CAP Talk

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2010_02_16_CAP_uniforms_EA51A6906B737.pdf

Interesting - extended to Jan 2012, replaces metal grade with standard CAP sleeves, metal grade removed by 1 September 2010.

Also indicates cadets wearing the whites wear the standard blue cadet nameplate.

How does the National Commander alter a date set by the NEC?

I knew the CSU was gone. I didn't know the black sweater, black windbreaker, and black over coat were gone also. I own them all. Man that hurts.

I am not sure how one stays warm in their aviator shirt alone, given the ambient temperatures in Denver this time of year Being that we normally dress in layers - I predict that we'll be required to pile 10 aviator shirts - one a top the other - in ever increasing sizes - just to stay comfortable -  is going to look rather funky. I also predict cadets will snicker.

Quote from: Smithsonia on February 16, 2010, 05:07:11 PM
I knew the CSU was gone. I didn't know the black sweater, black windbreaker, and black over coat were gone also. I own them all. Man that hurts.

I am not sure how one stays warm in their aviator shirt alone, given the ambient temperatures in Denver this time of year Being that we normally dress in layers - I predict that we'll be required to pile 10 aviator shirts - one a top the other - in ever increasing sizes - just to stay comfortable -  is going to look rather funky. I also predict cadets will snicker.

You can wear any civilian coat over the white and grays.

You can wear the black windbreaker and sweater over the white and grays too.  Just can't wear any grade insignia or name plate or patches on them.  But, if you choose to wear layers of aviator shirts, just send us a picture for our reference. ;D

Quote from: Smithsonia on February 16, 2010, 05:07:11 PM
I knew the CSU was gone. I didn't know the black sweater, black windbreaker, and black over coat were gone also. I own them all. Man that hurts.

The black windbreaker, sweater, and overcoat were never authorized for wear over the Aviator Whites, and worn as such would fall into
the realm of mixing military items with distinctive uniform parts.

The black sweater can't really be worn at all, since NHQ has not provided a specification as to what a "tactical" sweater means (only that its not the Army sweater).

As I recall, the blue cardigan was approved for wear with the Aviator Whites, but not the pull-over.

It just struck me that for the next two years (at least), the only real discernable difference between the two service dress uniforms will be the shirt nameplate and the color of the shirt.  A lot can happen in the next two years, including a new National CC and probably different leadership at CAP-USAF as well (plus a lot of new Wing and Region CC's). Its interesting that they didn't wait until the debates next week to finalize this, though, as much of this is on the agenda.

^ I hate to say this but, I think there is a lot of "stuff" going on behind closed doors to quell dissent from the NB members.

Quote from: FW on February 16, 2010, 05:27:57 PM
^ I hate to say this but, I think there is a lot of "stuff" going on behind closed doors to quell dissent from the NB members.

And if they're replaced as Board members, they go with a DSM and an eagle on their collar.

^Only if they leave when their term is up.  I know quite a few former NB members that are Lt Cols with no DSM.

With the TPU CSU, I have always wondered why we did not use the gray CAP epaulet sleeves.  I bet that if HWSNBN had gone with them (and no hard rank) from the start the AF would be just fine with them.  After all they are just a white shirt and navy blue pants in the end. 

Quote from: SStradley on February 16, 2010, 05:45:19 PM
With the TPU CSU, I have always wondered why we did not use the gray CAP epaulet sleeves.  I bet that if HWSNBN had gone with them (and no hard rank) from the start the AF would be just fine with them.  After all they are just a white shirt and navy blue pants in the end.

+1 (except the move to change HWSRN to HWSNBN)  ;D

Quote from: SStradley on February 16, 2010, 05:45:19 PM
With the TPU CSU, I have always wondered why we did not use the gray CAP epaulet sleeves.  I bet that if HWSNBN had gone with them (and no hard rank) from the start the AF would be just fine with them.  After all they are just a white shirt and navy blue pants in the end.

I would agree. There was little legitimate reason to go with the different rank and nametags in the first place.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2010, 05:22:41 PM
It just struck me that for the next two years (at least), the only real discernable difference between the two service dress uniforms will be the shirt nameplate and the color of the shirt.  A lot can happen in the next two years, including a new National CC and probably different leadership at CAP-USAF as well (plus a lot of new Wing and Region CC's). Its interesting that they didn't wait until the debates next week to finalize this, though, as much of this is on the agenda.

YUP.  How the hell can that be allowed, but the current policy of overweight/beards not wearing AF-style NOT be allowed.

From a distance a person wearing the CSU (with changes) will look just like an AF-Style wearing slim and trim member.

(edit...changed the word FAT to overweight/beards in case anyone does not like the word fat.  I apologize)

Perhaps compromise is in the air...

Once these matters are settled... and that is asking a lot, I realize. It would be good if 39-1 was redone to include all the changes. I can't keep track. I think about these items only occasionally. I think that currently we have multiple change letters overlaying the current 39-1 - making for numerous translations and various level of compliance.

So let me got this right. After 1-1-12 I can still wear my pullover sweater, black wind breaker, and black over coat, without markings rank, patches, metals, etc... but I wear these as civilian items over my uniform? I could even wear these items over my golf shirt? Is that correct?

I would say the first paragraph of the new ICL is ambiguous at best. SEE BELOW

1.  The National Executive Committee recently approved a proposal to phase out the
Corporate Service uniform, including the Corporate service coat, white aviator shirt
and AF blue slacks combination, black windbreaker, black overcoat and black
police-style sweaters.  A 1 January 2011 phase out date was originally established
for these items.  After careful consideration, it has been determined that the original
phase out date does not provide members with sufficient time to wear items recently
purchased.  For this reason the phase out date for these uniform combinations has
been extended to 1 January 2012.   

I do.  I bought my sweater at KMART a number of years ago.  Looks good with gray slacks. 8)   BTW: I think I saw the windbreaker at Sears.   ;D

Whether anyone wants to address "aatitudes" on theses forums

It appears the continual CSU issue has finally got another ICL pegged against it.

Well, well, well, more of CAP and its uniform issues  Will 39-1 ever get redone, rewritten, reworded??

Time will tell.  This is what makes CAP a uniform regulation a laughing stock

This organization is destined for ONE uniform and hopefully PAPA 1AF can assist us to speed that along  (spell get OUT of the AF uniform altogether)

CAPTalkers can chirp about the RM all they want about the RM changes.  CAP, after 68 yrs and needs to adopt  either 1) AF standards all together OR 2) a NEW CAP uniform for everybody..slims to overweight and fuzzy

I Feel sorry for the folks who got suckered into this deal and dropped major dinero

Quote from: Smithsonia on February 16, 2010, 06:09:35 PM
So let me got this right. After 1-1-12 I can still wear my pullover sweater, black wind breaker, and black over coat, without markings rank, patches, metals, etc... but I wear these as civilian items over my uniform? I could even wear these items over my golf shirt? Is that correct?

No.  Mixing corporate and military uniform items is specifically prohibited by 39-1. 

I see no authorization of any pull-over sweater for the whites - this would cover up all grade and other markings, making whether you are even in a uniform ambiguous at best.

You will not find the proper CSU windbreaker or the sweater at Sears.

Quote from: heliodoc on February 16, 2010, 06:29:13 PM
R 2) a NEW CAP uniform for everybody..slims to overweight and fuzzy

This is the direction we should take for ALL seniors.

or...........If you want to wear a military style uniform drop some weight and shave....If yo dont,just wear the greya and whites......end of strory :clap:

We've been here before - its not that simple a situation when you're talking about volunteers and setting up a "second class" of
membership.  In fact, this "under class" without a proper uniform was addressed directly in the up coming NB agenda.

I am in favor of standardizing grey pants,and a hat and jacket.  I think every memeber should be in a very tasteful uniform that present a proffesional image.  Just dont take away AF uniform because the other side cant wear them.  I do appreciate that they released the ICL for guidance.  Many seniros I know were very confused over the issue. 

Quote from: Smithsonia on February 16, 2010, 06:09:35 PM
So let me got this right. After 1-1-12 I can still wear my pullover sweater, black wind breaker, and black over coat, without markings rank, patches, metals, etc... but I wear these as civilian items over my uniform? I could even wear these items over my golf shirt? Is that correct?

I disagree with Bob on this one - those three items are common dress items that can be purchased from Wallyworld to Sears.  They are civilian cloths when no military/CAP insignia is on them.  Thus they can be worn with uniforms allowing civilian overwear, like golf shirt or white/greys.

Now to recap, we have a uniform with gray (un-uniform color and cut) pants, white aviator shirt, gray CAP epaulet sleeves,  gray name plate, and civilian coat and be fat and fuzzy.  Or we can wear (to 1/1/212) blue (uniform color and cut) pants, white aviator shirt, gray CAP epaulet sleeves,  blue name plate, and black windbreaker or police-style sweater or blue double breasted coat and be fat but not fuzzy.  Other than how many lines on each name tag do I have it straight?

