I understand that several wings have adopted a uniform outside of 39-1 specifically for ground team use. I don't want to argue the appropriateness, of this uniform. I am simply interested in the wing supliments that authorize the uniform, and if available a picture of said uniforms.
Thanks
CAWG Uniform supplement (http://www.cawg.cap.gov/files/manuals/cawgm39-1.pdf)
(http://members.cox.net/dragnd/SDC80002.jpg)
This may be prior to the current spec for blue trousers.
Why is there a cadet without a vest in that photo?
She was closely supervised, and we never left the road. Actually, we never got much farther apart than what you see in the pic. I think there were two others in the group, one of whom was taking the picture, and the other stayed in the vehicle to monitor the radios.
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...
^ :D
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 17, 2007, 10:45:11 PMI am simply interested in the wing supliments that authorize the uniform
I have all of the Wing 39-1 Supliments that I could find at this website:
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html)
If anyone knows of others available in electronic form (old or new), please let me know!
-Ace
Thanks,
I understand that Colorado once had a similar uniform. Is that still the case?
If there was a water cooler and a shovel in that picture, I would say it was the militant arm of CALTRANS.....
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on October 18, 2007, 03:10:18 AM
If there was a water cooler and a shovel in that picture, I would say it was the militant arm of CALTRANS.....
Major Lord
Couldn't be CalTrans, they're all standing and awake plus there's no orange trash bags!
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 18, 2007, 02:36:51 AM
Thanks,
I understand that Colorado once had a similar uniform. Is that still the case?
No. That supplement was pulled a couple years ago.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 18, 2007, 01:28:35 AM
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...
And what was that supposed to mean?
Quote from: SarDragon on October 18, 2007, 04:27:36 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 18, 2007, 01:28:35 AM
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...
And what was that supposed to mean?
Isn't it a little odd that you guys ago out of your way to have a high viz uniform, but existing requirements for a safety vest (a cheap, regulation high viz item) isn't enforced?
Quote from: SarDragon on October 18, 2007, 04:27:36 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 18, 2007, 01:28:35 AM
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...
And what was that supposed to mean?
I don't know about him, but I don't see anything in CAPM 39-1 saying Wing Commanders can create new uniforms out of whole cloth. I thought Region was supposed to slap down Wings when they came out with wacky uniforms.
Can NV authorize DCU/ABU's for their troops because it's too hot to wear dark uniforms? Can we authorize knee/elbow pads and bike helmets as a "safety measure" for drill? When do we just toss the idea of uniformity out the window?
^ You sir "hit the nail on the head". NHQ has been way to "allowing" of Wing Specific Supplements. One CAP right? Lets make it that ALL uniform additions, exclusions need to to go to a NHQ uniform board, not the Wing King or Region Commander only!
ok. let's not drift.
I don't want this thread to talk about the validity of these policies. I am simply looking to see what's out there
so california still has this uniform oprion and colorado use to have something similar.
anyone else
^ Does IOWA have anything different than whats listed? I am too curious.
I know PAWG had an on line document years ago, but with the change to a new website.....someone (COLGAN) has failed to keep it on there. It was basically orange everything, ranger tabs, cold weather gear of somesort, and possibly metal rank somewhere on the uniform. COLGAN.......get on it!
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 18, 2007, 02:36:05 PM
OK. let's not drift.
I don't want this thread to talk about the validity of these policies. I am simply looking to see what's out there
Sorry......
I allow the wear of anything that keeps a person warm in Penna when the temp falls between -5 and 34. Silly not to do that. So we may not be uniform, but we are WARM. However, I do not deviate on prescribed uniforms for summer months as it is not that HOT in PA. But that is my unit, and not a Wing supplement. Sorry again
iowa does not have any supliments to 39-1.
I do however have a nice heavy orange safety vest which happens to have long sleeves and is made of fleece
I've gotten a few PM's on this topic, and I thank the contributers.
So Far only Colorado, and California have admitted to these uniforms. Anyone Else?
Who needs an approved supplement to do anything anymore? We already know about a region that has ordered aditional ES qualificaiton requirements to be met without a nationally-approved supplement as specifically required by 60-3.
Wing Kings still reign supreme!
I'm not sure what you are talking about, but this is a discussion on Ground team uniforms.
Did you have something to contribute?
It was in reference to an apparent lack of supplements approving uniforms that were being worn...
Does anyone have additional photos of the CAWG GT uniform? I'd like to see more of how it looks in use.
That's all I have handy. It's pretty simple - BBDU pants, and an orange shirt, with the specified insignia/patches. It's pretty well described in the supplement (http://www.cawg.cap.gov/files/manuals/cawgm39-1.pdf).
Yeah I've read through that. I just like to see how it looks when people put it into practice.
OK, here's another one (http://members.cox.net/dragnd/SDC80006.gif). The names have been obliterated.
What always kills me about this kind of BS is that first they claim it's for safety...
..and then they let people keep wearing the old "unsafe" bdu if they don't want to buy the new suit.
Guys, if it's truly for safety, it needs to be MANDATORY, regardless of the price or inconvenience.
