

+!

The CSU does look entirely too similar in appearance to the AF uniform, especially since most of its components are from said uniform. The addition of the flight cap only adds to this opinion.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 24, 2009, 04:06:59 AM
Nametags: Why do we need a two-line service-coat nameplate? Use the Air Force one.

OK, I can get on board with that. I suggested the "Civil Air Patrol" one as distinctive to us, we wore one with whole spiel on it before on the older service coats (Although I always felt it didn't look quite right). I honestly don't care which one, as long as it's just one for both. No reason for two different ones.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 24, 2009, 04:06:59 AMKeep the CAP cutouts on the CSU to differentiate it. The "U.S." on the Air Force uniform signified the Air Force's welcoming of CAP into the fold, so let's leave that one alone.

I can appreciate the viewpoint, but I think our uniforms need far more common insignia. The two coats have far more different rules that really aren't needed. Asking the Air Force to put "CAP" back on our service coats would probably be a delicate subject. Getting approval to wear "US" on the CSU would probably be difficult as well. Tough choice. But two different collar insignia is unnecessary.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 24, 2009, 04:06:59 AMAnd there is nothing wrong with the gray epaulets, except that there should be a service coat variation without the stripes.

Not sure I follow. I think that the grey epaulets should be the only ones our seniors wear. I don't like the wear of Air Force epaulets on our uniforms. Did Pineda do it as an intentional end run around the Air Force? I cannot honestly say with any proof that he did. Do I think so? Yes, I do.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 24, 2009, 04:06:59 AMDoesn't anyone think the CSU is really nothing more than a former national commander's personal statement? If the guy spent less time designing uniforms, CAP could have been better served. Phase-out date, please?

I think so. Some would disagree, but it's still a matter of opinion. As to time on designing uniforms, I'd agree.

As far as phase out, CAP is kinda stuck, especially considering that many people have spent a great deal of money acquring it, and others are still obtaining it. Even though Pineda left in disgrace, he still left behind a legacy that everyone can see. Difficult subject.

Quote from: IceNine on March 24, 2009, 04:34:35 AMKhaki's...

Got my vote. I'd even think about a polo, if that was an option.

Quote from: Always Ready on March 24, 2009, 05:34:57 AM
I agree with you on everything except the nametags. Lets just have one for both service coats and shirts, like the cadets do. Keep the blue one for the cadets and use the gray one for us SMs. No silver tags, no extra bells and whistles. One nametag style for everyone (including the Blazer combo). This way we have the same nametag style as the cadets and same rules for wear. We would actually look like one organization at that point...scary :o

Personally, I think cadets ought to wear the same silver nametag, but theirs was authorized as a cost saving measure for cadets; in good conscience, I have to agree. It would be nice if it was issued to them, it can cost a few dollars.

On the service coat, the blue cadet one looks OK. Back during the transition period when the nametag was approved, I have seen grey ones on the service coat. It doesn't look right.

Now that I think about it, I could handle a blue one for seniors, just like in the past. I don't think that it would look bad with our grey epaulets, but there would be confusion, insignia wise, for a SMWOG. Don't know how to deal with that. The only difference, as far as insignia goes, would be the hat device.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on March 24, 2009, 11:43:09 AM
Regarding the grooming standards...

Do we really have that many people with long hair and untrimmed beards?  In all honesty I can't even remember the last time I saw a CAP member with one.  Maybe it's just where I live, but beards and men with ponytails aren't that prevalent. 

Are we arguing over something that is actually of high value, or is this another pregnant, unwed cadet thing where we'd be creating a policy that would only pertain to .00005% of our members?

I have seen a few members with beards, myself included, but I can honestly say I have never seen any of the members of ZZ Top in a CAP uniform. :D  All of the beards I have seen have been reasonably trimmed.

There may be a few out there who would push the boundaries on grooming, but their numbers will be VERY small.

Quote from: davedove on March 24, 2009, 01:30:01 PM
I have seen a few members with beards, myself included, but I can honestly say I have never seen any of the members of ZZ Top in a CAP uniform. :D 

"The girls go crazy about a sharped dressed man."  ;D

ZZ Top

Here's my thoughts on the CSU:

1.  It is a corporate uniform.
2.  As a corporate uniform, it should be available for wear by the ENTIRE membership.
3.  The membership is open to everyone, with no restriction on weight or grooming.  (Whether you think this is good or not is another debate.)
4.  The CSU should be available to ALL members, regardless of weight or grooming.

Until the time it is open to ALL members, we still need the grey/white uniform for those who don't meet grooming standards.

Quote from: davedove on March 24, 2009, 01:30:01 PMbut I can honestly say I have never seen any of the members of ZZ Top in a CAP uniform. :D 

I have.  Once.  Back when senior members with beards could wear BDUs with no rank insignia, I saw a dude that looked like Santa Claus: jolly, old, and with a huge white beard.  And wearing BDUs.  On an Army post.

I'd like to see this guy in the corporate grey's getting out of an airplane after a successful SAR sortie and then swamped by media types:

(http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd115/hairsalonmania/ChrisAdler.jpg)

That's Chris Adler for those of you who don't know drummers.

I have never been a fan of the corporate military-style uniform.  It is a costly item.  My preference is to keep the White/Gray combo and ditch the airline/naval looking uniform.  Since we have deal with the aux on/off issues...the corporate uniform should be with a blazer and not a military look  when we are the CAP Corporate member and wear the USAF-style approved uniforms when  tasked by the USAF (IMHO).

Voted yes, with the caveat to bring the same grooming rules to the CSU.  Would also be OK with letting the CSU die out instead. 

After checking, I find the blue slacks are $55-60 bucks at Vanguard and gray slacks can be purchased at Wal-Mart or K-Mart for $20.00  and they don't require dry cleaning.  Stay with the gray slacks and get over it..

Quote from: davedove on March 24, 2009, 03:02:51 PM
Here's my thoughts on the CSU:

1.  It is a corporate uniform.
2.  As a corporate uniform, it should be available for wear by the ENTIRE membership.
3.  The membership is open to everyone, with no restriction on weight or grooming.  (Whether you think this is good or not is another debate.)
4.  The CSU should be available to ALL members, regardless of weight or grooming.

Until the time it is open to ALL members, we still need the grey/white uniform for those who don't meet grooming standards.

For clarification, its a corporate uniform of a military auxiliary.  The corporate verbiage gives us some apparent wiggle room on listening to our parents, but doesn't change who we are.

There are similar organizations with far more tenuous connections to their parent service that don't have this option at all.
You wear the uniform, you see the barber.

And before the fuzzies get all upset, I'm not advocating this, specifically, only pointing out the reality.  The question should be asked, though, how many members would we really lose if this became the norm?  I'd say not that many because most would just get a haircut and a shave vs. leaving CAP. (I said most, not all)

The ones with medical situations are a non-issue, get a Dr's note.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 07:38:30 PM

Quote from: davedove on March 24, 2009, 03:02:51 PM
Here's my thoughts on the CSU:

1.  It is a corporate uniform.
2.  As a corporate uniform, it should be available for wear by the ENTIRE membership.
3.  The membership is open to everyone, with no restriction on weight or grooming.  (Whether you think this is good or not is another debate.)
4.  The CSU should be available to ALL members, regardless of weight or grooming.

Until the time it is open to ALL members, we still need the grey/white uniform for those who don't meet grooming standards.

For clarification, its a corporate uniform of a military auxiliary.  The corporate verbiage gives us some apparent wiggle room on listening to our parents, but doesn't change who we are.

There are similar organizations with far more tenuous connections to their parent service that don't have this option at all.
You wear the uniform, you see the barber.

And before the fuzzies get all upset, I'm not advocating this, specifically, only pointing out the reality.  The question should be asked, though, how many members would we really lose if this became the norm?  I'd say not that many because most would just get a haircut and a shave vs. leaving CAP. (I said most, not all)

The ones with medical situations are a non-issue, get a Dr's note.

I think the vast majority would stay.  You're right, the folks with pseudofolliculitis barbae could be accomodated easily (a small number will have this problem).

I don't see why beards should be disallowed. It doesn't affect how they do the job. People will eventually put it together that it's for those that cannot wear blues. If not, they'll ask.

If I had a problem with shaving, I'd deal with that and wear an alternate. We're not Air Force lite (there's really no such thing), we don't need to duplicate the Active, Reserve and Guard Air Force.

^Agreed.

Having a beard does not effect anything we do. Being out of shape (not overweight) could however (read real ground team stuff, not just UDF ramp checks). I can't think of a single time that having a beard or not would be beneficial or not beneficial in anything we do in CAP. I can, however, think of numerous occasions where I have had to carry someone's stuff while doing some ground pounding because they were out of shape. I've seen people who were overweight out last me in the field too...so weight is not an issue either IMHO. Being physically fit to do the job would be the only issue that could effect something that we do in CAP. It does not effect everything we do, just certain activities. Obviously, if you plan on sitting at a desk shuffling papers for the duration of your CAP career, you don't need to carry a 50 lb load for X miles or whatever. YMMV

BTW-I am clean shaven 99% of the time and I am underweight. I generally wear AF style uniforms. It's not just the overweight and the hairy that have this opinion. </rant>

Quote from: Always Ready on March 24, 2009, 09:30:24 PM
Having a beard does not effect anything we do.

Image is everything.

By your argument there's very little reason to wear any uniform at all.  Just come as you are and "git 'er done".

We're more than a bunch of vigilante SAR guys.  We're a paramilitary auxiliary of a military branch.  The majority of our funding, resources, and operational role comes either directly or indirectly through big brother blue.

With that comes the responsibility to look professional and uniform.

You only have to look at the vast majority of similar services, PD/FD/Military/EMS/SAR/NSCC/ACA/Young Marines/ROTC, etc.,  both professional and volunteer, to see where the consensus on this is.

Organized services that allow for anything other than clean shaven (w/ mustache) and short hair are definitely the minority in this equation.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PM

Quote from: Always Ready on March 24, 2009, 09:30:24 PM
Having a beard does not effect anything we do.

Image is everything.

Sort of. Which looks worse, clean shaven, and wearing an unkempt uniform, or a neatly trimmed beard and an NCC level uniform?

QuoteOrganized services that allow for anything other than clean shaven (w/ mustache) and short hair are definitely the minority in this equation.

The organized services have many more operational reasons for banning beards than does CAP. I was in the Navy when their beards went away,  The primary reason was operational - the inability for breathing apparatus to fully seal on the face. This included OBAs, chemical respirators, and other similar devices. A secondary aspect was appearance issues with the 18-25 yo guys growing facial that ended up being several unconnected patches of hair that looked horrible.

Here are three pictures of me, from varying eras:

1980, WIWOAD

(http://members.cox.net/dragnd/prof.jpg)

1999, when I first rejoined CAP. I got rid of the long locks shortly thereafter. It wasn't "required", but in a composite sq, I thought it best to set a good example.

(http://members.cox.net/dragnd/db_10-99.jpg)

2003; today it's almost totally white

(http://members.cox.net/dragnd/Bowles.jpg)

If it came to a shave or out decision, I'm gone, and it will be CAP's loss. I've left twice in the past over facial hair issues, and the decision was easy both times.

I think the uniforms we have today are adequate, and losing the TPU would cause me no sorrow, on several counts. If I need to "dress up", I throw on my blazer, and do my thing.  I've spent over 40 years of my life in some sort of uniform, have seen many changes, and just go with the flow these days. If I see an incorrect uniform, I will point it out in a tactful manner, and if I goof and get caught, I welcome the correction.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PM

Quote from: Always Ready on March 24, 2009, 09:30:24 PM
Having a beard does not effect anything we do.

Image is everything.

There was a very well known Surgeon General that wore one for years. I don't think there were many people that discounted anything he said because of his beard. I think neatly trimmed, even specify a length for appropriateness would be acceptable.

That argument fails. Image is being neat and clean, and being properly groomed. Want to test it? Send two people to a job, one in a sloppy suit, the other well groomed in khaki's and polo. Wanna take bets on who gets the job?

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PM
By your argument there's very little reason to wear any uniform at all.  Just come as you are and "git 'er done".

Wrong. I am advocating an alternate uniform. As mentioned above, it doesn't affect the mission, unless you want it to.

That argument also fails.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PMWe're more than a bunch of vigilante SAR guys.  We're a paramilitary auxiliary of a military branch.  The majority of our funding, resources, and operational role comes either directly or indirectly through big brother blue.

With that comes the responsibility to look professional and uniform.

That's a given, but it's not an argument. In case you forgot, the Air Force permits our alternate uniforms. With their allowance, we have more assets available.

Not really an argument, but if intended as one, it also fails.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PMYou only have to look at the vast majority of similar services, PD/FD/Military/EMS/SAR/NSCC/ACA/Young Marines/ROTC, etc.,  both professional and volunteer, to see where the consensus on this is.

All completely different missions than CAP. We are not equivalent to any one of them. There is the flexibility to permit some of our members to wear facial hair.

Another strike.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PMOrganized services that allow for anything other than clean shaven (w/ mustache) and short hair are definitely the minority in this equation.

OK. So what? Different missions. It's not an equation that the whole of CAP is part of.

If you don't like beards or long hair, say so. I had the same issue after my first few years in the military. I also realized that I was being a fool. That person didn't have a problem, I did. I have since rethought that stand. Discounting someones abilities because of beards or long hair is foolish.

I think uniformity would be better served by eliminating the white/greys, and permitting beards with CSU. It also allows those in them to display decorations and qualifications. We have a set of blue BDU's that look fine with beards. No reason that those folks shouldn't be allowed to dress up.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 10:19:49 PMIf you don't like beards or long hair, say so. I had the same issue after my first few years in the military. I also realized that I was being a fool. That person didn't have a problem, I did. I have since rethought that stand. Discounting someones abilities because of beards or long hair is foolish.

One might also add that discounting someones abilities because of the size of their waistline is foolish as well.  Some of the best Incident Commanders I have ever seen could NEVER meet CAP's weight standards for the wear of the AF style uniform, another reason to have an alternative uniform.  I just think we should modify the CSU to use the same slides and nametags and do away with the blazer/gray slacks and allow khaki pants with the polo.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 10:19:49 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PMOrganized services that allow for anything other than clean shaven (w/ mustache) and short hair are definitely the minority in this equation.

OK. So what? Different missions. It's not an equation that the whole of CAP is part of.

First, you're incorrect on this point, and since its the basis of the rest of your arguments above, etc., etc.
CAP is, in fact, a part of the greater ES and military community and this is increasing every day.  If you want to make the argument that the CP isn't a part of that community, well, epic fail because seniors involved in the CP need to set a higher example for the cadets, and the cadets have a single set of grooming standards.

Please stop making the argument that this has anything to do with discounting abilities.  This is about setting a standard and sticking with it, something CAP is very poor at doing.  In fact, any organization that sets its standards based on the minority of membership, or 1% variances is making a mistake.

Those of you who choose to wear a beard, long hair, pony tail, etc., are doing so because it makes a statement about who you are that you want the public to notice.  It doesn't matter what that statement is, its a statement.

Further, I'd be willing to guess you'd agree that the inverse argument to the "discounting my abilities" nonsense - namely "the only reason you're a good 'x' is because of the beard..." are just as silly.

The issue here is where CAP is willing to take the hit - their external image to the community they serve in being less uniform in appearance and externally tailored as we could be, or the attrition of those members who would be insulted if their wearing a uniform required them to change their appearance.

Up until now and barring a change its the former.

Quote from: cap235629 on March 24, 2009, 10:29:32 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 10:19:49 PM
If you don't like beards or long hair, say so. I had the same issue after my first few years in the military. I also realized that I was being a fool. That person didn't have a problem, I did. I have since rethought that stand. Discounting someones abilities because of beards or long hair is foolish.

One might also add that discounting someones abilities because of the size of their waistline is foolish as well.  Some of the best Incident Commanders I have ever seen could NEVER meet CAP's weight standards for the wear of the AF style uniform, another reason to have an alternative uniform.  I just think we should modify the CSU to use the same slides and nametags and do away with the blazer/gray slacks and allow khaki pants with the polo.

I see the point, but I personally have never  had a problem with people that are overweight. I won't treat someone 5'10" that weighs 200 poinds any different than someone 5'10" that weighs 400. I may think that the 400 pounder needs to take better care of themself, but it won't affect how I think of them personally. As far as our uniforms go, weight is a non issue. Overweight members can wear the CSU. The "fuzzies" aren't permitted it at present.

We have too many uniforms. Lose some of the excesses. CSU's look a lot closer to blues than the blazer combo does, so we're a lot more alike than different.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 10:43:12 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 10:19:49 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PMOrganized services that allow for anything other than clean shaven (w/ mustache) and short hair are definitely the minority in this equation.

OK. So what? Different missions. It's not an equation that the whole of CAP is part of.

First, you're incorrect on this point, and since its the basis of the rest of your arguments above, etc., etc.
CAP is, in fact, a part of the greater ES and military community and this is increasing every day.  If you want to make the argument that the CP isn't a part of that community, well, epic fail because seniors involved in the CP need to set a higher example for the cadets, and the cadets have a single set of grooming standards.

Please stop making the argument that this has anything to do with discounting abilities.  This is about setting a standard and sticking with it, something CAP is very poor at doing.  In fact, any organization that sets its standards based on the minority of membership, or 1% variances is making a mistake.

Those of you who choose to wear a beard, long hair, pony tail, etc., are doing so because it makes a statement about who you are that you want the public to notice.  It doesn't matter what that statement is, its a statement.