Quote from: SStradley on February 16, 2010, 07:20:33 PMOther than how many lines on each name tag do I have it straight?

I think you got it straight.

Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on February 16, 2010, 07:14:54 PM

Quote from: Smithsonia on February 16, 2010, 06:09:35 PM
So let me got this right. After 1-1-12 I can still wear my pullover sweater, black wind breaker, and black over coat, without markings rank, patches, metals, etc... but I wear these as civilian items over my uniform? I could even wear these items over my golf shirt? Is that correct?

I disagree with Bob on this one - those three items are common dress items that can be purchased from Wallyworld to Sears.  They are civilian cloths when no military/CAP insignia is on them.  Thus they can be worn with uniforms allowing civilian overwear, like golf shirt or white/greys.

You cannot buy an Army windbreaker or a police tactical sweater at Sears - you might be able to find something similar, but the definition on these was clear, especially for the jacket.  If you're wearing something you bought at Sears over the CSU, that's wrong to start with.

This would be the same as saying that the USAF windbreaker could be worn with the whites without grade insignia.

I believe that there a comment in the NB minutes about the "black jacket" being allowed with the white/grey combo.  I think it was near the end of the CSU phase-out section. 

Quote from: rjfoxx on February 16, 2010, 08:33:15 PM
I believe that there a comment in the NB minutes about the "black jacket" being allowed with the white/grey combo.  I think it was near the end of the CSU phase-out section.

That's the black leather A2.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2010, 04:58:23 PM
Interesting - extended to Jan 2012, replaces metal grade with standard CAP sleeves, metal grade removed by 1 September 2010.

Also indicates cadets wearing the whites wear the standard blue cadet nameplate.

I'm surprised the Air Force let it go until 1 September ... it should be reasonable to assume every senior member has a set of gray epaulets (or can easily get them), I would've expected a ~30 day phase-out.

Quote from: McLarty on February 16, 2010, 08:56:31 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2010, 04:58:23 PM
Interesting - extended to Jan 2012, replaces metal grade with standard CAP sleeves, metal grade removed by 1 September 2010.

Also indicates cadets wearing the whites wear the standard blue cadet nameplate.

I'm surprised the Air Force let it go until 1 September ... it should be reasonable to assume every senior member has a set of gray epaulets (or can easily get them), I would've expected a ~30 day phase-out.

Scamguard Vanguard likely couldn't have been able to supply all the epaullets in that time frame.

I do detect some compromise attempt coming from General Courter's ICL. :clap:

I would be completely good with her designated changes becoming permanent, and replacing the grey trousers altogether.  Others will disagree, but I just think the grey trousers stink and look most un-aviation like.

I can do without hard rank and the blue nameplate; neither one cost me a lot.

Now I wonder if Vanguard is going to start selling the service coat again...

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 16, 2010, 09:04:23 PMScamguard Vanguard likely couldn't have been able to supply all the epaullets in that time frame.

They wouldn't have need to supply a whole lot. I'd bet that a (very) large majority of members who bought the CSU already had at least the aviator combo, and therefore the appropriate insignia.

I can't see everyone that only wore the golf shirt suddenly going out and buying the CSU. Most of the ones wearing it did it for cost and practicality, buying a new uniform complete doesn't fit.

There is a CORRECTION to the ICL mandating the grey nameplate now.

Come on NHQ.  This is apparently a very important issue to the USAF, and the NEC, yet you are fumbling on getting the correct directions out. 

I understand that mistakes are made, but seriously, did anyone look over the ICL and make sure it was ready to publish when it went out this morning??

Disappointed.........

Quote from: Spike on February 16, 2010, 10:30:59 PM
There is a CORRECTION to the ICL mandating the grey nameplate now.

Its a correction to the one issued today?  Do you have a link?
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2010_02_16_CAP_uniforms_EA51A6906B737.pdf

This gets another "YAY!" from me.  Uniform changes should not be like a ball game, with all of us cheering or booing the latest play
with the potential for a dispute to go to the replay judge for reversal, however, with that said, all of these moves are in the right direction, reasonable, and should have a positive or neutral impact financially on most members.

I don't personally know anyone who can't just swap insignia from other combos for this.

If you look at the PDF the change is highlighted.

As complex as they've made it, it wouldn't be hard to mess it up.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2010, 10:37:02 PM

Quote from: Spike on February 16, 2010, 10:30:59 PM
There is a CORRECTION to the ICL mandating the grey nameplate now.

Its a correction to the one issued today?  Do you have a link?
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2010_02_16_CAP_uniforms_EA51A6906B737.pdf

This gets another "YAY!" from me.

Say, what do you know, NHQ can make a change in a regulation (well, ICL) in less than a day.  So, there goes any excuse they have for being so delinquent on turning ICLS into a regulation.  Of course, we've known there is no excuse for their lack of action on these items, but maybe this is a sign that they're going to work on this stuff faster.

For what it is worth the Army feeling about the black windbreaker being worn with civilian clothing is when all insignia is removed it may be worn by Army personnel with civilian clothing, because their regulation governs how their personnel wear their uniform clothing.

R670-1 para 27-30 c. How worn. All personnel may wear the windbreaker with the class B, hospital duty, and food service uniforms.
Personnel will not wear the windbreaker in formations unless authorized by the commander. Personnel will wear the
windbreaker zipped to at least the second button down from the top of the shirt. Only non-subdued, pin-on grade
insignia is worn on the windbreaker. Personnel may wear the windbreaker without insignia when wearing civilian
clothing.   

I just don't see a conflict with it being an item we would wear with the CSU as currently amended in the ICL, because the cut, color, and style of this windbreaker is not unlike various  jackets not made for any uniform service...

After all the Blank London Fog raincoat is also a garment that could be worn with our CSU without insignia, but would look like several RM rain coats... 

The point here is that a number of people have spent a lot of buck while these uniform items were approved and the extension helps our members justify to themselves and their family the cost outlay.  Clearly the white/Grey combo never quite filled the bill of being a uniform because of all the reason given over the many posts and years, and the Blazer Combo is just as much a dress uniform for the Boy Scouts, Coast Guard Auxiliary as it is for us.  Frankly, I agree with some I would hope that these changes outlined in the most recent ICL would satisfy the CAP-USAF commander et al, and we could move on, with some degree of uniformity in our organization...

Bill

Quote from: Bill on February 16, 2010, 11:10:11 PM...because the cut, color, and style of this windbreaker is not unlike various  jackets not made for any uniform service...

I don't think it's appropriate to attempt to adopt military garments by justifying it with "Well, there a lot of jackets that look like it that aren't uniform items". The military's response would probably be "Fine, then use one of those jackets, don't use ours". I think they'd be right.

Quote from: Bill on February 16, 2010, 11:10:11 PM...After all the Blank London Fog raincoat is also a garment that could be worn with our CSU without insignia, but would look like several RM rain coats...

Not sure how that would work. I believe all the outergarments for the CSU were required to have some type of insignia.

Quote from: Bill on February 16, 2010, 11:10:11 PMClearly the white/Grey combo never quite filled the bill of being a uniform because of all the reason given over the many posts and years, and the Blazer Combo is just as much a dress uniform for the Boy Scouts, Coast Guard Auxiliary as it is for us.

Agreed.

Quote from: Bill on February 16, 2010, 11:10:11 PM...Frankly, I agree with some I would hope that these changes outlined in the most recent ICL would satisfy the CAP-USAF commander et al, and we could move on, with some degree of uniformity in our organization...

Also agreed. Too many of our uniforms don't look like they relate to each other. Not so critical with the different color flightsuits or BDUs, both have the same insignia. But the CSU and blues differed when it came to the insignia, so the appearance given was of completely different organizations.

I could see the Army being a little annoyed by the similarities with their uniform, a problem I think could be resolved by allowing the equivalent AF outergarments. However, I have a suspicion that, with the fiasco of the CSU's coming about in the first place, the Air Force might not be so interested in having any dialogue on it.

Quote from: Strick on February 16, 2010, 06:47:54 PM
or...........If you want to wear a military style uniform drop some weight and shave....If yo dont,just wear the greya and whites......end of strory :clap:

That was my motivation to drop some weight.

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 16, 2010, 11:40:15 PM
I could see the Army being a little annoyed by the similarities with their uniform, a problem I think could be resolved by allowing the equivalent AF outergarments.

Why aren't we allowed to be annoyed that some other service is wearing our uniform parts?  We've been wearing white shirts for a long time, and blue pants, too.  Now all of a sudden those become Army items?

The same windbreaker is also worn by the Navy, so which service gets to be annoyed first?  The Marines wear blue pants, and they all wear bus driver hats.

What about all the various LE and FD's that wear similar cuts?