If it's not for safety...you don't need to be doing it at all.
Quote from: Dragoon on October 19, 2007, 02:59:00 PM
What always kills me about this kind of BS is that first they claim it's for safety...
..and then they let people keep wearing the old "unsafe" bdu if they don't want to buy the new suit.
Guys, if it's truly for safety, it needs to be MANDATORY, regardless of the price or inconvenience.
If it's not for safety...you don't need to be doing it at all.
I can't remember how often I have heard the phrase "Safety is our mission" or various iterations of this thought. I always thought our primary mission on a Ground Team was to act in defense of the lives of others, a mission to which, a certain amount of risk is attendant. There is nothing safe about going out in the woods, generally in bad weather and without a lot of pre-prep and planning time. Safety is not our mission: Our MISSION is our mission! Risk management is part of our culture, one we frankly are not very good at. We violate uniform regulations in the name of safety, but will field 100 y/o ground team members with bad hearts and bad backs. Risk mitigation should be undertaken from prudence, and not knee-jerk over-reactions to non-existant risks. I suspect that our CAWG great-pumpkin ground team uniform is more of an attempt to look like the NASAR qualified and trained Sheriff's SAR teams than a bona-fide attempt at risk management.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on October 19, 2007, 03:43:09 PM
I suspect that our CAWG great-pumpkin ground team uniform is more of an attempt to look like the NASAR qualified and trained Sheriff's SAR teams than a bona-fide attempt at risk management.
I was wondering if I was the only person that thought that.
I don't know if Cal Wing still does it, but back during the North Ridge quake relief, an "authorized" uniform of an orange T-shirt with the BDU's a la Hawk Mountain used to be allowed. Don't know if it still is or not, just haven't gotten around to looking.
It looks like a couple people in the photo are part of a sheriff's department team by the look of the patch on their right shoulder. As was pointed out the sheriff department team all wear a uniform of an orange shirt and bdu type pants. It's not always a bad thing to work towards falling in line with an organization of civilian teams that are the primary resource and most likely do the job better than us. Our uniform differentiates us in a major way from civilian teams, especially in CA where the civilian teams all wear the same basic uniform. The one team, one fight ethos in SAR extends to our inclusion in the rest of the SAR community. In a place where the whole rest of the SAR community agrees that an idea is a good one we should seriously look at adopting it like CAWG has done in this case.
That makes some sense - but again it only works if it is REQUIRED not optional
As long as some guys wear the special suit and others just wear BDUs, the effect of "looking like everyone else" takes a huge hit.
And, of course, we'll never mandate special suits due to cost. The same reason we don't mandate field jackets with BDUs, and allow any civilian overgarment with corporate utilities.
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 19, 2007, 03:47:47 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on October 19, 2007, 03:43:09 PM
I suspect that our CAWG great-pumpkin ground team uniform is more of an attempt to look like the NASAR qualified and trained Sheriff's SAR teams than a bona-fide attempt at risk management.
I was wondering if I was the only person that thought that.
I don't know if Cal Wing still does it, but back during the North Ridge quake relief, an "authorized" uniform of an orange T-shirt with the BDU's a la Hawk Mountain used to be allowed. Don't know if it still is or not, just haven't gotten around to looking.
What you see in the supplement is what you get. Please keep in mind that the pictures are older than the supplement, so there are differences. This was pointed out in my original post.
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on October 19, 2007, 04:02:26 PM
It looks like a couple people in the photo are part of a sheriff's department team by the look of the patch on their right shoulder. As was pointed out the sheriff department team all wear a uniform of an orange shirt and bdu type pants. It's not always a bad thing to work towards falling in line with an organization of civilian teams that are the primary resource and most likely do the job better than us. Our uniform differentiates us in a major way from civilian teams, especially in CA where the civilian teams all wear the same basic uniform. The one team, one fight ethos in SAR extends to our inclusion in the rest of the SAR community. In a place where the whole rest of the SAR community agrees that an idea is a good one we should seriously look at adopting it like CAWG has done in this case.
As for the patches, the ones on the right shoulder are, IIRC, OES or SARTECH items. None of these folks are LE, they are all CAP.
They aren't the standard SARTECH patches. I know the majority of sheriff SAR team members are volunteers. The patch has a sheriff's star on it so I assumed they were just cross trained.
Quote from: Dragoon on October 19, 2007, 05:30:25 PM
That makes some sense - but again it only works if it is REQUIRED not optional
As long as some guys wear the special suit and others just wear BDUs, the effect of "looking like everyone else" takes a huge hit.
And, of course, we'll never mandate special suits due to cost. The same reason we don't mandate field jackets with BDUs, and allow any civilian overgarment with corporate utilities.
We *do* mandate field jackets with BDUs, unit commanders don't enforce it.
The yellow and blue patches with the star are California OES Search and Rescue patches which the supplement allows.
Orange shirts aren't mandatory and ground team members are allowed to wear BDUs for the same reasons CAP lets aircrews fly in polyester golf shirts and slacks with low quarter shoes instead of mandating nomex flightsuits and boots.
