They should have used the command patch rather than the Seal. That would match what we've got on our vehicles and planes and is much more appropriate for a field situation. Another branding issue....
Quote from: RiverAux on October 21, 2008, 08:36:22 PM
They should have used the command patch rather than the Seal. That would match what we've got on our vehicles and planes and is much more appropriate for a field situation. Another branding issue....
These vests pre-date the MAJCOM's existence.
We've had it now for what, 5 years? Maybe a few more? So long as they're not making new ones with that design, I suppose I'm fine with them trying to sell out the old stock.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 21, 2008, 10:25:55 PM
We've had it now for what, 5 years? Maybe a few more? So long as they're not making new ones with that design, I suppose I'm fine with them trying to sell out the old stock.
Sadly, they are... :( although certainly the CAP seal is still an appropriate insignia, the MAJCOM would be better.
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/images/000000CAP1402C.jpg)
And I think this type of "vest" is much more suited to the kind of work we do.
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/images/medium/000000CAP1402D_MED.jpg)
Why these are being made in yellow to the exclusion of orange is a mystery to me.
Don't knock hard or they'll make it a worse color! >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on October 21, 2008, 11:48:07 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 21, 2008, 10:25:55 PM
We've had it now for what, 5 years? Maybe a few more? So long as they're not making new ones with that design, I suppose I'm fine with them trying to sell out the old stock.
Sadly, they are... :( although certainly the CAP seal is still an appropriate insignia, the MAJCOM would be better.
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/images/000000CAP1402C.jpg)
And I think this type of "vest" is much more suited to the kind of work we do.
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/images/medium/000000CAP1402D_MED.jpg)
Why these are being made in yellow to the exclusion of orange is a mystery to me.
Because OSHA has determined that yellow is more visable then orange. Especially under low light conditions.
Quote from: PHall on October 22, 2008, 12:44:44 AM
Because OSHA has determined that yellow is more visable then orange. Especially under low light conditions.
Which my own eyes agree with, however VG is the supplier of record for CAP, not OSHA, and these are new, custom items mad for
CAP.
The last revision of 39-1 made the "safety vest" a uniform item (I think to try and make its wear easier to mandate), and defines a "safety vest" as "orange".
Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Page 63, Table 2-3
Safety Vest Orange plastic, mesh, or cloth. Will be worn when participating in ground team activities.
So now Joe Member goes on VG, buys the slick vest, shows up to a mission with big smile, and a GTL, etc., would be well within their rights to tell them to "take it off".
Very good point there! CAPM 39-1, Page 63, Table 2-3 does say that. Looks like another rewrite of the regs may be coming?
This wouldn't be the first time our regs and/or policies changed because of what the Bookstore, CAPMart or Vanguard did.
I always think back to the Smurf Suits issue....
National - "The end-of-wear date for the blue jumpsuit is..."
Bookstore - "We just got in a ton of them!"
National - <retracted, tabled>
For all of the above posts
MAYBE CAP could LOOK at the trends of all the other responder agencies and see what industry and OSHA is doing instead of CAP always trying to go it alone and try always "improving" uniforms.
Look at everyone else in the SAR world and tie it together rather than running off reams of paper and gigabytes of data just to support 39-1 and all its ICL's
Try for a rewrite of 39-1 lets' say by Feb 2009.. Right
NHQ would be much better off if they just prescribed an ANSI rating instead of a color.
I would much rather see a member of my ground team in a yellow vest that is ANSI II or III compliant that to see them in an orange walmart brand non-reflective hunting vest.
YMMV
Quote from: IceNine on October 23, 2008, 03:40:53 PM
NHQ would be much better off if they just prescribed an ANSI rating instead of a color.
I would much rather see a member of my ground team in a yellow vest that is ANSI II or III compliant that to see them in an orange walmart brand non-reflective hunting vest.
YMMV
Indiana just passed a law that says all ES workers along a state or federal road MUST have a reflective vest. Just orange mesh won't cut it here anymore.
that's not just an indiana thing. its a federal DOT thing, and it applies to federally funded roadways
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 23, 2008, 05:10:50 PM
that's not just an indiana thing. its a federal DOT thing, and it applies to federally funded roadways
Maybe the IN law just extended it to state roads. I do know that pretty much all of my wings GT(myself included) are out of compliance when they even bother to wear the 39-1 mandated vest in the first place (I'm at least compliant there).
I just got my new vest in the mail today; it fits well and is Really bright. 39-1 can keep its orange, I'm not going to get hit by a car because of a reg. Two internal bottom pockets, one external pocket, one external pen pocket.
