Dark Blue Uniforms

Started by JohnKachenmeister, February 08, 2007, 12:44:07 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JohnKachenmeister

I just got my copy of "Air Force" magazine today.  I haven't had a chance to read it yet, (Except the very interesting article on General Lavelle and the "Unauthorized Bombings.") but...

There was a photo of two USAF ground crewmen walking away from an F-15, wearing:

1.  Dark blue fatigues, that looked like coveralls,

2.  With really bright squadron patches,

3.  And white-on-blue nametapes.

So, how does it feel to be in a cutting-edge, avant-garde organization taking the lead in making history in the fast-paced world of military fashions?  Personally, I'm feeling rather metro-sexual.  I think I'll go powder my nose.
Another former CAP officer

BillB

Who gave the Air Force permission to wear a CAP corporate uniform?  Dark blue fatigues with blue name tapes. Tisk-tisk
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

MIKE

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 08, 2007, 12:44:07 AM
Personally, I'm feeling rather metro-sexual.  I think I'll go powder my nose.

:D :D :D
Mike Johnston

mikeylikey

Watch for the policy (er...interim change memo) from NHQ telling us to ditch the BBDU.  They are too close to what the AF wears. 
What's up monkeys?

Hawk200

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 08, 2007, 12:44:07 AM
I just got my copy of "Air Force" magazine today.  I haven't had a chance to read it yet, (Except the very interesting article on General Lavelle and the "Unauthorized Bombings.") but...

There was a photo of two USAF ground crewmen walking away from an F-15, wearing:

1.  Dark blue fatigues, that looked like coveralls,

2.  With really bright squadron patches,

3.  And white-on-blue nametapes.

So, how does it feel to be in a cutting-edge, avant-garde organization taking the lead in making history in the fast-paced world of military fashions?  Personally, I'm feeling rather metro-sexual.  I think I'll go powder my nose.

Sounds like the old blue fatigues that Transient Alert wore up to the early '90's. The tapes were the same as ours, and they wore full color flightsuit patches. They've been gone for at least ten, and maybe fifteen years. I vaguely remember the message that phased them out.

JohnKachenmeister

My mistake.

I'm back home now, instead of goofing off on the internet at work.  I re-checked the photo.

The ground crewmen are walking away from an F-22.

The picture could not, therefore, be from the 1990's.

"Civil Air Patrol... Setting the standards for Air Force fashions since 1941."
Another former CAP officer

lordmonar

What you were looking at was what the USAF calls Transient Alert.

These guys are the Jack of all trades aircraft crew chief types.  They are assigned to an AFB and they take care of all the aircraft passing through the base, be they Navy, USAF or Army.  They have to be very knowledgeable on all aircraft types from all services.

The USAF has always (well for the last 30 years that I've know about them) let them wear special uniforms.  Blue fatigues and full color name tapes and patches.  I have also seen "Transient Alert" embroidered on their backs on some bases.

The USAF was in blue fatigues long before CAP started using them.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

flight dispatcher

Here is the photo.

Al Sayre

Looks just like the blue coveralls we wore in the Navy...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

ddelaney103

Oh, no - that can't be the Air Force.  As all the "military experts" on this board point out (over and over and over...) things like blue nametapes, full color patches and cartoon patches are "un-military" and "unprofessional."

This type of picture is just designed to warp our impressionable young Cadets into thinking that there may be more to the military than berets and subdued patches.

As M. Colbert would say, "You're helping the bears terrorists win!"

Pylon

We should recruit these guys into CAP!   :o ;D
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: ddelaney103 on February 08, 2007, 02:43:34 PM
Oh, no - that can't be the Air Force.  As all the "military experts" on this board point out (over and over and over...) things like blue nametapes, full color patches and cartoon patches are "un-military" and "unprofessional."

The sarcasm falls flat when you consider the fact that those are blue coveralls, and not camouflage utilities. Full color patches look OK on clothing that color, looks like crap on camo.