Sheriff's and other SAR teams don't all wear orange. Many wear green and gray (or similar colors) and some have no specific uniform.
Mike
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on October 19, 2007, 10:43:21 PM
They aren't the standard SARTECH patches. I know the majority of sheriff SAR team members are volunteers. The patch has a sheriff's star on it so I assumed they were just cross trained.
Search and Rescue falls under the Law Enforcement Section of the California Office of Emergency Services.
Which is why the patch has the star on it.
Quote from: JThemann on October 19, 2007, 10:51:26 PMWe *do* mandate field jackets with BDUs, unit commanders don't enforce it.
Which is the practical equivalent of not mandating it at all.
Tag spacing - MIKE
So rather then a useless 'uniform,' have those members put their money back into the program to buy cadets field jackets. We're all in this together.
Quote from: JThemann on October 22, 2007, 01:21:06 PM
So rather then a useless 'uniform,' have those members put their money back into the program to buy cadets field jackets. We're all in this together.
I've always thought so. Can't think of how many times I've bought a cadet a pair of boots, or a jacket, or even something as small as a pack of t-shirts or a belt.
A lot of people will go out and buy the latest and greatest hi-speed gear, and spend hundreds of dollars on fancy MOLLE/ALICE equipment. Try to get them to buy someone else a pack of t-shirts? Oh, no way, bub. Don't buy for anyone but
me!
You'd think you'd asked them to give a kidney.
I don't think an orange shirt is a bad idea, but I don't think it's really practical to create a whole uniform. It sounds simplistic, but I think the easiest thing would be just to authorize an orange shirt, much like the ones we've seen in this thread. Wear it with the existing uniforms: BDU pants, boots, even the same T-shirt. You could go from BDU's to ground team uniform with a shirt change. Make sure you've got you're vest on over all your gear (it's kinda brainless to put on an orange vest and then cover it up with web gear), and you'd pretty much be good.
I know there are people that have to have a fashion ensemble, but that's not what we're about. There's no reason to create fancy stuff when a single piece will do.
Amen!
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 22, 2007, 07:49:59 PM
I've always thought so. Can't think of how many times I've bought a cadet a pair of boots, or a jacket, or even something as small as a pack of t-shirts or a belt.
Thank you. You are a good person for doing that. A lot of cadets can't afford insignia and small things like that.
Its all about the BLING!
(http://chromeemblems.com/images/G-web%20res.jpg)
(http://chromeemblems.com/images/T-web%20res.jpg)
(http://chromeemblems.com/images/M-web%20res.jpg)
(http://chromeemblems.com/images/3-web%20res.jpg)
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 22, 2007, 07:49:59 PMIt sounds simplistic, but I think the easiest thing would be just to authorize an orange shirt, much like the ones we've seen in this thread. Wear it with the existing uniforms: BDU pants, boots, even the same T-shirt. You could go from BDU's to ground team uniform with a shirt change. Make sure you've got you're vest on over all your gear (it's kinda brainless to put on an orange vest and then cover it up with web gear), and you'd pretty much be good.
I'd love the same thing but it'll never fly. If you still wear the bdu pants it's considered just a modified air force uniform, and they're not going to let that happen. The CAWG uniform is completely CAP only.
I wouldn't even mind seeing yellow or orange undershirts and ball caps. I was originally in NJ wing and when you went through the GSAR school you were issued a yellow hat and yellow t-shirt. Even now the GTM task guide allows for the wear of yellow hats. A bright hat alone increases your visibility greatly even when a person has a vest on. I think it's a matter of me making sure they can always see me. If they can see me, their head is visible to me which means I can see a bright hat even if the rest of their body is obscured by a bush. I know there will be those who will claim that's bunk but this has been my experience.
I think an orange long sleeve two pocket shirt looks very professional and distinguishes us as search and rescue people and not the military come to invade. Even if I was the only one on my team to wear that uniform I think it would be helpful as a GTL with my interactions with the public and other civilian teams.
I don't really see any of these options coming to my wing or CAP as a whole unless something is mandated in this thing FEMA is doing. So for now and the foreseeable future I'll continue the way I've been doing it for a while and it'll work just like before but I do think things can be improved upon.
This is just my opinion.
The majority of the stuff we're talking about could be worn with or in place of the standard uniform in the field. I wear an (approved) bright orange hat in heavily wooded areas - nothing wrong with that.
The trouble starts when people wear it to meetings, etc. As soon as you allow this stuff as an option, invariably someone complains they can "only afford one uniform", and the next you know there are orange hard hats in formation.
GO and check the old Cadetstuff "bad uniform threads" and you'll find any number of cadets (and seniors) wearing whistles, parade belts, bright t-shirts, berets, etc., to regular unit meetings and other places they are in appropriate.
The basic vest works just fine in the majority of the environments we work in. Where it doesn't the states have an addendum or supplement.
Since in hot weather you should keep your BDU shirt >on<, the argument about bright t-shirts holds no water on my teams.
I don't want to keep going back and fourth but I want to add a couple things.