Read the whole thing next time. You even quoted where I said "It's not an equation that the whole of CAP is part of". It's not. Parts of CAP are.

On another note, I find it offensive that you consider it a bad example to cadets for someone to have a beard. Kinda makes me want to grow one when I get home. Call it an epic fail if you want, you're the one showing disdain for those with facial hair. BTW, that's called "discrimination".

As to the "1%", for someone that demands cites and references, you better start coughing some up. There's four bearded members in my unit alone, several dozen at wing, and equivalent numbers in other units. Not sure where you get 1%.

You state it as not discounting abilities. What is it then? Image? People will discount us based on "image" instead of ability? Explain that to me.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 10:43:12 PM
Further, I'd be willing to guess you'd agree that the inverse argument to the "discounting my abilities" nonsense - namely "the only reason you're a good 'x' is because of the beard..." are just as silly.

Saying someone is good because of is silly, I would agree on that. Still you apparently feel that bearded long hair members are somehow "bad mojo" for CAP. I don't get. Not sure if I even want to.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 10:43:12 PMThe issue here is where CAP is willing to take the hit - their external image to the community they serve in being less uniform in appearance and externally tailored as we could be, or the attrition of those members who would be insulted if their wearing a uniform required them to change their appearance.

Up until now and barring a change its the former.

Less uniform in appearance? So our myriad combinations are less uniform because of beards? Tell you what: Why don't you bow out, along with your shame of CAP. I know a few folks with beards that I'd rather have around.

Here is an interesting perspective that I just received from a CAP member....what about the member that does not want to wear a corporate military-looking uniform?   Is the choice to wear either the USAF-style uniform or the Corporate military looking uniform or say forget about it???

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PM

Quote from: Always Ready on March 24, 2009, 09:30:24 PM
Having a beard does not effect anything we do.

Image is everything.

By your argument there's very little reason to wear any uniform at all.  Just come as you are and "git 'er done".

We're more than a bunch of vigilante SAR guys.  We're a paramilitary auxiliary of a military branch.  The majority of our funding, resources, and operational role comes either directly or indirectly through big brother blue.

With that comes the responsibility to look professional and uniform.

You only have to look at the vast majority of similar services, PD/FD/Military/EMS/SAR/NSCC/ACA/Young Marines/ROTC, etc.,  both professional and volunteer, to see where the consensus on this is.

Organized services that allow for anything other than clean shaven (w/ mustache) and short hair are definitely the minority in this equation.

Agreed, image is everything, but by your reasoning, everyone who doesn't meet weight and grooming standards and isn't a cookie cutter person, needs to be kicked out because they don't fit the image of a perfect CAP member (which I would like to know what that is? a 50 something year old pilot? That's what I think of when I think about CAP SMs). There are countless active duty military members whom the military allows to wear uniforms, but we don't. I had at least four members, possibly more, in my previous squadron who were in that predicament. Try telling an active duty AF Lt Col that he couldn't wear AF style uniforms...it doesn't end well.

I never said that we shouldn't wear a uniform. I, for one, am one of the few SMs in my squadron that wears a uniform to ALL CAP activities (and it's not the bloody polo either!). I also push others to wear uniforms and wear them properly. If you want to pick a fight about that, find someone else.

Whether something looks good or not is all in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find that when morbid obese women wear tight fitting clothing, I have a tendency to barf in my mouth. :o Some people think that image of a woman is heavenly. It's all about what you think.

It is also a society issue. Not all that long ago, beards were common place and it was socially unacceptable to not have one. Then it changed to everyone must be clean shaven. In some societies, you are not a man if you don't have a beard.

It's about how you present yourself. I've been offended more times by a person in a business suit than I have by someone in coveralls and a ball cap. YMMV

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 10:43:12 PM
Those of you who choose to wear a beard, long hair, pony tail, etc., are doing so because it makes a statement about who you are that you want the public to notice.  It doesn't matter what that statement is, its a statement.

Wrong answer, Bob. The "statement" ended over thirty years ago. It's a comfort issue now.

I have a beard these days because shaving makes my face hurt. My beard is really tough, and if I shave anywhere close to every day, my face stays red and sore all the time. It's been that way since I started shaving regularly at 20.

I gave shaving my entire face a last shot about ten years ago, and it wasn't pretty. I took the beard off on a Saturday, rested Sunday, then shaved every day until Friday. Technique is not an issue. I've used electrics (all three varieties), and various blade razors. None of them work well for sustained use.

So, why do you dislike beards? I don't do my job any differently whether I'm clean shaven or not, so that shouldn't be an issue. I maintain the same basic over quality of appearance either way, as evidenced by the pictures above.

And lastly, my sweetie likes me better with my beard, so that makes it alright with the world.

>>Those of you who choose to wear a beard, long hair, pony tail, etc., are doing so because it makes a statement about who you are that you want the public to notice.  It doesn't matter what that statement is, its a statement<<

I find such a broad statement like this to be absurd and stereotypical. You're no more qualified to decide why I wear a beard than I am to decide why you dispise them so much.

Quote from: SarDragon on March 24, 2009, 11:28:32 PM
And lastly, my sweetie likes me better with my beard, so that makes it alright with the world.

Agreed! ;D If only we could use that rationale with everything else  :D

Quote from: SarDragon on March 24, 2009, 11:28:32 PMI have a beard these days because shaving makes my face hurt. My beard is really tough, and if I shave anywhere close to every day, my face stays red and sore all the time. It's been that way since I started shaving regularly at 20.

I gave shaving my entire face a last shot about ten years ago, and it wasn't pretty. I took the beard off on a Saturday, rested Sunday, then shaved every day until Friday. Technique is not an issue. I've used electrics (all three varieties), and various blade razors. None of them work well for sustained use.

Just out of curiousity, would you have any objections to a directive to keep your beard a certain length? Would it be a deal breaker?

I ask, because as far as standards go, there would have to be something. Beards down to the chest could be considered an issue on safety grounds.

I believe that we should be neat and clean whatever we wear in CAP or out. That's just good manners.  I have been in CAP long enough to see all sorts, sizes, and shapes of senior members along the way. At the end of the day, however, the true measure of professionalism(at least to the people whose opinions I care about) is KNOWING YOUR JOB THOROUGHLY AND DOING IT TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY. "IT DON'T GOT A LOOK PRETTY BUT IT'S GOTTA BE DONE".

There's always the golf shirt.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 11:35:44 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on March 24, 2009, 11:28:32 PMI have a beard these days because shaving makes my face hurt. My beard is really tough, and if I shave anywhere close to every day, my face stays red and sore all the time. It's been that way since I started shaving regularly at 20.

I gave shaving my entire face a last shot about ten years ago, and it wasn't pretty. I took the beard off on a Saturday, rested Sunday, then shaved every day until Friday. Technique is not an issue. I've used electrics (all three varieties), and various blade razors. None of them work well for sustained use.

Just out of curiousity, would you have any objections to a directive to keep your beard a certain length? Would it be a deal breaker?

I ask, because as far as standards go, there would have to be something. Beards down to the chest could be considered an issue on safety grounds.

Not at all. I had to maintain a certain standard in the Navy, and still stay closr to that standard. If my beard and/or hair are too long, I don't wear a uniform to my weekly meetings. This doesn't happen too often.

Quote from: SarDragon on March 25, 2009, 12:19:38 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 24, 2009, 11:35:44 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on March 24, 2009, 11:28:32 PMI have a beard these days because shaving makes my face hurt. My beard is really tough, and if I shave anywhere close to every day, my face stays red and sore all the time. It's been that way since I started shaving regularly at 20.

I gave shaving my entire face a last shot about ten years ago, and it wasn't pretty. I took the beard off on a Saturday, rested Sunday, then shaved every day until Friday. Technique is not an issue. I've used electrics (all three varieties), and various blade razors. None of them work well for sustained use.

Just out of curiousity, would you have any objections to a directive to keep your beard a certain length? Would it be a deal breaker?

I ask, because as far as standards go, there would have to be something. Beards down to the chest could be considered an issue on safety grounds.

Not at all. I had to maintain a certain standard in the Navy, and still stay closr to that standard. If my beard and/or hair are too long, I don't wear a uniform to my weekly meetings. This doesn't happen too often.

Cool. I know that disallowing beards would be a deal breaker for many people, but I wondered if someone being asked to trim it would be a problem as well. I think I'm fairly safe in assuming your response would be echoed by 98 others. I'm allowing the possibility that one person may be stubborn enough that they would leave.

Quote from: dbarbee on March 24, 2009, 11:33:01 PM
>>Those of you who choose to wear a beard, long hair, pony tail, etc., are doing so because it makes a statement about who you are that you want the public to notice.  It doesn't matter what that statement is, its a statement<<

I find such a broad statement like this to be absurd and stereotypical. You're no more qualified to decide why I wear a beard than I am to decide why you despise them so much.

Again, let's not assume a discussion regarding standards automatically means those who'd have to make adjustments are "despised".  Why not make statements that the USAF "despises" fat & fuzzy guys?  Or that CAP hates sponsor members because they don't get grade?  Because its simply not true.

By a "statement" I didn't mean that you're overtly thumbing your nose at the "man", but its naive to believe that the way we dress and groom ourselves doesn't make a statement to the rest of the world, sometimes one we don't intend to make.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 07:38:30 PM
The ones with medical situations are a non-issue, get a Dr's note.

This currently isn't allowed with any of the AF-style uniforms or the CSU, so that would have to be a change incorporated into the 39-1. Even while on active duty I still had to abide by this policy even with a medical waiver from the AF, so being in a CAP uniform wasn't something I was too often prepared to do. I asked the folks at National If my waiver would carry over to wearing CAP uniforms and the answer I received was a resounding "NO!" I would shave if I went to a long CAP activity where being in a USAF uniform wasn't kosher, then I would hate life for the next few weeks because of the darn shaving bumps. Until laser hair removal treatment becomes less costly and more effective I'm SOL as are many others with the same medical condition.

Quote from: SaBeR33 on March 25, 2009, 01:33:46 AM
I asked the folks at National If my waiver would carry over to wearing CAP uniforms and the answer I received was a resounding "NO!"

Really?  A resounding NO!?  I've always found the folks at National to be pleasant and helpful with anything I've asked. 

That's what I was told. It wasn't an unpleasant "No." Just one that whomever I spoke to made VERY clear that my medical waiver wouldn't carry over to CAP.

Quote from: SaBeR33 on March 25, 2009, 01:42:04 AM
That's what I was told. It wasn't an unpleasant "No." Just one that whomever I spoke to made VERY clear that my medical waiver wouldn't carry over to CAP.

Again, that's today, because there are viable alternatives to the uniforms which preclude beards.

Retiring the whites without a viable alternative to those members with a legit medical condition regarding facial hair should not be an option.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2009, 09:40:25 PM
We're more than a bunch of vigilante SAR guys.  We're a paramilitary auxiliary of a military branch. 

This is what Title 10, Section 9442, says we are:  The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.

A bit further down in Title 10 under Regulations :   
(a) Authority.— The Secretary of the Air Force shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this chapter.
(b) Required Regulations.— The regulations shall include the following:
(1) Regulations governing the conduct of the activities of the Civil Air Patrol when it is performing its duties as a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force under section 9442 of this title.

^ ...and that's not just an "A" mission.  Nearly the entirety of the program could be considered duties as a "volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force".

Certainly there's a lot less that isn't than there is...

Image counts.

Please not debate whether or not we're an auxiliary.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 25, 2009, 12:42:15 AM

Quote from: dbarbee on March 24, 2009, 11:33:01 PM
>>Those of you who choose to wear a beard, long hair, pony tail, etc., are doing so because it makes a statement about who you are that you want the public to notice.  It doesn't matter what that statement is, its a statement<<

I find such a broad statement like this to be absurd and stereotypical. You're no more qualified to decide why I wear a beard than I am to decide why you despise them so much.

Again, let's not assume a discussion regarding standards automatically means those who'd have to make adjustments are "despised".  Why not make statements that the USAF "despises" fat & fuzzy guys?  Or that CAP hates sponsor members because they don't get grade?  Because its simply not true.

By a "statement" I didn't mean that you're overtly thumbing your nose at the "man", but its naive to believe that the way we dress and groom ourselves doesn't make a statement to the rest of the world, sometimes one we don't intend to make.

My statement was not directed at CAP or USAF, it was directed at an individual CAP member that made a broad, biased assumption about my decision to wear a beard.

The military has an obvious and unique need for uniformity & discipline to deal with life, death, & national security situations. I never mentioned the USAF so I'm not sure where they came into the discussion.

I've read post after post on these boards from individual members very vocal about their disdain for bearded, overweight, and non-advancing members, and how CAP would not be hurt if they all just went away. I never said CAP despises bearded members, it's obvious they don't considering their policies allow it, I insinuated some individual members do. If despise is too strong a word, then pick one that's more suitable, but the bias & disapproval comes across in their posts. Thankfully no one in my squadron or wing seem to have a problem with beards, they're more interested in our skills, participation, and input to the organization.

Of course the way we dress, groom, talk, etc makes a statement about our character, I firmly believe that. But that's not what your original statement said. What you said is that people with beards, "are doing so because it makes a statement about who you are that you want the public to notice", a conscious effort. My beard has nothing to do with who I am (I spent more of my life without a beard than I have with one) and certainly has nothing to do with getting public attention because beards in this part of the country are common and accepted.

I'm in the group that didn't join CAP for the uniforms and military aspect. When I was in the military, I wore my uniforms proudly and correctly and gave my duties 100% of my attention, and was awarded and promoted accordingly. At this time in my life however, I don't have the desire, funds, or time to fill my closet with various uniforms. The Gray Slacks/Blue Golf Shirt is an easy, inexpensive uniform to put together and is appropriate for 75% of the CAP functions I attend. The Aviator Shirt/Gray Slacks uniform  and Blue Utility Coveralls fills the other 25%.

If other CAP members enjoy the military-style uniforms and want to wear them, I have no problem with that, but, please stop harassing those of us that just want a simple, inexpensive uniform. I've only been a member for a short time but the amount of arguing over uniform issues I see on these boards is discouraging. CAP has an overly complicated array of uniform combinations and then members want to flame each other for not wearing them correctly. (How much more attention did the photoshopped magazine cover get compared to the mission that was accomplished?)

Our public image doesn't suffer because of what uniform we're wearing, it suffers from what some members do while they're in uniform or flying CAP airplanes. (Search some aviation message boards)

EDITED for typos

Gray slacks are easily obtained; the CSU blue slacks are very difficult to find in larger sizes, even from Vanguard.

 I think maybe allowing beards with the CSU might aid to eliminate the grey uniform. As long as there are standards on the facial hair, I believe a member can still look proffesional and not be "clean cut" ( I believe the Navy at one point allowed well trimmed beards and moustaches),  in a sub military uniform ( I say "sub military" to those who think the CSU doesn't look military for some reason) as long as they don't look like Grizzly Adams or ZZ Top

I'll go along with that when we authorize long hair and trimmed beards for cadets.  There should be ONE standard for grooming IMO.  There are those who will say two standards are better than no standards at all.  I find this a bit silly.  :D

QuoteI think maybe allowing beards with the CSU...as long as they don't look like Grizzly Adams or ZZ Top

I'm not the one that steered this bus towards the lock, but this might get me accused of hitting the accelerator (too good to be left to the archives)
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1935.msg32503#msg32503

Back on topic, keep the gray slacks/white shirt, for those who don't meet the military look requirements for whatever reasons, keeping in mind that we are a civilian auxiliary. A wing commander once said that this is a volunteer organization only until you join.

OTOH, true story. At a wing conference, the state SAR coordinator, who is a retired USAF Lt Col, was talking to me after he made a presentation. He asked who all attendees were. I replied just CAP, why? He said that with all the different uniforms he saw, there might have been several other groups present.

Mike

 Was I off topic? I'm sorry if I was. I thought the post was about the grey and whites being eliminated now that there's a CSU. I was simply stating that due to the different requirements for the two, you'd have to allow beards with the CSU, so there can be a "military type" uniform for the "bearded" members to wear if they choose, as long as they don't wear it looking like a caveman, or moses, or something....Or is this that you have a problem with beards or something?

  You can PM me if you want to respond to that....Let's not sidetrack into talking about beards on this post topic..

 Sorry! the first time I hit that link, it didn't turn up in the right place! I hit it again, and saw the picture........HA!HA!HA!.....That's exactly what I meant!........."Go an' get yourself some cheap sunglasees.......Oh, Yeah!"....HA!HA!HA!

Has anybody heard talk of discussion about phasing out the gray slacks aviator shirt uniform at NB?

Quote from: Gunner C on March 25, 2009, 10:35:07 PM
I'll go along with that when we authorize long hair and trimmed beards for cadets.  There should be ONE standard for grooming IMO.  There are those who will say two standards are better than no standards at all.  I find this a bit silly.  :D

In all fairness, I think we ought to consider it. With the provision that it has to be a beard, and just a case of obviously not shaving.

As long as we have different uniforms, there will be different standards for each of them. We don't need to boot resources just because someone chooses a beard.