DNall

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on February 08, 2007, 02:43:34 PM
Oh, no - that can't be the Air Force.  As all the "military experts" on this board point out (over and over and over...) things like blue nametapes, full color patches and cartoon patches are "un-military" and "unprofessional."
The sarcasm falls flat when you consider the fact that those are blue coveralls, and not camouflage utilities. Full color patches look OK on clothing that color, looks like crap on camo.
Exactly.

Dragoon

So blue BDUs are the way to go!   ;D

Hawk200

Quote from: Dragoon on February 08, 2007, 08:49:45 PMSo blue BDUs are the way to go!   ;D

Might be. I'm thinking about a set myself. Don't have to worry about matching field jackets, or worrying about my Gore-Tex not being legal without a Vanguard product, not to mention it won't matter if I forget my hat.

The only downside to me is not being able to wear my military badges. I may get over it if I wear the BBDU regularly. It's just another set of clothes, right?

DNall

I don't like it personally, but that's not cause it looks bad. I'm just more of the popinion that we shoud have uniforms that are very military looking or very not, not somewhere in the middle that doesn't reinforce our identity.

Hawk200

Quote from: DNall on February 08, 2007, 10:05:52 PM
I don't like it personally, but that's not cause it looks bad. I'm just more of the popinion that we shoud have uniforms that are very military looking or very not, not somewhere in the middle that doesn't reinforce our identity.

I agree we should look military, but I'm also considering the practicality of the Blue BDU. As far as corporates go, it would be the only one I would ever wear. I'd wear regular blues, or green flightsuit otherwise.

The BBDU is far easier. If I want to wear the black fleece the Army gave me, I can. If I want to wear an inexpensive raincoat or poncho when it rains, I can do that too. Or a cheap orange "coaches" jacket for knocking around the unit(Visibility and "style"  ;) ). If I was so inclined, I could wear one of those bright orange parkas for missions (I'm sure someone would say I still need the vest).

DNall

I understand where you're coming from, and I specifically don't like those aspects of that combo. Really I think it looks fine, but it entices people that would otherwise wear an AF-style combo & big picture I think that doesn't serve to reinforce the identity. I feel the same way about the white/blue uniform. I understand they came at it from the other side & were looking at how to get the proportionally challenged into a more military looking uniform to increase the identity, but if it takes people out of a military uniform to do it then it ends up a wash at best.

Far as the aspects you mentioned though, I wish they'd tighten up the rules on this. Just cause it's a corporate alternative uniform doesn't mean it should be a free-for-all. The hat should be mandatory & the CG blue goretex should be the primary outerwear. I don't know if you could find the blue field jacket, at least not as a low cost alternative to goretex. Some reasonable & practical alternative to that would be fine. Just, if it's going to be a uniform then it ought to be treated like a uniform.

Besides being kinda practical, uniforms are supposed to be a PITA. Rienforces attention to detail on a daily basis & makes you remember you're wearing it & the sacrifice/obligation that comes with that gets pounded into you when you have to spend extra time making sure it's right & ready to go.

Hawk200

Quote from: DNall on February 08, 2007, 11:12:03 PMFar as the aspects you mentioned though, I wish they'd tighten up the rules on this. Just cause it's a corporate alternative uniform doesn't mean it should be a free-for-all. The hat should be mandatory & the CG blue goretex should be the primary outerwear. I don't know if you could find the blue field jacket, at least not as a low cost alternative to goretex. Some reasonable & practical alternative to that would be fine. Just, if it's going to be a uniform then it ought to be treated like a uniform.

Mandatory hat, I could go along with. Mandating the Gore-Tex, not so much. I do spend the money on uniforms, but it would be nice to have a break in some aspects. With blues, you have to wear either the Air Force windbreaker, or the Air Force trench coat. With BDU's, it has to be the camo field jacket. Right now the camo Gore-Tex isn't offically legal unless you have the fancy Vanguard rank sleeve.