Let me be clear. I have absolutely no intention of creating the MD branch of the PA rangers. (No insult is meant towards those of PA wing) The things I've brought up are for in the field use only.
As for bright shirts in most cases no that won't be the outermost garment. But in the summer when it's in the 90's with 100% humidity it may become the outer garment. If the threat from heat out weighs the threat from getting a couple scratches I'll have them remove their blouse. If something changes I'll tell them to put it back on. I don't mess around with their protection, if that means they're gonna be hot and sweat a lot, so be it if it protects them.
I have seen and been in cases where a bright t-shirt is helpful. The regs say however that I can't wear it so I don't. I wouldn't mind seeing something put in the regs that allow these for optional wear.
I can see a benefit to any of these uniform combos/items. I also know all the reasons why they are bad or don't work etc. I'd like to see some of these things and if they come about I'll use them to my advantage.
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on October 23, 2007, 03:01:27 AM
I don't want to keep going back and fourth but I want to add a couple things.
Let me be clear. I have absolutely no intention of creating the MD branch of the PA rangers. (No insult is meant towards those of PA wing) The things I've brought up are for in the field use only.
As for bright shirts in most cases no that won't be the outermost garment. But in the summer when it's in the 90's with 100% humidity it may become the outer garment. If the threat from heat out weighs the threat from getting a couple scratches I'll have them remove their blouse. If something changes I'll tell them to put it back on. I don't mess around with their protection, if that means they're gonna be hot and sweat a lot, so be it if it protects them.
I have seen and been in cases where a bright t-shirt is helpful. The regs say however that I can't wear it so I don't. I wouldn't mind seeing something put in the regs that allow these for optional wear.
I can see a benefit to any of these uniform combos/items. I also know all the reasons why they are bad or don't work etc. I'd like to see some of these things and if they come about I'll use them to my advantage.
I can't see any real value of the tee shirt. I keep my BDU shirt on, and the sleeves down no matter what the weather.
If someone is wearing this 'Ground Team Uniform' and gets hurt, will insurance cover them? What if a member starts wearing it to regular meetings?
Lets be honest, a lot of our ES work can be done in the golf shirt combo, and the rest of it in BDUs/DFUs with a vest on over it. Orange ball cap or knit cap, good, but the rest of it is just so much wasted money.
I love seeing cadets with $300 assault vests and their disney jacket on underneath it.
Word...
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on October 23, 2007, 01:06:59 AMI'd love the same thing but it'll never fly. If you still wear the bdu pants it's considered just a modified air force uniform, and they're not going to let that happen.
How do you know it's never going to fly? Have you tried? There's a number of cases where people say that, and aren't really sure. The best way is to try. You try to sell it on both the aspect that it's safety oriented,
and would reduce expense to our members. If the Air Force doesn't want to permit it,
make them tell us no.
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on October 23, 2007, 01:06:59 AM
I think an orange long sleeve two pocket shirt looks very professional and distinguishes us as search and rescue people and not the military come to invade.
You'd be surprised how many SAR teams I've seen on both the web, and in person that are wearing some type of bright orange top, and camo pants. I wouldn't consider it really all that far fetched. It's very practical. And military utilities are pretty rugged. They're suited to the job at hand.
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 23, 2007, 06:00:44 PMThe best way is to try. You try to sell it on both the aspect that it's safety oriented, and would reduce expense to our members. If the Air Force doesn't want to permit it, make them tell us no.
Safety, maybe. But how does adding another uniform combination reduce expenses?
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on October 23, 2007, 01:06:59 AM
You'd be surprised how many SAR teams I've seen on both the web, and in person that are wearing some type of bright orange top, and camo pants. I wouldn't consider it really all that far fetched. It's very practical. And military utilities are pretty rugged. They're suited to the job at hand.
True enough, however the majority of SAR teams have one mission - SAR, great for them, but we have at least 3, only only one of which is ES. One of the others is a paramilitary program which stresses appearance, and drills / formation. The last thing we need is people in blaze orange in formation because all they can afford is one combo.
Leaving it as-is, with approved local supplements is fine, and avoids the above completely.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 23, 2007, 08:01:22 PMSafety, maybe. But how does adding another uniform combination reduce expenses?
Simple logic. Many people want to create a uniform ensemble of hat, shirt, pants, boots, along with the accoutrements of the various belts, patches, insignia, t-shirts, etc.
Instead of creating a new uniform, the orange shirt would go with the existing utilities. You don't have to go into the specifications of "You have to wear these pants, this t-shirt, this belt, these boots."
Instead of all that, it's a simple matter of "Oh, just wear the BDU, and change your shirt." The reduction is that instead of a whole new outfit, there's only one thing to buy. Everything else they should already have. Which way would you rather spend money? Twenty five bucks on a shirt, or maybe 75 to 100 on a completely new uniform?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 23, 2007, 08:01:22 PM
...The last thing we need is people in blaze orange in formation because all they can afford is one combo.
True. But basing an alternate on an existing uniform is a lot easier than creating a new one. If someone decides they want to just wear orange, that's a different problem altogether. The idea is to minimize additional items.
