Uniform Tape Test

[Eclipse]

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

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

[NC Hokie]

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

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Again, if you deal in facts and reality, not wishes, the conversations are simple.

I'm still not picking you up.

Start from the position that CAP is the USAF Auxilliary and go from there. That means that our "one uniform to fit them all" should be as close to the current USAF uniform as possible.

We had that in the CSU.

[RiverAux]

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

That really creates a two-tier among our membership.

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Are you saying that you regularly exceed the limits and wear the AF-style uniform now and such a program would prevent you from doing so in the future?  If so, thats exactly what it would be designed for.

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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

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

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

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

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

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

1a) would be a non-starter.

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

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

[Ned]

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

Come on Bob, you know better than that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[abdsp51]

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

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

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

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

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Indeed many CAPTalkers are quite passionate on this subject.  But it is normally not a good idea to let personal opinions -- however sincerely-held and passionate -- drive policy.

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

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

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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

Even if you hate the bloody thing...

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

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

[RogueLeader]

Indeed many CAPTalkers are quite passionate on this subject.  But it is normally not a good idea to let personal opinions -- however sincerely-held and passionate -- drive policy.

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

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

[Eclipse]

Come on Bob, you know better than that.

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

Clearly, for at least the last couple of decades since we made corporates mandatory for H/W,

You can stop there. And answer this question.

Why?

I'll answer it for you.

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

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

Pretty straightforward to me.

[abdsp51]

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

Even if you hate the bloody thing...

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

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

[Ned]

That question and issue is a core, baseline failing of CAP.

You keep saying that.

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

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

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

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

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

I'll answer it for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ned]

This uniform schizophrenia has been a problem for over a decade if not more. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And until then, we have work to do.

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

[Ned]

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

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

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

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

I get that.  I really, really do.

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

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

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

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

Ever.