Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 18, 2019, 12:41:42 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Losing the Auxiliary Name
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Losing the Auxiliary Name  (Read 8947 times)
Becks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 331

« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2006, 05:29:02 PM »

*Looks at the thread name...looks at the posts...* wait, how did we get back to uniforms again?
Report to moderator   Logged

BBATW
shorning
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 968

« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2006, 07:41:12 PM »

I found five web sites that associated Class A and B uniforms with, the Navy, Marines, Army and the Air Force. 

Okay, I'm convinced you can't read.  Authoritative sites?  Or just some random site on the internet?  You've got to be careful, not all sites are credible sources.  Any smackwad can post any garbage they want on the internet.  That doesn't make it authoritative.  Usually your best option is the uniform manual.

As it's been pointed out several times, the US Army is the only one that refers to their uniforms by the "Class X" system.  The USMC has a similar system.  The Navy uses their own which is nothing like the other services.  The AF just happens to use a simple version and call things what they are.  Sorry you don't like that but we don't really get hung up on it.


And just for fun I am going to call an Air Force Recruiter and ask them.

It will be interesting to find out what they say.

Why?  Yeah, the might answer your question, but they aren't a uniform expert.  Their job is to bet people in the military.  Calling them is no different than asking me or any of the other AF-types here.  You want to contact someone in the know?  The POC for uniforms is at the Air Force Personnel Center at Randolf AFB, TX.  Give them a call...


I think Class A and B, are easier designations, but how many times have regulations been amended to make it easier! NEVER

We can always create an easier way, but would it be better?  According to my Army coworkers, even their system has some confusion.

Again, what you're complaining about ties back to CAP's false sense of being military.  It's a distorted view of what "military" means.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2006, 08:47:09 PM »

Shorning, you are posting alot of HOT AIR, and I don't think its necessary.

I was critized for using a commonly used designation, still used now, by many, if you are NEW, then sorry you are confused, or upset.

And in addition the Major used "WTF" in his orignal reply.

Very unprofessional language.

And the subject has been BEAT to Death, you guys just want to sit there and look for ways to burn people.





Report to moderator   Logged
shorning
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 968

« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2006, 09:22:14 PM »

Shorning, you are posting alot of HOT AIR, and I don't think its necessary.

Who are you to criticize everyone?  Every time someone challenges your comments you whine about it.  So you don't like your inaccurate information challenged?  Or is your "opinion" gospel?  Hot air?  Have your read your posts?  You're babbling on about stuff that is nonsense which leads me to believe that you really don't understand any of it.  I'm sorry that not everyone here agrees with you on some of your silly ideas.  Some here are to new to realize what you're really saying.  Others either don't care, or are ignoring you.  I'm beginning to think the latter is a good idea.  Personally, I think you have your own agenda and I don't think it's compatible with CAP.

Wonder why CAP is "Losing the Auxiliary Name"?  It's because CAP members have this hyper-reality of what it means to be in the "military".  On top of that, add a dash of "wannabe" attitude and you have CAP members coming up with some outlandish things that don't even begin to fit into the military image.  Don't like the way things are supposed to be?  Okay, start your own program.  You don't have to be in CAP.  Find something else to occupy your time.

I was critized for using a commonly used designation, still used now, by many, if you are NEW, then sorry you are confused, or upset.

Commonly used?  Perhaps by you.  Not in my squadron.  Not in any squadron I've been in over the past ten years.  Just because it's used by CAP members that are (or were) in the Army, and perpetuated by others, doesn't make it right.  That's one of the (small) problems with CAP today.

New?  Not hardly.  Confused? Not on my part.  I just don't perpetuate bad training.  I know your glory days of CAP mean a lot to you, but they are gone.  If you can't step into the 21st century...then I'm sorry for you.  I've been doing this for quite a while (not as long as some, but longer than many), but even I have had to learn to adapt as our program has changed.  The problem is that many members are stuck in a rut and are unwilling to change.  But that's what is holding our organization back from being a truly great one.


Report to moderator   Logged
NIN
Administrator

Posts: 5,232
Unit: of issue

« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2006, 09:41:00 PM »

Shorning, you are posting alot of HOT AIR, and I don't think its necessary.

I was critized for using a commonly used designation, still used now, by many, if you are NEW, then sorry you are confused, or upset.

And in addition the Major used "WTF" in his orignal reply.

Very unprofessional language.

And the subject has been BEAT to Death, you guys just want to sit there and look for ways to burn people.

Unprofessional?  Excuse me?   

Pot, this is kettle. Black, over.

I've read three of your posts thus far and I see nothing BUT unprofessionalism.  Phrases like "too fem" and "limp wrist."  The uniform manual "written by a temp from Kelly Girl?"

Sir, where do you get off?  You need to get your [fourth point of contact] into the early part of the 21st century or risk being labeled a specious, chauvanistic dinosaur.

