Orange PAWG cap: R.I.P.

[Private Investigator]

Because of a hat?

This entire thread.  4 pages of arguing about square inches of orange.

Whatever.

I am with NIN he is spot on! 

[Eclipse]

Eclipse, we both agree on this. 100%. That's why I don't understand why you would single out part of my response to another post that implied that members needed to spend lots of $$$ to be in compliance. They don't. And if someone chooses to do so, he/she should buy the right equipment/gear and not just something that looks "cool".

Because that's not what you actually said or wrote. 

Your comment was that not everyone has the cash for the cool ANSI vest, which is fine, but not relevent when discussing what the standard
should be (and actually the standard should be irrespective of cost and focused on mission).

So if nothing else, your response looked like just throwing a road block.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

Because of a hat?

This entire thread.  4 pages of arguing about square inches of orange.

Whatever.

Ridiculous?   Yes.

But that's what you get when NHQ establishes expectations but refuses to set a standard, and
then expects the members to pay for the equipment.

Another place where one sentence or paragraph ends the conversation.

If NHQ had spent 1/3rd of the time on ending these conversations as they did on reformatting
text, Cap Talk would be a lot quieter.  Everyone's pet non-standard thing was left in, as was plenty
of ambiguity, and then the end result was touted as a "win".

If you tell a member they must wear "x", "y", and "z", they will.  some will grumble, but they will.

If you give them a choice, and then throw in CC latitude on top of it, not to mention people
who can't be bothered to read the regs or do their job in enforcing things, this is what you get.

[Storm Chaser]

Eclipse, we both agree on this. 100%. That's why I don't understand why you would single out part of my response to another post that implied that members needed to spend lots of $$$ to be in compliance. They don't. And if someone chooses to do so, he/she should buy the right equipment/gear and not just something that looks "cool".

Because that's not what you actually said or wrote. 

Your comment was that not everyone has the cash for the cool ANSI vest, which is fine, but not relevent when discussing what the standard
should be (and actually the standard should be irrespective of cost and focused on mission).

So if nothing else, your response looked like just throwing a road block.

That's certainly >your< opinion. But if you read all the posts that lead to my response (and not just a selected few) and read my response within context you'll see that that's not what I really said or meant.

Have a good day, Eclipse.

[Panzerbjorn]

Unfortunately, not everyone can afford $200 on an ANSI II MOLLE vest with pouches.

So, basically, you're coming from the "There's a problem for every solution" school of thought.

Really? How so? My comment is very valid. There are many things in CAP that cost money and not everyone can afford them. Are we now restricting membership in CAP or participation in Emergency Services based on income?

Honestly, if it's important to you, you'll find a way to set the money aside for a reasonable solution.  If it's not important enough to scrape the pennies together, perhaps it's not important enough to gripe about the current SOP.

I spent over $250 on my hi-viz orange True North Aero-Vest with matching hi-viz accessories and always wear an ANSI II safety vest. I've spent a lot more on the rest of my ground team and aircrew gear, plus my IC kit. But not every CAP member can afford this type of gear or equipment. That's why it's [some of it is] not required.

Frankly, questioning whether a member thinks this is important or not, or even their commitment to CAP or ES based on what they can afford is uncalled for. All our members are important to the organization whether they can afford fancy gear or not.

Okay, I'll play.

I present photographic evidence of a solution to the gripe of how you need to put an orange vest over all your equipment.  At no time did I say it was the only solution.  Just invalidating a point that the only way to be in compliance with regulations is to put a vest over all your clothes and equipment. Your comment to that was coming up with another roadblock.  So, you presented another problem to a solution.  Where on earth did you get out of my comment that I was discriminating against members based on income?  Please point out in ANY of my comments ANYWHERE that I was saying that if a member doesn't have that equipment, they can't play?

My 'important to you' comment is still valid.  There's a solution out there, and if that solution is important enough to sink that kind of money into it, you'll find a way to do it.  It doesn't imply anything other than that.  You alone added that implication that I'm saying that if you don't dump hundreds into your gear then you're not important.  You're out of line there.

