Multitude of Uniforms

[davedove]

From reading the other posts here, it seems that many CAP members don't like the way that the uniforms keep changing, or the sheer number of different combinations.  Then there is the problem that some members cannot wear the military style uniforms because of weight and/or grooming.

It is my opinion that CAP needs to establish one set of uniforms that EVERYONE can wear, senior or cadet, that meet or don't meet weight/grooming standards.  The whole purpose of a uniform is to establish a UNIFORM appearance.

This uniform would not be the USAF styled uniform, because of the need for military standards.  But any of the current corporate uniforms could be expanded to fit a wide variety of situations, much like the current service uniform.

In fact, I like the idea of basing a uniform on the current aviator shirt/grey slacks uniform.  A service coat could be developed for this combination as well as appropriate headgear.

This is just an idea, but it seems to make a lot of sense to me.  Of course, based on the comments in other threads, that means it will never happen.

[Psicorp]

I think that was sort of the intention when the aviator shirt/Air Force pants combo came out, as well as the new Corporate Service Coat; although it does scream, "Welcome to CAPAirways, enjoy your flight."

[Chris Jacobs]

I think having the coperate and the military uniforms is OK, the only thing is the vast number of coperate uniforms.  In the military style there are the BDU's and the Dress uniforms.  But with the coperate uniforms there seems to be an endless supply of combinations.  Limiting the number of coperate uniforms is the only change that i see is needed.

[ZigZag911]

From reading the other posts here, it seems that many CAP members don't like the way that the uniforms keep changing, or the sheer number of different combinations.  Then there is the problem that some members cannot wear the military style uniforms because of weight and/or grooming.

It is my opinion that CAP needs to establish one set of uniforms that EVERYONE can wear, senior or cadet, that meet or don't meet weight/grooming standards.  The whole purpose of a uniform is to establish a UNIFORM appearance.

This uniform would not be the USAF styled uniform, because of the need for military standards.  But any of the current corporate uniforms could be expanded to fit a wide variety of situations, much like the current service uniform.

In fact, I like the idea of basing a uniform on the current aviator shirt/grey slacks uniform.  A service coat could be developed for this combination as well as appropriate headgear.

This is just an idea, but it seems to make a lot of sense to me.  Of course, based on the comments in other threads, that means it will never happen.

You are SO correct!!

[Eclipse]

Just look top the Navy - up until very recently they had way more combos than we ever did.

Recently they have started consolidating and reducing the number of uniforms, but tradition is still holding them at the top with sheer numbers.

[afgeo4]

Yes, but Navy people get paid and all the enlisted get allowances for all those combinations of uniforms.  We do not.

I strongly believe that this new alternate corporate uniform should be the standard.  In fact, (and I am former Air Force) I believe we should have just ONE dress uniform and that shis white shirt/blue pant combo should be it.  We should do away with the "USAF Style" uniform and the corporate uniform.  Grooming standards should be kept as is for ALL members.  That's not just for uniform wear, it's for a professional appearance in general.  This type of change would truly get us away from looking like a salad bar in formation and create a service identity which we haven't had since... well... WWII really.  A truly CAP uniform would help us out with service pride as well.  Maybe with recognition.  By the way, I am suggesting that the cadets (under 18) be allowed wear of this uniform as well.

I am also in favor of CAP switching to our current corporate utility uniform when BDU supplies fall due to USAF switching to ABU's.  Again, same reasons.

[davedove]

I am also in favor of CAP switching to our current corporate utility uniform when BDU supplies fall due to USAF switching to ABU's. 

I would be in favor of that as well.  When you really stop and think about it, why would we need a camouflage type uniform?  We aren't rying to hide, in fact on missions an orange safety vest is required so we can be seen.  The blue field uniform serves for a field uniform and everyone can wear it.

[Ned]

It is my opinion that CAP needs to establish one set of uniforms that EVERYONE can wear, senior or cadet, that meet or don't meet weight/grooming standards.  The whole purpose of a uniform is to establish a UNIFORM appearance.

I can't disagree with the basic premise:  uniforms should be, well, . . . uniform to allow members and non-members alike to recognize who we are.  Uniforms are tools that allow us create an air of professionalism (whether deserved or not  ), emphasize our relationship to our parent service, and allow members to recognize others' accomplishments.  And for the cadet program, the uniform is also an important leadership training tool.

WIWAC, I certainly felt strongly that all members -- cadet and senior alike -- should wear the USAF -style uniforms (only) and should be required to meet the full USAF grooming and height/weight standards. 

Of course with additional maturity and  wisdom (and a few more pounds), I know realize that I was wrong.  Seniors (aka "officers") have different missions, responsibilities, and positions in life. 

And while I realize that you were suggesting that we go "all corporate" rather than "all USAF-style," there are still problems.

Although having corporate uniforms for general duty (greys and/or TPU) and field (BBDU/filed uniforms) is a good start, the devil is in the details of the very diverse set of members, missions, and climates in which we operate.

Even if we were to start from scratch, it would be nearly impossible develop a single set of uniforms for:


Members who are:

12 years old to 92 years old

65 pounds to 350 pounds

4.5 to 6.5 feet tall

with or without facial hair

participating in a USAF-based cadet program and not participating is such a thing

living/working in an area that averages below zero temps and areas that average over 100

have duties involving flying or do not have such duties

etc, etc

And you begin to see the problem.

I submit, that no other organization on earth has developed a single set of uniforms to cover these parameters.

Nobody.

The closest organizations that I could come up with are fast-food companies like Mickey-D's who have a very diverse set of crewmembers in terms of age, size, and shape.

But no one would ever suggest that fast-food crew uniforms convey the same kind of professional image we hope to project as CAP members.

It's a hard thing to do.  Probably impossible.

Which is why, IMHO, we have arrived at the current set of uniforms.  They represent  compromises between the competing factors based on real world experiences.

Certainly reasonable minds could differ on the exact mix of required uniforms, but IMO it is not practical to arrive at mere one or two.

