I'm hearing from a reliable source that some sort of tactical pant has been approved for wear with the dark blue golf shirt.
I know that some of you have been trying to argue that tactical pants were already ok so maybe the pants you have been wearing are finally going to actually be an approved uniform item.
Cite please.
No need for specific approval, since tac pants meet the light definition in the regs, but if NHQ wants to make things more clear, great.
No uniform changes were made at the recent NB meeting; no new ICLS have been published, none are pending comment.
That wasn't even a topic we have discussed recently on the NUC.
So, no changes on any pants on any unifom.
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
(http://www.dailyidiocy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/pirate-and-parrot.jpg)
Those are not eagles! Sorry, I couldn't resist. >:D
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
Relevance?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2012, 09:09:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
Relevance?
Seems quite relevant to me that a member of what is still the NB is saying that a change has been made while NED is saying different. Shows that there is obviously some confusion amongst our leadership.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2012, 09:09:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
Relevance?
Seems quite relevant to me that a member of what is still the NB is saying that a change has been made while NED is saying different. Shows that there is obviously some confusion amongst our leadership.
Again, cite please. An emailed letter perhaps.
I have captains bars and I can start rumors too. >:D
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 29, 2012, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2012, 09:09:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
Relevance?
Seems quite relevant to me that a member of what is still the NB is saying that a change has been made while NED is saying different. Shows that there is obviously some confusion amongst our leadership.
Again, cite please. An emailed letter perhaps.
I have captains bars and I can start rumors too. >:D
An excerpt from an email our Wing Commander sent this morning:
Commanders, As many of you may know, I've just returned from our National Summer Board meeting. Several things transpired that are of interest to all... One of those is the wear of the Air Force style uniform. Bottom line, we have a systemic problem across the CAP community with our members not knowing how to PROPERLY wear the uniform. When you address your squadrons at your next meeting, explain again what is allowable and what is not and where it is found in CAPR 39-1. I've noticed things like BDUs being worn without appropriate head gear, boots, wrong sizes, wrong everything. Do not embarrass your squadron, your Wing, and do not embarrass the thousands of men and women that have worn these uniforms protecting our country and defending our freedom. The National Commander has started to make proper uniform wear one of his main points of his leadership. I say "HOO RAH" and you should to. Bottom line, if our members show up to go as a group without being properly dressed, do not allow them in the vehicle, and ask them politely to fix whatever it is that wrong. Each commander is responsible for their members, but don't be afraid to speak up to others. It is OK to wear street clothes if someone does not have a uniform. You will be receiving further guidance on cap uniforms, such as the new tactical pants to be worn with the dark blue golf shirt. Oh one last thing, tennis shoes are not authorized with any CAP uniform, if that is all someone has, wear street clothes, do not mix street clothes with any CAP or Military uniforms. Sorry for going on a rampage, but this has been coming for a long time. If you have any questions on this, please contact me, I will be glad to take time to discuss it.
EDIT:
The reference to street clothes was referring to a portion of the email that was talking about an upcoming air show
Quote from: cap235629 on August 30, 2012, 02:07:37 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 29, 2012, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2012, 09:09:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
Relevance?
Seems quite relevant to me that a member of what is still the NB is saying that a change has been made while NED is saying different. Shows that there is obviously some confusion amongst our leadership.
Again, cite please. An emailed letter perhaps.