As I have addressed several reasons to maintain the gray/white combo above (availability/price and even the cut of large sizes), the thread has degenerated into the time honored lean,mean,wannabes versus the fat,fuzzy,cuddles.  To one and all, image is how you portray yourself while doing the job, not by one uniform or any uniform.  Professionalism is not just looks.  We must remember that most people that we run into or deal with have no idea as to what CAP is.  So they do not expect us to look military or any particular way.  Commercial pilots wear aviator shirts.  Almost all general aviation pilots wear something like polo shirts and slacks.  I have never seen a general aviation pilot wear a flight suit.  We are a civilian volunteer group.  We are not the Air Force.  Until we are required to meet Air Force standards and that includes age and education, we will never look like Air Force, nor should we.  We are to offer a softer edge to aviation than the Air Force does.  We are here to help people, not be in condition to defend our country or be able to suck up 7 G's.  We are what we are and if some members are not happy, let them join the Coast Guard Aux or the real military.  In the mean time, until Reg's change, please quit trying to influence opinion and make people feel unwelcome and unwanted in our very small organization.  We don't need to lose good members because of a handful of young, marathon running, military wannabes.  As usual, JMHO..     

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 24, 2009, 12:49:48 AM
Convert the shoulder mark color, to grey, and it will be a deal.

Agreed.

I know I'm jumping on this wagon late since I'm just turning senior here in a few days. I just find it odd that once again, CAP seems to have found a way to require completely different uniform items on two similar uniforms, requiring more $$. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of switching from gray epaulets to blue was, and while I like the blue, I think that since the gray has already been distributed and does indeed look good on both the white shirt and the blue coat, the change was unnecessary.

And... just to make my radical opinion known, I think we should can EVERY uniform but the CSU, to be honest. Stick everyone in it, cadets, seniors, fit, overweight, clean-shaven, hermit bearded... whatever. It is, in my opinion, a very professional, militaristic uniform that I think everyone can feel comfortable identifying with, and it would ensure that we are all in the same uniform at all times. No more of this silliness with having the seniors in five different uniforms at any given time.

I am not a fan of the BBDU's, but I imagine that if my dream were to come true, we would be making that the single uniform as well.

JMHO

Quote from: Nathan on March 26, 2009, 01:10:13 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 24, 2009, 12:49:48 AM
Convert the shoulder mark color, to grey, and it will be a deal.

Agreed.

I know I'm jumping on this wagon late since I'm just turning senior here in a few days. I just find it odd that once again, CAP seems to have found a way to require completely different uniform items on two similar uniforms, requiring more $$. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of switching from gray epaulets to blue was, and while I like the blue, I think that since the gray has already been distributed and does indeed look good on both the white shirt and the blue coat, the change was unnecessary.

And... just to make my radical opinion known, I think we should can EVERY uniform but the CSU, to be honest. Stick everyone in it, cadets, seniors, fit, overweight, clean-shaven, hermit bearded... whatever. It is, in my opinion, a very professional, militaristic uniform that I think everyone can feel comfortable identifying with, and it would ensure that we are all in the same uniform at all times. No more of this silliness with having the seniors in five different uniforms at any given time.

I am not a fan of the BBDU's, but I imagine that if my dream were to come true, we would be making that the single uniform as well.

JMHO

If they do that I hope CAP is ready to lose about have of the cadets if they don't provide the CSU for the cadets. Because now days people don't exactly have the money to go out and buy the CSU

Quote from: NCO forever on March 26, 2009, 01:27:10 PM

Quote from: Nathan on March 26, 2009, 01:10:13 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 24, 2009, 12:49:48 AM
Convert the shoulder mark color, to grey, and it will be a deal.

Agreed.

I know I'm jumping on this wagon late since I'm just turning senior here in a few days. I just find it odd that once again, CAP seems to have found a way to require completely different uniform items on two similar uniforms, requiring more $$. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of switching from gray epaulets to blue was, and while I like the blue, I think that since the gray has already been distributed and does indeed look good on both the white shirt and the blue coat, the change was unnecessary.

And... just to make my radical opinion known, I think we should can EVERY uniform but the CSU, to be honest. Stick everyone in it, cadets, seniors, fit, overweight, clean-shaven, hermit bearded... whatever. It is, in my opinion, a very professional, militaristic uniform that I think everyone can feel comfortable identifying with, and it would ensure that we are all in the same uniform at all times. No more of this silliness with having the seniors in five different uniforms at any given time.

I am not a fan of the BBDU's, but I imagine that if my dream were to come true, we would be making that the single uniform as well.

JMHO

If they do that I hope CAP is ready to lose about have of the cadets if they don't provide the CSU for the cadets. Because now days people don't exactly have the money to go out and buy the CSU

Wouldn't make that much of a difference. Many squadrons don't have access to a supply, so cadets have to go buy their BDU's anyway.

And to be honest, after over six years of service in CAP, I am still waiting for my free blues uniform. ;)

Quote from: Nathan on March 26, 2009, 05:28:28 PM

Quote from: NCO forever on March 26, 2009, 01:27:10 PM

Quote from: Nathan on March 26, 2009, 01:10:13 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 24, 2009, 12:49:48 AM
Convert the shoulder mark color, to grey, and it will be a deal.

Agreed.

I know I'm jumping on this wagon late since I'm just turning senior here in a few days. I just find it odd that once again, CAP seems to have found a way to require completely different uniform items on two similar uniforms, requiring more $$. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of switching from gray epaulets to blue was, and while I like the blue, I think that since the gray has already been distributed and does indeed look good on both the white shirt and the blue coat, the change was unnecessary.

And... just to make my radical opinion known, I think we should can EVERY uniform but the CSU, to be honest. Stick everyone in it, cadets, seniors, fit, overweight, clean-shaven, hermit bearded... whatever. It is, in my opinion, a very professional, militaristic uniform that I think everyone can feel comfortable identifying with, and it would ensure that we are all in the same uniform at all times. No more of this silliness with having the seniors in five different uniforms at any given time.

I am not a fan of the BBDU's, but I imagine that if my dream were to come true, we would be making that the single uniform as well.

JMHO

If they do that I hope CAP is ready to lose about have of the cadets if they don't provide the CSU for the cadets. Because now days people don't exactly have the money to go out and buy the CSU

Wouldn't make that much of a difference. Many squadrons don't have access to a supply, so cadets have to go buy their BDU's anyway.

And to be honest, after over six years of service in CAP, I am still waiting for my free blues uniform. ;)

I was referring more to the CSU for the price issue. I do see your point with the BBDUs, and when we do switch to ABUs I think allot of people will buy them instead of ABUs do to the price. The main reason I would not want to go to just the CSU is because it would look like we are distancing from the USAF even if we aren't.

To remain on topic I like the idea of doing away with the gray and white uniform if we change the regs on facial hair.

Ditch every dress uniform but the CSU?

Who's auxiliary is CAP? The Air Force's, right? So doesn't that mean CAP members should wear the Air Force uniform? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Cadets shelling out a load of money for a uniform that'll be irrelevant in a couple of years? And that they'll grow out of? A logistical nightmare.

Not sure any of that makes sense. Stick to the Air Force uniform and a non-military-looking alternative for those who don't/can't comply with weight/grooming standards. Ditch the Pineda Suit, which maybe HWSRN's Ranger Corps can pick up instead (aren't they looking for a uniform, and didn't he design it anyway?). Keep it simple.

In communities where there's no Air Force presence, it's CAP that "flies the flag." We should be proud of, foster and develop our relationship with Daddy Air Force, uniforms included. Why must this be so complicated?

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 27, 2009, 02:15:44 AM
Ditch every dress uniform but the CSU?

Who's auxiliary is CAP? The Air Force's, right? So doesn't that mean CAP members should wear the Air Force uniform? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Cadets shelling out a load of money for a uniform that'll be irrelevant in a couple of years? And that they'll grow out of? A logistical nightmare.

Snipped the HWSRN rhetoric.  He's no longer here, he no longer matters.

Why the angst against corporate uniforms (any of them)?

Are you that hung up on a suit of clothes that you would walk out in disgust if you couldn't wear the Air Force style uniform?

Once again, I'm sincerely sorry that you think my 26 years worth of contributions to the organization are meaningless because I can't meet weight standards.  Or Dave Bowles's contributions to the organization for however long he's been doing this, because he prefers to have a neatly trimmed beard.

Put yourself in the place of a lot of us CSU wearers.  I like the fact that we're treated a little less like second-class members because we have a uniform that is mostly the same as yours, that allows us to be recognized for our achievements and service.  The only thing that would make this complete is to ditch the grooming requirements for the CSU by stipulating a reasonable hair length and neatly trimmed beards.  Then, the white/gray can go the way of the smurf suit and the Mexican party shirt.  At that point we'd look like two teams instead of four or five.


FWIW, I'd vote to keep the blazer combo and the polo with khakis as "Soft" uniforms for those times when a military style uniform isn't appropriate or necessary.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 27, 2009, 02:15:44 AM
Who's auxiliary is CAP? The Air Force's, right? So doesn't that mean CAP members should wear the Air Force uniform? Yeah, that's what I thought.

What's your logic here? Just because we do missions for the USAF means that we have to dress the same as them? Their uniform is designed for THEIR mission, not ours. Their uniform represents USAF history and tradition. Our uniform represents the same thing, despite the fact that we are not the USAF, and we have been around longer than the USAF. We can, despite a belief that seems to be shared by you and many other members of this board, perform the EXACT same missions while wearing a uniform that allows CAP to present its own unique heritage.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 27, 2009, 02:15:44 AMCadets shelling out a load of money for a uniform that'll be irrelevant in a couple of years? And that they'll grow out of? A logistical nightmare.

I'm not sure what you're implying. It is far more likely that the CSU would be relevant for far longer than any military uniform. The military seems to like to change uniforms every decade or so. CAP really has no need to do that or keep up with that; the only reason we do is because the USAF does it. If we had our own uniform, we wouldn't have to change it for a thousand years if we didn't want to.

And as I have said before, just because your squadron is fortunate enough to have a supply that can simply issue uniforms to every cadet does NOT mean that other squadrons (maybe even MOST squadrons) have that same resource. Many, MANY cadets have to buy their own uniforms anyway, and I think that a white shirt is actually going to cost LESS than a military blues shirt will.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 27, 2009, 02:15:44 AMWhy must this be so complicated?

Actually, I'm trying to simplify it. One dress uniform, one work uniform. That's it. You want more than two uniforms. YOUR solution is more complicated than mine. :)

Redundant post. Grrr.

(NOTE: I meant "whose," not "who's," in my most recent post on this thread. How'd I do that?)

Aw, come on. Those of you who wear the CSU don't see that the CSU complicated everything?

-- New epaulets.
-- New name tags, then a second revision.
-- New shirt.
-- New coat.
-- New windbreaker.
-- If you're prior military, a second rack of ribbons that excludes military decorations.
-- And so on.

The only thing that the Pineda Suit has in common with any CAP uniform is the pants, and they're the Air Force blue pants to begin with.

We already had a white-and-gray uniform for those who opt not to wear the Air Force uniform. Why did we need another uniform, except to maybe subvert the Air Force on the gray service-coat epaulets? Yip, like a hole in the head.

Slim, if you think I have antipathy for any other uniform but the Air Force's, you've ignored my entire body of posts here. CAP just didn't need the extra complication of the CSU, period. Especially since its existence subverts several regulations to begin with. After 25 years in CAP, I've seen enough diddling with the corporate combinations to know that if you want to keep costs down, stick with the Air Force uniforms. In no way does that discount the service of CAP members who can't meet standards to wear the Air Force uniforms.

Nathan, in case you've forgotten, CAP is the Air Force's auxiliary. The Air Force obviously wants to bring CAP closer to the fold, or at least one of their bigwigs told the National Board that. And we insist on doing things to separate ourselves? The uniform may seem like a lot of cloth to you, but it's an emblem, and symbols mean a lot. The Air Force uniform helps bring us closer, and legitimizes us as a part of the Total Force. (It's also less expensive and more readily available.)

For anyone to insist that CAP ditch the Air Force's uniforms is to say we should forsake the preponderance of our uniform history -- wearing the mother service's uniforms with different insignia on them.

To insist that some of us believe we can't carry out CAP's missions without the Air Force uniform is B.S. -- many CAP members have carried out CAP missions in other combinations for years. So what?

Yes, we've been around "longer than the USAF," but remember that the Air Force's predecessor is older than CAP. The separate Air Force has been around since 1947, but it grew out of the Army's aviation service. We danced with the Army Air Forces before Congress split them from the Army Ground Forces. America's air force, whatever its name, is older than CAP. Only the separate Air Force is younger.

To insist that the CSU will be "relevant far longer than any military uniform" is to ignore years of CAP's diddling with non-Air Force uniforms, and the seemingly constant tinkering CAP is doing with the CSU. (How many of you still have guyabera shirts and smurf suits in your closets?)

(Side note: Cadets in the CSU? Well, there goes the Air Force-funded free cadet uniform program.)

We'll never move away from the Air Force uniform, at least unless we lose our status as the Air Force's auxiliary and move to Homeland. The secondary uniform was perfectly fine as the whites-and-grays with the blazer. Why mess with that? Just to mess with it?

Gawd, has anybody heard about a pending funeral for this horse?

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 28, 2009, 08:07:54 PM
(Side note: Cadets in the CSU? Well, there goes the Air Force-funded free cadet uniform program.)

Its a different shirt.  I'd be willing to bet VG could handle that.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 28, 2009, 11:01:49 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 28, 2009, 08:07:54 PM
(Side note: Cadets in the CSU? Well, there goes the Air Force-funded free cadet uniform program.)

Its a different shirt.  I'd be willing to bet VG could handle that.

Vanguard may, but would the Air Force? I'd venture that answer is "no."

Quote from: Eclipse on March 28, 2009, 11:01:49 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 28, 2009, 08:07:54 PM
(Side note: Cadets in the CSU? Well, there goes the Air Force-funded free cadet uniform program.)

Its a different shirt.  I'd be willing to bet VG could handle that.

Oh I'm sure they would...but not for free.

If the AF has no objection I wish we'd just get on with it and allow the CSU for all seniors. I've seen so many versions of the grays from docker's to Haggars to cargo pants all in different shades.

I'm part of the camp that believes that we should simplify our uniform choices down to ones that are easily obtainable, economical, and can be worn by everyone regardless of weight or grooming.

Meetings & Classroom: Blue CAP Polo / Grey Pants (although I'd love to see Khaki allowed, grey pants available anywhere)
Professional Events:  White Aviator Shirt / Grey Pants \\ (Shirt about $20-$30 at multiple online stores)
Formal Events:  Blazer / Grey Pants combo \\ (if you have the grey pants already you just need to get a blazer)
Aircrew:  Navy Blue (non-nomex / flight-suit style) Coveralls \\ (under $36 shipped on Amazon)
Ground Team:  BDU's (Woodland Camo) (Need to get the weight/grooming standard abolished for this one.)

Most of these items (except the polo and insignia) are easily obtainable outside of Vanguard, and are relatively cheap.  I'm of the opinion that we should instead get rid of all other uniforms requiring the weight/grooming standards.  That's not to say that people should be dirty and smelly, but I don't think they should have to cut their hair or beard.  Many of the people that I have encountered outside of CAP, but have had some interaction with us, seem to be confused by why everyone seems to be wearing all sorts of different stuff yet we call them "uniform."

Currently we give the visible impression of a disorganized group with all of the uniforms we wear at any given time.  We have people wearing the AF uniform that shouldn't, and some others wearing the other options (following the rules) who feel like second class members.  Wouldn't it be better for our organization to standardize on one option per situation to be more inclusive?

Sometimes I get the strong impression that we keep these AF uniforms to appease those who just want to play military for one reason or another.

Yes, lets do away with our heritage to save about $20-50 per member. 

And the current situation isn't doing that already? It's a mess.

Quote from: flyingscotsman on March 29, 2009, 09:01:04 PM
I'm part of the camp that believes that we should simplify our uniform choices down to ones that are easily obtainable, economical, and can be worn by everyone regardless of weight or grooming.

Meetings & Classroom: Blue CAP Polo / Grey Pants (although I'd love to see Khaki allowed, grey pants available anywhere)
Professional Events:  White Aviator Shirt / Grey Pants \\ (Shirt about $20-$30 at multiple online stores)
Formal Events:  Blazer / Grey Pants combo \\ (if you have the grey pants already you just need to get a blazer)
Aircrew:  Navy Blue (non-nomex / flight-suit style) Coveralls \\ (under $36 shipped on Amazon)
Ground Team:  BDU's (Woodland Camo) (Need to get the weight/grooming standard abolished for this one.)

Most of these items (except the polo and insignia) are easily obtainable outside of Vanguard, and are relatively cheap.  I'm of the opinion that we should instead get rid of all other uniforms requiring the weight/grooming standards.  That's not to say that people should be dirty and smelly, but I don't think they should have to cut their hair or beard.  Many of the people that I have encountered outside of CAP, but have had some interaction with us, seem to be confused by why everyone seems to be wearing all sorts of different stuff yet we call them "uniform."

Currently we give the visible impression of a disorganized group with all of the uniforms we wear at any given time.  We have people wearing the AF uniform that shouldn't, and some others wearing the other options (following the rules) who feel like second class members.  Wouldn't it be better for our organization to standardize on one option per situation to be more inclusive?

Sometimes I get the strong impression that we keep these AF uniforms to appease those who just want to play military for one reason or another.

Many who became cadets did so because of the uniforms. Take that away, and not as many will be interested. They'll join Police or Fire Explorers instead, or something else with a uniform. A uniform means you belong to something, even if it takes a while for you to realize it's something more than just you.

