SLS Uniform

[Gunner C]

While I don't think folks would be offended by the folks not in uniform, I would wonder why they're not in uniform. Is it because they're new and do not have the appropriate uniform or is it because they don't want to wear the uniform?

Its not about >a< uniform, its about setting a UOD in situations where not everyone has it.

Unlike our MC$ brethren, we are not issued uniforms, do not receive uniform subsidies, nor do we get consistent training or tasking between units, let alone on a wing or national scale.

Think its only our problem?  Poll some of you active duty members, especially flight or operations people - guys going to work as AD everyday and see how many of them have current service dress that fits - check you CAP RAPs.

I know several who are "good fells" - guy syou want in your unit and watching the wall, guys that spend their lives in a flightsuit or BDU's / ABU's, and when the odd day for a cermony comes up, they are digging into their CAP uniforms because they haven't worn a flightcap / service coat, whatever, in 5 years.

Another big difference: it's known that they will perform and they get called no matter what.  We don't.  In otherwords, we have something to prove, they do not.  The result?  We must set our expectations high, across the board, and consistently meet and/or exceed them.  We've simply got to do it better.

Amen!

[A.Member]

This has a direct bearing on the missions we get from 1st AF (notice that we're not swimming in them?)  That's because they don't have confidence in us as a whole. 

The reason we don't get many missions from 1AF is that there just aren't that many missions that can be performed by our airplanes that would be of much help to them.  It has nothing to do with our uniform wear. 

Seems you missed the point.  He wasn't refering to uniforms specifically.  He was referring to our lack of standards in general or, in otherwords, our willingness to be so accepting of mediocrity - or worse (as it relates in general to effort/performance).

[Gunner C]

This has a direct bearing on the missions we get from 1st AF (notice that we're not swimming in them?)  That's because they don't have confidence in us as a whole. 

The reason we don't get many missions from 1AF is that there just aren't that many missions that can be performed by our airplanes that would be of much help to them.  It has nothing to do with our uniform wear. 

Seems you missed the point.  He wasn't refering to uniforms specifically.  He was referring to our lack of standards in general or, in otherwords, our willingness to be so accepting of mediocrity - or worse (as it relates in general to effort/performance).

(Affecting my best Ed McMahon imitation) You are correct, sir!

The RM ^® can detect flaccid standards a mile away. 

[afgeo4]

Agree 85%.  You are correct, but the uniform should be within one group of uniforms.  Example:  Choose AF blue short sleeved shirt w/o tie and no ribbons.  Acceptable substitutes would be corporate uniform with short sleeves and no ribbons or aviator shirt with grey pants and no ribbons.

This keeps it simple, inexpensive, and uniform.  I can tell you it makes a huge difference in the atmosphere.  If you make it "any authorized CAP uniform" (minus field/flight uniforms) you can have anything from polo shirts to full service uniform to mess dress (exaggeration for clarity).

In our class, we found that when everyone looked pretty much the same you could tell that everyone made an effort to be there, follow the rules, and learn something.  It helped with cohesion, teamwork, and gave everyone a feeling that they'd graduated from something special and worthwhile.

Once again, the higher the standards, the greater the worth to the student.

GC

I guess I just have a different philosophy than a lot of people in CAP.  I am a inclusion type of guy - not a exclusion type.   I believe in including as many people as I can in events and activities.  I follow the regulations - and don't impose higher standards just because I want to.   Uniforms don't make a great training experience - it is the quality of instruction that provides worth to the student.   It is also not the uniform that makes a person commit to CAP.  I personally don't care what they look like or what they wear (within regulation) as long as they show up on work details, training opportunities, and just in general commit their time and personal effort to ensure we can accomplish our missions when called upon.   The more people we train, the greater the pool of people we have to do our mission.

That is one of the reasons that USAF looks at us as a club rather than a professional force - we telegraph to them that we're rank amateurs - wannabees.  If you set the standard, then people will meet them.  No bar, no chin-ups. 

This has a direct bearing on the missions we get from 1st AF (notice that we're not swimming in them?)  That's because they don't have confidence in us as a whole.  If we won't do the basics, like wearing uniforms (much less wearing them correctly and showing pride in the organization) then they're not going to ask us to do the hard stuff (even dangerous stuff) because we aren't dedicated to what we do in their eyes.

As my boss told me before I retired: "Remember, It's not how you play, it's how you look."  If you don't think that the military really believes this, then you're kidding yourself.