There's only so many colors, and so many styles a uniform can come in.  Just pick one and go with it.

here is my solution. Put ALL Seniors in this modified CSU keeping the black windbreaker and sweater with slides allowing neatly trimmed facial hair, the BBDU all insignia changed to white on navy adding a black gore-tex parka as an option, allow khaki pants with polo or navy tac/bdu style pants for field/flight, ditch the grey pants and have a 2 year wear out date. Keep cadets in AF style but change to navy insignia on BDU/ABU. this keeps us linked with the AF but is distinguishable. It puts us in 1 UNIFORM and costs are just about the same for all.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2010, 11:47:08 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 16, 2010, 11:40:15 PM
I could see the Army being a little annoyed by the similarities with their uniform, a problem I think could be resolved by allowing the equivalent AF outergarments.

Why aren't we allowed to be annoyed that some other service is wearing our uniform parts?  We've been wearing white shirts for a long time, and blue pants, too.  Now all of a sudden those become Army items?

Because CAP has to play "Mother my I?" and Mother blue won't say "Hey!  You know those fat/fuzzy civilians that congress keeps putting in my back yard that I have to spend money on?  Well, listen buster!  You're using their uniform shirt.  And if you don't cease and desist, they're going to have to wear something else!  Got that Army?" (or words to that effect). 

Bottom line:  We're a pain in the ass to the AF.  They don't like us, no matter how much they smile, shake our hands, and tell us how swell we are.  We keep their aircrews from having to fly all night looking for an ELT that went off and (occasionally) find someone who's in trouble.  $40,000,000 is out of their pockets and they have all these fat guys crawling all over our bases.  Their senior NCOs go nuts and their commanders can't do anything about it except kvetch to the chain of command.  (Apparently, the E-9s finally got through).

As long as we have members who continue to accept a second-class status, despite the fact that we are all unpaid volunteers saving the country millions of dollars, we are doomed before we start.

If we're that much of a PITA, there's an easy fix for that.  I don't personally agree with that stance, but regardless.

A "privilege to serve" doesn't mean we have to be the doormat of the DOD for that privilege.

Wow, I wasn't aware when I signed up that uniforms were such a sore spot.  From a newcomers perspective, I'd have to agree that the uniform regulations are confusing, especially when the weight and grooming standards are thrown in.  It seems it would be a lot less confusing to narrow the choices down some.

Personally, I like the Blue BDU's,and the grey/white combo.  I don't feel comfortable wearing the same uniform as the AF (OK, I know that most of them aren't wearing woodland BDU's anymore).  While they allow us the privilege of wearing the AF blue uniforms, I just don't feel right about it.  They're doing it "for real", I'm not.

As for the CSU, I've never really considered wearing it, so I don't really have an opinion.

Gunner, that is some pretty harsh speak.  We don't take money away from the AF.  The budget money comes from the FED through the AF for fiduciary reasons.  We are placed in the AF budget for the same reason, to show where and how the money for CAP is going.

Fat and fuzzies crawling over "our Bases"??  I suppose you do not like CAP in general?

Or was your reply some sarcastic response, I can not tell?

Quote from: indygreg on February 17, 2010, 01:29:02 AM
I don't feel comfortable wearing the same uniform as the AF (OK, I know that most of them aren't wearing woodland BDU's anymore).  While they allow us the privilege of wearing the AF blue uniforms, I just don't feel right about it.  They're doing it "for real", I'm not.

Tell ME what the AF is doing "for real", that others do not.  In understand the combat part, but they are paid.  I never liked reading the line you posted or hearing it from CAP members.  We volunteer and spend our time in CAP usually at personal expense.  Some have lost their lives in CAP service.  Please do not undersell the CAP Members dedication and commitment. 

Quote from: Spike on February 17, 2010, 01:33:50 AM

Quote from: indygreg on February 17, 2010, 01:29:02 AM
I don't feel comfortable wearing the same uniform as the AF (OK, I know that most of them aren't wearing woodland BDU's anymore).  While they allow us the privilege of wearing the AF blue uniforms, I just don't feel right about it.  They're doing it "for real", I'm not.

Tell ME what the AF is doing "for real", that others do not.  In understand the combat part, but they are paid.  I never liked reading the line you posted or hearing it from CAP members.  We volunteer and spend our time in CAP usually at personal expense.  Some have lost their lives in CAP service.  Please do not undersell the CAP Members dedication and commitment.

Not my intention at all.  I'm just saying that most of us, with the exception of CAP members who are also military, are not going to face combat.  Granted, everytime a CAP pilot takes off, they are taking a risk, and I have nothing but respect for that.

Well, the National Board meeting is only 10 days away.  The agenda items which concern the issue will still be debated however, with the ICL in mind.  The National Board can agree, change or, get rid of the policy all together.  Let the games begin. :-*

Quote from: indygreg on February 17, 2010, 01:29:02 AM
Wow, I wasn't aware when I signed up that uniforms were such a sore spot.

Here on CAP Talk, yes. In the real world, probably not so much.

Quote from: Bill on February 16, 2010, 11:10:11 PM...
I could see the Army being a little annoyed by the similarities with their uniform,

For the record the Army Blue Dress Uniform has been around for a looooong time. But with the elimination of the green dress uniform it has become the everyday dress uniform, not just for formal occasions anymore. The only hint I've seen that the Army objects to the uniform is that someone on this forum displayed a picture of the Army uniform on the site and observed the similarity, along with a comment about how close the shirts matched.

Quote from: Cecil DP on February 17, 2010, 02:44:25 AM

Quote from: Bill on February 16, 2010, 11:10:11 PM...
I could see the Army being a little annoyed by the similarities with their uniform,

For the record the Army Blue Dress Uniform has been around for a looooong time. But with the elimination of the green dress uniform it has become the everyday dress uniform, not just for formal occasions anymore. The only hint I've seen that the Army objects to the uniform is that someone on this forum displayed a picture of the Army uniform on the site and observed the similarity, along with a comment about how close the shirts matched.

Army should not have a say in our Corp Unmiform.  Check Page 21 of the Agenda. We are so WEAK!
b

Quote from: indygreg on February 17, 2010, 01:29:02 AMI don't feel comfortable wearing the same uniform as the AF (OK, I know that most of them aren't wearing woodland BDU's anymore).  While they allow us the privilege of wearing the AF blue uniforms, I just don't feel right about it.  They're doing it "for real", I'm not.

I do not understand this reasoning. If you're not comfortable wearing the uniform, why even join the organization? Even if you don't wear the AF variants, you are still directly associated with people who do.

I spent eleven and a half years wearing AF uniforms, and didn't do a single thing combat related. Nothing. There was an excercise or two every year, but nothing that was really all that realistic. Except for those occasional excercises, it was a nine to five job. I didn't even get a deployment until I transferred over to the Army, and I even volunteered a few times. I don't know what you think I did "for real", but I can guarantee you it's nothing major. Many people in the Air Force might not even deploy if they only serve a single enlistment.

The only problem with those that haven't served wearing the uniform is when they don't treat it with the appropriate dignity. Many new members treat them like just another set of clothes, unless they have another member to educate them. It's not posing or pretending to wear it. It's posing or pretending when you try to present yourself as something you're not.

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 17, 2010, 03:07:32 AM
I do not understand this reasoning. If you're not comfortable wearing the uniform, why even join the organization? Even if you don't wear the AF variants, you are still directly associated with people who do.

I don't understand it either.

First of all, to get pedantic, we do not wear the Air Force uniform.   We wear the modified Air Force uniform.  We always have, going back to 1941 and Army Air Corps/Army Air Forces days.  Check the latest issue of Volunteer (which has a very pithy, brief mention of the "obsolete" CSU as well as a dancing-around-the-issue reading of why we lost metal rank and blue CAP epaulettes).

Second, we are hardly the only organisation who wears a modified military uniform. 

Various State Defence Forces (SDF's) wear even-less-modified Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine uniforms (not sure if any have Coast Guard uniforms).  Two non-military uniformed services (NOAA Corps, U.S. Public Health Service) wear uniforms almost identical to the Navy, as does the U.S. Merchant Marine.

Then there is the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, Young Marines, U.S. Navy Sea Cadets, U.S. Army Cadets and the various ROTC/JROTC units.

Until relatively recently (I don't know the year), the AF-type uniform was the only option.

Quote from: Gunner C on February 17, 2010, 12:34:30 AM
Bottom line:  We're a pain in the ass to the AF.  They don't like us, no matter how much they smile, shake our hands, and tell us how swell we are.  We keep their aircrews from having to fly all night looking for an ELT that went off and (occasionally) find someone who's in trouble.  $40,000,000 is out of their pockets and they have all these fat guys crawling all over our bases.  Their senior NCOs go nuts and their commanders can't do anything about it except kvetch to the chain of command.  (Apparently, the E-9s finally got through).

I would say that the AF is more ignorant about us (especially younger Airmen) than anything else.

Nothing is taught about us in BMT to new Airmen and has not been for some time.  MTI's know about us mostly because of Mitchell cadets coming in at advanced grade and sometimes being selected for leadership positions.