As far as cheap goes, do you really want to look cheap? Fast track to shutdown there. A bunch of "almost" or "good enough" uniforms doesn't present a professional organization, no matter how competent they are.

BDU standards are not up to CAP. They're "on allowance" from the Air Force. Trying to abolish standards for them is the same kind of argument to return to blue boards. It isn't going to happen, and demanding it is senseless.

Our history is one of association with military airpower branches. We do the light work, the stuff that doesn't need Mach 2.

Do we need a dozen different uniforms? No, we don't, a couple will do. And I honestly doubt that there are people who feel second class. If they do, they shouldn't. Everyone brings something to CAP, regardless of whether they had military service or not. I've heard the idea that current and former military members don't belong in the Civil Air Patrol, along with "those military uniforms". One member felt that my service awards and decorations were "ostentatious". That kind of ignorance isn't one that teamwork is based on anymore than when those with military backgrounds think that "those civilians" can't handle the military aspects.

On another note, many of the members of this board are current or former military. It's not about "playing", we've been there. We just serve, or continue to serve, in other ways with CAP.

+1

I was over playing military years ago.   >:(  I think most people in CAP have better reasons for serving than that. 

We have too many uniforms, true.  And, from MY perspective it is NOT about the Fatties and the Fuzzies being considered "Second class" members.  (The special uniforms DO, however, lead to that perception).

For me it is about UNIFORMITY.  When our meetings look like NATO conferences, it is time to step back a bit and reconsider our positions.

I would support any one of the following options:

1.  Begging and whining to the AF to allow the clearly-marked Auxiliary variant of the the Air Force uniform to be worn be all CAP members, including the fat and the fuzzy.  Some limitation of fuzziness (The old USCG grooming standard, perhaps) would be appropriate.  The grossly too fat could not find AF uniforms to fit, anyway, so they would have to resort to golf shirts.  As would the fuzzies that could not meet the new, conservative facial hair standards.

2.  OK, Big Mother Blue says "No Way" to option 1.  Scrap the white and gray, scrap the sage green hero bags, scrap the BDU/ABU, and scrap the AF uniform altogether.  Go with Corporate-only uniforms for officers, including the TPU/CSU with modified facial-hair standards.  We then market our relation with the USAF as "... wearing a modified Air Force uniform."  Cadets still wear AF blue, even after age 18 if they can meet the height/weight standard.

Otherwise we will continue to look like a bunch of guys from different organizations.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 30, 2009, 02:44:36 PM
We have too many uniforms, true.  And, from MY perspective it is NOT about the Fatties and the Fuzzies being considered "Second class" members.  (The special uniforms DO, however, lead to that perception).

Kach, thanks for making my point a bit more clear.

It's not that we are considered second-class, it's the perception created by the different uniform.  And our customers ask about it all the time.  "Why is his uniform different?"  "Because he doesn't meet grooming standards, he can't wear the AF style uniform."  "Oh, so he's not a full member then?"

Same thing happens within the organization.  Try being an up and coming leader to a bunch of cadets, while wearing a corporate uniform.  I spent a lot of years breaking the stereotype-among cadets-that seniors who have to wear corporate uniforms aren't good examples.  Just because they aren't "real" uniforms doesn't mean you should look like a rag-bag while wearing them.  I always took the stance that my inability to meet one standard didn't relieve me of the ability to meet the others.  Yeah, I'm overweight, but hair and mustache are well within regs.  I take the time to polish boots and shoes, starch/iron uniforms so they look respectable, make sure everything is on them correctly, etc.

Are there parts of the CSU that I'm not comfortable with?  Sure, I don't like the fact that the epaulets are the same ones Air Force officers wear.  Other than that, it's close enough that we at least look like we're all on the same team.  The only really noticeable difference is the shirt color (and the jackets when wearing service dress).  I'd have no problem wearing the gray nameplate/epaulets on it either(it would be nice to get some use out of that stuff again).

For the record, Air Force blue uniform shirts are available in larger sizes through Lighthouse Uniform (and probably other suppliers).  A member of my CGAux flotilla bought his trops and alphas from them, custom made.  And we know Vanguard has pants in larger sizes. 

It would be nice if Big Blue took the same stance with us as the Coast Guard does with it's auxiliary.  That just might happen the day a whistling hog comes out of Appalachia.  I would also support scrapping AF style uniforms for all senior members.  Think of the problems that would solve: no more trolling for salute stories, no more monstrosities like Jimmydeano described in another post, etc.

Quote from: Slim on March 30, 2009, 08:00:06 PM
no more monstrosities like Jimmydeano described in another post, etc.

Those will, unfortunately, always exist.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 30, 2009, 02:44:36 PM
We have too many uniforms, true.  And, from MY perspective it is NOT about the Fatties and the Fuzzies being considered "Second class" members.  (The special uniforms DO, however, lead to that perception).

For me it is about UNIFORMITY.  When our meetings look like NATO conferences, it is time to step back a bit and reconsider our positions.

I would support any one of the following options:

1.  Begging and whining to the AF to allow the clearly-marked Auxiliary variant of the the Air Force uniform to be worn be all CAP members, including the fat and the fuzzy.  Some limitation of fuzziness (The old USCG grooming standard, perhaps) would be appropriate.  The grossly too fat could not find AF uniforms to fit, anyway, so they would have to resort to golf shirts.  As would the fuzzies that could not meet the new, conservative facial hair standards.

2.  OK, Big Mother Blue says "No Way" to option 1.  Scrap the white and gray, scrap the sage green hero bags, scrap the BDU/ABU, and scrap the AF uniform altogether.  Go with Corporate-only uniforms for officers, including the TPU/CSU with modified facial-hair standards.  We then market our relation with the USAF as "... wearing a modified Air Force uniform."  Cadets still wear AF blue, even after age 18 if they can meet the height/weight standard.

Otherwise we will continue to look like a bunch of guys from different organizations.

+1     :clap: :clap: :clap:

Why get rid of the AF uniform for those of us who can wear it?

Because the thin people uniform offends the not-thin people who can't wear it, and who are probably in the majority...

Good point, I will have to eat more ;D

Getting rid of the AF uniforms isn't the answer either...by getting rid of them we would be snubbing our parent organization (which is the US Air Force in case some of you have forgotten ;) ).

For those of you who argue that the white and grays are not a military-style uniform, think again. The fact of the matter is that the white and grays, the CSU, and the AF Blues are all 'military-style' uniforms. Take the shirts for example, they are pretty much the same except for the color. They all have epaulets, they all have two pockets, they are all button up, and they all have a collar. They all allow the wear of ribbons (which are of a military origin). The aviator shirt itself is based off of military uniforms. Back at the beginning of the aviation boom, a lot of pilots were military or prior military. It's cheaper to use what you have than it is to create something new. The other major differences between the uniforms (besides insignia...which needs to be the same IMHO) are the pant colors and the coats that go over them. How many times has the AF changed the color or the style of either of those items? I can count at least two times for each of those things. Pant color: transition from Army uniforms to AF uniforms, then they changed the shades. Coats (Service Jacket): Army uniform, old service jacket, McPeak style, new service jacket. And I'm sure there was was many more changes that I don't know about.

As much as I despise the polo, it has filled a nice niche in our organization. I would like to keep it around for those who don't want to wear 'military-style' uniforms.

What I would like to see happen is for all of the corporate uniforms to disappear with the exception of the polo. We would use AF uniforms with distinctive insignia (as distinctive as the AF wants it to be). I wouldn't want any CAP people making recommendations either. If the AF wants us to wear purple epaulets for example, then I will wear them. But CAP members shouldn't have a say in how distinctive we are. It's our privilege to wear the AF's uniforms not our right. By giving the AF more control, a lot of silly problems (like US CAP, playing musical patches, and the creation of a new uniform but no updated reg). The insignia would be distinctive enough so that everyone would wear these uniforms no matter their weight or fuzziness. If necessary, we could outlaw 'extreme' hairstyles to keep Mama Blue happy. Basically, we would hand over control of 39-1 to the AF with the understanding that the polo must stay an option and that we should be able to reasonably accommodate our members needs and wishes (read beards, weight problems, and disabilities)

For those who can't find a size big enough for the AF uniforms, the polo would be the only option. I could even be talked to into allowing gray BDU pants to be worn with the polo while in the field (meaning real ground pounding, not shuffling papers). Most of the AF uniforms can be found in some very large cuts, they just cost more or are not easily available...the internet is your friend. I've found 4X Large Regular BDUs on the internet. I'm sure there is some place that can make them even bigger.

In my opinion, by doing this, we would strengthen the ties not only within our organization, but with the Air Force.

Ok I'm done...flame away  :P

Keep the AF uniforms.
Keep the CSU with current grooming stds.
Dump the Grey and White.
Make khakis/khaki cargos standard for wear with the Blue Polo for our fine fuzzy friends.
As for formal events: if you want to have a beard and long hippie hair, than accept just wearing a civilian suit and tie with a CAP lapel pin.

Matt Brewer
Major, CAP

I'm not saying this will ever happen and I'm not even sure that I would want it to but I'm going to throw this out there for the dogpile.

Recently, I've been going through my old squadron's scrapbook and history materials trying to get it in some sort of coherent order and organization. And the thing I kept noticing is how neat some of the old style uniforms look and with the AF looking at adopting a "retro" style jacket here recently it got me thinking. Just a wild hair to be sure but....

Drop the gray/whites and the TPU/CSU/whatever and go to the old 1505 khakis with the long and short sleeve shirt and the old 4 pocket service coat in the same shade with the regular flight and bus driver hats. Use metal rank and CAP cutouts on the shirts and the coat and keep the black leather flight jackets but also authorize the navy blue nylon jackets. Use old Navy/USCG regs for facial hair and allow a certain amount of paunch for us "hmmmph" bigger people.

For the rest retain the golf shirt with khaki trousers or khaki cargo pants used with the plain desert tan BDUs which would become the utility uniform along with the desert boots or black (your choice). For you flying types, the plain tan desert bag would be the option.  

Go to the navy blue name and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes as well as the sew on ranks and cutouts. Keep the blue plastic TPU name tags for the dress uniforms and pretty much stay with all our other insignia.  If this is really stupid or already been suggested elsewhere, you may all pile on.

Quote from: olefido on March 31, 2009, 12:22:07 AM
I'm not saying this will ever happen and I'm not even sure that I would want it to but I'm going to throw this out there for the dogpile.

Recently, I've been going through my old squadron's scrapbook and history materials trying to get it in some sort of coherent order and organization. And the thing I kept noticing is how neat some of the old style uniforms look and with the AF looking at adopting a "retro" style jacket here recently it got me thinking. Just a wild hair to be sure but....

Drop the gray/whites and the TPU/CSU/whatever and go to the old 1505 khakis with the long and short sleeve shirt and the old 4 pocket service coat in the same shade with the regular flight and bus driver hats. Use metal rank and CAP cutouts on the shirts and the coat and keep the black leather flight jackets but also authorize the navy blue nylon jackets. Use old Navy/USCG regs for facial hair and allow a certain amount of paunch for us "hmmmph" bigger people.

For the rest retain the golf shirt with khaki trousers or khaki cargo pants used with the plain desert tan BDUs which would become the utility uniform along with the desert boots or black (your choice). For you flying types, the plain tan desert bag would be the option.  

Go to the navy blue name and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes as well as the sew on ranks and cutouts. Keep the blue plastic TPU name tags for the dress uniforms and pretty much stay with all our other insignia.  If this is really stupid or already been suggested elsewhere, you may all pile on.

That's certainly an interesting. I don't know what I think of it yet. You should at least get a gold star for thinking outside the box.

FWIW, the USAF personnel aren't a whole lot more uniform than we are.

Last Friday I took a little drive to a nearby AFB MCSS.  It was kind of busy, about 30 people in and out of  the store while I was there, but I did notice the non-uniformity of the uniforms.
BDU's with goretex
BDU's with old style BDU coat
BDU's with all weather coat
ABU's with green boots (and BDU goretex)
ABU's with black boots
ABU's with ABU goretex and green boots
Service Blues with: dress coat & tie, light weight jacket, all-weather coat, and a plastic cheapie poncho...
Flight suits with: black boots, green boots, nomex flight jacket, leather flight jacket, goretex
About 6 guys in various types of PT gear and a couple of maintenance guys in coveralls.

Fact is, the only uniform group in the whole store was me and the two employees in civvies...

Quote from: NCO forever on March 31, 2009, 01:06:46 AM

Quote from: olefido on March 31, 2009, 12:22:07 AM
I'm not saying this will ever happen and I'm not even sure that I would want it to but I'm going to throw this out there for the dogpile.

Recently, I've been going through my old squadron's scrapbook and history materials trying to get it in some sort of coherent order and organization. And the thing I kept noticing is how neat some of the old style uniforms look and with the AF looking at adopting a "retro" style jacket here recently it got me thinking. Just a wild hair to be sure but....

Drop the gray/whites and the TPU/CSU/whatever and go to the old 1505 khakis with the long and short sleeve shirt and the old 4 pocket service coat in the same shade with the regular flight and bus driver hats. Use metal rank and CAP cutouts on the shirts and the coat and keep the black leather flight jackets but also authorize the navy blue nylon jackets. Use old Navy/USCG regs for facial hair and allow a certain amount of paunch for us "hmmmph" bigger people.

For the rest retain the golf shirt with khaki trousers or khaki cargo pants used with the plain desert tan BDUs which would become the utility uniform along with the desert boots or black (your choice). For you flying types, the plain tan desert bag would be the option.  

Go to the navy blue name and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes as well as the sew on ranks and cutouts. Keep the blue plastic TPU name tags for the dress uniforms and pretty much stay with all our other insignia.  If this is really stupid or already been suggested elsewhere, you may all pile on.

That's certainly an interesting. I don't know what I think of it yet. You should at least get a gold star for thinking outside the box.

Actually, it's been considered before. Here's a good reason why we can't really consider it now: U.S. Navy Test uniform (http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=37508&page=2).

We attempt khaki, and we will look completely schizophrenic. Although we came out with our CSU first, we're gonna have some troubles with military personnel assuming that it's a soldier in an improper uniform. I know, we had it first. But there's still gonna be issues.

As to some of your other ideas, they're good ones. Cargo pants with the polo I like, even in polos it's nice to have places to put things.

Don't know about tan BDU's. I've seen some, and although they look OK, don't know about it. Tan flightsuit I'd definitely recommend against (even though I think it looks decent) for the simple fact that even used ones can be spendy. I can buy four or five used sage in excellent condition for the same price as a tan one. Good idea, but could cost a bit.

We have had the same nametags for years before the TPU came around, and we could really stand to reduce the number. But the basic ones as worn on blues, and the current white/grey combo are what we really need to hang onto. They tell both who and what we are.

Leather jackets I'd keep, but I wouldn't agree with nylon jackets for wear with service uniforms. Nylon is just not fitting for such formal attire.

Navy blue tapes? You got my vote (I'll figure out a way to vote several times under different names, if I can  :D ).

Some good ideas, but a few aren't practical. I wouldn't mind seeing the good ones adopted.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AM
FWIW, the USAF personnel aren't a whole lot more uniform than we are.

I would disagree highly with that.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AM
BDU's with goretex

We have that, plus a blue one that allows suitable civilian attire. Two options to one, different looking uniforms.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AMBDU's with old style BDU coat

We have that, too, plus a blue one with field jacket option. Although it's not a different uniform, just a different outergarment.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AMBDU's with all weather coat

Legal with our woodland BDU's, and based on what I just read, not authorized with the blue BDU. Again, not a different uniform, but different outergarments.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AM
ABU's with green boots (and BDU goretex)

Permitted, indicates that the APECS has not been completely fielded yet. Once we begin ABU transition, we would have three different variations of utility uniforms. And that's not including the blue jumpsuit.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AMABU's with black boots

Permitted for maintenance personnel, personally not sure why. The Air Force could have gone with the tan, and it looks fine. The leather turns tan after a while anyway.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AMABU's with ABU goretex and green boots

The standard ABU, as it should be worn. When we transition, this will be the standard for us as well.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AM
Service Blues with: dress coat & tie, light weight jacket, all-weather coat, and a plastic cheapie poncho...

Not really different uniforms. We have three variations on the same theme: blues, blue/white, grey/white. Don't know about the poncho, I wouldn't do it. That's what the all weather coat is for.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AM
Flight suits with: black boots, green boots, nomex flight jacket, leather flight jacket, goretex

Still the same uniform, but three different outergarments. The Gore Tex wouldn't be authorized for flying, and I don't see why anyone would wear it with a flightsuit. But it is authorized.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AMAbout 6 guys in various types of PT gear and a couple of maintenance guys in coveralls.

Same thing as the others, PT's are PT's, they were just different outergarments. As for coveralls, I'd figure civilian mechanics. The coverall is not permitted as an outer uniform garment for Air Force personnel, or at least it didn't used to be.

All in all, you only saw five uniforms, each one with a different function. With one uniform we don't have, there are nine variations. If we added PT's, and included ABU transition, we'd be talking about 11. We are far from uniform when multiple variations of the same theme (such as woodland BDU vs. Blue BDU, or blues vs. blue/white vs. grey/white) are available.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 31, 2009, 01:34:25 AMFact is, the only uniform group in the whole store was me and the two employees in civvies...

Now you weren't really uniform if you were wearing civvies, unless you were all wearing the same thing.

