Was on Flickr checking out the pictures when I saw a two-star wearing the funky ABU and blue patch combo in an official event:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/civilairpatrol/24948046409/in/album-72157664982316892/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/civilairpatrol/24948046409/in/album-72157664982316892/)
Is it official now? I thought this was a joke?
The uniform is not official as of yet. CAP has approved it, and is currently pending USAF approval. And no it's not a joke.
Also, the two star is Major General Vazquez, the National Commander.
Wow. Will this be for cadets as well? Everyone was swearing up and down we wouldn't get ABUs until our grandkids were in the program.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20556.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20556.0)
Check out that thread.
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
Said the anonymous poster on CAP talk. :(
With my calibrated Mark One Eyeball all those wearing ABUs appeared to be with in weight and grooming standards.
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
If you're referrring obliquely to the Northeast Region Commander, then I'm here to tell you that I'm pretty sure, judging by my Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball estimation about 45 days ago, in person, at a range of about 1 meter, that he's within weight standards. I didn't get out a scale or a tape measure.
The absolute level of dis-respect people show toward our senior leadership on-line is outrageous.
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
If you're referrring obliquely to the Northeast Region Commander, then I'm here to tell you that I'm pretty sure, judging by my Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball estimation about 45 days ago, in person, at a range of about 1 meter, that he's within weight standards. I didn't get out a scale or a tape measure.
The absolute level of dis-respect people show toward our senior leadership on-line is outrageous.
I completely agree, the double standard of absolute respect in person and total disrespect online is ridiculous, it's disrespect no matter where or when it's said.
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
If you're referrring obliquely to the Northeast Region Commander, then I'm here to tell you that I'm pretty sure, judging by my Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball estimation about 45 days ago, in person, at a range of about 1 meter, that he's within weight standards. I didn't get out a scale or a tape measure.
The absolute level of dis-respect people show toward our senior leadership on-line is outrageous.
NER/CC was in ABU. MER/CC was in blue.
Was that in reference to the ABU or the blues? I read USAF style and thought blues....
I don't post often on here but that was funny Darin.. Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball... I'm still laughing, I'm going to use that sometime.
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
If you're referrring obliquely to the Northeast Region Commander, then I'm here to tell you that I'm pretty sure, judging by my Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball estimation about 45 days ago, in person, at a range of about 1 meter, that he's within weight standards. I didn't get out a scale or a tape measure.
The absolute level of dis-respect people show toward our senior leadership on-line is outrageous.
Thank God, I only showed up in the background of one of those shots.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on March 02, 2016, 06:45:31 PM
I don't post often on here but that was funny Darin.. Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball... I'm still laughing, I'm going to use that sometime.
I get a nickle every time you use it. Its in my licensing agreement.
:)
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
If you're referrring obliquely to the Northeast Region Commander, then I'm here to tell you that I'm pretty sure, judging by my Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball estimation about 45 days ago, in person, at a range of about 1 meter, that he's within weight standards. I didn't get out a scale or a tape measure.
The absolute level of dis-respect people show toward our senior leadership on-line is outrageous.
Having seen both of these officers the previous day in Service Dress, I can confirm your assessment...
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 06:50:02 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on March 02, 2016, 06:45:31 PM
I don't post often on here but that was funny Darin.. Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball... I'm still laughing, I'm going to use that sometime.
I get a nickle every time you use it. Its in my licensing agreement.
:)
If you get LASIK does that make it a Mark 1 Mod 1 eyeball?
Quote from: CChitty on March 02, 2016, 04:29:05 PM
Was on Flickr checking out the pictures when I saw a two-star wearing the funky ABU and blue patch combo in an official event:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/civilairpatrol/24948046409/in/album-72157664982316892/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/civilairpatrol/24948046409/in/album-72157664982316892/)
Is it official now? I thought this was a joke?
That 'two-star' you are referring to happens to be
your National Commander. ::)
Wow.
Quote from: LTC Don on March 02, 2016, 07:12:37 PM
Quote from: CChitty on March 02, 2016, 04:29:05 PM
Was on Flickr checking out the pictures when I saw a two-star wearing the funky ABU and blue patch combo in an official event:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/civilairpatrol/24948046409/in/album-72157664982316892/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/civilairpatrol/24948046409/in/album-72157664982316892/)
Is it official now? I thought this was a joke?
That 'two-star' you are referring to happens to be your National Commander. ::)
Wow.
Although...there was a second two-star in the room!
Quote from: Toth on March 02, 2016, 05:58:58 PM
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
If you're referrring obliquely to the Northeast Region Commander, then I'm here to tell you that I'm pretty sure, judging by my Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball estimation about 45 days ago, in person, at a range of about 1 meter, that he's within weight standards. I didn't get out a scale or a tape measure.
The absolute level of dis-respect people show toward our senior leadership on-line is outrageous.
I completely agree, the double standard of absolute respect in person and total disrespect online is ridiculous, it's disrespect no matter where or when it's said.
It is amazing that when some fingers hit the keyboard, that the CAP Core Values goes into "auto-delete" mode :(
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 06:50:02 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on March 02, 2016, 06:45:31 PM
I don't post often on here but that was funny Darin.. Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball... I'm still laughing, I'm going to use that sometime.
I get a nickle every time you use it. Its in my licensing agreement.
:)
Worth every nickel!
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
If you're referrring obliquely to the Northeast Region Commander, then I'm here to tell you that I'm pretty sure, judging by my Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball estimation about 45 days ago, in person, at a range of about 1 meter, that he's within weight standards. I didn't get out a scale or a tape measure.
The absolute level of dis-respect people show toward our senior leadership on-line is outrageous.
Withdrawn. No disrespect intended, and I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.
Quote from: Chappie on March 02, 2016, 07:30:08 PM
Quote from: Toth on March 02, 2016, 05:58:58 PM
Quote from: NIN on March 02, 2016, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
If you're referrring obliquely to the Northeast Region Commander, then I'm here to tell you that I'm pretty sure, judging by my Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball estimation about 45 days ago, in person, at a range of about 1 meter, that he's within weight standards. I didn't get out a scale or a tape measure.
The absolute level of dis-respect people show toward our senior leadership on-line is outrageous.
I completely agree, the double standard of absolute respect in person and total disrespect online is ridiculous, it's disrespect no matter where or when it's said.
It is amazing that when some fingers hit the keyboard, that the CAP Core Values goes into "auto-delete" mode :(
That's a fair point, Sir. I also find it amazing how a certain other core value often goes out the window when it comes to wearing the USAF-style uniforms.
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 08:53:30 PM
That's a fair point, Sir. I also find it amazing how a certain other core value often goes out the window when it comes to wearing the USAF-style uniforms.
And when confronted with a core value violation, one should challenge that officer and/or report him/her to the appropriate authority.
So yes....there are a lot of integrity issues in CAP. Lots of them. Let's work the problem and not add more to the mix.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
Let's work the problem and not add more to the mix.
Hear, Hear!
Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. But that said, as a member of the "Two Plus Benjamins" club, I've given up on "calling people on it", as their response is always "respect!(tm)", whereas "integrity" seems to fall by the wayside. Those who wear it and shouldn't, know it. I'll leave it up to them to deal with it the next time they talk to my cadets about Integrity.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
And when confronted with a core value violation, one should challenge that officer and/or report him/her to the appropriate authority.
No disagreement there. And it might work if 39-1 (1.2.2) was enforced anywhere in the organization, which we all know it isn't by and large.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 02, 2016, 10:02:45 PM
Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. But that said, as a member of the "Two Plus Benjamins" club, I've given up on "calling people on it", as their response is always "respect!(tm)", whereas "integrity" seems to fall by the wayside. Those who wear it and shouldn't, know it. I'll leave it up to them to deal with it the next time they talk to my cadets about Integrity.
Exactly what happened here.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 02, 2016, 10:02:45 PM
Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. But that said, as a member of the "Two Plus Benjamins" club, I've given up on "calling people on it", as their response is always "respect!(tm)", whereas "integrity" seems to fall by the wayside. Those who wear it and shouldn't, know it. I'll leave it up to them to deal with it the next time they talk to my cadets about Integrity.
All of us have a responsibility to help each other wear the uniform properly. Please reconsider your decision not to help other members by respectfully pointing out uniform discrepancies. I know I appreciate it when others point out my errors to me.
"Duty is almost never the easiest path."
Thank you for all you do for CAP.
Ned Lee
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
And when confronted with a core value violation, one should challenge that officer and/or report him/her to the appropriate authority.
No disagreement there. And it might work if 39-1 (1.2.2) was enforced anywhere in the organization, which we all know it isn't by and large.
Highly disagree. By and large 39-1 is followed and enforced. And where it is not...enforcement starts with the individual members.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 10:10:15 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
And when confronted with a core value violation, one should challenge that officer and/or report him/her to the appropriate authority.
No disagreement there. And it might work if 39-1 (1.2.2) was enforced anywhere in the organization, which we all know it isn't by and large.
Highly disagree. By and large 39-1 is followed and enforced. And where it is not...enforcement starts with the individual members.
I referred specifically to section 1.2.2. Let's be honest here.
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:13:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 10:10:15 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
And when confronted with a core value violation, one should challenge that officer and/or report him/her to the appropriate authority.
No disagreement there. And it might work if 39-1 (1.2.2) was enforced anywhere in the organization, which we all know it isn't by and large.
Highly disagree. By and large 39-1 is followed and enforced. And where it is not...enforcement starts with the individual members.
I am honest......1.2.2. is by and large followed. And where it is not....enforcement starts with members confronting the miscreant and reporting it to the appropriate authority.
I referred specifically to section 1.2.2. Let's be honest here.
I am being honest. Most people do follow 39-1 and para 1.2.2. specifically. In those case where they do not. It is up to us to challenge those members and report them to higher authority.
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
You can be very overweight and still be withing CAP standards. Consult the chart, but basically you're probably going to be ok unless your BMI is in the "obese" category.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 10:17:58 PM
I am being honest. Most people do follow 39-1 and para 1.2.2. specifically. In those case where they do not. It is up to us to challenge those members and report them to higher authority.
I'm sure you are. Personal observation and ubiquitous photographic evidence from all over the dang place gives me a different impression.
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 10:17:58 PM
I am being honest. Most people do follow 39-1 and para 1.2.2. specifically. In those case where they do not. It is up to us to challenge those members and report them to higher authority.
I'm sure you are. Personal observation and ubiquitous photographic evidence from all over the dang place gives me a different impression.
Well....since I don't know who you are....and what your frame of reference is....I can't really gain say you.
I will say that over the last five years I've been to four National Conventions, several NVWG Conferences, one PCR conference. I've visited other units outside the region and wing as I have traveled with my job. And my general impression is that by and large.....we follow the regs. Sure the internet may give a different impression....but you rarely see a thread or face book post titled "Look at all these guys wearing their uniforms properly". It is just not catchy.
YMMV.
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 10:17:58 PM
I am being honest. Most people do follow 39-1 and para 1.2.2. specifically. In those case where they do not. It is up to us to challenge those members and report them to higher authority.
I'm sure you are. Personal observation and ubiquitous photographic evidence from all over the dang place gives me a different impression.
That's a rather sweeping accusation that you are leveling against a large number of people.
If you have specific allegations make them. If not, making such blanket accusations is highly disrespectful.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 02, 2016, 10:50:51 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
Judging by those pictures, the weight standards will be eliminated for the USAF-style uniforms as well. :clap:
You can be very overweight and still be withing CAP standards. Consult the chart, but basically you're probably going to be ok unless your BMI is in the "obese" category.
RiverAux I understand where you are coming from with that statement. Just for clarification I meet the height and weight standards to wear the USAF style uniform, BDU's and so forth. but the last time I was in the doctors office I looked at the BMI index chart and it said I was obese for my height and weight. I am 5ft 9in, the last time I weighed I came in just over 185lbs. Even the doctors are looking at the BMI as a misleading chart as you can have a person that is very physically fit, exercises, eats all the right stuff and still not meet the BMI chart standards.
But I understand we must have a cut off point or we all as a whole would look silly in an USAF uniform with the button holes stretched to the max. And no one would consider taking us serious for any program much less the ES program.
Quotesaid I was obese for my height and weight. I am 5ft 9in, the last time I weighed I came in just over 185lb
Actually, that puts you in the "overweight" category. Not the obese category. You would have to weigh over 210 to be considered "obese".
To be clear, I was not implying that the CAP height/weight chart was based on BMI categories, however there is an astonishingly close relationship between the two that I assume was pretty accidental.
Actually works out that way for you -- at 5'9 your CAP weight limit is 208 -- just under the "obese" level of 210.
Quote from: Ned on March 02, 2016, 10:07:34 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 02, 2016, 10:02:45 PM
Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. But that said, as a member of the "Two Plus Benjamins" club, I've given up on "calling people on it", as their response is always "respect!(tm)", whereas "integrity" seems to fall by the wayside. Those who wear it and shouldn't, know it. I'll leave it up to them to deal with it the next time they talk to my cadets about Integrity.
All of us have a responsibility to help each other wear the uniform properly. Please reconsider your decision not to help other members by respectfully pointing out uniform discrepancies. I know I appreciate it when others point out my errors to me.
"Duty is almost never the easiest path."
Thank you for all you do for CAP.
Ned Lee
Unfortunately I'm at the end of my rope on the issue. When a person whose uniform could serve me as an impromptu shelter for the night claims to weigh 20 pounds less than me, at the same height...there's just no "gentle" way to talk about it.
If he is under you in the chain of command....you introduce him to the 2b.
If he is outside your chain of command you report him to his commander and be done with it.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 03, 2016, 05:39:28 AM
If he is under you in the chain of command....you introduce him to the 2b.
If he is outside your chain of command you report him to his commander and be done with it.
