Alright guys, I know there have been topics about this before probably tons of times but what is your opinion?
Do you guys think for future uniforms CAP should adopt the ABU? The ACU? Or CAP should adopt a digital uniform unique only to CAP? If so what color and similar to what?
Now of course the ABU is the current uniform for the air force, but would the ACU be more feasible? Or should CAP just venture out and design a unique uniform for themselves?
This is a topic to pick people's brains so dont get all excited and say "Some people have asked this before" lol
Not getting excited, but seriously, this gets beat up probably every 3 months with 10-15 pages of responses with the same answers and positions every time. People have even designed their own uniforms, produced them, and even posted photos.
Quote from: KioGoten on May 23, 2010, 09:48:52 PM
This is a topic to pick people's brains so dont get all excited and say "Some people have asked this before" lol
Some people have asked this before...and no one is excited...
Ok then, take the post down ^_^ just curious
I don't see why we must keep bringing this up. The solution is very simple. We adopt the FIRST, rejected ABU pattern with kilts and we will be completely distinctive from everyone. >:D
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h300/Kimballsek/forum1006.jpg (http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h300/Kimballsek/forum1006.jpg)
HAHAHA That is hilarious! I love it ^_^
I've asked before and not got an answer. Why does CAP need any style camo uniform? Who do we need to hide from? If we just need a utility uniform whats wrong with the blues? Not really wanting to get an fight going just wondering why camo
The only thing CAP needs is a uniform option that is readily available and economically available.
Seeing as how a military uniform for a military related organization makes a lot of sense, and that also fulfills the other two points I mentioned...
BBDU's are not as cheap, or they can be, depending on what you buy, but if you think the myriad of gray shades are bad, now- just wait for all those brands and mixes of BBDU's to be laundered. At least with the woodland style the differences are not nearly as obvious, due to the uniform being sourced from mostly "to spec" production.
For those who complain about Vanguard, pricing, and sole sourcing, if we adapted a "uniform" of some other make up, it most certainly would be from another provider - and if it wasn't a specific set of specifications, the results would be the same as the non-sunset dated Corporate Uniforms we have now. While most aviator shirts look the same, there are differences in pocket flaps and such. Anyone that makes something for us, is going to probably demand to be the sole provider. So...
Be ahead of the game, skip the ABU and go directly to MULTICAM®: >:D
(http://www.uscav.com/prodinfo/images%5C29901.jpg)
(http://www.uscav.com/prodinfo/images%5C29900.jpg)
(http://www.uscav.com/prodinfo/images%5C30439.jpg)
I think the simplest utility type uniform we ALL could go to would be a jump suit/coverall type uniform. Color is problematic, but I'm going more towards a dark/medium red type uniform (mandatory PMS# color code would be placed in the regulation) with the current blue name tags, blue CAP tag, blue rank, and the current other patches. Also a dark blue baseball type hat (or blue mail man type winter hat) or black/blue watch cap could be used. Current footware would be authorized to include blousing of boots.
This would offer both a distinct uniform, would contrast well with the blue, and would look pretty cool walking into the 7-11 to get something to and from the squadron meeting or SAREX :angel:
RM
The simplest measure is simply to wear the ABU once it becomes authorized by the Air Force. Why the expense of some new, totally non military uniforms?
CAP is not it's own service branch, we are a part of the U.S. Air Force and we recieve our marching orders from them.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 24, 2010, 02:52:11 AM
I think the simplest utility type uniform we ALL could go to would be a jump suit/coverall type uniform. Color is problematic, but I'm going more towards a dark/medium red type uniform (mandatory PMS# color code would be placed in the regulation) with the current blue name tags, blue CAP tag, blue rank, and the current other patches. Also a dark blue baseball type hat (or blue mail man type winter hat) or black/blue watch cap could be used. Current footware would be authorized to include blousing of boots.
This would offer both a distinct uniform, would contrast well with the blue, and would look pretty cool walking into the 7-11 to get something to and from the squadron meeting or SAREX :angel:
RM
And we would look like we work for an oil company.
The vast majority of members, cadets included, have to buy their uniforms via some retail or semi-retail source (i.e. AAFES, MCSS, etc).
Assuming retiring the BDU is a forgone conclusion, whatever we go to will require all those same people to spend money, the cut and color is just a side conversation.
Moving to the Blue Field Uniform for all negates that expense for at least those who already own the uniforms, and negates the myriad non-issue "issues" constantly raised by wearing a military-style combat uniform in a current style.
The pretend concern seems to be that in an Armageddon scenario members of the military might not be able to distinguish us from
active troops...um...ok...I guess. So make our operational uniforms different than our parent service and keep the formal uniforms.
As rare as some random CAP Major trying to assume control of an Army unit or USAF aircraft would be, and those troops or aircrew not being smart enough to say "no" (never happened, never will). The chances of it happening in some ceremony wearing service dress are exactly 100 times less then the former.
So keep the service dress ad move to the BBDU's and Blue flight suits.
MIKE, you took my freaking idea. Right down to the fact that they'd be following
us.
Quote from: KioGoten on May 24, 2010, 02:10:08 AM
Quote from: JC004 on May 24, 2010, 02:04:46 AM
Quote from: Gung Ho on May 24, 2010, 12:03:28 AM
...
Who do we need to hide from?
...
NHQ.
LMAO
JC004 is my hero ;D
"COLONEL! WHY WAS THE NEW USELESS SAFETY REQUIREMENT NOT IMPLEMENTED?!"
"I can't find the members, sir...They're...invisible or something!"
I would have to say t part I agree with Eclipse, he has it pretty well spot on. There is really nothing going to happen that is a catastrophe from our current uniform. The only problem is that alot more members own the BDU than the BBDU.
Eclipse is a smart man, I can normally agree in principal to some of his well thought out conclusions. The part I differ with is why move air crew members to the blue flight suit? Isn't the Air Force flight suit a cheaper item to obtain and made to milspec standards?
Quote from: DrJbdm on May 24, 2010, 09:19:48 AM
...why move air crew members to the blue flight suit? Isn't the Air Force flight suit a cheaper item to obtain and made to milspec standards?
Because a growing number of our aircrew members cannot wear the Air Force one.
Having all members of the same team in the same uniform is more important than permitting some to save a few bucks at the expense of uniformity.
And mil-spec flight suits in blue Nomex are available from Aureus International, Flightsuits.com and others.
Quote from: DrJbdm on May 24, 2010, 09:19:48 AM
Eclipse is a smart man, I can normally agree in principal to some of his well thought out conclusions. The part I differ with is why move air crew members to the blue flight suit? Isn't the Air Force flight suit a cheaper item to obtain and made to milspec standards?
Thanks - in this case the argument was only in the context of the "confusion" nonsense in regards to military troops vs. auxiliary. If
confusion is a risk for a field uniform, then its more of a risk for the flight suit since that's actually much closer in appearance today than
the BDU's are.
Quote from: Mustang on May 24, 2010, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on May 24, 2010, 09:19:48 AM
...why move air crew members to the blue flight suit? Isn't the Air Force flight suit a cheaper item to obtain and made to milspec standards?
Because a growing number of our aircrew members cannot wear the Air Force one.
Having all members of the same team in the same uniform is more important than permitting some to save a few bucks at the expense of uniformity.
And mil-spec flight suits in blue Nomex are available from Aureus International, Flightsuits.com and others.
Why not go to the khaki/desert/coyote ones; still nomex, nobody else seems to be wearing them INCONUS, and they are readily availble on ebay etc.?
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 24, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
Why not go to the khaki/desert/coyote ones; still nomex, nobody else seems to be wearing them INCONUS, and they are readily availble on ebay etc.?
Tan after Labor Day? PAHLEEAASSSE!
I totally agree Eclipse, the od flight suit would have to be the uniform of most concern. Unless someone looks very closely to the patches, especially the squadron patches which for the most part look alot like a real USAF patch, especially the patch of 12002, a blue shield with a blue scroll under it and a raven that really looks more like a black eagle striking at it's prey. The Rank looks the same, the patches look the same, I can't remember if the reversed flag goes on the right shoulder of the green flight suit but if it does then there is another problem with it, most everyone knows that the military as a whole wears that patch. Also the name tape, exactly the same unless you are within 3 feet and actively reading it.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 24, 2010, 11:40:34 PM
I totally agree Eclipse, the od flight suit would have to be the uniform of most concern. Unless someone looks very closely to the patches, especially the squadron patches which for the most part look alot like a real USAF patch, especially the patch of 12002, a blue shield with a blue scroll under it and a raven that really looks more like a black eagle striking at it's prey. The Rank looks the same, the patches look the same, I can't remember if the reversed flag goes on the right shoulder of the green flight suit but if it does then there is another problem with it, most everyone knows that the military as a whole wears that patch. Also the name tape, exactly the same unless you are within 3 feet and actively reading it.
I suggest you look at 39-1. The rank is not the same. We wear the plastic encased rank that went out in the AF many years ago. The leather name tag is no more in the AF. The left hand flag is worn on the left shoulder. A unit patch is not authorized on the flight suit. And if by 12002 you mean Bloomington Composite Squadron the correct number is GLR-IN-002.
Quote from: davidsinn on May 25, 2010, 12:53:40 AMA unit patch is not authorized on the flight suit.
They are when approved by the Wing as one of the optionals...
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2010, 01:10:53 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on May 25, 2010, 12:53:40 AMA unit patch is not authorized on the flight suit.
They are when approved by the Wing as one of the optionals...
They can do that?
Quote6. Optional Shoulder Patch: Worn centered 1/2 inch below shoulder seam on right sleeve. Member
may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National
shoulder patch.
I do think that they should be allowed. It doesn't make sense not to.
Like I said I don't know what the reg is on the flight suit but that is the only uniform that I could imagine causing a problem because so far as I knew they looked very similar. Thank you for the clarification. No one at our unit wears the flight suit even though we have three pilots in the squadron.
Quote from: davidsinn on May 25, 2010, 01:21:08 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2010, 01:10:53 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on May 25, 2010, 12:53:40 AMA unit patch is not authorized on the flight suit.
They are when approved by the Wing as one of the optionals...
They can do that?
Yes, my wing has an approved supplement to 39-3.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 01:25:30 AM
Like I said I don't know what the reg is on the flight suit but that is the only uniform that I could imagine causing a problem because so far as I knew they looked very similar. Thank you for the clarification. No one at our unit wears the flight suit even though we have three pilots in the squadron.
Rob,
Your very much right. My other post about impersinating an officer went over this. There are those who have the flight suit and can easily put on the subdued AF rank and this is a HUGE no no.
That is just the thing, the plastic if it gets clouded from the heat and humidity the rank in the plastic can look subdued unintentionally.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 02:54:16 AM
That is just the thing, the plastic if it gets clouded from the heat and humidity the rank in the plastic can look subdued unintentionally.
Yup I agree but at an air show I saw a SM have sown in subdued AF rank and so did his wife. So where do we draw the line? I think the regs should do just a bit better of a job with what is allowed and what isnt =/
Part of the problem is that there are only so many combinations that can be done. I would hate for SM's to accidentally be doing the wrong thing and get themselves or CAP in trouble. Now so far as people just doing the wrong thing out of ignorance or a disregard for the REGs then there is another problem all together. That is not the fault of the uniform or CAP itself. CAP should not take the hit for that, that should be the individual's problem that comes along with a reprimand of some sort. I would honestly have to say that CAP has done a good job making the uniform as distinctive as it can be. That being said CAP should still not loose the uniform. It is not their fault that some people just have no regard for the regs.
Quote from: KioGoten on May 25, 2010, 02:59:02 AM
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 02:54:16 AM
That is just the thing, the plastic if it gets clouded from the heat and humidity the rank in the plastic can look subdued unintentionally.
Yup I agree but at an air show I saw a SM have sown in subdued AF rank and so did his wife. So where do we draw the line? I think the regs should do just a bit better of a job with what is allowed and what isnt =/
The regs in this case are not gray - they specify plastic encased on the green bag. They were wrong.
Oh no...you have all been sucked into the abyss!
I agree they were flat wrong.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 24, 2010, 11:40:34 PM..the od flight suit would have to be the uniform of most concern.
It's not OD, you gotta stop thinking about those tanker bags. ;D
Quote from: KioGoten on May 25, 2010, 02:59:02 AM
I think the regs should do just a bit better of a job with what is allowed and what isnt =/
The manual is very clear on what is allowed. It states the following: "
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear."
How large do you think a publication would have to be specifying everything that is
not authorized? I figure the Library of Congress might have enough space.
If you see someone wearing something unauthorized, there's usually a few reasons why they're doing it.
One, they don't know any better. This is usually a result of those people not reading the
current manual, but not always. It could be a case of an ICL being missed (which is another reason why 39-1 should have been updated too many yesterdays ago).
Two, someone told them that they can wear it that way. See justification above.
Three, they are choosing to do whatever they wish and don't care about what the manual says. This is an unfortunate one, and even though the number of people doing this may be small, they are the ones that receive the most attention.
Adopting a non Air Force uniform won't really fix these issues. Education might fix the first two, but it's no guarantee it will fix the last.
ABU's are probably what we'll be wearing in the future, be it near or far. They will be far more readily available than any CAP specific uniform item. The members of CAP can't really afford "unique" items. They will cost more than generally available ones adapted to our purpose.
Besides, what would be the point of an organization that claims affiliation with the Air Force, but doesn't look even similar to the Air Force?
Quote from: Hawk200 on May 25, 2010, 03:30:10 AM
Besides, what would be the point of an organization that claims affiliation with the Air Force, but doesn't look even similar to the Air Force?
Exactly.
Quote from: Mustang on May 24, 2010, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on May 24, 2010, 09:19:48 AM
...why move air crew members to the blue flight suit? Isn't the Air Force flight suit a cheaper item to obtain and made to milspec standards?
Because a growing number of our aircrew members cannot wear the Air Force one.
Having all members of the same team in the same uniform is more important than permitting some to save a few bucks at the expense of uniformity.
And mil-spec flight suits in blue Nomex are available from Aureus International, Flightsuits.com and others.
Ok, but should we phase out the Air Force flight suit simply because we have members who cannot wear the flight suit? Is the good of a few better then the good of the whole? Your argument, while trying to be inclusive to those who cannot wear the flight suit is actually prejudged to those who can. That is incredibly offensive to those of us who can and do wear the flight suit.
You would rather force members to spend substantially more money on a flight suit just so that everyone can wear the same thing? Seriously?? Is that any worse than saying we are forcing everyone into the Air Force flight suit?
You are correct, blue flight suits are available from those sources, but look at the costs. I have 4 flight suits in my closet, two of them I received for free from my State Director who received a bunch of them from the Air Force. The other two I purchased from Ebay for less than $30 each. You honestly believe I should be willing and happy to give up free or very cheap Air Force flight suits and spend up to $200 or more each just so everyone wears the same flight suit?? Seriously?? My friend, I think that you move to the beat of a different drummer than I. Sorry, no disrespect but I think those are asinine arguments or simply misguided. But I respect your opinion.
^ A $200 flight suit is not required in most wings - if you feel the need to where a bag, the jumpsuit fills the bill quite nicely.
Others make the spurious argument about uniform confusion - I do not. I frankly could care less what color things are or who's service
they emulate as long as they get the job done.
After 10+ years of background noise about what we should wear to help people on our own time and on our own nickel, I just want someone to make the decisions required to close the arguments once and for all.
If you are somehow "insulted" by the suggestion that we should be a uniform service, and to get there means there will be pain all around, including on those who were able to get their uniforms for "free" because they are mil-spec castoffs, I'm OK with that.
As someone who has spent a fair piece on uniforms in my time, I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who get them free, and then complain when someone suggests the gravy train might end to make us look more professional.
If professional is what you want, there is no more professional looking uniform than the USAF type uniforms.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 04:53:12 AM
If professional is what you want, there is no more professional looking uniform than the USAF type uniforms.
I don't disagree with that, however not everyone can wear them.