Jackson Safety - Road Warrior, ANSI class III (http://eprotool.com/jackson-safety-3009939-deluxe-road-warrior%C3%82%E2%84%A2-ansi-class-reflective-lime-vest-xxlarge-9121214-p-3783.html)
(http://eprotool.com/images/SM-3009937.jpg)
You know, every state I am familiar with requires orange vests if you're hunting in the woods during certain seasons. I've yet to hear of any going to yellow because of it being more visible. I don't know if they're behind the times or have determined that orange is better for visibility in the woods. We're wearing the vests primarily for increased visibility in the woods rather than roadside safety...
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 23, 2008, 05:10:50 PM
that's not just an indiana thing. its a federal DOT thing, and it applies to federally funded roadways
I believe this is the exact regulation:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/pdf/23cfr634.1.pdf
So does this mean, CAP NHQ should issues a ICL to reflect these changes?
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on October 23, 2008, 06:17:49 PM
I just got my new vest in the mail today; it fits well and is Really bright. 39-1 can keep its orange, I'm not going to get hit by a car because of a reg. Two internal bottom pockets, one external pocket, one external pen pocket.
Jackson Safety - Road Warrior, ANSI class III (http://eprotool.com/jackson-safety-3009939-deluxe-road-warrior%C3%82%E2%84%A2-ansi-class-reflective-lime-vest-xxlarge-9121214-p-3783.html)
(http://eprotool.com/images/SM-3009937.jpg)
Absolutely! When the you-know-what hits the fan, I don't think anybody is going to be worried about whether your safety vest is orange or yellow. The main issue is safety not uniform compliance.
Tags - MIKE
FYI: Topic split from the marketplace vest sale thread (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6231.0).
Quote from: olefido on October 23, 2008, 07:29:00 PMWhen the you-know-what hits the fan, I don't think anybody is going to be worried about whether your safety vest is orange or yellow. The main issue is safety not uniform compliance.
Actually, the main issue is the fact that despite a published standard for
CAP, Vanguard has seen fit to produce something different.
The same "safety" argument was made for years regarding Gore-Tex jackets, and it didn't fly then either.
A safety issue is when you grab the nearest thing yo have to et the job done and stay "not dead". Taking the conscious effort in advance to order a vest in the wrong color when you have the whole internet to choose from, and then falling back on the "safety" if someone makes an issue of it is not cricket.
I have a very nice lime-yellow vest I wear whenever I'm in a duty that doesn't specify color, otherwise its the orange SAR Med.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2008, 08:38:38 PM
Quote from: olefido on October 23, 2008, 07:29:00 PMWhen the you-know-what hits the fan, I don't think anybody is going to be worried about whether your safety vest is orange or yellow. The main issue is safety not uniform compliance.
Actually, the main issue is the fact that despite a published standard for CAP, Vanguard has seen fit to produce something different.
The same "safety" argument was made for years regarding Gore-Tex jackets, and it didn't fly then either.
A safety issue is when you grab the nearest thing yo have to et the job done and stay "not dead". Taking the conscious effort in advance to order a vest in the wrong color when you have the whole internet to choose from, and then falling back on the "safety" if someone makes an issue of it is not cricket.
I have a very nice lime-yellow vest I wear whenever I'm in a duty that doesn't specify color, otherwise its the orange SAR Med.
As far as the Gore-tex argument goes, I remember when wing policy was that cadets could wear anything that kept them warm but seniors had to wear the authorized uniform i.e. BDUs and M-65 Field Jackets. I also know that policy was routinely ignored out in the field, especially south I-80. The winters down here aren't cold and snowy, they're cold and rainy. The best way to get hypothermia is to run around in wet, cotton uniforms in 30-40 degree weather when it's alternating between sleet and rain. You didn't grab something at the last secondto keep warm. We shopped for and bought what would keep us warm, safe, and alive. This is where the 39-1 and wing policy departed from common sense. I'll weigh in on the side of common sense every time. The regs are a guideline, not the Gospel. When you write regs, you are trying to establish common practice and standards. But you cannot write regs that that are so narrow as to allow nothing to be accomplished or so broad as to be ineffective. Therefore, the regs connot cover every possble situation or problem. This is where our judgement and common sense come into play.
As for the vest, what was the reg trying to accomplish? Safety or uniformity? Are we wearing the vests so that every one looks the same, or are we wearing them to enhance safety. If we take this argument a little farther ... Does the 39-1 specify a shade of orange. Is it light or dark? Would tangerine be acceptable? Are we picking too many nits over a freakin safety vest?
Actually, the regs are gospel. That's why they are called "regulations".
There is plenty of room in "manuals", task guides, and other publications to argue about their authority versus common practice or other publications, but compliance with regulations is mandatory, as most indicate in their opening paragraphs.
You can argue contention between documents, but not the authority of something published as a CAPR.