Something I learned the hard way Sergeant.
deleted
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 03, 2016, 04:49:25 AM
Quote from: Ned on March 02, 2016, 10:07:34 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 02, 2016, 10:02:45 PM
Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. But that said, as a member of the "Two Plus Benjamins" club, I've given up on "calling people on it", as their response is always "respect!(tm)", whereas "integrity" seems to fall by the wayside. Those who wear it and shouldn't, know it. I'll leave it up to them to deal with it the next time they talk to my cadets about Integrity.
All of us have a responsibility to help each other wear the uniform properly. Please reconsider your decision not to help other members by respectfully pointing out uniform discrepancies. I know I appreciate it when others point out my errors to me.
"Duty is almost never the easiest path."
Thank you for all you do for CAP.
Ned Lee
Unfortunately I'm at the end of my rope on the issue. When a person whose uniform could serve me as an impromptu shelter for the night claims to weigh 20 pounds less than me, at the same height...there's just no "gentle" way to talk about it.
There are times that do to a digestive tract issue my gut can expand like you would expect to see from a starving kid on a give us money commercial without me gaining a single pound. Im not saying that is the case for most people but there are times when an increase in volume doesnt always equal an increase in mass. But that being during the times that happens I dont wear the AF style uniforms its just polos and grey slacks for me.
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 10:17:58 PM
I am being honest. Most people do follow 39-1 and para 1.2.2. specifically. In those case where they do not. It is up to us to challenge those members and report them to higher authority.
I'm sure you are. Personal observation and ubiquitous photographic evidence from all over the dang place gives me a different impression.
This:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3096/cameras/72157605564604036_model_huge_9b35338624.jpg)
isn't this:
(http://cdn-image.myrecipes.com/sites/default/files/styles/300x300/public/image/articles/10/scale_upload-x.jpg?itok=VJ14_e8V)
Back to weigh ins are we?
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:57:06 PMPersonal observation and ubiquitous photographic evidence from all over the dang place gives me a different impression.
I live within about an hour's drive (maybe 90 mins) of my entire chain of command. Right up to CAP/CC. As you can imagine, I see them out and about several times a year at various CAP goings-on.
I'm not running around with a bathroom scale, but just by eyeballing it, I think they're all good. None of them look like marathon runners (except my Sq CC, who can PT me into the ground without trying), but I would not put my reputation on the line to conduct a weigh in.
I'm just some guy on the Internet, and you're not under any obligation to believe me. I'm just seconding NIN's remark that a photo != seeing them in real life.
---
As for the problem in general of CAP folks not meeting weight standards, anecdotally I think we've gotten better. I remember even 10 years ago seeing more egregious violations than I see today. Part of that is commanders having tough conversations, and I think another big part is seeing senior leaders wearing blazers and aviator shirts even if they don't have to. That goes a long way towards removing the stigma of CAP distinctive uniforms.
Quote from: dwb on March 03, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
[As for the problem in general of CAP folks not meeting weight standards, anecdotally I think we've gotten better. I remember even 10 years ago seeing more egregious violations than I see today. Part of that is commanders having tough conversations, and I think another big part is seeing senior leaders wearing blazers and aviator shirts even if they don't have to. That goes a long way towards removing the stigma of CAP distinctive uniforms.
I think its more that fewer senior members are wearing any of the military style uniforms whether or not they can.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 03, 2016, 01:31:43 PM
Quote from: dwb on March 03, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
[As for the problem in general of CAP folks not meeting weight standards, anecdotally I think we've gotten better. I remember even 10 years ago seeing more egregious violations than I see today. Part of that is commanders having tough conversations, and I think another big part is seeing senior leaders wearing blazers and aviator shirts even if they don't have to. That goes a long way towards removing the stigma of CAP distinctive uniforms.
I think its more that fewer senior members are wearing any of the military style uniforms whether or not they can.
Breaking my self-imposed exile to respond.
As a fat and fuzzy, I've been outside H/W for about 20 years or so, ever since I broke 200 (I'm 5'7) and could never get back below it for very long. I have always worn the AF style uniform. Various people who were above me and were grossly out of H/W themselves never said boo. So I kept wearing them, because reasons. Transferring in to my current unit, I mentioned that I no longer had any blues (sold them to various people here during the Great Purge of 2014) but was working on obtaining them. Spam gave me a look, rubbed his own belly and said "dude." All he had to say. I've not pursued wearing blues since, and have transitioned into the polo with tactical slacks for most all occasions. I only wear BDUs now for actual GT missions, and am really losing the battle of the bulge, so that may not even be an option anymore.
My point is, sometimes all it takes is a gentle word, or self-deprecating humor to make one realize that they need to think about other options.
We return you now to your regular programming.
*returns to lurking*
Quote from: THRAWN on March 03, 2016, 12:20:50 PM
Back to weigh ins are we?
My point was: a photo isn't exactly the best way to ascertain someone's compliance with the rules.
Thankfully, we've (mostly) gotten away from that sort of thing on CAP-Talk, but we can look back in the deep dark recesses here and find
whole threads literally eviscerating unsuspecting people for perceived slights seen in photos, things like the color of the material on a badge or the alignment of their insignia when it was likely some kind of trick of lighting or camera artifact caused by an angle or something.
But going to back to my original point (and pardon me for trotting out the "Respect™" card again, Capt Hat) that people are very, very quick to jump all over someone (especially anonymously.. *cough*) online in a way that they'd never do "IRL." How does that even jibe with
any of the core values? Answer: it doesn't.
On more than one occasion in the past, I've PM'd a couple people who have been quick to make accusations and said "here's that officer's email address. If you're so fired up about this, why don't you shoot them an email about the subject instead of complaining about it here online anonymously?"
And you know what? In almost every instance not a single one has. (noted exception: one gentleman, I believe, actually
did email Colonel Knowles following the WAA ABU wear test..)
I mean, honestly: Would you march right up to Colonel Knowles or Colonel Leclair at WAA or the Command Council meeting and say "Colonel, I think you're out of CAP weight standards!"?
I seriously doubt it.
Then why do it online? part of it is a theory postulated by a gent named John Gabriel that you take a normal person, add anonymity and an audience, and they become something else.. :) (you can Google it, there are "colorful" and "less colorful" versions of the theorem out there. I'm not responsible for your Internet search history)
Now, yes, on the other hand, we do have (and we have had, for many, many years) people who clearly do not fit within the published height & weight standards who somehow squeeze themselves into AF blue and do a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" toward the standards. And I agree: that is wrong. And thats an integrity issue
they need to deal with (or their commander does).
As I said earlier in this thread, I've heard twice people make oblique references to Colonel Leclair supposedly not being in the weight standards. And I will say again: the man came to my wing's change of command in January and stood three feet from me, and he didn't look like he was outside the published standards. So you can make snide comments based on a photograph, or you can take the word of an officer who has actually been in the same room with the guy. Your choice.
Quote from: dwb on March 03, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
As for the problem in general of CAP folks not meeting weight standards, anecdotally I think we've gotten better. I remember even 10 years ago seeing more egregious violations than I see today. Part of that is commanders having tough conversations, and I think another big part is seeing senior leaders wearing blazers and aviator shirts even if they don't have to. That goes a long way towards removing the stigma of CAP distinctive uniforms.
