72-hour duffel bags rather than 72-hour packs

[RiverAux]

A comment in another thread got me thinking about the 72-hour pack that we require ground team members to have.  It seems to me that the number of CAP GT members that will ever have to hike their 72-hour gear to a base camp for an actual mission is probably going to be very small.  I was going to do a poll to see if anyone had actually done this in the last 10 years, but figured that the "yes" answers would be so few, its not even worth asking.

It occurs to me that a much more realistic requirement would be for ground team members to have a duffel bag or something similar to hold their 72-hour gear since in almost all cases the GT is actually going to be camping out (or staying in a hanger) so close to their vehicle that an actual backpack is unnecessary. 

The primary advantage to dropping the requirement for an actual pack would be price.  Any backpack that you want to look at for real hiking use is going to cost a fair amount of money and for the use it would get for CAP, it just ain't worth it. 

Now, I fully recognize that their could be some parts of the country where backcountry missions of multi-day length are more of a possibility and for them a 72-hour pack might make sense, but I think that they should be handled with Wing or Regional supplements rather than a national requirement.

When it gets right down to it, the number of times that CAP ground teams even need to stay overnight is so small that the 24-hour gear is a bit of a misnomer as well. 

[Flying Pig]

Here is what I carry in my pack.

[JoeTomasone]

I actually "wound up" with a decent system:

My 24-hour is a web belt with ammo pouches and a butt pack; the ammo pouches hold things that I am likely to need while walking (signal mirror, compass, flashlight, flagging tape, etc) while the butt pack carries things I'd usually want my pack off to get anyway (food, rain gear, safety vest, etc).   

For the 72, I bought a used Alice pack at an Army/Navy for ~$30.   It has everything required plus a few extras. 

Now the nice part:  I can wear them both if I have to, or remove the 72 hour pack wherever it needs to stay.   They don't interfere with each other.

My feeling is that if you have a duffel bag, sooner or later you'll wind up having to lug it someplace on foot - so it might as well be as easy-to-carry as possible.

[Duke Dillio]

I think you should add an other to this.

This is what I normally do when I am on a ground team mission.  I have my 24 hour gear in my RACK.  I then have a civilian pack which has about 7200cc or room in it for me to carry everything I might need for the mission.  I then have a duffel bag to go along with all.  The way I do it is to take my pack and remove unnecessary stuff and put that in the duffel bag.  I have some other stuff in my duffel that I put in the pack.  I do this as mission requirements change.  This allows for greater flexibility and makes it so I don't have to carry 100 lbs of dead weight around with me.

[caplegalnc]

One option would be to have two or three team duffles with the GT members gear (marked appropriately) packed together.  It they have to be lugged, then the load can be shared.

[lordmonar]

I don't require or teach that the 72 hour "pack" has to man packable.

I use and USAF A2 bag myself.

The longest anyone should be out "in the field" is 12hours. We pack a 24 hour pack in case we get stuck overnight due to weather or night fall. 

If you are packing you 72 hour gear...you are just wasteing your time and energy.

[RiverAux]

I don't require or teach that the 72 hour "pack" has to man packable.

Task O-0001 specifically says the 72-hour pack must be a "backpack"

[♠SARKID♠]

The farthest I've ever hiked my duffel is from the vehicle to sheltered armory where we comfortably stayed the night.  This is a local perspective, but there are very few places in WI where getting anywhere would require you to make an overnight hike.  Taking 72hr gear into the field is just silly around here.  And if you do have to bed down for the night out in the sticks, there's a reason for O-0104 "Setup Shelter" training.

[lordmonar]

I don't require or teach that the 72 hour "pack" has to man packable.

Task O-0001 specifically says the 72-hour pack must be a "backpack"

Wouldn't be the first time I ignored a stupid regulation.

[Gunner C]

The 72-hour standard is a good one, but I agree with you that it needs to be a bit more flexible.  I'm thinking that a 72-hour pack would be necessary if the team was going to be away from vehicle support for an extended period.  I'm not sure that this scenario is logical (but it is possible).

I've been out for 72-hours and didn't require all that much stuff - batteries, food, socks, and water were the main considerations (ammo not applicable here  ).  I would think that the mission profile would dictate.  If the team is going to be w/o support, packs are necessary.  If not, the equipment could be in whatever container at an MSS or at the redezvous point where the vehicle support is located.

I just don't see GTs going out w/o support very often. 

[maverik]

I have a go bag with all my comms needs

[Always Ready]

I don't think most of us need to have a 72-hour pack. Our 72-hour packs have two main purposes, to resupply our search load (mostly resupplying food) and to carry all of our camping equipment. In most cases, we can put all of this stuff in a duffel and keep it at a staging area (i.e. van, mission base, etc.). Most of the time we are a short distance from our vehicles. Even if we were a long hike from our van, I would still try to bring my team back to the van before lights out. The van offers more protection, a mobile comm base, a warm place to sleep, and a quick way out if things get bad (such as an injury, bad weather, forest fire, etc.). Plus if the team isn't having to lug their 72-hour packs around, they will be less tired and will be able to search more ground, quicker.

Honestly, I hate carrying all this camping equipment. If I'm out searching for someone, I going to be concentrating on the search, not my creature comforts. But that's just me. When I go camping, I carry a little more than we do for our search load (mostly extra food and clothing). I rarely use a tent, a sleeping bag, or a sleeping pad. I sleep with my clothes on (with a gortex jacket and other layers when it is cold), under a tarp if necessary, with a blanket and maybe a camp pillow. BTW, I've done this type of camping with three feet of snow on the ground with lows hovering around zero.

I know not everyone is like me and some of our members aren't as experienced as others, so I will not argue with the gear requirements. But I do believe that 98% (made up number) of us don't require to have a 72-hour pack. A 72-hour duffel would be more than sufficient.

[N Harmon]

I fully support the requirement of a 72 hour pack for advanced ground teams.

Do we ever stay in the field for a continuous 72 hours? No. But that does not mean being trained and prepared to do so is unreasonable. It would be silly to only prepare for that which you typically experience. The sensible thing is to train, prepare, and exercise worst-case scenarios because then the real thing is a walk in the park.

It's the idea of, "worst case scenario, we might be stuck somewhere for 48 hours. So be prepared to exist out there for 72".

[Major Carrales]

I fully support the requirement of a 72 hour pack for advanced ground teams.

Do we ever stay in the field for a continuous 72 hours? No. But that does not mean being trained and prepared to do so is unreasonable. It would be silly to only prepare for that which you typically experience. The sensible thing is to train, prepare, and exercise worst-case scenarios because then the real thing is a walk in the park.

It's the idea of, "worst case scenario, we might be stuck somewhere for 48 hours. So be prepared to exist out there for 72".

We are developing a "Field Activity Deployment kit", including a "chuck box" and camp related items.  The idea being to create a mobile CAP base that we could deploy anywhere.  An individual's gear would only augment and personalize that.  Its in development.