Quote from: sfdefender on March 31, 2009, 12:10:07 AM
Keep the AF uniforms.
Keep the CSU with current grooming stds.
Dump the Grey and White.
Make khakis/khaki cargos standard for wear with the Blue Polo for our fine fuzzy friends.
As for formal events: if you want to have a beard and long hippie hair, than accept just wearing a civilian suit and tie with a CAP lapel pin.

Matt Brewer
Major, CAP

Where do I sign?

Quote from: Hawk200

Quote from: Al SayreABU's with black boots

Permitted for maintenance personnel, personally not sure why. The Air Force could have gone with the tan, and it looks fine. The leather turns tan after a while anyway.

Doing maintenance around greasy things really wrecks any leather footwear, and it's even more noticeable on lighter-than-black suede items.

I spent a few years working on airplanes in the Canoe Club, and I can't imagine what I would have done to suede boots. MIL-H-5606, MIL-PRF-83282 (Formerly MIL-H-83282), MIL-L-23699, and other lubricating fluids do a real trick on footwear.

Quote from: SarDragon on March 31, 2009, 03:55:03 AM

Quote from: Hawk200

Quote from: Al SayreABU's with black boots

Permitted for maintenance personnel, personally not sure why. The Air Force could have gone with the tan, and it looks fine. The leather turns tan after a while anyway.

Doing maintenance around greasy things really wrecks any leather footwear, and it's even more noticeable on lighter-than-black suede items.

I spent a few years working on airplanes in the Canoe Club, and I can't imagine what I would have done to suede boots. MIL-H-5606, MIL-PRF-83282 (Formerly MIL-H-83282), MIL-L-23699, and other lubricating fluids do a real trick on footwear.

Never really had a problem with the same fluids, but then I've never dumped them where they've completely covered the boot either. Tan is more readily available, and it looks better than green leather.

Quote from: Always Ready on March 30, 2009, 11:56:05 PM
Getting rid of the AF uniforms isn't the answer either...by getting rid of them we would be snubbing our parent organization (which is the US Air Force in case some of you have forgotten ;) ).

What makes you think they would care???  Over 99.8% of the Air Force would never even know. 

Quote from: Short Field on March 31, 2009, 04:47:58 AM

Quote from: Always Ready on March 30, 2009, 11:56:05 PM
Getting rid of the AF uniforms isn't the answer either...by getting rid of them we would be snubbing our parent organization (which is the US Air Force in case some of you have forgotten ;) ).

What makes you think they would care???  Over 99.8% of the Air Force would never even know. 

I know that. Let me clarify a little bit. Our whole identity (prior to recently) and heritage was formed from the Army Air Corps and the AF. By getting rid of the AF uniforms, we get rid of the one thing that ties us to them and to all of the people who have served before us.

If we get rid of the AF uniforms, what would we have that ties us to our heritage??? Hmm, we've already taken the fact that we are the AF Auxiliary off of our majcom patch. The CSU nameplate says nothing about the AF Auxiliary either. Our new marketing logo doesn't mention the AF Auxiliary. Minus the gray nameplate, there is nothing on any of my uniforms that mentions our connection to the AF...besides the uniforms themselves (with the exception of one of my uniforms the BBDU).

This is one of the reasons I am not a fan of the BBDU. I sometimes wear it and every time I do I get accused of being a part of a Naval or Coastie entity, not an Air Force entity. Walk on any base wearing Blues and people will think you are in the AF. Even as a cadet, AF members would ask why I was wearing funny rank or what I do in the AF. This was on an active duty AF base too.

Honestly, I don't like this rift that has been created between us and the AF. I am honored to serve in Civil Air Patrol - the US Air Force Auxiliary. I am grateful for everything that this organization has done for me but I am even more grateful for the opportunities that the Air Force has given me through this organization. Things that I wouldn't ever be able to do if we were under DHS.

Quote from: sfdefender on March 31, 2009, 12:10:07 AM
...
Keep the CSU with current grooming stds.
...
Make khakis/khaki cargos standard for wear with the Blue Polo for our fine fuzzy friends.
As for formal events: if you want to have a beard and long hippie hair, than accept just wearing a civilian suit and tie with a CAP lapel pin.
...

I still have a hard time understanding how someone who is massively overweight can somehow look more professional and wear the uniform just because he shaves, than can someone who is superfit but happens to wear a neatly trimmed beard.  With the current CSU grooming standards, that is exactly what we are saying.

Note, it's been a long time since I could be considered superfit, if ever. :D

Quote from: davedove on March 31, 2009, 11:29:23 AM

Quote from: sfdefender on March 31, 2009, 12:10:07 AM
...
Keep the CSU with current grooming stds.
...
Make khakis/khaki cargos standard for wear with the Blue Polo for our fine fuzzy friends.
As for formal events: if you want to have a beard and long hippie hair, than accept just wearing a civilian suit and tie with a CAP lapel pin.
...

I still have a hard time understanding how someone who is massively overweight can somehow look more professional and wear the uniform just because he shaves, than can someone who is superfit but happens to wear a neatly trimmed beard.  With the current CSU grooming standards, that is exactly what we are saying.

Note, it's been a long time since I could be considered superfit, if ever. :D

Exactly, Dave. Maintaining the grooming standards for wearing the CSU would make no sense considering if someone is...say for instance...6ft. tall and 300lbs. Supposedly, he would still look professional just because he shaves. That makes no sense to me. I would rather see the CSU go away first as I've never been a fan of seeing overweight people be allowed to wear a uniform that looks too similar to the AF uniform. I saw enough overweight Airmen in uniform while on AD than I ever cared to to have CAP add to that in the eyes of the public. At least make the epaulets on the CSU gray to help distinguish those members choosing to wear this uniform from being potentially identified as AF members.

Quote from: Always Ready on March 31, 2009, 05:31:39 AM

Quote from: Short Field on March 31, 2009, 04:47:58 AM

Quote from: Always Ready on March 30, 2009, 11:56:05 PM
Getting rid of the AF uniforms isn't the answer either...by getting rid of them we would be snubbing our parent organization (which is the US Air Force in case some of you have forgotten ;) ).

What makes you think they would care???  Over 99.8% of the Air Force would never even know. 

I know that. Let me clarify a little bit. Our whole identity (prior to recently) and heritage was formed from the Army Air Corps and the AF. By getting rid of the AF uniforms, we get rid of the one thing that ties us to them and to all of the people who have served before us.

If we get rid of the AF uniforms, what would we have that ties us to our heritage??? Hmm, we've already taken the fact that we are the AF Auxiliary off of our majcom patch. The CSU nameplate says nothing about the AF Auxiliary either. Our new marketing logo doesn't mention the AF Auxiliary. Minus the gray nameplate, there is nothing on any of my uniforms that mentions our connection to the AF...besides the uniforms themselves (with the exception of one of my uniforms the BBDU).

This is one of the reasons I am not a fan of the BBDU. I sometimes wear it and every time I do I get accused of being a part of a Naval or Coastie entity, not an Air Force entity. Walk on any base wearing Blues and people will think you are in the AF. Even as a cadet, AF members would ask why I was wearing funny rank or what I do in the AF. This was on an active duty AF base too.

Honestly, I don't like this rift that has been created between us and the AF. I am honored to serve in Civil Air Patrol - the US Air Force Auxiliary. I am grateful for everything that this organization has done for me but I am even more grateful for the opportunities that the Air Force has given me through this organization. Things that I wouldn't ever be able to do if we were under DHS.

I understand and agree with all of your points.  But the problem remains... we have too many uniforms.  When CAP members get together, we look like a cluster of people from different organizations.  

Plus, a few of us do not seem to have the required number of functioning brain cells to understand the rules, and there is confusion and mixing of uniforms.  Especially when we have one uniform for "Fat and Fuzzy," another for "Fat but NOT Fuzzy," and yet a third for "Neither Fat nor Fuzzy."

There are only two options that I can see:

1.  Get the AF to adopt the USCG Aux standards for us in the AF uniform, or

2.  Get everybody into the CSU/TPU/BBDU/etc mode.  At least the CSU/TPU looks a little air force-ish.  The white and gray screams "Mall security guard."

Option 1 has about as much chance as a fart in a hurricane.  That leaves us with Option 2 or the status quo.

I used to be a mall security guard and our uniforms looked much better than the grey and white.  Not only that, but we only had one uniform combo!  We must have had our act together more than I thought, at least on the fashion front    ;D  If only CAP could do the same.

What would connect is to the USAF if we got rid of the Air Force uniform?

1) Rank structure
2) Missions
3) Regulations
4) Typical CAP culture
5) CSU (still looks pretty Air Forcey)
6) Order of authority
7) Benefits and funding
8) Cadet program
9) Training
10) AE and aerospace technology
11) USAF Aux still pasted on everything, including nametags and ID cards
12) etc...

I don't understand why some members question our ability to run our organization as normal while not wearing a uniform that represents history and heritage that isn't even ours.

Quote from: Nathan on March 31, 2009, 04:59:41 PM
I don't understand why some members question our ability to run our organization as normal while not wearing a uniform that represents history and heritage that isn't even ours.

:clap:

Quote from: Nathan on March 31, 2009, 04:59:41 PM
I don't understand why some members question our ability to run our organization as normal while not wearing a uniform that represents history and heritage that isn't even ours.

Wait, are you, as a triple-diamond, seriously suggesting we don't share USAF heritage?

Quote from: Eclipse on March 31, 2009, 05:18:36 PM

Quote from: Nathan on March 31, 2009, 04:59:41 PM
I don't understand why some members question our ability to run our organization as normal while not wearing a uniform that represents history and heritage that isn't even ours.

Wait, are you, as a triple-diamond, seriously suggesting we don't share USAF heritage?

That's what it reads a little like, Eclipse. And let's get over the "triple-diamond" thing. Spaatz kids put their pants on the same way everyone else does. (I know -- I came as close as one can possibly come without reaching the third diamond -- one question too many wrong on only one test on the second retest.)

The "USAF Auxiliary" mark has been taken off a bunch of things. Not only are we no longer the full-time auxiliary, but we have to strip ourselves of that moniker to satisfy Posse Comitatus. (Not that the sitting Commander In Chief has any worries about Posse Comitatus, but....).

The Army Air Forces/Air Force uniform has been part of CAP since the beginning. It's part of our heritage, shared with the mother service. It's one thing that holds the cadet program close to the Air Force. Without the discipline required of the Air Force uniform, a discpline that includes the rank/grade structure, the cadet program might as well be an aviation explorers or aviation scout society.

CAP is different. It's a two-headed organization -- half is military, the other half a 501(c)3. Let's not forget that. Our uniforms reflect that, as well. Some wear the military uniform. Some don't. It doesn't make anyone second-class, so get over it.

My beef is with the CSU, not that we have an alternate uniform for those who can't/won't wear the Air Force uniforms. If top leaders won't follow their own policies (and they didn't when the CSU was enacted and was technically dead after the ICL expired), why should we?  We pound this into cadets, then do the exact opposite: Leadership by example.

^+1

Quote from: Eclipse on March 31, 2009, 05:18:36 PM

Quote from: Nathan on March 31, 2009, 04:59:41 PM
I don't understand why some members question our ability to run our organization as normal while not wearing a uniform that represents history and heritage that isn't even ours.

Wait, are you, as a triple-diamond, seriously suggesting we don't share USAF heritage?

^+1  :o

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 31, 2009, 01:21:40 PM
I understand and agree with all of your points.  But the problem remains... we have too many uniforms.  When CAP members get together, we look like a cluster of people from different organizations.  

Plus, a few of us do not seem to have the required number of functioning brain cells to understand the rules, and there is confusion and mixing of uniforms.  Especially when we have one uniform for "Fat and Fuzzy," another for "Fat but NOT Fuzzy," and yet a third for "Neither Fat nor Fuzzy."

There are only two options that I can see:

1.  Get the AF to adopt the USCG Aux standards for us in the AF uniform, or

2.  Get everybody into the CSU/TPU/BBDU/etc mode.  At least the CSU/TPU looks a little air force-ish.  The white and gray screams "Mall security guard."

Option 1 has about as much chance as a fart in a hurricane.  That leaves us with Option 2 or the status quo.

And I agree and understand with all of your points...which means I have to digress from my argument a little. We all need to be in one uniform and if it means going to the CSU then so be it. But I don't want this to be another act of we, as the Air Force Auxiliary, distancing ourselves from the USAF or the USAF distancing themselves from us.

If we were to switch to the CSU or any other single uniform for all, the AF leadership and CAP leadership need to stress to everyone that this is an act of building esprit de corps, not a fashion statement (like the TPU was/is perceived) or perceived as a punishment from the AF like the maroon and now gray epaulet loops.

What I am saying is that CAP has it's own heritage and history, older and seperate than that of the USAF. I am certainly not suggesting that CAP's history is devoid of USAF involvement. But the Air Force uniform was developed by Air Force personel for Air Force missions and based on Air Force history. I'd bet my diamonds CAP didn't have anything to do with that process. While it is certainly an honor and gift to wear that uniform, it really only represents a part of who we are and where we come from, and certainly almost nothing about what we actually do. While the corporate uniforms may not be much closer to rectifying that, it doesn't change the argument. The uniform should be PART of our heritage, not THE heritage.

And as a leader in the CP, I think it is beyond ridiculous to suggest that it is the uniform that provides the glue for my cadets' discipline and success. I rather facied it's been the hard work and dedication of myself and other leaders of cadets. Their uniform does not teach them leadership, patriotism, and teamwork. I do that. The uniform REPRESENTS those values.

I'm sure that many cadets at certain military academies will be pleased to hear that CAP cadets must be better because the academy cadets only wear uniforms that LOOK militaristic rather than an actual military uniform...

CAP has its history, but it's intertwined with its parent. And it's not "older" than the Air Force -- it may be older than the separate Air Force, but not of America's military air service.

The uniform is an honor bestowed on CAP's membership. It says a lot about what we do -- whether it's flying cadets (ours, ROTC or JROTC), homeland security missions with 1AF, looking for ELTs and EPIRBs at 4 a.m., leadership laboratory with our own cadets, or "flying the flag" for the Air Force in communities with no Air Force presence.

Nathan said:

QuoteI'm sure that many cadets at certain military academies will be pleased to hear that CAP cadets must be better because the academy cadets only wear uniforms that LOOK militaristic rather than an actual military uniform...

(rolling eyes) Where did that come from? I don't think anyone implied that the uniform makes our cadets better than those at the academies.

What the Air Force uniform does is reinforce the teaching of followership, leadership, teamwork, respect and discipline. Without the uniform and its rank, grade and decorations, the CAP system of cadet achievements starts falling apart. What is there to work for -- the noble cause of educating oneself? Heck, you can get that anywhere else. While the work of volunteers should never be discounted, it's the program as well as the people that make CAP's cadet program what it is. The Air Force uniform and the military environment is the draw for kids to come to CAP versus some other youth organization. They stay when they feel they're in that environment, and when they can fly, trudge around in the field, sit in a radio room, march on a drill pad, stand inspections, and learn to do all the aforementioned (and related things), especially when they know it'll help them reach their goals.

But darnit, the cadet program is ONE THIRD of CAP. Emergency services is one third. So's aerospace education, which we tend to give little more than lip service to. And the fourth mission, which seems a little less tidy to explain, is support for Air Force missions. Wow, we're part of the family, so why would we not wear the same blues? Do we really want to be the red-headed stepchild? Is it an all-or-nothing game?

Quote from: Nathan on March 31, 2009, 05:48:58 PM
What I am saying is that CAP has it's own heritage and history, older and seperate than that of the USAF.

It seems like you've either missed some of those history lessons, or are willingly turning a blind eye to it. CAP started under Office of Civilian Defense, and while there uniforms were "good enough" comglomerations of civilian clothing. Since CAP was aligned under military branches, they've always worn a military variant uniform.

The argument that CAP needs to follow it's own heritage is garbage in light of the fact we don't have any history pertaining to uniforms of our own anyway. All our heritage there comes from other organizations. The blazer combo is not a heritage item, it came about due to concerns of members not meeting Weight/grooming standards. The CSU wasn't even necessary, and was produced primarily by a single person. Our heritage has been one of working with someone else, not by ourselves.

I am amazed that the attitude of some members is basically: "Hey, Air Force, you're gonna give us planes to fly, money to run our operations, and places to stay on your bases. But we're not gonna wear your uniform, and you can keep your regulations. So cough up all that stuff, and we'll be on our way." It's a mindset that will lead us all into being nothing but history.

Keep in mind that I don't think anyone here is advocating that we should take cadets out of the AF style uniforms (service dress or BDUs).  I think the general intent here is to take the seniors out of them.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 31, 2009, 06:57:03 PM
What the Air Force uniform does is reinforce the teaching of followership, leadership, teamwork, respect and discipline. Without the uniform and its rank, grade and decorations, the CAP system of cadet achievements starts falling apart. What is there to work for -- the noble cause of educating oneself? Heck, you can get that anywhere else. While the work of volunteers should never be discounted, it's the program as well as the people that make CAP's cadet program what it is. The Air Force uniform and the military environment is the draw for kids to come to CAP versus some other youth organization. They stay when they feel they're in that environment, and when they can fly, trudge around in the field, sit in a radio room, march on a drill pad, stand inspections, and learn to do all the aforementioned (and related things), especially when they know it'll help them reach their goals.

If it was the intent to take cadets out of the AF style uniforms, could the same thing not be achieved if the shirt was white, or the BDUs were blue?  Because that seems to be exactly what happens on the senior side of the house.  Again, I'm not suggesting that, or implying that anyone else is.