Another side of the coin is that you can be in a standard utility uniform, and if you get called out from an activity, you don't have as much to carry.
But to address one point you made, people should be buying the stuff they need rather than just what they want. They should be investing in BDU's in their entirety, and worrying about other hi-speed stuff later.
We are not some local "Posse." We are the auxiliary of the US Air Force, and have been honored by the Air Force to wear the uniform. This honor stems from our combat heritage.
Wear your Air Force uniform with pride. And an orange vest.
After all, we haven't lost anyone in the woods yet that I'm aware of.
There are 3 issues related to GT visibility.
1. Being seen by airplanes.
2. Being seen by your GTL while working in a search line.
3. Being seen by searchers if you become lost.
#2 on this list is best handled by a colored hat. Searchers are often slogging through stuff up to their necks - the vest (or shirt) gets buried in the brush and all you can see is the green camo hat! Better to mandate a bright colored one.
#1 and #3 are handled just fine with vests. I would like to see a single, standard vest type mandated. After all we are supposed to be in uniform. Having one guy with a yellow one, two guys with orange ones, one guy with gold scotchlite, some wearing closing vests and some with big types, one guy with the high speed vest that says "CAP" all over it in red white and blue, and one guy wearing a blue vest that says "SAR" on the back looks pretty amateurish.
The vest covers up any uniform we're wearing - effectively, the vest becomes the uniform.
And while I can understand the idea of "dressing like the locals" I don't think that's as big a concern as "presenting a uniform, professional appearance." Standing out isn't neccesarily a bad thing, if you do it right.
There is a single authorized vest that is listed in 39-1. It can be worn everyplace except California for some reason. But members buy the cheapest vest they can find, thus the differences in GT vests. Both Vanguard and The Hock carry the approved vest.
Quote from: BillB on October 24, 2007, 05:15:57 PM
There is a single authorized vest that is listed in 39-1. It can be worn everyplace except California for some reason. But members buy the cheapest vest they can find, thus the differences in GT vests. Both Vanguard and The Hock carry the approved vest.
Funny, I don't remember seeing anything in the CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 about vests being forbidden.
You got a reg cite or are you just trying to be funny?
Please cite where in CAPR 39-1 it specifies a single authorized vest.
Quote from: BillB on October 24, 2007, 05:15:57 PM
There is a single authorized vest that is listed in 39-1. It can be worn everyplace except California for some reason. But members buy the cheapest vest they can find, thus the differences in GT vests. Both Vanguard and The Hock carry the approved vest.
There is no specifically authorized safety vest. The one sold by Vanguard is fine, but not the only choice.
The word "vest" appears 4 times in 39-1, and the only specification indicated is:
Quote from: CAPM 39-1
Safety Vest Orange plastic, mesh, or cloth. Will be worn when participating in ground team activities.
The specification in the Ground Team and Urban Direction Finding Team Task book is:
Vest, reflective Orange
Anything which fits the above is authorized.
Quote from: BillB on October 24, 2007, 05:15:57 PM
There is a single authorized vest that is listed in 39-1. It can be worn everyplace except California for some reason. But members buy the cheapest vest they can find, thus the differences in GT vests. Both Vanguard and The Hock carry the approved vest.
There is apparently some (as yet unverified or substantiated) conflict with CA law. There was discussion on here or CS some time ago regarding the unwillingness of a supplier to send their product to a CA address.
Any comment about the new picture on CAP.gov's frontpage...
(http://www.cap.gov/documents/Stats__Facts_Art.jpg)
T-shirt needs to be shopped. Probably easier to make it black than Army brown. Also... IMO it's a bit misleading or false advertising... as 99.99% of CAP SAR won't be doing the technical rescue thing.
Quote from: MIKE on October 25, 2007, 03:34:39 PM
a bit misleading or false advertising... as 99.99% of CAP SAR won't be doing the technical rescue thing.
Show a member in a poncho, as 99.99% of CAP SAR does inevitably involve rain!
The orange shirt shown is a "school" shirt. Althought not allowed by 39-1 that I've seen, there isn't a National activity I know of that doesn't have one. A white breast emblem on a black t-shirt is just as
illegal as an orange shirt. Most encampments have a shirt too, and these are not being worn just as a PT uniform!
-Ace
Quote from: alamrcn on October 25, 2007, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: MIKE on October 25, 2007, 03:34:39 PM
a bit misleading or false advertising... as 99.99% of CAP SAR won't be doing the technical rescue thing.
Show a member in a poncho, as 99.99% of CAP SAR does inevitably involve rain!
The orange shirt shown is a "school" shirt. Althought not allowed by 39-1 that I've seen, there isn't a National activity I know of that doesn't have one. A white breast emblem on a black t-shirt is just as illegal as an orange shirt. Most encampments have a shirt too, and these are not being worn just as a PT uniform!
