Poll
Question:
How often do you see CAP senior members wearing AF style uniforms that appear to be out of the height/weight standards?
Option 1: At less than 10% of CAP events that I attend
votes: 24
Option 2: At 10-25% of CAP events that I attend
votes: 21
Option 3: At 26-50% of CAP events that I attend
votes: 18
Option 4: At 51-75% of CAP events that I attend
votes: 17
Option 5: At 76-90% of CAP events that I attend
votes: 11
Option 6: At 91-100% of CAP events that I attend
votes: 11
In another thread there is a sidebar discussion regarding compliance with height-weight standards by those wearing AF-style uniforms. Some believe noncompliance is fairly common while others believe it is pretty rare.
This will give us some idea of at least the experience of CAPTalk members....
I'm not sure how to answer this, without actually doing a weigh-in on said members. Eyeballing it just doesn't work with me.
Years ago, in college, one of my fellow students was pregnant. I didn't see her all that much, so I didn't know she'd given birth to a bouncing, healthy baby boy. I saw her in the hallway one day and said, just to make conversation, "so when are you due again?" She looked at me very oddly and said, "I had my baby several weeks ago."
Cut scene to me apologising all over myself and looking for a crack in the floor to slither into while wishing fervently I were anywhere else...Beirut, East Berlin, Pyongyang or Tehran would have all been preferable at that moment. :o
I resolved to never try to do a Mark I eyeball assessment of someone's weight ever again, no sirree Bub. :-X
And the question as phrased is a bit problematic.
I'm not sure knowing how often an apparently overweight member is observed is very helpful for developing policy.
If a single senior member in a given wing was overweight, but attended a slew of activities, we might get numbers on this poll like 75-80%. And yet the problem could be only a single officer out of 1200 seniors in the wing. One guy's mistakes should not drive policy.
(Similarly, if half the seniors were grossly overweight but attended relatively few activities . . . )
From a policy perspective, it would seem more helpful to try to determine what the prevalence of aparently overweight USAF-style wearing members. That will be a tricky number to try to run down. I took a look at trying to extract height/weight from eServices, but we have no idea how old/accurate the self-reported information was, and no way to know if the member was wearing a USAF-style uniform.
(At one point I was going to try to use the pictures to tell, but it just didn't seem like it was going to produce reliable data one way or another.)
Quote from: CyBorg on January 03, 2013, 06:12:22 AMYears ago, in college, one of my fellow students was pregnant.
Being a retired policeman I am very good at H/W and age guestimation. Most college boys have no ideal how much a slim beautiful woman weighs or what an average girl weighs. Young men guess most attractive women are 110# because they heard that on tv and in movies. A voluptuous woman usually weighs in at, a buck seventy-five to a deuce and a quarter. Your mileage may vary.
On topic, I have seen Veterans and non-Veteran members of CAP obviously overweight in AF style uniforms. I mentioned that because 20 years ago it seemed like it was only non-Vets were guilty but today I can safely say everyone in America has a weight issue.
Yes, I could have done the poll to ask what percent of CAP members wearing AF-style uniforms appear to be out of compliance, but personally I feel that the impact of uniform violations of all types depends more on how often you see something rather than the overall number of individuals violating the reg.
If you see uniform violations at 100% of CAP events that is going to have more of an impact on you than the overall percentage of members out of compliance.
Do a poll the other way if you'd like.
Eyeballing is tough. Recently, when I was right under the line and still legal to wear AF style, I might have made someone think otherwise. BDUs and full service dress looked decent on me, flight suit, less so but still not bad. Short sleeve blues, however, my belly looked like crap.
Lord, looking at a photo of me in AFROTC in my blues it's a wonder they didn't bounce me right then. Talk about a potato!
Sometimes eyeballing is easy. If its tough to tell if the are under or over, let them go, who cares. I've seen some that you do not need a scale for. It is so obvious a blind man could tell they are way over the limits. It makes us look bad.
I have seen obviously overweight members in USAF style uniforms at almost every function I have ever been to.
But that is not the only issue...
At nearly every function in blues, most members LT Col and above are wearing their badges and awards well above the top notch. There are plenty of rules being broken.
Quote from: Walkman on January 03, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
Eyeballing is tough. Recently, when I was right under the line and still legal to wear AF style, I might have made someone think otherwise. BDUs and full service dress looked decent on me, flight suit, less so but still not bad. Short sleeve blues, however, my belly looked like crap.
I'm the same way. I'm under, but not by much (about 10 pounds.) I still give off the "military image" when wearing BDU's, flight suit, dress blues, and I feel and look fine doing so. I'm broad shouldered, broad chested, muscular neck and arms, but have a little too much flab around my belt line to feel that I present the "military image" wearing any tucked-in uniform. For this reason, I choose to wear the aviator shirt uniform when the situation calls for a tucked-in uniform. While I "could" wear the short sleeve blues, I just don't think it looks right.
Quote from: Thrashed on January 03, 2013, 04:53:30 PM
Sometimes eyeballing is easy. If its tough to tell if the are under or over, let them go, who cares. I've seen some that you do not need a scale for. It is so obvious a blind man could tell they are way over the limits. It makes us look bad.
Roger that.
Eventually I think we should all accept wearing grey & whites. My personal opinion is when I know I look elderly I will stop wearing the AF style uniforms.
Quote from: Private Investigator on January 05, 2013, 04:06:29 PM
Eventually I think we should all accept wearing grey & whites. My personal opinion is when I know I look elderly I will stop wearing the AF style uniforms.
While, I'm not sure the Grey and White is the solution. Out of our Current uniforms I agree it's the probably the best option. I would like to see one commonly accepted uniform for all of our people I would still like to see something that can be attributed to our Air Force heritage. That being said I think we could probably use some kind of Khaki shirt that would go back even further our real Army Air Corps heritage.
Think Khaki Shirt with the Air Force Blue Pants....same as our Current USAF style uniform just with the Khaki shirt/Khaki dress Coat.
Just a half baked idea as I write this.
Quote from: Private Investigator on January 05, 2013, 04:06:29 PM
Think Khaki Shirt with the Air Force Blue Pants....same as our Current USAF style uniform just with the Khaki shirt/Khaki dress Coat.
Just a half baked idea as I write this.
Yuck. I think we need to focus on enforcement of proper uniform wear and see what the latest draft of 39-1 says before we go trying to say ditch one uniform or another.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 06, 2013, 12:22:19 AM
.....
Think Khaki Shirt with the Air Force Blue Pants....same as our Current USAF style uniform just with the Khaki shirt/Khaki dress Coat.
Just a half baked idea as I write this.
You mean like this currently issued Navy uniform.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_080730-N-7090S-004_Personnel_Specialist_1st_Class_Howard_Williams_models_the_new_E-6_and_below_Service_Uniform_(SU)._The_SU_is_for_year-round_wear_and_replaces_summer_white_and_winter_blue_uniforms.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_080730-N-7090S-004_Personnel_Specialist_1st_Class_Howard_Williams_models_the_new_E-6_and_below_Service_Uniform_(SU)._The_SU_is_for_year-round_wear_and_replaces_summer_white_and_winter_blue_uniforms.jpg)
When it comes to this issue, for me, it comes down to the reason we have the weight standards in the first place: is the member 'marring the lines/look of the uniform'. Fortunately, here at Oregon Wing, we've got a crusty old AF Chief Master Sergeant as our Wing Master Sergeant, and he keeps everyone in line. ;)
That said, I'm thinking about putting forward a proposal to my Wing Commander for the NB CAP CC to review in that we allow those that are over the weight limit, but within body fat composition limits, to wear the AF style uniforms. It would fit with military policy, keep the rule I listed above active, and allow those that are overweight due to good physical health (hey, it's possible!) to wear what they wanted.