In the end, this-like any uniform argument around here-is nothing more than an exercise in "I'm right, you're wrong", failing to see the other side's argument, and raised blood pressure.  Nothing any one of us says is going to alter or affect the final outcome, so why get ourselves worked up over it? 

I agree with Kach and AlwaysReady, and my original posting was probably somewhat poorly worded.  It wasn't my intention to suggest that we need to look for the cheapest alternative for uniforms, but it does bear mentioning that whatever the standard is it needs to be affordable for the widest range of people.  For many of our events we do look like a NATO conference, with all sorts of combinations (correct and incorrect).  My strong desire is for us to have fewer uniform selections, that are more function oriented rather than weigh/grooming standards based.  I'm not complaining because I can't wear the AF style uni, far from it, I meet all of the requirements to do so.  I just think, as a non-profit volunteer organization, we can stand to improve our appearance to those outside of CAP while balancing the lifestyle choices of our members.  We have many worthwhile people in CAP that, for one reason or another, don't meet weight/grooming standards.  Calling people hippies and suggesting that they cut their beard is at best insulting and at worst enough to drive some to leave.  We have such a problem with finding quality members as it is to start disenfranchising those who don't fit your perception of normal looking.  Pairing the choices down, I believe, would go a long way to strengthen the esprit de corp within CAP.  I don't believe that ditching the AF uniform would insult the AF, or detract from our heritage.  To think so, I believe, trivializes our past accomplishments and relationship with the military.  I think this is more about strengthening our relationships with our fellow members.

P.s. I'm not suggesting eliminating AF uniforms for cadets, I'm only addressing our senior member uniform situation.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 31, 2009, 06:57:03 PM
CAP has its history, but it's intertwined with its parent. And it's not "older" than the Air Force -- it may be older than the separate Air Force, but not of America's military air service.

Semantics. We have been CAP longer than the USAF has been the USAF.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 31, 2009, 06:57:03 PMThe uniform is an honor bestowed on CAP's membership. It says a lot about what we do -- whether it's flying cadets (ours, ROTC or JROTC), homeland security missions with 1AF, looking for ELTs and EPIRBs at 4 a.m., leadership laboratory with our own cadets, or "flying the flag" for the Air Force in communities with no Air Force presence.

I honestly don't see how anyone except other CAP members can tell that we do that by our uniform. Hell, most of the USAF doesn't seem to know what we do or that we exist. Many of the comments I've seen on other boards by both USAF personel and others are generally negative toward our wear of the uniform, commonly referred to as "playing soldier." Of course, this does not reflect the professional opinion of the USAF, but it certainly does not support your counterargument.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 31, 2009, 06:57:03 PMWhat the Air Force uniform does is reinforce the teaching of followership, leadership, teamwork, respect and discipline. Without the uniform and its rank, grade and decorations, the CAP system of cadet achievements starts falling apart. What is there to work for -- the noble cause of educating oneself?

So let me get this straight... you would rather a cadet do good things merely for uniform bling? Or do you really believe that most cadets join this program because they are initially patriotic citizens wanting to donate time and money toward helping their country?

The latter assertion is flat out incorrect, and the former assertion would be against (what I believe, at least) to be the goal of the program. If we're supposed to be building model citizens and leaders, we should hopefully be building such leaders that don't need to be wearing a uniform in order to lead. They shouldn't need to get a ribbon for being alive for two years in order to stay motivated. While I understand that it is a driving factor for the cadets, it shouldn't STAY that way. They should eventually be able to move past the need for mateiral reward. The groundwork is even set up in the first leadership chapter. Integrity is the idea of doing the right thing even when no one is watching. No reward, but still doing the duty. THAT is the cadet we need to build in this program.

And let's be honest, the aviator shirt and CSU has a place for a ribbon, AND it has a place for rank. The C&C and rank structures won't change because we're not wearing a USAF uniform. The colors aren't going to make a difference if you're trying to motivate them through rank and awards.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 31, 2009, 06:57:03 PMThe Air Force uniform and the military environment is the draw for kids to come to CAP versus some other youth organization. They stay when they feel they're in that environment, and when they can fly, trudge around in the field, sit in a radio room, march on a drill pad, stand inspections, and learn to do all the aforementioned (and related things), especially when they know it'll help them reach their goals.

I think you're being a little unrealistically idealistic here. I highly, highly doubt that it is the AIR FORCE uniform that draws cadets into the program, although I'd be more than happy to conduct a survey of my squadron tonight. I would imagine it's the draw of a militaristic uniform, period. Ever been mistaken for being in the Army? For us, that's a laughable mistake, but to the general population, many of them don't know and/or don't care what the difference or significance between the separate branches are. Before I became a cadet, I had no idea that the Coast Guard and the Navy were even separate branches, and my father was IN the Navy. While I joined for the SAR aspect of the program, I will admit that the uniform was a lure for me. But it honestly wouldn't have mattered whether it was a USAF uniform, Navy, Marine, whatever.

Well, that's a bit of a fib. The Marine dress uniform is WAY too cool to pass up.  :)

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 31, 2009, 06:57:03 PMAnd the fourth mission, which seems a little less tidy to explain, is support for Air Force missions. Wow, we're part of the family, so why would we not wear the same blues? Do we really want to be the red-headed stepchild? Is it an all-or-nothing game?

I volunteer at a hospital. Should I be allowed to wear a white doctor's coat?
Being in support of a mission does not mean that we do the same things, and that the uniform was even really built for our needs. This becomes frighteningly apparent when one takes a moment to comprehend the thought process behind a SAR team wearing camoflauge.
And don't forget that we support a LOT of other programs in addition to the USAF. It is true that we support the USAF primarily, but in reality, we support whoever we are assigned to support BY the USAF (or even just by the higher ups in CAP), which could mean Coast Guard, police, firefighters, FEMA, some guy with a search dog, whatever.

And let's not act as if the CSU doesn't LOOK like a USAF uniform. It does; it almost looks more like the USAF uniform than a senior member with gray epauletes does. I think being allowed to even get that close to the uniform is an honor, and we could stick every member in it.
Imagine if our uniforms were uniform... that'd be a sight...

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 31, 2009, 02:10:19 AM

Quote from: NCO forever on March 31, 2009, 01:06:46 AM

Quote from: olefido on March 31, 2009, 12:22:07 AM
I'm not saying this will ever happen and I'm not even sure that I would want it to but I'm going to throw this out there for the dogpile.

Recently, I've been going through my old squadron's scrapbook and history materials trying to get it in some sort of coherent order and organization. And the thing I kept noticing is how neat some of the old style uniforms look and with the AF looking at adopting a "retro" style jacket here recently it got me thinking. Just a wild hair to be sure but....

Drop the gray/whites and the TPU/CSU/whatever and go to the old 1505 khakis with the long and short sleeve shirt and the old 4 pocket service coat in the same shade with the regular flight and bus driver hats. Use metal rank and CAP cutouts on the shirts and the coat and keep the black leather flight jackets but also authorize the navy blue nylon jackets. Use old Navy/USCG regs for facial hair and allow a certain amount of paunch for us "hmmmph" bigger people.

For the rest retain the golf shirt with khaki trousers or khaki cargo pants used with the plain desert tan BDUs which would become the utility uniform along with the desert boots or black (your choice). For you flying types, the plain tan desert bag would be the option.  

Go to the navy blue name and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes as well as the sew on ranks and cutouts. Keep the blue plastic TPU name tags for the dress uniforms and pretty much stay with all our other insignia.  If this is really stupid or already been suggested elsewhere, you may all pile on.

That's certainly an interesting. I don't know what I think of it yet. You should at least get a gold star for thinking outside the box.

Actually, it's been considered before. Here's a good reason why we can't really consider it now: U.S. Navy Test uniform (http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=37508&page=2).

We attempt khaki, and we will look completely schizophrenic. Although we came out with our CSU first, we're gonna have some troubles with military personnel assuming that it's a soldier in an improper uniform. I know, we had it first. But there's still gonna be issues.

As to some of your other ideas, they're good ones. Cargo pants with the polo I like, even in polos it's nice to have places to put things.

Don't know about tan BDU's. I've seen some, and although they look OK, don't know about it. Tan flightsuit I'd definitely recommend against (even though I think it looks decent) for the simple fact that even used ones can be spendy. I can buy four or five used sage in excellent condition for the same price as a tan one. Good idea, but could cost a bit.

We have had the same nametags for years before the TPU came around, and we could really stand to reduce the number. But the basic ones as worn on blues, and the current white/grey combo are what we really need to hang onto. They tell both who and what we are.

Leather jackets I'd keep, but I wouldn't agree with nylon jackets for wear with service uniforms. Nylon is just not fitting for such formal attire.

Navy blue tapes? You got my vote (I'll figure out a way to vote several times under different names, if I can  :D ).

Some good ideas, but a few aren't practical. I wouldn't mind seeing the good ones adopted.

Actually, I was counting on the fact that the Navy still wears the khakis in my consideration. It would ease the supply issue as someones already making them and they are in the supply system. The only pproblem with that would be the service coat. Does the Navy one have the belt?

The Navy does wear the khakis. So do the CG, PHS, and NOAA. And we managed to get through several decades(40s,50s,60s) where all the services wore a version of the khakis without schizophrenia or identity problems. The headgear would be the most obvious outdoors where a lot of that sort of thing happens(saluting wise anyway).

The nylon jacket I mentioned was the blue windbreaker we wear with the blues although in looking at some of the old photos a nylon blue flight jacket of good quality looked pretty good with a khaki uniform.

The tan BDUs are considered because it keeps a consistent uniform color thoughout the concept without the schizophrenia of wearing camouflage BDUs with an orange safety vest. It is also a color used by a lot of civilian ES groups and would fit right in with the consistency that we are trying to get through NIMS.

The tan bag I would be flexible on. Like the BDUs I was just going for color consistency although I think in a couple of years the tan bags will be as available as the sage.

I didn't mention it in the previous post but this concept would even extend to the blaser combo with tan trousers, white aviator shirt(LS or SS) and the blazer.

I have seen in here the phrases fat/fuzzies and weight/grooming standards.  Folks need to separate the two - they are two separate issues.  One is just a haircut/shave away, the other is much more tangled.

I think there's too much desire to get rid of the Air Force, in uniform, regulation, oversight, etc.

The Air Force told us years ago that if certain standards weren't met, their uniform wasn't permitted to be worn. That's why we have the blazer combo now. It was allowing those not meeting certain standards to participate. In a way, the allowance had to be made, because telling people that they couldn't join if they were too heavy, or had long hair would have been a lawyer's wet dream.

It seems that people want to disassociate CAP from the Air Force, and have many different excuses. Stuff costs too much, I don't need a uniform, we're not the military, nobody tells me what to do, there's too many rules.

As to the CSU, I think it's OK as an alternate, but I don't prefer to wear it. Why should I have to go buy it because someone else doesn't fit in my size? I've got numerous things from my time in the Air Force that I still use in CAP. Free stuff (if you don't count the enlistment requirement). Why should I have to go out and buy "cheaper " stuff? I wouldn't be saving money at all, because I've got to spend it on something else.

We don't need to lose the Air Force uniform, anymore than we can handle losing the Air Force. CAP can not, and would not stand on it's own. You want an independant organization? Go find one. Don't change the Civil Air Patrol I joined because you don't feel like answering to someone.

But back to the original topic. I think we should lose one of the alternates, white/grey being the less "uniform" uniform. Or if you want to go cheap, ditch the CSU. Just pick one, and do something about it.

+100

AMEN!

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 31, 2009, 10:33:56 PM
+100

AMEN!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 31, 2009, 10:28:11 PM
As to the CSU, I think it's OK as an alternate, but I don't prefer to wear it. Why should I have to go buy it because someone else doesn't fit in my size?

Because we are supposed to look and act like a team.  Shared vision, goals, and methods.  We should settle on something that works for all our senior members, performing all our missions, and ditch the rest.  

Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 31, 2009, 11:29:26 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 31, 2009, 10:28:11 PM
As to the CSU, I think it's OK as an alternate, but I don't prefer to wear it. Why should I have to go buy it because someone else doesn't fit in my size?

Because we are supposed to look and act like a team.  Shared vision, goals, and methods.  We should settle on something that works for all our senior members, performing all our missions, and ditch the rest.  

I concede that we should look like a team, when the large majority of CAP acts like one. I don't see a lot of that. There are too many divisions now within CAP. You can change the uniforms all you want, but you'll still have those that lack the integrity to follow the rules, that lack the self discipline to look presentable in the most basic of uniforms, lack the commitment to be part of shared visions, goals, and methods.

Personally, I don't care for "settling". That's part of the problem. Uphold the standards, don't lower the bar. If you can't meet the standards, don't join. Settling shouldn't be an option.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 31, 2009, 11:29:26 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 31, 2009, 10:28:11 PM
As to the CSU, I think it's OK as an alternate, but I don't prefer to wear it. Why should I have to go buy it because someone else doesn't fit in my size?

Because we are supposed to look and act like a team.  Shared vision, goals, and methods.  We should settle on something that works for all our senior members, performing all our missions, and ditch the rest.  

Going off of several members' thinking and my want of more esprit de corps (read: one uniform):
So let's think rationally. It would be more efficient and effective to use a current uniform out of our arsenal than create a new one. It would also be more efficient to use something that doesn't require any major changes from the current rules/situation. That leaves the white and grays as the only option out of the three (Blues, CSU, and white and grays). Since it is the only uniform out of the three we can all wear without major changes to 39-1 (the CSU isn't even in 39-1 and there are too many restrictions on the Blues), then why don't we just use the white and grays?

Pros:
-It is an existing uniform that is legit with set standards in the current 39-1.
-Everyone can already wear it.
-Pants are readily available and a significant number of our members already own them.
-The aviator shirt is readily available and a significant number of our members already own them.
-Same nameplate as the Blues.
   -Nameplate has "UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY" on it ;D
-Would not require AF approval of most items because it is a corporate uniform (debatable...but not for this thread)
-Shoes and belt easily available
-Cheaper than Blues and the CSU *see below*

Cons:
-No military bling (this is a 'pro' for some)
-Initial cost for those who don't already own it (but this will be a con no matter what uniform we have)
   -Taking into account that the member may not own any uniform items common with the uniform
     *Prices can be cheaper or more expensive depending on supplier and not including appropriate outer or under garments (for those of you who wear them)*
      -Approximately $70 depending on your size and supplier for the white and grays
      -Approximately $150 for the CSU or Blues
-While some parts of the uniform have military lineage, it is not a current or former AF uniform.

Thoughts? (Not that you weren't going to give them anyway ;))

Quote from: Hawk200 on April 01, 2009, 12:24:30 AM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 31, 2009, 11:29:26 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 31, 2009, 10:28:11 PM
As to the CSU, I think it's OK as an alternate, but I don't prefer to wear it. Why should I have to go buy it because someone else doesn't fit in my size?

Because we are supposed to look and act like a team.  Shared vision, goals, and methods.  We should settle on something that works for all our senior members, performing all our missions, and ditch the rest.  

I concede that we should look like a team, when the large majority of CAP acts like one. I don't see a lot of that. There are too many divisions now within CAP. You can change the uniforms all you want, but you'll still have those that lack the integrity to follow the rules, that lack the self discipline to look presentable in the most basic of uniforms, lack the commitment to be part of shared visions, goals, and methods.

Personally, I don't care for "settling". That's part of the problem. Uphold the standards, don't lower the bar. If you can't meet the standards, don't join. Settling shouldn't be an option.

True, there is lots of division.  That's no excuse for not starting somewhere.  Looking like a team is the most visible place we could start, but not the only one.  As for "settling," well, the bar was set a long time ago.  That standard was to accept members that don't qualify to wear the Air Force uniforms.  As we move forward we can either perpetuate existing divisions or we can get our act together.

The current uniform circus is embarrassing.  We sometimes look like passers-by caught in an Army/Navy store explosion.  It's a failure of leadership that reflects on us all.  We can create one set of rules instead of having people run off in a bunch of different directions.  The leadership courage to do so is lacking.  We are damaging our image, our brand.

As long as most uniform wearers have their act together and look like a team, the few screw-ups shame themselves more than the rest of us.  I prefer to keep the supposed fat & fuzzy members fully engaged and uniformed like the rest of the team.  If people want to leave CAP because they can't rise to a standard that includes dressing properly, I'll hold the door open for them.  (In this context "dressing properly" means following the rules, having a properly maintained uniform, and a firm grasp on personal hygiene.  ;-)  )

Oh well.  It probably won't happen anyway.  But I did get some typing practice! 

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 31, 2009, 10:28:11 PM
I think there's too much desire to get rid of the Air Force, in uniform, regulation, oversight, etc.

The Air Force told us years ago that if certain standards weren't met, their uniform wasn't permitted to be worn. That's why we have the blazer combo now. It was allowing those not meeting certain standards to participate. In a way, the allowance had to be made, because telling people that they couldn't join if they were too heavy, or had long hair would have been a lawyer's wet dream.

It seems that people want to disassociate CAP from the Air Force, and have many different excuses. Stuff costs too much, I don't need a uniform, we're not the military, nobody tells me what to do, there's too many rules.

As to the CSU, I think it's OK as an alternate, but I don't prefer to wear it. Why should I have to go buy it because someone else doesn't fit in my size? I've got numerous things from my time in the Air Force that I still use in CAP. Free stuff (if you don't count the enlistment requirement). Why should I have to go out and buy "cheaper " stuff? I wouldn't be saving money at all, because I've got to spend it on something else.

