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

[sarmed1]

Deny it all you want, but there is a stigmatism associated with corporate uniforms.  Before I was CAPRAP I was exclusively blues, BDU and zoom bag.  Out of some "peer" pressure I started to sometimes wear polo and greys, and on occasion got asked why I was wearing it because ".....you dont look overweight....."  So I can see (especially internally) how choosing the BBDU for SAR activites (especially when surounded by BDU types) gets you odd looks because perception says:  only overweight folks wear the BBDU overweight=out of shape, out of shape=not fit enough for the activity level involved in SAR.

Just like the other thread, there is no solution that will make everyone happy.  Someone is going to be left out in the cold.......

mk

[Storm Chaser]

I've seen many members wearing their uniforms improperly due to lack of knowledge or because they just don't care. There's no excuse for the first reason, but it's more understandable and easier to correct. The members that don't care, on the other hand, represent a bigger challenge as they know they're wearing their uniform improperly, but don't think it's a big deal or believe the rules don't apply to them (it's a dumb rule, we're all volunteers, etc.). These are the members that, in my opinion, show a lack of integrity and/or desire for excellence. They also display disrespect to others by disregarding them when they point out the discrepancies.

I do have difficulty enforcing the rules when it comes to cadet safety. CAPM 39-1, for example, is very clear about what jackets are authorized with the AF-style service uniform and BDU. But I have a hard time asking a cadet to take off their civilian jacket during outdoors activities in the winter. The alternative (asking them to go inside or go home) doesn't seem appropriate (or fair) either, since not everyone can afford a field jacket and they're not normally issued.

[RiverAux]

Since CAP doesn't seem to be moving towards requiring any sort of physical fitness test for ground SAR operations (like we should), I've often thought that we should only allow those that can meet AF height/weight standards to participate in ground team activities.  I've phrased it that way so that if someone HAS to wear the BBDU because they choose to have facial hair, but otherwise could wear the BDU, then they could do ground team work.

My thinking is that if you don't meet height/weight standards then you basically meet the common description of someone that is obese and frankly, I don't want to carry you out of the woods when you keel over.

Sure, just meeting height/weight doesn't mean that you're fit, but since we don't have a fitness test, its the best we've got. 

[Eclipse]

What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?

Goose and Gander.

[vento]

What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?

Goose and Gander.

That's funny. Modern day Cessna 182 are not designed to carry 4 modern day Americans anyway...

[RiverAux]

What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?

Goose and Gander.

Well, thats a little more variable.  Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem. 

Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

My thinking is that if you don't meet height/weight standards then you basically meet the common description of someone that is obese and frankly, I don't want to carry you out of the woods when you keel over.

Fair enough. But do factor in that someone being obese based on height/weight can still be much stronger/more enduring than someone who is average/low on the BMI scale. Don't judge a dude by his fat cover.

[Eclipse]

What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?

Goose and Gander.

Well, thats a little more variable.  Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem. 

Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.

Well, you can't have it both ways - you're either obese and a health risk or you aren't.
I'll trade a risky ground guy for a risky aircrew guy since the ground guy isn't apt to land on my house.

However there's no data to support either assertion within a CAP context.

[RogueLeader]

What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?

Goose and Gander.

Well, thats a little more variable.  Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem. 

Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.

4 of us on an actual last June, in Wyoming, around mountains.  3 skinny, and one larger.  It definitely was close to the max W/B.  I forget  which aircraft we were in.  I'd have to check my log book.

[Walkman]

Deny it all you want, but there is a stigmatism associated with corporate uniforms

So far in both wings I've been in, I haven't noticed this attitude. It could be that I just haven't been to enough SAREXs and other wing activities, so YMMV. Also could be that UTWG & MIWG don;t have as much of a problem with it.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?

Goose and Gander.

Well, thats a little more variable.  Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem. 

Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.

Well, you can't have it both ways - you're either obese and a health risk or you aren't.
I'll trade a risky ground guy for a risky aircrew guy since the ground guy isn't apt to land on my house.

However there's no data to support either assertion within a CAP context.

Forget things such as "skinny-fat", and generally unhealthy individuals who look "not fat".

[Eclipse]

Deny it all you want, but there is a stigmatism associated with corporate uniforms

So far in both wings I've been in, I haven't noticed this attitude. It could be that I just haven't been to enough SAREXs and other wing activities, so YMMV. Also could be that UTWG & MIWG don;t have as much of a problem with it.

Perhaps it is an issue of the desiccated, corpse-like bodies of those who live in deserts vs. the healthy, corn-fed look
of those who live where God intended people to live?

[RiverAux]

What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?

Goose and Gander.

Well, thats a little more variable.  Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem. 

Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.

Well, you can't have it both ways - you're either obese and a health risk or you aren't.
I'll trade a risky ground guy for a risky aircrew guy since the ground guy isn't apt to land on my house.

Hmm, lets gauge the risks associated with having an obese person hiking up and down hills in inclement weather vs an obese person sitting in an airplane for an hour or two.  I'd say that they're not even close. 

Obviously neither is good, but an obese ground team member has a much greater chance of being an actual impediment to mission completion either by not being physically able to do the job well and slowing the team down or having some sort of actual health emergency while trying to do it. 

[RiverAux]

My thinking is that if you don't meet height/weight standards then you basically meet the common description of someone that is obese and frankly, I don't want to carry you out of the woods when you keel over.

Fair enough. But do factor in that someone being obese based on height/weight can still be much stronger/more enduring than someone who is average/low on the BMI scale. Don't judge a dude by his fat cover.

Yep, thats exactly why we should have a physical fitness test, but thats just about as unlikely as my compromise proposal. 

[Eclipse]

Hmm, lets gauge the risks associated with having an obese person hiking up and down hills in inclement weather vs an obese person sitting in an airplane for an hour or two.  I'd say that they're not even close. 

Obviously neither is good, but an obese ground team member has a much greater chance of being an actual impediment to mission completion either by not being physically able to do the job well and slowing the team down or having some sort of actual health emergency while trying to do it.

I don't buy it - there's simply no empirical data to support the assertion, at least within a CAP context, beyond the general assumptions about
physical fitness.

The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout.  Anything more is likely busting ORM.

If the gateway to USAF uniforms is a PT test, I'll sign that form, but if it's simply what we have today, then there's no point to it.
As mentioned earlier, we're back to having a standard which is arguably more strict then the USAF, since it's an "all or nothing" with no
remediation options.

[RogueLeader]

The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout.  Anything more is likely busting ORM.

Maybe in your neck of the woods. . .

Out here in Wyoming is another story.

Last actual GT mission I was on, we had no choice but to hike up 2,500 ft elevation change to GET to the search altitude on trails that went from decent to moderate, to rough, to really rough, to there isn't any trail but our own.

Trailhead was at 7,400ft elevation; target search elevation 9,800-10,400.  It was really cool to see Blackhawks searching below you. . .

[vento]

What about aircrew that are so heavy they force the 4th member out of the plane?

Goose and Gander.

Well, thats a little more variable.  Under some situations the heavy member(s) isn't/aren't a problem. 

Not sure I've ever actually seen 4 adults in a CAP plane.

4 of us on an actual last June, in Wyoming, around mountains.  3 skinny, and one larger.  It definitely was close to the max W/B.  I forget  which aircraft we were in.  I'd have to check my log book.

The only time I was part of a crew of 4 was in a Cessna 206. But the Cessna 206 will carry 4 members (even the relatively large ones) without problems.

[RiverAux]

I don't buy it - there's simply no empirical data to support the assertion, at least within a CAP context, beyond the general assumptions about
physical fitness.

The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout.  Anything more is likely busting ORM.

Where is your empirical data to show that?

My experience -- Having been on a CAP mission where an extremely obese man from another agency died while out hiking with our ground team in very rough terrain. 

Obviously, fat CAP ground team members are not dying like flies.  Not saying that at all.  But, from a risk management point of view, keeping obese people off of ground teams is a no-brainer until we implement an effective and appropriate physical fitness test. 

[SarDragon]

Hmm, lets gauge the risks associated with having an obese person hiking up and down hills in inclement weather vs an obese person sitting in an airplane for an hour or two.  I'd say that they're not even close. 

Obviously neither is good, but an obese ground team member has a much greater chance of being an actual impediment to mission completion either by not being physically able to do the job well and slowing the team down or having some sort of actual health emergency while trying to do it.

[redacted]
The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout.  Anything more is likely busting ORM.
[more redaction]

Come out here to the bumpy part of the country and play the game. In some places it's uphill everywhere. Just walking around some housing subdivisions is strenuous, never mind getting out on the trails.

[Eclipse]

I don't buy it - there's simply no empirical data to support the assertion, at least within a CAP context, beyond the general assumptions about
physical fitness.

The vast majority of CAP ground ops are no more strenuous then your average picnic or campout.  Anything more is likely busting ORM.

Where is your empirical data to show that?

My experience -- Having been on a CAP mission where an extremely obese man from another agency died while out hiking with our ground team in very rough terrain. 

Obviously, fat CAP ground team members are not dying like flies.  Not saying that at all.  But, from a risk management point of view, keeping obese people off of ground teams is a no-brainer until we implement an effective and appropriate physical fitness test.

I just said, there isn't any, just as there's no data to support restricting GTs just because they are overweight.
This would essentially end CAP ground ops. ORM doesn't apply because you can't show any specific risk data
beyond generalizations.

We've got a tow-bar question now on the FRs because pilots took off with tow bars regulalry enough to get noticed.
If and when something similar happens in regards to GTs, then you can make the case.

Overweight does not equal unhealthy.   Beyond that, since this isn't likely to happen any more then getting rid of corporate,
not much point beating it up.