I find more officers that know about us than Airmen/NCO's.

One thing that I have found to be a PITA is that too many LO's/State Directors I've known seem to care less about anything except cadets (warm bodies for Lackland), though it wasn't always that way.

I lay the blame, if any is to be laid, for that at the feet of our leadership, who over the past 20 years have actively tried to have it both ways: corporate ("AF can't tell us what to do!  We're volunteers!") and part-time auxiliary (so that we can still have the nice blue uniforms).

Quote from: CyBorg on February 17, 2010, 05:43:38 AM

Quote from: Gunner C on February 17, 2010, 12:34:30 AM
Bottom line:  We're a pain in the ass to the AF.  They don't like us, no matter how much they smile, shake our hands, and tell us how swell we are.  We keep their aircrews from having to fly all night looking for an ELT that went off and (occasionally) find someone who's in trouble.  $40,000,000 is out of their pockets and they have all these fat guys crawling all over our bases.  Their senior NCOs go nuts and their commanders can't do anything about it except kvetch to the chain of command.  (Apparently, the E-9s finally got through).

I would say that the AF is more ignorant about us (especially younger Airmen) than anything else.

Nothing is taught about us in BMT to new Airmen and has not been for some time.  MTI's know about us mostly because of Mitchell cadets coming in at advanced grade and sometimes being selected for leadership positions.

I find more officers that know about us than Airmen/NCO's.

One thing that I have found to be a PITA is that too many LO's/State Directors I've known seem to care less about anything except cadets (warm bodies for Lackland), though it wasn't always that way.

I lay the blame, if any is to be laid, for that at the feet of our leadership, who over the past 20 years have actively tried to have it both ways: corporate ("AF can't tell us what to do!  We're volunteers!") and part-time auxiliary (so that we can still have the nice blue uniforms).

They don't teach anything in BMT about CAP because they only have so many training hours available and they basically have more hours of instruction to teach then they have hours available.

Quote from: PHall on February 17, 2010, 05:50:44 AMThey don't teach anything in BMT about CAP because they only have so many training hours available and they basically have more hours of instruction to teach then they have hours available.

With many of the recent changes and additions to BMT, I really don't see this as all that valid. A presentation only a few hours long would yield a great deal.

When I was in BMT there was loads of filler and review time that could easily have been replaced with something new and interesting. I don't buy for a second that time just isn't available. I remember the two days prior to graduating just waiting for it. A few hours on CAP would be easy.

I would grant that there would be a lot of airman that would want to join up immediately, I probably would have, but many would do so for the wrong reasons. A simple problem to resolve, we don't take apps from someone in basic or tech school. Maybe even extend it to after follow on training (such as Air Force CDCs or other branch equivalent courses).  After the first year or two, we'd probably be swimming in apps.

I would think that a presentation on CAP covering what your average airman needs to know would take no longer than 30 minutes, and that includes Q&A.

* USAF Auxiliary (no need to confuse them with aux on/aux off)
* Does SAR as tasked by AFRCC, Predator training, slow moving target practice
* Cadet program, Aerospace Education
* We don't (have to) salute them, they do have to salute us
* Civilians, no UCMJ
* Generally speaking have access to the base for uniform purchases and authorized activities
* May wear USAF-style uniforms or completely weird stuff if they are fat or fuzzy, don't worry about it.


Done.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 16, 2010, 09:45:08 PM
I do detect some compromise attempt coming from General Courter's ICL.

I have talked with General Courter about this CSU uniform issue. She has been very concerned with this from the beginning.

She has done ALOT of work about this to try and make it easier for members who invested their money to get a level of use out of it. She has taken a third party look at this and had some others look at the legal, financial, and other standpoints. She does not look at these things from strictly one point. She gets a tremendous amount of background information and supporting reasoning before she goes any further. She knows and realizes that her support and decisions have a huge impact on the members. She takes that approach with everything she does for CAP.

Thanks for your comment, Jim.  Maybe next time Gen Courter will "confide" to the National Board before she makes her decisons of major impact to the membership.  It was obvious to the trainied eye, the CSU was DOA at the beginning of the November NEC meeting.  NO ONE was wearing it.  This type of "scripting" was supposed to be gone after HWSRN left the scene.  I don't doubt what she said to you however, past expierience has shown otherwise.  It is not appropriate for further discussion by me on this so, I'll just fume off.  I don't think this will change the "tone" of the NB meeting.  :-X

Quote from: FW on February 17, 2010, 12:52:20 PM
Thanks for your comment, Jim.  Maybe next time Gen Courter will "confide" to the National Board before she makes her decisons of major impact to the membership.  It was obvious to the trainied eye, the CSU was DOA at the beginning of the November NEC meeting.  NO ONE was wearing it.  This type of "scripting" was supposed to be gone after HWSRN left the scene.  I don't doubt what she said to you however, past expierience has shown otherwise.  It is not appropriate for further discussion by me on this so, I'll just fume off.  I don't think this will change the "tone" of the NB meeting.  :-X

The conversation I had was not a "confiding" type conversation. It was a Public Affairs Officer interview approach. This has been her method of working any type of issue for CAP. She does not discuss NB business with me of any sort. I dont ask and she doesnt offer. It would be inappropriate. My conversation with her was from a historical perspective and the reason changes are made. She did not discuss or tell me what changes she would support only her method of research and fact finding. Make no mistake she does not discuss NB business with someone who is not a member of the NB. In my capacity as the National Curator it is part of my job to ask about these types of things. If a PAO were to interview her about her management sytle I believe this would be part of that. I do not believe that she is circumventing anyone and never told me about any decisions just a method of approach to the subject. Lets make it clear there was no "confiding".

Quote from: CyBorg on February 17, 2010, 05:43:38 AM

Quote from: Gunner C on February 17, 2010, 12:34:30 AM
Bottom line:  We're a pain in the ass to the AF.  They don't like us, no matter how much they smile, shake our hands, and tell us how swell we are.  We keep their aircrews from having to fly all night looking for an ELT that went off and (occasionally) find someone who's in trouble.  $40,000,000 is out of their pockets and they have all these fat guys crawling all over our bases.  Their senior NCOs go nuts and their commanders can't do anything about it except kvetch to the chain of command.  (Apparently, the E-9s finally got through).

I would say that the AF is more ignorant about us (especially younger Airmen) than anything else.

Nothing is taught about us in BMT to new Airmen and has not been for some time.  MTI's know about us mostly because of Mitchell cadets coming in at advanced grade and sometimes being selected for leadership positions.

I find more officers that know about us than Airmen/NCO's.

One thing that I have found to be a PITA is that too many LO's/State Directors I've known seem to care less about anything except cadets (warm bodies for Lackland), though it wasn't always that way.

I lay the blame, if any is to be laid, for that at the feet of our leadership, who over the past 20 years have actively tried to have it both ways: corporate ("AF can't tell us what to do!  We're volunteers!") and part-time auxiliary (so that we can still have the nice blue uniforms).

Thanks.

^^Not sure what you mean by "thanks," but if you're taking what I said as a personal slur, please don't.

The problems in CAP's national leadership go way back to at least the early 1990s, and probably before.

The uniform nonsense is only symbolic of much deeper issues.

Quote from: caphistorian on February 17, 2010, 12:34:31 PM
I have talked with General Courter about this CSU uniform issue. She has been very concerned with this from the beginning.

She has done ALOT of work about this to try and make it easier for members who invested their money to get a level of use out of it. She has taken a third party look at this and had some others look at the legal, financial, and other standpoints. She does not look at these things from strictly one point. She gets a tremendous amount of background information and supporting reasoning before she goes any further. She knows and realizes that her support and decisions have a huge impact on the members. She takes that approach with everything she does for CAP.

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting General Courter, so I will take what you say about her and her approach as a hopefully-good sign, better than the previous occupant of her command.

I am hoping that we will be able to retain the modified CSU and that General Courter will advocate for that at NB.

My suggestion for modified CSU?

All of General Courter's ICL modifications.

Retain the double-breasted blue service dress with grey CAP slides replacing metal epaulette rank.  Replace the silver sleeve braid with standard blue (if AF doesn't approve, no braid).  Refit with the AF-style buttons with CAP crest.

Discontinue the silver chinstrap on the service cap; if AF doesn't approve, discontinue service cap with that order of dress and stay with flight cap.

Replace blue AF belt with black web belt and CAP specific belt buckle (with the CAP crest).

That will look no more "confusing in low light or at a distance" than the AF-style blue uniform.  At some point, AF members have to be educated/educate themselves about their Auxiliary, what we look like, and that we are not trying to look just like them to "play Air Force."

And if some say that it looks "too much like the new Army orders of dress," a trip to the optometrist is suggested.

So, the basic CSU, minus outerwear, consists of the following:

Flight/Service Cap
White Aviator shirt with Gray 3 line nameplate and Gray CAP rank slides
Double breasted service jacket with gray slides and nameplate
Blue pants, belt, and silver buckle.
Black oxford style dress shoes, black socks.