As for those members that are not meeting the rule above... what about simply letting the member know that they may want to consider the look of the uniform? After all, no one wants to look tacky. We all want to look as sharp as possible... or so we can hope. >:D
Quote from: celticwolf on January 06, 2013, 01:51:20 AM
That said, I'm thinking about putting forward a proposal to my Wing Commander for the NB CAP CC to review in that we allow those that are over the weight limit, but within body fat composition limits, to wear the AF style uniforms. It would fit with military policy, keep the rule I listed above active, and allow those that are overweight due to good physical health (hey, it's possible!) to wear what they wanted.
You're forgetting one thing. I is not upto the Wg or the Nat CC to allow members who do not either willingly or unwillingly to wear the AF style uniform. That call is up to the AF and with them kicking people out who can't pass the pt test I highly doubt they are going to change their mind on this.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 06, 2013, 02:08:45 AM
Quote from: celticwolf on January 06, 2013, 01:51:20 AM
That said, I'm thinking about putting forward a proposal to my Wing Commander for the NB CAP CC to review in that we allow those that are over the weight limit, but within body fat composition limits, to wear the AF style uniforms. It would fit with military policy, keep the rule I listed above active, and allow those that are overweight due to good physical health (hey, it's possible!) to wear what they wanted.
You're forgetting one thing. I is not upto the Wg or the Nat CC to allow members who do not either willingly or unwillingly to wear the AF style uniform. That call is up to the AF and with them kicking people out who can't pass the pt test I highly doubt they are going to change their mind on this.
They are kicking people out who CAN pass the PT test but happen to have a waistline greater than 38 inches.... even if they are within H/W standards....
Quote from: cap235629 on January 06, 2013, 02:20:14 AM
They are kicking people out who CAN pass the PT test but happen to have a waistline greater than 38 inches.... even if they are within H/W standards....
We do not have H/W standards in the AF anymore. And if they have a waistline of greater than 38 inches then they are not meeting the min or max for that category. And I am willing to bet you that they are consistent with the measurement and not fluctuating.
Quote from: Ground_Pounder on January 06, 2013, 01:36:30 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on January 06, 2013, 12:22:19 AM
.....
Think Khaki Shirt with the Air Force Blue Pants....same as our Current USAF style uniform just with the Khaki shirt/Khaki dress Coat.
Just a half baked idea as I write this.
You mean like this currently issued Navy uniform.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_080730-N-7090S-004_Personnel_Specialist_1st_Class_Howard_Williams_models_the_new_E-6_and_below_Service_Uniform_(SU)._The_SU_is_for_year-round_wear_and_replaces_summer_white_and_winter_blue_uniforms.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_080730-N-7090S-004_Personnel_Specialist_1st_Class_Howard_Williams_models_the_new_E-6_and_below_Service_Uniform_(SU)._The_SU_is_for_year-round_wear_and_replaces_summer_white_and_winter_blue_uniforms.jpg)
I didn't even think of that one. Those pants are black though.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 06, 2013, 02:25:14 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 06, 2013, 02:20:14 AM
They are kicking people out who CAN pass the PT test but happen to have a waistline greater than 38 inches.... even if they are within H/W standards....
We do not have H/W standards in the AF anymore. And if they have a waistline of greater than 38 inches then they are not meeting the min or max for that category. And I am willing to bet you that they are consistent with the measurement and not fluctuating.
At least as of 2007 we did. I know because I was below minimum weight to commission and had to gain about 5-7 lbs in a few weeks in order to commission. I also notice they took my height and weight during my PFT approximately 15 days ago.
Here are the standards if you want to join up from the AF site: http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/ (http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/)
Here they are with the minimum standards: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforcejoin/a/afmaxweight.htm (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforcejoin/a/afmaxweight.htm)
So for continued service, yes there are different rules. But there are still height/weight standards for joining.
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on January 06, 2013, 03:58:02 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 06, 2013, 02:25:14 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 06, 2013, 02:20:14 AM
They are kicking people out who CAN pass the PT test but happen to have a waistline greater than 38 inches.... even if they are within H/W standards....
We do not have H/W standards in the AF anymore. And if they have a waistline of greater than 38 inches then they are not meeting the min or max for that category. And I am willing to bet you that they are consistent with the measurement and not fluctuating.
At least as of 2007 we did. I know because I was below minimum weight to commission and had to gain about 5-7 lbs in a few weeks in order to commission. I also notice they took my height and weight during my PFT approximately 15 days ago.
Here are the standards if you want to join up from the AF site: http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/ (http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/)
Here they are with the minimum standards: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforcejoin/a/afmaxweight.htm (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforcejoin/a/afmaxweight.htm)
So for continued service, yes there are different rules. But there are still height/weight standards for joining
That is correct sir there are H/W for joining but not once you are in.
I have seen a lot of bigger people that have been in CAP uniforms and thought nothing of it. I did the paperwork on a Senior Member that joined CAP at a unit I was in. She was like 5'4" tall and 170 pounds. She didn't show up much, so I thought nothing of it with her and a uniform, that was until I saw her.
I was visiting encampment since it was close to home and there she was, all 170 short pounds of her in BDU's. It was horrible and I guess since she lived close to the encampment they made her go home and get something to replace the BDU's. It was horrible and made CAP look bad.
I am glad they are pushing the H/W requirements since it makes us all look bad when a member looks bad.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 06, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
That is correct sir there are H/W for joining but not once you are in.
I have seen AD, ANG and AFRES members who would likely not pass
CAP H/W standards, let alone the AF.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 08, 2013, 07:52:02 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 06, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
That is correct sir there are H/W for joining but not once you are in.
I have seen AD, ANG and AFRES members who would likely not pass CAP H/W standards, let alone the AF.
There are no H/W requirements after you have enlisted or commissioned only for entry. Hence why there is such the huge emphasis on the PT test.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 08, 2013, 09:07:53 PM
There are no H/W requirements after you have enlisted or commissioned only for entry. Hence why there is such the huge emphasis on the PT test.
The MTI's certainly weighed us in BMT with some regularity.
In fact, some of the people I referred to were unfortunately colleagues in my ANG unit. We had a TSgt in Personnel who was supremely competent at what he did, and respected for it, but if he were in CAP he would very likely not have been permitted to wear the AF uniform.
Of course, this was some years ago.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 08, 2013, 10:24:15 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 08, 2013, 09:07:53 PM
There are no H/W requirements after you have enlisted or commissioned only for entry. Hence why there is such the huge emphasis on the PT test.
The MTI's certainly weighed us in BMT with some regularity.
In fact, some of the people I referred to were unfortunately colleagues in my ANG unit. We had a TSgt in Personnel who was supremely competent at what he did, and respected for it, but if he were in CAP he would very likely not have been permitted to wear the AF uniform.
Of course, this was some years ago.
Bingo, up until 2003 there was H/W requirements and was ended in 2003 with the inplementation of the new PT test at the time that has gone through a few iterations resulting in the current state.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 08, 2013, 10:31:22 PM
Bingo, up until 2003 there was H/W requirements and was ended in 2003 with the inplementation of the new PT test at the time that has gone through a few iterations resulting in the current state.
OK, then. That's a long time after my Guard days.
When I was still active in CAP, few of the senior members even wore the AF uniforms. I was one of two or three in our squadron who wore the woodland BDUs, only three or four others would wear the AF blues. Most of them seemed content in just wearing the basic "golf shirt" uniform, probably because it was the easiest "uniform" to wear.