^^THIS.
1993, then-C/Col Ed Phelka and I were trolling the halls of the GLR conference when we ran across BG Barry, the National Commander. He stopped and chatted with us
(he likely wanted to shoot the breeze with Ed, cuz I was just some dip-dunk captain.. dime a dozen) for like 20 minutes. "General, I'm sure you have places to be" "No, actually, I'd rather be right here chatting with you. It is much more interesting.."
At one point, Ed flat out asked him "General, I see you're in blazer combo, but you photo in CAP News is of you in blues.." and the general flat out said "Yep. That photo was taking some time ago when I was in the standards. I'm not now, and it doesn't present a very good leadership example if the top guy is flaunting the rules because he can, so I wear the blazer combo."
The takeaway was clear, and 23 years later I remember that conversation vividly as a *primo* example of the necessary leadership in CAP.
Quote from: JeffDG on March 02, 2016, 11:07:04 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 10:17:58 PM
I am being honest. Most people do follow 39-1 and para 1.2.2. specifically. In those case where they do not. It is up to us to challenge those members and report them to higher authority.
I'm sure you are. Personal observation and ubiquitous photographic evidence from all over the dang place gives me a different impression.
That's a rather sweeping accusation that you are leveling against a large number of people.
If you have specific allegations make them. If not, making such blanket accusations is highly disrespectful.
Oh don't be so dramatic, counselor.
And with all due respect for the other defensive peeps posting here, I didn't single out any individuals and I have no interest in doing so. Really, the faux indignation is a little much. People can look at the 2 dozen or so pictures linked in the OP and make up their own minds.
I would also like to point out, from a photography stand point, that the camera and the photographer have an influence on how the person looks. While I am not a portrait photographer, the basics are simple:
1. Barrel distortion: less in a professional good quality lens and more in a point an shoot but still occurs in all quality of lenses. This occurs in more noticeably in wide-angle lens, especially near the edges as wide-angle lens make items closer look larger. Portrait photography is commonly done with telephoto lenses as this has the opposite effect in that it will help flatten out curves.
2. Angle of the photo: A shot looking up has a tendency to make another person look "bigger" while a photo looking down has a tendency to make a person look smaller. If a person is in excellent shape, this can help. A shot from below of a man full of muscle will make him look bigger and more authoritative. This is commonly used in commercial photography: think of that slim man in a business suit looking like they are in charge.
3. Pose: The position of a body can either make a person look bigger or smaller. How your body is angled towards the camera, and not just how the camera is angled towards the body, can make differences. In addition, how a person has their arms, legs, head, torso, etc. Clothes also play an important role in this.
4. Light: Flashes and natural light can either accentuate curves, shadows, and other dark areas or it may flatten them out.
5. Other reasons. There are other reasons, but I think you get the point. I do not think I need to type a long explanation.
While neither will make a 200 lb person look 100 lbs or 300 lbs, but it does play an important trick on the mind.
I'm sure learning much about photography here...
And while pics do "lie", postings are apparent. "Some two star" is inappropriate, when it is obvious to anyone familiar with CAP this would be the current or a former CAP\CC.
Also, I will say all those in the pictures are within H&W limits for proper uniform wear. ABU's do seem to add 20 lbs to a person though... >:D
Quote from: FW on March 03, 2016, 03:19:40 PM
ABU's do seem to add 20 lbs to a person though... >:D
Part of that is ABUs come in more specific sizes like coats/jackets (ie. "42L" or similar) where before BDUs were "Medium- Regular" and such and were cut a little more generously.
You know you wear a 42R coat (ie. service coat) and the you get 42R ABUs, figuring they're similar. (its not like you go to the local ABU store to try some one). They come in, you discover 'Hmmm, who are these cut for, an Olympic bobsledder?"
Its pretty easy to be off one size and suddenly you're not quite as svelte as you though you should be (I'm 6', 185 and if I got the size 40R ABUs, my love handles might show.. LOL)
Plus even if you get the right size, all it takes is to gain a little weight and, even if you're still be within standards, your uniform will look a bit tight.
If you're weight tends to fluctuate a bit, I recommend getting a size larger.
In my defense, I only looked at the first picture of the photo album, in which MG Vasquez's name tape is hidden. I realized who he was looking through the rest of the pictures.
And goodness, I didn't meant to start up such a conversation, I just wondered about the status of CAP wearing ABUs. ???
Quote from: CChitty on March 03, 2016, 04:45:50 PM
In my defense, I only looked at the first picture of the photo album, in which MG Vasquez's name tape is hidden. I realized who he was looking through the rest of the pictures.
And goodness, I didn't meant to start up such a conversation, I just wondered about the status of CAP wearing ABUs. ???
You came to CAPTalk and posted a discussion about ABUs and didn't realize it would start a heated discussion? You must be new here! :D
Please take this post in the humorous manner it was intended for.
Quote from: NIN on March 03, 2016, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on March 03, 2016, 12:20:50 PM
Back to weigh ins are we?
My point was: a photo isn't exactly the best way to ascertain someone's compliance with the rules.
Thankfully, we've (mostly) gotten away from that sort of thing on CAP-Talk, but we can look back in the deep dark recesses here and find whole threads literally eviscerating unsuspecting people for perceived slights seen in photos, things like the color of the material on a badge or the alignment of their insignia when it was likely some kind of trick of lighting or camera artifact caused by an angle or something.
But going to back to my original point (and pardon me for trotting out the "Respect™" card again, Capt Hat) that people are very, very quick to jump all over someone (especially anonymously.. *cough*) online in a way that they'd never do "IRL." How does that even jibe with any of the core values? Answer: it doesn't.
On more than one occasion in the past, I've PM'd a couple people who have been quick to make accusations and said "here's that officer's email address. If you're so fired up about this, why don't you shoot them an email about the subject instead of complaining about it here online anonymously?"
And you know what? In almost every instance not a single one has. (noted exception: one gentleman, I believe, actually did email Colonel Knowles following the WAA ABU wear test..)
I mean, honestly: Would you march right up to Colonel Knowles or Colonel Leclair at WAA or the Command Council meeting and say "Colonel, I think you're out of CAP weight standards!"?
I seriously doubt it. Then why do it online?
part of it is a theory postulated by a gent named John Gabriel that you take a normal person, add anonymity and an audience, and they become something else.. :) (you can Google it, there are "colorful" and "less colorful" versions of the theorem out there. I'm not responsible for your Internet search history)
Now, yes, on the other hand, we do have (and we have had, for many, many years) people who clearly do not fit within the published height & weight standards who somehow squeeze themselves into AF blue and do a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" toward the standards. And I agree: that is wrong. And thats an integrity issue they need to deal with (or their commander does).
As I said earlier in this thread, I've heard twice people make oblique references to Colonel Leclair supposedly not being in the weight standards. And I will say again: the man came to my wing's change of command in January and stood three feet from me, and he didn't look like he was outside the published standards. So you can make snide comments based on a photograph, or you can take the word of an officer who has actually been in the same room with the guy. Your choice.