Those items are kind of spendy, even used. The thing is, I can't really get used stuff locally at reasonable price or condition. The nearest surplus store is an hour and a half away, and most of their stuff is either crap, or stuff the military phased out twenty years ago.

QuoteBesides being kinda practical, uniforms are supposed to be a PITA. Rienforces attention to detail on a daily basis & makes you remember you're wearing it & the sacrifice/obligation that comes with that gets pounded into you when you have to spend extra time making sure it's right & ready to go.

I remember attention to detail quite well, and I certainly don't need to be in a military uniform to do it. There are people that have met me the first time on numerous occasions that asked what branch of the military I was in. They knew before I mentioned it. On a couple of occasions, it was my appearance. On others, it was my bearing.

I would blouse blue BDU pant legs the same way as cammie ones, I'd still iron it, and I would still shine my boots. If I wear any kind of jacket, it would be zipped, buttoned or snapped all the way. I would make a point of having my hat available (all though it would be nice to not to have to wear it). And maybe, by doing so, I can get my commander to wear his in the same manner. He's too large for the mil uniforms, but I bet by example I can get him to remember his military bearing.

If you maintain bearing, it won't matter if it's cammie.

DNall

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 09, 2007, 03:31:04 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 08, 2007, 11:12:03 PMFar as the aspects you mentioned though, I wish they'd tighten up the rules on this. Just cause it's a corporate alternative uniform doesn't mean it should be a free-for-all. The hat should be mandatory & the CG blue goretex should be the primary outerwear. I don't know if you could find the blue field jacket, at least not as a low cost alternative to goretex. Some reasonable & practical alternative to that would be fine. Just, if it's going to be a uniform then it ought to be treated like a uniform.

Mandatory hat, I could go along with. Mandating the Gore-Tex, not so much. I do spend the money on uniforms, but it would be nice to have a break in some aspects. With blues, you have to wear either the Air Force windbreaker, or the Air Force trench coat. With BDU's, it has to be the camo field jacket. Right now the camo Gore-Tex isn't offically legal unless you have the fancy Vanguard rank sleeve.

Those items are kind of spendy, even used. The thing is, I can't really get used stuff locally at reasonable price or condition. The nearest surplus store is an hour and a half away, and most of their stuff is either crap, or stuff the military phased out twenty years ago.
I didn't mean mandatory goretex, just not the red sweater vest. Goretex isn't mandatory w/ BDUs either. I was trying to explain the same rules as BDUs but w/ appropriate colored items. Hence CG-blue goretex & I'm open to an alternative to the field jacket cause I know you can't get one in blue for cheap. I'm even willing to let people wear the woodland outerwear over the blue, and would be happy if the blue goretex were just recommended. I just don't want to see stupidity prevail & hear how it's technically within the letter of the reg even though you look like a freakin glow in the dark clown. I'd just like some more fomalized, nothing beyond what BDUs are, rules is all. Nothing crazy.

Quote
QuoteBesides being kinda practical, uniforms are supposed to be a PITA. Rienforces attention to detail on a daily basis & makes you remember you're wearing it & the sacrifice/obligation that comes with that gets pounded into you when you have to spend extra time making sure it's right & ready to go.

I remember attention to detail quite well, and I certainly don't need to be in a military uniform to do it. There are people that have met me the first time on numerous occasions that asked what branch of the military I was in. They knew before I mentioned it. On a couple of occasions, it was my appearance. On others, it was my bearing.

I would blouse blue BDU pant legs the same way as cammie ones, I'd still iron it, and I would still shine my boots. If I wear any kind of jacket, it would be zipped, buttoned or snapped all the way. I would make a point of having my hat available (all though it would be nice to not to have to wear it). And maybe, by doing so, I can get my commander to wear his in the same manner. He's too large for the mil uniforms, but I bet by example I can get him to remember his military bearing.

If you maintain bearing, it won't matter if it's cammie.
I mean that's the purpose of uniforms in general & if you're going to have a para-military uniform versus civilian attire, then it should have rules around it that treat it just like the military uniform. I know full well you understand that, and have complete faith that you would wear it looking good, but a lot of people wouldn't & that makes it worse than if they were wearing a golf shirt in the first place. I understand where they were trying to go by militarizing the corporate style uniforms, and they made them look pretty good to be honest, but they need to tighten up the rules & square up the audience they were targeting with this or it really is somewhere between pointless & counter-productive.

You do what you want, I'm not giving you uniform advice. If you want the thing & especially if you can inspire others to wear it right then more power to ya. I personally don't like it for big picture reasons & so won't personally wear it, but I got no problem with anyone that wears any combination, as long as they wear it right & remember what it's about.

Dragoon

The Blue M-65 jacket by Propper is sold by a fair number of police/surplus shops and looks pretty good.

But truthfully, most of our members just play the "safety" card in normal BDUs and wear whatever jacket they want when it's cold anyway.

DNall

Quote from: Dragoon on February 09, 2007, 07:03:00 PM
The Blue M-65 jacket by Propper is sold by a fair number of police/surplus shops and looks pretty good.

But truthfully, most of our members just play the "safety" card in normal BDUs and wear whatever jacket they want when it's cold anyway.
What's the price on that though. And while true with uniforms, obviously that's viewed very badly by the military (who are issued their expensive outterwear in new condition & don't understand why we look like crap) & professional responders (who expect to see military standards & believe that the training & experience will be in line with that also). That's a good angle to take back to AF. "Our people are losing credibility cause they look like azz, they're making you look bad in uniform cause they can't get the right items w/o spending a small fortune, and there's a legitimate safety concern having these people out in harsh conditions on your orders & not able to use appropriate gear. Hence you should give us lots of surplus Goretex & other uniform & mission related gear so we can doa better job for you w/o embarassing you." Always use your justifications to show them how something you want is the answer to what they want. Connect the dots & get what you want.

lordmonar

Okay then.....in an effort to become uniformed and present a good image to both the USAF and other agnecies...we need to drop the USAF style uniforms all together.  Go with the TPU, BBDU and Blue Flight Suit.

All would then be moot.

Except that you too have an agenda that wants to find the answere where we would be "closer to the military" and you would lament that such a move would be part of a larger conspiracy to break all ties with the USAF.

Either way....you can't have your cake and eat it too.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: lordmonar on February 09, 2007, 07:57:04 PM
Okay then.....in an effort to become uniformed and present a good image to both the USAF and other agnecies...we need to drop the USAF style uniforms all together.  Go with the TPU, BBDU and Blue Flight Suit.

All would then be moot.

Except that you too have an agenda that wants to find the answere where we would be "closer to the military" and you would lament that such a move would be part of a larger conspiracy to break all ties with the USAF.

Either way....you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Am I trying to have my cake & eat it too? I think I'm being quite consistent.

We aren't trying to be unformed with each other though, we're trying to be uniformed with them so as to reinforce our obligation & affiliation to them, but also becuase we can get the stuff from surpluss.

I don't care what uniform people wear perosnally, as long as they wear it professiobnally. I prefer the AF style ones for a couple reasons that are mostly practical. I think the new corporate style uniforms look decent versus the old ones looked like a joke, but for an overall uniform policy I don't like them because I don't the wear rules aren't getting the corp side of CAP to think they are affiliated with the AF and because they are decent they get people who were wearing the AF style to wear these instead & that further errodes the reinforcing the uniforms are meant to do. Hence no progress is being made toward the stated goal.

You want to see that stated goal again, it's in the statements by the exec dir on that whole-CAP approach. I believe you can still find a copy of it archieved at CAPBlog, but you may have to look around a bit. He was quite clear what the current vision is about though, and I frankly agree with that vision, though I disagree with some of the policies, methods, and lack of communication & leadership to carry it thru.

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on February 09, 2007, 10:10:51 PMAm I trying to have my cake & eat it too? I think I'm being quite consistent.