So, in a nutshell, if a member meets grooming standards, but not weight, they have the choice of wearing their aviator shirt with blue pants or gray pants, but if they choose blue pants, they must wear a cap. I suppose we should authorize caps for the white/gray combination too, since I have a feeling people may forget what pants belong with the hat.

CAP no longer has uniforms, but rather a plethora of multiforms with various fashion accessories to suit your tastes for the meeting of the evening...

Quote from: Spike on February 17, 2010, 01:29:50 AM
Gunner, that is some pretty harsh speak.  We don't take money away from the AF.  The budget money comes from the FED through the AF for fiduciary reasons.  We are placed in the AF budget for the same reason, to show where and how the money for CAP is going.

Fat and fuzzies crawling over "our Bases"??  I suppose you do not like CAP in general?

Or was your reply some sarcastic response, I can not tell?

I should have marked it as sarcasm.  It probably didn't make sense but it'd had enough at that point.  This hacks me off to no end.

I think from this point forward, as with wild ideas from previous Chiefs of Staff of the USAF, such as the McPeek stripes, every meeting we attend, be it squadron or national, we wear a completely new uniform. How about berry boards on a guyabera shirt? Double breasted US Navy jacket with Urban Assualt Camo BDU pants? Who cares anymore!? It's all acceptable from what I can see.

I am going to start pulling a Hawkeye Pierce  8)

The most simple, elegant, solution with the least impact to the field is to take the CSU jacket with the current changes (sans braid),
add it to the Aviator Whites, and move on.

Everyone I know who owns a CSU also owns the whites, so very little expense, and that solves the "under class" issue of the need for a paramilitary-style distinctive uniform.  There's no way anyone mistakes that combo for active USAF, while at the same time we all
move to a much more "uniform" appearance.

Problem solved, next issue.

^ Get rid of grey pants now.  Make the "modified CSU" the new distinctive uniform. 

It would only cost most members that can not or do not want to wear the AF-Style between $35.00 and $45.00 for a pair of blue air force pants.  If the AF will not allow the blue pants, then I have no idea what to do.

The new and improved CSU, may actually look good.  Can anyone take some pictures??

Quote from: Spike on February 17, 2010, 08:14:25 PM
^ Get rid of grey pants now.  Make the "modified CSU" the new distinctive uniform. 

If we can get the AF to allow both fat AND fuzzy to wear it, I agree.   Solves a lot of problems:

1. Standard shade pants

2. Has a jacket and authorized cap/hat

3. If you become unfat and unfuzzy, swap the shirt and you're good to go.

4. Uses the same nameplate/epaulet slides/etc as the greys do now - so low cost to adopt (jacket notwithstanding).

5. Has uniform outerwear

6. Makes fat and fuzzies look more uniform with the AF-wearing crowd - i.e. more inclusionary, less "discriminatory" (however unintended that is).

Of course, the cynic in me says that it makes too much sense to happen.   :)

Quote from: Eclipse on February 17, 2010, 07:53:38 PM
Everyone I know who owns a CSU also owns the whites

I have a partial CSU (sans jacket), but have never owned white/greys.

Quote from: FW on February 17, 2010, 12:52:20 PM
Thanks for your comment, Jim.  Maybe next time Gen Courter will "confide" to the National Board before she makes her decisons of major impact to the membership.  It was obvious to the trainied eye, the CSU was DOA at the beginning of the November NEC meeting.  NO ONE was wearing it.  This type of "scripting" was supposed to be gone after HWSRN left the scene.  I don't doubt what she said to you however, past expierience has shown otherwise.  It is not appropriate for further discussion by me on this so, I'll just fume off.  I don't think this will change the "tone" of the NB meeting.  :-X

There is stuff going on behind the scenes. Page 21 of the Winter Agenda has the "Army" Excuse for the Uniform Change.  I would like to hear the WHOLE STORY and have the Board come clean with what is exactly going on with CAP and the Air Force.  It goes beyond "Uniforms" and I am tired of the behind the scenes stuff.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 17, 2010, 07:26:27 AM* We don't (have to) salute them, they do have to salute us

Heh, it took me a second to remember who's "voice" this statement was being written from.

There was serious discussion about the army's service uniform in relation to the corporate uniform? I don't think its possible to confuse them.

Quote from: Fuzzy on February 18, 2010, 01:24:24 PM
There was serious discussion about the army's service uniform in relation to the corporate uniform? I don't think its possible to confuse them.

Maninly because the CAP CSU uses the black Army windbreaker and all-weather coat, especially with hard rank. The Army blue dress trousers are a lighter blue shade than that of the Air Force and NCOs/officers wear braid on the trousers. With the incorporation of the shoulder marks, with the ICL, I personally don't see it as much of a problem.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on February 17, 2010, 02:51:01 AM

Quote from: Cecil DP on February 17, 2010, 02:44:25 AM

Quote from: Bill on February 16, 2010, 11:10:11 PM...
I could see the Army being a little annoyed by the similarities with their uniform,

For the record the Army Blue Dress Uniform has been around for a looooong time. But with the elimination of the green dress uniform it has become the everyday dress uniform, not just for formal occasions anymore. The only hint I've seen that the Army objects to the uniform is that someone on this forum displayed a picture of the Army uniform on the site and observed the similarity, along with a comment about how close the shirts matched.

Army should not have a say in our Corp Unmiform.  Check Page 21 of the Agenda. We are so WEAK!
b

Army uniform, but as you can see below, some similarities do exist."  from the2010 Winter National Board agenda page 21

Reading this, whomever wrote this is saying "maybe the Army objected". The National Board doesn't know why the uniform was rejected, only that maybe, the Army didn't like it. The opinion that the uniform is too close to the U.S. Army uniform is ridiculous. The trousers are a completely different shade and the NCO/Officer stripe is not used by the Civil Air Patrol. Yes the shiry is the same, but is also worn by every airline pilot in the world.

This idea that no branch or organization can use uniforms that look in anyway similar to another one is just so asinine. Heaven forbid there be any cost savings associated with higher purchasing power. It's more important that everyone look completely different!  ::)

BDU's and flight suits would be evidence that other services can discern their members fairly easily.

The current DOD mandate to investigate a consolidated field uniform would also seem to negate that argument.

In my opinion any of the assertions about another agency having a problem, the USAF not liking it, or related, are either
conjecture, or an attempt to backfill a reason into a space which is likely as simple as one or a few CAP commanders
feeling the CSU is legacy from HWSRN and wanted it gone.

I'd be just as happy with that explanation as anything else.  That's part of the paramilitary game, and eliminates all
the rumors and back-room conspiracy talk.  People in command positions are allowed to make unpopular, difficult decisions,
so be it.

Eclipse and Cecil both make good points.

I think there is more than a grain of truth to the statement that the current CAP leadership is anxious (not without reason) to try and erase all vestiges of the General of the U.S. Ranger Corps.  How they're going about it is another matter.  Biting the shins of the membership who shelled out for the CSU and liked it is not good.  General Courter seems to be offering a good "middle way" that I hope becomes permanent.

My ex-brother-in-law had the Army blues (the service dress jacket actually looked black to me) back when I was a teenager in the early '80s.  He got them because at that time officers were required to (I think) and he was preparing to go the Warrant Officer route.  I've seen quite a few other National Guard personnel wearing them, not to mention the Honor Guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.  There's no way I would get the CSU confused with that.

If anything, with the service coat it reminds me of a cross between a Russian Navy officer (cut) and Russian Air Force officer (colour).

Without the service coat it reminds me of an airline pilot or a TSA inspector's former uniform.

There is absolutely no way (within reason) that a uniform can be chosen that doesn't look, to some degree, like another service/organisation's uniform (for the grey/white hardliners: check out some private security firms who wear a white shirt and grey pants).

Last night as I was getting dressed for a unit visit (putting on my security guard jacket), I tried on the CSU jacket with the
gray pants - it looks very sharp, and would be clearly distinctive.

This is the simplest, most uniform solution for all - allow the CSU jacket, as per the latest ICL, to be worn as an option with the
aviator whites / gray pants combination for those who are so inclined or have the need, including headgear when worn this way.

Stamp it approved, move on, everyone is happy.

Makes too much sense.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2010, 03:44:52 PM
Stamp it approved, move on, everyone is happy.

Except the Air Force. ;)

Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2010, 03:44:52 PM
Last night as I was getting dressed for a unit visit (putting on my security guard jacket), I tried on the CSU jacket with the
gray pants - it looks very sharp, and would be clearly distinctive.

This is the simplest, most uniform solution for all - allow the CSU jacket, as per the latest ICL, to be worn as an option with the
aviator whites / gray pants combination for those who are so inclined or have the need, including headgear when worn this way.

Stamp it approved, move on, everyone is happy.