I have captains bars and I can start rumors too. >:D
An excerpt from an email our Wing Commander sent this morning:
Commanders, As many of you may know, I've just returned from our National Summer Board meeting. Several things transpired that are of interest to all... One of those is the wear of the Air Force style uniform. Bottom line, we have a systemic problem across the CAP community with our members not knowing how to PROPERLY wear the uniform. When you address your squadrons at your next meeting, explain again what is allowable and what is not and where it is found in CAPR 39-1. I've noticed things like BDUs being worn without appropriate head gear, boots, wrong sizes, wrong everything. Do not embarrass your squadron, your Wing, and do not embarrass the thousands of men and women that have worn these uniforms protecting our country and defending our freedom. The National Commander has started to make proper uniform wear one of his main points of his leadership. I say "HOO RAH" and you should to. Bottom line, if our members show up to go as a group without being properly dressed, do not allow them in the vehicle, and ask them politely to fix whatever it is that wrong. Each commander is responsible for their members, but don't be afraid to speak up to others. It is OK to wear street clothes if someone does not have a uniform. You will be receiving further guidance on cap uniforms, such as the new tactical pants to be worn with the dark blue golf shirt. Oh one last thing, tennis shoes are not authorized with any CAP uniform, if that is all someone has, wear street clothes, do not mix street clothes with any CAP or Military uniforms. Sorry for going on a rampage, but this has been coming for a long time. If you have any questions on this, please contact me, I will be glad to take time to discuss it.
EDIT:
The reference to street clothes was referring to a portion of the email that was talking about an upcoming air show
I thought you could wear black tennis shoes with the Blue BDUs? Am I reading 39-1 wrong?
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 30, 2012, 03:01:04 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on August 30, 2012, 02:07:37 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 29, 2012, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2012, 09:09:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
Relevance?
Seems quite relevant to me that a member of what is still the NB is saying that a change has been made while NED is saying different. Shows that there is obviously some confusion amongst our leadership.
Again, cite please. An emailed letter perhaps.
I have captains bars and I can start rumors too. >:D
An excerpt from an email our Wing Commander sent this morning:
Commanders, As many of you may know, I've just returned from our National Summer Board meeting. Several things transpired that are of interest to all... One of those is the wear of the Air Force style uniform. Bottom line, we have a systemic problem across the CAP community with our members not knowing how to PROPERLY wear the uniform. When you address your squadrons at your next meeting, explain again what is allowable and what is not and where it is found in CAPR 39-1. I've noticed things like BDUs being worn without appropriate head gear, boots, wrong sizes, wrong everything. Do not embarrass your squadron, your Wing, and do not embarrass the thousands of men and women that have worn these uniforms protecting our country and defending our freedom. The National Commander has started to make proper uniform wear one of his main points of his leadership. I say "HOO RAH" and you should to. Bottom line, if our members show up to go as a group without being properly dressed, do not allow them in the vehicle, and ask them politely to fix whatever it is that wrong. Each commander is responsible for their members, but don't be afraid to speak up to others. It is OK to wear street clothes if someone does not have a uniform. You will be receiving further guidance on cap uniforms, such as the new tactical pants to be worn with the dark blue golf shirt. Oh one last thing, tennis shoes are not authorized with any CAP uniform, if that is all someone has, wear street clothes, do not mix street clothes with any CAP or Military uniforms. Sorry for going on a rampage, but this has been coming for a long time. If you have any questions on this, please contact me, I will be glad to take time to discuss it.
EDIT:
The reference to street clothes was referring to a portion of the email that was talking about an upcoming air show
I thought you could wear black tennis shoes with the Blue BDUs? Am I reading 39-1 wrong?
Or what if you have a shoe waiver?
Or if the sky is blue and it is Tuesday? >:D
Quote from: GroundHawg on August 30, 2012, 03:01:04 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on August 30, 2012, 02:07:37 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on August 29, 2012, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2012, 09:09:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
Relevance?
Seems quite relevant to me that a member of what is still the NB is saying that a change has been made while NED is saying different. Shows that there is obviously some confusion amongst our leadership.
Again, cite please. An emailed letter perhaps.
