CAP Talk

I am not sure if this topic has been created.

I am asking should CAP have a BF Tape test? There is some of us that can pull of looking good in the Uniform, even though we are not in Height Weight Standards. Should be just allow everyone to wear the blues, like the cadets do? I do not know how to create a poll.

P.S I went to an SLS, there was numerous people wearing the blues, that im certain was not in H/W standards.

No - the USAF doesn't do that anymore and neither should we.
If anything is to change we should simply eliminate the weight tables, or adjust them into reality and then never have the conversation again.

The AF does a "Body Composition" test. So your saying they should adjust the weight standards to reality as in weight? Eliminating them and let everyone where the blues? Elaborate? Im assuming your tired of hearing abot H/W standards arnt ya?

Eh, let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.  A BF tape test is just one more convoluted criterion for people to pencil whip.  (Ever had a cadet tell you his school gym teacher already tested him on push ups and sit ups today so he doesn't need to be tested again?  Riiiight.)  Whom do you propose conduct the BF tape test?  If I had the choice whether to be a tester, uhh, no thanks...

And, no, not everyone should be allowed to wear the blues.  Our H/W standards are already more "generous" than the AF's, let's keep them exactly where they are.  Wearing the AF-style uniform is not 2012 little league baseball (everyone gets a uniform, everyone gets a trophy).  If you don't meet the AF-style standards, wear a uniform you're authorized to wear.  I promise we'll still value your service.

On the other hand, there are probably people who fall inside the H/W standards when half of their total body weight is concentrated at their waistline and a (small) percentage of members who fall just outside the standards and all of their "extra" weight is in their biceps, pecs, and shoulder muscles.  If you are in the latter group and look good in uniform, no one will ever know or care what the number on the scale says...

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
The AF does a "Body Composition" test.

The USAF now has a specific and hard-fast abdominal circumference test, which has been a make or break for man
otherwise fit airman and officers.

http://www.airforce-pt.com/index.html (http://www.airforce-pt.com/index.html)

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
So your saying they should adjust the weight standards to reality as in weight? Eliminating them and let everyone where the blues? Elaborate?

That's exactly what I'm saying - they serve no purpose other then to cause an artificial schism between members.  Other similar organizations,
including military auxiliaries, do not have these requirements.

That, or actually enforce the regulations as written.  Regulations which are universally ignored serve no purpose other then to lose
our credibility.

Bottom line, we should have one uniform.

Period.

Understandable about not everyone wearing the blues. I was asking to peak interest. There are some CAP Personnell that would tip a scale, but could still look good in uniform. Then there are some with Physical Limitations were they cannot lose weight. This is not to bash anybody, just a discussion. NONE, of us can change the reg anyway.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2013, 01:10:40 AM

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
The AF does a "Body Composition" test.

The USAF now has a specific and hard-fast abdominal circumference test, which has been a make or break for man
otherwise fit airman and officers.

http://www.airforce-pt.com/index.html (http://www.airforce-pt.com/index.html)

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
So your saying they should adjust the weight standards to reality as in weight? Eliminating them and let everyone where the blues? Elaborate?

That's exactly what I'm saying - they serve no purpose other then to cause an artificial schism between members.  Other similar organizations,
including military auxiliaries, do not have these requirements.

That, or actually enforce the regulations as written.  Regulations which are universally ignored serve no purpose other then to lose
our credibility.

Bottom line, we should have one uniform.

Period.

I didnt know that some auxillaries do not have weight standards? Interesting. I love seeing SMs in Polo, Blues, G/W, BBDU/BDU, makes us look colorfull.

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 01:16:27 AM
I didnt know that some auxillaries do not have weight standards? Interesting. I love seeing SMs in Polo, Blues, G/W, BBDU/BDU, makes us look colorfull.

USCG AUX doesn't have them, just a "suggestion" on wearing their equivalent of our (bloody awful) blazer combo.

I think all the different uniforms make us look anything but uniform.  We were moving in the right direction with the CSU, but you know what happened with that. >:(

Now we have a choice of looking like the AF or looking like a mall cop/security guard/Realtor.

CSU? Anywho, yes we do not look "Uniform" You have some Uniform Nazis that will say certain things. I wear whatever i am authorized. Im having to wear a Civilian suit to our awards ceremony in Jan, where i will become a 2nd LT, everyone else? Blues!!

Seeing how CAP has NO bodyfat standards, taping someone would be pointless. I do feel however that asking someone who appears to not meet the standard for height and weight and is wearing a Air Force uniform to either wear the CAP distinctive uniform or step on a scale. It has to do with integrity to me and that is one of the core values, so there should be no discussion. I also think that if you are going to work with cadets you should wear the same uniform as them, it's a leader thing to me. We talk about uniformity a lot and CAP being a volunteer organization. Even if you put everyone in a CAP uniform there would be differences as there are those that will not want to conform to a grooming standard. The big thing I have seen over the years with CAP and peoples logic, unlike the military, is a lot of adults think that because it is a volunteer organization that you can pick and choose which rules to follow. The uniform regardless of whichever one it is, is a symbol of our heritage as an organization and also symbolic of the sacrifices that have been made. I have seen a fair amount of individuals that don't wear the uniform according to that belief. It is not just a peice of cloth.

I agree with your post, People have shed blood to wear the uniform. There are adults who will conform with the grooming standards, but cant meet weight.

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 02:05:12 AM
CSU?

(http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Corporate_Service_Coat_with_CAP_356B2C183EF48.jpg)

Short-lived CAP uniform, instituted by former National CC, quite popular, taken from us with no explanation.

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/uniform_information/new-corporate-uniform/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/uniform_information/new-corporate-uniform/)

Of course, having been an Army company commander, I suppose I should point out that "taping" would require not only that CAP establish body fat standards, but more importantly that it would require all of us to stand around in our underwear once or twice a year while we wait to be taped. 

Sounds like a fun meeting.

And of course we would need to train and certify the "official tapers.".  Creating a substantial new requirement for every unit.  (And talk about a sought-after new job for each unit!)

And each unit would have to maintain their Weight Control records and be inspected on them.

And why are we considering this?  Honestly, what percentage of seniors and 18+ cadets will exceed the height/weight table and still make taping?  2%?  5%?

Is it worth it to go down this path and engage our AF partners?  What might they be likely to say?  Or ask in return?

Quote from: CyBorg on January 01, 2013, 02:55:52 AM

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 02:05:12 AM
CSU?

(http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Corporate_Service_Coat_with_CAP_356B2C183EF48.jpg)

Short-lived CAP uniform, instituted by former National CC, quite popular, taken from us with no explanation.

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/uniform_information/new-corporate-uniform/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/uniform_information/new-corporate-uniform/)

Yes, quite popular with some of the membership, but not all...

Quote from: PHall on January 01, 2013, 03:11:25 AM
Yes, quite popular with some of the membership, but not all...

Point?  Nothing will ever be popular with everyone.

Some don't like blues, some don't like whites, to some the very idea of being told to wear anything but flip flops and shorts
is an affront before their deity.

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 01:16:27 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2013, 01:10:40 AM

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
The AF does a "Body Composition" test.

The USAF now has a specific and hard-fast abdominal circumference test, which has been a make or break for man
otherwise fit airman and officers.

http://www.airforce-pt.com/index.html (http://www.airforce-pt.com/index.html)

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
So your saying they should adjust the weight standards to reality as in weight? Eliminating them and let everyone where the blues? Elaborate?

That's exactly what I'm saying - they serve no purpose other then to cause an artificial schism between members.  Other similar organizations,
including military auxiliaries, do not have these requirements.

That, or actually enforce the regulations as written.  Regulations which are universally ignored serve no purpose other then to lose
our credibility.

Bottom line, we should have one uniform.

Period.

I didnt know that some auxillaries do not have weight standards? Interesting. I love seeing SMs in Polo, Blues, G/W, BBDU/BDU, makes us look colorfull.

Not just weight standards, but for the US Coast Aux you an wear a beard. The Coast Guard authorized  member to wear beards until 1986. My dad actually know a few who did.
     
       I like the two options members have because we are an auxiliary volunteer organization that privileges you to wearing the AF uniform IF you follow the regulations. As the unit I'm in teaches us this is a professional volunteer organization that follows military traditions. On the other hand(thinking Special Ops)as long as you complete the mission safely and it completes CAP's three missions, it doesn't really matter what you wear, unless its honor guard, color guard, and certain cadet activities etc. If you are in it just for the uniforms (and donuts) I think thee is better options for you. I like what the California wing has done with their ES uniforms. Other wings have teams with camouflaged uniforms with a oranges waviest that only covers maybe 30%. Not saying BDUs aren't the best, but when on a search and rescue mission California's uniform wins by far. And our Point isn't to hide from the rescue (which was BDUs originally made for hiding and killing) . That's just my opinion.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2013, 03:35:48 AM

Quote from: PHall on January 01, 2013, 03:11:25 AM
Yes, quite popular with some of the membership, but not all...

Point?  Nothing will ever be popular with everyone.

Some don't like blues, some don't like whites, to some the very idea of being told to wear anything but flip flops and shorts
is an affront before their deity.

I was clarifying his somewhat broad statement.

Quote from: Cadetcookies on January 01, 2013, 04:03:02 AM
Not just weight standards, but for the US Coast Aux you an wear a beard. The Coast Guard authorized  member to wear beards until 1986. My dad actually know a few who did.

Other navies, especially in the British Commonwealth, still allow beards.

(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/portraits/CMDR_Paul_O%27Grady.jpg)
Commander Paul O'Grady, CSM, RAN
     

Quote from: Cadetcookies on January 01, 2013, 04:03:02 AM
I like the two options members have because we are an auxiliary volunteer organization that privileges you to wearing the AF uniform IF you follow the regulations.

You're partly right.  Sometimes "following the regulations" doesn't come into it.  Sometimes the privilege of wearing the AF uniform is denied to members because of factors beyond their control (heredity, side effects of medication, illness, disability).

Quote from: PHall on January 01, 2013, 04:55:04 AM
I was clarifying his somewhat broad statement.

Which was never meant to imply universality.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2013, 03:35:48 AM
Point?  Nothing will ever be popular with everyone.

It seems that, in uniform matters, the concern over what is generally popular or liked by the membership is not of great concern to those at the top (no offence to Ned).  It's much more, "AF blues or grey/white.  That's what you've got.  Suck it up."

Even the Air Force (General Fogleman actually) changed the generally unpopular "McPeak" uniform.

I personally believe that we all should wear one uniform.  If we dont all meet AF standards for dress then everyone should wear the CAP uniform.  We would be more uniformed if we did than having part of our squadron in AF blues and the others in CAP distinctive.   

Switch all of us into one uniform set that is not nowhere near as readily available and easy to purchase down the street at the Army surplus store like the BDU? CAP's not a fashion show, and I shouldn't be forced to purchase CAP distinctive uniforms because someone else doesn't want to/isn't able to follow the standards. Just wear what you're allowed to and stop worrying about the uniforms, it's not actually affecting something important like our operational readiness.

It makes no difference in the long run because we're here to do our jobs and do them well, not look purdy in the latest Blu Dee U, Bee Dee U, or Aye Bee U (not that we wear it, but it's talked about enough to include it).

As to the OP, I would love to see this type of thing go along with a CAP fitness and well being program. Moreover, I think that some common sense should be used in picking who can and cannot wear the uniform. For example, if you're fat and are over the weight standards, you can't wear the USAF uniforms. If you're muscular and it's noticable, you can wear the USAF uniforms. Only reason I say this is I know a lot of huge muscle guys who would not meet CAP or USAF weight requirements due to the sheer amount of muscle weight they have.

With that said, I think it's an idea that, if used, would require a lot more things behind it to justify the costs.

   In every sport I qplay, we all wear the same uniforms. That is, except the coaches. This is the coaches don't need it because it's not appropriate for the task they are completing, coaching, and a more appropriate option is a team t-shirt. Every player on my team wears the same uniform an pads the same colors , including helmets, gloves, and shells for our pants (hockey).Even off the ice, we are to wear dress pants, dress shirt, and team tie with oue team jackets ( when we are not warming up). And when we are warming up, we even have a track suit.So why should CAP be any different. We can all wear the uniform appropriate to ourselves, and to the mission, and still look like a professional team.

Quote from: Cadetcookies on January 01, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
   In every sport I qplay, we all wear the same uniforms. That is, except the coaches. This is the coaches don't need it because it's not appropriate for the task they are completing, coaching, and a more appropriate option is a team t-shirt. Every player on my team wears the same uniform an pads the same colors , including helmets, gloves, and shells for our pants (hockey).Even off the ice, we are to wear dress pants, dress shirt, and team tie with oue team jackets ( when we are not warming up). And when we are warming up, we even have a track suit.So why should CAP be any different. We can all wear the uniform appropriate to ourselves, and to the mission, and still look like a professional team.

Exactly, and we're fine right now.

Angelwings, you really have no idea what you are talking about, and no experience in regards
to dealing with the issue, so I don't know, exactly, what basis you have for your comments.
Cadets really have no skin in this game until they are 18, and from there, the number affected
is probably statistically zero.

First, no one suggested, necessarily, that the blues are removed.  We simply want one uniform.

Second, your comments in regards to the availability of uniforms simply are not true.  If anything, it is more
difficult for the average adult member to get a USAF-style uniform then a distinctive one.

As to taping as a concept, take Ned's comments as gospel.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2013, 04:59:20 PM
Angelwings, you really have no idea what you are talking about, and no experience in regards
to dealing with the issue, so I don't know, exactly, what basis you have for your comments.
Cadets really have no skin in this game until they are 18, and from there, the number affected
is probably statistically zero.

First, no one suggested, necessarily, that the blues are removed.  We simply want one uniform.

Second, your comments in regards to the availability of uniforms simply are not true.  If anything, it is more
difficult for the average adult member to get a USAF-style uniform then a distinctive one.

As to taping as a concept, take Ned's comments as gospel.

You think I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I have no experience? What did I say exactly that would warrant that? Because, rereading my post, all I said was that we should not worry about our uniforms that much because it doesn't affect our capabilities, that BDU's are relatively easy to attain from a surplus store (and adding onto that, evilBay) compared to specific items like BBDU's, Blue flight uniforms, White aviator shirt, CAP polo, and the like. At best, every CAP member could attain the Blazer uniform by shopping at the local JCP.

No one suggested any uniform be removed particularly, however they did suggest that we switch to one uniform able to be worn by all. With relatively good common sense and understanding, one could assume that to mean a switch to corporate uniforms because history has proven to us that the USAF would not want big and fuzzy people wearing their uniforms.

In terms of acquiring BDU's versus BlueDU's, BDU's are much easier to acquire. However, all uniforms can be bought on Vanguard, and 99.999% of members end up shopping there anyways to get their uniform accesories, so it's a moot point to say that it is harder to acquire BDU's than CAP uniform items. The USAF, an organization that orders large contracts of uniforms with even larger surplus, is bound to have more of their uniform parts for sale versus CAP, an aux. organization that doesn't have more than 70,000 people in it, with only 30 something thousand members eligble/likely to wear a CAP distinctive uniform. Websites like BDU.com and Gibson & Barnes both sell CAP and USAF approved uniforms, so the acquiring part isn't likely a concern unless there is a major price difference between the items.

I will say it is easier to acquire a G/W uniform versus a dress blue uniform. Having been collecting military uniforms from 1960 and up for more than 5 years, I will also say that any dress uniform is harder to find than civilian dress clothes. The Aviator shirts, while not exactly abundant, are relatively easy to find and are cheaper than USAF uniform parts.

Having a father that is a Logistics Officer for my squadron, talking to a Supply/Logistics Air Guardsmen, and having been asked to donate extra parts if possible (I opened myself up to it by saying I had extra uniform pieces kicking around my house) for my squadron because of my collecting connections, I do have some (but not much) practical experience in logisitical concerns, and as a C/CC I do have a general knowledge about the difficulty in acquiring properly sized USAF style uniforms without breaking the bank (trying to keep costs down under $100 for both uniforms and accesories). However, I have also noticed that many cadets have willing parents who will, in time, acquire their cadets uniforms. But I don't know, maybe it is a New England thing.

My basis for my comments is a relatively lengthy time collecting, my family and friends who've done logisitical work for quite some time, my small experience with actually being asked to help acquire uniforms due to my knowledge of where to get them cheap, and a few articles I read online about Logistics. That said, I am not going to overdo my experience and knowledge to be anything more than minimum but I do know a thing or two about getting uniforms.

Please correct me if I am wrong, because this is what I believe right now and I'd rather believe something true versus something false.

As for what Ned said, I didn't see that, and I will listen to whatever he says because I think he is CAPTalks eyes and ears inside of national.

"Experience" as a collector doesn't really have any relevance to a discussion that involves >new< uniforms for actual use.
However you negate your own points above, so honestly, I don't really know what you're trying to say.

   The CSU is phased out today, JAN 1, and are impossible to find anywhere. I have never seen anyone ever wear it. That, and it is probably a lot of money to buy and maintain, and you are only going to wear it once in a while. There is no regulations on this uniform that I can find. But, this uniform still makes CAP a professional team with a mission.

Quote from: Cadetcookies on January 01, 2013, 08:28:01 PM
The CSU is phased out today, JAN 1, and are impossible to find anywhere.

The CSU was phased out over 1 Jan 2012.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2013, 06:34:42 PM
"Experience" as a collector doesn't really have any relevance to a discussion that involves >new< uniforms for actual use.
However you negate your own points above, so honestly, I don't really know what you're trying to say.

I was basically just saying that while there is some merit to the corporate dress uniform it wouldn't warrant a change. I do write confusingly sometimes, so that's my fault. It doesn't matter anyways. None of us can change the uniforms (well, maybe almost none) and all of this barely grazes the definition of discussion. However, it does match the definition of dreaming. As a wise NCO said to me "You can't argue a mans dreams when he's set on them. You can only share yours and tell him that his sucks or his is good."

OK, I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2013, 11:57:55 PM
OK, I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Explain.

Quote from: AngelWings on January 02, 2013, 12:05:01 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2013, 11:57:55 PM
OK, I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Explain.

You're not making any sense, so he doesn't understand what point you are trying to make.

Quote from: Cadetcookies on January 01, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
   In every sport I qplay, we all wear the same uniforms. That is, except the coaches. This is the coaches don't need it because it's not appropriate for the task they are completing, coaching, and a more appropriate option is a team t-shirt. Every player on my team wears the same uniform an pads the same colors , including helmets, gloves, and shells for our pants (hockey).Even off the ice, we are to wear dress pants, dress shirt, and team tie with oue team jackets ( when we are not warming up). And when we are warming up, we even have a track suit.So why should CAP be any different. We can all wear the uniform appropriate to ourselves, and to the mission, and still look like a professional team.

Does each member buy their own uniforms, or are they provided by the school?  It's one thing for them to be issued versus bought at personal expense.

The idea of using Body Composition in CAP is ridiculous. It's a pain to administer and takes a lot of time to administer.

We only have to ask three questions of our 18+ members.

Do you meet the H/W standards of CAPM 39-1?
Is the uniform complete, clean, and pressed?
Do you project a professional image while wearing the uniform?

Reminds me of being stationed at MCB Quantico. A Colonel was reaming a Sergeant for being overweight. When he got to the part about "Do you have anything to say, Sergeant"? He reached into his pocket and removed a letter from the Commandant, which stated that Sgt X is a Member of the USMC weightlifting team and was exempt from H/W standards until after the Olympics.

CAP should either get serious about this issue and have mandatory weigh-ins on a regular basis for all those that choose to wear AF-style uniforms or convince the AF to drop the height/weight requirements or drop the AF uniform entirely.   

While its true that we've managed to get along for 30+ years relying on the integrity of our members to comply, I think that there is a basis for believing that a lot of people aren't in compliance and the CAP leadership isn't really interested in doing anything about it.  Maybe the AF is willing to continue to put up with that, but I suspect not. 

Who? Has the Authority to just go around weighing people? Like it has been stated before, ive seen people were the blues, that i was skeptikal aout. Now IMO, these People were retired Officers in the Services, or prior service. Should they be exempt from H/W standards? I wrote this Post to see what the opinions of people are about our current status. This is 2013 now, just want CAP to move forward and make everything unique and Uniform. I do know that not every SM wants to wear the Blues. Just seems like this has been an issue that has never been solved. Along with many other things.

Well, if they want to push the issue, any commander can ask for a weigh in. 

It really isn't a big deal.

Any commander or activity director can have folks weighed. 

I have done so as an NCSA director.  Every senior and 18+ cadet that wanted to wear USAF-style uniform was required to weigh in during in-processing.  The key is to let folks know ahead of time, provide a little privacy for the process, and have the 39-1 handy as a reference.

Easy-peasy.

It sounds like some squadron commanders are not as consistent as we would like in enforcing the existing (and fairly clear) regulation.  I'm not sure how enacting a new requlation would help that.

Obviously we need to follow our rules and present an professional appearance at all times.  But we also need to remember that the great majority of our members wear the appropriate uniform and wear it well.  In the final analysis, uniforms are a tool to help us to our CAP jobs.  We should probably spend more time worrying about what we do rather than what we wear.

YMMV.

True Ned, i have worries about what CAP does, if i did, i would have never signed the dotted line. I was trying to get a consensus on the uniforms as a whole.

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2013, 01:04:29 AM
It sounds like some squadron commanders are not as consistent as we would like in enforcing the existing (and fairly clear) regulation.  I'm not sure how enacting a new requlation would help that.

Well, the regulation is quite clear, but the mechanism of enforcement is not.  Requiring regular weigh-ins would give commanders a program that they could follow.  As it stands now, I feel confident in saying that every unit has people wearing the AF uniform that probably shouldn't and who probably have never been officially weighed.  Why not?  Because there is no regular weigh in program and a squadron commander is going to be reluctant to selectively enforce this reg by only requiring certain people to be weighed. 

This is the reason we're supposed to look at everyone's 101 card when they check in at mission base and not just those who we think might not have one. 

I guess I am still a little puzzled.  I can only agree that there is no "mandatory weigh in" requirement in the reg.  But neither is there a mandatory Uniform Inspection program that requires commanders to measure every member's insignia every Tuesday night.

Because the regs set the standard, but does not micro-manage the volunteers in how they accomplish the task.  If commanders want/need to have a formal inspection or weigh in, they can just do it.  If they can accomplish the requirement informally by spot-checking and peer assistance, that's fine, too.

Commanders have a tough enough job without higher headquarters micromanaging how they do the difficult job of command.

And if you don't want to appear to single anyone out, simply weigh all the seniors and 18+ cadets who wear the USAF style uniform.  Just let them know ahead of time to avoid unpleasant surprises.

By and large I trust our commanders to get the job done.  It sounds like you may not.

Ned, you can't have one or a few units / activities holding everyone to the full standard and the rest of CAP
openly ignoring the rules.  It needs to be consistent across the board or it's essentially meaningless.

These things have to be top-down mandates, with real consequences, or they never get any traction.

Why not have a mandatory weigh-in on a specific date each year?  All hands?  Or probably more then once a year.

I absolutely guarantee if the standards were enforced, top-down, consistently, we'd see rapid change in the
uniforms, either a different combo, or different weight standards.

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2013, 02:08:48 AM
By and large I trust our commanders to get the job done.  It sounds like you may not.

Well, I think its clear that in this particular area they aren't getting the job done.  Yes, each individual commander has the ability to start a weigh-in program, but the fact that most have not done this on their own tells us something about their interest in ensuring compliance with this regulation. 

Now CAP does have a lot of regulations and I certainly wouldn't suggest that we try to micromanage compliance with all of them.  Heck, we have a hard enough time checking on compliance with the "important" ones that are part of our wing and squadron inspection program. 

But, the fact that the AF takes fat people in their uniforms to be a big enough no-no that they won't let them wear AF-style uniforms means to me that it is important enough that we should take the extra step of having a compliance program for it on a national basis.

Maybe then they would start to take us a bit more seriously.

And yes, I'd be fine with doing a formal uniform inspection at the same time as the weigh-in (two birds with one stone). 

If it isn't important enough to require inspection then no one is going to pay much attention to it and thats where we're at now. 

The idea that this is only something impacting a tiny number of CAP members is belied by a visit to any CAP activity where AF uniforms are worn. 

I have a feeling if there was a "Mandatory" weigh in, that 1/6 of people would not meet H/W standards. I also have a feeling the reason its not being done is because it will bump alot of people out of the Blues Standards. So, why would a Whatever rank, want to weight in, when he just sunk x amount of money into a uniform he now cannot wear?

Gentlemen, I hear you.  I really do. 

But to do a snarky paraphrase, you guys are saying "you guys at National Headqurters aren't telling us loudly enough to do what you already told us to do.  That's why we haven't done it."

Since 95% of the membership is at the squadron level, this has to be a bottom-up thing, not the other way around.  We could put a scale in every wing and region headquarters and it will not affect the issue you are seeing. 

Most squadron commanders do just fine at taking questionably-sized members aside and doing a quick counseling.  Obviously, not all of them.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but this sounds a little like a gun-control argument.  If you have members (and commanders) who disobey the current clear guidance, why do you think a new regulation mandating a yearly weigh-in will now make them obey?

As an Army company commander, we did twice yearly weigh-ins and PT tests.  They pretty much consumed an entire training day.  People need time to dress and undress; the clipboard guy and the scale can only handle so many people at a time, etc.  huge consumption of time.

And any student of human nature can predict what happens:  for some reason, larger people tend to be ill or away on weigh-in day.  So the very people who most need to be weighed are the least likely to show up to be weighed.  You have to chase them down and in the meantime we waste a significant amount of time weighing the people who don't need to be weighed.

So, if we have a "commanders need a backbone implant" problem, I honestly disagree that a time-consuming new rule will sve the problem that needs to be solved.

Understandable Ned. I can tell you my job in the Military was to help with the weigh ins since i was a medic. I actually almost failed the weigh in twice, but because of the Tape, and being put in the Fat Guy PT Group they let me stay. I can tell you, being a disabled vet, it is rough trying to keep this weight off.

Ned, with deference to the majority who comply, it can be very difficult to try and make the case for compliance when we have
a fair number of high-visibility members at various echelons who fudge or ignore the regs.

A national weigh-in day, or a memo from the national commander mandating strict enforcement of the standards removes the
ability of a member to point up, down, or sideways and say "What about them? ", and it also relieves the reluctant ones
from taking the blame.

How about 2 months of the year as the safety briefing we do a weigh-in?  Spring and Fall.  Bounce the number and the blues stay in the closet until
the next weigh-in, or you do one personally.  Don't want to weigh-in, show up in whites.

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2013, 03:23:28 AM
You have to chase them down and in the meantime we waste a significant amount of time weighing the people who don't need to be weighed.

No need to chase them down.  Just say that they can't wear the AF-style uniform if they don't complete the annual weigh-in.  No muss, no fuss.  If they show up to the next meeting in an AF style you start the disciplinary process. 

There are several ways you could go about implementing the system -- not sure a 1-shot annual weigh in for all members would be my choice. 

I've heard it said many times that wearing the AF-style uniform is a privilege.  Asking our members to earn that privilege by standing on a scale doesn't seem like asking for much.

I don't think this is a squadron commander backbone problem.  It is a process problem.  We don't have a process for ensuring compliance and don't even suggest one to our leaders.  Heck, putting in a sentence in the new 39-1 saying that squadron commanders may conduct routine weigh-ins would be satisfactory to me.  And I fully realize the implications of using may instead of shall.  I just don't think most squadron commanders think they have that authority or an idea of how to use it. 

Give that a shot and if it doesn't work, then maybe we should move on to a mandatory program. 

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2013, 03:23:28 AM
As an Army company commander, we did twice yearly weigh-ins and PT tests.  They pretty much consumed an entire training day.  People need time to dress and undress; the clipboard guy and the scale can only handle so many people at a time, etc.  huge consumption of time.

There's really no need to have members dress and undress during any theoretical weigh-ins.  The notes section of Attachment 1 of CAPM 39-1 contains the following statements:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, ATTACHMENT 1
2. A weight allowance of up to 3 pounds for clothing (excluding footwear) is authorized.
3. Height measurements do not include footwear.

In practice, you can have members show up in their Blues, remove their shoes to be measured and weighed, and just add those three pounds to the Maximum Allowable Weight for their height.

As long as we have wing and region CCs ignoring the height and weight requirements it will be an up hill battle to get the troops to adhere to the ht/wt standards.