The Federal Reg for highway workers has been around for years, The new part of the Fed Reg is aimed at Public Saftey Employees, IE Fire Police EMS . It;s a new Class three vest with 4 break away points and shorter than the road workers.It also requires vi vis stiping on Emergency Vehicles :clap:
Which could potentially be completely ignored by CAP as our people are not Public Safety Employees, nor do we operate emergency vehicles.
We also don't operate emergency vehicles.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2008, 03:06:32 AM
Which could potentially be completely ignored by CAP as our people are not Public Safety Employees, nor do we operate emergency vehicles.
We also don't operate emergency vehicles.
Do you stand on the side of the road in low light level conditions? (i.e. UDF mission)
Then you're just as much a target as a cop or a highway worker.
^ 100% correct - more so, even, because we don't usually have have lights on our vehicles, so less wraning when we pop up from nowhere.
Doesn't necessarily change whether the law is applicable to CAP.
QuoteFederal Government Begins Mandating High-Visibility Vests for Emergency
Responders:
On November 24 2008, a new federal regulation (23 CFR 634) goes into effect
mandating that anyone working in the right-of-way of a federal-aid highway
must be wearing high-visibility clothing that meets the requirements of ANSI
/ ISEA 107; 2004 edition class 2 or 3.
This requirement will apply to all emergency responders.
There is further information on the Responder Knowledge Base website
including links to download some of the relevant documents, information
concerning ANSI / ISEA 207 Public Safety Vests, certain exceptions for
police officers, and information about proposed rules changes to later
expand the law to cover all public roadways.
An extensive write-up of the issues involved can be found at the following
URL:
https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200647
The additional information can also be accessed by searching for "23CFR634"
using the keyword search box on every page of the Responder Knowledge Base.
https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=197344
Thanks,
Steve Davis, All Hands
http://www.allhands.us/
Phone: 410-730-5677
Fax: 866-236-5999
Project Manager
Southeast Florida UASI
http://www.sfuasi.us
3250 Mary Street, Suite 401
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: 305-774-0012
That's what came down from Maj. Brockman of NESA and INWG. That sounds like anyone working in the right of way MUST have a reflective vest.
As it appears that there may be some new information and other applicable rules available now that were not back when the orange vests were mandated, I might suggest that those of you with some interest in the topic suggest a regulation change through your chain of command. Normally I don't advise this in relation to CAPTalk discussions, but I think this would actually have a chance of getting approved if the proper backup information was provided.
So you are going to follow the regs no matter what. Even if it defies all logic, puts somebody at risk, threatens to damage equipment, or violates the law.etc.
I believe in following the regs, but I also reocgnize that there are situations that the regs did not anticipate. This is where our judgement as leaders comes to bear. Recognizing these situations and handling them in a safe and sane manner. And, if someone calls us on it, we should be prepared to defend ourselves and our actions in a clear, concise, and logical manner. If that is not good enough and we know we acted in the right, then we take the hit for it. That's what a leader does. They don't hide behind the regs and protect themselves.
It appears that "common sense" no longer has a place in CAP. Truly sad. YMMV.
Guys, get a grip.
The program, its guidelines, and limitations, are very clear, and if you are not comfortable with them, there are other organizations which would be happy to consume your time.
Violating some SOP and running into a burning building to save a baby is not the same thing as deciding on a vest color in violation of a uniform reg because "I know better".
We all have personal preferences, and I'm sure the good people at ANSI, Inc., are well intentioned and did their homework, but, assuming you're wearing a decent vest to start with, arguing you'll be seen faster in one color over the other is silly. Those are laboratory conditions, for one thing.
Following regulations is not hiding behind them, its what you're supposed to do. Don't like something? There's a process for change, use it, while at the same time setting the example as a follower.
Its also very amusing how some people believe that every piece of gear has to be capable of functioning in the most extreme conditions imaginable, respective to the gear's function, despite the fact that the majority of our day-to-day missions can be accomplished in a gold shirt with a cel phone.
Wait guys, I'm confused...
Vanguard offers a plain orange vest, an orange CAP vest, a yellow CAP vest (flightline ops) and a yellow cap "thin" vest.
What's the argument about?
Its about the fact that yellow vests aren't authorized per 39-1, but are more visible and should be worn anyways in the interest of safety.
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on October 28, 2008, 06:16:49 AM
Its about the fact that yellow vests aren't authorized per 39-1, but are more visible and should be worn anyways in the interest of safety.
Yellow vests are for FLIGHTLINE operations. They were sold separately for flightline marshalers and flightline supervisors. The standard color for that is YELLOW.
Orange vests are for GROUND TEAMS. As per CAP regs.
I hope this resolves the argument.
Quote from: afgeo4 on October 28, 2008, 06:21:04 AM
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on October 28, 2008, 06:16:49 AM
Its about the fact that yellow vests aren't authorized per 39-1, but are more visible and should be worn anyways in the interest of safety.