All due respect Sir, you're making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. You have no idea which individuals I was thinking of from the many represented in the photos linked in the OP. The photos speak for themselves, and frankly this talk about photos not being reliable is a little disingenuous.
Your indignation is repeatedly noted. What's next?
So when will we get ABU's ? ,I am having a hard time finding green shoe polish for those sage boots! ::)
Quote from: THRAWN on March 03, 2016, 06:12:48 PM
Your indignation is repeatedly noted. What's next?
The indignation in this thread came from others, not me, but I agree that there's nothing more to be said. I'll only add that I claim credit for bringing Garibaldi out of his self-imposed exile to support my point. Now if we could only get Eclipse to come out of hiding...
Quote from: varitec on March 03, 2016, 07:06:22 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on March 03, 2016, 06:12:48 PM
Your indignation is repeatedly noted. What's next?
The indignation in this thread came from others, not me, but I agree that there's nothing more to be said. I'll only add that I claim credit for bringing Garibaldi out of his self-imposed exile to support my point. Now if we could only get Eclipse to come out of hiding...
He's not hiding - just doing bigger and better things. He does check in at times.
Wow! Three pages so far. Core Values shot to H***. I wonder what the Cadets must be thinking when they read and watch how the Senior Members can bash each other like this. When will people be calling for the official Weigh In?
If we paid as much attention to our real mission and remembered what we all came in for, except for those that want to be the next Gen. G. S. Patton, we might not have the retention and recruiting issue that we have.
IMHO
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on March 03, 2016, 09:12:09 PM
Wow! Three pages so far. Core Values shot to H***. I wonder what the Cadets must be thinking when they read and watch how the Senior Members can bash each other like this. When will people be calling for the official Weigh In?
If we paid as much attention to our real mission and remembered what we all came in for, except for those that want to be the next Gen. G. S. Patton, we might not have the retention and recruiting issue that we have.
IMHO
The Patton job is taken. Weigh-ins have been on the table of discussion for some time. There have been much more....aggressive....threads on this topic. YMMV...
But is he/ she a poet like Patton was? That is the real test, and believing in reincarnation, riding white horses..... >:D
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on March 03, 2016, 09:26:41 PM
But is he/ she a poet like Patton was? That is the real test, and believing in reincarnation, riding white horses..... >:D
I am but this is no place for limericks....
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on March 03, 2016, 09:12:09 PM
When will people be calling for the official Weigh In?
Why not the first meeting a member attends each year?
LST-
Just an example on how one of your camera angles post has been used in real life. Regarding post 2, shots looking down.
I read some time ago in Feld Grau, a website about the World War 2 German soldier that those soldiers were just average. However photographers were instructed to photograph and film them below the shoulder up to make them look taller than they were. And people believed the photographs they saw...
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on March 03, 2016, 10:22:42 PM
LST-
Just an example on how one of your camera angles post has been used in real life. Regarding post 2, shots looking down.
I read some time ago in Feld Grau, a website about the World War 2 German soldier that those soldiers were just average. However photographers were instructed to photograph and film them below the shoulder up to make them look taller than they were. And people believed the photographs they saw...
It's the inverse of what my wife demands!
If someone's fat, they're fat ...
Nothing wrong nor disrespectful with enforcing standards ...
That said, none of the folks I see in ABUs on that Flickr stream appear out of spec.
I've met all of the above in-person and, for their age, I'd bet you a dinner @ Old Ebbitt Grill they meet standards.
Quote from: Toth on March 02, 2016, 05:58:58 PM
I completely agree, the double standard of absolute respect in person and total disrespect online is ridiculous, it's disrespect no matter where or when it's said.
Patton was one of the most exceptional, talented, and successful generals the US has ever fielded.
Men like him are few and far between in the history of a nation's military.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on March 03, 2016, 09:12:09 PM
except for those that want to be the next Gen. G. S. Patton,
Quote from: Checotah on March 03, 2016, 06:53:22 AM
deleted
Nuking posts makes the mods mad, don't do it.
You want a post removed, ask them to do it.
Quote from: varitec on March 03, 2016, 02:51:16 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 02, 2016, 11:07:04 PM
Quote from: varitec on March 02, 2016, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 02, 2016, 10:17:58 PM
I am being honest. Most people do follow 39-1 and para 1.2.2. specifically. In those case where they do not. It is up to us to challenge those members and report them to higher authority.
I'm sure you are. Personal observation and ubiquitous photographic evidence from all over the dang place gives me a different impression.
That's a rather sweeping accusation that you are leveling against a large number of people.
If you have specific allegations make them. If not, making such blanket accusations is highly disrespectful.
Oh don't be so dramatic, counselor.
And with all due respect for the other defensive peeps posting here, I didn't single out any individuals and I have no interest in doing so. Really, the faux indignation is a little much. People can look at the 2 dozen or so pictures linked in the OP and make up their own minds.
In which case you should be able to make specific allegations, rather than paint everyone with an overbroad brush.
Again, your broad brush accusations are highly disrespectful.
I for one am excited about the possibly that CAP may convert to the ABU. Why? Because I have 5 sets in my closet left over from my time in service and would like to use them again one day.
Quote from: Elihu.Lowery on March 04, 2016, 06:03:24 AM
I for one am excited about the possibly that CAP may convert to the ABU. Why? Because I have 5 sets in my closet left over from my time in service and would like to use them again one day.
We probably have thousands of former cadets who have the same stash after their service contracts as well. Maybe some will rejoin?
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 04, 2016, 06:08:15 AM
Quote from: Elihu.Lowery on March 04, 2016, 06:03:24 AM
I for one am excited about the possibly that CAP may convert to the ABU. Why? Because I have 5 sets in my closet left over from my time in service and would like to use them again one day.
We probably have thousands of former cadets who have the same stash after their service contracts as well. Maybe some will rejoin?
But they'll have to buy new boots. >:D
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 04, 2016, 02:04:51 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 04, 2016, 06:08:15 AM
Quote from: Elihu.Lowery on March 04, 2016, 06:03:24 AM
I for one am excited about the possibly that CAP may convert to the ABU. Why? Because I have 5 sets in my closet left over from my time in service and would like to use them again one day.
We probably have thousands of former cadets who have the same stash after their service contracts as well. Maybe some will rejoin?
But they'll have to buy new boots. >:D
But so would any other new/returning members. :angel:
Sure. Choosing black boots benefits some members and choosing sage green benefits others. Unfortunately, members who have benefited from donated used boots in the past, especially cadets, are going to miss out on a ton of old, still serviceable green boots available now and in the future. Heck, if they were to approve tan boots that number would jump exponentially. The black boots "solution" is only good in the immediate future, but doesn't take into account the long term scarcity since most services don't have them anymore.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 04, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Sure. Choosing black boots benefits some members and choosing sage green benefits others. Unfortunately, members who have benefited from donated used boots in the past, especially cadets, are going to miss out on a ton of old, still serviceable green boots available now and in the future. Heck, if they were to approve tan boots that number would jump exponentially. The black boots "solution" is only good in the immediate future, but doesn't take into account the long term scarcity since most services don't have them anymore.
