Look at the new policy letter on Orange Triangles and our corporate vehicles!
http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2006_09_Vehicle_Roof_Marking_Instructions.pdf (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2006_09_Vehicle_Roof_Marking_Instructions.pdf)
AND they expect us to pay for the paint! I doubt the Wing or Region will provide the paint or lights!!
Sounds like the "Thinker" has been at it again... Wasn't there, once upon a time a similar policy to have, "Permanently affixed, removable decals" on the corp. vehicles...
The "Thinker" needs to do better things with his time and not worry about uniforms changes every 2 weeks and triangles. Maybe we should be more worried about funds for our primary missions. I have many cadets that never received the "free" uniform. Where is the funding for that?
What about retention initiatives? Isn't that more important to spend time on than whether or not we get metal rank back.
Did "something" happen "out there" that generated a need for our aircrews to need a triangle to find our vehicles? Or is this a "neat idea"?
*sigh* if that doesn't look stupid, I dunno what does.
"Vehicle markings and lighting accessories, including strobes, must conform to all federal, state, and local laws. Any conflicts between this policy and federal, state, or local laws shall be brought to the attention of NHQ/LGT for resolution."
why did they throw in the comment about lights? the letter was about paint, not lights. Gotta love the burst of common sense, though.
Quote from: smj58501 on September 15, 2006, 06:58:26 PM
Did "something" happen "out there" that generated a need for our aircrews to need a triangle to find our vehicles? Or is this a "neat idea"?
Per the Aug 06 Boards "Since over ten percent of the vehicles
now on the road have white roofs, it can now be very challenging and time consuming to correctly identify which white roofed vehicle is the CAP vehicle when flying at 1,000 feet and at 90 knots."
Quote from: whatevah on September 15, 2006, 07:31:13 PM
why did they throw in the comment about lights? the letter was about paint, not lights. Gotta love the burst of common sense, though.
I have no idea why they'd include that. That issue is already addressed in the CAPR 77-1 clearly. There was no change to it. I guess they figured they needed to pad out the letter a bit to make it look more important. ;)
As for the markings, I don't care one way or the other. Most people won't be able to see them anyways. So long as the squadrons and groups don't end up paying for it, I don't care. Frankly, if National is going to implement policies that obligates funds from subordinate units (yes, yes, I know, all money belongs to the corporation), I think NHQ ought to provide specific funding for it... otherwise don't do it.
Quote from: captrncap on September 15, 2006, 07:35:15 PM
Quote from: smj58501 on September 15, 2006, 06:58:26 PM
Did "something" happen "out there" that generated a need for our aircrews to need a triangle to find our vehicles? Or is this a "neat idea"?
Per the Aug 06 Boards "Since over ten percent of the vehicles
now on the road have white roofs, it can now be very challenging and time consuming to correctly identify which white roofed vehicle is the CAP vehicle when flying at 1,000 feet and at 90 knots."
Our van already has large black block numbers on the top...one would assume that would be enough of an indicator.
Quote from: Becks on September 15, 2006, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: captrncap on September 15, 2006, 07:35:15 PM
Quote from: smj58501 on September 15, 2006, 06:58:26 PM
Did "something" happen "out there" that generated a need for our aircrews to need a triangle to find our vehicles? Or is this a "neat idea"?
Per the Aug 06 Boards "Since over ten percent of the vehicles
now on the road have white roofs, it can now be very challenging and time consuming to correctly identify which white roofed vehicle is the CAP vehicle when flying at 1,000 feet and at 90 knots."
Our van already has large black block numbers on the top...one would assume that would be enough of an indicator.
According to my competent source, the numbers on most vehicle roofs are barely readable at 500 ft, much less at 1000 ft. An orange shape is much more visible and provides much better contrast than black numbers. A friend in my unit has a white 'Burb with a black rectangular antenna platform that is marginally distinguishable at 1000 feet, but if you know what you're looking for, it is an aid to location.
BTW, my competent source is my optometrist. He knows a thing or two about the subject.
KSWG has their triangles on, we're numbering vehicles as we speak.
Our tests from the aircraft are that the triangles can be seen clearly atop the vehicles from an aircraft flying at 2000' from up to 1.5 miles away. This was a white vehicle top with plane and vehicel traveling West into the sun.
We believe on our older blue vehicles we may be able to see the triangles further due to the higher contrast between blue and orange. That's for another SAREX, however.
Johnny Yuma
this was just brought to my attention. its interesting. our old van had an orange triangle on the roof. the new van doesnt though. and we get to pay for it....great.... ::)
I remember this debate from back in my wing LG days. You can argue the pros and cons of the triangle and block vehicle ID numbers all day. I'm kind of sitting on the fence about it. I think it looks tacky and don't believe it will be as effective as the proponents want us to believe.
The other bad decision from National HQ was to force wings to pay for the change. This should come out of their O&M budget, not the wings.
"Sorry Cadet Jones, we couldn't get your O-Ride in because we had to pay to put orange triangles on the roofs of our vans."
The other problem I see is when you have missions that cross state boundaries or region activities when Delaware Van #01 is working along side Maryland Van #01.
Just another "Flavor of the Month Decision" by NHQ.
In September, I became Scanner qualified. During my second training mission, we had to guide several CAP vehicles to a target that was placed in a folliage area about a hundred feet from a road.