Yellow vests are for FLIGHTLINE operations. They were sold separately for flightline marshalers and flightline supervisors. The standard color for that is YELLOW.
Orange vests are for GROUND TEAMS. As per CAP regs.
I hope this resolves the argument.
What reg says that yellow vests are for flightlines?
Quote from: NCO forever on October 28, 2008, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on October 28, 2008, 06:21:04 AM
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on October 28, 2008, 06:16:49 AM
Its about the fact that yellow vests aren't authorized per 39-1, but are more visible and should be worn anyways in the interest of safety.
Yellow vests are for FLIGHTLINE operations. They were sold separately for flightline marshalers and flightline supervisors. The standard color for that is YELLOW.
Orange vests are for GROUND TEAMS. As per CAP regs.
I hope this resolves the argument.
What reg says that yellow vests are for flightlines?
Airport operations say so. CAP isn't the world authority of laws or regulations. We are still bound by laws and regulations of our federal, state, local governments and airport management officials.
So, CAP needs to follow airport regs, but not highway regs??
I may be over reacting, but I just want to be clear.
Quote from: afgeo4 on October 28, 2008, 10:52:42 PM
Quote from: NCO forever on October 28, 2008, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on October 28, 2008, 06:21:04 AM
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on October 28, 2008, 06:16:49 AM
Its about the fact that yellow vests aren't authorized per 39-1, but are more visible and should be worn anyways in the interest of safety.
Yellow vests are for FLIGHTLINE operations. They were sold separately for flightline marshalers and flightline supervisors. The standard color for that is YELLOW.
Orange vests are for GROUND TEAMS. As per CAP regs.
I hope this resolves the argument.
What reg says that yellow vests are for flightlines?
Airport operations say so. CAP isn't the world authority of laws or regulations. We are still bound by laws and regulations of our federal, state, local governments and airport management officials.
Every Ramp Rat I've ever seen was in orange or red.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 28, 2008, 10:59:07 PM
So, CAP needs to follow airport regs, but not highway regs??
I may be over reacting, but I just want to be clear.
Which airport "reg"? A particular airport may want me in a certain color for individual duty or a specific activity, but as a general principle we aren't bound, specifically, by any general airport or highway regulations.
We aren't "employees" of anyone, and we aren't "first", or "medical" responders, so any laws which specify equipment based on those definitions are not applicable.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 29, 2008, 12:35:37 AM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 28, 2008, 10:59:07 PM
So, CAP needs to follow airport regs, but not highway regs??
I may be over reacting, but I just want to be clear.
Which airport "reg"? A particular airport may want me in a certain color for individual duty or a specific activity, but as a general principle we aren't bound, specifically, by any general airport or highway regulations.
We aren't "employees" of anyone, and we aren't "first", or "medical" responders, so any laws which specify equipment based on those definitions are not applicable.
I think you are totally missing the point.
Quotemandating that anyone working in the right-of-way of a federal-aid highway
must be wearing high-visibility clothing that meets the requirements of ANSI
/ ISEA 107; 2004 edition class 2 or 3.
I think we fall under the anyone classification.
Quote
This requirement will apply to all emergency responders.
And technically we do fall under that one as well. Basically if you get out of your vehicle to take a DF bearing without a
reflective vest you are in violation. They do make orange reflective vests that meet our 39-1 and the federal reg at the same time. I'll entertain the argument that yellow is easier to see but for now 39-1 says orange and the feds say reflective. That's really all there is to say about that.
for those of you not up to speed on the ANSI safety vest issue. please reference this previous thread
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3325.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3325.0)
Better still, read the actual CFR and the articles quoted above and you will see there is a fair amount of angst and discussion about this regulation including comments that the ANSI standards themselves cannot be enforced because they were enacted after the statute was approved.
https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200622
For starters, per the article, no existing turnout gear meets the standard, and FD is reluctant to add a layer of flammable gear to their uniform.
Until NHQ tells us otherwise, the only regs we need to worry about are the ones published by NHQ. Obviously people are free to "gear-up" as they see fit, and my stuff would already meet the specs anyway, but there's no point in sounding the alarm on this any more than we need to take more notice than we already are on NIMS.
It effects us when NHQ says it does, unless some local MOU, etc., dictates more stringent rules and then your respective Wing CC tells you when to care.
No FD turn out gear meets ANSI standards. Not because of the amount of reflective material, but because of the break away requirement, and the contrasting color requirements.
There is a lot of grumbling in every discipline. No one wants to add another layer of equipment, and no one wants more requirements, but in my neck of the woods we are all buying our vests, and we are all getting ready for the mandatory wear deadline
This is what I use.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3759.0;attach=1820)
(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3759.0;attach=1819;image)