-Ace
A black or brown shirt with a CAP-related breast logo is 100% legal under 39-1 for wear under the Camo of blue BDU's, or blouse-off if waranted by the activity commander - orange is not.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 24, 2007, 10:53:12 PM
Quote from: BillB on October 24, 2007, 05:15:57 PM
There is a single authorized vest that is listed in 39-1. It can be worn everyplace except California for some reason. But members buy the cheapest vest they can find, thus the differences in GT vests. Both Vanguard and The Hock carry the approved vest.
There is apparently some (as yet unverified or substantiated) conflict with CA law. There was discussion on here or CS some time ago regarding the unwillingness of a supplier to send their product to a CA address.
Which, IIRC was totally debunked by Ned.
And considering what Ned does for a living, I would consider him an expert on California Laws.
You're right, there is a statement about a less-than 5" emblem on the left breast area. Didn't know that was added in there! However, an activity emblem is not a unit emblem - is it?
A "unit commander" could really be at any level I suppose, so is a authorizing unit commander for the PJOC shirt the National Commander? Is an activity commander, such as at encampment, considered a comander of a unit? The CoC certainly is organized as such.
A "back piece" isn't mentioned, but I have seen GSAR shirts with one! Unauthorized then?
-Ace
Opps I misread the post, but I'll put the reg in anyways.
Quote from: CAPM 39-1Brown or black. Either V-neck, U-neck, crew neck or athletic style
without pockets. Black or brown turtlenecks, dickeys, or thermal
undershirts without pockets may also be worn. EXCEPTION:
members may wear white thermal undershirts even if exposed at neck.
Unit commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and cloth or
silk screen emblem, to be worn on left side of chest not to exceed 5
inches in diameter.
Just for clarification.
Again we have regs vs. practice - just look at the DDR shirts.
I don't have any issue with them, but they violate 39-1.
And there certainly is no latitude on color.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2007, 06:26:35 PM
Again we have regs vs. practice
Tru dat, home skillet. I guess it's the second time today that I'll say "choose your battles". Shhh, no one tell that my Hanes and Froot of the Loom black t-shirts all have little pockets! But I draw the line at wearing any of my my black Harley or rock tees under the uniform.
Just before a USAF crew chief friend of mine left for a month's training in Texas, I bought him a black Tee from the bar we were at the night before. There is no photo evidence, but aparently he DID wear the black "Whistle Binkie's Olde World Pub" shirt a few times while flying in his C-130.
-Ace
I wear my black Harley shirts under my BDU's and my flight suit.
With the BDU's anyway, I can strip off the BDU shirt and stop for a beer on the way home.
I'm a Rebel and I'll never ever be any good.
Quote from: BigMojo on October 25, 2007, 12:22:50 PM
Any comment about the new picture on CAP.gov's frontpage...
(http://www.cap.gov/documents/Stats__Facts_Art.jpg)
It Takes a Village?
Another thought...
Why do we get so wrapped around the axle on these things? So it's not in the Regs... so what? It's clothing based on mission requirements.
Look at the pictures here: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151 (http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151)
(http://www.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/vid/0608/DOD_N060818212.jpg)
Now show me in AR 670-1 where that uniform is authorized?
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 07:34:49 PM
Another thought...
Why do we get so wrapped around the axle on these things? So it's not in the Regs... so what? It's clothing based on mission requirements.
Look at the pictures here: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151 (http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151)
(http://www.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/vid/0608/DOD_N060818212.jpg)
Now show me in AR 670-1 where that uniform is authorized?
Several reasons.
First, CAP isn't quite the High Speed, ball to the wall, Semper Vi, Hooray! Search and Rescue agency slash Special Air Force Branch that some people want it to be. Thus, our need for specialized uniforms, or "Clothing based around mission requirments" is just extra fluff. BDUs, DFUs, or the utility suit with a hi-viz vest and a orange cap (which is authorized in our regulation) is as good as an orange shirt, that in most areas of the country, will end up under a jacket anyway.
Second, and this is gonna kinda conflict with point number one, we are a paramilitary organization, and we've been the full time Air Force Auxiliary longer then we've been part time semi AFAux/CAP corporation. So, we do/should have a culture of following regulation, at least when it comes to something as simple as uniforms. If we can't get a member, or a commander to enforce, the wear of a proper uniform, then what else are those members and commanders going to violate? Will he violate the health service regulations? Will he violate crew rest regulations?
That picture depicts woodland firemen unless I'm mistaken, who have a specific need for person protection gear. Does a CAP ground team really need to spend money on extra clothing? Have we lost that many ground crews in the woods? I do ground team, and I love it, and I next week I finally can get back to my squadron.
Quote from: JThemann on October 26, 2007, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 07:34:49 PM
Another thought...
Why do we get so wrapped around the axle on these things? So it's not in the Regs... so what? It's clothing based on mission requirements.
Look at the pictures here: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151 (http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151)
(http://www.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/vid/0608/DOD_N060818212.jpg)
Now show me in AR 670-1 where that uniform is authorized?
Several reasons.
First, CAP isn't quite the High Speed, ball to the wall, Semper Vi, Hooray! Search and Rescue agency slash Special Air Force Branch that some people want it to be. Thus, our need for specialized uniforms, or "Clothing based around mission requirments" is just extra fluff. BDUs, DFUs, or the utility suit with a hi-viz vest and a orange cap (which is authorized in our regulation) is as good as an orange shirt, that in most areas of the country, will end up under a jacket anyway.
Second, and this is gonna kinda conflict with point number one, we are a paramilitary organization, and we've been the full time Air Force Auxiliary longer then we've been part time semi AFAux/CAP corporation. So, we do/should have a culture of following regulation, at least when it comes to something as simple as uniforms. If we can't get a member, or a commander to enforce, the wear of a proper uniform, then what else are those members and commanders going to violate? Will he violate the health service regulations? Will he violate crew rest regulations?
That picture depicts woodland firemen unless I'm mistaken, who have a specific need for person protection gear. Does a CAP ground team really need to spend money on extra clothing? Have we lost that many ground crews in the woods? I do ground team, and I love it, and I next week I finally can get back to my squadron.
Actually that picture depicts soldiers, sent on a firefighting mission during training. And my point is that there are plenty of examples of wearing clothing not foreseen by regulation which are appropriate to the mission at hand. I read the posts here, and I see a whole lot of people who are more concerned with playing jr lawyer about regulations than accomplishing the mission that we have to the best of our collective ability.
My point is NOT that we should *require* folks to go out and spend even more money on even more things. My point is that mission requirements should dictate actions. E.g. If a simple addition of an orange T-Shirt to the BDU pants makes sense from a mission perspective (I'm not saying it does or it doesn't) telling folks that they have to go out and buy a different set of pants to be in a "corporate uniform" versus an "Air Force uniform" is ludicrous.
I'd be willing to bet that all that gear, just like most RealMilitary® gear and get-ups was >ISSUED<, and as such, has an implied authorization.
No one with common sense is against specialized tactical equipment for special circumstances.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2007, 10:31:34 PM
Need it on a mission? No problem (with ok by the commander or leader)
Bingo.
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 10:04:16 PM
SnipActually that picture depicts soldiers, sent on a firefighting mission during training. And my point is that there are plenty of examples of wearing clothing not foreseen by regulation which are appropriate to the mission at hand. I read the posts here, and I see a whole lot of people who are more concerned with playing jr lawyer about regulations than accomplishing the mission that we have to the best of our collective ability.
My point is NOT that we should *require* folks to go out and spend even more money on even more things. My point is that mission requirements should dictate actions. E.g. If a simple addition of an orange T-Shirt to the BDU pants makes sense from a mission perspective (I'm not saying it does or it doesn't) telling folks that they have to go out and buy a different set of pants to be in a "corporate uniform" versus an "Air Force uniform" is ludicrous.
A point of order...
Not many soldiers train as wildland firefighters as a part of their regular duties. So for them, the use of wildland firefighting clothing is relatively unforeseen. That is not the case with CAP and the "ground team uniform". CAP members who train as ground team members as a part of their duties so uniforms that they would wear can be expected to be covered by regulations - which they are.
Just a question. Is wild land, structural, and proximity fire fighting equipment spelled out in an AFI or other reg for military fire departments?
My gripe continues to be that we authorize, but do not require, special uniforms. Which kinda defeats the purpose.
Those soldiers didn't have a choice -they got handed that gear and told to wear it. They weren't told "you can buy this if you want, but you can just wear your BDUs if you'd prefer."
In CAP, it seems we're always authorizing something new for "safety", like the old orange flightsuit, or california's GT uniform. But then we make it optional - just another style choice.
Personally, I like the concept of an orange shirt or jacket over your existing BDU pants (be they camo or blue), along with a nice bright yellow hat. But only if it's a mandatory requirement for all GT personnel all the time.
And since THAT's never gonna happen, we might as well stick with BDUs and vests. But the hat would sure add a lot of bang for the buck.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 27, 2007, 11:58:47 AM
Just a question. Is wild land, structural, and proximity fire fighting equipment spelled out in an AFI or other reg for military fire departments?
In general, most uniform regs ignore "professional gear" (progear for short).
This includes things like body armor, survival vests, bunker gear, etc. Those things are issued to you and you wear them, with minor variations.
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: JThemann on October 26, 2007, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 07:34:49 PM
Another thought...
Why do we get so wrapped around the axle on these things? So it's not in the Regs... so what? It's clothing based on mission requirements.
Look at the pictures here: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151 (http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151)
(http://www.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/vid/0608/DOD_N060818212.jpg)
Now show me in AR 670-1 where that uniform is authorized?
Several reasons.
First, CAP isn't quite the High Speed, ball to the wall, Semper Vi, Hooray! Search and Rescue agency slash Special Air Force Branch that some people want it to be. Thus, our need for specialized uniforms, or "Clothing based around mission requirments" is just extra fluff. BDUs, DFUs, or the utility suit with a hi-viz vest and a orange cap (which is authorized in our regulation) is as good as an orange shirt, that in most areas of the country, will end up under a jacket anyway.