The folks who choose not to wear uniforms are good people.  They're just not helping our cause with Mother Air Force.  We aren't either when we don't tell our people that ___________ is expected.

GC

Tag spacing - MIKE

Not for nothing, gentlemen, but we aren't a professional force/organization. For clarification, please look up the meaning of the word "professional". One of the requirements to be a "professional" is getting paid to do the job.

The root of the word is "profession" and CAP isn't a profession, but for a few people who work at NHQ. THEY have to be professional about what they do. The rest of us have to be volunteers. We have to be as close to being professional as possible, given our limitations, but certainly, when someone hires us, USAF or otherwise, they understand that we are volunteers and not professionals. I can assure you, we aren't the military or law enforcement or any other paid organization and never will be.

For those of you who would like to be in the military or law enforcement or other paid organization, please go see their recruiter and stop putting other members down.

Our image or lack of it doesn't lie in our uniforms for if we didn't have those uniforms we would still be able to do the job to the same standards. It isn't in our name for if we were to suddenly become just CAP and no USAF was mentioned, we'd still be able to perform EVERY SINGLE mission we do today. The substance of our organization is in its volunteer members who sacrifice their time and money to help our nation in whatever ways they can. By such nature, we CANNOT afford to turn away such citizens for we exist simply to include them (not uniform them) in missions for America.

Before anyone tries to say that I'm anti-military or something, know this... I am a former USAF reservist and am proud of my service. I joined CAP because I developed asthma and was not allowed to reenlist (otherwise I'd still be in). I joined CAP because I felt like I could still make a difference. I could have joined another organization and in fact, learned about the USCG Aux first. However, given that I had been a prior Airman and working around aircraft was familiar to me while boats weren't, I chose CAP. I like our relationship with the USAF. However, I still believe the above to be true. We would be no less of an organization if we weren't under USAF or the military and we aren't expected to be them or as professional as they are because we are FREE!

We do what we can and since they don't pay for us to do that, that's all they expect of us.

[SarDragon]

Not for nothing, gentlemen, but we aren't a professional force/organization. For clarification, please look up the meaning of the word "professional". One of the requirements to be a "professional" is getting paid to do the job.

Therein lies a big part of CAP's current problems.

Professionalism is an attitude. You don't have to get paid to be a professional. As an example - in Japan, if you have a driver's license, of any type, you are considered to be a professional, and are held accountable as such.

From the online Merriam-Webster:

Profession:
4 a: a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b: a principal calling, vocation, or employment c: the whole body of persons engaged in a calling

Professional:
1.c (1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
3: following a line of conduct as though it were a profession

We can do our mission(s) in a professional manner, without getting paid. It is expected of us. Yet many members have this "I'm just/only a volunteer", and stumble through their CAP activities without any thought of accountability or responsibility.

A pilot, wherether paid or not, has a set of standards to ahere to. If he fails in that, he is likely to end as part of a smoking hole somewhere. Adhereing to those standards is being professional. He assumes a responsibility when he gets his pilot certificate, and becomes responsible for his actions, judt like the driver in Japan. When we lose sight of, or ignore, those concepts, we start, or continue, our slide into mediocrity.

[Eclipse]

Not for nothing, gentlemen, but we aren't a professional force/organization. For clarification, please look up the meaning of the word "professional". One of the requirements to be a "professional" is getting paid to do the job.

Therein lies a big part of CAP's current problems.

Professionalism is an attitude. You don't have to get paid to be a professional.

What he said.

The idea that you have to be monetarily compensated to be considered a "professional" is the root problem with many of our members.

You don't.

[A.Member]

Not for nothing, gentlemen, but we aren't a professional force/organization. For clarification, please look up the meaning of the word "professional". One of the requirements to be a "professional" is getting paid to do the job.

Therein lies a big part of CAP's current problems.

Professionalism is an attitude. You don't have to get paid to be a professional. As an example - in Japan, if you have a driver's license, of any type, you are considered to be a professional, and are held accountable as such.

From the online Merriam-Webster:

Profession:
4 a: a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b: a principal calling, vocation, or employment c: the whole body of persons engaged in a calling

Professional:
1.c (1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
3: following a line of conduct as though it were a profession

We can do our mission(s) in a professional manner, without getting paid. It is expected of us. Yet many members have this "I'm just/only a volunteer", and stumble through their CAP activities without any thought of accountability or responsibility.

A pilot, wherether paid or not, has a set of standards to ahere to. If he fails in that, he is likely to end as part of a smoking hole somewhere. Adhereing to those standards is being professional. He assumes a responsibility when he gets his pilot certificate, and becomes responsible for his actions, judt like the driver in Japan. When we lose sight of, or ignore, those concepts, we start, or continue, our slide into mediocrity.

Well said.

[arajca]

The volunteer fire service went through this problem (and is still going through it in some areas). The comparisions should be:

Professional vs. amateur
Paid (career) vs. Unpaid (volunteer)

It took several years for the volunteer fire service to rid itself of the "jolly volly" image. CAP cannot do it overnight, but the change needs to start NOW from both the bottom and top.

While this is a bit off topic, the impression given by what members wear, especially to those first working with CAP, sets the initial tone of the relationship.

[mikeylikey]

^ Please, we have a group wearing a polo shirt, one group wearing a white aviator shirt, one group wearing a blue AF shirt, one group wearing a white dress shirt with a candy-striped tie, one group wearing a blue flight suit, one group wearing a green flight suit, one group wearing blue bdu's, one group wearing bdu's, one group wearing an orange jumpsuit (Cali) and one group wearing business clothes because they have not purchased a uniform yet. 

This organization is so jacked up when it comes to uniforms. 

Honestly, who cares what a person wears to the SLS.  Last I looked people attend (at their own cost, which may be hundreds of dollars) to learn, not to look all sexy in a uniform.  I see nothing wrong if people showed up in cutoffs and a t-shirt.  AS long as they participated and took at least one thing away with them from the course. 

Since the SLS and CLC courses are mandatory to promote, then I say loosen the restrictions.  No one likes to pay for something that they have to do in the first place.  It's just like college.  I hated some of my classes, yet had to take them to graduate, all while I was paying for them.  Same it true for CAP courses!  Wait until gas reaches $5.00 a gallon, then lets see how many people keep showing up for courses that are located only in one location, and costs the members hundreds of dollars to get too.

[arajca]

Honestly, who cares what a person wears to the SLS.  Last I looked people attend (at their own cost, which may be hundreds of dollars) to learn, not to look all sexy in a uniform.  I see nothing wrong if people showed up in cutoffs and a t-shirt.  AS long as they participated and took at least one thing away with them from the course. 

If someone shows up in cut-offs and a t-shirt, I am going to presume they don't give a [darn] about the class, and I would not want them in the class. If they show up with dirty clothes, the same deal. If I was directing the course, they would not be in the course. How much harder is it to put on a nice pair of pants and a polo or casual shirt? Many times, the first time most of the students meet each other is in class. What will you remember more about the cut-off/t-shirt student - what they wore as compared to everyone else or what they did? Would you seriously consider contacting them for advice?

[mikeylikey]

^ Wow, I would never turn anyone away from a CAP course based on what they were wearing (unless safety or regulation dictated something particular).  That is just being mean.  Seriously, this is not the military as many people here like to point out to me.  If you can get a job done, or sit through 12 hours of lectures and wear something comfortable while doing it, thats fine with me.  I see nothing in CAP regs that say while at SLS you must be in a CAP uniform?  Do you??

You can not just arbitrarily make up rules as you go along.  That is how we lose members.  If I showed up to take part in mandatory training and was sent away because you did not like how I was dressed, man I would be the first person on the phone trying to get you fired.  I also think it may be a case of discrimination against you and CAP Corporate if there was no dress code published before hand.  I seriously think I would win that discrimination suit.  I bet at the very least the Wing King would give me my expenses back to get from home to course back to home.

[Eclipse]

Honestly, who cares what a person wears to the SLS.  Last I looked people attend (at their own cost, which may be hundreds of dollars) to learn, not to look all sexy in a uniform.  I see nothing wrong if people showed up in cutoffs and a t-shirt.  AS long as they participated and took at least one thing away with them from the course. 

If someone shows up in cut-offs and a t-shirt, I am going to presume they don't give a [darn] about the class, and I would not want them in the class. If they show up with dirty clothes, the same deal. If I was directing the course, they would not be in the course. How much harder is it to put on a nice pair of pants and a polo or casual shirt? Many times, the first time most of the students meet each other is in class. What will you remember more about the cut-off/t-shirt student - what they wore as compared to everyone else or what they did? Would you seriously consider contacting them for advice?

The above is where the attitude should be.  Expectations of presentable and professional appearance that shows a degree of respect for the curriculum, presenter, and responsibility that comes with membership.

[A.Member]

I see nothing in CAP regs that say while at SLS you must be in a CAP uniform?  Do you??

