• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,520
Points
1,140
Chief Stoker said:
No lots of currently serving members on those pages don't like it either.

The same people (or their ilk) who thought that the world would end as a result of a host of things, including: unification, women serving on ships and in the combat arms, homosexuals serving in the military at all etc, and also thought that drinking during the day, strippers in the mess at lunch, driving home drunk, hazing, and abusive leadership were all good things.

Just saying.
 
:tsktsk:  only if it involves paint.... there shall be no fun!
 
I never expected that once the new/old rank structure with pips, crowns, executive curls and whatever it is the RCAF have, finally entrenched itself that the other standards like haircuts, facial hair, and jewelry would follow.  I served 29+ years in the military, retired 5 years ago and I have worked in a military clinic a few days per week for the last 2 years.  When I walk through the reception area, I see Aviators wearing rotor blades as slip-ons, officers with pips and small crowns, pictures of officers with red patches on their collars and various Division patches on their arms.  CSOR and SOF guys wearing some made up uniform.  I sometimes wonder how anyone delivers and receives salutes...oh wait maybe changes to the saluting rules will be next; maybe it will be replaced by fit bumps and low-fives.  Next forage caps and berets will be replaced by sweatbands and bandanas.  Recruitment and fitness standards added to the above make the CAF look less like a unified force and more like a third-world or southern US militia force.  Uniformity and standards be damned, pride in dress and deportment are over-rated, let's let anyone join, wear what they want, be what they want and stay as long (or short) as they want.  Strong, Secure, Engaged are the last Defence Policies catch words not diverse, insecure and disengaged.
 
All these upcoming changes to the way the CAF appears, doesn't mean not too much if the applicant can't get through the "recruiting" system in a timely manner. Additionally, if the candidate cannot be trained fairly quickly, and has modern eqpt to use, the attracted will fade away and what is the CAF left with? Answer: See above.

https://luckyattitude.co.uk/millennial-characteristics/

The Ultimate List of Millennial Characteristics - 11 Feb 18
 
Ostrozac said:
Note General Otter, a former CO 2RCR and CGS.

December 3, 1843 – May 6, 1929 ( pic attached )

The book "One Thousand Beards: A Cultural History of Facial Hair" by Allan Peterkin, attributes the decline in popularity of beards and sideburns at the end of the 19th century to "the advent of the safety razor" which enabled men to shave more frequently, without the higher level of skill generally needed for traditional razors.

 

Attachments

  • otter.jpg
    otter.jpg
    15.1 KB · Views: 258
mariomike said:
I understand operational efficiencies are important. Opinions on personal appearance may vary among current and former members.

But, what importance - if any - is the personal appearance of CAF members to the public?

Reason I ask is, it is the public who encourage their political representatives to vote on strong pay and benefit packages. 

Studies I have read indicate that personal appearance of uniformed services - not just operational efficiency - is important to  taxpayers.

Just to backup MMs post a few days ago...

CBC Article Link

 
OK, so I may be an old dinosaur well on my way to fossilization, but has anyone actually considered the effects of all this in wearing IPE? I know several people who had to shave off beards simply to do their IBTS gas hut training, and I have also heard multiple stories of paramedics dealing with difficult issues with people with piercings.

Being done up on MOPP 4 is pretty much going to be a thing into the future (Syria is a foretaste of operating in a chemical and chemically contaminated environment) and the proliferation of nuclear and hypersonic weapons is likely to have similar effects for everyone in or near an operational environment. And of course once things go "hot", even being at home in Petawawa or Esquimault is not likely to keep you out of the conflict zone, everyone from enemy SoF to radicalized "Lone Wolves" will be coming for you....

So change dress regulations or whatever else, but be very aware of how it affects the truly operational requirements.
 
There's always the caveat for 'safety/operational reasons, though, isn't there?

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/ins-265/index-eng.asp

Example:

CHAPTER 2 -  POLICY AND APPEARANCE, SECTION 2 - APPEARANCE

HAIR
4.Hair on the head shall be neatly groomed and conservatively styled. The length, bulk or style of hair shallnot detract from a positive military appearance or preclude the proper wear of military headdress. (Bulk is the distance that the mass of hair extends from the skin, when groomed, as opposed to the length of hair.) In particular, style and colour shall not present a bizarre, exaggerated, or unusual appearance. Unusual colours, such as green, bright red, orange, purple, etc., are not permitted. Hair must be secured or styled back to reveal the face, and any accessories used to secure or control hair styles shall be as unobtrusive as possible. Hair ornaments shall not be worn, except women’s conservative barrettes which blend with the hair colour. Shaving of all of the hair on the head is permitted. The personal manner of wearing hair within these general style limits, including moustaches, beards and braids, shall be modified to the degree necessary to accommodate operational or occupational equipment, such as gas, oxygen and scuba masks, hard, combat and flying helmets, etc., where a member’s safety or mission is put in jeopardy.

And, stepping back - there is this para as well.

CHAPTER 1 -COMMAND, CONTROL AND STAFF DUTIES

8.Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction.

Earrings are permitted now for females, but let's say a JTF commander thought there was a reason people should not be permitted to wear earrings ever while on that deployment.  Well, that gets approved and put into the theatre dress instructions.  Or, how on my Wing, regardless of if you're on the flight line or not, your reflective strips on the rain jacket shall be visible.  I bet that wouldn't go over in Pet.

My line of work, women can wear earrings flying, and have long hair - they also have to be able, for safety and mission reasons, be able to wear a few different masks and a flying helmet.  If they can do that with long hair and earrings...I can't see an valid argument for safety/mission reasons against males being able to wear long hair or earrings during flying ops.

* that's not to say whether I agree, or disagree with the possible changes.  My job is to support and enforce, not determine policy.

 
Limiting factor will be the operational one - as mentioned a few times already. 

Can you wear a man bun and a flying helmet?  If the answer is no, you don’t get to have a man bun.  Can you seal your C4 mask against CBRNE?  Pretty much no chance of passing a QFIt test with a beard, which means you don’t deploy, therefore not operational. Same goes with a O2 mask on your flying helmet or quick don mask on an aircraft. 

As a staff weenie (which I currently am), I’ll be able to finally look like all “operator” like the pajama boys - but once I strap an airplane back on, back to being serious about my job.

Didn’t  the RCN recently prohibited going to sea with a beard - only leaving those on shore with the ability to grow facial hair? 
 
Ditch said:
Didn’t  the RCN recently prohibited going to sea with a beard - only leaving those on shore with the ability to grow facial hair?

That is correct.  When you're posted to a ship or attending the DC School as a student (staff too), no beards allowed.

We had students come in from a shore billet who had to shave for the one or two days they were there.  Once finished at the school, they could grow it back.
 
A big question for me is the why.

Are we changing dress regs to a gender neutral thingie to accommodate the 100 (more?) trans members of the CAF, or attract more trans members?

Or is it because our recruit pool is so shallow that we think by loosening dress regs we'll attract more people?

In the case of the latter I wonder if people who's deciding factor on serving in uniform is wearing beards 'n' long hair really a great crowd to target.  I know certain cultures have cultural attachments with hair and beards and that's fine but what about just some dude who's big decision hinges on how long we'll let him have his hair for the sake of vanity?

Anyone who instructs will likely tell you there's big (ha) physical fitness issues with recruits/students and people are absolutely addicted to social media and electronics. Will relaxed dress and deportment or grooming or whatever actually be beneficial or bite us in the ass.


Im not against it persey, just wondering the end result.

 
The future of the CAF - drill, dress and deportment:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5qDkd56Scg

 

Attachments

  • Non-uniform.jpg
    Non-uniform.jpg
    126.4 KB · Views: 411
  • haircut - what.jpg
    haircut - what.jpg
    23.2 KB · Views: 274
Jarnhamar said:
Or is it because our recruit pool is so shallow that we think by loosening dress regs we'll attract more people?

In the case of the latter I wonder if people who's deciding factor on serving in uniform is wearing beards 'n' long hair really a great crowd to target.  I know certain cultures have cultural attachments with hair and beards and that's fine but what about just some dude who's big decision hinges on how long we'll let him have his hair for the sake of vanity?

Good question.
 
I'm with Ditch- if your safety gears fits properly and your face piercings (or whatever) aren't a danger to yourself or others- I am past caring about it.

As noted in the various "buttons and bows" threads, we spend too much time and energy on appearance in the CAF.

How about a group of truly lethal, pierced, tattooed and longhaired soldiers/sailors/aviators? If that is the trade off- I can get behind that.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Anyone who instructs will likely tell you there's big (ha) physical fitness issues with recruits/students and people are absolutely addicted to social media and electronics. Will relaxed dress and deportment or grooming or whatever actually be beneficial or bite us in the ass.

Surely, some other nation that has relaxed (compared to us) dress regs, say, some of the Scandinavian countries or the Dutch, would have had to grapple with the same issues re: PT and electronics.  I'd like to see if it has affected their forces to the same degree.

However, having worked with Americans and others, the most I've heard them say about our current beard policy was "that's cool", not that we're slovenly - our lack of properly fitting uniforms does that already  :facepalm:
 
Jarnhammer I was thinking the same thing. If they are needing recruits badly I doubt these dr ess regs are going to drive the numbers they need. Why not bring back signing bonuses if there is a real need?
 
Although everyone is taught the importance during basic training of taking care of their personal appearance and hygiene, maintaining that sense of pride varies with time.  I have worked with members of all ranks who's uniforms stink of cigarette smoke, their breath stinks due to poor dental hygiene habits and their body odour in general is revolting.  I look forward to the future as a veteran looking back to a place and time before the animals took over the zoo.
 
Teager said:
Why not bring back signing bonuses if there is a real need?

The navy is sending out letters to recently retired members asking them to consider coming back.  I have read a copy sent to a retired LSHT.  It's been greeted with gales of laughter from what l am being told. 

In knowing what has happened within the past year now, we were shaking our heads and laughing in the office too.  It's cringe worthy reading.

Also heard whispers of targeted signing bonus being considered too, but that is most likely just fantasy.
 
jollyjacktar said:
The navy is sending out letters to recently retired members asking them to consider coming back.  I have read a copy sent to a retired LSHT.  It's been greeted with gales of laughter from what l am being told. 

In knowing what has happened within the past year now, we were shaking our heads and laughing in the office too.  It's cringe worthy reading.

Also heard whispers of targeted signing bonus being considered too, but that is most likely just fantasy.

I was thinking of the bonuses more for new recruits. What the Navy should have done was sit down with the experience d guys said that they have a real value and the Navy still has a need for them what can we do to keep you a bit longer before they release.

Maybe for new recruits just tell them they can get the latest iPhone or Samsung smartphone every 2 years upgraded as an incentive.
 
Teager said:
What the Navy should have done was sit down with the experience d guys said that they have a real value and the Navy still has a need for them what can we do to keep you a bit longer before they release.

A "we need you so don't quit" speech, when the folks who get back in from getting a letter are going to get a bank deposit?  ???

Maybe for new recruits just tell them they can get the latest iPhone or Samsung smartphone every 2 years upgraded as an incentive.

Or, how about an IPC (whether you deserve it or not) and promotions for people who perform and merit?

Ok on relaxing hair and beard regs a little...but we still need people who serve because they want to serve.  New iPhones are pretty expensive, can I take mine as a  spousal RRSP deposit instead??
 
Back
Top