Second, and this is gonna kinda conflict with point number one, we are a paramilitary organization, and we've been the full time Air Force Auxiliary longer then we've been part time semi AFAux/CAP corporation. So, we do/should have a culture of following regulation, at least when it comes to something as simple as uniforms. If we can't get a member, or a commander to enforce, the wear of a proper uniform, then what else are those members and commanders going to violate? Will he violate the health service regulations? Will he violate crew rest regulations?
That picture depicts woodland firemen unless I'm mistaken, who have a specific need for person protection gear. Does a CAP ground team really need to spend money on extra clothing? Have we lost that many ground crews in the woods? I do ground team, and I love it, and I next week I finally can get back to my squadron.
Actually that picture depicts soldiers, sent on a firefighting mission during training. And my point is that there are plenty of examples of wearing clothing not foreseen by regulation which are appropriate to the mission at hand. I read the posts here, and I see a whole lot of people who are more concerned with playing jr lawyer about regulations than accomplishing the mission that we have to the best of our collective ability.
My point is NOT that we should *require* folks to go out and spend even more money on even more things. My point is that mission requirements should dictate actions. E.g. If a simple addition of an orange T-Shirt to the BDU pants makes sense from a mission perspective (I'm not saying it does or it doesn't) telling folks that they have to go out and buy a different set of pants to be in a "corporate uniform" versus an "Air Force uniform" is ludicrous.
I disagree mostly. Our regulations at least, already foresee what is needed for missions. Our regulations call for safety vests. Mine was cheap, it has shiny material on it, it can be worn over a field jacket, parka, or camel back, and its perfectly with in regulations. How would the addition of an orange tee shirt help that? Right now, it's about forty degrees out. So, I would have over that tee shirt a fleece, a BDU shirt, a parka, and a vest. How does the mission suffer by me not having an orange shirt on?
Even in the summer, I'm one of those guys who keeps his BDU shirt on and sleeves rolled down no matter what the weather. I prefer it, I feel more protective, and I don't feel warmer or colder with the BDU shirt on and off. So again, how does my mission suffer from not having an orange shirt on?
And, again, how many CAP teams are getting lost in the woods that that this is even an issue?
T shirts aren't much help. If you're in the woods, a long sleeve BDU blouse is a good thing.
GTM visibility is more about being able to see and control your own people, rather than avoiding getting lost. We don't lose that many folks off of search lines...
Vests are nice. From an appearance standard, it would be nice if they all looked the same (since they cover up the uniform)
Colored hats perhaps even nicer - the grass has to be awfully tall before your head is hidden from view.
I have seen this refrain, over, and over, and again regarding CAP. Mission, mission, mission.....people say things like "mission first, everything else second", blah, blah, blah. So does the military dump their regs because they have a "mission" to do? Nope.
Mission is important, even paramount, but it can, and should, be done within the confines of the regulations as much as possible. Sure you can have someone freezing in the winter and safety and sanity dictates you put them in whatever you can to keep them warm, but outside of that, wear by the regs. THAT is what professionalism is all about.
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: JThemann on October 26, 2007, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 07:34:49 PM
Another thought...
Why do we get so wrapped around the axle on these things? So it's not in the Regs... so what? It's clothing based on mission requirements.
Look at the pictures here: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151 (http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=16151)
(http://www.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/vid/0608/DOD_N060818212.jpg)
Now show me in AR 670-1 where that uniform is authorized?
Several reasons.
First, CAP isn't quite the High Speed, ball to the wall, Semper Vi, Hooray! Search and Rescue agency slash Special Air Force Branch that some people want it to be. Thus, our need for specialized uniforms, or "Clothing based around mission requirments" is just extra fluff. BDUs, DFUs, or the utility suit with a hi-viz vest and a orange cap (which is authorized in our regulation) is as good as an orange shirt, that in most areas of the country, will end up under a jacket anyway.
Second, and this is gonna kinda conflict with point number one, we are a paramilitary organization, and we've been the full time Air Force Auxiliary longer then we've been part time semi AFAux/CAP corporation. So, we do/should have a culture of following regulation, at least when it comes to something as simple as uniforms. If we can't get a member, or a commander to enforce, the wear of a proper uniform, then what else are those members and commanders going to violate? Will he violate the health service regulations? Will he violate crew rest regulations?
That picture depicts woodland firemen unless I'm mistaken, who have a specific need for person protection gear. Does a CAP ground team really need to spend money on extra clothing? Have we lost that many ground crews in the woods? I do ground team, and I love it, and I next week I finally can get back to my squadron.
Actually that picture depicts soldiers, sent on a firefighting mission during training. And my point is that there are plenty of examples of wearing clothing not foreseen by regulation which are appropriate to the mission at hand. I read the posts here, and I see a whole lot of people who are more concerned with playing jr lawyer about regulations than accomplishing the mission that we have to the best of our collective ability.
My point is NOT that we should *require* folks to go out and spend even more money on even more things. My point is that mission requirements should dictate actions. E.g. If a simple addition of an orange T-Shirt to the BDU pants makes sense from a mission perspective (I'm not saying it does or it doesn't) telling folks that they have to go out and buy a different set of pants to be in a "corporate uniform" versus an "Air Force uniform" is ludicrous.