How about this FOR EVERYONE:

Pick a uniform grey pant that is heather grey and will be stocked by Vanguard

Ditch the blue shirt in favor of the white ones (even allow Army version)

Modify the AF Service Coat with CAP Buttons, change cut outs to CAP continue to wear epaulet sleeves.

Continue with current headgear and outer garments for AF style (ditch silver hat band)

Adopt this uniform as the CAP Service Dress Uniform for ALL members.

Distinctive, yet harkens to Ma Blue and could NEVER be confused with an AF uniform. Presents uniform appearance with cadets and AF members

This will keep costs for acquisition relatively equal across the entire membership.

ONE UNIFORM FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE UNIFORM!

Honestly I don't see whats the big deal about two sets of uniforms.

NEGATIVE GHOST RIDER

At this point Iam just going to wear my flight suit every where >:D

Quote from: Strick on March 11, 2010, 04:28:13 PM
At this point Iam just going to wear my flight suit every where >:D

Were not supposed to???

It's a joke :P

I was playing along with it  :o

Quote from: cap235629 on March 11, 2010, 03:48:52 PM
Pick a uniform grey pant that is heather grey and will be stocked by Vanguard

Ditch the blue shirt in favor of the white ones (even allow Army version)

Modify the AF Service Coat with CAP Buttons, change cut outs to CAP continue to wear epaulet sleeves.

Continue with current headgear and outer garments for AF style (ditch silver hat band)

I see what you're getting at (I think), but again, maybe this is just me, but why do the trousers have to be grey?

Again I wonder if CAP is so snakebitten by the whole CSU thing that we've become frightened of blue...?

Why not navy blue, or even black, airline aircrew trousers?

I'm good with the white shirt, but I'd be even better with an airline-issue blue shirt that is darker in shade than the AF.

I agree with you on the modifications to the AF Service Dress Jacket, but I would also replace the name-only brushed metal nameplate with the CSU-derived brushed metal one that says "Civil Air Patrol."  I see quite a few members wearing that (incorrectly) with the AF Service Dress.

Agreement also on the headgear, but for all this AF-issue stuff we'd have to get AF approval, and I think they'd be decidedly cool to things they haven't already got in place.

A better option, I believe, is to try and retain the CSU dress jacket with General Courter's modifications (and lose the silver sleeve braid).

Quote from: CyBorg on March 11, 2010, 04:57:41 PM
Why not navy blue, or even black, airline aircrew trousers?

Because a LOT of people have gray trousers already, so it minimizes the impact and maintains distinctiveness.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 10, 2010, 03:44:52 PM
Last night as I was getting dressed for a unit visit (putting on my security guard jacket), I tried on the CSU jacket with the
gray pants - it looks very sharp, and would be clearly distinctive.

This is the simplest, most uniform solution for all - allow the CSU jacket, as per the latest ICL, to be worn as an option with the
aviator whites / gray pants combination for those who are so inclined or have the need, including headgear when worn this way.

Stamp it approved, move on, everyone is happy.

This is the sort of practical yet outside the box thinking that led me to nominate Eclipse as a judge for "Project CAP," the "Project Runway" uniform design competition.   ;)

As I have noted elsewhere, I think the CSU double breasted dress uniform is attractive, distinctive, yet echoes our USAF roots.  But there's quite a bit of logic to Eclipse's substitution of the gray slacks for the current blue ones as that is already part of the corporate goin' to meetin' uni.  Like the USAF counterpart, add tie and jacket and you have an easy to assemble corporate dress uni.

Tell Gen. Courter we've got this all figured out now.   :D  Next, let's see what Eclipse wants to do about unifying the flight suit situation.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 11, 2010, 05:10:53 PM
Because a LOT of people have gray trousers already, so it minimizes the impact and maintains distinctiveness.

Understood.

But quite a few people (including me) have bought CSU components (though not as many as have gone to J.C. Penney's, Wal-Mart, etc. and bought off-the-rack grey pants) and we have to stop wearing those, though thankfully there is an extended sunset period.

There is no reason why a phase-in/phase out of grey trousers could not take place gradually.  We've done it before.  Remember the guyabera shirt, regimental ties, Smurf suits and blue CAP epaulettes?

I just don't understand why distinctiveness=grey.  Maybe I'm not meant to.

Quote

I just don't understand why distinctiveness=grey.  Maybe I'm not meant to.

I have no idea about the history for the gray.  I'm guessing some of the seasoned members here know the reasons for it.   I have heard from some long time members about the awful maroon loops that we had to wear for a while.  I think the gray is distinctive and subtle, versus the maroon which was distinctive and loudly ugly.

Quote

But quite a few people (including me) have bought CSU components (though not as many as have gone to J.C. Penney's, Wal-Mart, etc. and bought off-the-rack grey pants) and we have to stop wearing those, though thankfully there is an extended sunset period.

CyBorg, I'm with you on this.  I was shocked when I saw the CSU I had just bought was only going to be good for another year.  But I also knew the "job" was dangerous when I joined.   :D

I'd like to see the gray pants standardized as well since they are all over the map in terms of cut, quality, fabric, and color.  But I'm guessing this is a concession to expense, which is not unreasonable. 

Quote from: tdepp on March 11, 2010, 06:35:51 PM
Next, let's see what Eclipse wants to do about unifying the flight suit situation.

Blue flight suit.

Also - does it have to be NOMEX?  After all, we're not riding rockets the way an F-16 driver does, and, as has been pointed out, not all aircrews wear a flight suit.  I've flown with pilots wearing flight suits, golf shirts and BDU's.

Non-NOMEX are a lot less of a hit on the wallet.

We used grey because many of are older senior memebers already had the grey trouser they wore durring the Civil War,they just had to sans the tunic.............. ;D

Quote from: CyBorg on March 11, 2010, 06:51:14 PM

Quote from: tdepp on March 11, 2010, 06:35:51 PM
Next, let's see what Eclipse wants to do about unifying the flight suit situation.

Blue flight suit.

Also - does it have to be NOMEX?  After all, we're not riding rockets the way an F-16 driver does, and, as has been pointed out, not all aircrews wear a flight suit.  I've flown with pilots wearing flight suits, golf shirts and BDU's.


green flight suits are a heckof alot cheaper than the blue............stick with the green..............I would wear the blue but it is way to expensive.  I get neww green mil spec onesfor about 29.00 with the tag.   

Non-NOMEX are a lot less of a hit on the wallet.

Quote from: tdepp on March 11, 2010, 06:47:31 PM

Quote

I just don't understand why distinctiveness=grey.  Maybe I'm not meant to.

I have no idea about the history for the gray.  I'm guessing some of the seasoned members here know the reasons for it.   I have heard from some long time members about the awful maroon loops that we had to wear for a while.  I think the gray is distinctive and subtle, versus the maroon which was distinctive and loudly ugly.

I visited a Squadron in Florida during the Maroon Period, I know many folks did not like the slides.
However, and I admit to being a history geek, I think the mistake was not going with BRIGHT RED shoulder straps and / or slides on the uniform combinations for Senior Members. Those who remember know that it was Red eppaulets which distinguished CAP from the USAAF.

While we are at it bring back the original CAP buttons, they were bright silver with the prop in trinangle symbol. The Hap Arnold button should belong to the AF. 

Can you imagine the CSU with RED eppaulets and shiny CAP buttons?  :clap:

Platelet

Quote from: Strick on March 11, 2010, 06:55:58 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on March 11, 2010, 06:51:14 PM

Quote from: tdepp on March 11, 2010, 06:35:51 PM
Next, let's see what Eclipse wants to do about unifying the flight suit situation.

Blue flight suit.

Also - does it have to be NOMEX?  After all, we're not riding rockets the way an F-16 driver does, and, as has been pointed out, not all aircrews wear a flight suit.  I've flown with pilots wearing flight suits, golf shirts and BDU's.


green flight suits are a heckof alot cheaper than the blue............stick with the green..............I would wear the blue but it is way to expensive.  I get neww green mil spec onesfor about 29.00 with the tag.   

Non-NOMEX are a lot less of a hit on the wallet.

I want ORANGE Flight Suits back, most of what we do is SAR, or related.

Platelet

I liked the maroon slides, never wore them, but I have a large collection of them............I would like to see cadet officers go to grey slides and grey nameplate........  we all should have the same colored slides, nametag, regardless of status or grade.  Whe I was a cadet officer, I was saluted by Enlisted Air Force folks, they saw the blue slides and saluted.  I am surprised this is not any issue for the Air Force, JAFROTC wears black slides to be distinctive.   

Some states have supplements that require Nomex for aircrews.  We've beat that up pretty hard here - seems like a silly idea since
the crash in a Cessna is likely to be a higher risk than fire, and we don't make aircrew wear helmets, but it is what it is.

Orange flightsuits would be about as useful as Nomex - its not like you can see them from the ground.

Considering what and how we fly, and that we utilize GA pilots who fly in shorts the rest of the week, there's really no justification for
flightsuits at all beyond the coolness factor.