[Chris Jacobs]

How about we more clearly state what uniform should be worn while on certain missions.  When you have people showing up on a ELT search wearing BDU's, BBDU's, Blue Jump suit, and one other kind of uniform (you pick), it doesn't convey a very professional stance.  Or at a wing activity with BDU's, Blues, and four different kinds of coperate uniforms.  I think more clearly defining what the uniform of the day is would make us look better.  So when it is dress uniform there would be one coperate and one airforce uniform option.  If it calls for feild uniform it could be BDU's or BBDU's.

[Chaplaindon]

I have to take exception to Ned's functional definition of uniform (namely something that, however it does so, promotes professionalism).

IF the clothing (whatever professionalism it may or may not be able to promote) is not uniform then we are not wear a uniform. This may sound like semantics but words mean things and if organizational clothing is NOT UNIFORM then it isn't a UNIFORM.

As to the ascertion that "clothing makes the man" [sic], if you will, I would counter that wearing such an incongruous discord of organizational clothing (note: I refuse to say "uniform(s)") IMHO not only speaks to unprofessionalism and disunity, it positively shouts it. Looking at the spectrum of uniforms at your average CAP mission base often resmbles a hobo convention ... if not a clown college.

If Ned is right that our clothing bespeaks our professionalism (or lack thereof) then our lack of uniformity should bespeak the lack of uniformity and professional competence in our operations.

I would like to resurrect (good chaplain verbage) an idea I proffered last may, namely a military/professional functional uniform for everyone.

Then I proposed a 2006 variation on the old 1950's/60's USAF 505/1505 (like) khaki combination. It is military looking. It is easy care (with the newer fabric technologies woven into every pair of no-iron/teflon-stain protected Dress Dockers twill slacks). Comfortable. NOT to be confused with the USAF.

I propose wearing the shirt (long or short sleeved) with khaki trousers (with sewn-in creases) along with the blue USAF web belt and silver buckle, CAP BLUE two or three-line name tag, and USAF flight cap with CAP cap device. No other decorations to be worn aside from specfied minature badges (GTM, EMT-P, chaplain, etc) and miniature aeronautical ratings.

Miniature metal grade insignia would be worn on the collars (adult officersand full-size metal for cadets.

A khaki lightweight jacket and a khaki wooly-pully sweater (with full size grade insignia on the epaulets for officers) would be winter options ... as COULD be the black CAP leather jacket (for adult officers).

Shoes would be black low quarters (highly polished).

The shirt would be open collar.

Uniform would be for male and female alike.

A more rugged twill version might be developed as a field uniform with trousers bloused into the boots and a baseball cap (e.g. USN caps) approved in field settings along with PERHAPS sewn on namestrips and PERHAPS a bright colored undershirt (for visibility when needed as opposed to the silly orange vest over stupidly camoflauged clothing--we're not hunters nor soldiers and we neededn't disguise ourselves as though we are). This variation would look very similar to what the SAR personnel from the LACo Sheriff's Dept used to (may still) wear albeit with olive green trousers.

This would be the service uniform for everyone. It would be VERY professional looking -- with no-iron fabrics, sewn-in creases and stain-resistant fabrics perhaps even more professional looking than the USAF stuff.

The so-called (sadly --and I believe disrespectfully) "TPU" would be the service DRESS uniform -- cadet and adult officer.

The navy blue flight suit would be the only flying uniform (although available in both Nomex and poly-cotton for affordability).

Now you have a fully-CAP distinctive panoply of UNIFORMS.

They are worn by all and --given a few years to seque into the new and out of the old so as not to be a budget-buster-- we'd have a uniform CAP, NOT to be confused with the USAF or a fastfood restaurant clerk.

Regardless, if we aren't wearing essentially the same clothes, we are not uniform.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Psicorp]

I am also in favor of CAP switching to our current corporate utility uniform when BDU supplies fall due to USAF switching to ABU's. 

I would be in favor of that as well.  When you really stop and think about it, why would we need a camouflage type uniform?  We aren't rying to hide, in fact on missions an orange safety vest is required so we can be seen.  The blue field uniform serves for a field uniform and everyone can wear it.

So if we're not going to fight, we should clash?

[davedove]

I am also in favor of CAP switching to our current corporate utility uniform when BDU supplies fall due to USAF switching to ABU's. 

I would be in favor of that as well.  When you really stop and think about it, why would we need a camouflage type uniform?  We aren't rying to hide, in fact on missions an orange safety vest is required so we can be seen.  The blue field uniform serves for a field uniform and everyone can wear it.

So if we're not going to fight, we should clash?

Well, when you consider the nature of our missions, yes.  If a team is moving through the woods looking for an individual, wouldn't it make sense for that individual to be able to see the team.  Now I'm not saying that the dark blue field uniform is that easy to see, but camouflage seems contrary to our purpose.

[Psicorp]

Oh I totally agree.  It's always been interesting to me that we can go tromping throught the woods wearing less orange than is mandated by by the state for hunters during hunting season.   Although orange vests and orange hard hats would take care of that (gotta protect the younglings' noggins).

As far as the other uniforms go, these things should be coming from the top down...how many times have you seen our fearless leader in the "TPU"? Once?  Twice maybe? 

[Eclipse]

Oh I totally agree.  It's always been interesting to me that we can go tromping throught the woods wearing less orange than is mandated by by the state for hunters during hunting season.   Although orange vests and orange hard hats would take care of that (gotta protect the younglings' noggins).

An orange vest is REQUIRED today - if you're tromping around the woods, or doing UDF work without it, you're breaking regs.

As to the "multitude of uniforms", one only needs to look at the Navy or the Marine Corps to find many more combinations for their members than we have.

[Chris Jacobs]

I have never read a regulation that says you must wear a reflective vest while participating in feild work.  i know that it is one of those things that is "strongly" (chough, chough, do it) sugested.  but i have never read that it is mandatory.  I totaly agrea that you should wear one, but i would be interested in finding where in the regs that it says you must wear one.  (for my knowladge.)

[MIKE]

8 Safety Vest Orange plastic, mesh, or cloth. Will be worn when participating in
ground team activities.

[Chris Jacobs]

  There is a more definate answer.