True, but there are a whole lot more folks than just the military using black boots. The costs for black boots, basic ones, are 60%-70% less than basic green suede boots. Of course, you can go high end and spend more, but the same is true with the green boots. Plus black boots have a much higher availability than the greens.
Quote from: arajca on March 04, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 04, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Sure. Choosing black boots benefits some members and choosing sage green benefits others. Unfortunately, members who have benefited from donated used boots in the past, especially cadets, are going to miss out on a ton of old, still serviceable green boots available now and in the future. Heck, if they were to approve tan boots that number would jump exponentially. The black boots "solution" is only good in the immediate future, but doesn't take into account the long term scarcity since most services don't have them anymore.
True, but there are a whole lot more folks than just the military using black boots. The costs for black boots, basic ones, are 60%-70% less than basic green suede boots. Of course, you can go high end and spend more, but the same is true with the green boots. Plus black boots have a much higher availability than the greens.
Maybe make them optional, like give them a choice between the sage and black? I think the blouse, with the new insignia, will be distinctive enough.
Quote from: Garibaldi on March 04, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: arajca on March 04, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 04, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Sure. Choosing black boots benefits some members and choosing sage green benefits others. Unfortunately, members who have benefited from donated used boots in the past, especially cadets, are going to miss out on a ton of old, still serviceable green boots available now and in the future. Heck, if they were to approve tan boots that number would jump exponentially. The black boots "solution" is only good in the immediate future, but doesn't take into account the long term scarcity since most services don't have them anymore.
True, but there are a whole lot more folks than just the military using black boots. The costs for black boots, basic ones, are 60%-70% less than basic green suede boots. Of course, you can go high end and spend more, but the same is true with the green boots. Plus black boots have a much higher availability than the greens.
Maybe make them optional, like give them a choice between the sage and black? I think the blouse, with the new insignia, will be distinctive enough.
The NUC disagrees, and they had USAF representation on the committee. The black boots were an integral distinctiveness element as part of the proposal.
The Command Council was not asked to vote "Green or Black", it was "ABUs with black boots, Yea or Nay"
Quote from: JeffDG on March 04, 2016, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on March 04, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: arajca on March 04, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 04, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Sure. Choosing black boots benefits some members and choosing sage green benefits others. Unfortunately, members who have benefited from donated used boots in the past, especially cadets, are going to miss out on a ton of old, still serviceable green boots available now and in the future. Heck, if they were to approve tan boots that number would jump exponentially. The black boots "solution" is only good in the immediate future, but doesn't take into account the long term scarcity since most services don't have them anymore.
True, but there are a whole lot more folks than just the military using black boots. The costs for black boots, basic ones, are 60%-70% less than basic green suede boots. Of course, you can go high end and spend more, but the same is true with the green boots. Plus black boots have a much higher availability than the greens.
Maybe make them optional, like give them a choice between the sage and black? I think the blouse, with the new insignia, will be distinctive enough.
The NUC disagrees, and they had USAF representation on the committee. The black boots were an integral distinctiveness element as part of the proposal.
The Command Council was not asked to vote "Green or Black", it was "ABUs with black boots, Yea or Nay"
We know that, but just because it was the only option put for a vote doesn't mean it was the best or only option.
Obviously, there's no perfect solution and no matter which one is picked, they'll be pros and cons, and members supporting or opposing each option. Still, if the name tapes are not distinctive enough on the ABUs, then the gray epaulets are not either on the service uniforms. I'm pretty sure distinctiveness, while certainly considered, was not the primary determining factor.
Black boots are much more available then the green boots.
Cops and Fire Fighters wear black boots. So the odds that you can find a pair in your town are pretty good.
Quote from: PHall on March 05, 2016, 02:46:53 AM
Black boots are much more available then the green boots.
Cops and Fire Fighters wear black boots. So the odds that you can find a pair in your town are pretty good.
Most suppliers for said groups also tend to clearance last year's model at a steep discount too online. Great news for cadets, especially since the cadet sizes are usually the last ones left in stock.
Quote from: PHall on March 05, 2016, 02:46:53 AM
Black boots are much more available then the green boots.
Cops and Fire Fighters wear black boots. So the odds that you can find a pair in your town are pretty good.
Maybe so, but "Cops and Fire Fighters " are not wearing ABUs.
I understand the argument in favor of black boots. I understand availability and cost. But if availability and cost are so important for CAP members, then why go to ABUs at all? They cost more. They're not going to be locally available unless the member lives close to an Air Force Base. And the way they're sized in comparison to BDUs means cadets will outgrow their uniforms faster and many senior members may need a couple of different sizes to account for changes in weight.
Besides uniform donations, which would favor sage green and tan boots over black ones, the only good argument in favor of ABUs is that we'll look more like our parent service. Except that the black boots will set us apart more so than any other distinctive insignia we wear with the other Air Force-style uniforms.
All things considered, I think the blue Corporate BDU is a better option for CAP.
The ONLY ones that will see the difference are... AIRMEN! And those of us that are prior service airmen. I use the term airmen to include Air Force officers and enlisted. And CAP members.
The public at large will not know that real airmen do not wear black boots, and will not care.
It is a continuation of the phenomena "that 12 year old is wearing a military-style uniform therefore that person is in the military" that many civilians adopt however wrong...
Most of you military and ex-military that are arguing for us not to use the black boots not because they are not a good combination but because you were conditioned in the service that "black boots are not worn with ABUs."
Me, I have never been in the service, therefore I do not care if I wear black boots with the ABU or not. I have two pairs of black boots, but no sage or tan boots.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on March 05, 2016, 12:55:34 PM
Most of you military and ex-military that are arguing for us not to use the black boots not because they are not a good combination but because you were conditioned in the service that "black boots are not worn with ABUs."
As oppose to being "conditioned" that BDUs should look like Christmas trees with multiple color patches?
If black boots were a better combination for ABUs, then the Air Force would've adopted that color instead. So would have the Army when they went to ACUs. After all, there was no shortage of black boots at the time.
To be fair, sage green boots are not the only good alternative for ABUs. Tan boots are widely available, are prized reasonably, look fine with ABUs, and would be distinctive enough for CAP. The only draw back, other than having to buy a pair, is that you wouldn't be able to use them with other uniforms, which I know was a consideration.
Sage green boots are used with FDUs by the Air Force and for a while were authorized with woodland BDUs.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 05, 2016, 01:42:21 PM
... The only draw back, other than having to buy a pair, is that you wouldn't be able to use them with other uniforms, which I know was a consideration.
And cadets will have to find something else to polish.
Quote from: varitec on March 05, 2016, 01:54:08 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 05, 2016, 01:42:21 PM
... The only draw back, other than having to buy a pair, is that you wouldn't be able to use them with other uniforms, which I know was a consideration.
And cadets will have to find something else to polish.
True.
BTW, I'm just offering an opinion. I know the decision has been made and if the Air Force approves it, it will be "final". I'm fine with that.
opinion: sage boots. looks better with ABU
black boots look horrible with ABU.