Lose them and make the golf shirt the standard flight uniform.

Quote from: tdepp on March 11, 2010, 06:47:31 PM
I have no idea about the history for the gray.  I'm guessing some of the seasoned members here know the reasons for it.   I have heard from some long time members about the awful maroon loops that we had to wear for a while.  I think the gray is distinctive and subtle, versus the maroon which was distinctive and loudly ugly.

Berry boards.  YECH.

That's what we were wearing when I joined.  I joined just after the blue CAP epaulettes and hard rank were disallowed.  We still had a few of them in Squadron storage but we couldn't wear them.

Depending on who you ask, the berry boards were either a punishment from the AF for bad behaviour, a former National CC who "promoted himself" to Major General, or a "guiding" from them toward "distinctiveness."  I don't know the real story.

When I joined, I wore a blue uniform with blue nameplate and maroon shoulder boards.  We looked like the Iraqi Air Force.

The grey shoulder boards, nameplates and epaulettes, and U.S. cutouts, came in around '94-'95.  The grey epaulettes were, and are, a very welcome change from the berry boards.  I jacked my berry boards in the trash as soon as I got my grey ones.  I have no problem at all with the grey epaulettes.

Quote from: tdepp on March 11, 2010, 06:50:18 PM
I'd like to see the gray pants standardized as well since they are all over the map in terms of cut, quality, fabric, and color.  But I'm guessing this is a concession to expense, which is not unreasonable.

A reasonable standard for grey pants could be:
heather grey dress pants, side entry pockets, without pleats or cuffs.

Heather grey is a standard color that the vast majority of clothiers carry, can get, and understand, unlike medium grey. Heather grey purchased from several different clothiers is identical, or the difference is noticible only when you're up close and extremely personal.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 11, 2010, 07:10:48 PM
Some states have supplements that require Nomex for aircrews.  We've beat that up pretty hard here - seems like a silly idea since
the crash in a Cessna is likely to be a higher risk than fire, and we don't make aircrew wear helmets, but it is what it is.

Orange flightsuits would be about as useful as Nomex - its not like you can see them from the ground.

Considering what and how we fly, and that we utilize GA pilots who fly in shorts the rest of the week, there's really no justification for
flightsuits at all beyond the coolness factor.

disagree. flight suits are functional for what we do,the pockets and pen pocketsare extremly useful.  Now if you want to use a polo for flying, I woul suggest a5.11 brand polo with the pen pocket on te arm.   For SAR work, an ornageflightsuit is ideal..   

Lose them and make the golf shirt the standard flight uniform.

Quote from: Strick on March 11, 2010, 07:05:06 PM
I liked the maroon slides, never wore them, but I have a large collection of them............I would like to see cadet officers go to grey slides and grey nameplate........  we all should have the same colored slides, nametag, regardless of status or grade.  Whe I was a cadet officer, I was saluted by Enlisted Air Force folks, they saw the blue slides and saluted.  I am surprised this is not any issue for the Air Force, JAFROTC wears black slides to be distinctive.

Cadet snipers take him down!

Well I did some digging in my Squadron blackhole (AKA "supply room") and found all of the CAPM39-1's back to 1965, as well as all the CAP newspaper clippings for uniform items.  In the 1991 paper clipping the NEC met and agreed to "cut down on the number of CAP uniforms", allow the blue polo with the new grey pants "standardize the grey pants and look for a specific brand that is not Levi or Hanes", "allowed wear of the guayabera (sp) shirt with the grey pants", "decide by the next board meeting if a white polo (designed by North Carolina Wing) should replace the now approved blue polo", and finally........ FOLLOW AIR FORCE UNIFORM RULES AND REGULATION, except where they specifically want cap distinctive items.  Which meant carrying around a copy of 39-1 and the Air Force Instruction.  The Executive Director at the time (A Air Force Colonel) recommended that CAP provide a copy of 39-1 to be included in the soon to be updated Air Force Reg.  The CAP uniform Committee rejected that proposal by the Air Force.

Also, the NCAC recommended many changes to the uniforms and Cadet Program (12 all together) and all were approved.

So, looking back, when the AF ran most day to day operations at NHQ.....CAP functioned very well.  All publications were written by the Air Force, signed by 2 Air Force Officers (admin and Executive Director) and the CAP Commander. 

What the hell happened?  How did we lose Air Force guidance??

Quote from: Spike on March 11, 2010, 08:28:20 PM
What the hell happened?  How did we lose Air Force guidance??

BRAC.

The world changed and the military shrank.

Its almost like "Its A Wonderful Life" where you can draw lines from what's not there to the consequences.

My city had a substantial AFRES presence, a large Naval Air station, plus Guard and Reservist bases all over the state.
Now we're down to two bases, neither all that big in the grand scheme, and a couple armories - everything else is
gone or a museum.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers, and no Buck Rogers means no one to steer the ship, so it was turned over to civilians who had
different ideas, agendas, and no far-reaching mission.

Times 50 states and all the territories.

^^Two BRAC's; 1994 and 2005.

When I first joined (1993), we had close ties with the AF, ANG and AFRES.

Those loosened as the AF shed people and shifted more and more to the ANG and AFRES (call a Guard member or Reservist a "weekend warrior" now and see how quickly you're corrected).

Eclipse has already detailed a lot of what happened at National. 

Also, in 1995 we almost ceased to exist.  Senator John McCain had a bee in his bonnet about CAP and wanted to remove us completely from the AF and any Federal funding.

The stuff runs downhill, to the Wing, Group and Squadron levels.

We went from LO's that were AF/AFRES to State Directors that were retired AF/ANG/AFRES and CAP Corporate Employees.

Older officers and SNCO's that were familiar with CAP retired and were replaced by newbies out of BMT/OTS who knew little to nothing about CAP, except stories they heard about us being wannabes who trolled for salutes we weren't entitled to and didn't know how to wear the uniform.  They tended to support JROTC rather than CAP, and many could care less about CAP except for the cadet side (warm bodies for Lackland AFB).

And, we had our own little peccadilloes with our own people at the top...who wanted it both ways: away from direct Air Force control, but still wanting the benefits that went with being the AF Auxiliary.

Then we lost our full-time AF Auxiliary status.

The uniform issue is probably the most visible representation of our often-schizoid can't-decide-who-we-are (civilian SAR/DR/ES, quasi-military volunteer AF, youth program?) mindset.

Having a National CC who had delusions of grandeur that became associated with a genuinely good, if flawed, idea (the CSU) didn't help.

Sometimes I wonder what we'll need to do to rebuild our relationship with the AF...considering that there is a substantial chunk of CAP's membership that could care less if we have anything to do with the AF.

I am grateful to General Courter that she got the "grace period" for phasing out the CSU and came up with modifications that I would be quite pleased to see adopted permanently.

 
Good summaries of why and where we are now.  However, contrary to some opinions, we are always "the auxiliary"; just not for insurance and reimbursement purposes.  It's been this way since the 80's. except, now there is an "auxiliary office" at the pentagon.

We "lost Air Force guidance" because there was no money nor man power to continue it.  With the war, I doubt if things will change.  Plus, with the law passed in 2000, CAP will continue to function as a self governing independent body; no matter how much congress gives us every year.

As far as State Directors are concerned, they are now civilian AF employees at a GS 13 pay grade.  Some never saw the inside of an AF aircraft, let alone wear the uniform.  Wing Administrators are CAP employees and have no oversight functions. 

And, I'm grateful Gen Courter sent out that ICL too however, the air force already allowed the extension (without mods, BTW.) as noted in the comment section of the last NB meeting agenda.  And, yes, the mods would work great as the new "CSU".

Quote from: FW on March 11, 2010, 10:04:39 PM
As far as State Directors are concerned, they are now civilian AF employees at a GS 13 pay grade.  Some never saw the inside of an AF aircraft, let alone wear the uniform.  Wing Administrators are CAP employees and have no oversight functions. 

To me, the biggest mistake is having CAP-USAF outside the chain of command.  The SDs are basically stewards of the toys and money,
and can really only get involved when there are gross FW&A issues.  They are forced to watch from the sidelines as things which should be
simple "decide and move on" issues drag on for years while real problems are left on the table ignored.

Quote
Sometimes I wonder what we'll need to do to rebuild our relationship with the AF...considering that there is a substantial chunk of CAP's membership that could care less if we have anything to do with the AF.

CyBorg:

No USAF, no CAP, IMHO.  I understand that there have been massive changes to the military, to us, and to society since 1941.  And perhaps a little tending to the USAF garden is in order.  My own, albeit, limited experience is that most members I've met like being associated with the USAF and the USAF officers who "oversee" us are nothing but respectful and appreciative of what we do. 

There will always be challenges and changes.  The ELT change.  Will domestic unmanned flights replace our SAR flights?  Technological changes only accelerate with time.  Organizations like CAP change more slowly. 