All it takes is a Squadron Commander with some guts and the will to enforce the regs.
You might get some disgruntled types who might threaten to quit CAP but the majority of our members will comply with the regs.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2013, 04:01:01 AM
A national weigh-in day, or a memo from the national commander mandating strict enforcement of the standards removes the
ability of a member to point up, down, or sideways and say "What about them? ", and it also relieves the reluctant ones
from taking the blame.

Well, as I mentioned, having been through a hundred or so weigh-ins, I again point out that by definition they are essentially a waste of precious time for units simply because most people make weight and those who don't tend to avoid "National Weigh In Day".  It just seems silly to impose an hour or two of (mostly) wasted time on units that already vigorously complain that they don't have the time to do what we already ask of them.  Just look at the threads here on CT complaining about mandatory safety briefings.

And it is not "evidenced-based" in the sense that we have nothing to suggest that it will be any more effective than the current system of relying on commanders to enforce existing regulations.  By and large commanders already know who is too large, and if they are not enforcing it now, why are they going to enforce it then?

QuoteNo need to chase them down.  Just say that they can't wear the AF-style uniform if they don't complete the annual weigh-in.  No muss, no fuss.  If they show up to the next meeting in an AF style you start the disciplinary process.

With respect, even the Army is a little ahead of you on this one.  Uncle Sam has more administrative coercion available to help encourage large wayward soldiers to weigh in than CAP can ever hope for (not getting paid for the drill, bar to favorable personnel actions (schools, promotions, awards, etc), and even the UCMJ). 

My point is that even with all that, the Army experiences some difficulty getting people to weigh in, especially when they are motivated to not weigh in.  It still takes time to figure out who has and who hasn't weighed in and start taking all those adminsitrative sanctions.  CAP will inevitably experience at least some of that, and it will present a significant burden on commanders and units.  Never underestimate human nature.

QuoteHeck, putting in a sentence in the new 39-1 saying that squadron commanders may conduct routine weigh-ins would be satisfactory to me.

That seems reasonable and doable.  Let me see what I can do through the NUC.  We have most of the 39-1 rewrite in draft form, and a meeting coming up. 


And to all of you happily pointing out all the overweight region and wing commanders, was your Mom pursuaded to buy you a motorcycle when you told her that all the kids down the street has one?

In my 2-year CAP career, I have encountered 2 commanders who actually advised members who were out of H/W standards to buy BDUs instead of BBDUs. I think there is sometimes the misconception that the standards don't really matter for BDUs, just blues.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 02, 2013, 11:51:54 PM
CAP should either get serious about this issue and have mandatory weigh-ins on a regular basis for all those that choose to wear AF-style uniforms or convince the AF to drop the height/weight requirements or drop the AF uniform entirely.   

And if we drop the AF uniform entirely, what do we replace it with?  The current, no-change G/W blazer combo?  I'm on the way out if that happens.  You can say that I'm just in for the uniforms if you like; go ahead, even though it is untrue.

The fact is, as most know here on CT, I loathe that bloody "uniform."  I find it unattractive, monochromatic, not connected to aviation in any sense and if that is my only option...why stay in an organisation where, when I have to "dress-up" for a semiformal occasion, I have to wear a uniform that I loathe?  If that sounds selfish, let it be so.

Now if there's any chance of making changes to that combo, that's another matter (but so is my winning the lottery, and I have more chance at that than CAP does at making significant uniform changes; no offence to Sir Ned and his diligent work).  I know a lot of people just like it as is.  Whatever trips your trigger.  I am not one of them.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2013, 04:13:42 AM
No need to chase them down.  Just say that they can't wear the AF-style uniform if they don't complete the annual weigh-in.  No muss, no fuss.  If they show up to the next meeting in an AF style you start the disciplinary process. 

So you would exclude/discipline those who, through no fault of their own, do not meet H/W standards?  There are more of those than you may think.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2013, 02:50:12 AM
But, the fact that the AF takes fat people in their uniforms to be a big enough no-no that they won't let them wear AF-style uniforms means to me that it is important enough that we should take the extra step of having a compliance program for it on a national basis.

If they do it for their own membership, fine.  I have seen members of the Air Force - AD, Guard, and Reserve - who likely would not meet CAP H/W standards, to say nothing of Air Force standards.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2013, 02:50:12 AM
Maybe then they would start to take us a bit more seriously.

They'd have to learn who we are first.

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 03, 2013, 01:13:59 AM
I was trying to get a consensus on the uniforms as a whole.

Good luck with that one.

Quote from: PHall on January 03, 2013, 06:37:32 AM
All it takes is a Squadron Commander with some guts and the will to enforce the regs.
You might get some disgruntled types who might threaten to quit CAP but the majority of our members will comply with the regs.

+1000

On active duty we call it 'moral courage'. That guy might be your buddy but you corrected him when needed. Here it is more of the 'good ole boy' syndrom. You correct somebody in CAP and ten years later they are still upset you corrected them.

QuoteI again point out that by definition they are essentially a waste of precious time for units simply because most people make weight and those who don't tend to avoid "National Weigh In Day".

Most people make weight in the Army and other services because it is something that is checked and there are consequences if they don't.  That is not the situation in CAP where it is not checked at all. 

QuoteAnd if we drop the AF uniform entirely, what do we replace it with? 

I didn't say it was my preferred option, just that it was one of three ways we can approach the issue. 

QuoteSo you would exclude/discipline those who, through no fault of their own, do not meet H/W standards?  There are more of those than you may think.

Uh, I would discipline those who don't meet the standard we've had for 30 plus years.  Nothing new here.  Not saying that all CAP members have to meet some height/weight standard, just that the one we already have isn't being enforced. 

And if someone can't meet the height/weight standard for wear of the AF uniform it doesn't matter whether it is something they can control or not. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2013, 12:49:21 PM
And if someone can't meet the height/weight standard for wear of the AF uniform it doesn't matter whether it is something they can control or not.

That really creates a two-tier among our membership.

I have to fight to stay in limits...and it's a constant struggle for me because of two things:

Side effects of medication that I have to take.  I was a literal beanpole until I got put on medication.

It is not easy for me to do regular, vigorous exercise.  I have issues resulting from old injuries that sometimes make moving painful, to say nothing of trying to exercise.  And as I age (I'm coming up on 47 later this month), it ain't getting any better.

But I do my best.  Why?  Because I don't want to be relegated to wearing an ugly (in my opinion, one that is not shared universally) uniform.

To do what you are suggesting could create an "elitist" class...those who have the ability and aren't restricted by factors beyond their control to wear the AF uniform and everyone else who may well think, "gee, I'd really like to wear the AF uniform, but my body won't cooperate."

The CSU for a brief while was my "salvation"...but we know what happened with that. >:(

Simple, easy question.

Which serves the mission and the member better?

1) Having everyone in one "uniform", regardless of which it is?

2) Having some in one dress and some in another?

Answer this simple question and takes the steps necessary to make that happen, whatever that means.

^^^The question is...which uniform would that be?

It's not going to be the AF uniform.  No way are the AF going to relent on their H/W standards.

What does that leave us?

Quote from: CyBorg on January 03, 2013, 08:04:36 PM
^^^The question is...which uniform would that be?

No, that's not the question.  That's not a factor until after the question I posted is answered.

You first answer what is best for the mission and the member, and then you take steps from there.  We've been doing it
backwards and with pre-dispositions all along because the answer leads to ramifications which are unpleasant or hard.

The current state of the uniform is not good for the mission or the member, it serves a subjective, unattainable standard of the
parent service to no net gain for anyone, to the detriment of the members and the mission.

^^^But how would we answer that question, given that we are so divided on those who want to show us as the Air Force Auxiliary, and those who just want to show us as a glorified flying ES group?

Quote from: CyBorg on January 03, 2013, 08:19:55 PM
^^^But how would we answer that question, given that we are so divided on those who want to show us as the Air Force Auxiliary, and those who just want to show us as a glorified flying ES group?

Again, if you deal in facts and reality, not wishes, the conversations are simple.
The answer(s) should not be answer based on the expected answer, or how complicated the ramifications of the answers are.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 03, 2013, 08:19:55 PM
^^^But how would we answer that question, given that we are so divided on those who want to show us as the Air Force Auxiliary, and those who just want to show us as a glorified flying ES group?

Start from the position that CAP is the USAF Auxilliary and go from there. That means that our "one uniform to fit them all" should be as close to the current USAF uniform as possible. Anyone that doesn't like that uniform can wear the polo shirt or find another sandbox to play in.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2013, 08:25:47 PM
Again, if you deal in facts and reality, not wishes, the conversations are simple.

I'm still not picking you up. :-\

Quote from: NC Hokie on January 03, 2013, 09:14:35 PM
Start from the position that CAP is the USAF Auxilliary and go from there. That means that our "one uniform to fit them all" should be as close to the current USAF uniform as possible.

We had that in the CSU.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 03, 2013, 07:51:19 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2013, 12:49:21 PM
And if someone can't meet the height/weight standard for wear of the AF uniform it doesn't matter whether it is something they can control or not.

That really creates a two-tier among our membership.

Hiow?  It is the rule right now that if you don't meet the height/weight limits you can't wear the AF-style uniforms.  The two-tier system is already in effect (at least on paper).  Are you saying that you regularly exceed the limits and wear the AF-style uniform now and such a program would prevent you from doing so in the future?  If so, thats exactly what it would be designed for. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2013, 09:38:31 PM
Are you saying that you regularly exceed the limits and wear the AF-style uniform now and such a program would prevent you from doing so in the future?  If so, thats exactly what it would be designed for.

No.  I have a set of G/W that I begrudgingly wear, though I am just inside the limits for the AF uniform.

And just because we have the two-tier system on paper already does not make it right, and, as Eclipse has pointed out, causes a division in our membership.

OK, so I think we can all agree that option #1 - having everyone in the same uniform is the only one that serves the mission and the membership properly.  If accept that, then there are only two options.

1a) Relax or remove the weight restrictions and everyone wears the current USAF-Style uniforms.

1b) Move to a different uniform design that everyone can wear.

Those are your only two options, either choice has ramifications and both spread the pain around, which makes them good compromises in either case.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2013, 09:45:59 PM
OK, so I think we can all agree that option #1 - having everyone in the same uniform is the only one that serves the mission and the membership properly.  If accept that, then there are only two options.

1a) Relax or remove the weight restrictions and everyone wears the current USAF-Style uniforms.

1b) Move to a different uniform design that everyone can wear.

Those are your only two options, either choice has ramifications and both spread the pain around, which makes them good compromises in either case.

OK, then...I think I know what you're getting at.  However, both choices would be like moving heaven and earth.

1a) I really, really doubt the AF is going to budge on the H/W restrictions.
1b) I really, really doubt the CAP is going to allow anything other than the current status quo (G/W/blazer) because of the perceived "tick the AF off" factor.

1a) would be a non-starter.

1b) would be a "hold your nose and take your medicine" option, because a lot of members I personally know actually like the G/W/blazer, especially those who liked the CSU.  With many it's a "yeah, it sucks but it's all I can wear to be in regs compliance."  There are others who do like it for the cheap/convenience factor, but I have met very few who actually like the way it looks.

So, if we were to have everyone in one uniform (and I'm not opposed to that, as long as it's not the G/W/blazer), what would it comprise?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2013, 09:45:59 PM
OK, so I think we can all agree that option #1 - having everyone in the same uniform is the only one that serves the mission and the membership properly.

Come on Bob, you know better than that.

First, your "question" is flawed in several crucial ways.  Mostly, it falsely assumes that there is some common definition to determine what "serving the mission" actually means, and further that there is some metric that results in data that we can discern as "better" or "worse."

Clearly, for at least the last couple of decades since we made corporates mandatory for H/W, we have continued to save hundreds of lives, educated countless thousands of folks in aerospace education, and positively changed the lives of nearly a hundred thousand cadets.  (Those are our missions, correct?)

IOW, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that mandating corporate uniforms for larger members or those who do not choose to meet grooming standards has in any measurable way negatively affected our missions.

Are aircrew in blue flight suits measurably less skilled than aircrew in green flight suits?  Are ground team members in BBDUs less skillful than members in BDU? (. . .)

So, if there is no delta, it is hard to imagine that the missions are being "served" differently.  And it simply makes no sense to talk about "serving the mission and the membership properly."  The words sound nice, but do not carry a generally accepted meaning.  The result is meaningless.

You can use all the three dollar words you want, but ultimately we are just talking about personal opinions here -- what looks better or what "stigmatizes" some of the members.  Personal opinions are important.  Indeed many CAPTalkers are quite passionate on this subject.  But it is normally not a good idea to let personal opinions -- however sincerely-held and passionate -- drive policy.

The bottom line is that we have multiple uniforms for no other reason that because we need multiple uniforms to get our job done under the conditions we are given.  And each of the armed forces has about the same number of combinations as we do.  For the same reason -- they need them to do their job.

I would love to waive a magic wand and make Uncle Sam decide that we don't need H/W standards.  But if wishes were fishes . . . .

The Air Force wants us to dress professionally as we perform our missions.  And they want us to hold to (roughly) the same height / weight standards that they hold their own members to.  Some may choose to disagree with that, but it is not an unreasonable position for them to take.

Wow there is way to much thought on this.  How many other volunteer organizations require members to meet a H/W standard?

It is simple in regards to uniform and it is even clear if you do not meet the H/W standard or choose to comply with the grooming standards you DO NOT wear the AF style uniform you wear the Corp alternative. 

We as an organization offer a uniform alternative to the USAF style for those that are unable to or wait for it CHOOSE to not meet the criteria to wear the USAF style.  Many people have some medical condition that impacts their weight and honestly why open the door for more insecurities by having them weigh in or taping.

At the end of the it's the squadron commanders discretion and decision on enforcing the standards set forth in 39-1 in regards to H/W.

Since we are entertaining the mere thought of such thing lets go ahead and adopt the AF PT test minus the abdominal measurement for all folks planning on participating in ground teams, air crews and etc. 

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2013, 11:00:20 PM
Indeed many CAPTalkers are quite passionate on this subject.  But it is normally not a good idea to let personal opinions -- however sincerely-held and passionate -- drive policy.

Sir, wasn't it personal opinions of those higher up that cancelled the CSU?

I am not opposed to having a separate uniform for those who, for whatever reason, cannot/will not wear the AF uniform.

But does it have to be the grey/white/blazer status quo?