I think we should also ask ourselves, along with this question, if CAP should try to do more to address that problem of the "sloppy senior member." Surely there are a lot of button-poppers in CAP; I'm not trying to sound offensive with that, but I have to think that seeing quite overweight/obese senior members who don't properly wear any uniform and who don't follow any sort of military courtesies (i.e., returning a salute) doesn't leave a good impression on cadets of how CAP should really operate, especially if those cadets come back as senior members.
Food for thought, and YMMV.
IWAC. It's a whole different world on the SM side.
Quote from: DerNarr on January 09, 2013, 08:55:24 PM
When I was still active in CAP, few of the senior members even wore the AF uniforms.
I'm still active, coming up on 20 years off-and-on. When I first joined, my first squadron (composite) wore
only the AF blues. I didn't see a golf shirt or grey/white (which was different back then; no rank slides, no ribbons and the same nameplate as the blazer) until I went to my first Wing activity. They were never referred to in my unit.
When I transferred (due to a move) to a senior
flying club squadron, I was the
only one who wore the AF uniform. The rest wore a mixture of golf shirts, grey/white and (mostly) flight suits (insignia "optional").
Quote from: DerNarr on January 09, 2013, 08:55:24 PM
Most of them seemed content in just wearing the basic "golf shirt" uniform, probably because it was the easiest "uniform" to wear.
It may be the "easiest," and cheapest, but to just
own that is noncompliance with regs. The minimum a senior must have is either the AF blue uniform or the grey/white.
Quote from: DerNarr on January 09, 2013, 08:55:24 PM
I think we should also ask ourselves, along with this question, if CAP should try to do more to address that problem of the "sloppy senior member." Surely there are a lot of button-poppers in CAP; I'm not trying to sound offensive with that, but I have to think that seeing quite overweight/obese senior members who don't properly wear any uniform and who don't follow any sort of military courtesies (i.e., returning a salute) doesn't leave a good impression on cadets of how CAP should really operate, especially if those cadets come back as senior members.
It's a valid question.
My former squadron CC forbade one of our members from wearing the AF uniform because he always wore it filthy. She restricted him to the old "Smurf suit," which is what he wore up until the end (unfortunately, he's passed on; despite his uniform faux-pas, he really was a nice guy). I've seen too many members wear the G/W and/or golf shirt looking like they haven't been washed since the turn of the century. The corporate uniforms are a lot easier to wear standards-wise than the AF ones; for cryin' out loud, at least send them through the washer and dryer before a meeting night and make sure your badges are correct.
However, the weight factor is one of those remaining unresolved issues that will probably remain so.
WRT C&C's...again, at my first unit that was enforced. The entire squadron - seniors
and cadets - formed up in the drill hall (Armed Forces Reserve facility) at the beginning and end of every meeting night. I eventually became deputy commander and the CC was a good friend of mine. However, when we were in uniform, on CAP time, we were always "Major" or "Captain" with each other. After a meeting, we used our first names. I haven't seen that since.
I still do that. I never address a peer/subordinate by name; it's always rank/last name, and those higher ranked than I are "Major," "Colonel," "General" (I've met two former National CC's) or "sir/ma'am." With NCO's it's always "Chief" (for CMSgts) or "Senior Master/Master/Technical/Staff Sergeant" on first greeting and "Sergeant" thereafter.
With cadets, it's always by their cadet rank or "Cadet Lastname." Some seniors call cadets by name. I personally don't, because they've earned their ranks and deserve that respect.
And, you know...sometimes when I do that, or salute, I get some very strange looks, not from cadets, but from other SM's. >:(
Quote from: CyBorg on January 09, 2013, 11:04:23 PM
It may be the "easiest," and cheapest, but to just own that is noncompliance with regs. The minimum a senior must have is either the AF blue uniform or the grey/white.
I forgot, many of them had gotten that uniform as well by the time I'd stopped going. But for the most part, it seemed like the golf shirt uniform was most popular; I wore it occasionally before I got my BDUs patched up, and it isn't bad, it's just a matter of wearing it properly and carrying yourself well as a senior member. The clothes don't necessarily make the man!
Plus what you'd mentioned about the "flying club" types...well, that's a whole other issue, and I'm pretty sure everyone on here has their own stories and gripes, and the threads about that have probably been done to death.
Okay, we've got a decent number (for CAPTalk) of respondents to the poll and I think it is abundantly clear that we do have a major problem with seniors wearing the AF uniform who appear to be outside the current height-weight standards.
If only 26% of CAP members can say that they see seniors that are apparently outside the standard less then 10% of the time, then its a regulations that isn't being enforced at all and needs to be addressed.
Could it be fixed using current regulations? Absolutely, but its clear that it has not been emphasized at any level in CAP and until it is, people are going to continue to ignore it.
If CAP is to retain any credibility and its authority to wear AF-style uniforms one of two things has to happen:
1. Have some sort of mandatory weigh-in program for those who wish to wear AF-style uniforms.
2. Eliminate the height/weight requirements entirely.
Option 2 is unlikely to happen. If we never had such a restriction, we could probably continue to maintain it, but I don't think we're going to convince an AF that requires airmen to have waists no larger than a set size to drop this particular requirement.
Option 1 is within our own control. Individual commanders have this authority now but obviously have chosen not to use it or more likely don't know that this is really an option since it isn't presented as one in the regulations.
I think the most likely outcome is that CAP will do nothing and over time because of issues such as this we will lose our ability to wear AF-style uniforms.
Some people may argue that this would be a good thing for the organization and they have some decent points, but the loss of the minimal connection to the AF that we still have would be bad overall for CAP.
^^^Option 3. Abandon the USAF style uniform altogether since we have demonstrated an organizational apathy to the privilege afforded us to wear it to begin with.
I am not one of those who says we are civilians and shouldn't be wearing a military style uniforms. I would like for us to have a unifying organizational identity which is really the point of wearing a uniform to begin with.
Our uniforms should be functional to serve our organizational missions and not to create an alternative because of someone's weight. The Air Force finds that being overweight to be incompatible with military service but not the wearing of their uniform. If an Airman is overweight they still wear the Air Force uniform because they are still in the Air Force...It's their Organizational Identity.
Being Overweight does not make a member incompatible with Civil Air Patrol service so if the Air Force doesn't want the members that are serving the mission of the Air Force and their auxiliary to wear that uniform is should be applied equally.
Now, if they Air Force came out with a requirement that to be part of the Air Force Auxiliary (Read AUX ON) you must be within USAF H/W standards that is a different argument altogether since you are now covered by their policies, insurance, et al. However, the Air Force has no such restrictions. IOW if you are overweight we will gladly accept your efforts, risk, time, money to accomplish our mission but we don't value your affiliation enough to have you look like you represent our organization. It's better to look good than actually be good.
What I've been saying for years is that if we simply enforced the regulations consistently and with consequences,
that, in and of itself, would impact change, because there's a lot of people in positions of high-visibility and influence
who would be impacted.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 12, 2013, 04:14:50 PM
^^^Option 3. Abandon the USAF style uniform altogether since we have demonstrated an organizational apathy to the privilege afforded us to wear it to begin with.
Its not an option if we want to continue the wear of the AF-style uniform, which was the premise behind the two options.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 12, 2013, 04:14:50 PM
^^^Option 3. Abandon the USAF style uniform altogether since we have demonstrated an organizational apathy to the privilege afforded us to wear it to begin with.
If all we have are the current "CAP corporate" options, count me out.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 12, 2013, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on January 12, 2013, 04:14:50 PM
^^^Option 3. Abandon the USAF style uniform altogether since we have demonstrated an organizational apathy to the privilege afforded us to wear it to begin with.
Its not an option if we want to continue the wear of the AF-style uniform, which was the premise behind the two options.