The saying does not mean that your are being inconsistent only that you can't have two things that are mutually exclusive.  We cannot all be uniform AND be just like the USAF.

Quote from: DNall on February 09, 2007, 10:10:51 PM
We aren't trying to be unformed with each other though, we're trying to be uniformed with them so as to reinforce our obligation & affiliation to them, but also becuase we can get the stuff from surpluss.

But the USAF will not allow us to be uniform with them because we have a bunch of large, beared, long haired SM's.  So the answer is that we be uniformed with our selves in a uniform that mimics the USAF as much as they will let us.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote
Quote from: DNall on February 09, 2007, 10:10:51 PM
We aren't trying to be unformed with each other though, we're trying to be uniformed with them so as to reinforce our obligation & affiliation to them, but also becuase we can get the stuff from surpluss.

But the USAF will not allow us to be uniform with them because we have a bunch of large, beared, long haired SM's.  So the answer is that we be uniformed with our selves in a uniform that mimics the USAF as much as they will let us.
Why would I need or want to be uniformed with them? There is no such thing as a CAP team. CAP accomplishes nothing alone. It is part of the AF-family in all things, even during corporate missions. Why would I want to reflect being on any other team than that? Obviously I feel that's our central focus & I don't care about other things. If others can't wear the AF-style uniform cause of rules outside our control then, I'm sorry. You do the best you can to keep up by wearing that other stuff in the most squared away format possible, but I'm going to go on ahead & not be held back.

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 07:27:57 AM
Quote
Quote from: DNall on February 09, 2007, 10:10:51 PM
We aren't trying to be unformed with each other though, we're trying to be uniformed with them so as to reinforce our obligation & affiliation to them, but also becuase we can get the stuff from surpluss.

But the USAF will not allow us to be uniform with them because we have a bunch of large, beared, long haired SM's.  So the answer is that we be uniformed with our selves in a uniform that mimics the USAF as much as they will let us.
Why would I need or want to be uniformed with them? There is no such thing as a CAP team. CAP accomplishes nothing alone. It is part of the AF-family in all things, even during corporate missions. Why would I want to reflect being on any other team than that? Obviously I feel that's our central focus & I don't care about other things. If others can't wear the AF-style uniform cause of rules outside our control then, I'm sorry. You do the best you can to keep up by wearing that other stuff in the most squared away format possible, but I'm going to go on ahead & not be held back.

And there you have it.

We will always have a split mentality between the CAP and USAF-AUX....because you are so hot in being part of the USAF team...you don't even try to be part of the CAP team.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2007, 07:37:08 AMAnd there you have it.

We will always have a split mentality between the CAP and USAF-AUX....because you are so hot in being part of the USAF team...you don't even try to be part of the CAP team.

Hmmm. What an idea, make it a "us vs. them" mentality. That will really get everybody on board.

Had an idea, just now confirmed....

DNall

There is no stand alone CAP team. There's a mechanism to support the AF, that's it. It'd be stupid if the ANG wanted to wear gray uniforms all of a sudden too, and very problematic for them to remember who's boss. CAP has that issue.

I can't tell you what the solution is... seems logial to either enforce a ht/wt/grooming standard for membership or get rid of those standards for the AF-style uniforms.

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 07:43:58 AM
There is no stand alone CAP team. There's a mechanism to support the AF, that's it. It'd be stupid if the ANG wanted to wear gray uniforms all of a sudden too, and very problematic for them to remember who's boss. CAP has that issue.

I can't tell you what the solution is... seems logial to either enforce a ht/wt/grooming standard for membership or get rid of those standards for the AF-style uniforms.

CAP does not want to wear stupid gray uniforms...the USAF is making us wear stupid gray uniforms.  CAP cannot, and I say this again, CAP cannot survive if it enforce weight and grooming standards as a basis of membership.  Once more....CAP canno survive if it enforced weight and grooming standars as a basis for membership.