I have captains bars and I can start rumors too. >:D
An excerpt from an email our Wing Commander sent this morning:
Commanders, As many of you may know, I've just returned from our National Summer Board meeting. Several things transpired that are of interest to all... One of those is the wear of the Air Force style uniform. Bottom line, we have a systemic problem across the CAP community with our members not knowing how to PROPERLY wear the uniform. When you address your squadrons at your next meeting, explain again what is allowable and what is not and where it is found in CAPR 39-1. I've noticed things like BDUs being worn without appropriate head gear, boots, wrong sizes, wrong everything. Do not embarrass your squadron, your Wing, and do not embarrass the thousands of men and women that have worn these uniforms protecting our country and defending our freedom. The National Commander has started to make proper uniform wear one of his main points of his leadership. I say "HOO RAH" and you should to. Bottom line, if our members show up to go as a group without being properly dressed, do not allow them in the vehicle, and ask them politely to fix whatever it is that wrong. Each commander is responsible for their members, but don't be afraid to speak up to others. It is OK to wear street clothes if someone does not have a uniform. You will be receiving further guidance on cap uniforms, such as the new tactical pants to be worn with the dark blue golf shirt. Oh one last thing, tennis shoes are not authorized with any CAP uniform, if that is all someone has, wear street clothes, do not mix street clothes with any CAP or Military uniforms. Sorry for going on a rampage, but this has been coming for a long time. If you have any questions on this, please contact me, I will be glad to take time to discuss it.
EDIT:
The reference to street clothes was referring to a portion of the email that was talking about an upcoming air show
I thought you could wear black tennis shoes with the Blue BDUs? Am I reading 39-1 wrong?
I think he was referring to the rash of polo/grey dress slacks/black tennis shoes among many members of our wing.....
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
So....you calling Ned a lier?
And someone with eagles are so known for their accurate feed back.
Really dude.....give it a rest.
39-1 says black shoes for polo combo.
I've been wearing black Reebok Classics with my polo, and G/W for years, and no one has ever mentioned any problems.
I have seen all kinds of gray/grey slacks/pants with the polo shirt. Are we talking gray BDU pants with the polo? That would make sense to me.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 30, 2012, 04:50:34 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Someone with eagles on his shoulders is saying differently.
So....you calling Ned a lier?
And someone with eagles are so known for their accurate feed back.
Really dude.....give it a rest.
No, just saying that another high ranking CAP officer said something differently. As I pointed out it shows that some confusion exists among the leadership. Didn't say anything about someone lying.
Quote from: cap235629 on August 30, 2012, 02:07:37 AM...tennis shoes are not authorized with any CAP uniform,
These, are "tennis shoes" (generically):
(http://www.sjacanton.org/images/admin_yes%20shoe%2010.jpg)
These, are not:
(http://www.planetshoes.com/mmplanet/Images/5385/5385_119_detail.jpg)
I see no issue wearing the latter, however I would not be surprised if an issue was made...
Per 39-1, page 85:
Men: Black shoes or dress boots (plain, black, commercial design without ornamentation such as buckles or straps)
^^+1
I wear plain black "sneakers" with my polo shirt uniform. They are perfectly acceptable if they are in good condition. When combined with grey Dockers Extreme trousers or Lee brand slacks you have a very comfortable uniform that still looks professional, assuming everything fits correctly.
As someone who wears what would be considered "tactical pants" on a daily basis as street wear, I'd like to know exactly what he means by "tactical pants". The only big name in tac wear that makes a pair of grey pants right now is 5.11 (five-eleven) (http://www.511tactical.com/All-Products/Pants/Tactical-Pants/511-Tactical-Pants-Mens-Cotton.html#) and at about $46 a pop I doubt they're going to have a huge following with cheaper options out there. (I get mine on clearance. Always.) How does he define tactical pant? How does he separate it from a regular pair of cargo pants? Do they have to be made of nylon? Have oversized belt loops? Are they only tactical if they're marketed as tactical?
This is just a big non-issue.
It all has to do with interpetaitons of the regulations.
The gray pants and black shoes for the Polo combination are never defined.....some people have been told or decide to define it......to a point I support the idea that commanders have the right/duty to do just that.
But they have to understand that that definition only applies to personnel who are subordinate to them....and not to CAP as a whole.
Until such time that 39-1 defines what sort/color of gray pants and further defines black shoes or boots.....it will be up to individuals or their chain of command.
To the OP....while maybe someone was haveing a discussion about it.....according to Ned Lee (the member of the BoG and a member on the Uniform Comittee....there is nothing offical in the pipe line.
Not to mention that if you are wearing the golf shirt while flying or performing some other active mission, cargo pants / tactical pants and some sort of comfortable black shoe is a much better option than grey dress slacks and black dress shoes.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 30, 2012, 03:49:47 PM
This is just a big non-issue.
It all has to do with interpetaitons of the regulations.
The gray pants and black shoes for the Polo combination are never defined.....some people have been told or decide to define it......to a point I support the idea that commanders have the right/duty to do just that......
From the 39-1
oops realized I copied the wrong one.....I couldnt even remember it being that restrictive....
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on August 30, 2012, 05:13:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 30, 2012, 03:49:47 PM
This is just a big non-issue.
It all has to do with interpetaitons of the regulations.
The gray pants and black shoes for the Polo combination are never defined.....some people have been told or decide to define it......to a point I support the idea that commanders have the right/duty to do just that......
From the 39-1
QuoteCommercial dress trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or
similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats,
with or without cuffs. (No jeans or causal trousers made of cotton or twill
fabric.) Front of trouser legs rests on the front of shoe or boot. No bunching
at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.
I dont know, as much as I prefered the 5.11 style with the polo too, that seems as defined as it will get short of specifing a specific brand. 5.11 or its associate knock-off are not dress trousers nor flannel or worsted (wool basically).
mk
That's not what it says for the golf shirt uniform, from Table 4-4:
QuoteCommercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging,
with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are
authorized (no jeans).
Note, this is different from the slacks for the aviator shirt and blazer combos.
Δ A big part of these arguments is people not even reading the proper part of the reg...
Even "shoes" can be interpreted different ways.
In some circles, "sneakers" are not "shoes." "Shoes", in those circles, are leather and are worn with suits.
While I firmly believe that Ned as a source can not be beat, I do know that Susie Parker from NHQ, has publicly stated that an ICL was in the works that would authorize tactical pants. Not sure of the time line, but my understanding is that it is imminent. I would suspect that means pants like the tactical pants from Propper and from 5.11.
Of course all of this is heresy until an ICL actually appears.
Another ICL that in theory expires. Meaning, you're supposed to hang up your pants in 179 more days after reading that.
Could be like the PCR conference where in tan, khaki, some variation on pants color was specified in place of gray with the golf shirt and many took that and ran like the dickens "It's approved!!", and I saw that at many CAWG activities for a little bit after.
I hope they specify some exact brand/name/product ID, if they do anything like this, or it's going to be yet another mish-mash of uniformly un-uniform.
How are they going to specify a manufacturer? They don't even do that with the USAF-style uniforms.
The spec needs to stay loose to allow people to shop their own closets, which is one of the points of the corporate variants.
There isn't even a need to specifically authorize them - the spec as it exists today is fine.
"Hour" must equal "How are".
Of course they don't do it for the USAF-style uniforms. They make the stuff, or the "premium" stuff is made to the same spec. You don't see them selling anything else at the official source.
Quote from: a2capt on August 31, 2012, 03:14:35 PM
Another ICL that in theory expires. Meaning, you're supposed to hang up your pants in 179 more days after reading that.
Could be like the PCR conference where in tan, khaki, some variation on pants color was specified in place of gray with the golf shirt and many took that and ran like the dickens "It's approved!!", and I saw that at many CAWG activities for a little bit after.
I hope they specify some exact brand/name/product ID, if they do anything like this, or it's going to be yet another mish-mash of uniformly un-uniform.
When you get down into requiring a specific brand or model or uniform, i.e. Carhartt B0745, neon pink with blue polka dots, you need to provide them and make sure they are available in sizes people need. 5.11 are nice slacks, but they stop at 44. Many of our member cannot wear them because they are not available in the necessary sizes.
You can establish a standard. Consult with fabric and clothing manufacturers to find the proper thread color definition for the fabric. That what the military does. Shade 1502 has a specific technical definition that fabric manufacturers know and use when they make fabric for uniforms to spec. LAPD Blue is another example.
Quote from: a2capt on August 31, 2012, 03:23:09 PM
"Hour" must equal "How are".
Of course they don't do it for the USAF-style uniforms. They make the stuff, or the "premium" stuff is made to the same spec. You don't see them selling anything else at the official source.
And no one in CAP is required to shop at the official source, heck 1/2 the membership doesn't even know about it.
I agree with Arajca - establish a standard, but for corporates they have to be reasonable within the availability of commercial sources.
Common sense has to prevail as well - it's interesting how 80% of the people in a room can figure out a shade of gray that is reasonably close,
yet there's always one or two wearing pants that are nearly black.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on August 31, 2012, 12:52:18 PM
While I firmly believe that Ned as a source can not be beat, I do know that Susie Parker from NHQ [. . .]
Ms. Parker is a CAP institution.
I've suggested that we name the Cadet Program Achievemnt 10 (Administrative Officer) after her. She will always, always know more and better stuff than me.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 03:53:58 PM... yet there's always one or two wearing pants that are nearly black.
..followed by one wearing some form of 5.11 or Cargo variety with the white aviator shirt because it said "Gray" and does not preclude side pockets.
Which pisses on the whole argument "It it does not say not to in 39-1, ..." <--> "It doesn't say to do it in 39-1 ..."
Common sense. But as it was also said. Some places, those black sneakers would in fact be considered shoes, so someone might consider wrinkled, popped up pocket flaps, baggy pockets to be "dress" quality, because .. after all, they got dressed, didn't they?
Common sense. It works most of the time.
Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2012, 03:35:04 PM
........ 5.11 are nice slacks, but they stop at 44. Many of our member cannot wear them because they are not available in the necessary sizes.
Actually 5.11 tactical pants in grey go all the way up to waist size 54.
http://www.511tactical.com/All-Products/Pants/Tactical-Pants/511-Tactical-Pants-Mens-Cotton.html# (http://www.511tactical.com/All-Products/Pants/Tactical-Pants/511-Tactical-Pants-Mens-Cotton.html#)
Quote from: a2capt on August 31, 2012, 03:14:35 PM
I hope they specify some exact brand/name/product ID, if they do anything like this, or it's going to be yet another mish-mash of uniformly un-uniform.
NO!
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 03:18:21 PM
How are they going to specify a manufacturer? They don't even do that with the USAF-style uniforms.
The spec needs to stay loose to allow people to shop their own closets, which is one of the points of the corporate variants.
There isn't even a need to specifically authorize them - the spec as it exists today is fine.
Yes.
Tactical pants and polo's are pretty much a standard uniform for personnel working in EOC's. Allowing CAP incident Commanders and Liaison Officers to dress accordingly, helps us to be seen as part of the team and not outsiders.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on August 31, 2012, 05:38:27 PM
Tactical pants and polo's are pretty much a standard uniform for personnel working in EOC's. Allowing CAP incident Commanders and Liaison Officers to dress accordingly, helps us to be seen as part of the team and not outsiders.
Because its tactikewl.... most tactical wear now a'days never sees the "harsh" field environments it was meant to stand up in..... I mean hey it gets pretty hectic in the
disptach center/EOC/office etc etc......
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on August 31, 2012, 05:58:42 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on August 31, 2012, 05:38:27 PM
Tactical pants and polo's are pretty much a standard uniform for personnel working in EOC's. Allowing CAP incident Commanders and Liaison Officers to dress accordingly, helps us to be seen as part of the team and not outsiders.
Because its tactikewl.... most tactical wear now a'days never sees the "harsh" field environments it was meant to stand up in..... I mean hey it gets pretty hectic in the
disptach center/EOC/office etc etc......
mk
Same could be said for BDUs and the like.
Define "harsh"
Every mission I've ever worked is either in a hangar, a trailer, in and out of a vehicle / aircraft, or in the field. You're moving tables,
running cable, around plenty of "sharp, sticky-outie thingies", not to mention the dirt and dust of vehicles or the great outdoors.
Certainly inappropriate for dress pants, and that doesn't even include the requirement to dry-clean the dress pants, and that
the cut of a pair of grey slacks appropriate for the white shirt won't be as forgiving as a pair of tac pants.
Then there's the pockets - lots of them and easy to get to. Cell phone, notepads, tablet, maybe a Leatherman, etc. It was pointed out to me a long time ago not to have a bunch of junk hanging on your belt.
I wear tac pants every day, including versions for shorts. I have a technical job and it's about the same "harsh" as a CAP mission base where even the IC is likely to be moving tables and running cables.
In fact, tac pants and a golf shirt would probably the most appropriate, best choice for all of CAP's mission
work, from flying to ground ops. Inexpensive, available for all, and no pretensions or affectations.
If fact, but is it fact? :)
These auto correct things are getting more common. People don't read as they type anymore :(
If the marketing fit most of the marketplace ...
"Large covert cargo pockets on both legs each capable of carrying 2 30-rd AR15/M4 magazines. "
"One traditional and a second zippered pocket capable of carrying two pistol mags per pocket."
I put my tablet in one, wallet, and ID in the other, cell phone in the phone pocket.
Nothing in the back pockets (so as to not ruin the view from behind).
FYI - the NUC briefing was just post and there's not a hint of any discussion regarding the golf shirt combo or tac pants.
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt)
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 06:42:34 PM
Define "harsh"
Every mission I've ever worked is either in a hangar, a trailer, in and out of a vehicle / aircraft, or in the field. You're moving tables,
running cable, around plenty of "sharp, sticky-outie thingies", not to mention the dirt and dust of vehicles or the great outdoors.
Certainly inappropriate for dress pants, and that doesn't even include the requirement to dry-clean the dress pants, and that
the cut of a pair of grey slacks appropriate for the white shirt won't be as forgiving as a pair of tac pants.
Then there's the pockets - lots of them and easy to get to. Cell phone, notepads, tablet, maybe a Leatherman, etc. It was pointed out to me a long time ago not to have a bunch of junk hanging on your belt.
I wear tac pants every day, including versions for shorts. I have a technical job and it's about the same "harsh" as a CAP mission base where even the IC is likely to be moving tables and running cables.
If fact, tac pants and a golf shirt would probably the most appropriate, best choice for all of CAP's mission work, from flying to ground ops. In expensive, available for all, and no pretensions or affectations.
:clap: Yes. Yep. Agreed. Concur. Definitely. No debate. Right on! :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 07:14:21 PMFYI - the NUC briefing was just post and there's not a hint of any discussion regarding the golf shirt combo or tac pants.
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt)
What about this bit:
Quote from: NHQ NUC BriefingCAP corporate working uniform dark blue shirt/trousers BDU style w/black boots w/out safety toe, headgear required (baseball cap or dark blue BDU cap may be worn)
Does "dark blue shirt" mean blue BDUs or the polo shirt? My initial impression was that they meant the polo, since I thought we call it a BDU "blouse" and not a shirt and "BDU style" suggests not actual BDU pants.
Col. Lewis Alexander who represents SWR was the author of the email excerpt I posted. I wonder if he and Ned Lee were in the same room??????
Quote from: Fubar on September 01, 2012, 02:15:36 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 07:14:21 PMFYI - the NUC briefing was just post and there's not a hint of any discussion regarding the golf shirt combo or tac pants.
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt)
What about this bit:
Quote from: NHQ NUC BriefingCAP corporate working uniform dark blue shirt/trousers BDU style w/black boots w/out safety toe, headgear required (baseball cap or dark blue BDU cap may be worn)
Does "dark blue shirt" mean blue BDUs or the polo shirt? My initial impression was that they meant the polo, since I thought we call it a BDU "blouse" and not a shirt and "BDU style" suggests not actual BDU pants.
I dunno, that's the problem with most of the briefings posted, the slides have no speaker's notes, so there's a lot left out.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 06:42:34 PM
In fact, tac pants and a golf shirt would probably the most appropriate, best choice for all of CAP's mission
work, from flying to ground ops. Inexpensive, available for all, and no pretensions or affectations.
ground ops, not so much. Polo is short sleeved, and all-cotton, neither of which are desirable traits for ground ops.
Quote from: NM SAR on September 02, 2012, 04:30:10 AMground ops, not so much. Polo is short sleeved, and all-cotton, neither of which are desirable traits for ground ops.
There is a long-sleeved version of the golf shirt, and if brush is heavy wear a jacket.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 06:42:34 PM
In fact, tac pants and a golf shirt would probably the most appropriate, best choice for all of CAP's mission
work, from flying to ground ops. Inexpensive, available for all, and no pretensions or affectations.
Radioman, what did you do with Eclipse... Is he tied up in your basement? ;)
(Kidding. Just kidding.)
I generally agree, but do find the white aviator uniform looks a bit better on someone standing in the front of a classroom. I try to wear that one for teaching.
(I don't do the military style uniforms, those are best worn by those who actually serve or have served, IMHO. Dress blues maybe for formal occasions, I suppose, if you must. Even though I meet regs for wearing them, I don't deserve to, quite frankly. I'm a civilian, and the honor belongs to other folks.)
Note I said "mission work". We still need dress uniforms for more formal occasions.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on August 31, 2012, 12:52:18 PM
While I firmly believe that Ned as a source can not be beat, I do know that Susie Parker from NHQ, has publicly stated that an ICL was in the works that would authorize tactical pants. Not sure of the time line, but my understanding is that it is imminent. I would suspect that means pants like the tactical pants from Propper and from 5.11.
Of course all of this is heresy until an ICL actually appears.
I believe the word you're looking for is hearsay.
Most discussions about uniforms on CAPTalk are heresy, though. >:D
Why the prohibition on safety toe boots? I wear composite toe all the time at work. Every boot store online sells safety toe duty boots, even the ugly green ones.
Quote from: BigShu on September 05, 2012, 02:47:18 AM
Why the prohibition on safety toe boots?
There's no prohibition on safety toe boots.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 05, 2012, 03:11:44 AM
Quote from: BigShu on September 05, 2012, 02:47:18 AM
Why the prohibition on safety toe boots?
There's no prohibition on safety toe boots.
In the Powerpoint under BBDU's (slide #14) it did specify non steel toe black boots.
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt)
If any of that ever reaches a regulation, then they will be prohibited. As of today, they aren't.
I can't begin to imagine why they would prohibit safety toe boots, or for that matter how any would even know unless you should them.
Steel toes, in my experience, limit mobility. I have a weird foot, and for some reason the steel toe rubbed and pressed against some of the bones, crushing some nerves and leaving me without feeling in my big toe on my left foot for several months after I stopped wearing them. You'd think that AT&T, the most safety-conscious company on the planet, would have authorized steel-toed boots for wear but they didn't. I wore them because I have a tendency to kick things while I walk. I found that kneeling with my foot bent at the toe made it difficult to balance. Also, after breaking a rafter and denting my truck door I decided that a soft-toe boot would be better.
OTOH, I don't see how NOT allowing a safety-toe boot could be logical. We encounter a lot of kick- and trip-hazards in the field where a steel-toed boot would help.
I know in certain trades and industries, the concern is that something ultra-heavy will drop on your foot and the steel cap would
cut your toes off, but unless an airplane falls on your foot that's not likely in CAP, but as you say, the stuff we >do< occasionally lug would
potentially be stopped by the typical steel toe.
Mythbusters did a show on safety shoes, and those toe caps are sturdier than you might think. They were dropping absurdly heavy things from equally absurd heights, and the toes were still protected. ( http://mythbustersresults.com/episode42 (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode42) )
I have steel toe boots from WIWOAD, and still wear them for CAP, and also mowing the lawn. In certain instances, I do find them uncomfortable, but value the protection over the comfort.
"...even using a blade attachment didn't work..."
I love those guys.
The way I've read that is we're specifying that you can buy non-steel toe boots, not that the opposite is prohibited.
Quote from: Fubar on September 01, 2012, 02:15:36 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 07:14:21 PMFYI - the NUC briefing was just post and there's not a hint of any discussion regarding the golf shirt combo or tac pants.
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/NUC_Briefing_Aug_2012_F99B515D815D4.ppt)
What about this bit:
Quote from: NHQ NUC BriefingCAP corporate working uniform dark blue shirt/trousers BDU style w/black boots w/out safety toe, headgear required (baseball cap or dark blue BDU cap may be worn)
Does "dark blue shirt" mean blue BDUs or the polo shirt? My initial impression was that they meant the polo, since I thought we call it a BDU "blouse" and not a shirt and "BDU style" suggests not actual BDU pants.
Everything about this quote -- "CAP corporate working uniform dark blue shirt/trousers BDU style w/black boots w/out safety toe, headgear required (baseball cap or dark blue BDU cap may be worn)" -- corresponds to the 39-1 description of what we've been calling, unofficially, Blue BDUs, except for the fact that they don't use the
term used in 39-1: CAP Field Uniform. The "Field Uniform" is the dark blue equivalent to the "BDU." 39-1 says BDU only when it means the Woodland camos.
It would have been much less confusing for everyone if the NUC briefing had simply said CAP Field Uniform instead of "corporate working uniform," which is kinda meaningless on its own. I would also note that everywhere 39-1 actually
means the golf shirt, they use the term "golf shirt."
Given the above, I would conclude they're talking about the dark-blue field uniform that's cut like BDUs...
This is a little bit like theological exigesis or constitutional scholarship..."what was the writer's intent?" ;D
The safety toe they are referring to could be like this. My stepson wears some like this to work at the coal mine.
http://workingperson.com/footwear-1/mens-steel-toe-boots/steel-toe-mining-boots/carhartt-footwear-mens-cmw1629-black-mini (http://workingperson.com/footwear-1/mens-steel-toe-boots/steel-toe-mining-boots/carhartt-footwear-mens-cmw1629-black-mini)
The met(atarsal) guard prevents crushing injuries between the toes and the ankle.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 03:18:21 PM
How are they going to specify a manufacturer? They don't even do that with the USAF-style uniforms.
The spec needs to stay loose to allow people to shop their own closets, which is one of the points of the corporate variants.
There isn't even a need to specifically authorize them - the spec as it exists today is fine.
They could specify the color of grey. I umpire college baseball and for years the pants had to be "heather" grey. Then a few years ago it changed to charcoal grey. Everyone matches dispute the numerous manufacturers because there is a clear standard. I don't which color or style CAP picks but when one guy has light grey cargo pants, the second has grey dockers, and another has dark grey dress slacks, the group looks junkie as a whole
Quote from: ProdigalJim on September 05, 2012, 08:11:17 PMGiven the above, I would conclude they're talking about the dark-blue field uniform that's cut like BDUs...
Hmm, your analysis certainly makes sense. Thank you for sharing that. It also makes sense in regards to requiring head gear for a polo shirt (which seems unlikely).
Thanks!
I'm going shopping tomorrow for some new grey slacks. I'm taking a rank slide, just to see how close a match I can get, and what the name of that color is. My current ones match pretty well, and are called Heather Grey.
Will post results when I get back from the store(s).
Quote from: SarDragon on September 06, 2012, 06:23:59 AM
I'm going shopping tomorrow for some new grey slacks. I'm taking a rank slide, just to see how close a match I can get, and what the name of that color is. My current ones match pretty well, and are called Heather Grey.
Will post results when I get back from the store(s).
I had good luck at Macy's last year:
Quote from: usafaux2004 on June 17, 2011, 12:18:04 AM
I'm not going to lie. White with gray doesn't look all that bad. Just have to make it look good!
Here are the pants with the VG slides: (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/IMG_3070.jpg)
That's about like my current match. I will indeed check out Macy's. Thanks. :)
Quote from: SarDragon on September 06, 2012, 02:03:39 PM
That's about like my current match. I will indeed check out Macy's. Thanks. :)
If you follow the quote link you said:
Quote from: SarDragon on June 17, 2011, 12:27:53 AM
You're a winner, I'd say. That's about the same match I have.
:P
That's from almost 15 months ago. You expect me to remember that far back? Good luck. Some days I barely remember 15 minutes ago.