Then again, maybe I'm just a sunny optimist and see the good in every d*mn thing.  :)

Speaking of epaulettes, has anyone else noticed a substantial size difference between the old Hock Shop/CAP Bookstore cadet epaulettes, and the new Vanguard production? I have several pairs of cadet epaulettes, one set I bought in about 2004 new from The Hock, along with some miniature and full size C/WO gold pips, and another pair I received in a lot of CAP clothing and cadet ribbons from a lady in NYWG. Both of these pairs are the same size, which is about the size of the female USAF epaulettes. Vanguard's cadet epaulettes are full, "male" size, just like the gray epaulettes for Seniors.

Anyone know why the change?

Nope, but why did you get C/WO pips in 2004?

Collector's reasons. Eventually I'd like to create some type of display of my various CAP items.

Quote from: Cecil DP on February 18, 2010, 05:45:38 PM

Quote from: Earhart1971 on February 17, 2010, 02:51:01 AM

Quote from: Cecil DP on February 17, 2010, 02:44:25 AM

Quote from: Bill on February 16, 2010, 11:10:11 PM...
I could see the Army being a little annoyed by the similarities with their uniform,

For the record the Army Blue Dress Uniform has been around for a looooong time. But with the elimination of the green dress uniform it has become the everyday dress uniform, not just for formal occasions anymore. The only hint I've seen that the Army objects to the uniform is that someone on this forum displayed a picture of the Army uniform on the site and observed the similarity, along with a comment about how close the shirts matched.

Army should not have a say in our Corp Unmiform.  Check Page 21 of the Agenda. We are so WEAK!
b

"One reason possibly cited for the elimination of the CAP Corporate Uniform was its
somewhat similarity to the new Army Blue Service Dress Uniform. The Army has done

away with their green service dress uniform and has updated an older blue uniform style

for the modern era. Differences are many between the CAP Corporate Uniform and this

Army uniform, but as you can see below, some similarities do exist."  from the2010 Winter National Board agenda page 21

Reading this, whomever wrote this is saying "maybe the Army objected". The National Board doesn't know why the uniform was rejected, only that maybe, the Army didn't like it. The opinion that the uniform is too close to the U.S. Army uniform is ridiculous. The trousers are a completely different shade and the NCO/Officer stripe is not used by the Civil Air Patrol. Yes the shiry is the same, but is also worn by every airline pilot in the world.

The CAP Blue/white uniform did not look like a current US Army uniform.  However THIS one does: http://www.kfreeman.com/usrc/

Quote from: Custer on May 11, 2010, 12:20:21 AM
...
The CAP Blue/white uniform did not look like a current US Army uniform.  However THIS one does: http://www.kfreeman.com/usrc/

LMAO.  I needed that.  Oh, HWSNBN...

What the heck is that "BG" doing wearing CAP ribbons?

Isn't there something in 39-1 about CAP ribbons only being worn on CAP uniforms?

You can't wear them on the Coast Guard Auxiliary uniform, nor, I think the Sea Cadets, or of course on actual military uniforms, so where's this guy get off?

Just because "MG" whatsisname may say it's good, doesn't mean it's so.

Quote from: CyBorg on May 11, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
What the heck is that "BG" doing wearing CAP ribbons?

Isn't there something in 39-1 about CAP ribbons only being worn on CAP uniforms?

You can't wear them on the Coast Guard Auxiliary uniform, nor, I think the Sea Cadets, or of course on actual military uniforms, so where's this guy get off?

Just because "MG" whatsisname may say it's good, doesn't mean it's so.

Don't be so sure of that. What does the CGA or  the Sea Cadets uniform regs say?

Quote from: Platelet on March 11, 2010, 06:59:23 PM
I want ORANGE Flight Suits back, most of what we do is SAR, or related.

In many places at certain times of the year, you will absolutely guarantee that you won't be found. Orange isn't always the answer. Blue is actually the most effective for year round visibility.

And just because it's orange doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to think it's SAR. Many would think you're a DAC pilot.

Quote from: CyBorg on May 11, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
What the heck is that "BG" doing wearing CAP ribbons?

I think those are a CAP observer wings as well.  And that badge under the ribbons  I *think* is Coast Guard Aux.  But the point I was making is that this person is wearing a current US Army uniform which is no different from active duty,  at least as near as I can tell from the picture.  The nameplate seems to be a standard army black one and the slide on ranks are not a different color.  The only way to differentiate him from real US Army are the ribbons, are all from him being an LTC in CAP.

Hes also a Colonel in the Alabama SDF, and a  Lieutenant Colonel in CAP.  The Coast guard Aux only gave him O2, but hes in that as well

And his actual USAF rank?   E5.

Quote from: PHall on May 11, 2010, 01:26:26 AM
Don't be so sure of that. What does the CGA or  the Sea Cadets uniform regs say?

CGAux I know from personal experience.

Sea Cadets, here's a couple of ribbon checkers:

http://resources.seacadets.org/award/ribbonchecker.html

http://kingsbayseacadets.org/ribbons/index.php

He's right about the CGAUX.  I just get to wear my CGUC, none of my CAP bling. http://fellowship.d11nuscgaux.info/AUXmanual/AuxManCh10.pdf (Pg. 35)

Quote from: Custer on May 11, 2010, 01:51:04 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on May 11, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
What the heck is that "BG" doing wearing CAP ribbons?

I think those are a CAP observer wings as well.  And that badge under the ribbons  I *think* is Coast Guard Aux.  But the point I was making is that this person is wearing a current US Army uniform which is no different from active duty,  at least as near as I can tell from the picture.  The nameplate seems to be a standard army black one and the slide on ranks are not a different color.  The only way to differentiate him from real US Army are the ribbons, are all from him being an LTC in CAP.

Hes also a Colonel in the Alabama SDF, and a  Lieutenant Colonel in CAP.  The Coast guard Aux only gave him O2, but hes in that as well

And his actual USAF rank?   E5.

Man.  This guy has nearly as many ranks at one time as exist altogether...   ;)

Man you know the US Rangers have been staying pretty quiet. I had assumed that this was because the whole organization didn't really exist except on paper. But this guy has a whole uniform decked out... and isn't in Florida.

The website is as lame as ever though.

I would not disrespect Lt Col Freeman as is being done here.  He has paid many years of service to CAP going back to when cadets wore khakis.  Show some dignity and let it go.

Quote from: CyBorg on May 11, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
What the heck is that "BG" doing wearing CAP ribbons?

Isn't there something in 39-1 about CAP ribbons only being worn on CAP uniforms?

If you are not in CAP who cares about 39-1 (heck a lot of people in CAP don't care about 39-1)  ;)

Quote from: Major Carrales on May 11, 2010, 03:27:58 AM
I would not disrespect Lt Col Freeman as is being done here.  He has paid many years of service to CAP going back to when cadets wore khakis.  Show some dignity and let it go.

He's disrespecting CAP by associating CAP items with USRC

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 11, 2010, 06:20:48 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on May 11, 2010, 03:27:58 AM
I would not disrespect Lt Col Freeman as is being done here.  He has paid many years of service to CAP going back to when cadets wore khakis.  Show some dignity and let it go.

He's disrespecting CAP by associating CAP items with USRC

Have you contacted him and told him that?

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 11, 2010, 06:20:48 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on May 11, 2010, 03:27:58 AM
I would not disrespect Lt Col Freeman as is being done here.  He has paid many years of service to CAP going back to when cadets wore khakis.  Show some dignity and let it go.

He's disrespecting CAP by associating CAP items with USRC

How?

So what if he has a fortune in uniforms in his closet? So what if he has the time to spend in so many quasi-military organizations? I don't even know the guy, do you? How can you be so critical?

The real tragedy here is that HWSRN or HWSNBN was capable of leaving this organization in disgrace and form something that seems to be slowly growing.

I would worry that the U.S. Ranger Corps would gain such popularity that it over-shadows the CAP in the future. In some ways, the CAP is in a real morass...look at how we debate this uniform. Instead, we, as an organization, need to continually strive to be at the top of our game and get beyond issues like this that really muddy the water and make us look rediculous in the end.

Ever wonder what would happen if we, as senior members, undertook the same standards held in WW II where we did PT and marched? Ever wonder what might happen if the politics, that seem to run so rampant in our organization, were removed by a formal Air Force-like selection process of our commanders and for promotions? Ever wonder what it would be like if we would stop trying to build justifications for more generals and we could keep to one uniform standard?

7 pages:  Much ado about nothing.  When I consider the overall missions of the Civil Air Patrol and how much the organization as a whole has to offer the nation and the youth in particular I am amazed that so many people waste so much energy on what amounts to nothing.  It is the pride in the self and the organization that marks the member, not the faux military trappings.
   Maybe we should all get our rank insignia tattooed on our shoulders and then run around naked (side benefit-many members would lose the extra pounds).  Then we would all be distintive and uniform and it would not cost a lot.

^^^^^ :clap:
Missions first.  (Ok, safety first.)  Uniforms fifteenth.