Ground team uniform

[MIKE]

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.

[alamrcn]

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

[Eclipse]

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.

[PHall]

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.

[alamrcn]

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

[Ford73Diesel]

Opps I misread the post, but I'll put the reg in anyways.

Brown 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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[alamrcn]

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

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[Falshrmjgr]

Any comment about the new picture on CAP.gov's frontpage...

It Takes a Village?

[Falshrmjgr]

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



Now show me in AR 670-1 where that uniform is authorized?

[JayT]

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



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.

[Falshrmjgr]

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



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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Falshrmjgr]

Need it on a mission?  No problem (with ok by the commander or leader)

Bingo.

[arajca]

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.

[isuhawkeye]

Just a question.  Is wild land, structural, and proximity fire fighting equipment spelled out in an AFI or other reg for military fire departments?

[Dragoon]

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.

[ddelaney103]

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.

[JayT]

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



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?