Fact: sage boots not sold at commercial brick and mortar stores nation wide.
sage boots on average cost $100 and up.
black tactical style boots aviliable at commercial store for less than $50.
My personal thoughts are that the AF should have just stayed with tan boots. I know K Mart carries military tan tactical boots and most commercial public safety vendors. We have AFROTC units tryng to donate sage boots and ARMY ROTC units trying to donate tan boots so those CAP units are going to loose out. Im not thrilled with black boots for this uniform,but my boots are still going to be used for my flight suit and I can use them for EMS. I will save 100
plus dollars and not have.more footwear to add to my wardrobe. If the ABU gets approved you will see(no ddoubt) some members wearing sage or tan boots. As for patches,we should stick with the AF wear,no unit patches,clean simple and not looking like a BSA uniform. ;D
Storm,
I am pretty sure the Air Force looked at other factors beside the "fashion statement of which boot color looks best with this uniform?" They considered, probably was at the top of the list whether "black is not a natural color" and which boot can be seen less with NVG as well before deciding on the sage or tans.
If it is just looks, to me they look the same with the ABU. Black, sage, and tan.
Quote from: JeffDG on March 04, 2016, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on March 04, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: arajca on March 04, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 04, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Sure. Choosing black boots benefits some members and choosing sage green benefits others. Unfortunately, members who have benefited from donated used boots in the past, especially cadets, are going to miss out on a ton of old, still serviceable green boots available now and in the future. Heck, if they were to approve tan boots that number would jump exponentially. The black boots "solution" is only good in the immediate future, but doesn't take into account the long term scarcity since most services don't have them anymore.
True, but there are a whole lot more folks than just the military using black boots. The costs for black boots, basic ones, are 60%-70% less than basic green suede boots. Of course, you can go high end and spend more, but the same is true with the green boots. Plus black boots have a much higher availability than the greens.
Maybe make them optional, like give them a choice between the sage and black? I think the blouse, with the new insignia, will be distinctive enough.
The NUC disagrees, and they had USAF representation on the committee. The black boots were an integral distinctiveness element as part of the proposal.
But, oddly, not so for the BDUs...
But since it is a camouflage uniform of sorts, will it pass the renowned "low-light/at-a-distance" litmus test?
I'm surprised they didn't insist on at least part of it being grey. >:D
Quote from: JoeTomasone on March 06, 2016, 01:59:15 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 04, 2016, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on March 04, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: arajca on March 04, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 04, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
Sure. Choosing black boots benefits some members and choosing sage green benefits others. Unfortunately, members who have benefited from donated used boots in the past, especially cadets, are going to miss out on a ton of old, still serviceable green boots available now and in the future. Heck, if they were to approve tan boots that number would jump exponentially. The black boots "solution" is only good in the immediate future, but doesn't take into account the long term scarcity since most services don't have them anymore.
True, but there are a whole lot more folks than just the military using black boots. The costs for black boots, basic ones, are 60%-70% less than basic green suede boots. Of course, you can go high end and spend more, but the same is true with the green boots. Plus black boots have a much higher availability than the greens.
Maybe make them optional, like give them a choice between the sage and black? I think the blouse, with the new insignia, will be distinctive enough.
The NUC disagrees, and they had USAF representation on the committee. The black boots were an integral distinctiveness element as part of the proposal.
But, oddly, not so for the BDUs...
Mostly because sage and tan boots were not in the inventory when the BDU hit the street.
I sense some contrary thoughts in this thread...
On the one hand members say "CAP has to wear the ABU since it is our parent service uniform..."
Then the same members say "Ma Blue will only let us wear their uniform if we wear it different..."
Then the same members say "We should only wear Sage Green or Tan boots since that is what worn with ABUs... Black boots are not good..."
Then the same members say "We should wear the ABU without CAP patches or badges more like Ma Blue wears it..."
???
So what should it be? The ABU like the Air Force wears it? Sterilize it so patches are removed, wear the suede or tan boots...
The ABU with changes so we cannot be confused with Air Force personnel? So, don't fight black boots and color badges and patches...
::)
Be consistent!
;)
If you are going to call out one guy for his changing position....just call out the guy.
So......for my position.....
A. ABUs are great.
B. Would rather the sage boots....but black is not too bad.
C. I like the Navy instead of the Ultramarine.
D. I would like no patches....but I'm not butt hurt about patches. I can control them locally. (I've already talked with my wing commander about a supplement once the new manual hits the street and I'm gonna start talking with my region commander soon) and will apply peer pressure via NCO network to influence other wings/regions.
and please note.
Nothing is FINAL.
Say we start with the black boots for reasons X,Y,Z.....does not mean we can't change down the road. IIRC NIN posted some nice pictures of BDUs with with T-shirts and that changed with time. I remember when we were not allowed to wear Gortex, and that changed.
Nothing is static.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on March 06, 2016, 02:34:55 AM
I sense some contrary thoughts in this thread...
On the one hand members say "CAP has to wear the ABU since it is our parent service uniform..."
Then the same members say "Ma Blue will only let us wear their uniform if we wear it different..."
Then the same members say "We should only wear Sage Green or Tan boots since that is what worn with ABUs... Black boots are not good..."
Then the same members say "We should wear the ABU without CAP patches or badges more like Ma Blue wears it..."
???
So what should it be? The ABU like the Air Force wears it? Sterilize it so patches are removed, wear the suede or tan boots...
The ABU with changes so we cannot be confused with Air Force personnel? So, don't fight black boots and color badges and patches...
::)
Be consistent!
;)
We are being consistent. We are following the guidance given in AFI10-2701 which governs CAP.
Quote from: SMWOG on March 05, 2016, 04:33:41 PMopinion: sage boots. looks better with ABU
black boots look horrible with ABU.
FWIW, a lot of people thought sand t-shirts and sage boots looked terrible with flightsuits back when the ABU was being rolled out... now nobody even thinks about it, it's just the way things are.
Quote from: raivo on March 06, 2016, 04:19:25 AM
Quote from: SMWOG on March 05, 2016, 04:33:41 PMopinion: sage boots. looks better with ABU
black boots look horrible with ABU.
FWIW, a lot of people thought sand t-shirts and sage boots looked terrible with flightsuits back when the ABU was being rolled out... now nobody even thinks about it, it's just the way things are.
They still look terrible.
A lot of units made their Friday "morale" shirts black as a throwback to the "good ol days"
YMMV
Quote from: Goblin on March 06, 2016, 05:04:42 AM
Quote from: raivo on March 06, 2016, 04:19:25 AM
Quote from: SMWOG on March 05, 2016, 04:33:41 PMopinion: sage boots. looks better with ABU
black boots look horrible with ABU.
FWIW, a lot of people thought sand t-shirts and sage boots looked terrible with flightsuits back when the ABU was being rolled out... now nobody even thinks about it, it's just the way things are.
They still look terrible.
A lot of units made their Friday "morale" shirts black as a throwback to the "good ol days"
YMMV
More likely they made them black because black T shirts are cheaper.
Back when the Air Force still wore BDU's and DCU's, black t-shirts and black boots were worn with both uniforms. I don't recall a huge uproar over this either.
Quote from: PHall on March 06, 2016, 02:57:35 AM
We are being consistent. We are following the guidance given in AFI10-2701 which governs CAP.
People beg for ABU's for years - then when it looks like we will get them, instead of being happy everybody is griping about minor style differences.
/\
/ \
/ \
---------
|||
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: kwe1009 on March 06, 2016, 12:53:18 PM
Back when the Air Force still wore BDU's and DCU's, black t-shirts and black boots were worn with both uniforms. I don't recall a huge uproar over this either.
Well, though I'm no expert on DCUs, I would say that the reason there was no uproar over the black shirts/boots with BDUs is because, as many people can agree with, the black goes well with the dark coloration of the BDUs. Therefore, there was no need to have an uproar about it.
There was no argument or complaints over the green coloration of the OG 107s and OG 507 either and that green was not as dark as the BDUs...
I just find it amusing how we fetishize over every detail on the ABU, but when it comes to dressing nicely for a formal event a lot of us seem perfectly OK with a 50-cent clip-on tie and a blazer fished out of the Salvation Army donation bin.
Or looking like a sausage stuffed into blue casing....
I am with N6RVT. You got what you wanted and still it is not enough.
Quote from: kwe1009 on March 06, 2016, 12:53:18 PM
Back when the Air Force still wore BDU's and DCU's, black t-shirts and black boots were worn with both uniforms. I don't recall a huge uproar over this either.
The original DCUs had black "chocolate-chip cookie-dough" designs on its camouflage pattern, so black t-shirts didn't look too bad with the uniform. I don't believe the military wore black t-shirts or boots with the redesigned DCU. The other thing to consider is that when service men and women were sent to the Middle East during the Gulf War, there was still a transition going on with regards to new uniforms and matching equipment.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on March 06, 2016, 07:25:28 PM
I just find it amusing how we fetishize over every detail on the ABU, but when it comes to dressing nicely for a formal event a lot of us seem perfectly OK with a 50-cent clip-on tie and a blazer fished out of the Salvation Army donation bin.
A lot of us
aren't OK with it, but after beating our heads against that wall for a long time, the wall won.
For now...
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 06, 2016, 07:48:45 PM
The original DCUs had black "chocolate-chip cookie-dough" designs on its camouflage pattern, so black t-shirts didn't look too bad with the uniform. I don't believe the military wore black t-shirts or boots with the redesigned DCU. The other thing to consider is that when service men and women were sent to the Middle East during the Gulf War, there was still a transition going on with regards to new uniforms and matching equipment.
When we were wearing the tri-color DCU I wore black tshirts with it just not the boots as at that time black boots weren't authorized with it.
It's the demographic that wants to look the part without doing the part...
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 07, 2016, 02:21:17 AM
It's the demographic that wants to look the part without doing the part...
This
This.
Exactly what you said.
Wise man.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on March 06, 2016, 07:25:28 PM
I just find it amusing how we fetishize over every detail on the ABU, but when it comes to dressing nicely for a formal event a lot of us seem perfectly OK with a 50-cent clip-on tie and a blazer fished out of the Salvation Army donation bin.
In 22 years of active and reserve service we've pretty much been in a constant state of matching and rematching uniforms and equipment.
The ubiquitous BDUs (M81 pattern), 2 shades of DCUs, CCU, ACU, Multicam, FRAC-U, now OCP (in Scorpion W-2), 5 styles of body armor, 3 styles of LBE ... etc etc etc.
Keeps defense contractors and think tanks in business.
Just have to roll with all of it because it will change soon. :)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 06, 2016, 07:48:45 PM
... there was still a transition going on with regards to new uniforms and matching equipment.
It's not only CAP that the uniform standards don't seem to apply to seniors. I just left active duty and for 14 years I watched senior enlisted and officers alike take a giant dump on height weight standards by "hooking each other up" when it came time to actually do a height / weight. I was a Senior NCO and seeing my peers not falling into standard was aggravating to say the least.
BUT, in this situation, General Vasquez and General Myrik are within the standard.
Quote from: Raikkonen on April 07, 2016, 10:31:52 PM
BUT, in this situation, General Vasquez and General Myrik are within the standard.
One need only to continue through the Flicker pool to find them doing "shake and takes" with plenty of people who aren't even close.
There's no uniform weight/height standard in the Air Force; there hasn't been for years. There's a waist circumference measurement associated with the fitness assessment, not uniform wear.
Now, I agree that many service members wear a size or two too small, but that's a different issue. One that certainly should've addressed.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:05:30 PM
There's no uniform weight/height standard in the Air Force; there hasn't been for years.
But there is in CAP!
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on April 08, 2016, 06:14:22 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:05:30 PM
There's no uniform weight/height standard in the Air Force; there hasn't been for years.
But there is in CAP!
A custom more honored in the breach than in the observance, I'm afraid.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 08, 2016, 06:18:13 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on April 08, 2016, 06:14:22 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:05:30 PM
There's no uniform weight/height standard in the Air Force; there hasn't been for years.
But there is in CAP!
A custom more honored in the breach than in the observance, I'm afraid.
Point taken, if with a lot of sadness.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on April 08, 2016, 06:14:22 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:05:30 PM
There's no uniform weight/height standard in the Air Force; there hasn't been for years.
But there is in CAP!
Really? I'm glad you cleared that up. >:D
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:43:20 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on April 08, 2016, 06:14:22 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:05:30 PM
There's no uniform weight/height standard in the Air Force; there hasn't been for years.
But there is in CAP!
Really? I'm glad you cleared that up. >:D
See two previous posts as to why it needs to be reminded. Oh, I forgot to add, we're not the AF, so what they do doesn't apply to us.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on April 08, 2016, 06:56:20 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:43:20 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on April 08, 2016, 06:14:22 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:05:30 PM
There's no uniform weight/height standard in the Air Force; there hasn't been for years.
But there is in CAP!
Really? I'm glad you cleared that up. >:D
See two previous posts as to why it needs to be reminded. Oh, I forgot to add, we're not the AF, so what they do doesn't apply to us.
Perhaps we shouldn't wear THEIR uniform either.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 08, 2016, 06:57:11 PM
Perhaps we shouldn't wear THEIR uniform either.
That
suits me just fine. >:D
The comments are thinly cloaked.
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 08, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
I guess the next poster should be boot-ed.
That would really sock it to 'em.
I'm going to roll on out of here and "sleeve" this conversation before we hit our cap on shenanigans.
Mods, can you please lock this thread due to the current pun epidemic? Please!!! :o
Phall, are you sure you did not mock anyone earlier? Now that you are asking for a lock?
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on April 08, 2016, 11:36:38 PM
Phall, are you sure you did not mock anyone earlier? Now that you are asking for a lock?
I only mock you... >:D
Quote from: PHall on April 08, 2016, 11:31:36 PM
Mods, can you please lock this thread due to the current pun epidemic? Please!!! :o
It seems to be catching quickly.
I think this will cover it
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk