Orange PAWG cap: R.I.P.

[Private Investigator]

For example, this would be a much better choice as prescribed outerwear for the Blue Field Uniform:


And solves the entire conversation in once garment.  It's functional, professional, and fits both the need and the aesthetics.

It has pockets for a radio, a place for a name tape of other identification, and the zip-out fleece liner could be worn as
the recently approved fleece.

This isn't cheap, but you get what you pay for.  Better this then an Airsoft rig or plate carrier, and it could be worn
when not on CAP duty as well.  In quantity purchases, or say using VG as a distributor, CAP would be able to get the price down.

Is it available in a "digital" pattern? 

Heh - that would be awesome - digit-pat camo hi-viz  They would probably sell very well.

I am thinking music video with Kanye West featuring the Seattle Seahawks cheerleading squad   

[LSThiker]

That's at 500 feet, out in the open, and a full shirt.  Now put yourself up at 1000 feet, and put that in the woods.  I'm just saying everything you can do to make my job easier up in the air is requested and appreciated.

Not getting into the whole whatever debate going on, but I cannot stand when people (not just your picture) post pictures like these.  The picture may have been taken at 500' AGL, but just because it is does not mean that is what the eye sees.  There are too many variables that need to be accounted for in those pictures.  So unless the person taking the photo has a truly intimate knowledge of photography, the picture is usually worthless for the purpose.  By intimate knowledge, I do not mean they know how the aperture and shutter work to produce an image.  It requires a much deeper understanding.  Unfortunately, that image, as far as I can tell, does not include any of the camera data.  So it is worthless for a comparison to a human eye.  Granted it does help to provide a basic concept of what something looks from above, but not for a comparison to a human eye.

For example, what and how you view the picture matters:

Viewing the image on a smartphone compared to an ultra resolution monitor to a digital projector matters. 
Did the person making the presentation have any cropping or resizing of the image?
Is the screen color, contrast, brightness, etc correct for that particular monitor?

More importantly, how the image was taken:

What was the lens focal length when the image was taken?
Is the photographer using angle of view when determining the picture or proper magnification?  A lens can have a 180 degree view but usually lacks proper magnification.  Proper magnification usually lacks the proper field of view.  Our eyes are a beautiful example of evolution in that we have magnification and a wide field of view. 
What kind of sensor does the camera have?  A full 35 mm sensors, an ASP-C crop sensor, or other?  If not full 35 mm what is the crop factor?
What was the ISO taken?
What was the white balance?  Cameras are terrible at setting this so do not use "auto".
What was the aperture and shutter speed?
Was the image in proper focus?
Was the image taken using jpg or RAW?  Yes this does matter as jpg compresses the image while RAW does not


What is the dynamic range of the camera?  This is truly important.  The human eye has a tremendous dynamic range and is far beyond any camera made today.  When you take an image of the sun, the foreground is black.  Well when we look at the sun, we can still see the color and details in the foreground.  That is because we have a very high dynamic range. 

Interestingly also dynamic range is the answer to the "moon landing" conspiracy theories that claim there is no stars in the sky.  Well the camera is set to take a bright foreground image and there is not enough light to produce the stars.

Even if everything is set correctly, the individual differences in the human eye makes a difference.  I have 20/10 vision, while the person next to me has say 20/40 or 20/20. 

On a lot of these images, I see people just simply snap a photo, post it to a presentation, and then go look it is at X' AGL.  When I dive deeper in how the picture was taken, it is usually taken at the default "zoom" of the camera, which does not match our eyes.  That is, the image was taken with a "18 mm or 20 mm" lens length.  Well yes, using that focal length will mean it is small.  Even among professional photographers, there is still quite a bit of debate about what focal length matches a human eye.  In the past, most people claimed it was 50 mm, which is why 50 mm lenses were so common.  Well that is not true (or at least is not true today).  I think the generally accepted number now is 43 mm on a 35 mm sensor.

True, a person being an "airborne photographer" or a mission scanner does not need to know all of these details.  Frankly, most people do not.  No one should be expected to know these unless you are into photography.  But they come into play when a person makes a claim that this is what a particular site looks like at 500' AGL.

[Panzerbjorn]

[A.Member]

That's at 500 feet, out in the open, and a full shirt.  Now put yourself up at 1000 feet, and put that in the woods.  I'm just saying everything you can do to make my job easier up in the air is requested and appreciated.

Not getting into the whole whatever debate going on, but I cannot stand when people (not just your picture) post pictures like these.  The picture may have been taken at 500' AGL, but just because it is does not mean that is what the eye sees.  There are too many variables that need to be accounted for in those pictures.  So unless the person taking the photo has a truly intimate knowledge of photography, the picture is usually worthless for the purpose.  By intimate knowledge, I do not mean they know how the aperture and shutter work to produce an image.  It requires a much deeper understanding.  Unfortunately, that image, as far as I can tell, does not include any of the camera data.  So it is worthless for a comparison to a human eye.  Granted it does help to provide a basic concept of what something looks from above, but not for a comparison to a human eye.

For example, what and how you view the picture matters:

Viewing the image on a smartphone compared to an ultra resolution monitor to a digital projector matters. 
Did the person making the presentation have any cropping or resizing of the image?
Is the screen color, contrast, brightness, etc correct for that particular monitor?

More importantly, how the image was taken:

What was the lens focal length when the image was taken?
Is the photographer using angle of view when determining the picture or proper magnification?  A lens can have a 180 degree view but usually lacks proper magnification.  Proper magnification usually lacks the proper field of view.  Our eyes are a beautiful example of evolution in that we have magnification and a wide field of view. 
What kind of sensor does the camera have?  A full 35 mm sensors, an ASP-C crop sensor, or other?  If not full 35 mm what is the crop factor?
What was the ISO taken?
What was the white balance?  Cameras are terrible at setting this so do not use "auto".
What was the aperture and shutter speed?
Was the image in proper focus?
Was the image taken using jpg or RAW?  Yes this does matter as jpg compresses the image while RAW does not


What is the dynamic range of the camera?  This is truly important.  The human eye has a tremendous dynamic range and is far beyond any camera made today.  When you take an image of the sun, the foreground is black.  Well when we look at the sun, we can still see the color and details in the foreground.  That is because we have a very high dynamic range. 

Interestingly also dynamic range is the answer to the "moon landing" conspiracy theories that claim there is no stars in the sky.  Well the camera is set to take a bright foreground image and there is not enough light to produce the stars.

Even if everything is set correctly, the individual differences in the human eye makes a difference.  I have 20/10 vision, while the person next to me has say 20/40 or 20/20. 

On a lot of these images, I see people just simply snap a photo, post it to a presentation, and then go look it is at X' AGL.  When I dive deeper in how the picture was taken, it is usually taken at the default "zoom" of the camera, which does not match our eyes.  That is, the image was taken with a "18 mm or 20 mm" lens length.  Well yes, using that focal length will mean it is small.  Even among professional photographers, there is still quite a bit of debate about what focal length matches a human eye.  In the past, most people claimed it was 50 mm, which is why 50 mm lenses were so common.  Well that is not true (or at least is not true today).  I think the generally accepted number now is 43 mm on a 35 mm sensor.

True, a person being an "airborne photographer" or a mission scanner does not need to know all of these details.  Frankly, most people do not.  No one should be expected to know these unless you are into photography.  But they come into play when a person makes a claim that this is what a particular site looks like at 500' AGL.

Concur with the general point above; what appears in a photo is not representative of what the eye may see (for the record, I could see the shirt in the photo fair enough...is someone seriously going to try and argue that wearing an orange hat would've made even more of a difference?). 

The discussion has kind of turned from silly to absurd.

[Panzerbjorn]

It's like the old saying, it took one idiot to say something stupid, and then a whole bunch more idiots, including myself, made a conversation out of it.

But really, my whole point is...if it makes you that much more visible, why would you NOT wear it?

[Майор Хаткевич]

It's like the old saying, it took one idiot to say something stupid, and then a whole bunch more idiots, including myself, made a conversation out of it.

But really, my whole point is...if it makes you that much more visible, why would you NOT wear it?

Diminishing results?

[Eclipse]

The most amusing thing about the whole situation is, as I said earlier, the orange hat is the only thing
of all the PAWG silliness that actually enhances mission effectiveness, and it's the only thing no one
from any other wing cared about.

So of course that would be the thing they get rid of.

Make you a deal, trade you the HMRS nonsense for the orange hats.

[Shuman 14]

I see the valid points that that an orange patrol cap makes you more visible from the air and the safety factor of not getting shot by hunters in the woods and such, and I don't think anyone will argue that wearing an orange patrol cap as part of your equipment kit while conducting "in the feild" missions was/is a bad thing.

I think the arguement is it is silly (for lack of a better word) to wear an orange patrol cap when conducting non- "in the feild" missions while in a garrison environments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the PAWG SOP until recently?

[Garp]

yes...very cultural.  They also self deployed to Katrina...also very cultural :-)

[Eclipse]

yes...very cultural.  They also self deployed to Katrina...also very cultural

Not entirely true, not relevent to this particular discussion, and seriously, that was nearly 10 years ago...

[PHall]

yes...very cultural.  They also self deployed to Katrina...also very cultural

Not entirely true, not relevent to this particular discussion, and seriously, that was nearly 10 years ago...

Bob, they did self-deploy.  (They were on standby.) But once they got there it was decided to make them "official" since they needed the bodies.
And yes, we know you were there too. But you guys did it right and waited until you were "requested".

[Eclipse]

^ True enough.

My point being that even as someone who had to deal with the situation personally,
even I'm tired of picking on people, many of whom probably aren't even in CAP any more, and especially
in light of the fact that as an organization CAP learned very little from the many mistakes made,
and further lauded and decorated those people who broke a lot of its most basic rules and policies.

Besides, there's plenty of current OPS to make fun of, no need to dig into history.   

[sarmed1]

.....

I think the arguement is it is silly (for lack of a better word) to wear an orange patrol cap when conducting non- "in the feild" missions while in a garrison environments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the PAWG SOP until recently?

But not really without precedence:  AFI-36-2903

6.2.10. Organizational Cap. Will only be worn with the Airman battle uniform and battle dress uniforms by the following personnel/units. For placement of appropriate rank insignia, see figure 6.11
6.2.10.1. Red Horse Squadrons may wear a red baseball cap with the RED HORSE emblem/symbol centered on the cap front. The unit numerical designation will be printed on the dozer blade in black print. ...

caps will not be worn with the all-weather coat.

6.2.10.2. Combat Arms personnel are authorized to wear a red baseball type cap with the words COMBAT ARMS embossed with 1-inch black letters while performing duties on the range complex. It is only to be worn while performing duties on the range complex
and will not be worn outside the range complex.

a little bit of oranges and apples....but I think appropriate to the looks silly idea.....

MK

[lordmonar]

I personally think that.....and I'm not kidding about this......is that we need to right in to the ES training that the Orange Boonie CAP is the REQUIRED gear for Ground Teams and Flight Line personnel.

The NUC has stated that anything listed as "GEAR" in our ES training material is okay to wear while conducting those types of tasks....so no need to re-write 39-1.

The boonie cap is a very functional piece of safety gear in most Ground and Flight Line ES situations.
Making it ORANGE kills some of the TACTIKOOL element while also satisfies local hunting laws, and providing a high visibility aspect to our ES teams.

Rewriting the Ground Team manual to change the wording about the reflective vest from "worn" to "worn when practical or attached to the outside of backpack or load bearing gear to facilitate visibility".

[RiverAux]

Making it ORANGE kills some of the TACTIKOOL element while also satisfies local hunting laws, and providing a high visibility aspect to our ES teams.

You're not going to meet hunter orange requirements with just the hat.  The vest we're already wearing will do that just fine (in the few places that require non-hunters to wear it -- and only in certain locations).