Yeah, I get that. I'm just really curious about the requirements set forth by the air force and why they haven't suggested an alternative similar to the CSU. They require the H/W standards but our members continue to violate Two of our own core values when they choose to wear it knowing they are outside of standards.
As Volunteers, Uniforms and all the associated accoutrement are important to some people for many different reasons. Uniforms are important to me but not in the "Hey, look at how cool I am" but more in the professional image, "we have a job to do, we have our crap together and we are the people you can trust to get this done."
I think the USAF style uniform provides that professional image but because of our affiliation with them, a segment of our dedicated membership aren't allowed to wear it. However, if we were a private Search and Rescue/Cadet Program organization we can go out and get whatever we want as long as it was distinctive enough not to violate the law.
I love the relationship we have with the Air Force and our shared heritage, but this is an item of contention for a lot more people than I thought. I just want a single uniform that not only all of our membership can wear but actually want to wear and I know we can't please everyone but a majority and generate that professional image.
Sorry for the wandering rants.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 13, 2013, 03:52:22 AM
If all we have are the current "CAP corporate" options, count me out.
Why is that? What is it about the "CAP Corporate" uniforms that would make you not want to support our mission?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 12, 2013, 04:30:01 PM
What I've been saying for years is that if we simply enforced the regulations consistently and with consequences,
that, in and of itself, would impact change, because there's a lot of people in positions of high-visibility and influence
who would be impacted.
I agree, as long as we have these rules they should be enforced. I love seeing the Official Photos of CAP senior Leadership in the USAF Style uniform when we all know that they are out of standards. It's blatantly violating some of our core values and nobody does anything.
If some of them actually followed the rules they might be more inclined to put a little more effort into creating a solution for our membership as a whole.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 13, 2013, 05:56:15 AM
Why is that? What is it about the "CAP Corporate" uniforms that would make you not want to support our mission?
It's not that I wouldn't "support our mission."
I am firmly against
anything that distances us even further from the Air Force than we already have been.
The "corporate" uniforms, except for the nameplate, make no reference to our shared heritage, nor of aviation in general.
Plus, speaking only for myself, I find the G/W hideously monochromatic and ugly, and the blazer not even connected with aviation.
I do like the BBDU's and blue flight suit.
Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.
If I could accurately guess peoples weight by looking at them, I would not waste that skill at CAP meetings, I would be using it where I could make the real money, in the carnival.
No one is claiming that they're going to be able to tell if you're within a few pounds of the weight limit. However, it is really obvious when someone is obese -- which is pretty much what it takes to get outside the height/weight limits for CAP. [these limits match up pretty well with standards definitions of obese using BMI criteria]
Comparing H/W and BMI is essentially useless.
I currently weigh 189. That is within the AF H/W limit listed in the 39-1. My BMI is 27.3, which puts me in the overweight category. I have a bit of a belly (38" waist), but when I tell folks that I need to lose weight, no one seems to agree.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 13, 2013, 05:00:59 PM
Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.
Do you mean H/W violations, or just wearing them incorrectly, dirty, bad badging, etc?
I did not think there could
be H/W violations with those orders of dress.
I believe the only violation I have seen is the G/W being worn with the AF blue windbreaker and CAP rank slides.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 14, 2013, 03:51:21 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 13, 2013, 05:00:59 PM
Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.
Do you mean H/W violations, or just wearing them incorrectly, dirty, bad badging, etc?
I did not think there could be H/W violations with those orders of dress.
I believe the only violation I have seen is the G/W being worn with the AF blue windbreaker and CAP rank slides.
I've seen them worn dirty (i.e. stain on the shirt), wrong name tag, no belt, and just plain wrong.
Of course these were people who could probably screw up jeans and a t shirt...
Quote from: SarDragon on January 13, 2013, 11:41:13 PM
Comparing H/W and BMI is essentially useless.
I currently weigh 189. That is within the AF H/W limit listed in the 39-1. My BMI is 27.3, which puts me in the overweight category. I have a bit of a belly (38" waist), but when I tell folks that I need to lose weight, no one seems to agree.
Well, BMI
IS based on your height and weight.
You are actually below the obese level now. But since you didn't give your height, its hard to tell where you fit on the CAP chart, but I bet that the max CAP weight for your height is going to come out in the obese category for someone of your height.
Some examples from near your weight zone:
5'5 max CAP weight is 186 which is BMI of 30.9 = obese
5'6" max CAP weight is 191 which is BMI of 30.8 = obese
5'7 max CAP weight is 197 which is BMI of 30.9 = obese
The point is that anyone who doesn't meet the CAP standards is going to be OBESE, not just a few pounds overweight. It is not difficult to spot obesity in America these days -- you know it when you see it.
I left out the word 'charts' after 'Comparing H/W and BMI'.
I'm 5'10". By the olde AF H/W chart, I max out at 194#, and on the CAP chart at 213#. The BMI for 213# is about 30.5, as you state, in the obese category.
My point was that, according to the olde, and outdated, AF chart, someone with my height and weight is within standards. According to the new standards, that is not the case. Numbers do not always relate to appearance.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 14, 2013, 03:51:21 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 13, 2013, 05:00:59 PM
Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.
Do you mean H/W violations, or just wearing them incorrectly, dirty, bad badging, etc?
I did not think there could be H/W violations with those orders of dress.
I believe the only violation I have seen is the G/W being worn with the AF blue windbreaker and CAP rank slides.
No sir the violations I see are things like long sleeve shirt no tie and hard rank on the collar of the G/W.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 13, 2013, 05:00:59 PM
Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.
Many people who wear the G/W use it as an excuse to look like a ragbag. The G/W should be worn to the same standard as the AF style. The problem is no one jerks them up short because "it is just a corp. uniform".
Quote from: RiverAux on January 14, 2013, 04:22:42 AM
Well, BMI IS based on your height and weight.
You are actually below the obese level now. But since you didn't give your height, its hard to tell where you fit on the CAP chart, but I bet that the max CAP weight for your height is going to come out in the obese category for someone of your height.
Some examples from near your weight zone:
5'5 max CAP weight is 186 which is BMI of 30.9 = obese
5'6" max CAP weight is 191 which is BMI of 30.8 = obese
5'7 max CAP weight is 197 which is BMI of 30.9 = obese
The point is that anyone who doesn't meet the CAP standards is going to be OBESE, not just a few pounds overweight. It is not difficult to spot obesity in America these days -- you know it when you see it.
Using BMI as an indicator of obesity/underweight is not sound from a medical standpoint. It is a 19th cent. formula designed for population studies and is inappropriate for individual diagnosis. It does not account for disease, muscularity, malnutition, frame etc. BMI ranges are only valid for use as statistical catergories and the ranges can vary from country especially in Asia. The insurance industry likes it because it makes the work of their actuaries easier and the medical communtiy likes it because it is easier than actually examining someone. FWIW
Good night nurse...some of the violations of (mis)wearing of the G/W uniform are bloody hideous.
Hard rank on the collars? The only place where we're permitted to wear hard rank is on the BBDU hat.
"Wrong name tag?" What are they wearing, the blazer nameplate?
::)
Even though I don't like the uniform personally, when I do wear it, I wear it right; i.e., making sure it's clean (I'll say this for it - it's easy to just throw in the wash, rather than having to dry-clean like my AF blue uniform), ribbons are clean (a brief blast of Scotchgard helps with that), no "Irish pennants," shoes shined, etc.
If we just had an authorised, uniform headgear, I'd like the uniform better.
As it is, though, there is no excuse for treating any of our uniforms like that...sets a very bad example for those observing us.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 14, 2013, 05:27:08 AM
According to the new standards, that is not the case. Numbers do not always relate to appearance.
What new standards? CAPs are the same as always.
QuoteUsing BMI as an indicator of obesity/underweight is not sound from a medical standpoint.