Wholly full circles.  Now we're just repeating....YES!  Go back to post #5 and #19.

You can not just arbitrarily make up rules as you go along.  That is how we lose members.

Interesting that you would say this in light of your other comments above.  The very simple fact is that in the case of the issue at hand, the statements you are opposed to are neither arbitrary nor made-up.

I'll take this one step further, it's discussions and comments such as these that further reinforce my belief that our approach with new members needs revision.  Since new senior members do not have a "basic training", so to speak, most of the info from SLS (if not the entire course) should be pushed forward in the program as a prerequisite to any rank being issued (ie. senior members must complete SLS course before becoming 2nd Lt. or advanced rank).  The idea is to reinforce basic concepts and bridge the gap on current issues that come up between the current Level 1 and SLS courses.  There are numerous ways to address the issue but it does need to be addressed consistently across the organization.  Expectations need to be set early and reinforced often.

[Eclipse]

I see nothing in CAP regs that say while at SLS you must be in a CAP uniform?  Do you??

Wholly full circles.  Now we're just repeating....YES!  Go back to post #5 and #19.

This is one interpretation, by no means shared by all, but yes, we are circling on this.

SLS and CLC have very little to do with individual member behavior and training, and everything to do with running a unit.

What we actually need is a Level 1.5 or a real senior-member basic training. However until you can force every echelon to have the same opinion about military vs. corporate, and expectations, it won't mean much.

You want to raise the bar on officership?  Require a multi-day CAP-OCS, required to be outside you own wing (so personal bias never come into play) before your bars.  Better still make it an annual region-level activity, so that at least all the people who will routinely play together get the same story.

And a little recognition of the corporate side of the house would be nice in the regs, as well, in other words, relax things a bit, so that rather than strictly following the military model of "it must be authorized explicitly", make it so that regs are written in a way that "anything which is mandated is written, that which is not, and does not conflict with other regs, is subjective to local commanders".

Which would be more in libe with the "real" world our members live in.

[arajca]

^ Wow, I would never turn anyone away from a CAP course based on what they were wearing (unless safety or regulation dictated something particular).  That is just being mean.  Seriously, this is not the military as many people here like to point out to me.  If you can get a job done, or sit through 12 hours of lectures and wear something comfortable while doing it, thats fine with me.  I see nothing in CAP regs that say while at SLS you must be in a CAP uniform?  Do you??

When the announcement and sign-up information goes out, it contains the uod/dress code. If you cannot be bothered to follow that, you have shown that you do not respect the director, instructors, or the other students. Now, if this is the first time I've met you, you have made your first impression - that you don't care. If I've already met you, the level of respect I have for you just dropped. Making exceptions to published rules on the morning of the first class causes me to lose respect from the others who followed the rules. So, I do not make exceptions to the rules at that time. If you can't wear a uniform, you should have taken the time to contact me before the class.

You can not just arbitrarily make up rules as you go along.  That is how we lose members.  If I showed up to take part in mandatory training and was sent away because you did not like how I was dressed, man I would be the first person on the phone trying to get you fired.  I also think it may be a case of discrimination against you and CAP Corporate if there was no dress code published before hand.  I seriously think I would win that discrimination suit.  I bet at the very least the Wing King would give me my expenses back to get from home to course back to home.

That's where you get into problems. When the uod/dress code is published in advance and you ignore it, there is no discrimination. Every SLS/CLC/etc announcement I have seen contains the uod.

[A.Member]

SLS and CLC have very little to do with individual member behavior and training, and everything to do with running a unit.

CLC more so than SLS but I understand your point.  However, it's my opinion that much of the info in SLS is the basic type of stuff every senior member should have knowledge of. 

What we actually need is a Level 1.5 or a real senior-member basic training.

Agreed.

However until you can force every echelon to have the same opinion about military vs. corporate, and expectations, it won't mean much.

Disagree here.  It has nothing to do with corp v. military approach.  It has to do with setting standards for an organization.  It means having a truly effective method of training and setting the expectations for new members.  Such a training could manifest iteslf in many different forms.

[Hawk200]

SLS and CLC have very little to do with individual member behavior and training, and everything to do with running a unit.

CLC more so than SLS but I understand your point.  However, it's my opinion that much of the info in SLS is the basic type of stuff every senior member should have knowledge of. 

I agree, but it's easier to expect compliance when a standard is spelled out and published. If it's not or never has been, it's not really a standard. Another issue is that some people aren't being taught the standards.