[Eclipse]

8 Safety Vest Orange plastic, mesh, or cloth. Will be worn when participating in
ground team activities.

Also, in order to do that tromping, you must complete and comply with

"GTM Task O-0001: Prepare individual refit" :

2. The gear list below is the minimum required equipment. Items required of trainees are marked with a “T."
You may carry additional equipment subject to team leader approval and your ability to secure and carry it --
remember, you may have to walk a long way carrying it all.
a. 24 hour pack
1) On your person:
a) Complete BDU uniform with BDU cap. The BDU cap may be replaced by a hard hat
or bright colored cap based on mission needs.(T)
b) Notepad and pencil (T)
c) All CAP Identification, including 101 card, 76 card, First Aid card, etc. (T)
d) Watch (T)
e) Handkerchief or Tissues
f) Vest, reflective, orange (T)
     (empahsis mine, list continues from here)

and / or

"O-0010 PREPARE URBAN DF TEAM INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT" :

2. The gear list below is the minimum required equipment. Items required of trainees are marked with a “T."
You may carry additional equipment if you would be added on to a full ground team at a later time but
remember, you may have to walk a long way carrying it all.
a. On your person:
1) Complete uniform appropriate to the environment in which you will be working. (T)
2) Notepad and pencil (T)
3) All CAP Identification, including 101 card, 76 card, First Aid card, etc. (T)
4) Watch (T)
5) Handkerchief or Tissues
6) Vest, reflective, orange (T)
     f) Vest, reflective, orange (T)
     (again, empahsis mine, list continues from here)

I believe it was added to 39-1 last round in order to make it a required "uniform" item (vs. equipment), but it has always been required gear for GTM/UDF work.

First thing you do as a GTL or UDF member is check your team's gear, no gear, no participation.

[Chaplaindon]

As I GTL and a GTM-1, and at the risk of seeming to argue to regulatory mandate for the "silly orange vest," I reiterate my original point, "... PERHAPS a bright colored undershirt (for visibility when needed as opposed to the silly orange vest over stupidly camoflauged clothing--we're not hunters nor soldiers and we neededn't disguise ourselves as though we are)."

It seems patently absurd to have to add a layer of high-visibility clothing to compensate for the needless pattern-disruptive, infrared suppressive, and visually camoflauged military BDU. Positively the last thing SAR personnel (in peacetime, not P.J.'s in combat) need to be is low visibility. We need to be seen.

We need to be seen by our teammates, our air support (when present and competent), hunters and other potentially armed personnel (e.g. land owners, law enforcement officers, public safety personnel, civilian SAR folks, etc.) and above all our intended rescuee.

BUT, instead of being sensible and practical we have our folks wear the "cool-looking" (I'm told emphatically that "cadets love them") woodland camo BDUs. Over them we add an orange plastic vest (can you say "Omaha Orange" hefty bag with arm and neck holes?). We look like a cross between the USAF and a hunter who's too cheap to buy real-tree camo and buys surplus BDUs instead.

In short we look like we just graduated at the bottom of our class from clown college.

Living and working in the southern US, I have experienced the sort of heat we have down here. I have worked missions (1 within the last year where the heat index was 119F ... no joke). Imagine wearing dark colored twill BDUs (over a dark colored undershirt) with an orange hefty bag over it for visibility. It's a wonder we don't melt more of the vests, I KNOW (as a paramedic) that we melt quite a few of our members wearing them.

I say that's nonsense.

I say, let's make a field uniform that requires no additional hefty-bag layers for visibility. Make it UNIFORM (all our personnel can wear it, regardless) and make it visible ... bright colored. And to take that one step further, perhaps wearing a bright colored undershirt with reflective letters "CAP SEARCH & RESCUE" on the breast and back yoke would give a hot weather option to the BDU and hefty bag.

When (like NEVER) we are called to combat, we can and should wear a combat uniform. While we are doing unarmed SAR in the US, let's dress like other SAR personnel. Let's dress practical. Let's dress in a manner that promotes our mission execution rather than our alter-egos and Vanguard's bottom line.

While I agree that the BDU/vermillion hefty bag is the reg, however, regs can and do change.

This is a needed change.

[Chris Jacobs]

The only argument that i can see coming to your point would be that we are not just a search and rescue unit.  If that was our point we would might as well combine forces with the local search and rescue unit and become one big group.  We have two other programs.  The Cadet Program, and Aerospace Education, that are both extremely tied to the Air Force.  while i agree with you that a uniform more suitable for search and rescue is necessary.  I don't think we will get away from the air force style uniforms any time soon.

I do however like your point about undershirts.  The local sheriff departments search and rescue shirts are very nice.  They make them in both cotton and a synthetic fiber, and in long sleeve and short.  They are blaze orange and have reflective lettering.  I do think that we should look into this.

[SarDragon]

The only argument that i can see coming to your point would be that we are not just a search and rescue unit.  If that was our point we would might as well combine forces with the local search and rescue unit and become one big group.  We have two other programs.  The Cadet Program, and Aerospace Education, that are both extremely tied to the Air Force.  while i agree with you that a uniform more suitable for search and rescue is necessary.  I don't think we will get away from the air force style uniforms any time soon.

I do however like your point about undershirts.  The local sheriff departments search and rescue shirts are very nice.  They make them in both cotton and a synthetic fiber, and in long sleeve and short.  They are blaze orange and have reflective lettering.  I do think that we should look into this.

That's a good point about the other missions, but how often will both combinations (orange shirt vs. camo shirt) be needed at the same time. That is specifically why CAWG has defined a GT uniform, in a supplement, that meets the needs defined above. (No cracks about its legality, please.)

In the prior supplement, it was the orange shirt and the camo BDU trousers. Now it's the orange shirt with BBDU trousers. It works well, looks good, and is comfortable. It is more functional than just an orange t-shirt, because there are times when long sleeves are needed, and a short sleeve version is also permitted.

So, to sum up - orange for GT events, and shirt matching the trousers for regular CP and AE events. (covers both flavors of BDUs)

[Chaplaindon]

Cadet Jacobs, you are correct in saying, "... I don't think we will get away from the air force style uniforms any time soon." However, I believe that CAP can still wear an "air force STYLE uniform" where form follows function and where we are actually UNIFORM.

The 505/1505 (style) khaki uniform would reflect both an historic USAF uniform and the original CAP uniforms from WWII on through the 1960's.

It would look military/professional and at once be distinct from the USAF uniforms so as to make it clear that we are not the USAF (its occasional auxiliary, granted, but not the real-life air force).