That may be, but its irrelevant to the conversation. There are not many people who are going to fall into the obese category using BMI that are going to be in compliance with CAP height/weight standards. As far as I know, neither CAP or the AF have used these standards for any sort of medical reason -- they use them because most of the time, someone who doesn't meet them looks fat and sloppy, and they don't want someone that looks fat and sloppy. The AF (but not CAP) has other tests to determine medical health and fitness.
Its not my Fault my Spoon and Fork made me Fat. Lets ban Spoons and Forks, so obesity will not be so prevelant.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 14, 2013, 01:52:12 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 14, 2013, 05:27:08 AM
According to the new standards, that is not the case. Numbers do not always relate to appearance.
What new standards? CAPs are the same as always.
I think he was referring the fact that the AF no longer uses H/W standards.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the health of members. This is 100% about appearance. We need to insure we are clear on this point.
The simple fact is that 60-70+% of the adult membership will never, ever, fall within the CAP standards for wear of the USAF style uniform.
Some for a few pounds, some for legitimate medical obesity, but mainly because they are "normal" Americans who have "real" jobs
and for whom CAP is a few-hour-a-month diversion from "real" life. They have no mission-centric reason to care about their weight,
and the constant nagging about appearance standards is simply a negative draw on their spirit and initiative to continue membership.
The very pool we pull from, for the skills we seek out most, pilots, comm guys, IT people, professionals, and even police / fire people
are primarily sedentary occupations with no specific need to be concerned about physical ability beyond being able to find a chair that
won't collapse under your own weight.
So what happens? People are people, and they do "what they have to". Since the USAF doesn't actually care what we wear,
and there is no imperative from the national leadership to establish standards and uniform prescriptions, people fall back to lowest common
denominator, and we wind with whole units in nothing but golf shirts, and in some cases, not even those are worn properly. (Gray sweatpants
with white aviators in formation? Seen it, and much worse).
The above being an undeniable fact, which is not going to change, I again say we need to start asking difficult questions that have straightforward
answers and then take the steps necessary to correct the situation.
But at the least, let's stop kidding ourselves about >why< we are where we are, or that this has anything to do with health concerns
about the membership.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2013, 03:11:39 PMGray sweatpants with white aviators in formation? Seen it, and much worse.
Sexy! That should be a recruiting poster!
I was at a great TLC course this past weekend. There were 11 students and here is the breakdown of both days:
5 in Polos, 2 in Blues, 4 in G/Ws.
The activity was said to be G/Ws or Blues ONLY.
Upon seeing polos and asking the staff (All in Blues), this changed the next day:
7 in polo, 1 in blues, 3 in G/Ws.
One of the 3 G/Ws was in a polo the day before, so two G/Ws switched to polos.
While I have no issue with polos for classes, it's always a bit disappointing to see people not follow the UOD for...whatever.
I got something out of the course, and had 3 squadron mates there as students and the Squadron commander as an instructor in day 1. But the uniform thing....bleh.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 14, 2013, 07:15:24 AM
If we just had an authorised, uniform headgear, I'd like the uniform better.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: X 100,000
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2013, 03:11:39 PM
Since the USAF doesn't actually care what we wear
Please clarify. I thought that the whole point of the H/W kerfuffle was about the USAF
caring how we look in the blue uniform.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2013, 03:11:39 PM
we wind with whole units in nothing but golf shirts
When I joined the infamous
flying club senior squadron, and first butted heads with the segment of our membership who could care less about looking good in a uniform, and who think we should not even be
wearing the AF uniform, most of them, when they bothered with uniforms at all, wore golf shirts.
Some of it was probably because of H/W issues, but I think most of it was because it was
cheap and
easy. You don't have to observe C&C's (something universally disliked in this unit) in a golf shirt (or at least it was so thought), and since golf shirts don't carry rank you don't have to worry about that either. I was in that unit for two years, and there were many members whose rank I never learnt (most, I think, were "second lieutenants for life") because it was never worn.
One member who came in after I did asked me why I "bothered" with the AF uniform when it was so much "easier" and "cheaper" to just get a golf shirt. Said member also did not own either the required blues or G/W.
I think the "cheap and easy" factor is predominant among those who are "golf shirt only," along with the not wanting to bother with C&C's if they can avoid it.
Quote from: phirons on January 14, 2013, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on January 14, 2013, 07:15:24 AM
If we just had an authorised, uniform headgear, I'd like the uniform better.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: X 100,000
I know they don't want us mixing AF items (though the sweater is allowed, is it now?), but the G/Ws need headgear at the least, and a service coat in my dreams.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 14, 2013, 04:35:41 PM
I know they don't want us mixing AF items (though the sweater is allowed, is it now?), but the G/Ws need headgear at the least, and a service coat in my dreams.
We already
are mixing AF items. The blue AF tie is prescribed for the G/W.
The blue cardigan (button-up) sweater is authorised for the G/W. Pullovers of any kind are not.
I agree with you 100000% about the headgear and service coat, but that very idea is a thorn in the flesh of many on CT who don't want to "bother" with a hat, and who like it that any old blue suit jacket will do for a blazer.
Right, forgot the tie as well.
I have no issue with a blue blazer, but if you can't wear the ribbons or grade (pocket protector be [darn]ed), might as well call the long sleeve shirt with the tie your most formal uniform.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 14, 2013, 04:18:47 PM
The activity was said to be G/Ws or Blues ONLY.
While I have no issue with polos for classes, it's always a bit very disappointing to see people not follow the UOD for...whatever.
FTFY
Then those that violated the UOD should have been dismissed from class, or not gotten credit.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 14, 2013, 04:18:47 PM
I was at a great TLC course this past weekend. There were 11 students and here is the breakdown of both days:
I got something out of the course, and had 3 squadron mates there as students and the Squadron commander as an instructor in day 1.
Great. next time, volunteer as an instructor.
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 14, 2013, 05:07:45 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 14, 2013, 04:18:47 PM
The activity was said to be G/Ws or Blues ONLY.
While I have no issue with polos for classes, it's always a bit very disappointing to see people not follow the UOD for...whatever.
FTFY
Then those that violated the UOD should have been dismissed from class, or not gotten credit.
I've yet to see that happen in CAP - ever.
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 14, 2013, 05:07:45 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 14, 2013, 04:18:47 PM
I was at a great TLC course this past weekend. There were 11 students and here is the breakdown of both days:
I got something out of the course, and had 3 squadron mates there as students and the Squadron commander as an instructor in day 1.
Great. next time, volunteer as an instructor.
All in due time!
I was wondering cant you Technically wear your ribbons on the Blazer? I mean since it is not a "Military" uniform you can wear Military ribbons, if going to awards banquet or military ball?
I think you can wear the rank on the Blazer, its on the Nametag.
If you wear the Blue Bow Tie, you can wear 1 mini medal. I still think the blazer should have some Metal style ranks, and to wear you ribbons above the Crest. I mean if its not a military unifrom cant NHQ decide how we wear it?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 14, 2013, 05:32:52 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 14, 2013, 05:07:45 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 14, 2013, 04:18:47 PM
The activity was said to be G/Ws or Blues ONLY.
While I have no issue with polos for classes, it's always a bit very disappointing to see people not follow the UOD for...whatever.
FTFY
Then those that violated the UOD should have been dismissed from class, or not gotten credit.
I've yet to see that happen in CAP - ever.
Show up in a polo to one of mine, and you will. I make sure that the UOD is published well ahead of time, and the consequences of it not being followed.
Quote from: Devil Doc on January 14, 2013, 05:42:09 PM
I mean if its not a military uniform cant NHQ decide how we wear it?
No. All uniform changes must have the approval of the AF. Hard rank will not pass, at least for the foreseeable future.
