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.