The USAF will never back off of their insistance that we meet the USAF standards (+10%) as a requirment to wear USAF uniforms.

Finally.....as far as CAP and USAF being a team.....not at the squadron level that is for sure!  I have never tained with them and they are alfully hard to get any support out of.  That said...we do work for/with them at some level.  We do get money from them and some equipment and support.  But don't talk to me out it being more important to be a USAF team vice a CAP team.

That would be like telling your cadets that it is more imporatant to team up with wing instead of your squadron.

Let's get a focus on what's imporatant.  It is much more imporatant that I team with my squadron first and formost.  It is more important that I team with the local ES services in my community than it is with the USAF.  You have the USAF-AUX in your head that you have lost all sense of real team work.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2007, 08:01:13 AM
CAP does not want to wear stupid gray uniforms...the USAF is making us wear stupid gray uniforms.  CAP cannot, and I say this again, CAP cannot survive if it enforce weight and grooming standards as a basis of membership.  Once more....CAP canno survive if it enforced weight and grooming standars as a basis for membership.
Now why is that always so automatic & absolute? SDFs do quite well adhereing to ht/wt/grooming, many w/ fitness tandards, & none w/ alternative uniforms. They're lmost exlusively volunteers that don't get jack including job protection, and there's more of them then there are us. How come they can do it & we can't? ACA has standards. They have standards in Canada & the UK, Australia... that's all I know about, but I imagine it's the same elsewhere. How come just about everyone else can do it but CAP can't. I mean I don't know maybe we really can't, but it seems like the same thing you hear when people say we can't have a PFT for GTs, physicals for observers, tough standards for membership in general & officers in particular... any time you talk about change that might leave somebody's buddy out in the cold everyone freaks out. Well, I'm not saying it's the best thing to do, but why is it impossble?

For my personal opinion, I honestly don't know if I support the new militarized alternate uniforms or would rather see totally civilian looking attire. The jury is out to an extent. I know what they were trying to do & that was a good idea, but how they did it was bad, & I don't know if I'm going to like how this shakes out or not.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2007, 08:01:13 AM
Let's get a focus on what's imporatant.  It is much more imporatant that I team with my squadron first and formost.  It is more important that I team with the local ES services in my community than it is with the USAF.  You have the USAF-AUX in your head that you have lost all sense of real team work.
See I would flip that around & say you have this idea of a local CAP cop in your head & have lost all sense of teamwork & loyalty to the AF who gives us life & w/o which we don't exist.

I know at the local level you survive on very little outside support, but we don't exist w/o those planes & radios & the funinding that puts them there & makes it possible to run them. Take even a significat chunck of that awat & we whither away & die in a blink. That's the way everyone including Congress wants it.

I'd tell you that you have to stick to your chain of command. Yes you function at your Sq level, but if Gp or Wg issues an order that your Sq CC disagrees with, guess which one you follow. We help others when & where we can, within reason, but we exist as an organization & are allowed to live (funded) to give AF a return on tehir investment. To the extent we use resources on other things that could have been used to benefit the AF. What's the best value judgement there? I don't know that answer, I imagine it varries a bit, but shouldn't the AF come out on top most of the time?

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 08:25:12 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2007, 08:01:13 AM
Let's get a focus on what's imporatant.  It is much more imporatant that I team with my squadron first and formost.  It is more important that I team with the local ES services in my community than it is with the USAF.  You have the USAF-AUX in your head that you have lost all sense of real team work.
See I would flip that around & say you have this idea of a local CAP cop in your head & have lost all sense of teamwork & loyalty to the AF who gives us life & w/o which we don't exist.

The the USAF needs to start treating us like part of their team...and let us wear their fricking uniforms.  That would solve this stupid problem.

You want to team up with the guy who does not want you...except when it is on his terms.  I don't have time for that.  You can spend your whole life trying to please big blue but it will never happen because of inertia.

Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 08:25:12 AMI know at the local level you survive on very little outside support, but we don't exist w/o those planes & radios & the funinding that puts them there & makes it possible to run them. Take even a significat chunck of that awat & we whither away & die in a blink. That's the way everyone including Congress wants it.

No...not true...we are NOT dependant on the USAF for funding....not if we really wanted to be.  Heck we could just self fund and use member owned aircraft and do with out the funding all togther.  Stop kissing the USAF's butt, because they give us $20M to do a job that would cost them much more.

Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 08:25:12 AMI'd tell you that you have to stick to your chain of command. Yes you function at your Sq level, but if Gp or Wg issues an order that your Sq CC disagrees with, guess which one you follow. We help others when & where we can, within reason, but we exist as an organization & are allowed to live (funded) to give AF a return on tehir investment. To the extent we use resources on other things that could have been used to benefit the AF. What's the best value judgement there? I don't know that answer, I imagine it varries a bit, but shouldn't the AF come out on top most of the time?

No....the American People should come out on top.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

We're having a whole different discussion we've had a couple times already & is off topic. I mean I happy to discuss it again if we need to keep doing this, but I don't think everyone else wants to watch, again. We obviously have very different view as to what CAP means & why it exists. That's unfortunate, but hardly suprising.

JohnKachenmeister

Dennis:

I tend to agree that CAP is hurt by the USAF "+ 10 percent" weight standards.  Whether we can or cannot survive under them, I don't know, but it hurts us.

The CG Aux and most SDF's take a much more liberal approach, making the overall appearance the key determiner, not a rigid weight standard.  Creative tailoring is specified in the CG regs as one way to achieve the desired professional look.

Also, the USAF standards that we cannot exceed by more than 10 percent are the basic training entry standards.  That's tough for us over-50 guys.

I would like to see a more realistic standard, perhaps one based on a 10 percent allowance over USAF standards but adjusted for age and calculated body fat composition.
Another former CAP officer

MIKE

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 10, 2007, 03:51:45 PM
The CG Aux and most SDF's take a much more liberal approach, making the overall appearance the key determiner, not a rigid weight standard.  Creative tailoring is specified in the CG regs as one way to achieve the desired professional look.

Having now attended some division and district functions, I'm not so sure this is the best approach.
Mike Johnston

Dragoon

I'm interested in dressing like the guys I work with.

Not the guys I talk to over the phone in AFRCC.  The guys I work with.

And that group, by and large are other members of the Civil Air Patrol.  Those are my teammates - from the IC down to the ground team members and scanners.

It would be nice to dress like USAF, but truthfully, I very seldom work side by side with USAF.  And if I did, my "officer" grade would actually get in the way.  After all, it would not correctly show my place in the USAF heirarchy, nor correctly indicate my authority.



JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: Dragoon on February 12, 2007, 01:57:46 PM
I'm interested in dressing like the guys I work with.

Not the guys I talk to over the phone in AFRCC.  The guys I work with.

And that group, by and large are other members of the Civil Air Patrol.  Those are my teammates - from the IC down to the ground team members and scanners.

It would be nice to dress like USAF, but truthfully, I very seldom work side by side with USAF.  And if I did, my "officer" grade would actually get in the way.  After all, it would not correctly show my place in the USAF heirarchy, nor correctly indicate my authority.




That's a good take Dragoon.  I'm not sure how much officer rank "Gets in the way," though.  When I have worked with USAF folks it is mostly with other officers or senior NCO's, and there was a mutual recogniton of professionalism that transcended the insignias we wore. 

Also, we are starting an augmentation program of sorts here in Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and the Air Force WANTS us to look like them to the extent legally possible.  They have asked that we wear flight suits if aircrew or missile qualified, and BDU's if not, which is their uniform of the day.  They have some NCO's left who escort the tours of historic launch sites, and we are replacing the ones who have been moved to other duties.  The USAF wants CAP and USAF tour escorts to be completely interchangeable and compatable.  Leave the golf shirts on the golf course for this mission.

It feels good to be treated like a member of the family.

