Wearing CAP Blues in Airport

[lordmonar]

Okay.....

It is simple.

There is no real need to travel in uniform......but it is allowed. 

OPSEC, Force Proctection, Anti-terrorism.......well we have all had those breifings....and we have had all heard the case studies.....but none of that applies or even matters.

If you want to, go ahead.

[RiverAux]

Just FYI about traveling in uniform. Basic ORM and OPSEC rules dictate over and over and over again that when you stick out, you make yourself a target. When you wear the symbols of the U.S. government, you make yourself a target. Now some of you may think it's brave and noble to be a target to those who "dislike" our government, but the government seems to think that you taking unnecessary risks with a government asset (you) is irresponsible. Also, please stop to think that while you're making yourself a bigger target, you're also making the people around you a bigger target. That's also irresponsible.

There is NO need for you to travel in any uniform to any CAP activity. We aren't first responders and we don't jump into battle off of jetways. There just isn't a situation where you cannot take 15 minutes to change into a uniform once you arrive.

Look at it this way, your stupid ego may cost someone sitting next to you their life. That someone will be someone's mother/sister/daughter/father/son, etc.

Although I don't see that there is much need for CAP members to fly in uniform, the very same logic would apply to members of the military.  What is their need to be in uniform on the flight?  If they're coming back from the war zone and actually don't have civilian clothes, then the uniform is the only option.  But, otherwise the risk for them is no more than warranted for CAP members.

And how big a "risk" are we talking about?  1 in a billion or more? [what is it now, several million people a day fly on airlines?  Multiply that at by how many years since a US service member was targeted on a flight].  If you want to consider that a serious risk, then the CAP members shouldn't be flying at all since the risk of the airplane crashing is much higher than being targeted by a terrorist. 

[afgeo4]

Just FYI about traveling in uniform. Basic ORM and OPSEC rules dictate over and over and over again that when you stick out, you make yourself a target. When you wear the symbols of the U.S. government, you make yourself a target. Now some of you may think it's brave and noble to be a target to those who "dislike" our government, but the government seems to think that you taking unnecessary risks with a government asset (you) is irresponsible. Also, please stop to think that while you're making yourself a bigger target, you're also making the people around you a bigger target. That's also irresponsible.

There is NO need for you to travel in any uniform to any CAP activity. We aren't first responders and we don't jump into battle off of jetways. There just isn't a situation where you cannot take 15 minutes to change into a uniform once you arrive.

Look at it this way, your stupid ego may cost someone sitting next to you their life. That someone will be someone's mother/sister/daughter/father/son, etc.

Although I don't see that there is much need for CAP members to fly in uniform, the very same logic would apply to members of the military.  What is their need to be in uniform on the flight?  If they're coming back from the war zone and actually don't have civilian clothes, then the uniform is the only option.  But, otherwise the risk for them is no more than warranted for CAP members.

And how big a "risk" are we talking about?  1 in a billion or more? [what is it now, several million people a day fly on airlines?  Multiply that at by how many years since a US service member was targeted on a flight].  If you want to consider that a serious risk, then the CAP members shouldn't be flying at all since the risk of the airplane crashing is much higher than being targeted by a terrorist.

You're absolutely correct. It makes no sense for a/d personnel to fly in uniform either although as I understand it, most branches now allow personnel to travel in uniform only to/from deployment AOR. Anyway, playing the odds is all fun and games until something actually does happen and then people will be saying, "I told you so" and they'll be right. I think this is a perfect example of ORM where the risk simply outweighs the benefit.

[lordmonar]

Nope.

AD are allowed and even encouraged to fly in unifrom....at least domestically.  Uniforms to and from the AOR are required IIRC.

Playing the Odds games is exactly what you just said.

You said CAP members should not fly in uniform because of the chance of random terrorism could make them a target.
River responded...that by that logic CAP members should never fly because the chance of the plane falling from the sky is MUCH GREATER then the chance of a terrorist being on board and targeting a CAP member.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

OPSEC may come into play.....but not likely.  Force Protection?  Not at all.

Do a break down of all terrorist attacks anywhere......you are either specifically targeted...in which case you will need the secret service to keep you safe or you are victim of randome terrorism.....in which case your only safety lies with staying at home in your dorm room the whole time (and Kobar Towers and Beirut Barracks bombings prove that this is not all that safe).

In my 22 years in the Air force I have been attacked by terrorists four different times.
The my analysis of my survival has been that I was just lucky that day.
If we were overseas in a higher threat area....maybe your advice may work.  But I don't see it as a big enough concern that we have to ban all travel in unifrom.

[RiverAux]

I think this is a perfect example of ORM where the risk simply outweighs the benefit.

Again, if you judge this risk to be significant, there is no CAP activity that is going to be safer.  Driving in squadron vans is more dangerous.  Flying in CAP planes is more dangerous.  Driving to the meeting is more dangerous.  The risk of a freak storm breaking out and destroying your hanger during a training exercise is higher (and actually has happened unlike what you are scared of). 

All of those things have "benefits" that are just as hard to define as the risk.  Who is to say that the public affairs benefits of walking around the airport in CAP uniform are any less than the AE benefits of doing an o-ride in a CAP airplane?  While we can't really define the benefits of almost any CAP activity, we can define the risks based on history and statistics and the "risk" of being targeted for terrorist attack on a commercial airline flight for wearing a CAP uniform is absolutely 0 based on history.  The risk of being injured or killed in other CAP activities are higher. 

Just an example of ORM being used as a cover to justify prohibiting something that someone doesn't want to happen for other reasons (which may be reasonable, but aren't being expressed). 

[afgeo4]

River, going by your reasoning one could conclude that the main cause for death is life and of course I can't argue with that. It's true. Anything that's alive could and does die. Sigh...

What makes us more intelligent is risk management. No, it's not hard to define risk and it's not hard to define the benefits. Stop for a minute, think about it, and once you have a good idea of both, weight them. Then do so every time your operation changes significantly. In the Coast Guard we call that a GAR (Green/Amber/Red) Assessment. We think about the mission and whether the risks outweigh the benefits. The rule of thumb is that if there is a REAL (vs. perceived) risk to life and it can avoided while still completing the mission, ALWAYS do so. If there is no way to complete the mission without the risk, weigh it out.

Whether it's crossing a street or traveling by van or flying commercial in uniform, think whether there's a way to eliminate the risk without endangering the mission itself. If there is, DO IT! If there isn't, figure out if the mission is really worth the risk. You're right that traveling in uniform is a small risk. However, it is a completely unnecessary risk. Traveling out of uniform would accomplish the same exact task, so why take the extra risk when you don't need to? It ain't the same as going on a SAR mission, sorry. It's not even the same as driving a CAP van on a field trip.

[Eclipse]

^+1

As my former Legal Officer was fond of saying.

"Better to set the example than be the example."

Since traveling in uniform serves no mission purpose, affords no protection or other benefits to members, and is mostly counterproductive, there's no point in it.

[lordmonar]

River, going by your reasoning one could conclude that the main cause for death is life and of course I can't argue with that. It's true. Anything that's alive could and does die. Sigh...

What makes us more intelligent is risk management. No, it's not hard to define risk and it's not hard to define the benefits. Stop for a minute, think about it, and once you have a good idea of both, weight them. Then do so every time your operation changes significantly. In the Coast Guard we call that a GAR (Green/Amber/Red) Assessment. We think about the mission and whether the risks outweigh the benefits. The rule of thumb is that if there is a REAL (vs. perceived) risk to life and it can avoided while still completing the mission, ALWAYS do so. If there is no way to complete the mission without the risk, weigh it out.

Whether it's crossing a street or traveling by van or flying commercial in uniform, think whether there's a way to eliminate the risk without endangering the mission itself. If there is, DO IT! If there isn't, figure out if the mission is really worth the risk. You're right that traveling in uniform is a small risk. However, it is a completely unnecessary risk. Traveling out of uniform would accomplish the same exact task, so why take the extra risk when you don't need to? It ain't the same as going on a SAR mission, sorry. It's not even the same as driving a CAP van on a field trip.

Okay....I agree with you...it make sense in the absolutes to do everything that reduces all possible risks.

But......it also makes sense that you have address the likeliness of a risk (which is part of ORM) and see if that risk needs to addressed.

Even if the action has no cost......there is no need to FORCE people to do that action.

You say no one should ever wear the uniform on commercial air liners because of the risk of terrorism.
I say no one should ever fly on a commercial air liner because of the higher risk of a crash.

So......who is right?   We can play the "what if game" and say....we need to implement any and all "no-cost" or "Low-cost" mitigation efforts no matter how likely the risk.........You will never get off the ground as you go through that matrix.

[RiverAux]

You know, airshows would make a very tempting target for terrorists and since CAP members are often in uniform at those events, they just might make a great target for the guy in the suicide vest.  So, we better not do airshows anymore.

That is absolutely just as absurd as saying that a CAP member in uniform on a commercial flight poses an unacceptable safety risk.

Since traveling in uniform serves no mission purpose, affords no protection or other benefits to members, and is mostly counterproductive, there's no point in it.

All points I agree with, but trying to justify this position based on ORM is just a misuse of that concept to try to give the illusion of an objective rather than subjective reason for this to not happen. 

[lordmonar]

Since traveling in uniform serves no mission purpose, affords no protection or other benefits to members, and is mostly counterproductive, there's no point in it.

It does serve a purpose.

1) It identifies you as a member of CAP.
2) It is a walking talking advertisement.
3) It brings pride and warm fuzzies to the member who wants to wear his uniform.

Counter Productive?   In what way?

If the mission is to get to the acitivty.......using a fair balance of "what if's" in what possible universe will that mission fail or be degraded by the wear of the CAP uniform?

And don't give me delays at the TSA counter.

I wore my fulls blues on AD Travel several times (did not want to...had to...special circumstances) and got jerked for extra pat downs....only added 10 minutes to my trip.

[Eclipse]

1) It identifies you as a member of CAP.

Unnecessary and as mentioned increases risk (slightly).  No one in that airport needs to know, for any reason you are in CAP.  The airlines
don't give you travel or baggage discounts, nor can you use the USO facilities.  There are also those crazies who will choose to engage in a "baby killer", "GWB is satan", etc., discussions which no one wins, especially a cadet  In this day and age, the goal should be to get through the airport as quickly and discreetly as possible, while calling no attention to yourself whatsoever.

2) It is a walking talking advertisement.

See above.

3) It brings pride and warm fuzzies to the member who wants to wear his uniform.

I am as proud of my uniform as anyone else.  Wearing it in performance of my duties warms my cockles and energizes my pride circuit. Wearing it when unnecessary is borderline "affintyism^®", especially in an environment like an airport where you are bound to draw attention and likely to get special privileges based on the uniform.

Counter Productive?   In what way?

The uniform you wear on any flight is going to look like rolled poop by the time you get to your destination, defeating any misguided notion
about "reporting in uniform".

If the mission is to get to the activity...

CAP specifically excludes, by regulation, transport to or from activities and missions, so "getting there" is never the mission.

I wore my fulls blues on AD Travel several times

A) You were Active duty.
B) As someone on AD, you're entitled to the attention and any privilege that might come your way.
C) What people on AD do, or for the PTA or CERT is irrelevant to what CAP does.

How about this?

If the Federal Government, or any related agency is paying for the flight, you wear your uniform, because you are on the USAF's dime, and should represent that to the taxpayers you pass in line.  That would include any mission where you're signed in and moving on the mission clock, and situations
like taking a CDC class.  In those cases you are serving those taxpayers, unpaid, and deserve a handshake or a bump in flight class, since the vacation pay or billable hours you gave up probably at least equal the pay of the average serviceman.

If you are paying for your own ticket, whether directly or through participation fees, you wear civilian clothes or at most logowear.

[ol'fido]

Warm up the flux capacitor....

Gee, it would be really interesting to go back in time and ask that guy why in the world he was wearing his  blues that day  , and see what he thinks about being the subject of 6+ pages of give and take on CT. 

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that we are talking about flying for CAP-related purposes.  The key question about whether the uniform is appropriate or not is whether you are being considered on CAP duty or not.  If yes, then you should be in uniform.  If not, then no. 

So, if that airplane crashed while you were on it flying to some CAP event, would you be covered under the various CAP-related death benefits?  If yes, then the uniform should be worn no matter the member's preference in the matter.

Probably a question for the legal folks. 

[spacecommand]

If ORM is an issue, members should be required to wear helmets when they fly and drive in CAP vehicles.  Parachutes should also be a requirement when flying as well.  Ground team members should be issued bullet resistant vests when doing ground team operations and be armed because you might accidentally walk into some druggies backwoods stash. Better yet, you should never wear a uniform ever because the there's a chance you will be targeted specifically by a terrorist or mistaken as a cop and shot.  Actually I think we've had discussions on all these topics before.

Like the regulation or not, it's allowed, is if you don't want to do it, then don't, for members that do, then do it right and proudly.

[Eclipse]

So, if that airplane crashed while you were on it flying to some CAP event, would you be covered under the various CAP-related death benefits?

No.  The regs are clear on transportation to and from activities.

[Daniel]

I travel by car an hour and a half to cap meetings in the UOD..

Long story short I go in gas station who want to give me discounts and etc.

I feel the proper thing to do is politely refuse them

[RADIOMAN015]

I highly doubt that the vast majority of senior "adult" members, wear their CAP blue uniforms (or any CAP uniform for that matter) while flying on commercial aircraft.

Frankly it's very dubious those adults that are wearing their CAP uniforms (especially the AF type uniforms), really have an interest in representing Civil Air Patrol, but instead our trolling for special favors due to confusion by airline personnel.

I personally think the regulation needs to be tightened up a bit on this, to specifically state that normally the CAP uniform will NOT be worn when flying on commercial aircraft, unless an activity terminates and there's no time to change to meet the airline departure schedule.  This should be a rare instance.

Folks, there's a reason the rule was put in place about not wearing a CAP uniform more than one hour after (and should also be added BEFORE start of) a CAP meeting/activity (terminates) and the travel loophole needs to be further defined as to authorized stops. 
RM     

[Eclipse]

Folks, there's a reason the rule was put in place about not wearing a CAP uniform more than one hour after (and should also be added BEFORE start of) a CAP meeting/activity (terminates) and the travel loophole needs to be further defined as to authorized stops. 

And that would be?

[RiverAux]

So, if that airplane crashed while you were on it flying to some CAP event, would you be covered under the various CAP-related death benefits?

No.  The regs are clear on transportation to and from activities.

Yes, in regards to liability when using member-owned vehicles (CAPR 900(10)(b).  That clearly states that traveling to and from CAP activities such as conferences in member-owned vehicles isn't considered part of "CAP official travel." 

However, travel to and from AF-assigned missions is clearly covered for FECA medical and death benefits.  So, if you're flying commercial to a AF-assigned mission (possible, but probably very rare) you must be on CAP duty or you wouldn't be eligible and therefore uniforms would be required. 

However, the language for insurance related to CAP corporate activities is limited to "during" the activity.  So, travel to a NCSA, for example, probably wouldn't be covered, though that may be able to be challenged in court since wear of the uniform for such activity is expressly allowed and one could argue that you therefore must be on CAP duty.  Iffy, but thats what courts are for. 

It would be nice if CAP had some specific language somewhere about what constitutes being on CAP duty. 

[titanII]

I travel by car an hour and a half to cap meetings in the UOD..

Long story short I go in gas station who want to give me discounts and etc.

I feel the proper thing to do is politely refuse them

Similar thing happens to me every time I shop at my local army navy store. Same story no matter what: I buy often copious quantities of only USAF uniform items, the person asks me if I'm on AD, I say I'm CAP, thy ask me for my ID so they can give me the 10% discount. I always refuse. I feel that to accept the discount would be wrong, and a violation of my integrity. I always feel that to accept the discount is taking advantagE of the clerk's lack of knowledge what CAP is. But like Daniel L said- you must be polite about refusing. They're going out of their way to help you out.