It's one of those strange things, never realizing how many white vans out there until you either own one or you're looking down at the ground for a particular one.
We were guiding three white vans to the target, one van would stop and a cadet would get out to use the D.F.. Another van would be heading in the right direction, then stop and turn around. The third van took what he thought to be short cut which we tried to explain was a dead-end, only to confuse the other two.
Putting markings on the tops of the vans is long over-due if my experience is any indication of the confusion others have faced. As for looking tacky, I think the ability to identify and communicate with a vehicle from the air trumps fashion.
i think having the squadrons pay for it is a bad idea. (but my opinion doesnt matter so oh well)
i dont have a problem with it going on the top. just that we have to provide the funds for it. i see how the air crews can find it useful. its just like the GT wear the orange vests instead of Safety green, so we can be seen from the air!! but i go back to..the squadrons have to pay..
Quote from: Sgt. C on November 03, 2006, 01:51:18 PM
i think having the squadrons pay for it is a bad idea. (but my opinion doesnt matter so oh well)
The squadron's
aren't paying, the Wing's are (supposed to).
But I agree that if National is going to make a change like this, funds should be set aside from a National-level and disbursed accordingly as Wing's make the "upgrade."
Has anybody else's Wing already adopted this? I haven't seen any in New York Wing yet.
We haven't done it yet here in Virginia. I can understand and appreciate an aircrew members perspective on "White Roof Syndrome"...hense my reason for being on the fence about the markings.
The sad and unfortunate part of this whole decision is that some program already trying to justify its spending is going to have to fight to keep their funds from being diverted to these triangles.
National should pick up the tab or reimburse the Wings.
Quote from: Pylon on November 03, 2006, 02:06:25 PM
Has anybody else's Wing already adopted this? I haven't seen any in New York Wing yet.
Alabama Wing has started the process of getting quotes for the expenses. We're looking into having it done professionally.
Quote from: mawr on November 03, 2006, 05:10:47 PM
We're looking into having it done professionally.
That's probably the best idea, rather than "winging it" (pun intended) ourselves.
Quote from: Major_Chuck on November 03, 2006, 04:02:41 PM
We haven't done it yet here in Virginia. I can understand and appreciate an aircrew members perspective on "White Roof Syndrome"...hense my reason for being on the fence about the markings.
The sad and unfortunate part of this whole decision is that some program already trying to justify its spending is going to have to fight to keep their funds from being diverted to these triangles.
National should pick up the tab or reimburse the Wings.
Absolutely, sir. National directives should come equiped with National funding. One would think that this would be prepared ahead of time (cost analysis, etc) so that the funds are there and available when the directive is issued. I'd like to think that due to our size difference, we'd be able to do things in a more efficient manner than Congress.
I addressed this on another thread somewhere, but can't find it. Might have been on the Portal.
How expensive do you think this is going to be? I'm guessing it can be done for less than $50, and that, IMHO, is a very generous estimate. Some cleaner, some abrasive paper, a can of orange paint, and a can of clear, and you're all set.
If someone wanted to get really adventuresome, they might approach a body shop, 'splain the situation, and get it done as a donation.
You could go the cheap route and do it yourself for probably under $20.00.
But... You get what you pay for. Uneven lines; paint that peels off; overspray; etc.
It is probably best to let a professional do it and get some sort of warranty on the paint job.
Now for the interesting question...where could we get ahold of magnetic orange triangles for member owned vehicles? I'd hate for my truck to be out of reg. ;)
Quote from: Psicorp on November 06, 2006, 04:00:21 AM
Now for the interesting question...where could we get ahold of magnetic orange triangles for member owned vehicles? I'd hate for my truck to be out of reg. ;)
Well, this must have been on the Portal, too.
Magnetic material here (http://www.averyvinyl.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi?&shop=alp&L=eng&Category=9001) or here (http://www.jsisign.com/products/magnetic.html)
Reflective material here (http://www.averyvinyl.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi?&shop=alp&Category=1001-Aa)
There are other sources; these are the first ones I came up with.
Note that you can get enough for several vehicles buying the lowest quantity, and that non-reflectve film is cheaper.
Excellent, thank you sir.
I'll look into trying to get one of those for a Group acquisition, would never hurt to have something on hand at activities.
I posted this on the Portal, but reposting here. In this election season, you may be able to get the magnetic signs the candidates hand out. The larger ones can be cut into the triangles and spray painted. Cost except for paint=zero. And a can of paint will spray alot of signs. Many of the magnetic campaing signs are 18x24 so they are large enough since the regulation does not specify a size required.
Well, there is a recommended size of 40" on a side.
Also, watch what kind of paint you use on the magnetic material; most paint isn't all that flexible, and will chip off. That's why I recommended the vinyl film, either reflective, or not.
Hmmm....
How about painting the van blaze orange with a white triangle on top....
or
Flourescent/dayglow yellow with a high reflective white triangle ontop
never mind me....lunch has bogged me down..
Reminds me of when I worked with the Red Cross as a Disaster Response Team Leader in Florida. We had white vans with a big red cross on the roof. After a while in the hot Florida sun, the nice bright red cross didn't look quite so red anymore...
Blaze orange I can handle ;D