We don't need to lose the Air Force uniform, anymore than we can handle losing the Air Force. CAP can not, and would not stand on it's own. You want an independant organization? Go find one. Don't change the Civil Air Patrol I joined because you don't feel like answering to someone.

But back to the original topic. I think we should lose one of the alternates, white/grey being the less "uniform" uniform. Or if you want to go cheap, ditch the CSU. Just pick one, and do something about it.

Hawk:

Please do not misunderstand my position.

I want to retain close ties to the AF, and be considered even more than we are to be a functioning entity within the Air Force.  That's why, if we were to go to a single uniform, I would recommend the TPU/CSU.  It can be marketed as a "Modified AF uniform," as opposed to our current "AF uniform with distinctive insgnia."

My first choice would be for the AF to modify its standards, especially with regard to weight.  But that is not likely.  Use of the TPU/BBDU, etc. for officers is an admittedly poor second choice.

And Nathan, for a three-diamond dude you seem to have a pitifully superficial grasp of our history and traditions.  We share a lot of history and tradition with the AF.  The AF, with its new "Heritage to Horizon" focus, has come to realize our contributions to victory in World War II were very real.  As a result of our submarine patrols, the AF can lay claim to the fact that CAP was the first irregular military force to engage and defeat an armed enemy force since the War of 1812.  Our cadet program reduced the washout rate from aircrew training significantly.  The "Triple Nickel," the 555th PIR, (an all-black unit) jumped in to put out forest fires started by Jap balloon bombs, but those fires were first spotted by CAP patrols.

Our heritage is intertwined.  That used to be reflected in our uniforms and performance, but things got confused over the years.

Now, CAP members with combat service are called "Inappropriate."

Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 01, 2009, 01:12:53 AMTrue, there is lots of division.  That's no excuse for not starting somewhere.  Looking like a team is the most visible place we could start, but not the only one.  As for "settling," well, the bar was set a long time ago.  That standard was to accept members that don't qualify to wear the Air Force uniforms.  As we move forward we can either perpetuate existing divisions or we can get our act together.

The current uniform circus is embarrassing.  We sometimes look like passers-by caught in an Army/Navy store explosion.  It's a failure of leadership that reflects on us all.  We can create one set of rules instead of having people run off in a bunch of different directions.  The leadership courage to do so is lacking.  We are damaging our image, our brand.

As long as most uniform wearers have their act together and look like a team, the few screw-ups shame themselves more than the rest of us.  I prefer to keep the supposed fat & fuzzy members fully engaged and uniformed like the rest of the team.  If people want to leave CAP because they can't rise to a standard that includes dressing properly, I'll hold the door open for them.  (In this context "dressing properly" means following the rules, having a properly maintained uniform, and a firm grasp on personal hygiene.  ;-)  )

Oh well.  It probably won't happen anyway.  But I did get some typing practice! 

So we throw away one of the deepest roots of our heritage. May as well go independent and fully corporate. Give up the Air Force funding, Air Force support, Air Force facilities. We'd really have no right to them.

The number one thing people here are forgetting is what team they're actually part of. There are people here that know which one, many don't. Think about it. If that doesn't change your viewpoint, you don't belong in CAP.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 31, 2009, 10:28:11 PMThe Air Force told us years ago that if certain standards weren't met, their uniform wasn't permitted to be worn. That's why we have the blazer combo now.

Help me out here. The blazer has been around since at least 1968. Back then, WIWAC, there didn't seem to be a significant problem with weight and grooming, particularly the latter. Did I miss something?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 01, 2009, 01:48:51 AMHawk:

Please do not misunderstand my position.

I want to retain close ties to the AF, and be considered even more than we are to be a functioning entity within the Air Force.  That's why, if we were to go to a single uniform, I would recommend the TPU/CSU.  It can be marketed as a "Modified AF uniform," as opposed to our current "AF uniform with distinctive insgnia."

My first choice would be for the AF to modify its standards, especially with regard to weight.  But that is not likely.  Use of the TPU/BBDU, etc. for officers is an admittedly poor second choice.

Yet again, said much better than I could.

+1

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 01, 2009, 01:48:51 AM
And Nathan, for a three-diamond dude you seem to have a pitifully superficial grasp of our history and traditions.  We share a lot of history and tradition with the AF.  The AF, with its new "Heritage to Horizon" focus, has come to realize our contributions to victory in World War II were very real.  As a result of our submarine patrols, the AF can lay claim to the fact that CAP was the first irregular military force to engage and defeat an armed enemy force since the War of 1812.  Our cadet program reduced the washout rate from aircrew training significantly.  The "Triple Nickel," the 555th PIR, (an all-black unit) jumped in to put out forest fires started by Jap balloon bombs, but those fires were first spotted by CAP patrols.

Our heritage is intertwined.  That used to be reflected in our uniforms and performance, but things got confused over the years.

Now, CAP members with combat service are called "Inappropriate."

You misunderstand. I am well verse in CAP history and heritage.

But we were not wearing our current uniform when we were so intertwined with the USAF. Our current uniform is updated to reflect the traditions, heritage, and style of the USAF in contemporary times. While CAP has always had a close relationship with the USAF, when we moved away from combat missions, our relationship was not as close as in the war years. They fought in countless battles that we did not, likely without even thinking of us. While we moved into our current agendas, they moved into theirs.

The uniform we wear now is reflective of the current USAF, which is not nearly as meaningful or closely linked to our heritage as the WWII uniform might be. If we want to REALLY have heritage in our meaning, we can go back to those fatigues, I suppose.

Look, my argument is not that we should get rid of the USAF uniform. I wear it, and will continue to do so until told otherwise. My argument, though, is that we SHOULD put everyone in one uniform, since we have our own heritage and uniformity to worry about, and if we are going to do that, the USAF uniform is likely not the wisest choice.

Quote from: Hawk200 on April 01, 2009, 01:51:22 AM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 01, 2009, 01:12:53 AMTrue, there is lots of division.  That's no excuse for not starting somewhere.  Looking like a team is the most visible place we could start, but not the only one.  As for "settling," well, the bar was set a long time ago.  That standard was to accept members that don't qualify to wear the Air Force uniforms.  As we move forward we can either perpetuate existing divisions or we can get our act together.

The current uniform circus is embarrassing.  We sometimes look like passers-by caught in an Army/Navy store explosion.  It's a failure of leadership that reflects on us all.  We can create one set of rules instead of having people run off in a bunch of different directions.  The leadership courage to do so is lacking.  We are damaging our image, our brand.

As long as most uniform wearers have their act together and look like a team, the few screw-ups shame themselves more than the rest of us.  I prefer to keep the supposed fat & fuzzy members fully engaged and uniformed like the rest of the team.  If people want to leave CAP because they can't rise to a standard that includes dressing properly, I'll hold the door open for them.  (In this context "dressing properly" means following the rules, having a properly maintained uniform, and a firm grasp on personal hygiene.  ;-)  )

Oh well.  It probably won't happen anyway.  But I did get some typing practice! 

So we throw away one of the deepest roots of our heritage. May as well go independent and fully corporate. Give up the Air Force funding, Air Force support, Air Force facilities. We'd really have no right to them.

The number one thing people here are forgetting is what team they're actually part of. There are people here that know which one, many don't. Think about it. If that doesn't change your viewpoint, you don't belong in CAP.

I did not suggest throwing away any heritage or detaching from our relationship with the Air Force.  It would be preferable if the Air Force relaxed their standards so all our members could wear one uniform.  Absent that, we should present one image instead of segregating some of our members.  Our uniforms aren't our primary connection to the Air Force, our mission is.  

If we can't put everyone in the Air Force uniform, then, and only then, should we consider everyone in an alternative. There are plenty of examples of auxiliaries, reserves, and other volunteers who don't wear the same uniform as their parent organization.  They don't lose their personalities as a result, nor do they have to pack up their toys and go home.

Our problem is two-fold:

1.  The USAF has some standards.  They started out as grooming standards, (And, BTW, we had blazers back in 1963, but very few folks wore them except for on the IACE) and they progressed to height/weight standards.  Don't meet the standard, no USAF uniform.

2.  The other problem we face is with our own higher command.  The plethora of uniforms is simply not seen as a problem at NHQ.  Therefore, we have no advocate to go to the USAF and address the standards issue, and they have no incentive to reduce the total number of uniforms.

In fact, when the VSAF program kicked off, NHQ gleefully and enthusiastically offered another new uniform to be worn on this mission.  Even though the existing golf shirt ensemble served the same function as the Retail Store Associate Polo Shirt Uniform.

They sort of remind me of drunks, who cheerfully shout "That calls for a drink!" with every barroom event.  "Another mission?  Great!  That calls for a new uniform!"

Should the AF be approached with a request to modify standards?  Sure.  Under the CAP absolute-weight standards I can weigh a maximum of 205 for my height.  In the Army, I weighed as much as 221 and still met the body-fat standard.  Will NHQ do that?  Probably not.

I have reviewed the various uniform discussions on this board over the past 4 years. If we talked about something else... we would have enough time left over to rescue everyone on the planet 5 times over.
Happy April Fools Day.

I would be more than happy to trade the current absolutes of height/weight to a performance-based PT standard.

A fitted shirt is never going to get a Christmas card from me, but I'm usually pretty close on the tables.  I ping-pong in and out of weight, which is one of the reasons that my closet is so full because as a Group CC I feel I have to set the example, and I can't, with a straight face, give someone else grief if I'm launching buttons myself.

With that said, I did a unit visit last night and didn't feel like strapping into my CSU (garters, etc.) so I wore my blazer.
Fully pressed, properly tailored, it still looked like crap.  Not a shred of military bearing or weight to it whatsoever.
The first thing the unit CC said to me was "Thanks for coming but my insurance needs are taken care of."  (heh, he doesn't need to waste money on new grade insignia for while)

I felt like crap the whole night because I had taken the "easy" way out because I didn't feel like the effort required to get into the service dress.

While my SD may have commented that the CSU is "shiny", at least it presents itself with a similar weight to a military uniform, including demonstrating my history and experience through the ribbons and badges.  It also shows my membership that I am willing to take and spend the same effort that I expect from them with their uniforms - its hard to speak with credibility about using a ruler to alighn your badges and ribbons when you're wearing a jacket with two pins (or worse that horrific magnetic pocket thing).

I won't be taking the lazy way out again any time soon.

And before someone makes the obvious joke about the CSU having "weight", save it - I know a number of members who are well within the tables and still chose the CSU simply because they like it.

I don't mind the TPU/CSU appearance so much anymore, since I got one.  Actually, other than the fact that only a complete moron would select a double-breasted uniform for fat guys, it does appear to be USAF-like in appearance.

Now that a lot of us have accepted it, however, NHQ and the NB go an screw it up by denying the veterans among us the right to wear military ribbons on it.  That has been hashed out already, though, and I have made my personal decision with regard to wear of the TPU/CSU now that I have been ruled "Inappropriate."

Nathan, you start off so well (well, except for the typo), then you immediately fall on your face.

Quote from: Nathan on April 01, 2009, 01:43:17 PM
You misunderstand. I am well verse in CAP history and heritage.

But we were not wearing our current uniform when we were so intertwined with the USAF. Our current uniform is updated to reflect the traditions, heritage, and style of the USAF in contemporary times. While CAP has always had a close relationship with the USAF, when we moved away from combat missions, our relationship was not as close as in the war years. They fought in countless battles that we did not, likely without even thinking of us. While we moved into our current agendas, they moved into theirs.

Not only was CAP "not wearing our current uniform when we were so intertwined with the USAF," but the Air Force wasn't, either. We were wearing the THEN-current Air Force uniform. It evolved from the "pinks and greens" of World War II, which evolved from the Army's previous uniforms. It turned blue, then bluer, and then in 1992, became like the Army's mid-1940s "separate air force" design with no pockets.

And, oh, in case you haven't noticed, we're in the fight these days. Who flew over the WTC doing aerial recon? Who flies intercept-training flights for 1AF? Who is preparing for national emergencies (well, those of us who actually heeded the ICS-course warnings)? But if you're immersed exclusively in the cadet program, I could see you missing all that. The cadet program isn't exactly at the tip of the spear.

Quote from: Nathan on April 01, 2009, 01:43:17 PM
The uniform we wear now is reflective of the current USAF, which is not nearly as meaningful or closely linked to our heritage as the WWII uniform might be. If we want to REALLY have heritage in our meaning, we can go back to those fatigues, I suppose.

Fatigues are another uniform altogether, a work uniform many of us remember fondly as the "OG 507s" or "pickle suits."

You say the Air Force uniform isn't as closely linked to our heritage as that of the WWII uniform? There are a few folks inside the Air Force who might agree. But the WWII uniform was an Army uniform, and the Air Force (or at least Gen. McPeak) sought a distinct Air Force uniform... and went back to the separate-Air Force uniform the Army designed for such an occasion (and that wasn't used until 1992).

And the "heritage service coat" proposal is dead now. Seems Air Force leadership is more concerned with nuclear safety these days than uniforms, and that's a good thing. Maybe if more CAP members would spend time concerned with mission readiness (how many folks didn't do ICS 100/200/700/800 by the deadline, and had their ops quals suspended?) and less time designing their own uniform (former national commanders included), maybe we'd be a little more respected by the mothership and by its people.

We work side by side with First Air Force and the Air Force's homeland-security and SAR folks, not just under Air University to train cadets. We wear the same uniform because...

WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.

So why deny our service connection, when we should be enthusiastic about being the Air Force's uniformed civilian auxiliary? If people have a problem with our military connection, they joined the wrong organization. I hear the Red Cross and Salvation Army are looking....

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 01, 2009, 04:02:42 PM
Not only was CAP "not wearing our current uniform when we were so intertwined with the USAF," but the Air Force wasn't, either. We were wearing the THEN-current Air Force uniform. It evolved from the "pinks and greens" of World War II, which evolved from the Army's previous uniforms. It turned blue, then bluer, and then in 1992, became like the Army's mid-1940s "separate air force" design with no pockets.

I know that. What's your point? The fact that we had NO uniforms then does not support anything in the argument.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 01, 2009, 04:02:42 PMAnd, oh, in case you haven't noticed, we're in the fight these days. Who flew over the WTC doing aerial recon? Who flies intercept-training flights for 1AF? Who is preparing for national emergencies (well, those of us who actually heeded the ICS-course warnings)? But if you're immersed exclusively in the cadet program, I could see you missing all that. The cadet program isn't exactly at the tip of the spear.

...none of which involve the fighting... right? Unless I forgot what the military does again.

The USAF, like any branch of the military, is here to kill people and break things (very loosely). We are not. We perform USAF SAR missions as a free service to them, but it certainly doesn't make us USAF. At least not to the extent where we could claim to have the same responsibilities they do. They fight. We don't even really support their fight (as in the actual FIGHTING part of the USAF, its primary purpose as a military organization). We support their civil missions, which, strangely enough, has "civilian" written all over it anyway.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 01, 2009, 04:02:42 PMMaybe if more CAP members would spend time concerned with mission readiness (how many folks didn't do ICS 100/200/700/800 by the deadline, and had their ops quals suspended?) and less time designing their own uniform (former national commanders included), maybe we'd be a little more respected by the mothership and by its people.

Under that logic, our missions would be made significantly safer and more effective if we were allowed to use uniforms actually designed for search and rescue, and not combat. But that's (almost) beside the point.

And, as I've said, I have seen far more DISRESPECT from the military members, USAF included, for wearing a military uniform than respect. Regardless of what's right, or what the military's official position is, many a military member that I've at least had experience with don't appreciate us enjoying a uniform without having to sacrifice what the RealMilitary expects those wearing the uniform to sacrifice. Under that, I would imagine we would get far more respect if we continued to do our mission, and continued to hold true to our relationship with the USAF, but felt secure enough in our abilities to wear a civilian uniform while doing so.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 01, 2009, 04:02:42 PMWe work side by side with First Air Force and the Air Force's homeland-security and SAR folks, not just under Air University to train cadets. We wear the same uniform because...

WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.

Agreed. However, I will say that even though (despite your beliefs) I am NOT involved entirely in cadet programs, and spend a good deal of time working on other projects, I very rarely am ever working side-by-side with the USAF. I find myself working more closely with the police in support of search and rescue. Maybe we should be wearing their uniform instead.

Actually in support of aerospace education, I worked with some glider pilots. And model airplane builders. In addition, we had a Boy Scout venture crew charter for a while, and they even have their own nifty uniform, AND they shared costs of activities with us. By golly, I think that, at least in cadet programs, we're on THEIR team as well!

But let's not forget the most important part. CAP is a team, and this team I see becoming more and more fragmented as time goes on. This is certainly not due just to uniforms, although the attempt to fight the bias against those choosing to wear the civilian alternate uniforms is undeniable and becoming worse with the more uniforms that show up. If we're focusing on ensuring that we're savvy with our team, we have to at least make sure that the "team" that the USAF is partnering up with is itself a team, because when we show up in even two different uniforms, it certainly portrays, whether intentionally or not, a subclass of member. This is unacceptable if we are going to even THINK about using teamwork as a motivation for a uniform.

Because frankly, all the happy feelings we share with the USAF aren't going to mean squat if we can't come together as an organization into a single, coherent, motivated team. And a good first step is getting everyone in the same set of threads.