So we are saying that the AF has a Patent on the color blue? Or since we are an AUX to the AF they approve what we wear, regardless on it being military or not?
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 14, 2013, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on January 14, 2013, 05:42:09 PM
I mean if its not a military uniform cant NHQ decide how we wear it?
No. All uniform changes must have the approval of the AF. Hard rank will not pass, at least for the foreseeable future.
Nothing but the status quo will pass, at least for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 14, 2013, 05:43:38 PM
Show up in a polo to one of mine, and you will. I make sure that the UOD is published well ahead of time, and the consequences of it not being followed.
Easy solution - I don't own a Polo.
Quote from: Devil Doc on January 14, 2013, 05:48:21 PM
So we are saying that the AF has a Patent on the color blue? Or since we are an AUX to the AF they approve what we wear, regardless on it being military or not?
See:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16690.140 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16690.140)
CAP is too fixated on grey to even consider anything else.
Ya i have responded to that post also. I mean atleast the CSU was something close. It seems like the "Plump" and "Fuzzy" get the shaft again :o
Quote from: Devil Doc on January 14, 2013, 05:42:09 PM
I was wondering cant you Technically wear your ribbons on the Blazer? I mean since it is not a "Military" uniform you can wear Military ribbons, if going to awards banquet or military ball?
I think you can wear the rank on the Blazer, its on the Nametag.
If you wear the Blue Bow Tie, you can wear 1 mini medal. I still think the blazer should have some Metal style ranks, and to wear you ribbons above the Crest. I mean if its not a military unifrom cant NHQ decide how we wear it?
If you actually RTFM, you will note that you can wear ONE Mini Medal on the blazer while at a formal event.
(CAPM 39-1, Para 4-2a and Fig 4-1, Note 6)
I know i quoted that you can wear one mini medal. Did i say something different?
Quote from: CyBorg on January 14, 2013, 05:49:37 PM
CAP is too fixated on grey to even consider anything else.
You (and others) have said this a few times, and I find myself wondering why. It doesn't seem particularly fair or accurate.
The only grey items in our uniform constellation are the trousers for the blazer and aviator combinations and the shoulder marks and nameplates worn on the USAF-style and aviator uniforms.
And as we discussed earlier, the blazer uniform is something like 50 years old and designed to a) not look like a military uniform, and b) to be easily locally obtainable so that members were not tied to AAFES or Vanguard.
The only fairly recent grey-related changes are from over 10 years ago when the aviator combination was created. And again, it was a large step forward for our larger members because it allowed them to wear their earned CAP decorations and devices. Like the blazer, it was specifically designed to be locally obtainable and it complemented the blazer in the sense that as a practical matter, one could wear the blazer over the aviator combo. Most members (especially the larger members) already had the grey trousers from the blazer uniform. The leadership was trying to provide a professional uniform for large seniors and hold costs down at the same time. Sort of a "win-win" situation.
Since the aviator combination was created over a decade ago, CAP has not proposed or implemented a single grey colored uniform item.
It is hard to reconcile the historical record with your assertion that CAP is "too fixated on grey to even consider anything else." If that were remotely true, I suspect the CSU would have been grey. Or we would have had a grey field uniform. Or a grey corporate flight suit.
But we don't.
But if you'd like, I could suggest them to the NUC. ;)
I only have a Short Sleeve Aviator, can i wear my Blazer over it? Wear the AF Blue Tie, as long as the blazer dosnt come off you cannot tell right :). I was thinking just to wear a White dress shirt, and blue blazer. Going to go find a Blue AF tie today hopefully. The order the other stuff from the BIG VG.
Severe thread drift alert!
This thread is only about overweight people wearing AF-style uniforms despite the prohibition on them doing so....
Quote from: Devil Doc on January 14, 2013, 07:03:31 PM
I know i quoted that you can wear one mini medal. Did i say something different?
Nah.
Phil's coffee:time-of-day ratio must be off. >:D
OK, So should CAP Change the Regs to follow that of the CG Aux? So it looks like the Poll shows 0-50% of people see overweight members in AF Blues. So what does that say about the Organization.
Quote from: Devil Doc on January 14, 2013, 10:30:45 PM
OK, So should CAP Change the Regs to follow that of the CG Aux? So it looks like the Poll shows 0-50% of people see overweight members in AF Blues. So what does that say about the Organization.
It says that the fast food restaurants are doing good business.
Hey Fast Food does not make you fat. It what you eat there that makes you fat, plus lack of exercise. Although there is some that cannot exercise due to physical disabilites or meds they take.
Before people get too wound up over this I would like to point out that I have seen a fair number of Active Duty AF that appear to be out ot the standards from an E-3 all the way up to a O-5. And I have seen them within the last 12 months. I have in the last year and a half lost about 100lbs, I now meet the H/W standards. Should I be punished because I don't have a flat stomach?
Quote from: tarheel gumby on January 15, 2013, 12:24:13 AM
Before people get too wound up over this I would like to point out that I have seen a fair number of Active Duty AF that appear to be out ot the standards from an E-3 all the way up to a O-5. And I have seen them within the last 12 months.
And if they don't fix the situation, they won't likely be in the USAF this time next year.
Quote from: tarheel gumby on January 15, 2013, 12:24:13 AM
Before people get too wound up over this I would like to point out that I have seen a fair number of Active Duty AF that appear to be out ot the standards from an E-3 all the way up to a O-5. And I have seen them within the last 12 months. I have in the last year and a half lost about 100lbs, I now meet the H/W standards. Should I be punished because I don't have a flat stomach?
There is no H/W standard for any AF component with the exception of entry. If they have PT failures in two years they are gone or gone before hand with the CC's say so.
Technically that's correct, but there are also "not to exceed" measurements which are part of PT and have ended more then a few careers
early. That's pretty much the same thing as H/W.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2013, 01:14:53 AM
Technically that's correct, but there are also "not to exceed" measurements which are part of PT and have ended more then a few careers
early. That's pretty much the same thing as H/W.
There is no technically about it, that is how it is. You have four consecutive failures in two years and your gone, not showing improvement and your CC can bounce you plain and simple. There is a max waist size but there are no H/W standards at all once you have entered.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 15, 2013, 01:53:58 AM
There is no technically about it, that is how it is. You have four consecutive failures in two years and your gone, not showing improvement and your CC can bounce you plain and simple. There is a max waist size but there are no H/W standards at all once you have entered.
What kind of discharge would that be?
Quote from: CyBorg on January 15, 2013, 05:23:39 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 15, 2013, 01:53:58 AM
There is no technically about it, that is how it is. You have four consecutive failures in two years and your gone, not showing improvement and your CC can bounce you plain and simple. There is a max waist size but there are no H/W standards at all once you have entered.
What kind of discharge would that be?
Usually a General under Honorable Conditions because your being bounced for "Failure to Maintain Standards".
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
You (and others) have said this a few times, and I find myself wondering why. It doesn't seem particularly fair or accurate.
I don't think it would be as noticeable if the aviator shirt weren't white...again, monochromatic.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
The only fairly recent grey-related changes are from over 10 years ago when the aviator combination was created. And again, it was a large step forward for our larger members because it allowed them to wear their earned CAP decorations and devices.
Which I
do think was a great thing to do. I knew many colleagues who lamented the fact that they couldn't wear awards earned on anything and that they were just relegated to "shadow box" displays. I think it would have been even better, though, had the white shirt been swopped out at minimum cost for a blue (yes, I said blue), khaki, or dark-blue (police style):
(http://www.qmuniforms.com/_productimages/nocategory/1000x1000/s33-670_original.jpg)
As well, moving toward a civilian, airline-modelled blazer configuration (and hat of some kind even if it's only optional), with CAP devices worn, would have been a definite plus.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
If that were remotely true, I suspect the CSU would have been grey.