What we actually need is a Level 1.5 or a real senior-member basic training.

Agreed.

I'll provide a third on that one. I had been working on something like a "Level 1.5" to do locally, wouldn't have taken much, but my position changed recently, so I haven't had time for it. Maybe I should type it up, post it, and let someone else run with it.

However until you can force every echelon to have the same opinion about military vs. corporate, and expectations, it won't mean much.

Disagree here.  It has nothing to do with corp v. military approach.  It has to do with setting standards for an organization.  It means having a truly effective method of training and setting the expectations for new members.  Such a training could manifest iteslf in many different forms.

Gotta agree with A.M on this one. Where I work, I've seen standards slipping lately, mostly when the manager isn't around. Some of the workers lack the integrity to continue them without supervision. Since it's a civilian company, it clearly shows that a military aspect isn't really relevant.

[Eclipse]

However until you can force every echelon to have the same opinion about military vs. corporate, and expectations, it won't mean much.

Disagree here.  It has nothing to do with corp v. military approach.  It has to do with setting standards for an organization.  It means having a truly effective method of training and setting the expectations for new members.  Such a training could manifest iteslf in many different forms.

Gotta agree with A.M on this one. Where I work, I've seen standards slipping lately, mostly when the manager isn't around. Some of the workers lack the integrity to continue them without supervision. Since it's a civilian company, it clearly shows that a military aspect isn't really relevant.

What I am pointing at here in the Corp vs. Mil discussion is that it is perfectly within regulations for a member to purchase a single golf shirt and never spend another dime, while wearing civilian formal dress or business attire when needed, there are commanders all over the country that would say this is unacceptable.

[Hawk200]

What I am pointing at here in the Corp vs. Mil discussion is that it is perfectly within regulations for a member to purchase a single golf shirt and never spend another dime, while wearing civilian formal dress or business attire when needed, there are commanders all over the country that would say this is unacceptable.

And what I pointed out is that the corp vs. mil discussion isn't really relevant. The problem is just not a military or civilian thing, it's failure to comply with standards.

Personally, I don't have any problem with people wearing a golf shirt, if it's appropriate to the task at hand.

A few months ago, I went to an airshow where our, and one other unit were working it. Our unit handled runway clearance (which mostly involved calling the tower requesting permission for vehicles to cross, and keeping people off when it wasn't), and the other unit pretty much wandered around with an L-per (to turn off any errant ELT's).

Now, this other unit had mostly cadets, and almost everyone was in BDU's. One of their senior members was wearing the golf shirt with gray slacks, boots, and a squadron hat. On top of that, he was wearing green LBE. He had dirt on one of his knees (which really stood out because it was the red dirt native to this are), and what looked like cobwebs on the back of one shoulder (which looked like he walked under a tree and brushed against some of the branches).

What's the actual issue? While he may have been in compliance wearing a uniform, he wasn't wearing something suitable to the task. BDU's, whichever color he chase, would have been more appropriate. Getting a casual uniform dirty in that manner doesn't reflect well on the organization. BDU's you can get dirty all day, and people won't think it's really all that unusual. Getting grey slacks and a polo shirt dirty like that is just tacky.

Civilian dress most certainly wouldn't have been appropriate for that kind of mission. Try walking up to some guys plane without some kind of uniform, at best the owner may have strong words for you, regardless of whatever equipment you're carrying. At worst, they may give you a poke in the nose.

Overall, the problem is not our organization, it's the human mindset. Nowadays, it's more of a "What's in it for me?" mindset, and behaviour that is about only doing the bare minimun. There is very little "All in or all out" view. A lot of people today consider the concept of "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" as ludicrous. The problem isn't our organization, it's human nature. A nature which many of our members have either overcome or never accepted in the first place. But there are many more that still carry it.

Wearing just about any uniform is usually about service to the community, not one's self. But it's a way of life that many have never understood or accepted, and it sometimes requires some self sacrifice.

[FW]

Wearing just about any uniform is usually about service to the community, not one's self. But it's a way of life that many have never understood or accepted, and it sometimes requires some self sacrifice.

I like that.  However, pride in ones self is needed before service to the community is possible.  The object is: Look good, feel good, do good. 

I remember a certain former NEC member pulling out a copy of a photo he got from the then CSAF, Gen. Foglesong.  It was of a member in AF blues, over weight by about 100 lbs. wearing a bolo and brown cowboy boots.  The comment was,  "this is why you don't wear metal grade on the uniform".  I think a lot more was implied.