YMMV

Quote from: Nathan on April 01, 2009, 07:24:16 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 01, 2009, 04:02:42 PM
Not only was CAP "not wearing our current uniform when we were so intertwined with the USAF," but the Air Force wasn't, either. We were wearing the THEN-current Air Force uniform. It evolved from the "pinks and greens" of World War II, which evolved from the Army's previous uniforms. It turned blue, then bluer, and then in 1992, became like the Army's mid-1940s "separate air force" design with no pockets.

I know that. What's your point? The fact that we had NO uniforms then does not support anything in the argument.

We wore the Army Air Forces' uniform, with red epaulets -- a "volunteer" mark that went back at least as far as Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders. And as combatants, CAP members had to wear a uniform under existing law.

Quote from: Nathan on April 01, 2009, 07:24:16 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 01, 2009, 04:02:42 PMAnd, oh, in case you haven't noticed, we're in the fight these days. Who flew over the WTC doing aerial recon? Who flies intercept-training flights for 1AF? Who is preparing for national emergencies (well, those of us who actually heeded the ICS-course warnings)? But if you're immersed exclusively in the cadet program, I could see you missing all that. The cadet program isn't exactly at the tip of the spear.

...none of which involve the fighting... right? Unless I forgot what the military does again.

Yeah, but if I carry what you contend to its logical conclusion, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are in the rear with the gear shouldn't wear a uniform, either -- since they're not actually fighting. And the National Guard should show up for disaster relief missions in civvies, for that matter. They're not fighting.

What you may forget as you make this assertion is that in the GWOT, there is no front line. Everyone's vulnerable. And everyone can fight (just ask the folks on United 93, but you'll have to wait until after you die to do that). Yes, our aircraft don't carry armament. And many Air Force airplanes don't, either. But we're all uniformed in the Air Force uniform or acceptable civilian combinations as we carry out combat or noncombat missions.

Quote from: Nathan on April 01, 2009, 07:24:16 PMThe USAF, like any branch of the military, is here to kill people and break things (very loosely). We are not. We perform USAF SAR missions as a free service to them, but it certainly doesn't make us USAF. At least not to the extent where we could claim to have the same responsibilities they do. They fight. We don't even really support their fight (as in the actual FIGHTING part of the USAF, its primary purpose as a military organization). We support their civil missions, which, strangely enough, has "civilian" written all over it anyway.

We support their fight. The aircraft interception missions, for instance, when our aircraft are sent up as "targets," are supporting COMBAT functions. I'm sure there are others, but we don't talk about 'em. Does it make us "Air Force"? No. But it's not something they'll farm out to the EAA or to the Confederate Air Force, or whatever they call themselves this week. They trust their own auxiliary, folks who are expected to train and act professionally, and for whom the uniform is supposed to reflect those traits.

Besides, our search-and-rescue functions aren't a "free service." The Air Force pays, but not for the labor. (Ever heard of the CAPF 108?)

Quote from: Nathan on April 01, 2009, 07:24:16 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 01, 2009, 04:02:42 PMMaybe if more CAP members would spend time concerned with mission readiness (how many folks didn't do ICS 100/200/700/800 by the deadline, and had their ops quals suspended?) and less time designing their own uniform (former national commanders included), maybe we'd be a little more respected by the mothership and by its people.

Under that logic, our missions would be made significantly safer and more effective if we were allowed to use uniforms actually designed for search and rescue, and not combat. But that's (almost) beside the point.

No, that's not where that logic leads, not even close. What I'm saying is that instead of futzing around with uniforms, which is for some an obsession, maybe that time should be spent keeping our capabilities current. Weren't there a couple of threads on this site about how ops quals took a nose dive after the 31 Dec 08 deadline, and at least one wing lost all its mission pilots because they wouldn't take the darned FEMA courses?

Every time you turn around, CAP's monkeying around with its non-Air Force uniforms. It gets old quickly. Over my quarter-century in this organization, there's been enough diddling to drive anyone nuts. It's not worth diving into the non-Air Force uniforms unless you've got the financial wherewithall and the patience to keep up with the changes.

Quote from: Nathan on April 01, 2009, 07:24:16 PM
And, as I've said, I have seen far more DISRESPECT from the military members, USAF included, for wearing a military uniform than respect.... Under that, I would imagine we would get far more respect if we continued to do our mission, and continued to hold true to our relationship with the USAF, but felt secure enough in our abilities to wear a civilian uniform while doing so.

I'm going to bet the real beef is with how easy it is to become an officer in CAP. Show up for six months and voila! The training doesn't justify the gold bar.

All told, the primary uniform of CAP is the Air Force uniform. Those who decline to wear it or who can't wear it have alternatives. Why can't we let it be, and leave it at that?

I'm tired of arguing... gonna let some of you guys' fur fly instead for a while.

Buckeye and Nathan:

Nathan, you should pay a bit more attentio n to Buckeye.  He's absolutely right on a lot of issues.

First off, we ARE performing non-combat missions for the USAF.  If we did not perform these missions, USAF personnel would have to do them.  Consider the financial burden on the USAF for them to maintain 575 light planes for their Congressionally-mandated mission of air search and recue over inland areas if we were not here.  The planes, the crews, the bases, the necessary payroll, medical and admin support, the training, the financial impact on local schools, you are talking serious $$$$.

Second, because of our unique Auxiliary status, we are able to contract with state and local governments and with non-governmental organizations.  Tough as it is to get MOU's through the lawyers, it is even tougher for an active AF organization to set those up.  The only example I can think of right now is the contracts for the USAF to launch private communications satellites.  Through us, the AF can provide services to local agencies when needed.

Third, Buckeye is right.  We are ALL targets in the GWOT.  (Oh, excuse me... we're not supposed to call it the "War on Terror" anymore.  Obama now wants us to call it the "Muslim Misunderstanding.")  It should not come as a surprise to you that under the Geneva Convention we are considered combatants.

Fourth, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, not even once been shown disrespect by a member of the US Air Force.  In most cases, they salute, even though not required to do so.  They are professionals and they recognize our professionalism as well.  I return those salutes with pride, just like I did as an officer in the RM.  I find it incredible that you have been shown disrespect by USAF types. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 01, 2009, 11:56:01 PM
Buckeye and Nathan:

Nathan, you should pay a bit more attentio n to Buckeye.  He's absolutely right on a lot of issues.

First off, we ARE performing non-combat missions for the USAF.  If we did not perform these missions, USAF personnel would have to do them.  Consider the financial burden on the USAF for them to maintain 575 light planes for their Congressionally-mandated mission of air search and recue over inland areas if we were not here.  The planes, the crews, the bases, the necessary payroll, medical and admin support, the training, the financial impact on local schools, you are talking serious $$$$.

Second, because of our unique Auxiliary status, we are able to contract with state and local governments and with non-governmental organizations.  Tough as it is to get MOU's through the lawyers, it is even tougher for an active AF organization to set those up.  The only example I can think of right now is the contracts for the USAF to launch private communications satellites.  Through us, the AF can provide services to local agencies when needed.

Third, Buckeye is right.  We are ALL targets in the GWOT.  (Oh, excuse me... we're not supposed to call it the "War on Terror" anymore.  Obama now wants us to call it the "Muslim Misunderstanding.")  It should not come as a surprise to you that under the Geneva Convention we are considered combatants.

Fourth, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, not even once been shown disrespect by a member of the US Air Force.  In most cases, they salute, even though not required to do so.  They are professionals and they recognize our professionalism as well.  I return those salutes with pride, just like I did as an officer in the RM.  I find it incredible that you have been shown disrespect by USAF types. 

+1

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 01, 2009, 11:56:01 PM
Buckeye and Nathan:

Nathan, you should pay a bit more attentio n to Buckeye.  He's absolutely right on a lot of issues.

First off, we ARE performing non-combat missions for the USAF.  If we did not perform these missions, USAF personnel would have to do them.  Consider the financial burden on the USAF for them to maintain 575 light planes for their Congressionally-mandated mission of air search and recue over inland areas if we were not here.  The planes, the crews, the bases, the necessary payroll, medical and admin support, the training, the financial impact on local schools, you are talking serious $$$$.

Would they really? Or would local civilian groups preform our missions. I'm sure many local Shrieffs and Police departments would love to get a new helicopter or what not.

QuoteSecond, because of our unique Auxiliary status, we are able to contract with state and local governments and with non-governmental organizations.  Tough as it is to get MOU's through the lawyers, it is even tougher for an active AF organization to set those up.  The only example I can think of right now is the contracts for the USAF to launch private communications satellites.  Through us, the AF can provide services to local agencies when needed.

Can you give us an example of the Air Force acting through us? Or is that another one of those "We in CAP wish it could happen so we'll pretend it can."

QuoteThird, Buckeye is right.  We are ALL targets in the GWOT.  (Oh, excuse me... we're not supposed to call it the "War on Terror" anymore.  Obama now wants us to call it the "Muslim Misunderstanding.")  It should not come as a surprise to you that under the Geneva Convention we are considered combatants.

Besides the blantant disrespect towards our duly elected Commander in Chief and Head of State for no aparent reason (why don't we like him again?), again, are we really considered combatants under the Geneva convention? And I don't mean in a bedroll lawyer sort of way. A document from the USAF saying we're protected.

QuoteFourth, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, not even once been shown disrespect by a member of the US Air Force.  In most cases, they salute, even though not required to do so.  They are professionals and they recognize our professionalism as well.  I return those salutes with pride, just like I did as an officer in the RM.  I find it incredible that you have been shown disrespect by USAF types. 

That's a one in a million then. Ninety percent of the times I've been around USAF types, they're either completely indifferent towards me, or curious to why some Captain is wearing a rainbow scarve with her dress blues (but wearing a USAF uniform is so much better then a corporate uniform.)

I'm going to address both at once, so no point-counterpoint.

First, what gives with this idea that we are somehow going to offend the USAF if we decide to adopt our own uniform? You REALLY think that the Air Force is funneling all of that money to us because we're wearing a uniform that looks like theirs? You really think they're going to stop simply because we aren't wearing that uniform?

As has been drilled into our skulls since joining CAP, wearing the uniform is a PRIVILEGE. We aren't doing the USAF any favors by wearing it. They're LETTING us wear it. They are allowing us to wear THEIR uniform because it helps us attract members, and it ensures that a high percentage of our members are either going to come from the USAF or be going into it. It gives them a PR opportunity.

But in the end, they are paying us to do their missions they don't feel like doing. I would be very, very surprised if they were to stop supporting CAP altogether simply because we decided to adopt a uniform that is both more practical for our mission (which means better efficiency and less AF $$) and closer to our own unique heritage. We wouldn't stop being the USAF auxiliary simply because we aren't dressed like them.

Second, those of you who have apparently never had a bad run-in with members of the military for wearing the military uniform are either considerably lucky or considerably shut off from the rest of the world. Most of the comments I've seen/heard consist of, "So when are YOU getting deployed?", or, "What gives you boy scouts the right to wear that uniform?" Not surprisingly, the comments generally come from those who are just as/more passionate than the members here in terms of the USAF uniform. They simply feel it needs to be protected from those who didn't and are not earning the right, as according to them, to wear it.

As I said, this isn't everyone's experience, and not the official stance of the USAF. But it is out there, easily searchable through Google. We have the respect of USAF on paper, but in reality, it seems to be quite a different picture.

Third, if the argument "We are ALL vulnerable in the global war on terror, therefore, we should wear the USAF uniform" is valid, then it doesn't only apply to CAP. It applies to ANYBODY. I'm not sure how many CAP members died in 9/11, but I can assure you that the percentage of them, if any, was very small in comparison to the general population. I can't think of very many situations where CAP personnel are at more risk from terrorists than are the general population, considering that we ARE the general population 95% of the week.

Fourth, no one is denying that CAP performs an important service to the US and to the USAF. However, that special service does not mean that we are "entitled" to the USAF uniform just because we do stuff that helps them out. There are thousands of civilians that work for the USAF, many in far more costly operations than CAP could ever compensate for, and they show up for work in a suit and tie.

In the end, the truth is that the uniform is an honor for us to wear, but not a necessity. If tomorrow we decided to get rid of the USAF uniform in favor of uniting the entire CAP body in a single uniform, the USAF would still be paying us to do the work we've been doing, and we would do it just as well as we have been doing it.

As I said, I highly, highly doubt the USAF would get even slightly offended if we decided to wear a uniform that signifies us as a single team with CONNECTIONS to the USAF (which we are, and which the CSU does quite well), but even if they do, do you REALLY think they're going to get offended enough to chuck out all the important services you two have been arguing we provide?

If they are so vastly important to the US, why are you so worried that the Air Force would disown us at a simple move toward unit cohesion?

Screw it. One more post. Then I'm moving on.

Quote from: Nathan on April 02, 2009, 01:05:11 AMBut in the end, (the Air Force is) paying us to do their missions they don't feel like doing.

You're a Spaatz cadet and you don't know CAP any better than that? We get the Air Force's rejected sloppy seconds, tasking and missions Big Blue couldn't possibly be bothered with?

Try again. $175/hour to deploy a CAP plane and crew. Thousands more per hour to run a Pave Hawk or HC-130, and never mind the ground teams. Plus the training in SAR is specialized enough that it's more efficient to task the Auxiliary, not active-duty troops, especially when manpower is so drawn down and we're fighting a two-front war, uh, "contingency operation."

When I'm talking to reporters as a CAP PA (as opposed to when I'm functioning as working media myself), I characterize CAP as the Air Force's volunteer fire department. In many ways, that's a darn good metaphor. Volunteer firefighters train and stay current, and they're invaluable in an emergency. The same can be said for CAP members.

So if we do missions the Air Force just throws at us like yesterday's garbage, well, I'm a sanitation engineer for the Air Force on a pro bono basis. At least they let me wear the uniform, so I'm readily identifiable as a member of the team.

Quote from: Nathan on April 02, 2009, 01:05:11 AMI would be very, very surprised if they were to stop supporting CAP altogether simply because we decided to adopt a uniform that is both more practical for our mission (which means better efficiency and less AF $$) and closer to our own unique heritage. We wouldn't stop being the USAF auxiliary simply because we aren't dressed like them.

Our heritage is dependent on the mothership. If you think CAP could go it alone, you're suicidal. We already have uniforms that are more practical for our missions, but if you think that translates into less Air Force money, prove it. (No, don't, because I'm done with this thread -- it's time it gets locked.) While those uniforms are more inclusive, they allow overweight people to displace scanners on aircrews (think: weight and balance), and present other inefficiencies. More fuel burn = more Air Force money. Losing an additional set of eyes on a search = more Air Force money from second sweeps over a search pattern.

(With all due respect to those who may have weight issues who don't wear the uniform, but who do participate -- I mean no derision. In fact, your volunteer spirit should be recognized and commended, along with every other active CAP member. I bring this up to debunk the "less money" contention.)

Quote from: Nathan on April 02, 2009, 01:05:11 AMSecond, those of you who have apparently never had a bad run-in with members of the military for wearing the military uniform are either considerably lucky or considerably shut off from the rest of the world.

Nope. I was around members who exemplified the best in situational awareness, military bearing and pride. When military personnel and CAP members scoff at other CAP members, it's usually because they're rag-tag, sloppy or have their heads in the clouds. I've been saluted on multiple occasions by Real Military personnel while in a CAP uniform (usually a flight suit or blues), and I return the salute. Or vice-versa. No scoffing here. Your results may vary, but it may be in how the members around you present and conduct themselves.

Quote from: Nathan on April 02, 2009, 01:05:11 AMMost of the comments I've seen/heard consist of, "So when are YOU getting deployed?", or, "What gives you boy scouts the right to wear that uniform?" Not surprisingly, the comments generally come from those who are just as/more passionate than the members here in terms of the USAF uniform. They simply feel it needs to be protected from those who didn't and are not earning the right, as according to them, to wear it.

Again, that's because the CAP "boy scouts" who are being laughed at likely look and act like Webelos, not cadets. Blame the local seniors and cadet leaders for not instilling discipline, proper uniform wear and attention to detail. We're a paramilitary organization -- our members must be held to a higher standard to wear Our Nation's Uniform.

Quote from: Nathan on April 02, 2009, 01:05:11 AMFourth, no one is denying that CAP performs an important service to the US and to the USAF.

Wow, you said earlier that CAP does stuff the Air Force doesn't feel like doing. Now those functions are worthy?

Quote from: Nathan on April 02, 2009, 01:05:11 AM
Second, those of you who have apparently never had a bad run-in with members of the military for wearing the military uniform are either considerably lucky or considerably shut off from the rest of the world. Most of the comments I've seen/heard consist of, "So when are YOU getting deployed?", or, "What gives you boy scouts the right to wear that uniform?" Not surprisingly, the comments generally come from those who are just as/more passionate than the members here in terms of the USAF uniform. They simply feel it needs to be protected from those who didn't and are not earning the right, as according to them, to wear it.

I couldn't find a "BS" flag emoticon, but I'm throwing one down via this text.

Any member of the military who would say that to one of us, especially a cadet (assuming the member wasn't acting like a idiot), doesn't deserve the attention or credibility you're ascribing to them.

I have never been treated with anything but respect by those in uniform, regardless of the service or circumstance.  Of course I'm also not a "problem".

Nathan, you're not doing yourself much good on this, and frankly you're speaking like a typical, know-it-all cadet.  The longer and more drawn out your arguments get, the less likely they are to be listened to.  They become manifestos that fall on deaf ears.

And the more likely this thread gets... Locked.