Considering the wonderful advanced in textile technology (e.g. no-iron, stain resistant "Dress Dockers") a durable, comfortable and VERY easy care uniform could replace the blue suit and the whites and grays (how many different shades/cut/styles of gray trousers have you seen members wear to one function?).

For field use I would simply make a more rugged version of the khaki service uniform (perhaps actually BDU cut and plethora of pockets and sewn-on insignia) to be worn with bloused trousers and with an outer-wear-able bright undershirt for both visibility and functional comfort.

It would still be most certainly an "... air force style uniform ..." just one adapted for who CAP really is and what it really does. BDUs are designed for battlefield survival and tactical advantage, neither of which are issues faced by CAP members. We could support all three (3) of CAP's missions by having a distinct all-members uniform that represents who we are and supports those missions without silly jury-rigging (e.g. "orange hefty bags").

If people still want to wear the BDU, have them visit their local military recruiting office and sign up.

[flyguy06]

Yes, but Navy people get paid and all the enlisted get allowances for all those combinations of uniforms.  We do not.

I strongly believe that this new alternate corporate uniform should be the standard.  In fact, (and I am former Air Force) I believe we should have just ONE dress uniform and that shis white shirt/blue pant combo should be it.  We should do away with the "USAF Style" uniform and the corporate uniform.  Grooming standards should be kept as is for ALL members.  That's not just for uniform wear, it's for a professional appearance in general.  This type of change would truly get us away from looking like a salad bar in formation and create a service identity which we haven't had since... well... WWII really.  A truly CAP uniform would help us out with service pride as well.  Maybe with recognition.  By the way, I am suggesting that the cadets (under 18) be allowed wear of this uniform as well.

I am also in favor of CAP switching to our current corporate utility uniform when BDU supplies fall due to USAF switching to ABU's.  Again, same reasons.

If you got rid of the military uniform, I believe your membership numbewrs would drop sifgnifigantly. Its sad to say but a lot of prople join CAP because of the military uniform.

[Chris Jacobs]

Yes, but Navy people get paid and all the enlisted get allowances for all those combinations of uniforms.  We do not.

I strongly believe that this new alternate corporate uniform should be the standard.  In fact, (and I am former Air Force) I believe we should have just ONE dress uniform and that shis white shirt/blue pant combo should be it.  We should do away with the "USAF Style" uniform and the corporate uniform.  Grooming standards should be kept as is for ALL members.  That's not just for uniform wear, it's for a professional appearance in general.  This type of change would truly get us away from looking like a salad bar in formation and create a service identity which we haven't had since... well... WWII really.  A truly CAP uniform would help us out with service pride as well.  Maybe with recognition.  By the way, I am suggesting that the cadets (under 18) be allowed wear of this uniform as well.

I am also in favor of CAP switching to our current corporate utility uniform when BDU supplies fall due to USAF switching to ABU's.  Again, same reasons.

If you got rid of the military uniform, I believe your membership numbewrs would drop sifgnifigantly. Its sad to say but a lot of prople join CAP because of the military uniform.

I agree with this one.  I think that around 75% of my squadron joined CAP because of our interaction and similarity to the Air Force.  I think we as a whole organization need to stay uniform to the Air Force. 

But what about just making the coperate uniforms more suitable for SAR.  Why do we need dark blue field utilities.  Why not change the BBDU so that it is a better SAR uniform.  I think that would then give a very good combination of uniforms.  One field uniform for Air Force related activities (helping out the local unit, visiting an air base, or encampment.) and one set of uniforms for non Air force activities, mainly SAR based.

[Chaplaindon]

Chris, I would likely to gently suggest that you missed the point, by definition, but you also seem to reinforce a troubling suspicion I've had about many CAP members.

When you wrote,  "I think that would then give a very good combination of uniforms.  One field uniform for Air Force related activities (helping out the local unit, visiting an air base, or encampment.) and one set of uniforms for non Air force activities, mainly SAR based," you missed the point of a uniform.

If we have several so-called "uniforms" at an event, then we are by definition NOT UNIFORM. The clothing we wear then would just be "outfits" and not A UNIFORM. If uniformity in our CAP outfits is desireable, and I beleive that it is, then we should be uniform in them and not demonstrating the breadth of CAP outfits available.

I would not object to that UNIFORM being a variation on the USAF regalia (presuming that the USAF brass approved the CAP distinctive elements) insofar as ALL members regardless of age, height/weight proportions, and/or grooming standards could wear the USAF/CAP "outfits."

Considering such inclusiveness somewhat less likely than finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, we need to find an alternative; hence the all-CAP (however military-style/professional appearing) khaki service and operational dress.

All members could wear the uniform. We would thence be uniform.

It would eliminate useless squabbles betweeen NHQ and the Air Staff over uniform items. It would make CAP appear more cohesive (and might even promote some cohesiveness as opposed to the needless juxtaposition between members who can and choose to wear the USAF/CAP "blue suit" and those who cannot --due to arbitrary USAF regulations-- or elect not to for a variety of reasons).

As a chaplain I have been appalled at members (and especially senior cadets and adult "officers") who have openly criticized another member about their height/weight or choice of coffee as a beverage. Such conduct is childish regardless of the chronological age of the offender. Such conduct is devisive and discriminatory and has no place in CAP (or in our world as far as this chaplain is concerned.)

I want our uniforms to be uniform. Either the USAF needs to budge on their arbitrary standards or CAP needs to move toward its own uniformity in appearance.

Lastly, (at the risk of being devisive myself) I wonder (aloud, here) if such a move costs CAP members, perhaps it would also bring in new ones or recall older ones (who've left over name calling, etc.).

If the primary reason a person joins CAP is to wear the USAF uniform (its wearing NOT being definitively one of the three CAP missions as far as I recall) perhaps he or she have joined for the wrong reason -- or they've been misled when recruited. CAP should IMHO be about SERVICE to our Nation and our more local communities. That should be our hearald.

If a member has joined just to wear the USAF ble suit or strut about an airport in a "green-bag," they may want to reconsider the apporiateness of their membership.  Is it really worth all that money?

Ultimately, however, I'd like CAP to have greater uniformity in all aspects of its operation, from the clothing its members wear to the quality of its operations accross wing and region borders, and even to its necessary-evil politics.