The entire intent of the CSU was to give the members who couldn't wear the AF uniform to have something similar, yet different. I wonder how the CSU would have been accepted had it
not used
any AF items, and been more of a blue-grey (happy medium?) shade, like the RAF (the world's first independent air force, who originated the term "Air Force Blue"), or the modern Deutsche Bundesluftwaffe, but using the same cut as the CSU:
(http://haslemerewardrobe.co.uk/costumeshire/images/RAF_Uniform3.jpg)
(http://themarshallwiki.wiki-site.com/images/6/68/Luftwaffe_Service_Uniform.PNG)
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
Or we would have had a grey field uniform.
I am frankly surprised we
don't, given the ready availability of grey BDU/tactical kit.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
Or a grey corporate flight suit.
Outside of the German Bundesluftwaffe, I've never seen such a flight suit, and even that is more grey-greenish.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
But if you'd like, I could suggest them to the NUC. ;)
Thank you for your generous offer, sir. I respectfully decline. ;D
I suppose my entire point is that CAP
seems to think that only the status quo, and the colours grey and white, are acceptably, distinctively CAP and any deviation from that is liable to tick off the Air Force.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 15, 2013, 05:53:18 AM
(http://haslemerewardrobe.co.uk/costumeshire/images/RAF_Uniform3.jpg)
I think are members would look 'dashing' in that combo 8)
CyBorg, why are you so "all consumed" by the CSU decision? The NEC made a decision. Life moves on.
If this is causing you this much stress then maybe you need to do something other then CAP.
Quote from: PHall on January 15, 2013, 12:18:18 PM
CyBorg, why are you so "all consumed" by the CSU decision? The NEC made a decision. Life moves on.
If this is causing you this much stress then maybe you need to do something other then CAP.
I am not "all consumed" by the CSU decision, even though I find it illogical and unjustified, especially given we never were told exactly
why.If I were "all consumed," I would be campaigning to
bring it back, which would be equally illogical.
I am quite aware that you did not like the CSU. I am also quite aware that you oppose the colour blue for the extant CAP uniform. Those are your opinions, you have a right to them, I have a right not to share them.
Really, the only factor that the CSU has in my current thinking was that it was a uniform
a lot of people (you were not among them, I know) liked and felt proud to wear.
Conversely, you, I and many others have read less-than-glowing opinions of the current G/W here on CT, even by those who wear it. "A uniform you can get a bit dirty in," and the like? I do not call that "pride" in a uniform.
All I'm doing is throwing out ideas, hoping maybe some will hit the wall and stick. You are not required to agree with me, any more than I am required to agree with you.
It is not "causing me stress" to have an idea or an opinion on the matter. If
anything "causes me stress," it is the attitude of so many in CAP that anything other than the status quo will tick off the Air Force, without even asking them. Even so, that's way down the stress chain from such things as getting beaten at chess or poker, being unable to find my favourite episode of
Married...With Children or (especially) wondering why the promotion package I submitted for Major seems to have got lost in a black hole somewhere (something like
that would be much more likely to cause me to weigh options other than CAP).
If you like the status quo, that is entirely your option.
ADDENDUM:
This is me stressed-out:
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5054176601179576&pid=15.1)
For the record when I called it a uniform "I could get a little dirty in" I was drawing from my experience as an IT guy.
If I'm in a really nice pair of pants and a well pressed shirt I still get told to crawl under a desk and fix a computer.
Show up to work in a 3-piece suit and 'not so much'.
I wear my uniforms proudly. I may not LIKE some of them but I take pride in what they stand for.
If I'm in my G/W comboo, well pressed, well groomed and shoes well polished I believe I'm doing my best to portray the image I'm allowed to.
I know our cadets appreciate it as well.
Quote from: johnnyb47 on January 15, 2013, 03:10:47 PM
For the record when I called it a uniform "I could get a little dirty in" I was drawing from my experience as an IT guy.
I understand. I was in the IT field for many, many years and had to perform tasks just as you describe.
However, I have seen that order of dress worn like it hasn't been laundered in months.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 15, 2013, 03:16:01 PMHowever, I have seen that order of dress worn like it hasn't been laundered in months.
Or as if the term "white" has an ambiguous nature.
Although sadly that's not limited to the G/W's, I've seen far too many adults literally wearing the same shirts they have worn
as cadets pretending the collar hadn't taken on that lovely greenish tinge that an improperly laundered / unserviceable USAF shirt takes on.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 15, 2013, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: PHall on January 15, 2013, 12:18:18 PM
CyBorg, why are you so "all consumed" by the CSU decision? The NEC made a decision. Life moves on.
If this is causing you this much stress then maybe you need to do something other then CAP.
I am not "all consumed" by the CSU decision, even though I find it illogical and unjustified, especially given we never were told exactly why.
If I were "all consumed," I would be campaigning to bring it back, which would be equally illogical.
I am quite aware that you did not like the CSU. I am also quite aware that you oppose the colour blue for the extant CAP uniform. Those are your opinions, you have a right to them, I have a right not to share them.
Really, the only factor that the CSU has in my current thinking was that it was a uniform a lot of people (you were not among them, I know) liked and felt proud to wear.
Conversely, you, I and many others have read less-than-glowing opinions of the current G/W here on CT, even by those who wear it. "A uniform you can get a bit dirty in," and the like? I do not call that "pride" in a uniform.
All I'm doing is throwing out ideas, hoping maybe some will hit the wall and stick. You are not required to agree with me, any more than I am required to agree with you.
It is not "causing me stress" to have an idea or an opinion on the matter. If anything "causes me stress," it is the attitude of so many in CAP that anything other than the status quo will tick off the Air Force, without even asking them. Even so, that's way down the stress chain from such things as getting beaten at chess or poker, being unable to find my favourite episode of Married...With Children or (especially) wondering why the promotion package I submitted for Major seems to have got lost in a black hole somewhere (something like that would be much more likely to cause me to weigh options other than CAP).
If you like the status quo, that is entirely your option.
ADDENDUM:
This is me stressed-out:
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5054176601179576&pid=15.1)
Dude, you have thrown out so many ideas, that all seem to be the same one, over and ever again, that the EPA has now declared this a Superfund Cleanup Site!
I think the jist of the ideas is the same...
Now that I know that Ned is checking in on the discussion.
Is there a process where the membership can appeal to the NUC to bring back the CSU outside of the regular Chain of Command? I've made the request and as far as I can tell it's gone nowhere.
^dido?
Quote from: SARDOC on January 16, 2013, 01:08:47 AM
Now that I know that Ned is checking in on the discussion.
Is there a process where the membership can appeal to the NUC to bring back the CSU outside of the regular Chain of Command? I've made the request and as far as I can tell it's gone nowhere.
Read the 39-1. It says that ALL suggested changes must go up the chain of command. It doesn't mention any exceptions.
Quote from: PHall on January 16, 2013, 02:36:32 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on January 16, 2013, 01:08:47 AM
Now that I know that Ned is checking in on the discussion.
Is there a process where the membership can appeal to the NUC to bring back the CSU outside of the regular Chain of Command? I've made the request and as far as I can tell it's gone nowhere.
Read the 39-1. It says that ALL suggested changes must go up the chain of command. It doesn't mention any exceptions.
I think that Colonel Ned Lee respects that chain of command enough that, while he may bring up what he reads here with his colleagues, I think he would also say to use the chain.
Having said that, I just got my issue of
CAP Volunteer. In it, our National Commander, Major General Charles Carr, says "You can contact me anytime on the 'Ask The Commander' link on eServices."