Oops, too late.
Report to moderator   Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2019 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
NIN
Administrator

Posts: 5,232
Unit: of issue

« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2006, 09:55:26 PM »

Others either don't care, or are ignoring you.  I'm beginning to think the latter is a good idea.  Personally, I think you have your own agenda and I don't think it's compatible with CAP.

Amen, Steve.  Amen.

Quote
Wonder why CAP is "Losing the Auxiliary Name"?  It's because CAP members have this hyper-reality of what it means to be in the "military".  On top of that, add a dash of "wannabe" attitude and you have CAP members coming up with some outlandish things that don't even begin to fit into the military image.  Don't like the way things are supposed to be?  Okay, start your own program.  You don't have to be in CAP.  Find something else to occupy your time.

You know, I spend tons of time at encampments correcting the "hyper-militarism" or "pseudo-realism" that is being perpetuated in units. Everything from "Class A & Class B uniforms" (and one cadets who patently refused to call his BDUs anything but "fatigues, 'cuz that's what my commander calls 'em" Hello! Those uniforms went out in the early 1990s!) to "If you see an officer on the street and you're walking by, you stop, snap to attention and salute, because thats the RealMilitary™ way to do it!" (hint: you keep moving, salute and render the greeting of the day BUT DON'T STOP AND 'HIT THE WALL')

And much of this is perpetuated by fellows whose sole experience with the military was either as a draftee in 1971, or from watching late night re-runs of the Sands of Iwo Jima, Porkchop Hill, The Green Berets and Apocalypse Now on cable.    Or they were a cadet in 1971, so they're eminently qualified to comment on the "current reality" of CAP.  Sure, buddy, sure. 

But I love how these said same folks will take the extra time to completely denegrate a currently serving war veteran because they're "new" (not!) or "I've been in CAP longer, so I obviously know more than you."  Uh huh. Right.

Quote
Commonly used?  Perhaps by you.  Not in my squadron.  Not in any squadron I've been in over the past ten years.  Just because it's used by CAP members that are (or were) in the Army, and perpetuated by others, doesn't make it right.  That's one of the (small) problems with CAP today.

Or he read it on some website someplace that perhaps has no basis in reality. I was unaware of anything in CAP or Air Force regulations that specifies that a phrase or term is "more valid" based on the number of Google hits it has. 

Mr. Earhart1971: If you'd set aside your know-it-all attitude for a little bit, put your nose back into the "written by a Kelly Girl temp" uniform manual  (or any other current CAP publication that pertains) and actually try to learn something, we'd all be in much better shape.

Report to moderator   Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2019 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2006, 12:48:52 AM »



I notice a pattern here, some of you High Time People on this site, don't disagree directly with what is said, you go after a minor detail and flame away.

Who picked uniform designation.

 Major " @#$" did,

And these threads are for OPINIONS, I have one, but I do not use "WX@", anywhere, its unprofessional, not on any blog.

I am not worried about being confused by differing designations for uniforms.

NEXT ISSUE!.











Report to moderator   Logged
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,099

« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2006, 01:23:19 AM »



I notice a pattern here, some of you High Time People on this site, don't disagree directly with what is said, you go after a minor detail and flame away.

Who picked uniform designation.

 Major " @#$" did,

And these threads are for OPINIONS, I have one, but I do not use "WX@", anywhere, its unprofessional, not on any blog.

I am not worried about being confused by differing designations for uniforms.

NEXT ISSUE!.


   Off topic I know...  but I do use "WX..."
as in WX9AUX, my Amateur Radio Callsign  ;D
Report to moderator   Logged
PhoenixRisen
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 704
Unit: The ▲

LinkedIn
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2006, 12:21:41 AM »

Well, to get this (original) topic, well, back on topic...

I have been picking up the rumor that DHS has their eyes on CAP, and may extend an invitation to become a "volunteer" part of their family.  DHS and its subordinate agencies are moving forward on becoming the eighth uniformed service in the US.  It would be a great move to align the organization under DHS, only if the whole rumor were true though.

Could you post some information about that?  I'd like to hear more abou it.
Report to moderator   Logged
Smokey
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 501

« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2006, 05:16:29 PM »

We sure are losing the Aux name.....take a look at the recent policy letters in 60-1 dated in April and May 2006.  On the letterhead the line "United States Air Force Auxiliary" has been removed. Now it only reads "Civil Air Patrol". 

Also there is no reference to "Auxiliary" on the new photo ID card.

I feel our association as the AF Aux is about to disappear as we become more more quasi law enforcement and less quasi military. That coupled with the recent talk about our possee commitus status, it appears the powers at NHQ would prefer to have us involved in police work rather than military activities.

Some may find that desirable (there are those in CAP who really do not care for the military, but grudgingly accept our assocation wit the AF so they can be in the "flying club.").  Others like me, prefer to be associated with the AF, the military, and in touch with our roots as defenders of the home front, ala sub chasers and such.

The new letterhead is not only on the National Commanders letters but on NHQ letterhead as well.

Anyone care to comment?