Having multiple uniforms was not a problem when I was a cadet, why is it now? Is it just something for people to argue about? The problem with the USAF uniform is that some people don't wear it properly. Other than that there should not be a problem. Why can't people just wear them according to the regs? Problem solved, stop wanting people to spend more money on uniforms. The most effective thing we can do with the uniforms is to leave them the way they are.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 05:13:43 AM
Having multiple uniforms was not a problem when I was a cadet, why is it now? Is it just something for people to argue about? The problem with the USAF uniform is that some people don't wear it properly. Other than that there should not be a problem. Why can't people just wear them according to the regs? Problem solved, stop wanting people to spend more money on uniforms. The most effective thing we can do with the uniforms is to leave them the way they are.
When you were a cadet, they didn't have CAPTalk to complain about all the uniform variations >:D
I love the secret squirrel patch, that is awesome. ;D
I guess if there is anything to get rid of then is CAPTalk... :redx:
We will always have some people in CAP who want to get rid of the Air Force uniforms. Some because they can't wear it so therefore no one should wear it. Others because they really have a strong dislike for CAP being a military based organization. Yet some want to rid CAP of the uniform because of some misguided desire to make everyone feel equal.
It doesn't matter if we have CAPTALK to air our view points or not, we will always have the argument. Even back in the 80's when most senior members wore the Air Force uniform with blue shoulder marks we still had a vocal minority who desired to have CAP out of the Air Force Uniforms.
We each have our own view points for whatever the reason, but in the end it's simply one persons opinion. Just because their opinion is different from ours it doesn't make their opinion any less meaningful. We are all entitled to feel how we feel, it's what makes us intelligent human beings capable of rational thought and discussion.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 02:54:16 AM
That is just the thing, the plastic if it gets clouded from the heat and humidity the rank in the plastic can look subdued unintentionally.
Never going to happen. The plastic square with whatever blob is under it will always stand out when compared to subdued cloth rank.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 05:13:43 AM
The most effective thing we can do with the uniforms is to leave them the way they are.
I've heard a couple of people mention a two year moratorium on uniform changes, however I can't find any reference to it or when it supposedly started.
Quote from: Custer on May 25, 2010, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 05:13:43 AM
The most effective thing we can do with the uniforms is to leave them the way they are.
I've heard a couple of people mention a two year moratorium on uniform changes, however I can't find any reference to it or when it supposedly started.
It in the minutes of the Spring board meeting.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2010, 09:51:27 PM
Quote from: Custer on May 25, 2010, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 05:13:43 AM
The most effective thing we can do with the uniforms is to leave them the way they are.
I've heard a couple of people mention a two year moratorium on uniform changes, however I can't find any reference to it or when it supposedly started.
It in the minutes of the Spring board meeting.
What is the (are) uniform change(s)?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2010, 09:51:27 PM
It in the minutes of the Spring board meeting.
I don't have a CAPID yet so I can't read them. They are not publicly readable.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 26, 2010, 02:04:42 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2010, 09:51:27 PM
Quote from: Custer on May 25, 2010, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 05:13:43 AM
The most effective thing we can do with the uniforms is to leave them the way they are.
I've heard a couple of people mention a two year moratorium on uniform changes, however I can't find any reference to it or when it supposedly started.
It in the minutes of the Spring board meeting.
What is the (are) uniform change(s)?
The approval of the moratorium.
Would the moratorium cover petitioning to keep the modified CSU, as per General Courter's ICL?
The moratorium doesn't say you can't ask, just that they won't act...
Blue BDU Pants, CAMO(Woodland, ABU,ACU,Multicam) Coat and a Blaze Orange(not reflective) hat with the Ranger Crush. It is available
and distinctive. Also, the diversity committee may need to have input
to make everything fair and equal. ::) ??? ;) ;)
What the Fruit are you talking about Senior? That sounds even worse looking than the Boy Scout's shirts with blue jeans and whatever the hell shoes they dig out of the back yard!
I've got it! Go back to the original four corner pocket blues with the original CAP distinctive buttons all everything CAP, we can keep the rank we have because the only thing that is no generic is enlisted ranks, officer ranks are generic. Keep the BDU because no RM branch wears the BDU, and were done. That is pretty [darn] distinct from everyone else. Even senior members in the four corner blues. Because that is no longer an approved USAF uniform it could be adopted as our own and anyone could wear it regardless of weight or grooming standards. Except cadets need to stay within grooming standards. Just to learn and uphold discipline.
Quote from: robert.killion on May 27, 2010, 01:31:39 AM
I've got it! Go back to the original four corner pocket blues with the original CAP distinctive buttons all everything CAP, we can keep the rank we have because the only thing that is no generic is enlisted ranks, officer ranks are generic. Keep the BDU because no RM branch wears the BDU, and were done. That is pretty [darn] distinct from everyone else. Even senior members in the four corner blues. Because that is no longer an approved USAF uniform it could be adopted as our own and anyone could wear it regardless of weight or grooming standards. Except cadets need to stay within grooming standards. Just to learn and uphold discipline.
I agree about the four-pocket blues. I still have mine and I like them a lot better than the current AF service dress.
A couple of our cadets wear them, keep them in good order, and they look good.
However, since they're out of production, sources would be a problem.
We would have to find a different blue shirt to wear underneath to wear the AF one. Van Heusen make a nice one:
http://garffshirts.com/mensbluetheaviatorlongsleevepilotuniformshirts.aspx
http://garffshirts.com/bluemenstheaviatorshortsleevepilotuniformshirts.aspx
For the ladies:
http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-86830254305714_2106_629827
But without somehow restarting a production line, I don't see it happening.
Well the beautiful thing about the whole production line is that the Army uses the exact same lines for their greens, all we would have to do is contact the owner of one of those lines and change the color of the fabric... I know it's not as simple as that. I frickin wish it was though.
I like Killion's idea. Plain, simple, surely "military" in appearance, and it should be a lot easier than most of the other options recommended.
Flying Cross Unifrom Jacket (in LAPD Blue) over White/gray combo w/black tie tab with a balck flight cap. (All are on market now)
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=96)
Quote from: robert.killion on May 25, 2010, 05:13:43 AM
Having multiple uniforms was not a problem when I was a cadet, why is it now? Is it just something for people to argue about? The problem with the USAF uniform is that some people don't wear it properly. Other than that there should not be a problem. Why can't people just wear them according to the regs? Problem solved, stop wanting people to spend more money on uniforms. The most effective thing we can do with the uniforms is to leave them the way they are.
That is a relatively small issue.
The big problem is the USAF won't allow all senior members to wear their unifrom, like they did back WIWAC. If they did, we wouldn't have all of the 3000 discussions. But the USAF states we have to meet H/W requirements to wear AF-style uniforms because they don't want us non-photgenic bodies to be seen in an AF-style.
That blue grey black uniform is just [Filter Subversion]!!!
Watch the language, there are cadets present - MIKE
Quote from: robert.killion on May 27, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
That blue grey black uniform is just [Filter Subversion]!!!
Watch the language, there are cadets present - MIKE
I'm assuming you're stating your disapproval, of which I agree.
It actually looks fairly good and satisfies all the requirements we are looking for in a uniform that everyone can wear. However, it does fail because it doesn't look like a RM uniform. But that wasn't why I joined CAP anyway.
QuoteThe big problem is the USAF won't allow all senior members to wear their unifrom, like they did back WIWAC. If they did, we wouldn't have all of the 3000 discussions. But the USAF states we have to meet H/W requirements to wear AF-style uniforms because they don't want us non-photogenic bodies to be seen in an AF-style.
Back in the 80's we also didn't have as bad of a weight problem in this country. Look at the size of americans these days! Is it any surprise the Air Force says "No! You must meet a somewhat reasonable standard."? We have very large members today then we did back in the 80's, or more precisely we have more members who are very overweight now then when back in the 80's.
Quote from: DrJbdm on May 27, 2010, 08:22:39 PM
Back in the 80's we also didn't have as bad of a weight problem in this country. Look at the size of americans these days! Is it any surprise the Air Force says "No! You must meet a somewhat reasonable standard."? We have very large members today then we did back in the 80's, or more precisely we have more members who are very overweight now then when back in the 80's.
I've only recently come back to CAP after being inactive since 1986 - and as far as I can recall at that time we had the blazer and the Guyaberra shirt, and that was it as far as non-USAF uniforms went. And you had to be seriously out of standard to be forced into those. Even with all that blue/white stuff gone there are more CAP uniforms than USAF uniforms.
robert.killion
Hint(one more uniform thread, and more opinions)
Tongue in cheek humor. I proposed a cross between the woodland,
blue BDU and part of the proposed CAWG Ground Team Uniform.
;)
Quote from: Short Field on May 27, 2010, 07:59:24 PM
It actually looks fairly good and satisfies all the requirements we are looking for in a uniform that everyone can wear.
For looking like something a bus driver would wear, yes.
People said the same thing about the McPeak uniform changes...
Well after thinking about this for quite some time, frankly I think the AF is being too harsh with the standards they want to apply to CAP cadets & senior members wearing AF type uniforms. The AF has a lot more to worry about than CAP members wear of AF type uniforms >:D
When we put on CAP identifying name tags, rank, ribbons, badges, on these uniforms, it is no longer an AF uniform but a CAP uniform.
So as far as a dress uniform goes, allow any AF blue combination to be worn by anyone whether they are overweight, male with long hair, etc, as long as the uniform is a good fit. Add the various wing patches again to the shoulder of the uniforms to further assist in identification as the wearer as non military.
HOWEVER, regarding BDU's/ACU's/Green Flight Suits, I'm still of the opinon to go to a different color. Again blue does look good & conservative, and when in the field an orange vest (where allowed) could be used. As non combatants there's got to be a very distinct difference in our uniforms than the military.
Additionally, with the golf shirt, we should be allowed to wear the military blue pants worn with the other military type uniforms, or in field conditions wear the blue BDU pants.
The above proposals put us all in the same uniforms and identity, CAP wide (blue uniforms).
Again, the AF needs to realize that unless it has AF insignias on it, once CAP ID items are placed on the uniform it is no longer an AF uniform, so why hold CAP civilian volunteers to a military standard :o
RM
Might be easier to find an organization that doesn't use military uniforms. You won't have to chafe over it.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 28, 2010, 10:48:35 PMAgain, the AF needs to realize that unless it has AF insignias on it, once CAP ID items are placed on the uniform it is no longer an AF uniform, so why hold CAP civilian volunteers to a military standard :o
RM
Because AFI 10-2701 says so.
Next question...
Once again Radioman has shown me that he really probably should consider a different, totally non-military organization.....U.S. Ranger Corps anybody??
Seriously?? You think having someone who looks like they just got off tour with ZZ Top wearing the Air Force uniform is a good idea? You really think the AF should just nod their heads in the pentagon and all sing..."Sharp Dressed man"??
Seriously brother, you may wanna consider reading AFI 10-2701 sometime. It has a wonderful side benefit....It will definitely cure any lingering insomnia!
Quote from: DrJbdm on May 29, 2010, 10:28:39 AM
Once again Radioman has shown me that he really probably should consider a different, totally non-military organization.....U.S. Ranger Corps anybody??
Seriously?? You think having someone who looks like they just got off tour with ZZ Top wearing the Air Force uniform is a good idea? You really think the AF should just nod their heads in the pentagon and all sing..."Sharp Dressed man"??
Seriously brother, you may wanna consider reading AFI 10-2701 sometime. It has a wonderful side benefit....It will definitely cure any lingering insomnia!
Actually the Air Force can relax the wear standards for the AF type CAP uniform as they see fit, since it is there regulation/policy. Perhaps CAP should just ask >:D.
There's plenty of well qualified members that have neatly trimmed beards (fair amount of members) , males with pony tails/long hair (not a high percentage), as well as overweight (military standards) (probably the biggest percentage). As long as the uniform is worn correctly and appropriately/adequately identified as Civil Air Patrol, Auxiliary of the USAF, what's the big deal ??? 8)
Again keep us entirely "blue" both in utility type uniforms and dress type uniforms (with appropriate wing shoulder patches) , gives us a good differentiating identity. :D
FYI for the record I meet both weight (AF standards) & apperance as currently in the AIR FORCE uniform regulations. :clap:
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 29, 2010, 03:58:50 PM
Actually the Air Force can relax the wear standards for the AF type CAP uniform as they see fit, since it is there regulation/policy.
They could, but choose not to do it. And no one in CAP really has place to ask it.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 29, 2010, 03:58:50 PM
Perhaps CAP should just ask >:D.
I vote "no". We've got enough issues as it is, we don't need to be asking to eliminate policies that are there for a reason.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 29, 2010, 03:58:50 PM
As long as the uniform is worn correctly and appropriately/adequately identified as Civil Air Patrol, Auxiliary of the USAF, what's the big deal ??? 8)
It's not a big deal, you're trying to make it one.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 29, 2010, 03:58:50 PM
FYI for the record I meet both weight (AF standards) & apperance as currently in the AIR FORCE uniform regulations. :clap:
RM
Completely irrelevant, that gives no credibility to the argument. The point is that you joined an organization, and have decided that your way is better than theirs. The military, and its subsequent auxiliaries, is not a democracy and never was one.
If there's a vote to be made, you make it. If there isn't one, you accept the rules or move on. It's pretty simple.
Thinking a bit more about this situation
As far as CAP using AF type uniforms, perhaps we do need to look at a bit more differentiation via color. Maybe a fairly bright red background type rank soft shoulder insert (with ranks in white) as well as a red name tag with white lettering (to include blue bdu's/flight suits) would further show it is a CAP uniform and not an AF military uniform.
For examples of the different colors of red see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_red
Also for a discussion on what various color mean in the art world look at:
http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/color2.htm
The red color is defined as:
Excitement, energy, passion, love, desire, speed, strength, power, heat, aggression, danger, fire, blood, war, violence, all things intense and passionate
Contrast to the grey color definitions:
Security, reliability, intelligence, staid, modesty, dignity, maturity, solid, conservative, practical, old age, sadness, boring.
Blue signifies:
Peace, tranquility, cold, calm, stability, harmony, unity, trust, truth, confidence, conservatism, security, cleanliness, order, loyalty, sky, water, technology, depression, appetite surpression.
Comments? :angel:
RM
Somebody previously mentioned bringing the wing patch back. I think that's a great idea. It definitely identifies you as not being Air Force because it's like a neon sign on your shoulder saying "I'm not Air Force". Besides, the Air Force doesn't use the wing patch or numbered air force shoulder patches anymore. I miss seeing those things, ie, the old 5th Air Force patch.
Another thing it does is identify where you're from when attending these national activities and helps to boost the espirit-de-corps.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 29, 2010, 06:12:18 PM
Thinking a bit more about this situation
As far as CAP using AF type uniforms, perhaps we do need to look at a bit more differentiation via color. Maybe a fairly bright red background type rank soft shoulder insert (with ranks in white) as well as a red name tag with white lettering (to include blue bdu's/flight suits) would further show it is a CAP uniform and not an AF military uniform.
For examples of the different colors of red see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_red
Also for a discussion on what various color mean in the art world look at:
http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/color2.htm
The red color is defined as:
Excitement, energy, passion, love, desire, speed, strength, power, heat, aggression, danger, fire, blood, war, violence, all things intense and passionate
Contrast to the grey color definitions:
Security, reliability, intelligence, staid, modesty, dignity, maturity, solid, conservative, practical, old age, sadness, boring.
Blue signifies:
Peace, tranquility, cold, calm, stability, harmony, unity, trust, truth, confidence, conservatism, security, cleanliness, order, loyalty, sky, water, technology, depression, appetite surpression.
Comments? :angel:
RM
we already had berry boards. they were horrible. end up looking like the salvation army.
Quote from: Grumpy on May 29, 2010, 06:12:35 PM
Somebody previously mentioned bringing the wing patch back. I think that's a great idea. It definitely identifies you as not being Air Force because it's like a neon sign on your shoulder saying "I'm not Air Force". Besides, the Air Force doesn't use the wing patch or numbered air force shoulder patches anymore. I miss seeing those things, ie, the old 5th Air Force patch.
Another thing it does is identify where you're from when attending these national activities and helps to boost the espirit-de-corps.
While I don't think misidentification of CAP members is any sort of problem in the first place, if it was, this would be too small a change to make a difference.
Quote from: SJFedor on May 29, 2010, 06:50:07 PM
we already had berry boards. they were horrible. end up looking like the salvation army.
YAAUUGHH!!!! :o :o :o :o
CAP had just gone to those when I joined ('93).
They were AWFUL.
That's when it was explained to me that CAP got metal grade/blue boards taken because of the "self-promotion" and CAP officers trying to think they could order around AF CMSGTs.
If anyone wants to go back to THAT, just have a look here and refresh yourselves at what the recycled-sloe gin boards looked like:
http://wiki.cadetstuff.org/images/0/01/Asdf.png
Getting the grey boards and "US" collar devices was a partial
sop compromise, but it seemed to have started the more zealously "civilian corporation" sector of the membership's "grey uniform" agenda.
I personally would gladly give back the grey boards and "US" devices in exchange for the CSU with metal grade and blue CAP shoulder boards for
everyone. I would give up the AF service dress for that, no kidding.
I wouldn't like the wing patch on the service dress, but I wouldn't mind the current "overseas" patch.
Face it...unless we go totally grey/white/polos (which I would resist strenuously), there are going to be members of the public and members of the Armed Forces who are going to think we are actual AF, especially given that the "low light/at a distance" guideline is so vaguely worded.
Whats with this push for being more different, why are we trying to push our image even further from the Air Force then what the Air Force already asks for? The guide line is low light / at a distance. Which means only that Air Force members can see that we are CAP members / Officers at normal low light conditions such as twilight and in a normal lit room. At a distance refers to a distance of around 50 feet.
There is no good reason in the world to do things to make us stand out more. The old blue shoulder marks and blue 3 line nametag met the AF standard, just as the current grey marks do the same. Why be any different?
Radioman, why don't you simply ask if we can wear big signs on the front and back of our uniforms saying "I AM NOT MILITARY, DONT BE AFRAID". Your ideas are misguided, I'm just not sure CAP is the right organization for you. CAP IS a military organization, we are a part of the USAF!
Quote from: DrJbdm on May 29, 2010, 08:44:38 PM
Whats with this push for being more different, why are we trying to push our image even further from the Air Force then what the Air Force already asks for? The guide line is low light / at a distance. Which means only that Air Force members can see that we are CAP members / Officers at normal low light conditions such as twilight and in a normal lit room. At a distance refers to a distance of around 50 feet.
There is no good reason in the world to do things to make us stand out more. The old blue shoulder marks and blue 3 line nametag met the AF standard, just as the current grey marks do the same. Why be any different?
Radioman, why don't you simply ask if we can wear big signs on the front and back of our uniforms saying "I AM NOT MILITARY, DONT BE AFRAID". CAP IS a military organization, we are a part of the USAF!
My guess is there was some "negative" input from the real Air Force regarding CAP senior members wear of AF type uniforms covering a variety of circumstances over a number of years. (Likely from the Senor NCO corps).
The grey name tag & grey rank epaulettes can be a bit difficult to distinguish in low light conditions. The BDU (and possibly the ACU) in my opinion, is significantly more difficult to differentiate with the blue background. Going to a Red background on name tags, tapes, rank, etc, CLEARLY indicates that it is not a military member wearing the AF style uniform.
Please remember that the original CAP emblem is red, white, & blue; so it stands to reason that those colors should be part of our uniform. Not sure where the grey ever came from. As you all know cadet rank insignias have red/white/blue displayed. Shouldn't our goal be for consistency in colors in our uniforms for both cadets & seniors?
It's important for CAP in the community to have better "differentiation" so that we do stand out as "CAP, USAF Auxiliary", and not mistaken by the very naive public as being military. We are not. Also if we can differentiate a bit more, perhaps the USAF would considering relaxing the beard, weight, & hair standards for CAP to wear AF type "logistically supplied/available" uniforms. (However, blue BDU's/flight suits for everyone, no exceptions).
Surely, there will always be heated debate on the uniform issues. I respect all members no matter what uniform they choose to wear :angel:
RM
If you dont like CAP wearing AF uniforms, why dont you anti-AF folks just leave CAP and let the rest of us just carrying on and preform the mission. Go read the history of CAP if you dont like the military affiliation....... :clap: So I suggest you stand aside .
Quote from: Grumpy on May 29, 2010, 06:12:35 PM
Somebody previously mentioned bringing the wing patch back. I think that's a great idea. It definitely identifies you as not being Air Force because it's like a neon sign on your shoulder saying "I'm not Air Force". Besides, the Air Force doesn't use the wing patch or numbered air force shoulder patches anymore. I miss seeing those things, ie, the old 5th Air Force patch.
Another thing it does is identify where you're from when attending these national activities and helps to boost the espirit-de-corps.
You're being sarcastic, right?
Quote from: DrJbdm on May 29, 2010, 08:44:38 PM
Radioman, why don't you simply ask if we can wear big signs on the front and back of our uniforms saying "I AM NOT MILITARY, DONT BE AFRAID". Your ideas are misguided, I'm just not sure CAP is the right organization for you. CAP IS a military organization, we are a part of the USAF!
I agree.
Something tells me the people we're out there trying to save don't give a rats behind if they think we're military, police, CAP, Boy Scouts, or random lucky civilians when we save them. As long as the
real military can identify us, and not confuse their chain of command, the uniform issue isn't an issue. If USAF was
that concerned with our style of uniform, they would change it. Since they have not, sitting around here with tin foil hats on coming up with conspiracy theories about what the USAF enlisted or officer corps think about our uniforms is silly and a waste of time. Likewise, trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in terms of what the average civilian will think we are is silly and a waste of time. Putting wing patches back on the service dress would make us look more like the Army, and ruin the appearance of the uniform, just as it did when it was authorized and later removed. In reality, someone out there will confuse us for something else no matter what we wear.
Why not let them confuse us for members of the greatest air power on the planet?
Quote from: Marshalus on May 30, 2010, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on May 29, 2010, 06:12:35 PM
Somebody previously mentioned bringing the wing patch back. I think that's a great idea. It definitely identifies you as not being Air Force because it's like a neon sign on your shoulder saying "I'm not Air Force". Besides, the Air Force doesn't use the wing patch or numbered air force shoulder patches anymore. I miss seeing those things, ie, the old 5th Air Force patch.
Another thing it does is identify where you're from when attending these national activities and helps to boost the espirit-de-corps.
You're being sarcastic, right?
Actually, I meant the wing patch as a simple compromise instead of making all those extreme changes. As far as identifying the wings, I was serious. I miss them and, yes, I liked the Major Command patches on the left shoulder. My big brother was 5th Air Force and that shooting star style number was cool. Kind of nostalgic, if you know what I mean. ;D
I guess it identifies to other Air Force people that we're not Air Force, but to the general public it's far from a neon sign. The gray slides already go a long way to highlight us from big brother AF.
As I said though, aside from looking like Army uniforms, CAP already experimented with wing patches on service dress and it was removed.
Quote from: eaker.cadet on May 30, 2010, 04:37:24 PM
If you dont like CAP wearing AF uniforms, why dont you anti-AF folks just leave CAP and let the rest of us just carrying on and preform the mission. Go read the history of CAP if you dont like the military affiliation....... :clap: So I suggest you stand aside .
Too bad there isn't a "thumbs up" Smiley.
As far as the general public is concerned, here are a few simple uniform equations:
camo = soldier
Light blue over dark blue = navy (dungarees)
dark blue over dark blue = cop
green union flight suit = air force
khaki over blue = marine
CAP does not have the sheer numbers to change these.
Quote from: Hawk200 on May 30, 2010, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: eaker.cadet on May 30, 2010, 04:37:24 PM
If you dont like CAP wearing AF uniforms, why dont you anti-AF folks just leave CAP and let the rest of us just carrying on and preform the mission. Go read the history of CAP if you dont like the military affiliation....... :clap: So I suggest you stand aside .
Too bad there isn't a "thumbs up" Smiley.
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=187)
Quote from: Marshalus on May 30, 2010, 07:22:18 PM
I guess it identifies to other Air Force people that we're not Air Force, but to the general public it's far from a neon sign. The gray slides already go a long way to highlight us from big brother AF.
As I said though, aside from looking like Army uniforms, CAP already experimented with wing patches on service dress and it was removed.
I just thought the wing patch might solve a problem for those who want the distinction between us and our parent organization (who hasn't been here as long as we have). I don't care if it reminds us of the Army. It's our heritage. My boy wears a uniform that has some type of buzzard on the shoulder. There must be 101 of them 'cause that number is there too. It doesn't bother him. ;D
Anyway, when I first joined CAP in 1959 we must have been experimenting with the patch then because I wore it as a cadet. I believe the patch was removed by the dude that came up with the TPU outfit 'cause he wanted to look more like Ma Air Force.
I say just go with the flow because this question will never get solved. Too many opinions. I've heard good ones on both sides.[/u]
The great thing about wing patches, is they tell people what state they are from, no Army unit patch has a state name or shape to it, the closest thing is the PA Nat. Guard Keystone. But that one shouldn't make it a problem, not that it is a problem looking like the keystone, there is enough of a difference. Not to mention it just looks good anyways. I'm not an expert about other wing patches, I'm not sure if the keystone CAP patch is just a ground team patch thing for the PPT slides I have seen or not. If it isn't the PA wing patch then I'm wrong. Still there should be enough info on the patches to show the difference betewwn us and the Army.
Grumpy
The Wing patchs replaced the CAP Emblem in 1947. It was removed on the suggestion of big blue not Tony Pin......Oh I lmost typed it.
Quote from: BillB on May 30, 2010, 09:13:27 PM
Grumpy
The Wing patchs replaced the CAP Emblem in 1947. It was removed on the suggestion of big blue not Tony Pin......Oh I lmost typed it.
Somebody get a rope!!
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2010, 08:57:00 PM
The great thing about wing patches, is they tell people what state they are from, no Army unit patch has a state name or shape to it, the closest thing is the PA Nat. Guard Keystone.
There's one state that I know of. Many aren't too difficult, if you have any familiarity with state flags. The South Carolina with the Palmetto, Alaska with a dipper, Colorado with the same "C" as their flag. Most Army patches don't have script as part of the basic SSI. But, it's not really relevant.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 30, 2010, 08:57:00 PM
But that one shouldn't make it a problem, not that it is a problem looking like the keystone, there is enough of a difference. Not to mention it just looks good anyways. I'm not an expert about other wing patches, I'm not sure if the keystone CAP patch is just a ground team patch thing for the PPT slides I have seen or not. If it isn't the PA wing patch then I'm wrong. Still there should be enough info on the patches to show the difference betewwn us and the Army.
One thing that you know who did that I think was right was to remove them. The justification of "not having 52 separate CAP's" was good.
Second, nothing belongs on the arms of CAP uniforms but stripes for those who have them. It's unnecessary. Just eliminate extras that lack any real reason for them, like collar cutouts for NCOs. Stick to patches that serve a purpose, such as identifying the individual's qualifications.
It was good to get them off the blue shirts (way too big a pain), bad idea to take them off the BDUs/BBDUs
Quote from: BillB on May 30, 2010, 09:13:27 PM
Grumpy
The Wing patches replaced the CAP Emblem in 1947. It was removed on the suggestion of big blue not Tony Pin......Oh I almost typed it.
I wasn't sure who suggested it. It was just around that time and I drew a conclusion (Oops). Like I say, I can more or less go with the flow. Although if it was a choice between berry boards and the gray, I prefer the gray. They look nicer with the blue.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 30, 2010, 10:33:14 PM
It was good to get them off the blue shirts (way too big a pain), bad idea to take them off the BDUs/BBDUs
Why? It's not like they were really needed. A majority of the people that you work with are in the same wing. Do you really need a wing patch? I was happy to see those things go.
Because it is a fine tradition that there was no reason to drop.
I think it was a wonderful tradition that could really generate some questions. If someone were to ask about your other patches those are all simple questions, but if you were to really learn a few small things about your wing history you could really generate a possible interest if not a possible recruit by your answer.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 30, 2010, 10:33:14 PM
It was good to get them off the blue shirts (way too big a pain), bad idea to take them off the BDUs/BBDUs
It seems really bizarre to me that they change the slide on rank so that we look different from the USAF, and drop wearing the wing patch, which was ALWAYS the easiest way to tell us apart as USAF never wore patches on blues.
Incidentally - I'm in California and I can't think of any reason as a senior to have woodland BDU's. They seem to have no purpose whatsoever. I gave all mine away when I retired from the army and for awhile there I was regretting it - but apparently they can no longer be used for SAR activity in this state, at least not by a senior. I can't think of any other purpose for them.
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 03:07:41 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 30, 2010, 10:33:14 PM
It was good to get them off the blue shirts (way too big a pain), bad idea to take them off the BDUs/BBDUs
It seems really bizarre to me that they change the slide on rank so that we look different from the USAF, and drop wearing the wing patch, which was ALWAYS the easiest way to tell us apart as USAF never wore patches on blues.
Incidentally - I'm in California and I can't think of any reason as a senior to have woodland BDU's. They seem to have no purpose whatsoever. I gave all mine away when I retired from the army and for awhile there I was regretting it - but apparently they can no longer be used for SAR activity in this state, at least not by a senior. I can't think of any other purpose for them.
Oh, I don't know, how about something bizarre like working in Cadet Programs?
Wow, that ISbizarre Phil
The "low-light/distance" bit is raging Bravo Sierra, because it is so vague.
ANY uniform item can be mistaken for something it's not.
But ever since the berry boards era and the Generalissimo/CSU, National is so scared of anything blue that I think they would rather clothe us all in grey/white and voluntarily give up the AF uniform.
Grumpy: you do know who Super Cadet #2 is, don't you?
You got me one that one.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 31, 2010, 05:35:32 AM
But ever since the berry boards era and the Generalissimo/CSU, National is so scared of anything blue that I think they would rather clothe us all in grey/white and voluntarily give up the AF uniform.
This may get me beat up in the virtual alley, I would be willing to go back to the berry boards if it would allow us to keep the
full CSU after the phase out date. I remember the complaints then that they made us look like the Salvation Army at a distance, but hind site being 20/20, our original uniform during WW II had red epauletts. But since we are losing it, stay with the gray epauletts.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 31, 2010, 01:07:58 AM
Because it is a fine tradition that there was no reason to drop.
Not everyone thought so. I know many people that considered it a pain. It created a clutter that was unnecessary. No two people ironed a uniform with a patch on it in the same manner. It didn't serve any real useful purpose other than wing vanity. It was also lopside, aesthetically. Wing patches were never needed in the first place. It was a tradition with no practical purpose. Tradition without purpose is useless.
He whose name we do not mention did have one good idea, and changed the Florida Wing patch. His idea was for all Wings to wear the same patch, basically the Command Patch with the Wing name in an arc on the top. From 1942 to 1947, everyone wore the same patch the CAP emblem, now the overseas unit patch.
As to Wing patches having a history, I find that doubtful as so many Wings have changed the patch design over the years. Often the changes were minor depending on the company that made them. Ace Browning list five or six (haven't checked laterly) minor changes to the Florida Wing patch as an example. Or Tennessee which dropped the Tennessee Volunteer patch to change to a modified state flag design.
Big Blue didn't like the patches on their uniforms, so they were dropped. So the point is moot as to bring them back.
Quote from: FARRIER on May 31, 2010, 07:41:51 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 31, 2010, 05:35:32 AM
But ever since the berry boards era and the Generalissimo/CSU, National is so scared of anything blue that I think they would rather clothe us all in grey/white and voluntarily give up the AF uniform.
This may get me beat up in the virtual alley, I would be willing to go back to the berry boards if it would allow us to keep the full CSU after the phase out date. I remember the complaints then that they made us look like the Salvation Army at a distance, but hind site being 20/20, our original uniform during WW II had red epauletts. But since we are losing it, stay with the gray epauletts.
Don't go back to the berry boards. If you're going to do red - do
RED, which is more historically accurate and appropriate.
I only joined at the end of 2001, so that was far enough away from the berry boards to never have seen them or heard them mentioned but when I saw them at a wing conference uniform display my first thought was, "Wow, someone must have really been pissed off and wanted to make a point (when they picked that color) over whatever it was that someone did to cause them to pick that" and then I thought the whole thing was pretty demoralizing for an entire organization to have to deal with the actions of one, or a few.
Quote from: arajca on May 31, 2010, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: FARRIER on May 31, 2010, 07:41:51 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 31, 2010, 05:35:32 AM
But ever since the berry boards era and the Generalissimo/CSU, National is so scared of anything blue that I think they would rather clothe us all in grey/white and voluntarily give up the AF uniform.
....but hind site being 20/20, our original uniform during WW II had red epauletts. But since we are losing it, stay with the gray epauletts.
Don't go back to the berry boards. If you're going to do red - do RED, which is more historically accurate and appropriate.
That's exactly what I was trying to point out (without even knowing it ::) ) as far as a bright red color outstanding contrast on Blue.
The same goes for Blue BDU's flight suit, same bright red (start phase out of BDU's & green flight suits now for a 3 year phase out ).
It's interesting that non affiliated organizations (mentioned on these boards before) are free to buy Army type uniforms and other types of uniforms and we don't see the US Army (or Air Force) regulating that wear of uniform by those "civilians" regardless of weight, facial hair, etc. >:D
Again with enough "distinctiveness" it's a CIVIL AIR PATROL UNIFORM, that happens to be supplied via the AF/defense supply system. Perhaps that should be the approach. Make it no mistake to anyone that it is a Civil Air Patrol member in uniform and not an military member. I still think the USAF is being too harsh with CAP civilian volunteers on weight, facial hair, and long hair standards :-[.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2010, 04:09:29 PM
That's exactly what I was trying to point out (without even knowing it ::) ) as far as a bright red color outstanding contrast on Blue.
The same goes for Blue BDU's flight suit, same bright red (start phase out of BDU's & green flight suits now for a 3 year phase out ).
It's interesting that non affiliated organizations (mentioned on these boards before) are free to buy Army type uniforms and other types of uniforms and we don't see the US Army (or Air Force) regulating that wear of uniform by those "civilians" regardless of weight, facial hair, etc. >:D
Again with enough "distinctiveness" it's a CIVIL AIR PATROL UNIFORM, that happens to be supplied via the AF/defense supply system. Perhaps that should be the approach. Make it no mistake to anyone that it is a Civil Air Patrol member in uniform and not an military member. I still think the USAF is being too harsh with CAP civilian volunteers on weight, facial hair, and long hair standards :-[.
RM
As you pointed out, those are non-affiliated organizations.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2010, 04:09:29 PM
....but hind site being 20/20, our original uniform during WW II had red epauletts. But since we are losing it, stay with the gray epauletts. Don't go back to the berry boards. If you're going to do red - do RED, which is more historically accurate and appropriate.
I figured the Berry Boards were the result of some Star Trek TNG fan (Their uniforms were that color)
I for one like the red idea. If the rank insignia, mess dress, slide on and sew on all had a red background there would be NO risk of confusion with the USAF. There would be no need for different nametags. It would be in keeping with CAP tradition as well as following the pattern of the other auxiliary (Coast Guard) that wears the same uniform but with the rank insignia a different color.
The only complaint I ever heard about Coast Guard Aux uniforms came from a requirement that they look MORE like the regular coast guard. Never heard that one here!
Red looks very different with blue than with khaki. We lost people with the berry boards. Red would largely be seen as being forced to bend over and say "thank you sir may I have another?" in yet another effort to not piss of the AF. That will be time for me to take my CAP retirement. I have nearly enough time in, and I'd rather retire while we still have a connection to the Air Force, however tenuous. No thank you sir, I will not have yet another spurious "don't rock the boat with the AF uniform change."
The "low-light/distance" restriction is not workable because it is so inexact. Either clarify it or scrap it. In any case, we have got to stop this self-imposed Schadenfreude about uniforms, and it is self-imposed. National has been collectively hand-wringing ever since the berry board era and it is the membership that suffers.
The CSU was a good idea, and the Air Force initially signed off on it. It was only later that National decided to deep-six it, because of its association with the Generalissimo.
I think it is ludicrous that we have to have grey nameplates and epaulettes. If an E-1 who isn't educated about CAP sees a CAP member wearing "their" uniform and complains to the first shirt, who owns the problem? The Air Force does no education about CAP in BMT, which is inexcusable. It would take no more than reassigning about three hours from yet more dorm cleaning and underclothes folding to have an overview of AFI 10-2701, a few PowerPoints, and maybe a lecture from a CAP member as to who we are and why we wear the uniform. This should be taken up the chain to National and hence to AETC.
Back in the berry boards era an AFRES Master Sergeant asked me, "why the (expletive) maroon shoulder marks, you guys used to have blue?"
Radioman: Give the "naive public" some credit. Last week I was on my way home from a meeting, and I stopped at a gas station to get a bottle of pop. The young woman cashiering read my nameplate and asked me about CAP. It was an excellent opportunity to educate her about CAP. Incidents like that will do a lot more to educate the "naive public" than any amount of spurious uniform changes.
The USN Sea Cadets and Army Cadets officers look a lot more like their parent services than we ever have looked like the Air Force.
Our overseas counterparts in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand look virtually identical to their parent services with usually only a shoulder flash or cap badge to indicate a difference.
http://www.cycloneaircadets.com/photo/details.php?image_id=3818 (Canada)
This says nothing of State Defence Forces, who usually only indicate a difference with collar dogs and a slightly altered nameplate.
What I'm saying is not going to be popular.
Maybe it is indeed time for a split within CAP.
One organisation dedicated solely to SAR/DR, with no Air Force affiliation but support from state and county Emergency Management, and one dedicated largely to Cadet Programs with Air Force affiliation and support.
In the meantime, we should submit a request to keep the CSU as our permanent service dress for all ranks, with blue CAP epaulettes, blue three-line nameplate, and CAP collar dogs.
Blue BBDU's/utility jumpsuit/blue flight suit, all with navy blue backed rank.
K.I.S.S.
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 06:07:01 PM
I figured the Berry Boards were the result of some Star Trek TNG fan (Their uniforms were that color).
Command division only. Medical/Sciences were a nice shade of blue and Support/Engineering were gold.
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 06:07:01 PM
I for one like the red idea. If the rank insignia, mess dress, slide on and sew on all had a red background there would be NO risk of confusion with the USAF. There would be no need for different nametags. It would be in keeping with CAP tradition as well as following the pattern of the other auxiliary (Coast Guard) that wears the same uniform but with the rank insignia a different color.
There is always a risk where uneducated people are involved.
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 06:07:01 PM
The only complaint I ever heard about Coast Guard Aux uniforms came from a requirement that they look MORE like the regular coast guard. Never heard that one here!
CGAUX members haven't been torturing themselves at their leadership level for the past 20 years about uniforms, either.
It's stupid that we do.
Quote from: a2capt on May 31, 2010, 03:41:09 PM
I only joined at the end of 2001, so that was far enough away from the berry boards to never have seen them or heard them mentioned but when I saw them at a wing conference uniform display my first thought was, "Wow, someone must have really been pissed off and wanted to make a point (when they picked that color) over whatever it was that someone did to cause them to pick that" and then I thought the whole thing was pretty demoralizing for an entire organization to have to deal with the actions of one, or a few.
An excellent "history-in-a-nutshell" statement perfectly describing the uniform hand-wringing CAP has been doing over the past 20 years. Some of it has come from the Air Force, but a lot of it is self-imposed based on things that National thinks will mollify the AF (like jacking the CSU).
And it's basically one bend-over and "thank you sir may I have another?" after another for the CAP membership.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 31, 2010, 07:06:09 PM
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 06:07:01 PM
I figured the Berry Boards were the result of some Star Trek TNG fan (Their uniforms were that color).
Command division only. Medical/Sciences were a nice shade of blue and Support/Engineering were gold.
That's the original series, sort of. You got (command and engineering reversed) - in TNG (the next generation) they were all maroon. Of course, they changed their uniforms from the latter movies, which changed them from the first movie, which was different from the original tv show. And later on Voyager was different too. I think I know who they hired as a a consultant...
Debates and discussions are fun - but seriously, all I ask is that they pick something and stick with it. In a volunteer part time organization uniforms are not going to wear out quickly and I wonder how many white & ultramarine polo shirts, Guyaberra shirts, Smurf suits, orange flight suits & so forth are molding away in footlockers now. I'm good with whatever they want, and I'm HAPPY about the moratorium on changing anything.
And its not just national = CAWG had its own polo shirt uniform until this last supplement came out when it just vanished. No wear out date or anything, it just went poof.
Quote from: arajca on May 31, 2010, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: FARRIER on May 31, 2010, 07:41:51 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 31, 2010, 05:35:32 AM
But ever since the berry boards era and the Generalissimo/CSU, National is so scared of anything blue that I think they would rather clothe us all in grey/white and voluntarily give up the AF uniform.
This may get me beat up in the virtual alley, I would be willing to go back to the berry boards if it would allow us to keep the full CSU after the phase out date. I remember the complaints then that they made us look like the Salvation Army at a distance, but hind site being 20/20, our original uniform during WW II had red epauletts. But since we are losing it, stay with the gray epauletts.
Don't go back to the berry boards. If you're going to do red - do RED, which is more historically accurate and appropriate.
Except in California, where ground and UDF team members will be authorized
ORANGE epaulets. But only while wearing their dress uniforms in the field. Bwaaahahahaahaaaaaa!!!! >:D
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 10:37:08 PM
Debates and discussions are fun - but seriously, all I ask is that they pick something and stick with it. In a volunteer part time organization uniforms are not going to wear out quickly and I wonder how many white & ultramarine polo shirts, Guyaberra shirts, Smurf suits, orange flight suits & so forth are molding away in footlockers now. I'm good with whatever they want, and I'm HAPPY about the moratorium on changing anything.
Check your PM.
They're fun as long as people don't start insulting one another. Then it gets stupid.
I was not sorry to see the Smurf suit go, but I think the orange flight suit served a purpose.
I think all the changes go back to what I've said before - an almost neurotic need on the part of NHQ since around 1990 to show the AF we're not trying to ape them, and it's not needed.
I just don't understand the fixation with grey. It's not aviation related, doesn't have a place in CAP history that I know of, and frankly the grey/white is not slimming for heavier individuals.
I still operate on the K.I.S.S. principle.
A proposal, using existing items:
Use blue Cadet officer epaulettes with small(ish) metal rank for shirts (plain for SMWOG).
Use plain black shoulder boards (like AF Academy) with metal rank affixed for service dress (plain for SMWOG).
Blue three-line nameplate for all.
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 10:37:08 PMAnd its not just national = CAWG had its own polo shirt uniform until this last supplement came out when it just vanished. No wear out date or anything, it just went poof.
I half get the feeling that this most recent CAWG 39-1 supplement was written to supplement/supersede where it overlaps, the prior supplement. Because the things that otherwise vanished.. at least NHQ puts sunset dates on stuff and usually puts out a draft so folks get time to input stuff, and a bit of a warning.
Quote from: a2capt on June 01, 2010, 12:33:16 AM
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 10:37:08 PMAnd its not just national = CAWG had its own polo shirt uniform until this last supplement came out when it just vanished. No wear out date or anything, it just went poof.
I half get the feeling that this most recent CAWG 39-1 supplement was written to supplement/supersede where it overlaps, the prior supplement. Because the things that otherwise vanished.. at least NHQ puts sunset dates on stuff and usually puts out a draft so folks get time to input stuff, and a bit of a warning.
The prior supplement has been obsolete since 2008.
Ref: http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/cawg0-2.pdf
Quote from: bte on June 01, 2010, 01:23:13 AM
The prior supplement has been obsolete since 2008.
Ref: http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/cawg0-2.pdf
Whoh. That makes it even worse.
The 2008 document you reference does indeed state the 2006 39-1 supplement is obsolete. And that as of that date, (15 July 2008) that there WAS NO CAWG supplement to 39-1.
On 11 April 2010, a new wing supplement to 39-1 came out. It mostly defines that new orange shirt ground team thing but it adds the sailplane uniform sort of as an afterthought, from the looks of it. There was a 21 month gap between the old supplement being expressly withdrawn and the new one being issued. So for 21 months that bizarre "Sailplane Ops" uniform was not in fact a uniform, then it came back
Quote from: Custer on June 01, 2010, 03:21:27 AM
Quote from: bte on June 01, 2010, 01:23:13 AM
The prior supplement has been obsolete since 2008.
Ref: http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/cawg0-2.pdf
Whoh. That makes it even worse.
The 2008 document you reference does indeed state the 2006 39-1 supplement is obsolete. And that as of that date, (15 July 2008) that there WAS NO CAWG supplement to 39-1.
On 11 April 2010, a new wing supplement to 39-1 came out. It mostly defines that new orange shirt ground team thing but it adds the sailplane uniform sort of as an afterthought, from the looks of it. There was a 21 month gap between the old supplement being expressly withdrawn and the new one being issued. So for 21 months that bizarre "Sailplane Ops" uniform was not in fact a uniform, then it came back
The "bizarre" sailplane uniform was in the Supplement to the 60-1. Mainly because the 60-1 is where National put the "bizarre" sailplane uniform.
And it's not "bizarre", it pretty much the standard "uniform" in the sailplane community. Sailplanes have a real problem with "greenhouse effect" in the cockpit.
Quote from: Custer on May 31, 2010, 10:37:08 PM
That's the original series, sort of. You got (command and engineering reversed) - in TNG (the next generation) they were all maroon. Of course, they changed their uniforms from the latter movies, which changed them from the first movie, which was different from the original tv show. And later on Voyager was different too. I think I know who they hired as a a consultant...
Actually, no... http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starfleet_uniform_(2366-2370s)
The the TOS movies, after the first, they all had red tunics with varied shades of white undershirts for the different areas. TNG had red/yellow/blue again.
Quote from: PHall on June 01, 2010, 04:48:06 AM
The "bizarre" sailplane uniform was in the Supplement to the 60-1. Mainly because the 60-1 is where National put the "bizarre" sailplane uniform. And it's not "bizarre", it pretty much the standard "uniform" in the sailplane community. Sailplanes have a real problem with "greenhouse effect" in the cockpit.
So if its in 60-1 why does it need to be in the wing supplement as well?
Minutia = This entire thread.
We're trying to split atoms....again.
Quote from: RickRutledge on June 01, 2010, 04:27:09 PM
Minutia = This entire thread. We're trying to split atoms....again.
Well now this has nothing directly to do with uniforms. Nothing should be defined twice in two different regulations, especially if published by two different levels. If the same, its redundant, if different, you will have people following two sets of rules. and defeating the purpose of having a defined regulation to cover it at all.
The wing supplement specified which shirts could be worn in a bit more detail.
Quote from: PHall on June 02, 2010, 01:23:27 AM
The wing supplement specified which shirts could be worn in a bit more detail.
1-5.d Added. Special Uniform for Sailplane Operations. Members may wear a CAP
distinctive shirt (Squadron shirt, activity shirt, or any approved knit golf shirt) with dark blue or
khaki shorts (hemmed) or BDU pants and tennis shoes while participating in sailplane operations.
I think the reason this is so vague is that what you wear in a sailplane really doesn't matter, and this basically lets anything count as a uniform probably just to satisfy the rule that you be in a uniform while flying.
Quote from: Marshalus on June 01, 2010, 12:48:09 PM
Actually, no... http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starfleet_uniform_(2366-2370s) (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starfleet_uniform_(2366-2370s))
The the TOS movies, after the first, they all had red tunics with varied shades of white undershirts for the different areas. TNG had red/yellow/blue again.
Now that you have stolen 45 minutes of my life with that link of fasicnating but completely useless information...
All that members want is a unifrom that will keep AF off of our back but still military in appearance. Is that too much to ask?
Folks: that polo shirt that you mention is the gray one, put forth by one Larry Myrick, when he was the Wing King. He specifically wanted it to be worn by Wing Staff. It is still worn by those who have managed to keep them in one piece all this time.
For what it is worth, there also used to be a maroon polo shirt for those in the CD program. It was put out by National, but they suspended awarding them a number of years ago: I never got one.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on July 05, 2010, 02:47:18 AM
Quote from: Marshalus on June 01, 2010, 12:48:09 PM
Actually, no... http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starfleet_uniform_(2366-2370s) (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starfleet_uniform_(2366-2370s))
The the TOS movies, after the first, they all had red tunics with varied shades of white undershirts for the different areas. TNG had red/yellow/blue again.
Now that you have stolen 45 minutes of my life with that link of fasicnating but completely useless information...
All that members want is a unifrom that will keep AF off of our back but still military in appearance. Is that too much to ask?
You're quite welcome, sir. I spend many hours wasting away on Memory Alpha.