Incidentally, I think everyone who goes out into the field should at least be wearing an orange cover.  I personally believe that anyone who refutes that should spend some time in an airplane at 1000' feet at 90 knots trying to spot people in camoflauge in the woods.

[MacGruff]

Last spring we held a training exercise where we looked for a downed airplane (simulated by an ELT transmitter that was activated on the training frequency). The place where the "airplane" came down was in the middle of a wooded, large, park. We had two ground teams trying to triangulate on the ELT, and an air crew flying above. I was in the airplane as a Mission Observer and we did find the "remains" of the airplane which were simulated with some colorful panels.

How this relates to the conversation we are having was that the two squadrons that participated in this exercise were from Pennsylvania and we were able to identify them and their locations in the park because of the orange cover. Having five to eight man ground teams, all wearing orange covers, made them visible from the air even though one of the teams was waiting in a parking lot which had a lot of other people in it and many white vans (just like the CAP van they rode in on).

Based on that experience, I am a firm believer that something like the orange cover should be used when working with an air crew.

[Panzerbjorn]

^ +1

TESTIFY, BRUTHA!

[Storm Chaser]

Unfortunately, not everyone can afford $200 on an ANSI II MOLLE vest with pouches.

So, basically, you're coming from the "There's a problem for every solution" school of thought.

Really? How so? My comment is very valid. There are many things in CAP that cost money and not everyone can afford them. Are we now restricting membership in CAP or participation in Emergency Services based on income?

Honestly, if it's important to you, you'll find a way to set the money aside for a reasonable solution.  If it's not important enough to scrape the pennies together, perhaps it's not important enough to gripe about the current SOP.

I spent over $250 on my hi-viz orange True North Aero-Vest with matching hi-viz accessories and always wear an ANSI II safety vest. I've spent a lot more on the rest of my ground team and aircrew gear, plus my IC kit. But not every CAP member can afford this type of gear or equipment. That's why it's [some of it is] not required.

Frankly, questioning whether a member thinks this is important or not, or even their commitment to CAP or ES based on what they can afford is uncalled for. All our members are important to the organization whether they can afford fancy gear or not.

Okay, I'll play.

I present photographic evidence of a solution to the gripe of how you need to put an orange vest over all your equipment.  At no time did I say it was the only solution.  Just invalidating a point that the only way to be in compliance with regulations is to put a vest over all your clothes and equipment. Your comment to that was coming up with another roadblock.  So, you presented another problem to a solution.  Where on earth did you get out of my comment that I was discriminating against members based on income?  Please point out in ANY of my comments ANYWHERE that I was saying that if a member doesn't have that equipment, they can't play?

My 'important to you' comment is still valid.  There's a solution out there, and if that solution is important enough to sink that kind of money into it, you'll find a way to do it.  It doesn't imply anything other than that.  You alone added that implication that I'm saying that if you don't dump hundreds into your gear then you're not important.  You're out of line there.

Incidentally, I think everyone who goes out into the field should at least be wearing an orange cover.  I personally believe that anyone who refutes that should spend some time in an airplane at 1000' feet at 90 knots trying to spot people in camoflauge in the woods.

Maybe we both made valid points. Maybe we both weren't completely clear with our posts. Heck, maybe we just read too much into each other's comments. Either way, I think, for the most part, we're in agreement. Good day!

[Panzerbjorn]

Fair enough.  Ciao!

[Майор Хаткевич]

Last spring we held a training exercise where we looked for a downed airplane (simulated by an ELT transmitter that was activated on the training frequency). The place where the "airplane" came down was in the middle of a wooded, large, park. We had two ground teams trying to triangulate on the ELT, and an air crew flying above. I was in the airplane as a Mission Observer and we did find the "remains" of the airplane which were simulated with some colorful panels.

How this relates to the conversation we are having was that the two squadrons that participated in this exercise were from Pennsylvania and we were able to identify them and their locations in the park because of the orange cover. Having five to eight man ground teams, all wearing orange covers, made them visible from the air even though one of the teams was waiting in a parking lot which had a lot of other people in it and many white vans (just like the CAP van they rode in on).

Based on that experience, I am a firm believer that something like the orange cover should be used when working with an air crew.

So...you saw orange hats but not the much larger orange vests?

[Panzerbjorn]

Believe it or not, from the air, the hats ARE easier to spot.  The vests are a larger target when viewed horizontally at ground level, but not looked at vertically or vertical angle.  This is especially the case with issues brought up in this thread like putting green gear on over the top of the vests.  The orange hats make for a clean visual target from the air.  If nothing else, they add that exclamation point to "Here I am!"

[Майор Хаткевич]

Vest is supposed to be the outermost layer.

[RMW14]

I stayed out of this until now because it was entertaining to watch. So what about the orange safety helmets we are suppose to wear in conjunction with the orange vest? That should take care of the visibility issue and increase the safety of a ground team.

I was at the Wing Commander's Call and it was her words that PA will be following the rest of CAP with the BDU style hat to follow the idea of 1 Air Force. Everyone else in the organization wears it and so will we. It took all I had to not jump up and down and run around the isles of the conference area whooping and hollering like my won the Super/World Series/ Bowl.

I am returning to my corner now to watch the rest of the show

[A.Member]

I stayed out of this until now because it was entertaining to watch. So what about the orange safety helmets we are suppose to wear in conjunction with the orange vest?...

Are you making stuff up or just trying to stir the pot?  There is no such requirement in re: safety helmets.

[A.Member]

Believe it or not, from the air, the hats ARE easier to spot.  The vests are a larger target when viewed horizontally at ground level, but not looked at vertically or vertical angle.  This is especially the case with issues brought up in this thread like putting green gear on over the top of the vests.  The orange hats make for a clean visual target from the air.  If nothing else, they add that exclamation point to "Here I am!"

Put me in the "or not" camp.  If you can't see a vest from the air, you've got other issues...

[Panzerbjorn]

Believe it or not, from the air, the hats ARE easier to spot.  The vests are a larger target when viewed horizontally at ground level, but not looked at vertically or vertical angle.  This is especially the case with issues brought up in this thread like putting green gear on over the top of the vests.  The orange hats make for a clean visual target from the air.  If nothing else, they add that exclamation point to "Here I am!"

Put me in the "or not" camp.  If you can't see a vest from the air, you've got other issues...

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.

Now before you come back at me and ask how an orange hat can make a difference, it adds to what you're already wearing.  The vest is SUPPOSED to be the outer layer, but we all now that is often not the case.  You don't wear anything OVER the hat.  Before you come back and say it wouldn't make a difference if you can't see into the woods anyway, we don't all live around triple canopy rain forest.  I dare say very few of us actually do.

I live to entertain.

[MacGruff]

So...you saw orange hats but not the much larger orange vests?

Yes. We clearly saw the group of orange hats and they stuck out. We flew almost directly over the first group, and maybe a 100 feet off of the second group and we clearly could see the orange hats in the parking lot and on the wooded trail.  For the group that was in the parking lot, they were standing next to their white van. Since there were probably another twenty white vans in that park that morning, none of them really registered, but those orange vests did.

[SarDragon]

As noted above, it's all about angle of view.

A person, viewed from above, presents a much smaller viewable area than he presents at ground level. The viewable footprint of a hat is actually greater when looking down on it.

[sarmed1]

I dont know where the picture is (I'll have to search at home) but a few years back when PA was first pushing for "Ranger" stuff in the 39-1, there was a picture evidencing the "benefit" of the orange hats.  Taken from an aircraft of two different teams in the same target location, 1 wearing the standard orange hat, the other BDU with Orange vests.  Much higher visable from the air was the orange hat group.  (I honestly dont rememeber if there was gear over the vest or not) but if you imagine the overhead veiw, even sans gear the only part (except in the portly folk) of vest visable will be the shoulders....so what 2 2" x 4" patches?

mk