Report to moderator   Logged
If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
To err is human, to blame someone else shows good management skills.
shorning
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 968

« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2006, 05:55:00 PM »

We sure are losing the Aux name.....take a look at the recent policy letters in 60-1 dated in April and May 2006.  On the letterhead the line "United States Air Force Auxiliary" has been removed. Now it only reads "Civil Air Patrol". 

Really?  Or are we getting worked up for nothing? 

I looked at a half dozen of the "May 06" policy letters.  Of the ones I looked at, only two did not have the "United States Air Force Auxiliary" line.  In fact, of the six letters, there were three different variations to the letterhead.  Seems it might vary with the drafter, not by any policy. 

Personally, I think CAP members are making up problems that don't really exist.  Sure there are some changes going on, but I don't think the AF is washing their hands of us.  I think some of us are attached to being "the United States Air Force Auxiliary" for the preceived prestige and are almost embarassed to be called "Civil Air Patrol".
Report to moderator   Logged
iowacap
Recruit

Posts: 23

« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2006, 03:03:07 AM »

I agree personally I think the AF cannot afford to loose us we are their "cheap" to operate search and rescue force. I think we may be getting worked up for nothing.

Yes there may be changes but for whatever it is worth we should be proud either way of what WE all do and prove to the AF that they cannot afford to loose us. Just take it in stride and see what it brings but I don't think we should worry about it too much.
Report to moderator   Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,988

« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2006, 06:23:22 PM »

My understanding is that AF most values Cadet Program, viewing it as essential recruiting tool for them.

Current CAP corporate interests seem most focused on emergency services & operations; I'm not saying the other two missions are not getting done, but that ES is getting lion's share of time and resources.

The particular focus, which makes sense in view of events during the past few years, has been on homeland security and disaster relief.

The problem is that most state emergency management agencies, state police organizations, and non-governmental ES groups, consider the presence and participation of minors (that is, cadets) a liability in virtually every way -- operationally as well as in terms of insurance risk.

Could the solution be a split??  ES folks go to Dept. of Homeland Security, cadets & cadet leaders stay with USAF??

I don't want to see this myself, but it does seem practical.

Report to moderator   Logged
Al Sayre
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,514
Unit: SER-MS-001

Mississippi Wing
« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2006, 06:29:54 PM »

What about those who do both?  Would the programs be mutually exclusive?
Report to moderator   Logged
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787
Matt
Seasoned Member

Posts: 469
Unit: NCR-001

North Central Region
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2006, 06:44:17 PM »

I don't want to see this myself, but it does seem practical.

Well, for all intent and purpose, look at the Coasties.  Peacetime they hail under the US DOT; wartime they hail the USN; either way they're under the DoD, but they utilize bi-agency abilities.

Perhaps, we should find a home and then be rented out at a nomial cost, as to increase our funding...
Report to moderator   Logged
Matthew Kopp, Maj, CAP
Director of Information Technology
North Central Region
MIKE
Super Moderator

Posts: 5,461
Unit: LANTAREA

« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2006, 07:23:44 PM »

Well, for all intent and purpose, look at the Coasties.  Peacetime they hail under the US DOT;

Not under DOT anymore... Department of Homeland Security.  Have U.S. Department of Homeland Security  stickers so we can use up old envelopes etc.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mike Johnston
Matt
Seasoned Member

Posts: 469
Unit: NCR-001

North Central Region
« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2006, 08:10:49 PM »

Well, for all intent and purpose, look at the Coasties.  Peacetime they hail under the US DOT;

Not under DOT anymore... Department of Homeland Security.  Have U.S. Department of Homeland Security  stickers so we can use up old envelopes etc.

Butt-End of Gov't Spending?
Report to moderator   Logged
Matthew Kopp, Maj, CAP
Director of Information Technology
North Central Region
jacklumanog
Recruit

Posts: 41
Unit: GLR-MI-001

« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2006, 08:44:27 PM »

My understanding is that AF most values Cadet Program, viewing it as essential recruiting tool for them.

I would have to agree here.  We may see a dip in our Cadet Program with those who are really interested in working toward an appointment to USAFA. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Ch, Lt Col Jon I. Lumanog, CAP
Special Assistant to the National Chief of Chaplains for Diversity of Ministry
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,988

« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2006, 04:38:47 AM »

What about those who do both?  Would the programs be mutually exclusive?

Understand that this is sheer speculation to begin with.

Unfortunately my answer to your question is I honestly don't know how sharp the divide would be, if it came to pass....I imagine, to satisfy state agencies, insurance companies, and so forth, there would be no cadet involvement in actual ES operations, at the very least....

Could it be two 'divisions' of CAP, with those seniors who wished taking part in both....I suppose it could, but I fear a narrow, parochial view on the part of leadership (to the effect that "you have to choose us or them!")

I'm with you on this, I'm a former cadet myself, as well as fairly involved in ES
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Losing the Auxiliary Name
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.055 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me