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 03, 2013, 11:06:25 PM
It is simple in regards to uniform and it is even clear if you do not meet the H/W standard or choose to comply with the grooming standards you DO NOT wear the AF style uniform you wear the Corp alternative. 

Even if you hate the bloody thing...

Quote from: CyBorg on January 03, 2013, 09:59:27 PMSo, if we were to have everyone in one uniform (and I'm not opposed to that, as long as it's not the G/W/blazer), what would it comprise?

Irrelevant until the initial question is answered.  I literally don't care what the uniform actually is.  It's really a micro part of the question.

My overall point here is that we don't do things in the proper order.  We run into the CC's office with a cool hat and say "we should wear this",
and then try to justify it.

We need to ask the hard, direct, mission-related questions and then implement the proper solution regardless of whether its painful
or unpopular.

CAP's reluctance to do this for far too long, in just about every corner of the organization, is why we are where we are today.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 03, 2013, 11:07:55 PM

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2013, 11:00:20 PM
Indeed many CAPTalkers are quite passionate on this subject.  But it is normally not a good idea to let personal opinions -- however sincerely-held and passionate -- drive policy.

Sir, wasn't it personal opinions of those higher up that cancelled the CSU?

Yes.  That doesn't make it right, however.  They may have been to kill it quietly.  I don't know, all those except those for who made the decision will never know.

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2013, 11:00:20 PMCome on Bob, you know better than that.

No, we don't.  That question and issue is a core, baseline failing of CAP.

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2013, 11:00:20 PM
Clearly, for at least the last couple of decades since we made corporates mandatory for H/W,

You can stop there. And answer this question.

Why?

I'll answer it for you.

Because the USAF is more concerned about some perceived issue with the image of their uniform then mission mandates, but it knows
full well that CAP would literally collapse overnight if those who can't wear the blues were forced to leave because they had no other option.

So it wants the people and the effort, but not at the cost of the image.

Pretty straightforward to me.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 03, 2013, 11:08:41 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 03, 2013, 11:06:25 PM
It is simple in regards to uniform and it is even clear if you do not meet the H/W standard or choose to comply with the grooming standards you DO NOT wear the AF style uniform you wear the Corp alternative. 

Even if you hate the bloody thing...

Yes sir, even if you hate the bloody thing.  The only corp uniform I wear when I have to is the polo and that's it I do not like it at all and I do not wear unless it is required. 

No one said you had to like the thing but it is a requirement for participation in unit and outside unit activities. 

Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2013, 11:14:57 PM
That question and issue is a core, baseline failing of CAP.

You keep saying that.

But it isn't true.  CAP is not "failing" by any objective standard.

Membership is up.  Lives get saved, cadets get trained.

It is silly to even suggest that a ES mission has gone unperformed because we have multiple uniforms.

Indeed, the reverse is true.  We have multiple uniforms precisely because it allows anyone physically able to perform the mission and save lives.

Quoteanswer this question: Why [did the AF impose h/w standards]?

I'll answer it for you.

Because the USAF is more concerned about some perceived issue with the image of their uniform then mission mandates, but it knows
full well that CAP would literally collapse overnight if those who can't wear the blues were forced to leave because they had no other option.

So it wants the people and the effort, but not at the cost of the image.

Interesting conjecture. Might even be true.  The AF is certainly concerned about their image.  Just like every other large professional organization in the country, including us.

Doesn't really seem that strange when you think about it.

Remember, they are only asking that we adhere to (roughly) the same standards they hold themselves to.  They actually kick people out who don't meet their standards.  For us, they have provided a way to continue to serve the country while still presenting a professional appearance.

Sounds like they are bending over backwards to help us and grow our membership, and that is a Good Thing.

(And historically, it is worth remembering that the AF itself didn't always have h/w standards.  They imposed them on themselves, and at some point got around to requiring us to meet them (roughly) as well.  The only difference is, with our alternative uniforms, our members can continue to serve.)

This uniform schizophrenia has been a problem for over a decade if not more.  It negatively impacts moral and initiative, and in some
cases costs us members.

I never said anything about ES missions not being performed because of a garment, and last I checked ES wasn't our only mission.

We have a very large CP in which many of the leaders are charged with mentoring cadets on wearing a uniform properly when they,
themselves, are not allowed to wear it (even though some do).  This, in fact, is regularly noted by cadets as a serious impediment to
both morale and credibility.

The fact that CAP is apparently able to perform missions, and even grown and be successful, doesn't make this "not a problem".  It just means
that we can do well despite challenges, and leaves one to wonder what could be accomplished if we stopped shooting ourselves in the
foot and wasting time on trivial matters that could be closed with a paragraph or a difficult decision and moved on into things
that actually matter.

That doesn't mean you ignore the issue, or just say "Que Sera, Sera", it means you take action to close the discussion and then move on.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2013, 11:53:55 PM
This uniform schizophrenia has been a problem for over a decade if not more. 

Well, if you define "problem" as a situation where some members sincerely and passionately disagree with our current uniform policies, then I guess we have a problem.  Because I can only agree that that is true.  Heck, I don't agree with all of our uniform policies.

But not every problem has a solution.  Particularly problems that can't be quantified.

There will never, ever be full consensus on uniforms in CAP.  Ever.

Because people's subjectve standards for uniforms will always vary.  And some feel very passionate about their opinions.

Heck, I was in the Army for a lot of years, including our transitions to ACUs and berets. (And back to patrol caps.)  Incredibly strong opinions surfaced about Velcro, camo patterns, and French hats.

One has only to look at the AF Times to get a sense that some members of the AF are not very happy with the ABU.

So, until this "problem" can be quantified, I'm afraid it is a bit optimistic to think that we can ever solve a "problem" that comes down to differing subjective opinons.

Our current uniform constellation is a result of lot of wise decisions and unhappy compromises by our senior leadership working with our AF colleagues.

We are able to make it work, and the great majority of our members wear their uniforms with pride while doing the work of CAP.

We have a process for suggesting needed changes to the uniform.  It is rusty, inexact, and creaky, but from where I sit on the NUC, I can see if functioning.  We will see some improvements in the near to middle future.

But if anyone is waiting for the "all USAF-style" or "all corporate" uniform universe, I suspect it will be a very long wait.

And until then, we have work to do.

Ned, please stop insinuating this is somehow a subjective issue with unidentifiable problems.

The problems are easily quantifiable, and the solution is simple.

Whether or not there is membership consensus is irrelevant to the solution.

I'm not insinuating it so much as stating as directly as I can.

Feel free to quantify the problem and state the "simple solution" in language so plain a senior member can understand.

The reason that the lack of consensus is relevant is because the lack of consensus is actually the "problem" that you and others are trying so hard to solve.

I don't mean to minimize the issue or imply that your concerns are not appropriate or sincere.  Indeed, quite the opposite.  I fully understand the very real concerns expressed here.  As it turns out, I agree that it can be unfair that larger members are restricted in their uniform choices.  And in an organization that values awards and skill badges, corporate uniforms do not permit some members to wear what others in the USAF style wear.

I get that.  I really, really do.

The problem is that there is simply no solution that will be perceived as "fair" by all members.  That's why consensus is so elusive.  And why "consensus" is actually the problem.

We have a compromise that works.  It is not perfect; it is not perfectly fair for everyone. 

But nothing suggested so far here, at any NB meeting I've attended, or heard at the NUC will be perceived as universally "fair."

Because fairness in this area is indeed subjective.  And there will never ever be unanimous consensus on CAP uniforms.

Ever.

From what I've seen, the CSU was on it's way to becoming the senior standard uniform. Not by regulation or fiat, but by it's appearance. Just before the NEC killed, I started seeing more and more seniors who met the h/w wearing the CSU. Including the jacket. Perhaps what caused the NEC to kill it was the fear that seniors would transition out of the Air Force service uniforms and into the CSU on their own accord, which might lead to the Air Force pulling the AF service uniforms for seniors.

That still left the fuzzies...

Again, consensus is not relevant, however the continued schism is unfair to what is likely more then 1/2 the adult membership
(probably more if regs were actually enforced).

The preferential situation would be to simply adopt a single standard, and then accept the consequences, rather then continue to
allow two "separate but equal" groups within CAP.

It's supposed to be a "uniform".  It's not, and it's detrimental to mission and morale.

That won't change until it changes, and making excuses as to why implementing the only obvious solution wouldn't be easy isn't the answer either.

CAP's challenges are varied, but most are clear and straightforward.

The answers are also clear and simple (not easy, simple).

Yet we continue to choose status quo over progress and solution.

Inc ran a salient article a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.inc.com/brian-evje/eight-opportunities-to-lead-in-the-new-year.html (http://www.inc.com/brian-evje/eight-opportunities-to-lead-in-the-new-year.html)

"A leader must consistently demonstrate commitment to the shared purpose of the organization. When a leader decides not to pursue a complicated or messy problem, it can easily appear that the leader is simply taking the path of least resistance.  Conversely, when a leader embraces an inconvenient challenge, the message is clearly one of devotion to the shared purpose."

Eclipse,

You say we could not function without those who must wear the G/W. I know we would also lose members if we completely eliminated the USAF-style uniforms, especially for cadets. I think a complete elimination of the military-esque uniforms would cause us to lose even more members.

It's not a matter of 'playing Air Force' so much as acting, and behaving like one of the most highly respected organizations in the United States. Corporate America and the 'suits of command' of the world are not exactly the most trusted these days.

I also think the further we move away from the culture of the military the more problem we would have with GOBs and command-by-committee mentality and the like. I think the real problem a lot of cadets have that annoys them and causes a loss of morale is the lack of enforcement of standards we do have. You can be a perfectly fit and clean-shaven person, you wear the G/W and look like garbage...you lose their respect. Too many (though not all) of the all-polo all-the-time crowd tend to display a 'you can't make me' attitude that also degrade the image of a professional organization

As to the CSU, I thought the way it was created and done was faaaar too much too fast and reaked of wannabeism more than anyone in a service dress uniform. It was flashy, bordering on gaudy, and seemed to go to an effort to go 'See! See! We can't do this in service dress but you can't stop us from doing it in corporate! (The hard rank for example.) I think if they had used blue braid, and the same slides (for uniformity) on the CSU that were used on teh Service Dress it would have gotten a better reaction from those who disliked it.

I think if the CSU and Service Dress were that close, we'd have a decent enough match that isn't that significantly different than the look of cadets in Old-Style service jackets mixed in with those in new-style. Heck, maybe that'd be a solution. Have the old-style jacket, worn in the same configuration as the new-style, worn like the CSU.

As to the objection for the fuzzy folks...that I am a little less sympathetic toward. The vast majority of the time it is pure choice. I think we could do something like the military does with shaving waivers, but beyond that...if we want to say shave your beard or you can't play...and someone is that enamored with their facial/head hair they're unwilling to give it up to serve...myeh. I think they are maybe a wee bit too enamored with their own hair. But hey...I've had to remain clean shaven and close-cut hair for the last 14-15 years of my life, so maybe I'm just used to it at this point. (That and I can't grow a mustache well...you could ask my Sq/CC about me during mustache March...it was sad.)

That being said, some folks are going to look bad no matter what they're wearing. I'm sorry, they don't look very professional. Some folks have legitimate medical conditions and I try not to prejudge what I expect of their work based on their appearance. But that doesn't mean their appearance isn't going to stick out to me to some degree.

Nice quote.  And one I happen to agree with. ( Even though i suspect you were attempting some sort of cutesy comment about my leadership skills.)

I indeed like to think that I "demonstrate commitment to the shared purpose of the organization."  I have invested countless hours in the last year in dealing with "messy problems" like corporate governance and developing the strategic plan.  I feel pretty good about our accomplishments.

But, my friend., uniforms have little if anything to do with "the shared purpose of the organization."

Although an outsider would be hard pressed to tell from reading CAPTalk., our "purpose" is our Congessionally-mandated missions.  And not how we are dressed while doing them.

I continue to be concerned that some CAP officers are confused about this and prioritize their efforts toward clothing issues.

Your "solution" of simply booting all the h/w compliant folks out of the USAF style uniforms will not be perceived as fair. 

Because it isn't.

If there were an easy answer, we would have done it by now.

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 03, 2013, 11:25:59 PM
Yes sir, even if you hate the bloody thing.  The only corp uniform I wear when I have to is the polo and that's it I do not like it at all and I do not wear unless it is required. 

No one said you had to like the thing but it is a requirement for participation in unit and outside unit activities.

That is a really, really good way to build morale.  NOT.

I own more corporate uniforms than you do, actually.  I have the BBDU and blue flight suit.  I at least feel some connection to the AF and to our heritage with those uniforms.

AND I have the G/W, and when I do wear it, it is clean, pressed and in full order, even though I hate the bloody thing.  I don't own a blazer and have no plans to.  I have no connection to the AF (except for the fine print on the nameplate) and CAP's heritage through a monochromatic "uniform" that looks like an old photo negative.

No, uniforms are not all we do, but they do have an important connection to morale.

I've cited this example before, but it is a salient one.

In 1968, the Canadian Defence Minister, Paul Hellyer, merged the three Canadian services (Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy) into a single service...against the wishes of the vast majority of the services (except for some of the Quebecois members).  He took away their British-derived uniforms and stuck them all into a green uniform with Army ranks.

(http://mpmuseum.org/securuniform/cf/cfgreen.jpg)

The only way you could tell what "environment" you were in were cap and collar dogs.  The uniform was reviled, especially by naval and air force personnel.  Morale went into the toilet (several Generals, Air Marshals and Admirals resigned, and many rank-and-file troops did not re-enlist, retired, or transferred to other Commonwealth services), and operational, mission readiness suffered (emphasis mine).  Morale has an effect on operational readiness.

Over the years there was a steady effort to reverse "unification"...in the '80s the Navy and Air Force got their own uniforms back, and the Navy had its ranks restored (unfortunately, the Air Force didn't).  Finally, in 2011, the Harper government formally restored the titles of Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force.

Morale, esprit de corps, etc. are all mostly unquantifiable yet very much a factor in how a unit/organisation gets its job done.

My own personal feeling, and it's shared by others (though I don't claim universality) is not so much that "fat and fuzzies" don't get to wear the AF uniform.  The problem is with that sector of the membership, you are stuck with a plain, colourless, unattractive "uniform."

I have no problem with an alternative uniform...but the design of the current one is just plain ugly.  OK, that's my opinion, but I know I'm not the only one sharing it.

Ned - I didn't aim that at you, or anyone else, specifically (as you say, we generally agree on more then we disagree), but I think it very much applies to the way a lot of decisions are made in CAP (and similar organizations).

I am also not advocating any specific position, only that the decisions be made based on hard-truths, with no predisposition - that's the problem here, far too many people can't answer the questions in the generic without a personal filter, or a predisposition to assume that one or the other direction
is "not possible".  Of course they are.

I guarantee that a disinterested third party, with no skin in the game, would respond that having all the members in "uniform" dress would be more preferable and advantageous to the total mission and membership then the hodge-podge we have today.  I'll use the same analogy here as I recently used with Windows 8 - "It's as if they were put together by someone who knows 'of' uniforms, but never actually wore one themselves..."

And to say that the leadership has been busy with other, more pressing problems, doesn't negate the need to fix this situation.  Simple acknowledgment of the issues would probably take us 1/4 of the way to a fix, since nothing is ever fixed until people recognize it's broken.

Lastly, a response that the uniform issue hasn't kept CAP from performing the missions doesn't pay the issue it's due.  You and I both know that the
vast majority of CAP work gets done by a small percentage of the membership who are hyper (perhaps overly) engaged and brute force their way to success, many times in spite of the organization. We owe it to those people to remove the bottlenecks and smooth things out for them.

A car's mission is transportation, it can travel a great distance with a flat tire, but you'll have to reduce your speed significantly and it'll be a lot more work then it needs to be.  Unrepaired it will eventually come to a dead stop, and may be unrepairable. 

CAP would be much better off if all the baseline, simple questions were addressed and closed, so that the time wasted in those conversations that happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...stopped and we talked about actual mission-related issues (I don't mean here, I mean at the units, etc.).

Quote from: Eclipse on January 04, 2013, 08:07:47 PM
that's the problem here, far too many people can't answer the questions in the generic without a personal filter,

I think there is much truth in that.  I'd wager a beer or two that there is a direct correlation between a given person's preferred solution and their position on the h/w table.  ;)  It sounds like you agree.

Quote
I guarantee that a disinterested third party, with no skin in the game, would respond that having all the members in "uniform" dress would be more preferable and advantageous to the total mission and membership then the hodge-podge we have today. 

Again, I think there is truth in there as well. 

But, I submit that our distinterested third party cannot start from Square One, but has to carefully consider the "costs" of re-engineering our current uniform suite (or "hodgepodge," if you will)  given our real-world constraints, which include AF mandates and sunk costs of the membership.  And then compare them to the "benefits" of simplifying our uniform set.

Because I promise you that our volunteer leadership has to consider that everytime this discussion comes up.  Let's first consider the relatively "simple" but direct costs of a massive uniform conversion - what I calculate to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct costs to the members who will have to purchase different uniforms.  Maybe we can effectively manage that if we use long enough phase-out periods (5-10 years).

We then have to consider the reasons for AF-style uniforms in the first place; primarily affiliation with our parent service.  The service that provides 90% of our funding.  The service that mandates that we have a cadet leadership program and perform other non-combatant missions of the USAF.  They like having as many members as possible in USAF style uniforms.  It says so right in the AFIs.  If they felt strongly that having all of us in the same (non-USAF) uniform was important, they could do that with a stroke of a pen tomorrow.

I cannot come up with a measurable "benefit" for uniform simplification to weigh against the hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct cost to the volunteer members.  Perhaps you can.  But until then, the scales will never balance in favor of a drastic change to our current uniform scheme.

QuoteAnd to say that the leadership has been busy with other, more pressing problems, doesn't negate the need to fix this situation.  Simple acknowledgment of the issues would probably take us 1/4 of the way to a fix, since nothing is ever fixed until people recognize it's broken.

First, let me point out that although the leadership has indeed been busy with other more pressing issues, I don't mean to imply that we have not spent a great deal of time working this particular concern.  Heck, one of the significant criticisms of our leadership seen repeated endlessly on this very forum is that the NB abd NEC spent far too much time talking about uniforms and not enough time running the missions.  Seriously, the NB spent hours and hours debating this very topic.  The National Uniform Committee (and all of its predeccesor equivalents) devotes hours and hours of senior leader time to this topic.

There is literally nothing that has been brought up here that has not been "recognized" and discussed at length by the leadership.  As you know, some of us regularly participate here, and others often lurk.

And decisions and compromises have been made.  We have a parallel system of USAF-style and corporate alternatives.  You sincerely and passionately disagree with these decisions  And you are certainly not alone.

But these decisions were not made out of ignorance or because they simply didn't know how strongly you feel about the issue.  The decisions were made because it was the best balance of competing interests that could be made.

QuoteLastly, a response that the uniform issue hasn't kept CAP from performing the missions doesn't pay the issue it's due.  You and I both know that the
vast majority of CAP work gets done by a small percentage of the membership who are hyper (perhaps overly) engaged and brute force their way to success, many times in spite of the organization. We owe it to those people to remove the bottlenecks and smooth things out for them.

I agree that a relative few folks seem to do the lion's share of work.  And all things being equal, I do think it is every leader's obligation to smooth the way and make it easier for everyone to do their jobs as quickly and efficiently as possible.

But I cannot wrap my arms around the notion that uniform policy is a "bottleneck".  Maybe that's why I keep coming back to trying to quantify this problem and use some metric related to mission performance.  Because if the mission is getting done, I can't figure out what you mean by bottleneck in this context.  Obviously morale and good will are important, and perceived fairness is always going to be a part of that.  But impacted morale is not a bottleneck unless and until it affects mission readiness.  And there is nothing to suggest that unhappiness about uniforms impacts us significantly in a way that we can fix by unilaterally re-engineering our uniforms.

That's where my concern about consensus comes back in.  I understand that unhappiness with uniforms is part of overall morale.  But if after changing our uniforms, we still have a lot of people unhappy with the uniforms, we haven't done anything except make some uniform vendor very, very happy.

QuoteA car's mission is transportation, it can travel a great distance with a flat tire, but you'll have to reduce your speed significantly and it'll be a lot more work then it needs to be.  Unrepaired it will eventually come to a dead stop, and may be unrepairable.

Non-concur in your example.  A car is not a mission; a car is a tool to get a mission done.  If my tool (car) is broken, that means I should be able to measure how it reduces my ability to get the mission done.  I can calculate when it is time to buy a new car, or whether it would be more efficient to take a bus.  Or whatever.

It bears repeating that uniforms are tools to help us accomplish our Congressionally-mandated missions.  If changing our uniforms will better help us accomplish those missions, then we can and should discuss it and make the appropriate changes.  I am still waiting for somebody to make the case that changing our policies will positively affect our mission capabilities.

So again, we come down to the inability to quantify uniform issues as a "problem".  I can manage things with a metric; but if everything is working as well or better than it ever has, it is hard to engineer a "fix."

QuoteCAP would be much better off if all the baseline, simple questions were addressed and closed, so that the time wasted in those conversations that happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...stopped and we talked about actual mission-related issues (I don't mean here, I mean at the units, etc.).

I can only agree that these kinds of repetative discussions at any level that do not lead to change are distracting and -- by definition -- non-productive.  But of course, we had endless discussions about CAP uniforms before h/w was a twinkle in the AF's eye.  And I suspect we will be having them in the future, even if we were to adopt the solution you propose.

Which is why I brought up my Army experience.  A lot of folks just hated the new ACUs.  And I have to admit, crowding together with a bunch of soldiers in the back of IFV or on a C-130 resulted in getting stuck together in unexpected ways and a comical inadvertant exchange of patches.  And that was nothing compared to the passion raised by the berets.

But ultimately we had a job to do, regardless of how we were dressed.  So does CAP.


(Boy, this got too long in a hurry.)

If I may, sirs...

Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
I'd wager a beer or two that there is a direct correlation between a given person's preferred solution and their position on the h/w table.  ;)

I don't drink  ;D, but that is one reason I posted my (misunderstood) poll about how many members are within H/W/G limits yet still choose to wear the G/W over the AF uniform.

Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
But, I submit that our distinterested third party cannot start from Square One, but has to carefully consider the "costs" of re-engineering our current uniform suite (or "hodgepodge," if you will)  given our real-world constraints, which include AF mandates and sunk costs of the membership.  And then compare them to the "benefits" of simplifying our uniform set.

Sir, I posit that, if by "AF mandates" you mean the AFI 10-2701 directive of "low-light/at-a-distance," this is unquantifiable and unenforceable.  Confusion is always going to be in the eye of the beholder, regardless of light conditions or distance.

Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
Maybe we can effectively manage that if we use long enough phase-out periods (5-10 years).

We got a lot less time than that (though I concede we did get two years) for phaseout of the CSU.

I think that the phaseout of the old v. new G/W set (c. 1995) was less than that, and the (thankful) switch from maroon to grey shoulder marks was virtually "immediate-as-soon-as-you-can-get-them."  I didn't waste any time getting those and consigning the berry boards to the circular file.

Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
We then have to consider the reasons for AF-style uniforms in the first place; primarily affiliation with our parent service.  The service that provides 90% of our funding.  The service that mandates that we have a cadet leadership program and perform other non-combatant missions of the USAF.  They like having as many members as possible in USAF style uniforms.  It says so right in the AFIs. 

I ask this: why are events of over 20 years ago, when we got the blue CAP shoulder marks and hard rank taken away, because of the bad behaviour of a few, still factoring into the AF's policies on our uniforms today?  If they weren't, after a suitable period of contrition, the AF would have returned our hard rank and blue boards.

Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
If they felt strongly that having all of us in the same (non-USAF) uniform was important, they could do that with a stroke of a pen tomorrow.

They could, but of what benefit would it be to them?  And of what benefit to them does it serve to only allow us to have two "colours" of choice in a non-USAF uniform?

Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
First, let me point out that although the leadership has indeed been busy with other more pressing issues, I don't mean to imply that we have not spent a great deal of time working this particular concern.  Heck, one of the significant criticisms of our leadership seen repeated endlessly on this very forum is that the NB abd NEC spent far too much time talking about uniforms and not enough time running the missions.  Seriously, the NB spent hours and hours debating this very topic.  The National Uniform Committee (and all of its predeccesor equivalents) devotes hours and hours of senior leader time to this topic.

I do not dispute what you say, and no doubt there is much behind-the-scenes that I or the average worker bee in CAP does not know.

However, it seems to me that in the aftermath of the CSU debacle, there has been a hardening of attitudes in the uniform powers-that-be toward maintaining the status quo; i.e., if grey-and-white is what we've got, then grey-and-white is all you get.

I, for one, would be overjoyed if the "corporate" uniform were changed to permit:

1. A blue, civilian-make, airline-type shirt.  Van Heusen makes the exact same shirt as the white one, only in blue, readily available at pilot shop outlets.

(http://www.crewgear.com/images/products/200x250/vhassblue.jpg)

2. Replacement of the blazer with something such as an airline aircrew coat, allowing CAP ribbons and badges.
3. Adoption of a headdress.

Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
And decisions and compromises have been made.  We have a parallel system of USAF-style and corporate alternatives.  You sincerely and passionately disagree with these decisions  And you are certainly not alone.

I know that regardless of how I or anyone else view things, the Air Force is not, for whatever reason, going to allow a return to pre-1990 uniform standards, so that's not even a concern.

I cannot speak for others but the only disagreement I have is retaining the status quo for "corporate" uniforms.  We got the smurf suit changed to a MUCH better alternative, we got BBDU's, so why cannot there be the minimum-change suggestions I outlined?

As briefly as I can . . .

Quote from: CyBorg on January 04, 2013, 10:59:26 PM
  but that is one reason I posted my (misunderstood) poll about how many members are within H/W/G limits yet still choose to wear the G/W over the AF uniform.

Polls are tricky.  Sometimes I wear G/W; sometimes I wear USAF-style.  Doesn't mean that I necessarily pick one "over" the other.  Some days I wear bowties; some days I wear four-in-hands.  Not everyone has choices, but I do.

QuoteSir, I posit that, if by "AF mandates" you mean the AFI 10-2701 directive of "low-light/at-a-distance,"

Mostly I was thinking about the h/w requirements, but I agree that the 10-2701 requirments complicate the problem somewhat.

Quote

I ask this: why are events of over 20 years ago, when we got the blue CAP shoulder marks and hard rank taken away, because of the bad behaviour of a few, still factoring into the AF's policies on our uniforms today?  If they weren't, after a suitable period of contrition, the AF would have returned our hard rank and blue boards.

Based on my observations, there is nobody still in the Air Force who was involved in the change from blue to maroon shoulder marks and/or the elimination of hard rank.  They've all retired and are playing golf somewhere.

And it smacks of paranoia to think that they have secret files going back decades to explain the "real reason" that changes were made.  These are just professsional staff officers and NCOs doing their jobs for 2-3 years at a time before they move on to other assignments.

They don't care about "contrition".  They honestly probably have no idea that we ever wore anything other than grey shoulder marks.  So they are not waiting to "return" anything.  If we wanted to change something, all we need to do is ask.

But they are going to ask "why does this need to change?  Grey shoulder marks seem to work fine.  What's the big deal?  And hey, there is some AFI talking about low-light something.  I don't really understand it, but it sounds like we shouldn't change anything until we identify a need to do so."

IOW, we will need to justify a change, and IMHO it will need to be more than something like "we want to look like we did 20 years ago."  But ultimately it isn't my call one way or another.  Just letting you know how military bureaucrats work.  It is not Evil, it is just life.

Quote[Concerning the AF forcing us all into one non USAF style uniform]

They could, but of what benefit would it be to them?  And of what benefit to them does it serve to only allow us to have two "colours" of choice in a non-USAF uniform?

None that I can think of.  Which was my point.  If they wanted us in one uniform, we'd be in one uniform.

QuoteHowever, it seems to me that in the aftermath of the CSU debacle, there has been a hardening of attitudes in the uniform powers-that-be toward maintaining the status quo; i.e., if grey-and-white is what we've got, then grey-and-white is all you get.

I, for one, would be overjoyed if the "corporate" uniform were changed to permit:

[a perfectly logical and good-looking uniform that I omitted.]

I don't think it is fair to say that there has been any "change in attitude" by the senior leadership one way or another.

Remember, it was the senior leadership (or at least some part of it) that authorized the CSU to begin with -- just to allow larger members a more professional uniform.

The problem with the "I am not very happy with Uniform A; I think Uniform B would look better" kind of arguments is that someone else is going to be arguing "Well, as long as we are doing away with Uniform A, I think we should replace it with Uniform C.  I don't particularly care for Uniform A or proposed Uniform B.  C is definately the ticket."

And so on.  This gets back to the "we will never. ever, have full consensus on CAP uniforms" argument.  And once we start down the path of tweaking them because of personal preferences (what an individual thinks looks "better" or "more professional",) it is hard to stop.  And it becomes and endless (and thankless) job on the Uniform Committee.

QuoteI know that regardless of how I or anyone else view things, the Air Force is not, for whatever reason, going to allow a return to pre-1990 uniform standards, so that's not even a concern.

I cannot speak for others but the only disagreement I have is retaining the status quo for "corporate" uniforms.  We got the smurf suit changed to a MUCH better alternative, we got BBDU's, so why cannot there be the minimum-change suggestions I outlined?

There are two discussions going on here -- some are arguing for a switch from the current parallel USAF style / Corporate Alternatives "2 track system" to a single non-USAF uniform set.  That will cost tens of thousands of members hundreds of dollars each.  And maybe every single member hundreds of dollars each.  All for little or no measurable benefit.

Others are asking why we can't simply tweak the existing corporate alternatives a little bit to make them "more professional."  My answer to that is: we can and should do that as soon as someone can make a case stronger than the "I dislike current corporates; I think this ________ would look much better."

Ned
Why can't the uniform committee and/or National get a deal with a clothing manufacturer, Dickies or whoever, for a specific shade and style of gray pants for the G/W uniform? It doesn't even have to go through Vanguard. That would standartdize that particular uniform as the standard corporate uniform. You'll never convince me that the polo, which is a glorified T-shirt is a uniform.
One rteason that the AF blues will continue to be worn is not because some Seniors like them, but because of the cadet program. It's a recruiting tool for CAP and it's free to cadets. Go to several Squadrons and see the Seniors wearing blues, flight suits, polos, aviator shirt etc etc. There are to many corporate uniform variations authorized. I remember when the rtegulations said the flight suits could only be worn for flight activities. Now it's a "I'm to lazy to put on a uniform so I'll slip into a flight suit", even if the nearest airport is 70 milers away. We can go back tothe pre-1990 uniforms, but we can go back to the pre-1990's regulations on uniform wear.

Personally I see nothing wrong with the grey epaulets and the grey nameplates it is a far cry better than the blue nameplate and the maroon epaulets. 

We do not have a need for blue epaulets nor hard rank at all.  From what I have seen and dug up the berry boards were coming anyway, the particular behavior of some individuals may or may not have contributed to it.  There has been nothing that I have seen hat has said flat out because Joe Schmoe was trolling for salutes resulted in it. 

Col Lee,  I would have to agree with some here in that we need a clearer definition on what exactly constitutes "Medium Grey" and appropriate pants.  I know one thing for sure that would be nice to see is a definitive yes or no in regard to cargo/tac pants.  And have 39-1 in clear plain language.  And something in there in regards to headgear for the G/W combo that is plain and clear. 

One thing I have noticed is that too many people are to afraid of calling people out when they have blatantly violated the uniform regs for one reason or another.

I think that before we start trying to weigh in or tape senior members to ensure compliance we need a more clear cut uniform manual and enforcement of it. 

Quote from: Ned on January 04, 2013, 11:57:28 PM
Others are asking why we can't simply tweak the existing corporate alternatives a little bit to make them "more professional."  My answer to that is: we can and should do that as soon as someone can make a case stronger than the "I dislike current corporates; I think this ________ would look much better."

I actually have a prepared, thought out proposal for the changes I suggest (for clarification: the grey trousers, shoulder marks and nameplate would not change; only the white-to-blue shirt would be changed; a service coat and headwear would be phased-in).  With your permission, I will forward it to you via private message.

The gist of the message is that the current "corporate" uniform, as it stands today, has no connection with our history and heritage, either as an Auxiliary to the Air Force, our prior connection with the USAAF/USAAC, and the white shirt and blazer jacket are the prime factors with that.  Additionally, there is no headgear (other than the "CAP baseball cap," which can mean anything from the one got from VG to several I've seen on EvilBay), which makes rendering salutes outdoors awkward, since by Air Force standards one must only salute uncovered when indoors, reporting to a senior officer.

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 05, 2013, 03:05:20 AM
Personally I see nothing wrong with the grey epaulets and the grey nameplates it is a far cry better than the blue nameplate and the maroon epaulets. 

We do not have a need for blue epaulets nor hard rank at all.  From what I have seen and dug up the berry boards were coming anyway, the particular behavior of some individuals may or may not have contributed to it.  There has been nothing that I have seen hat has said flat out because Joe Schmoe was trolling for salutes resulted in it. 

They are better, but I came in just as the blue epaulettes/hard rank were being phased out.  Were you in then?  I remember a lot of resentment over that.

As for circumstances, [lmgtfy]Civil Air Patrol General Harwell self-promotion[/lmgtfy].

As for uniform grey trousers...mine are uniform.  I got them from a place in the UK that makes law-enforcement uniforms.   They cost a little more, but they look worlds better than what one would get at Walmart (where I don't shop anyway; personal convictions), JCP, Kohl's, etc., because they are designed for a uniform.  They are also very, very close in shade to the grey shoulder marks and nameplate.

Quote from: BillB on January 05, 2013, 12:26:36 AM
You'll never convince me that the polo, which is a glorified T-shirt is a uniform.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4915032554997321&pid=15.1)

(http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4539033969689767&pid=15.1)

(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4958613575567445&pid=15.1)

(http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4552198042813499&pid=15.1)

Sir, I may not have been in when those items were being phased out but I highly doubt the Harwell incident and a few possible SM's trolling for salutes alone caused the change. 

If you feel that was the sole cause alone then please provide a copy of the memo from NHQ or the USAF dictating such a change.  Everything I have seen here and in other aspects all points to hearsay, in regards to the Harwell incident if anything that has been said is factual the AF Gen had every right to be pissed.  The only thing I have seen is speculation.

Speculation .. that's highly plausible. Why else would you have such a hideous color placed up there?

"No ONE WILL EVER MISTAKE THEM AGAIN!"

There isn't really any other explanation that I can see as legit except some/one/committee was really disgusted by -something- that happened.

BTW: I'm sure Col. Lee knows all of that stuff. Sending him to a LMGTFY link is really kinda tacky.

Quote from: a2capt on January 05, 2013, 06:23:21 AM
BTW: I'm sure Col. Lee knows all of that stuff. Sending him to a LMGTFY link is really kinda tacky.

Actually sir that was directed at me.  Since I obviously have never seen or heard anything about some trolls or the Harwell incident. 

Allow me a "geezer indulgence" for a moment while I comment on one of my favorite observations: irony on CAPTalk.

First, although I wasn't around when the blazer uniform was adopted, we can be sure that it was NOT designed for large members who couldn't wear USAF style uniforms.  Because the blazer was around long before the AF imposed h/w on themselves and on us.

And the reason it doesn't look much like a professional military uniform is because the whole point of the uniform was to not look like a military uniform.  Remember, at the time any senior could wear service dress regardless of size.  (Grooming was still required.) Also, at the time seniors did not even have to wear a uniform at all unless flying or working with cadets.

The blazer was meant to allow a "non uniform uniform" for members who were not comfortable in military garb or needed a lower profile uniform for working with government officials or civic groups.

I'm a little hazy on this part (any historians still with us on this thread?), but the blazer may have been adopted from the IACE uniform, which was designed for use in foreign countries where cadets and escorts could not / should not wear a military uniform from a "foreign" country.

The second irony is that the blazer (and later the g/w) was deliberately designed to be easily locally obtainable.  That's why it consists of common items that all of us can get at our local Sears, JCP, or Walmart.  And why we specified things like "medium grey" instead of "shade 8623".  The point was that members are not tied to Vanguard, CAPMART, the Bookstore, or whatever.  You could go buy what you need, try them on for size, etc.  and be ready to go as soon as your nameplate arrives.

(please search for the 467 threads complaining about perceived service and cost problems for CAPMART, VG, etc.).

It seems like our leaders can't win.  Strictly specify a uniform, and members will complain about how VG charges too much for grey trousers and their service sucks.  Specify "medium grey" and the members complain that the guidance is too loose and the locally acquired trousers vary too much.

Sorry if this seems grumpy and defensive.  It is not meant that way.  I am really just laughing quietly to myself about how perspectives change over time.  One final "old guy observation.". Do you suppose our WWII members spent much time complaining about their red epaulletes?  Did they feel that they were being punished and insulted because Uncle Sam didn't want anyone to mistake them for "real" AAF personnel?

Answer:  knowing us, probably.

^ Fine, then we accept the G/W's are incomplete.  Add an actual uniform coat that allows for the wear of insignia and badges, and
we can all move on.

Ideally, it would be something that matches the intent of an 'easy to acquire/cheaper, more comfortable alternative to Service Dress while still looking uniform enough and able to accommodate ribbons/badges.' I'm sure that's an easy find.

Ned,
   the problem with medium grey is that it's not a standard textile color. I can go to four different stores and get four pairs of medium grey pants that are very different colors. I can also go the the same four stores and get heather grey pants that are very close in color, and from a step or two away are the same. Heather grey is a standard textile color. I'm sure if CAP asks the textile manufacturing inductry group, they can provide the appropriate color name that will reduce the spectrum of grey pant we see.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on January 05, 2013, 06:13:49 PM
Ideally, it would be something that matches the intent of an 'easy to acquire/cheaper, more comfortable alternative to Service Dress while still looking uniform enough and able to accommodate ribbons/badges.' I'm sure that's an easy find.

I suggested a black police four pocket dress coat with CAP buttons. Add a blue sleeve stripe and black service and/or flight caps and you're set.

Quote from: arajca on January 05, 2013, 06:16:14 PM

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on January 05, 2013, 06:13:49 PM
Ideally, it would be something that matches the intent of an 'easy to acquire/cheaper, more comfortable alternative to Service Dress while still looking uniform enough and able to accommodate ribbons/badges.' I'm sure that's an easy find.

I suggested a black police four pocket dress coat with CAP buttons. Add a blue sleeve stripe and black service and/or flight caps and you're set.

Why not go with a navy blue coat and hat?  With the grey trousers and white shirt it would look significantly different than the AF service Uniform without introducing a new color into the scheme.

Heck i even found one online fairly cheap.  http://siegelsuniforms.com/navy-dress-coat-single-breasted-4-pocket-mens (http://siegelsuniforms.com/navy-dress-coat-single-breasted-4-pocket-mens)      >:D ;D 8)

The blazer has been around since at least 1961, and is specifically mentioned as part of the IACE uniform in the cadet section of the 39-1.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Sept 1961The blazer uniform may be worn by male senior and cadet members, in either summer or winter, whenever the service uniform is not prescribed for wear. Wearing of this uniform at CAP social occasions instead of the service uniform is encouraged. It may be worn without restriction on non-CAP occasions.

This was, BTW, the first publication of the 39-1, having replaces several other publications.

If i could wear my Military Ribbons/Medals on the NON-AF blues uniforms, it would be a compromise for not wearing th AF Blues. I am proud of what i did in the service, esp when it comes to awards.

Perhaps it's nothing more than a semantical issue, nevertheless I have a problem with a lack of uniformity in uniforms.

It's a bit akin to hearing someone say that something is "quite unique" ... either something is unique or it isn't. No modification is needed. Likewise, either there is uniformity in clothing, or else you are not wearing a uniform. By literal definition such a situation would necessarily be a "multi-form."

In fact, CAP has an absurd spectrum of multi-forms.

Members arguing/debating/wringing-hands/etc. over CAP's spectrum of official/authorized member clothing is really kind of silly. It's ultimately quite simple, either CAP members are UNIFORM in their clothing or they are not. Presently, any discussion of "uniforms" in CAP is an oxymoron ... a contradiction in terms.

The only way to remedy this logical problem is to find a means to have UNIFORMITY in official clothing.

As a USCG Auxiliary member, I have seen first-hand how one branch of our Nation's armed forces found such uniformity with their Auxiliary. Perhaps it's time for the USAF to consider doing likewise.

Seemingly there are two (2) courses of action to resolve the status quo:

1. Have the USAF eliminate the H/W restrictions on the wear of the USAF Distinctive official apparel, OR ...

2. Have CAP move to a "corporate-specific" apparel.

Neither solution is going to be acceptable to every member ... but then, again, the same can be said for virtually every other rule/regulation in CAP, or for that matter, law or ordinance in the "real world."

Furthermore, as a former chaplain (a present clergyperson), I believe that --sadly-- any such inclusive move (option 1 or 2), on official apparel, would cause conflict because there will always be folks who seek exclusivity and elitism as opposed to inclusiveness and diversity.

Absent a concession from the USAF, or a unilateral move by CAP to corporate-distinctive apparel (and a new found sense of inclusion and acceptable diversity among the membership), I would ask, as one who loves our beautiful english language, that we stop talking about uniforms in CAP because, like unicorns and faeries, they do not exist.

Personally, I wish CAP would find a way to bring back that uniformity. I believe that we'd see a coincidental resurgence of espirit de corps as well.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on January 06, 2013, 11:53:54 PM
Perhaps it's nothing more than a semantical issue, nevertheless I have a problem with a lack of uniformity in uniforms.

It's a bit akin to hearing someone say that something is "quite unique" ... either something is unique or it isn't. No modification is needed. Likewise, either there is uniformity in clothing, or else you are not wearing a uniform. By literal definition such a situation would necessarily be a "multi-form."

In fact, CAP has an absurd spectrum of multi-forms.

Members arguing/debating/wringing-hands/etc. over CAP's spectrum of official/authorized member clothing is really kind of silly. It's ultimately quite simple, either CAP members are UNIFORM in their clothing or they are not. Presently, any discussion of "uniforms" in CAP is an oxymoron ... a contradiction in terms.

The only way to remedy this logical problem is to find a means to have UNIFORMITY in official clothing.

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you Chaplain. In my USAF shop we have folks that wear ABUs, and folks that wear flight suits. Not everyone can wear the flight suit because they don't meet the regulatory requirements to. On some days due to the various different roles you even had some folks in blues, others flight suits, others ABUs. The same thing can be seen in some med clinics, or support facilities.

At a wing commander's call or other event where it's 'Uniform of the Day' you may see ABUs, Flight-Suits, Blues, and USAF Informal (Khaki/polo combo). Are we not wearing uniforms because we have different options and the like? We have different uniforms. Within each level of formality there are difference. There is absolutely no reason a squadron commander couldn't require their personnel to all wear G/W, or Polos. They would need to be aware of the consequences of doing the same.

Back in the day (on a Tuesday) the USAF did allow members that did not meet H/W or grooming to wear some USAF style uniforms. You couldn't wear rank insignia on them though. Some of the uniforms we have now were actually to give those folks an option so they COULD blend in better. I think the more we move away from the USAF though the less healthy it is.

If by attitude/behavior and mission accomplishment (the whole shebang) we really show our officers to be equivalent in mannerisms, and far more importantly, professionalism, to the point that the USAF as a whole CONSISTENTLY across our organization sees true excellence (from the smallest squadron in East Bumbleyeah to the biggest 250 person unit) I believe the USAF would reconsider that stance again. There might still be some distinguishing mark, but we would need to be viewed at least as well as the National Guard and Reserves. Until we are part of the 'total force' in the minds of the majority of leaders, I just don't see that happening. But there is already prescedent for folks who don't meet Height/Weight/Grooming standards to wear USAF uniforms when they are pinged with 'DOD Civilian' tapes on them. Perhaps someday it would simply be a 'Huh, that's odd...oh...a CAP tape, that's legit then' But that would take a MASSIVE change in behavior and attitude of MANY of our members.

^ Yes, you see different uniforms based on duty, but you don't see two different styles of the respective uniform(s).

There's a huge difference.

Discounting the greener and grayer ABUs  :D  ;)

I can see your view, however, I also don't think it matters as much as some folks seem to really get wrapped up about. I know I don't have as much of a dog in the fight since I meet H/W/G Standards...on the other side though I think I have a bigger dog in the fight when it comes to the appearance of folks in the USAF-style unfiorms.  :D ;)

It's not "who wears what". We all have skin in this because no matter where you go, it's literally impossible
to stand in a line where everyone is in the same dress.

That may not impact the launching sorties, but the credibility we lose because of it probably impacts needing sorties.

I really don't think as many people outside our organization care as you think care. I think those that notice prolly just go 'whatever' and move on with life because they have more important things to worry about; like needing sorties. I think the BEHAVIOR of members, regardless of what they are wearing, does a lot more to damage our credibility than what we wear. Even if we looked all the same...we still get painted with a broad brush by our bad apples if that is the impression someone has of us.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on January 07, 2013, 05:31:28 AM
I think the BEHAVIOR of members, regardless of what they are wearing, does a lot more to damage our credibility than what we wear. Even if we looked all the same...we still get painted with a broad brush by our bad apples if that is the impression someone has of us.

Yes.  And that would happen regardless if we were forced into grey shirts, trousers, shoes, belt, cap and insignia.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on January 06, 2013, 11:53:54 PM
As a USCG Auxiliary member, I have seen first-hand how one branch of our Nation's armed forces found such uniformity with their Auxiliary. Perhaps it's time for the USAF to consider doing likewise.

Very correct, Padre, but you'll never convince the USAF of that.  As a former CGAUXiliarist I found it refreshing there was virtually no aggro about uniforms in the CGAUX.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on January 06, 2013, 11:53:54 PM
Seemingly there are two (2) courses of action to resolve the status quo:

1. Have the USAF eliminate the H/W restrictions on the wear of the USAF Distinctive official apparel, OR ...

2. Have CAP move to a "corporate-specific" apparel.

The first falls under the "not-gonna-happen" category.

The second could work IF input were solicited from members.  If it would be just the status quo grey/white/polo, I'd be gone and I know I wouldn't be the only one.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on January 06, 2013, 11:53:54 PM
Personally, I wish CAP would find a way to bring back that uniformity. I believe that we'd see a coincidental resurgence of espirit de corps as well.

That ship sailed around 1990 unfortunately.

Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2013, 05:48:32 PM
Sorry if this seems grumpy and defensive.  It is not meant that way. 

Ned, I for one appreciate your being CT's "window" into the otherwise-murky workings of the powers that be deciding uniform issues.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but I lost a lot of trust in that leadership over the CSU debacle: "We're taking it and we don't have to tell you why.  Like it or lump it about the existing 'corporate' uniforms, because it's what you get."

Quote from: Ned on January 05, 2013, 05:48:32 PM
Do you suppose our WWII members spent much time complaining about their red epaulletes?  Did they feel that they were being punished and insulted because Uncle Sam didn't want anyone to mistake them for "real" AAF personnel?

Our WWII counterparts weren't forced into an "alternate" uniform that is patently ugly and had nothing to do with our heritage, or aviation in general.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on January 07, 2013, 05:31:28 AM
I really don't think as many people outside our organization care as you think care. I think those that notice prolly just go 'whatever' and move on with life because they have more important things to worry about; like needing sorties. I think the BEHAVIOR of members, regardless of what they are wearing, does a lot more to damage our credibility than what we wear. Even if we looked all the same...we still get painted with a broad brush by our bad apples if that is the impression someone has of us.

Interesting.

It "doesn't matter what we wear", yet to the USAF it clear does "matter what we wear".

Can't have it both ways.  Either appearance is part and parcel of the game, or its not, and it's no different just because you are, or are not "military".

There isn't a structured fighting force, law enforcement agency, fire department, delivery company, or 4th-grade soccer team that would allow
it's members / employees / players to have multiple uniforms but it apparently is "no issue" for CAP.

Appearance matters, it affects credibility which in turn affects mission (and in some cases it affects mission directly).

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on January 07, 2013, 04:05:58 AM
There is absolutely no reason a squadron commander couldn't require their personnel to all wear G/W, or Polos. They would need to be aware of the consequences of doing the same.

Sure there is.  A commander may not REQUIRE a specific uniform, unless it is provided.  The exception is the minimum service uniform, such as blues OR g/w.  Unit/CC can set UOD is Service Dress, so I wear my Blues as thats the only one I have.  He can't require me to wear g/w's unless they were issued, which they aren't.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 07, 2013, 04:38:58 PM

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on January 07, 2013, 04:05:58 AM
There is absolutely no reason a squadron commander couldn't require their personnel to all wear G/W, or Polos. They would need to be aware of the consequences of doing the same.

Sure there is.  A commander may not REQUIRE a specific uniform, unless it is provided.  The exception is the minimum service uniform, such as blues OR g/w.  Unit/CC can set UOD is Service Dress, so I wear my Blues as thats the only one I have.  He can't require me to wear g/w's unless they were issued, which they aren't.

Incorrect - that applies only to cadets.

39-1 allows for a commander to prescribe any UOD he so desires for senior members.  The only asterisk is about sensitivity to cost, which does not equal a prohibition.

Table 1-1. Wearing the Uniform
NOTES:
1. The National Commander and other commanders may specify the wear of a particular uniform type for the purpose of achieving a uniform appearance at squadron, group, wing, region, and national functions. However, all commanders must be mindful of the objective of attaining a neatly uniformed appearance at a minimum of personal expense to the individual member and will consequently refrain from imposing unreasonable uniform requirements.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2013, 04:44:42 PM
39-1 allows for a commander to prescribe any UOD he so desires for senior members.  The only asterisk is about sensitivity to cost, which does not equal a prohibition.

So if a member owns a complete, within-regs set of AF blues and has no intention of acquiring a polo shirt, and a commander specifies a polo shirt as UOD, said member is out of luck.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 07, 2013, 04:46:53 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2013, 04:44:42 PM
39-1 allows for a commander to prescribe any UOD he so desires for senior members.  The only asterisk is about sensitivity to cost, which does not equal a prohibition.

So if a member owns a complete, within-regs set of AF blues and has no intention of acquiring a polo shirt, and a commander specifies a polo shirt as UOD, said member is out of luck.

Pretty much.  At that point, the only option would be appeal to higher HQ and/or filing a complaint, however since blues are inappropriate for a lot of environments, especially dirty tasks or ES-related activities, the onous would be on the member to define "unreasonable" in a meaningful way.  There
are also other duties such as GTM which specify a certain uniform as "required equipment".

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2013, 04:49:58 PM
Pretty much.  At that point, the only option would be appeal to higher HQ and/or filing a complaint, however since blues are inappropriate for a lot of environments, especially dirty tasks or ES-related activities, the onous would be on the member to define "unreasonable" in a meaningful way.  There
are also other duties such as GTM which specify a certain uniform as "required equipment".

What I meant is that if a member has a full set of uniforms that AREN'T "corporate" but cover all the bases of operational environments, yet a commander specifies a corporate uniform, the member is out of luck?

Sorry.  I wouldn't want to take part in such an activity where an agenda overrules mission capability.

You quoted TYPE, not a particular uniform.

Utilities is a TYPE, BDU's and BBDU's are a UNIFORM
Service dress is a TYPE,  Blues and G/W are a UNIFORM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2013, 04:44:42 PM

Table 1-1. Wearing the Uniform
NOTES:
1. The National Commander and other commanders may specify the wear of a particular uniform type for the purpose of achieving a uniform appearance at squadron, group, wing, region, and national functions. However, all commanders must be mindful of the objective of attaining a neatly uniformed appearance at a minimum of personal expense to the individual member and will consequently refrain from imposing unreasonable uniform requirements.

And wear does it say that it only pertains to cadets for the issued requirements?

I certainly agree with you that some uniforms are better suited for certain tasks, and that requiring a certain TYPE of uniform is within reason, but requiring a specific uniform such as BBDU's, and disallowing BDU's; is absolutely asinine.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 07, 2013, 04:23:09 PM
Our WWII counterparts weren't forced into an "alternate" uniform that is patently ugly and had nothing to do with our heritage, or aviation in general.

See, there's that "perspective" thing again.  It was ugly (if you didn't like maroon, surely you have to admire the pure red even less), had nothing to do with our heritage (since we didn't have any), or aviation in general (it was a modifed Army uniform, otherwise essentially unchanged from before Orville's first flight).

All back to that subjective opinions about uniforms meme.

And -- for better or worse -- the NEC / CSAG does not have the authority to approve or disapprove uniforms anymore. 

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 07, 2013, 05:00:35 PM
And wear does it say that it only pertains to cadets for the issued requirements?

1-5. Uniform Combinations.  Various combinations of CAP uniforms are authorized in order to allow
for various climatic conditions, availability of uniforms, etc., but no member is obligated to equip
himself/herself with all or even a major part of the combinations described in this publication.  Members
will equip themselves with the basic uniform. The minimum basic uniforms for male and female cadets
and senior members, which will satisfy most occasions, are listed below.  Members may obtain and wear
the additional uniform items authorized in this publication on an optional basis.  Uniform clothing may
be altered to improve fit.  However, alterations must not change the intended appearance of garment as
designed.  It is the member's personal responsibility to equip himself/herself with a proper uniform. 
Commanders may assist if they have the capability, through use of unit funds and/or donations or by
acquiring surplus uniforms.  Cadets are required to have the minimum basic uniform.  A commander
may require cadets to wear other  optional uniform items only if the  purchase is voluntary or if the
uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet. The omission of a specific item or appearance standard
does not automatically permit its wear.

No uniforms are issued to seniors, ergo there is no prohibition against a commander prescribing a UOD
regardless whether the members have it or not.

I'll agree it says "type" - an assertion that a CC could specify blues / whites is probably too extreme for
the reg to allow, but he certainly could specify a type.

Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2013, 05:01:34 PM
See, there's that "perspective" thing again.  It was ugly (if you didn't like maroon, surely you have to admire the pure red even less), had nothing to do with our heritage (since we didn't have any), or aviation in general (it was a modifed Army uniform, otherwise essentially unchanged from before Orville's first flight).

It's not that I particularly detested the maroon as a colour - it was what it represented (a punitive action to the entire CAP adult membership based on the actions of a few...kind of like in BMT when the TI drops you all for pushups because of one guy's messing-up).  However, it did look terrible.  I threw mine away when the grey ones came in.  I saw a set of maroon ones on EvilBay for "collectors."  My first thought was "why?"

WRT the WWII uniforms...again, they weren't an entirely separate class of uniforms, as we have now.  I also believe that the red epaulettes were phased out (?) before the USAF blue uniform was adopted and for a while the only distinction CAP had on the pinks and greens was collar brass, shoulder patch and cap badge.

In fact, I would be honoured to go to some form of the pinks and greens as opposed to the grey/white/blazer setup we have now.

Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2013, 05:01:34 PM
All back to that subjective opinions about uniforms meme.

Yes, it is subjective, based on my own opinion and of those I know in CAP.  I know a lot of people who liked the CSU, but do not like the G/W.  I think the G/W is plug ugly, as my dad used to say.  I have yet to meet anyone personally who actually LIKES the way it looks, after almost 20 years off-and-on in CAP.  Most I know who choose to wear it do so for the convenience/cost factor.  I have never heard anyone say they are enthusiastic about the appearance of it.  The best compliment I can give it is the slight change to allow rank slides and CAP badging to be worn.

Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2013, 05:01:34 PM
And -- for better or worse -- the NEC / CSAG does not have the authority to approve or disapprove uniforms anymore.

Colonel, just let me say again that the frustration I feel with this issue is not directed at you personally.

You have always done exemplary work in trying to keep us worker bees informed, and I salute you for that (and not just because you're a Colonel and I'm a Captain).

The frustration comes from the whole organisation having to take the hit for the actions of a few.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2013, 05:11:48 PM
No uniforms are issued to seniors, ergo there is no prohibition against a commander prescribing a UOD
regardless whether the members have it or not.

I'll agree it says "type" - an assertion that a CC could specify blues / whites is probably too extreme for
the reg to allow, but he certainly could specify a type.

Then said CC would not have me, or many others, as a participant.  I doubt very much that someone owning a set of BBDU's is going to be motivated to get BDU's (for example) if a CC specifies that as the UOD (or the reverse).

Example: A lot of aircrews wear either the green or blue (my choice) flight suit, but if the OIC of a training exercise specifies polo shirts and Bermuda shorts because s/he likes it better and wants everyone to look like him/her...I doubt there will be many in attendance.

I read many post in Cap Talk about taking out AF uniforms or looking at omitting weight standards or just wearing the polo for everything.
I was a former cadet and former military. One of the reasons I joined CAP is the Air Force affiliation and to wear AF style uniforms, Even though I didn't have the privilege to serve during combat, I feel proud of having wore a uniform and represent our country. I know that there are people that say about weight standards and all but in honor of those soldiers who are fighting for us, don't you thing that wearing a AF style uniform out of standards would give a good image. How many people we see that make fun of Law Enforcement Officers in uniform that look overweight?
If a cadet looks like that, they know its a kid and people usually let it slide, but us adults, some people out there don't know the difference from afar of an AF Active Duty and a CAP senior. I believe that if you have zero contacts with cadets or the public and all your CAP time contact is with CAP seniors,by all means wear the polo, have the "corporate" look. on the other hand if you have any contact  with cadets or with civilians, a more military style uniform should be the norm. I work with cadets and I wear all uniforms, once every bit of time I wear the polo combo, most of the time I'm in BDUs. I don't wear the Blues because I cant afford it, otherwise that would be my preferred uniform.

We are (at least I think still) an official auxiliary of the United States Air Force, and as a former military (my opinion) I would have felt offended if I have members of an organization that are part of us feeling disgusted in having any connection with looking like they are part of us.
I made that comment because I hear people wanting to ditch all AF style uniforms altogether. I respect those who have the desire to wear the AF style uniform but cant wear it due to standards.

Lastly. I believe that the only reason that there is no opportunity to wear any other uniform but the polo is because 1. You have no contact with cadets or 2. You participate in no other type of Special Activity where the general public is present. otherwise there are plenty of opportunities to wear either a military style corporate uniform or a AF style uniform.

I believe that we should set the example to the cadets and be good PR for the public and the AF. That is My honest opinion emphasizing in opinion,yet who am I?

I sincerely apologize if I hurt anybody's feelings, honestly is not my intention.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
I was a former cadet and former military. One of the reasons I joined CAP is the Air Force affiliation and to wear AF style uniforms, Even though I didn't have the privilege to serve during combat, I feel proud of having wore a uniform and represent our country.

Me too, except I was never a cadet.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
I know that there are people that say about weight standards and all but in honor of those soldiers who are fighting for us, don't you thing that wearing a AF style uniform out of standards would give a good image. How many people we see that make fun of Law Enforcement Officers in uniform that look overweight?

I personally don't make fun of overweight LEO's, but point taken.

I believe the point made about the H/W standards is that since the Coast Guard allows their Auxiliary to wear their uniform without H/W standards, why aren't we allowed to?

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
If a cadet looks like that, they know its a kid and people usually let it slide...

Which should not be the case, especially given the near-epidemic rate of childhood (and adult) obesity in this country.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
...but us adults, some people out there don't know the difference from afar of an AF Active Duty and a CAP senior.

Some also don't know from two inches away.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
I believe that if you have zero contacts with cadets or the public and all your CAP time contact is with CAP seniors,by all means wear the polo, have the "corporate" look. on the other hand if you have any contact  with cadets or with civilians, a more military style uniform should be the norm.

We don't currently have a military-style uniform for the "corporate" side, not since the CSU was taken from us.  I don't consider the G/W to be "military-style;" no headgear, and no service coat.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
I don't wear the Blues because I cant afford it, otherwise that would be my preferred uniform.

Have you tried EBay?  I've got some good uniform stuff off there at very reasonable cost.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
We are (at least I think still) an official auxiliary of the United States Air Force

There's the goofy AUXON/AUXOFF situation, but I get your point.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
and as a former military (my opinion) I would have felt offended if I have members of an organization that are part of us feeling disgusted in having any connection with looking like they are part of us.  I made that comment because I hear people wanting to ditch all AF style uniforms altogether.

The ones who say that are very vocal but I don't know how big of a percentage of our membership they actually are.  My experience is that mindset tends to be the case in senior squadrons.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
I respect those who have the desire to wear the AF style uniform but cant wear it due to standards.

Seconded.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
Lastly. I believe that the only reason that there is no opportunity to wear any other uniform but the polo is because 1. You have no contact with cadets or 2. You participate in no other type of Special Activity where the general public is present. otherwise there are plenty of opportunities to wear either a military style corporate uniform or a AF style uniform.

I think most of the polo-only types are that way out of cost/convenience considerations.  The polo is cheap, low-maintenance and you don't have to buy badges, etc. for it.  Nonetheless, regs specify that every CAP senior must have at minimum the AF blue uniform OR the grey-white kit.  I have both, but do not own a polo and have no plans to.

Quote from: coloncapfl on January 11, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
I believe that we should set the example to the cadets and be good PR for the public and the AF.  That is My honest opinion emphasizing in opinion,yet who am I?

Who are you?  A CAP member expressing an opinion. 8)

Quote from: CyBorg on January 11, 2013, 10:06:12 PMI think most of the polo-only types are that way out of cost/convenience considerations.  The polo is cheap, low-maintenance and you don't have to buy badges, etc. for it.  Nonetheless, regs specify that every CAP senior must have at minimum the AF blue uniform OR the grey-white kit.  I have both, but do not own a polo and have no plans to.

As a new senior, I much prefer the look of the the grey/white... the aviator shirt is appropriate, has a professional aviation theme, is relatively inexpensive, and practical.  I bought a polo because its simple and most other SM's seem to wear them, so I decided I'd get one, but personally I think they are ugly and cheesy (as in fast food uniform).  I have zero desire to wear AF stuff (and do meet h/w requirements).

Quote from: rframe on January 11, 2013, 10:49:04 PM
As a new senior, I much prefer the look of the the grey/white... the aviator shirt is appropriate, has a professional aviation theme, is relatively inexpensive, and practical.

Your preferences are your preferences.

However, and I'm not trying to be a smart Alec here, what "professional aviation theme" does the G/W have?

It doesn't look like military aviation and it doesn't look like commercial airlines...most of them that I've seen tend to wear blue/black, depending on what their airline requires.

(http://tallyhouniforms.com/images/Pictures/pilotjackets/pjacketvisa100.jpg)

I suggested some time ago replacing the blazer with something like this (with CAP devices worn) but that got shouted down in calls of "McPeak uniform," "Navy," "single breasted CSU," and others....

Quote from: CyBorg on January 11, 2013, 11:36:07 PM
Your preferences are your preferences.

The very fact that members, at the rank and file level, can have a "preference" as to something that
is supposed to be "uniform", is part of the problem.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 11, 2013, 11:36:07 PM
Your preferences are your preferences.

However, and I'm not trying to be a smart Alec here, what "professional aviation theme" does the G/W have?

Exactly, and I understand some others have preferences different than mine and that's fine.

The aviator shirt is most definitely a professional aviation dress standard and is used as the basic garment in the majority of airline, corporate, and flight school uniforms.  Some airlines do add the formal jacket and hat, but those are becoming much less emphasized now days.  The grey pants seems pretty arbitrary, I dont really care about that (black/blue would be nice).

Quote from: Eclipse on January 11, 2013, 11:48:42 PM
The very fact that members, at the rank and file level, can have a "preference" as to something that is supposed to be "uniform", is part of the problem.

I agree that there is nothing at all "uniform" about the CAP clothing issue.  Reading through the level 1 uniform and 39-1 as a new member is really quite comical.  It's as if someone with multiple personalities and identity issues wrote it all.

Quote from: rframe on January 12, 2013, 12:15:53 AM
The grey pants seems pretty arbitrary, I dont really care about that (black/blue would be nice).

I'm not sure how much time you have in CAP, but one thing you'll learn quickly is that grey is, for some inexplicable reason, CAP's favourite colour. ??? ::)   The "answer" to most uniform issues is "let's make it grey!"

I would dearly love to see the white shirt be changed to a blue civilian airline-type shirt, readily available on the internet at reasonable prices, but another thing about CAP uniforms is that those making the decision seem to be allergic to any shade of blue for an unwarranted fear of ticking the Air Force off.

Quote from: rframe on January 12, 2013, 12:15:53 AM
I agree that there is nothing at all "uniform" about the CAP clothing issue.  Reading through the level 1 uniform and 39-1 as a new member is really quite comical.  It's as if someone with multiple personalities and identity issues wrote it all.

That's because it's not really a unified document...it's more of a cobbling together of previous regs and ICL's (Interim Change Letters).

Quote from: CyBorg on January 12, 2013, 03:34:06 AM

Quote from: rframe on January 12, 2013, 12:15:53 AM
The grey pants seems pretty arbitrary, I dont really care about that (black/blue would be nice).

I would dearly love to see the white shirt be changed to a blue civilian airline-type shirt, readily available on the internet at reasonable prices, ...

The van Heusen Aviator shirt is equally available online, as well as most pilot shops at GA airports. I found at least 20 online sources by searching for "van Heusen Aviator" +shirt.

Quote from: SarDragon on January 12, 2013, 04:31:13 AM
The van Heusen Aviator shirt is equally available online, as well as most pilot shops at GA airports. I found at least 20 online sources by searching for "van Heusen Aviator" +shirt.

I know.  Our local airport doesn't have a pilot shop (too small, yet it's an international airport, go figure) so I had to go online.

What I meant, in terms of "wish list," was to swop the white VH (no, not Van Halen) aviator shirt for the blue VH aviator shirt.  Same cut, same everything, just in a darker blue shade than the AF blue shirt.

My point is that if such a change were made, the cost to the member would not change.  Same company, same price.

We used to have a VH factory outlet nearby, but I don't think they stocked the aviator shirts.

Well, they say that darker colors are supposed to be "slimming", which might be a good thing for many in the gray/white uniform.....  >:D

I can't wear Van Husen shirts. Their sizing for anything over a 18 neck is for someone who is no taller than 5'8", not over 6'. And there are quite a few like me out there who can't (or shouldn't*) wear the Van Husen shirts.

*when you can see the side hems of a shirt above the belt when pants are worn at the waist, the shirt is too short.

They used to make them in a long version, but I didn't look when I did my most recent search.

Yup, they still make a long version in SS (up to 18.5 neck). Didn't see LS in tall.

I dont even wear the long sleeve version. I am debating if i should wear my Aviator to the Award Banquet my Unit is holding.

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 12, 2013, 07:03:39 PM
I dont even wear the long sleeve version. I am debating if i should wear my Aviator to the Award Banquet my Unit is holding.

An Awards Banquet is something where the Blazer combo would be appropraite. If you don't have that then a suit would be appropriate.

Looks like im going with a suit. Shucks, Oh Well thats CAP for ya (Come And Pay)

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 12, 2013, 08:30:00 PM
Looks like im going with a suit. Shucks, Oh Well thats CAP for ya (Come And Pay)

You just now figured that out! >:D

Quote from: RiverAux on January 12, 2013, 02:22:58 PM
Well, they say that darker colors are supposed to be "slimming", which might be a good thing for many in the gray/white uniform.....  >:D

Which is another reason I suggest swopping the white out for blue.  Seriously.

(http://www.pilotshop.com/catalog/images/vanheusen/aviator-blue.jpg)

Exactly the same cut, fabric, pricing and manufacturer as the white shirts...and it would leave the CAP sacrosanct colour grey untouched.

^^^ That looks good.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 13, 2013, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 12, 2013, 02:22:58 PM
Well, they say that darker colors are supposed to be "slimming", which might be a good thing for many in the gray/white uniform.....  >:D

Which is another reason I suggest swopping the white out for blue.  Seriously.

(http://www.pilotshop.com/catalog/images/vanheusen/aviator-blue.jpg)

Exactly the same cut, fabric, pricing and manufacturer as the white shirts...and it would leave the CAP sacrosanct colour grey untouched.

Other then the missing pleats on the pockets, it's a match for the AIR FORCE uniform shirt.
This solves "your" problem how? By looking less like CAP and more like USAF??? ???

Quote from: PHall on January 13, 2013, 03:34:05 AM
Other then the missing pleats on the pockets, it's a match for the AIR FORCE uniform shirt.
This solves "your" problem how? By looking less like CAP and more like USAF??? ???

I expected this.  Some people in CAP automatically associate any uniform item in blue with the AF.  I'm surprised there hasn't been a move to change the blazer to grey. >:(

Does "looking like CAP" automatically equate to grey and white to you?

It is darker than the AF shirt, different weight, different fabric.  It's what airline pilots wear!

It would add a bit of colour to the uniform.

And...the AF does not have a trademark on everything blue!

Apparently you didn't notice that I didn't suggest changing the grey trousers or accoutrements.

No, the Air Force does not have a trade mark on everything blue.

But they do have a trade mark on us, in some ways.

All they have to do is have a fit over something and it happens, or goes away.

Like berry boards and CSU's. ;)

Going to a blue shirt that closely resembles the Air Force uniform is nothing more then poking a hornet nest with a stick.
Somebody's going to get stung.

I was around the last time CAP did something stupid and got "punished".
I would prefer to not go through that again.

Quote from: PHall on January 13, 2013, 05:53:19 AM
Going to a blue shirt that closely resembles the Air Force uniform is nothing more then poking a hornet nest with a stick.
Somebody's going to get stung.

I was around the last time CAP did something stupid and got "punished".
I would prefer to not go through that again.

If you mean the berry boards, I came in just as that was happening.

If the Air Force regards anything but a white shirt as "poking a hornet's nest," as you put it, which there is no proof of,who owns the problem? 

If someone cannot tell that a blue shirt with grey trousers and shoulder marks is not the AF uniform, they need an optometrist.

Such a statement is symptomatic of too much of CAP...hypotheses that "this will tick off the AF," without even asking them.

I never said to go unilateral with it, like the way the CSU was introduced.  I mean go through proper procedures for approval.

ASK THEM.

The worst they can say is "no."

Or are we afraid as an organisation to ask even that?

Even a khaki/tan shirt would look better than the way it is now.

To just say "the status quo is all we can have" is fallacious without any supporting evidence.

Where is it written that the only acceptable colours for CAP are grey and white and that to even suggest something else is some sort of offence?

Quote from: a2capt on January 13, 2013, 05:02:18 AM
All they have to do is have a fit over something and it happens, or goes away.

Like berry boards and CSU's. ;)

Assuming, as I said to PHall, that they would have a fit over it, which no-one knows if they do not ask!

The berry boards were a punitive action against the whole organisation for the actions of a few jerks who would have done the same thing no matter what colour their epaulettes were.

The CSU was killed by CAP, not by the Air Force.  There is no proof the Air Force had anything to do with it.  There was no reason given, period, remember?  It was just "CSU has been approved for phase-out" and that is all it was.