I have often wondered what and how the General intends the usage of that resource. I do not think he would approve of using it to circumvent the chain of command.
However, I also sympathise with SARDOC in that I have definite, outlined proposals, worded in CAP-ese (I have a Master rating in Administration, after all! 8)), not to bring back the CSU (I do not think that will ever happen, as much as I would like otherwise) to make minimum changes to the
current aviator kit, most of which (as PHall correctly notes! :P) have been aired here on CT. I am sceptical that my proposals would ever make it past Wing, which is why I have not submitted them.
Any proposals can and do "go nowhere," as SARDOC says, and we are not obligated to be told
why, as with the ending of the CSU itself.
Part of me is debating whether to use MGen Carr's link to at least get a proposal started. However, the odds are extremely good that I will not do so. Why? Because, after my years of experience with CAP, the CGAUX and ANG, I think one very quick way to
not get an idea respected/considered is to "jump the chain."
I wasnt in CAP when the CSU was Authorized then Not Authorized. The only thing that seems to get me is there was no "Specific" reason why it was taken away. Im sure that if CAP gave a reason it would pacify the people that really liked it. If a reason is also given, maybe it can help to find other uniforms or ways to help solve the blazer issue. I am hoping we can be given specifics on how the uniform should look per the AF so were not coming up with ideas in the dark.
I seriously doubt the AF cares what our uniforms look like with the exception of reserving some control so that "if" we wear AF style uniforms they are done right and there remains some distinction from actual military. The problem with uniforms in an organization like CAP is I doubt you'll ever make most people happy because people come in with very different backgrounds and purposes. A lot of people like me are happy to be civilian volunteers just trying to help their community using their talents and ambitions, the Air Force connection is neat but not a main concern or motivation. Many other people come in with military backgrounds and admit that one of their main reasons for joining is the chance to continue wearing a military uniform. How can you reconcile those two expectations? Now if these (and other) types of personalities could appreciate the motivation of the other people (hint: DIVERSITY), then I think people could approach the uniform issue with respect, but as it is there seems to be a lot of selfishness or "this is how I want it and that's the right way!". I would say you almost cannot resolve this until you change the cultural attitude, which I think is a large part of the reason for so many variations in uniform and variations in the extent people go to comply (or ignore) uniform policy.
Quote from: rframe on January 16, 2013, 02:11:20 PM
I seriously doubt the AF cares what our uniforms look like with the exception of reserving some control so that "if" we wear AF style uniforms they are done right and there remains some distinction from actual military.
This is true. However, what that distinction has become is very vague and unenforceable. The AFI on the matter says that confusion must be avoided "at low light and at a distance." Well...they never say what "low light" means or how far "distance" means. Years ago we had hard rank and blue epaulettes that said "CAP" on them, as well as the same blue nameplates cadets have today, and until the actions of a few, that did just fine for "distinction." Now to even suggest getting those back is regarded as sacrilege.
Quote from: rframe on January 16, 2013, 02:11:20 PM
The problem with uniforms in an organization like CAP is I doubt you'll ever make most people happy because people come in with very different backgrounds and purposes.
Quite true. "Purposes" range from the honourable and altruistic (community service, support to the Air Force) to much less so (just so they can fly on the AF's dime, or try to act like they're really an Air Force officer, when we are not).
Quote from: rframe on January 16, 2013, 02:11:20 PM
A lot of people like me are happy to be civilian volunteers just trying to help their community using their talents and ambitions, the Air Force connection is neat but not a main concern or motivation.
I find in my experience of almost 20-odd-years in CAP that the ones for whom the AF connection is "neat," as you said, are
mostly in the ES side of things. Some take it to an extreme and try to "re-make" CAP as "all ES, all the time." Those are
usually the ones who want us out of the AF uniforms entirely, and
tend to congregate in senior squadrons (painting with a very broad brush, I know).
Quote from: rframe on January 16, 2013, 02:11:20 PM
Many other people come in with military backgrounds and admit that one of their main reasons for joining is the chance to continue wearing a military uniform.
I am one of those; in my view, CAP is a way to continue being part of Team Air Force (such as we are these days) that I lost when I had to take a medical discharge from the ANG.
Also, I find that those who favour the Air Force uniform/military-type uniforms in general are
mostly in CP and AE. I do, and have done, ES, but as I get older and my health poorer I focus much more on AE because I like military aviation history and CP because I want to try to provide kids with something I didn't have much of as a kid - a safe place.
There are those who take CP to an extreme to the point of thinking that should be
all we do, who say "cadets ARE our lifeblood." Unfortunately, I've found some Air Force people who look at CAP that way. >:(
I haven't yet found anyone who is so overzealous for AE that they want to junk the other two aspects.
Quote from: rframe on January 16, 2013, 02:11:20 PM
How can you reconcile those two expectations?
I don't know if they
can be reconciled.
Quote from: rframe on January 16, 2013, 02:11:20 PM
Now if these (and other) types of personalities could appreciate the motivation of the other people (hint: DIVERSITY), then I think people could approach the uniform issue with respect, but as it is there seems to be a lot of selfishness or "this is how I want it and that's the right way!".
Another good point. I cannot speak for anyone else, but as a strong supporter of our AF side, it's really neither here nor there to me if someone
doesn't want to wear the AF uniform. My squadron has people who wear either or both. However, what
does rankle me is those who say we must be out of the AF uniform completely, and that the polo shirt is all we need (which is contrary to regs). I am sure that those who choose to wear the corporate uniforms feel that way about those who don't like those uniforms trying to tell them "if you're not 'fat and fuzzy' you need to be in the AF uniform."
Quote from: rframe on January 16, 2013, 02:11:20 PM
I would say you almost cannot resolve this until you change the cultural attitude, which I think is a large part of the reason for so many variations in uniform and variations in the extent people go to comply (or ignore) uniform policy.
Again, well stated. However, I really didn't start seeing this divergence until the mid-1990's (around the time when John McCain tried to torpedo us), when the "corporatists" started taking more control at higher levels and inching us away from the Air Force. I don't know if there can ever be a "reunification" or not.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 17, 2013, 01:53:07 AM
This is true. However, what that distinction has become is very vague and unenforceable. The AFI on the matter says that confusion must be avoided "at low light and at a distance." Well...they never say what "low light" means or how far "distance" means.
I would reasonably conclude this to mean at night, under normal street lighting (such as you might find on a base), and at 6 paces or so away ("salutable" distance) - so that you could determine if someone approaching you was CAP or AD in a reasonable enough time to render proper courtesies if warranted (or refuse them if it was a CAP officer demanding one?).
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 17, 2013, 04:16:31 PM
I would reasonably conclude this to mean at night, under normal street lighting (such as you might find on a base), and at 6 paces or so away ("salutable" distance) - so that you could determine if someone approaching you was CAP or AD in a reasonable enough time to render proper courtesies if warranted (or refuse them if it was a CAP officer demanding one?).
Well-stated...better than the AFI, I believe. Perhaps you could submit your statement for inclusion in the next AFI?
However, there are still so many variables involved.
1. Not everybody's eyesight, including night vision, is the same.
2. Probably the most important, very few people in the AF below field grade know who and what CAP is, especially junior enlisted.
3. The identifier of "CAP" on our rank slides would be quite visible under the conditions you describe, regardless of what colour the rank slides are (especially in streetlight).
4. If someone is going to be enough of a dolt to demand an unwarranted salute from a military member, they're going to do it regardless of what uniform they're wearing.
WRT #4., especially...we've been without the hard rank and blue slides for 20-odd years now, and we've had the grey slides since 1995. Yet we still have occasional instances of this happening, to the extent that General Amy Coulter felt compelled to issue a directive on the matter during her tenure as national CC.