Well, a chaplain can pray, can't he ...   :angel:

[capchiro]

While uniformity is to be desired, I don't see where going to a khaki uniform would be beneficial.  I think a lot of people think of "Banana Republic" when they think khaki.  We are not Mexican Federales or South American dictators.  The Air Force has uniform style and colors.  Our program does require cadets to wear the basic blue Air Force uniform, which, for the most part they furnish.  Senior members have a plethora of uniforms to wear, some Air Force, some CAP distinctive.  Some expensive, some cheap.  We are a small force, less than 70,000 world wide.  I don't think the general public is too concerned about what we are wearing as long as it is neat and well presented and we are where we need to be and doing our job when it needs to be done.  Until the time that the Air Froce gives us a clothing allowance, I don't think we will be limited to one or two uniforms.  I also think it is more important to keep the cadets in uniforms they like and want to be in, unfortunately, military style.  If my cadets could do as they pleased, they would be in desert tan or digital camo right now.  They can't get close enough to the military to satisfy themselves.  Using Air Force uniforms for the cadets teaches them how to wear them and how to take care of them.  This makes life easier when they enlist, which is part of what we are all about.  As usual, JMHO

[Chaplaindon]

Col Siegrist,

I take exception with several of the things you stated:

1.  "I think a lot of people think of "Banana Republic" when they think khaki.  We are not Mexican Federales or South American dictators." I should hope that when an officer (or CPO) of the USN, an officer of the USPHS, or NOAA wears a khaki uniform that "a lot of people" wouldn't misconstrue them for Federales or "Banana Republic" dictators. Khaki uniforms have been a US military staple for about 100 years.

I suggested khaki in the 505/1505 style due to its (a) military/professional style; (b) its ruggedness and now --with newer technology fabrics-- ease of care; (c) historical links with both CAP and the USAF until the 1970's; (d) its comfort; and (e) its distinctiveness from the existing USAF regalia so as to permit all members to wear it.

Effectively Denegrating the current US military khaki uniforms by comparison to illegitimate potetates who happen --only coincidentally-- to wear similar style/color uniform is unfair.

2. "Our program does require cadets to wear the basic blue Air Force uniform, which, for the most part they furnish. " ... only the basic service uniform is provided by the USAF and there's still the need to buy many additional items and uniforms. As for the regulation mandating the wear of the USAF uniform: if I am proposing a rewrite of CAPM 39-1 to add a UNIFORM, it would logically follow that regulations prescribing other uniforms would have to be changed likewise.

Perhaps there could be a good compromise. For cadet program --exclusive-- activities. Cadets (ONLY) could wear a USAF-funded, CAP-modified, USAF blue service uniform. However, for operational efficiency, during actual or training operational missions (i.e. SAR missions and exercises) ALL participating personnel would wear a UNIFORM CAP uniform. Officers (adults) would ONLY wear the khaki service uniform.

3.  "We are a small force, less than 70,000 world wide." 70,000 sounds pretty big to me ...

4.   "If my cadets could do as they pleased, they would be in desert tan or digital camo right now.  They can't get close enough to the military to satisfy themselves." Maybe that's why we have Officers (SM's) to temper that immature enthusiasm and guide it in appropriate directions. I would bet that there are cadets who like to have firearms in CAP, if they could too. I know I have "relieved" several cadets of large RAMBO-like "survival" knives that have no place at CAP actvities ... they are toys of fantasy, not operational tools. We also don't let them drive automobiles at functions either, although doubtless many would like to do that too. Hopefully your cadets cannot "do as they [please]" at CAP functions.

5.  "Using Air Force uniforms for the cadets teaches them how to wear them and how to take care of them.  This makes life easier when they enlist, which is part of what we are all about."[/i] I wasn't aware that "part of what we [CAP] is about is making life easier on people when/if they enlist in the armed services. Nor, was I aware that we are to even encourage enlistment. That is the job of recruiters, As a chaplain, I am a conscientious pacifist and will NOT encourage military service, however, neither will I in a blanket manner unilaterally oppose or denounce it. However, if this IS my duty as a CAP officer "what we are about" maybe I need to rethink my place in CAP.

The decision to join the military is both an honorable one and a courageous one. It is admirable and sadly (based upon our world situation) necessary in a tragic way. It is a decision with the weight of life and death and needs to be made in the most sober and deliberate manner. It needs to be made with mature judgement apart from any pressure or coersion.

It is not, IMHO, the job of CAP to glorify military service or to encourage "playing soldier" (airman, etc.) as a means of swelling the ranks of our armed forces by playing to the vanities or fantasies of 12-year-olds.

[ZigZag911]

Perhaps a compromise is in order.

For now, at least, cadets could continue to wear the USAF blue uniform.

Seniors should go to something else....I must admit I am not enthused about the new 'corporate' uniform....it seems to be pushing the envelope in terms of mimicking the USAF military uniform, with minor cosmetic changes....long run, this will not enhance our harmonious relationship with our parent service!

I can live with the gray & white...a more military style jacket, rather than a blue blazer, would be great!

I can also live with the khaki's suggested by the Chaplain...again, with some sort of (optional) jacket for more formal occasions.....I wonder what the US Navy will think of this???

For operations, our entire organization should transition to the navy blue BDUs, utility jumpsuit, or Nomex flightsuit.

I understand this will upset cadets....however, in view of the fact that many units use BDUs as 'uniform of the day', I think it is important to achieve a degree of uniformity where possible.

[Chris Jacobs]

I think if we are going to transition to the navy blue BDU's for all we should make the uniform more practical.  I know in the dense woods of Oregon the navy blue BDU is just as hard to see, if not harder, than the current BDU's.  I don't suggest a blaze orange BDU style uniform, but something other than the darkest blue we can find.

[SarDragon]

Well, the olde Smurf suits weren't any easier to see than anything else we've worn for a utility uniform, so some sort of orange augmentation is essential. Not to mention the Smurf suit color was, IMHO, hideous, anyway.

YMMV.

[ZigZag911]

Over the years several wings have used orange or yellow baseball caps for ground team personnel, highly visible....if not a large enough target, then wear some sort of orange safety vest when going into woods, forests, and so forth.....you need it many places during hunting season, anyhow.

[Eclipse]

Over the years several wings have used orange or yellow baseball caps for ground team personnel, highly visible....if not a large enough target, then wear some sort of orange safety vest when going into woods, forests, and so forth.....you need it many places during hunting season, anyhow.

"...Several Wings..."?   

A reflective vest is >REQUIRED< gear for any GTM's. It always has been, or certainly has been for the last two rev's of the gear list. See above for citations of the GT manual, and the new 39-1 now makes it a part of the uniform.

Where are you guys getting that its optional?  Some members play fast and loose with the color (orange vs. yellow), but there is no question you're supposed to wear something bright.

Its so frustrating to see people complaining about  / suggesting things which are already addressed or included in the regs.  If you're wearing the badge, you sure should know this, and if not, check before you comment.

(BTW - ILWG authorizes and encourages an orange hat, especially for the GTL, but for field use only, not for everyday wear.)

[Chaplaindon]

Eclipse is right about the mandate for a reflective vest, however, as long as CAP persists in wearing low-visibility uniforms (e.g. BDU in woodland camo) this is an important if often uncomfortable necessity.

I think that we could get NHQ/NEC/NB to rethink the color/pattern of our field uniforms by taking the "orange hefty bag" to the next lexel ... to aircrews and mission base staff who elect to wear navy blue or sage green flight suits, BDUs or BBUs or the navy golf shirt/gray slacks flying combo.

Let's face it, these are not the most visible colors and unless we want to play "invisbile pedestrian" around moving surface vehicles and aircraft with deadly props, we need to see these folks more clearly. Based upon the principles of ORM, if flagging an extension cord improves safety, then without a doubt making our pedestrian members more visible around the parking lot and flight line would as well.

And as a further consideration, if ICs and flight crews had to be encumbered by these hefty bags (at least while outside their aircraft), alot more thought would go into their wear (for everyone) and perhaps some alternative uniforms that could safely eliminate their need.

If these improve safety for GTM's and UDFTM's, why wouldn't they do so for all of our personnel wearing similar uniforms?

Mind you, they'd look like drop-outs from clown college, but maybe it would cause some senior leaders (many of whom are aviators) to think "outside the box" about all CAPs uniforms.

[flyguy06]

When you wrote,  "I think that would then give a very good combination of uniforms.  One field uniform for Air Force related activities (helping out the local unit, visiting an air base, or encampment.) and one set of uniforms for non Air force activities, mainly SAR based," you missed the point of a uniform.

If we have several so-called "uniforms" at an event, then we are by definition NOT UNIFORM. The clothing we wear then would just be "outfits" and not A UNIFORM. If uniformity in our CAP outfits is desireable, and I beleive that it is, then we should be uniform in them and not demonstrating the breadth of CAP outfits available.

I

If you want uniformity at events, then that is a command responsibility. The Squadron Commander or event coordinator sets that tone. FOr example, the Sqaudron Commander could say "Every first Thursday we will wear the blue AF uniform or civilian combo for those that dont meet height and weight. Onthe second Thursday we will wear the BDU or blue BDU for those thatdontmeet height and weight" If you are working an airshow then the Commander could prescribe the uniform of the day. Tose are just examples of command responsibility that commanders need to take upon themselves more than they are doing.

[Pylon]

If you want uniformity at events, then that is a command responsibility. The Squadron Commander or event coordinator sets that tone. FOr example, the Sqaudron Commander could say "Every first Thursday we will wear the blue AF uniform or civilian combo for those that dont meet height and weight. Onthe second Thursday we will wear the BDU or blue BDU for those thatdontmeet height and weight" If you are working an airshow then the Commander could prescribe the uniform of the day. Tose are just examples of command responsibility that commanders need to take upon themselves more than they are doing.

Speaking of the commander setting the uniform for the activity, how far does that authority reach?  For example, could a commander of a higher echelon, such as a wing or group say: No personnel in this group will wear flight suits from now on, or no cadets in this wing will wear BDUs from now on, or no senior members in the region will wear X from now on.  Does the commander setting the uniform go that far?

[Psicorp]

I think they can...it would be wrong though.  Ruling out a uniform completely from wear would bring up a whole slew of issues.  To use your example: if a Group CC decided that within his/her Group that flightsuits are forbidden, it would bright up the issue of being unable to wear the appropriate uniform for certain activities; in this case, no flying could take place within that Group.  (I wouldn't want to be standing between the mutinying masses and the CC at that point).  One could argue that being unable to wear Nomex while flying puts the crew in unnessary risk, from a safety standpoint. 

The same would go for ruling that cadets cannot wear BDUs.  If that were the case, then cadets could no longer participate in Missions or excersizes.  Can you picture a Ground Team of cadets (male and female) walking through the woods in full service dress...with orange vests?

The most sensible limitations are activity specific.  For example, stating: Officers in Group XII will not wear the golf shirt combination when working with cadets. The appropriate uniform depending on the activity will either be the Air Force style blues, the Corporate aviator shirt/blue pants combination, or BDUs (Air Force style or Corporate).

As always, just my $0.02 (before taxes)

[Chaplaindon]

Psicorp,

Your assertion that, "One could argue that being unable to wear Nomex while flying puts the crew in unnessary risk, from a safety standpoint" is a "stretch" -- at the very least.

While it is an undeniable truth that the US armed forces (and those of many other nations) outfit their aviators and aircrews in Nomex flight clothing for protective purposes, it is hard to honestly assert that by CAP personnel wearing it too, that CAP aircrews are enhancing safety.

Here's why: although Nomex is fire-retardant, a coverall of it will provide little of any useful theremal of flash protection to the wearer in the absence of a full suite of ancillary protective items (e.g. helmet, goggles of face shield, gloves, nomex thermal under clothes "long johns", leather flying boots and the like).

Most CAP aviators that I see wearing the Nomex green (or blue) "bag" wear it without regards to the other items of protection I just listed. In an crash, cockpit fire, ditching or off-airport landing, the most important things needed for emergent egress are usually unprotected ... your eyes (to find your exit), your skull (to protect your brain and thus your ability to think through your egress), your hands and your feet (your "tools" for egress and escape).

If in the southern US, where I live and serve, you wore FULL Nomex regalia (e.g. racing drivers for F-1, NASCAR, IndyCar, etc) you would melt most of the year when the ambient air temperature (even at search altitudes) is sweltering. Hence the so-called "safety" of the Nomex becomes a liability and a hazard.

Even racing drivers wear "cool suits" water-cooled" long johns and skull caps that "air condition their Nomex safety suits. CAP aircraft are not air conditioned and few of our volunteers could afford to buy a "cool suit."

So, to review:

1.  Worn as most CAP members wear the green/blue bag ... gloveless, even sleeves rolled up ... without Nomex long-johns underneath ... no helmet, no goggles/face shield ... the Nomex isn't really useful.

2.  Worn as per US military standards or those of motor racing would make the suit a dangerous liability for the wearer.

Frankly, I believe that most CAP members wear the Nomex "bags" because they think they look nice. Nothing more.

[Eclipse]

Not only that - but most CAP aircrews opt for the less expensive nylon flight jacket, which is, in fact an accelerant.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Not only that - but most CAP aircrews opt for the less expensive nylon flight jacket, which is, in fact an accelerant.

Two words: 'shrink wrap'.

[BillB]

After rather quick research, I can't find any cases where CAP aircraft crashed on missions and fire was involved. Granted this was a quick search from old records, but unless a pilot flew full bore into a granite cloud, the chances of fire in a light aircraft doing normal mission flights are so minor that it's not probable for fire to be involved. So why the thread pushing for nomax for flight crews? It appears that it makes no difference if a pilot is wearing golf shirt and grey pants or whatever uniform they choose. The only push for nomax sems to be the "coolness" factor.

[ZigZag911]

Over the years several wings have used orange or yellow baseball caps for ground team personnel, highly visible....if not a large enough target, then wear some sort of orange safety vest when going into woods, forests, and so forth.....you need it many places during hunting season, anyhow.

"...Several Wings..."?   

A reflective vest is >REQUIRED< gear for any GTM's. It always has been, or certainly has been for the last two rev's of the gear list. See above for citations of the GT manual, and the new 39-1 now makes it a part of the uniform.

Where are you guys getting that its optional?  Some members play fast and loose with the color (orange vs. yellow), but there is no question you're supposed to wear something bright.

Its so frustrating to see people complaining about  / suggesting things which are already addressed or included in the regs.  If you're wearing the badge, you sure should know this, and if not, check before you comment.

(BTW - ILWG authorizes and encourages an orange hat, especially for the GTL, but for field use only, not for everyday wear.)

My apologies....I usually rely on my GBD & GTLs to ensure the GTMs have all required gear!

[Eclipse]

After rather quick research, I can't find any cases where CAP aircraft crashed on missions and fire was involved. Granted this was a quick search from old records, but unless a pilot flew full bore into a granite cloud, the chances of fire in a light aircraft doing normal mission flights are so minor that it's not probable for fire to be involved. So why the thread pushing for nomax for flight crews? It appears that it makes no difference if a pilot is wearing golf shirt and grey pants or whatever uniform they choose. The only push for nomax sems to be the "coolness" factor.

The thread is not pushing for Nomex®, it was pointing out that for our use, the Nomex® serves little purpose with regards to crew safety.

[Chris Jacobs]

I think that the push for Nomex is not in case of a fire after a crash, but in case of a cabin fire that the crew needs to deal with.  If they have the Nomex on it gives them that much more time.

[Chaplaindon]

Actually, Chris, you are wrong about Nomex buying a flight crew time to deal with a fire emergency versus street clothes.

Although Nomex (brand) aramid fabric clothing is flame resistant and retardant, it gives absolutely no protection from the thermal effects of fire.

You can sustain deadly burns eventhough the Nomex coveralls stay uncharred.

Firefighters wear double quilted under the Nomex shell of their "bunker gear" to provide the more essential thermal protection. Racing drivers quilt their coveralls itself for thermal protection. They also wear Nomex long johns under their coveralls.

Thermal protection is FAR more needed than flash or flame protection in a confined space fire situation (e.g. inside a cockpit). The temperature will rise much more rapidly than will the flames (lest they be fed by 100LL avgas ... and Nomex doused with gasoline burns quite beautifully). At the same time noxious fumes from the plastics and fabrics of the aircraft interior will cause blinding smoke and damage to lungs (that's why commercial airline pilots don smoke hoods as a part of their cockpit fire procedures).

Heat, though is the killer --even with smoke hoods. In fact a person's own perspiration can turn to steam and severely burn a person underneath the Nomex coverall (or bunker gear).

So, with Nomex, a flightcrew member will likely be in as much jeopardy from a cockpit fire as a person wearing gray Dockers and the golf shirt. They may look more military, but --if safety is the reason to wear the Nomex "bag" (absent all of the other accoutrements; e.g. helmet, goggles, gloves, etc.)-- save your money.

Add to that lack of additional safety factor, the fact that Nomex is stifflingly hot in summer. Wearing it (especially with the other needed safety equipment: boots, helmet, gloves, appropriate long underwear, maybe a survival vest) can greatly increase your chance of heat exhaustion/stroke. Having a pilot collapse at the controls due to heat-related (clothing exacerbated) stress could mean a bad day for his/her crew (especially if none are pilots).

So, I suggest Nomex is not only NOT safer, in some situations it can be much LESS safe than more street-clothes-like apparel.

[jayleswo]

"After rather quick research, I can't find any cases where CAP aircraft crashed on missions and fire was involved. "

Monday November 3, 1997, a Civil Air Patrol Cessna 182 N2043E from San Jose Senior Squadron 80, California Wing, crashed while in a search mission near Lake Tahoe. Both mission rated pilots in the front of the aircraft were fatally injured on impact, while the back seat Scanner (Capt. Joe Lawrence) survived the crash, but was severely burned as a result of a post-crash fire when he tried to rescue the pilots. Joe was wearing a Nomex flight suit OVER his BDU's. His neck, face and left hand were burned but the Nomex did a good job protecting him except for those parts of him that were exposed to the flames.

So, I disagree with chaplaindon's conclusion. I'd rather have a heat injury than a burn and melted clothing to deal with.

[Chaplaindon]

jayleswo,

Thank God that Capt. Lawrence survived, regardless of exactly how.

You can disagree with my conclusion, however, you actually made my case unknowlingly.

First,  burns to the face, neck and hands are (by definition) "critical burns" especially the face and neck as they can cause airway and respiratory compromise.  Surviving with burns to those areas may be --in many cases-- sadly, short-lived.

Second, the wearing of BDU's UNDER the flight suit --something you could get away with up in the high Sierra's in November (try it in Victoria, Texas in July ...) likely served as the thermal insulation (similar to the liners under firefighters' bunker coats and pants). Being as to how it's mighty cold in Lake Tahoe in November, Capt. Lawrence might have had on thermal underclothing too, that's not mentioned.

That's a fortunate thing that he was --at least-- wearing BDUs ... imagine had he been wearing a thin synthetic "Under Armour" tee shirt (or a female wearing nylon/lycra-blend under clothing) and shorts ... there would have not only NOT been a thermal barrrier of any sort, the underclothing likely would have melted onto the body exacerbating the burns and necessitating lengthy and brutally painful debriedments.

The Nomex flight clothing MAY have provided some flash burn protection --Nomex, however, will burn ... it just will not, itself SUPPORT combustion absent any other fuel (e.g. avgas spilled on it)-- theremal burns likely were prevented by the addition of another layer of thick underclothing (the BDU). Sadly, Nomex or not, Capt. Lawrence sustained critical burns that might well have been prevented had he (like the US military aviators) been wearing a full-kit of protective flight clothing ... not just a Nomex bag.

Such full-kit would have been far more tolerable in northern California rather than warmer climes where crews are frequently seen with their "protective" Nomex sleeves rolled up and their front zipper pulled down for ventilation and heat-relief.

Nevertheless, I pray that Capt. Lawrence fully recovered.

[Chris Jacobs]

I am going to have to say that i would want to stick with the Nomex.

When i wear my bike helmet i am not getting full protection.  If i wanted full protection i would wear a helmet that was more like a motorcycle helmet that also covered my face.  But a bike helmet is proven to be better than no helmet at all.

Wearing the full fire protection clothing as Chaplin don mentioned would be unrealistic in our aircraft.  But we could take at least one preventative action and do the best that we can.  As with the bike helmet, a little bit of protection is better than none at all.

[jayleswo]

chaplaindon,

I'll defer to your apparent expertise on the subject, but I'll continue wearing a Nomex flight suit, with nomex gloves, leather boots and cotton undergarments on SAR missions. I agree, it's not the most comfortable thing in the world, but it's the best we have to protect ourselves. I'm long past the "pickle suit" being cool looking, I wear it for what little protection it offers vs. the alternatives.

On CD missions, we are limited to civilian clothing and I'll agree with you that I prefer not wearing a Nomex flight suit in 115 degree heat on the U.S./Mexican border in July.

John

[Eclipse]

And as a further tangent to this, unless you are laundering a nomex flight suit properly, it will lose its fire retardent properties over time.

http://www.scoutingdigest.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=120

[flyguy06]

This thread kind of changed directions huh? lets get back on track. Yes the Wing and Region CC's could sprescribe uniform standards. But it is unrealistic to think they wuld do the examples you listed. If they tried, The higher echelon Commander would probably override them. But Commanders should have a little flexibility in their command but not go to far.

[SarDragon]

And as a further tangent to this, unless you are laundering a nomex flight suit properly, it will lose its fire retardent properties over time.

http://www.scoutingdigest.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=120

That page sounds more like an ad for a specific product.

More (and better?) info here:

http://civilairportal.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=66&topic=612.msg10947;topicseen#msg10947

[Psicorp]

Psicorp,

Your assertion that, "One could argue that being unable to wear Nomex while flying puts the crew in unnessary risk, from a safety standpoint" is a "stretch" -- at the very least.

While it is an undeniable truth that the US armed forces (and those of many other nations) outfit their aviators and aircrews in Nomex flight clothing for protective purposes, it is hard to honestly assert that by CAP personnel wearing it too, that CAP aircrews are enhancing safety.

Here's why: although Nomex is fire-retardant, a coverall of it will provide little of any useful theremal of flash protection to the wearer in the absence of a full suite of ancillary protective items (e.g. helmet, goggles of face shield, gloves, nomex thermal under clothes "long johns", leather flying boots and the like).

Most CAP aviators that I see wearing the Nomex green (or blue) "bag" wear it without regards to the other items of protection I just listed. In an crash, cockpit fire, ditching or off-airport landing, the most important things needed for emergent egress are usually unprotected ... your eyes (to find your exit), your skull (to protect your brain and thus your ability to think through your egress), your hands and your feet (your "tools" for egress and escape).

If in the southern US, where I live and serve, you wore FULL Nomex regalia (e.g. racing drivers for F-1, NASCAR, IndyCar, etc) you would melt most of the year when the ambient air temperature (even at search altitudes) is sweltering. Hence the so-called "safety" of the Nomex becomes a liability and a hazard.

Even racing drivers wear "cool suits" water-cooled" long johns and skull caps that "air condition their Nomex safety suits. CAP aircraft are not air conditioned and few of our volunteers could afford to buy a "cool suit."

So, to review:

1.  Worn as most CAP members wear the green/blue bag ... gloveless, even sleeves rolled up ... without Nomex long-johns underneath ... no helmet, no goggles/face shield ... the Nomex isn't really useful.

2.  Worn as per US military standards or those of motor racing would make the suit a dangerous liability for the wearer.

Frankly, I believe that most CAP members wear the Nomex "bags" because they think they look nice. Nothing more.

I know I'm not as up on the Regs and the CAP insurance policies as I should be (can anyone be) given that I'm my unit's Safety Officer, but what really caused me concern was this thread from the Civil Air Portal regarding insurance payouts if members are not wearing the "appropriate uniform" for their activity.    http://civilairportal.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=66&topic=612.30

There is nothing that is going to, on it's own, make you safer.  Safety is a multitude of factors and behaviors all working together (or opposed) in order for an accident or mishap to occur.   What we can do is be safety conscious and look out for one another. 

I plan on reading up on our insurance information to find out for sure whether the above "appropriate uniform" stipulation exists and what our regs say about it.