And, with the demands on USAF personnel, if we didn't step up to help out, the tours of the historic launch sites would be cancelled.  This has happened frequently already with the shortage of AF escorts.  Keeping up public support for the Space Program is in the USAF's interest, and is, frankly, part of our CAP mission too.
Another former CAP officer

Dragoon

#37
I think you're in a unique position - you're helping to put on an Air Force "show", and they want full credit for that show, so they're extremely happy to have CAP guys who will be mistaken for USAF guys.  I assume they would not allow a fat n fuzzy blue jumpsuit guy to play?

Now, here are some other scenarios where it might now work so well.

Let's say we are augmenting a base ops cell.  The duty NCO is, say, an E-7.  A CAP augmentee is assigned to assist him (answering phones and logging stuff).  That guy is a CAP Major.   Seems odd, having an 0-4 work for an E-7.

Or perhaps assisting with KP.  Majors and Lt Col's slinging hash?

Or even loading aircraft - Captains and Majors working for a Senior Airman loadmaster?

It would be almost impossible to imaging an Air Force Officer performing these duties - that's what NCOs and EMs are for. 

Incidentally, I'm not a CGAUX guy, but I thought this line from their manual was interesting

"Members, when working as crew on a CG vessel/boat, shall wear only the member device (Auxiliary emblem) as collar insignia."

This may have something to do with this same issue - CGAUX "officers" working for CG NCOs


MississippiFlyboy

Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 08:25:12 AM
SDFs do quite well adhereing to ht/wt/grooming, many w/ fitness tandards, & none w/ alternative uniforms. They're almost exlusively volunteers that don't get jack including job protection, and there's more of them then there are us. How come they can do it & we can't? 

There are only about half of the SDFs that enforce weight standards and some don't do well enforcing uniform standards.  Also, many SDFs do have the same job protections and allowances for missing work that the Guard/Reserve get because of the state laws.  And bear in mind that SDFs can be called to state active duty and paid (not that it happens very often in most states) and most have full exchange and base privileges so it's more justified (in theory) to push ht/wt and grooming standards in the SDFs

There are way fewer SDF troops than CAP personnel.  The last number given by the State Guard Association of the United States is around 16,000 for all states.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Kevin Myers
2d Lt, CAP
SER-MS-100

RiverAux

MS is right on SDF numbers....only about 10-15,000.  They do vary quite a bit in physical and uniform requirements.  Some SDFs are basically not much more than paper organizations with no real ongoing missions, while others such as TX and CA are much more the type that get brought up here (very active programs, lots of augmentation, etc.) while the vast majority are in the middle. 

MississippiFlyboy

BTW River....i'm MississippiGuardsman from that "other" forum.  Good to see you on here.  I thought you were only in the CG Aux? Are you a CAP guy too?
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Kevin Myers
2d Lt, CAP
SER-MS-100

O-Rex

Does anyone use Blue BDU's for UDF work?

I think someone mentioned that CAWG GT or UDF teams used BBDU's and no rank (?)

I always thought is was a more 'urban-friendly' uniform.

RiverAux

To me it looks a whole lot like a police SWAT uniform and I wouldnt' be caught alive in it in an actual urban area (because I could soon end up caught dead in it).  At least with the camo uniform they might think I've got a M-16 or machine gun mounted in the back of the van, if they only think I'm a cop who obviously doesn't have a gun on them, then I might be in trouble.....

SarDragon

Quote from: O-Rex on February 13, 2007, 04:32:56 AM
Does anyone use Blue BDU's for UDF work?

I think someone mentioned that CAWG GT or UDF teams used BBDU's and no rank (?)

I always thought is was a more 'urban-friendly' uniform.

In CAWG we can wear regular BDUs, BBDUs, or the GT uniform authorized in the CAWG supplement.  [No, we're not here to debate the legality of the supplement!]

Since I'm one of the "second-class members", I am limited to wearing BBDUs or the GT uniform, but as often as not, I wear the golf shirt when doing UDF.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret