My BBDU experiment: after two years, I be done with this nonsense

Started by NM SAR, September 24, 2013, 05:45:46 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NM SAR

When I came back to New Mexico from the Merchant Marine Academy and rejoined CAP as a Senior Member, it was for one purpose: Ground Search and Rescue. I wanted to teach, and I wanted to improve relations between the NM SAR community and CAP, which have historically been...tense.

I've maintained for years that camouflage is a silly thing to be wearing for SAR. We're there to be seen, not to hide. To that end, I acquired and started to wear the CAP Field Uniform, colloquially known as the Blue BDU. I thought navy blue was a little more in line with the emergency response/public safety face of CAP.

Two years later, I've largely given it up as a failed idea. I'll continue to wear it at Squadron meetings, but I'm going back to woodland BDUs for field work

Pros of the BBDU:

  • In my occasionally humble opinion, it looks a lot sharper than camouflage, particularly considering the colors of patches available to CAP
  • The aforementioned silliness of wearing camo for SAR work
  • Footwear is a lot less limited
  • Boonie cover is authorized.

Cons of the BBDU:

  • Stigma: in NM Wing, at least, the BBDU has always been relegated to members who don't meet the weight and grooming standards
  • Cost: a full set with both a patrol cap and boonie set me back nearly $100; I just picked up a full set of woodland BDUs from my supply officer for free
  • BBDUs only seem to be available in poly/cotton or straight cotton. Pure cotton has major issues if it gets wet, and poly/cotton is far too warm for summer operations in the desert, particularly in a dark color like Navy Blue
  • BBDUs show dirt much more readily than woodland BDUs, lending the wearer an unkempt appearance
  • The material (65/35 poly/cotton from Propper) chafes a lot more than my summerweight nylon/cotton woodland BDUs
  • Non-uniformity: due to the other items on this list, no one else on my ground team was interested in going to BBDUs, so I look weird. Something to be said for uniformity across the team.

In an ideal world, we could go to a sensible non-camouflage uniform in a lighter color (desert tan? perhaps an orange non-cotton top?), but that's a pipe dream at this point. Yes, I know Arizona and California have gone to wing-specific SAR uniforms, but that's not likely to happen in NM for politics reasons.

I'm not saying BBDU is a bad uniform, but it didn't work for my application. Your mileage may vary, as always.

Panache

Quote from: NM SAR on September 24, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Stigma: in NM Wing, at least, the BBDU has always been relegated to members who don't meet the weight and grooming standards

^ This.

Even in my prime during my Army days, I was always a big guy, and I always failed my height-weight tastes (but passed BMI).  Now, twenty years and a lot of home-cooked meals later, I'm not so fit.

I can understand if the Air Force doesn't want us (ahem) husky fellows in AF Blues.  That would be kind of a slap in the face to every RealMilitary Airman and officer who work hard to stay in required standards. 

But nobody short of a few Airmen here and there where woodland camo BDU's anymore.  Why not just let everybody wear them?  Having people run around in two separate field uniforms just looks... silly.

Eclipse

Wear what you will, but the idea there's some sort of stigma in your wing, or anywhere, regarding one of our multiform choices
is an insult to the more then 1/2 the senior members who have no choice what to wear, and a comment on your wing.

You could also give them the 3000psi stare and not worry so much about things that don't really matter.




"That Others May Zoom"

abdsp51

Quote from: NM SAR on September 24, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Yes, I know Arizona and California have gone to wing-specific SAR uniforms, but that's not likely to happen in NM for politics reasons.

Az has no written sup dictating a ground team uniform that has been approved while Ca has one that was approved but I believe has either expired or will expire.  Huge difference in how both Wgs operate for ES in general.

tribalelder

Eclipse--

...more then 1/2 the senior members who have no choice what to wear...

Do you really think it's that high? I'd have guessed way lower - I don't think that that many members are corporate uniforms.

Maybe we need weighins at the monthly safety briefing.
WE ARE HERE ON CAPTALK BECAUSE WE ALL CARE ABOUT THE PROGRAM. We may not always agree and we should not always agree.  One of our strengths as an organization is that we didn't all go to the same school, so we all know how to do something different and differently. 
Since we all care about CAP, its members and our missions, sometimes our discussions will be animated, but they should always civil -- after all, it's in our name.

Eclipse

I honestly do.

We've got far too many members "fudging" and / or outright ignoring what is a pretty bright line.

In this thread we had one wing that's shown, based on eservices, that's it's easily 30%, including the cadets. 
Throw them out, and find a way to get real numbers, since I would hazard eservices doesn't have a very good
accuracy rate, and 50% doesn't seem that hard to get to.

"That Others May Zoom"

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: tribalelder on September 24, 2013, 08:03:00 PM
Eclipse--

...more then 1/2 the senior members who have no choice what to wear...

Do you really think it's that high? I'd have guessed way lower - I don't think that that many members are corporate uniforms.

Maybe we need weighins at the monthly safety briefing.

Easily 30%, probably closer to 40%, and maybe 50%.

Besides, probably a good chunk of those that should be wearing corporates, still wear the AF uniforms.

Mela_007

I admit I felt a bit out of place in my BBDUs at a SAREX when all others were wearing the camo, but nobody treated me differently or stared.  I am one of those that does not meet the standards, though my goal is to "earn my blues" by next year.  To me it is an insult to the USAF members for us to wear especially the blues when we don't meet the standards, which is why I will stick to the corporate until I meet the standards.  Gives me a goal to reach for, to help encourage me to get into better shape...which I need to do anyway.
"Worry is the Darkroom in which negatives develop."  -Unknown

RogueLeader

Quote from: Mela_007 on September 24, 2013, 09:00:08 PM
I admit I felt a bit out of place in my BBDUs at a SAREX when all others were wearing the camo, but nobody treated me differently or stared.  I am one of those that does not meet the standards, though my goal is to "earn my blues" by next year.  To me it is an insult to the USAF members for us to wear especially the blues when we don't meet the standards, which is why I will stick to the corporate until I meet the standards.  Gives me a goal to reach for, to help encourage me to get into better shape...which I need to do anyway.

The only people that irk me, and get my wrath (such as it is or isn't) are the people that wear the uniform improperly.  Other than that, I've got bigger issues to handle; such as pilots not turning in fuel receipts, not having w/b or orm sheets, Ground Team Members that don't have food in their 24 hr packs (yes I've seen it, and then they're surprised when they aren't selected.)

I know members that choose to wear Corporate uniforms, and while it's not my preference, there is nothing for me to have any antipathy towards them (unless for non-uniform issues.)
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

lordmonar

+1

If the only violation is that you are a little over weight......but you wear it properly.....I don't really care.

But it is the guys who are still sporting the wing patch on the blues or the yahoo who can't blouse his pants right or comes in wearing a boonie or 8 corner hat.  That's just laziness or the inability to read. (this assumes a "not a new guy"...then it is maybe a training issue).

We had an event recently....a CAP Lt Col with many years in CAP.....came sporting an 8 corner hat (with grade sew on properly), his pant were not bloused, and he was sporting his Iphone Bluetooth in his ear!   

I could have just died....the AD folks on hand were looking at him.....it was obviouse he had no clue what he was doing.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

abdsp51

Quote from: lordmonar on September 24, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
+1

If the only violation is that you are a little over weight......but you wear it properly.....I don't really care.

But it is the guys who are still sporting the wing patch on the blues or the yahoo who can't blouse his pants right or comes in wearing a boonie or 8 corner hat.  That's just laziness or the inability to read. (this assumes a "not a new guy"...then it is maybe a training issue).

We had an event recently....a CAP Lt Col with many years in CAP.....came sporting an 8 corner hat (with grade sew on properly), his pant were not bloused, and he was sporting his Iphone Bluetooth in his ear!   

I could have just died....the AD folks on hand were looking at him.....it was obviouse he had no clue what he was doing.

Um wow....  Personally I have nothing against the BBDU and wouldn't object to having a set just in case.

PHall

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 24, 2013, 03:45:45 PM
Quote from: NM SAR on September 24, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Yes, I know Arizona and California have gone to wing-specific SAR uniforms, but that's not likely to happen in NM for politics reasons.

Az has no written sup dictating a ground team uniform that has been approved while Ca has one that was approved but I believe has either expired or will expire.  Huge difference in how both Wgs operate for ES in general.

The CAWG Sup has not expired. But it will need to be reissued if and when we ever get a new 39-1.

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: lordmonar on September 24, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
+1

If the only violation is that you are a little over weight......but you wear it properly.....I don't really care.

How about integrity? If no one sees it is OK?

Ned

Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 25, 2013, 03:28:38 AM

How about integrity? If no one sees it is OK?

From a philosophical and practical perspective, be careful about defining "integrity" in such a way that a person can never intentionally break a rule of any kind.

The universe of people who have never broken a single rule is very small indeed.


Ned Lee
Occasional Rule Breaker

Eclipse

Ned, come on.  ^ This sounds good on a t-shirt, but what about leadership?

CAP isn't the PTA or a condo board, it's supposed to be more then that, and integrity, internal and external,
is a tenant of the program. We're supposed to be "more".

The cumulative "looking the other way" is literally one of the major challenges in CAP.
You pick a detail, I pick a detail, he picks a detail to ignore or fudge.  Pretty soon it's more then details.

The seeming inability for many members to follow basic, clear rules, and the leadership to hold everyone
equally accountable results in a general malaise, which in turn negatively impacts the mission on any number of
levels.

Whether it's for the sake of morale, initiative, discipline and good order, or very importantly, and
regularly ignored, reputation, nothing this simple should be this much focus of distraction,
and actively ignoring it perpetuates the very problem you are seeking to fix.

And there is no such this as "pulling it off" - you can spot someone ten-over from a mile away, if for
no other reason then the cut of the clothing is such that it does not lend itself to hiding one's sins.

"That Others May Zoom"

Panache

Quote from: Ned on September 25, 2013, 03:53:50 AM
The universe of people who have never broken a single rule is very small indeed.

I'm certainly no saint, but if the regs say "You have to weigh less than this at this height to wear this uniform", it's pretty unambiguous.

Ned

My point is that there are rules and there are rules.

There is a difference between going 66 on the freeway and first degree murder.  Both are crimes, and both have consequences for the violator.

But integrity is an important quality.  If we go around proclaiming that anyone that intentionally violates a rule "has no integrity" then we lose an important way to judge the character of our fellow officers.

Because absolutely none of us can say we have never ever broken a rule.  To some, that would mean that none of us has integrity.  When that occurs, we lose the ability to distinguish between a murderer, and the average driver.

That can't be very helpful in most CAP situations.

We should all be careful about judging the integrity of others based on a standard of adherence to even minor rules.

Let he who is without sin . . .

Eclipse

So, then it doesn't matter if you are out of weight and wearing blues, or a leader and know about it and say nothing
because..."everyone has broken a rule at some point"?

39-1 is just a "best practice" then?

"That Others May Zoom"

Ned

Bob,

You didn't become the most prolific poster here because of your habit of carefully reflecting on the posts of others before responding, but in your eagerness to Be Right, you are not reading very well tonight.

No fair reading of my posts suggest that I don't think rule following is important in CAP.  A little searching of my posts will find one of the frequent instances where I quote the AF Blue Book on the importance of rule following.

What I said ( and what I meant) is that none of us has attained perfection, and that all of us have broken the rules in CAP one or more times in our careers. It is simply lazy and wrong to declare that anyone who has broken a even a minor rule in CAP "has no integrity."

Hence the example about murder and going one mph over the limit on the freeway.

If I ever get a speeding ticket, I will pay the fine because I did what I did.  But I hope I will be treated differently than if I had murdered someone.




Eclipse

Quote from: Ned on September 25, 2013, 05:25:18 AM
You didn't become the most prolific poster here because of your habit of carefully reflecting on the posts of others before responding, but in your eagerness to Be Right, you are not reading very well tonight.

Thank you - I am reading and responding to exactly what you are writing, and frankly taking a discussion about
uniforms and trying to twist it into a "murder vs. speeding" discussion is silly.

We're all talking about minor uniform infractions that are still, as stated, a violation of integrity.  A minor one,
and Lordmonor will invariably justify it as "necessary", but that doesn't change what he said, or that that stance is.
USAFAUX2004 didn't say he had "no integrity", nor is that inferable from the comments by either of them.

Failing an integrity check on one decision, doesn't equal "no integrity" to anyone except someone trying to make
a convoluted point.  With that said, I didn't realize that some of our regs are "optional" or "variable" depending on circumstance.

Taking it to a "cast the first stone level" doesn't work here.

"That Others May Zoom"